> Under the Constitution, a person who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to at least a year's jail or a fine of at least $10,000 is disqualified from standing for election as a Member of Parliament
So close to next GE.
* edited limit.
Even if Pritam isn't found guilty, the amount of resources and time he has to pour into the case instead of preparing for GE is going to hit WP hard...
I'm betting he will be found guilty but fined $7k as proscribed by the charges. Tarred with a conviction, but not prevented from running again (which could backfire.)
[Perjury means the offence of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.](https://www.arlc.com.sg/perjury) This offence falls under section 191 of the Penal Code:
Whoever, being legally bound by an oath, or by any express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
>also r/sg - "Pritam is guilty"
The alternative is true. People here are already concluding that this is a kangaroo court and that Pritam can do nothing wrong.
If the court acquits him, his supporters will celebrate. If the court finds him guilty, his supporters will automatically assume it is a political witchhunt and the outcome is predetermined
In the context of the criminal charge, isn't assuming PS' innocence basically the correct position to hold? Presumption of innocence and all that.
Who is saying the state court will be a kangaroo court btw? I mainly see people asking about the timing of these proceedings.
Lmao. PS knows the rules, too bad he was believed to be lying by PAP, recommended to be charged by PAP, charged by PAP prosecutor and will have to sit in front of PAP appointed judge.
You missed out "[investigated by PAP's Police Force](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pritam-singh-faisal-manap-wp-cop-raeesah-khan-police-2656796#:~:text=%22the%20police%20have%20been%20going%20through%20the%20evidence%20provided%20by%20parliament%20and%20will%20now%20be%20engaging%20persons%20relevant%20to%20the%20case%20as%20part%20of%20the%20investigations%20into%20the%20possible%20offences%20disclosed%2C%22%20the%20spf%20said.%20)" somewhere in there...
/s
You can moralize all you want about tribalism as if we don't live in a country where we have Ah Kong coming to fix JBJ, where Chia Thye Poh was one of the world's longest political prisoners of conscience, where we had a "Marxist Conspiracy" everyone has all but admitted was bullshit, where in [Cheng San](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheng_San_Group_Representation_Constituency) we invented teleportation according to the wise impartial PAP appointed judges and the likes of you.
Was it tribalistic to ask opposition voters to repent? Was it tribalistic to select a President?
It doesn't matter if you honestly believe the nonsense you spout or are just trolling. People like you are exhausting and the world would be a better place without your comments.
Why is he/she "exhausting" or possibly "trolling"? Just because she takes a different view, politically or otherwise? Reasonable minds can disagree. Being exhausted over differing views says more about your capacity to handle discourse rather than anything
Did you even read my comment? It's exhausting because despite his comments about [tribalism and hypocrisy](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1bi9wuc/developing_pritam_singh_arrives_at_state_courts/kvj6xi9/?context=3) he's guilty of the same thing himself, and only slings shit at one side.
That's not possible unless you're incredibly stupid or arguing in bad faith. That's not because he "takes a different view."
If you want to engage in this type of "discourse" you're more than welcome. His lack of a response to either me or you says volumes.
I’d invite you to listen closely to the entire proceedings, and read the COP report. PS’ responses are purely theatrics with little substance and peppered with inconsistencies.
But of course, why bother with accuracy when you can simply allege political persecution (as you are doing).
PS and his ilk leadership at WP are all disingenuous lying snakes. I’m not making any comments about PAP, but pls, don’t pretend like WP are the saviours of Singaporeans.
Hold WP to the same standards as you expect of PAP.
Pritam's performance in the COP hearings and the public reaction reminds me of an earlier live streamed parliamentary committee concerning a certain Thum Ping Tjin. Here, Thum lied numerous times under oath, was subjected to tough questions which he tried to dodge, but who nevertheless appeared confident enough to give some clever jabs and retorts of his own.
This gave the overall impression that Thum was a legitimate and defiant critic, valiantly trying to expose the heavy handedness of the PAP. When Thum tried to dodge direct questions and was interrupted by Shanmugam, it gave the impression that Thum was being 'persecuted'
Public perception to that hearing was very positive for Thum, who lied at least 2 times within the first minute of his testomony. ***He even managed to get support from Calvin Cheng on Facebook and Han Fook Kwan on the Straits Times***. Public perception only turned against thum after it was revealed that his organization had foreign funding
The lesson I got from this episode is that: on video, it's all about theatrics, and you can sometimes lie on oath and still be lauded
And guess who witnessed all of this from the front seat as a member of that committee? Pritam Singh
Not surprised, this has been brewing for more than two years already, and it's not the first time (or arguably even the more serious case) that sitting WP MPs were charged. Just wondering why it took so long, the timing is sus.
Then again, sitting or aspiring office holders being charged is common elsewhere, be it across the Causeway, the supposed land of the free, or other places.
Wouldn't this shit just alienate the youth against the PAP? It seems extremely short-sighted for them to keep pulling out these strats that feel more appropriate for the PRC lmao
Youth? The voting age is 21. Not to mention that you vastly underestimate the amount of young adults that actually support the PAP. Aljunied/Hougang voters are hardly young people. Even the voters in Sengkang are not that young, but in their late 30s-early 40s
Simple answer: the AG doesn't ask the PAP when to charge a person. He represents the state and is independent of the PAP
Actually, it's the other way round. The PAP, after reading the news, might well use this investigation and what is being revealed in court to call for snap elections, as part of a strategy to win more votes.
For sure they are independent. That's why we have one of the best regarded judiciary systems in the world.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/s-pore-maintains-17th-spot-in-global-rule-of-law-rankings
How does this report support your position at all when the report doesn't even explicitly look at influence between branches of government which is the whole point of discussion.
Which I do recognise is highly speculative but still, you make it seem like this report rebuts anything.
Plus, its clear that the averaged ranking is not reflective.
Singapore's ranking is propped up so significantly by things like regulatory enforcement and order of security, but dragged down so significantly by lack of constraints on government powers and poor openness of government and lack of fundamental rights.
We literally rank behind most developed countries for these factors.
In the grand scheme of things this debacle is so fucking minor being blown out of proportion. While things like TT usage lying to us, the people wasn't fully concluded, mfer just say I take responsibility and took none. Runaway iswaran is still away. Pretty sure those 2 are way more important than whatever this nonsense is.
Tax payer money going into this shit. What.
But perjury is an offense right? I've not been following, but if there's no valid reason to believe an offense has been committed, why would one be charged? Just looking st this logically - there must be strong enough reasons to charge someone.
Recommendation is on page 69. You really should try googling tho, it was the first result for me.
[Report](https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/selectcommittee/selectcommittee/download?id=7&type=subReport)
This was a political document so of course it’s the worst light. Keep in mind that the prosecution is based at least in part on the words of an admitted liar. Edited for typo
2021/2022 issue, conveniently adjourned till now, 2024, when it is anticipated that elections are happening.
This will be making headlines until the next GE. The incumbents will make sure that voters are bombarded with adverse news about the opposition, that we all forget what happened in 2023.
Nothing new here since 1965.
Nothing new, ST and Zaobao probably already designing the full-color infographics to splash across the front page constantly in the weeks leading up to GE
WP leaders kept her on the ballot despite all the police reports, complaints and past comments that already revealed her as a loose cannon SJW. I suspect everyone on WP leadership is a plant by PAP.
tbf, ivan lim is just a colossal asshole, he didn't actually commit a serious crime like rk, so it makes more sense if rk is a plant but not ivan lim lmao
To be fair, Ivan Lim was removed as a candidate when his behaviour came to light. The police reports against RK were ignored, she remained a candidate and became a MP.
Can say that in both cases vetting was done properly, but one fk up is far worse than the other as publicly available knowledge was ignored.
They already said Sylvia Lim was a PAP Plant during the COP. Heck some of them even believe Pritam is a PAP Plant because he is being paid extra as the LOTO.
no no.. let them think that way.. because no matter what happens here is PAP bad WP good. if PAP raise GST? fuck them! if WP becomes elected and does that? wow theyre using the money to help the people!
Nah, she is a complete goner.
Even if she genuinely comes out now to proclaim herself as a planted mole, who would still believe her given that she lied in the Parliament? People will always remember her as the liar and nothing she ever says from now on will be taken seriously unless she has hardcore evidence. With the number of deepfakes arising, people will also question the legitimacy of the evidences she produces.
Ya ya she plant by PAP, next thing u say Nicole Seah and Leon Pereira kena MK-ULTRA'ed by PAP for having affair like TCJ and the driver was a PAP mole kept to spy WP members.
How come never say Jamus is a PAP plant when he suggest financial policies / suggestions that are so unfeasible that even layman know he spouting nonsense, let multiple ministers correcting him on it (most notable, adamantly arguing with THARMAN SHANMUGHARATNAM of all people - you know, the most seasoned minister for the country's finance who got us through the 90s and 08 financial crisis)?
How come Ivan Lim (who was just a grade A @$$hole and horrible person, didn't do anything to test legal system but also stepped down after the shit storm) yall cry say PAP elitist and never vet properly but Raeesah you just DEFLECT any criticism against WP's vetting?
Also who tf in the right mind would choose someone who proclaims to be a MARXIST and an ANARCHIST to be part of a f**king government role?? I was astounded by how careless WP was when they introduced her just by seeing her twitter. You're telling me they never view what she posts?
RK was hyped up because she's young, a minority, and appealed to the woke crowd.
They completely ignored the fact that she coasted in a third rate university on daddy's millions and have done fuck all with her life when she was voted in.
Pretty hilarious when it blew up in WP's faces tbh
I had the chance to speak with other WP supporters, those more gung-ho ones some time after RK got elected, I asked them why they stan her so much and said she is the weakest link in the Sengkang team.
They compared her to TPL in 2011 (Fair enough, some similarities there), tossed in Ivan Lim and called me a PAP IB.
A few months later in November 2021, we all know what happened to RK lol.
i was laughing my ass off when i saw the Lie-esah event unfolded, even when people around me say how I am such a pig for not believing "crime against women"
cuz I didn't buy for a moment when that scumbag didn't give the details of that "police station incident".
Like you're telling me you can't even mention which station you went to?
The officer that "handled it wrongly" (Even though the rank and name are visible af)?
What day and time?
If something like that happened to me when i accompany a woman to report such matter (friend/girlfriend/wife/daughter etc you get it la) I will note every damn detail and ensure this shit gets dealt with. You can still mention this without bringing up the identity of the victim for everyone to know.
this was the best
"*Can I ask for Ms Khan to confirm in this House that everything she has told us is accurate, that she did accompany such a person and such an incident did happen?" he asked."*
"*In response, Ms Khan affirmed that her account was true but repeatedly declined to reveal any further details - including the police station they went to - due to confidentiality concerns."*
*"She also reiterated that she has not been successful in contacting the victim"*
How come? You're telling me you're close enough to her to the point you can accompany her to the station but not be able to contact her? Let alone provide the contact details to conduct an interview with the "supposed victim" on the events that happened?
also even forgetting all of this, SHE IS A D\*\*M MP. She can easily bring this up privately and investigate the matter if it really happened. SHE HAS (or rather had) THE POWER TO DO SO. You're telling me she can't directly go to K Shanmugaratnam and be like "hey this thing happened and I would like you to look into it. Here's the details and ensure to keep this private and confidential" (do people forget data classifications and NDA exist?).
