“She would have to settle herself”: Pritam Singh on allowing Raeesah Khan time to clarify lie

The defence completed its examination of Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on 6 November in his perjury trial, which centres on whether he misled the Committee of Privileges (COP) regarding former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan’s false claim in Parliament.

Singh, who faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that his approach gave Khan the necessary time and space to address her actions independently.

The first charge against Singh accuses him of falsely stating to the COP that he wanted Khan to clarify her untruth in Parliament in an 8 August 2021 meeting attended by WP senior leaders Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.

The second charge claims Singh misled the COP by stating that he advised Khan on 3 October 2021 to “take ownership” of her lie if it resurfaced in Parliament.

Singh had testified the day before that “the instruction to Ms Khan was to simply tell the truth,” explaining that scripting responses would have been inappropriate, as the truth was “for her to share.”

Arriving at the courthouse on 6 November, Singh was accompanied by his lawyers, Andre Jumabhoy and Aristotle Emmanuel Eng.

During the proceedings, Singh defended his actions, denying that he ever directed Khan to maintain the lie or conceal it indefinitely. “I never told her to take it to the grave,” he stated, arguing that his decisions were driven by Khan’s well-being and the complex nature of her situation. He further added, “There was nothing for me to hide.”

Singh’s defence centres on his testimony that he sought to support Khan through the matter, especially as she had disclosed personal trauma to WP leaders. In his view, allowing her time was a compassionate approach.

When his lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, asked Singh about his response to former WP cadre Loh Pei Ying’s comment that the COP might investigate the timing of when WP leaders first became aware of Khan’s lie, Singh explained, “It was something that didn’t really concern me.”

He continued, “I had decided, in my judgment, that she needed the time to address herself, to settle the issue.” Singh added, “I would expect some criticism from that… but these are the decisions one has to make.”

Singh’s phrase “your call” has also come under scrutiny. In WP disciplinary panel notes from 29 November 2021, it was recorded that Singh told Khan, “Before [the] Oct session, I met you + I told you it was your call.”

During his testimony, Singh clarified that this phrase referred to his conversation with Khan on 3 October 2021, in which he encouraged her to take responsibility for her statements if questioned in Parliament.

He explained, “That is what I meant by ‘your call’,” adding that it was ultimately Khan’s decision to clarify her actions.

Questioned by Jumabhoy about his approach during the 8 August meeting with Lim and Faisal, Singh testified that he had not developed a detailed plan to address Khan’s lie in Parliament at that time.

He explained, “There was no explicit plan,” adding that he wanted Khan to focus on her mental health, including “speaking to her parents, seeing her therapist, and essentially being in a position where she would be able to make a clarification in Parliament.”

Singh said his perspective was that “she would have to settle herself” before addressing the issue in Parliament.

The trial has also covered Khan’s resignation, which followed significant scrutiny within WP and public controversy surrounding her statements in Parliament.

Singh told the court that the WP disciplinary panel discussed Khan’s future and whether she could continue as an MP given her reported struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder and dissociation.

“There was serious concern over whether she was fit to continue in her role,” Singh noted.

He explained that “given the negative sentiment around her actions in Parliament, [resignation] was something that she ought to consider, particularly also because she did not have the support of her teammates.”

However, Singh clarified that “it wasn’t like she was told she must resign,” and any formal expulsion would have required approval from WP’s Central Executive Committee.

Singh further testified about his thoughts regarding the possibility that Khan’s story might resurface in the 4 October Parliament session.

Singh said that, if the lie came up, he expected that “she would have just had to tell the truth – the fact that the anecdote was untrue.” He explained, “The issue hadn’t been fully addressed, and it was important for her to be truthful if questioned.”

The defence concluded its examination of Singh on 6 November. The trial is expected to proceed with the prosecution’s cross-examination.