Pritam Singh, the leader of the opposition, took to the stage on Tuesday morning ( Nov 5 ) to testify about how he had trouble understanding why Raeesah Khan, a WP member of parliament, was crying when she was asked to clarify her rape anecdote, and how he did not find it difficult for her to provide those details.
After the prosecutor had determined that the trial had made out a circumstance against him, Singh, 48, gave his first comments in court to Mr. Andre Jumabhoy, his guide attorney.
Ms. Khan gave an anecdote about visiting a policeman stop with a murder victim in parliament on August 3, 2021, when she was the MP for Sengkang GRC. She afterwards admitted that it was fake.
Singh is contesting two unprecedented charges under the Parliament ( Privileges, Immunities and Powers ) Act for wilfully giving false answers to the Committee of Privileges, which was convened to look into Ms Khan’s conduct.
When the two met on August 8, 2021, along with WP officials Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, Singh allegedly lied when he claimed he wanted Ms. Khan to explain her lies to Parliament.
The second command alleges that he falsely addressed the parliamentary commission when he claimed to have told Ms. Khan to define her account of the assault survivor if the matter was brought up in parliament the following day.
SINGH DESCRIBES HOW HE KNEW TO HIS KNOWN.
Singh explained to the jury how he is married, has two children, and was elected as an MP in 2011 after accepting an assurance that he would only tell the truth in court and nothing but the truth.
He described his time as an MP in detail, focusing on legislative problems, city council issues, and other issues involving the grassroots and constituencies.
He explained that opposition MPs spend a lot of time in parliament because” this is really where the opposition MPs have to make our effect.”
He also explained why he decided to leave his legal practice to concentrate on his MP duties because it was difficult for him to “give my whole attention to the electorate and include a full-time job outside.”
Singh explained that he took on “more work simply by virtue of more quantities in legislature” after replacing Mr. Low Thia Khiang as WP secretary-general in 2018 and becoming Leader of the Opposition in 2020.
He claimed that he first met Ms. Khan when she volunteered with WP as a case poet in the spring of 2019.
” People usually come to WP meet-the-people lessons… and indicate their attention if they want to volunteer or join group activities”, he said.  ,
She joined my MPS classes and was hired as a case author.
A circumstance writer summarizes the problems residents encounter and sends the case to Singh so that he can communicate with the resident.  ,
Asked how she came to be selected as a candidate for Sengkang GRC in the 2020 General Election, Singh said:” But in the course of her labor, I observed her at meet-the-people classes. What was very apparent was that she had a very good sense of community concerns, she had patience with residents who had problems and difficulties, and that is what I consider to be good traits for anyone who wants to work in the public service as an MP.
He claimed he afterwards assessed her “general perspective and comfort with residents” and sent her to Sengkang.
The need is for a Malay candidate to run for office in Sengkang GRC, and we knew where to put our teams once the limit report was made, so one must assess and decide how many candidates one has, whether a participant would fit into that group, whether a applicant meets the social goals of the campaign strategy, and given that I have been monitoring Ms. Khan on the ground for several months and that she has potential, and she responded that she was interested in running.
He said the 2020 elections took place in a COVID-19 setting, so contact with another was “quite limited and sporadic”, with a lot of conversations taking place electronically through Zoom.
Singh claimed that a document of Ms. Khan’s speech from parliament on August 3, 2021 was being posted on a site used by WP MPs.
He claimed that the story was simply included in the speech pretty late the night before, so he only learned of it on August 3, 2021.
THE “SUBSTANTIATE” Post
” So I read the speech in the morning, as I would for all the speeches, if there were speeches I had n’t read yet, and I saw the reference she made ( of accompanying a 25-year-old survivor to make a police report )”, said Singh.  ,
” I saw that as anything that would have to be substantiated, I may believe someone to stand up in parliament and state- look, when did this happen… those questions, I expected had had come up, so I circled the story and put the word ‘ demonstrate ‘”.
He said there were “other things to be done” so he printed out a copy of the speech in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, circled the anecdote and added the word” substantiate” and informed an assistant to pass it to Ms Khan.
Before Ms. Khan delivered the speech in parliament, he had no conversation about the anecdote with her.
” When you wrote substantiate, what did you mean”? asked Mr Jumabhoy.
She would have to explain more of the details that she was highlighting in that anecdote, said Singh. ” The details here are scanty, and she would have to justify, or she could expect to be asked to justify this particular anecdote”.
Singh claimed that he was present in the parliament room when Ms. Khan delivered her speech on August 3, 2021. Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan responded to this by asking Ms. Khan for clarification regarding the alleged mishandling of the case involving a sexual victim, saying,” we take this very seriously.”
Minutes after, Singh sent Ms Khan a message telling her:” I had a feeling this would happen. In your draft speech, I put this emphasis on this point. We should provide the police with formal explanations on this subject.
When asked to explain his message, Singh claimed that he was suggesting that Minister Tan write to the police with the clarifications he needed.
He said,” She would just have to give them to the minister, and I did not think it would be difficult for her to provide.”
Ms Khan replied almost immediately, saying she thought she had edited it enough to “remove this possibility”. But Singh said there had not been any edits, to the best of his recollection.
Singh claimed to have met Ms. Khan in his office the same day after the exchange Ms. Khan and Minister Tan had had.
” I was informed by one of my legislative assistants that she was in the LO ( leader of the opposition ) office, and she was crying there”, said Singh.
” I did n’t quite understand what that was about, so I leave the chamber, go to my office, and essentially instruct Raeesah to just clarify, give the Minister of State the details he’s requesting, but she said she could n’t contact that person, and she was n’t sure whether she could contact that person”.
In a number of messages she exchanged with Ms. Khan, she claimed it was three years ago, in the early part of the year, and that she had met the victim at a bus stop close to Bedok Police Station, but the victim’s number no longer worked.
This so-called victim’s nickname was also provided by Ms. Khan.
Then, Ms. Khan sent a message to her that contained a draft clarification note that Yudhishthra Nathan’s assistant had written for her.
Singh responded by saying that the details “are too scanty” and that the assumption would be that” the episode was made up” was true.
Mr. Jumabhoy inquired as to why the information was” too scanty.”
According to Singh,” the draft clarification Yudhish provides does n’t really address the fact that she followed someone to the police station.”
The draft merely stated that this person’s experience was anecdotal and that” we should respect victims ‘ agency in terms of their desire to provide more details to the government or police,” he added.