Preamble:
What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing) of the govsg video in the title.
Though speech recognition technology has made leaps and bounds in recent years, it still isn't good enough for very accurate transcripts. So take the below as a free (for you, dear reader, at least) and rough transcript, with no warranty as to accuracy - for convenience instead of an accurate transcript. Nonetheless, I believe this will be helpful, especially for archival purposes.
If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 29 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
Present. Please take a seat. Okay, Mr. Pritam Singh, thank you very much for coming back again. I'd like to remind you that you made an affirmation to tell the truth the proceedings today is a continuation of the last hearing, and you're still bound to your solemn obligations. If you refuse to answer questions directly attempt to prevaricate or willfully mislead the committee. By providing false evidence such behavior will be an offence in contempt of the committee. Essentially the to do things the clock had further reason to you to appear before committee today to produce any paper book record, or document including any email message in any messaging application in your possession or under your control Relating to or with respect to any discussion, instruction, inquiry or communication to or with any persons relating to untruth spoken by Mr. E seconded in parliament on August 2021 and October 2021. Secondly, any discussions instructions, inquiry or communications to or with any other persons relating to misconduct as an explanation in parliament on first November 2021. And also the formation proceedings, deliberations and recommendations of the disagree panel set up by the Workers Party to inquire into mysteries can understand that you're not brought any documents with you today? That's correct. Okay. We'll follow this up subsequent to this interview. I we I think we also have some questions that Mr. Evans would like to put you, Chairman.
Edwin Tong 1:28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Singh. Good afternoon, Mr. Mr. Singh. Some evidence was received by the committee after you gave evidence on Friday. So we thought we'll put it to you and ask you for your response to it. Sure, I will first give you the context, and then asked show you the new evidence that has come in after you gave evidence and asked you for your response on them. Now, this is in relation to what you had expected Miss Kahn to do after you met with her on the third of October. You remember we had a discussion on that? Yes. Friday. Yes. Now, I think you've confirmed to us that it is important for all members of parliament to tell the truth and to clarify a record an untruth on a record as soon as possible, in the circumstances, correct.
Pritam Singh 2:18
In the circumstances, that given the circumstances, yes,
Edwin Tong 2:22
yes. Now, you mentioned that in this case, the timing might be up to miss Kahn. But you were very clear to her that if she were to speak up thereafter, it would have to be the truth. Correct? Yes. And just like to show you one portion of the evidence, just to give you a context of where I'm coming from, if you can please pick up your bundle? On the 10th of December. You have that bundle. This is the transcript of your evidence. Could you please turn to page 50? And go please to the bottom 1/3 of the page? Yes. I start with my question. I said, Please focus on my questions. Your understanding on third October was that the the matter came up? She will stand up in Parliament and clarify the lie. Answer. Yes. And you said that in your mind, there was no doubt that she understood you. Right.
Pritam Singh 3:20
That's right. Mr. Thomas, give me a second. I'm trying to find where you're reading from. I'm
Edwin Tong 3:24
so sorry. The bottom 1/3 of the page, page 50. Yes, I'm
Pritam Singh 3:28
there. Yes. Please, carrier.
Edwin Tong 3:32
Okay. So over the page. And so at 12:30pm We administer Shanmugam stood up to make his ministerial statement. That's 51, right. Yes. I just read 50. So I'm not interested. Right. Would you like me to start with 50? Again?
Pritam Singh 3:44
Yes, please. Okay. I wasn't focused. No
Edwin Tong 3:46
problem started probably from outside again. Yes. So two questions from the bottom. You see, I asked. So please focus on my questions. Your understanding on third October was that if the matter came up, she would stand up in Parliament and clarify the lie. Correct? Your answer? Yes. And you said that in your mind, there was no doubt that she understood you right answer that's right over the page. And so at 12:30pm when Minister Shanmugam stood up to make his ministerial statement and seek the clarification, in your mind, there was only one outcome answer. Absolutely. And that she should and that she would stand up and tell the truth. Answer. That is correct. So that was your position. That's you stand by that. Right. That's your position? Yes. Now and your position also was that this would be clear to miss Kahn, after your meeting with her on the third of October.
