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

Addendum: For some reason the original got deleted and a new version was uploaded.

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

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

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

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:00  
There we had your lunch okay, we we can we can? Yeah. Would you like to finish? I'm fine. Okay. But if we may resume, Mr.

Edwin Tong  0:39  
Thank you, Mr. Singh. So before we had the break, we were at the occasion on the third of October 3 and fourth of October, that period, just to refresh you. And I had asked you, well, Mr. Chairman, asked his use of questions. But prior to that, I had asked you about whether you would have told the SEC in advance and whether they would have seen a draft and so on. So just to round up that portion of the evidence. By the fourth of October, the CC had not been told that Muskaan might make a clarification in Parliament to tell the truth, which means explain that she had lied in Parliament, correct? That is correct. And that there was no draft of her statement prepared prior to that date, correct. Now, the we heard the words that you used on the third of October, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I think it's on it's on the record. And I asked you whether you followed up with something clear in writing, and the answer was no. Right. That is correct. Can you answer this question? Did you tell Mrs. Kahn directly to tell the truth in Parliament? or words to that effect?

Pritam Singh  1:55  
or words to that effect? Yes,

Edwin Tong  1:57  
I did. And tell me what those words the effect. The words to that effect were.

Pritam Singh  2:02  
If this issue comes up in Parliament, you have to take responsibility and take ownership of this matter. Okay, and you have to tell the truth. Did you say that? I don't believe I said you, you have to tell the truth. But that's what I meant when I told her you have to take

Edwin Tong  2:16  
so you did not say to her that you have to tell the truth? No, I did not. Now can I ask you this? So I understand the timeline through third to seventh August, you were still trying to understand whether or not the allegations could be substantiated. You pressed Miss Kahn? Yes, right. Seven, she spoke to you. And you knew that there was a falsehood. She confessed to you? She confessed? Yes. On the eighth of August, there was a meeting, which we'll get to where? Three of you with your cell with Miss Lim and Mr. Faisal. That's right. Met with Miss Kahn. That's right. And that's at your home. That's my hope. And between the eighth of August, and the first of October, which was your email to workers, party members, or Workers Party MPs? I beg your pardon? Yes. On the first of October, there was no interaction with Miss Kahn on this issue. No, there was not. Was there any interaction with Miss Khan's family? On this issue in this period? I ascertained let me finish to ascertain if they had become aware of the issue, so that Miss Kahn could then proceed to clarify the matter in Parliament. I know that was not. And the first occasion thereafter would have been the first of October email. That means the first occasion after the eighth of August would have been the first of October email.

Pritam Singh  3:51  
The first of October email was a general email to all the

Edwin Tong  3:55  
MPC. Okay, and I think you said you wanted to produce a copy of that. So could Yes, I will be happy to produce that into evidence. And after the first of October, there was a third of October meeting at her home, which we spend some time on earlier. That is correct. Okay. And that's when you said you told her to take ownership and responsibility, but did not tell her to speak the truth in those words, that is correct. Okay. Now, would you accept that

it is important on Well, let me rephrase that. It is important to how we look at characterize and assess the facts for there to be complete disclosure so that everyone is on the same page.

Pritam Singh  4:44  
I I think it's very hard to disagree with that. Yes,

Edwin Tong  4:50  
right. Now.

Can I ask you to Look at your press conference, the transcripts again. I don't think I handed off a copy to you earlier.

Pritam Singh  5:12  
Maybe pretended to then we thank you.

Edwin Tong  5:19  
Now, Mr. Singh? Yes. So we agreed earlier that there were two parts to it. I mean, the first is your prepared speech, which you then delivered, and then you open it up to the floor with or other before that Muslim, I think spoke in Mandarin. And then you open it up to the floor. Yes, there were several questions. Now, in your prepared speech, actually, in both your prepared speech, as well as in the questions that you feel that thereafter, you did not say that you had told Mrs. Khan on the third of October, when you went to her home, to tell her to take responsibility and ownership.

Pritam Singh  5:55  
Alright, don't believe I told we're gonna have a look. I'll take your word for it. I don't recall putting that in. That's right.

Edwin Tong  6:03  
And there's also nothing in here, which refers to that occasion on the third of October and outlines your expectation on that day, that issue was likely to arise or might arise the next day. Right. Right.

Pritam Singh  6:17  
If we follow that, right. Okay.

Edwin Tong  6:20  
And there's also no reference here to the message that you conveyed to miss Kahn, on that day, culminating in I won't judge, you know, that's right, right. Can you offer a reason as to why that is, so when that would have been one of the key events between when the lie was first set in Parliament on the third of October, and the fourth of October, which was the next occasion which this issue came up in Parliament and when she repeated the line, but I see I beg your pardon, let me rephrase that it would have been a key event between the third of August right when the lie was first set in Parliament, and the fourth of October when the lie was then repeated again, right, this time around several times. And my point to you is the third of October event, was the one event in this timeline, which is the most significant and has the most nexus to the issue that we are talking about, that this press conference was to address.

Pritam Singh  7:23  
The press conference concerned that Miss Reiser can't resignation and the circumstances around it, and I didn't feel the need to put that in, because it would put me in a very negative light.

Edwin Tong  7:34  
But here was the press asking, well, of which at least these two were the most germane. First, what did the Workers Party senior leadership? Know? Right? And when a new right, which will answer probably a third, which is what ended they do? Right, right. Right. And I think what then did it do? The third of October meeting would figure very prominently, under the heading, what then did they do, right? Because this would, this would disclose that the Workers Party had contemplated, or at least you had contemplated that it might arise, and on a third of October, put in a very strong message to miss Kahn that she was to clarify the lie, right. There was no

Pritam Singh  8:21  
untoward reason to exclude it. In my judgment, I figured that if I had put that if that was in, it would unnecessarily put mascara under even more pressure than she was already under, as it is she had admitted to lying, and then to be told that your SG also visited you at your house to tell you to take responsibility. I think it would have been very, very negative on her. But that was the only reason there was no other reason to conceal it. If you're suggesting that.

Edwin Tong  8:51  
Can I just ask you if you put forward a suggestion to you that you were concerned with putting in this incident? Because if you did, you would then have to explain what you told Miss Kahn. And what you told me, Scott, let me put our proposition to disagree. Okay. So let me start again, you were concerned with revealing this incident? Because if you did, you would have to also address a follow up question, which would be what Then did you tell Miss Kahn? And your concern? Was that what you told Miss Kahn could come across as being equivocal and not clear enough that it was made clear to her that she would have to tell the truth. The next time she was in Parliament? Would you agree? I disagree. Because in the entire timeline of what Workers Party did, following its of this lie. The third of October meeting stands out as being the only occasion when you went to see Miss Kahn, after you became aware. And you went to see Miss Kahn for at least one of the specific purpose reasons was to contemplate that he might arise the next day. Correct? Correct. So wouldn't you agree that that's a relevant point to put out into the public domain?

Pritam Singh  10:25  
I disagree. For the reason I have already put on record, I didn't find it necessary to further expose Miss Reisa to more attention or attention to the extent that people be saying your SGA also went so far as to visit you to tell you to take responsibility and ownership. That was the only reason why it's no other reason. But you see, Miss Carter, it wasn't included in the in the Press Club.

Edwin Tong  10:54  
What did you see? For what was the reason, the press? But would you accept the suggestion that if you had put it out, Miss Kahn, who we now know, has taken a very different view and interpretation of that meeting? My dad say this never happened.

Pritam Singh  11:13  
That was that did not cross my mind at all. There was no reason for me to consider that even.

Edwin Tong  11:20  
Okay. Now, early on, we talked about Mr. Nothern, and Miss Lowe. And you asked, well, you know, did they come forward? Did they make a view known and so on? I'd like to explore that line. But before that, I'd like to show you some messages that went on between them. You are not party to those. Okay, I'm just sharing with you. And you may be seeing this for the first time. Right. But this was in the relevance of this, which I would like to explain to you is because you on the 12th of October did meet with Mr. Lowe and Mr. Nava. And you did relate to them? What you told Miss Kahn on the third of October, yes, right. So to that extent, to that extent, the evidence that Miss Lowe and Mr. Navin gave about what you told them, and how you put it across, was relevant to the CRP and we receive that evidence. And we asked some questions as well. And I'd like to put it to you based on the messages and what they've said to show committee. So I'd like to start Mr. Singh with this large bundle here. This is the bundle from Miss Lowe.

Could I ask you please, Mr. Singh to turn to page 163?

Pritam Singh  12:55  
Sorry, 1633.

Edwin Tong  13:00  
Just a given orientation of this bundle? Yes. A download of the WhatsApp messages. Right, that took place in a chat group between Mr. Northern Miss Lowe and Miss Kahn. Okay. And the parts that are redacted in black, were redacted by Miss Lowe when she furnished it to us.

Pritam Singh  13:21  
Okay, without your sight of what was redacted.

Edwin Tong  13:25  
One or more of the staff from the Parliament may have seen what it is and agreed with the reduction, but I'm not privy to that. Okay, I have not seen it. And I'm telling you that this is not redacted. Because we don't want you to understand because I, myself, I'm not making this admission. I wanted to explain that to you so that you know why there are portions which have been blacked out. Okay. Now, I will show you a number of pages from this hope you bear with me because they give you the full context of where I'm coming to and like to explain to you that I will be asking you some questions on their view, or what you told them about what you said to miss Kahn on the third of October, I understand. Okay. So can you please start with 163 Some of this is a bit of banter, and I will just skip over. Okay. So beginning at third of November, you see the timing? Yes, I do. 3:34pm Yes. We've got an insight to how they plan this, etc. And asking you to resign now is really quite a betrayal. And completely reactionary. However important is to preserve WPS image. If they really play you out. I will be quite shaken. But hopefully they don't. Silvia patted me and said All will be well, that summer Asia. So this is in the aftermath of the announcement of the disagree panel on the second of November. Right. So that was November. Yeah. Now this is the third. Yeah. So I want to start with that to give you the context of what they were discussing. So you can just quickly cast your eye over the next couple of pages, right. And I'll just highlight a few to you. Okay, If you go to page 166 and 167, you will see that talking about the display panel at 167.

Pritam Singh  15:13  
Were on 167. Sorry, 13. That's I see a lot of it is redacted.

Edwin Tong  15:18  
During the DEP meeting, preta mentioned that if I don't have the support of my immediate teammates, there is no point in me continuing. Raisa then goes on to say I haven't spoken to rule. But we know how she feels about me. And James is not sure if I should continue. I haven't spoken to Lewis about it. Yes. So, again, for context, by this time, Miss Kahn had met with the DP on the eighth of November. Yes. And one of the issues raised was whether she would have the support of her Sengkang GRC. Teammates.

Pritam Singh  15:51  
I have notes on this. I think very briefly, it would have come up.

Edwin Tong  15:55  
Yes, yes. And her understanding at least was that she would have to she was asked to consult with the other teammates to check if they were comfortable with her continuing.

Pritam Singh  16:05  
This did happen. But I have to double check on the dates when that representation was made to her because it was made more strongly on the 29th when she requested to see the DP for the time, at least

Edwin Tong  16:18  
based on this as on 13. November in ratios mine in miscounts. Mine, she was required to do this. And she has been speaking to Jamis. And she hasn't spoken to tingle, or Lewis to inquire

Pritam Singh  16:30  
whether she has the support. Okay. Yeah, that's what it says.

Edwin Tong  16:34  
Over the next page at 168. yudishe is l 10:40am. says I'm wondering it's a cc going to expel you I don't get the sense that you're about to do that. Even though I know they're all we're all a bit afraid of that. So the other three opinions don't really matter now. And then it goes a few lines down at 1044. So by saying this, what does predominantly to do resign? I think he does. Rachel says yudishe Yes. And he gets off scot free. Because right now people don't know that he knew it was a lie. When he told that to Shanmugam, I think the he actually refers to miss Kahn. And my understanding is that even if you are no longer MP, you still have to go through the committee of privileges, where they asked you about what the leaders knew. And when you could damage Britain's reputation if you reveal the truth. Russia says I wouldn't do that. Yudish this, what I'm saying is it's not about what you would or wouldn't do at that stage. But Pritam needs to be accountable to public also. Yes, if he throws you under the bus, don't forget PNS, which I think is predominant. Silvia literally told you your political career wouldn't end by coming clean. Russia and says they did tell me that. And that's why I was shocked by Peace behavior at the panel. Think P refers to you, the pros would refer the media's I don't know if I can trust them anymore and remain as an MP if the SKA team is against it. Which I take as a reference to her being asked to check if they have she has their support.

