Pritam Singh refutes claims made by Raeesah Khan and her 2 assistants, explains ‘I will not judge you’ quote

SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh on Tuesday (Nov 5) testified about how he was “very unhappy” and upset with then member of parliament Raeesah Khan when he first learnt she had lied in parliament, and how “incredibly disappointed” he was when she repeated the lie.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, by sharing an anecdote about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where offensive remarks were made about the alleged victim.
Singh also explained the context behind his much-bandied-about words to Ms Khan: “I will not judge you”.
Ms Khan had taken this to mean that Singh would not judge her if she continued her false narrative, but Singh clarified for the first time in court on Tuesday that he had meant he would not judge her if she took ownership and responsibility and clarified her lie in parliament.
Singh also refuted claims by Ms Khan, who claimed he had told her to take the issue to the grave, and two of her close confidantes.
The 48-year-old, who is law-trained, resumed his turn on the stand on Tuesday afternoon under questioning from his lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy.
Singh took the stand as the first witness for the defence in his trial. He is contesting two charges of lying to a Committee of Privileges (COP), that had been convened to look into Ms Khan’s lie, about what he wanted Ms Khan to do about the lie.
The leader of the opposition gave answers in measured tones, except for a segment when he spoke in a slower and more subdued manner about the shock felt by the WP leaders to hear about Ms Khan’s rape when she was 18.
Singh had earlier shared how the speech containing the false anecdote had been drafted, and how he had responded to Ms Khan when Minister of State (MOS) for Home Affairs Desmond Tan sought clarifications from her.
Singh said he found Ms Khan’s replies to be “defensive”.
“I felt that there was more to this, and in addition, I think the questions asked by the MOS really hadn’t been answered yet, so I was curious (as) to what was the truth behind her anecdote,” he said.
In follow-up text messages between Singh and Ms Khan, he asked her questions about the rape anecdote, and Ms Khan replied to say that her friend had been trying to get in contact with the supposed rape victim, but with “no luck”.
On Aug 7, 2021, four days after the lie was told in parliament, Ms Khan asked to call Singh, he said.
During the call, Ms Khan said she had not been successful in contacting the individual, and Singh asked her for more details.
“At a certain point, she asks me whether there’s such a thing as confidentiality, and I tell her, look, I’m the secretary-general of the party. I want to know whether this happened or not, and she abruptly told me, no it did not happen,” said Singh.
Asked what his reaction was, Singh said: “I was very unhappy with her. I was actually very upset, and I cut the call and I told her we’ll talk about it.”
He explained on probing by the judge that he said “we’ll talk about this” and ended the call without waiting for Ms Khan to reply.
Singh then arranged for a meeting at his house on Aug 8, 2021, with Ms Khan and WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.
“The meeting began at 11am. Sylvia was there earlier at about 10.30am,” said Singh. “I shared with her what Raeesah had mentioned the day before, and that the anecdote was not true.”
He said Ms Lim expressed “shock and surprise” and “wondered why she would do that”, to which Singh said: “I don’t know but I will ask her later.”
When Ms Khan arrived, the WP leaders gathered around the dining table and Singh prompted her to speak, saying: “So I think you have something to tell us, can you explain what you told me yesterday.”
“At this moment, Raeesah says, when I was 18 years old, I was raped. And she starts crying quite uncontrollably,” said Singh, appearing weary.
“We are shocked. I think everybody around the table is shocked. She takes some time to settle down, and then we proceed to a conversation around what happened and she expanded on what she said earlier and she essentially said that this happened when she was … overseas,” said Singh.
He said he asked Ms Khan who knew about this, and she said her husband, her therapist and her two assistants, Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.
Singh said the conversation was a very short one because “I think all of us were processing what she had said”, and Ms Khan was also very emotional.
Mr Faisal made some comments about counselling, and Singh asked Ms Khan whether her parents knew about this.
“I asked her that because, instinctively, for such a personal issue, one would want to let those close to one, in this case, her parents, know about this,” said Singh.
He said the conversation then moved to what was “more politically pressing” – the reactions of some members of the Malay-Muslim community in Singapore to Ms Khan’s speech on Aug 3, 2021, where she also spoke about female genital cutting and polygamy.
He explained that the WP leaders did not make any inquiries about the sexual assault and “took her at her word”.
“Her state at that moment was very fragile, very emotional, and I think pursuing the subject was not something that was on my mind … because of her state of affairs,” he said.
He added that the public attention at the time was on Ms Khan not so much because of the anecdote or Mr Tan’s question, but the contents of her speech. He explained that he had been asked about it during his walkabouts that week.
At the end of that meeting, Singh said it was decided that Ms Khan would post a note on Facebook addressing some of the reservations that had been expressed by “some quarters in the Malay-Muslim community”. 
However, “we did not come to a landing as to what she was to do about the anecdote”, Singh said.
As Ms Khan left his home, Singh said he reminded her to speak to her parents, and that “we will address the other matter later on”, referring to the lie.
On questioning by the judge, he explained that he told Ms Khan this while walking her to the gate of his home, and that nobody else was within earshot.
