Ex-WP member testifies about ‘witch hunt’ against Raeesah Khan, how Pritam Singh was getting off ‘scot-free’

SINGAPORE: A former Workers’ Party (WP) member and aide to Ms Raeesah Khan testified on the stand against WP chief Pritam Singh on Friday (Oct 18) about the “witch hunt” he felt was launched against Ms Khan to “kick her out” of the party.
This was while Singh, who knew about Ms Khan’s lie a few days after she made it in parliament in August 2021, was getting off “scot-free”, testified Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.
Mr Nathan, who was in the WP for six years before he left in 2022, is now a graduate student doing a Doctor of Philosophy in sea level research.
He took the stand as the prosecution’s third witness against Singh, 48, who is on trial for two charges of lying before the Committee of Privileges (COP) when answering questions about what he wanted Ms Khan to do regarding her lie.
Mr Nathan described how he joined WP in 2013 as a volunteer, becoming a cadre member with voting rights in mid-2016.
He got to know Ms Khan about a year before the 2020 General Election, when she was deployed to walk the ground in Sengkang with the grassroots team, which Mr Nathan was a member of.
He also knew Ms Khan’s secretarial assistant, long-time WP member Ms Loh Pei Ying, from as early as 2013 when they volunteered together for the party.
Ms Khan lied in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, about accompanying a rape victim to a police station.
Later that same day, she called Mr Nathan from Parliament House and said she was being asked by Singh to furnish details about her anecdote.
Mr Nathan said he asked Ms Khan how she got to know this rape victim in the first place, and she replied that it was through a women’s rights organisation.
He then asked Ms Khan if she would be able to get in contact with the victim, but she said no.
He said then that he was doubtful a women’s rights organisation would provide her with details of the victim because of confidentiality reasons, and to tell Singh so.
Under questioning from Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy, Mr Nathan said he learnt that the rape anecdote was false on Aug 7, 2021 through a Zoom call he had with her and Ms Loh.
Before the Zoom call, Ms Khan told Mr Nathan and Ms Loh in a group chat they shared that she had “done something terrible” and she wanted to tell them about it.
“Ms Loh asked something like, is it easy to contain, and (Ms Khan) said possibly. I think she said, possibly, if Pritam wants it that way, or something like that,” said Mr Nathan.
At the same time, he said he was messaging Ms Loh, as they were trying to figure out what this “big thing” was.
“I had a fear that it was something like an extramarital affair, just because I knew that was the sort of thing that was quite serious in Singapore politics, but there was no basis for that, it’s just a fear I had,” said Mr Nathan.
He then found out about the lie in the Zoom call, when Ms Khan also said she had told Singh that it was a lie.
Asked what was going on in his mind in reaction to what Ms Khan said, Mr Nathan said: “In my mind, I was quite … first of all, I felt very sad for Ms Khan, because of the fact she had been sexually assaulted, but I was also of course a bit worried for the party, because this was going to become an issue, or rather this was a problem, that she had lied in her speech … but in the Zoom call I pretty much just consoled her.”
Mr Nathan described how Ms Khan sent a message to their group chat on Aug 8, 2021, saying that she had told the WP leaders “what I told you guys” and that they had agreed that “the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave”.
Mr Nathan said his view then was that as far as party leaders were concerned, this issue was “essentially something the party leaders didn’t need to address”, and that the focus was now on the Muslim issues Ms Khan had raised in parliament.
At the time, there was an apparent backlash to what Ms Khan had said in parliament about polygamy and female genital cutting.
“I do remember that there was quite a bit of concern in the party about how the public was, I guess, taking in the Muslim issues as well, so that was the concern at that point in time,” said Mr Nathan.
At a meeting with Singh and Ms Loh on Aug 10, 2021, Mr Nathan said he was late and the other two were already discussing Ms Khan’s lie and her sexual assault.
“I do remember two things – I do remember Ms Loh conveying to Singh … some of the thoughts about what sexual assault victims or survivors go through. I also do recall at one point … Mr Singh saying something to the effect of … that conservative, very religious men in our society would not like the fact that an MP has been sexually assaulted,” said Mr Nathan.
He said he “certainly” remembered that Singh did not tell them that Ms Khan should do anything to clarify the lie, or that the party should do anything to clarify the lie.
He said his impression was that party leaders had decided that nothing was to be done and that no steps were taken between this meeting on Aug 10, 2021, to Oct 4, 2021, to clarify the lie.
