Pritam’s lawyer continues to raise doubts over Raeesah’s credibility
Whether former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan’s evidence can be relied upon continued to be the subject of cross-examination on Oct 16, the third day of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s trial.
Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, sought to take the court through inconsistencies in Ms Khan’s statements to the police and the Committee of Privileges, and the evidence she had given since the trial began on Oct 14.
This was as the defence had, on Oct 15, applied to impeach Ms Khan’s credibility as a witness. If successful, what Ms Khan says in court would be given less weight by the judge.
Singh is contesting 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.
In the morning, Mr Jumabhoy showed that Ms Khan’s statement to the police on May 12, 2022, was that Singh told her on Oct 3, 2021, that “knowing them (the Government), they may bring it up again”, and if her untrue anecdote was brought up in Parliament on Oct 4, he would not judge her if she kept to her lie.
However, Ms Khan had said on the first day of the trial that Singh had told her on Oct 3 that he did not think the issue will come up again, but that if it came up he would not judge her for continuing with her narrative.
Asked if there was a difference between her two accounts, Ms Khan at first said it was different ways of saying the same thing, but later agreed that there was a difference.
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed to an Oct 1, 2021, e-mail that Singh had sent to all current WP MPs reminding them of the serious consequences they would face if they could not back up what they said in Parliament.
The lawyer noted that Singh had mentioned this e-mail to Ms Khan when they met on Oct 3. Her testimony that he then told her he would not judge her if she continued her narrative could not be true.
“Would you agree that that’s simply absurd? It’s so absurd that, in fact, it didn’t happen (and) he never told you to continue the narrative,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
Ms Khan disagreed. Asked why she did not question Singh on what appeared to be two contradicting messages, she said the WP chief had told her he would not judge her if she kept up her narrative, and she had left it at that.
The defence made a separate impeachment application based on Ms Khan’s Oct 4 text to Singh. When Minister for Law and Home Affairs K. Shanmugam raised the matter of her untrue anecdote in court, she had texted the WP chief “What shoud I do pritam”.
Mr Jumabhoy argued that the message was “materially contradictory” to her evidence in court.
This is as Ms Khan told the court she lied again in Parliament on Oct 4 as she had Singh’s support to do so, while in her written statement, she said it was because Singh did not reply to her message and she was waiting for guidance.
“There can’t be a more bare-faced contradiction to what she’s saying there,” the lawyer told the court.
But Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said the message aligned with the gist of her evidence, which was to continue her narrative. When confronted by Minister Shanmugam in Parliament, Ms Khan had sought Singh’s assurance that he held to the same position from their meeting the day before.
It was “completely inappropriate” for the defence to rely on just a particular sentence to look at whether Ms Khan’s credibility should be impeached, said the prosecutor.
Citing case law, he noted that the bar for impeachment is high. “Impeachment is a process which is not lightly gone into the court must be satisfied that there is a serious or material discrepancy,” he said.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan ruled that he did not see a contradiction in Ms Khan’s statements, let alone a material contradiction. He agreed with Mr Ang that Ms Khan’s court testimony cannot be read in isolation.
Ms Khan’s cross-examination continued in the afternoon.
Get The New Paper on your phone with the free TNP app. Download from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store now