[LIVE AS WE GO] Pritam Singh goes on trial for charges of lying to Parliament

[meridian]

Fast indeed. It hit the fan and very fast tio blown on the face liao.

Maybe pap enjoying this?

 

[muji4832]

Up till now I really cannot tell if the witnesses belong to the defense or prosecution side.

Even the prosecution also machiam look like defending side.

Very confusing.

 

[zuppeur]

donald low better apologise and retract the accusations before it too late

 

[Kiwi8]

Because the evidence provided by the 3 musketeers directly implicates PS, if PS at any point in time actually actively encouraged RK to lie to the Parliament.....

That's why I said that the AG position doesn't hold water.

Defence spent time questioning the testimony of the witnesses because now it really appears a possibility that they were giving false evidence to the COP and that is very relevant to whether Pritam would or would not be pronounced guilty.

 

[fryderyk]

i feel like ending court session playing

我要為我活下去 也代你活下去 捱極也未曾累
忘掉我有沒有在陶醉 若有未來依然要去追
生命太短 明日無限遠
始終都不比永遠這樣遠
不理會世上長路太多 終點太少
木馬也要去繼續轉圈
明明我已昨夜無間踏盡面前路
夢想中的彼岸為何還未到
明明我已奮力無間 天天上路
我不死也為活得好
有沒有終點 誰能知道
在這塵世的無間道

 

[muji4832]

Yup, his statement abit over liao, the most only can say she stupid / lazy / blur or negligent.

donald low better apologise and retract the accusations before it too late

 

[charleslee1989]

I thought the crux of the issue is 'when' did he want this.

After he had supposedly told her to 'take it to the grave', ... and then have second thoughts as 'he was worried that the Government might already have evidence, or would somehow know that Ms Khan had lied in Parliament and that the anecdote was untrue'?

Timing is everything.

2 scenarios for you here :

Scenario 1: The prosecution witnesses' statements are unreliable. This means, this case becomes a " he say, she say" without any evidence like video to corroborate which any Judge should throw this case out. This would also mean the original COP has grossly misjudged the statements by painting the 3 musketeers as honest which will in turn question the motive of the COP, the judgment of the members itself.


Scenario 2: The prosecution witnesses' statements are reliable. It has also been revealed by the prosecution witness themselves in the court that PS didn't explicitly agree to lying to the parliament at any point in time. Bro, I dunno if you have followed everything but the prosecution witnesses have stated clearly it was RK who first told the WP's leadership about the ," taking it to the grave" idea and the WP leadership didn't agree to that explicitly.


So bro, choose your poison.

 

[Happy7]

donald low better apologise and retract the accusations before it too late

Donald is a professor, you think he will lose the defamation case? Judge is fair and will know he is only refering to the news report.

 

[bohemian-indie]

pang gang came later. She should react after reading today's updates leh..

Probably today is OT day liao, no more TGIF

 

[charleslee1989]

he got to check with PM and SM first.

Of course lah....


The SM and Lucien are long-time associates leh.....

Eh she's alr mos

Which is even more jialat now for her and her party....The ruling party promoting someone who went off earlier than expected in her work to become a MOS???

That's why I said that the AG position doesn't hold water.

Defence spent time questioning the testimony of the witnesses because now it really appears a possibility that they were giving false evidence to the COP and that is very relevant to whether Pritam would or would not be pronounced guilty.

Which is just a sai show all round...

 

[havetheveryfun]

That's why I said that the AG position doesn't hold water.

Defence spent time questioning the testimony of the witnesses because now it really appears a possibility that they were giving false evidence to the COP and that is very relevant to whether Pritam would or would not be pronounced guilty.

the AG afraid more stuff kena dig out so of cos just try to stop it

 

[Eyelust]

Yes, you're right. Yudhishthra mentioned he needed to provide reasons for each redacted message, and ideally, the redactions should have been approved by the committee.

However, he admitted that the final redactions he made in his car were not approved by anyone.

This creates a gap in the process, where some redactions happened without proper oversight, even though initially there was an attempt to follow procedure.

The key issue is that without formal approval for all redactions, the integrity of the evidence submitted is called into question.

