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

[kimsix]

is khan told her toadies.....somehow they can lie on many a things but coi found this credible.....

any text msg or photo or video/audio recording that caught this lying prata in the act? Any transcript? This prata expert in auto deleting his electronic trails?

 

[applewatch]

Song bo tio fix

 

[Capitalist]

Mr Jumabhoy points to a busy calendar for the party and for Singh as Leader of the Opposition. Ms Khan also came down with shingles and did not attend parliament in September.

He says Singh did not mean that "I was so busy that I couldn't have dealt with this". "I think his position is a bit more nuanced. That I was busy and I lost sight of this," says the lawyer.

Singh was THAT BUSY that he lost sight of the fact that his MP lied in Parliament??? An act which will derail whatever efforts the party had poured into for years .... hmmm ...

Not quite sure if that makes a good defence/mitigating factor.

 

[s-ghost]

More on Singh's inaction

Mr Jumabhoy said that apart from the issues Singh was dealing with at the time, the inaction was "never meant to be a permanent position".

The lawyer said Singh restarted the conversation on Ms Khan's lie with an Oct 1, 2021 email he sent to WP MPs about the importance of substantiating what they say in parliament.

He also said it would have been "inconsistent" for Singh to revisit the issue if a decision had already been made about what to do Aug 8, 2021.

"I don't agree with you," Justice Chong said - twice.

He also points out that Singh never followed up to ask Ms Khan if she had spoken to her parents about her sexual assault.

This was purportedly a precedent Singh set for the party's further action on the issue.

Justice Chong said this lack of follow-up remained all the way until Nov 1, 2021, when Ms Khan came clean, even as her clarificatory statement was being prepared.

Mr Jumabhoy says the situation had "dramatically changed" by then because Ms Khan had doubled down on her lie in parliament.

 

[s-ghost]

Judge addresses defence’s point on Raeesah Khan’s inconsistencies
Justice Chong says when a witness sometimes recites the same evidence repeatedly, judges sometimes hold it against the witness for parroting a statement.
“When a witness says something not entirely consistent, not entirely inconsistent either, it is for the judge to decide how that would impact the witnesses’ overall credibility,” he says.
“That’s the function of the judge.”
But Justice Chong adds that he does not have that privilege to have the witnesses before him and has to look at it based on the transcripts given.
“The question before me is whether the differences were a material that I should doubt Ms Raeesah Khan’s credibility and find that the messages to her aides were entirely false,” he says.
Mr Jumabhoy says that there are differences across her messages and testimonies. The differences refer to what Ms Khan said at different points of time.
He says: “Everyone can see that there are differences, and to pretend that there’s no difference, does a disservice.”
But the judge says the defence cannot ignore the text message that was sent to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan immediately after the Aug 8, 2021, meeting. The defence’s case must be that she lied to her two aides, he adds.
In response, Mr Jumabhoy says: “I won’t go so far to say that. What they wanted to do or what Ms Khan wanted to do was to spare herself the national embarrassment to come out and say that she lied. That would be a reasonable position for her to take for her self-preservation. What we take issue with is subsequently she takes the position to say: ‘This is why I lied’.”

 

[s-ghost]

Justice Chong issues reminder that ‘this is an appeal’; says defence is ‘digressing'

Mr Jumabhoy explains why there was an almost two month gap between Aug 8, when Ms Khan confesses her lie to her party’s leaders, and Oct 3, when Singh visits Ms Khan at home and the issue next arises.

“This is an appeal,” says Justice Chong to Mr Jumabhoy, reminding him that the defence lawyer’s task is to persuade him that the findings by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan - who convicted Singh - do not hold up against the evidence.

Justice Chong adds: “I don’t need to make those findings… You would have to persuade me that the district judge is wrong.”

 

[s-ghost]

The meaning of "I won't judge you"

Mr Jumabhoy moved on to what Singh meant when he told Ms Khan "I won't judge you" on Oct 3, 2021.

Justice Chong said the question is what this means "to two intelligent, well-educated persons".

"This is not a term of art," he added.

Ms Khan took the statement to mean Singh would not judge her for continuing the narrative in parliament on Oct 4, 2021.

Singh's position is that he told Ms Khan she "would have to take ownership and responsibility".

Justice Chong sayid it's a binary choice between telling Ms Khan it is her call, and telling her to take ownership and responsibility.

He points to what Singh himself said he told Ms Khan on Oct 4 that year after she doubled down on her lie in parliament: "Look at the choice you've made."

"How can you explain the choice of the word 'choice'?" asked the judge.

"To lie is a deliberate choice. And I think when Mr Singh says that and said it angrily, the fact is that he was expressing frustration at what she had decided to do," said Mr Jumabhoy.

"And the only reason to be frustrated at what she had decided to do was because it was inconsistent with what he had previously told her on Oct 3, 2021."

Justice Chong says: "Typically, you will say 'I will not judge you' in a context where the person is doing something which is not quite right. But if you don't want to do the right thing, I will not judge you.

"It will be odd to say 'I will not judge you' in the context where the person is going to do the right thing. That's how I would have understood objectively those words."

