He explained that the WP leaders did not make any inquiries about the sexual assault and “took her at her word”.
“Her state at that moment was very fragile, very emotional, and I think pursuing the subject was not something that was on my mind … because of her state of affairs,” he said.
He added that the public attention at the time was on Ms Khan not so much because of the anecdote or Mr Tan’s question, but the contents of her speech. He explained that he had been asked about it during his walkabouts that week.
At the end of that meeting, Singh said it was decided that Ms Khan would post a note on Facebook addressing some of the reservations that had been expressed by “some quarters in the Malay-Muslim community”.
However, “we did not come to a landing as to what she was to do about the anecdote”, Singh said.
As Ms Khan left his home, Singh said he reminded her to speak to her parents, and that “we will address the other matter later on”, referring to the lie.
On questioning by the judge, he explained that he told Ms Khan this while walking her to the gate of his home, and that nobody else was within earshot.
He said he did not tell Ms Khan to continue the narrative if she were pressed, or to take the lie to the grave. Ms Khan had testified that Singh had told her to do both things.
Singh explained that he was quite sure that the government would follow up on the issue of Ms Khan’s story.
When asked why, he said: “In view of what MOS Desmond said, he made it clear that they wanted to follow up on it, by saying it won’t be swept aside.”
“The other matter, of course, is – I know how the PAP (People’s Action Party) operates, and whenever there’s a chance to fix an opposition MP, or get tough with the opposition, they would jump at the chance.”
Singh said he did not make a specific decision at this meeting as to what was to be done about the lie, but shared that, in his mind, he knew that the matter would have to be clarified.
“But because of Ms Khan’s state, in my judgment, I determined it would be better for her to settle herself, and then we would deal with the matter when she was ready,” he said.
However, he said he did not convey to Ms Khan at the Aug 8, 2021, meeting that the false anecdote had to be clarified.
THE AUG 10, 2021, MEETING WITH LOH AND NATHAN
On Aug 10, 2021, Singh met with ex-WP cadres Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, Ms Khan’s confidantes and assistants within the party.
He shared for the first time in court the reason for this meeting – Ms Loh had sent emails from July that year “complaining” or filing official complaints about four WP members and volunteers.
Ms Loh felt that their online remarks were “unbecoming” and felt that the party ought to have some clear instructions on what members and volunteers could say online, said Singh.
He said Ms Loh sent a second email reiterating her complaint on Aug 2, 2021, and Singh then arranged to meet her.
On Aug 10, 2021, Singh said Ms Loh arrived first and shared with him details about victims of sexual assault “and how they have a tendency to lie”.
“I had known from my meeting … before with Ms Khan that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were already aware that Ms Khan had lied in parliament, and so I understood that this was a subject that concerned Ms Khan,” said Singh.
He said he did not discuss with Ms Loh the Aug 8, 2021, meeting with Ms Khan.
He said Ms Loh had not asked him whether the false anecdote would come up again, contrary to what Ms Loh had testified.
Singh said the first time he heard this suggestion, that Ms Loh had asked him whether the issue would come up again, was in the courtroom.
Singh also denied making a comment that Mr Nathan had attributed to him – that “some men in society, conservative religious men, wouldn’t like to have an MP who was raped”.
He said he did not say that, and that the first time he heard of this suggestion was when Mr Nathan testified about it in court.
WHAT HE WAS BUSY WITH AT THAT TIME
Singh explained that the period in question at the time was “in my reckoning probably the busiest period for us throughout this term, even to date”.
He said the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had been challenged to file a motion on the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) in July 2021.
Singh said this was “the most significant political issue” in Singapore at the time, with a lot of heat generated by conversations on the issue, and that WP found out via a parliamentary email that PSP would be filing a motion on it in late August 2021.
Even though it was a PSP motion, WP “is the largest opposition party in parliament, even though it’s still very small, and we had not put out an official position on CECA at that point”, said Singh.
“Because it was such a sensitive political issue, it was important for the WP to show leadership on the matter, and that issue took up a considerable period of time,” he said.
Then in September, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) was tabled in parliament for the first time, said Singh.
“This was a sister legislation for POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) – they both arose from the Select Committee for Deliberate Online Falsehoods that was established a few years earlier. The WP had objected to POFMA,” he said.
WP was concerned that similar objections would apply to FICA, and the Bill had to be looked at very carefully, said Singh.
“Again, at the material time, lots of public interest about it, you have articles in the papers, significant exchanges from people, concern about what sort of powers were going to be given to the government,” he said.
He explained that WP determined that it would be opposing the Bill, deciding to file amendments for the entire Bill.
On top of this, he was busy with party matters and town council matters.
“Like most Singaporeans, you have your issues at home. At that point, I think my daughter didn’t get her posting to her Primary 1 school so my wife and I, we were just looking for the second option for her,” he said.
While preparing for the FICA debate, Singh said he came across a parliamentary exchange about substantiating what is said in parliament and not leaving an unsubstantiated remark on the record. It then crossed his mind that he had not spoken to Ms Khan about the lie, and that the issue was still unresolved.
He then sent an email to all WP MPs on Oct 1, 2021, reminding them about the importance of being able to back up and defend what they said in parliament or risk being called up before a COP.
Singh confirmed that this email was directed at Ms Khan, and that it was “the start of this process in my mind to let her know this issue is still not settled”.
THE OCT 3, 2021, MEETING WITH MS KHAN
On Oct 3, 2021, Singh went to Ms Khan’s house with his wife.
“I wanted to speak to her to share with her my view that this was the first time she was going to be back in parliament since the anecdote was shared on Aug 3, and I wanted to share with her that, in my judgment, the matter may come up,” he said.
He said he did not know that Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam would make a ministerial statement on Oct 4, 2021, seeking answers from Ms Khan.
