Committee of Privileges Hearing on 10 December 2021 - Mr Pritam Singh (Part D): Transcript

Preamble:

What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I mostly just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.  

Though speech recognition technology has made leaps and bounds in recent years, it still isn't good enough for very accurate transcripts. So take the below as a free (for you, dear reader, at least) and rough transcript, with no warranty as to accuracy - for convenience instead of an accurate transcript. Nonetheless, I believe this will be helpful, especially for archival purposes.

If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 24 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later. If they do, please use those instead. In the meantime, you may profit from the following; you can find links to all my COP transcripts at the index post.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:06  
Had your dinner? 

Pritam Singh
Yes. 

Tan Chuan Jin:
We may resume. Mr. Edwin Tong?

Edwin Tong  0:14  
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Singh.

Yes, before the break, Mr. Singh, we were focused on this questions that Miss Loh had raised with you. And I showed you a couple of WhatsApp messages that she had sent to you, right. Yes. Now, it just to put it in context again for, I guess  yours and also my benefit, we were talking about why there was no information given to members of the Workers Party who were asked to come forward and give their submissions to the Workers Party. And my contention to you, which you disagreed was that it would be relevant for the Workers Party members to know that Miss Khan had come and come clean to the senior leaders of the Workers Party, made a clean best of things, at least by the eighth of August 

Pritam Singh 1:04
Forced to come clean. 

Edwin Tong
Yes, yes, head country anyway. And members will also, should also be told that the Workers Party senior leadership, had then worked with Miss Khan, with some clear objectives in mind and circumstances in which, if fulfilled, such as her family being informed, would result in clarification being made to Parliament. 

Pritam Singh 1:26
Yes

Edwin Tong
Remember? Okay. The point I was making to you is that it's relevant for members to know, because they would have to judge the severity and culpability of a conduct, correct? 

Pritam Singh 1:39
Yes

Edwin Tong
Yes. Because it makes a difference whether they come and tell the DP I think she should be expelled or whether she should be given a censure or not, in, the gravamen of her conduct will be in focus, correct?

Pritam Singh 1:51
I disagree to that, in the way you put it. 

Edwin Tong
The level of culpability will be 

Pritam Singh
No, I don't think it would make a difference 

Edwin Tong
The extent to which it's felt that she either cooperated or did not cooperate with a party would also be relevant, right? 

Pritam Singh
Not exactly. I don't agree with that. 

Edwin Tong
Well put it this way, Mr. Singh. If you had someone who was on a frolic of his or her own, acted entirely on his or her own without involving the senior leadership, right, never, whether forced to or otherwise, never discussed, never came clean, hid material facts from the senior leadership throughout. That is a very different scenario from one who gave the senior leadership, an early account, three months prior, all the facts were known and worked with the senior leadership to achieve clarification in Parliament, correct? Those two scenarios are different. 

Pritam Singh 2:45
Those two scenarios are different in the way you have played, put them. Yes. 

Edwin Tong
Right. So if the scenarios are different, then the factual matrix behind the second scenario, ie, whether there was such conduct, whether this person had come clean, whether they were working with senior leadership, to fix the problem, all of that should be disclosed to the membership, right. 

Pritam Singh 3:07
To the extent that the second scenario is concerned, my answer is no, I did not find it to be relevant, because ultimately, this was about Miss Khan and her decision to lie in Parliament, to continue the lie. Whether the party leadership, it would be very relevant if the party leadership told her to tell a lie, we did not. To continue a narrative, we did not. And it is the same position I put to the committee before our break, that I did not see it to be relevant. So specifically, on Miss Khan lying in Parliament, and we have an MP who has lied. What's the party's view on that? 

Edwin Tong 3:42
An MP who has lied, whether that lie was held firmly and not discussed with senior leadership, would be a different scenario from an MP who has lied, but confessed early, three months prior, almost three months prior to coming clean in parliament

Pritam Singh 4:00
If she had confessed early, she would have told the truth on the fourth of October. 

Edwin Tong
Yes. And so therefore the, you're precisely right, and therefore the circumstances behind why she didn't tell the truth in October would be relevant. Correct? 

Pritam Singh 4:14
The circumstances behind why she didn't tell the truth before October? 

Edwin Tong
Yes. Well, those October October October

Pritam Singh
Those circumstances pertain specifically, as far as the DP was concerned, to the lies that Miss Khan had told in Parliament, we did not see the fact that she had been forced to tell the truth as relevant for the purposes of No, DP wanted to do a 

Edwin Tong
Mr. Singh I, I think you understand me and I think I'll try again. It is not about whether the DP influenced it or didn't influence it, forced her to tell a lie or otherwise, that's a separate point. For the purposes of my contention to you it doesn't matter whether the DP did or didn't do that. My contention rests on the premise of full, frank, honest, open, transparent disclosure to members because the members were required to make a submission to the DP as to what would be the appropriate sanction for Miss Khan? Right. Correct. 

Pritam Singh 5:14
In my view, that was not relevant. 

Edwin Tong
No, that's what the purpose was to

Pritam Singh
Frank disclosure. In so far as the information that Miss Khan had shared with us, on the eighth of August, after I had forced her to make that information apparent. I did not see that as relevant to an understanding of Miss Khan's conduct to lie, lie repeatedly, lie in Parliament

Edwin Tong
Put it this way. The admission on the first of November, that misconduct, that would be a factor that you take in her favor as a mitigating circumstance, right, because she would have disclosed publicly in Parliament. 

Pritam Singh
Yes. 

Edwin Tong
Why wouldn't the fact that she had disclosed it to a senior leadership also be a mitigating factor? 

Pritam Singh
Because in my view, that point rests on her telling the senior leadership after she's been forced to tell the senior leadership what has happened, what is mitigating to me, is her conduct after the 12th when it's made clear to her when she wants to retain the lie, to say no, you have to tell the truth. 

Edwin Tong
No, I'm not foll-. 

Pritam Singh
And that in any way she makes that public on the first of November. 

Edwin Tong
So you don't think that members should have information concerning the, whether she worked with or cooperated with members of the senior leadership of Workers Party? 

Pritam Singh 6:36
I think for the purposes of I don't know, no, I already answered it a few times in different ways. No, I didn't think it was relevant. 

Edwin Tong
And it, surely to you, Mr. Singh, in, you know, as I said, you know, you're a proponent of open honest disclosure. 

Pritam Singh
That's a separate issue-

Edwin Tong
What's wrong with disclosing? it's not a separate issue, Mr. Singh, it was goes to the heart of

Pritam Singh
It wasn't relevant to me. 

Edwin Tong
It goes to the heart of the integrity of the entire integrity of the entire disciplinary process. No, it does not that you fail to be open and transparent in the way that Miss Loh has put it to you fail to disclose to your members, that the senior leadership of the Workers Party was well aware of the lie, and was prepared for Miss Lowe to take time to come clean in Parliament. 

Pritam Singh
I disagree. I also have already made it clear that what Miss Loh was referring to and she said the senior relationship knew. Is she referring to knew by, by, rely 

Edwin Tong
I want to take you back in a moment, but you see, you left the public and the Workers Party members with the impression that Mrs. Khan sat on the lie and told no one for three months. Would you agree? 

Pritam Singh 7:49
Oh no, I don't think that would have been the impression No, because this is specifically about Miss 

Edwin Tong
Mr. Singh, Mr. Singh. Look at your press release. First November? Yes. Okay. Your press release second November. Press release on the first of all, you're talking about the Facebook statement, Facebook stable and your press release announcing the formation of the EP where does it disclose that senior leadership knew? 

Pritam Singh
No, what I'm referring to is on some of November as it no 

Edwin Tong
It doesn't it hasn't been so you have that you have not disclosed the fact that senior leadership knew two years novice in my mind, it was not relevant. It's relevant because that's your contention. I'm looking at you. I'm not necessarily mean, don't interrupt me. I'm putting it to you that the members of the Workers Party who are now asked to judge the level of culpability of Miss Khan-

Pritam Singh 8:33
Yes

Edwin Tong
Surely it's relevant for them to know that, in fact, she had not been sitting on a lie by herself for three months, that in fact, four days after the lie, she told it to you. That's relevant 

Pritam Singh
She had told what to me. 

Edwin Tong
She told you that she had told a lie in Parliament. 

Pritam Singh
Yes, after being pressed. And as far as I was concerned, if indeed, I follow your reasoning, then she would have told the truth on the fourth of October. So as far as the members are concerned, this is an MP who has lied and continues to carry the lie on the fourth of October. We're judging her on that behavior. 

Edwin Tong 9:08
Mr. Singh. I think you know the point and you are deliberately being obtuse about it

Pritam Singh
I am not being obtuse about it. I am giving my point, I'm giving my evidence, this is my evidence to you

Edwin Tong
You are actually someone who has made so many speeches on openness and transparency. But on this point, when it comes to your own openness and transparency, you take the position that it should be suppressed, then- 

Pritam Singh 9:32
There is no question of it being suppressed. It's a question. Yes. And I said it's not relevant. 

Edwin Tong
Well, you took it out. It's not in the press statement. So it's suppressed. 

Pritam Singh
I didn't take it out. It wasn't even in 

Edwin Tong
That's even worse. Yeah. That's because you're making an allegation at me. And, and the reason you did so is because you wanted to protect your own position. That in fact, you and the senior leadership of Workers Party, were already aware for three months prior to the disclosure in Parliament. Of the fact that Miss Khan had told a lie in Parliament. 

Pritam Singh 10:03
No. 

Edwin Tong
And that's the reason why in this fact, neither appears in your first nor your second November press releases. Neither does it appear in any of the materials that you circulated to the Workers Party members. And, and that's why you resisted and ignored Miss Loh's plea to you for the DP to be open and transparent 

Pritam Singh
Disagree

Edwin Tong
And that's the only reason why you would omit that fact. 

Pritam Singh
Disagree. I've made it clear. I did not feel it was relevant because of Miss Khan's own conduct. 

Edwin Tong 10:40
Can you pick up Mr. Faisal Manap's submission to the tribunal, please?

Yes, you saw it a bit a bit earlier, yes. Thank you. Can you please go to page 20? 

Pritam Singh
I beg your pardon. page? 

Edwin Tong
Page 20. Actually, the document starts with earlier so perhaps you start at page 80? Okay. Okay. Yes. It's titled DP recommendations to CEC. Yes. So it sets up. I'm sure you've seen this document. All right. So you'll be familiar. So have you have a extract of your party constitution? 

