SINGAPORE: In a surprise move in the ongoing prosecution of Workers ‘ Party ( WP ) leader Pritam Singh, Ms Loh Pei Ying - , past WP cadre participant and assistant to Ms Raeesah Khan ,- was exposed for lying in a test centred around lies.
Confident, composed and express in the morning when she was testifying for the trial about how the aftermath of Ms Khan’s individual lie had played out, Ms Loh broke under questioning by Singh’s solicitor, Mr Andre Jumabhoy.
She redacted a message that was intended to be presented to the Committee of Privileges ( COP) because it was from her friend and party member, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, who had suggested that” we should just lie about it some more,” according to a leak.
Nevertheless, she gave another cause for the correction that was not the truth.
On Day 4 of the prosecution against Singh, which has so far unearthed alleged lie upon exist, Ms Loh, who left the party in November 2022, was on the witness stand as a trial testimony.
Singh is bringing two counts of lying to the Committee of Privileges ( COP) regarding what he intended to do after learning that his then-MP Ms. Khan had lied in parliament.
Ms. Khan reportedly asked a murder victim about her clothing and alcohol consumption in parliament on August 3, 2021, in which she reportedly explained how she had accompanied her to a police station.
Merely in November of this year, she admitted to the rest, and a COP was set up to examine her actions. She claimed in her evidence that Singh had given her counsel, which she believed to be meant to encourage her to keep her lies for a while.
As a result of the COP, she was fined S$ 35, 000 and resigned from WP and as an MP, and Singh was charged with unusual crimes of lying in congress.
Broadly, Singh’s event so far is that he always told Ms Khan to keep her stay, but Ms Khan and Ms Loh, her near friend, had testified opposed to this.
THE LIE BY MS LOH
Mr. Jumabhoy questioned Ms. Loh about a file she had prepared to give to the COP just before the trial was about to conclude.
The group chat she had with Ms Khan and Mr. Nathan, both of whom were members of WP’s media group and other cadre members, was recorded in the document. Simply Ms Loh and Mr. Nathan, who were party leaders, were aware that the murder story was a lie at the time.
Ms. Loh claimed that she had redacted a specific concept because it involved a different MP.
” That’s a bare-faced lie, is n’t it”, said Mr Jumabhoy.
Mr Loh paused, dropped her head from side to side, and answered:” Positive”.
” In the COP, you submitted a document and deliberately edited it, did n’t you”? asked Mr Jumabhoy.  ,
Ms. Loh consistently attempted to clarify, but no response was given.
” Answer my question”, said Mr Jumabhoy. You submitted a report, and you purposefully hid this statement. And you kept it a secret because it was related to something else.
” I hid it, yes”, said Ms Loh. ” I hid it because I now understand why Mr. Nathan felt terrible about making the idea,” I said.
You omitted it because it was related to something else. That’s a lie”, said Mr Jumabhoy.
” Yes”, admitted Ms Loh.
” It’s evidently not about coming clear at this stage”, said the attorney. ” Mr Nathan is suggesting that- we should just stay about it some more, right”?
” That is his advice yes”, said Ms Loh.
And you felt comfortable enough to make a false claim about what he’s saying in fact in the most conventional setting that most of us will ever experience? asked Mr Jumabhoy.
Therefore, Ms. Loh asserted that she did not keep the information to herself, Mr. Nathan, or Ms. Khan.
The conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff member and Ms. Rahayu Mahzam who sat next to me and checked every message before redacting it on my phone, according to her, who said she was worried that he would be attacked for it because” we did n’t want him to be attacked for it.”
Before going home and creating the file containing the communications for the COP, Ms. Loh claimed to have spent three hours going through the WhatsApp messages with Ms. Rahayu and another member of the political employees.
Mr Jumabhoy therefore questioned if Ms Rahayu knew what she was redacting, and agreed to the correction.
” No, this redaction is mine, but my position is that she would have seen ( the message )”, said Ms Loh.
Ms Loh agreed that the correction was to conceal details, but refused to agree that it was to preserve the integrity of Mr Nathan, Ms Khan, or herself.
Mr. Nathan felt incredibly sorry for sending this information and saying it, which we had previously discussed. I did n’t want this to come to light, that would make him appear poorly, because he did eventually change his mind, and it did n’t really, materially materialise, this was n’t something that ( we ) acted on”, said Ms Loh.
On a communication she had sent earlier, Mr. Jumabhoy questioned Ms. Loh and suggested that Ms. Khan should obtain more anecdotes from survivors of sexual assault to refute that. They were already aware that a police research into Ms. Khan’s lie was good.
Mr. Jumabhoy inquired why Ms. Loh was telling her to “hide behind another story that is n’t sister.”
Mr Loh objected, saying she was never asking Ms Khan to “hide behind anything”, but instead was “brainstorming answers to the scenario”.
” And is the answer to the circumstance to impede an investigation? Is that your answer”? asked Mr Jumabhoy.
” No”, replied Ms Loh.
” Is the alternative to… monster the course of justice”? Mr Jumabhoy continued.
” No”, Ms Loh answered.
When allowed by the prosecutor to understand her answers, Ms Loh said:” We are friends. This ( chat ) is a private channel. I’m suggesting options… if she does n’t want to tell the truth, there’s a gray area to operate in that could be a little uncomfortable but could possibly work. She could avoid lying again, but still address the point she raised in parliament, which is that ( some ) sexual assault victims have unpleasant experiences in police investigations”.