-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
[Sg] - Rape victim Raeesah Khan didn’t tell Parliament that WP leaders knew about lie as she ‘wanted to protect them’
- Thread starter UltimaOnline
- Start date
Hope Pritam learnt his lesson and won't trust psycho minority feminists again
Pritam must learn to stop caring about the woke minority in Sengkang 
'Defeated and betrayed' by the people I look up to: Raeesah Khan on second day of Pritam Singh's trial
Former Workers' Party member Raeesah Khan was questioned by the prosecution on the disciplinary panel sessions that she had sat through with party leaders, following her lie in parliament on Aug 3, 2021.
Raeesah Khan arrives at the State Courts on Oct 15, 2024. (Photo: CNA/Syamil Sapari)
Koh Wan Ting
15 Oct 2024 12:09PM (Updated: 15 Oct 2024 08:04PM)
SINGAPORE: Former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan said she had felt "very defeated and betrayed" after party leaders grilled her on her conduct as a Member of Parliament (MP) during disciplinary panel sessions.
Testifying on the second day of WP secretary-general Pritam Singh's trial on Tuesday (Oct 15), Ms Khan said that the panel made her feel like the people she trusted the most had "turned around" and used the disciplinary panel to criticise her, and to "almost pretend" that they had not been guiding her on the false anecdote she gave in parliament.
The disciplinary panel's proceedings led Ms Khan, a former Sengkang MP, to think that they would ask her to resign, she testified.
The prosecution was resuming its examination-in-chief of Ms Khan, which began on Monday. Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy had taken Ms Khan through a timeline of events in chronological order, starting from the day she recounted the false anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021.
Ms Khan had lied about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.
She repeated the lie when asked to clarify its details during a subsequent sitting on Oct 4, 2021.
Her account triggered a series of discussions, questions and clarifications, finally resulting in Ms Khan coming clean, and the matter being referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
Singh, 48, was also called before the COP. He is accused of making two lies before the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021:
- At the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that what she had said about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue; and
- When Singh spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that if the issue came up in parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie
FIRST DISCIPLINARY PANEL SESSION
On Tuesday, Mr Sivakumar picked up the prosecution's line of questioning on events that happened after Nov 1, 2021, which was when Ms Khan revealed her untruth in parliament.On Nov 2, 2021, Ms Khan received a message and email from WP chair Sylvia Lim about a disciplinary panel convened to look into her conduct.
The email, read out by Mr Sivakumar, stated that the panel would comprise Singh, Ms Lim and WP vice-chair Faisal, and requested Ms Khan to provide further explanation about her support group and her account on Nov 1, 2021.
Ms Khan said she had been "very surprised" with the formality of the email, especially since the party leaders had been guiding her "from the beginning".
Ms Khan met the party leaders on Nov 8, 2021 and Nov 29, 2021 for the disciplinary panel sessions at the party headquarters.
During the first session, Ms Khan testified that she did not remember the party leaders asking her much about the anecdote, instead focusing their questions on her personality and conduct as MP for Sengkang GRC.
Elaborating, Ms Khan said: "A big point of contention during the meeting was that I didn't submit enough parliamentary questions. I wasn’t as present in parliament."
Ms Khan remembered being surprised as she was new and had been on maternity leave for three months.
"I thought that I was making good progress with my performance in parliament and it had never been brought up before then. And there were also questions about whether I was present on the ground which I was also very surprised to hear.
"I did all my estate walks, I went to every single Meet-the-People sessions (MPS) unless ... something really really important came up," she testified, adding that she had rushed from parliament to MPS before returning to parliament at some point.
"So these little things that I thought I was doing well in - that no one had feedback on - were suddenly brought up in the panel.
"I was so shocked that that was the route that the panel was taking. I mean, I was so surprised I was actually kind of dumbfounded that I didn’t know how to respond."
During the session, Singh also mentioned Ms Khan's "lack of discipline and punctuality", according to Ms Lim's notes of the meeting.
"He said that I was on borrowed time if the central executive committee (CEC) allows me to continue ... I guess he thought that I was going to fail," said Ms Khan.
Mr Singh had also pointed out that Ms Khan was not "vocal enough" in meetings.
"My response to that was, I mean I was the youngest one there by quite a few years and I was - it was my first time in that kind of environment and I was freshly elected.
"I tried my best to observe and to learn as much as I could from the people that I really looked up to in this environment."
Ms Khan also spoke about her self-doubt.
"I kind of felt like I think anybody at my age at that point in time who would be elected, and would have such a big responsibility, would also feel like maybe they don’t belong or they don't deserve it."
She then shared her good relationship with Compassvale residents, and spoke positively of the volunteer team she had with the panel.
"I would meet them regularly at MPS, we would also meet regularly just walking around the estate, house visits and I also built a really strong welfare team and I was really proud of the work we were doing distributing groceries, checking in on residents."
The meeting ended with the party leaders asking Ms Khan if continuing as an MP was the right route.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan then intervened to ask if Ms Khan was aware Ms Lim had taken notes.
Ms Khan said that she thought Ms Lim had been taking informal notes and the gravity of the meeting had not struck her at that time.
"I didn't know how substantial the meeting was because from my understanding with what had happened, leading up to my personal statement (is) that they would support me, they would have my back and so it was like quite a shock that, you know, they were sitting there on kind of a stage and saying all these," said Ms Khan.
"It kind of felt like (they were) confronting things and so I didn’t even register that she was really taking notes or that these notes would become like official in a way."
Ms Khan later discussed the first session's panel proceedings in a group chat with then WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan. She suggested that Mr Singh might want her to resign if she did not have the support of her immediate teammates.