Pritam Singh
Yes. 

Edwin Tong
You have a chronology of milestones for the DP. Yes. In the red at the bottom. You see, total sign up invited 27. Total turnout, 24. Emails received, 10 years. For info over the page total 34. Opinions. Leave WP, 26. Differences re: mode of departure stay as mp three. Noncommittal five. So this the poll you took from members, right? 

Pritam Singh
This was the of whatever had we had received all the information received from 

Edwin Tong
So your members are giving an opinion? Yeah. So USDP? Yes. Whether she should stay as an MP or otherwise, right? Yes, yes. And this is the DP's assessment go down the page. Yes, I think you'd be familiar and knowingly. So the truth of fact, in parliament on three occasions. And if you just scroll down, you will see the range of punishments, what the CEC can decide based on Article 20. And you look at mitigating circumstances, no malice, or sinister motive, made public admission on first November to correct the record, she likely believed a survivor's account. So these are the DP'a characterizations of mitigating circumstances. 

Pritam Singh
That's right. 

Edwin Tong
I'm suggesting to you that the relevant mitigating circumstances would also include the fact that she told you, and Muslim and Mr. Faisal the truth in August

Pritam Singh 12:40
No, I would not consider that to be a mitigating factor. And that by virtue of her own conduct? I'm sorry, by virtue of her own conduct later, she continues to tell the lie. 

Edwin Tong
Let me have a, try a different approach. If it is determined that the instruction that you gave to Miss Khan on the third of October was equivocal at best and unclear at worst. Okay. I don't want to get into difficulties with you over definition. And as a result, Miss Khan was misled into thinking that she should not tell the truth. Let's say, would that not be a relevant fact? 

Pritam Singh 13:35
If she was misled? Into not telling the truth? I think we let's deal with what the facts are evident? No, no, I must a hypothesis to Mr. Singh. I'm entitled to put in hypotheses you because you should test the evidence. So I'm giving you you don't test the evidence with the hypothesis. But go ahead. Well, we do. I think we do you understand what my question, right? I understand the question in any uncertain hypothesis. I understand that. Okay. So on that basis, don't you think that it will be relevant, right, which goes towards her state of mind, and therefore her level of culpability? Right? I disagree. Because what was told to her was to take responsibility and ownership. Okay. But let's say there is a finding, not necessarily by us. But let's say there's a finding that the instruction on the third of October was, as I said, less than clear, equivocal, or perhaps even tending to lead her to believe that she should continue with the lie. If that is the case, then that would be relevant to the considerations of the DEP. Correct. So you're conceding that if indeed, that was what had has the thing, I'm considering nothing. I'm framing a proposition to you and asking you for your evidence on this. Well, if it's not based on the truth, then I have to agree. But the truth of the matter is she was told to take responsibility and ownership but if you're suggesting that okay, a conclusion is That's fine, that's fine. Who determines the truth of that? If let's say there's an allegation that's made, who determines the truth or that? You have to? This is my evidence. No, I'm there's a committee here to determine that I'm giving the committee Mr. Singh, Mr. Singh, the hypothesis, and maybe we go back and read evidence easier. You said, I put it to you and hypothesis and you said, Well, it's not based on the truth, then I have to agree. But the truth of the matter is that she was told to take responsibility. Alright. So you're saying that if it is not true, then you agree it's a relevant consideration for the DP? Right.

I mean, you can get in. But that also goes to my earlier evidence that if we had told her to stick to the lie, it follows that same Yes, train of thought. So who determines this truth? Which truth, the truth that you refer to? Not words, not words? Mr. Tom? No, I haven't asked the question. So please don't interrupt. You say, Well, if it's not based on the truth, then I have to agree. Those are your words. 

Pritam Singh 16:12
The truth of the statement, truth or falsity of the statement is a question of whether she was misled or not misled. On a third of October, right? Yes. Okay. Who determines that? You tell me. I've told you, I've given you my opinions in your case, right. The DEP has decided that there's no truth in that. And that's, that's why we follow. I follow. I follow him. That's why the three of you on the IEP is completely self serving. No, it's not completely. So you are determining you in proceeding to listen and hear this case in sit on the DEP. Yes, you have made a decision or a judgment wrote that her version, right. What happened is false is wrong. And your version is the right one. That's because we let me finish. Yes. That is the premise on which you answer my question. Or Mr. Tong, that was a hypothesis you put to me, I had no trouble answering it because I am aware of what the truth is. And I acted in good faith. I exactly. I put the exactly together, God CC's permission to do so. And that's because we know what we have to do. We have to look at his hands conduct what she had done, and thereafter determine what was the right thing to this and hire the appointee. And the fact that you're continuing the DP includes the DP deciding that its own version, ie the three of you own version of what happened on a third of October is the correct one. No, Mr. Tom, it's open to the CC to ask any question to the DEP to say, look, when did you know? And these questions, let me remind you, let me remind you, we're already out in the public, free for the CEC to put those questions to us. If we really were hiding anything, let me finish because I let you finish at least give me that courtesy. It was for the cc of course, at any point in time to ask us when did you know we had a cc meeting on the 29th of October? Ms. Khan doesn't say anything about a lie that needs to be taken to the grave. Later on. We have another CAC meeting. There are more questions already out there in public, the CDC can ask all these questions. 

Edwin Tong 18:21
Thank you, Mr. Singh. I think your own last few seconds of evidence answers my question. Thank you much. And that's why is relevant in this respect. At the time you made the CDC, or you asked the CEC to set up the DEP give them these three names as a person's onside LP. Yes. The CC were not aware that the three of you knew of the falsehood in August, correct. I've admitted that in earlier. Yes or no? Yes. They were completely unaware. Right. Of course, I already said that earliest. Thank you. Thank you. I said that very early, in fact. So the CC was unaware that the three of you knew of the falsehood in August when it appointed the three of you as dp members. That is correct. That would be correct. And the way you just give me a second, they could have been some members who had known earlier by virtue of them. Check with by virtue of Reiser, checking some information with them about what goes into her statement. So she may have shared some information with them. Do you notice for a fact, I would admission I would believe it to be true and that this is my evidence. Well, tell me which CC members I will have to will check with the future and I'd like to come back No, no, you made an assertion. Please tell us to the best of your knowledge. Now who knew? I'm quite sure that she is because I saw it in the evidence that Ruth spoke to rice I spoke to ru at least at the very least. Mr. Sen. I think being a cc member she would have known before before the DP was Mr. Singh. Reiser spoke to rule because you told her to go and check if she still has the support. Have a sync on GRC? Teammates? Right? Right. Right. That reference is the reference you're referring to I showed it to you earlier. 

Pritam Singh 20:06
No, no, no, no. What what you're asking me is does rule know that the CC so you are making a assertion that some members of the CC might be aware that the three of you already knew of the fall. So in August, and I'm asking you who? I, I believe it could be group could know, based on what I saw, very quickly on the on the documentation, but I have to check I'm prepared to check with her. Is it only rule? I'm not sure. Is only based on the document that you saw earlier? Yes. One of those exchanges. Do you have any other basis to say that rule was away? No. Because the

whole point was, this was something personal that had happened to miss Kahn, and only the three of us, but I'll have to check that point up. Let me check it back to you. But for the moment we take it that rule is only one that you're aware of. And the only basis on which you see she's where is that document we saw earlier on the WhatsApp message, where ratio was to speak to rule? I'm basing it on that. Yes. Okay. And only that, right? Yes. And as far as you know, no other CC member in a way? No. Right. So the vast majority of the CC members were not aware of the three members of the DPS knowledge of the falsehood in August, when it appointed the DP on a second of November, correct? That would be fair. Right. Thank you. Now, Miss Lowe was one of those who came to see you and made her submissions to the DEP right. Yes. Do you remember that meeting? I do. I have I have taken some notes of that meeting. Okay. Can you share those thoughts with us? Again? You can? Yes, we can. We don't have to be now. I don't have them now. But I will just take a note. Actually, hold on a second, I did tell all the CS CC members who came to give us evidence that I will not share their information in public. In the Can I request a chair to confirm this with Mr. Miss low paying and yudishe if they are prepared. If they allow me to share this information, I will share this information that notes that the DEP took Thank you. If they agree, I'm happy to release those notes. Well, they came to this committee and gave evidence on what they shared with you at the show. So let me take you to it. I gave them the DPS word that we will not share what they said. And we can do the same. But nevermind. Okay, we can check with them. Now on the Capys pick up second of December. transcripts. 

Pritam Singh 22:49
Oh, whose transcript Sorry? Sorry. Yes. Right. Please turn to page 52. Yes. So the evidence that we heard from both Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern was that both of them went to see the DP jointly. Yes. Is that your recollection as well? Yes. Yeah. That was they they spoke in in with one voice, as far as you can. You can see that. And so they made the same points to you. Right. That's right. Okay. Now, look, it's a long page of evidence here. But you can start with Miss Lowe at near the top where she says we came prepared with quite a number of points. Yes, you see that? Yes, that's right at the top. So just briefly read that to yourself. First point.

Yes, I see that. Okay. And then I asked her, What were your reasons? And she says, one of the reasons I gave was everybody makes mistakes. Right? That's the first paragraph. Now the reason I gave and she said, This is my personal opinion, it's not responsible to leave a seat in Parliament unoccupied better. Now, look at the next paragraph. She says, I also told them that the CC and especially the DP should tell the public the true timeline of events, which I've shared here today, that when they knew what courses of action they took, I told them, You should make this public knowledge bearing confidential and personal information. Yes. Now, you were there, you would have understood Miss Lowe to mean that she wanted the DP to share the true timeline of events, meaning she wanted to use to disclose to the public when each of the three members of the DP became aware of the falsehood. She saw that to be relevant. Yes. In fact, that's the same point I'm putting to you today. And I've answered why I don't think it's relevant. And this actually goes further is to say that should include when they knew what cause of action they took, and you should make this public knowledge Metrion 

Pritam Singh
That's right. 