Pritam Singh 4:37
Yes, that is correct. Right.
Edwin Tong 4:38
Now, again, for context. I'll show you what Miss Lowe said. About this same occasion. If you could leave your bundle open and pick up please the transcripts of second December.
Pritam Singh 4:53
Yes, I have it in front.
Edwin Tong 4:54
Yes. Could you could you please turn to page 44
Pritam Singh 5:04
Yes, I might page 44,
Edwin Tong 5:05
you recall that you had given evidence that on the 12th of October, you met with Miss Lowe. And on that occasion, you recounted to miss Lowe, what you had said to miss Kahn on the third of October.
Pritam Singh 5:17
Are you reading from page 45?
Edwin Tong 5:18
I'm just refreshing. You have the contact before I read it to you.
Pritam Singh 5:23
I beg your pardon. Could
Edwin Tong 5:23
you say that again? On the 12th of October, the 12th of October, you get you had given evidence that you met with Miss Lowe and Mr. Norton. And you told them what you told Miss Kahn on the third of October.
Pritam Singh 5:36
Generally, those terms in the same terms? Yes, yes. In
Edwin Tong 5:39
the same terms. Now, this is my question to miss Lowe, about that occasion. So if you could please go to the middle of the page. Yes. Where I said you mentioned, did you see that? Yes, I see that. You mentioned that Mr. Singh told you that he will not judge Miss Kahn. Miss Lowe? Yes. That was on 12 October. I then said so that I think we only agreed you took as a sign. That was reassuring, right? He is prepared to let her do as she thinks appropriate. Her answer. I mean, I would assume he is prepared. If he said that to her. I mean, you say that with the knowledge that it could go either way. Right. I recall that you had said it was not either way, but it was very clear. In your mind that miscounted understood you that it was only one way. That is correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Now, on Monday, that was two days ago. I'm losing track of my time myself. Miss silver limb came before the CRP. And she gave some evidence, and I'd like to show you why she tended to the CRP. If I could ask you to please pick up the document that was tendered by Miss Lim to the co op. Could the clerk please assist Mr. Singh?
Pritam Singh 7:02
Yes, you have it? Yes, I do. Which page
Edwin Tong 7:08
to look at. If you can look at the bottom of the page, you'll see a page pagination binder, page one and so on. I do right. Now. Page one is not relevant. For my purposes, I'll just orientate you to the document. Page two is a type written transcript of a meeting that took place between the DP the disciplinary panel, yes. And Miss Kahn on Eighth of November. Okay, you are present, right? I was present. So these are Miss limps notes. And you will see at binder page five. These were the original handwritten notes which she then subsequently typed up. Yes. So you will see the notes from page five through to page 11. This? Yes. Now at page 12. The same for the meeting of the 29th of November. Yes. ICMJE typed up the notes, the same notes that she took in hand writing from the binder, page 18. Onwards, all the way through to binder page 30. Yes. So 12 pages of handwritten notes transcribed and written them? Yes, she had confirmed to this tribunal or this committee that these notes were taken contemporaneously, the handwritten notes, and also to the best of her recollection verbatim. Yes. Can I ask you to just quickly look at page 17 of the note?
Pritam Singh 8:30
Binder, page 17.
Edwin Tong 8:32
Yes please. At binder page 17. Let me just read it to you.
PS, and I think she refers to you, is recorded as saying: Before October session, I met you and told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in parl occur to you?
RK: Yes. But consumed guilt and own experience. Thought it wouldn't come up.
PS: Can't lie, right.
RK: Yes.
So these are Miss Lim's notes of what happened at the meeting on the 29th of November. Now, there are two portions to it. What you told her, meaning Miss Khan, and what she should do. She meaning Miss Khan. And these are distinct. Now what you told her when you said your call, does it mean for Miss Khan to make a choice?