 

[s-ghost]

Pritam passes defence lawyers a note

Slightly over an hour since the hearing began, Singh, who is seated behind his lawyers, taps Mr Aristotle Eng on the shoulder and passes him a note.

Mr Eng passes that note to Mr Jumabhoy, who then apologises for the pause as he looks at the note.

The content of the note is not revealed.

 

[charleslee1989]

Seems that the high court judge is gonna find PS guilty 9696....

 

[Kiwi8]

‘Judge ignored crucial pieces of evidence’: Pritam Singh’s defence lawyer

In his opening statement, Mr Jumabhoy says the defence hopes to persuade Justice Chong that the previous judge who convicted Singh had “ignored crucial pieces of evidence”.

Court papers presented by the defence point to two critical statements.

The prosecution’s case is that Singh told Ms Khan: “This is something probably to take it to the grave.” Singh has denied saying this.

The second statement: “I will not judge you,” was interpreted by the prosecution as meaning that Singh would not judge Ms Khan for continuing with the lie.

The defence however says that Singh had meant he would not judge Ms Khan if she had taken ownership or responsibility for her lie.

I got no confidence in Steven Chong. He has that Lucian Wong vibe, aka u know I know.

 

[Asy1um]

Just jail this prata for wasting time but i don’t know from where can find black and white prata said take the lie to the grave?

can someone show me how the conclusion came?

You want to jail someone when there is no proof except from 3 liar…

 

[Kiwi8]

I don't quite understand how the case proceeding works. I get the idea it is based on what you say, what she said and what he said. Like that also can?

When AG wants to fix u, can means can.

 

[Kiwi8]

Back in July 2020: -

He added that he had not known about the Facebook posts beforehand, but noted that at 26-years-old, Ms Khan is WP's youngest candidate in this election and comes from a generation that has "completely grown up on social media".

"And for me, I would be actually a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are. And in the event there are certain posts or certain comments that they may have made which are untoward, then I would expect them to explain themselves."

Has he thoroughly explained himself?

If his appeal against the conviction fails, wouldn't it mean that he'll be conclusively convicted of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee.

And assuming no change in the sentence, based on prevailing parameters, his criminal records will never be rendered spent.

Though it appears that such do not matter to WP and/or Opposition supporters.

Of course it does not matter to oppo supporters, cos oppo supporters see clearly that this is a opportunistic political fixing launched by the PAP.

 

[charleslee1989]

The meaning of "I won't judge you"


Justice Chong says: "Typically, you will say 'I will not judge you' in a context where the person is doing something which is not quite right. But if you don't want to do the right thing, I will not judge you.

"It will be odd to say 'I will not judge you' in the context where the person is going to do the right thing. That's how I would have understood objectively those words."

If only one can read minds....hmmm....

 

[tExtra]

Seems that the high court judge is gonna find PS guilty 9696....

In before jail him better. Lie and repeat the lie. No different from RK. Waste public resources.

 

[charleslee1989]

In before jail him better. Lie and repeat the lie. No different from RK. Waste public resources.

if jail, then this news will make its rounds around international press. Singapore can really do without this when it gained newly found international reputation as a mega laundering machine....

 

[s-ghost]

Debate over ‘I will not judge you’ statement

Justice Chong and Mr Jumabhoy debate over the context of how “I will not judge you” is used.

Singh’s second charge was on how he had falsely testified to the COP that when he spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he had wanted to convey to her that she had to come clean about her lie if it came up in Parliament the next day.

Singh had acknowledged that he had said “I will not judge you”, but disputed the context in which the phrase was used.

The judge says Singh had told Ms Khan “Look at the choice you made”, after Ms Khan repeated the lie in Parliament on Oct 4.

Justice Chong asks: “How do you explain the choice of the word ‘choice’?”

Mr Jumabhoy replies that Singh was expressing frustration at what Ms Khan had decided to do. “He was frustrated because it was inconsistent with what he told her on Oct 3.”

He adds that the expression “I will not judge you” takes into account “responsibility”.

In return, Justice Chong says the expression is not uncommon.

He says: “Typically, you will say that the person is doing something that is not quite right. It will be odd to say ‘I will not judge you’ when the context is that the person is going to do the right thing. That is how I would objectively judge those words.”

Mr Jumabhoy replies: “It’s not quite as clear-cut as your Honour made it seem. It could be either way.”

 

[Kiwi8]

Seems that the high court judge is gonna find PS guilty 9696....

How come this judge seems to be doing the job of the prosecution lawyer. Isn't it the prosecution job to point out so called flaws in the defence argument?

 

[Foreverjobless]

Seems like gg for Pritam even though I still believe he is innocent

 

[Laguna123]

How come this judge seems to be doing the job of the prosecution lawyer. Isn't it the prosecution job to point out so called flaws in the defence argument?

pparent/Apprehended Bias: This is the most common form of bias argued in legal proceedings. The test is objective: would a "fair-minded layperson, knowing all the relevant facts, have a reasonable suspicion" that the judge might not be impartial? It does not require proof that the judge would actually behave in a biased manner, only that there is a real possibility of bias.