Edwin Tong 25:00
So earlier you said you're not clear what Miss Loh meant in her WhatsApp messages. I think by this time you will quite clear, right? Oh, no, no, I didn't say she was not clear in a WhatsApp message first, on November 10. She actually makes this representation to me for the first time. Yes, she doesn't make this is not the first time she's making this representation to me. Okay, so by 25th of November, this meeting, you're quite clear what her what her what the thrust of a submission was? No, I was not. It says Yeah. This is this is the evidence is not evidence. This is what she has shared with the DP. But by the 10th of November, she had already told me that, you know, she is of the view that, you know, what the DP knows, and all that should also come out, but i Little did I know until she gave her evidence that she was told by Miss rice icon that a lie had to be taken to the grave. I'm not sure whether she's referring to that knows details. But as far as I'm concerned, No, Miss Mr. Singh, you see you. You are very keen to bring us back to that. No, I'm not because that message you brought, I don't know what her knowledge is you? I don't know what a normal is. You've already bought your own volition several times more than I thought you might. So have you surprised you feel that way? Because that's a very critical part of it is close up. It is critical. But you see, I am asking you about a different piece of evidence and a different time span now. Yes. And I think you will know very clearly what Miss Lowe here means. Yes. She sang to tell the public the true timeline of events, right. That when they knew, right, they refers to the DP. Right. That's the incontrovertible and new refers to your knowledge of the falsehood in August. Right. Right. What courses of action they took, and they refer to the DEP, right? Yes. So it's got nothing to do with the email message assist ticket to the grave. Let's Okay, let's take it no, no answer my question. I disagree. Because I don't know what Miss Lowe's intention is when she says what we knew. So I'm sure you get my point what I'm trying to say Oh, Mr. Singh with regard to miss Lowe's knowledge, but I think a more important fact I'd like to share no don't don't don't don't see shadows when the I'm not seeing any shadows. She's simply saying to you, Mister DP when she was there, Mr. Members of the DP, you should tell people when they knew when you knew you knew what, what facts. Tell me, Mr. Tom, what facts are measured. According to 

Edwin Tong 27:41
Mr. Singh, you're backpedaling. I'm not backpedaling. I'm asking you what facts is she referring to? I'll answer you with reference to your own evidence. Sure. But I think you need for loads evidence page 47407. I'm reading to you so that the transcript can pick it up off my transcripts? I put to you she's saying with reference to this line. She's saying to tell the public the truth timeline of events when they knew they refer to the DP right. No, no, that's incontrovertible. Your answer? Yes. And they refers to you right? Answer by you. Yes. Yes. And they refer to the DP. Right. So it's got nothing to do with the message, take it to the grave. What about facts? So you see Mr. Fanon, my question to you earlier was, what facts is Miss Lowe, referring to that clarification, does not answer that. Oh, okay.

You don't have it? You see at page four, six, you talk about the evidence, what she has shared with the DEP. By 10th. November, you these are the messages, then you say Little did I know until she give evidence she was told by Miss can lie had to be taken to the grave. So I didn't remind you that, you know, you don't have to refer to that. Because that's not on the face of this. You agree now? No, I don't agree with you. Is it clear what Mr. sinologist is? Is that message refer to here? No, it's not for now. Okay. But knowledge is referred to Yes. Thank you. You see. I think I've made my point. No. I'm not even trying to suggest to you that the knowledge includes that message, Mr. Singh. That's what I you know, I don't know. I have told you early on that I I don't have anything to disagree with you on the basis. at all your contention that at the material time contemporaneously, you have not seen that message. I think I made it clear to you several times. Yes. But so for you, it's loose. So for you to suggest that that message is somehow operative in these lines here, why should I assume that? How can it be far fetched? I know, it's impossible for you to conclude it's Farfetch. I think the message was sent to her. I know that I think Mr. Singh, you know, you look back, I know your case theory hasn't worked in this regard. But as what I've put out there, okay. No, you see, the reality is this. You were told by senior cabinet members, in this case, Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern. People who are there no such thing as senior cabinet members, they're just Cabinet members. All right, current members, but someone you know, and trust Well, work with as well served us well. That you should come clean. This is where you should currently be public. Yes. Tell the public the true timeline. 

Pritam Singh 31:00
Right. 

Edwin Tong
And the reality is that she's telling you, tell people that you knew of the falsehoods, fifth of August, the falsehoods, or is she referring to the fact that we told her to take a lie to the grave? You can't answer that question, Mr. Time. And let me just so so let me ask, let me ask you this question. If you were not clear what she said, Did you ask her when she was before you? I guess my answer would be the same that I gave earlier. I did not find it to be relevant visa B visa, we miss Khan's conduct. But you don't even say it's not relevant in the messages. You said. Despite that. You remember? Are we going to quibble over that? Because I suggest you don't put too much weight on that. No, I suggest you be careful with how you look at the language because I think if you if you if you disregard it, I will suggest do it at your peril. Because let me tell you, it is not what we were introducing into it. Let me finish. Right. I think sometimes you give it away when you try to interrupt because No, I'm not giving anything away. I'm only giving the truth away. I will be the judge of that. I'm sure you will. 

Edwin Tong 32:15
When you are confronted with a plea by Miss Loh, to please tell the public. Tell the public that you knew. Tell the public that you involved. What causal of action you took. Make this public knowledge. The true timeline of events. You don't understand this?

Pritam Singh
I disagree with it. And I'll tell you why. It's also really 

Edwin Tong
That's not my question. Mr. Singh. Did you understand this? Yes, I understand that. Thank you. Thank you. Now, you don't think is a reasonable request? I don't think in the circumstances it is relevant. And let me suggest to you why because the answer is also on this page. Please. Miss Loh Peiying at the top.

We came prepared with quite a few points. We knew a lot of people had this on their mind, which was to expel her. That's what she says. I mean, as you can see a lot of newspapers also called for them. So we went in to try and prevent them from doing that, I guess, will not prevent. But to give them our reasons why they should not do that. Basically, the whole idea of at least from this low paying was they did not want us to expel or recommend the expulsion of Miss Reiser can. So whatever would come out it as again, this is where the knowledge of what Miss Lowe is referring to is important. Because if she is laboring under the presumption that the leadership told rise, riser was told to take a lie to the grave. I can see why it's important for her to say you should tell the public what you know. But that misses the Mr. Singh. First of all, we will have to make an assessment as to whether or not in fact, Miss Khan's message about taking the invasions of the grave is a fair one or not. All right. Thank you, Miss Lowe, you leave us through that of that. Second, the true timeline, the true timeline, as you knew it, then I don't even think Miss Lowe is coming to you and saying you know what, Mr. Singh, you should have been aware of this message and you should disclose that. 

Edwin Tong 34:29
It's inconceivable for Miss Loh to come to you to ask you to talk about a true timeline of events which does not contain information you are aware of. He told like I said like a given my evidence. So sorry. Let me finish. So let's not try to ascribe a motive to miss Lowe. She may be a close ally of Ms. Khan. And she may well think that it is wrong to expel Ms. Khan and I think she was very forthright in telling you that but she also gave you some Strong words for use it put it that way about the process. And it is the process that is important. Right. And she is telling you your process is flawed because you have just not come clean. You have not disclosed to the public. Your involvement. I hear you. You've made this point a few times. And my reply is still the same. I did not think it was relevant visa we what Miss Han had done. When you made your press gave a press conference last week, last Thursday, you talked about the DP and you use the words natural justice. Yes. Right. Yes, it's important, right. Yes. That justice be done. That's right. Justice be served. Mr. Khan has the opportunity to address those issues. Yes. So why is it that justice can be done and facts don't have to be disclosed. relevant facts don't have to be disclosed has justice to be done? Well, mishaan, the person who is under scrutiny is at liberty to tell the CEC all that they look, I told these people I cooperated. They are not. It's not fair that they judge me. If we really wanted no national let me finish to the national justice. I let you finish your finish. I'm trying to keep evidence relevant. It's highly relevant. It's in response to what you're saying. You're Miss Kahn. Mr. was new, you say natural justice. Miss, it says Let me finish. No, Mr. Chair, can I please finish? I I will let you speak. Okay. So I'm trying to explain to you why it's not relevant. Your you're trying to answer my question with reference to what Miss Han can say? I don't disagree with that for the moment. Members, members who are not aware and don't have the same level of facts, as Nissan does. Miss Han obviously knows, you knew on seventh of August, but the members all 26 of them who gave you a submission didn't know Yes. And so that's the point I'm putting to you. I focus on that I that's the part of natural justice. So focus on it. 

Pritam Singh 37:00
I've replied, I'll give you I do not see it to be relevant insofar as what Miska Miss Kahn had done in Parliament. You've asked me this question a number of times, you're not making progress, because my answer is still the same. You see,

the reason I asked you again, is because I'm trying to give you an opportunity to think about the position and reflect on how this is coming out. And think about it in the context of the fact that you have information about the DPS own involvement in the very matter that they are judging misconduct. Just take it at that level. And I cannot understand why you hold on, in my view quite unreasonably, to the position that this evidence is completely irrelevant. Your members don't need to know, your members don't need to know the true timeline, or that you were involved, or they mishaan had actually come up to you and told you about the lie three months prior to when she was expelled from the party. Or you're thinking of expelling him from the party. So I'm trying to understand that you that's why I asked several times. So guys, if it comes across as repetitive Oh, you don't need to, but I am trying to give you an opportunity to explain and understand from your perspective, why that is. So I as I mentioned, Miss Kahn had told a lie in Parliament, she had repeated that lie. And the focus of the DEP was on that particular conduct. Whether the she had shared that feedback with the DEP to us, to me, at least I should not include Miss they can give the evidence to me was not relevant. What was relevant was an MP of the Workers Party has told a lie in Parliament. What is the appropriate sanction? Alright, thank you. Is that your class?

Tan Chuan-Jin:  38:49  
Just build on that. So you did not feel it was relevant to let the CEC know either when they form the DP? No,

Pritam Singh  38:56  
I No, I did not.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  38:57  
So you decided that USC relevant and there was no need for the CC to know,

Edwin Tong  39:01  
let me say, is that correct? Let me just say I did not actively say I'm going to withhold this information. It does not even come.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  39:09  
My question is, you felt that it was irrelevant. There is no need to inform the CDC that you will not cross my civilian. And Mr. Pfizer, my new? My answer is it did not cross my mind the CDC form the disciplinary panel. Yes, without knowing that actually three of you knew a few months before that this was disclosed to you

Edwin Tong  39:29  
that the lie was disclosed to us. Yes. Would that be correct?

Tan Chuan-Jin:  39:31  
That would be correct. And you feel that's irrelevant for the rest of all your members to know this fact? Because in your view, it was irrelevant.

