THE MEETING ABOUT THE LIE
Mr Nathan then met with Singh and Ms Loh on Oct 12, 2021 where they discussed what to do about Ms Khan’s lie.
At this meeting, Mr Nathan said Singh told them that he had a feeling that the anecdote would come up in parliament again.
“He had conveyed to us that night, on Oct 12, that on Oct 3, he had paid a visit to Ms Khan’s house and that he had told Ms Khan or conveyed to Ms Khan that whether she decided to continue the lie or narrative, or whether she decided to tell the truth, that he would not judge her,” said Mr Nathan.
“Verbatim, ‘I would not judge you’, that was what he conveyed to Ms Loh and I,” he said.
Mr Nathan said he did not verbally express a reaction but thought it was “rather indecisive to have said that at that point in time”.
He said Singh did not explain when Ms Khan was supposed to decide between continuing the lie or telling the truth.
“But in terms of how I understand it, what he meant was that essentially if this comes up tomorrow (on Oct 4), you have a decision as to whether you want to tell the truth or stick to the lie,” said Mr Nathan.
He said he took this to mean that Singh was leaving it open to Ms Khan, that whichever option she chose, he would “have no problem with that”.
Mr Nathan testified that he asked Singh during this meeting why there had been a change in strategy – in that they wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth now.
“Mr Singh had conveyed to me that he was worried that the government may already have had evidence or that they would somehow have known that Ms Khan had lied in parliament, that the anecdote was untrue.
“My sense at that time was that he was very afraid of Minister Shanmugam and of the government and I remember him … conveying that if the party were to keep the lie the party would get bad karma for it,” said Mr Nathan.
When Mr Nathan asked Singh if he was prepared to field questions from journalists, Mr Singh “kind of waved his hand and said ‘that’s a simple matter, I could deal with it’.”
LOW THIA KHIANG’S VIEWS
Mr Nathan had also asked Singh if he had consulted his predecessor, former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang on the issue.
Asked why by Mr Sivakumar, Mr Nathan said he saw Mr Low as someone whose judgement he trusted very much.
“Personally I know him to be a principled man and seasoned politician, that is why I asked,” said Mr Nathan.
Singh had told him that Mr Low’s view was that Ms Khan should come clean “as soon as possible”.
“And he told me that it was Mr Low’s view that Ms Khan still had time until the next General Election to rebuild support from the ground,” Mr Nathan continued.
Mr Low, who stepped down as the party’s secretary-general in 2018, will be testifying as a prosecution witness in the trial.
Mr Nathan, Ms Loh and Singh then spoke about how Ms Khan’s work should look like in the future.
One of them mentioned that Ms Khan would not make speeches in parliament “anytime soon”, but instead focus on groundwork to rebuild support from her residents.
“I remember thinking ‘well that is a good idea’ and essentially I also remember expressing to Ms Loh and Mr Singh … I cited a positive example of (PAP MP) Ms Tin Pei Ling who, in my view, in one election appeared to be immature but by the next election appeared to be mature. I remember them broadly agreeing that Ms Khan could make a comeback,” Mr Nathan said.
Mr Nathan later helped draft Ms Khan’s statement to clarify the lie. He said preparations could not have been done in one day.
He said that party leaders were initially not sure if Ms Khan should mention the context of her sexual assault when coming clean.
“I still remember I told (Ms Khan) well, that sounds like political suicide to me, to have your MP go to parliament and say ‘hey everyone, I lied’, but don’t even explain how she ended up lying, without any context,” said Mr Nathan.
After Ms Khan clarified her lie in parliament on Nov 1, 2021, Mr Nathan said he and Ms Loh were “quite relieved”, but worried about the fallout for the party.
