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

Edwin Tong  0:08  
measures at their lunch. Okay, if we can resume Yes, please. Mr. carry on from where we left off No, I wanted to do. Welcome back, Mr. Singh. I want to just clear one point that was on my mind earlier. You gave an account of Miss Kahn having been quite distraught. On the third of August, when she came into your room and asked you spoke to you about the anecdote.

Pritam Singh  1:04  
She was already in my room, I was alerted to her being in my room.

Edwin Tong  1:09  
So on that occasion, I remember you said earlier that you drafted something for her and she went back and she made a clarification.

Pritam Singh  1:16  
Yeah, I saw I drafted on my phone. I did not draft it in the office. I believe I may have gone back to the chamber and I drafted it but substance substantive Lee? Yes, I drafted it.

Edwin Tong  1:27  
Okay. Now, another point not related to what I've just asked with you asked you. Would it be fair to say that for Miss Kahn, throughout the rest of August, after meeting with you on eighth. And for the rest of September, barring the period when she was done with shingles, she was performing her constituency work, and attending to her usual engagements. And there was nothing unusual about her performance.

Pritam Singh  1:56  
But there was no reason for me to conclude otherwise. All right.

Edwin Tong  1:59  
Thank you.

Pritam Singh  2:01  
I think we also have to remember there was some I wouldn't say like I would maybe call it a temporary stoppage because of the evolving COVID situation. So yeah, but there were points in time where we seized house visits, for example, and stuff like

Edwin Tong  2:19  
that. Yes. That's across the board. And that's all Mishcon in particular is one.

Pritam Singh  2:23  
Yes, all the MPs would have been under those instructions. For example, this all the WP MPs to see

Edwin Tong  2:28  
there's nothing unusual about miscounts performance or attitude or whatever she was expected to perform or do as a member of parliament. She did.

Pritam Singh  2:36  
She was she's not an active compared to the other WP MPs. She's not as active as some of the others are. So for example, there were speed there were a number of bills, I believe that came up in October. She doesn't speak very much on these bills. And to the extent that it was that sort of performance, yes, that that continued.

Edwin Tong  3:01  
But on the 27th of September, she volunteered to that she liked to seek feedback on a speech that she had made in support of the women's motion, and wanted to see whether there's any basis to find common ground work with parties on the ground and approached you for the

Pritam Singh  3:18  
27th of September,

Edwin Tong  3:20  
I would have to look at my records too. You might want to check and let us know if that's not your recollection. Sure. But if that's correct, Emily would demonstrate that she was a productive at least on this incident and be she was thinking forward as to what she should be doing. And generally performing her duties as a member of parliament

Pritam Singh  3:41  
which incidents

Edwin Tong  3:43  
you're referring I'm talking about the occasion when she wrote to you and said she would like to seek feedback on a speech that she made for the purposes of finding common ground building consensus.

Pritam Singh  3:52  
I'd have to have a look at that before I say something conclusive about I can present the evidence to the committee if I know where that communication was made to me okay. Or you can bring it to my attention if she's already submitted it to then

Edwin Tong  4:07  
you look at your shown earlier Miss HanSe submission I just use it as a reference point see whether you remember because it's a message to you. So if you please pick up miscounts fundal.

Pritam Singh  4:31  
Tube bundles I didn't know the three bundles which bundle Mr. Dom

Edwin Tong  4:41  
from Miss scan data seven December.

Pritam Singh  4:43  
Okay. Could you please direct me to the

Edwin Tong  4:48  
very first page you will see I think your name appear on the Thomas that's her exchange of messages with you. So if you just have a quick look at 27th September, this is where it starts. And you see that around 2:10pm. She said to you, I reached out to so and so far chat and CC Faisal, I like to reach out to someone as well, if you think is good idea, what do you plan to raise and discuss your style like to speak about the speech I made in support of the women's motion, get the feedback, and see, perhaps we can have common ground and work on building relationship. So she's following up on a speech that she wrote, and she's asking you for your views. Do you recall this?

Pritam Singh  5:30  
Let me check what you said. Okay. Let me check what predates this because I may have well sent her a message to ask her to speak to Malay Muslim groups about the feedback to a speech because I did the same for my mosque Chairman, just to understand what the reception was to what she had said. So I'll have to check whether she initiated this or I initiated this,

Edwin Tong  5:51  
but regardless, and I think it's actually better if you initiated it, regardless, you thought that she was capable of handling her duties as a member of parliament,

Pritam Singh  6:00  
I think to given the fact that she was messaging me. Yes, yes. Yes.

Edwin Tong  6:06  
In fact, as as you said, it might even have been because you thought. Exactly, exactly. You initiated it.

Now like to go now to what happened in August, we spoke about that. Okay, on various occasions earlier, but I'd like to go into it. Now. I think we've got a timeline from you. So I'll see whether we can move quickly on this. Okay. But August, she made the speech. Right. Seventh August, she had a call with you, and she owned up to her lie. Eight August there was beating at your home with Faisal and mislim. Okay. Seventh August, 7 August. Was it a long conversation?

Pritam Singh  6:55  
No, it wasn't very long. You said

Edwin Tong  6:57  
he ended up ended with you. Sort of giving her a short shrift. And yes.

Pritam Singh  7:02  
Nice. It wasn't the beginning was really me. badgering her about coming up with what actually happened, what really happened because she wasn't keen on revealing anything.

Edwin Tong  7:13  
Okay. Now, on the eighth of August. How was that meeting initiated?

Pritam Singh  7:23  
The meeting was to discuss, of course, the also there was feedback from the speech that she had given. And I had arranged with Faisal and Sylvia to come to my house and talk about that. I'll have to check exactly what time that meeting was arranged. And then on the morning itself, on the eighth of August, I believe I reached out to Rice Island, and told her to come to my, to my place. And she replied quite quickly, because I suspect she knew what I was going to talk about.

Edwin Tong  7:55  
Prior to the meeting itself, did you discuss with Miss Lim and Mr. Faisal? The confession that Miss gave you? No, I did not. So as of the eighth of August, prior to the meeting, Miss lemon, Mr. Pfizer were not aware.

Pritam Singh  8:13  
They were I may have the falsehood. I may have mentioned something to Miss Lim on the seventh, but I can't remember exactly what it was, but certainly the definitely not to Mr. Pfizer. But I'm also not sure whether I shared it with mislim because all I knew at that point was she had lied and why she had lied. what the circumstances were, I didn't know.

Edwin Tong  8:37  
By the end of the phone, can you check the text messages and see how this was communicated? Just give me well,

Pritam Singh  8:44  
how what was communicated sorry,

Edwin Tong  8:45  
how this occasion was communicated? How the meeting was set up, okay. You told them what was discussed? Anything from the seventh and eighth and anything arising there from in relation to this issue? Okay. Okay. Okay. Now. Can you give us an account of this meeting, in summary, beginning from the time when Miss Kahn arrived, and at that time, who was there? How did the meeting proceed? what was discussed? Who spoke who raised what, and how was it responded to,

Pritam Singh  9:18  
right? As far as my memory serves me, Miss Kahn comes to my place. I think the time is 11. But my text messages will confirm. My daughter's playing, running around. And so we move to the dining table. We sit there and then Reisa says can you ask your girls to go up? You know, then they go up and then whether that happened before I asked the writer you have something to share with us. And until we find out myself, we were there. She was there. And then she gets very emotional. She starts crying straightaway and the first thing she says The first thing I remember at least that she said was, you know, when I was 18 years old I was. And then, of course, we're shocked to hear this. We're very shocked to hear this. And then she explains that it's because of that condition that that episode that she faced. She, it was very traumatic for her. And because it was very traumatic for her, she told the untruth in Parliament, because she feels strongly about, you know, issues of sexual assault and arising from there, she she did what she did in Parliament. That was the gist of it. There was also another that actually that part of the meeting wasn't very long. I think we felt sympathetic, we felt sympathy to her I. I remember distinctly asking her, so who else knows about this? That occurred when you were 18 years old, and she said, My husband knows yudishe, nose paying nose, and my therapist knows. And when she said, My therapist knows I was relieved somewhat, because at least there's somebody there, who she can turn to and seek advice in the appropriate counsel from with regard to what she is facing. In the conversation. It was very short. And I told her, I said, you have to speak to your parents about this. And she said, Okay. And then it was very, I mean, she was just crying and crying. And you know, that's where we left it.

Edwin Tong  11:44  
So arising from this thing, in your mind, there was no doubt that she had told you muslim and Mr. Faisal, that she lied in Parliament. Yes. And you must have appreciated that. One reason she told this to you and Mr. Faisal, and Muslim was because she sought guidance and counsel.

Pritam Singh  12:09  
She didn't put it that way. She i because you have to remember on the seventh, this was literally forced out of her over the phone call.

Edwin Tong  12:18  
Yes. But in this context, she's coming forward. She's made a confession about the lie in parliament is a serious matter which I think you will agree. In this context, would it be reasonable to assume for her to assume that the three most senior members of the Workers Party would give her guidance?

Pritam Singh  12:38  
I believe we did. And my guidance to her was to speak to your parents about it, because in my mind, this will have to be corrected in Parliament. But before we can even do tell her that sorry,

Edwin Tong  12:50  
did you tell her not on that day?

Pritam Singh  12:52  
No, why not do it? I think at that point, given her condition, given her state, it was more important for me to tell her look, I speak to your parents. And when she left my place, I did tell her, we will have to deal with this issue. But speak to your parents first. I told her that.

Edwin Tong  13:09  
So Mr. Faisal, did he say anything to her about the lie? And focus on the lie?

Pritam Singh  13:17  
I'm really not sure specifically for Mr. Pfizer, but I think he had some questions to ask her about therapy, and because he's a counselor, and I think he may have asked her some questions, but I don't recall exactly what those

Edwin Tong  13:29  
questions Mr. Faisal, discuss with her what to do with the lie. And how to clarify it.

Pritam Singh  13:34  
Not that I can not that I can recall it. Did Miss limb do so? Or not that I can recall as well, because generally, the flavor of that meeting was, there was a lot of pity for

Edwin Tong  13:43  
her. Okay. So the your recollection was that there was no substantive discussion. And there was certainly no instruction or directive by you to her to clarify the lie, as no, right? No, there was not. And, in fact, Mr. Faisal told us yesterday that, after Miss Kahn confessed about the lie in Parliament, the focus was on her well being and her experience as a sexual assault victim, and that there were no other discussions on the line in Parliament. That would be

Pritam Singh  14:19  
correct, because we were more focused on her well being given the state that she was in,

Edwin Tong  14:23  
right. So she walked out of your home thereafter. Okay, maybe I'll back up a little bit. Mr. Faisal also told us that thereafter, she has composed herself and was able to discuss with him and perhaps with you as well, the statement that she was supposed to put out to clarify the speech Tisha made in Parliament.