Edwin Tong  39:38  
In my view, it was the focus of the DPS work allowed you felt

Tan Chuan-Jin:  39:42  
that it was irrelevant for anyone else to know that you actually knew this. As early as seven? Yes, yes.

Edwin Tong  39:50  
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me now Come back to the grave message. Now I would go back to the grave.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  40:05  
If you're not going there, we are asked if you feel that it was not relevant. I'm just curious why. In the press conference on second December, you disclose this fact to the public?

Edwin Tong  40:17  
Because there were questions online about it.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  40:21  
So, therefore, it became relevant because of that, or because that was the reasons for that. Because you see, our contention is that it is important. I think, from a natural perspective, most people would feel that surely this should be not, but you can, you could feel that it is irrelevant. You saw no need to inform your CC when they were forming the discipline panel. Yes. As you sought the feedback of your various members from WP, you didn't see a need to let them know because it's irrelevant. But yet strangely, on second, December, coincidentally, was the first day that we held the committee of privilege hearing Yes, of which actually, this fact emerged at the hearing. But you felt it not necessary then, to respond to the questions? Why was that? So?

Edwin Tong  41:13  
As I mentioned, there was online chatter about it. And I thought it would be relevant to answer it. And I would expect journalists to

Tan Chuan-Jin:  41:20  
ask that question. So at that stage she felt was relevant, then to make it public?

Edwin Tong  41:25  
Yes, because the illusion was that we were hiding something

Tan Chuan-Jin:  41:28  
to be noise. You didn't feel any need to inform us because we weren't hiding anything.

Edwin Tong  41:35  
How did that illusion come about? How did what sorry? How do you see this the thing? I mean, just to pick up what Mr. Chairman said to you, I, there's a reason why there's chatter in your words and empresses asking questions, because there's a one big gaping hole, the press is not asking question that we're our own. One of our own party members was asking the question, because your story has one big gaping hole. When did you know what did you do with the information? And why? Because the whole inference is that we are trying to hide something we were not hiding anything, there was nothing to hide. So what's wrong with coming coming up with it early and say we knew that's precisely my point. It didn't even cross our minds. The question of it being relevant wasn't even active at that time. I hope I make this clear.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  42:26  
Maybe I can ask this question, because I was curious as to the the press conference on second December? Yes. Was that pre planned? We informed is activated fairly late. Notice in your process? Would it be correct to say that actually, the disciplinary panel would have gone on for longer? Before you convened the CC to report to them?

Edwin Tong  42:50  
The disciplinary panel finished its work on the I'll have to double check 29th or 30th of November.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  42:59  
But prior to that the plan was that it would stretch a little bit beyond there

Edwin Tong  43:04  
was an original plan for it to go up to the fourth district. And then we decided that the gap was too far apart between men. Well, was the decision taken? Who sometime in late November?

Tan Chuan-Jin:  43:17  
About late November? Yeah. So the fact that you had an activated for press conference very hot on second December, which happened to be the same day that the Committee of privilege was sitting was purely coincidental.

Edwin Tong  43:30  
He Well, we had informed the public through the Facebook posts that we were going to give a press conference. This was announced a few days prior. Yeah, we did publicly inform it. So it was not a case of like, suddenly we activate the press in the morning that we're having a press I understand

Tan Chuan-Jin:  43:45  
and say, because by that stage, I think there was we had already fixed and those who were involved would have known that we were getting on with the consideration that the fact that the three of you knew of razor con slice as early as seventh and eighth December, which would have been much as it did at the committee of privilege hearings, the day weigh on your mind, but not perhaps know, therefore, you needed to then have that facility not not at all, you know, because

Edwin Tong  44:17  
look, the CRP in my mind would continue its work. So it would have come out anyway. And it didn't even occur to me to be honest.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  44:25  
So am I correct to say that all this while when you felt that there was no need for anyone to know, because it's irrelevant, even as important as your own CC members, as they form the DPS in the process of gathering feedback, which is why we suggest Miss Lowe when she felt strongly and as you alluded to in the report, as highlighted by her points that she felt that she wanted to try to make right the situation because maybe you know Miss Reza Khan might be asked to be to step down because she had felt that the feedback given was given without knowledge that for example, I do not let me come to that. No, the point is, to all the states, you felt that it was irrelevant. Well, I'd by second October a second December, you felt that was really important to get this message out. And coincidentally, that was the very same morning that these facts emerge here at a committee of privilege, no connection between no connection whatsoever between the two, but I would say visa V the CC because I think the allusion being made is information was kept from them. Reiser was before the CC on the 29th of October. So if at any point there was some

Edwin Tong  45:44  
remark that she wanted to raise some concerns she wanted to raise about where this is going. I don't think there was any I understand the mission former to

Tan Chuan-Jin:  45:52  
you know, when when this when you put it to the CCO and CC members. You didn't feel it was necessary for them to know that yourself Mr. Lin, and Mr. Pfizer Munna actually knew of the fact that Miss Risa Khan lied as early as seventh and eighth.

Edwin Tong  46:09  
It did did not press on our minds. But if they would have asked, of course, we would have had,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  46:12  
but you didn't feel that was relevant. Just as you didn't feel as relevant to let the rest of the members know as you get their feedback on what they thought

Edwin Tong  46:21  
that's because fundamentally dealing with rice icons lies in cinnamon. Thank you. So to pick up on those points missing, you said earlier that the sitting had planned for members to meet with the DEP on the fourth of December. That's right, which means that the contemplation was that the panel would not complete this work until after the fourth of December. Right. repeat your question, please. If you're meeting members on a fourth, you can't complete your report until after the fourth. Right. That's right. That's right. And in fact, mislim had informed Miss Kahn that the panel has decided that he will need more time. And there'll be an unlikely to be November decision. I don't know whether she said this. Please pick up Miss Hans bundle. Seven December. Which page please, please turn to page nine. Sorry, Page nine. Did you say it nine? Yes. Yes. November 8 4:43pm. November The eighth? You see it as 11? Eight? Yes. From silver limb high res FYI. The panel has decided to take more time unlikely to be November decision. Yes. Right. This is on the eighth I believe she may have you'll have to check with a Muslim. But I believe this was because we knew we were we wanted to get members feedback. That's why we were watching and we also had to organize our schedules and strike. So at least as of that time, and at least as of around the 18th of November, where you saw you saw reference earlier to Mr. Noggins messages. He said, panel was still meeting members on fourth of December. Yes, you just cooperated. Right. Yes. Let me just clarify that. Because when we told members to write in those who wanted to speak to the DP, we gave them three blocks of dates. This was very, very early on, I think shortly after the 10th of November. And then we decided that look, the December one is really far. But let's try and we've really got the gist of what members feel. There are still some members we want to meet. So we decided to move it forward. 

Edwin Tong 48:29
On the 29th of November, this up met for the first time. You didn't know it then. But by now you would know because I didn't have a special report. Right. And it was also at this first meeting that the committee resolved to call three witnesses Wiscon Miss Lowe and Mr. Mike Lim. I don't know of them. Yes. I'm telling you, as a matter of public record by now you would be able to check the public record. On the same day, if you just pick up the same page on the 29th of November. What am I looking at? Sorry? The same Monday, like I showed you earlier? This is the live messages. Yes, yes. You will see that Miss Kahn had informed Muslim that the interview will take place on the second of December. Let me where are we? Right near the bottom of the page. Okay. Okay. I don't know this. I'm seeing it for the first time. Okay. Yeah. Over the page, page 10. Mislim says CC will meet on Wednesday first December to decide what to do. So there was a cc meeting planned for the first of December, right? That's right. And this CC meeting as of 29th of November at 6:44pm was still fixed for the first of December. Based on Muslims message and she can't be wrong, right. I will have to check. Maybe you can Think about it and tell me whether that's the case. I know we go. I know we had a we had a cc meeting sheduled. And we moved it a day forward. Yep. Yeah. So as of the 29th of November, therefore, I'm correct. 6:44pm There was a cc meeting shadow on the first of December. Right? Yes. Right. You look a bit further down the page. And you see that Miss at 701? Yes. Do you see that? Yes. 7:01pm raesha says paying received an email for the CLP. Yes. So at least by this time, Muslim had been aware that Miss Lowe would come and give evidence. That's for Miss. I don't I don't know if this you don't know this or not this. You sure? I'm sure. Miss lived in tell you? No, no, no. 

Edwin Tong 50:56
And you didn't know that. The CRP was sitting on the 29th of a second of December. I know that the CRP was going to sit but it was not active in my mind as to precisely when it was going to sit. Right. Okay. Go further down the same page at 8:37pm.

Oh, yes, a few hours later. CC meeting is now tomorrow, Tuesday. Right. So he was moved earlier. Right. So after at least Miss Lim. And you said you didn't know right after mislim became aware that Miss Lowe will be called as a witness. Right. The CC meeting was brought forward. Right? Well, from what he said here? Yes. What is the reason for that? Actually, there was no nothing untoward in my mind. To move the date forward. I believe the intention really comes back to what we asked Reisa on the 30th of November, whether she would like the CDC, to deliberate on what to do before the CRP starts its work or after this question was put to Reiser. And she said I would prefer it to be before. So that's all there was to it. You see, as of the 29th of November, right, which is the date on which these messages are being exchanged? Does DP had just met Russia in the morning? Right? We met her in the morning. Yes, that's right. That's right. And that was the morning of the 29th. And you had planned for that to be Assisi initially on the first of December. But sometime in the evening, you changed and accelerated the CDC. Yes, right. Mr. Chairman asked you if that was in reaction to the CRP proceedings, right? And your answer was no, right? Is that correct? Look, as I recall it now, I believe that the change was made because Raisa had herself suggested she would prefer the CEC to come to a decision before the COP started its work. That's That's my man. But that's what I recall. 