In response, Mr Nathan allegedly sent the message: "And he gets off scot free? Because right now, people don't know that he knew it was a lie."
In his messages, Mr Nathan suggested that Ms Khan might still appear before the COP, and that she could damage Singh's reputation if she revealed the truth.
Ms Khan replied that she "wouldn't do that", which she clarified in court to mean that she wanted to protect the party leaders as she "revered" them.
On Nov 22, 2021, Ms Khan requested to meet the disciplinary panel a second time, telling Singh via messages that she had not been prepared for the things the leaders had to say.
In response, Mr Singh said: "'Not prepared for the things you had to say' is unfortunately not becoming of an MP Raeesah, because you can’t make statements and then change your perspective or wish to add something new. The disciplinary panel was a formal meeting, please email us."
When asked for her reaction to this email, Ms Khan said she was "really upset".
"I didn't understand where that came from ... because leading up to the DP meeting itself, there wasn’t, I wasn’t told that my entire career as an MP was being reviewed or my personal conduct was being reviewed so I wasn’t prepared for that.
"And then to be confronted with that at the actual meeting and then going home kind of feeling like I did myself a disservice and then sharing those thoughts with Pritam and then having him kind of like throw it back at me was it was upsetting."
Mr Singh later followed up with another message to Ms Khan, allegedly telling her "I hope you can see that it is precisely your character and behaviour that is under review here ... in view of your conduct in parliament and your decision to stick to the anecdote on Oct 4".
Ms Khan forwarded screenshots of the messages to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, saying she was shocked by his reply, especially when Singh had allegedly told her earlier he would not judge her for continuing the anecdote.
SECOND DISCIPLINARY PANEL MEETING
The second panel session was on Nov 29, 2021, with the same party leaders in attendance.Ms Khan testified that in this meeting, she shared the successes she had in Compassvale, her efforts on the ground, and her personal struggles.
However, Ms Khan testified that the party leaders had not appeared to be "really listening", leading her to think that they had already made up their mind for her to resign.
This time, the other party leaders had appeared to be writing notes, according to Ms Khan, with Judge Tan then asking if other notes were available.
The prosecution then referred to Singh's notes where he indicated "disassociation" in relation to Ms Khan's original draft of her anecdote.
Ms Khan said that this had been brought up as she spoke about her struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder.
She was then asked by the panel about the anecdote, and whether the need to tell the truth had occurred to her before the October parliament session.
According to Ms Khan, Singh also asked where Ms Khan placed the party in decision making, and she replied "first", adding that if the party had asked her to resign, she would.
Mr Sivakumar then asked Ms Khan if Singh had said it was her call to tell the truth in parliament, and if he had told her she could not lie on Oct 3, 2021, when the two met.
Ms Khan replied "no" to both questions.
When asked about her feelings on the second panel session, Ms Khan said: "I felt very defeated and betrayed that the people that I look up to the most, and trusted the most kind of turned around and used the disciplinary panel to criticise me, and to almost pretend that they had not been guiding me from that meeting at Pritam’s house on Aug 8."
She felt that the party would "definitely" ask her to resign.
Ms Khan resigned from WP and as an MP on Nov 30, 2021.
On how she came to that decision, she testified: "I think I reflected on the fact that I didn't have the support of my leaders and it felt like I didn't have the support of my Sengkang team.
"I mean some members of the Sengkang team were more supportive than others but it felt like I had lost the support of the party leadership."
The prosecution wrapped up its examination-in-chief of Ms Khan at 10.54am. Court was then adjourned for a break, with the defence to start its cross-examination of Ms Khan after.
Source: CNA/wt(sn)
Summary: WP leadership hurt my feelings when they said I have to be accountable for fucking shit up
Just another fucking cunt.
Manap had a heart attack?
WP leadership is also responsible for hiring the wrong people
Today she kenna grilled jialat jialat by Pritam's defense lawyer LOL
Ms Raeesah Khan was cross examined by Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy (right) on Tuesday (Oct 15) on the second day of Singh's trial. (Photos: CNA/Syamil Sapari)
Koh Wan Ting & Davina Tham
15 Oct 2024 02:03PM (Updated: 15 Oct 2024 08:02PM)
BookmarkShare
SINGAPORE: Pritam Singh's defence on Tuesday (Oct 15) began their cross-examination of former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan, with his lawyer accusing her of repeatedly lying in parliament and to Singh himself.
Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy referred Ms Khan to her anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 and repeatedly called out moments to grill Ms Khan on whether she had been telling the truth.
This built up to an application by Mr Jumabhoy to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness. She was asked to leave the courtroom while this application was heard around the last hour of the hearing.
No decision was reached by the time the hearing was adjourned.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan allowed the defence to continue questioning Ms Khan about a possible discrepancy in her testimony when the hearing resumes on Wednesday morning.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament twice in 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.
Her account led to a series of events which ultimately resulted in Ms Khan revealing the truth in parliament, and the matter was later referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
Singh, the 48-year-old secretary-general of WP, is accused of making two lies before the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, during events after Ms Khan's anecdote.
Referring to Ms Khan's anecdote that she made in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 , Mr Jumabhoy asked her: "You are in fact a liar, right?", to which her reply was "yes I've lied".
He then followed up with: "You tell lies non-stop, don't you?", but Ms Khan denied this.
"I'm not talking (about) in your general life, I'm talking just in relation to the COP, the anecdote, these proceedings," said Mr Jumabhoy.
When asked to clarify what he meant by "non-stop", Mr Jumabhoy referred to specific portions of the anecdote. For example, when Ms Khan had said she had accompanied women to police stations.