Pritam Singh 9:25
No, I understand what the, I understand what you're asking. I think this was the way I phrased my question to Miss Khan at the disciplinary panel. But insofar as what I said to her at the meeting at her house on the third of October, it was clear that you had to take ownership and responsibility for it.
Edwin Tong
Yes.
Pritam Singh
And and thereafter, as I already have given evidence, I said, you know, I will not judge you but in the context of her appearing to look uncertain of herself,
Edwin Tong 9:55
I understand. But on the 29th of November, based on these notes, you had said misconduct, you put it to her as your call. And you are you are referring in this line to the third of October meeting. Before the October session, Mr. Tong, I have to read the document a bit more to give you an affirmative answer there. But sure you it would it would it will follow highly likely refer to the third October media, because if I recall your evidence in October, or at least prior to the October sitting, there were only two occasions you had pointed us to. That's right, right email. It was an email on the first of October in a second. Was this meeting at her home on that is correct over. So conversation would refer to the third of October compensation. Yes. And so the reference to your call must be a reference to a conversation that took place on the third of October. That is right. Right. So in that context, it would it mean that it is for Miss Kahn to make a choice? No. So it would not. That's that's an ordinary meaning of the phrase, your call. Would you
Pritam Singh 10:54
agree? Yes. But if you look there, after I said that the need to tell the truth in Parliament occur to you it's a confirmation in my mind of putting that word. You're the term you're called to context. Right. So I did not specifically frame the question to say that this was you were told to take ownership and responsibility. So that question wasn't framed that way. But it was quite clear my communication to her when I asked your call. I mean, it follows from the evidence I've given earlier about the responsibility, a WB MP should take visibIe his or her work in Parliament, the sort of politics that we want to practice. And I suppose it one has to look at it in totality. Okay.
Edwin Tong 11:35
Now Mislim, who was present at this meeting on the 29th of November? Indeed, these are her notes are likely to look at what she said about this portion of the notes. Yes. If I could invite you to please pick up the transcripts of the 13th of December.
Pritam Singh 11:54
I believe this would be the one yes. Or no? Sorry. This is 10. December. Okay, I have that in December in front of me.
Edwin Tong 12:02
Yes. If you could please turn to page 62.
Pritam Singh 12:06
Yes. You have it? Oh, yes, I do.
Edwin Tong 12:11
Okay. Mislim, at page 62, you will see at 62. And over the page at 63. She spent some time giving us an account of the notes that she had taken on the eighth of November as well as on the 29th of November. Yes. And so you can see on the transcripts, our evidence was quite extensive. And at page 64. She then said this, and I'd like to read it to you from just before the middle of the page. And last of all, do you see that? Yes, the fourth paragraph from the top. That's right. And last of all, from these notes, I like to highlight on the last page, page six, that and this concerns a third October meeting which I wasn't President between Mr. Singh and her. And the question was put to her by Mr. Singh as follows. It says, Before the October session, I met you and told you that it was your call. Did you need to tell the truth in Parliament occur to you? And her response was yes. But I was consumed with guilt in my own experience, and I thought that it wouldn't come up. That's her response. She was consumed with guilt at her own experience. And she thought it wouldn't come up. And Mr. Singh says to her You can't lie, right? And then she says yes. As for the third October meeting, I was not there. But that was her response to display panel. When asked why she didn't tell the truth before the October sitting. She said she was consumed with guilt in her own experience. That was what she narrated, Chairman and asked if I may ask you a quick question since you raised this. He goes on to say in the last page, you mentioned about the conversation on third October, at the top of the Patriot Mr. Pritam. Singh said before the October session, I met you and told you it was your call. So meaning that it was really up to her to decide what to do. Mr. M says I don't know the context, but he phrased it that way. Chairman then says From this, it will seem that it's really for her to decide, which is I guess, and Muslim then said she has to decide. Yes. Chairman says I guess if you follow from this, when he said that I will not judge you is that you decide what you want to do. I will not judge you for that. Would that be a fair interpretation? As you see it? I know you were not there. And so I wasn't there. It goes on over the page. But let me just stop for a moment and ask you for your response to Muslims evidence where she says that this account to place and the way it's phrased, she doesn't know the context because she wasn't present at that third October meeting. But she says that it is for Miss Kahn to decide. Would you agree with that? Well,
Pritam Singh 14:41
I think when one informs an MP that he or she has to take ownership and responsibility indeed, that MP has to take ownership and responsibility. And I can see why the word you're called gives the suggestion that it's a choice for her to make Yes. And I think that's that's reasonable. Look at it, but in the context of how I put it to miss Kahn at the DEP. Okay. And in particular, the question that I followed up with I mean, you really can't tell like, can you? I think the whole the entire context of the discussion on the third of October really comes back to miss Kahn, having to take ownership and responsibility for this issue, which I believe I communicated to her quite clearly.
