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

[reno77]

Actually the redactions can be used to prove the lack of credibility of the 3 pap IB. Instead judge dismissed that idea from defense

How to defend if can't see the evidence ?

 

[Senna Wales]

Actually the redactions can be used to prove the lack of credibility of the 3 pap IB. Instead judge dismissed that idea from defense

The credibility is bad enough that the redacted messages can't make it worse.

I think what happened is that the redacted messages are just more of the same.

But of course, the question is if it's more of the same, why not just show it anyway. Then everyone can be convinced that it's not relevant.

And much more importantly is what was straight up deleted rather than redacted, and they said that there are more deleted messages than visible ones.

 

[xdivider]

Shan is LKY’s most loyal guy. Almost to extremist level.

not really, he defected to lhl when he see that side is strong. lwl was not really toking about him in good terms.......

right now he is behaving as if he is ah gong for law matters......

 

[DicDok]

Look more fit than Tan Chuan Jin, look like robocop.

 

[Mancunian2]

I don't think that the rejection is a big deal. The redacted text could really be neutral.

Defence has already set out that Nathan is capable of taking actions to save his own skin, including lying to the COP.

the crux lies in the reason for rejecting :

"While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue, as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan."

if the purpose of going through the redacted parts is to demonstrate that the witnesses are not credible,
there is no need to go there since the credibility of all witnesses is already in doubt

Also, I think the judge is wise to avoid treading into the muddy area of COP professionalism and integrity.

 

[rizhal]

How about the deleted msg ? Can get them look like they might have deleted msg of Convo 1 to 1 also. Instead of group msg

1 to 1 chat should have even more skeletons.

 

[charleslee1989]

What does it mean ? Can kindly explain

VAR say no serious foul play, play carries on.

 

[GRAVESEED]

That's why I say liao, judge reject cause scared COP tio taiji in terms of professionalism or integrity

Really should have just shown it to stop any sort of speculations

 

[mryang]

1 to 1 chat should have even more skeletons.

Confirm

 

[powerrr]

Actually the redactions can be used to prove the lack of credibility of the 3 pap IB. Instead judge dismissed that idea from defense

Judge already said the below about the 3 witnesses:

“While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue, as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan.”

 

[rizhal]

the crux lies in the reason for rejecting :

"While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue, as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan."

if the purpose of going through the redacted parts is to demonstrate that the witnesses are not credible,
there is no need to go there since the credibility of all witnesses is already in doubt

Also, I think the judge is wise to avoid treading into the muddy area of COP professionalism and integrity.

Not pre-judging, I guess we all can see COP professionalism

 

[carey]

the crux lies in the reason for rejecting :

"While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue, as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan."

if the purpose of going through the redacted parts is to demonstrate that the witnesses are not credible,
there is no need to go there since the credibility of all witnesses is already in doubt

Also, I think the judge is wise to avoid treading into the muddy area of COP professionalism and integrity.

True as well

The judge is very diplomatic here

 

[Senna Wales]

the crux lies in the reason for rejecting :

"While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue, as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan."

if the purpose of going through the redacted parts is to demonstrate that the witnesses are not credible,
there is no need to go there since the credibility of all witnesses is already in doubt

Also, I think the judge is wise to avoid treading into the muddy area of COP professionalism and integrity.

Which is too bad because the credibility of the COP is already shaky from TCJ allowing a phone call, potentially leading to collusion, and Rahayu's involvement in both redaction and letting YN OTOT redact, again potentially leading to loss of evidence. It's for the sake of PAP's integrity as much as WP's that these things are cleared up, because as we all say, honest people have nothing to hide.

 

[GRAVESEED]

Which is too bad because the credibility of the COP is already shaky from TCJ allowing a phone call, potentially leading to collusion, and Rahayu's involvement in both redaction and letting YN OTOT redact, again potentially leading to loss of evidence. It's for the sake of PAP's integrity as much as WP's that these things are cleared up, because as we all say, honest people have nothing to hide.

The entirety of this issue must be brought up in parliament sia, cannot let them get away with it

 

[Vulpix]

Which is too bad because the credibility of the COP is already shaky from TCJ allowing a phone call, potentially leading to collusion, and Rahayu's involvement in both redaction and letting YN OTOT redact, again potentially leading to loss of evidence. It's for the sake of PAP's integrity as much as WP's that these things are cleared up, because as we all say, honest people have nothing to hide.

Does it really matter? I feel like in the long run nobody cares whether PAP got any integrity in general.

 

[EdenHazard]

Judge already said the below about the 3 witnesses:

“While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue, as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan.”

oh no doesnt look good on nathan and lpy ... will there be follow up action after this case close?

 

[bohemian-indie]

Which is too bad because the credibility of the COP is already shaky from TCJ allowing a phone call, potentially leading to collusion, and Rahayu's involvement in both redaction and letting YN OTOT redact, again potentially leading to loss of evidence. It's for the sake of PAP's integrity as much as WP's that these things are cleared up, because as we all say, honest people have nothing to hide.

And with ET shouting and talking down to people, really BFF with file thrower.

 

[EdenHazard]

The entirety of this issue must be brought up in parliament sia, cannot let them get away with it

leong mun wai must follow up

 

[s-ghost]

Defence grills Yudhishthra Nathan on Oct 12 meeting, suggests that Nathan and Loh Pei Ying met to align stories to the police

Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy questioned Mr Yudhishtra Nathan on why he did not tell the Committee of Privileges (COP) about Singh “changing party strategy” on Oct 12, since Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong had asked during the COP, if anything significant had happened during that meeting.


He said: “Edwin Tong gave you the floor, he said to you ‘Was there anything of significance that happened, other than what we talked about on the 12th?’, and you say ‘Anything of significance? No’.


“He’s not asking you whether you went to the toilet that night. He’s not asking you for your life story that night.”

When asked if he withheld that information from the COP, Mr Nathan said that he did not recall it at that point in time, but later told the police.

Mr Jumabhoy also suggests that Mr Nathan and Ms Loh had met up after the COP to align their stories to the police, and had made up the “nugget” about Singh’s change in strategy then.

But Mr Nathan says: “I don't agree to that.”

 

[yperic]

Defence grills Yudhishthra Nathan on Oct 12 meeting, suggests that Nathan and Loh Pei Ying met to align stories to the police

Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy questioned Mr Yudhishtra Nathan on why he did not tell the Committee of Privileges (COP) about Singh “changing party strategy” on Oct 12, since Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong had asked during the COP, if anything significant had happened during that meeting.

He said: “Edwin Tong gave you the floor, he said to you ‘Was there anything of significance that happened, other than what we talked about on the 12th?’, and you say ‘Anything of significance? No’.

“He’s not asking you whether you went to the toilet that night. He’s not asking you for your life story that night.”

When asked if he withheld that information from the COP, Mr Nathan said that he did not recall it at that point in time, but later told the police.

Mr Jumabhoy also suggests that Mr Nathan and Ms Loh had met up after the COP to align their stories to the police, and had made up the “nugget” about Singh’s change in strategy then.

But Mr Nathan says: “I don't agree to that.”