Ex-WP cadre admits wanting Raeesah Khan to lie more as party lacked 'suitable plan' for coming clean
Under cross-examination by the defence, former Workers' Party cadre Yudhishthra Nathan said he could not recall whether he had suggested that Ms Khan maintain her lie in a meeting with WP chief Pritam Singh.
by Davina Tham · CNA · JoinSINGAPORE: A former Workers’ Party (WP) cadre who is testifying against WP chief Pritam Singh on Monday (Oct 21) admitted to wanting Ms Raeesah Khan to lie more as the party did not have a “suitable plan” for coming clean.
Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, who was in the party for six years before leaving in 2022, is the prosecution’s third witness in Singh’s trial.
Singh is accused of lying twice before the Committee of Privileges (COP) about what he wanted Ms Khan, a former WP Member of Parliament, to do regarding a lie she told in parliament.
Ms Khan told parliament on Aug 3, 2021, about accompanying a rape survivor to a police station, where the woman was questioned by police about her attire and the fact that she had been drinking.
At a meeting that Ms Khan had with Singh and WP chair Sylvia Lim on Oct 12, 2021, the party leaders told her to tell the truth, and she agreed to do so.
Ms Khan later admitted in parliament on Nov 1, 2021, that her anecdote about the rape survivor was a lie, and that she herself was a survivor of sexual assault.
NATHAN WANTED KHAN TO "ACTIVELY MAINTAIN THE LIE"
Under cross-examination by Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, Mr Nathan agreed that after Ms Khan’s meeting on Oct 12, 2021, he was concerned that the WP had not come up with a “suitable plan” for her to come clean.
“And in the absence of a suitable plan, was your position that Ms Khan should lie some more?” Mr Jumabhoy asked.
When Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan sought clarification, the lawyer specified that he meant “actively” telling more lies, and not just not telling the truth.
“At that very specific point in time, because of the circumstances that we had been in, I would say yes. At that very specific point in time,” Mr Nathan admitted.
He said this was because of “the circumstances, the party leaders’ directions for months” and “the lack of a proper plan” when Ms Khan called him after the meeting on Oct 12, 2021.
“So at that point, I vacillated, yes,” he said.
Questioned by Mr Jumabhoy whether this meant his position was for “actively lying some more”, Mr Nathan said it was for “actively maintaining the lie” in Ms Khan’s false anecdote.
Judge Tan then asked what Mr Nathan envisaged Ms Khan doing in order to “actively maintain the lie”.
“At that point in time, I had raised a suggestion for her to clarify the age of this sexual assault victim that she had met in the women’s support group. So ‘active’ in the sense that she might go and clarify the age. But not come out and say she lied about having followed the victim to the police station,” Mr Nathan said.
As police were then investigating Ms Khan’s claim, Judge Tan asked Mr Nathan if he envisaged Ms Khan telling these new details about the purported rape survivor’s age to the police.
“I don’t recall if my comment was in relation to the police investigation in particular or just in general. Like, for example, if she were to be asked about it again,” he said.
Mr Nathan said there had been prior conversations with Ms Khan where there was “some doubt” about the age of the woman involved in her false anecdote, but that he could not recall when these conversations were.
This prompted Mr Jumabhoy to ask: “Are you coming up with this now because you don’t want to be the author of the suggestion?” Mr Nathan disagreed.
The lawyer later referred to a message Mr Nathan had sent in a chat group with Ms Khan and Ms Loh on Oct 12, 2021, stating: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts (about) her age accurate.”
Mr Nathan had redacted this message in his evidence tendered to the COP.
Under questioning, Mr Nathan said he could not recall if he had actually proposed this plan at a meeting he and fellow WP cadre Loh Peiying had with Singh later that day on Oct 12, 2021.
He agreed that he was not confident WP leaders would be able to deal with the issue “in a way that would minimise damage to the party at the point in time”.
He also said that the party did not have a “suitable plan” then for Ms Khan to come clean, as the plan was “for Ms Khan to come clean but not mention her sexual assault”.
Last week, in Ms Loh’s testimony, she acknowledged under questioning that Mr Nathan had suggested at the meeting with Singh to continue the lie.
She also agreed that Singh had responded by saying: “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie.”
When Mr Jumabhoy asked Mr Nathan why he could not recall whether he made the suggestion to Singh, he said: “It’s not that I can’t recall but I’m pretty sure I didn’t ask him to.”
The lawyer then asked him if he did recall what he had said at the Oct 12, 2021, meeting.
Mr Nathan apologised: “Sorry, I misspoke.”
