Pritam Singh testifies how he did not understand Raeesah’s crying, difficulty in clarifying rape story

SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh took the stand on Tuesday morning (Nov 5) and testified about how he had difficulty understanding why Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan was crying after being asked to clarify her rape anecdote, and how he did not find it difficult for her to provide those details.
Singh, 48, gave answers for the first time in court under questioning from his lead lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, after the judge had found that the prosecution had made out a case against him to answer.
The case against Singh stems from an anecdote Ms Khan gave in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, when she was MP for Sengkang GRC, about going to a police station with a rape victim. She later admitted it was false.
Singh is contesting two unprecedented charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act for wilfully giving false answers to the Committee of Privileges, which was convened to look into Ms Khan’s conduct.
The first charge alleges that Singh lied when he said he wanted Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in parliament, when the two met on Aug 8, 2021, along with WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.
The second charge alleges that he gave false answers to the parliamentary committee when he said that he told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, to clarify her story about the rape survivor if the issue came up in parliament the next day.
After taking an affirmation that he will tell only the whole truth and nothing but the truth in court, Singh told the court how he is married, with two children, and was elected as MP in 2011.
He gave an overview of how he spent his time as an MP, mainly covering parliamentary issues, town council matters and other things like grassroots and constituency matters.
He explained that opposition MPs spend a lot of time in parliament as “this is really where the opposition MPs have to make our impact”.
He also shared how he chose to stop his work as a lawyer to focus on his MP duties, as he found it “difficult to give my full attention to the constituency and have a full-time job outside”.
Singh explained how, after he replaced Mr Low Thia Khiang as secretary-general of WP in 2018 and became Leader of the Opposition in 2020, he took on “more work just by virtue of more numbers in parliament”.
He said he first met Ms Khan in early 2019 when she volunteered with WP as a case writer.
“People normally come to WP meet-the-people sessions … and indicate their interest if they want to volunteer or join party activities,” he said. 
“She joined my MPS sessions and she was deployed to be a case writer.”
A case writer summarises the issues faced by residents and forwards the case to Singh, so he can speak to the resident. 
Asked how she came to be selected as a candidate for Sengkang GRC in the 2020 General Election, Singh said: “So in the course of her work, I observed her at meet-the-people sessions. What was quite clear was that she was a person who was very empathetic to concerns of residents, she listened intently, carefully and had patience with residents who had problems and difficulties and these are in my view positive traits for anybody who wishes to get involved in public service through being an MP.”
He said he later made an assessment of her “general attitude and comfort with residents” and he deployed her to Sengkang.
“The requirement is for a Malay candidate in Sengkang GRC, and we had known where we were going to place our teams after the boundary report was released, so one has to make an assessment and judgment of the number of candidates one has, whether that candidate would fit in that team, whether that candidate meets the political objectives of that party’s campaign strategy, and given that I had observed Ms Khan on the ground for a number of months already and I felt that there was some potential there, I asked her whether she would be keen on candidature and she said she was,” said Singh.
He said the 2020 elections took place in a COVID-19 environment, so contact with others was “quite limited and sporadic”, with a lot of discussions taking place online through Zoom.
Singh testified that the speech Ms Khan gave in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, had been uploaded as a draft on a portal WP MPs used.
However, he said the anecdote was only included in the speech quite late the night before, so he only became aware of it on the morning of Aug 3, 2021.
“So I read the speech in the morning, as I would for all the speeches, if there were speeches I hadn’t read yet, and I saw the reference she made (of accompanying a 25-year-old survivor to make a police report),” said Singh. 
“I saw that as something that would have to be substantiated, I can expect someone to stand up in parliament and say – look, when did this happen … those inquiries, I expected could have come up, so I circled the anecdote and put the word ‘substantiate’.”
He said there were “other things to be done” so he printed out a copy of the speech in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, circled the anecdote and added the word “substantiate” and informed an assistant to pass it to Ms Khan.
He did not discuss the anecdote with Ms Khan before she delivered the speech in parliament.