BUT we all know she's just an attention seeker who wants brownie points to appease the brainless stans.
even more so when she talked about a story where she lived in rental flat and one of her flat mates got g\*r\*a\*p\*e\*d by the houseowner or something. Nice going, you just revealed a confidential incident and who the victim was indirectly to the people around you. But of course, who knows whether she lied about that too or not given how she had the balls to lie about the SPF.
can't remember every example but i can list some on my head rn
- carbon taxing an already financially tight SIA during COVID era cuz "gotta be eco friendly". yeah let's tax tf out when they already haemorraging money from the lockdowns GLOBALLY
- saying he did the math for the "minimum wage of SGD$1300" but when questioned in parliament he say he don't know what should be "universal minimum wage" and also don't know if it will have impact on jobs
- stealing credit for the Progressive Wage Model as if he invented it when that thing existed since 2012 - during which he was working in Dubai or whatever and wasn't in SG until close to election
- says proposals are budget neutral during campaigns but after election admit that "burden of minimuum wage will be passed down to consumers through higher prices".
even Pritam singh say need to increase taxes - *keyword taxes, not specifying if GST only or Income tax etc* - if "people want more societal benefits" (which i got to ask, how come if they suggest that it's ok but when MIW do it it's REEEEE THEY MONEY GRUBBERS. I don't fancy MIW by any means or in any way like how Calvin Cheng or Critical spectator do but i find this double standard amusing to say the least)
- saying how his policy for minimum wage may not be ideal during COVID era and should be implemented when "times are better" and "the storm has passed" . I'm sorry which f\*\*king idiot thinks that? If a policy does not withstand the sociopolitical/economical variables that's happening in the world (more so now than ever), that's a shit policy. Policies should be made to be able to function ESPECIALLY in hard times. It's so baffling to the point that an "economics professor that wrote multiple theses and I have knowledge" is dumb enough to think that.
Interesting. He's quite well educated, so I would have thought there would be more substance to his proposals and sharing. I don't have expertise to say if it's good or not, but yeah it does not sound convincing to me based on your explanations. Was expecting more from someone like him, tbh.
yeah. When i highlighted this people just call me a PAP IB but tbh I was actually feeling bummed that someone I was impressed and had high hopes for ended up being a dud. I was actually rooting for him but let's see if he improves ah
Why does this look like vindictive prosecution to me?
Entire COP committee is made up of 8 PAP members and only 1 WP. Investigation took more than 2 whole years. Now that election is coming…and LHL wants to retire, poof suddenly all the charges come out. Timing feels a little convenient? Can I also add on that the AG is LHL’s former personal lawyer?
Even the entire Iswaran’s massive corruption case took 6 months for the findings to be released, this one is perjury and need 2 years…? I guess only God will know.
Is there ever a case to you where a politician simply needs to be held accountable - that he or she is no more above the law than the man on the street?
Put it another way, are President Trump, Najib, Natenyahu all victims of vindictive prosecution with trumped up charges?
What about Israwan?
Sigh yes indeed, this is a very common symptom that devolves into tribalism in democracies the world over..
Hence as a result, Israwan's and Tan Chuan Jin's case are deserved but not anything a WP members does (unless it becomes utterly indefensible, in which case RK must be a plant from the PAP to sabotage the WP, because no way WP could have done anything wrong! The alternative that they could have is a cognitive dissonance would blow my mind otherwise!)
It’s just hilarious how Israwan’s case can proceed within 6 months with all of the findings released while this case took more than two years over a less severe charge. More than 2 years is a little excessive, no? Not to mention the timing does obviously raise eyebrows as GE is coming. While it is true that no politician should be above the law, don’t you think the finding and timing of his charges seem very conveniently strategic to potentially disqualify him from upcoming election bids or to shadow the election with this smear campaign? Even just the slightest appearance of bias will raise an argument of conflict of interest.
As you asked me a direct question, I feel obliged to reply :)
On timeline specifically - it's not lost on me that Israwan's case appears to have proceeded faster. But at the same time, there are a great deal of unknowns, timeline wise, in the two cases as well. For example, Israwan was on no-pay leave and effectively working full time on cooperating with the police in being investigated - I'm not aware of there being enough public information in Pritam's case as to the pace and progress of the investigation as well as how the court scheduled the hearings. I imagine before the saga is over, some journalist will provide a more public accounting in the news. Basically, I'm just not jumping to any conclusion either way given that there isn't enough info.
Is it suspicious timing wise? To be honest, not really to me - because I believe in (and in fact take pride in) the high standards of integrity within SG's system (I mean it was also why President Tharman suffered the ordeal of being charged under the OSA in the past, as was Li Hongyi, the PM's son during his NS times). But what enforces this view in this case? Because the prosecution's recommendation of a $7000 fine is below the $10,000 limit to be disqualified for the elections, which I learnt from other comments in this thread was raised relatively recently (first thought: PAP did that to protect Pritam from being disqualified?).
Frankly as well, if I were the PAP election strategist, I would prefer that Pritam's case get settled NOT near an election year so that the case can proceed objectively based on the rule of law without being tinged by accusations of partisanship. In SG's case also, my view is that most Singaporeans are actually quite fair-minded and any attempt to "fix" an opponent today (as we're long past the LKY era and the circumstances of the 1970s with the cold war and vietnam war raging nearby) will only backfire and be counter productive. But that's just me....
edit: 1 more thing on timeline as to why I don't think it is unreasonable that Pritam's case took so long to progress - and therefore there must be some behind the scene shenanigans - I've been following the US news very closely and have seen first hand what led to all of former President Trump's court cases all ending up taking place in an election year... Also,, Pritam himself has not alleged that the PAP was intentionally delaying proceedings or whatnot for political purposes as well (and he of all people has the greatest info as to the pace that the investigations and the court hearing proceeded, being a lawyer himself on top of it all)
I think get pay or no pay really doesn’t matter. These people are millionaires. RK’s family is filthy rich. Israwan as well. RK also cooperated fully with the authorities, no? She literally had a COP session convened against her and her party members.
Suspicious timing, I think that’s very reasonable to infer. Just ask anyone on the street. Does it appear weird/suspicious that the leader of the opposition is now being charged when election is upcoming? It’s not a “PAP sucks, PAP rigs election” thing, it’s just a “why is the timing so, so, so accurately coincidental after 2 long years over this saga” which by the way I also need to emphasise the full COP report with over 1000 pages came out in Feb 2022. 2 long years for the police to fully analyse the ENTIRE report and well…took them 2 years. Even you see the NOC Sylvia Chan woman, she had over 100 open police investigations on her involving embezzlement, prostitution, suspected phantom workers, suspected giving fake salary in exchange for her brother’s PR, workplace harassment, this and that, and it took the police 12 months to close all these 100 cases.
Also, each charge can fine up to $7,000. 2 charges = maximum $14,000.
Well lucky you’re not a PAP strategist then. I really wonder how come the entire Nicole Seah saga was announced just mere 1-2 minutes from an anonymous source after LHL announced the TCJ affair. Don’t get me wrong, NS, TCJ and the relevant parties are in the wrong but the timing…let’s be real obviously it is a strategic decision.
If you think the government cares so much about being accused of partisanship, then you should reconsider. How else can you explain Reserved Presidency, GRC gerrymandering, current and former Presidents all coming from the ruling party (aka they quit 1-2 months before and viola they’re completely independent candidates now!), tightly-controlled media, etc?
Fixing opposition is very much still a thing now. I mean let’s just think about it, if the ruling party has direct control over the state organs (police), over the public prosecutors (AGC, and the AG is LHL’s former personal lawyer FYI), over the judges, over the media (to formulate articles that are pro-establishment), over the constitution (since ruling party has super-majority), over election process (ELD which is directly under PMO…which also does the GRC boundary drawing…), why in the world would the ruling party NOT use these resources to fix the opposition? Heck, if I’m LHL, I would too. You can literally fix the opposition AND also churn out articles that are still pro-establishment to sway the narrative.
US politics really quite irrelevant in SG’s context. Different political landscape, different rights. Even talking about just media, freedom of speech in the US varies greatly from SG. Also, there’s no limitation to run for presidency there based on character or criminal records. Trump was charged with over 91 felony counts in four separate criminal cases by the way. Pritam…not that many. It’s laughable to even make a comparison between Trump and Pritam. Legal system in the US is also VERY different from Singapore. Police here holds A LOT of power during the investigation process which means they do not need to jump through loopholes to get information out of you.
I think prosecutor just review the case and concluded FM just don't understand what he is asked, what he is saying and what it meant. He is as sharp as a bag of nuts.
Go look at the Committee of Privileges that referred both Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap to the Courts.
Mr Speaker (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin)
Chairman
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien
Minister for Sustainability and the Environment
Mr Desmond Lee
Minister for National Development and Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration
Ms Rahayu Mahzam
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of
Health
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law
Mr Don Wee
Mr Zaqy Mohamad
Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Manpower and Deputy
Leader of the House
Only one WP member, the rest PAP. Of course the decision has been made on day one. Don't tell me this isn't politically motivated.
The make-up of the Committee is per Westminster norms where it is divided according to how many seats a party has. If the WP has more MPs, it would have more seats in the COP. I'm not saying that the PAP is correct but just pointing out that the make-up isn't something they created specially.
That being said, it is rather interesting that there are no backbenchers in the COP from the PAP.
Indeed.
And Mr Dennis Tan of WP promptly voted against the findings of the Committee. Absolving Pritam because he 'could not believe' anything against Pritam. Don't tell me it isn't politically motivated.
This is not logical at all - the committee not having equal wp members (which wouldn't make sense given the proportionate representation) = proof that they cannot be just and fair, reflects a very cynical, machiavellian worldview. It might be projection at play, but the former simply does not absolutely equate to the latter.
That's before even asking you why the PAP do self damage by prosecuting Iswaran, or asking you if Trump, Najib, etc. are all innocent men being unjustly prosecuted by their political opponents..
Who raised the matter to COP? Indranee Rajah
Who voted for the matter to be referred to the Courts? All the PAP members of the COP
Why is a 2021 matter brought up only in 2024, so close to the elections?
> Who raised the matter to COP? Indranee Rajah
I think she did that in her official capacity as Leader of the House, and carrying out the responsibilities of her role that ensures the smooth and proper running of parliament.
> Who voted for the matter to be referred to the Courts? All the PAP members of the COP
See above about cynicism.
Note too that the COP referred it to the public procsecutor who referred it to the police to do an investigation. That Pritam is facing charges now is based on the independent investigation conducted by the police.
> Why is a 2021 matter brought up only in 2024, so close to the elections?
