Loh Pei Ying: Raeesah had 'poor understanding' of WP history

Former Workers’ Party (WP) cadre Loh Pei Ying is the second witness to take the stand in the trial of WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, after the prosecution wrapped up former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan’s re-examination within half an hour in the morning.

Singh is fighting two charges over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened in November 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 17 so far, as the trial court sat for the fourth day: 

1. Loh views Khan’s lie as a ‘big deal’ and ‘stain on WP’s history’

When Ms Loh took the stand, the court heard that the head and co-founder of editorial company Kontinentalist was a core member of the WP’s media team in 2020 General Election, where Ms Khan was elected as a first-time MP.

By then, Ms Loh had been with WP for almost 10 years. She became Ms Khan’s secretarial assistant, and helped the political newbie who only started volunteering with WP from the start of 2020 – catch up with WP’s history, among other duties, the court heard.

On Aug 7, 2021, Ms Khan confessed over a Zoom video conferencing call to Ms Loh and WP cadre Yudhishthra Nathan that she had lied when Parliament sat on Aug 3.

Ms Loh, who left WP at the end of 2022, sought to clarify the facts during the call, as Ms Khan was emotional and “wasn’t very coherent”.

They also discussed political history, Ms Loh said, noting that Ms Khan, then 27, “had generally quite a poor understanding” of WP’s history.

For instance, Ms Khan did not know former Hougang WP MP Yaw Shin Leong was expelled from WP in 2012 over allegations that he had an extra-marital affair with a married woman. “She did not know that whole thing happened,” Ms Loh told the court.

When she found out about Ms Khan’s untruth on Aug 7, 2021, Ms Loh regarded the matter as a “big deal” and “stain” on WP’s track record for an MP to have lied in that manner. She thus felt uncomfortable to have been made aware of it.

But after she heard from Ms Khan then that Singh had been clued in on the lie earlier on Aug 7, Ms Loh said she felt “a little relieved” as the WP chief “would know what to do” if something is to be done about it.

2. Low Thia Khiang’s advice was to clarify the lie, said WP would survive the fallout: Loh

The court heard that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan met Singh at the WP chief’s house on the night of Oct 12, 2021. This was the day after former WP chief Low Thia Khiang was informed of Ms Khan’s untrue anecdote to Parliament by Singh and WP chair Sylvia Lim.

Ms Loh said at this “very lengthy” meeting which took place after dinner, Singh shared that he had consulted Mr Low on the matter, and the WP veteran had thought the best course of action was to make a clarification in Parliament, and that the “WP would survive the falling out that would follow”.

Mr Nathan and her were “very assuaged” upon hearing that this was Mr Low’s decision and advice as they had a lot of faith and confidence in the elder’s opinion, Ms Loh told the court. 

During the meeting, Singh also recounted that he had a feeling that Ms Khan’s matter would come up at the Oct 4, 2021 Parliament sitting, so he had gone to speak to Ms Khan the day before to “sort of give her a choice of whether or not to come clean in Parliament and that he would not judge her”, Ms Loh recalled.

Asked what she understood by “would not judge her”, Ms Loh said she thought it meant that he would not have a “poor opinion of her regardless of what she did” - specifically whether or not Ms Khan was going to confess or stay silent about her lie in Parliament.

She told the court that Singh’s recount had surprised her. “I was first surprised that he had the foresight that the matter would come up and also that he would say such a thing to her,” she said. “It felt like very unclear communication, it was vague instruction.”

Ms Loh also told the court that the meeting covered how Ms Khan’s Nov 1, 2021 statement before Parliament should be drafted as well.

This was where Ms Loh opined that it was “no good for the party” if the statement omitted the fact that Ms Khan was a sexual assault victim herself, given that this was how she had learnt of the original anecdote referenced in her lie to Parliament.

Singh had considered excluding the fact, she noted. Asked by the prosecution if Singh explained why, Ms Loh said he had said Ms Khan need not include the fact if that was difficult for her to share - what was important was to address that she had lied in Parliament, and he was of the view that a brief statement would be sufficient.

Ms Loh said she felt WP would risk coming across as a party of “compulsive liars” if the motivation behind why Ms Khan had lied was left unaddressed.

Her primary concern would be how sexual assault victims would be perceived after Ms Khan’s confession since this traumatic issue could be made a “laughing stock, or cast upon as liars”, she added.

Ms Loh also testified that as a media person herself, she knew there was “no way” Ms Khan could have told the truth in Parliament by herself on Oct 4, 2021, without making any preparation.

“This lie is obviously going to be a shock to everyone. If she were to come up and just say ‘Ya, I lied about it’, it would be very, very foolish of her to just go up and do that without the party,” she said.

For a matter of this magnitude, where the “fallout would be severe to a very high degree”, it was “unthinkable” that she would go into it alone, without the party’s central executive committee knowing and the party managing the crisis communications required.

3. WP disciplinary panel was ‘performatory’ to Loh

The court also heard Ms Loh was “extremely angry” when she received a message on Nov 10, 2021 notifying that a disciplinary panel (DP) convened to look into Ms Khan’s lying controversy would like to invite WP members to share their views on the episode.

The panel comprised Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap.

Ms Loh then sent a message to Singh, which read: “Hi Pritam, I’ve tried to reserve my comments on the DP so far but I just saw the message that was sent out to everyone.”