After Ms Khan admitted that this statement was not true, Mr Jumabhoy said: "So that’s a lie, I mean that’s a flat-out lie … you can’t be in any doubt that you’ve never accompanied anyone to the police station."
Ms Khan's anecdote, in which she stated that the alleged rape victim was 25, and that she had come out crying, was also not true, she admitted in court.
When Singh had asked for more details in relation to the anecdote, Ms Khan had replied that she did not know if she could contact the survivor to come forward.
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed out that Ms Khan did not even know the name of the rape victim.
"You couldn't share a name (even if you did know) because you weren't there in the first place," said Mr Jumabhoy.
He then said: "You're adding more facts to support a lie ... So it's a lie heaped upon a lie ... and then it’s going to be wrapped up in more lies, isn't it?"
Ms Khan replied "yes" to all these statements.
The defence lawyer continued to point out details in Ms Khan's messages, stating that in one message she had "managed to lie about four times".
"I mean, that's pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination," he added.
Ms Khan replied: "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear."
But Mr Jumabhoy rebutted: "You seem to be well thinking enough that you can add (these details)."
Ms Khan responded: "I would think being well thinking is to be coming out with the truth."
Mr Jumabhoy then returned to Singh's messages - the WP chief had asked Ms Khan which organisation had put her in touch with the victim. In her reply, Ms Khan had said she was trying to get more details.
"You say 'I'm trying to get more details'. The last thing you wanted was more details because that would expose the fact you lied," Mr Jumabhoy said, to which Ms Khan responded "yes".
After a series of similar questions, Mr Jumabhoy repeated what Ms Khan had told the court about her respect for Singh during the prosecution's questioning on Monday.
"You’ve told this court that Mr Singh was somebody you looked up to. You revered him. Correct? He was a mentor to you. And he was someone you felt more than capable of just lying (to) outright, yes?"
Ms Khan replied "yes", to which Mr Jumabhoy followed up with: "So that for you is how you treat somebody you revere?"
Ms Khan clarified: "No, but I mean I was really scared at that point and I revered him so much that I was so scared of disappointing him, I just let it snowball. And of course I mean I would never do something like that again, but yeah you’re right."
When asked if she had lied only to Singh over the anecdote, Ms Khan said: "Because I made that speech in parliament, I lied to the whole country."
(TBC)
Raeesah Khan grilled by Pritam Singh's lawyer, called a 'liar' who tells 'lies non-stop'
Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy applied to impeach Raeesah Khan's credit as a witness, as he put her through a fast-paced cross-examination.
Ms Raeesah Khan was cross examined by Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy (right) on Tuesday (Oct 15) on the second day of Singh's trial. (Photos: CNA/Syamil Sapari)
Koh Wan Ting & Davina Tham
15 Oct 2024 02:03PM (Updated: 15 Oct 2024 08:02PM)
BookmarkShare
SINGAPORE: Pritam Singh's defence on Tuesday (Oct 15) began their cross-examination of former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan, with his lawyer accusing her of repeatedly lying in parliament and to Singh himself.
Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy referred Ms Khan to her anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 and repeatedly called out moments to grill Ms Khan on whether she had been telling the truth.
This built up to an application by Mr Jumabhoy to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness. She was asked to leave the courtroom while this application was heard around the last hour of the hearing.
No decision was reached by the time the hearing was adjourned.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan allowed the defence to continue questioning Ms Khan about a possible discrepancy in her testimony when the hearing resumes on Wednesday morning.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament twice in 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.
Her account led to a series of events which ultimately resulted in Ms Khan revealing the truth in parliament, and the matter was later referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
Singh, the 48-year-old secretary-general of WP, is accused of making two lies before the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, during events after Ms Khan's anecdote.
- At the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that what she had said about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue; and
- When Singh spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that if the issue came up in parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie.
CROSS-EXAMINATION A VERBAL REPARTEE
Mr Jumabhoy's cross-examination of Ms Khan was fast-paced, with the lawyer putting questions to her in a rapid-fire manner. Ms Khan, who appeared composed and stoic, often answered "yes" or "no" to the volley of queries.Referring to Ms Khan's anecdote that she made in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 , Mr Jumabhoy asked her: "You are in fact a liar, right?", to which her reply was "yes I've lied".
He then followed up with: "You tell lies non-stop, don't you?", but Ms Khan denied this.
"I'm not talking (about) in your general life, I'm talking just in relation to the COP, the anecdote, these proceedings," said Mr Jumabhoy.
When asked to clarify what he meant by "non-stop", Mr Jumabhoy referred to specific portions of the anecdote. For example, when Ms Khan had said she had accompanied women to police stations.
After Ms Khan admitted that this statement was not true, Mr Jumabhoy said: "So that’s a lie, I mean that’s a flat-out lie … you can’t be in any doubt that you’ve never accompanied anyone to the police station."
Ms Khan's anecdote, in which she stated that the alleged rape victim was 25, and that she had come out crying, was also not true, she admitted in court.
KHAN LIED TO SOMEONE SHE REVERED: DEFENCE
Ms Khan had further lied to Singh in her messages with him after she delivered the anecdote in parliament, according to the defence.When Singh had asked for more details in relation to the anecdote, Ms Khan had replied that she did not know if she could contact the survivor to come forward.
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed out that Ms Khan did not even know the name of the rape victim.
"You couldn't share a name (even if you did know) because you weren't there in the first place," said Mr Jumabhoy.