Pritam Singh  18:04  
it

Edwin Tong  18:06  
possibly could be okay. Then you cast your eye over the rest of the page, talking about what to CC and when they might vote yes. And so on at the bottom paying dances because am I allowed to talk to any of them, including Pritam? Because it would mean that I would have to share some degree of info you shared with me. Rachel says what information though, over the page, like Pritam, saying your team doesn't support you. Rachel says that's a good idea. But I don't think they will agree I can just talk to pretend paying says But Rachel says at 1012 or nine but meeting the other three MPs would be a good idea. So they were talking about the DP what happened happening from the DP?

Pritam Singh  18:51  
Yes, this is on the 13th of November last

Edwin Tong  18:53  
November. Now the rest of the next three or four pages are either redacted or they're referring to a speech made by a previous MP Mr. Su. So that's not relevant. For my purposes, I'll ask you to pick it up again from page 179. Yes, so this time around is 18th of November, says Hey, guys, some parts are redacted. Why would someone do this? So I'm not really sure why these are redacted. But if you go over the page I'm not sure what they're discussing. But at 340 There's a question by ratio. I wonder if Pritam is entertaining this? Sorry.

Pritam Singh  19:38  
I beg your pardon, Mr. 20 0180? Okay.

Edwin Tong  19:44  
3:40pm 3:40pm Okay, I'm the one that is entertaining this. Yes. But there's a whole reduction so we don't know what it is. Yes. Then at 3:47pm. You recess I think Pritam knows he has some guilt in all this too, in terms of his knowledge of the truth by Shanmugam sitting, and subsequent silence. I know the panel's meeting members as late as fourth December. I'm not sure until when though, I really hope it doesn't drag HSS and then over the page, parts of it are redacted. And we can't really make sense of 182. But it appears that it's talking about chats from some other media material. Yes. And then at 1.3, a screenshot of a discussion is posted by Raeesah is a discussion that she had with you on text. And the date at this point in time is 22nd of November. 

Pritam Singh 20:36
Right. 

Edwin Tong
Question by you, Mr. Singh? Will Have you managed to speak to your teammates, answer rule will not meet. And I'm speaking to Louis tomorrow. You then asked her? Do you wish to speak to me about anything? She didn't reply to you and says, I would like to be in the panel one more time before you come to a decision. I think the last time we met, I was not prepared for the things you had to say. But I've been thinking about it. And I'd like to be open and honest about the challenges I faced and also how I feel I've succeeded. It would be great if I could have the opportunity to do so. 

Pritam Singh 21:09
This was to me. Yes. Yes. To you. Yes. Right. 

Edwin Tong 21:11
And over the page, you see another screenshot. You reply to her and said this not prepared for the things you had to say is unfortunately, not becoming of an MP Russia, because you can't make statements then wish to change your perspective or add something new. The DP session was a very formal meeting, please email the three of us on the DEP and request for a hearing. And then she says she will send an email. So she sends this exchange to Mr. Nava and Miss Lowe. I don't know about that. But yes, you didn't know about this at a time, but she sent it to Northern yellow. And then they have a discussion on that. And they go on to say this at 7:40pm. I'm trying to be honest, but I really feel that everything gets twisted. yudishe says I think your messages were good. Not becoming of an MP. He and his blanked out there. I think he means you missing reference to the earlier messages, sat there and didn't say anything when you spoke to Shanmugam. How's that for not becoming of an MP, let alone a party leader? Sure. I see them. Paying dances. Wow. preta missa. And it's blanked out. I felt angry reading that. Don't worry, yudishe. And I'm going to give him a piece of our minds on Thursday. I think she has in mind a meeting she set up with the display panel on Thursday.

Pritam Singh  22:29  
That would be the I think we saw them on the 25th. But I can I can check. I can confirm that. It's okay. Just a few more lines. No, no, go ahead.

Edwin Tong  22:39  
8:35am sorry, guys are so angry, I had to switch my phone off. Anyways, this was the rest of the Convo and then she sends you she sends another screenshot where your reply to her was there raesha hope we can see that it is precisely your character and behavior that is under review here. In view of actions in Parliament and your decision to stick to the untruthful anecdote when asked again in October. Anyway, better to speak in person to the DP. There's another screenshot over the page at 187. And I'd like you to now focus on the next two pages. Because this is when they speak about what you told them in October, which was the first of my question. Okay. Russia says at 8:36am. I was shocked by his reply about October. Then she has an emoji. Paying says I am too but don't worry, I'm ready to tell him we know. Your decision. This is your dish. Your decision to stick to the untruthful anecdote when asked again in October, right. What happened to I won't judge you. I see. And we know cause he literally told us in his house, that that's what he said. Paying says yes. Yeah, I'm ready to say this to Him on Thursday. yudishe says I think Faisal and Sylvia should know this. Right, right. Now, I know you're not privy to this account. Sure. As I explained earlier, the reason I'm using this as a premise is because you did speak to Mr. Northern and Miss Lowe. And you did recount what you said to miss Kahn to them. Briefly. Yes, I did. Yes. Would you accept that? At least based on these messages? Their takeaway from your account was that you will not judge Miss Kahn, whichever way she decides. I can see my later position I pick up on I can see why they concluded that way. But again, there was also I made it quite clear to them.

Pritam Singh  24:45  
This was when I met them on the 12th to request they requested to see me at my house at night. And we had that conversation and I made it quite clear that she was she had this choice that she she ought to have made Because I had told her to take responsibility and ownership. And I also told them that, you know, I also said, I will not judge you. And to me that was my way of communicating to them that Reiser would have been quite clear in her mind that she had to tell the

Edwin Tong  25:14  
truth. Yes, you would have told them or at least you would have account recounted the incident to them about your meeting with Russia? Because I do on the third of October, sorry. Right. And the impression that they're left with was that it was for Russia to decide what to do. And you won't judge her.

Pritam Singh  25:38  
It appears from this messages that that would be a reasonable conclusion to make. Yes. And

Edwin Tong  25:43  
that's not the same as being very clear, as you said earlier, that on the third of October, you left her under no doubt that she was to tell the truth. He lost on the fourth of October, correct,

Pritam Singh  25:56  
right. But I did not narrate the entire episode index to the way that I had spoken to miss rice on the third of October. But I did make it clear to them that I told her to take ownership and responsibility. And for me, saying I won't judge you was precisely the opportunity for Eisah to take responsibility and ownership, Miss Lewin yudishe. They are not wrong when they when they say I won't judge you because I did say that. Yes, you did. And my reason for saying that was to impress upon them that she's a leader. She's a leader in her own right. She had that choice.

Edwin Tong  26:30  
Yes. And the choice was an equivocal one, right.

Pritam Singh  26:36  
Now, what do you mean by equivocal that means?

Edwin Tong  26:40  
Take responsibility, you could decide your fate, decide whether to tell the truth or not?

Pritam Singh  26:47  
No, I wouldn't put it that way. I think it was quite clear from my communication to Miss Khan, that she had to take ownership and responsibility.

Edwin Tong  26:54  
But would you accept that, at least based on this chat, the way in which you narrated the incident to both Mr. Nathan and Miss Loh, left them with the impression, right, that there was a choice given to Miss Khan?

Pritam Singh  27:07  
I think they had a, they had a skewed impression. But I think it could be because that they are very protective of her. But it's speculative on my part, let me just say that. Okay. But I would have I did communicate to them that this was something that she had to take ownership for, yes, that I said that too. So So this, again, is is just a fragment, but I can understand it's on the SMS, I won't judge

Edwin Tong  27:29  
I have taken some care to read you the longer extract because it shows you the state of mind that they felt that you were being harsher on Miss Khan than necessary. And that you should also speak to your own knowledge, right of the matter, which is the reference that Mr. Nathan and Miss Loh made, right?

Pritam Singh  27:51  
Yes. But it has to be said that this was not communicated to me by them at any point. And I would have expected them to communicate with me. And because let me say something about the both of them. They're very decent people. They're good people. And they've worked very hard for the party. But at the minimum, I would have expected them to at least say, Pritam, we've got a message from Raeesah saying that you want to take a lie. You've instructed her to take a lie to the grave. They had, there were numerous opportunities to raise this with me. But I don't know why it didn't come up. I mean, only speculate, but-

Edwin Tong  28:27  
They did raise with you. What is the thrust of these messages? Which is that you, you knew more than you were letting on? They say, great. And you sat there while Raeesah was answering Minister Shanmugam. And you must accept responsibility for that as well. 

Pritam Singh
That's certainly their view

Edwin Tong
So these points they did make to you correct when they met with the DP on the 25th of it? Yes, they did. And they made it quite strongly, isn't it?

Pritam Singh  28:55  
I would suggest that it was as strong as the other points they were making, because I think they were of the view. Because initially, when the DP was formed, I informed them that the DP was going to be set up. And they were not against it. In fact, yudishe thought it was a good thing to do, because party members and volunteers would be quelled by it. I can forward the relevant evidence in WhatsApp between me and yudishe. And paying also likewise alluded to it being the right thing to do. Yes. So I can again, also for that communication. It's only I that I think the issue turns when they realize that the party are completely dead set against her. Either resigning, or the party expelling her and then they understand. Wait a minute, I think

Edwin Tong  29:45  
when they realize that a party is dead set against her either resigning or expanding by

Pritam Singh  29:49  
party, I beg your pardon. I mean, party members, other party members, they cannot accept this.

Edwin Tong  29:54  
Okay. I understand what you're saying and we'll get to the point that they made to you on the 25th of May But for the moment, I'm focused on the conversation on the third. And what's interesting to me. And the reason I'm bringing it up to you is because now we are on the 12th. And you're recounting an incident that happened on the third on the third. Right? And we've gone through that in some details before the break, what happened on the third? What happened on the fourth? Your reaction? What happened on the fourth night, and so on? Okay, I won't recount that. But this conversation on this 12, with Miss Lowe, and Mr. Nothern gives us a different dimension. And it gives us a different dimension, because although you are now recounting what you told Miss Kahn on the third, you now know by the 12th, what she didn't do on the fourth. So if you are giving an account to miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern on the top, would it be natural for you to say? I said these words, they were actually very clear instructions to her to come clean. Tell the truth. Take ownership and responsibility. Clarify the lie. But she failed to do so. You didn't say this to them? Right?

Pritam Singh  31:10  
Look, I don't remember exactly how I phrased the the conversation I had with Raeesah Khan on the third of October with Miss Loh and Yudhishthra. But it was very clearly communicated to them that Raeesah Khan was put on notice the issue may come up, she would have to take responsibility and ownership. And I, I think I impressed enough to Yudhishthra and Peiying that it was her choice as a leader to tell the truth. No, but I do apologize. I don't remember exactly how I phrased that

Edwin Tong  31:42 
And I'm suggesting that you did you did not say to them, or leave them with an impression that you had been very clear with Miss Khan on the third of October, and that she acted contrary to the understanding on the third of October

Pritam Singh
That is possible. 

Edwin Tong
You didn't say that to them right?

Pritam Singh

Didn't say that?

Edwin Tong
You didn't, uou didn't give this account, right, to Miss Loh and Mr. Nathan. And when you report this occasion to them on a 12 October thing,

Pritam Singh  32:10  
I sufficiently communicated the detail that it was something that Miss Khan had to take ownership and responsibility for

Edwin Tong  32:17  
because if that was how they saw it, and they heard from you. That's what they would have been discussing amongst themselves. That actually, on the 12th of October, we were told by Mr. Singh, that he had made it very clear to Miss Khan. That she would come clean, but she failed to do so

Pritam Singh  32:34  
I, I can't comment on this three way chat between Raeesah, Yudhishthra and Peiying, what they communicate between each other. But I am quite clear when I spoke to Yudhishthra and Peiying, to inform them that Raeesah Khan, I met her on the third, she had an opportunity to take ownership and responsibility for the lie that she had, and that she had said, and I, when I said I won't judge you, I mean, I, that ought to be an incentive for you just to speak the truth. 