Edwin Tong 53:14
That's correct. But that's it's also the case that By the evening of the 29th of November, at least Muslim and possibly other senior members of the Workers Party was aware that Miss Lowe will be giving evidence to the CRP. I didn't know that. But based on this Muslim will be aware, right? It would be from the message she sent to Reiser, yes, because Reisa is the one who told her yes, and it is likely that the evidence that Miss Lowe would give would include what we've just gone through, telling the DEP to come clean, disclose public information, disclose timelines that was contemplated, right? In what context was what contemplated? It's a very simple question. You know, you jumped. So I'm trying to know, I'm going to try to see what we're jumping By the evening of the 29th of November, Miss limb, and possibly other senior members of the Workers Party will find out, became aware that Miss Lowe will be giving evidence before the CLP. Right? I don't know. Based on this 

Pritam Singh 54:15
Based on this, yes. Yes. And based on this only miss limb, at least Miss Lowe will be coming to give evidence and that evidence will probably include her submissions to the DEP. Her views on the fact that a DP were not open and honest and transparent. And what she had told you, you should be doing so that the members of the Workers Party had a full picture. I wouldn't know. You wouldn't know. I wouldn't know. Right? I'm picking up on the point from Mr. Chairman earlier because it's a funny coincidence. Don't you think? There was no plan to try and outflank this CRP, because the CRP can meet for very long and take its time to go to the evidence. And sadly, that seems to be the case. No, it's It's fine. This is what you have to do to do this. But you see, bear with me, Mr. Singh. You see, it's nothing more than a coincidence. Well indulge us when Mr. Chairman asked some questions. Let me do as well, I will. Mr. Chairman, approached it from the perspective of why did you not have in your previous press statements, or in fact, anywhere else? Anything about your knowledge of the falsehoods until the press conference on the second of December? And I'm, I think I will be a bit more direct and blunt than Mr. Chairman. And I'll suggest to you that the reason it appears in the second of December press conference, is because by that time, the Workers Party knew that that fact would come out in the evidence given to the corp, which is then sitting at exactly the same time on a second of December, I wholly reject that connection. And so

your press conference was designed to disclose the information first. No, that's ahead of what you expected Miss low descent possibly miss Kahn to come to this up to say, completely disagree, disagree, completely. Your complete, complete coincidence that at 12pm When your press conference is on, this is the first day of sitting at the same time as the GOP. Absolutely. Right. You sure? I said absolutely. With God's absolute conviction.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  56:47  
That's the second thing. The power though, which Paul does is there's a series of conversations. Which one nice six, this is in Miss los submissions. There was an X some exchange. Between Risa and Miss lawpay. Sorry, speech 196.

Edwin Tong  57:08  
I hope you're referring to the same thing. Yes, go ahead.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  57:12  
Somewhere midway down. Let's look at 30th November submissions. Yes. So Risa starts with Nope. Hey, guys, can we have a quick call this morning? And paying says what about and Risa said about the CC meeting tonight. Paying then said this one? I thought next week research? Nope. It's tonight. Paying said Did they change it? Resources yet? Paying when? Yes. And recently yesterday after the meeting. And then she added after they found out about the CRP date, I suppose being they say okay, that's important Re. And then she goes on to talk about reset October, they're going to vote to suspend me demote me, etc, etc. that we do need to cover the rest?

Edwin Tong  58:00  
We do. She says I want to resign, guys.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  58:03  
Yes, yes. But I think the point here I'm making is this and which is why I was asking a series of questions earlier, because you were very convicted, in your sense that the fact that the three of you knew about Mishcon line, right? At seventh eighth August was really quite irrelevant. In overall scheme of things and overlay things. Yes. Which is why you did not feel it necessary to inform your own CC members or senior members, right? While they're deciding on whether this, you feel that this fact was irrelevant, because you saw that as a truth and a reality. But then you decided that but you didn't see that it was necessary for a CC to then decide whether it was relevant because you felt it's irrelevant for them when they were considering who to form on the discipline panel. So you did not disclose to them. Because if I didn't occur to you, or anything was necessary, I felt that the facts are very clear. There's no ambiguity whatsoever. There's no need to raise that right. Neither did you see any need to inform any of your members, even as you sought their feedback. No, as Mr. Tang alluded to, the feedback and points that members might race may be different, how they knew that Miss Raisa Khan, actually a few days after she made that lie. She actually had confessed, arguably, as you said, was false out of doubtful, but you felt that it was still irrelevant? Yes. And the chatter about what was known what was not known out online, about what the leadership did or not do existed for some time, he was not new. Yes. So, throughout this whole time span, as you had quite forcefully made a point that this will not relevant points. Yes. And even as response to what Miss Lowe highlighted, it felt there was no need to address it because we actually recognized what She raised but it was not relevant to the point. But it then so happens then there was changes in the date of the CDC. And coincidentally, and as you said, no coincidence is just what happens, your pure coincidence rather, that you therefore had a press conference on the second of December, the very same morning that we set, yes. And when we were sitting here, I could remember for the first time I heard that the leadership, the three of you actually knew this, on the seventh

Edwin Tong  1:00:31  
would have known at least 36 hours earlier that we were going to hold a press conference date, you would have known early, but a good one and a half days earlier, we were going to hold a press conference on Thursday. But it wasn't something that we sprung.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:00:43  
I know. But the dates that when we were going to hold a CRP and who were going to call on second, I didn't know who you were going to go, as you say. So but on that occasion, you felt it was necessary, almost at the same point of the orders while feeling that was irrelevant. And as you said, just now that was to respond to online chatter, but online chat has been going on for some time. Yes. And I'm hearing issued out sorry, various Press Statements articulating the issues, but no mention whatsoever of this point. That's right. And so in your view, it is pure coincidence that on the very same morning, you shared the fact that the three of you knew for the first time, pretty much to everyone else, it was the three of you knew that actually on seven and eight. August, you knew that research on light at that stage. It wasn't there was the first time it was made public.

Edwin Tong  1:01:34  
It wasn't a coincidence that we made that fact public. What we had made known was what we knew. We knew Miss Kahn had resigned. And we wanted to establish the full facts of what had happened. Yes.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:01:48  
But up to that stage you. Because, as you have said earlier, the point that you knew, on seventh August and eighth August is really quite irrelevant. That's right. So there was actually no need to even highlight that, as conference. I disagree. But you felt, as you said, because it's online chatter. It was important to address that.

Edwin Tong  1:02:10  
That's why I expected the reporters to ask those questions.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:02:14  
So it is really pure coincidence that the very same morning where these facts emerge for the committee of privilege that you see just so happens that you shared that same information they have, which for the longest time you felt was actually quite irrelevant. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:02:30  
That is correct. Okay. Thank you. So the only ground on which it became an irrelevant fact became relevant for the purpose of the second of December, was online chatter and members queries? No, was because I expected this chatter to have been picked up by journalists as well. And I was quite sure they were going to ask the question, so I came prepared for it. But if it's not relevant, to work as party members in their deliberation on something, which is more serious, and just interest, how, why does that become relevant suddenly, because now now it's about it's you see, as far as the party is concerned, and you saw reference to the DB report, we are making reference to article 20, about the conduct of a member prejudicial to the good conduct of the party. That was something we felt that Miss Kahn had to answer to. And it did not matter that she had shared the information with us earlier, because the fact is, we are looking into her lies in Parliament and her decision to continue the lie. In October. Those were the material facts we were Yes. So now my like Mr. Chairman said, but queries that had been going around have been going around since the first of November when this kind of came came clean in Parliament. Same questions. Yes. Workers parties. Yeah. How long has it been sitting on it? It would be a it would be definitely a question that the members could also ask us. It wasn't as if we said please don't ask us this question. I mean, there was nothing for us to hide this. The members had brought it up, you would have had to deal with it. Yes. But you and I know that disclosure means saying so before you're asked. I think again, comes back down to relevance and our state of mind about that relevance. I certainly didn't feel it was relevant for the purposes of understanding what had to be done to miss Kahn, but by it became relevant because people were asking questions, because there was a press conference I was going to hold and I know that the question would come up so completely circuit's as Mr. Singh is not missed, if you if you try to look at my thinking it is nice. It's not circuitous. I asked you Why is he relevant? You said as a press conference, why do you say is why do you say it in the press conference? Because it is now relevant circuit as I mean, for for the purposes of forming an argument theoretically, I can see what you're saying but I'm sure you understand the substance of where I'm going with a press conference. Mr. Singh back to the DEP. Okay. Yes. Now, the mandate you have is to look into the falsehoods. That's right right. Now can I invite you to please pick up the bundle? Dated eighth of December from Mr. Norton? From sorry, Mr. Sorry, see you destroy not okay. December.

Okay this is a bundle of Chad locks with that he has with this law. Okay, so there's no mascara on it right now we are looking at the chat log with Husar

Edwin Tong 1:05:43
Between Mr. Nothern. And Miss Lowe. Again, the reductions are done by Mr. Navin. Yes, go ahead. Now, I'd like you to look at it. This way, I will ask you a series of questions about the DEP. And the conduct of the DEP. The work done by the DEP? Yes. But to give you the full context. And to be fair to you, I'm just going to show you the preceding messages. So you can start with the second of November. I'm afraid this is not paginated. So just to confirm you're looking at part one, two or three I have it only as one part. I have it as three parts. Is Mr. Nothern to the CLP. is the first page Yes. So go to pitch second November.

Thanks. So this starts from around 2:26pm. On the second of November. Yes. So wi n is Mr. Nothern. And paying is Miss Lowe. Ray messaged me just now to 26 to ask me if I think the party will ask you to step down. This is the aftermath of the announcement of the DEP. Yes. Paying says I don't know I don't know. Then there's a message there's there's an attachment of a photo and I don't I don't know what it is. Here it comes. He also being dragged, paying says so I don't trust Pritam to put himself above things all. Over the page, like when it affects him personally, I'm worried he'll cut the cord. Then there is a series of messages which have been redacted by Mr Nathan. 