He then said: "You're adding more facts to support a lie ... So it's a lie heaped upon a lie ... and then it’s going to be wrapped up in more lies, isn't it?"
Ms Khan replied "yes" to all these statements.
The defence lawyer continued to point out details in Ms Khan's messages, stating that in one message she had "managed to lie about four times".
"I mean, that's pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination," he added.
Ms Khan replied: "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear."
But Mr Jumabhoy rebutted: "You seem to be well thinking enough that you can add (these details)."
Ms Khan responded: "I would think being well thinking is to be coming out with the truth."
Mr Jumabhoy then returned to Singh's messages - the WP chief had asked Ms Khan which organisation had put her in touch with the victim. In her reply, Ms Khan had said she was trying to get more details.
"You say 'I'm trying to get more details'. The last thing you wanted was more details because that would expose the fact you lied," Mr Jumabhoy said, to which Ms Khan responded "yes".
After a series of similar questions, Mr Jumabhoy repeated what Ms Khan had told the court about her respect for Singh during the prosecution's questioning on Monday.
"You’ve told this court that Mr Singh was somebody you looked up to. You revered him. Correct? He was a mentor to you. And he was someone you felt more than capable of just lying (to) outright, yes?"
Ms Khan replied "yes", to which Mr Jumabhoy followed up with: "So that for you is how you treat somebody you revere?"
Ms Khan clarified: "No, but I mean I was really scared at that point and I revered him so much that I was so scared of disappointing him, I just let it snowball. And of course I mean I would never do something like that again, but yeah you’re right."
When asked if she had lied only to Singh over the anecdote, Ms Khan said: "Because I made that speech in parliament, I lied to the whole country."
(TBC)
Actually she didn’t use the term ‘rape’. Believe the term she used was ‘sexual assault’. Is that the same?
DEFENCE SEEKS TO IMPEACH KHAN'S CREDIT
Towards the end of the hearing, Mr Jumabhoy made an application to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness.The credit of a witness may be impeached by proof of former statements made by the witness that are inconsistent with any part of their evidence that is liable to being contradicted.
Mr Jumabhoy relied on a previous police statement made by Ms Khan for his application, and sought to argue that there were two instances of her giving materially different evidence.
Both instances involved an email that Singh sent to all sitting WP MPs on Oct 1, 2021 about parliamentary protocol.
In the email, Singh cited an extract of an old debate stating how important it was to defend and back up what a person has said in parliament, or risk being hauled up before the COP.
On Monday, Ms Khan had testified that she felt this email was "almost a dig at me", or sent because Singh wanted to "placate the other MPs in whatever frustrations they had against me".
Mr Jumabhoy argued that this was materially different from Ms Khan's police statement, where she said that she felt "fear" after receiving the email, as she was "worried that the untruth would be brought up again" in parliament.
In response to this, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said that Mr Jumabhoy had not asked Ms Khan whether she felt fear when she received the email.
"Where is that contradiction? Your honour, I'm struggling to understand what (Mr Jumabhoy) says is the discrepancy. She wasn't asked whether she felt any fear or concerns," said Mr Ang.
"Frankly all this is just beside the main point. And one does not go through the entire impeachment procedure on something which is not really material."
The second instance raised by Mr Jumabhoy was a meeting that Ms Khan had with Singh at her house on Oct 3, 2021. This exchange is the subject of one of Singh's two charges.
On Monday, Ms Khan had testified that they did not discuss his parliamentary protocol email, and Singh had said "something along the lines of – I don't think the issue will come up but if it does come up he's not going to judge me for continuing with the narrative".
Mr Jumabhoy argued that this was materially different from Ms Khan's police statement. There, she had said that Singh referred to the parliamentary protocol email, and also said that "knowing them, they might bring it up again", referring to her lie.
Mr Ang responded that Ms Khan was not asked whether Singh brought up his email at their Oct 3, 2021 meeting He also said that saying the matter "might" be brought up again meant "it may come up, it may not come up".
"The only difference I can see is that she said that he said on Oct 3, 2021, it probably will not come up, but if it does come up, this is what you should do. So in my submission, there is no clear discrepancy there."
After hearing them out, Judge Tan said the "obvious discrepancy" was whether Singh had said he thought Ms Khan's lie would be brought up again or not on Oct 3, 2021.
He allowed the defence to question Ms Khan on this area of her evidence when the hearing resumes on Wednesday.
DEFENCE QUESTIONS KHAN'S RECOLLECTION
Throughout the hearing, Mr Jumabhoy repeatedly questioned the reliability of Ms Khan's testimony, drawing comparisons between her recollection of events to the COP in December 2021 and her evidence in court.Before the impeachment application, he spent a significant amount of time on Ms Khan's account of her meeting with Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal at Singh's house on Aug 8, 2021.
Mr Jumabhoy argued that Ms Khan had provided three versions of her account of this meeting in separate testimony to the COP and in court on Monday.
In her testimony to the COP on Dec 2, 2021, Ms Khan had said of this meeting: "The reaction was that if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August."
In Ms Khan's testimony to the COP on Dec 22, 2021, she had said: "And the discussion that followed was that we would not pursue the matter further and like in my message, Mr Singh used the words “take it to the grave”.
In court, Mr Jumabhoy argued that these two accounts were fundamentally different: "The first one tells you that you can stick to the narrative if you're not questioned about it ... the second is we should just take this lie to the grave".
Mr Jumabhoy also argued that in her evidence in court, Ms Khan was adding new information to her recollection of events.
He was referring to Ms Khan's recollection on Monday that at the end of the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, Ms Lim had asked her if her father was waiting in the car outside Singh's house.