Edwin Tong
No

Pritam Singh
That's what I that's what I'm sharing

Edwin Tong  33:06  
Don't juxtapose what your, what you're interpreting from your own words and what it should convey. Just tell us clearly what it is that you told

Pritam Singh  33:16  
me. That's what I would have told them. I think I've really had it on right. That's what I that's what I told them. I said, Look, I met her. She was told to take ownership and responsibility. She had a clear choice. And this is what she decided to do. And I also I did tell them that I will not judge you. But that is really to make Reiser understand that. She should just come on and tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  33:42  
Okay, can you please look at the transcripts again?

Pritam Singh
Sure. 

Edwin Tong
On the second of December

Pritam Singh  33:48  
Which page are we on?

Edwin Tong  33:50  
I will get to it in a moment. And you'll find it okay, please turn to second of December page 23.

Pritam Singh  34:02  
Thank you. 23. Yes,

Edwin Tong  34:12  
Okay. So Miss Loh is answering some questions from me. If you look at the bottom 1/3 of the page, it starts with, this is information. Do you see that? 

Pritam Singh
Yes, I do. 

Edwin Tong
This is information that I have that, that I have that was shared with me after fourth October? Yes. I believe she met Mr. Pritam Singh the day before, the day before fourth October. That's right. All right. Can you describe the gist of the discussion? Okay. I can't recall if she's the one to tell that she didn't write. Yes,

Pritam Singh  34:40  
I can't. That's the whole line. Okay. She

Edwin Tong  34:42  
didn't Yeah. Okay. She didn't I can't recall if she's the one to tell me this. But definitely I know, in a subsequent meeting that I had with Mr. Pritam Singh in person at his place that he shared with me. He had met her the day before, and he had told her that he has a feeling this might come up I don't know the full details of what he said to her, but he shared with me that he said, I will not judge you for this phenomena. I know you are fixated with the words she didn't. But actually the entire paragraph-

Pritam Singh  35:12  
I'm not fixated on those words. I'm fixated on the other words is Don't interrupt me. Yes, go ahead.

Edwin Tong  35:16  
I'm I think, you know, that the premise of my question was that this conversation that you had with Miss Loh and Mr. Nathan, not with, they didn't hear from Miss Khan. Right. Yes, that's correct. That is correct. And that's important for me, because they are now hearing from you. Right, right. Thank you. Let me go on, he shared with you and and said I will not judge you, to you, to Miss Khan. To Miss Khan. I'll come to this in a moment. But let's focus on your knowledge. Prior to fourth October, there was a meeting between Miss Khan and Mr Singh. Yes. Let's focus on it. Because you're saying there's a subsequent occasion where he had direct knowledge, because you had Mr. Singh's house, discussing the issue. I'd like you to cast your eye over the next few lines. We are trying to fix what occasion it was. I'll give you some time.

Pritam Singh  36:07  
Sorry. Could you say that again? Okay, let's focus on it. Because we it yourself. Next few lights, you're saying there's a subsequent occasion?

Edwin Tong  36:19  
Okay, and end off with her answer where it says I don't know if they discussed and what response she should give. As I said, it was relayed to me that they had a conversation. And that conversation was at he had a feeling that she will be pressed about this issue again. And his response was that he would not judge Miss raesha Khan. Yes. Now, this is her account to us. Right and use he know that they are.

Pritam Singh  36:46
But whether she's referring to discussion she had with Miss Khan, or referring to our meeting on the 12th of, she isn't clear.

Edwin Tong  36:52  
She's referring to you conveying this to her? Yeah. Right? Because if you look at the preceding lines. In fact, she says she didn't meaning misconduct in a subsequent meeting that I had with Mr. Pritam Singh in person, and so this is the occasion she's referring to. And this is a meeting that took place at your home on the 12th of October. Now, Mr. Singh, my question is this. Yes, go ahead. If she left with the impression 

Pritam Singh
Who left?

Edwin Tong
If Miss Loh left with the impression after meeting with you on the 12th of October, that you had, in fact, made it very clear to Miss Khan that she should tell the truth. But that on a very next day, she failed to do so. That would be something she would recollect and take away from the meeting, if you had made that clear to her agree she should have. And so the fact that she did not suggest to me that you did not say this to her, I disagree. And the fact and the reason you did not say that to her is because that didn't happen. No, I disagree completely. And you did not say to miss Lowe, that I had made clear to miss Kahn on the third. But she did not follow through my instructions on the fourth. That would you did not say that to her. Yes, that would be true, not in those terms. And you did not give her any impression whether those words are in any other similar words, that that was what happened. Correct. Disagree. And the reason you didn't do that is because in truth, what happened on a fourth of October was not a breach of your instructions or an understanding, which on the third of October correctly disagree. And that's why in a conversation about the conversation, in other words, on the 12th, about the third, there's just no mention anywhere by either Mr. Nathan or Miss Loh, about the fact that Miss Khan had breached your instructions, correct

Pritam Singh  39:00  
In so far as the communication that I follow the WhatsApp messages I'm seeing in this text that I'm seeing that does seem to be the case. But insofar as what I communicated to just another end, Miss Lowe, I've made it quite clear that this was an issue that she had to take ownership and responsibility first

Edwin Tong  39:20  
another and Miss Lowe were perhaps the two closest party members to miss Kahn. That's right. And you would also know that they were closely discussing and advising Miss Kahn on this issue of the lie in Parliament. I do not know that for a fact. You knew that by the time you met with them. By that time. Yes, yes. And the first time we met with them, and I'll take you to the specific references was on the 10th of August. Yes. Okay,

Pritam Singh  39:45  
wait 10th of August.

Edwin Tong  39:52  
You can put it down on your note paper and think about and I'll come back to it. But that was the first time we met with them. And on their evidence. It was clear First time I met with them about what about first time we met with them after Miss Kahn had told you about the lie? I'll have to check that out. Okay, you can you can put it on as a mock, I've put it on. But the point I'm making to you is that you are now narrating to them, the two closest associates of Miss Kahn about an incident that has obviously given rise to some concepts. Let's not argue about that there's at least some concern, if not more. And the most significant occasion or incident in your mind, must have been the breach of instruction by Miss Kahn on the fourth of October. And so in that context, Mr. Singh, it's inconceivable that in now telling the story and narrating what happened and what you said on the third of October, you wouldn't also have included that. And then on the next day, Miss Kahn did not follow those instructions. Correct.

Pritam Singh  41:13  
Again, this comes in, I have to disagree, because there's a very precise scoping of what was said from your question. I did inform Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern that I met Miss Kahn on the third of October. I told her to take ownership and responsibility for the issue. And I told her I will not judge and I told Miss Kahn, I will not judge you. And it was quite clear that it was made clear to her that she had to tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  41:46  
Yes. So take ownership and responsibility we agreed earlier means tell the truth. Right? Yes. So it's very clear. By the time you met with Mrs. Lowe and Mr. Nathan. On October, right, that she didn't do that, despite your instruction. Oh, that's true, of course, that you she didn't take ownership and responsibility. No, she didn't tell the truth. That's right. So it strikes me as odd that in narrating this incident to the two persons most closely associated with Miss Kahn that you would not include this in your narrative. If that really happened include what sorry, include the fact that you made it very clear that she was to come clean? I wouldn't she failed to do so in breach of your instructions.

Pritam Singh  42:28  
No, I I would have I lamented that, but in so far as putting it in those acute terms? I don't believe I did. But I certainly communicated to the both of them that I met her to expecting that she would come clean.

Edwin Tong  42:43  
We already see Miss Lowe's evidence. She didn't say that we have seen the internal chats throughout. We don't say that. Yes. And and I'll show you Mr. northerns. Evidence, could you please pick up third of December? Thank you and then to page 33.

So if you look at about 1/3 from the bottom, Mr. Nothern says essentially, okay, so essentially the first time was on 10 August. And at that meeting with Miss Lowe. The second time we discuss it was on 12 October. Now, just pause for a moment. I asked you to please look a few lines above. Okay. My question to which Mr. Nadler was giving an answer was if I understand your evidence correctly, between eight August and to 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. Manoj and Miss limb, as far as I know know, as far as you were involved, this time is Mr. Nothern. This occasion we've just gone through on 10th August was the only occasion where you had occasion to discuss with Mr. Singh or anyone else in the Workers Party senior leadership about this issue. No, that's not true because an asset Okay, tell me. Okay, so essentially the first time was on 10th August, at the meeting with Miss Lowe the second time the next time we discuss it on 12 October. So this answers the earlier point that you did meet with them and discuss the issue on the 10th of August. I don't does this jog your memory? No.

Pritam Singh  44:36  
I know it does not because we did not discuss the issue in any detail on the 10th of August. Not to my memory because that the matter of what Miss Kahn had said in Parliament In my memory, no, I don't believe it had come up. I don't recall it coming up on the 10th of August. Internally, I'm trying to remember where

Edwin Tong  45:10  
you keep this page open and see what it has helped you in some other way. Can

Pritam Singh  45:13  
I also check my whatsapp chats whether there was actually a meeting on the 10th of August? Of course, of course you okay, because I can

Edwin Tong  45:21  
do that. But let me show you the chats between Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern, and Miss Kahn, and maybe that might jog your memory. So if you can leave that transcript open, because I'm not done yet. Pick up the thick bundle again.

Pritam Singh  45:37  
Sorry, I think this one is

Edwin Tong  45:41  
and turn to page 36. Yes, okay. Now, look around the middle of the page 10th of August 8:23am.

Pritam Singh  45:53  
Okay, I think I'm on the wrong. Cold. These are the messages. Okay.

Edwin Tong  46:00  
PAGE 36. Sorry, page 36. Yes. Okay. Paying says 8:23pm. Have you decided if you want us to tell Pritam? We are meeting him in 30 minutes. raesha. I told him already. She then says so I think it wouldn't matter if you brought it up. Just to pause for a moment. I told him already refers to ally.

Pritam Singh  46:28  
Paying right sizing?

Edwin Tong  46:29  
Yes. Okay, what was his reaction light? answer sheet. He looks at me different now. But I think he empathizes on why I like paying Okay. Ratio. I think it was the best outcome. I couldn't expect it given what happened. I'm just thankful he didn't question it or didn't believe or didn't believe me. Further down at 11:11am right here, Ray yudishe. And I spoke a lot to Pritam Conroe wasn't about you. And it wasn't really about something was really about something else.

Pritam Singh  46:59  
This is she she doesn't say what the conversation was about.

Edwin Tong  47:02  
She redacted it. But we did discuss what happened this week, a little. We shared our thoughts with him on a lot of matters and hopefully it registers. Okay. So does this help you to remember that there was a meeting?

Pritam Singh  47:15  
I think it's helpful to the extent that we we were meeting on a different issue altogether. The issue wasn't to discuss the rice I episode, but it did come up according to Well, according to them, but I don't recall anything significant that was shared at this meeting

Edwin Tong  47:32  
about I will show you this meeting is pleased to let me not digress from my No, no, please don't approach which is 12. October. Okay, so going back to where I left off with the transcripts.

Pritam Singh  47:43  
This is Mr. northerns. Guest.

Edwin Tong  47:45  
So cast your eye over the bottom 1/3 of that page. Yes. So we start to talk about 12 October.

Pritam Singh  47:51  
I do apologize, Mr. Don page 3332 33. Yes.

Edwin Tong  47:55  
Okay. At the bottom. Okay. Based on what you found out on 12. October, on third October Mr. Singh were to visit Miss Canada house and home, right? Yes. Were you aware what they discussed? Answer only insofar as Mr. Singh had related to us, us meaning Miss Lowe and I at his residence on 12. October, then you cast your eye over the next few lines. I won't read it to you. But you will see that I put to Mr. Nothern misconduct recollection of what happened and asked him whether there was what he remembered you telling him?