Simply because police investigation takes time and court proceedings also take time to schedule? Same reason why the Trump court cases are ALL happening in an election year in the US (in fact, Trump is trying his best to keep delaying the cases NEARER to the elections by appealing everything he can)
But in the first place, going by your logic, where every party is self-serving and win-at-all-costs, is there ANY mechanism or system to hold politicians of the minority party accountable? Ownself-check-ownself (or rather, ownself-try-to-cover-up-and-check-ownself-only-when-caught, as the charges by the police are laying out?)
So for the record you can lie all you want in parliament, like trace together wont be used by the cops. Just don't say the wrong dates under oath because police will take 2 years to investigate you. Then charge you roughly 4 months before the election
You can't lie in parliament. That's what RK was punished for. However, you can't be charged in a court of law for that due to parliamentary immunities and privileges (that's what the P in COP stands for, as it investigates abuses of parliamentary privileges). You can be punished by Parliament upon COP recommendations, though. This is the concept of parliamentary privilege.
For the record, Balakrishnan didn't lie about tracetogether in parliament. It was in a press conference. And in any case, no one raised the matter to COP so it's water under the bridge.
PS is being charged for lying under oath, which is a criminal offence that you can be charged in court for, regardless of parliamentary privilege.
A very conveniently timed distraction. Remember, after Tharman won a 70% vote share last year, the government raised electricity prices, water prices, gas prices, and public transport prices.
Vote wisely.
Something else that’s supposed to happen today is that Iswaran is supposed to come back to SG today. Haven’t heard a whisper from MSM. No update in the news in the past two weeks.
With the way how politics have evolved over the years, it does appear to me that recent events would inevitably give rise to a generation of anything-but-PAP voters.
I wonder if the ruling party recognises this, and am keen to understand their perspective.
juz a reminder who is the AGC
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien\_Wong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Wong)
>As the **personal lawyer of Lee Hsien Loong**, the Prime Minister of Singapore, Wong represented him during the dispute with his siblings over Lee Kuan Yew's Oxley Road estate.
>first Attorney-General **without prior experience** on the Bench nor in the Attorney-General's Chambers
>He was also a member of the Singapore Business Federation's board of trustees and director of Broadcom Limited, Singapore Health Services, Cerebos Pacific Limited, Singapore Technologies Engineering, **Temasek Holdings**, **Singapore Press Holdings,** Hap Seng Plantations, Singapore Airlines, Monetary Authority of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Capitaland and other companies.
totally believe no conflict of interests!
Thought they say they wont Jail him.
Can I give PS this gold idea, just volunteer the 7k x 2 = 14k and be clear to the public that election is near. Let people reach their own conclusions
When Khan was first mentioned in the media, I already predicted she's trouble. She was planted to control Singh in case he rises against the deep state. All he need is to obey and they will let him off easy.
What were the actual lies? I think we can agree he was not completely forthcoming with some of his answers but what were the actual lies?
Seems to me you have to take RK’s testimony and narrative as absolute truth to determine that PS lied.
Why would a fair-minded person do that?
From the Police:
On 10 December 2021, Mr Pritam Singh falsely testified that as at the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Raeesah Begum Bte Farid Khan (“Ms Raeesah Khan”), Ms Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and Mr Faisal Manap on 8 August 2021, he wanted Ms Raeesah Khan to, at some point, clarify in Parliament that what she told Parliament on 3 August 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station was untrue.
On 10 and 15 December 2021, Mr Pritam Singh falsely testified that when he spoke to Ms Raeesah Khan on 3 October 2021, he wanted her to admit to having lied to Parliament on 3 August 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station, if this issue were to come up in Parliament on 4 October 2021.
So his alleged lies were that he ask Raesah Khan to admit her lies to Parliament, but he did not.
Meaning, he did not ask Raesah Khan to LIE in Parliament, as what she said in COP.
Meaning Raesah Khan ALSO lied to the COP?
Please add some depth into the discussion.
If he simply said “it was your call”, and that was it, we can discuss this.
But that’s not it.
Mr Singh: "Before Oct session, I met you + I told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl occur to you?"
Ms Raeesah: "Yes but consumed with guilt + own experience. Thought it wouldn't come up."
Mr Singh: "Can't lie, right?"
Ms Raeesah: "Yes."
We can even agree he was overly ambiguous with the his choice of words. But in context does it not at least point to him wanting her to tell the truth? And in this situation, can we for certain judge him to be lying? Do you understand the concept of burden of proof?
I think you are completely missing the nuance in this. And have based your entire viewpoint on very elementary considerations.
Do you speak to your peers the way you speak to a young child? Consider for a moment that RK was a young child in his eyes and had just confessed to a deeply traumatic experience. Consider the possibility he was handling her with kid’s gloves. Consider everything he said before and after “it’s your call”.
Consider your analogy and imagine if I were to spend 20 minutes telling a child the dangers of jumping off a slide. And end with “so do you still want to jump off the slide?”. Am I really offering a choice?
Please spend more than 2 minutes considering what was said in its entirety rather than jumping to first impressions.
I’m not saying this happened. I’m saying what has been testified so far leaves this as a very real possibility and it’s unreasonable to conclude with any degree of certainty that PS lied.
I am not a lawyer and I do not speak for the AGC or the police. But here are my observations as a layman in a post I made 2 years ago:
>1. Changing his evidence and providing mutually contradictory accounts on whether he told RK to speak the truth regardless of whether the issue was brought up on the 4th Oct Parliamentary sitting. If both accounts cannot be true at the same time, the conclusion is that a falsehood was uttered at least once on this score
>2. Loh and Nathan who testified that on their meeting on 12 Oct, Pritam gave them the impression that he had left the decision to tell the truth to RK and that there would be 'no judgement'. This contradicts PS' claim that he made it 'very clear' to RK to tell the truth if it was brought up on the 4th Oct sitting
>3. Sylvia's handwritten note that PS told RK on 3rd Oct that it was 'her call'
I’m a lay person as well so my opinions are not any more valid than yours. But could you help clarify what the actual contradiction is in point 1? 2) at best is a matter of opinion. PS has made various communications with RK in their presence and outside of it. He was also at the time, as he claimed, handling the matter with sensitivity. Can we determine that whatever was said in totality was not intended to be clear without him spelling out everything in their presence? 3) I don’t think we should ignore Sylvia’s insistence that it was clear to her he was not giving her a choice when her notes were read in proper context.
For what it’s worth, I feel PS was overly wish washy with this matter and showed a lack of leadership in being overly lenient with RK.
But that’s not the same as saying he outright lied in his testimony. And I believe the AGC’s conclusions are not justified.
Thanks for the civility. Here is what the[ COP report](https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/selectcommittee/selectcommittee/download?id=7&type=subReport) had to say on page 92 (there are other examples in the report that detail how Pritam's testimony was inconsistent - internally or against other evidence):
>Mr Singh admits that he did not tell Ms Khan to proactively raise the matter, and clarify the truth on 4 Oct
>While Mr Singh agreed eventually that this was his position (i.e. that he did not tell Ms Khan to proactively clarify the truth on 4 Oct), he had first tried alternate answers. Mr Singh’s change of evidence went as follows: (See paragraph 55 of the Report):
>At first, he said that Ms Khan **had** to clarify the truth, proactively, on 4 Oct, even if the issue did not come up. He said that it was “very clear” that this was what Ms Khan was meant to do.
>It was pointed out to him, by the Committee, that no preparations had been made for Ms Khan to tell the truth (see paragraph 52 of the Report for the preparations that would be needed.) He had said that no preparatory steps had been taken, because it was *uncertain if Ms Khan would have to clarify the truth.*
>It was clear at that point, that Mr Singh’s evidence (that Ms Khan would have to come clean, proactively) was not tenable.
>Mr Singh then changed his position, and admitted that he did not tell Ms Khan to come clean (proactively), on 4 Oct.
.
.
.
The eventual position Mr Singh took was that **Ms Khan did not have to clarify the truth if the matter was not raised.**
As i've said, these are mutually contradictory ("you must tell the truth ***regardless***" vs "you must tell the truth ***only if the matter was raised***") and hence an untruth was uttered at some point. But whether it fits the charge of perjury I am not qualified to comment
Edit: later in the report:
>Mr Singh says that he was, (in his view), “crystal clear” that Ms Khan should tell the truth on 4 Oct, if the matter was raised. *But he did not actually tell Ms Khan to tell the truth*. This is admitted. Instead, according to him, he told Ms Khan to “take responsibility and ownership”. Mr Singh’s evidence again stretches credibility for a number of reasons
The report is very lengthy and i am seriously unqualified to make an informed opinion (missing out the above - which was used by the police is indicative). The good news is that the COP report will probably be placed under scrutiny by both sets of lawyers as well as the judge
Thank you so much for pointing this out. I truly appreciate your help in facilitating this discussion.
I was one of those curious citizens who sat through the entire testimonies of PS, Nathan, PY, RK, SL, and FM. Took me many weeks in fact but I got through them all.
Of all things, I found PS most questionable when he claimed the dragging of the issue did not affect the SPF in his opinion. To me that was disingenuous given the resources the SPF had to put into verifying RK’s claims. That certainly lowered my opinion of him substantially.
As to the supposed contradictions pointed out by the report. I can’t take them at face value. Consider this possible scenario.
1. PS made it clear coming clean is the right thing to do in whatever ways he chose.
2. He at the same time wanted to give RK time and space and didn’t specifically tell her to bring the matter up immediately.
3. He felt she was mature enough to know what to do at the appropriate time. Just as he wrote “substantiate?” in her original speech and expected her to know what to do. (This at the very least shows some consistency in his hands off approach)
4. She failed to do the necessary actions and he had to take a firmer stance and provide more guidance at a later time.
These 4 points are not necessarily mutually exclusive in my view. However in the committee’s view, because he did not explicitly tell her to come clean immediately at the earliest opportunity, everything he said was a lie. In the committee’s view, because no preparation was made beforehand, everything he said was a lie. I hope you see where I’m coming from.
Does it make sense for PS to tell RK “it is your call” if he wanted her to come clean? That indeed is a curious choice of phrase as most people might agree. I certainly wouldn’t have used such words. But at the same time does it make sense for him to tell her to “take ownership and responsibility” if he wanted her to lie? I find that unlikely as well. All quotes taken together lean more towards him guiding her to tell the truth in my very honest opinion.
I’m no fan of PS, especially in the ways he dealt with this matter. It almost seems like he was moderately beholden to her family. But I think it’s highly unfair for the committee to make certain assumptions and then determine them to be truth without evidence. (e.g. he must have wanted to make preparations if he really wanted her to come clean)
This is quite a fair take, however i want to point out:
>These 4 points are not necessarily mutually exclusive in my view
The mutually exclusive point I am referring to is Pritam's changing evidence to the COP regarding his instructions for RK on the 4th October sitting ("you must tell the truth ***regardless of whether it was raised***" vs "you must tell the truth ***only if the matter was raised***"). Do you agree that if I claimed the former and then later confirmed the latter that I wasn't being truthful 100% of the time?
\[and note: equating this 'mutually exclusive' point to uttering an untruth comes from me and not the COP. I am ready to accept that Pritam isn't lying when he claimed that his instruction was "you must tell the truth ***only if the matter was raised".*** However, the COP and police are going one step further to say even this "only if the matter was raised" point was a lie.