Mr Jumabhoy said Ms Khan had not said this before. "It's been three years now, and you seem to be adding new things three years after the event," he said.
"How have you gone from having no recollection and never mentioning what (Ms Lim) says to now suddenly coming up with that?"
Ms Khan said she might not have mentioned this in her testimony to the COP, but could have included in her statement to police.
"How is your recollection getting better the further away from the event?" Mr Jumabhoy questioned again.
Ms Khan responded that at the COP, she was being asked about her conversation with Singh as he walked out of his home, and not about what Ms Lim had said to her.
When Mr Jumabhoy repeated his question again, Judge Tan interjected: "She did not say she does not remember then and she remembers now, which is the focus of your question."
Sounding terse, the judge said that Ms Khan might be adding details to her recollection based on what she was being asked in court, and that if she gave a different answer, then Mr Jumabhoy was entitled to ask her about it.
The hearing will resume on Wednesday morning with Mr Jumabhoy expected to continue his cross-examination of Ms Khan.
Source: CNA/wt(sn)
Lock this bitch up at IMH
Pritam's lawyer is already impeaching her as a witness to this case. Another lie or statement change will just help the judge throw this case out faster
2 points need to be addressed...Today she kenna grilled jialat jialat by Pritam's defense lawyer LOL
Raeesah Khan grilled by Pritam Singh's lawyer, called a 'liar' who tells 'lies non-stop'
Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy applied to impeach Raeesah Khan's credit as a witness, as he put her through a fast-paced cross-examination.
Ms Raeesah Khan was cross examined by Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy (right) on Tuesday (Oct 15) on the second day of Singh's trial. (Photos: CNA/Syamil Sapari)
Koh Wan Ting & Davina Tham
15 Oct 2024 02:03PM (Updated: 15 Oct 2024 08:02PM)
BookmarkShare
SINGAPORE: Pritam Singh's defence on Tuesday (Oct 15) began their cross-examination of former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan, with his lawyer accusing her of repeatedly lying in parliament and to Singh himself.
Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy referred Ms Khan to her anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 and repeatedly called out moments to grill Ms Khan on whether she had been telling the truth.
This built up to an application by Mr Jumabhoy to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness. She was asked to leave the courtroom while this application was heard around the last hour of the hearing.
No decision was reached by the time the hearing was adjourned.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan allowed the defence to continue questioning Ms Khan about a possible discrepancy in her testimony when the hearing resumes on Wednesday morning.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament twice in 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.
Her account led to a series of events which ultimately resulted in Ms Khan revealing the truth in parliament, and the matter was later referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
Singh, the 48-year-old secretary-general of WP, is accused of making two lies before the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, during events after Ms Khan's anecdote.
- At the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that what she had said about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue; and
- When Singh spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that if the issue came up in parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie.
CROSS-EXAMINATION A VERBAL REPARTEE
Mr Jumabhoy's cross-examination of Ms Khan was fast-paced, with the lawyer putting questions to her in a rapid-fire manner. Ms Khan, who appeared composed and stoic, often answered "yes" or "no" to the volley of queries.
Referring to Ms Khan's anecdote that she made in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 , Mr Jumabhoy asked her: "You are in fact a liar, right?", to which her reply was "yes I've lied".
He then followed up with: "You tell lies non-stop, don't you?", but Ms Khan denied this.
"I'm not talking (about) in your general life, I'm talking just in relation to the COP, the anecdote, these proceedings," said Mr Jumabhoy.
When asked to clarify what he meant by "non-stop", Mr Jumabhoy referred to specific portions of the anecdote. For example, when Ms Khan had said she had accompanied women to police stations.
After Ms Khan admitted that this statement was not true, Mr Jumabhoy said: "So that’s a lie, I mean that’s a flat-out lie … you can’t be in any doubt that you’ve never accompanied anyone to the police station."
Ms Khan's anecdote, in which she stated that the alleged rape victim was 25, and that she had come out crying, was also not true, she admitted in court.
KHAN LIED TO SOMEONE SHE REVERED: DEFENCE
Ms Khan had further lied to Singh in her messages with him after she delivered the anecdote in parliament, according to the defence.
When Singh had asked for more details in relation to the anecdote, Ms Khan had replied that she did not know if she could contact the survivor to come forward.
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed out that Ms Khan did not even know the name of the rape victim.
"You couldn't share a name (even if you did know) because you weren't there in the first place," said Mr Jumabhoy.
He then said: "You're adding more facts to support a lie ... So it's a lie heaped upon a lie ... and then it’s going to be wrapped up in more lies, isn't it?"
Ms Khan replied "yes" to all these statements.
The defence lawyer continued to point out details in Ms Khan's messages, stating that in one message she had "managed to lie about four times".
"I mean, that's pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination," he added.
Ms Khan replied: "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear."
But Mr Jumabhoy rebutted: "You seem to be well thinking enough that you can add (these details)."
Ms Khan responded: "I would think being well thinking is to be coming out with the truth."
Mr Jumabhoy then returned to Singh's messages - the WP chief had asked Ms Khan which organisation had put her in touch with the victim. In her reply, Ms Khan had said she was trying to get more details.
"You say 'I'm trying to get more details'. The last thing you wanted was more details because that would expose the fact you lied," Mr Jumabhoy said, to which Ms Khan responded "yes".
After a series of similar questions, Mr Jumabhoy repeated what Ms Khan had told the court about her respect for Singh during the prosecution's questioning on Monday.
"You’ve told this court that Mr Singh was somebody you looked up to. You revered him. Correct? He was a mentor to you. And he was someone you felt more than capable of just lying (to) outright, yes?"
