SINGAPORE: On Wednesday ( Oct 16 ), the third day of Workers ‘ Party ( WP ) chief Pritam Singh’s trial for lying to parliament, his lawyer challenged former party member Raeesah Khan, suggesting that she did not require Singh’s directive to tell the truth.
Singh’s attorney, Andre Jumabhoy, applied to oust Ms Khan , towards the end of the reading on Tuesday, pointing out “material variations” between Ms Khan’s police speech on May 12, 2022, and her testimony in court on Monday.  ,
On Wednesday, Mr. Jumabhoy questioned Ms. Khan about these disagreements in jury.  ,
The content of dispute is related to an email Singh sent to all WP members of parliament who are currently sitting on October 1, 2021, regarding political process.  ,
Singh had emphasized in the email that it is crucial to defend and support what someone says in parliament, or they could face hearing before a Committee of Privileges ( COP).  ,
Ms. Khan claimed in her court testimony that she and Singh had never spoken about this message at a conference on October 3, 2021, one day before the parliament session on October 4, 2021.  ,
According to Ms Khan, Singh had said:” I do n’t think the issue will come up”. But if the problem did come up, Singh had said he would no” assess me for continuing with the narrative”, she added.
Ms. Khan claimed in her authorities statement that Singh referenced the political process message and that “you know, these individuals may want to bring it up again,” referring to her rest.
When questioned about the difference between the two sentences, Ms. Khan agreed. But she clarified:” To me it’s saying the same thing in various way”.  ,
Mr. Jumabhoy then suggested to Ms. Khan that Singh had made a critical comment in his message.  ,
” On the other hand he’s then telling you there’s no judgment to maintain the tale. That’s essentially absurd”, said Mr Jumabhoy.
” So absurd, in fact, that it did n’t happen”.
Mr Khan disagreed with this, maintaining that Singh had told her to” maintain the narrative”.  ,
But Mr Jumabhoy argued:” If he’d said two contradictory things- on the one hand showed you ( the ) email ( and ) talked about serious consequence and on the other hand tell you there’s no judgement… Any reasonable person would’ve said’ what on earth are you talking about?'”
Appearing incredulous, Ms Khan replied:” Any reasonable person would question why he did n’t ask for more preparation then if he wanted me to come out you tell the truth”.
After Mr Singh had told her to maintain the tale, and that he would not judge her, he had “left it at that”, Ms Khan said.  ,
Singh, 48, is contesting two charges under the Parliament ( Privileges, Immunities and Powers ) Act. In connection with a lie that Ms Khan had initially told parliament on August 3, 2021, he is accused of telling two falsehoods to a Committee of Privileges on December 10 and December 15.  ,
A police commander reportedly made remarks about the person’s clothes and alcohol consumption while Ms. Khan lied about accompanying a murder victim to a police station.