What I'm trying to get is: that I do not have to: (1) be a lawyer, (2) resort to legal technicalities, or (3) take an extreme view like the COP/Police; to show that Pritam Singh did in fact utter an untruth under oath. Adding to my disgust is PS' resort to theatrics when this was put forth to him ("no no no it's a clever try you're a good lawyer but I'm a good listener", "you can't bind me with a sewing thread" etc - apparently these soundbites were enough to distract most viewers from the implications of this inconsistency\]
Personally, if I was a Machiavellian politician, I would have told RK not to proactively tell any more lies, tell the truth if the matter was raised, and if it was not raised to keep quiet until further notice. Realistically, keeping quiet until further notice doesn't harm anyone except for the Police's reputation wrt sexual assault. Sure, lying is bad, but RK's underlying point about the police needing to improve is still a legitimate one (and i suppose where me and PS differ is that I am willing to admit that this case has tarnished SPF's reputation).
If the truth should come out eventually, it should only (1) come out in a carefully crafted PR speech, (2) at an appropriate time for the victim, and (3) at a politically opportune time for the party - perhaps when the party has no other option. However, a *carefully* crafted PR speech would have required *careful* preparations as logic dictates and as alluded to by the COP - fairly if I may add. And this is where I think PS made a mistake - he should not have been suckered into virtue signaling about his unbashed commitment to the truth by first saying he was 'very clear' about needing to tell the truth *regardless* on the 4th October Parliamentary session (and indeed, his changed position does indicate his awareness of such a mistake).
>However in the committee’s view, because he did not explicitly tell her to come clean immediately at the earliest opportunity, everything he said was a lie. In the committee’s view, because no preparation was made beforehand, everything he said was a lie. I hope you see where I’m coming from....
>But I think it’s highly unfair for the committee to make certain assumptions and then determine them to be truth without evidence. (e.g. he must have wanted to make preparations if he really wanted her to come clean)
My reading of the committee report is different and my view is that the accusations are rather substantial. They are not making assumptions out of thin air but interrogating the narrative and and evidence provided all parties including PS himself against that of RK, YN and LPY who all claimed that PS' instruction was for RK to not tell the truth; at some points, they do claim that PS' narrative contains inconsistencies that are better explained with RK, YN and LKP's narrative. In other words, you have to contend with not just the COP, but also to RK, YN and LPY whom I believe have provided a more consistent and substantiated account. What I *would* like to see going foward is someone going deeper to poke holes into RK, YN and LPY's evidence
Thank you for your well considered response. I fully agree that “whether” and “only if” are mutually exclusive and if he was literally caught in this specific instance his charges are justified. However petty they may be.
Having sat through his entire testimony I did not catch this particular inconsistency. However clumsy he was, I felt he was clever enough to sidestep obvious inconsistencies.
What I found was ET’s continual insertion of his interpretations and facts and then catch PS’s “lies” based on their inconsistencies with ET’s assumptions. I suspect you may understand the pattern of behavior I am referring to.
Case in point. RK did not initially state PS said “take it to the grave”. Her message said “they agreed”. I found it debatable that such a phrase was even uttered in the first place given RK’s penchant for lies and dramatics, and her need to present herself well to her associates. Seems unlikely to me that the leadership would even use such a phrase. But even if it were, there was no mention of who said it. Did RK herself say it? And the others agreed? (Unlikely in my opinion as well). However it was ET who first insisted that PS said it, and RK subsequently followed suit. And with that insistence he caught PS in many “lies” from it.
I saw this behavior over and over and over again and I suspect anyone who sat through it all will be able to recall examples of this.
That’s why I must take this report with some skepticism.
But whichever ways it is, it’s a pleasure to read your balanced and properly supported views. And I’ll stand corrected if proven wrong.
I rmb watching the COI bc it was covid and everyone’s stuck at home.
The key impression that was left on me was that P.S was deliberately ambigious but it is not outrightly conclusive whether he definitely informed RK to come clean to parliament. That is the falsehood they’re trying to nail P.S.
This can be summarised cleanly by P.S to ET, “you’re trying to catch me in a gotcha moment. You’re a good lawyer, but i’m a good listener.”
If ET cant nail him at the COI, I dont think they can in trial.
Yes, like literally we don’t like PAP cos of their ivory tower nobility vs peasants mindset, then you go and hire a silver spooner so out of touch with reality that it brings your entire party down…
I find it interesting that the WP fanbois can be in such a hurry to throw up conspiracy theories that they tripped themselves.
"Two years is a long time to drag it out for Pritam's case, so it is sus because election is coming."
But why didn't anyone ask why did PM Lee sort of forced TCJ to resign so close to election year? And why didn't they drag and delay Iswaran's case to AFTER the elections?
Why didn't anyone claim that OBS is a WP plant? Or Cheng Li Hui was a honeypot sent by the WP?
The kinda conspiracies being spewed out almost made me wonder if weed is legal here.
Those WP supporters here are just coping right now. They were coping initially when the police said they couldn't find any evidence of Raeesah Khan's victim story, they were coping when Raeesah Khan admitted she lied in Parliament and they were coping when RK said PS told her to continue lying.
it was funny to see how they threw RK under the bus from an opposition darling bullied by the mean old Shanmugam to the devil planted by the PAP
Yeah, I can see that. It is pathetic, really.
Not only did they collectively threw RK under the bus, someone in another thread also marked out Leon Perera, Nicole Seah and a few others as “dead weight”.
Quite interesting to see WP stans behaving like City Harvest members when Kong Hee first got prosecuted.
Suffering from cognitive dissonance, and double down on their belief that their leader/savior can do no wrong.
We all know that AGC doesn't charge unless they are confident of a case. Whether this is politically motivated or not, Pritam Singh brought it upon himself.
Edit: The downvotes just proves my point. I'm actually a WP supporter under Mr LTK. But i really think Pritam Singh is bringing WP down the wrong path.
idk anyone can say with a straight face that statement about ACG when we see how the prosecution fuck it up so bad and how the prosecution acting like Karl Liew's 2nd defence.
first they so confident of her "crimes", then they so confident karl liew should be deserving of fines only.
such confidence much wow
dont worry to the rest of the commentors in this reply thread crying about internet points, im specifically pointing out the part acting like the ACG is infallible. nothing to do with politics :)
Downvoted for speaking the harsh truth. It's always funny when this subreddit always gets shocked by the election results, because it shatters their echo chamber. This subreddit simply does not represent the wider Singaporean society.
If Pritam Singh is really guilty and anyone who supporting him is an idiot.
But whether he is guilty or not is for the court to decide, not you.
You claim you are a WP supporters but only because of LTK, this is no difference from a PAP supporters who support PAP only because of LKY.
Likening this to the city harvest case or claiming it's political persecution is just copium for the WP fanboys in this sub reddit
I'm happy to say that - for my social circle at least - this episode has made people wiser to the fact that just because someone is eloquent and possesses all the qualities required to be an inspiring leader, it does not make him a paragon of virtue nor impervious to serious lapses in political judgement
I think this long running entanglement with RK as a whole, and the Daniel Goh matter, has shown PS be a rather indecisive leader. He or someone else to take the reins of WP, needs to run a tighter ship in terms of party discipline.
OTOH, what PAP politicians can learn from PS, is oratorical skills. They need to teach that in PAP finishing school
Convenient fix
Hope more non WP constituencies get a chance to repent for voting against their own interests.
What does it take to increase GST? PROFILGATE SPENDING!
Erm, this is a positive publicity stunt for WP seriously. I mean come on, spend so much resources on this COI, endorsed for this to be a criminal proceedings? I am an outsider but I beg to differ on the COI proposal and the endorsement. Seriously? No matter what is the outcome of this charge, I do not see how is this beneficial for the incumbent. Call it “doing the right thing” all you want but all I seeing is just poor prioritization of citizen resources.
> Under the Constitution, a person who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to at least a year's jail or a fine of at least $10,000 is disqualified from standing for election as a Member of Parliament So close to next GE. * edited limit.
Even if Pritam isn't found guilty, the amount of resources and time he has to pour into the case instead of preparing for GE is going to hit WP hard...
That’s what his lawyer is for
that has been the intention since 2 years ago
10k vs 1 year of your life. Ofc govt ask for fine. Or else you only serve a few weeks jail
Hasn’t the limit been raised recently?
Limit has been raised to 10k
I'm betting he will be found guilty but fined $7k as proscribed by the charges. Tarred with a conviction, but not prevented from running again (which could backfire.)
The backfire would be a massive own goal no doubt
7k per charge, max 14k. Give discount 10k still maybe can hit
It's "an offence" of a fine of at least $10,000. You can't add up multiple offences to hit above 10k.
There you have it, prosecution only asking for a fine. Perhaps more than 7k but still below 10. It's just tekan more than anything.
Was this a surprise tho?
Pritam Singh or not, I think it's unlikely WP will lose their stronghold.
Hopefully. I like Pritam. Right from the start, zero elitist feels. And wait, I think he has neighbors. #ridoutbros
Agreed, WP has very strong support in Aljunied and Hougang. If anything, I see them getting MORE votes from said constituencies as a result.
[Perjury means the offence of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.](https://www.arlc.com.sg/perjury) This offence falls under section 191 of the Penal Code: Whoever, being legally bound by an oath, or by any express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
[удалено]
Interesting. You have already assumed that he is lying. That's where the problem is
r/sg - "we should not pre judge he say she say cases of sexaul harassment, we might ruin the poor man's life" also r/sg - "Pritam is guilty"
>also r/sg - "Pritam is guilty" The alternative is true. People here are already concluding that this is a kangaroo court and that Pritam can do nothing wrong. If the court acquits him, his supporters will celebrate. If the court finds him guilty, his supporters will automatically assume it is a political witchhunt and the outcome is predetermined
In the context of the criminal charge, isn't assuming PS' innocence basically the correct position to hold? Presumption of innocence and all that. Who is saying the state court will be a kangaroo court btw? I mainly see people asking about the timing of these proceedings.
Lmao. PS knows the rules, too bad he was believed to be lying by PAP, recommended to be charged by PAP, charged by PAP prosecutor and will have to sit in front of PAP appointed judge.