Pritam Singh  14:47  
That's right. There was another matter, that was the subject of the meeting that we were having, and she, it was quite, there are quite a lot of things to go through as well. And So we went through those, and I told her to draft your statement and then send it to either myself or Faisal LF to check.

Edwin Tong  15:08  
So from what I understand from you, the thrust of the meeting was in relation to her talking about her sexual assault experience. Mr. Faisal may have asked some questions about this, from his perspective, as a counselor, if there was some discussion on the statement, she was going to put out concerning the Malay Muslim speech that she had made the three days ago. Right. And that was the thrust of the meeting. That those were there was, as far as you can recall, there was no landing point on what to do with the lie in Parliament,

Pritam Singh  15:37  
specifically as to the lie in Parliament. In my mind, she had to speak to her parents first and No, not in your mind.

Edwin Tong  15:42  
What did you tell her?

Pritam Singh  15:44  
Speak to your parents? That was very clear.

Edwin Tong  15:46  
Tell me in as, as far as you can recall the words, tell me what you said to her. And in using what words

Pritam Singh  15:54  
I told her, You will have to speak to your parents about this issue. And I don't think it went beyond that. But as she left my house, I told her, we will have to deal with this issue, but speak to your parents. So I basically recall repeating that to her.

Edwin Tong  16:09  
All right. And so she left the home off today. Yes. And would I be correct to say that thereafter? There was no other communication with me? Because that's the evidence on the lie. That's right. That's the evidence that I rang. And that will be the case all the way until the third of October. Yes. Right. Because you told me the only other occasion was first October. But that that email wasn't about the lie. It was about conduct in general. But in the sequence of events, you assert some weight to that various right. So the next time we spoke to her at all about the lie was on a third of October. That's right. Now as of the time she left your home, on the eighth of August, she had, again, looking at the event, as I understand it from yourself from Mr. Faisal. She had come there was a traumatic experience. She recounted it. And she also told you, that was a lie in Parliament, which was also traumatic and difficult experience. And us, senior member of the party, and I think that must be the case for Mr. Faisal Muslim as well. That must have been something that you were focused on as being an issue that had to be resolved.

Pritam Singh  17:30  
It had to be resolved in the in the context of dealing with someone who has suffered from a traumatic episode.

Edwin Tong  17:39  
But yeah, Ally had to be sorted out, because that's clear. untruth cannot be left on the right, that's clear, that would have to be that would have had to have been dealt with. Okay. But it is also your evidence that she left your home without any specific direction, or instruction as to what to do with the lie. Right.

Pritam Singh  17:56  
That's she left my home with a direction to speak to her parents, and that will deal with this issue, we would have to deal with this issue. That

Edwin Tong  18:07  
was that was without any time frame, right. Without any time frame? That is correct. So she would would be fair for her to leave with the impression that you're not particularly concerned. No, about the lie. No, absolutely.

Pritam Singh  18:25  
I struggled to think how she would make that conclusion.

Edwin Tong  18:29  
Because, besides the few words that were spoken, and I heard from Mr. Faisal, he didn't say a word to her about the lie. We'll hear from Miss limb. Not much was said by you. And there was no specific direction as to what to do. No timeframe that was speaking to her parents. That was the only instruction

Pritam Singh  18:49  
by in my view it was when I say speak to your parents, I was concerned that to tell her straight away, you got to come up with the truth and all that. It would rattle her, okay. And so in my view, it was important for her to speak to our parents at a time. And because that would be a condition precedent to coming up front in Parliament, they will have to be they would have to know what had happened to her, which led her to tell this lie in Parliament. Can I just clarify, what exactly did you say? So I told her to speak to her parents. The second part was an articulated it was articulate as she was as she was leaving my house, I remember that quite clearly articulated that she should speak to her parents to speak to her parents and that we would have to resolve this issue. So you said that to her? Yes, I said that.

Edwin Tong  19:37  
But you also add confirm earlier that there was no timeframe. There was no specific direction or instruction. Right. And as I just heard from you, you also said it was not appropriate time for you to tell her not to speak the truth and so on.

Pritam Singh  19:50  
That's it. That was my in view of her how she reacted to telling us why she told the

Edwin Tong  19:56  
likey so we heard we know what happened. On the eighth of August, we also heard what happened on the third of October in some detail before the break Alia on either occasion, did you tell her that she has to tell the truth in Parliament? In those words? Correct?

Pritam Singh  20:12  
On the third of October, I, yes, I give my evidence earlier evidences on reckless

Edwin Tong  20:18  
right. And now on the eighth of August, same, we also shall her certainly. So he didn't let me finish it at the transcript can pick it up. You also didn't tell her on the eighth of August that she should come and tell the truth in those

Pritam Singh  20:30  
not on the eighth of August, right. But it was, in my view, by telling her to speak to her parents. And that we will have to resolve this issue, it will be very clear that this issue would have to be dealt with right.

Edwin Tong  20:43  
Now, you probably remember this or you seen this, but let me ask you to look at the misconduct account of what happened. The meeting? Yeah, I mean, invite you to please pick up second of December. Okay. And turn please to page 87. Okay. You have it?

Pritam Singh  21:09  
Yes, I do at 87. Did you seven? Yes.

Edwin Tong  21:12  
So again, please just cast your eye over. So they don't have to read it. No problem. You're at Mr. Pritam Singh's house. On this occasion. Mr. Mr. Man, I'm also present. And then I asked, Did you put in clear terms to them as well, that a statement you had made was false answer. Yes. Could they have misunderstood? No, they could not. And then you see the next line? What was their reaction to this? She says it was incredible disappointment. There was a lot of anger. But I think there was some compassion as well. Compassion there as well. The reaction was that if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August. Would you agree with this completely disagree? And I said, Let me understand the last statement, you said if you are not going to be pressed, then you will retain the narrative they started in August? Answer. Yes. It means you can get away with it. We don't need to clarify the lie. Correct. This is you put in your answer. I think in the simplest terms, yes, you're correct. So again, let me pause there. Would you agree with this completely disagree? Are you saying this didn't happen?

Pritam Singh  22:16  
I'm saying this completely untrue. And it's a lie.

Edwin Tong  22:20  
Next question. And so the Workers Party leadership was present there, their initial reaction to being told that there was a lie of falsehood set in Parliament was to try and duck to your shoe, if possible. And if it doesn't come up, then a truth may not be totally eventually Correct. Answer. I have to say, though, that Pritam Singh's initial response was that I should go to the committee of privileges. But after discussions and me explain the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place that changed. Let me pause again, at this juncture,

Pritam Singh  22:48  
is that correct? No, that's not correct. There was no discussion that I recall on the committee of privilege.

Edwin Tong  22:53  
So you did not tell her even initially that she should go to the committee of privileges?

Pritam Singh  22:57  
Not at that point?

Edwin Tong  22:58  
Not at that point,

Pritam Singh  23:00  
certainly not the committee of privileges. I don't know how she recollects this on the eighth of August, but that discussion did not take till because the condition was,

Edwin Tong  23:10  
what committee condition then came up, at which point since you say no, at that point,

Pritam Singh  23:14  
I can't remember exactly when, but certainly on the first of October, in my email to all the workers, party members, workers, party members of parliament, I did mention quite clearly that if you can't substantiate something, you will go to the committee of privileges.

Edwin Tong  23:32  
Okay, then I pick up the point again, and I said, So the upshot of the meeting a few days after seven August at that point in time, we weren't sure what date of the meeting it was, but now we know it's an eighth of August. So the reference to the meeting in this question should be to the eighth of August meeting at your home.

Pritam Singh  23:48  
Mr. Donner, I beg your pardon. Sorry, where are you at now? Are you still at the bottom of 87?

Edwin Tong  23:51  
Yes, but I just haven't. And I'm trying to explain to you that the reason why I framed the question in that way was because Miss Kahn wasn't sure what exactly it was at this point in time. Okay, all your employees, I wasn't sure. So I agree. Okay. Certainly on the eighth of August. Okay. Thank you. So I said the upshot of the meeting a few days after seven August was that the Workers Party leadership decided that there'll be no need to clarify the position. They will keep the line in place, since if you're not pressed, there's no need to clarify the truth, correct? Answer, correct. You would disagree with that? Absolutely. Now, we'll go over the page. I asked her whether there were emails or messages exchange read might corroborate the meeting. And Mr. Miss Kahn said to me over the page, did you discuss this with Miss Lowe thereafter? Yes, I did. In those discussions. Did you give an account of what happened? Yes, I did. Would that be by messages? Yes. There will be by messages and those messages would capture the thrust of what you had discussed with Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Miss Lim answer. Yes. And I told her she's making a note to Get copies. And I said these messages would have been contemporaneous, meaning they would have been roughly the same time as when you concluded the meeting with the three of them answer. Yes. And subsequent to this occasion, she finished her messages at the time that these questions were being asked. I have not seen those messages. Now, I'd like to show you the message. Yes, please. I may. We have this little bundle from Miss Lowe earlier. Thank you. Yes. And can you please go to the second page of that thin bundle?

Pritam Singh  25:44  
VSI method page.

Edwin Tong  25:46  
Okay. It's not paginated. So the second page, you see two messages. 

Pritam Singh
Okay. 

Edwin Tong
The second one is titled eight August. You see that?

Pritam Singh  25:54  
I'm on the wrong page, then. Yes, I see that.

Edwin Tong  25:57  
Okay. And it says, it's from Raeesah. And let me tell you that this is sent on a group chat, where Mr. Nathan and Miss Loh were also present. 

Pritam Singh
I understand. 

Edwin Tong
And she says, Hey, guys, I just met with Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issues, and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening. Now, I know you've not seen, you have not seen this message contemporaneously, meaning at that time, but now you've seen her recollection of the meeting that she sent out contemporaneously? Would this be accurate?

Pritam Singh  26:37  
It would be highly inaccurate, it is a complete lie.

Edwin Tong  26:41
They, let's break down this statement. First of all, there was a meeting on the eighth of August. 

Pritam Singh
Absolutely. 