Ms Khan had told the court that Singh met her on Oct 3, 2021, before parliament was to sit the next day, and told her that he would not judge her if she retained her narrative, which she took to mean the lie.
On Oct 4, 2021, Law Minister K Shanmugam pressed Ms Khan in parliament about the anecdote, wanting more details about the police station, when it happened and the police officers involved.
Ms Khan doubled down on the lie and did not share more details, citing confidentiality.
Mr Nathan then met with Singh and Ms Loh on Oct 12, 2021 where they discussed what to do about Ms Khan’s lie.
At this meeting, Mr Nathan said Singh told them that he had a feeling that the anecdote would come up in parliament again.
“He had conveyed to us that night, on Oct 12, that on Oct 3, he had paid a visit to Ms Khan’s house and that he had told Ms Khan or conveyed to Ms Khan that whether she decided to continue the lie or narrative, or whether she decided to tell the truth, that he would not judge her,” said Mr Nathan.
“Verbatim, ‘I would not judge you’, that was what he conveyed to Ms Loh and I,” he said.
Mr Nathan said he did not verbally express a reaction but thought it was “rather indecisive to have said that at that point in time”.
He said Singh did not explain when Ms Khan was supposed to decide between continuing the lie or telling the truth.
“But in terms of how I understand it, what he meant was that essentially if this comes up tomorrow (on Oct 4), you have a decision as to whether you want to tell the truth or stick to the lie,” said Mr Nathan.
He said he took this to mean that Singh was leaving it open to Ms Khan, that whichever option she chose, he would “have no problem with that”.
Mr Nathan testified that he asked Singh during this meeting why there had been a change in strategy – in that they wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth now. 
“Mr Singh had conveyed to me that he was worried that the government may already have had evidence or that they would somehow have known that Ms Khan had lied in parliament, that the anecdote was untrue.
“My sense at that time was that he was very afraid of Minister Shanmugam and of the government and I remember him … conveying that if the party were to keep the lie the party would get bad karma for it,” said Mr Nathan.
When Mr Nathan asked Singh if he was prepared to field questions from journalists, Mr Singh “kind of waved his hand and said ‘that’s a simple matter, I could deal with it’.”
Mr Nathan had also asked Singh if he had consulted his predecessor, former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang on the issue. 
Asked why by Mr Sivakumar, Mr Nathan said he saw Mr Low as someone whose judgement he trusted very much. 
“Personally I know him to be a principled man and seasoned politician, that is why I asked,” said Mr Nathan.
Singh had told him that Mr Low’s view was that Ms Khan should come clean “as soon as possible”. 
“And he told me that it was Mr Low’s view that Ms Khan still had time until the next General Election to rebuild support from the ground,” Mr Nathan continued. 
Mr Low, who stepped down as the party’s secretary-general in 2018, will be testifying as a prosecution witness in the trial. 
Mr Nathan, Ms Loh and Singh then spoke about how Ms Khan’s work should look like in the future. 
One of them mentioned that Ms Khan would not make speeches in parliament “anytime soon”, but instead focus on groundwork to rebuild support from her residents. 
“I remember thinking ‘well that is a good idea’ and essentially I also remember expressing to Ms Loh and Mr Singh … I cited a positive example of (PAP MP) Ms Tin Pei Ling who, in my view, in one election appeared to be immature but by the next election appeared to be mature. I remember them broadly agreeing that Ms Khan could make a comeback,” Mr Nathan said. 
Mr Nathan later helped draft Ms Khan’s statement to clarify the lie. He said preparations could not have been done in one day.
He said that party leaders were initially not sure if Ms Khan should mention the context of her sexual assault when coming clean.
“I still remember I told (Ms Khan) well, that sounds like political suicide to me, to have your MP go to parliament and say ‘hey everyone, I lied’, but don’t even explain how she ended up lying, without any context,” said Mr Nathan.
After Ms Khan clarified her lie in parliament on Nov 1, 2021, Mr Nathan said he and Ms Loh were “quite relieved”, but worried about the fallout for the party.
The next day, WP announced that it was forming a disciplinary panel to look into Ms Khan’s conduct.
“I was surprised that a DP (disciplinary panel) was formed because there had been no discussion about there being a formal investigation at that point in time, but also at that point in time, I was also unsure whether the DP was just for show, or whether they were seriously going to investigate her, which was also a bit odd to me because by now they had known arguably most of the details of what had transpired,” said Mr Nathan.