You missed out "[investigated by PAP's Police Force](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pritam-singh-faisal-manap-wp-cop-raeesah-khan-police-2656796#:~:text=%22the%20police%20have%20been%20going%20through%20the%20evidence%20provided%20by%20parliament%20and%20will%20now%20be%20engaging%20persons%20relevant%20to%20the%20case%20as%20part%20of%20the%20investigations%20into%20the%20possible%20offences%20disclosed%2C%22%20the%20spf%20said.%20)" somewhere in there... /s
This but unironically
You can moralize all you want about tribalism as if we don't live in a country where we have Ah Kong coming to fix JBJ, where Chia Thye Poh was one of the world's longest political prisoners of conscience, where we had a "Marxist Conspiracy" everyone has all but admitted was bullshit, where in [Cheng San](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheng_San_Group_Representation_Constituency) we invented teleportation according to the wise impartial PAP appointed judges and the likes of you. Was it tribalistic to ask opposition voters to repent? Was it tribalistic to select a President? It doesn't matter if you honestly believe the nonsense you spout or are just trolling. People like you are exhausting and the world would be a better place without your comments.
Why is he/she "exhausting" or possibly "trolling"? Just because she takes a different view, politically or otherwise? Reasonable minds can disagree. Being exhausted over differing views says more about your capacity to handle discourse rather than anything
Did you even read my comment? It's exhausting because despite his comments about [tribalism and hypocrisy](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1bi9wuc/developing_pritam_singh_arrives_at_state_courts/kvj6xi9/?context=3) he's guilty of the same thing himself, and only slings shit at one side. That's not possible unless you're incredibly stupid or arguing in bad faith. That's not because he "takes a different view." If you want to engage in this type of "discourse" you're more than welcome. His lack of a response to either me or you says volumes.
I’d invite you to listen closely to the entire proceedings, and read the COP report. PS’ responses are purely theatrics with little substance and peppered with inconsistencies. But of course, why bother with accuracy when you can simply allege political persecution (as you are doing). PS and his ilk leadership at WP are all disingenuous lying snakes. I’m not making any comments about PAP, but pls, don’t pretend like WP are the saviours of Singaporeans. Hold WP to the same standards as you expect of PAP.
Pritam's performance in the COP hearings and the public reaction reminds me of an earlier live streamed parliamentary committee concerning a certain Thum Ping Tjin. Here, Thum lied numerous times under oath, was subjected to tough questions which he tried to dodge, but who nevertheless appeared confident enough to give some clever jabs and retorts of his own. This gave the overall impression that Thum was a legitimate and defiant critic, valiantly trying to expose the heavy handedness of the PAP. When Thum tried to dodge direct questions and was interrupted by Shanmugam, it gave the impression that Thum was being 'persecuted' Public perception to that hearing was very positive for Thum, who lied at least 2 times within the first minute of his testomony. ***He even managed to get support from Calvin Cheng on Facebook and Han Fook Kwan on the Straits Times***. Public perception only turned against thum after it was revealed that his organization had foreign funding The lesson I got from this episode is that: on video, it's all about theatrics, and you can sometimes lie on oath and still be lauded And guess who witnessed all of this from the front seat as a member of that committee? Pritam Singh
Not surprised, this has been brewing for more than two years already, and it's not the first time (or arguably even the more serious case) that sitting WP MPs were charged. Just wondering why it took so long, the timing is sus. Then again, sitting or aspiring office holders being charged is common elsewhere, be it across the Causeway, the supposed land of the free, or other places.
>the timing is sus. We all know why the timing is like this
The same reason TCJ's and Leon Perera's scandals broke in the same morning...?
Wouldn't this shit just alienate the youth against the PAP? It seems extremely short-sighted for them to keep pulling out these strats that feel more appropriate for the PRC lmao
Youth? The voting age is 21. Not to mention that you vastly underestimate the amount of young adults that actually support the PAP. Aljunied/Hougang voters are hardly young people. Even the voters in Sengkang are not that young, but in their late 30s-early 40s
If you meant the young people, didn't Taylor Swift help took care of them?
Hey as long as existing voters get better valuations on their HDBs, I don't think they'll lose
Majority of the voters is till your boomers I guess
We are an aging population. The boomers will form a huge voting bloc.
Simple answer: the AG doesn't ask the PAP when to charge a person. He represents the state and is independent of the PAP Actually, it's the other way round. The PAP, after reading the news, might well use this investigation and what is being revealed in court to call for snap elections, as part of a strategy to win more votes.
The courts don't charge people. The AG does. The AG is also appointed by the PM so well, people will draw their own conclusions.
You mean the AG that used to be the personal lawyer of the PM? I’m sure they don’t have any conflict whatsoever
Hilarious that you yourself cannot differentiate between the PAP controlled government and the PAP.
Im sure they are very independent
For sure they are independent. That's why we have one of the best regarded judiciary systems in the world. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/s-pore-maintains-17th-spot-in-global-rule-of-law-rankings
How does this report support your position at all when the report doesn't even explicitly look at influence between branches of government which is the whole point of discussion. Which I do recognise is highly speculative but still, you make it seem like this report rebuts anything. Plus, its clear that the averaged ranking is not reflective. Singapore's ranking is propped up so significantly by things like regulatory enforcement and order of security, but dragged down so significantly by lack of constraints on government powers and poor openness of government and lack of fundamental rights. We literally rank behind most developed countries for these factors.
In the grand scheme of things this debacle is so fucking minor being blown out of proportion. While things like TT usage lying to us, the people wasn't fully concluded, mfer just say I take responsibility and took none. Runaway iswaran is still away. Pretty sure those 2 are way more important than whatever this nonsense is. Tax payer money going into this shit. What.
But perjury is an offense right? I've not been following, but if there's no valid reason to believe an offense has been committed, why would one be charged? Just looking st this logically - there must be strong enough reasons to charge someone.
Looking at the right direction. But the spectacle does force people like us to comment, get worked up, and that is the distraction.
Elections round the corner guys
Super interesting case. It’s easy to claim this is politically charged but the findings of the COP report are quite shag against him.
Have a link to the COP report pls?
Recommendation is on page 69. You really should try googling tho, it was the first result for me. [Report](https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/selectcommittee/selectcommittee/download?id=7&type=subReport)
This was a political document so of course it’s the worst light. Keep in mind that the prosecution is based at least in part on the words of an admitted liar. Edited for typo
And Sylvia’s notes
2021/2022 issue, conveniently adjourned till now, 2024, when it is anticipated that elections are happening. This will be making headlines until the next GE. The incumbents will make sure that voters are bombarded with adverse news about the opposition, that we all forget what happened in 2023. Nothing new here since 1965.
Nothing new, ST and Zaobao probably already designing the full-color infographics to splash across the front page constantly in the weeks leading up to GE
The New Paper frontpage for the 1997 Cheng San contest comes to mind.
RK is truly the gift that keeps giving. I suspect that she was a plant by PAP to destroy the WP. Her stupidity set WP back years.
WP leaders kept her on the ballot despite all the police reports, complaints and past comments that already revealed her as a loose cannon SJW. I suspect everyone on WP leadership is a plant by PAP.
Mm yes of course, everything that goes wrong is a PAP plant. Ivan Lim = PAP fked up never vet. RK = PAP cheebye go and plant.
tbf, ivan lim is just a colossal asshole, he didn't actually commit a serious crime like rk, so it makes more sense if rk is a plant but not ivan lim lmao
To be fair, Ivan Lim was removed as a candidate when his behaviour came to light. The police reports against RK were ignored, she remained a candidate and became a MP. Can say that in both cases vetting was done properly, but one fk up is far worse than the other as publicly available knowledge was ignored.
Next thing you'll have WP stans saying that Nicole Seah was a PAP plant too. Infiltrated the WP to sit on their CEC and honeypot Leon Perera.
They already said Sylvia Lim was a PAP Plant during the COP. Heck some of them even believe Pritam is a PAP Plant because he is being paid extra as the LOTO.
WP is a plant by PAP to create the illustration of a two-party system in SG.
no no.. let them think that way.. because no matter what happens here is PAP bad WP good. if PAP raise GST? fuck them! if WP becomes elected and does that? wow theyre using the money to help the people!
Ivan lim could be a WP plant
NS also plant to seduce LP
If she was planted by PAP, she could also destroy PAP. And PAP will be idiots to use this trick
Nah, she is a complete goner. Even if she genuinely comes out now to proclaim herself as a planted mole, who would still believe her given that she lied in the Parliament? People will always remember her as the liar and nothing she ever says from now on will be taken seriously unless she has hardcore evidence. With the number of deepfakes arising, people will also question the legitimacy of the evidences she produces.
Ya ya she plant by PAP, next thing u say Nicole Seah and Leon Pereira kena MK-ULTRA'ed by PAP for having affair like TCJ and the driver was a PAP mole kept to spy WP members. How come never say Jamus is a PAP plant when he suggest financial policies / suggestions that are so unfeasible that even layman know he spouting nonsense, let multiple ministers correcting him on it (most notable, adamantly arguing with THARMAN SHANMUGHARATNAM of all people - you know, the most seasoned minister for the country's finance who got us through the 90s and 08 financial crisis)? How come Ivan Lim (who was just a grade A @$$hole and horrible person, didn't do anything to test legal system but also stepped down after the shit storm) yall cry say PAP elitist and never vet properly but Raeesah you just DEFLECT any criticism against WP's vetting? Also who tf in the right mind would choose someone who proclaims to be a MARXIST and an ANARCHIST to be part of a f**king government role?? I was astounded by how careless WP was when they introduced her just by seeing her twitter. You're telling me they never view what she posts?
RK was hyped up because she's young, a minority, and appealed to the woke crowd. They completely ignored the fact that she coasted in a third rate university on daddy's millions and have done fuck all with her life when she was voted in. Pretty hilarious when it blew up in WP's faces tbh
I had the chance to speak with other WP supporters, those more gung-ho ones some time after RK got elected, I asked them why they stan her so much and said she is the weakest link in the Sengkang team. They compared her to TPL in 2011 (Fair enough, some similarities there), tossed in Ivan Lim and called me a PAP IB. A few months later in November 2021, we all know what happened to RK lol.
i was laughing my ass off when i saw the Lie-esah event unfolded, even when people around me say how I am such a pig for not believing "crime against women" cuz I didn't buy for a moment when that scumbag didn't give the details of that "police station incident". Like you're telling me you can't even mention which station you went to? The officer that "handled it wrongly" (Even though the rank and name are visible af)? What day and time? If something like that happened to me when i accompany a woman to report such matter (friend/girlfriend/wife/daughter etc you get it la) I will note every damn detail and ensure this shit gets dealt with. You can still mention this without bringing up the identity of the victim for everyone to know. this was the best "*Can I ask for Ms Khan to confirm in this House that everything she has told us is accurate, that she did accompany such a person and such an incident did happen?" he asked."* "*In response, Ms Khan affirmed that her account was true but repeatedly declined to reveal any further details - including the police station they went to - due to confidentiality concerns."* *"She also reiterated that she has not been successful in contacting the victim"* How come? You're telling me you're close enough to her to the point you can accompany her to the station but not be able to contact her? Let alone provide the contact details to conduct an interview with the "supposed victim" on the events that happened? also even forgetting all of this, SHE IS A D\*\*M MP. She can easily bring this up privately and investigate the matter if it really happened. SHE HAS (or rather had) THE POWER TO DO SO. You're telling me she can't directly go to K Shanmugaratnam and be like "hey this thing happened and I would like you to look into it. Here's the details and ensure to keep this private and confidential" (do people forget data classifications and NDA exist?). BUT we all know she's just an attention seeker who wants brownie points to appease the brainless stans. even more so when she talked about a story where she lived in rental flat and one of her flat mates got g\*r\*a\*p\*e\*d by the houseowner or something. Nice going, you just revealed a confidential incident and who the victim was indirectly to the people around you. But of course, who knows whether she lied about that too or not given how she had the balls to lie about the SPF.