Edwin Tong 26:49
Which ended shortly before this message was sent at 12:41pm. Correct? 

Pritam Singh
I would, I would think so. 

Edwin Tong
From your recollection

Pritam Singh
Probably. 

Edwin Tong
Okay. And she then steps out and she sends a message with four sentences. The first is I just met with Pritam, Sylva and Faisal. That's correct. Right. The second is that we spoke about Muslim issues and a police accusation. That's also correct. Right? 

Pritam Singh
That is correct. 

Edwin Tong
The third sentence, I told her what I told you guys, and they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. The second half of that sentence, you would disagree with, I assume?

Pritam Singh  27:22  
Yeah. Because I don't know what the first half of the sentence is and the second half is a complete lie.

Edwin Tong  27:26  
Okay. The third, the final sentence, they also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening is correct.

Pritam Singh  27:33  
Right, it is correct.

Edwin Tong  27:34  
So, most of this message is correct. But her recollection of what she was told to do by the three of you, as a result of the lie, is inaccurate.

Pritam Singh  27:48  
Absolutely. I would go much further than inaccurate.

Edwin Tong  27:51  
Okay. Can, can I ask you, why you think Miss Khan might lie like this, emerging from a meeting with you?

Pritam Singh  28:02  
Okay. I know something which she revealed to the Workers Party Disciplinary Panel on the 29th of November, which is quite telling to me. And, she told, she told the panel that she suffers from disassociation. Now, it was the first time I'd heard of it. I asked her what disassociation was, she said, it's when I talk without thinking. And I asked her, don't you think that's dangerous for an MP? And she said, yes. So, I'm not bringing this up to suggest anything untoward. All I'm suggesting is, it may be helpful for this committee to call for some psychiatric report or evaluation on Ms Khan. I say that only with the knowledge of what she shared with me on the 29th of November. Could it be a lie? To me, it's possible. But if we're talking about culpability, and how much she, and proportionality, I think it may be helpful. But, but things do add up now, as I, you know, hear what was said in the papers and what representation she gave and what she shared with-

Edwin Tong  29:19  
You see Mr. Singh, this took place on the eighth of August. 

Pritam Singh
Yes. 

Edwin Tong
And I was very careful before I started this line of inquiry to ask you if you thought that there was anything untoward, unusual about Miss Khan's performance as an MP?

Pritam Singh  29:34  
No, that's not your question. Yeah. You can check back as you asked me that earlier. But before yes, they asked me what was my view of this.

Edwin Tong  29:43  
Yes I did. When I started this afternoon, before after the break, I did ask you about her general performance. And I think you told me that there was nothing that came to your attention, which suggested that there's anything unusual about the performance

Pritam Singh  29:54  
Of course, but you're asking me about this particular message.

Edwin Tong  29:58  
Yes I am. But I'm now asking you to recall that I did start this afternoon. 

Pritam Singh
I'm not, I'm not disputing that. 

Edwin Tong
Yes. And so your answer was that she was normal. She was nothing unusual. Visa V.

Pritam Singh  30:09  
What? You asked me on the 27th on the viz-a-viz. That message of the 27th of September? That's my answer. Yes. And I also asked you about a performance generally. It was, there was nothing out of the ordinary to me.

Edwin Tong  30:26  
So, I'm not sure it's fair to characterize what she told you on the 29th of-

Pritam Singh  30:34  
Chair, I seek your indulgence? So let me finish. I think that question needs to be read out by Mr. Tong to me again. So I can be given a chance to explain why I answered it the way I did, because it was an open ended question. And I, you asked me What, no, I, what, why she, why she would have said that. Let me let in I know certain facts that I know now. And I believe I'm entitled to share that.

Edwin Tong  30:57  
Mr. Singh. Let me finish. I asked you a question. And I said, Why do you think why it is you think she might lie? And offer us what happened on May 9. And I'm saying to you, that in the context of the circumstances that I see, and I can't speak for my members, my colleagues on this committee, in the context of what I see evidence that you have given right, I'm not sure that the event that you mentioned on the 29th of October, or November, other Africa pattern is basis for us to call for a psychiatric assessment of Miss Kahn. I can and and I'm bring that across to you. And I don't think it is appropriate for us to have that debate. Now.

Pritam Singh  31:33  
I'm not having a debate about it. I am just replying the the question you and I really

Edwin Tong  31:36  
think it is quite inappropriate to bring that up and suggest for this committee to seek a psychiatric assessment of Miss Khan,

Pritam Singh  31:42  
Mr. Tong, you asked me for my, view. I've given my view. What you decide is the committee's prerogative, I've just put my view across? I have this evidence. I think I know this knowledge. I, She told it to me, Miss and I'm sharing it with the committee.

Edwin Tong  31:57  
Mr Singh, I think we know why you raised that suggestion. And I think it is not appropriate.

Pritam Singh  32:01  
Mr. Tong, we have, I have notes, what you want to believe, And what do you want to take into account is your prerogative, you asked me a question, why? And I've given an answer. You don't want to deal with it. You want to ignore it? That's your call.

Edwin Tong  32:15  
Let's come back to this. Yes, please. This is a message in writing. There's anything that she talked to me? Yes, anything that she might have told you, which gave rise to what you might have concluded on the 29th of November? Concerns speaking without thinking.

Pritam Singh  32:31  
I think that's what she said, Yes.

Edwin Tong  32:34  
I'm not changing that. Okay. But so here, she stepped out in the saying that you might have even stepped on a meeting with you in August. She put her thoughts down in writing, and sent it to her to closest associates. Yes. Right. Let me suggest to you that there really is no reason for her to lie to them. Correct.

Pritam Singh  32:54  
On what basis? Do you make that suggestion?

Edwin Tong  32:56  
Because she by now has confessed to you to miss limb to Mr. Pfizer. She knows that, according to you, it has to be clarified. Yes. So she's also confessed it to Mr. Nothern and Miss Lowe and sought counsel from them as to what to do. So why would she go to the senior leadership of Workers Party? And then lie in a closed forum to her own associates who are helping her about your reaction. Mr. How would that help her?

Pritam Singh  33:33  
Mr. Tom? I cannot answer how it would help her. I can only tell you what she told us in what I told her what was communicated in my house on the eighth of August, and this rendition of what has happened is in complete, utter fabrication, it's a lie. It's okay. A bear lie.

Edwin Tong  33:50  
I understand that. I understand your position. But it's my evidence. Yes, I understand your position. I'm trying to understand why this might be so okay, you asking

Pritam Singh  34:01  
the wrong person? Because I've told you that, well, it's a lie.

Edwin Tong  34:06  
See, when you look at contemporaneous evidence and circumstances, what people were discussing at that time around the time after that time, you can get a picture.

Pritam Singh  34:16  
Not necessarily not if people lie.

Edwin Tong  34:20  
Well, of course, so we're here to work out what the truth is. And I hope you will assist us

Pritam Singh  34:25  
I have been doing so for the last six hours. Omega seven, we're coming to serve. I

Edwin Tong  34:30  
appreciate that. So objectively, okay, and I know you disagree with the contents, and I have that as a caveat. Objectively, this conveys to Mr. Northern and Miss Lowe, a very clear picture of what she has to do with the lie. Correct.

Pritam Singh  34:50  
To the extent that it's communicated to them. Yes, yes.

Edwin Tong  34:53  
And the objective interpretation of this is not to bring up the issue anymore if you can avoid it. Take it to the grave means don't disclose. Correct. That would be on a plane reading. Yes. So, again, bearing in mind that this was sent minutes, barely minutes after she left the meeting. We did not reflect an accurate, contemporaneous record of her takeaway from the meeting,

Pritam Singh  35:22  
I would argue that it is it is an inaccurate record of the meeting, because you didn't whether it's contemporaneous, of course, it's quite it is contemporaneous by virtue of the time, but it says nothing about the fact that it's alive.

Edwin Tong  35:36  
But she walks away from the meeting not being she was not told by you to go and tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  35:42  
Mr. Tong I, I can continue this exchange with you. But here I'm dealing with someone who on record has lied to me. I have WhatsApp communication of her lying to me about the episode. If you're trying to impress upon me that this is the truth. I'll have to tell you, sir, sorry. That's not the case. No, Mr. Singh has lied before She's lied about this episode. She had to be pressed for it to come out. And you are trying to impress on me that she's got no reason to lie, because it's contemporaneous? No. I and I disagree vehemently.

Edwin Tong  36:12  
Not not not because it is contemporaneous in the contemporary entity is one factor. But you know, there is a reason why I understand that you had to press her for to come clean on the fact that she could not substantiate her speech. What would the reason be? And she made a speech and of course, she was worried. I mean, the leader of a party was asking her she was very She held it back? No, she had to tell the truth. Yes. Here is a different scenario. She's communicating it to her associates, people who she's close with, and who's helping her. And she knows that they are helping her they have her interests at heart. So I'm trying to understand why it is that in that scenario, she will want to lie to them. Because I can't work out how that helps her.

Pritam Singh  36:58  
She may have a problem.

Edwin Tong  37:01  
Unless you're saying that almost four months ago, or more than four months ago, she contemplated that this very scenario might happen when she was put under to say that

Pritam Singh  37:11  
I'm just suggesting to you that this is not a vision cut me off. Sorry, I apologize for cutting you off.

Edwin Tong  37:18  
Surely, you're not suggesting that she had foreseen what would happen months down the road? I'm not making this. Good. So the only other reason? Is that in your words. She may have a problem. Yes. Do you genuinely think that

Pritam Singh  37:44  
looking back at this entire episode from her behavior, right. From the point where she had to put the speech on the platform that we share, the anecdote is not there. It's suddenly inserted from her as from her SMS, which is clearly to me a lie. And before that, hiding the truth and attempting to cover a lie with another lie.

Edwin Tong  38:12  
I'm afraid Sosa you remember I told you that two days after this meeting on the 10th of August, you had a meeting with Mr. Navin and Miss Lowe. Sorry, that which meeting was on the 10th? We had a meeting with Mr. Northern and Miss Lowe. Right. When? On what the end of August? Yes. You recall, I told you that earlier. Yes, you do is if you look at the chats, miss, and I showed you this earlier, Miss Kahn was aware that they were meeting you on the 10th of August,

Pritam Singh  38:42  
I'm not sure. On the chats I'll take your I'll take your if it's on the chats. We don't have to go through it. I'll take your word for it. Because that's not public to me.