Edwin Tong 15:22
I understand. So you, you would agree, I think you said that earlier, at least on his own, the phrase your call, one reasonable interpretation of that would be that it is for Miss can to make a decision.
Pritam Singh 15:34
If you discount the context of this, this this word being used in a DP and the subsequent question put to her, I can understand
Edwin Tong 15:43
I understand. Okay. Now, Miss Lim, who said she was, and I, again, to give you the context, I don't know if you had seen at least what's public about Muslims evidence, she had said that she was aware of the lie on the eighth of August. That's right. And thereafter, she left it to you to deal with Miss Kahn layers with her workout plan for Miss Kahn to clarify the lie in Parliament. And up till the fourth of October, she had no idea what you had done, or what you were doing and what you had said to miss Carr. So there was evidence now, in the context of what Miss Kahn then did on the fourth of October, which was to in Miss limbs, words, double down on the lie. This is what Miss Lim said, if I may refer you to the same bundle, and turn please to page 39.
Pritam Singh 16:36
Yes, I'm there.
Edwin Tong 16:37
Yes. Just around the top 1/3 of the page, where mislim first appears. And she starts with you see, do you see that? Yes, I do. Yes. She says, You see never crossed my mind. And I cannot fathom this possibility that Pritam would have given her the option to choose between telling the truth, or continuing the lie. That never crossed my mind. And I do not believe it to be true. So when she comes and says, I don't want I don't think I want to tell the truth. I think it's just it's nothing to do with Mr. Singh at all. Miss limb, says that it's not fathomable that you would have given Miss Kahn a choice. But based on these notes, on the 29th of November, it would appear that you gave her a choice, of course, in the context in which it is used. Would you agree in the context in which it is used? Yes, yes. But would you agree that one reasonable construction or interpretation from Miss Kahn, on a third of October would be that she will be given a choice as to whether to tell the truth? Or to continue with the lie?
Pritam Singh 17:41
Mr. Tong? I didn't tell her on the third of October that it is your call to make? I didn't say that to her. I told her that she would have to take ownership and responsibility on the notes written by Miss Lim. Yes, indeed, I would have put the question to miss Kahn in that manner. But it's not just that, which is important. And I, as I consider, I can understand why that line of questioning is something that you're pursuing. You also have to see what comes after that, which is that, you know, you have to you can't tell a lie. Right. So So I think it was a I wouldn't want to use the word abridged. But I had just put the matter across to miss Cardin at the DEP in that manner. Right.
Edwin Tong 18:21
So you're saying that, despite the way in which you had phrased that question on 20th of November, to miss Kahn, you didn't use those words? That's right, in on the third of October, on the third of October, if you didn't use those words, how would you have conveyed to her that it was your call? Why would you say to her and 29, November, there was your call?
Pritam Singh 18:42
I think it was in the context of how she was responding to us. I mean, that whole meeting on the 29th was a meeting where she was just continually crying and crying and crying. And in that context, I put a question which I felt could elicit a response, which would be helpful to the DP. So that's how I put the question.
