Judge disallows disclosure of unredacted messages from ex-WP cadre: key points on day 8 of Pritam Singh’s trial

SINGAPORE – A request by Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh’s lawyer to obtain a full set of message logs from prosecution witness Yudhishthra Nathan was rejected by the judge when the trial resumed on Oct 23.

Deputy Chief District Judge Luke Tan said he saw no legal basis for disclosing Mr Nathan’s unredacted communications to the Committee of Privileges (COP) to the defense. The messages do not meet the requirements for disclosure according to case law.

Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy had requested both the unredacted and redacted versions of Mr Nathan’s message logs from the COP earlier this week, arguing that they went directly to whether the testimonies of Mr Nathan and his fellow WP cadre Loh Pei Ying, who both Ms Khan is credible in her duties as an MP.

The judge said that after careful examination of the documents, he was satisfied that none of the messages were relevant to Singh’s guilt or innocence. Because the redactions were made in view of the specific investigation by the COP, the scope and basis of the redactions were also not relevant to the current criminal proceedings.

Judge Tan also noted that a list of unredacted messages from Mr Nathan, as well as the full list of redacted and unredacted messages from Ms Loh Pei Ying, have already been admitted as evidence for the trial.

While there is “no doubt” that Mr Nathan’s credibility – like the credibility of all witnesses – is an issue, the messages already part of the trial evidence can and have been used to gauge this, he added. he added.

Singh is contesting two charges over his alleged lies to the COP, which met in November 2021 to investigate former Sengkang WP MP Raeesah Khan’s falsehood in Parliament.

Ms Khan had on August 3, 2021, told Parliament how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on October 4 of the same year, before admitting her lie on November 1, 2021.

Former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang took the stand in the afternoon after the defense concluded cross-examination of Mr Nathan. Here are the key points from Mr Nathan’s evidence on October 23:

1. WP executives did not tell the COP about a ‘significant’ discussion with Singh

Mr Nathan was told why neither he nor Ms Loh had told the COP what they had subsequently told the police, namely that Singh had told them at a meeting on October 12, 2021 that the WP had changed its strategy about Ms Khan’s untruth was changing.

Mr Nathan had previously stated that the head of the WP had told him at that meeting that the party now wanted Ms Khan to be honest, because the government may already have known that Ms Khan’s anecdote was untrue, and it was “bad karma’ would be to maintain the anecdote. to the lie.

Mr Jumabhoy questions why Mr Nathan did not tell the COP about this, as the former WP cadre agreed that this change in strategy was significant.

The lawyer noted that Minister of Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong had specifically asked him during the COP whether anything significant had happened during that October 12 meeting, and that he had not told the committee.

Mr Nathan replied that it was a very long meeting and that this was not something he was thinking about when he stood before the COP.

Mr Jumbahoy then told Mr Nathan that he had not said this at the COP because this conversation with Singh had not taken place, and that he had made it up. Mr Nathan disagreed.

2. Nathan and Loh discussed the events between the COP hearings and the police investigation

Under cross-examination, Mr Nathan said he met Ms Loh sometime between the COP hearings in late 2021 and the police investigation in early 2022 to discuss the case, although he could not recall whether they spoke about what took place on October 12. 2021, meeting.

Asked whether he and Ms Loh had tried to “refresh each other’s memories”, Mr Nathan said they had had conversations about what happened but disagreed with the defence’s characterization.

However, when asked if it was possible for them to describe to each other what should be in their statements to the police, Mr Nathan said: “No. I wouldn’t put it that way.”

He later agreed that part of these conversations consisted of what they told the police, but he disagreed when Mr Jumabhoy said that he or Ms Loh had come up with “a little tidbit about Pritam Singh who admitted that there had been a change in party strategy.”

Mr Nathan said he could not recall whether he knew whether police were investigating the matter when he spoke to Ms Loh.

This is because he could not remember whether they had spoken before or after Parliament debated the COP report on February 15, 2022. During that hearing, the House had voted to refer Singh to the prosecutor for further investigation.

3. ‘Pritam Singh would try to use that information against him’

The court heard that Mr Nathan met Ms Loh twice for dinner: once on November 29, 2021, and once on December 1, 2021, which was joined by Ms Khan. Mr Mike Lim, then a legislative assistant to Ms Khan, was also at both meetings.

Asked whether on these occasions they discussed the upcoming COP hearings, Mr Nathan said: “Possibly.”

Mr Nathan said that at that time, Ms Khan was somewhat afraid to face the COP and tell the truth that the WP leaders had been telling her to maintain her lie since August 2021.

Mr Nathan said that while they were together on December 1, Mr Lim had gone outside for a telephone conversation with Singh.

Before Mr Lim answered, Ms Loh told him to tell Singh that she had been called to the COP and that she was not going to lie to save the party, Mr Nathan said.

Mr Nathan said he remembered this well as Ms Loh had been quite emotional and was “trying to give (Singh) another chance to tell the public what had really happened”.

Singh had responded that Ms Loh should go to the police and tell the truth, a response Mr Nathan said surprised him.

Mr Jumabhoy then referred to a December 22, 2021 message in their group chat, in which Ms Loh had asked Mr Lim to be careful when speaking to the WP chief. The message also said, “Please don’t tell him we met before the police, okay? One really cannot say this.”

Mr Nathan had added at this point in the chat: “Just to protect yourself.”

When asked what his words meant, Mr Nathan said: “Just in case (Singh) tried to use that information against him.”

Mr Jumabhoy then told Mr Nathan that he and Ms Loh had reconciled the facts of the COP to ensure that their two stories matched, and that they had discussed with each other what messages to include and what to had to edit in their submissions to the committee. Mr Nathan and Ms Loh also continued to lie to police together, the lawyer claimed.

Mr. Nathan disagrees with all these statements.