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

[j4jersey.]

You are there?

No la base on the update from the straits times

 

[sukukia]

Prosecution says Pritam's evidence is 'incredible' and 'utterly contrary'

An Oct 7, 2021, e-mail sent by Ms Raeesah Khan to the Workers' Party leaders, informing them that the police had requested an interview with her, is being read out by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock.

In the e-mail, Ms Khan had also said: "Thanks for listening to me, for caring for me and for guiding me through this without judgment."

DAG Ang notes that Pritam Singh did not reply to Ms Khan's e-mail and asks if it is because she had followed his guidance to continue with the narrative.

He also asks if Ms Khan was thanking Singh for "not judging her" after she stuck to her lie on Oct 4,

Singh disagrees and says: "I didn't reply to this e-mail because it was very frustrating to read it considering what she had done on Oct 4."

He adds that he was focused on having to guide her to make a clarification with a personal statement.

DAG Ang suggests that if Singh did ask Ms Khan to come clean, she would have known that he would "take her to task" after she doubled down on her lie on Oct 4.

"And instead of being afraid that you’ll take her to task, she sends you this email to thank you for ‘caring for me and guiding me without judgment’," he says.

Singh replies: “I didn’t tell her to continue the narrative.”

DAG Ang says: "Mr Singh, I would have to put it to you that your evidence is incredible, do you agree?"

Singh disagrees.

DAG continues: "It’s utterly contrary to how both you and her behaved during this material time. Do you agree?"

Singh disagrees.

ps power lah! no matter how contradictory, illogical or nonsensical his answers are, just deny, disagree, forget or beat about the bush so as to take it to the grave…

 

[xdivider]

if oni sonny liew will draw part 2 of this comic........

 

[charleslee1989]

Indeed so don't reply to her email mean agreed for her to carry on the lie Simi logic is this .

If my boss didn't reply to me open over blowing the project budgets.
So my boss agreed to it. For me to continue over blow any budget?

Nvr reply means explicit consent?

So to extrapolate the logic of the DAG, if I punch someone in the face until that person becomes unconscious, I can tell the the Police the person never say no and I can keep punching on???

 

[Bam25th]

lol there’s so many things I want to say, but can’t say cause scared prejudice court.

And I’m still wondering how does a commentator prejudice court. Does the judge surf Facebook and forums before coming to judgement? Hmmm…..

 

[superjellybelly]

ps power lah! no matter how contradictory, illogical or nonsensical his answers are, just deny, disagree, forget or beat about the bush so as to take it to the grave…

At least he doesn't lie like the 3 pathetic witnesses, nor he lose his temper like the DAG that only knows how to kpkb with his illogical questioning.

 

[clon33]

Prosecution says Pritam Singh’s accounts of Oct 3, 2021

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock thumps the rostrum as he questions Pritam Singh’s accounts of what he expected Ms Raeesah Khan to do in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, following his meeting with her the day before.

The prosecutor asks: “If it (the lie) didn’t come up, she wouldn’t have to clarify on Oct 4?”

Singh agrees.

DAG Ang says: “So if it doesn’t come up, obviously she doesn’t have to say anything, according to what you said!”

Singh agrees again: “That is correct. She would have to deal with it some time in the future.”

“Ok, so that’s one version,” DAG Ang says. “Insofar as there is a second version, which is that she has to raise it and tell the truth on Oct 4, whether it comes up or not, that would be false?”

He is referring to an answer Singh gave to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021 that could be interpreted as Singh intending for Ms Khan to tell the truth on Oct 4, whether or not the matter was raised in Parliament.

Singh says: “Because I didn’t address that part in my msg to her on Oct 3.”

DAG Ang responds: “No, no, is it false or not?”

Singh: “Ya it’s not true. There’s no second version.”

DAG Ang then says: “So if we read the COP minutes and come to the view that that’s what you were telling the COP, that would be a false statement to the COP, correct?”

Singh says: “It would not be what was said, that’s right.”

Why is the DAG using Edwin Tong's flawed logic?