Edwin Tong  39:15  
Okay, I like to show it to you. Please look up the big bundle of the chats between Mr. Nothern Miss Lowe and Miss Kahn.

Pritam Singh  39:23  
Which page are we on page 36?

Edwin Tong  39:25  
We saw this earlier, but I want to refresh your memory. Okay, so this is a group chat. Yes. 10th. August, have you decided what have you decided? If you want us to tell Pritam we are meeting him in 30 minutes. She says I told him already. So I think it wouldn't matter if you brought it up. And so on. You remember I read this to you. Yes, I remember this. So I know you're not part of this chat. But this tells us a few things. One, they speak to each other and they keep each other informed. Number two miscount is aware that Mr. Nothern and Miss Lowe were meeting with you. On that morning? They'll try number three, they were quite open in saying that he or she was prepared for you to discuss the issue with proton which is you the issue meaning the falsehood in Parliament?

Pritam Singh  40:19  
That's right. She says I have told him already.

Edwin Tong  40:22  
Yes. So in this context, in this context, Miss Carr knows that her close associates will be meeting with you right to discuss the issue, right, the concerns or falsehood, she will not be there. Is it inconceivable that she could think she could lie to them about what you said to her? Knowing that you will now be meeting with them to discuss this very same issue? Well,

Pritam Singh  40:49  
indeed, it would be inconceivable, I would think it is something that she ought to know that I would never accept. MP WP MP saying that you take a lie to a grave. But again, this is Miss Khan's recollection to them to the I don't believe anything in those chats go into the statement that Miss Khan tells them again about the lie. Because if I look at page 36, all that is said is he looks at me different now. But I think he empathizes why I lied? And then Ping has not a smiley, sad face emoji, or not an emoji just the semi colon thing.

Edwin Tong  41:34  
Thank you. But the point is this Yes. That they are quite open with each other. Less can tells them she has told you that she has lied.

Pritam Singh  41:43  
Which chat is this? And why is the other point? Not in this chat this 1241 chat?

Edwin Tong  41:50  
I beg your pardon? No, please, please keep to what I'm I'm no, no,

Pritam Singh  41:54  
I'm I'm very interested in this because this is a chat on the 90 Vitel. If you tell me what you're after I'll help. You know, I'm trying to understand then, in what context is this chat? And the earlier message that Miss Kahn sends to them? Because I don't see that?

Edwin Tong  42:13  
Ah, let me let me help you. Let me explain. We initially got this, which I showed you. But we subsequently wanted the entire context of the conversation to understand the flavor. And so what you have now in front of you is your flipping is that context. And if you go to page 23, you will see that same message recorded at eighth of August 12:41pm. So it is what I'm sorry. 12:41pm. Yes. Okay. And then there's everything which is redacted. Yesterday, after Reiser says talks about Mr. Few is the single the book Yes. You asked me a question. And I showed you Yes. Now I want to go back to my question. Okay. Okay. So please go back to page 36. Sure. The point I'm making to you is that Miss Kahn is quite open to her two associates. Yes, that she liked. She told you she liked right. She knows that you're meeting them to discuss the very same issue. They asked whether you want us to tell Pritam or discuss with Pritam. And she says, I think it wouldn't matter if you brought it up. She was quite open. If she had just two days prior to this, I told her to associates a lie about what you told her to do. Yes, she would not be as open with them. Look,

Pritam Singh  43:28  
I cannot I cannot speak for Miss Kahn. But I cannot also understand this behavior on the part of misconduct, Mishcon then later to say. Let me just quote from page 36. What was his reaction? Like? He looks at me different now. It doesn't still change the point that she makes this statement paying and Yudish don't interrogate me with that. They don't tell me Look, this message has been sent to us by Reiser, is it true or not? That's not in my communication with them.

Edwin Tong  44:02  
And I don't I don't don't disagree. I have no basis to disagree on that. Right. So I started by saying to you, I appreciate that you didn't see this contemporaneously. Right. But what I'm trying to now put across to you is the circumstances in which this is now being discussed road between raesha Miss Kahn and her to close associates. And they are well aware that she's confessed to you that she lied. She is well aware that the two of them are meeting you. And I am expecting expecting that this issue will come up. We are talking about paying and paying and yudishe Yes, right. Expecting an issue will come up right. This is both Ms. Khan is saying to them, speak to him in run her words. I think it wouldn't matter if you brought it up. Yeah.

Pritam Singh  44:48  
And so did they.

Edwin Tong  44:51  
The fact of the matter, Miss Mr. Singh is that you did discuss with them that you knew that she Light in Parliament. minutiae light in Parliament. Yes. And that was what was the subject matter what was discussed not so much the 1241 message from eighth of August. So what they did discuss with you was that this, that Miss Kahn had lied in Parliament and that you are aware, correct,

Pritam Singh  45:18  
that would have been accurate, but at no point that either of them pointed out to me that there was an instruction to take this to the grave. And I noticed that wasn't queried of them.

Edwin Tong  45:28  
Okay. And I have no reason to disagree with you, because they didn't tell me that they brought it to your attention. Alright. So I'm trying to give you as much of the relevant evidence surrounding the issue as possible so that you have a clearer picture not okay. Thank you. Now, on the 10th of August, this meeting that we have seen references to in the chats, you did meet with paying and Mr. Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern. And I'd like you to look at Mr. Noggins account of that meeting. Sure. If you could please pick up the bundle. December. Yes, I have it and please turn to

just give me a moment. That December.

PAGE 32.

Pritam Singh  46:37  
Yes, I'm at page 32.

Edwin Tong  46:40  
So at page 32. You go from the top you see a reference to Mr. yudishe. Another. Yes. So what happened was that I was informed by Miss Lowe that Mr. Pritam Singh, I wanted to meet the two of us on 10th. August, right. But the thing is, I hadn't told us why he wanted to meet, and so on. Then he says, but it actually turned out that when we met Mr. Singh, the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss another party matter, completely unrelated, which you wanted our input on. But on the sidelines of the meeting of that meeting, we did discuss Miss Kahn, having essentially told us that having come clean, what does that mean, having come clean? Having come clean, in a sense, admitted that she lied, having admitted that she lied in Parliament? Yes. Can you describe the nature of the conversation that you had with Mr. Singh? With Miss Lowe? Mr. northerns evidence is this. From what I recall, we of course, expressed disappointment that Mr. Carr Miss Kahn had lied, and shock. But I think from what I recall, Miss Lowe and Mr. Singh, were talking about how, or rather, Miss Lowe was telling Mr. Singh, that sexual assault victims do experience trauma. And that can sometimes make them in some circumstances be less likely to want to tell the truth, or a fear perhaps, I remember Miss Lowe saying that this was a point that she wanted to communicate to Mr. Singh, just from my own, ms law happens to be someone who has good knowledge about issues of women's rights in sexual assault cases in Singapore. And so just to summarize, my understanding of that meeting, as it relates to the lie, was that we were all on the same page in terms of knowing that she had lied in Parliament. And in terms of knowing that she had cited the sexual assault as a reason for that. You recall this exchange?

Pritam Singh  48:22  
I don't recall it to the detail that Mr. Nothern recalls it. I in now, I remember what the completely unrelated party metal was. But essentially, the thing I remember of this meeting was confirming with them, then Miss Kahn had lied

Edwin Tong  48:39  
in Parliament. So that was something that was discussed in I wouldn't say discussed just a which would be accurately contained in Mr. northerns. Evidence,

Pritam Singh  48:47  
I would not go so far as to say that because I think this recollection of Miss Lowe may well have taken place on the 12th of October in my house, rather than at this meeting, no Miss law being that sexual assault victims, experienced trauma and so forth.

Edwin Tong  49:05  
Alright, so you think that say for that part, which was discussed later on the 12th of October?

Pritam Singh  49:08  
I believe so. Because that means to speak over me. Sorry, sorry. I beg a pathologist same

Edwin Tong  49:13  
for that portion of what Miss Lowe says. The rest of Mr. Noggins evidence is accurate, about what was discussed on a 10th of August.

Pritam Singh  49:22  
Let me just look at that evidence again. I do not recall them being expressing disappointment that Miss Kahn had lied, and that Miss Kahn had lied in shock. I don't recall that.

Edwin Tong  49:39  
That would be quite I don't usual. I mean, it's quite an expected response, isn't it?

Pritam Singh  49:46  
From paying and let me You've asked me the question. I don't recall. Shock and disappointment from them that Miss Kahn headline, I don't recall that.

Edwin Tong  49:58  
They must certainly be at least concerned.

Pritam Singh  50:03  
I think it was more question of whether I had known by that point already. And I said, I know, because she told me, but in terms of these additional points made there after Miss Lowe telling Mr. Singh sexual assault victims, do experience trauma and so forth. I don't recall this because Okay, all right. Certainly I don't recall this being made on the on the 10th. Of

Edwin Tong  50:27  
Okay, let me go on. Yes. And I let me read on bottom of page 32. A few questions. Did Mr. Singh tell you or Mrs. Lowe, that Miss Kahn had to come to Parliament at the next meeting to clarify the lie? Answer? No. Did Mr. Singh say to you that it was important for Miss Kahn to quickly inform her family of the sexual assault incidents so that she could then proceed to clear up the lie in Parliament? Answer? No. Did Mr. Singh discuss with either yourself or miss Lowe any steps to be taken in relation to the clarification of the lie, perhaps outside of Parliament, on social media, on other platforms that you might have had answer? No. Would that be an accurate?

Pritam Singh  51:06  
No, indeed, I don't think it was discussed in any signal. None

Edwin Tong  51:09  
of this was discussed. None of these. few lines down. So if I understand your evidence correctly, between eight August and second October, as far as you know, there were no discussions between Miss Kahn and the senior leadership of the Workers Party, comprising Mr. Singh, Mr. Man up and Muslim, as far as I know, know, that you would agree with without my evidence earlier already, okay. In fact, you're very resolute evidence. Just

Pritam Singh  51:33  
I mean, it's the truth.

Edwin Tong  51:35  
Now, Mr. Mr. Singh?

Why did you not explain to Mr. Nothern, and Miss Lowe, that the intention was for Miss Kahn to come forward at some stage to clarify the lie, there was

Pritam Singh  51:57  
no reason for me to do that I had this issue between me and miss, and a sitting MP, Miss Kahn.

