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

[carey]

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.

That's another hot potato for another judge to handle

Maybe LMW can bring it up later

 

[dezzo69]

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.”

so evidence accurate to prove PS didn't lie or not? can throw the case out already?

dun tok halfway leh.

 

[EdenHazard]

nathan credibility already totally destroyed. maybe can just quickly switch to LTK? chop chop fast game

 

[couch.potato]

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

lol u remind me of recently Koh Poh Koon semi-shout at Gerald. Haha “WANT OR NOT!!”

Edited to add: wah sometimes don’t know whether got AM issues anot… can throw file, can shout, can “effing populist” also… if Oppo even whisper anything close to these don’t know what will happen…

How come can use vulgarity against civil servant…

 

[rizhal]

nathan credibility already totally destroyed. maybe can just quickly switch to LTK? chop chop fast game

Yeah better stop YN cross examination, if not he will spill out more embarrassing stuff.

 

[powerrr]

so evidence accurate to prove PS didn't lie or not? can throw the case out already?

dun tok halfway leh.

Above my pay grade to know the answers to your questions

 

[EdenHazard]

this nathan - all the important and controversial things he cant remember, cant recall, fuzzy etc. but can remember he tingru dun like reesah, he tingru dun like jamus all these trivial sai ....

 

[elephantscannotfly]

I agree with the judge's stance on the redacted/un

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.

I think the judge is being nice, and probably behind closed doors, someone already asked. At least give the COP some room to wiggle out.

 

[elephantscannotfly]

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

Whether there is or not, is not for this trial to decide. So the options have been left very open, should other parties choose to pursue.

 

[couch.potato]

this nathan - all the important and controversial things he cant remember, cant recall, fuzzy etc. but can remember he tingru dun like reesah, he tingru dun like jamus all these trivial sai ....

Their job like more for gossiping about people than serving the people… even gossip about each other

That’s why brain contain the other things 三姑六婆

 

[carey]

this nathan - all the important and controversial things he cant remember, cant recall, fuzzy etc. but can remember he tingru dun like reesah, he tingru dun like jamus all these trivial sai ....

Shows that he's a petty sort of person - only remember all these "xiao ren" stuff

 

[kleong]

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

 

[TopGun]

Yeah judge already highlighted the low credibility of all the 3 witnesses.

can forget about the redacted material now.

Erm I don't think the judge said that though.

 

[swiftblade]

this nathan - all the important and controversial things he cant remember, cant recall, fuzzy etc. but can remember he tingru dun like reesah, he tingru dun like jamus all these trivial sai ....

He is a true cobra

 

[rtkgamer]

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

ya, how to care? we already gave PAP the blank cheque...

PAP just keep importing FTs and give them new citizenship which dilute the votes of pure blue singaporeans.

 

[couch.potato]

ya, how to care? we already gave PAP the blank cheque...

PAP just keep importing FTs and give them new citizenship which dilute the votes of pure blue singaporeans.

The saddest part is the people who need to hear all these the most are the people who will never bother to listen to it.

the details of this trial, the debate over NTUC income / Allianz… the 60% don’t even want to LISTEN at all. And so many have children. Do they not care for the future of their children? Or they believe the million dollar BTOs and CDC vouchers will continue to sustain their next Generations??

 

[mryang]

His body language got Lot of compression lip and disappearing lip leh no hidden information meh

 

[s-ghost]

Yudhishthra Nathan says Pritam Singh never told Raeesah Khan to take ownership and responsibility

Pritam Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Mr Yudhishthra Nathan if Singh had told him about an Oct 3 conversation he had with Ms Raeesah Khan, in the meeting on Oct 12, 2021 between himself, Singh and Ms Loh Pei Ying.

Mr Nathan says Singh told him that “he had thought that the anecdote (about the sexual assault victim) could possibly come up the next day, on Oct 4”, and that was why Singh had visited Ms Khan on Oct 3.

The defence lawyer goes on to ask Mr Nathan if Singh mentioned that he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says yes.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan did not clarify what Singh meant when he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says he did not feel a need to do so at that point.

Following that, Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan recalled Singh telling Ms Khan to “take ownership and responsibility (for telling a lie in Parliament)”.

Mr Nathan says “Absolutely not, he never used those words”.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan would agree that it is something Singh could have said. No, says Mr Nathan.

 

[mryang]

Yudhishthra Nathan says Pritam Singh never told Raeesah Khan to take ownership and responsibility

Pritam Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Mr Yudhishthra Nathan if Singh had told him about an Oct 3 conversation he had with Ms Raeesah Khan, in the meeting on Oct 12, 2021 between himself, Singh and Ms Loh Pei Ying.

Mr Nathan says Singh told him that “he had thought that the anecdote (about the sexual assault victim) could possibly come up the next day, on Oct 4”, and that was why Singh had visited Ms Khan on Oct 3.

The defence lawyer goes on to ask Mr Nathan if Singh mentioned that he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says yes.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan did not clarify what Singh meant when he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says he did not feel a need to do so at that point.

Following that, Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan recalled Singh telling Ms Khan to “take ownership and responsibility (for telling a lie in Parliament)”.

Mr Nathan says “Absolutely not, he never used those words”.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan would agree that it is something Singh could have said. No, says Mr Nathan.

 

[couch.potato]

Yudhishthra Nathan says Pritam Singh never told Raeesah Khan to take ownership and responsibility

Pritam Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Mr Yudhishthra Nathan if Singh had told him about an Oct 3 conversation he had with Ms Raeesah Khan, in the meeting on Oct 12, 2021 between himself, Singh and Ms Loh Pei Ying.

Mr Nathan says Singh told him that “he had thought that the anecdote (about the sexual assault victim) could possibly come up the next day, on Oct 4”, and that was why Singh had visited Ms Khan on Oct 3.

The defence lawyer goes on to ask Mr Nathan if Singh mentioned that he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says yes.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan did not clarify what Singh meant when he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says he did not feel a need to do so at that point.

Following that, Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan recalled Singh telling Ms Khan to “take ownership and responsibility (for telling a lie in Parliament)”.

Mr Nathan says “Absolutely not, he never used those words”.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan would agree that it is something Singh could have said. No, says Mr Nathan.

Wah suddenly this one the memory so clear!!

“ABSOLUTELY not” NO NO