“When you wrote substantiate, what did you mean?” asked Mr Jumabhoy.
“I meant that she would have to explain further the details she was highlighting from that anecdote,” said Singh. “The details here are scanty, and she would have to justify, or she could expect to be asked to justify this particular anecdote.”
Singh said he was in the parliament chamber on Aug 3, 2021, when Ms Khan delivered her speech. After this, Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan sought clarifications from Ms Khan about the alleged mishandling of the case involving a sexual victim, saying “we take this very seriously”.
Minutes after, Singh sent Ms Khan a message telling her: “I had a feeling this would happen. I highlighted this part in your draft speech. We should write in formally to the police with clarifications to address this matter.”
Asked to explain his message, Singh said he was suggesting for Ms Khan to write in to the police with the clarifications Minister Tan was asking for.
“I did not feel they would be difficult for her to provide and she would just have to give them to the minister,” he said.
Ms Khan replied almost immediately, saying she thought she had edited it enough to “remove this possibility”. But Singh said there had not been any edits, to the best of his recollection.
After the exchange Ms Khan had with Minister Tan, Singh said he met Ms Khan in his office that same day.
“I was informed by one of my legislative assistants that she was in the LO (leader of the opposition) office, and she was crying there,” said Singh.
“I didn’t quite understand what that was about, so I leave the chamber, go to my office, and essentially instruct Raeesah to just clarify, give the Minister of State the details he’s requesting, but she said she couldn’t contact that person, and she wasn’t sure whether she could contact that person.”
In a series of messages Singh exchanged with Ms Khan, Ms Khan said it was three years ago in the early part of the year and that she had met the victim at a bus stop near Bedok police station, but the victim’s number she was given did not work anymore.
Ms Khan also provided a nickname of this so-called victim.
Ms Khan then sent Singh a message containing a draft clarification note that her assistant Yudhishthra Nathan had prepared for her.
Singh responded to say the details “are too scanty” and that the assumption would be that “the episode was made up”.
Mr Jumabhoy asked him why the details were “too scanty”.
“Because the draft clarification Yudhish provides doesn’t really deal with the fact that she followed someone to the police station,” said Singh.
The draft merely stated that this person’s experience was anecdotal, and added that “we should respect victims’ agency in terms of whether they wish to furnish more details to the government or police”, he said.
Ms Khan then asked Singh in a follow-up message if it would help if “someone came forth with their experience”.
Asked what he understood by this message, Singh said: “It would appear that she did not want to deal with the anecdote … She says, would it help if someone came forth with their experience, I reply, I say – No, Raeesah, this episode has been highlighted, we have to square away the issue like a responsible MP should.”
Mr Jumabhoy then asked Singh to explain what he meant by squaring away this issue.
“In the course of parliamentary exchanges, it is normal for MPs to stand up and clarify aspects of another MP’s speeches, and I didn’t find it particularly difficult to just state clearly what were the answers to what MOS Desmond Tan had been asking of Raeesah, with regard to the anecdote at that point, so any responsible MP would just reply to the questions,” said Singh.
In another message to Ms Khan, he then said: “I suggest you say this before the motion ends. ‘In my speech earlier, I did not mean to unintentionally cast aspersions on the police’.”
Earlier in his turn on the stand, Singh was questioned about his dealings with ex-WP cadre members Loh Pei Ying and Mr Nathan.
The pair were close confidantes of Ms Khan, who quit the party after the fake rape story blew up in 2021, and testified as prosecution witnesses.
Singh said he did not really have disagreements with Ms Loh, as he was the sitting MP who made decisions.
As for Mr Nathan, Singh gave a similar answer, with one exception.
“Except, that one unusual course of action he took in April of 2019, when he disagreed with a public speech I had made (at the National University of Singapore) on the WP position on the LGBT issue,” said Singh. 
The trial resumes in the afternoon with Singh on the stand. Mr Jumabhoy had stated, when probed by the judge, that the defence did not have any other witnesses as of this stage.