Pritam Singh  48:34  
We this is where you say and he discusses and did he discuss with you maybe it's best I show you miss Khan's recollection? And then I asked you whether it comports with what you discussed with Mr. Singh, so I don't put words into her mouth. Okay. What do you want me to make up this?

Edwin Tong  48:52  
No, have you read it until the middle of the pitch? Oh, okay.

Pritam Singh  48:55  
Okay. Yes, he agrees with Miss Khan's rendition that there was a narrative to be retained, and that if I continue the narrative, there would be no judgment. That's completely untrue.

Edwin Tong  49:31  
So looking at the series of WhatsApp messages, I showed you miss Lowe's evidence, Mr. Dobbins evidence in totality, right. It does not convey any impression that on the third of October, you had put in clear terms, unequivocal terms to miss Kahn that she was to clarify the lie in Parliament.

Pritam Singh  49:57  
Do you agree to the extent that these People remember? Yes, yes. But it's I think they're they're basing their views on what Miss Carr has told them it would appear at least Mr. laziness

Edwin Tong  50:09  
and others case. But in this last case, she's basically entirely of what you told her.

Pritam Singh  50:13  
She is. Can we go back to Miss Lewis? transcript, please?

Edwin Tong  50:17  
Second of December?

Pritam Singh  50:28  
I beg your pardon? What page please?

Edwin Tong  50:30  
PAGE 2324.

Pritam Singh  50:38  
So what Miss Lowe says is, can you ask Miss Lowe? Can you describe the gist of their discussion? And she says, okay, she didn't. I can't

Edwin Tong  50:50  
read it yourself. Yeah. Mr. Singh?

Pritam Singh  50:57  
Yeah, see, this is the the line that I shared, you said, you're fixated on a line. And that's not the line I was fixated on. I was fixated on this line that Miss Lowe shared, she said, I don't know the full details of what he said to her. I don't know the full details of what he said to her. But he shared with me that he said, I will not judge you.

Edwin Tong  51:20  
So what he's saying is that she's just basing it on what you told her because he wasn't there when you told Miss Kahn,

Pritam Singh  51:28  
which she and she also says she don't she doesn't know the full details of what he said to her.

Edwin Tong  51:33  
Yes. Which is fair, because she wasn't present when we're able to miss can right. She's giving me an account, right, under oath of the evidence pertaining to what she heard from you. Right. That's the only part I'm interested in at this point in time, and she's only shared that fragment of I will not judge you. Well, I wouldn't say it's fragment. I will, I will say that this is an impression she has from what you said to her in the in the disagree with this. But let me let me put a point to you starkly. As I said several times, if by this time, you had made such a clear and unequivocal instruction, to miss Lowe to a bigger party, Miss Kahn, on a third of October, and by this time, you do by now know that she didn't comply with those instructions, you would have made that point clear to miss Lowe. I instead or instead, the takeaway from Miss Lowe, and certainly by Miss Kahn, was that it was an equivocal position by you open, at best an open position for her to decide.

Pritam Singh  52:38  
I disagree. As narrated to ping and yudishe, I would have communicated the same thing I communicated to miss Kahn, which was to take ownership and responsibility of the issue. And I also told them that I will not judge you visa V. Miss Kahn. That's my evidence.

Edwin Tong  52:56  
Okay. And in fact, Miss law further gave evidence to us that when you met with her on the 25th of November, you sought to re characterize that conversation. And let me let me show it to you. And then you can potentially you can you can give your evidence. Please turn to page the same bundle that you have which 73 Yes. No, sorry. 74. Top 74. Yes. Now, I will ask you a series of questions from this, but let me give you the context. All right. This took place at around from my memory around 2pm. Where you Mr. TPM, I'm giving you the context before you look into it. Okay. Okay. I

Pritam Singh  53:52  
thought you were reading from the front this,

Edwin Tong  53:53  
this series of questions took place at around two to 15 PM. As I explained to you earlier, this is around the time that your press conference was happening, or shortly after, to 15 to 15.

Pritam Singh  54:05  
I think it was done press conference over?

Edwin Tong  54:08  
Yes. And this was around the time when the news of your press conference first started hitting focus. Okay. At that time, there was a CNN article, which I believe attributed an answer by you to a wrong question. I don't know whether you're familiar with it. Yes. i It's come to my attention come to attention. Did you clarify that with CNN? No, I haven't done so yet. But it was at least subsequently clarified. I have to check on that. Okay, ticket for me was clarified, because I did use that article as it was first published. And I read that article to miss Lowe. And the article purported to ascribe an answer you gave to another question to an answer about why didn't miss Kahn or words Ray effect, comply with your instructions? Your Money Mr. Singh's instructions on the third of October? And the article reported, as I don't know, from you quoting you and saying, I don't know why she didn't comply with the order, you have to ask her, again, words to that effect. And CNA has since clarified that that portion was reported wrongly. Okay. Okay. So the context of my questions were therefore on that article. But the point that remains, which is the point we're talking about now, right now, regardless of the article, is whether you gave a clear instruction on the third of October or not to miss Kahn. So that point still remains. So look at the next part of the evidence, with the knowledge that the CNA article has been clarified. But with the understanding that where I'm getting to is whether or not you had given those instructions on the third of October, nonetheless, okay.

Pritam Singh  55:51  
We I mean, I've already told you what I said on the third of October.

Edwin Tong  55:55  
No, no, no, the the point I'm making to you, Mr. Singh, is that Miss Lowe, then told us that you told her one version on a 12. But on the 25th of November, when you when she was before you at the DP, you sought to recharacterize that position, or we can get our evidence showing you where that arises. Okay, sure. Sure. Okay. At the top of the page, I said are going to say that the President asked me to sing some questions and this is the part that I think subsequently it was clarified. First of all, to characterize the pre October 4 meeting as an instruction to speak the truth is quite at odds with what I think you had shared with us earlier. So, as I said, just now, leave aside the reference to the article which has been clarified. answered, Yes. Correct. Miss Lowden says yes. And I would like to add a bit to this. When I met the disciplinary panel on 25th, November, Mr. Pritam, Singh had tried to relate to me again, this episode, where he supposedly spoke to her and asked her to speak the truth. And the way that he talked about it, when I met him on the display panel was very different from what he shared with me, at his place on 12. October, which is why I would like to stress that the only person who can account for what he said to me in the specifics of I will not judge you is Mr. addition, other than because we both heard it together. Now, let me pause for a moment. She's account are recounting what happened first on the 12th of October? And then again on the 25th of November, right? Yes, it's clear that we get a timespan Correct. That's right. I go on to say, All right, I'll make a request to Mr. Speaker to call Mr. Norton, and so on. And then I said, two questions down. But I want to focus on what you had said earlier about the difference between what was said on 12, October, that evening at his home? And what was said at the DEP. There was an intervening period of about five weeks. Yes. I then said and what I understand from you, which I would like you to clarify is this. Then on 12, October, the position taken was we won't judge you, meaning we will be behind you. You take a view, and we know, but on 25th November, that characterization change to one where he's trying to impress upon you and Mr. Nothern, that, in fact, prior to the October sitting, he had told her, in the words of the city report, give her an order to tell the truth. And that's the difference, correct? Answer, correct.

Pritam Singh  58:34  
This, so sorry. Go ahead. Ask a question.

Edwin Tong  58:36  
So my question is this. Is her evidence correct? That at the meeting of 25th November, you sought to recharacterize what you told her on the 12th of October concerning your instruction to Miss Khan on the third of October.

Pritam Singh  58:52  
No, that, that's, her evidence is faulty here. That's my evidence. I think it's also interesting that she takes the view on the 12th of October that she interprets, we will not judge you, meaning we will be behind you. You take a view and we know. This is certainly not what I communicated to her on the 12th of October. 

Edwin Tong
All right

Pritam Singh
But my evidence.

Edwin Tong  59:17  
The shift that she's trying to explain is basically that you are trying to say that the 12 October the third October instruction carried more weight, the way you sought to put it carried more weight. The way you described it on the 25th of November to her more weight and force in favor of it being a clear instruction. Then you had described to her on the 12th of October. And that's what she's saying

Pritam Singh  59:47  
Mr. Tong, I, I, can't be so acute to tell you what weight I played, I placed on it on the 25th at the DP and on the 12th but I think I was clear, I was consistent on both occasions, that Miss, I met up with Miss Khan on the third of October. And I had told her to take responsibility and ownership and I would have communicated the same thing to Peiying on both these days. That ought to have been clear. Settled by evidence.

Edwin Tong  1:00:16  
So looking at everything that we've seen so far, right, the upshot of the evidence, and I've showed you as much as I can, and is on which I, I reached this reach this thinking that you had met with Miss Khan on the third in you. You then give an account of what you said on the third, to Miss Loh and Mr. Nathan on the 12th of November, and drove October, October, I beg your pardon your right to have October. And in that account, you are not as clear that your instruction on the third of October was an unequivocal one. 

Pritam Singh
I disagree. I disagree. 

Edwin Tong
Hang on. But that you then sought to re characterize that when you met Miss Loh again, on the 25th of November. And by this time, you put forward the same conversation, but in a different light. And you sought, according to her, you sought to characterize it as one where you gave an instruction was a clear instruction to tell the truth on October the fourth? 

Pritam Singh
Not true

Edwin Tong
You won't accept that.

Pritam Singh  1:01:27  
No, I don't accept that.

Edwin Tong  1:01:29  
Why? Why would Miss Loh lie about this?

Pritam Singh  1:01:32  
I can't speak for Miss Loh. But I would suggest, I can only suggest that again. She's a, she's a good person. Yes, let me say that. But but when you receive a message from Miss Khan, telling you a senior,

Edwin Tong  1:01:51  
Mr. Singh, I know you keep referring to this, but this because it must, it must, it must

Pritam Singh  1:01:55  
be germane to your thinking. And I would say I know where you're going with this. You object to my going back to that I can understand why

Edwin Tong  1:02:04  
No, because I'm not objecting to your evidence. But I think we have to keep to a certain track. 

Pritam Singh
I'm going there, I'm getting there. 

Edwin Tong
Please get there faster then

Pritam Singh  1:02:18  
In my, in my opinion, Miss Loh and Mr. Nathan worked very closely with Miss Khan. They, I believe that they try to protect her. That's my view.

Edwin Tong  1:02:32  
But you see, by the 12th of October. We already you really know knew that she had disobeyed those instructions. What instructions and the instructions to take ownership responsibility. I mean, she come clean if the issue comes up. Yes. Yes. And he did come up. Yes. And she didn't do that. Yes. So it would have been logical for you to explain that to me.

Pritam Singh  1:03:01  
No, I did communicate it to them. It communicated the both of them.

Edwin Tong  1:03:05  
So I'll go back to my question. Why would Miss Loh lie about this? Because you see, and follow the evidence carefully. And I'll be honest with you, when 

Pritam Singh
I hope you have been 

Edwin Tong
was I always will be. When I went through this exercise with Miss Loh, I had no inkling that she would volunteer this information, you look at the way in which she came up. She voluntarily on her own, offered. I would like to add a bit to this. And she sought to tell us that you tried to reshape the way in which you conveyed your description of the meeting. And, and, that suggests to me that, which is why I'm asking this of you. This suggests to me that you now realize that your words on the third of October could be construed as equivocal at best and not a clear enough instruction. And therefore run the risk that, the public, people may construe you as not having been clear enough in giving an instruction to Miss Khan to come and tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  1:04:24  
I disagree. And you asked me why she would lie. I can only share with you what Yudhishthra and both Miss Loh. We were talking about that the drafts that Miss Kahn prepared through the month of October and they were agreeable with the disciplinary panel. Everything was there was nothing untoward. No issue raised about preterm. You have knowledge, nothing of that sort. Until in my mind, somewhere halfway around November, they realized that the pressure on Raeesah was so severe to resign, that they were concerned, that really might be what was going to transpire. To be honest, that disciplinary panel didn't take a view of what would happen to her. We wanted to go through the process. And we are not the adjudicators. We present our findings and recommendations to the CEC, CEC will decide, but I think they realized that she had no allies anymore. And it was only left to the two of them. And my, you asked me that question. So I believe that they were really close and they wanted to protect her.