He said he did not tell Ms Khan to continue the narrative if she were pressed, or to take the lie to the grave. Ms Khan had testified that Singh had told her to do both things.
Singh explained that he was quite sure that the government would follow up on the issue of Ms Khan’s story.
When asked why, he said: “In view of what MOS Desmond said, he made it clear that they wanted to follow up on it, by saying it won’t be swept aside.”
“The other matter, of course, is – I know how the PAP (People’s Action Party) operates, and whenever there’s a chance to fix an opposition MP, or get tough with the opposition, they would jump at the chance.”
Singh said he did not make a specific decision at this meeting as to what was to be done about the lie, but shared that, in his mind, he knew that the matter would have to be clarified.
“But because of Ms Khan’s state, in my judgment, I determined it would be better for her to settle herself, and then we would deal with the matter when she was ready,” he said.
However, he said he did not convey to Ms Khan at the Aug 8, 2021, meeting that the false anecdote had to be clarified. 
On Aug 10, 2021, Singh met with ex-WP cadres Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, Ms Khan’s confidantes and assistants within the party.
He shared for the first time in court the reason for this meeting – Ms Loh had sent emails from July that year “complaining” or filing official complaints about four WP members and volunteers.
Ms Loh felt that their online remarks were “unbecoming” and felt that the party ought to have some clear instructions on what members and volunteers could say online, said Singh.
He said Ms Loh sent a second email reiterating her complaint on Aug 2, 2021, and Singh then arranged to meet her.
On Aug 10, 2021, Singh said Ms Loh arrived first and shared with him details about victims of sexual assault “and how they have a tendency to lie”.
“I had known from my meeting … before with Ms Khan that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were already aware that Ms Khan had lied in parliament, and so I understood that this was a subject that concerned Ms Khan,” said Singh.
He said he did not discuss with Ms Loh the Aug 8, 2021, meeting with Ms Khan. 
He said Ms Loh had not asked him whether the false anecdote would come up again, contrary to what Ms Loh had testified.
Singh said the first time he heard this suggestion, that Ms Loh had asked him whether the issue would come up again, was in the courtroom.
Singh also denied making a comment that Mr Nathan had attributed to him – that “some men in society, conservative religious men, wouldn’t like to have an MP who was raped”.
He said he did not say that, and that the first time he heard of this suggestion was when Mr Nathan testified about it in court.
Singh explained that the period in question at the time was “in my reckoning probably the busiest period for us throughout this term, even to date”.
He said the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had been challenged to file a motion on the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) in July 2021. 
Singh said this was “the most significant political issue” in Singapore at the time, with a lot of heat generated by conversations on the issue, and that WP found out via a parliamentary email that PSP would be filing a motion on it in late August 2021.
Even though it was a PSP motion, WP “is the largest opposition party in parliament, even though it’s still very small, and we had not put out an official position on CECA at that point”, said Singh.
“Because it was such a sensitive political issue, it was important for the WP to show leadership on the matter, and that issue took up a considerable period of time,” he said.
Then in September, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) was tabled in parliament for the first time, said Singh.
“This was a sister legislation for POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) – they both arose from the Select Committee for Deliberate Online Falsehoods that was established a few years earlier. The WP had objected to POFMA,” he said.
WP was concerned that similar objections would apply to FICA, and the Bill had to be looked at very carefully, said Singh.
“Again, at the material time, lots of public interest about it, you have articles in the papers, significant exchanges from people, concern about what sort of powers were going to be given to the government,” he said.
He explained that WP determined that it would be opposing the Bill, deciding to file amendments for the entire Bill.
On top of this, he was busy with party matters and town council matters. 
“Like most Singaporeans, you have your issues at home. At that point, I think my daughter didn’t get her posting to her Primary 1 school so my wife and I, we were just looking for the second option for her,” he said.
While preparing for the FICA debate, Singh said he came across a parliamentary exchange about substantiating what is said in parliament and not leaving an unsubstantiated remark on the record. It then crossed his mind that he had not spoken to Ms Khan about the lie, and that the issue was still unresolved.
He then sent an email to all WP MPs on Oct 1, 2021, reminding them about the importance of being able to back up and defend what they said in parliament or risk being called up before a COP.
Singh confirmed that this email was directed at Ms Khan, and that it was “the start of this process in my mind to let her know this issue is still not settled”.
On Oct 3, 2021, Singh went to Ms Khan’s house with his wife.
“I wanted to speak to her to share with her my view that this was the first time she was going to be back in parliament since the anecdote was shared on Aug 3, and I wanted to share with her that, in my judgment, the matter may come up,” he said.
He said he did not know that Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam would make a ministerial statement on Oct 4, 2021, seeking answers from Ms Khan.
Singh said he recalled going to Ms Khan’s house, sharing the usual pleasantries and being taken aside by Ms Khan’s mother, who asked whether “parliament could not be so serious”.
“And I told her: ‘Auntie, parliament is very serious,'” said Singh.