Ms Khan replied "yes", to which Mr Jumabhoy followed up with: "So that for you is how you treat somebody you revere?"
Ms Khan clarified: "No, but I mean I was really scared at that point and I revered him so much that I was so scared of disappointing him, I just let it snowball. And of course I mean I would never do something like that again, but yeah you’re right."
When asked if she had lied only to Singh over the anecdote, Ms Khan said: "Because I made that speech in parliament, I lied to the whole country."
(TBC)
1. Wanker Khan has admitted she lies in parleement.
2. Bayi lawyer is questioning her testimony...if she is caught out lying about Bayi..which means she has conducted perjury in court...which is a crime...will she go to jail?
And for point 1...why is she not in jail?
‘Be careful what you say’: Defence questions Raeesah on former WP aides’ advice on day 3 of Pritam Singh trial
Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.
author profile
October 16, 2024, 05:16 PM
imageTelegramWhatsapp
On the third day of Pritam Singh's trial on Oct. 16, his defence lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, turned to the subject of Raeesah Khan's former aides.
Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan were Raeesah's secretarial assistant and a Workers' Party (WP) volunteer, respectively.
The pair testified before Parliament's Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021.
They resigned from the party in 2022, saying they had not been actively contributing since December 2021.
They are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.
Blocking an investigation?
Jumabhoy first referenced text conversations between Raeesah, Loh, and Nathan, after she repeated her lie in parliament on Oct. 4, 2021.
Loh had encouraged Raeesah to get a lawyer, and Nathan had advised her to be careful about what she said to the lawyer.
Jumabhoy asked if Raeesah agreed that Loh and Nathan were telling her to "own up".
Raeesah disagreed.
He then asked if Loh was "blocking an investigation".
"I don't think so," Raeesah replied. "I think she was just suggesting I get advice from a lawyer on what to do."
Jumabhoy also questioned Nathan's suggestion that she "be careful" about what she told the lawyer, to which Raeesah had replied that it was "good advice".
"Does he mean don't tell the lawyer everything?" Jumabhoy asked Raeesah.
"I think he was just saying, be careful what you say to the lawyer," she said.
More questions
Jumabhoy subsequently brought up another text exchange involving the same group.
This time, it concerned a conversation on Nov. 2, 2021, about Raeesah's original anecdote.
The conversation took place after Raeesah had told parliament on Nov. 1, 2021 that the anecdote had been a lie.
In the Nov. 2 text messages, Raeesah discussed how she had inserted herself into the anecdote about accompanying a victim of sexual assault to the police station.
"I thought it might give [the story] more impact", she wrote in one message.
The anecdote, she later admitted, had simply been overheard in a support group for victims of sexual assault, and had never happened to her personally.
In response, Loh texted: "It doesn't explain why you had to plant yourself in the story."
Jumabhoy asked if this meant Loh thought Raeesah's story wasn't true.
Raeesah replied that her personal statement had been to admit her wrongdoing, and explain that she was a survivor herself, which is how she got the anecdote.
"I don't think her saying this means [she thought] what I said in the statement wasn't true," Raeesah told Jumabhoy, referring to Loh's messages.
She added that Loh had specified, "I'm being the devil's advocate here", which suggested that she meant to address possible opponents.
Jumabhoy then confirmed if Raeesah had inserted herself into the anecdote "to give it more weight".
Raeesah agreed.
Talking out
The lawyer then moved on to later in November 2021, when Raeesah was notified that she had to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges.
He asked if, upon being notified, she had discussed with Loh about possibly "aligning [their] facts".
Both had given their evidence on Dec. 2 and 3, 2021, with Raeesah testifying after Loh on both days.
In response to Jumabhoy, Raeesah said that they met up the night before to be there for each other and make sure the other was OK.
She did not ask Loh if she wanted to come up with a story to "align facts", she clarified.
Jumabhoy then asked if they had discussed the evidence that they were going to give the next day, or if Loh had "talked [her] out of" her plan to assume full responsibility for her mistake.
Raeesah agreed that they had spoken about the evidence.
However, Loh did not "talk [her] out" of her course of action.
"If the COP asked, we would have to tell the truth," she said.
Top image from Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying/Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
image
image
image
image
ADVERTISEMENT
MORE STORIES
image
Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.
author profile
October 16, 2024, 05:16 PM
imageTelegramWhatsapp
On the third day of Pritam Singh's trial on Oct. 16, his defence lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, turned to the subject of Raeesah Khan's former aides.
Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan were Raeesah's secretarial assistant and a Workers' Party (WP) volunteer, respectively.
The pair testified before Parliament's Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021.
They resigned from the party in 2022, saying they had not been actively contributing since December 2021.
They are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.
Blocking an investigation?
Jumabhoy first referenced text conversations between Raeesah, Loh, and Nathan, after she repeated her lie in parliament on Oct. 4, 2021.
Loh had encouraged Raeesah to get a lawyer, and Nathan had advised her to be careful about what she said to the lawyer.
Jumabhoy asked if Raeesah agreed that Loh and Nathan were telling her to "own up".
Raeesah disagreed.
He then asked if Loh was "blocking an investigation".
"I don't think so," Raeesah replied. "I think she was just suggesting I get advice from a lawyer on what to do."
Jumabhoy also questioned Nathan's suggestion that she "be careful" about what she told the lawyer, to which Raeesah had replied that it was "good advice".
"Does he mean don't tell the lawyer everything?" Jumabhoy asked Raeesah.
"I think he was just saying, be careful what you say to the lawyer," she said.
