Preamble:
What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.
Though speech recognition technology has made leaps and bounds in recent years, it still isn't good enough for very accurate transcripts. So take the below as a free (for you, dear reader, at least) and rough transcript, with no warranty as to accuracy - for convenience instead of an accurate transcript. Nonetheless, I believe this will be helpful, especially for archival purposes.
If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 9 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).
The official transcripts may well come out publicly later (the transcripts and evidence given to the committee are supposed to be confidential but everything is on YouTube: go figure; that was a very short embargo period). 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
call the meeting to order such an advance please invite the witness to the witness table. Thank you
Morning Mr. Mr. Cozzi. For the record please state your name occupation positions your home
Loh Pei Ying 0:34
Hi, sir. My name is low paying. I'm Tukey yes all this year and PSP seriously mentioned, I am the hit and co founder of continental list, a data visualization and editorial studio here in Singapore. And I'm also Academy member of the Workers Party and prior to her resignation, secretarial assistant to this very second.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 1:05
Okay, thank you. Thank you for coming back in a short notice, I'd like to remind you that you had made an affirmation yesterday to tell the truth. And the proceedings today is a continuation of yesterday's hearing. It has to bond to your solemn obligations, not like hand over to Mr. Winter for some further clarification and questions. Good morning.
Edwin Tong 1:24
Good morning. Mr. I'm very sorry to trouble you again. I thought I'd like to just ask you two broad questions. Okay. The first one is just a request in relation to the documents that you have sent. Right. And I know you worked over lunch yesterday. So I appreciate that very much. Some some of the documents, some of the trails of the messages would help us set the context, because some of them in isolation doesn't give us the full picture. So I would appreciate if you can work with staff to just work through, as I said yesterday, it is not our intention to look into your personal matters. But I will hope that you can give us a bit more context to the discussion that led to some of these messages, if the preceding ones. And if I could just refer you to the transcript yesterday is be slow able to have a copy of the raw transcript that we have.
I'll just read it to you for the moment, Mr. I, at one juncture, and asked you for documents at several junctures. At one juncture at page 23, I said, for ask you for this WhatsApp chat group, could you also produce it to the GOP, at least in relation to the discussions of the third August speech and any discussions you would have arising from this? And then further on, I said at line 22, your discussions on that and anything else they may have developed from that thereafter. So I'll be grateful if you could have that kind of formulation in mind when you look at a particular message or email, so that the full chain and the full trail can be made available for contextual purposes.
Loh Pei Ying 3:07
Admittedly, I'm quite uncomfortable sharing this because I mean, there were a lot of things that and a lot of opinions that people throw around and yeah, and sometimes, you know, in our own zealousness, we say, really stupid things. And I know some of these are quite embarrassing, so I really don't want to share them. Whilst I
Edwin Tong 3:29
understand that I think the difficulty we have is that we do have to look into all the factual matter. And whilst it is an expression of an opinion, or expression of a view, perhaps in a private chat, there's certain contextual relevance to it in the context of events that have been happening contemporaneously, and that sheds light on them. And some of them also give us factual. Allow us to answer some factual questions such as when what took place and with between who, which some of your messages already shed light on. So it is in that context, I'm asking you to see it. And I hope you appreciate that we are not trying to delve into personal matters, but it is relevant to the inquiry and our request that you do provide them. If you are uncomfortable, I would suggest that subject to Chairman's views, we could have a staff from Parliament, sit down with you. And you could explain if something is personal and not related to the inquiry, we can always remove it because I do appreciate that. Sometimes these personal remarks are interspersed with what might be of relevance to the corp. So we can do that. But otherwise any expression any view form on any of the matters that we spoken about, particularly the key points that are requested? I would like for those to be produced.
