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

[charleslee1989]

No means yes, yes means no. Never reply could means yes or no. But because never explicitly say yes, means it’s a no. but also because never explicitly say no, means yes.

See liao, tao gong gong...

 

[charleslee1989]

Whites cannot hypothetical.
But Oppo can…

Are they really that desperate to control the narrative?

 

[lizzykai]

On hindsight, PS ought to have followed up with RK in Aug or Sep, which PS acknowledged. Seems to me that people are judged on what they ought to do on hindsight. Hmmm

If you play on hindsight, everyone is a liar and idk, sinner.

 

[couch.potato]

just briefly scanned through the notes, can only say someone jin heaty today

There is one saying called 见笑转生气

 

[fire]

Are they really that desperate to control the narrative?

Else no case mah

 

[drkcynic]

PS is just stuck. He could have just upfront admitted that it was his lack of judgement and general passiveness in dealing with the situation that made it worsen. But he couldn't say that because it would just show his incompetence.

Ultimately misjudgement does not = lying.

Now kenna poke holes everywhere by DAG and nothing he can say but disagree.

 

[ticcan]

Hard to escape for Pritam everyone just want to attack him he got no defence

 

[mryang]

Prosecution pokes hole in Pritam’s testimony on whether Raeesah should respond to the police

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock questions Pritam Singh on why the separation of powers stopped Ms Raeesah Khan from admitting the lie to the police after they opened investigations into her case on Oct 7, 2021, when Singh had texted Ms Khan to “write in formally” to the police before he learnt of her lie.

Singh had just testified that he did not tell Ms Khan to immediately come clean to the police after they requested to interview her because “if something happens in Parliament and someone asks for details, those details should be provided in Parliament”.

DAG Ang then refers to the text message Singh had sent Ms Khan on Aug 3, 2021, right after she was pressed for details in Parliament about her false anecdote.

Singh, who did not know Ms Khan was lying at the time, had texted her: “We should write in formally to the police to address this matter.”

DAG Ang asks: “So a Workers’ Party MP had been asked for details, and your… direction to Ms Khan was that she should write to the police to answer by giving those details.”

He adds that this shows that in Singh’s mind, there was nothing wrong at all with providing information requested by an MP in Parliament to the police or a public agency.

Singh says the circumstances were different. After Ms Khan doubled down on her lie, he believed there would have to be an extended explanation in Parliament.

DAG Ang says if Singh had thought the truth must be clarified in Parliament there would have been no legal obstacle to telling Ms Khan to reply to the police so they could “stop running around like headless chickens”.

Singh disagrees.

 

[dezzo69]

Prosecution pokes hole in Pritam’s testimony on whether Raeesah should respond to the police

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock questions Pritam Singh on why the separation of powers stopped Ms Raeesah Khan from admitting the lie to the police after they opened investigations into her case on Oct 7, 2021, when Singh had texted Ms Khan to “write in formally” to the police before he learnt of her lie.

Singh had just testified that he did not tell Ms Khan to immediately come clean to the police after they requested to interview her because “if something happens in Parliament and someone asks for details, those details should be provided in Parliament”.

DAG Ang then refers to the text message Singh had sent Ms Khan on Aug 3, 2021, right after she was pressed for details in Parliament about her false anecdote.

Singh, who did not know Ms Khan was lying at the time, had texted her: “We should write in formally to the police to address this matter.”

DAG Ang asks: “So a Workers’ Party MP had been asked for details, and your… direction to Ms Khan was that she should write to the police to answer by giving those details.”

He adds that this shows that in Singh’s mind, there was nothing wrong at all with providing information requested by an MP in Parliament to the police or a public agency.

Singh says the circumstances were different. After Ms Khan doubled down on her lie, he believed there would have to be an extended explanation in Parliament.

DAG Ang says if Singh had thought the truth must be clarified in Parliament there would have been no legal obstacle to telling Ms Khan to reply to the police so they could “stop running around like headless chickens”.

Singh disagrees.

macham like arguing for the sake of arguing liao lol

 

[tJ3333]

macham like arguing for the sake of arguing liao lol

Just send PS to jail now! Stop wasting time and effort on this clear cut case.

 

[mryang]

 

[mxkxmx]

Just send PS to jail now! Stop wasting time and effort on this clear cut case.

Sounds good!
WP collapse.
Call for GE. PAP win with 99% mandate.

 

[Mechafanboy]

Arguing over scraps. Public prosecutor some more. Jin disgraceful. This does not serve the public interest. Is this the calibre of civil servants these days?