He said Ms Khan shared messages with their chat group on Nov 13, 2021, saying that Singh had said there was “no point” in Ms Khan “continuing” if she did not have the support of her immediate teammates.
In reply, Mr Nathan asked: “What does (Pritam) want you to do, resign?”
Ms Khan replied: “I think he does.”
Mr Nathan then said that “he (Singh) gets off scot-free” and “people don’t know” that Singh had known it was a lie.
He said that from the time the disciplinary panel was formed to the time Ms Khan resigned, it was a question in his mind as to whether it was a “witch hunt” or the serious investigation that the party leaders “wanted it to look like on the surface”.
“As time progressed, increasingly I got the impression that the party leaders were trying to kick her out,” said Mr Nathan. 
He added that this message Ms Khan sent about needing her Sengkang colleagues’ support was one of the things that made him feel it was essentially a witch hunt and “an excuse to kick” Ms Khan out of the party.
Mr Nathan said he and Ms Loh were worried that the disciplinary panel was getting submissions from various WP members who “did not know the leaders had known and that they were the ones who essentially directed her to maintain the lie”.
Worried that the panel would report that an overwhelming majority of the WP members thought Ms Khan should resign and that what she did was terrible – when they did not know about the leaders’ involvement – Mr Nathan said he and Ms Loh decided to express their views to the panel.
At the panel, Mr Nathan said that he and Ms Loh had raised concerns about Ms Khan having to get the support of her Sengkang colleagues.
He clarified that this was because at least one of Ms Khan’s fellow Sengkang MPs, Ms He Ting Ru, had allegedly been biased against Ms Khan since the 2020 General Election.
“I say that having heard second-hand information from Ms Khan in the past about such biasedness, and also having witnessed their interactions at the General Election, I knew that Ms He Ting Ru was never a fan of Ms Khan and Mr Jamus Lim at that point in time, early on in the General Election.
“But I would say also that their work relationship also had (its) ups and downs, and as time progressed, it became clear to me that (Ms He) continued to dislike Ms Khan but I cannot say the same for Jamus,” he said.
Mr Sivakumar asked Mr Nathan about a message he had redacted before tendering a document to the COP. The document was a compilation of his messages.
Mr Nathan explained that he was allowed to make redactions because he had been told by some COP members that “it would be all right to redact irrelevant information and things of that nature from our submissions to the COP in terms of the messages”.
Mr Nathan had redacted a message he sent to his chat group with Ms Loh and Ms Khan on Oct 12, 2021, stating: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts (about) her age accurate.”
Ms Loh had admitted on the stand under cross-examination that she had redacted this message from her version of messages submitted to the COP, giving another reason for the redaction. She had also agreed that she had lied by doing this.
Mr Sivakumar asked Mr Nathan why he felt this message was one he could redact.
Mr Nathan said he felt this message was “immaterial to the COP investigation”, as it was sent after Ms Khan lied a second time on Oct 4, 2021, and that by Oct 12, 2021, “we were all on the same page that she should come clean”.
Asked to explain how he did the redaction, Mr Nathan described how he was asked, after giving his testimony to the COP, to go to the library in Parliament House.
There, he sat next to PAP MP Rahayu Mahzam, who was a member of the COP, and other parliamentary staff members.
“Rahayu sat next to me in front of the computer screen and we went through the messages one by one, extracted from my phone, and as we were going through the messages essentially we would have a conversation about what could be redacted, what should stay in, and I was doing the redaction on the spot,” said Mr Nathan.
“I believe I had to provide the reason for why each message was redacted at some point.
“However, Rahayu had to go off because she was busy with some constituency work. I think it was evening, so I stayed in Parliament House for a bit more, but at some point, the staff had to close the library, so they asked me to complete the rest of the redactions and to email it to them, which essentially because I think they were also a bit pressed for time … so I remember doing it in my car in the parliament car park, so that’s how it happened.”
He said he completed the rest of the redactions in his car alone, without anyone’s approval. When asked if he had indicated any reason for redacting this message, he said: “If I recall correctly, I must have indicated that it was not relevant to COP investigations.”
He said he could not recall if this particular redaction was approved by anyone, since he could not recall which message Ms Rahayu stopped at with him, and there were hundreds of messages.
The prosecution completed its questioning of Mr Nathan on Friday evening. The trial will resume on Monday, with Singh’s defence cross-examining Mr Nathan.