Edwin Tong 1:08:00
And then, the next day on the third of November, the next complete message to you see, Kane says Can I just say I'm glad Pritam is getting some of the mud in the slinging contest. She She goes on to say he knew before us in every instance. He flagged the anecdote but didn't ask her to take it out. He knew before he told she told us he had many opportunities to really take charge responsibility. But he's only doing it now. Let me pause for a moment. Yes. Earlier on when I put some of MIS last messages to you. One of your answers was that they were worried and they were not in favor of the party taking action against Miss can expel her. That's also in her own communication. That was what Miss Kahn was asking them. This is right at the start of the process. And before the 10th of this November, when you sent out the all parties message, you remember that? Yes. 10 December or 10? November, November, November 10. So would you also say that this point in time, their views are motivated by a sense that you are being unfair to miss Kahn? Well, from what I read. This is of course the first time I'm seeing this because it has to be read as how it is put across. But again, I'm quite surprised to see he flagged the anecdote but didn't ask her to take it out. I mean, I think they're looking for they're really spreading, you know, splitting hairs here because it was highlighted to her. I mean, she had the responsibility as an MP to substantiate anecdote when I pointed it out to her. You didn't say that to her? Absolutely. So but I'm just trying to fix a time frame because earlier on the messages were later in November. And your reason for rallies one reason for that you offered was that at that time They were not happy that you were, or they perceive you to be unfair to miss Kahn and wanted Miss Kahn to step down. And what so sorry, he was your evidence? No, at what point? Are you referring to that? There was a period of time later and is in November? Yes. Yes, yes. So would that also apply to these messages which come at the start on November? Again, it comes as a surprise to me, because around these dates, I communicated with Mr. Nothern. And Miss Liu to tell them that DEP was going to be formed. And they didn't share these views or this, the extent of their unhappiness, suggesting that I'm glad Pritam is getting some of the mud in this slinging contest. In fact, it was a very, very different communication between them and I, at this period

Edwin Tong 1:10:46
All right, at least visibly what they say to me. I mean, obviously, they're saying something else behind my back. I understand. Now. Can you go, maybe two pages down, because the thrust of them there was the background, but the thrust of the messages here now start on the eighth of November? And the reason why that's relevant, Mr. Singh is because on the eighth of November, Miss Kahn had an interview with the DP. Right. So you look at the bottom of the page it Nov. 1229. Yes, yes, over the page. At the end, they only said they will make a recommendation to cc and cc will vote on it. They didn't tell her what this recommendation is. Mr. Sutherland says but also the valley asked her about the incident support group why she lied. Now that's not true. Paying dances Is this him trying to be accountable and impartial or something? Mr. Nada. And based on what she told me on the phone, she had started saying that she doesn't have a team member support, that she hasn't been contributing to the TC in discussions, and basically calling the question her attitude as an MP faishal asked her if she has the mental willpower to continue going. She says she does. And she'll work hard. And over the page, and Sylvia didn't say much. Yeah, I think she meant them.

And then go further down the page, cause I asked her again, he needs to know from paying, Mr. Nothern. And she confirmed he knew before the sitting when Shanmugam asked her he knew before she told us yudishe. I asked her who knows. And yeah, and we spoke to him about it, etc. Right after we are witnesses we are. So was it the case that the questions asked or miss Kahn at the interview related? Or had barely anything to do with the relevant incident, the support group and why she liked? No, the questions that we put to her concerned, I'm coming from memory here. Why she lied? Why was it that she uploaded her speech, number one so late. After uploading the speech so late, it was still pointed out to her that you had to substantiate. Why did you, what did you read into that? We asked her some, you know, a series of questions on that episode, where the anecdote came from, or she's still in touch, you know, with this group, because I think by then she had given us some information about, because we had asked her give us more information about this support group that you attended, and whatever the information you can find. 

Pritam Singh 1:13:29
And I think Miss Lim proceeded to get in touch with some of the organizers of the group. So those facts did come up the point about her, I'm just going to refer exactly to how it's put here. Her contributions and all that came really down because of a point about self discipline. It is in the rules of prudence, that self discipline is important. And that would mean uploading speeches on time. And that would mean making sure that you know, you do just do things at the last minute. And there have been deadlines that have been given to her in the past. She does not follow those deadlines. And we thought questions like that were relevant to try and see. Really, is this a pattern of conduct that we expect? Can I ask you to look at miscounts own account interview? Yes. Miss can spindle eighth of December. You can find it better to piece together get next. Thank you. Yes. What page? Am I being referred to? Please turn to page 12? Yes. And at eight of sorry. Yes, eighth of November 12:39pm. raesha says, Sorry, Mr. Tong, I missed out your timeline. Eighth of November, right 30 9pm 1239. Hey, I just met the DP. He was busy. Pritam telling me his grievances against me and my character, and how he feels that I don't contribute much, and that people don't have a good perception of me. Being says, I heard from Yudish, he's very upset for you. And so am I, his language shows doesn't show that he's taken any responsibility for this. Mike and I are doing what we can. And remember, no matter what he and I, no matter what he and I are here for you. We are both ready to leave if they ask you to do so. Rachel says I just don't understand why someone would say so many mean things in one go. Do you think it's best for the party by resign? yudishe mentioned that rule set is a noble thing to do. Is a count a fair count? I think it is a very. She sees herself as a victim. But I don't think it's an account where she's even prepared to take responsibility for what she has done in Parliament. So I don't think to the extent it is fair account. You see, Mrs. Mr. Singh? I'm asking about this. Because, again, I'm trying to work out being very candid with you as to how I'm looking at this. I'm trying to work out based on her account. If she's right, whether this would be consistent. 

Pritam Singh 1:16:18
What would be consistent whether the facts that happened, subsequent conduct will be consistent. Right? Subsequent conduct parties or the parties? I don't get, you have to repeat what you're saying. I'll I'll move on. I'll put it to you this way. Right. If Miss Khan's account is correct. Ie that she was told in August not to raise it if it doesn't get raised. And I'm paraphrasing. Okay, okay.

Take the case as it is presented. by who? By Miss cat, I'm telling you this is her position, her case. And on the third of October, you saw her evidence I showed it to you earlier. Her takeaway was you told her continue with the narrative. You won't judge her. She goes and continues with the narrative. It tells the lie. And now she thinks that you have been too harsh on her and not taking responsibility for your part. This would be consistent if her position was correct, right. I would disagree if she was of the view that there was some undue harshness towards meted out towards her? Nothing is stopping her from No, no, no, I think the CC or anything like that. So no, I don't agree. I'm not going into whether she should tell the CAC make a complaint and so on. I'm simply saying that the sentiments expressed here. If she is right, that she was told in on the third of October to continue with the narrative, and she did so on the fourth of October. And now an inquiry is being launched into her behavior, her conduct including what she did on the fourth of October. We can understand why she is aggrieved by it. Right? If she's right, well, she's not right. But if she's right, but I cannot agree with that. She's not right. That's not the conclusion you have to draw. Right? Yeah. So so you can agree or disagree. Now, in this particular case, I think it is a again, very skewered reading of what the DP was trying to do. I think she was very uncomfortable with the fact that she had been called out for lack of discipline.

Is there a DEP report of the meeting with Miss Carr? Both meetings, I have notes for both meetings. My first set of notes are not very complete, but I have them and prepared to give them but my second set of much the what the second set I mean by the second meeting I have, but I'm quite sure the other members also took notes. Yes, if you can, that will be good. Yes. Worthy, so those notes I'm prepared to share with the with the CRP, whether these thoughts are made available to the CEC if they had been asked for they would have been made available. We I brought them along when when we have the CC meeting, but because they were handwritten notes. The typewritten copy of the DPS recommendation was flashed on the screen

Edwin Tong 1:19:39
Right. miscounts account of what happened? I know it's what she says and what do you say happen at the meeting so we'll look at the notes that you took. But she takes the view that you were asking her various questions concerning her role as an MP. Her work in compass Vale, her performance in Parliament. How many PQ is she has filed? How many SQL she has spoken about. And did that happen? This is this part of the decision? Of course, of course it was part of that whole inquiry into self discipline. Okay, was this a major part of the discussion? It was just to have been based on the message that Miss Kahn had sent, it was a part of the discussion, Major, I would disagree, because we had other questions about this diagnosis of PTSD, this document that she had given us, and we had questions about that. Right. And in addition to that, you also asked her to seek the views of a Sengkang GRC? Teammates? Yes, yes, I did. The three other Syncom GRC MPs? Were they aware that Miss Kahn had told you the falsehood on the seventh of August? I do not believe so. But I, offhand, my state of mind was to just keep it within the within Silvia myself, in fact, right. So as far as you know, they don't know. Yes, right. And the first time they would have come into knowledge of that fact, would have been, I believe, sorry, go ahead would have been? Well, you tell me it's either at the CAC meeting, at which I assume they were present on the 29th of October. Or they might have found out on the first of November, when the speech was made in Parliament. It would have been earlier, but I don't recall exactly at what point they would have known. It could have been earlier. At what point do you can you give me a rough timeframe? I can't. But if I recall, I'm happy to submit that information to the CRP offhand. I don't exactly recall this. All right. Yes. So maybe you can check on that. Because it's, it's useful to know whether whilst Miss Kahn has been approaching them and discussing and canvassing their views as to whether they feel she should carry on what level of knowledge they have, right? Now.

I'm gonna put forward a series of propositions to you, you can agree or disagree. But I wanted for the record so that when we finish, we are very clear what your position is. Yes. Now, over the course of today, you we have heard evidence from you, there was made clear by you to Miss Khan, that she had to come and clarify the lies on the fourth of October, if she was asked about her anecdote, the false anecdote again, in Parliament

Pritam Singh 1:22:48
Not in those words, but in the words that I communicated to the Co Op, and the words that you communicate, it would be for her to take ownership and responsibility and that you won't judge her. That is correct. I won't judge her, of course, comes after she starts looking panicky and uncomfortable. It is to encourage her to come out and tell the truth. This is on the third of October 3 of October. And that is the thrust of the message that you conveyed to her. That is correct. That is correct. And I think you agree with me earlier that you did not tell her to tell the truth in Parliament to clarify the lie. In those words. Not at that point. You also did not tell her same formulation to tell the truth to Parliament. In in those words, on the eighth of August. That is correct. I did not. You did not tell her to tell the truth in Parliament. In those words, at any time, until after the seventh of October. Correct? That would be correct. But there's a slight qualifier. She spoke about telling the truth on the fourth in my office. And I took that as the indication that that's something because she has said that herself and I think that's important. She's taking ownership of the issue. And at that point yet, first of all, my question is focused on what you said so right, that's not quite I beg your pardon. Yeah. But you're referring to where she said maybe we take a different path. Right. effect. Right. Okay. But to answer the question that you put, the answer would be yes. Okay. Sleet the answer will be yes. You did not tell. Right. Could you repeat the question? Let's just make sure it's correct. I want to be sure. Yes, Mike. My question was, You did not tell her to tell the truth in Parliament to clarify her lies. In those words, at any time until after seven October rosewoods. Yes, correct. If she was to come clean on the fourth of October, which means clarify the lies and in your words, take ownership. given responsibility, tell the truth and you won't judge her. 