Loh Pei Ying 4:54
Perhaps we could agree on what those key points are first before I want to open my whatsapp On the parliament staff,
Edwin Tong 5:01
okay, I can tell you from memory, what those key points are. And perhaps it's best I give you a date reference, because that's probably the best way in which you would be able to identify the documents and the trails. From memory. And I will check later on if I missed anything out. That August, there was a speech, you said that there was an animated discussion. Fourth August. There was, I think, some other discussion. Seventh August, there was some discussion and zoom chat, date, August, there was you don't have to take this. Just get someone to give you the transcript. In August, there was a meeting between Mr. Pritam Singh, Mr. Muslim and Mr. Manoj with Miss Hahn. And there were some discussions thereafter. And I think your evidence was that there was nothing else between August and sometime in October, nothing else between eighth of August to fourth of October. So I think I did say just check that that is the case. Yeah. And I went to check, many don't have, then the next one is, I think third of October. I believe it was a Sunday, fourth October, which was the date of the speech. There was several dates in between where I think you said you couldn't remember. But the next date of relevance is 12, October, where there was a discussion at Mr. Singh's house, I think you put in a request to meet. There was then you explained that there was some review and comments on drafting. And I know of at least one date on the 22nd of October, where there was actually a meeting. I don't know whether there were others. So you said you would check and whether there were drafts exchanged. That culminated, I think in the speech made on the first of November. So any discussions arising from or related to the speech would be relevant, along with the announcements on that day itself, made by Workers Party, there was a statement by the Secretary General, on a second of November, there was a statement by the Workers Party media team on a setting of the DP on a fourth of November, it was a Deepavali. And you had a meeting with Miss sun at her home, where she was producing evidence, and I think you discussed it with her. And thereafter, you weren't sure about the dates thereafter. So I said, check. But the next day you gave us that also of relevance is 25th. November, where you said you met with the Workers Party team, the DP. And the other date that was significant was 29th. November when I think Miss Han went before the DP again, and 30th November when she resigned. And I think that was the end of it, because yesterday was the second of December, which is when the press conference took place. Okay, so that's the timeframe that we had evaluated and discussed, when we discussed your evidence yesterday.
Loh Pei Ying 8:03
There are some things that are within this time frame that I also that's that obviously concerned, this issue, but they are quite confidential. And am I allowed to tell the parliament stuff that I don't want to share those? They are, they do my opinion, they are not relevant in the preceding stages, you know, chatter about what's going on.
Edwin Tong 8:27
I can't really make a judgement until I know what it is. So it's difficult for me to say all I can say is that the request would cover all things have relevance, and it relates to I've tried to bet as best as I can articulate the periods.
Loh Pei Ying 8:44
Sometimes, for example, we won't mention names of friends and other volunteers who have given or share their opinions with us. And I would really, really like to keep their identities anonymous. If I
Edwin Tong 8:57
can use what what we could do subject again to Mr. Chairman's approval is we could actually redact those, we can do that. Yeah, we can redact specific messages. I know you can't quite do it when you're trying to do it on the phone and taking a screenshot, but, and I'm not very technically inclined, but in hardcopy form, you can actually physically redacted.
Loh Pei Ying 9:14
Can I redact it on my own phone before I pass it to?
Edwin Tong 9:18
You can you can, you can, but I will also suggest that for those that you redact, you might want to redact the offending portions or the sensitive portions, leaving the rest of the text available, because that allows someone to make an evaluation as to whether that is actually relevant or not. So could you do that?
Loh Pei Ying 9:40
Okay, I'll try my best. Okay.
Edwin Tong 9:41
I know it's a imposition on you and I yeah, I
Loh Pei Ying 9:45
mean, I have a lot of these things are never designed for solid is a private conversation between myself and other people. And I know I am a members of a member of the Workers Party and I mean, no offense. Sometimes I say, you know, the best things. Yeah. So
Edwin Tong 10:04
trust me, Missoula. We've heard it off. Okay, I think no offense, and I think my colleagues don't either. Yeah, I know it's an imposition. And I will say to you that it is not our intention to delve into personal matters or give you that assurance. But we do have a duty to ensure that all matters of relevance comes before the GOP. So that's my, that's my challenge.