He said he then spoke to Ms Khan and told her that she was going to be back in parliament, that the matter of the anecdote may come up, and “if it did come up, she would have to take ownership and responsibility over the issue”.
Mr Jumabhoy asked Singh to explain what he meant by “take ownership and responsibility”.
“In the context of someone who had lied to me, lied to parliament, and tried to cover up the lie in the course of my trying to find out more about it, in my view, those words were clear that she had to tell the truth, and that’s what I meant by ‘take ownership and responsibility’,” said Singh.
Elaborating further on what he meant by “ownership”, he said: “Well, the lie was told by Raeesah, and the onus was on her to clarify the lie in parliament.”
On “responsibility”, Singh added: “Well I think all MPs, including the WP MPs specifically, should, must, hold themselves to a certain standard, and I think the very fact that our MP had lied was unacceptable and she had to correct that.”
He said Ms Khan started appearing “a little nervous and uncomfortable” when he said this, and he followed up by telling her: “I will not judge you.”
“And what I meant by that was, I will not judge you if you take ownership and responsibility,” explained Singh.
He said Ms Khan did not have any questions for him. In fact, in Singh’s view, she appeared to have understood what he said to her and he took that to mean that she had understood.
The next day, when parliament sat on Oct 4, 2021, Singh was leading the debate on FICA and his attention was on that “major debate” as WP does not commonly file amendments on government Bills.
Mr Shanmugam then stood up to deliver a ministerial statement which was not on the order paper and asked Ms Khan for clarifications on her anecdote.
Ms Khan doubled down on her lie, citing confidentiality. She sent a text to Singh asking what she should do, but Singh explained that he did not see the message as he was listening to Mr Shanmugam.
When asked about his reaction to Ms Khan’s doubling down, Singh said: “I was incredibly disappointed, because it was an opportunity here for her to clarify the record and to just say the anecdote was not true and the reason was as what she shared with us. It’s clear she wanted to embellish the point she was making in her speech, and she didn’t do that.”
Later that night, he met Ms Khan and Ms Lim in his office and asked Ms Khan to explain what she had done.
“She’s in a, I would describe it as a daze, (and) she replies by saying ‘perhaps there’s another way’, that is, to tell the truth, and I retort quite angrily to say: ‘But ah, look at the choice you’ve made,'” said Singh.
“At that point, when she made an allusion to telling the truth, there was a part of me, even though I was very upset, there was a part of me that was assured that the truth will come out in parliament and will be clarified.”
He said “things had changed” after what Ms Khan had done on Oct 4, 2021, and it was clear he would have to “take a different approach with her”, as the approach of being sensitive and gentle with her had actually made things worse.
“I decided I would be following up closely with her on the clarification or statement she would make in parliament, that I expected would happen,” he said.
When asked why Ms Khan did not clarify her lie the day after on Oct 5, 2021, Singh said there had not been enough time, in his judgment, to “close the issue with her”.
“Because we also had to clarify with her why (she lied) again, and the matter just took on a very different tone by then, and once I had come to a view that she was alluding to telling the truth, I was prepared to not rush it and take my time to look at the clarification statement she would make in parliament,” he said.
Singh met Ms Khan and Ms Lim in a meeting on Oct 12, 2021, where the two party leaders told Ms Khan that she would have to make a statement in parliament to clarify her anecdote. 
“The statement would have needed to contain an admission that what she had said was wrong. But what I wanted Raeesah to do was to come up with a statement on her own and for us to review that statement because she had to take responsibility for her statement. And so my direction was for her to draft her own statement,” he said.
According to Singh, Ms Khan had been reluctant to make a statement or clarify her lie.
“At this point, I recall Ms Lim almost – I mean Ms Lim does not raise her voice very much – but at this point, she raised her voice at Raeesah and said: ‘You know you can’t let this go on you know. You can’t keep lying,'” he said.
“And thereafter we were able to persuade her to make the clarification in parliament.”
Later that day, Singh met Mr Nathan and Ms Loh. The two WP cadres expressed their concern about Ms Khan having to make a statement in parliament. 
“They did not appear keen for Raeesah to admit to what was the truth of what she had said on Aug 3. And Yudhishthra in particular was suggesting to continue with her lie by saying that any clarification in parliament should just cover the fact that she could not confirm the person’s age – basically just not wanting to deal with the issue,” said Mr Singh.
He said that Mr Nathan’s suggestion was “very strange” and “ridiculous”, likening it to “tripling down on the lie by manufacturing some other facts”.
Rejecting the suggestion, Singh maintained that Ms Khan had to come clean. The two remained unconvinced until Singh mentioned that he had spoken to former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang about the issue.
Ms Loh then suggested drafting the statement for Ms Khan, but Singh said that Ms Khan had to do it herself to take responsibility. He did not object to Mr Nathan and Ms Loh helping her with its language and editing. 
Singh is currently expected to be the sole witness for the defence, according to what Mr Jumabhoy told the court earlier on Tuesday.
The trial will resume on Wednesday morning with Singh on the stand. After Mr Jumabhoy finishes questioning Singh, the prosecution is expected to cross-examine him.