 

[mryang]

Prosecution says Pritam’s testimony is ‘puzzling’

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock notes that Pritam Singh said he had told Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 3, 2021, that he would not judge her if she were to come clean in Parliament the next day.

Ms Khan ended up not heeding Singh's advice, says DAG Ang. He asks Singh: "So the part about not judging her is no longer relevant, correct?"

Singh agrees.

DAG Ang then points out that eight days later on Oct 12, 2021, Singh had told former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan that he would not judge Ms Khan.

Singh explains that both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan seemed unkeen about Ms Khan telling the truth, so he "impressed upon them that this decision had already been made - that we had spoken to Raeesah and this is what we were going to do".

DAG Ang then says Singh's evidence is "puzzling".

He then suggests that the "only way (Singh's) evidence makes any sense" is if the WP chief had on Oct 3, 2021, told Ms Khan that he would not judge her should she maintain the lie, and recounted that on Oct 12, 2021, to the then cadres.

Singh disagrees.

DAG Ang asks if either Ms Low or Mr Nathan had provided any evidence that Singh had made it clear to them that he would not judge Ms Khan for continuing the lie, it would mean that they were lying in court.

Singh agrees.

DAG Ang asks: "These are the 'very decent people' that you have described to the Committee of Privileges (COP) right?"

Singh agrees, but adds that Ms Loh had admitted she lied to the COP.

Earlier in the trial on Oct 17, Ms Loh said she redacted a message from Mr Nathan while submitting evidence to the COP under the pretence that it was unrelated to the case.

 

[superjellybelly]

Prosecution pokes hole in Pritam’s testimony on whether Raeesah should respond to the police

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock questions Pritam Singh on why the separation of powers stopped Ms Raeesah Khan from admitting the lie to the police after they opened investigations into her case on Oct 7, 2021, when Singh had texted Ms Khan to “write in formally” to the police before he learnt of her lie.

Singh had just testified that he did not tell Ms Khan to immediately come clean to the police after they requested to interview her because “if something happens in Parliament and someone asks for details, those details should be provided in Parliament”.

DAG Ang then refers to the text message Singh had sent Ms Khan on Aug 3, 2021, right after she was pressed for details in Parliament about her false anecdote.

Singh, who did not know Ms Khan was lying at the time, had texted her: “We should write in formally to the police to address this matter.”

DAG Ang asks: “So a Workers’ Party MP had been asked for details, and your… direction to Ms Khan was that she should write to the police to answer by giving those details.”

He adds that this shows that in Singh’s mind, there was nothing wrong at all with providing information requested by an MP in Parliament to the police or a public agency.

Singh says the circumstances were different. After Ms Khan doubled down on her lie, he believed there would have to be an extended explanation in Parliament.

DAG Ang says if Singh had thought the truth must be clarified in Parliament there would have been no legal obstacle to telling Ms Khan to reply to the police so they could “stop running around like headless chickens”.

Singh disagrees.

Prosecution wanna poke hole but cannot find where to poke.

 

[mryang]

Prosecution points out WP leaders did not reveal their knowledge of Raeesah’s lie

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock takes Pritam Singh through all the times that Singh did not reveal the party leaders’ awareness of Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie since Aug 8, 2021.

Singh did not tell former Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang on Oct 11, 2021, the central executive committee – where Mr Low also sits – on Oct 29, 2021, or include it in Ms Khan’s statement to Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, which he vetted. It was also not mentioned in the WP statement posted to Facebook on Nov 1.

Singh agrees.

DAG Ang then asks for a lunch break.

 

[Evil_Boss]

How is his answer contradictory, illogical or nonsensical? Are you trying to prejudice the court by trying to imply that his answers are so?

you think the court cannot decide on their own and a random internet comment is going to influence their decision?

 

[Evil_Boss]

Arguing over scraps. Public prosecutor some more. Jin disgraceful. This does not serve the public interest. Is this the calibre of civil servants these days?

heard from my lawyer friend PP usually not the top of their class one, thats why go public service.

those high flyer all snapped up by the big firms

 

[xdivider]

say so much puzzling but there is nothing that indicate take the lie to the grave or double down. right now this is a case built on a theory......

in a phoenix wright or mattlock case, u would have made the defendent unable to deny le......

 

[nasilemak100]

in the end. the judge will just sentence pritam guilty la tbh

we all know PAP, DAG, judge all same camp