SINGAPORE: Pritam Singh's defence on Tuesday (Oct 15) began their cross-examination of former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khanjsbet, with his lawyer accusing her of repeatedly lying in parliament and to Singh himself.
Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy referred Ms Khan to her anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 and repeatedly called out moments to grill Ms Khan on whether she had been telling the truth.
This built up to an application by Mr Jumabhoy to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness. She was asked to leave the courtroom while this application was heard around the last hour of the hearing.
No decision was reached by the time the hearing was adjourned.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan allowed the defence to continue questioning Ms Khan about a possible discrepancy in her testimony when the hearing resumes on Wednesday morning.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament twice in 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.
Her account led to a series of events which ultimately resulted in Ms Khan revealing the truth in parliament, and the matter was later referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
Singh, the 48-year-old secretary-general of WP, is accused of making two lies before the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, during events after Ms Khan's anecdote.
At the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that what she had said about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue; and When Singh spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that if the issue came up in parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie.CROSS-EXAMINATION A VERBAL REPARTEEMr Jumabhoy's cross-examination of Ms Khan was fast-paced, with the lawyer putting questions to her in a rapid-fire manner. Ms Khan, who appeared composed and stoic, often answered "yes" or "no" to the volley of queries.
Referring to Ms Khan's anecdote that she made in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 , Mr Jumabhoy asked her: "You are in fact a liar, right?", to which her reply was "yes I've lied".
He then followed up with: "You tell lies non-stop, don't you?", but Ms Khan denied this.
"I'm not talking (about) in your general life, I'm talking just in relation to the COP, the anecdote, these proceedings," said Mr Jumabhoy.
When asked to clarify what he meant by "non-stop", Mr Jumabhoy referred to specific portions of the anecdote. For example, when Ms Khan had said she had accompanied women to police stations.
After Ms Khan admitted that this statement was not true, Mr Jumabhoy said: "So that’s a lie, I mean that’s a flat-out lie … you can’t be in any doubt that you’ve never accompanied anyone to the police station."
Ms Khan's anecdote, in which she stated that the alleged rape victim was 25, and that she had come out crying, was also not true, she admitted in court.
Related:
Key moments from Raeesah Khan's testimony on Day 2 of Pritam Singh's trial 
'Defeated and betrayed' by the people I look up to: Raeesah Khan on second day of Pritam Singh's trial 
Pritam Singh trial: Prosecution argues he guided Raeesah Khan to maintain lie in parliament 
Day 1 of Pritam Singh's trial: Prosecution reveals case and witness list, Raeesah Khan on the stand KHAN LIED TO SOMEONE SHE REVERED: DEFENCEMs Khan had further lied to Singh in her messages with him after she delivered the anecdote in parliament, according to the defence.
When Singh had asked for more details in relation to the anecdote, Ms Khan had replied that she did not know if she could contact the survivor to come forward.
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed out that Ms Khan did not even know the name of the rape victim.
"You couldn't share a name (even if you did know) because you weren't there in the first place," said Mr Jumabhoy.
He then said: "You're adding more facts to support a lie ... So it's a lie heaped upon a lie ... and then it’s going to be wrapped up in more lies, isn't it?"
Ms Khan replied "yes" to all these statements.
The defence lawyer continued to point out details in Ms Khan's messages, stating that in one message she had "managed to lie about four times".
"I mean, that's pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination," he added.
Ms Khan replied: "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear."
But Mr Jumabhoy rebutted: "You seem to be well thinking enough that you can add (these details)."
Ms Khan responded: "I would think being well thinking is to be coming out with the truth."
Mr Jumabhoy then returned to Singh's messages - the WP chief had asked Ms Khan which organisation had put her in touch with the victim. In her reply, Ms Khan had said she was trying to get more details.
"You say 'I'm trying to get more details'. The last thing you wanted was more details because that would expose the fact you lied," Mr Jumabhoy said, to which Ms Khan responded "yes".
After a series of similar questions, Mr Jumabhoy repeated what Ms Khan had told the court about her respect for Singh during the prosecution's questioning on Monday.
"You’ve told this court that Mr Singh was somebody you looked up to. You revered him. Correct? He was a mentor to you. And he was someone you felt more than capable of just lying (to) outright, yes?"
Ms Khan replied "yes", to which Mr Jumabhoy followed up with: "So that for you is how you treat somebody you revere?"
Ms Khan clarified: "No, but I mean I was really scared at that point and I revered him so much that I was so scared of disappointing him, I just let it snowball. And of course I mean I would never do something like that again, but yeah you’re right."
When asked if she had lied only to Singh over the anecdote, Ms Khan said: "Because I made that speech in parliament, I lied to the whole country."
DEFENCE SEEKS TO IMPEACH KHAN'S CREDITTowards the end of the hearing, Mr Jumabhoy made an application to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness.