Edwin Tong 19:02
Right. And so you're not saying that you had phrased it in this way. But would you not accept that the way in which you had characterized how you left Miss Kahn on the third of October after the meeting, and your frame of mind about how sure she was that she would come and tell the truth would be quite a different characterization from the words your call taken, in the context of the notes on the title November to the extent
Pritam Singh 19:33
that you're making the comparison. I would agree. Yes. i In the course of I think I must have shared something like about 100 pages of documents to the committee of communication. I think one or two emails, one email at least. There's also a an exchange I have with Miss Khan's father. That takes place sometime in the middle of October. I love October. Yes. And I think that's the point when she actually tells Parents what's happening? And an ownership and responsibility are quite a major part of my message to Mr. Khan. And I think those words, were really the central focus of what I expected Miss Kahn to do, had the meta come up and
Edwin Tong 20:17
poster of October. Yeah, I miss you appreciate what what this committee is has to do is to work out the extent to which this conversation took place in the way in which you have described it in a way that Miss Kahn has described? I fully understand. Yes. And I mean, in context, on the third of October, Miss Kahn was a fresh new MP ruukki MP one year in Parliament or belly one year. And she had admitted two months prior to that she told a lie in Parliament coming to see her senior leaders Yes, of the Workers Party. Would you not accept that? In that context? Really, the only thing that you ought to have said to her at that point in time should be, look, Mishcon. That's a lie on the record, you must go and own up, tell the truth in Parliament. If it comes up, make it very clear, in clear, simple direct terms. Would you agree,
Pritam Singh 21:05
Mr. Tang, I believe I gave this my reply to this earlier at the earlier session before the GOP. And that was the nature of what the nature of why the lie was told in the first place. It was an episode where Miss Kahn suffered a traumatic or Ellie, she communicated that she had suffered a very traumatic episode, sexual assault. And so it because of that particular fact, or what I saw to be a fact at that point, and I have really no reason to believe that it wasn't true. I took a course of action where I wanted her to address that issue. And then thereafter, I could pursue that with her.
Edwin Tong 21:49
Okay, I understand what you've just said. And I can understand the point that you're making, which I think Mr. Faisal and Muslim also made to us that because of the sexual assault, the experience and the trauma, one might understand that that has impact on the timing at which this is going to be done. And I think you gave quite a lot of evidence as as to how you saw that issue. But here we are on the third of October, where you're contemplating the issue might arise. And, in fact, speaking to miss Karn about it. In that context, when you're discussing it with her with the expectation or contemplation that you might arise the next day, why not use direct terms? Tell her tell the truth, go to Parliament, you've told a lie on it, and take responsibility and tell the truth to Parliament.
Pritam Singh 22:37
Mr. Tong, I believe I communicated that in my way, when I suggested how to take ownership and responsibility.
Edwin Tong 22:45
Okay. And in fact, actually, to dial back one step, in fact, not only if it comes up, but why not say whether it comes up or not? Yes, you should tell the truth. In fact, that's that ought to be your position
Pritam Singh 22:56
that would have I think this is where I don't think we disagree at that the eventual outcome, and outcome is the lie has to be corrected, the record in Parliament has to be corrected, or how we get this, obviously, where there's a difference in terms of the proposition you're putting to me and what actually transpired. Okay. And in my case, the fact that she was a sexual assault survivor herself. I determined that I'm going to give her time to manage her affairs. And thereafter, I would pursue it. And again, my my email of the first of October is suggestive of the fact that I wasn't personally going to let this issue lie but liars in to remain on the record. But it is to inform not just Ms. Con, but everybody in that and these sort of things are just not, not on, you can't do this.
