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

[charleslee1989]

Mr Jumabhoy: "Well, the reason you are not coming clean is not because you have been told to stick to a story - it’s because you thought the matter had been dropped."

Ms Khan: "Yes."

boom!

What a sohai woman......

 

[Emperor_Hippo]

Mr Jumabhoy: "Well, the reason you are not coming clean is not because you have been told to stick to a story - it’s because you thought the matter had been dropped."

Ms Khan: "Yes."

Is this a literal own goal? Yah, good. More own goals plz. See whether her panties will catch fire next.

tiagong tropical rainforest fire a lot of smoke one, cos of the high humidity.

 

[xdivider]

If im agc...ill apply leave so someone else defend her....

 

[LambTaco]

After this case the only Khan I will ever support is Shah Rukh Khan

 

[glarerder]

Mr Jumabhoy: "Was the reason that you didn’t tell the truth in September 2021 because you felt no need to do so, or because you had shingles?"

Ms Khan: "Because I felt no need to do so."

Mr Jumabhoy: "And was the reason that you felt no need to do so because you thought the matter had been dropped? So as far as you were concerned, there was no need to come clean?"

Ms Khan: "Yes."

Mr Jumabhoy: "And we agree that’s different from keeping to the narrative?"

Ms Khan: "How is that different?"

Mr Jumabhoy: "Well, the reason you are not coming clean is not because you have been told to stick to a story - it’s because you thought the matter had been dropped."

Ms Khan: "Yes."

 

[yperic]

‘Be careful what you say’: Defence questions Raeesah on former WP aides’ advice on day 3 of Pritam Singh trial​

Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.

On the third day of Pritam Singh's trial on Oct. 16, his defence lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, turned to the subject of Raeesah Khan's former aides.

Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan were Raeesah's secretarial assistant and a Workers' Party (WP) volunteer, respectively.

The pair testified before Parliament's Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021.

They resigned from the party in 2022, saying they had not been actively contributing since December 2021.

They are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.

Blocking an investigation?​

Jumabhoy first referenced text conversations between Raeesah, Loh, and Nathan, after she repeated her lie in parliament on Oct. 4, 2021.

Loh had encouraged Raeesah to get a lawyer, and Nathan had advised her to be careful about what she said to the lawyer.

Jumabhoy asked if Raeesah agreed that Loh and Nathan were telling her to "own up".

Raeesah disagreed.

He then asked if Loh was "blocking an investigation".

"I don't think so," Raeesah replied. "I think she was just suggesting I get advice from a lawyer on what to do."

Jumabhoy also questioned Nathan's suggestion that she "be careful" about what she told the lawyer, to which Raeesah had replied that it was "good advice".

"Does he mean don't tell the lawyer everything?" Jumabhoy asked Raeesah.

"I think he was just saying, be careful what you say to the lawyer," she said.

More questions​

Jumabhoy subsequently brought up another text exchange involving the same group.

This time, it concerned a conversation on Nov. 2, 2021, about Raeesah's original anecdote.

The conversation took place after Raeesah had told parliament on Nov. 1, 2021 that the anecdote had been a lie.

In the Nov. 2 text messages, Raeesah discussed how she had inserted herself into the anecdote about accompanying a victim of sexual assault to the police station.

"I thought it might give [the story] more impact", she wrote in one message.

The anecdote, she later admitted, had simply been overheard in a support group for victims of sexual assault, and had never happened to her personally.

In response, Loh texted: "It doesn't explain why you had to plant yourself in the story."

Jumabhoy asked if this meant Loh thought Raeesah's story wasn't true.

Raeesah replied that her personal statement had been to admit her wrongdoing, and explain that she was a survivor herself, which is how she got the anecdote.

"I don't think her saying this means [she thought] what I said in the statement wasn't true," Raeesah told Jumabhoy, referring to Loh's messages.

She added that Loh had specified, "I'm being the devil's advocate here", which suggested that she meant to address possible opponents.

Jumabhoy then confirmed if Raeesah had inserted herself into the anecdote "to give it more weight".