Edwin Tong  52:04  
And they are coming to you, obviously, you know, by then that she had also told them what the lie. And as I said, you know, that they will be helping her or will help her. So, eventually, I think you do call upon them to assist you to deal with events post 12th of October, that meeting? That's right, which you agree with, right? That's right. So why would you not have at least shared your plan with them? The

Pritam Singh  52:33  
point at that point, there was the only plan, if you use that word plan was for her to go and speak to her parents about it. She's a MP of the party, she has to take ownership and responsibility of the matter. It was something for her to do, and for me to hear from her. What's the resolution? So I did not think at any point, then it was relevant for me to raise this matter with paying or yudishe, because this is something for Miss harm to the worship. But

Edwin Tong  53:03  
you know that Miss Lowe, you might disagree with it being said on this occasion about her knowledge about sexual assault victims, and how to assist and perhaps counsel them, you might not agree with it being spoken on this occasion. But you do know, Miss Lowe quite well. And you do know that she has an interest in this area. And if your concern was her state of mind, whether she's told her family, and those were the questions that you had to ask yourself and satisfy yourself off, before she could take the next step, which was an important step to remove from the record and parliament the lie, then it would have been quite usual, expected even to have discussed this with Miss Lowe to find out how she was, where she's going, how she told her family can then prepare for the next steps.

Pritam Singh  53:52  
So number one, I don't know that Mrs. Lowe is this specialist in women's rights in sexual assault cases. What I do know is Miss Kahn has a therapist, which she admitted to be on the eighth of August, who is aware of this episode, and I would think that would be a more appropriate person for her to seek counsel from.

Edwin Tong  54:14  
Okay. But I know you'll say you've said this before, but at no stage. Did you make any attempt to find out whether the therapist sessions were going well, whether she was ready, whether she had told her family at all?

Pritam Singh  54:29  
I've given you my evidence? Yes.

Edwin Tong  54:32  
Is I am I producing all of these other?

Pritam Singh  54:35  
No, but I've already given the evidence that you're trying to try

Edwin Tong  54:39  
not to try to understand the entire the entirety of the circumstances. Mr. C I so I be very upfront with you, Mr. Singh. I've, I've been very upfront with you to I look at this and I find it surprising that for someone with your experience and I would say I've seen you with your force of conviction. When you speak when you make demands, when you set out your views, clearly, it seems somewhat out of character for you not to have made it clear to miss can either on the eighth of August, or on the third of October, that she should tell the truth. Make it clear, I made more sorry. All well, in those words, okay, I know what you're going to say. But in those words, or even if you felt you had made it clear not to have taken steps to check with either her family, or the progress of a therapy sessions, or indeed, with Miss Kahn on several occasions when you met with her, or with any of her close associates as to how she's doing and whether she's ready to now take the next step, which I think we agreed would be important to clarify the truth that remains on the record. Mr. Tom, so So with that in mind, can you offer us a reason,

Pritam Singh  56:06  
Mr. Why it is we're coming back to the evidence I've already given. I told her to speak to her parents, we will have to deal with this issue. And I told her that on the eighth of August, I also have given it in evidence a few times now that from there, up to the third of October, and in a different way, on the first of October, I had communicated my view on what was the right thing to do. Now, I can embellish, or even attempt to want to do embellish any further evidence I've already given because that was the case. And I came to that judgment, because here I'm dealing with someone who is telling me that she has she is suffering from a trauma of in the past. And I in my view, thank you for for those comments about my character. But in my assessment, this was somebody who needed time to deal with this problem. That was my Yes, my view,

Edwin Tong  57:08  
I think, to understand your explanation that time is needed. But what I don't understand about explanation is why you don't take any attempt to find out whether the time has been taken. I do so

Pritam Singh  57:19  
I expect that she would be speaking to a parent speaking to a therapist and when she's ready, and when she's decided, okay, look preterm, I can make this clarification now. I expected it to come from her. So I know very well. So two weeks, two months is the same question. You asked me earlier. And I'm gonna have to understand that. No, it would have if, let's say in October, like we talk about since it's a hypothetical question in October, let's say the issue didn't come up. Know what I mean, by the same person that you sort of thing sorry, character, his connections, etc.

Edwin Tong  57:53  
I want you to at least know I think maybe you heard me know, I'm not asking you to construct a hypothetical scenario. I'm asking you, in your position. When you decide on a frame work, for something to happen, speak to family first, then come clean up clarify the lie. Yes. When you decide on that, you must have some expectation as to when it's going to take place. So so it's not a hypothetical question. Because when you put this out and you formulate this plan, in your mind, there must be there must be solution as to what would be reasonable for this plan to be carried out.

Pritam Singh  58:32  
When you say plan, what plan? Are

Edwin Tong  58:34  
you talking meaning for the family to be told and then to come clean in Parliament? And this is something that I would expect to hear from Miss Kahn? No, yes, I'm asking for you. Yes, I that's my that's your your expectation as to the timeframe for this. Right. So

Pritam Singh  58:47  
my expectation is by the third of October, it's in fact, even earlier, it's this. She obviously is not coming up, I'm I sent this note to all the MPs on the third of October, I make it clear that she has to take ownership. And that's actually a very important meeting. Because if I follow this direction, this line of questioning, if there was no plan, that you are at carte blanche to decide on your own timeline, I wouldn't have met her on the third of October to tell her look, you've got to take ownership and responsibility. Now, the event to

Edwin Tong  59:20  
you yet of October. Ownership would only happen if it's raised. Well,

Pritam Singh  59:26  
indeed, I mean, if the matter had right, because she hadn't come up to me to say I'm ready to come up with all this. I've spoken to my parents, I've done my

Edwin Tong  59:35  
akitas I mean, on the one hand, it is about it. It's very straightforward. Very it's very strict. On one hand, you're saying I have a timeline. Third, October is very important. You said so yes, evidence. Yes, sir. On the other hand, when I confront you with the proposition that actually third August 3 October, it may not come up the next day. Indeed we may not yes. You say well, then it's up to her.

Pritam Singh  59:59  
No, I do. is up to her, I look on the third of October, I have put her on notice of what is what she would need to do if it comes up, take ownership take responsibility. Now if it doesn't come up, I've already told her that I will have to square away with her again, you have to take ownership and responsibility. Yeah. And after that it's not hypothetical, when that will happen. But all this is not really relevant, I suppose for the purposes of our exchange, it

Edwin Tong  1:00:26  
is relevant. I mean, go ahead. The fact of the matter is that you must have in your mind a timeframe. And as I said, you will be acting in a manner consistent with that you will check whether the criteria that you have set for yourself for clarification in Parliament take place has been met her she told the family. Yeah. And I find out from you that not only do not ask the family, you don't ask her that you don't ask a therapist or you don't ask about her therapists. That's the truth. You don't ask her associates. You don't ask anyone. Right. You don't even ask, as far as I understand from Mr. Pfizer's evidence driven, ask your fellow workers party CC members. That's right. Nothing.

Pritam Singh  1:01:05  
This is my responsibility. I know I'm the leader of the bottle, I have made a judgment as to what I think is this lady's condition. And I believe that this is something that she will have to take ownership of, she will have to take responsibility for she'll have to close the issue with her parents. And when she's ready, we can deal with it.

Edwin Tong  1:01:23  
I do think that it's not a case that you take no steps to find out when she's ready.

Pritam Singh  1:01:27  
But that's true, because I've already given evidence to that regard.

Edwin Tong  1:01:31  
Right. Now let me move on Mr. Singh. On the first of November, yes. Miss Hahn made her personal explanation in Parliament. Right.

Pritam Singh  1:01:51  
On the first of November. Yes, that's right.

Edwin Tong  1:01:53  
And we agreed earlier that this was something that was had been run through the CC That's right. You had also given input to it, right.

Pritam Singh  1:02:02  
I had taken a look at it, but my inputs went one heavier all actually it was in the main from his con.

Edwin Tong  1:02:36  
Can you pick up this thick bundle you have with you?

Pritam Singh  1:02:41  
If you could just tell me the title, please.

Edwin Tong  1:02:47  
I will when I find it. Yes. The tickers one from Miss Lowe. Bashar is titled on your page.

Pritam Singh  1:02:56  
This is this one. This one? Which page Am I looking at?

Edwin Tong  1:03:14  
Can you turn please to page? 142? Yes. Sure. There's a discussion about the draft. Personal explanation. Starting from the top, are you okay to meet after Yudish says I'm okay should be okay. Three people can meet at your place or HQ. And then 12:19pm Muskaan says predominant. Some comments that I made some slight edits as well. Paying says do change from Saturday. But Ray Pritam has signed off on it. Is it necessary that we meet? I wanted to get any last input. And then at 12 at 2:46pm. She says if P has signed off on it, I think it's okay. We don't need to go over it and edit it one more time. Raisa says okay. 2:47pm, she says is just that he took a big chunk out and asked me to mull over it. Do you recall this?

Pritam Singh  1:04:15  
I don't recall it. But there may well, but I it was not subs anything, which I commented was not substantive.

Edwin Tong  1:04:21  
20 says you took a big chunk out of that's what she says. Yeah. Did you do you recall it is I don't

Pritam Singh  1:04:26  
recall taking any substantive chunk. But I would have to you would have to bring my attention to what that chunk she's referring to that perhaps can

Edwin Tong  1:04:34  
ask you to help us? Would you be able I was gonna ask you to help us Would you be able to give to this committee? The drafts of the statement,

Pritam Singh  1:04:41  
I don't have those drafts those drafts were with. I mean, I can check. I can check whatever I have. I will submit everything I have to the committee, but I'll have to check it

Edwin Tong  1:04:49  
but what what we would like to have would be the draft of the statement and the various iterations which will show how they were revised. Michael.

Pritam Singh  1:04:57  
I may have difficulty doing that because a lot The drafts were returned to Reiser. So I may not have copies of the drafts, but if I do have any, I will give them to the committee. All right? Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:05:25  
Can you please pick up the bundle? Not the same one is now. submission by Miss Kahn dated seventh December. We looked at it briefly just now. It's not seven December. Okay, go ahead. You recall, you're on the first page earlier on 27th. September? Yes. So if you don't go over the page to page two, just quickly cast your eye over the messages. I think you should be familiar because these are your messages, right. So 16th of October. So

Pritam Singh  1:05:59  
my messages to who?

