Pritam Singh trial: A timeline of the allegations, who said what and when

SINGAPORE: The first tranche of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s trial wrapped up on Thursday morning (Oct 24), after nine days of hearings delving into whether he had lied in his testimony to the Committee of Privileges (COP) that was looking into then-WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan’s own lie.
Four witnesses have taken the stand so far for the prosecution, with varying and sometimes conflicting accounts put forth on what happened from the unfolding of Ms Khan’s lie, to discussions about what to do, and the eventual confession.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station where the police allegedly made unsavoury remarks about the victim.
CNA breaks down the various threads and dates in this case so far by the four witnesses for a clearer narrative of who allegedly said what, or omitted to say certain things, and when.
Ms Raeesah Khan lies in parliament about going to a police station with a rape victim.
Then-WP cadre member and Ms Khan’s confidante, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, says he received a call from Ms Khan that Singh was asking her for details on the anecdote.
Ms Khan admits to Singh over the phone that she lied. Singh hangs up.
Ms Khan then tells Mr Nathan and then-WP cadre member Ms Loh Pei Ying over Zoom about the lie and her sexual assault.
Ms Khan meets WP leaders Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap and confesses to the lie. She also tells them about her sexual assault experience.
Ms Khan claims Singh said at this meeting that “this would probably be something that we would have to take to the grave”.
Ms Loh and Mr Nathan meet Singh.
According to Ms Loh, she meets Singh first and tells him about the importance of affirming Ms Khan’s sexual assault experience.
She says Singh did not tell her or Mr Nathan that Ms Khan had to clarify the lie, nor say that he had asked Ms Khan to speak to her parents about the sexual assault.
Mr Nathan says his impression from this meeting was that WP leaders “had decided that nothing was to be done”.
Singh emails WP members about the importance of being able to “back up and defend” statements in Parliament.
Ms Khan says she took this as “a dig” at her.
Singh visits Ms Khan at her home, a day before parliament is to sit again.
Ms Khan claims Singh told her he is “not going to judge” her for continuing the narrative, which she took to mean retaining the lie.
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam presses Ms Khan in parliament for more details about the anecdote, including which police station it was.
Ms Khan texts Singh, during parliament: “What should I do, Pritam?”
Singh does not reply immediately. Ms Khan doubles down on her lie and declines further details, citing confidentiality.
That night, Ms Khan meets Singh and Ms Lim at Singh’s new Leader of the Opposition office.
Ms Khan claims she asked Singh “What if I tell the truth” and Singh responded “Well, it’s too late now, isn’t it?”
In their group chat, Ms Loh texts Ms Khan to tell her to “lawyer up”, as she was alarmed to learn about Ms Khan lying again.
Mr Nathan receives a message from Ms Khan that Mr Shanmugam is pressing her for details on her anecdote. His impression is that Ms Khan “was supposed to maintain the lie”.
The police invite Ms Khan for an interview to give more details on the rape victim anecdote.
Ms Loh suggests for Ms Khan to say she is not in touch with the rape victim, and suggests that Ms Khan gather accounts from other sexual assault survivors.
Mr Nathan says that Ms Khan should maybe not come clean to the WP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) as it is “too risky” and they may not be of help.
Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap meet former WP chief Low Thia Khiang at his home.
At this meeting, Mr Low says Ms Lim told him about the lie and a plan to get Ms Khan to apologise.
Mr Low responds that the correct forum to apologise and clarify in is parliament, since the lie was made in parliament.
He asks if the government knew about the lie, and Ms Lim replies that it was not easy to know given the number of police stations.
Mr Low replies that this is not the point, and that if Ms Khan told a lie, she should apologise.
Mr Low says Singh and Ms Lim mentioned that they planned to expel Ms Khan from the party.
However, there are several things he says Singh and Ms Lim did not say: They did not say they had already told Ms Khan to clarify her lie in parliament. They did not say they had asked Ms Khan to speak to her parents about the sexual assault. They did not say Singh had told Ms Khan at her house on Oct 3 to clarify the lie in parliament on Oct 4, and they did not say when they first found out that Ms Khan had lied.
Ms Khan meets Singh at his home.
Mr Nathan then learns from Ms Khan that Singh and Ms Lim want her to come clean.
At 5.13pm, he sends Ms Khan and Ms Loh this message: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts (about) (the rape victim’s) age accurate.”
Mr Nathan and Ms Loh later redact this message from their respective versions of messages they tender to the COP. Ms Loh admits in court under cross-examination that Mr Nathan was suggesting in this message that they continue to lie.