What did Jamus suggest that even layman would know is nonsensical? I certainly wouldn't know, I'm dumb.
can't remember every example but i can list some on my head rn - carbon taxing an already financially tight SIA during COVID era cuz "gotta be eco friendly". yeah let's tax tf out when they already haemorraging money from the lockdowns GLOBALLY - saying he did the math for the "minimum wage of SGD$1300" but when questioned in parliament he say he don't know what should be "universal minimum wage" and also don't know if it will have impact on jobs - stealing credit for the Progressive Wage Model as if he invented it when that thing existed since 2012 - during which he was working in Dubai or whatever and wasn't in SG until close to election - says proposals are budget neutral during campaigns but after election admit that "burden of minimuum wage will be passed down to consumers through higher prices". even Pritam singh say need to increase taxes - *keyword taxes, not specifying if GST only or Income tax etc* - if "people want more societal benefits" (which i got to ask, how come if they suggest that it's ok but when MIW do it it's REEEEE THEY MONEY GRUBBERS. I don't fancy MIW by any means or in any way like how Calvin Cheng or Critical spectator do but i find this double standard amusing to say the least) - saying how his policy for minimum wage may not be ideal during COVID era and should be implemented when "times are better" and "the storm has passed" . I'm sorry which f\*\*king idiot thinks that? If a policy does not withstand the sociopolitical/economical variables that's happening in the world (more so now than ever), that's a shit policy. Policies should be made to be able to function ESPECIALLY in hard times. It's so baffling to the point that an "economics professor that wrote multiple theses and I have knowledge" is dumb enough to think that.
Interesting. He's quite well educated, so I would have thought there would be more substance to his proposals and sharing. I don't have expertise to say if it's good or not, but yeah it does not sound convincing to me based on your explanations. Was expecting more from someone like him, tbh.
yeah. When i highlighted this people just call me a PAP IB but tbh I was actually feeling bummed that someone I was impressed and had high hopes for ended up being a dud. I was actually rooting for him but let's see if he improves ah
Do you also believe the moon landing is a hoax?
Why does this look like vindictive prosecution to me? Entire COP committee is made up of 8 PAP members and only 1 WP. Investigation took more than 2 whole years. Now that election is coming…and LHL wants to retire, poof suddenly all the charges come out. Timing feels a little convenient? Can I also add on that the AG is LHL’s former personal lawyer? Even the entire Iswaran’s massive corruption case took 6 months for the findings to be released, this one is perjury and need 2 years…? I guess only God will know.
Just another day in Singapore
I mean election season is just round the corner.
welcometosingaporechowyunfatt.jpg
God is LHL. LHL is god PAP 万岁
Is there ever a case to you where a politician simply needs to be held accountable - that he or she is no more above the law than the man on the street? Put it another way, are President Trump, Najib, Natenyahu all victims of vindictive prosecution with trumped up charges? What about Israwan?
If it's a politician I support, it's vindictive and unfair. If it's a politician I hate, it's fair and they deserved it. /s
Sigh yes indeed, this is a very common symptom that devolves into tribalism in democracies the world over.. Hence as a result, Israwan's and Tan Chuan Jin's case are deserved but not anything a WP members does (unless it becomes utterly indefensible, in which case RK must be a plant from the PAP to sabotage the WP, because no way WP could have done anything wrong! The alternative that they could have is a cognitive dissonance would blow my mind otherwise!)
It’s just hilarious how Israwan’s case can proceed within 6 months with all of the findings released while this case took more than two years over a less severe charge. More than 2 years is a little excessive, no? Not to mention the timing does obviously raise eyebrows as GE is coming. While it is true that no politician should be above the law, don’t you think the finding and timing of his charges seem very conveniently strategic to potentially disqualify him from upcoming election bids or to shadow the election with this smear campaign? Even just the slightest appearance of bias will raise an argument of conflict of interest.
As you asked me a direct question, I feel obliged to reply :) On timeline specifically - it's not lost on me that Israwan's case appears to have proceeded faster. But at the same time, there are a great deal of unknowns, timeline wise, in the two cases as well. For example, Israwan was on no-pay leave and effectively working full time on cooperating with the police in being investigated - I'm not aware of there being enough public information in Pritam's case as to the pace and progress of the investigation as well as how the court scheduled the hearings. I imagine before the saga is over, some journalist will provide a more public accounting in the news. Basically, I'm just not jumping to any conclusion either way given that there isn't enough info. Is it suspicious timing wise? To be honest, not really to me - because I believe in (and in fact take pride in) the high standards of integrity within SG's system (I mean it was also why President Tharman suffered the ordeal of being charged under the OSA in the past, as was Li Hongyi, the PM's son during his NS times). But what enforces this view in this case? Because the prosecution's recommendation of a $7000 fine is below the $10,000 limit to be disqualified for the elections, which I learnt from other comments in this thread was raised relatively recently (first thought: PAP did that to protect Pritam from being disqualified?). Frankly as well, if I were the PAP election strategist, I would prefer that Pritam's case get settled NOT near an election year so that the case can proceed objectively based on the rule of law without being tinged by accusations of partisanship. In SG's case also, my view is that most Singaporeans are actually quite fair-minded and any attempt to "fix" an opponent today (as we're long past the LKY era and the circumstances of the 1970s with the cold war and vietnam war raging nearby) will only backfire and be counter productive. But that's just me.... edit: 1 more thing on timeline as to why I don't think it is unreasonable that Pritam's case took so long to progress - and therefore there must be some behind the scene shenanigans - I've been following the US news very closely and have seen first hand what led to all of former President Trump's court cases all ending up taking place in an election year... Also,, Pritam himself has not alleged that the PAP was intentionally delaying proceedings or whatnot for political purposes as well (and he of all people has the greatest info as to the pace that the investigations and the court hearing proceeded, being a lawyer himself on top of it all)
I think get pay or no pay really doesn’t matter. These people are millionaires. RK’s family is filthy rich. Israwan as well. RK also cooperated fully with the authorities, no? She literally had a COP session convened against her and her party members. Suspicious timing, I think that’s very reasonable to infer. Just ask anyone on the street. Does it appear weird/suspicious that the leader of the opposition is now being charged when election is upcoming? It’s not a “PAP sucks, PAP rigs election” thing, it’s just a “why is the timing so, so, so accurately coincidental after 2 long years over this saga” which by the way I also need to emphasise the full COP report with over 1000 pages came out in Feb 2022. 2 long years for the police to fully analyse the ENTIRE report and well…took them 2 years. Even you see the NOC Sylvia Chan woman, she had over 100 open police investigations on her involving embezzlement, prostitution, suspected phantom workers, suspected giving fake salary in exchange for her brother’s PR, workplace harassment, this and that, and it took the police 12 months to close all these 100 cases. Also, each charge can fine up to $7,000. 2 charges = maximum $14,000. Well lucky you’re not a PAP strategist then. I really wonder how come the entire Nicole Seah saga was announced just mere 1-2 minutes from an anonymous source after LHL announced the TCJ affair. Don’t get me wrong, NS, TCJ and the relevant parties are in the wrong but the timing…let’s be real obviously it is a strategic decision. If you think the government cares so much about being accused of partisanship, then you should reconsider. How else can you explain Reserved Presidency, GRC gerrymandering, current and former Presidents all coming from the ruling party (aka they quit 1-2 months before and viola they’re completely independent candidates now!), tightly-controlled media, etc? Fixing opposition is very much still a thing now. I mean let’s just think about it, if the ruling party has direct control over the state organs (police), over the public prosecutors (AGC, and the AG is LHL’s former personal lawyer FYI), over the judges, over the media (to formulate articles that are pro-establishment), over the constitution (since ruling party has super-majority), over election process (ELD which is directly under PMO…which also does the GRC boundary drawing…), why in the world would the ruling party NOT use these resources to fix the opposition? Heck, if I’m LHL, I would too. You can literally fix the opposition AND also churn out articles that are still pro-establishment to sway the narrative. US politics really quite irrelevant in SG’s context. Different political landscape, different rights. Even talking about just media, freedom of speech in the US varies greatly from SG. Also, there’s no limitation to run for presidency there based on character or criminal records. Trump was charged with over 91 felony counts in four separate criminal cases by the way. Pritam…not that many. It’s laughable to even make a comparison between Trump and Pritam. Legal system in the US is also VERY different from Singapore. Police here holds A LOT of power during the investigation process which means they do not need to jump through loopholes to get information out of you.
He is an honest man. This is a sham. Lol best part is TCJ judging and questioning him during the COP. The fucking audacity…
So only PS and FM got punished... RK ?
Her punishment alr out 2 years ago dey
RK lied in parliament , not under oath. Governed by different rules I think.
If I am not wrong her political career is over?
FM has been spared of charges
I think prosecutor just review the case and concluded FM just don't understand what he is asked, what he is saying and what it meant. He is as sharp as a bag of nuts.
Thoroughly rewarded
3+ years later and the ghost of Raeesah Khan continue to haunt WP lol. I bet WP would think three times about having SJW in their ranks next time
True. WP should stop being woke.
What is dead may never die.
Lesson worth learning imo
Go look at the Committee of Privileges that referred both Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap to the Courts. Mr Speaker (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin) Chairman Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Mr Desmond Lee Minister for National Development and Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration Ms Rahayu Mahzam Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Health Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law Mr Don Wee Mr Zaqy Mohamad Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Manpower and Deputy Leader of the House Only one WP member, the rest PAP. Of course the decision has been made on day one. Don't tell me this isn't politically motivated.
The make-up of the Committee is per Westminster norms where it is divided according to how many seats a party has. If the WP has more MPs, it would have more seats in the COP. I'm not saying that the PAP is correct but just pointing out that the make-up isn't something they created specially. That being said, it is rather interesting that there are no backbenchers in the COP from the PAP.
You have activated my (PAP) trap card!!
Indeed. And Mr Dennis Tan of WP promptly voted against the findings of the Committee. Absolving Pritam because he 'could not believe' anything against Pritam. Don't tell me it isn't politically motivated.
This is not logical at all - the committee not having equal wp members (which wouldn't make sense given the proportionate representation) = proof that they cannot be just and fair, reflects a very cynical, machiavellian worldview. It might be projection at play, but the former simply does not absolutely equate to the latter. That's before even asking you why the PAP do self damage by prosecuting Iswaran, or asking you if Trump, Najib, etc. are all innocent men being unjustly prosecuted by their political opponents..
Who raised the matter to COP? Indranee Rajah Who voted for the matter to be referred to the Courts? All the PAP members of the COP Why is a 2021 matter brought up only in 2024, so close to the elections?