Situation 1: (default)
Raeesah Khan clarify her lie in Parliament on 4 Oct. Pritam Singh already gave his instructions for Raeesah Khan to take responsibility as a MP for her actions. This is a standing order.

Situation 2:
Parliament never ask Raeesah Khan about her lie on 4 Oct. This is a flawed rhethorical question by Edwin Tong. On what basis does Edwin Tong assume that Raeesah Khan will maintain her lie if it was not asked by Parliament? Pritam Singh does not have the power of hindsight.

Edwin Tong ignored the fact that Pritam Singh's instructions to Raeesah Khan to take responsibility as a MP was a standing order. It is implied that she has to clarify her lie, whether or not asked by Parliament. There is no version 1 or 2 as suggested by the DAG. That is not how a standing order works.

Based on the DAG's logic.

If nobody in Parliament asked about the marital affair, the DAG expects PM Lee to tell Tan Chuan Jin to announce he had affair with PAP MP Cheng Li Hui. But the fact that Tan Chuan Jin only resigned after 2 years, meant that PM Lee was complicit in the lie and hid it from Parliament for 2 years.

If nobody in Parliament asked about PAP Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's mistake in TraceTogether, the DAG expects PM Lee to tell Vivian to announce the mistake the moment he was aware when a member of public informed him. But the fact that Vivian Balakrishnan only came clean to Parliament after 3 months, meant that the PAP Cabinet Ministers whom he checked with during those 3 months were complicit in the lie and hid it from Parliament for 3 months.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...stake-on-tracetogether-data-first-realised-it

 

[J050615]

Everybody can lie fr original liar to credible witnesses.... except ah sing cannot lie

 

[fire]

lol there’s so many things I want to say, but can’t say cause scared prejudice court.

And I’m still wondering how does a commentator prejudice court. Does the judge surf Facebook and forums before coming to judgement? Hmmm…..

Someone can just baotoh mah

 

[drkcynic]

I just don't understand 1 thing.

At some point, LTK, SL, MF, all knew about the lie and they all agreed that clarification was needed. Those were the party decisions.

Then how on earth could PS succeed in telling RK to "take it to the grave". It's not like only the 2 of them knew? Do they take PS as so stupid?

 

[drkcynic]

Sigh....This DAG looks very pedantic.....

He has nothing else to work on tbf.

 

[mryang]

Prosecution says Pritam's evidence is 'incredible' and 'utterly contrary'

An Oct 7, 2021, e-mail sent by Ms Raeesah Khan to the Workers' Party leaders, informing them that the police had requested an interview with her, is being read out by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock.

In the e-mail, Ms Khan had also said: "Thanks for listening to me, for caring for me and for guiding me through this without judgment."

DAG Ang notes that Pritam Singh did not reply to Ms Khan's e-mail and asks if it is because she had followed his guidance to continue with the narrative.

He also asks if Ms Khan was thanking Singh for "not judging her" after she stuck to her lie on Oct 4,

Singh disagrees and says: "I didn't reply to this e-mail because it was very frustrating to read it considering what she had done on Oct 4."

He adds that he was focused on having to guide her to make a clarification with a personal statement.

DAG Ang suggests that if Singh did ask Ms Khan to come clean, she would have known that he would "take her to task" after she doubled down on her lie on Oct 4.

"And instead of being afraid that you’ll take her to task, she sends you this email to thank you for ‘caring for me and guiding me without judgment’," he says.

Singh replies: “I didn’t tell her to continue the narrative.”

DAG Ang says: "Mr Singh, I would have to put it to you that your evidence is incredible, do you agree?"

Singh disagrees.

DAG continues: "It’s utterly contrary to how both you and her behaved during this material time. Do you agree?"

Singh disagrees.

 

[mryang]

Singh disagrees. He says: “If you put something in writing and you put it out there, it could be sent accidentally to anyone, it could be sent, it would be on the record somewhere, it would be on the cloud. I’m not sure whether that is something; how we would want to handle deeply personal information that Ms Khan had shared with us.”