Edwin Tong 1:25:03
Then you would have asked to see the draft response and draft statement that she wished to make in Parliament. Correct. Please repeat the question I saw I'm sorry. Mr. Tom, please read your question. If it was clear that you had asked her to come clean in Parliament on the fourth of October, then prior to that, you would have asked to see a draft of her response or a speech prior to her making in Parliament. Disagree. And you would have reviewed that draft and given your comments and input as you did prior to the first November sitting. I disagree, because this was not her coming up and admitting what she had done. And you will also have informed the CEC before Miss Kahn went to Parliament on the fourth of October to make a speech to admit a falsehood that she said in Parliament two months prior, if she had admitted, I disagree, if she had admitted that she was prepared to come up with a statement, then it would have been important for me to inform the CC first. Yes, but in this case, the CC was unaware. It was unaware because no such moment, yes to sort of hold CC including Mr. Lata Kang and other non other members which exclude the members of the DPS well, correct. Correct. On the fourth of October, and after Miss Kahn lighted Parliament again and failed to come clean, I suggest to you that had there been a clear indication that she was to come clean on the fourth of October, you would have asked to see her immediately. And after Why did she lie again, in contravention of the understanding that you had with her? Agree.

Pritam Singh  1:26:45  
Please repeat the question. Sure. Thank you.

Edwin Tong  1:27:01  
My question is on fourth of October, and after Miss Kahn had lied in Parliament again and fill to come clean, I suggest you that there have been a clear that had there been a clear indication that she was to come clean on fourth of October, you would have asked to see her immediately. And ask her why did she lie again in contravention of the understanding that you had with her? Do you agree? If that condition, precedent took place? Yes. Which condition precedent if she had if there was an instruction that you refer to in that? Yes. So on your case, there was an instruction. Now on my case, it was for her to take ownership and responsibility. Yeah, he came up again on fourth of October, right, your instruction was to tell the truth. Yes. And now I'm on fourth of October. But she didn't tell the truth in contravention of that instruction, because it did come up. Yes. I'm suggesting to you that it would have been for you, you would have asked to see her immediately, and asked her why did she lie, I saw in contravention of the understanding that you just had with her. That was what the meeting in my office was for, you know, what, what happened? And then she said, you know, look, if you take a different path, that's right. In those circumstances, given what happened on a third and your case that she was clear in her mind that she would have to tell the truth if it came up. Given that she didn't tell the truth on the fourth of October, you would have had to ask, you would have asked her to immediately correct the record, the very next day, when Parliament was sitting again, on the fifth of October, do you agree? 

Pritam Singh 1:28:43
No, I disagree. And even if none of the above was done, meaning on the fourth, and again, on the fifth, if you fail to do that, at the very least sometime between the fourth and the 10th of October, you would have taken clear steps and make clear your direction for Miss Kahn to come clean. Immediately. I believe I had made that direction clear on the fourth of October when she herself volunteer that honesty was the way forward I say good. We'll talk about it. Yes, that's the sum total of your words. If you did not tell her to tell the truth in parliament, in those words, it would have been very obvious, but you didn't tell it to her in those words. Those words? Yes, right. Thank you. I know you've covered this before, but let me just put to you that you did not see any response from her or any explanation from her. You did not see any steps being taken throughout August and September all the way until at least October 7, which will be suggestive of coming clean in Parliament to clarify the lie or disagree. October the fourth was the time where it was clear to me that she will be clarifying Alright, so before October the fourth the answer will be yes. There were no steps whatsoever. Correct, yes, that was the evidence that I pulled reliable. And by the same token, barring, of course, what I had informed on the third of October. And by the same token, you in the same period, had not checked that her family was aware. And therefore, she was in a position to come clean and clarify the lie in Parliament. That is correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Singh. You've been very patient with me. And thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I've got no further questions.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:30:29  
If I may just build on a few questions. And Mr. Minister told us just so to be clear. On the eighth of August, when you met with Miss Reece icon with the severe limb, and Mr. Pfizer, man up, as you described, you were surprised by a revelations, obviously, of empathy. When she reviewed, it was generally obviously traumatic for her as crying. And as Mr. Pfizer, Monique also shared with us, actually, a lot of times as far as he was concerned, and the rest, was trying to console her trying to come to terms of checking whether she's having counseling and so on. And there was really no conversations thereafter, regarding lie per se. Once you're settled, move on to the statement on the enemy shoes, as you yourself have shared, the main thing that you at the end of it convey to her was to make sure clear that your parents know, because you wanted to know who else knew? And that was pretty much it.

Pritam Singh  1:31:36  
And from, of course, to tell her that we've got to settle this issue very

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:31:40  
briefly, but not it didn't let belabor the point. If so, when she left that session, it's, it would be fair to say it's not necessarily very clear in her mind, that she received very clear instructions from a leadership as to how exactly to do it. Say for those two points, which was briefly mentioned, and

Pritam Singh  1:31:58  
that's it, yes, but certainly not to lie on to take things to the grave. As she

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:32:03  
as we have described, see for for us in the committee, you are trying to determine as is merges. There's a he said, she said, version two versions, right. So we have to ascertain, which was correct. And I guess it will be difficult to prove it, because it's a matter of what, for example, you felt was a truth, what she perceived and what she told us to be true. And what we need to ascertain is therefore the whole series of events, contemporary contemporaneously, what else was shared? Any evidence of any sort that collaborate? And we tried to figure out, which seems to make more sense, which is where we are sure, which is why I think the questions asked, so I hope you don't get offended by it. Because I wasn't offended at all. I think this one version of it, which was that she walked away, as she has shared with us that is to go ticket to the grave. And pretty much immediately after the meeting, she texted her colleagues, of which a couple of points will meet, of which all of them were accurate, safe, that one assertion. So which is not inconceivable? It's possible when the question is why would she have done that? That's something that we need to determine. So there was one interpretation from that meeting. From your sense was that there was it was absolutely untrue. There was none of that communication to her to take it to the grave. So that's a second version. What transpired after eighth, there was a conversation you had I think, with Miss Loh, Mr. Nathan. I think 10? Yes. I touched a little bit about the conversation. But didn't go into a great deal of details. Not not not including much as you have also shared. In your mind, it was very important to set a record right, the line is being made right. Our priority was to make sure that at least a precondition was the state of mine. Parents were informed, but as you shed no action pretty much was taken pretty much on third October. So from the actions that were taken or not taken, can't, very difficult for us to read as to what exactly was the intent. 

Tan Chuan-Jin: 1:34:20
And following from eighth August, say for perhaps because you didn't belabor the point at all. I'm not sure necessarily the directions were very clear to miss Kahn, what exactly she was supposed to do. She had it's an interpretation. But you did a follow up. Were with her with a family, state of mine and to ascertain what the current state of affairs were until third of October when you met with her. You have been taken a lot of pains to emphasize to us very specifically. Your message to her was to take ownership and responsibility. Yeah, and also the line that I won't judge you. Of course, as you put in a context that she was, what was it? You said she was unclear or seem a bit dazed. And she was a bit at that you she didn't seem to be very, very particular that these were the words used and in your own mind, when you said, our own shared responsibility, it was very clear that it means that you need to tell the truth. But you didn't in any way state that you needed to tell the truth?

Pritam Singh  1:35:32  
You sponsibility, you've missed out something, you've missed out the fact that this is an MP who has signed rules of prudence, she has knowledge of how I have dealt with this matter from the lie was communicated.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:35:48  
It doesn't important, I understand. But it doesn't preclude you from telling her quite directly,

Pritam Singh  1:35:52  
please tell the truth, I made certain calls in the situation I was in.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:35:56  
So you have in quite particular, because you keep going back to these few terms, ownership and responsibility. And in your mind, it should be very clear. Yes. Clearly, from our own sharing, she had a different interpretation of it. But we don't just take her interpretation of it. In fact, you shared with Miss Lowe and Messina than on 12 October. In fact, I think Miss Lowe didn't know about this conversation you had with her and third, and you shared with them. They had the same interpretation, based on what you shared with us also that you were very clear with them. You told them about the ownership what you shared with Miss Kahn on third October about ownership responsibility. I won't judge you in that context. And you felt that there was clear, but they didn't interpret it that way. The difference on 12 October also is that this actually happened after fourth October, right? When you said that it should have been very clear, and in your mind is Khan would have come clean on fourth October, if she had been asked and wish it didn't which I'm sure to you you must have been quite shocked. But at no point did this come across to the two of them? Or you may have conveyed in some ways, but obviously that wasn't something they took away of them. Would that be correct. So that's an interpretation that they had, which was consistent with what Muskaan interpreted from your message on third? Well,

Pritam Singh  1:37:23  
I don't know whether this committee has. I mean, I don't want to be accused of going back to something. But I'm not sure how much the message that was sent by Miss Kahn, insofar as her reading of the meeting of the eighth of August, was internalized by paying. And that's your contention. And it's not just a contention, because if indeed, this was what was put to them by Miss Kahn, they had numerous opportunities to challenge me on it. And I said, Yes. And so I'm actually very surprised that it did not come up. So So as I said, so that was how they interpreted it.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:38:07  
And the whole series of events, and basically as we're trying to determine from seven, eight, August 10, August, and then from August to September, where there was a sitting and there was no evidence whatsoever. And as you have also admitted in terms of needing to make any clarification or seeking for miscount to make any clarification as September sittings. As it later turned out, she contracted shingles, and she wasn't able to be there. And on third October, you felt that perhaps on fourth, there might have been this might crop up. And therefore you made it quite clear in your mind to her that she needs to complete. Now, I'm also trying to understand because as Mr. Tang shared in the lead up to the first of November, when she admitted in parliament that she lied, a whole series of effort was put in which is totally understandable. But as you agree, lying to Parliament is it's a serious matter. Yes. And it impacts the individual. It impacts the party politically as well. And it's something that you need to take seriously how you do it, how you phrase it. I mean, that's sensible. It would be a responsible thing to do as a leader of the opposition for your party to make sure that it is done properly, to make sure at least the facts are stated correctly, don't misspeak, and so on and so forth, which explains the accounting CC. So what was going to be done? The messages, the exchanges, preparation materials, just going through it to make sure that was ready. And that's that would be reasonable, wouldn't it when you know that a statement is going to be made that count preparation should be made?

Pritam Singh  1:39:50  
Yes. And it's also to make sure that she says what,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:39:54  
Indeed, indeed so what has happened. So if you expect that on fourth October and you don't know for sure whether it will crop up, but it might. And therefore you need to make sure this you come clean. But yet there was no action prior to that, that indicates, because obviously, if she had told the truth on the fourth of October, it would similarly be a very significant statement to be made.