Edwin Tong  1:05:36  
They might have been trying to persuade the DEP or the CEC not to expel. Yes. But she gave this evidence on the second of December, by which time all of that is water under the bridge. So I go back to my-

Pritam Singh  1:05:54  
Doesn't that strengthen my case? 

Edwin Tong
No

Pritam Singh
I because she's already resigned.

Edwin Tong  1:05:58  
And by the end, the axe has fallen. So it's, it's a fait accompli, she can't change that fact anymore has been announced. Right, within minutes of

Pritam Singh  1:06:04  
me be very unhappy about that turn of events. So I reason for her to lie. Since you asked me the allegations that India, that indeed, would be a reason I would ascribe

Edwin Tong  1:06:13  
I have taken some pains to show you the impression of the third October meeting you had with Miss Khan? Yes. Very carefully, because Miss Loh, Mr Nathan and Miss Khan, they all have the same impression

Pritam Singh
Indeed

Edwin Tong
Of what you said, Yeah. And all of them have a first hand direct account from you, right. And two of them have a first hand direct come from you, after the fourth of October wrote, taking all this together. Taking all this together all the evidence. It does not come out anywhere that you have given a clear instruction to Miss Khan on the third of October to come and tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  1:07:00  
Well, if you listen to the evidence that I gave earlier, on my reasons why I think Miss Loh would give the evidence that she did, it may affect your view as to why she would say what she did. But I had made it clear to Miss Khan on the third of October since this is the issue we are still on, that she had to take ownership and responsibility for the issue. I felt I was perfectly clear to her. And Yudhishthra and Peiying. I mean, we, we, that meeting on the 12th of October was over pizza. So it was, it was, it was a dis-, I'm not saying that, you know, that suddenly changes the connection to things.

Edwin Tong
It does not 

Pritam Singh
Absolutely I'm not making that that point. But the fact is, I communicated to them that I had spoken to her on the third of October by her I mean Raeesah and told Raeesah that she had to take ownership and responsibility. Yes. And I did communicate to them, I did say to them, and I also told I will not judge you. And the purpose of that is to, really for lack of a better word incentivize her to just tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  1:08:05  
I'll come to the purpose later. But let, let me say to you that the three of them, which is my original train, the three of them have come with a position that is corroborative of each other. 

Pritam Singh
I'm not surprised. 

Edwin Tong
Okay. I can understand why you might say Miss Khan, who's facing the inquiry, might be untruthful? 

Pritam Singh
Yes. 

Edwin Tong
And even then I'm, you've got, leave it as high, as that only okay. But what's the reason for Mr. Nathan and Miss Loh to lie about this?

Pritam Singh  1:08:34  
I think I just mentioned that I believe the reason why-

Edwin Tong
Out of loyalty to Miss Khan. That's basically what you're saying

Pritam Singh
Out of loyalty to Miss Khan. And they certainly expected that the party leadership would not go down the road of considering her resignation or even expulsion. But once we had started to gather public, not public, sorry, that Workers Party members' feedback on the issue. I think that's when they decided oh, no, she may really go. And we're not happy with the leadership for whatever reason, because they may well have been thinking that she wouldn't be she the leadership would not be under any pressure to expel her

Edwin Tong  1:09:10  
So you characterize, or at least you you offer a reason for why Miss Loh would come to this tribunal to lie on the basis that they are unhappy with the leadership for taking action against Miss Khan.

Pritam Singh  1:09:23  
I can only speculate, since you asked me to, asked that question in an open ended speculative way.

Edwin Tong  1:09:29  
Well, as of the third of November, the day after the DEP was set up, they had really been very consistent in their views that they felt I should read the messages earlier. They felt that you had your share of blame to take you were there in Parliament when the untruth was being spoken. You have not made clear my position. Let me advance so sorry. Mr. Singh, did not develop an overnight dislike of the senior leader. Worship, they have been very consistent in their views to us, they made clear that this was their view, they discussed it privately, they came to the DEP to explain it to you openly. They sent you messages, at least Miss loaded, sent you messages, all of which are consistent. And I'll show you those messages in a moment. And they came here and he gave evidence without knowing. And this is important without knowing what it is that you were saying at the press conference on a second of December.

Pritam Singh  1:10:28  
I don't think that's quite germane. As to what I said at the press conference. I think the issue is how far would they go to protect Miss Kahn? I think that's the issue.

Edwin Tong  1:10:37  
Besides this issue of loyalty that you mentioned, can you think of any other reason why Miss Lowe might lie about it? I

Pritam Singh  1:10:45  
mean, I'm looking at these chats which share certain things. Between the three of them. I'm a bit surprised actually quite surprised to see some of this, but I haven't gone through it thoroughly. Because it's the first time I'm seeing it. I can think of no reason because I think I work pretty well with them. I would say, yes, I would, I would only I can only suggest reasonably that their loyalty to Mishcon was more important than anything else. Even the truth. I can't say that for a fact. It's not fair for me to put, suggesting, I'm suggesting all I'm suggesting is what I said I think their loyalty to miss Kahn. Yes. Was was of prime importance.

Edwin Tong  1:11:28  
And and you're saying that because of that they are prepared to sacrifice the truth and come here. That's your that's that's your characterization? Not No, I

Pritam Singh  1:11:35  
I think that's really what you're saying? Because that can be our influence. But I You can you can hold on to that point of view. I said what I said,

Edwin Tong  1:11:42  
Well, you're certainly saying that Miss low light,

Pritam Singh  1:11:45  
I think Miss Lowe Yes or No. I however, it is just it is not rare for me to characterize her in that direction. Mr. Singh? Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:11:56  
I'm entitled to ask you, you are entitled to about an occasion where Miss Lowe came before you. And she says that you and she's giving direct evidence, sought to re characterize the nature of the meeting. Right. And I think I've taken you through it,

Pritam Singh  1:12:12  
but the only thing I see is I will not judge you. I don't see her describing that. She

Edwin Tong  1:12:17  
is saying that you recategorize the meeting right now. So Is that true or not true? No, it's not true. So you're saying she's lying?

Pritam Singh  1:12:24  
To that extent? Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:12:28  
And going back to my original point, Mr. Singh. The fact of the matter is that you did not make it in clear, put it in clear terms of Muskaan on the third of October, that she wants to come clean in Parliament disagree, tell the truth, disagree. And that's the reason why none of this episode on the third of October appears anywhere in your press statement, or in any of your answers to the press on that day, but disagree. And I've answered this question. In fact, Nicholas asked you directly and made this comment. If you look at page three of the press. Press Conference. Yes. Now the question has come up. Well, we middle of page three, Nicholas, what did the party know? When did he know about whichever already clarified, but again, then it resulted in long term damage to the party. The party had not come out and said this is what really happened. Why Why didn't you take the opportunity at this at several other junctures to say, I had a meeting with Miss Kahn, on the third of October. I didn't think I made it very clear to her. Mr. Singh, it's it's the most germane and the most proximate occasion to what happened thereafter, on the fourth of October,

Pritam Singh  1:13:49  
I think you have asked this question in another way. And I've answered it already. Why it didn't come i

Edwin Tong  1:13:56  
I'm giving you an opportunity to look at it and reflect because

Pritam Singh  1:13:59  
I think I reflected on it enough when you asked me that question, because I knew that I had to say and I just said it,

Edwin Tong  1:14:05  
I'm going to suggest you therefore that, in fact, the reason why was not put in is because you chose to not to disclose this. And you therefore suppressed any mention of the third of October meeting that you had with Miss Kahn at her home the day before parliamentary sitting, which was in contemplation of the issue of the lie coming up the next day, you suppressed it because you know that you'll be pressed on details of what you said to miss Kahn. And you will not be able to say that you gave an equivocal answer unequivocal answer completely recently. And that's the reason why it doesn't appear anywhere in your press statement.

Pritam Singh  1:14:45  
It doesn't really disagree again.

Edwin Tong  1:14:47  
Well, I don't see it in the press statement.

Pritam Singh  1:14:49  
Well, I've told you why it wasn't in the press statement or good when we started this exchange.

Edwin Tong  1:14:55  
You see you you were very carefully drafting and I can see that I can see that in the prepared speech, you are very, very careful. It comes through what's the point?

Pritam Singh  1:15:06  
Isn't that a good thing? Yes, it's

Edwin Tong  1:15:07  
a good thing. But I, I think you are very careful to try not to be drawn into no questions on a

Pritam Singh  1:15:15  
very creative, Mr. Tong, but I think my own, the only reason why there was no need for me to bring it up was because Miss Kahn had already resigned. Why am I putting another piece of information out there, which shows that she did not take heed of a very clear instruction to be responsible and to take ownership as it is she has already won. Let's get let's let's talk about that for a minute. Mr. Nolan, since y'all that's the line of questioning that's important to you. I also don't say that Miss Kahn lied to me after the third of August, telling me that she has a victim by the name of Budo police station. But you don't quibble

Edwin Tong  1:15:52  
with now, I don't quibble that because you know, as well as I do that that's not germane to the question, the understand Listen, answer. Let me stop. Let me stop you here. The press is interested in knowing what the Workers Party knew. And when it knew and what it did. Yes. But the lie? Yes. Right. The lie is a lie on a third of August. Yes. Repeated on the fourth of October. Yes, yes. So it is relevant for you to say, I met with Miss Kahn, and told her in no uncertain terms that she was to come to Parliament to come clean. Clarify, tell the truth. Confess. But you didn't do that.

Pritam Singh  1:16:28  
I didn't see a need to do that. I didn't see a need to do that for the reasons I've laid out. And if there really was a need to put all miss Khan's linen in public. I would not have just said that. I would also have said that Miss Kahn also lied to me about the episode, but I didn't do that. Why? Because there was no

Edwin Tong  1:16:48  
need to we've heard your explanation. Okay, move on. Now, we covered this briefly earlier, and I think your evidence is on the record. But let me just put this to you. If your evidence is correct, that on a third of August, use, you told Miss Kahn, if it comes up tomorrow, take ownership responsible third of October 3 of October, I beg your pardon? If it comes up tomorrow, on the fourth of October, take ownership responsibility meaning clarify tell the truth. What would have happened if the issue did not come up in Parliament? That's very speculative. No, but Mr. Mr. Singh is not I'm not avoiding the question. Let me be clear about don't avoid the question. And let me tell you why it's not speculative. It is not speculative, because by the third of October, this lie had been on the record for two months. Yes. I don't need to refer you to statements here about how important it is to clarify. The only question in your mind was when? Right, that's right. So if you didn't come up on the fourth of October, when in your mind, would this happen? Because and I remind you of some germane materials are no occasion between the eighth of October when you had a meeting and your home? will end the third of October? Yes. Sort of. Yeah, sorry. I keep me speaking. I beg your pardon. That's okay. Third of August. August 8 of August, third October. Yes, that's wrong me. Eighth of August to the third of October. At no point in time in that period. Did you check if Miss Kahn had told her family and was therefore able to complete in Parliament? That is correct. So on the third of October, and indeed on the fourth, if the metal had not arisen in Parliament not been asked by mha? What would have happened? What in when, in your own mind? Would it have been appropriate time to come clean?

Pritam Singh  1:18:52  
Shortly after the October session? What is that in my mind?

Edwin Tong  1:18:55  
What are you surely after me? Well,

Pritam Singh  1:18:56  
it would have to have to be addressed by Reiser herself, because I know that it's not true. Okay. And she would have had to clarify, clarify the matter. So

Edwin Tong  1:19:04  
let me ask you this. Why not? Third, why don't on the fourth of October itself. Why didn't you make plans right to come clean on the fourth of October?