Edwin Tong  1:06:01  
raesha? Okay. 16th of October 9am. Morning, preterm. I've dropped it off. This would be the draft personal explanation. Okay, let me pause for a moment. Yeah. You had a meeting on the 12th of October, with Mr. Nothern and Miss Lowe to discuss taking steps to prepare this explanation. Yes, right. And by the morning of the 16th of October, Miss Kahn had dropped off the statement she had drafted a statement Yes, it would appear that she really has no difficulty with preparing the statement and coming forward. She was quite proactive,

Pritam Singh  1:06:38  
to jump to that conclusion. Well, she was he was instructed on the 12th of October that there was no way you could expect this issue to lie low.

Edwin Tong  1:06:45  
Yes, but early on, you gave us the impression that she was still prevaricating.

Pritam Singh  1:06:50  
She was prevaricating on the 12th of October when she met us for the print. She met us, me and Sylvia, she was prevaricating because she did not want to tell the truth. And she did not want to make a statement in

Edwin Tong  1:07:00  
polite at 12. The consensus was that she was going to come clean. Right, absolutely. Okay. And thereafter. She cooperated with you, correct? That's right. She agreed. So she drops off one draft on the 16th of October. Then, right after you say how soon can a second draft be submitted? That's 18th of October. So that's the second one, at least we can tell. Yes. Then if you go further down the page at 10:36am on the 20th of October. You say Hi, Rachel, please make time to come over today to my place. 8:30pm. I'll confirm again once Silvia replies, Yes. Make that 7pm. So the 20th of October was, it seems another meeting was then on the 22nd of October raesha says at 12:15pm hybridomas Folkman that. Can we meet maybe this weekend on Monday? Your answer? Let's meet tomorrow with silver 11am party HQ. That will be on the 23rd of October. That's right. And further down the page 27th of October. Hi, Rachel, can you come to Parliament at 10pm? Today, urgently? Yes. Hi, Pritam. Yes, I will be there. Sorry. Let

Pritam Singh  1:08:11  
me just bring myself my attention down. You said 27th of October.

Edwin Tong  1:08:15  
Yes. Oh, yes. I

Pritam Singh  1:08:16  
see currently

Edwin Tong  1:08:17  
come to my office. Right. Okay. So this exchange shows us that there are at least four occasions when you met? Yes. And looked at the drafts. And there are probably more.

Pritam Singh  1:08:32  
I would think that this was I'm not sure about the exact number. I can come back with an answer for the committee. But on the basis of these exchanges. I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

Edwin Tong  1:08:41  
All right. Now on the same day, as Miss Kahn making the first explanation, you release a press statement. Remember, we saw that I didn't release a press statement?

Pritam Singh  1:08:55  
I just put I put up a Facebook post, which then the party carried on its pages.

Edwin Tong  1:09:00  
Okay. So let's look at that. I think you had earlier with us, you still have it.

Pritam Singh  1:09:04  
Just bear with me. I'm sure it's around here.

Edwin Tong  1:09:10  
There we go. Okay. Look at the opening line of this. MP ratio count should not have shared an account that contain untruth in the house. Right. And middle portion cites the parliament act. Several other pieces of information in the short paragraph. Yes. Now, let me put some questions to you. You knew about this falsehood from as early as seven August, right? Yes. So why does this not appear anywhere in the statement?

Pritam Singh  1:09:49  
I didn't see I didn't see the relevance of that to this statement. You see, Miss Miss Carr. It was for Miss Kahn to tell the truth to Parliament. Of course he didn't tell The truth.

Edwin Tong  1:10:00  
But you see, Mr. Singh, part of a holistic assessment of Miss Kahn must include whether or not she had told the truth earlier to her superiors, ie in this case yourself Miss limb and Mr. Pfizer, right? That will be relevant, correct?

Pritam Singh  1:10:23  
It would not in the context of why she lied because of this traumatic episode, I think it colors what ought to have been done quite significantly.

Edwin Tong  1:10:50  
Meaning that she had told her superiors earlier, what color what ought to have been done quite significantly. Is that your evidence? Yes. So it's important for the public to understand that, in fact, that's what she did, isn't it?

Pritam Singh  1:11:05  
It is important to understand but and she admits to that, to that in her statement on the first day,

Edwin Tong  1:11:10  
and is important for the public to understand that she in fact, she came to you. And then also subsequently to Miss Lim and to mystifies out the three most senior people in the cc of the Workers Party. Yes. To explain her position. Yeah, correct. And, at least according to you settle on a plan, settle on our approach to deal with the clarification subsequently, right.

Pritam Singh  1:11:34  
I wouldn't use the word settle. But she was told to go and speak to her parents. So

Edwin Tong  1:11:37  
there was a plan, speak to the parents. That's your those are your words, those

Pritam Singh  1:11:40  
are not my words. So

Edwin Tong  1:11:41  
let's take it step by step there was you told us that she was told to settle with the parents tell them so that they know. And then that clears the deck for her to come to Parliament? To clarify, right. That's right. So that understanding was reached with her? According to you?

Pritam Singh  1:11:59  
No, no, no, no, no. Where did I? Where did I say that understanding was reached? Where my evidence? Do I say that?

Edwin Tong  1:12:05  
How else? Is she going to come to Parliament? She will have to first tell her parents she will have to family? Yes, go ahead. And then she will come and clarify. Right, she will first

Pritam Singh  1:12:14  
have to tell her parents, she knows that the issue has to be resolved, she has to tell me that the issue will be resolved. And this is what I will do. And then she will come to Parliament and make that statement. Right.

Edwin Tong  1:12:24  
Is it relevant for the public to know that that was what happened in the first November? Yeah, clarification is the product of that plan.

Pritam Singh  1:12:36  
If the situation was that, we had indeed told her to cover up take this lie to the grave? I think it would be highly relevant. Okay, but it wasn't remember

Edwin Tong  1:12:47  
this. Remember this? Yes. I will remember if you had told her to do this, it will be highly relevant if I

Pritam Singh  1:12:53  
if you told her to lie. Yes, remember to take this lie in the grave.

Edwin Tong  1:12:58  
So coming back to this point. Please. Explain to me why you think it is not appropriate in the interest of open transparency, honesty. Right? These are words, which I think you speak more of than most people in Parliament. Why would you not include this fact, in your statement, whether to the media or not? I did not see it as relevant. I suggest to you, Mr. Singh, you don't see it as relevant because you know, that disclosing that you knew about this falsehood, from as early as the seventh of August, three months prior to the personal explanation would cast you in a bad light?

Pritam Singh  1:13:38  
No, no, I'm not. I'm not so worried about my reputation in that regard?

Edwin Tong  1:13:41  
I don't, Mr. Singh?

Pritam Singh  1:13:44  
I have answered your question.

Edwin Tong  1:13:45  
I hope I have. And I and I, and I believe that that's why you omitted it from this statement?

Pritam Singh  1:13:50  
No, that was not a consideration at all. It didn't even cross my mind.

Edwin Tong  1:13:55  
And that's why this statement presents a picture that suggests that it was Miss Kahn alone. Who told the falsehood didn't share this with anyone else? And is only now coming to Parliament to make this personal explanation. Those are the material facts. But it's also material when you want to assess a miss can and be as a broader whole the Workers Party, the fact that you and Miss limb. And Mr. Faisal were aware earlier, but also be material.

Pritam Singh  1:14:29  
No, I would not say it was material because as I have mentioned earlier, in my evidence, this was something that she had to take ownership of. And this was more relevant. She told a lie. She had to explain why. She told a lie. And she also had to explain why on the fourth. She told the lie again, those I think were the most critical factors as far as I was concerned.

Edwin Tong  1:14:51  
Yes, miss, Mr. Singh. This statement sounds like Miss Kahn kept it from all of you. You, none of you knew that would be one. How do you come to that conclusion? Well, because he doesn't say that you knew?

Pritam Singh  1:15:06  
No, but how do you specifically come to that conclusion? What sentence here gives you that impression is that currently you're hiding something

Edwin Tong  1:15:13  
is a complete absence of the sentence. And that's the point that

Pritam Singh  1:15:17  
you're making. There's nothing for me to hide. I've given this on evidence. Now, there was absolutely nothing for me to hide. I think and this is where I come back to the point I made earlier and you reminded me of it. If we had told her to lie, then it becomes material. But we never made we never told her to take a lie take you to the grave, nothing of that.

Edwin Tong  1:15:36  
See, it's it's important for both Parliament and the public. To know that Miss Kahn had come to the senior leadership of the Workers Party, confess to them fully, and worked out with them. When she would, what would be the conditions for which she would then come to Parliament to clarify the lie?

Pritam Singh  1:16:00  
That may well be your view, but I don't agree with it.

Edwin Tong  1:16:03  
What's wrong with being open and transparent, honest, give all the information? Sure.

Pritam Singh  1:16:09  
I agree with you what's wrong, that nothing is wrong with it? Why don't you do the same? Why don't you do the same when trace together happen in late October? Why didn't the government just come out and tell the truth straightaway? Don't wait for a parliamentary question.

Edwin Tong  1:16:23  
Yes, I thought you might say that. Yeah. But it's because it's very relevant in I'm not questioning it missing. But

Pritam Singh  1:16:29  
this is a decision that you've made. This is a decision the government made and all the government made. And this is the call I

Edwin Tong  1:16:36  
made. And I'm suggesting to you that this call it you made was to suppress the information, suppress the fact that you knew because you knew that you will cast you in a bad light. I am always the same. I completely disagree. Cast your mind to second December when you had the press conference. We saw that notes. Just have a quick look. Tell us what were the most searching questions that the press asked of you? When did you know? Yes. Why did you do what you did? Right? What did you do?

Pritam Singh  1:17:05  
Right? Those questions were even put out there already before the press put them to me. That's why I addressed them on the front.

Edwin Tong  1:17:11  
Let me suggest to you that it was because the public was asking questions about what you knew what you did when you knew that you had no choice but to call this press corps?

Pritam Singh  1:17:23  
No, no, there was a choice whether we wanted to call the press conference or not. And but I believe that those questions were relevant because they were going around and I wanted to answer them.

Edwin Tong  1:17:33  
And they were going around because your first November statement was less than open.

Pritam Singh  1:17:39  
There was no connection with the first November statement, this connection, this connection was the resignation of Reza Khan. Mr.

Edwin Tong  1:17:45  
Singh is absolutely connected, they all pertain to the same issues.

Pritam Singh  1:17:48  
Mr. Tong, it's a nice attempt for you to question what we put in our press statements, you can take that view, but I'm telling you, it's an incorrect view, there was nothing to hide and this idea of protecting myself my reputation sorry, this is not what I enter politics for.