She followed with a text that said it was “plain as day” to her that people involved in Ms Khan’s apology on Nov 1, 2021 are now doing “a little backwards pedalling”. 

In another part of the message, which was read out in court, she wrote that the party clearly did not anticipate the backlash despite warnings, and is now trying to do something to quell the anger – an action which she disagrees with.

Ms Loh said she wrote this as she had viewed the DP as “performatory”, done to quell the anger of party members and the public on the matter, but would not lead to “drastic actions” being taken against Ms Khan.

The court also heard that she also told the WP chief then that she did not think it was “at all fair” to let party members think they have a say in the DP process if this was “done as a mock consultation exercise”. She also urged that the DP be “transparent and share their involvement”.

Giving the context to why she reacted that way, she said “I thought it was dangerous” because everyone else “did not have the full facts” that Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal knew that Ms Khan had lied as early as Aug 8, 2021.

She also noted that the DP was set up amid a groundswell of sentiments that Ms Khan should resign. “Overwhelmingly, people wanted her to resign, and they were eager to distance themselves from (Ms Khan’s) mistake and her lie,” she said.

The court then heard that Singh’s response to her was that party members needed to be given a platform to have their say on the matter rather than “commiserate privately”, to which Ms Loh responded: “I get that, but the DP hasn’t exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement.” 

Ms Loh also followed up by texting: “Their opinions are not accurate because they don’t have the facts. 

“Everyone is of the view that we can cut her loose and distance the party from her mistake, but if she is out of the party and she is still subjected to COP, there’s not much we can do about what she says and does there.”

Ms Loh told the court that she said this as her sense was that if party members had known that the leaders were involved, they would take a “significantly different opinion” of the matter.

4. Loh told Singh he should have stepped up and clarified Ms Khan’s lie in October

Ms Loh recounted that she told Singh during a DP hearing on Nov 25, 2021 that he should have stepped up to clarify Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament in October 2021 if he was of the view that it should have been done.

He is Leader of the Opposition, and it was not just Ms Khan’s responsibility to keep matters accountable and factual to Parliament, she said.

She also told the panel that given Singh knew that a lie had been told, he also had every opportunity to step up and clarify.

Singh got “quite upset” by this remark, pointed at her with a pen and said he had gone to Ms Khan on the night of Oct 3, Ms Loh recalled.

However, before Singh could complete his sentence, Ms Loh said she cut him off as she still had many points to go through.

Before the panel, Ms Loh also referenced the fact that Singh had similarly made a severe mistake in Parliament before where he plagiarised his speech about ombudsman, she added.

The court also heard that Ms Loh had initiated the meeting with the DP as she realised from a text exchange with Singh that he would not be inviting Ms Loh and Mr Nathan for questions before the DP – an action that made her feel “intentionally not consulted”.

The meeting was thus to ensure that their thoughts on the matter were put on record, including that they had knowledge of “the true facts”, she told the court.

During the session with the DP, Ms Loh said sacking Ms Raeesah Khan from the party or having her resign would be a “very severe punishment for something like this”.

She said it would also set a “problematic unprecedented record for the party”, suggesting that resignation would be the only solution if anyone made a mistake.

She added that she told the panel it was “extremely irresponsible” to leave Ms Khan’s minority seat in Compassvale unrepresented and expect the other three MPs to step in.

“Compassvale will never get the proper representation they deserve,” she said. “I also did not think it was up to the MPs – the three of them – to make that call, there is a democratic process to this,” she added.

“It was Raeesah Khan who has been voted into Parliament. To me, it felt convenient that they were using – and I said this to them – they were using precedent set by Halimah Yacob of leaving a minority seat unrepresented, despite WP’s very clear stance against the GRC system, that they just wanted Raeesah Khan out without doing the right thing.”

She said she told the panel that the right thing to do was to also ask the other MPs to step down, allowing Sengkang residents the opportunity to vote again.

5. Khan: ‘You wouldn’t confront your bosses with their own mistake’

When being cross-examined by Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, on Oct 16, Ms Khan had cited “power dynamics” as the reason why she did not mention the WP leaders’ earlier advice for them to take her lie to the grave when she gave her account before the DP on Nov 29, 2021. 

Asked by the prosecution to elaborate on the power imbalance she had referred to, Ms Khan said: “It’s like a conversation with your bosses. You don’t, you wouldn’t confront your bosses with their own mistake.”

Ms Khan spoke about this dynamic again when the prosecution asked her to elaborate on why she had not told Singh or Ms Lim during their meeting on the night of Oct 4, 2021, after she repeated her lie in Parliament, that she only got into the mess because of what they had told her to do.

Earlier, Mr Jumabhoy had questioned her about the lack of such a reaction, and she had said she never spoke to Singh and Ms Lim in such a manner.

On Oct 17, Ms Khan said: “I never spoke to them in a confrontational way, we didn’t have that kind of relationship. It was more of a ‘this is our advice and you just kind of accept it and you move on’.”

Again why she never considered mentioning her leaders’ guidance in any of her draft statements prepared for the Nov 1, 2021, Parliament sitting, where she ultimately admitted to have lied, Ms Khan reiterated that she wanted to protect her leaders.

“I wanted to take the full consequences of my action. I wanted to take full responsibility of what I had done,” she added.