Edwin Tong 23:52
Okay. Now, just to pick up one other point of view on this. So we saw Muslims evidence, both in terms of the contemporary source, contemporaneous notes as well as what she has said to this committee in answer to Mr. Chairman's questions. I'd like to show you what Miss Lowe said as well again on this, if you have that same bundle opened up. I would invite you to second December. Yes. Second December. I guess I'm here. Yes. Can you please pick it up again? And turn now to page 28? Yes, I'm here. Yes. So just around the bottom 1/3 of the page. I'll just read you some extracts. Okay, starting with but now, you have that. But now that you know what, you know, would it not be a fair assumption that the meeting prior to fourth October between Mr. Singh and Miss Kahn was settled the terms of what she would say if she's pressed? Answer. Yes, I would imagine if she had expected what would happen Answer. Yeah, I would imagine that they should have discussed the best way to handle it. I then said and so were you taken aback or surprised that the that this was the agreed position with the party leader in Parliament? Miss Lowe? I mean, I knew it wasn't the agreed position to take because Mr. Singh had left the choice up to her with his words of I will not judge you. I then said but certainly Mr. Singh by that time knew what the true position was. And he was present in Parliament when those falsehoods continued to be perpetrated Correct? answer correct. As a senior party member and Academy member, well, you're not surprised her answer. I was not surprised. But I was disappointed. Now, Miss Lowe is here saying that you had, at least from your narration to her what happened on the third of October? You had given Miss climate choice, and that she's disappointed by that. Would you say that this is consistent with how Miss Lim had recorded your question to miss Kahn on the 29th of November, meaning your call, or No, I would not. Can you explain why then? The narration that you gave to miss Lowe on October, November, as what held on October 12 of October, I beg your pardon? As to what happened on the third of October, gave her the impression that it was a choice.
Pritam Singh 26:20
I think she makes the her view quite clear. And we see this also in the communication, which I also had signed off when I was here last Friday, this these words, I will not judge, you seem to be seared in Miss Lowe's. And I think even Mr. northerns mind, and I think they've placed a large amount of weight on it. And they've not placed enough emphasis on the context in which that phrase was chaired. And hence, I think it follows why Miss Lowe would make the representations that she has done. And
Edwin Tong 26:59
the context that you refer to would be the earlier words that you use concerning taking ownership and responsibility. That is a problem. Right? Correct. Okay. Now further down the same page where I left off at page 29. You see five questions, five lines from the bottom. So I'm but I'm asking you for the perspective of you having heard from Miss Kahn, who reported the conversation to you. Actually, it was Mr. Singh who shared with me the conversation. I asked her what was your takeaway since you heard directly from him? Miss Lowe said I suppose he was implying that he gave her the choice, and that she had then acted independently thereafter. That's what he's implying. Answer. Yes. So would your response be the same? Is it
Pritam Singh 27:41
my response would be the same restaurant?
Edwin Tong 27:44
But you would agree that at least based on the evidence that Miss Lowe had given us as to her take away from the conversation with you until October? Her impression is that a choice was given to miss Kahn?
Pritam Singh 27:57
I think it's a little more far more nuanced. And then, Mr. Tung, when she professes her statement by saying I suppose he was implying, so you have a supposition. And you have trying to read into what I'm implying. Yes. So I think there's quite a lot of gray there. And I would suggest that it was quite clear that Miss carne, whether she's a rookie MP or not, I don't think these things even need to be explained that if you tell a lie, you have to it's just not long. It's so I
Edwin Tong 28:28
I understand that. And I think you made it very clear. As far as Miss Kahn is concerned, I'm asking from the perspective of Miss Lowe, who was hearing it directly from you sure, you account, you narrated it on the 12th of October. And I'm simply saying that based on at least a portion of evidence I've showed you, it would appear that Miss Lowe's takeaway from that conversation was that Miss Kahn had a choice whether to tell the truth or otherwise and that she acted independently thereafter.
Pritam Singh 28:55
So So my answer would be as I've already put on record, okay.
Edwin Tong 29:00
Now if the words your call, were used, and taken in the context of the rest of the phrase that you told us about on Friday, which is take ownership responsibility, and I won't judge you. Would you agree that that would be something to take into account when trying to construe what I won't judge you means?
Pritam Singh 29:25
Are you referring to the use of those words, your call on the 29th of November or the third of October?
Edwin Tong 29:30
Yes, and yes, and whether and whether you would agree that if you take it together, it would reasonably give rise to a interpretation, that the choice was misconduct, whether to continue the lie or to tell the truth
Pritam Singh 29:42
or the words were used together. Your call was clearly in the context of the disciplinary panel. And as far as Mr. Khan, the meeting I had with Miss Kahn on the third of October was to take ownership and responsibility.
