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

M

Mechafanboy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
12,124
Reaction score
9,066
mryang said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only one puzzled is the AG... It was a lapse of judgment on PS' part, for thinking RK to be a mature, responsible adult. That itself is not a crime. IMO, the COP's mishandling of the inquiry is probably a greater sin than PS' treatment of RK.

AG is desperate to shift the focus back to PS and it shows.
 
Nuclear Boy

Nuclear Boy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
16,945
Reaction score
8,510
dezzo69 said:
macham like arguing for the sake of arguing liao lol
Click to expand...

nasilemak100 said:
in the end. the judge will just sentence pritam guilty la tbh

we all know PAP, DAG, judge all same camp
Click to expand...

What do you expect? He already faced the kangaroos in COP (who already deem him guilty). Now it's his time in the wallaby court (to show a semblance of impartiality)

I flipped 'kangaroo' and 'wallaby' around, because we all know who is subordinate to who.
 
P

pspandwp

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2023
Messages
792
Reaction score
1,420
Mechafanboy said:
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?
Click to expand...

instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time – I have to spend all my time – thinking what is the right way to fix them

when things look so childish, look so stupid, make no sense, refer to the quote above and the answer to the childishness, stupidity, nonsense, becomes clear

can a nation progress if those in power resort to the the fixing of OPPO to entrench themselves in power?

the sad fact of sinkie life is that despite sinkies knowing such fixing happens, and is happening, sinkies think everything is okay as long as there is CDC voucher
 
Nuclear Boy

Nuclear Boy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
16,945
Reaction score
8,510
pspandwp said:
the sad fact of sinkie life is that despite sinkies knowing such fixing happens, and is happening, sinkies think everything is okay as long as there is CDC voucher
Click to expand...
"Better the devils we know party we know which brings us rice, than an unknown who may break our bowl."

"My kingdom freedom for a horse a grain of rice!"


They strike fear in the right parts of people's mind, all while undermining their "security". They're very good at that, I'll give them that. Perfect Machiavellian disciples.
 
G

gonewiththesmart

Banned
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
10,002
Reaction score
2,659
Mechafanboy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Which are scraps you are referring to ?
PS is not a retired uncle talking non sense in coffee shop.
He is a VIP in sg..
 
C

couch.potato

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Messages
33,008
Reaction score
2,515
Seems like that camp thinks they’re winning… from the *ahems* that come and go from this thread. Can see a pattern.
 
E

erwinrommel

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27,560
Reaction score
2,984
s-ghost said:
Pritam’s Oct 1 e-mail to WP MPs was his way of telling Raeesah that her lie had not been resolved

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock and Pritam Singh debate on the Oct 1, 2021, e-mail that Singh sent to Workers' Party MPs.

In the e-mail, he referenced an excerpt in the Hansard report, which he said “restates how serious it is to be able to back up and defend what you say in Parliament, or risk being hauled up before the Committee of Privileges (COP)”.

Singh says in court that the e-mail was sent “in relation” to the lie Ms Raeesah Khan first told on Aug 3, 2021.

DAG Ang asks: “The truth is, Mr Singh, this was a general e-mail, correct?”

Singh disagrees.

DAG Ang then refers to an exchange between Singh and Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong during the 2021 COP hearing, where Singh said the e-mail was a “general e-mail to all the MPs”.

Singh then says: “It's a general e-mail because it’s addressed to everyone but it’s more than that as well.”

DAG Ang asks: “But it’s not about the lie, correct?”

Singh says the e-mail is “closely related’ to the lie.

DAG Ang then says: “Well, a few moments ago, you said it’s about the lie, and now you’re trying to distance yourself from it by saying it’s closely related to the lie…”

Singh replies: “I think that’s a rather pedantic way of putting it.”

DAG Ang says: “Oh okay, I’m so sorry.”

Singh replies: “I’m not asking for your apology, but it covers the subject matter that concerns the lie.”

After several back-and-forths, DAG Ang asks: “So, in this e-mail, you actually were telling her that she could go to the COP, correct?”

Singh agrees. He says the e-mail “was (his) way of getting (Ms Khan) to understand that this issue was a live issue and it hadn’t been resolved”.
Click to expand...
Funny ah.

If one day your mother out of the blue says to all the family members.. "don't lie ok. You must be honourable and honest and don't lie."

Is that not a direct admission that someone in the family has already been caught lying?
 
C

charleslee1989

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
28,494
Reaction score
9,069
erwinrommel said:
Funny ah.

If one day your mother out of the blue says to all the family members.. "don't lie ok. You must be honourable and honest and don't lie."

Is that not a direct admission that someone in the family has already been caught lying?
Click to expand...
It is implicit lah.....
 
fire

fire

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2000
Messages
33,182
Reaction score
8,358
erwinrommel said:
Funny ah.

If one day your mother out of the blue says to all the family members.. "don't lie ok. You must be honourable and honest and don't lie."

Is that not a direct admission that someone in the family has already been caught lying?
Click to expand...

No, think to them must be direct and state it outright
 
kmkimlo

kmkimlo

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
14,022
Reaction score
1,674
erwinrommel said:
Funny ah.

If one day your mother out of the blue says to all the family members.. "don't lie ok. You must be honourable and honest and don't lie."

Is that not a direct admission that someone in the family has already been caught lying?
Click to expand...
True lah..

can only say that PS has not been 100% explicit. But he thought he is working with a responsible adult.
 
mryang

mryang

Banned
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
156,984
Reaction score
17,580
erwinrommel said:
Funny ah.

If one day your mother out of the blue says to all the family members.. "don't lie ok. You must be honourable and honest and don't lie."

Is that not a direct admission that someone in the family has already been caught lying?
Click to expand...
Like giving you a stage and stairs case to come forward for help already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top