Judge disallows disclosure of Nathan’s unredacted messages

An application by Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s lawyer to get a full set of message logs by prosecution witness Yudhishthra Nathan was disallowed by the judge when the trial resumed on Oct 23.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said he saw no basis in law for Mr Nathan’s unredacted messages to the Committee of Privileges (COP) to be disclosed to the defence. This is as the messages do not meet the requirements for disclosure under case law.

Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy had earlier in the week sought both the unredacted and redacted versions of Mr Nathan’s message logs to the COP, arguing that they went directly to whether the testimonies of Mr Nathan and his fellow WP cadre Loh Pei Ying, who both assisted former Sengkang WP MP Raeesah Khan in her duties as an MP, are credible.

The judge said that having carefully examined the documents, he was satisfied that none of the messages were relevant to Singh’s guilt or innocence. As the redactions were done for the purpose of the specific inquiry by the COP, the scope and basis of the redactions were also not relevant to the current criminal trial.

Judge Tan also noted that a list of unredacted messages by Mr Nathan, as well as the full list of redacted and unredacted messages by Ms Loh Pei Ying, has already been admitted as evidence for the trial.

While there is “no doubt” that Mr Nathan’s credibility – as with the credibility of all witnesses – is an issue, the messages that are already part of the trial’s evidence can and have been used to gauge this, he added.

Singh is contesting two charges over his alleged lies to the COP, which was 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.

Former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang took the stand in the afternoon, after the defence wrapped up its cross-examination of Mr Nathan. Here are the key points from Mr Nathan’s evidence on Oct 23:

1. WP cadres did not tell COP about ‘significant’ discussion with Singh

Mr Nathan was grilled about why neither he nor Ms Loh had told the COP what they subsequently told the police, which was that Singh had told them at an Oct 12, 2021, meeting that the WP was changing its strategy about Ms Khan’s untruth.

Mr Nathan had earlier testified that the WP chief had told him at that meeting that the party now wanted Ms Khan to come clean, as the Government might already have known that Ms Khan’s anecdote was untrue, and it would be “bad karma” to keep to the lie.

Mr Jumabhoy questioned why Mr Nathan did not mention this to the COP, given that the former WP cadre had agreed that this change in strategy was significant.

The defence lawyer noted that Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong had expressly asked him at the COP whether anything else of significance had happened at that Oct 12 meeting, and he had not mentioned this to the committee.

Mr Nathan replied that it was a very long meeting, and it was not something that crossed his mind when he was before the COP.

Mr Jumbahoy then put it to Mr Nathan that he did not mention this to the COP because this exchange with Singh did not happen, and that he had made it up. Mr Nathan disagreed.

2. Nathan and Loh discussed events between COP hearings and police investigation

Under cross-examination, Mr Nathan said he had met Ms Loh sometime between the COP hearings in late 2021 and the police investigations in early 2022 to discuss the matter, although he could not recall if they spoke about what took place at the Oct 12, 2021, meeting.

Asked if he and Ms Loh had tried to “jog each other’s memory”, Mr Nathan said they had conversations about what happened, but disagreed with the defence’s characterisation.

Asked if it was possible that they were describing to each other what should be included in their statements to the police, Mr Nathan, however, said: “No. I wouldn’t put it that way.” 

He later agreed that part of these conversations was what they were telling the police, but he disagreed when Mr Jumabhoy said that he or Ms Loh had come up with “this little nugget about Pritam Singh admitting that there was a change in party strategy”.

Mr Nathan said he could not recall whether he had known if the police were investigating the matter when he spoke to Ms Loh.

This is as he could not remember whether they had spoken before or after Parliament debated the COP report on Feb 15, 2022. At that sitting, the House had voted to refer Singh to the public prosecutor for further investigation.

3. ‘Pritam Singh would try to use that information against him’

The court heard that Mr Nathan met Ms Loh for dinner on two occasions: once on Nov 29, 2021, and another on Dec 1, 2021, which Ms Khan joined. Mr Mike Lim, then Ms Khan’s legislative assistant, was also at both gatherings.

Asked if they discussed the upcoming COP hearings on these occasions, Mr Nathan said: “Possibly.”

Mr Nathan said Ms Khan was at that point somewhat afraid of facing the COP and telling the truth that the WP’s leaders had told her to maintain her lie since August 2021. 

Mr Nathan recounted that while they were together on Dec 1, Mr Lim had stepped out for a phone call with Singh. 

Before Mr Lim took the call, Ms Loh had told him to tell Singh that she had been called before the COP, and that she was not going to lie to save the party, recounted Mr Nathan. 

Mr Nathan said he remembered this well, as Ms Loh had been quite emotional and was “trying to give (Singh) another opportunity to tell the public what really happened”.

Singh had replied that Ms Loh should go to the COP and tell the truth, a reaction that Mr Nathan said surprised him.

Mr Jumabhoy then referred to a Dec 22, 2021, message in their group chat, where Ms Loh had asked Mr Lim to be careful when he spoke with the WP chief. The message also said: “Please don’t tell him we met before the COP, okay? This one really cannot say.”

Mr Nathan had at this point added in the chat: “Just to protect yourself.”

Asked what his words meant, Mr Nathan said: “Just in case (Singh) would try to use that information against him.”

Mr Jumabhoy then put to Mr Nathan that he and Ms Loh had been aligning facts from the COP to make sure both their stories matched, and had checked with each other what messages to include and what to redact in their submissions to the committee. Mr Nathan and Ms Loh had also continued to lie together to the police, asserted the lawyer.

Mr Nathan disagreed with all these statements.