Edwin Tong 29:54
Okay, so you're very clear that those words were not used even though right? You are absolutely correct, even though you put it that way. directly to miss Kahn. Yes. On the dB at the DP 29th of November was an event that took place just about two weeks ago. Yes. Yes. And this was you talking to miss Kahn directly and referring to the prior conversation you had with her? Right. And you had characterize it as your call, at least on the 20th of November, and
Pritam Singh 30:20
thereafter to ask her that, you can't lie. Right. I think that's important. I mean, I think those two questions have to be read quite closely. Okay. All right, rather than isolated. Okay. I
Edwin Tong 30:30
understand Mr. Singh. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I got no further questions.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 30:35
Any questions from any other members? I guess, Mr. Singh. I mean, just from my perspective, why this particular issue is important, as you realize they are slightly different versions that you have made it quite clear to us that your intent was to make sure that and your impression was a miss Kahn was under no illusions that on the fourth of October should an issue arise. She was to tell the truth. Yes, sir. And you have taken quite, you have been very specific, as I flagged up before, that she needs to take ownership and responsibility. And you also did make mention of the words you will not judge her. But she had a different interpretation of this, obviously. So we have to ascertain, which seems to make sense, because obviously she repeated ally on a fourth of October, I understand. And for us, we need to determine the level of responsibility, culpability, especially when a lie was repeated. Yes. On fourth, and then made other statements, of course, where there were lies were reinforced. And we need to determine as to what your directions as leader of Opposition, was, you shared with us your perspectives. What we have shared, I think we are trying to, obviously is what you your intent, and what you've said, Yes, this is what she interpreted on it. And we're trying to see all the series of events leading up to it, following it, and trying to ascertain which seems to make sense, because we do need to determine what is quite clear, she had lied, and repeated a lie, and we need to determine the level of responsibility. So I think where we are going with this really is that if indeed, as you said, the intention was to make clear, we did point out that normally it is a important statement to make, especially because alive we made to Parliament, we noted that in a month, of which you get dates mixed up, August and October, no actions are taken since eighth of August, until third October when you met her, when you conveyed those positions to her. We know that on the reaches a day before fourth of October, where purportedly, if the issues was raised, she would have come clean. And she would as you expect it to tell the truth. Yes. And that's an important step. Yes. And but we do note that there were no preparatory I guess efforts made you have explained that you didn't know for sure whether it went awry. So should you put in all the effort to prepare that the statements as you did for Su did for the first November statement?
Pritam Singh 33:07
I think, Chair, I agree. I don't disagree with you. And I didn't, it didn't cross my mind that you've already lied. You've already made the admission to party leadership. Why would you lie again, listen. And also I expected her to
Tan Chuan-Jin: 33:21
make clear, but as we all know, and I think has been registered by all of you, that is a is a grave matter. And I think how one admits how one puts it across, I think, for any political party, both as a party and an individual is important for us to make sure that statement is done right, or absolutely communicated, as you have correctly, I think, as any party ought to do. That's what we saw, in the lead up to the first November statement, a whole series of activities were taking place. I just didn't expect her not to do these activities take place leading up to fourth October, you met just the day before. In your mind your communications very clear. We do know that you recounted this incident to miss Lowe and Miss Northern, both of which interpreted it differently. From how you intend it to be.