“You misspoke on two days now,” Mr Jumabhoy said, referring to Mr Nathan’s evidence on his first day on the stand when he also did not recall whether he had made the suggestion to Mr Singh.
After a pause, Mr Nathan said: “I’d like to apologise to the court. Having reflected, I can’t recall. Because we spoke about many things that day. And there are things I do recall, but I don’t recall having put this suggestion to Mr Singh.”
“This feels like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Is that your final answer?” Mr Jumabhoy asked, referring to the television game show.
“Yes,” Mr Nathan said.
He added that he only felt the WP had a “proper plan” when he found that Singh would ensure that Ms Khan mentioned her own sexual assault when coming clean about her lie.
SINGH CALLED THE SHOTS ON SERIOUS ISSUES: NATHAN
Mr Nathan was also questioned about why he did not raise any alternative even though he was surprised by the course of action Singh and party leaders allegedly wanted Ms Khan to take on her lie.
On Aug 7, 2021, Mr Nathan and Ms Loh had a Zoom meeting with Ms Khan where told them about her lie and that she was a survivor of sexual assault.
Mr Nathan said they did not tell Ms Khan to tell the truth because their approach was “to wait and see what the party leaders would decide on this very serious issue”.
On Aug 8, 2021, Ms Khan sent Mr Nathan and Ms Loh a WhatsApp message saying that WP leaders “agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave”.
Mr Nathan explained why he did not reply to this message at the time: “I was initially surprised that the leaders wanted her to take it to the grave, but after a while I accepted it.”
He said that party leaders “would have the authority to come up with whatever solution they wanted to”, and that he did not bring up further investigation “because (he) understood that the party leaders had taken a position”.
At an Aug 10, 2021, meeting with Singh and Ms Loh, Mr Nathan also agreed that Singh did not tell them what was to be done about Ms Khan’s lie, and that he did not question Singh about the position.
He explained why: “Because Mr Singh is party leader. Ms Khan is my MP. And first of all, I trusted what she had said in the message. And secondly, I think if Mr Singh had wanted action to be taken, he probably would have conveyed that to Ms Loh and I at some point.”
He said that Singh being party leader meant that “on such a serious issue as this, he would be the one calling the shots”.
When Mr Jumabhoy asked whether Mr Nathan had questioned Singh on “serious issues” before, he agreed. In 2019, Mr Nathan had criticised a speech that Singh gave on LGBTQ issues to a university.
Mr Nathan agreed that on LGBTQ issues, Singh being the party leader was not a bar for him to challenge what the secretary-general was saying.
“I would say I’m capable (of articulating disagreement), but I don’t necessarily see a need to do it all the time. It’s a case-by-case basis kind of thing,” he said.
Asked again whether he did not say anything about the decision Ms Khan said the party leaders had taken on her lie, Mr Nathan said he took Singh’s directions on party issues “most of the time” when they worked together.
"OFFENSIVE" COMMENT BY SINGH WAS NOT SURPRISING: NATHAN
During questioning about the Aug 10, 2021, meeting with Singh and Ms Loh, Mr Nathan also gave more detail on a contentious remark he said he heard the WP chief utter.
Mr Nathan had previously told the court that he was late to this meeting and the other two were already discussing Ms Khan’s lie and her sexual assault.
“I remember (Singh) saying that, basically, he was talking to Ms Loh and I and at some point, he said, you know, some men in society, conservative religious men, wouldn’t like to have an MP who was raped,” Mr Nathan said on Monday.
Asked if these were Singh’s exact words, he said: “I would say mostly? I would say it’s possibly a slight rephrasing but essentially that’s what he said … the words I said were the words he used.”
When Mr Jumabhoy asked Mr Nathan if he had found this remark offensive, Mr Nathan agreed but said he did not verbally react to it.
“Frankly, it wasn’t surprising that Mr Singh said that,” he said. “Was it not?” Mr Jumabhoy questioned. “No,” Mr Nathan said.
Former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang also appeared at the State Courts at around 1pm on Monday. He is expected to testify next, after Mr Nathan.
Mr Jumabhoy later accused Mr Nathan of making up what Singh had said, pointing to the account of the Aug 10, 2021, meeting that Mr Nathan gave to the COP, where he did not recount this offensive comment.
“And the reason it’s not there is because he didn’t say it, correct?” Mr Jumabhoy asked. Mr Nathan disagreed. “You’re just making it up now,” the lawyer said. Mr Nathan disagreed again.
The defence’s cross-examination of Mr Nathan continues on Monday afternoon, after which he will be re-examined by the prosecution.
Sign up for our newsletters
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app