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

[kimsix]

2 minutes ago
Court adjourns, will resume at 11.30am tomorrow

The police investigation officer was supposed to be the next witness on the stand, but Deputy-Attorney General Ang Cheng Hock has asked to dispense with this.

Mr Jumabhoy said he "had not considered that". Parties agreed for the investigation officer to be on standby when the trial resumes tomorrow.

After the prosecution's last witness, Mr Jumabhoy said he would then be asking for time to make written submissions to the court.

Previously, the defence had asked for the hearing on the morning of Oct 24 to be vacated, as Singh wanted to attend his daughter's graduation, where she will give a speech.

As any questioning of the investigation officer tomorrow is not expected to take long, Judge Tan granted this application.

Singh's trial will resume at 11.30am tomorrow

5pm too close to pang kang time

today start late

 

[Kiwi8]

Judge rejects defence’s application to get full list of Yudhishthra Nathan’s redacted and unredacted messages to COP

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan rejects the defence’s application to get the full set of Mr Yudhishthra Nathan’s unredacted messages from Oct 4 to 12, 2021, and his redacted messages which were submitted to the Committee of Privileges (COP).

The judge says he has carefully examined the documents, and is satisfied that none of the messages are relevant to the guilt or innocence of Pritam Singh.

He adds that the messages do not undermine the prosecution’s case or strengthen the defence’s case in the context of the criminal trial.

As the redactions were done for the purpose of the specific inquiry by the COP, the scope and basis of the redactions are not relevant to the current criminal trial, he says.

The judge also notes that a list of unredacted messages by Mr Nathan, as well as the full list of redacted and unredacted messages by Ms Loh Pei Ying have already been admitted as evidence for the trial.

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.

Really knn this judge but I kinda expected liao.

 

[mryang]

who is this police investigation officer?

can recap? previously appeared at COP or what

Got police records and documents and statements.

 

[sky00sky]

After own goals..i think the DAG worried..about the IO also

 

[sky00sky]

who is this police investigation officer?

can recap? previously appeared at COP or what

IO he probably the person whom compile from the witness statements , facts, evidence then send to AGC for the charge one bah.

 

[mryang]

That why any meetings best is have meetings minutes and make them sign after meeting end.

In the office I like hear these three letter especially towards end of the meeting: AOB.( Any other business)

Even with clients also 1 to 1.

 

[Kiwi8]

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.

Without confirmation by having the defence looking at the non-redacted version, they can only take the judge at his own words. Even if there was relevant info in the redacted messages and the judge chose to ignore it the defence would not know.

 

[jeffprobst]

Low Thia Khiang says he texted Pritam to suggest forming disciplinary panel after Raeesah’s clarification in Parliament

Mr Low Thia Khiang tells the court that he texted Pritam Singh after Ms Raeesah Khan clarified her untruth in Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, to suggest forming a disciplinary panel to look into her lie.

He suggested that the panel could consist of Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Faisal Manap and Singh, he says.

When asked if he sent the message on Nov 1 or 2, he says he does not remember the exact date and adds: “Something like that, I think so.”

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ben Mathias Tan asks if he had known when he suggested forming the disciplinary panel that party leaders had known about the untruth since 2021.

Mr Low says no, and adds that he found out about the leaders’ involvement only in August 2023. He also says he did not know when Ms Khan had lied.

“I did not have any impression as to when the lie happened. Because I didn’t know when was the Parliament sitting and I didn’t follow Parliament closely,” he tells the court.

DPP Tan asks when he first came to know that Singh and Ms Khan had a private conversation on Oct 3 about the untruth possibly being raised during the Parliament sitting on Oct 4.

“I don’t know,” says Mr Low.

When asked if he is aware of this, Mr Low says he is not.

“Mr Low, did you either read the Committee of Privileges (COP) report or follow the COP proceedings?”

Mr Low answers: “I read newspaper reports but I don’t read the details.”

This ends the prosecution’s questioning.

Already retire and step down why bother to read cop report. really bo liao question.

 

[fascist]

Like trolling sia the defence cross examination

Not really.

I think it relates to the point PS originally made - that a lie in parliament had to be clarified in parliament. Thus, even tho the 3 party leaders knew of the lie in Aug 2021, the only opportunity to clarify was in the next parliament sitting in Oct/Nov iirc. So that explains the "delay" in clarification.

 

[LambTaco]

Looks like trial will end earlier than expected. After written submissions, then closing arguments, then sentencing. By the week after Diwali should have the verdict already

 

[Mancunian2]

LPY is own own company hor mai siao siao

her company do what businesses one?

 

[LambTaco]

I think LTK was itching inside to ask DAG "Never ask me questions until my pants drop?"

 

[fire]

Looks like trial will end earlier than expected. After written submissions, then closing arguments, then sentencing. By the week after Diwali should have the verdict already

if the judge decided prosecution had a case then it will extend to Nov.

 

[xdivider]

Because it didn't achieve the effect he wanted after his first 3 star witness all scored own goals of different proportions...

1) RK - PS say take lie to grave but is nathan idea
2) LPY - Supposed to have heard PS say take to grave but says RK is dumb and oso more lies is nathan idea, oso never say explicitly is PS say take it to grave, oso called nathan after asking mangoes and redacted him in front of COP
3) Nathan - i redacted til happy by myself. oso we had dinner talking about how to be wary of PS but we din conspire, really.......
4) LTK - can dun waste my ***** time or not..........

 

[Courage]

The PP probably gave up already. Their 3 main witnesses are incredibly untrustworthy and they should realize by now this trial is a farce

 

[charleslee1989]

from CNA:
Defence's cross-examination ends with one question

The hearing resumed at 4.56pm with Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng leading the cross-examination of Mr Low.

The lawyer asked one question: "Mr Low, do you agree that a lie that's been told on record in parliament would have to be clarified in parliament?"

After asking for the question to be repeated, Mr Low said: "Yes, I think so."

"No further questions, your honour," Mr Eng told the judge.

With no further questions from the prosecution, Mr Low has been released from the stand.

This is hilarious AF.....Macam LTK is defence witness lol.....

 

[Funkster]

LTK is shifu level

Confirm buay tahan all the slow dingdongs

 

[Kiwi8]

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

Haha but the daft voter needs to know mah, otherwise they keep thinking that PAP have integrity.

 

[couch.potato]

her company do what businesses one?

Journalism I think.
Write on global issues stuff like that.

 

[fascist]

So "take the lie to the grave" - has it been established if it was even said?

All we know is that Nathan suggested to lie more (LPY and PS both agreed that it was said in that meeting, so its factual).

So is it proven beyond reasonable doubt that PS lied? I dun think so.