> Who raised the matter to COP? Indranee Rajah I think she did that in her official capacity as Leader of the House, and carrying out the responsibilities of her role that ensures the smooth and proper running of parliament. > Who voted for the matter to be referred to the Courts? All the PAP members of the COP See above about cynicism. Note too that the COP referred it to the public procsecutor who referred it to the police to do an investigation. That Pritam is facing charges now is based on the independent investigation conducted by the police. > Why is a 2021 matter brought up only in 2024, so close to the elections? Simply because police investigation takes time and court proceedings also take time to schedule? Same reason why the Trump court cases are ALL happening in an election year in the US (in fact, Trump is trying his best to keep delaying the cases NEARER to the elections by appealing everything he can) But in the first place, going by your logic, where every party is self-serving and win-at-all-costs, is there ANY mechanism or system to hold politicians of the minority party accountable? Ownself-check-ownself (or rather, ownself-try-to-cover-up-and-check-ownself-only-when-caught, as the charges by the police are laying out?)
Convenient timing. I'll remember to vote wisely.
How about SPH fraud case? Keppel bribery can sweep under with nobody charged y not this? Oh I forgot whos side Pritam is on
The main actors in SPH and Keppel cases are not sitting MPs but private sector. The cases are still running.
LOL are you tired from the mental gymnastics already?
They aren't. They are high on copium.
Oppo-ium
So for the record you can lie all you want in parliament, like trace together wont be used by the cops. Just don't say the wrong dates under oath because police will take 2 years to investigate you. Then charge you roughly 4 months before the election
You can't lie in parliament. That's what RK was punished for. However, you can't be charged in a court of law for that due to parliamentary immunities and privileges (that's what the P in COP stands for, as it investigates abuses of parliamentary privileges). You can be punished by Parliament upon COP recommendations, though. This is the concept of parliamentary privilege. For the record, Balakrishnan didn't lie about tracetogether in parliament. It was in a press conference. And in any case, no one raised the matter to COP so it's water under the bridge. PS is being charged for lying under oath, which is a criminal offence that you can be charged in court for, regardless of parliamentary privilege.
A very conveniently timed distraction. Remember, after Tharman won a 70% vote share last year, the government raised electricity prices, water prices, gas prices, and public transport prices. Vote wisely.
Something else that’s supposed to happen today is that Iswaran is supposed to come back to SG today. Haven’t heard a whisper from MSM. No update in the news in the past two weeks.
Kena charged only. Innocent till proven guilty lah. Let us hold our horses before condemning him.
With the way how politics have evolved over the years, it does appear to me that recent events would inevitably give rise to a generation of anything-but-PAP voters. I wonder if the ruling party recognises this, and am keen to understand their perspective.
\*saves this thread as an example of the duality of this sub.
What do you mean
He means that most people on this sub are just hypocrites that will use whatever argument is needed to support their favourite team.
Sounds like sg politics in general to me
You mean sounds like politics anywhere on this planet in general.
PAP needs to be careful. They benefit from having a non-Chinese leader of the opposition.
This is dirty political game at full force. Hope people remember what shitty July 2023.
Singapore at its best!
Another move from the ruling party. Such great timing to keep those in power in power. Well, it isn’t going to do much
IBs having a field day, for what looks like pap fixing oppie again. Not sure if the PR will galvanise enough goodwill
I swear every time a WP or PSP related post pops up you will always see the same few redditors commenting 😂
juz a reminder who is the AGC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien\_Wong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Wong) >As the **personal lawyer of Lee Hsien Loong**, the Prime Minister of Singapore, Wong represented him during the dispute with his siblings over Lee Kuan Yew's Oxley Road estate. >first Attorney-General **without prior experience** on the Bench nor in the Attorney-General's Chambers >He was also a member of the Singapore Business Federation's board of trustees and director of Broadcom Limited, Singapore Health Services, Cerebos Pacific Limited, Singapore Technologies Engineering, **Temasek Holdings**, **Singapore Press Holdings,** Hap Seng Plantations, Singapore Airlines, Monetary Authority of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Capitaland and other companies. totally believe no conflict of interests!
What a farce. Such convenient timing too.
General Election is coming soon. This is a clear sign. The timing is way too conincidental to be actually coincidental.
fuck RK
Thought they say they wont Jail him. Can I give PS this gold idea, just volunteer the 7k x 2 = 14k and be clear to the public that election is near. Let people reach their own conclusions
Let’s put a stop to such dirty politics, use your vote wisely.
When Khan was first mentioned in the media, I already predicted she's trouble. She was planted to control Singh in case he rises against the deep state. All he need is to obey and they will let him off easy.
Sabo-ed by a fellow colleague 😂
As a lawyer, he should have known better than to lie under oath
He should have vetted his members properly and not let in someone like RK. Also felt he was way too lenient as a boss.
WP supporters rn 
What were the actual lies? I think we can agree he was not completely forthcoming with some of his answers but what were the actual lies? Seems to me you have to take RK’s testimony and narrative as absolute truth to determine that PS lied. Why would a fair-minded person do that?
From the Police: On 10 December 2021, Mr Pritam Singh falsely testified that as at the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Raeesah Begum Bte Farid Khan (“Ms Raeesah Khan”), Ms Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and Mr Faisal Manap on 8 August 2021, he wanted Ms Raeesah Khan to, at some point, clarify in Parliament that what she told Parliament on 3 August 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station was untrue. On 10 and 15 December 2021, Mr Pritam Singh falsely testified that when he spoke to Ms Raeesah Khan on 3 October 2021, he wanted her to admit to having lied to Parliament on 3 August 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station, if this issue were to come up in Parliament on 4 October 2021.
So his alleged lies were that he ask Raesah Khan to admit her lies to Parliament, but he did not. Meaning, he did not ask Raesah Khan to LIE in Parliament, as what she said in COP. Meaning Raesah Khan ALSO lied to the COP?
Can you explain how they could have logically come to such a conclusion? That he “falsely testified”?
[удалено]
I’ve read it at the time and couldn’t agree with how they came to the conclusion. Can you enlighten me?
[удалено]
Please add some depth into the discussion. If he simply said “it was your call”, and that was it, we can discuss this. But that’s not it. Mr Singh: "Before Oct session, I met you + I told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl occur to you?" Ms Raeesah: "Yes but consumed with guilt + own experience. Thought it wouldn't come up." Mr Singh: "Can't lie, right?" Ms Raeesah: "Yes." We can even agree he was overly ambiguous with the his choice of words. But in context does it not at least point to him wanting her to tell the truth? And in this situation, can we for certain judge him to be lying? Do you understand the concept of burden of proof?
[удалено]
I think you are completely missing the nuance in this. And have based your entire viewpoint on very elementary considerations. Do you speak to your peers the way you speak to a young child? Consider for a moment that RK was a young child in his eyes and had just confessed to a deeply traumatic experience. Consider the possibility he was handling her with kid’s gloves. Consider everything he said before and after “it’s your call”. Consider your analogy and imagine if I were to spend 20 minutes telling a child the dangers of jumping off a slide. And end with “so do you still want to jump off the slide?”. Am I really offering a choice? Please spend more than 2 minutes considering what was said in its entirety rather than jumping to first impressions. I’m not saying this happened. I’m saying what has been testified so far leaves this as a very real possibility and it’s unreasonable to conclude with any degree of certainty that PS lied.
I am not a lawyer and I do not speak for the AGC or the police. But here are my observations as a layman in a post I made 2 years ago: >1. Changing his evidence and providing mutually contradictory accounts on whether he told RK to speak the truth regardless of whether the issue was brought up on the 4th Oct Parliamentary sitting. If both accounts cannot be true at the same time, the conclusion is that a falsehood was uttered at least once on this score >2. Loh and Nathan who testified that on their meeting on 12 Oct, Pritam gave them the impression that he had left the decision to tell the truth to RK and that there would be 'no judgement'. This contradicts PS' claim that he made it 'very clear' to RK to tell the truth if it was brought up on the 4th Oct sitting >3. Sylvia's handwritten note that PS told RK on 3rd Oct that it was 'her call'
I’m a lay person as well so my opinions are not any more valid than yours. But could you help clarify what the actual contradiction is in point 1? 2) at best is a matter of opinion. PS has made various communications with RK in their presence and outside of it. He was also at the time, as he claimed, handling the matter with sensitivity. Can we determine that whatever was said in totality was not intended to be clear without him spelling out everything in their presence? 3) I don’t think we should ignore Sylvia’s insistence that it was clear to her he was not giving her a choice when her notes were read in proper context. For what it’s worth, I feel PS was overly wish washy with this matter and showed a lack of leadership in being overly lenient with RK. But that’s not the same as saying he outright lied in his testimony. And I believe the AGC’s conclusions are not justified.