Pritam Singh  1:19:12  
I as I said it was something that I had given Miss Kahn time to think about and consider this was the first time she was coming back after her episode with shingles, I can accept. It is a criticism. Perhaps I should have pushed harder and earlier. And I think that's a fair conclusion for people to make. But in my view, in my judgment, I was prepared to give her time to come to me and say look preterm, I've spoken to my parents, and I'm going to come clean,

Edwin Tong  1:19:38  
easy, Mr. Singh is it's not just about a criticism, but your judgment, because it's not just about maybe you could have been harder or firmer, but it I think belies what really happened and what you intended to happen this week because because

Pritam Singh  1:19:59  
so I thought it was a question. Okay. But I disagree.

Edwin Tong  1:20:02  
Because you have a light, it's on the record. I don't have a light riser card has a lie on the record where there's a lie on the record. And you know, that has got to be clarified quickly with only one criteria holding it up. As you said earlier, you have not checked throughout the preceding two months if that criteria had been resolved. So you have no idea if she had told her family. Why would you not have at some stage prior to October if the intention was to come clean? Only after the family knew at some stage earlier than October the third set? Let's prepare to complete Have you told your family? Yes. So if that was truly the intention to do so without having to, in the words of Miss Kahn, being told, as she says, if it doesn't come up, don't raise it? Yes.

Pritam Singh  1:21:05  
Well, Mr. Tom, to me, this revelation that Miss Kahn had shared of being of sexual assault was a very serious one, an important one. And I, in my judgment, wanted to give her time and space to speak to her parents about it. It did not cross my mind as something which I was going to pressure her repeatedly knowing that of course, he also had a bout of shingles. But I had to cross this bridge at some point. And now we might and I said speculative earlier because of what had already occurred in Parliament, not because it was going to be left alone. No, it's not just about October or even September, I see the point is this you, there's a lie that Mrs. Khan had spoken third of August, you you now know that there's a lie from seventh August? Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:21:57  
So you wanted to give her time and space, which I understand your perspective is, what I don't understand is why you didn't follow up and check if that time and space that you have given had been used to tell her family so that she can now come forward and come clean, and make preparations to do that.

Pritam Singh  1:22:17  
I mean, indeed, it was something that I would have had to do eventually, I just did not do it from seventh of a beggar pardon from the eighth of August, right up to the first of October, where I'm already telling you what, through my email, what is the consequences of doing what you do, but But it's quite clear from my state of mind that this is not going to be an issue that's going to rest.

Edwin Tong  1:22:39  
Well, I can't tell that about your state of mind fire can only give evidence in that regard. Yes, because your state of mind is also manifest in your objective contemporaneous evidence. And I don't see, right, any attempt whatsoever, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any attempt whatsoever, throughout the whole of August, throughout the whole of September. And you said as the first of October email, we'll see it. And then the meeting on the third of October. Apart from this, I don't see any attempt, it could be construed as consistent with wanting to come forward and come clean, correct? That is correct. I give evidence in this regard. Yes. And so I'm trying to understand why. I,

Pritam Singh  1:23:18  
in my, in my judgment, it was something for her to speak to me about after she had crossed the bridge with her parents. But

Edwin Tong  1:23:25  
but it is so important that this bridge be crossed, you should check whether the bridge has been crossed. Yes. I mean, I, I agree, you should check proactively. I could have been more proactive about it. No, you were just not. Not more productive. You did nothing, Mr. Singh?

Pritam Singh  1:23:41  
No, I understand where you're going with this line of questioning. It is. But I don't disagree with it. You did nothing

Edwin Tong  1:23:48  
right in this period of time. My evidence, evidence. So in that context, how do I objectively construe your intention you say that you intended to come clean in Parliament, but that's the when there are no steps taken. See when

Pritam Singh  1:24:02  
I said it's speculative. That's precisely why I said it was speculative, because there's no way you can objectively come to a conclusion on that. No, you could household you, because you in your own question to me say I did not raise this with her.

Edwin Tong  1:24:15  
And I'm asking you why wouldn't you agree with me that if this is an important point, and I only meaning there's a lie on the record needs to be clarified, and the only barrier to being clarified was whether a family is aware, then it must be home view, not just as the leader of the Workers Party, but as a responsible member of parliament, and certainly as the leader of the opposition, to take steps to check if that family member or that criteria with a family member is required to be told first has been satisfied.

Pritam Singh  1:24:50  
And I as also mentioned earlier, expected a Member of Parliament who's taken an oath to crow close that issue with the My family and come and speak to me about it. We can quibble who was supposed to do what I'm not shielding myself from any responsibility here. Indeed, I could have done it earlier. But I made the call. I've given what I've heard from Miss harnessing, I will let her let her settle the issue with a family and then come and speak to me about it. That was my expectation,

Edwin Tong  1:25:21  
I would suggest to you that not just you that you could think that you should have done it earlier.

Pritam Singh  1:25:26  
I, at this present moment in time, you asked me to look back how things transpired. Of course, I would say I should have done it earlier. But in fact, in the given what I was under at that point in time, I decided, okay, she will come up. She's an elected member of parliament. She's a leader in her own right. She will speak to me and tell me, look, this has happened and I have to take responsibility. Good. Let's get it done.

Edwin Tong  1:25:51  
But But you, but you were in no position to know when that might happen? No, that's correct. And so if it did come up in October, what would you have done? Would October have been the same as September? And honestly,

Pritam Singh  1:26:02  
this is where we're getting into speculative territory. I have told you, I would have dealt with the issue, I would have had to go and speak to a ricer. Have you spoken to your parents?

Edwin Tong  1:26:10  
You see if if I had some evidence on the record where you said to raesha? Or Miss, can I give you two weeks? No, no, there's nothing. There's no evidence of that. Or that you had discussed with her? Also don't have, right. There's no such evidence except the the email on the first off? Yes, we know that. Yes. On the first order, and you had met with the family in this period of time, which is correct. So there's just been not a single step consistent with wanting to come clean.

Pritam Singh  1:26:39  
That is your reading of it. I've given you my evidence. And I've told you that from this from the eighth of August, right up to the third of October, I did not follow up with her barring that one email. I've said it. I mean, I'm not sure how many more ways I can say it.

Edwin Tong  1:26:53  
And I will say to you, Mr. Singh, that I think that in fact is therefore consistent with miscounts account of what happened on the eighth of August. And again, on the third of October,

Pritam Singh  1:27:02  
you believe or SMS you believe a lie, that this was to be taken to the grave? Because that's what you're saying? I'm looking at the evidence. And you believe that evidence? Well, the evidence that evidence is stronger than the evidence that I'm giving you, Mr.

Edwin Tong  1:27:15  
Singh? I, as I said, I don't just look at one piece, I look at the entire substratum of facts. I hope you do. And I trust that you do. I will certainly do. And I take into account that nothing was done at all, in the whole of August and September, which might suggest that this issue is likely to be clarified by Miss Kahn in parliament in October, or, in fact, at any stage thereafter, I

Pritam Singh  1:27:46  
agree. I think I've given evidence to that, to that effect.

Edwin Tong  1:27:49  
And I say to you that that's very suggestive of misconduct evidence being correct, where she said, she was told, if it doesn't come up, if he's not pressed, again, keep to the August narrative.

Pritam Singh  1:28:05  
So challenge that evidence, challenge that evidence with Miss Kahn with Mr. naarden Miss Lowe. Why didn't you bring this to the party's attention? You don't challenge that evidence. But you find that more believable? And I will explain later to the to the committee. Why it's not believable, but I will do so after I have

Edwin Tong  1:28:31  
answered all your questions. I am not making any judgment on it. I'm in fact, I'm, I'm probing you so that I can understand your your evidence. And what you say supports your state of mind. Because, as I said to you earlier, your state of mind is one thing. But the objective contemporaneous evidence is not consistent with that.

Pritam Singh  1:28:49  
I, whatever I'm saying to you right now, I said it in response to questions from journalists as well. So you take that for what it is i and it's on the record with me you have a you have a

Edwin Tong  1:29:01  
I'm focused on the evidence you are giving here in this committee under oath. Yes. So let me just see if I understand your evidence, and we can move on. You aware of the lie on the seventh, Miss slim, and Mr. Faisal, we're also aware of the lie by the eighth of August 28 of August. Throughout the rest of August, no steps were taken by you. Or as far as you know, Muslim, Mr. Manna, Mr. Faisal, to speak to Miss Kahn about clarifying the lie in Parliament. Yes, I think I made this clear in my press conference on the second of December, no steps were taken by any of you, three of you to check if the family were aware. And then, for her to prepare to clarify the lie in Parliament.

Pritam Singh  1:29:50  
I can only speak for myself, okay. And I've given my evidence that I spoke to her on the third of October, telling her to tell me she felt responsibility. That's all that's it. time period. So your time period?

Edwin Tong  1:30:01  
I want to answer yes. Answers. Yes. So none. And I've given this answer, I think four or five times. Mr. Cha is I want to be very clear. Okay. You can't be more clear than how I've put it to you, for you, but indulge me. So nothing whatsoever in August. Right. Now, September. Same question. Were there any steps taken in September, which would be consistent with Mr. and Miss? I've

Pritam Singh  1:30:23  
answered this question. Miss chi already said, No. I don't know how much what part of No, Mr. Tom doesn't understand. No, I,

Edwin Tong  1:30:30  
I think we better be clear. No, I'm

Pritam Singh  1:30:32  
telling you now be crystal clear. And I've been crystal clear in all my cases. The Christmas on the second of December in front of the press. Crystal clear with you today.

Edwin Tong  1:30:42  
I'm not so sure about the press. But the crystal clear position now? Well, I

Pritam Singh  1:30:45  
said the same thing that the press why The Press I think ask the question to that in crystal

Edwin Tong  1:30:49  
position. Now is that not a single step was taken by either you or as far as you know, as far as you know, Miss limb, or Mr. Faisal, towards ensuring that Miss Khan would come clean? And clarify her lie in parliament in October? Up to the third of August? Yes. Third of October, 3 of October. I beg your pardon. Okay. So up to the third of October? No steps were taken. Correct.

Pritam Singh  1:31:11  
I've said so many, many, many times.

Edwin Tong  1:31:15  
Well, it's important for us to be clear, Mr. Singh.

Pritam Singh  1:31:18  
That's taking it too far. A bit of a stretch. Now

Edwin Tong  1:31:27  
you say that, and you said to the press as well, she couldn't clarify the issue in September because Miss Carr had shingles. Right. She had shingles first diagnosed with it around the eighth or ninth of September thereabouts. Right. I don't know. I have to be sure. I have to check. Would it roughly accord with your recollection?

Pritam Singh  1:31:49  
i I'll have to check. But if that's the the time that you let's take it as as that's the date. It's it's not something I'm going to dispute, that's for sure.

Edwin Tong  1:32:05  
Okay, I, I can tell you that from open sources that Miss can publish a Facebook post on the ninth of September to say that she's been diagnosed with shingles. So you can take that from me? Yes, I think I referred to it earlier or sitting in Parliament was four days later on the 13th of September. Now, you will not have known in August, that Miss Kahn would come down with shingles, right? Obviously not? Yes. So let me understand why no steps were taken to try and clarify the matter in September. Because all along we've been focused on trying to clarify in October. But actually, there was an early opportunity for you to do it, if you wanted to. And this would be the September sitting. So Timothy logically, yes, it follows. And this would be about five weeks after you became aware of the lie, right. So there would be enough time.

Pritam Singh  1:33:00  
I, like I said, I expected Miss Kahn to Inform me when she had spoken to her parents. And she told me on the eighth of August that she also had a therapist also knew of what had occurred. And so I wanted to give us sufficient time to confer with her parents or therapist because she was going to make very important revelations in Parliament. So it is consistent with my earlier evidence that there was no follow up.

Edwin Tong  1:33:27  
Okay. So my my question is, you could have considered September as a possible window for you to clarify. Right. Indeed, absolutely. And so actually, shingles is not a reason why it was not clarified. Well, it,

Pritam Singh  1:33:43  
it would have been this, I would imagine, and again, going into speculation here that I would have if I had known that she wasn't suffering from shingles. I may have well communicated with her before that to say this issue may well come up. And you better take responsibility and ownership. But it's speculated because

Edwin Tong  1:34:01  
he would only have done that very close to the September sitting.