Edwin Tong  1:18:06  
You may say that, Mr. Singh, I have given us one credible reason why not to use material fact, of your knowledge, your knowledge, right of the falsehood three months before it was disclosed in Parliament, right? Why is that not in the statement? Well, the only logical inference is that you wanted to distance yourself from the knowledge of Miss Kahn. Rather, this is a self from the light and Miss Carr had told and the fact that you knew about it, right and chose to do nothing about it. And I had good reasons why I chose to do nothing. So interrupt me, sorry, go ahead and choose to do nothing about it, which I will remind you, I have asked you ad nauseum. And you've said ad nauseum that in fact, you've chosen do nothing about it. All this well. So the reality, Mr. Singh is that you chose to take this out, because you knew that that will put you in a bit of a mingle, Mr.

Pritam Singh  1:18:57  
Mr. Tom, completely incorrect. A completely incorrect and but I'ma say quite imaginative conclusion.

Edwin Tong  1:19:05  
Thank you. No, I'm not imagining it. No, I believe you are. And then on the second of November, you see that maybe in the same bundle, the Workers Party media statement is made this time round announcing the formation of a disciplinary panel. Yes. Now, let me ask you to have a quick look at it. The panel was approved, the CEC approved the formation of the panel the DEP to look into the admissions made by MP Raisa Khan in parliament on first November arising from an earlier speech made by the MP in Parliament on third August 2021. And the members of the DEP set out in that media statement, yes. Now, in this context, would it not be relevant, a relevant consideration for the DP that you and Miss slim. And Mr. Faisal, Manoj had been aware of the falsehood from August and had been working with Miss Kahn towards having this clarified in Parliament. Agree.

Pritam Singh  1:20:16  
Could you repeat the question? Sorry?

Edwin Tong  1:20:18  
Yes. I said in this context, we did not be relevant, a relevant consideration for the DP that you and mislim and Mr. Pfizer might not have been aware of the falsehood from August, and had been working with Miss Kahn towards having this clarified in Parliament,

Pritam Singh  1:20:37  
it would have been relevant. If our intention was, as Mr. Han interpreted to take a lie to the grave, it would be very relevant, but we had no such take away to her in that manner. There was absolutely no way she could have interpreted it in that way. And we looked at it as an issue that the party had to resolve a party and Party MP has made this his has told a lie in Parliament, she's finally come clean in Parliament on the first of November, told the truth, she confirms, as she did with us on the eighth of August as to what exactly happened. And we didn't see that something untoward or out of the ordinary for us to consider ourselves is an information that had to be released, because we know why. We know exactly why it was difficult for us to share this beyond the three of us because of the personal and private nature of what she had shared with us.

Edwin Tong  1:21:36  
So you see, Mr. Mr. Singh, this panel is set up to look into the falsehoods and presumably to make recommendations as to what to do with Miss Carr. Right. From a party perspective. Yes, for a party perspective, yes. We wouldn't it be relevant that the senior leadership of the Workers Party had been aware of the falsehood much earlier and had played a part in advising her on the steps to take to correct it.

Pritam Singh  1:22:02  
It doesn't change the fact that she was no answer my question or No, I don't think so.

Edwin Tong  1:22:06  
It must, it must be material, because you're also determining her fate, what to do with her what sanctions to impose on her correct or not determining her feet, you are making recommendations, cc determines?

Pritam Singh  1:22:17  
We are not judge, jury and executioner. You are.

Edwin Tong  1:22:20  
Look, you know, three of you are the most senior members of the CEC.

Pritam Singh  1:22:24  
I know we're not there are other senior members on the CC as well. And

Edwin Tong  1:22:27  
and I think the reality is that the CC, included the three members on the DEP, right, the CEC

Pritam Singh  1:22:35  
is not a bunch of men and women, yes or no.

Edwin Tong  1:22:38  
But I say ask the question, again, three members of the DPR from the CC part of the CCS, of course. So the fact of the matter is that your conduct in advising her? Well, first being aware of the lie, and then advising her on the steps to take would be relevant considerations wouldn't advising her on the steps to take Yes, to tell her family and then come clean in parliament is within?

Pritam Singh  1:23:04  
Well, that's all I told her. That's all we that's all I told her. Those are relevant considerations. And to me, and the point is, at any point from August, right up to the third of October, she's at liberty to come up and come and see me and says, Look, I've squared this issue away, I am going to deal with it in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  1:23:23  
Let me ask let me ask you this question. Well, let me approach in a different way since you either not understanding me or I understand you perfectly you understand me, then maybe don't answer the question. No, I've

Pritam Singh  1:23:32  
answered the question also.

Edwin Tong  1:23:39  
Why are the three of you and only the three of you looking into this, judging her when it is the three of you who were aware of the falsehood three months ago, and had been advising her and speaking to her about coming clean?

Pritam Singh  1:24:00  
You haven't reframed the question, it's still the same question. So the answer is the same. We never saw it as something which was uncovered. MP Reisa has told a lie in parliament from a party perspective, we have to deal with it. We know some facts about it. But those both the facts that we know, do not include a narrative that we told her to tell a lie, or to take you to the grace thought about whether you so for us answering the question. So for us, it didn't matter. It never even crossed our minds that the composition of the disciplinary panel would be a problem.

Edwin Tong  1:24:34  
Mr. Singh, I, you know, I'm surprised to hear that.

Pritam Singh  1:24:37  
I'm surprised you're surprised because I've given you the answer, because the only

Edwin Tong  1:24:41  
three people in all of the Workers Party, members of parliament, yes, we knew about the lie earlier. Yes. Were you? Yes. Muslim? Yes. And Mr. Fung established a long time ago, and these are the only three people on the DP right. So even if you think Even if you think that you have done nothing wrong, you advised her, you didn't tell her to lie. I would suggest to you that that fact that you were aware, much earlier, MP ricerca had come to you to confess it, and had taken your council on it and acted in a manner based on your advice. Those would be material facts for the public to know, for parliament to know. And indeed, for the members of the Workers Party to do I disagree. Because amongst the submissions that you invited, were submissions from the Workers Party members, correct? Yes. And members of the Workers Party, who came forward gave views to you on the DP would include views as to whether they felt she should be retained as an MP, or expelled as an MP, correct? Yes. And surely the entire range of her conduct her behavior, whether she held on to the life for three months, or whether she confessed to the senior leadership of the Workers Party early, all of that must be relevant. Surely what would be relevant is if my question No, because it never crossed our mind in that way. What as Buddhists you are blind to it, you will you will disagree blind to it, Mr. Singh? Because

Pritam Singh  1:26:20  
because there is no lies involved. We

Edwin Tong  1:26:23  
finish. It's not about lie. Only Mr. Singh. It's about honesty and disclosure, openness, concepts that you speak about all the time. Mr. Tong, you are inviting you're inviting members of the Workers Party to come? Yes. And give you a submission give you a view on whether you should retain Mishcon or expelled from the party. Right? Surely it is relevant for them? Yes. To know that Miss Kahn has, in fact come to you. The SG of Workers Party, the chairman and the vice chairman Road, told the lie toll made a clean best of things told all of you that it was a lie. And work with you and get advice from you. And as early as the work simple to

Pritam Singh  1:27:04  
get advice from you. Surely that I would disagree with that characterization. But my view is is wherever you

Edwin Tong  1:27:10  
might disagree on Mr. Singh. The fact of the matter is that you didn't disclose the fact that she came up to you to disclose

Pritam Singh  1:27:17  
she didn't come up to us, we disclose the basically got it out of her XML and to me that that's very relevant to me. Now that I am speaking of it, but what's more relevant is the DP didn't operate to hide things from the Workers Party members. The DP did not tell a lie. No, the fact is Miss Kahn had to correct a lie in Parliament. She told her lie in Parliament. Yes, she finally came out with the truth. And then we dealt with that issue from that perspective.

Edwin Tong  1:27:49  
Yes. And the DP is also making recommendations as to whether you should expel Miss can correct.

Pritam Singh  1:27:54  
The DP is making recommendations as to what ought to be done from a party perspective, yes, then it is the CC to decide what

Edwin Tong  1:28:00  
to do with her. And that includes whether to retain her or expel her from the party. That's the decision of the government of a contract is relevant. Correct. The gravamen of a contract is relevant. That's what that's what the DEP is looking at. And you would agree with me, I mean, you're a lawyer by training and very experienced politician, you would agree with me, Mr. Singh, that there is a world of difference between someone like Ms. Khan, who thought up the lie, spoke the lie in Parliament, kept it to herself, refused to clarify when called upon on the fourth of October to do so. did not share this with anyone else, and then only decide decided to confess and come clean three months later. That's one scenario. The other scenario is an MP like Miss Kahn, who told a lie in Parliament, five days later told the entire senior leadership comprising the chairman, the vice chairman, and a section of the party, that she's told a lie. And then the SEC, Jen tells her this is what we do. Tell your family, and then we sort this out. And according to the SEC, Jen, this is what she does. She carries that plan out to a tee. She does clears her draft, clears her draft with you several times, explains her position to the CEC and then goes and makes a personal statement in Parliament on the first of November. Yes. Don't you agree there's a world of difference.

Pritam Singh  1:29:25  
Well, now the two examples are were so long, but in my view, the critical difference between the both, like question, disagree. I disagree. The critical difference between the two examples is the conduct of the leadership. Are the leadership telling her to take a lie to the grave? No, we are not telling her to take a lie to the roof. I'm I'm giving my evidence. And because we are not telling her to do that. There's no motive. Actually, we never even considered it to be a relevant issue to be frank, not even relevant because we know what has what has happened. Miss Kahn has been not taken responsibility and ownership and we've dealt with it from that perspective.

Edwin Tong  1:30:05  
Mr. Singh, you seem to try to impress upon us that, at least upon me that it is only relevant if somehow, the DP members inside incited her to tell a lie, or there's something wrong, I agree. But I'm suggesting to you that actually that's not just the only scenario where a full disclosure is relevant. A full disclosure is relevant because the DP is inviting members of the Workers Party to come and make an assessment of her conduct and make a submission to the DP as to whether to expel Miss Kahn or to retain her as an MP. And in that context, in that context, the fact that Miss Kahn has come to the senior leadership of the Workers Party and confessed three months prior, and has worked with the CEC worked with the senior membership in leadership, including yourself on her personal statement, which you're approved. Surely that's relevant? No, it's all relevant. I'll tell you why for a member for judging member of the public or a judging member of the Workers Party to decide whether or not this is a person who should be retained as an MP or be expelled from the party. That's

Pritam Singh  1:31:20  
if you assume that the DPS role was to decide on expulsion or retention. But he didn't start the DPS didn't start with the conclusion in mind, we didn't prejudge the issue. Not at all.

