SINGAPORE: In a shock turn in the ongoing trial of Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh, Ms Loh Pei Ying – former WP cadre member and assistant to Ms Raeesah Khan – was exposed for lying in a trial centred around untruths.
Confident, composed and articulate in the morning when she was testifying for the prosecution about how the aftermath of Ms Khan’s own lie had played out, Ms Loh broke under questioning by Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy.
It was revealed that she had redacted a message to be presented in a document to the Committee of Privileges (COP) because it was from party member and friend, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan. The message suggested that they should continue lying.
However, she gave another reason for the redaction that was not the truth.
Ms Loh, who left the party in November 2022, was on the stand as a prosecution witness on Day 4 of the trial against Singh, which has so far unearthed alleged lie upon lie.
Singh is contesting two charges of lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) about what he intended to do after he found out that his then-MP Ms Khan had lied in parliament.
Ms Khan gave a false anecdote on Aug 3, 2021 in parliament about how she had accompanied a rape victim to a police station, where the victim was allegedly asked about her dressing and alcohol consumption.
She confessed to the lie only in November 2021 and a COP was later convened to look into her conduct. In her testimony, she claimed Singh had given her advice which she took to mean she should maintain her lie for a certain period of time.
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 rare offences of lying in parliament.
Broadly, Singh’s case so far is that he never told Ms Khan to maintain her lie, but Ms Khan and Ms Loh, her close confidante, had testified contrary to this.
THE LIE BY MS LOH
Just before the trial wrapped up on Thursday evening, Mr Jumabhoy questioned Ms Loh about a document she had prepared to present to the COP.
The document contained messages from a group chat she shared with Ms Khan and Mr Nathan, who was a member of WP’s media team and fellow cadre member. Aside from party leaders, only Ms Loh and Mr Nathan knew about the fact that the rape story was a lie at that point.
Ms Loh had stated that she redacted a certain message because it was related to another MP.
“That’s a bare-faced lie, isn’t it,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
Ms Loh paused, dropped her head from side to side, and answered: “Sure.”
“In the COP, you submitted a document and deliberately edited it, didn’t you?” asked Mr Jumabhoy.
Ms Loh repeatedly tried asking to be allowed to clarify, but no permission was given.
“Answer my question,” said Mr Jumabhoy. “You submitted a document and deliberately hid this comment. And you hid it on the basis that it was about something else.”
“I hid it, yes,” said Ms Loh. “I hid it because at this point I understood Mr Nathan felt bad about having made the suggestion.”
“You hid it on the basis that it was about something else. That’s a lie,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
“Yes,” admitted Ms Loh.
“It’s clearly not about coming clean at this stage,” said the lawyer. “Mr Nathan is suggesting that – we should just lie about it some more, correct?”
“That is his suggestion yes,” said Ms Loh.
“And you felt confident enough in probably the most formal setting most of us will ever encounter to put forward a false version of what he’s actually saying?” asked Mr Jumabhoy.
Ms Loh then said she did not hide the message to preserve the integrity of Ms Khan, Mr Nathan or herself.
“I was worried these documents would become public and I didn’t want him to be attacked for it, but the entire conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff and Ms Rahayu Mahzam who sat beside me and verified every message before it was redacted on my phone, they agreed it should be redacted,” she said.
Ms Loh said she had spent three hours going through WhatsApp messages with Ms Rahayu and another parliamentary staff member, before Ms Loh went home and prepared the document containing the messages for the COP.
Mr Jumabhoy then questioned if Ms Rahayu knew what she was redacting, and agreed to the redaction.
“No, this redaction is mine, but my position is that she would have seen (the message),” said Ms Loh.
Ms Loh agreed that the redaction was to hide information, but refused to agree that it was to preserve the integrity of Mr Nathan, Ms Khan, or herself.
“Mr Nathan felt very guilty that he had made this message and he had said this, and we had discussed this before … I didn’t want this to come to light, that would make him appear poorly, because he did eventually change his mind, and it didn’t really, materially materialise, this wasn’t something that (we) acted on,” said Ms Loh.
Earlier, Mr Jumabhoy questioned Ms Loh on a message she had sent suggesting that Ms Khan gather more anecdotes from sexual assault survivors to present that instead. This was when they already knew a police investigation into Ms Khan’s lie was likely.
Mr Jumabhoy asked Ms Loh why she was telling Ms Khan to “hide behind another anecdote that isn’t hers”.
Ms Loh objected, saying she was not asking Ms Khan to “hide behind anything”, but instead was “brainstorming solutions to the scenario”.
“And is the solution to the scenario to obstruct an investigation? Is that your solution?” asked Mr Jumabhoy.
“No,” replied Ms Loh.
“Is the solution to … pervert the course of justice?” Mr Jumabhoy continued.
“No,” Ms Loh answered.
When allowed by the judge to clarify her answers, Ms Loh said: “We are friends. This (chat) is a private channel. I’m suggesting options … if she doesn’t want to tell the truth, there’s a grey 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.”
