‘You’re not a teenager’: Defence wraps up Raeesah Khan's testimony

The defence completed its cross-examination of former Workers’ Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan on Oct 16, having sought to put into doubt the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness.

Ms Khan, the first witness in the trial of WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, was grilled on what the defence said were multiple inconsistencies in her testimony.

Singh is contesting two charges over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened in 2021 to investigate Ms Khan’s untruth in Parliament.

Ms Khan had, on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament about how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 the same year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.

Here are five key points that came up on Oct 16:

1. ‘You didn’t need a directive to lie’

Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy pointed to Ms Khan’s statement on Dec 22, 2021, to the Committee of Privileges (COP), where she said Singh did not give her a “directive” to clarify the untruth.

The lawyer noted that she was 27 years old at that time and “not a teenager” when she was expecting this directive, and that she did not seem to need a directive to lie to Parliament. Yet, she needed a directive to tell the truth, he added.

Ms Khan said it was because she wanted Singh’s advice, given that she had made a mistake, as her party leaders were far more experienced in politics than she was.

“Naturally when I’ve done something wrong, I’ve gone to my leaders and I’ve asked them what I should do because I’m terrified that I’ve made this mistake,” she added.

Mr Jumabhoy put it to her that the WP’s leaders never told her in a meeting days after her untruth to Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, that they should take the lie to the grave. Ms Khan disagreed.

The lawyer also said Ms Khan had stuck to her lie in Parliament on Oct 4 as she was frightened that telling the truth would expose her as a liar.

Ms Khan said this was partly the reason, but she had also relied on Singh’s advice a day earlier that he would not judge her if she continued her narrative.

2. Why no anger at ‘bad advice’ from WP leaders

The defence said Ms Khan should have been angry with the WP leadership if they had advised her to maintain her untruth in Parliament on Oct 4, since it became clear then that the police intended to seriously investigate her allegation.

“Wouldn’t you naturally have been fuming, angry, with the party leadership?” asked Mr Jumabhoy. 

Ms Khan said she only remembered feeling “really terrified”, and just trusting what her party leaders wanted her to do.

The lawyer then noted that on the evening of Oct 4, Ms Khan had met Singh and WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim at the Leader of the Opposition’s office in the House, and again did not express any unhappiness, which would have been the natural response if she had relied on what in retrospect was bad advice.

This is because Singh never told her to lie in the first place, said Mr Jumabhoy. The WP chief also did not ask her to lie again on Oct 4, and that it was Ms Khan’s own decision to do so.

Ms Khan disagreed.

The defence also noted that Ms Khan had told then WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan that Singh and Ms Lim had been “really great” a day later on Oct 5, the same people who she claimed had told her to lie.

Ms Khan said she was referring to how they had taken the time to give her advice, and what she “saw as compassion from them at that time”.

3. ‘Power dynamics’ the reason why Ms Khan did not mention WP leaders’ advice at party’s disciplinary panel

The defence noted that Ms Khan had asked for a second meeting with WP’s disciplinary panel – consisting of Singh, Ms Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap – which took place on Nov 29, 2021.

Prior to the meeting, she had a text exchange with Singh which Ms Khan said shocked her, as it felt like the WP chief was trying to make it seem as if he had not been advising her all along on her untruth.

Mr Jumabhoy noted that, despite this, Ms Khan did not mention to the disciplinary panel that it had been their instruction for her to maintain her lie.

She responded that context was missing – it was her facing three “very powerful people” who had been advising her, and who now pretended they had not.

“When you are confronted by people you view as giants, it’s very hard to confront them in a negative way,” she said.

4. WP cadres advised Raeesah Khan to ‘lawyer up’

The court heard that after Ms Khan’s exchange with Minister for Law and Home Affairs K. Shanmugam on Oct 4, 2021, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had advised Ms Khan to get legal advice.

Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had both assisted Ms Khan in her duties when she was an MP, including giving input on her parliamentary speeches.

In a newly set up chat group, Ms Loh suggested that Ms Khan “lawyer up”, while Mr Nathan advised her to be careful about what she told the lawyer.

Mr Jumabhoy asked if the two WP cadres were aware of the fact that she had lied to Parliament twice by then, and Ms Khan said “yes”. He asked if they had told her to own up to her lies, and she said they did not.

The lawyer then asked if Ms Loh’s advice was “effectively trying to block an investigation”, and if Mr Nathan was advising her against telling the lawyer everything. Ms Khan disagreed, and said they were suggesting that she get legal advice and be careful.

5. Ms Khan met the WP cadres to discuss their evidence before COP hearing

The court also heard that Ms Khan met Ms Loh, Mr Nathan and another WP volunteer, Mr Lim Hang Ling, on the night of Dec 1, 2021. Ms Khan and Ms Loh gave evidence to the Committee of Privileges on Dec 2.

Mr Jumabhoy asked if Ms Khan had contacted Ms Loh to meet in order to “come up with a story by aligning your facts”. Ms Khan denied this, and said they had met to make sure that both of them were doing okay.

Asked if she had discussed what she wanted to say in her evidence, Ms Khan said: “Not that much.” She later conceded that she had discussed the evidence she wanted to give to the Committee of Privileges.

Ms Khan said that at that point, she still wanted to protect Singh as much as she could, but Ms Loh had rightly pointed out that they had to be honest if the committee asked specific questions about when the WP leaders knew about her untruth. “I wasn’t intending to lie, I was just hoping to take full responsibility at the (Committee of Privileges),” she said.

Mr Jumabhoy asked Ms Khan whether it would have been a lie had she done so, and she agreed.