You may have noticed I didn't comment much on the developments of Pritam's trial which started this week and it was mostly because much of the process is either irrelevant or repeats what we have already seen during COP hearings.
Now, I'm not going to bore you with details of testimonies which confirmed the same things that COP has already collected. But there were a few headline-grabbing moments, even if they have all been largely blown out of proportion, in the absence of truly ground-breaking stuff.
Some were confusing and ended up misleading many people, so let me take you through everything you should know now:
1. Aggressive defence
From the get go Pritam's attorney, Andre Jumabhoy, appears to have taken a combative stance, likely understanding that the evidence, as it has been presented to COP, is leaning against his client.
Raeesah produced a message she sent following the August meeting, during which she allegedly was told to "take it to the grave" and has two other witnesses, her former aides, corroborating her version of events.
There is another thread of messages between the three of them discussing Pritam's claims about his October meeting with Raeesah, during which he reportedly told her to do what she decides, which he later admitted to her other two assistants in a later meeting that month.
In the exchange they express their disbelief that he would push the guilt on Raeesah when he didn't instruct her to come clean:
All that Pritam has in response is his own word and, at most, support from other leaders of the party, none of which counts for much given that they would have direct incentive to save themselves and their leader.
It seems then that the defence strategy is attack – that is, attempting to portray prosecution's witnesses as untrustworthy by trying to prove they may have lied about other things or finding contradictions in what they said.
The primary target was Raeesah herself, that Mr Jumabhoy petitioned the court to impeach, presenting her as a serial, habitual liar whose word cannot be trusted.
We are still waiting for the decision on that, although given the reported responses of the judge in the course of the hearing it seems unlikely, in no small part because Pritam's defender may have crossed the line on intensity and aggression in his attack on Raeesah, ultimately looking more desperate than deliberate.
2. Rookie mistake of Pritam's lawyer
In fact, at one point Mr Jumabhoy appears to have gotten carried away a little bit, reportedly trying to claim, while cross-examining Raeesah, that the Aug. 8 Whatsapp message to her aides was never sent – before being reminded by the judge that it was already found in Mr Nathan's phone as well.
This is the crucial piece of evidence, as it was written by Raeesah following the meeting with the leaders, during which they reportedly told her to take the lie to the grave.
That Pritam's defence would try to have it dismissed is understandable, but why in the world would the attorney go so far as to try to convince everybody it was never sent when it's already a fact that it was?
For the sake of accuracy, here's the summary of the court events from the Straits Times:
It appears that the Aug 8, 2021, message was never sent, given the lack of a reaction from Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, says Mr Andre Jumabhoy.
"The judge interjects, saying Mr Jumabhoy had previously pointed out that the message had been in Mr Nathan’s phone.
“Well, they didn’t react to it,” replies the lawyer.
The judge says there are many possible reasons why the cadres did not react. “We can leave it at that,” he says."
By trying too hard he's not winning any favours with the judge, especially as there are other witnesses whose accounts he has to challenge, with the next one being Loh Pei Ying, former assistant to Raeesah Khan.
3. Loh Pei Ying admits to one lie
While Loh Pey Ying has stood by her testimonies and corroborated Raeesah's version about Pritam giving her free rein to do what she felt was better during October sitting, much of media attention was focused on her admission to the lie she told about redacting one of the message ahead of COP hearings.
This episode has turned out to be the most confusing for the public, as it appears to – surprisingly – involve a PAP MP Rahayu Mahzam, who was a member of the Committee and oversaw redaction of documents, including Whatsapp messages, presented to it.
Under questioning by Pritam's attorney, Loh Pey Ying admitted that she lied about the reasons for the redaction of her colleague's, Nathan's, message which read: "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.".
While this message was about Raeesah, LPY claimed at the time it was about another, unrelated MP, and on this basis had the message struck out.
She explained that she did it to protect him from the potential backlash once the message was published and because it, ultimately, had no impact on other events.
Now, testifying in court, she admitted to lying to COP.
4. Role of Rahayu Mahzam
There appears to be some confusion about the role of the PAP MP named in the testimony as the person redacting the messages, seeing her as complicit in tampering with evidence (see what Donald Low got himself into on this basis).
Let's start with the basics: all information is routinely redacted before being submitted as evidence in court or, in this case, to COP.
There are two reasons: A. some of it is confidential and B. some of it is irrelevant.
The court is interested only in e.g. the messages you exchanged with someone that are material to the case, not your gossip, memes or raunchy pics. For that purpose a redaction is made prior to submission. This process is usually done with a lawyer to ensure what is and isn't relevant and that you're not withholding important information.
On behalf of COP that person appears to have been Rahayu Mahzam.
In the process Loh Pei Ying would suggest what to redact and the reasons for it, before getting approval. She now admitted in court that she lied about one of the messages, to have it removed, as explained above.
If anything, then, Rahayu Mahzam was the target and victim of that lie, not a participant.
5. Paranoia in the Workers' Party
One interesting tidbit from Yudhishthra Nathan's, another WP cadre, testimony was his description of the state of fear in the party following October 3, when Raeesah lied again when pressed by minister Shanmugam for details:
Yudhishthra Nathan says texts deleted soon after they were sent on Oct 4, ‘general sense of fear’ about external parties reading messages
Mr Nathan says that there was “concern that some external force or party would be able to read these messages if, for example, Raeesah Khan’s phone had been hacked… at that point in time, that was such a concern”.
He elaborates further on the concerns about the messages being read, saying there was a “general sense of fear”. He says: “My impression was that this was a fear that was shared in other quarters of the party as well.”
He speaks of how when they went to Pritam Singh’s house, they had to keep their phones switched off and in a drawer far away from where they were seated.
They also had to keep their phones outside the office when they met the disciplinary panel.
“I’m not saying the fear of our phones being hacked, or an MP’s phone being hacked was the only reason why these measures were taken, but it was my impression that it was one of the fears,” he says.
What's interesting about it is that it shows that the party was quite paranoid about the truth getting out.
Now, it's understandable from a political perspective, of course, but it also suggests that there was lots of planning about handling the affair, around the time when the police started demanding information from Raeesah.
It doesn't exactly suggest an honest conduct when all members are instructed to switch their phones off and put them away far from the meeting location.
All in all, the first week has gone about as you could have expected: Pritam's defence tried to undermine the credibility of every witness, painting them as people prone to making things up and/or conspiring together.
Meanwhile, the witnesses largely repeated what they've already said before, perhaps with some minor adjustments owing to differences in questions that they received compared to those during COP.
Next week will see further cross-examination of Yudhishthra Nathan by Pritam's defence as well Low Thia Khiang standing to testify, neither of which is expected to bring a major breakthrough.
In reality, the trial itself has never been likely to produce new discoveries. Its conclusion will rest on the interpretation of the evidence most of us already well know, by the letter of the law.
COP, after all, was really just a trial by peers in a political context. This one is about a crime which has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Featured image: CNA/Wallace Woon