Mr Nathan also admits during his cross-examination that at this point, he was in favour of “actively maintaining the lie” as he felt the party lacked a “suitable plan” for Ms Khan to come clean.
Ms Loh and Mr Nathan meet Singh at his home that night.
Ms Loh says they discussed considerations of coming clean or retaining the lie, and the “impossibility” of the latter as Mr Shanmugam would pursue the issue.
Ms Loh says Mr Nathan suggested at this meeting that Ms Khan continue the lie. She later agrees that Singh had responded by saying: “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie.”
Mr Nathan says he cannot recall if he suggested that Ms Khan continue lying.
Mr Nathan says Singh said he told Ms Khan on Oct 3 that whether she continued the narrative or told the truth, “I would not judge you”.
Ms Loh says Singh said he met Ms Khan on Oct 3 and gave her a choice of whether or not to come clean in parliament, and that he would not judge her.
Ms Loh says Singh said Mr Low thought the best action was to clarify in parliament, and the WP would survive the fallout, assuaging her and Mr Nathan’s feelings.
According to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, they walked out of the meeting agreeing that Ms Khan should tell the truth about her lie.
Mr Low says Ms Lim requested to meet him at his house, where she said Ms Khan had agreed to apologise. Mr Low replies that they should look at a draft of her apology first so it does not end up with another lie.
The police say that Ms Khan has not responded to repeated requests for an interview.
Ms Khan tells the media that she will make a statement in parliament on Nov 1, 2021.
Ms Khan delivers a statement in parliament confessing that her rape victim anecdote was false.
Mr Low texts Singh either this day or the next day to suggest forming a disciplinary panel for action against Ms Khan, suggesting that WP leaders Ms Lim, Mr Faisal and Singh be on the panel.
At this point, he did not know that the WP leaders had known since Aug 8, 2021 that the anecdote was false.
The WP issues a statement saying a disciplinary panel has been formed to look into Ms Khan’s conduct.
Ms Khan has her first meeting with the WP disciplinary panel comprising Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.
She does not remember them asking her much about her lie, and says that they focused on her personality and conduct as MP for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency.
Ms Loh and Ms Nathan say WP members are invited to make submissions to the disciplinary panel.
Ms Loh says she was “extremely angry” and felt members “had no business” commenting on the matter when they did not know the “true timeline of events” and that WP leaders had known about the lie a week after it was made.
Ms Loh sends a message to Singh saying “this is a little backwards pedalling”. She feels the disciplinary panel was “for show”, to quell party and public anger.
Ms Khan sends Singh a message asking for another meeting with the WP disciplinary panel.
She says Singh responded that her character and behaviour were under review in view of her decision to stick to her lie. She is shocked by this reply.
When Ms Khan shares Singh’s message with Mr Nathan and Ms Loh, Mr Nathan replies “What happened to ‘I won’t judge you’?”
Mr Nathan says he and Ms Loh met the disciplinary panel to tell them it should be made public that WP leaders had known about the lie since August, among other points.
Ms Loh says that she described Ms Khan as “lao hong” to the panel, meaning that she was susceptible to criticism.
“Lao hong” is a Hokkien term that literally translates as “leak air” but can refer to something stale or gone soft.
Ms Khan has her second meeting with the WP disciplinary panel. She says she realised at this meeting that the leaders wanted her to resign, and that she felt defeated and betrayed.
At this meeting, the following exchange is noted down by Ms Lim:
Singh: Before Oct session, I met you + I told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl occur to you?
Ms Khan: Yes but consumed with guilt + own experience. Thought it wouldn’t come up.
Singh: Can’t lie right?
Ms Khan: Yes.
Meanwhile, the COP meets for the first time over Ms Khan’s lie.
Ms Khan resigns as MP and WP member.
Mr Nathan says he has dinner with Ms Khan, Ms Loh and Ms Khan’s legislative assistant Mike Lim.
Mr Nathan says that Mr Lim helped Ms Loh convey a message to Singh on a phone call: “Please tell Pritam that I’ve been called to the COP and I’m not going to lie to save the party.” Singh replies, telling Ms Loh to “tell the truth” to the COP.
The WP holds a press conference where Singh says publicly that the party leadership knew about Ms Khan’s lie a week after she told it on Aug 3.
The COP hears oral testimony from Singh. What Singh tells them about what he wanted Ms Khan to do about her lie eventually becomes the subject of his two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
Parliament refers Singh to the public prosecutor.
Ms Loh leaves the WP. Mr Nathan also leaves sometime in 2022 but does not specify when.
Mr Low learns that WP leaders had already known about the lie since Aug 8, 2021.
Singh is charged in court, and pleads not guilty.