But the redacted line in contention, lpy said she deleted in front of cop mp

 

[charleslee1989]

But the redacted line in contention, lpy said she deleted in front of cop mp

So both witnesses' statements slap each other?

 

[tuxguy]

Work life balance more important

imagine you were her, you will also sian, kena arrow do this type of sia gang

and then you will think, knn, PS sure die one lah, I just go home relax

 

[charleslee1989]

imagine you were her, you will also sian, kena arrow do this type of sia gang

and then you will think, knn, PS sure die one lah, I just go home relax

End up the supposed " Honest" witnesses that the COP declared all fumbling over themselves....

 

[CCCustom]

I’m calling Discharge Not Amounting To Acquittal.

At this point declaring Pritam is guilty will cost the PAP big time for the next GE. But they die die won’t concede, so this will be the most likely play.

 

[vegaspace]

Disciplinary panel seemed like a ‘witch hunt’ to kick Raeesah out of the party: Yudhishthra Nathan

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy reads out a text exchange between Mr Yudhishthra Nathan and Ms Raeesah Khan on Nov 13, 2021.

Message from Ms Khan: “Hey guys, during the disciplinary panel meeting, Pritam Singh mentioned that if I don't have the support of immediate teammates, there is no point in me continuing.”

Mr Nathan: “So, by saying this? What does Pritam Singh want you to do, resign?”

Ms Khan: “I think he does.”

Mr Nathan: “And he gets off scot-free? Because right now people don't know that he knew it was a lie when you told that to (Law Minister) Shanmugan (on Oct 4, 2021)?”

DPP Ramasamy asks Mr Nathan to explain the context of the exchange.

Singh had told Ms Khan that she had to obtain the support of her colleagues in Sengkang, says Mr Nathan, who adds that he felt Singh’s instruction was “problematic”.

“I didn't understand why she needed to obtain the support of her Sengkang colleagues regarding a mistake she made in Parliament.”

He adds that Ms Khan, Ms Loh Pei Ying and himself had wondered whether the formation of the disciplinary panel was a “witch hunt” or a serious investigation that “(he) was sure the party leaders wanted it to look like”.

Mr Nathan adds that asking Ms Khan to get the support of her teammates “seemed like an excuse to kick her out of the party”.

https://www.straitstimes.com/live-singapore-wp-pritam-singh-trial

 

[Okmolly]

Worker party GG liao end of saga. PS also gg.

 

[vegaspace]

Yudhishthra Nathan says drafting of Raeesah’s personal statement couldn’t have been done in 1 day

Mr Yudhishthra Nathan says that while the initial draft of the personal statement delivered on Nov 1 in Parliament was by Ms Raeesah Khan herself, it saw inputs from him, Ms Loh Pei Ying and a party volunteer called Evelyn, a public relations expert who was then part of the media team.

He adds that there were several iterations of the drafts.

Ms Khan was also present when Mr Nathan, Ms Loh and Ms Evelyn met Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim to discuss the personal statement at the Workers’ Party headquarters. They brought Ms Evelyn up to speed, and thereafter had a general conversation about the personal statement and the drafts, says Mr Nathan.

Mr Nathan says he might have met Ms Khan at least two or three times in relation to the drafts, and that the only other people who might have seen the drafts were Ms Khan’s parents or members of the party’s central executive committee.

While he cannot recall when the personal statement was finalised, he says it must have been close to the time before she sent it to the Speaker of Parliament, as his understanding is that if an MP wants to make a personal explanation, the person has to send a copy of what he wants to say beforehand.

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks how long Mr Nathan was involved in the process, from the first draft of the personal statement by Ms Khan to the time it was finalised.

Mr Nathan estimates it took about half a month.

“Could all of this preparation be done in one day?” the DPP asks.

Mr Nathan says: “No, not in my view.”

https://www.straitstimes.com/live-singapore-wp-pritam-singh-trial

 

[testart]

But the redacted line in contention, lpy said she deleted in front of cop mp

Meaning YN wasn’t solely responsible for the redaction of that message? So now question is whether everyone followed the correct process.