Pritam Singh  1:40:22  
This is where I have a different point of view, as I also said.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:40:26  
So what I'm trying to put across is, as I look at it, it is a significant, and you might disagree, that's different from the one on first November, but basically asking your member to admit to Parliament that you actually lied in your account earlier. Yes. Perhaps slightly different. Firstly, we could consider it but important enough that one should really want to at least make sure that the statements are correct is done properly, etc. But there was no activity is done at that stage. Because as you also said, Now, you also don't really know whether your crop up or not.

Pritam Singh  1:41:01  
And we are on our own volition and come forward to say, I'm ready to say this to Parliament. So

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:41:06  
but you did emphasize that your message of taking ownership and responsibility and yet adding the one judge you was sufficiently clear? Yes, I will put to you that another interpretation that made maybe it wasn't so clear, because she had a different interpretation. And Miss Lowe and Mr. Norton, when they heard that come from you had fairly similar interpretation. So that's one trend. But in terms of activities, there was no activities that were done to ascertain what you would say, to verify the to the same level, in fact, nowhere close, in fact, nothing was done, save your conversation on third in anticipation of a possible confession on the fourth. But yet from first November, a whole series of activities had taken place. So that contrast is quite significant. Can I then just repeat, and then you can respond. So I think what we're trying to determine is that there are versions of events, as described by Miss Kahn, and two associates, which you feel that a number of the points made were not true, and they were lies. But it allows us to look at the development of events through a certain lens, absolutely sure. Then there is your version, which you have described to us. And there were a series of events or non events as the case may be. And we're trying to determine whether how valid they may be right. So this is where I think we are at. Because if as you said that it is actually really important to come clean, and to make sure that it's clear visibility, to take responsibly and ownership, both individually and I would suggest with the party also need to take responsibility and ownership of this issue.

Pritam Singh  1:42:58  
But I think the primary individual who had had to deal with the issue first

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:43:04  
party also need to take responsibility and ownership on this matter as well. Which matter the song the lies that being made by one of your own by virtue of her being a WP MP. Yes. And you feel that this should be made clear. And you felt that it needed to be made clear at some point. Yes. What I'm also trying to understand is that which I think is what Mr. Stone was asking us. Which point was this going to be made, suddenly no indication from that short statement made in August, at the end of the conversations on that issue. And all the way into third October, nothing was done. So whatever the intent might be difficult for us to determine

Pritam Singh  1:43:48  
you much harder to determine if I didn't say anything on the third of August.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:43:52  
So on third of October, October, sorry, third of October made certain statements that alluded to expecting possibly making a confession then, but similarly not activities to verify the statement, and so on, so forth. But we accept that, as you have described, but that's the positive activities leading up to that stage. And then thereafter from fourth October. And I think tellingly, you also sharing with us that when you met her in your room, she said that what was it this wasn't working? Notice she said, perhaps, perhaps there's another way, there's another way, we need to tell the truth. At face value, it will seem that well, clearly the path that we're taking doesn't work, we need to tell the truth. That will be the other path. That's one interpretation of it. And if you take the line that she has shared as how she interpreted the various events, then it would seem that the line to maintain the narrative isn't working, and we need to tell the truth. That would be fair, if you accept that that was how she interpreted that view. You have a different version of it. So but from that point on, and then I said on short October and was erect clear, the preparations leading up the first November, and so on was there. And I suppose that's really where I guess the last series of questions administering Mrs. Minister Tom was asking is really to determine what exactly was the position, because they will help us try to understand the context of which clearly, there are two lines of possible truths here. One is shared by Mishcon. And then to some degree supported by two associates, in some form, contemporaneously Solvit being shared, one could argue, why would she be sharing some of this misinformation on truth at the various stage at that stage, some of which to the interaction with yourself as well walking away with certain interpretation that seems to be consistent? And which as you shed, was it shaped by that original narrative by hand? Is that something that you have raised? The other narrative, of course, is, as you have shared, and we need to determine there for, which seems to make sense, because what we're trying to determine here, there's no, there's no doubt in anyone's mind, because it's been admitted that Elia has been made in Parliament, by Miss Kahn, and repeated on several occasions. And so really, what we're trying to determine is, why was it done? And she's also like to own SG after the event, and the degree of responsibility that she should bear and so on. If she had shared with anyone else, was she acting on advice of others? Or not, as the case may be? And I guess that's really what's before us to determine. Any other questions from other members? Dennis, anything else?

Dennis Tan  1:46:52  
Mr. Singh, I just have a few questions. Do bear with me. I know he's got no dates. Okay,

go ahead. Just to clarify certain effects, that some of which may have been touched on earlier. I go to the 12th of October meeting between yourself and Miss severe limb and Miss Ray Shanahan. Are you able to tell the committee who initiated the meeting?

Pritam Singh  1:47:40  
This meeting was initiated by me, rice, I wanted to meet earlier to discuss the advice that she had received. But insofar as dealing with the untruth that she had communicated in Parliament, again, the lion parliament, I initiated this meeting to discuss that subject.

Dennis Tan  1:48:04  
What what advice were you talking about? Sorry, what advice the was it? The legal advice? Yeah, yes. The

Pritam Singh  1:48:11  
legal advice. That's right. But but that was not the this meeting was I call this meeting to discuss the fact that she she had not come back to us with anything on the way forward insofar as what she was going to what explanation she was going to give to Parliament.

Dennis Tan  1:48:27  
So at the start of the meeting, did it look to you like she was ready to now admit that she had lied in Parliament and prepared to go to go back to Parliament to make this admission in Parliament?

Pritam Singh  1:48:46  
Or no, I think I gave evidence to this effect earlier, she did not. She turned around. She did not actually want to make this personal explanations. You should she was not comfortable with it. And I remember Silvia getting very upset with her. And I said, Look, this is something that that has to be done. There's just no two ways about that. That that was the meeting of the 12.

Dennis Tan  1:49:11  
So at this meeting, at this point in the meeting, do you know whether she has told her parents about the her sexual assault experience? No, I didn't know that you are Muslim. Ask her again to speak to her parents.

Pritam Singh  1:49:33  
At this particular meeting, I'm not sure but because it was very clear that she had to we told her that she had to be make this statement in Parliament. She would have had to had to speak to her parents to get that done. Yes. But I can't be precisely sure whether that was communicated to her in those terms. But it will have been since we have told her that she had to make that personal explanation.

Dennis Tan  1:50:05  
Are you aware of what Miss hands law is advisor? Or yes, I'm aware. Is there anything you want to share about it?

Pritam Singh  1:50:19  
I think that may be privileged. So I want to be a bit careful. But suffice to say that that information was consistent with her addressing the issue in Parliament,

Dennis Tan  1:50:35  
thank you. On the water on the 12th, October evening, that you also met up with Miss loping and Miss Mr. Yudhishthira. naarden?

Pritam Singh  1:50:53  
Yes, they asked to see me.

Dennis Tan  1:50:57  
Just to be absolutely clear here, at this meeting, they asked you about their allegation, or rather musanze allegation that you had told them in August, that you missed the Pfizer, man up and Miss severe limb had toe mishaan to that they should bring the US the statement of the sexual assault an adult to the grave? No, I

Pritam Singh  1:51:27  
that did not happen at all. So they never asked you. They never raised it to me. They never raised it to me at any point in time. I've think I've given this evidence.

Dennis Tan  1:51:36  
So they never asked you at the disciplinary panel meetings?

Pritam Singh  1:51:40  
No. At no time. Did they bring this up?

Dennis Tan  1:51:47  
Talking about the disappeared panel meeting when the DEP was been set up? Did you at any time communicate directly with Mr. naarden Or Miss sloping about the setting up the panel?

Pritam Singh  1:52:04  
I believe I informed them after the decision had been made.

Dennis Tan  1:52:10  
What means was this by what?

Pritam Singh  1:52:14  
I and I've committed to share that those details?

Dennis Tan  1:52:18  
And how would you say how would you describe each of them? How did each of them respond to your message to them about this setting? The panel?

Pritam Singh  1:52:28  
Yudish thought it would it was I don't think use the word good. But I have to it will be in the messages that I submit to the committee. But he said it will quell the party of some party members views about what had happened. And so it was it was a positive thing in his eyes. And I would say similar for paying.

Dennis Tan  1:52:58  
Going back to eight, the eight August meeting at your home. I think you shared earlier with the committee that you said something along the lines of look, we'll have to speak on this. But you have to speak to your parents first.

Pritam Singh  1:53:17  
You'll have to speak to your parents. Yeah. Right.

Dennis Tan  1:53:20  
So we will have to speak about this on this. But you will have to speak to your parents. Did you remember when did you say this? At which point in the meeting?

Pritam Singh  1:53:30  
To speak to your parents?

Dennis Tan  1:53:33  
Yeah, about both part of it. Yeah.

Pritam Singh  1:53:37  
I'm quite shy. Speak to the parents was when we were at the when we were sitting around the table. And I remember biggest when she left I walked awkward at the door and I said we'll have to settle this. Okay, we'll have to resolve this issue.

Dennis Tan  1:54:11  
Is there anything else you wish to add?

Pritam Singh  1:54:13  
I know. But, Mr. Chair, I have a request. I've seen some documentation and WhatsApp messages which I think this comes from paying and yudishe. My home address is not redacted. And I think it happens in a few places. So I would I would appreciate if the GOP preserved my privacy in that regard.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:54:33  
Yep, we will do that. Yes. I remember noticing it and we redacted. Yes. A couple other things. Probably a nice reduction as well. Right. We'll do that. Not worry.

Dennis Tan  1:54:41  
Thank you Mr. Singh. Mr. Chair. I don't have any more.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:54:44  
Any other questions? That's right. Okay. We've got no other further questions for now. Thank you very much. No, it's been a very long session. It's been given before us and sharing with us your perspectives, a transcript of the proceedings will be shared with you for verification do go through it. And if you have any other minor amendments, please make the changes and send the transcripts back to us. I do know that the transcripts and any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone or published and must be kept strictly confidential. Until the committee has presented a relevant report to parliament. This would include I guess, discussing your other teammates, who might still be coming forward to the I will be mindful of them to the committee for interview. You may be drawn out. We, we will obviously won't be calling you back today. We might need to call you back on other days you need to follow up. But otherwise, once again, thank you very much. You're welcome. Jeff will continue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Please accompany the witness. Thank you. Thank you very much.