Pritam Singh  1:34:05  
I'm not sure I really am not sure. Okay. Yeah.

Edwin Tong  1:34:09  
At the risk of upsetting you, again, just do not upsetting me mister prior to not upsetting me not prior to when she had shingles on the ninth of September, I there was no attempt to try to speak to her to clarify the truth at the September sitting.

Pritam Singh  1:34:22  
I read given my evidence and that's that your earlier question stretch from eighth of August right up to the

Edwin Tong  1:34:29  
third of this month. But now that you know that there is a September sitting on the 13th of September, just indulge me the answer would also be no right. No. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

Pritam Singh  1:34:38  
I'll have to come back. I probably can confirm when she communicated with me. She had shingles. I'm not sure whether it coincides with the day. She makes the Facebook post, but I'll have to check. I'll give you evidence

Edwin Tong  1:34:53  
shortly after shortly before I don't know. Okay. All right. That's fine. Yeah,

Pritam Singh  1:34:57  
I'll put this evidence to the committee. Now.

Edwin Tong  1:35:01  
After the sitting on the fourth of October, there was a meeting in a room Elos office. And she had told us that there were two issues that were discussed at the meeting. And I'll just show you her evidence and then ask you some questions. Yes,

Pritam Singh  1:35:18  
yes. Yes. Please. Miss Khan's evidence. This is okay, okay. Okay. Mr. Dahle. I have to find this in front of me just confirm with me which did you're referring to in time. Okay.

Edwin Tong  1:35:38  
I will come back to it and woman.

Please turn to page 95 off of the second of December bundle.

Pritam Singh  1:36:17  
Okay, page 95. Yes, please.

Edwin Tong  1:36:27  
Yes, I'm here. Okay. So you look just around the just before the halfway mark of this page. I asked her about let me just read it to you. I said, Yes. Thank you. Now you mentioned and after these statements were made on fourth October, that there was a meeting. I don't know whether it's physically or through messaging. Can you elaborate,

Pritam Singh  1:36:48  
Mr. Donnelly do apologize. PAGE 95. Right. edify? Where are you?

Edwin Tong  1:36:52  
Second December? Are your second December?

Pritam Singh  1:36:57  
This is second December. But just roughly where you are the round?

Edwin Tong  1:37:00  
Just past the middle, or just around a meeting with? That's in the middle? Yeah. Okay. Okay. You're on the same page. So meeting is with fellow MPs from the Workers Party in relation to what happened in, in parliament on fourth October, right. And so if you just quickly cast your eye over the next few lines, it is the same meeting you described at the elbow office with Miss Lim and Miss Kahn and yourself. You're right. Yes. So I said just for your view? She says yes. Can you tell us what happened? She says there was a discussion of what the next step should be. And that was it. That was the conclusion of the conversation. What do you mean by next steps should be what does that mean? Can you give me more clarity? Muskaan says we had the discussion around possible police investigation, the possibility of me being hurt at the committee privileges. And there was a discussion that and that was the main gist of the discussion. With this via accurate reflection of what was discussed or no, it would not be it would not be no it was not. This was a short meeting. Right. Very, very short. It was very, very short. Very, very short. Yes. And you knew that either at this meeting, or shortly thereafter that she went to consult with lawyers?

Pritam Singh  1:38:10  
She emailed the advice to me. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:38:14  
Yes. And the without going into the nature of the advice, tell us what why lawyers were consulted.

Pritam Singh  1:38:27  
I do not know why she consulted lawyers, if

Edwin Tong  1:38:33  
you would have seen the advice. So you and I'm asking you to share the advice for me. But what why were lawyers? Cuz you have to ask this question to miss Kahn. To To your knowledge, because you saw the advice. I would suppose the police may have already written to her by then. And she sought legal advice on what the police were requesting of this request by the police misconstrue, that she was directed by yourself and Muslim not to respond. Is that true? That is not true. Did you tell her to respond to the police?

Pritam Singh  1:39:04  
I was of the view that this matter was

Edwin Tong  1:39:08  
so out of my question, because I asked you a question you say it's not true. So if I asked you the opposite, which is so did you direct her? No. I do not recall directly or not. If you didn't direct her to respond to the police. And you didn't direct her not to respond to the police. What did you do

Pritam Singh  1:39:22  
to say that again? So there are two negatives in there. So I'm trying to just repeat that

Edwin Tong  1:39:28  
miscounts evidence is there yourself and Muslim director her not to respond to the police or that's not true has to do with Did you advise her counsel or direct her to meet with the police? Or no, I did not. So you neither told her not to meet the police nor did you tell her to meet the police. So what did you do?

Pritam Singh  1:39:49  
So you see the again I come back to first principles what No, no,

Edwin Tong  1:39:53  
Mr. Singh not first principles is a matter of fact, right? Simple fact. Did you tell her yes or no? And if not, then what Did you tell her but

Pritam Singh  1:40:00  
I have to be very careful what I say. Because whatever I directed her to do was predicated on the fact that she had told a lie in Parliament. That is Section Five of the parliament act. And the nature of the advice was similar to my own thinking. And I did not ask her to I expected you address this issue in Parliament, because it's a matter that has come up in Parliament and the appropriate forum to address it would be in Parliament. That was my thinking. I did not order her. Don't talk to the police don't do this. Don't do that. No, I don't recall saying this to her.

Edwin Tong  1:40:47  
This request by the police? I mean, you you know, how they work. I think by and large,

Pritam Singh  1:40:54  
I think I'm not sure.

Edwin Tong  1:40:58  
would be not an unreasonable one. It follows from the lack of clarity on the fourth of October, correct?

Pritam Singh  1:41:07  
I disagree. I think it was something they ought to be aware of that a matter has come up in Parliament, we believe in the separation of powers schema. An MP has said something in Parliament, it is for parliament to correct that problem. And there's a good reason why that exists. There's a good reason why freedom of speech is my

Edwin Tong  1:41:27  
sister is the same Let me stop you there. You mean to say that if a member of parliament goes and makes a speech that accuses police, or any public agency for the matter of behaving badly, right, that that particular agency will have no interest in wanting to find out more? Oh, no, they have all the interest in finding out more, but surely you're through what channel? Do

Pritam Singh  1:41:48  
they find out more?

Edwin Tong  1:41:49  
What? What what other channel could that be? Very simple.

Pritam Singh  1:41:53  
Put your request to the Minister of Home Affairs like they like they did. And just say, you have made this accusation against the police. You are in Parliament. Now. This is the forum where you've made this accusation. Let us know what the truth is. Let

Edwin Tong  1:42:05  
me stop you there in it. And that's income that conforms with no law. No, Mister, you don't throw the law at me. And please, in this case, not we get real. Okay. Listen, I'm very real on this point, heard the Minister of Home Affairs. seek clarification after clarification. He was not forthcoming. No details are coming. Right. You want to write to the same Minister for Home Affairs and ask for details? Well, that's not real, please, though. So I'm saying to you that a natural step would be for the police to ask for details. Right. And this is what happened. Correct. Right.

Pritam Singh  1:42:41  
And of course, the Member of Parliament can rely on the parliament act to determine how to resolve this matter.

Edwin Tong  1:42:47  
Sure. But I'm asking you a different question. Let's go back to it. The question that was asked by the police was not an unreasonable one. Right. To close a request. It was framed as a request. Yeah. Not an unreasonable one, correct? No, it

Pritam Singh  1:43:00  
was not unreasonable. Yes. Thank you. Not that difficult? No, not difficult at all. And I've also explained why it was now possible for her to say he was

Edwin Tong  1:43:09  
not an unreasonable request. Why did you not advise Miss Kahn to go and see the police?

Pritam Singh  1:43:18  
Well, in my view, she had said something in Parliament. I knew what the truth of what she had said. It was untrue. She concocted this anecdote, and it was for her to come to Parliament and correct it.

Edwin Tong  1:43:35  
You're not answering my question. That's my answer. The police is now putting forward a not unreasonable request. Asking questions of fellow party members. You by this time know that an untruth is on the record concerning the police. Yes. The police is trying to work out. Yes. What the true position is yes. Why would you not advise Miss Kahn to attend interview with the police and share her views?

Pritam Singh  1:44:07  
Because I know what the next step has to be she has to correct

Edwin Tong  1:44:11  
why. Why was it happening the sequence?

Pritam Singh  1:44:15  
That's why reading a video asking for my evidence. In my view, she had to correct what she had said digital the police in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  1:44:22  
So the only way in which she could give an answer to the police was to stand up in Parliament and address it. I would

Pritam Singh  1:44:29  
abuse that's my answer. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:44:30  
Did you tell her that?

Pritam Singh  1:44:31  
I believe I may. I would have communicated this to her how? Verbally

Edwin Tong  1:44:37  
not by email? No. After all, she sent you an email. Yes. With a specific request of what would you like me to do? Right?

Pritam Singh  1:44:47  
I am not sure I have to check my you may have WhatsApp chats from her, please present them to me and then I can try and address your question.

Edwin Tong  1:44:54  
Can I ask you to please look at what Mr. Faisal mana tended to this committee So

Pritam Singh  1:45:07  
what page Am I on?

Edwin Tong  1:45:08  
Yeah, please look at the bottom. pagination, page 14. One four isn't Yes. Yes. This is an email. Dated seven, October at five or 7pm? Yes. By Miss raesha Khan, to Mr. Pritam Singh, Miss Sylvia Lim, Mr. Mohammed Faisal mana. Yes, I remember this. Let me read it to you. They're all I received this email from SPF asking me to ask him to continue the investigations. And for me to come down for an interview. I shared this with Jordan who's advising me and he will share his views tonight. Please let me know what you'd like me to do. And I will share Jordans thoughts on this matter. Want to matter as well, thanks for listening to me, for caring for me, and for guiding me throughout through this without judgment. So she's asking you for what you'd like her to do, right? Yes, I

Pritam Singh  1:46:10  
believe I have WhatsApp communication with her about this email, which I which I will be happy to tender to the committee. Yes, please do. And I believe she makes the same request to want to talk about it. And I and I informed her that I'll talk to you and I made some arrangements for some dates about it.

Edwin Tong  1:46:27  
Yeah. So let me try to understand why you advised her not to see the police but to see Parliament first. Okay. Is it because you felt that you didn't understand the full extent of the story yet? No. No. Is it because you felt that you weren't sure what she's going to say to the police? Absolutely not? Is it because you felt that bit the police, she had no privileges, whereas in Parliament, she had privileges?

Pritam Singh  1:46:58  
I think that his question with which has some bearing on where I felt the what the appropriate forum would be to address the matter. Right.

Edwin Tong  1:47:10  
But you see, from what everything that you said earlier, what happened on the fourth at night? And thereafter? And I don't propose to go through it again. Sure. You're telling us that by that time, the decision had been taken out of her hands? Remember, you said that?

Pritam Singh  1:47:27  
I think she had alluded to that she had alluded to use it to us today. Yeah. Because it was clear to me that when she said perhaps there's another way, honestly, that's that that locks it in for me.

Edwin Tong  1:47:36  
No, as far as you're concerned. I think you form that view. The moment she lied again in Parliament. And no, absolutely right. As you said, it's not taken out of the hands actually agree control the process. Okay. So this is seven October, police is asking for information on the same topic. And you now know that there is now only one way forward in your, in your evidence earlier, which I knew that earlier already. I knew that by the fourth of May. Well, you are now driving that process. The difference according to your I'm driving according to you. The evidence before that you gave was that pre fourth October, it was for her post fourth October, given that she lied again, you are now driving that process.

Pritam Singh  1:48:17  
I wouldn't draw the binary so clearly, but I would say even post fourth October, in my instructions to a I didn't draft a statement and so forth. You draft it, you have to do it, but it goes to the point you're making that I am driving the process. I know. There's no other way. Now you have to tell the truth. Well, to that extent.

Edwin Tong  1:48:39  
Yes. Actually, on your evidence there have been no other way earlier as well.