Edwin Tong  1:31:34  
And you see you were told what I'm putting to you. You're not hearing for the first time you were told us by Miss Lowe. And Mr. Nothern. told what, let me show you. First of all, please pick up this bundle. Again. I know where you're going with this. I thought you would know where I'm going with this. Yeah, have a look. Okay. This is the screenshots? Yes. Go to the last page of that bundle, please. Yes. Okay. The second last message, there is a message of the 10th of November 9:56am.

Pritam Singh  1:32:14  
Just give me a second. Let's just confirm whether we're on the same. This is a message from whom it is

Edwin Tong  1:32:21  
i I'm told by Miss Lowe, that this was a message that was sent out on the 10th of November 10. Yes, that is correct. By the Workers Party and I'm not sure who was responsible for sending that out. But it was sent out to all members inviting them to provide their views to the DEP.

Pritam Singh  1:32:35  
I don't have communication. Yeah. Second last. ICT on the wrong bundle. I may be on the wrong Mundo.

Edwin Tong  1:32:44  
Okay, I'll get some of the Is this the one? I don't think I think that might be the one look at the second last message. Mr.

Pritam Singh  1:32:52  
Singh. Second last message we preterm just told

Edwin Tong  1:32:55  
no, no. The last page go to the last page. There's nothing on the last page. Can I see?

I've certainly for you.

Pritam Singh  1:33:21  
Okay, thank you. But there was no last pitch. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:33:25  
Okay. Now we are on the same page. Okay. 10 November, workers body sends out an invite to all members to provide their views to the DPW. That's right, it says 9:56am. Dear members, the DEP is looking into MP raesha cons admissions and invites members views. That is correct. If you wish to meet the panel, please email Nathaniel CO and so on so that arrangements can be made. Right. So it's a general invitation to come forward. Yes. You are inviting members to come forward to offer their view as to how they see the episode advice they would say should be done to miss Kahn. Right? Yes. Okay. Now, eventually, the DP will take into account those member's views when deciding on the appropriate sanction to recommend to the CCPs son, right, yes. Now, on the Do you recall being told by Miss Lowe after she got this message that the DP has to be transparent? Yes.

Pritam Singh  1:34:26  
She mentioned that on the 10th of December but at the end of November,

Edwin Tong  1:34:30  
yes, on the very day that this road, yes. I'd like you to have a look at that. series of messages. Yes, yes. Exactly what we are talking about. Please pick up this bundle. Again, the thick one.

Pritam Singh  1:34:45  
Yes. What page are we on?

Edwin Tong  1:34:52  
Yes, we are on page two to two

Yes. Also, I beg your pardon should be two to three. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay, so at this is an exchange of emails WhatsApps between yourself and me. So, on the 10th of November, she says, Hi, Pritam. I've tried to reserve my comments on the display panel so far. But I just saw the message that was sent out to everyone. This is the message that was sent out at 1050 9:56am. Better, right? No, the earlier message was 956. And her response an hour later is to you directly. And let me just show you what she says to you. I feel that it's plain as day to me and people involved in her apology that this is a little backwards peddling. Clearly the party didn't anticipate the backlash despite warnings, and it's trying to do something to quell people's anger. While I disagree with it, I can empathize with it. I don't think it is at all fair to let party members think that they have a say in this process. If this is done as a mock consultation exercise, then party members will be unhappy, their opinions weren't really considered. If it is not a mock exercise, then they will likely all ask raesha to resign when he do not have the full facts. I welcome the DEP to be transparent and share their involvement in their findings. Barring personal information, sorry, share their involvement in this comma, their findings, barring personal information so that the party can actually make an accurate decision. Yes, the law is long. Sorry, your response. I hear you p y. But I do think we need to get party members a platform to have their say on this important matter, rather than commiserate privately or between each other and believe that a party leadership decides things without considering the abuse. She says I get that. But the DP hasn't exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement. Yes. You didn't reply. Despite that. It will be good to hear people out. Yes, paying dances, but their opinions are not accurate, because they don't have the facts. Everyone is of the view that we can cut her loose and distance the party from her mistake. But if she's out of the party, she's still subjected to the GOP. And there's not much we can do to what she says and shares when he gets there. And then your response. They have the same facts as the public does. I'm not so sure everyone feels that she should be cut loose. Let me pause for a moment. You remember this? Yes. Paying used to be your essay or le Correct. For several years, she

Pritam Singh  1:37:33  
was my essay, I believe. In fact,

Edwin Tong  1:37:37  
you spoke about her in your inaugural election rally in 2011. Correct? Yes, I must have in glowing terms. Right. Well, it was 10 years ago. Would you like me to remind you of it?

Pritam Singh  1:37:48  
I think I know what it was.

Edwin Tong  1:37:49  
I think I know what is your inaugural speech in glowing terms? Right. You look, I didn't know who she was at that point. Exactly. But you made it a point to look for her because it wasn't until eventually she became your essay. Yes. You thought well of her? Yes.

Pritam Singh  1:38:02  
I made that earlier on. I made that point earlier in my in my

Edwin Tong  1:38:05  
evidence. She speaks her mind. Right. She speaks her mind. Yes. She's a codon member of the Workers Party. Yes. And one who is one of two was closely associated with and helping Miss Kahn in her work. Yes, that is correct. She's coming to you. One hour after we she receives this broadcast? To tell you a few things. One, please be transparent. Give the full facts. Share your involvement. Meaning your Muslims and Mr. Pfizer's involvement, yes. Why? Why didn't you do that?

Pritam Singh  1:38:43  
Well, as I mentioned earlier, as far as I was concerned, the DPS role was to look at Miss hands conduct. She lied in Parliament. She then takes the lie forward again on the third of October on the fourth of October, and that was the conduct we were looking at. We did not at any point, think. And I think there's a good reason why you come at it from a different direction, because you have sight of an SMS from rice to ping and Yudish saying that we want to take a light to the grave. I'm not sure whether paying is is referring to that knowledge? No, because we didn't have that knowledge. No. And let me answer the

Edwin Tong  1:39:25  
question saying Don't speculate. Okay, I don't I haven't suggested it. And neither does paying. No talk about

Pritam Singh  1:39:32  
that. We can be sure about that. We won't be sure about

Edwin Tong  1:39:35  
all, all she's saying. All she saying is that, look, the members of the DEP will involve themselves. It's only right that the members of the Workers Party, also be aware that you were involved so that they can make an informed decision. We

Pritam Singh  1:39:49  
were not involved in that. We didn't say any lies. We didn't tell any lies to Parliament. And we also were not involved in to this in the sense that we encouraged her to lie or to conceal the lie? Not at all. From that perspective, we saw ourselves as senior members of the party. It's an MP here, we will, we will look at the feedback how people feel about how members feel about an MP who lies in Parliament. And we will deal with it and make our recommendations to the CC who will decide what ought to be done. If there was never any consideration that we muzzling someone, are we doing something out of the ordinary? What do we know, by this point? On the 10th? It was quite clear where the party base I would say, we're leaning, and I think

Edwin Tong  1:40:39  
I don't need to get into that. I don't need to get there. All I'm interested in is in the process. It's your I didn't find the process to be unusual as you're doing right. But the process as Miss Lowe points out, is flawed. It's but again, we're not transparent. She says,

Pritam Singh  1:40:55  
No, I can't imagine she would say that, because I'm not sure whether she never had any point clarified with me whether we had told her to take the light to the grave. Is that the knowledge that she's referring

Edwin Tong  1:41:05  
to Mr. Singh, please, please don't ascribe to miss Lowe. No, I any knowledge? I mean, she's not

Pritam Singh  1:41:10  
she's talking about the knowledge the party, the party of its knowledge. Mr.

Edwin Tong  1:41:15  
What is she referring to Mr. Singh? She is not talking about that message that Miss Kahn has center. How do you know? She is not talking about it? You see here? Do you? Do you

Pritam Singh  1:41:27  
see a reference to the fact? Yes. So what is the knowledge that she is referring to? You seem to know what knowledge is referring to?

Edwin Tong  1:41:33  
No. Well, alright, if you want to be specific, we can take you to parts of her score submission to you at the DPS Well, she made the same points. Correct. She made the same points. Yes.

Pritam Singh  1:41:44  
So my question to you is why don't you pay any heat to this? Because I didn't see it as relevant. But you did. It would have been relevant if we indeed wanted her to lie and take to the grave. Let

Edwin Tong  1:41:57  
me stop you there. It was not relevant to you don't say anywhere here to paying that's not relevant.

Pritam Singh  1:42:04  
Mr. Tom, it is what it is. Of course, I don't say that. If I have a view. I've I've put the view out there

Edwin Tong  1:42:10  
as you so thank you. You didn't say that. Now. In fact, this is what you say. 10 of November 12 11:24am. Paying says, but the DEP hasn't exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement. Yes. Despite that, yes. You understand words, despite that,

Pritam Singh  1:42:29  
I made you you want to ask me what I meant by despite that is true. But no, no, that's not what I meant. That's nice. Right. But that's not what I meant. Mr. Singh.

Edwin Tong  1:42:38  
I think let's not play around with any language. Despite that, that means you accept what she says. And even then, it will be good to hear people suggesting

Pritam Singh  1:42:45  
on our WhatsApp chat, you double check what you write and read and send and then before you press the send button? Well, I think we all know what I think the context is quite clear. To me, I found it irrelevant. But that's why I say despite that, put that aside, that's what I meant

Edwin Tong  1:43:01  
to say means even though the Party hasn't told the DP hasn't told the party of his knowledge and involvement hasn't been transparent, and hasn't come clean, despite that is good

Pritam Singh  1:43:10  
knowledge that we knew she lied. That knowledge. She lied in Parliament. And this is what the DEP is set up for, to find out what ought to be the appropriate course of action that ought to be taken. That's my evidence.

Edwin Tong  1:43:32  
Mr. Chairman, shall we take a break now?

I am not finished. But Okay. Shall we take a break now? Is it okay, we

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:43:42  
can take a break. Shall we adjourn, so that we all can take, it's been a long day? I think there still be a long many more hours. I'm happy to I'm looking forward to it. So let's adjourn. Let's take an hour's breaks we can get our thoughts as well. Come back at 6pm Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.