DAG says there was nothing stopping Singh from saying in writing that the issue has been discussed and he would follow up on it, while leaving out the personal details.

Singh: “That would be correct, but that’s not how we operate.”

DAG Ang: “So if the four of you – the three of you and Ms Khan – all deny it, there would be no record of this meeting and what was discussed, right?”

Singh: “If there are no minutes, yes. But everybody would know what the truth is.”

 

[kmkimlo]

What would Raeesah Khan’s Oct 4 clarification have looked like?

Still on the topic of the difference between a clarification and a personal statement, the prosecution asks Pritam Singh what Ms Raeesah Khan’s clarification would have been if she had admitted her lie on Oct 4 after Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam asked her for more details about her anecdote.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Singh: “Do you mean to say that - please give us an honest answer - do you mean to say that you thought she could say that, ‘Mr Shanmugam, the anecdote that I gave on Aug 3 was false,’ and then just sit down and wait for further questions from the minister and other MPs?”

Singh says he does not know what the further questions may have been, but adds that Ms Khan would, at a minimum, have to clarify that she had “inserted herself in the anecdote to make it more believable”, and explain why she had lied on Aug 3.

He says he would have expected her to tell "the essence of the truth".

DAG Ang drills down on this, and asks Singh if Ms Khan would have been expected to explain that she was a survivor of sexual assault herself and had heard the anecdote at a survivors’ support group.

Singh disagrees, saying that he did not know if Ms Khan would go into the full details of what happened to her.

He adds that Ms Khan did not want to reveal her experience and that he was not sure if it would have been necessary for her to share it in her clarification.

To this, DAG Ang asks if Singh expects that MPs would not have asked Ms Khan many clarifications if she stood up and admitted she lied.

“Let’s be real Mr Singh,” says DAG Ang.

Singh replies: “I cannot answer that question.”

If they wanna go this route, there are other worthy can of worms leh. Did they check for their own skeletons in closets?

 

[nasilemak100]

If they wanna go this route, there are other worthy can of worms leh. Did they check for their own skeletons in closets?

They where will scare. they know they got this

 

[mxkxmx]

Take PAP paycheck is not easy job.

DAG Ang every minute must put words to Pritam mouth.

 

[fire]

Take PAP paycheck is not easy job.

DAG Ang every minute must put words to Pritam mouth.

Hmm.. from judge to just dag

 

[drkcynic]

He never heard of bosses not replying to staff emails meh?

Especially when the staff screwed up so badly yet send those with weird messages like "caring for me and guiding me" when the situation is already so serious.

Personally I will curse under my breath.

 

[mryang]

Prosecution questions why Pritam didn’t press Raeesah to come clean although she appeared ‘normal’ as an MP

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh if he felt that between August and September 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan appeared “normal” as she performed her MP duties.

Singh, who earlier said Ms Khan had conducted estate walks and filed parliamentary questions, says: “Arising from what had happened, I think it was in her interest to do so, yes.”

DAG Ang replies: “Oh, she was pretending to be normal. Is that what you’re saying?”

Singh says: “I’m not saying that, but having made a major slip-up or a boo-boo on Aug 3, I think it was in her interest to make sure to pull up her socks.”

DAG Ang then asks Singh if it did not occur to him to approach Ms Khan about the lie during this period.

Singh replies: “I accept that should have been something I ought to have done.”

DAG Ang continues: “Did you think that if you asked her, she would just faint or collapse or something like that?”

Singh says that he did not, but thought that Ms Khan, as a responsible MP, would take the initiative to speak to him regarding the unresolved matter when she was ready.

DAG Ang then suggests that Singh’s “lack of action” from August to September 2021 and the absence of a discussion with fellow leaders Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap are “consistent with the fact that the issue had been buried”.

Singh disagrees.

 

[fire]

He never heard of bosses not replying to staff emails meh?

Especially when the staff screwed up so badly yet send those with weird messages like "caring for me and guiding me" when the situation is already so serious.

Personally I will curse under my breath.

Personally if I sent such an email after all these and didn't received a reply from boss, I will think boss is angry