Loh Pei Ying 10:25
Will you be asking any of other people who are in this conversation the same?
Edwin Tong 10:31
It really depends on the extent to which they were aware. And it was, in fact, because of what you told us that we have no reason other than, from what you've said, so far. I don't see anyone else being as closely associated with the events as yourself and Mr. Nothern. But I really don't know until I see the other materials.
Loh Pei Ying 10:49
Okay. Okay.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 10:51
Okay, just to reiterate, I think why this is important, as you have realized, I mean, as ongoing developing comments made on the issues, you realize that there are some discrepancies. And I think it's important for us to fully understand how things evolved. Because ultimately, the focus of this committee privilege sharing is really about Miss Kahn, what she said, why she said, Because ultimately, we also need to determine her level of responsibility for what happened. And I think all the different conversations perspectives about how things evolved. And the sense of it is important. And as mentioned, I think, as we edit our WhatsApp and all that I can imagine certain parts, we just cut it out. But I think the other way to do it is to print it out. And then you mock up those parts that you feel this comment that person, I think we can do that, but at least allows us to still follow the general sense of the fluid, more or less have a sense of what else was covered. That would really be useful, I think.
Loh Pei Ying 11:58
And can I I guess, can I have a guarantee that their conversations will be kept strictly to Ondina eyes for all of the people on this panel and not me on this committee? And I can
Tan Chuan-Jin: 12:09
do that, I can do that, should there be a need to make anything's public? I think this one, we will, we will clarify and make sure that we clear that with you. But otherwise, it is for the committee, your privilege, the CLP to review that, as evidence,
Edwin Tong 12:21
Mr. The proceedings are confidential, as we had told you yesterday as well. The thing is that we are a body that has been set up by Parliament to make findings and we have to report to parliament. So to the extent that things are relevant to the issues that we face, we do have to report to parliament and to that extent, it goes to Parliament and becomes public. And I think that is unavoidable. That's our our duty. But obviously, it is also for us to determine what's relevant and what's not relevant. And to the extent that there are private conversations, you know, irrelevant on you know, banal things, I don't think that will form part of the record. And I'm quite happy for us to look at that and have that either redacted or expunge from the record altogether. But I think, as I said earlier, in order for us to make that judgment, we do have to be broader, and then we narrow down from there. So I hope you understand. So it has to be produced first.
Loh Pei Ying 13:17
Yeah, I mean, I don't, honestly, I don't feel like I have much of a choice. It makes me really uncomfortable to do this. But I will, I will try to, you know, collaborate as as best as I can.
Edwin Tong 13:31
Okay, I appreciate that. Now, the second area, I wanted to get your confirmation was this, in one of the documents that you gave us yesterday, there is a WhatsApp message just on its own. I would like to correlate that to evidence that we heard from mishaan yesterday, so that it gives you the context, so you have a bundle of the notes of evidence before you. If I could trouble you to please turn to page 159. And you will see that at the top left hand corner of the page.