The credit of a witness may be impeached by proof of former statements made by the witness that are inconsistent with any part of their evidence that is liable to being contradicted.
Mr Jumabhoy relied on a previous police statement made by Ms Khan for his application, and sought to argue that there were two instances of her giving materially different evidence.
Both instances involved an email that Singh sent to all sitting WP MPs on Oct 1, 2021 about parliamentary protocol.
In the email, Singh cited an extract of an old debate stating how important it was to defend and back up what a person has said in parliament, or risk being hauled up before the COP.
On Monday, Ms Khan had testified that she felt this email was "almost a dig at me", or sent because Singh wanted to "placate the other MPs in whatever frustrations they had against me".
Mr Jumabhoy argued that this was materially different from Ms Khan's police statement, where she said that she felt "fear" after receiving the email, as she was "worried that the untruth would be brought up again" in parliament.
In response to this, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said that Mr Jumabhoy had not asked Ms Khan whether she felt fear when she received the email.
"Where is that contradiction? Your honour, I'm struggling to understand what (Mr Jumabhoy) says is the discrepancy. She wasn't asked whether she felt any fear or concerns," said Mr Ang.
"Frankly all this is just beside the main point. And one does not go through the entire impeachment procedure on something which is not really material."
The second instance raised by Mr Jumabhoy was a meeting that Ms Khan had with Singh at her house on Oct 3, 2021. This exchange is the subject of one of Singh's two charges.
On Monday, Ms Khan had testified that they did not discuss his parliamentary protocol email, and Singh had said "something along the lines of – I don't think the issue will come up but if it does come up he's not going to judge me for continuing with the narrative".
Mr Jumabhoy argued that this was materially different from Ms Khan's police statement. There, she had said that Singh referred to the parliamentary protocol email, and also said that "knowing them, they might bring it up again", referring to her lie.
Mr Ang responded that Ms Khan was not asked whether Singh brought up his email at their Oct 3, 2021 meeting He also said that saying the matter "might" be brought up again meant "it may come up, it may not come up".
"The only difference I can see is that she said that he said on Oct 3, 2021, it probably will not come up, but if it does come up, this is what you should do. So in my submission, there is no clear discrepancy there."
After hearing them out, Judge Tan said the "obvious discrepancy" was whether Singh had said he thought Ms Khan's lie would be brought up again or not on Oct 3, 2021.
He allowed the defence to question Ms Khan on this area of her evidence when the hearing resumes on Wednesday.
DEFENCE QUESTIONS KHAN'S RECOLLECTIONThroughout the hearing, Mr Jumabhoy repeatedly questioned the reliability of Ms Khan's testimony, drawing comparisons between her recollection of events to the COP in December 2021 and her evidence in court.
Before the impeachment application, he spent a significant amount of time on Ms Khan's account of her meeting with Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal at Singh's house on Aug 8, 2021.
Mr Jumabhoy argued that Ms Khan had provided three versions of her account of this meeting in separate testimony to the COP and in court on Monday.
In her testimony to the COP on Dec 2, 2021, Ms Khan had said of this meeting: "The reaction was that if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August."
In Ms Khan's testimony to the COP on Dec 22, 2021, she had said: "And the discussion that followed was that we would not pursue the matter further and like in my message, Mr Singh used the words “take it to the grave”.
In court, Mr Jumabhoy argued that these two accounts were fundamentally different: "The first one tells you that you can stick to the narrative if you're not questioned about it ... the second is we should just take this lie to the grave".
Mr Jumabhoy also argued that in her evidence in court, Ms Khan was adding new information to her recollection of events.
He was referring to Ms Khan's recollection on Monday that at the end of the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, Ms Lim had asked her if her father was waiting in the car outside Singh's house.
Mr Jumabhoy said Ms Khan had not said this before. "It's been three years now, and you seem to be adding new things three years after the event," he said.
"How have you gone from having no recollection and never mentioning what (Ms Lim) says to now suddenly coming up with that?"
Ms Khan said she might not have mentioned this in her testimony to the COP, but could have included in her statement to police.
"How is your recollection getting better the further away from the event?" Mr Jumabhoy questioned again.
Ms Khan responded that at the COP, she was being asked about her conversation with Singh as he walked out of his home, and not about what Ms Lim had said to her.
When Mr Jumabhoy repeated his question again, Judge Tan interjected: "She did not say she does not remember then and she remembers now, which is the focus of your question."
Sounding terse, the judge said that Ms Khan might be adding details to her recollection based on what she was being asked in court, and that if she gave a different answer, then Mr Jumabhoy was entitled to ask her about it.
The hearing will resume on Wednesday morning with Mr Jumabhoy expected to continue his cross-examination of Ms Khan.jsbet