Raeesah agreed.

Talking out​

The lawyer then moved on to later in November 2021, when Raeesah was notified that she had to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges.

He asked if, upon being notified, she had discussed with Loh about possibly "aligning [their] facts".

Both had given their evidence on Dec. 2 and 3, 2021, with Raeesah testifying after Loh on both days.

In response to Jumabhoy, Raeesah said that they met up the night before to be there for each other and make sure the other was OK.

She did not ask Loh if she wanted to come up with a story to "align facts", she clarified.

Jumabhoy then asked if they had discussed the evidence that they were going to give the next day, or if Loh had "talked [her] out of" her plan to assume full responsibility for her mistake.

Raeesah agreed that they had spoken about the evidence.

However, Loh did not "talk [her] out" of her course of action.

"If the COP asked, we would have to tell the truth," she said.

Top image from Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying/Facebook

 

[charleslee1989]

If im agc...ill apply leave so someone else defend her....

She is not a defendant.....

 

[Emperor_Hippo]

If im agc...ill apply leave so someone else defend her....

Take 1mth off go Japan song song.

 

[EdenHazard]

Mr Jumabhoy: "Well, the reason you are not coming clean is not because you have been told to stick to a story - it’s because you thought the matter had been dropped."

Ms Khan: "Yes."

Wtf?! So dishonest? I'm sure pritam will know shan won't drop it. Thus it follows that pritam would not have told reesah to lie

 

[mryang]

Pritam Singh’s lawyer asks again whether Raeesah Khan felt the need to tell the truth in September 2021

Mr Andre Jumabhoy repeats an earlier question about whether Ms Raeesah Khan had contemplated coming clean in the September sitting of Parliament, and whether she had informed the disciplinary panel that she felt the need to tell the truth in September 2021.

She says no to both questions.

Mr Jumabhoy: "At the time did you feel the need to tell the truth in September 2021?"

Ms Khan: "No."

Mr Jumabhoy: "Was the reason that you had shingles?"

Ms Khan: "No, can you repeat your question?"

Mr Jumabhoy: "Was the reason that you didn’t tell the truth in September 2021 because you felt no need to do so, or because you had shingles?"

Ms Khan: "Because I felt no need to do so."

Mr Jumabhoy: "And was the reason that you felt no need to do so because you thought the matter had been dropped? So as far as you were concerned, there was no need to come clean?"

Ms Khan: "Yes."

Mr Jumabhoy: "And we agree that’s different from keeping to the narrative?"

 

[charleslee1989]

Mr Jumabhoy: "Was the reason that you didn’t tell the truth in September 2021 because you felt no need to do so, or because you had shingles?"

Ms Khan: "Because I felt no need to do so."

Mr Jumabhoy: "And was the reason that you felt no need to do so because you thought the matter had been dropped? So as far as you were concerned, there was no need to come clean?"

Ms Khan: "Yes."

Mr Jumabhoy: "And we agree that’s different from keeping to the narrative?"

Ms Khan: "How is that different?"

Mr Jumabhoy: "Well, the reason you are not coming clean is not because you have been told to stick to a story - it’s because you thought the matter had been dropped."

Ms Khan: "Yes."

This one already plain as day liao lor....

 

[xdivider]

She is not a defendant.....

Defend the impeaching.....

 

[glarerder]

This one already plain as day liao lor....

She's an unreliable witness but since her evidence probably align with prosecution, they'd try to find ways to keep her witness status intact.

 

[Shion]

what is the total cost and total manhours of this lawsuit for the govt ??

 

[EdenHazard]

Mr Jumabhoy: "Well, the reason you are not coming clean is not because you have been told to stick to a story - it’s because you thought the matter had been dropped."

Ms Khan: "Yes."

Wa I think this is checkmate.

 

[yperic]

Maybe both judge and prosecution also find her answers too contradictory liao so allow her to refer to part of the document.

I think the judge and prosecution also can not stand her liao.

 

[testart]

My 3rd prediction before lunch came true.