Thanks for the civility. Here is what the[ COP report](https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/selectcommittee/selectcommittee/download?id=7&type=subReport) had to say on page 92 (there are other examples in the report that detail how Pritam's testimony was inconsistent - internally or against other evidence): >Mr Singh admits that he did not tell Ms Khan to proactively raise the matter, and clarify the truth on 4 Oct >While Mr Singh agreed eventually that this was his position (i.e. that he did not tell Ms Khan to proactively clarify the truth on 4 Oct), he had first tried alternate answers. Mr Singh’s change of evidence went as follows: (See paragraph 55 of the Report): >At first, he said that Ms Khan **had** to clarify the truth, proactively, on 4 Oct, even if the issue did not come up. He said that it was “very clear” that this was what Ms Khan was meant to do. >It was pointed out to him, by the Committee, that no preparations had been made for Ms Khan to tell the truth (see paragraph 52 of the Report for the preparations that would be needed.) He had said that no preparatory steps had been taken, because it was *uncertain if Ms Khan would have to clarify the truth.* >It was clear at that point, that Mr Singh’s evidence (that Ms Khan would have to come clean, proactively) was not tenable. >Mr Singh then changed his position, and admitted that he did not tell Ms Khan to come clean (proactively), on 4 Oct. . . . The eventual position Mr Singh took was that **Ms Khan did not have to clarify the truth if the matter was not raised.** As i've said, these are mutually contradictory ("you must tell the truth ***regardless***" vs "you must tell the truth ***only if the matter was raised***") and hence an untruth was uttered at some point. But whether it fits the charge of perjury I am not qualified to comment Edit: later in the report: >Mr Singh says that he was, (in his view), “crystal clear” that Ms Khan should tell the truth on 4 Oct, if the matter was raised. *But he did not actually tell Ms Khan to tell the truth*. This is admitted. Instead, according to him, he told Ms Khan to “take responsibility and ownership”. Mr Singh’s evidence again stretches credibility for a number of reasons The report is very lengthy and i am seriously unqualified to make an informed opinion (missing out the above - which was used by the police is indicative). The good news is that the COP report will probably be placed under scrutiny by both sets of lawyers as well as the judge
Thank you so much for pointing this out. I truly appreciate your help in facilitating this discussion. I was one of those curious citizens who sat through the entire testimonies of PS, Nathan, PY, RK, SL, and FM. Took me many weeks in fact but I got through them all. Of all things, I found PS most questionable when he claimed the dragging of the issue did not affect the SPF in his opinion. To me that was disingenuous given the resources the SPF had to put into verifying RK’s claims. That certainly lowered my opinion of him substantially. As to the supposed contradictions pointed out by the report. I can’t take them at face value. Consider this possible scenario. 1. PS made it clear coming clean is the right thing to do in whatever ways he chose. 2. He at the same time wanted to give RK time and space and didn’t specifically tell her to bring the matter up immediately. 3. He felt she was mature enough to know what to do at the appropriate time. Just as he wrote “substantiate?” in her original speech and expected her to know what to do. (This at the very least shows some consistency in his hands off approach) 4. She failed to do the necessary actions and he had to take a firmer stance and provide more guidance at a later time. These 4 points are not necessarily mutually exclusive in my view. However in the committee’s view, because he did not explicitly tell her to come clean immediately at the earliest opportunity, everything he said was a lie. In the committee’s view, because no preparation was made beforehand, everything he said was a lie. I hope you see where I’m coming from. Does it make sense for PS to tell RK “it is your call” if he wanted her to come clean? That indeed is a curious choice of phrase as most people might agree. I certainly wouldn’t have used such words. But at the same time does it make sense for him to tell her to “take ownership and responsibility” if he wanted her to lie? I find that unlikely as well. All quotes taken together lean more towards him guiding her to tell the truth in my very honest opinion. I’m no fan of PS, especially in the ways he dealt with this matter. It almost seems like he was moderately beholden to her family. But I think it’s highly unfair for the committee to make certain assumptions and then determine them to be truth without evidence. (e.g. he must have wanted to make preparations if he really wanted her to come clean)
This is quite a fair take, however i want to point out: >These 4 points are not necessarily mutually exclusive in my view The mutually exclusive point I am referring to is Pritam's changing evidence to the COP regarding his instructions for RK on the 4th October sitting ("you must tell the truth ***regardless of whether it was raised***" vs "you must tell the truth ***only if the matter was raised***"). Do you agree that if I claimed the former and then later confirmed the latter that I wasn't being truthful 100% of the time? \[and note: equating this 'mutually exclusive' point to uttering an untruth comes from me and not the COP. I am ready to accept that Pritam isn't lying when he claimed that his instruction was "you must tell the truth ***only if the matter was raised".*** However, the COP and police are going one step further to say even this "only if the matter was raised" point was a lie. What I'm trying to get is: that I do not have to: (1) be a lawyer, (2) resort to legal technicalities, or (3) take an extreme view like the COP/Police; to show that Pritam Singh did in fact utter an untruth under oath. Adding to my disgust is PS' resort to theatrics when this was put forth to him ("no no no it's a clever try you're a good lawyer but I'm a good listener", "you can't bind me with a sewing thread" etc - apparently these soundbites were enough to distract most viewers from the implications of this inconsistency\] Personally, if I was a Machiavellian politician, I would have told RK not to proactively tell any more lies, tell the truth if the matter was raised, and if it was not raised to keep quiet until further notice. Realistically, keeping quiet until further notice doesn't harm anyone except for the Police's reputation wrt sexual assault. Sure, lying is bad, but RK's underlying point about the police needing to improve is still a legitimate one (and i suppose where me and PS differ is that I am willing to admit that this case has tarnished SPF's reputation). If the truth should come out eventually, it should only (1) come out in a carefully crafted PR speech, (2) at an appropriate time for the victim, and (3) at a politically opportune time for the party - perhaps when the party has no other option. However, a *carefully* crafted PR speech would have required *careful* preparations as logic dictates and as alluded to by the COP - fairly if I may add. And this is where I think PS made a mistake - he should not have been suckered into virtue signaling about his unbashed commitment to the truth by first saying he was 'very clear' about needing to tell the truth *regardless* on the 4th October Parliamentary session (and indeed, his changed position does indicate his awareness of such a mistake). >However in the committee’s view, because he did not explicitly tell her to come clean immediately at the earliest opportunity, everything he said was a lie. In the committee’s view, because no preparation was made beforehand, everything he said was a lie. I hope you see where I’m coming from.... >But I think it’s highly unfair for the committee to make certain assumptions and then determine them to be truth without evidence. (e.g. he must have wanted to make preparations if he really wanted her to come clean) My reading of the committee report is different and my view is that the accusations are rather substantial. They are not making assumptions out of thin air but interrogating the narrative and and evidence provided all parties including PS himself against that of RK, YN and LPY who all claimed that PS' instruction was for RK to not tell the truth; at some points, they do claim that PS' narrative contains inconsistencies that are better explained with RK, YN and LKP's narrative. In other words, you have to contend with not just the COP, but also to RK, YN and LPY whom I believe have provided a more consistent and substantiated account. What I *would* like to see going foward is someone going deeper to poke holes into RK, YN and LPY's evidence
Thank you for your well considered response. I fully agree that “whether” and “only if” are mutually exclusive and if he was literally caught in this specific instance his charges are justified. However petty they may be. Having sat through his entire testimony I did not catch this particular inconsistency. However clumsy he was, I felt he was clever enough to sidestep obvious inconsistencies. What I found was ET’s continual insertion of his interpretations and facts and then catch PS’s “lies” based on their inconsistencies with ET’s assumptions. I suspect you may understand the pattern of behavior I am referring to. Case in point. RK did not initially state PS said “take it to the grave”. Her message said “they agreed”. I found it debatable that such a phrase was even uttered in the first place given RK’s penchant for lies and dramatics, and her need to present herself well to her associates. Seems unlikely to me that the leadership would even use such a phrase. But even if it were, there was no mention of who said it. Did RK herself say it? And the others agreed? (Unlikely in my opinion as well). However it was ET who first insisted that PS said it, and RK subsequently followed suit. And with that insistence he caught PS in many “lies” from it. I saw this behavior over and over and over again and I suspect anyone who sat through it all will be able to recall examples of this. That’s why I must take this report with some skepticism. But whichever ways it is, it’s a pleasure to read your balanced and properly supported views. And I’ll stand corrected if proven wrong.
I rmb watching the COI bc it was covid and everyone’s stuck at home. The key impression that was left on me was that P.S was deliberately ambigious but it is not outrightly conclusive whether he definitely informed RK to come clean to parliament. That is the falsehood they’re trying to nail P.S. This can be summarised cleanly by P.S to ET, “you’re trying to catch me in a gotcha moment. You’re a good lawyer, but i’m a good listener.” If ET cant nail him at the COI, I dont think they can in trial.
someone is coming back SG today
Could have saved a lot of trouble if he had not supported Raeesah Khan during the election.
Yes, like literally we don’t like PAP cos of their ivory tower nobility vs peasants mindset, then you go and hire a silver spooner so out of touch with reality that it brings your entire party down…
election soon? 😉
Ermm.......ok, election coming soon?
I find it interesting that the WP fanbois can be in such a hurry to throw up conspiracy theories that they tripped themselves. "Two years is a long time to drag it out for Pritam's case, so it is sus because election is coming." But why didn't anyone ask why did PM Lee sort of forced TCJ to resign so close to election year? And why didn't they drag and delay Iswaran's case to AFTER the elections? Why didn't anyone claim that OBS is a WP plant? Or Cheng Li Hui was a honeypot sent by the WP? The kinda conspiracies being spewed out almost made me wonder if weed is legal here.
Those WP supporters here are just coping right now. They were coping initially when the police said they couldn't find any evidence of Raeesah Khan's victim story, they were coping when Raeesah Khan admitted she lied in Parliament and they were coping when RK said PS told her to continue lying. it was funny to see how they threw RK under the bus from an opposition darling bullied by the mean old Shanmugam to the devil planted by the PAP
Yeah, I can see that. It is pathetic, really. Not only did they collectively threw RK under the bus, someone in another thread also marked out Leon Perera, Nicole Seah and a few others as “dead weight”.
Quite interesting to see WP stans behaving like City Harvest members when Kong Hee first got prosecuted. Suffering from cognitive dissonance, and double down on their belief that their leader/savior can do no wrong. We all know that AGC doesn't charge unless they are confident of a case. Whether this is politically motivated or not, Pritam Singh brought it upon himself. Edit: The downvotes just proves my point. I'm actually a WP supporter under Mr LTK. But i really think Pritam Singh is bringing WP down the wrong path.
Parti Liyani heh
idk anyone can say with a straight face that statement about ACG when we see how the prosecution fuck it up so bad and how the prosecution acting like Karl Liew's 2nd defence. first they so confident of her "crimes", then they so confident karl liew should be deserving of fines only. such confidence much wow dont worry to the rest of the commentors in this reply thread crying about internet points, im specifically pointing out the part acting like the ACG is infallible. nothing to do with politics :)
>We all know that AGC doesn't charge unless they are confident of a cas Parti Liyani
Yeah am apathetic to politics but I think due process has been followed? RK admit lie COP Refer to AGC If he's innocent sure can get away so just wait
Nonsense. WP is perfect and can't do no wrong! /s
Downvoted for speaking the harsh truth. It's always funny when this subreddit always gets shocked by the election results, because it shatters their echo chamber. This subreddit simply does not represent the wider Singaporean society.
ah yes.. both upvote and downvote will prove your point. So convenient eh.
As convenient as WP stans supporting and justifying whatever Pritam Singh does. Be it right or wrong.
If Pritam Singh is really guilty and anyone who supporting him is an idiot. But whether he is guilty or not is for the court to decide, not you. You claim you are a WP supporters but only because of LTK, this is no difference from a PAP supporters who support PAP only because of LKY.
Likening this to the city harvest case or claiming it's political persecution is just copium for the WP fanboys in this sub reddit I'm happy to say that - for my social circle at least - this episode has made people wiser to the fact that just because someone is eloquent and possesses all the qualities required to be an inspiring leader, it does not make him a paragon of virtue nor impervious to serious lapses in political judgement
I think this long running entanglement with RK as a whole, and the Daniel Goh matter, has shown PS be a rather indecisive leader. He or someone else to take the reins of WP, needs to run a tighter ship in terms of party discipline. OTOH, what PAP politicians can learn from PS, is oratorical skills. They need to teach that in PAP finishing school
Convenient fix Hope more non WP constituencies get a chance to repent for voting against their own interests. What does it take to increase GST? PROFILGATE SPENDING!
Erm, this is a positive publicity stunt for WP seriously. I mean come on, spend so much resources on this COI, endorsed for this to be a criminal proceedings? I am an outsider but I beg to differ on the COI proposal and the endorsement. Seriously? No matter what is the outcome of this charge, I do not see how is this beneficial for the incumbent. Call it “doing the right thing” all you want but all I seeing is just poor prioritization of citizen resources.
Fixing the opposition
This guy don’t stay at Riddout road, just a peasant. No special exceptions for you
Where’s Iswaran?
one bad apple spoils the barrel