Pritam Singh  1:48:43  
Well, that's quite obvious. I mean, but But you're asking me about pre fourth October and post fourth October. So I'm directing my questions accordingly. You

Edwin Tong  1:48:51  
see. So you see if that's the case, I struggled to understand why Miss Kahn was not advised by you to explain her position to the police, despite being asked not once, twice, but three times. Three times by the police. And in your view, a not unreasonable request

Pritam Singh  1:49:14  
once twice and three times. What are the dates? What are you referring to?

Edwin Tong  1:49:18  
From my memory? Seventh, October 15. October, okay. 18th October?

Pritam Singh  1:49:23  
Okay. I don't know about all these requests, but I know a request came in. And it was clear to me that this issue had to be addressed in Parliament and I I believe we communicated the same to miss Reiser, we I miss limb could be that I can speak for her but we did tell her just reply to the police and tell them you will address this issue in Parliament. And I I need to check but I think she did do that.

Edwin Tong  1:49:48  
Well, maybe you can check whether you did.

Pritam Singh  1:49:50  
Yes, yes, for sure. For sure. i She was told to reply to the police to say that she would address this issue In parliament, I'm quite sure she said that and I think you'll find it in the newspapers as well.

Edwin Tong  1:50:03  
That was a press release. I, if you have a reply, reply to the police, please let us know. Because you seem to suggest that as your advice to her.

Pritam Singh  1:50:14  
No, no. I mean, I did tell her look, if the police are asked the police, I think it was the second time the police have asked, I need to check the my email records, but certainly I am quite sure she replied to them to say she will address this issue in Parliament. I'm quite certain of them.

Edwin Tong  1:50:34  
Can you please check in let us let

Pritam Singh  1:50:35  
me put a note on it. I'll check. I'll get back to the committee. At the very least, I believe there was a Straits Times article where she communicated that that she had replied to the police on the 20th of October. I'm not sure of the date, but I'll check. I'm quite sure. Okay.

Edwin Tong  1:51:01  
But that is, of course, quite late in the day, after three requests had already been made. I'm not sure what number of requests to get from me three requests, all made before to date, October, before there was a press statement released? Well, we will

Pritam Singh  1:51:15  
have to chill. I'll have to remember when I communicated to her to reply to the police. But certainly there was no reason to delay any reply to the police to say that you're addressing this matter in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  1:51:26  
That's what I would have thought. But why did you not have to wait, why? Why was the response not given on the seventh of October? Why was there three request by the police?

Pritam Singh  1:51:39  
Again, I the matter did come up. But I think the focus, or at least my focus, more importantly, was for her to come out and tell the truth. But I see Miss I'm not sure exactly at what point I communicated exactly to her, just reply to the police and say I'm gonna address this in Parlin. Because that's where we're going.

Edwin Tong  1:51:59  
Yes. But you see, Mr. Singh, let me be direct and blunt, as I always am. I suggest you that on the seventh of October, you did not advise Mishcon to see the police or advise rescan to reply to the police in any shape or form. Because you will yourself not clear at that stage that this matter will be clarified in Parliament to disagree. Hi, I completely disagree. And there is no evidence, contemporaneous evidence as of the seventh of October, which suggests that you were taking steps taking steps to prepare for Ms. Khan to clarify this statement in Parliament. Correct? On the seventh, as of the seventh,

Pritam Singh  1:52:44  
correct, because we had we she wasn't speaking to us on after the fourth, there was no communication apart from that email or that email that she sent to us about police request. And thereafter, it was about me arranging with her to actually talk to her about a statement. So so that meeting I initiated and that was on the 12th of October where she said she wasn't prepared to come forward. And that was not acceptable to us.

Edwin Tong  1:53:19  
This suggestion that she is not in communication with you. I mean, she she was in active communication. Sorry.

Pritam Singh  1:53:24  
Sorry. I think you didn't hear me carefully. Apart from that email that was sent with regard to the police

Edwin Tong  1:53:31  
not XML. Mr. Singh, I heard you very well. You were in constant communication directly on messaging?

Pritam Singh  1:53:38  
No, I mean, to the I'm referring to the episode, the fact what are you going to do with the fact that you've lied? I mean, that's the that's the main thing we've got to talk about. So my and she's not referring to that until the 12. Women call I call a meeting, I sit her down. And let me tell

Edwin Tong  1:53:53  
you, let me put to you this, that as of the seventh, there's just been no steps taken. Which objective contemporary steps taken, which would be suggestive of Miss Kahn preparing to go to Parliament to clarify the lie. Correct. On the seventh, so no, seven. No, there wasn't. And that's why you felt that she could not reply to the police are no, no, no. See the police on

Pritam Singh  1:54:20  
Disagree. Disagree. The fact that the police put in a request is completely separate from the point that Miss Kahn had to go to Parliament and tell the truth. It may not be what you believe. You've nodded. You're nodding your head that you don't you seem to suggest to me you don't believe it. But from the fourth of October, it was clear to me what direction this was going. You had to tell the truth. And that was that whether the police had written to her or not written to her yeah, she would have told the truth on the first

Edwin Tong  1:54:49  
of CBC. Mr. Singh. They might be different forum, police parliament, but there's only one truth. Ah, okay.

Pritam Singh  1:54:58  
There's also separation of powers there. Parliament mirror judiciary as the executive is

Edwin Tong  1:55:03  
missing. We don't need a lecture on that now. Okay, I'm not giving you a lecture. There's only one truth. Whether you tell the police or you tell the parliament, there's only one answer. So what do you have to hide? Nothing? What are you concerned about? Why didn't you advise Miss Khan? This is not an unreasonable request. They're entitled to see you and ask you questions. Please attend. Be truthful.

Pritam Singh  1:55:26  
She has told a lie. Did you do that? She has told a lie in Parliament. In my judgment, you correct the lie in Parliament. You have said something on the record in Parliament. When you go to the police station, are all the cameras going to be there to say, to record you what you say to the admission that you make to the police? I actually lied. You should do it in front of the house in front of everybody. And that's why she had to do it in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  1:55:50  
Is that your answer? Mr. Singh? Of course, did you lie about the police reacting badly to sexual assault victims in Parliament? And you feel that you can't go to the police station to tell them I'm sorry, this didn't happen. backup backup backup? No answer my question.

Pritam Singh  1:56:03  
I disagree with that Coronavirus shake. I'm not aware. I've never avoided any question you asked me.

Edwin Tong  1:56:07  
So what's wrong with being open and transparent to the police? What do you have to hide?

Pritam Singh  1:56:12  
You are a member of parliament, there is a parliament act, you have freedom of speech in Parliament, it means something, especially to an opposition MP, you should be free to say what you want. But you should be free to be scrutinized for what you've said in Parliament free to appear before a committee of privileges because this is the institution that has processes procedures to deal with what you do in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  1:56:39  
That's just drawing lines, Mr. Singh, those bottom lines, they are therefore reasons so you're free to go to as a member of parliament, you're free to go to Parliament to see as you wish, but you can't.

Pritam Singh  1:56:49  
That's what the Prime Minister said. You can even bring rumors to Parliament and let the executive demolish those missing

Edwin Tong  1:56:55  
please do not interrupt. Firstly, and please do not bring up irrelevant material. You are saying that you can go to parliament have the freedom of speech, in your words in the parliament to speak in Parliament. But you can't go to the police station to correct a lie spoken in Parliament about the police? Is that what you're saying? Let me answer my question. Answer my question.

Pritam Singh  1:57:23  
I am saying something different. Okay, so my answer would be no. Okay. Please explain my answer would be no, because I believe that the parliament's privileges immunities and Powers Act clearly delineates that members of parliament have the freedom of speech, they cannot be questioned in any other place outside of Parliament. That's the law. And in my reading, there's a reason why that exists. Because you give members of parliament the freedom to say what they want to say in Parliament. But it doesn't mean parliament is some Toothless animal. If the truth does not come out, there are procedures like this committees like this, which can get to the truth. And that's exactly what in my mind ought to have happened. She had to go to Parliament, correct the record and face the music.

Edwin Tong  1:58:09  
Mr. Singh? us tell us that's the law.

Pritam Singh  1:58:15  
That's my reading of the law. Okay. We,

Edwin Tong  1:58:17  
you're entitled to it. Okay. Yes. But actually, I'm not really looking at legal niceties.

Pritam Singh  1:58:26  
Well, that was my state of mind. Sorry, go ahead.

Edwin Tong  1:58:30  
I'm interested in making sure that the truth is corrected as soon as possible. And there is a request now by the police. For parliament, you might say, well, I need to make sure that there's another parliamentary sitting so okay, it's another three weeks or four weeks later, and that's the forum. That's probably what you're thinking. But the police is available at any time from the seventh of October onwards for you to come clean and correct. The miss the lie? Why not take it? Or what is there to hide? If you have decided that she has to come forward now and come clean? If you say as you say, by the time she spoke did lie again on the fourth of October. There's only one outcome now, which is she's got to come clean. Then why not? On the seventh of October, going through the police station also this whether or not whether or not she's entitled to privileges and rights and so on in parliament is one question. But any citizen even a member of parliament can go to the police station and clarify a fact. But indeed, so. So why not?

Pritam Singh  1:59:41  
Because I in my judgment, Parliament was the right forum to correct her mistake.

Edwin Tong  1:59:46  
And you told her that

Pritam Singh  1:59:51  
in the course of our communication about the police, the police request, I said, Look, I think this is something that you should correct in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  2:00:00  
So therefore you told her not to go to the police.

Pritam Singh  2:00:02  
I said, I didn't say don't go to the police. I said that must be what you mean. Right? If you tell her that if I'm telling you correctly in Parliament, that's what the politician,

Edwin Tong  2:00:12  
correct. Oh, but Miss Kahn was right when she said she was directed by you not go through police. Correct.

Pritam Singh  2:00:19  
I would have given her that instruct, I would have given her the guidance that if you're asking me about this, my view, is you corrected in Parliament,

Edwin Tong  2:00:26  
and guidance and instruction not to go to the police. Right?

Pritam Singh  2:00:29  
I wouldn't go so far. She's a member of parliament, she sought this legal advice on her own. She could if she felt that my advice was irrelevant, and that actually she wanted to go to the police. There was nothing I could have done to stop her.

Edwin Tong  2:00:41  
Well, I'm suggesting to you mister saying that one plausible reason why she didn't go to the police, at your guidance or advice is because at that point in time, there was no plan to come clean in Parliament, not yet. Completely untrue. And it was only later on in October. That that was a settled position. No, as of seventh of October, that wasn't the case,

Pritam Singh  2:01:06  
as of the seventh, right. But there was no confirmation of what she was going to say in Parliament. That's true.

Edwin Tong  2:01:13  
That's true. No, I didn't say that. I said there was no consensus that she would come clean in Parliament.

Pritam Singh  2:01:19  
Insofar as I was concerned on the fourth of October when she had verbalized this alternate path, to be honest, I was clear, that was the point. That was what was going to happen.

Edwin Tong  2:01:34  
All right. And so you would disagree with my suggestion that you told her not to go to the police. Because by that time, meaning seventh of October, there was no consensus that she would come and clarify her lie in Parliament.

Pritam Singh  2:01:51  
I would repeat the question, so you don't accuse me of not answering it.

Edwin Tong  2:01:56  
And so you would disagree with my suggestion that you were not that you told her not to go to the police because by that time, meaning seventh October, there was no consensus that she would come and clarify her lie in Parliament disagree. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that transcribers need a short break. Do you want to take one now? short one.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:02:19  
We can take a short break. We are joined now is 255. Come back at three or 510 minutes.

Edwin Tong  2:02:27  
Okay, we'll take a short break. transcribers need some time

Pritam Singh  2:02:30  
should I fully understand?

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:02:38  
Would you like to have more time to finish off? Yeah, we can, but maybe 15 minutes would be sufficient. So why not? we adjourn and we come back and say 315 320-353-1515 Sure,

Pritam Singh  2:02:51  
may be discharged for the purposes of the break.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:02:59  
And similarly for members when finished lunch