RK will ask PS lawyer to repeat his question.

 

[LambTaco]

That’s it. PS is going to jail for a long long time.

Er no? This just shows she lied because she thought no one will raise it up again and not because PS told her to lie or "take it to the grave" or whatever so it's a win for PS

 

[Shion]

I think the judge and prosecution also can not stand her liao.

then they shld do the right thing, that is to impeach her n throw out the case.

 

[charleslee1989]

‘Be careful what you say’: Defence questions Raeesah on former WP aides’ advice on day 3 of Pritam Singh trial​

Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.

On the third day of Pritam Singh's trial on Oct. 16, his defence lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, turned to the subject of Raeesah Khan's former aides.

Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan were Raeesah's secretarial assistant and a Workers' Party (WP) volunteer, respectively.

The pair testified before Parliament's Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021.

They resigned from the party in 2022, saying they had not been actively contributing since December 2021.

They are expected to take the witness stand after Raeesah.

Blocking an investigation?​

Jumabhoy first referenced text conversations between Raeesah, Loh, and Nathan, after she repeated her lie in parliament on Oct. 4, 2021.

Loh had encouraged Raeesah to get a lawyer, and Nathan had advised her to be careful about what she said to the lawyer.

Jumabhoy asked if Raeesah agreed that Loh and Nathan were telling her to "own up".

Raeesah disagreed.

He then asked if Loh was "blocking an investigation".

"I don't think so," Raeesah replied. "I think she was just suggesting I get advice from a lawyer on what to do."

Jumabhoy also questioned Nathan's suggestion that she "be careful" about what she told the lawyer, to which Raeesah had replied that it was "good advice".

"Does he mean don't tell the lawyer everything?" Jumabhoy asked Raeesah.

"I think he was just saying, be careful what you say to the lawyer," she said.

More questions​

Jumabhoy subsequently brought up another text exchange involving the same group.

This time, it concerned a conversation on Nov. 2, 2021, about Raeesah's original anecdote.

The conversation took place after Raeesah had told parliament on Nov. 1, 2021 that the anecdote had been a lie.

In the Nov. 2 text messages, Raeesah discussed how she had inserted herself into the anecdote about accompanying a victim of sexual assault to the police station.

"I thought it might give [the story] more impact", she wrote in one message.

The anecdote, she later admitted, had simply been overheard in a support group for victims of sexual assault, and had never happened to her personally.

In response, Loh texted: "It doesn't explain why you had to plant yourself in the story."

Jumabhoy asked if this meant Loh thought Raeesah's story wasn't true.

Raeesah replied that her personal statement had been to admit her wrongdoing, and explain that she was a survivor herself, which is how she got the anecdote.

"I don't think her saying this means [she thought] what I said in the statement wasn't true," Raeesah told Jumabhoy, referring to Loh's messages.

She added that Loh had specified, "I'm being the devil's advocate here", which suggested that she meant to address possible opponents.

Jumabhoy then confirmed if Raeesah had inserted herself into the anecdote "to give it more weight".

Raeesah agreed.

Talking out​

The lawyer then moved on to later in November 2021, when Raeesah was notified that she had to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges.

He asked if, upon being notified, she had discussed with Loh about possibly "aligning [their] facts".

Both had given their evidence on Dec. 2 and 3, 2021, with Raeesah testifying after Loh on both days.

In response to Jumabhoy, Raeesah said that they met up the night before to be there for each other and make sure the other was OK.

She did not ask Loh if she wanted to come up with a story to "align facts", she clarified.

Jumabhoy then asked if they had discussed the evidence that they were going to give the next day, or if Loh had "talked [her] out of" her plan to assume full responsibility for her mistake.

Raeesah agreed that they had spoken about the evidence.

However, Loh did not "talk [her] out" of her course of action.

"If the COP asked, we would have to tell the truth," she said.

Top image from Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying/Facebook

As for these 2 naive dumbf@rks, RK already throw them under the bus liao......If they give something radically different, I just wanna say, Perjury carries a jail term up to 7 years.