Pritam Singh 34:10
I wouldn't say differently. I'm just basing my my comments on memory of what they said in their evidence to the committee. I don't think they were equally vocal about having a different understanding.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 34:23
But it wasn't clear in their minds that
Pritam Singh 34:25
you had told her indeed, they it was it was a nuanced thing of so they didn't
Tan Chuan-Jin: 34:30
get this from Miss Kahn, they got this from you. And you recounted this. And importantly, it was recounted on 12th of October. Yes, that's right, when actually she had I would imagine disappointed you by not telling the truth on the fourth. Yes, that's right. And that aspect of being disappointed. And I would imagine you would have been rather angry that she didn't follow your instructions in intent. That element of it didn't quite come up in the way they interpreted it because they still felt wasn't so clear. So yes, I
Pritam Singh 34:57
don't dispute your course. I
Tan Chuan-Jin: 34:59
think why we raised it issue which I think you have given your evidence. And we know that as Noosaville, in his observe statement that you made about choice, yes. So we are just trying to string it together to understand the circumstance. So I fully understand to determine, well, the Miss can really just ignore it or advice and direction and repeated ally again, or did she? Or did you conveyed differently? Or that she interpreted differently? So I think that's, that's, I just thought I wanted to just place on record why we're taking this approach. And you know, that it might seem to be belaboring the point. But it's important for us that I will just sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, just to determine from a whole series of events of things done, things not done. And following, and also we had gone through and which I don't propose to go through, again, the responses on the fourth of October, from yourself, Mr. Lim, where the expectation was come clean, but yet, why the responses were in particular ways. And we've noted that as part of the evidence. So that's really, I think, the context, I wanted to explain that. So in case you feel why we don't again,
Pritam Singh 36:08
I don't, I just wanted to add also the context, which I don't believe you've mentioned chair of my response and attitude to her after she told the lie, which I didn't know was a lie after the third of August. Just following up with her to make sure that what she said is even true.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 36:26
In the eye, it actually happened that this was taking place. And course of the few days after the third leading up to the seventh, when she informed you when you're new, and you're gonna, you know, you shut down the phone. And because you wanted to know is was that we able to verify and backup that particular thing
Pritam Singh 36:41
that we actually point is the state of mind off of me as the Party Secretary General, the easier approach was just to ignore it.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 36:51
That's right. So that's what we I don't think we have much in this picture. I think what is pertinent to us is that as of eight, and we have gone through that, whether the directions are given a clear, and I think we have determined that, and then on the third, because this is where we need to determine the level of responsibility. Okay, as I said, there's no question whatsoever, she lied, she lied, repeatedly, we need to understand the context. I understand. That's really where there's no other further questions from members, then just leads me to thank you once again, for coming forward.
Pritam Singh 37:21
Can I Can I just add a point. So I was given the transcript of the proceedings on after our session after my session with the committee on Friday. And there's one part in the transcript where I say, I received an email with regard to the advice, the legal advice. So the legal advice that was given to miss Kahn, and I did mention on the record that I have an email of this. So in the course of responding to the committee and providing all the documentation that I have, I realized I don't have that email. And it then occurred to me that I actually did see that advice. It would have happened on the 12th of October, or at one of those meetings in regards to the police strike the advice that Miss can receive. So I actually said on record that I have that email, but I don't have that email. And so I just think I would I ought to have I ought to communicate this to the committee. And if the committee has any clarifications in that regard for me, please let me know, I will have a corporate Valley.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 38:23
We know that. Subsequently, I think the class will follow up with you, I think just again, summons on some of the details, and is one of the things we do feel would be relevant to for our consideration would be some of the correspondences. I mean, if you don't have then you can declare accordingly, that you may have among the party leadership during the disagree panel, the inputs given because their responses to members. And that might give us some insight into how the issues are view. There's also the organization of the I guess, the adjustment, we'll see see the press conference, that may be also relevant for us to understand the context. So I think we put that forth to you. And I'll leave it to you to decide if you would like to respond to us or not, but
Pritam Singh 39:04
I guess I've given my view at the earlier session on this matter. And that view stands
Tan Chuan-Jin: 39:10
understand, okay, if not, then transferred proceedings will be shared with you for verification, do go through it. And if you have any other minor amendments do get back to us with changes and send a transcript back to us that transcripts in any evidence given to the committee and not to be disclosed to anyone or publish and to be kept strictly confidential until the committee has presented his report to parliament. But you may be free to redraw now and should I be need to call you back to do so. But otherwise our staff will accompany to thank you very much.
Pritam Singh 39:39
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you