More questions
Jumabhoy subsequently brought up another text exchange involving the same group.
This time, it concerned a conversation on Nov. 2, 2021, about Raeesah's original anecdote.
The conversation took place after Raeesah had told parliament on Nov. 1, 2021 that the anecdote had been a lie.
In the Nov. 2 text messages, Raeesah discussed how she had inserted herself into the anecdote about accompanying a victim of sexual assault to the police station.
"I thought it might give [the story] more impact", she wrote in one message.
The anecdote, she later admitted, had simply been overheard in a support group for victims of sexual assault, and had never happened to her personally.
In response, Loh texted: "It doesn't explain why you had to plant yourself in the story."
Jumabhoy asked if this meant Loh thought Raeesah's story wasn't true.
Raeesah replied that her personal statement had been to admit her wrongdoing, and explain that she was a survivor herself, which is how she got the anecdote.
"I don't think her saying this means [she thought] what I said in the statement wasn't true," Raeesah told Jumabhoy, referring to Loh's messages.
She added that Loh had specified, "I'm being the devil's advocate here", which suggested that she meant to address possible opponents.
Jumabhoy then confirmed if Raeesah had inserted herself into the anecdote "to give it more weight".
Raeesah agreed.
Talking out
The lawyer then moved on to later in November 2021, when Raeesah was notified that she had to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges.
He asked if, upon being notified, she had discussed with Loh about possibly "aligning [their] facts".
Both had given their evidence on Dec. 2 and 3, 2021, with Raeesah testifying after Loh on both days.
In response to Jumabhoy, Raeesah said that they met up the night before to be there for each other and make sure the other was OK.
She did not ask Loh if she wanted to come up with a story to "align facts", she clarified.
Jumabhoy then asked if they had discussed the evidence that they were going to give the next day, or if Loh had "talked [her] out of" her plan to assume full responsibility for her mistake.
Raeesah agreed that they had spoken about the evidence.
However, Loh did not "talk [her] out" of her course of action.
"If the COP asked, we would have to tell the truth," she said.
Top image from Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying/Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
image
image
image
image
ADVERTISEMENT
MORE STORIES
image
No 'serious discrepancies' that support impeaching Raeesah: Prosecution on Day 3 of Pritam Singh trial
The judge said he was inclined to agree with the prosecution.
author profile
October 16, 2024, 08:37 PM
imageTelegramWhatsapp
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said he is inclined to agree with the prosecution's position that there are no "serious discrepancies" in the testimony of Raeesah Khan which meet the legal threshold for her impeachment as a witness.
The third day of the trial of Workers' Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh was marked by discussions between the defence and prosecution as to whether there were inconsistencies in Raeesah's testimony which could result in her impeachment.
ADVERTISEMENT
The application for her impeachment had been made by Singh's lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy on Oct. 15, 2024.
Defence: Oct. 4 WhatsApp message to Singh shows her testimony is "materially contradictory"
On the morning of Oct. 16, 2024, Jumabhoy drew attention to a WhatsApp message Raeesah had sent to Singh on Oct. 4, 2021, while being questioned by law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam in parliament over her anecdote.
ADVERTISEMENT
At that time, Raeesah had asked Singh, "What should I do Pritam?"
Jumabhoy asked Raeesah why she had felt the need to message Singh on Oct. 4, 2021, at that moment, if she had understood his instructions during their meeting the day before.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to Raeesah, Singh had told her he "would not judge her" on Oct. 3, 2021. She understood it to mean that he would not judge her if she continued the lie.
When Jumabhoy asked further if her Oct. 4 message meant she was unclear about his instructions, Raeesah replied:
ADVERTISEMENT
"When you’re confronted by Minister Shanmugam, I think anybody would question their decision or what they should say."
This led to Jumabhoy suggesting that Raeesah saw Singh's instruction as "vague" — to which she replied that Singh had seemed to affirm the continuation of the lie.
ADVERTISEMENT
Defence makes another application to have Raeesah impeached
Raeesah was then asked to step out of the room when Jumabhoy made another application to have her impeached.
According to Jumabhoy during his application, Raeesah saying that she didn't know what to do on Oct. 4, 2021, and asking Singh, was "materially contradictory" to her saying Singh seemed supportive of continuing the lie.
ADVERTISEMENT
In response, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock argued that Raeesah had repeatedly mentioned in her statements that her message to Pritam on Oct. 4, 2021 was to seek assurance.
Ang also noted that Raeesah had said, "Either way, I would have followed his advice".
ADVERTISEMENT
He then submitted to the judge that there was no discrepancy in her statement, pointing out that the crux of one of the charges against Singh is what he had said to her on Oct. 3, 2021.
The judge then referred to the agreed statement of facts and said he tends to agree with Ang as there was a lead-up to what happened on Oct. 4, 2021, in the form of Singh's meeting with Khan the day before.
ADVERTISEMENT
He added, "She was told something (on Oct. 3, 2021), she went into parliament with that frame of mind."
She was then prompted to send a text message that did not receive a response, he noted.
It could therefore be argued that Raeesah's response is consistent with she said was told to her by Singh on Oct. 3, 2021.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tan said, "I do not see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction."
He rejected the application by Jumabhoy.
The matter of coming clean on September 2021
Jumabhoy then made a second application to impeach Raeesah in the afternoon.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the lead-up to the second attempt, Jumabhoy had questioned Raeesah about why she had not come clean on her false anecdote in September 2021.
She replied that she had shingles and that she thought the matter had been dropped.
ADVERTISEMENT
Jumabhoy then pointed out that this "(flies) in the face" of how she thought Singh had told her to "take it (the false anecdote she shared in parliament) to the grave".
He also cited notes submitted by WP Member of Parliament (MP) Faisal Manap to the Committee of Privileges, which said she had contemplated doing so.
ADVERTISEMENT
In response, Ang called on the court to look at a police statement by Raeesah on May 12, 2022, which said she had told the WP's disciplinary panel that she had contemplated disclosing the truth in September 2021.
ADVERTISEMENT
In addition, Raeesah had also told the police that maybe she might have said it to the panel, but she could not recall, and that in September 2021, she did contemplate disclosing it but was down with shingles.
ADVERTISEMENT
The statement also captured how she told the police she thought the matter had been dropped, when the officers asked her about whether she had considered disclosing it to Singh, Faisal and WP chair Sylvia Lim in September 2021.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ang then pointed out that these replies by Raeesah were consistent with what she has said in court.
There is therefore no basis in the law to invoke Section 157 of the Penal code regarding the impeachment of a witness, he added.
ADVERTISEMENT
The second application was also rejected by Tan.
What else was discussed in court on Day 3:
Top photo by Mothership
The judge said he was inclined to agree with the prosecution.
author profile
October 16, 2024, 08:37 PM
imageTelegramWhatsapp
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said he is inclined to agree with the prosecution's position that there are no "serious discrepancies" in the testimony of Raeesah Khan which meet the legal threshold for her impeachment as a witness.
The third day of the trial of Workers' Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh was marked by discussions between the defence and prosecution as to whether there were inconsistencies in Raeesah's testimony which could result in her impeachment.
ADVERTISEMENT
The application for her impeachment had been made by Singh's lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy on Oct. 15, 2024.
Defence: Oct. 4 WhatsApp message to Singh shows her testimony is "materially contradictory"
On the morning of Oct. 16, 2024, Jumabhoy drew attention to a WhatsApp message Raeesah had sent to Singh on Oct. 4, 2021, while being questioned by law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam in parliament over her anecdote.
ADVERTISEMENT
At that time, Raeesah had asked Singh, "What should I do Pritam?"
Jumabhoy asked Raeesah why she had felt the need to message Singh on Oct. 4, 2021, at that moment, if she had understood his instructions during their meeting the day before.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to Raeesah, Singh had told her he "would not judge her" on Oct. 3, 2021. She understood it to mean that he would not judge her if she continued the lie.
When Jumabhoy asked further if her Oct. 4 message meant she was unclear about his instructions, Raeesah replied:
ADVERTISEMENT
"When you’re confronted by Minister Shanmugam, I think anybody would question their decision or what they should say."
This led to Jumabhoy suggesting that Raeesah saw Singh's instruction as "vague" — to which she replied that Singh had seemed to affirm the continuation of the lie.
ADVERTISEMENT
Defence makes another application to have Raeesah impeached
Raeesah was then asked to step out of the room when Jumabhoy made another application to have her impeached.
According to Jumabhoy during his application, Raeesah saying that she didn't know what to do on Oct. 4, 2021, and asking Singh, was "materially contradictory" to her saying Singh seemed supportive of continuing the lie.
ADVERTISEMENT
In response, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock argued that Raeesah had repeatedly mentioned in her statements that her message to Pritam on Oct. 4, 2021 was to seek assurance.
Ang also noted that Raeesah had said, "Either way, I would have followed his advice".
ADVERTISEMENT
He then submitted to the judge that there was no discrepancy in her statement, pointing out that the crux of one of the charges against Singh is what he had said to her on Oct. 3, 2021.
The judge then referred to the agreed statement of facts and said he tends to agree with Ang as there was a lead-up to what happened on Oct. 4, 2021, in the form of Singh's meeting with Khan the day before.
ADVERTISEMENT
He added, "She was told something (on Oct. 3, 2021), she went into parliament with that frame of mind."
She was then prompted to send a text message that did not receive a response, he noted.
It could therefore be argued that Raeesah's response is consistent with she said was told to her by Singh on Oct. 3, 2021.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tan said, "I do not see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction."
He rejected the application by Jumabhoy.
The matter of coming clean on September 2021
Jumabhoy then made a second application to impeach Raeesah in the afternoon.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the lead-up to the second attempt, Jumabhoy had questioned Raeesah about why she had not come clean on her false anecdote in September 2021.
She replied that she had shingles and that she thought the matter had been dropped.
ADVERTISEMENT
Jumabhoy then pointed out that this "(flies) in the face" of how she thought Singh had told her to "take it (the false anecdote she shared in parliament) to the grave".
He also cited notes submitted by WP Member of Parliament (MP) Faisal Manap to the Committee of Privileges, which said she had contemplated doing so.
ADVERTISEMENT
In response, Ang called on the court to look at a police statement by Raeesah on May 12, 2022, which said she had told the WP's disciplinary panel that she had contemplated disclosing the truth in September 2021.
ADVERTISEMENT
In addition, Raeesah had also told the police that maybe she might have said it to the panel, but she could not recall, and that in September 2021, she did contemplate disclosing it but was down with shingles.
ADVERTISEMENT
The statement also captured how she told the police she thought the matter had been dropped, when the officers asked her about whether she had considered disclosing it to Singh, Faisal and WP chair Sylvia Lim in September 2021.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ang then pointed out that these replies by Raeesah were consistent with what she has said in court.
There is therefore no basis in the law to invoke Section 157 of the Penal code regarding the impeachment of a witness, he added.
ADVERTISEMENT
The second application was also rejected by Tan.
What else was discussed in court on Day 3:
Top photo by Mothership
Similar threads