And to give you a context, I'm asking mishaan questions, and I was focused on the period on the seventh of August. And just for context, you remember seventh of August when she had a conversation with Mr. Singh. And thereafter they set up a meeting with the three of the party leaders. So if you look at Miss Hans statement around line 1516, have a quick look. I made that reference and she answered there was a short phone call then there was a meeting, because the context now if you go over the page, I then asked her at line 10. On this occasion, Miss Lim Mr. Manoj will also present as a Mr. Singh's house, she says yes. Did you put it in clear terms to them as well that the statement you had made was false answer. Yes. Could they have misunderstood? Answer? No, they couldn't. not ask them what was asked her what was their reaction to this? She says it was incredible disappointment. There was a lot of anger. But I think there was some compassion there as well. The reaction there was that if I was not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August. And I said, Let me understand that last statement. You said, if you're not going to be pressed, then you take the narrative that you started in August. Answer. Yes. It means if we can get away with it, we don't need to clarify the lie. Correct? I think in the simplest terms, yes, you are correct. I have no further exchange with her and at line 19. I said, So the upshot of the meeting a few days after seven August, was that a Workers Party leadership decided that there'll be no need to clarify the position, they will keep the line in place. Since if you're not pressed, there's no need to clarify the truth, correct? Answer. Correct. And then you go with a page. I asked her, and this is where it's relevant to you. line five, did you discuss this with Miss Lowe thereafter? Answer? Yes, I did. In those discussions, did you give an account of what happened? Answer? Yes, I did. Would that be by message? Yes, that would be by messages. And I noted that to be an approval. And those messages would capture the thrust of what you had discussed with Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Miss Lim answer, yes. And then asked me to make a note of it. And at line 19, I said those messages would have been contemporaneous, meaning they would have been roughly around the same time as when you concluded the meeting with three of them. Answer Yes. And she says, and I asked her what was Miss Lowe's reaction, she says I don't remember her reaction by message. But I think when we spoke about it afterwards, there was a sense that the best thing to do would be to tell the truth. So that's the context of the evidence that Miss Han had given. Now I have a few questions for you. First, there was a conversation that Miss Han had with you, after she met with the three of them. Can you describe it for us, please?
Loh Pei Ying 17:03
And I'm being I want to think that I'm being completely honest here. Because again, I cannot there was a lot of like chatter. But to my knowledge, that message that I shared with you is the only one where she had explicitly stated the nature of the conversation that, you know, with reference, specifically only to this police accusation. Because, you know, unfortunately, they said, take it to their grave, which when I went back to look at it, I was like, I mean, that's pretty bad.
Edwin Tong 17:39
Yeah, sorry to interrupt your backup today, in a minute, what what I was referring to is, if you look at the bottom of line four, page 60 162, to the top of 163. She's saying that, besides the messages that she did speak to you afterwards, do you remember that conversation?
Loh Pei Ying 17:55
Yeah, so I looked through the messages. And in right following right after that message that I've sent to you, what Miss Han proceeded to do was to just send us a draft of the statement that she was going to put out that day. And that statement refers specifically to matters concerning, for example, that FGM and polygamy. And my reaction to those was simply to just, you know, finesse that that draft, I didn't do my knowledge. I can't recall responding to their reaction, like to what the party leaders had said,
Edwin Tong 18:31
yeah. mishaan seems to recall that there was a sense that the best thing to do would be to tell the truth in reference to your conversation with her. I mean, that, to my mind was also consistent with what you told us. Yeah.
Loh Pei Ying 18:43
As I said, there might be some degree of Miss remembering happening. But as I mentioned, and and this is what I look through the chats and I remember when she was pressed by Minister Shanmugam on the fourth of October, I told her, I think best you tell the CC Yes, yeah.
Edwin Tong 19:04
But in fact, actually, in August, and this is the eighth of August. Yeah, I think really made the point clear to her.
Loh Pei Ying 19:12
I must have said it, at least on Zoom. I don't recall because, admittedly, we were very aware that this is a highly confidential and highly sensitive matter, and we explicitly avoided going about it in chat.
Edwin Tong 19:25
Okay. She also seems to at least recall that there were several messages or at least a series of messages besides just the one that you had sent to us. Do you recall if there are others which might shed light on this mean, for example, if the messages don't directly concern, what was discussed at the meeting, but also her view of what the meeting said your response and what to do thereafter that will also be relevant
Loh Pei Ying 19:56
Yeah, I know that but I I mean, later the parliament stuff can verify what I'm saying I, to my knowledge from when she told them on the eighth of August to the fourth of October, we really didn't chatter about it anymore. Because to me my mind, she had taught party leadership. And, you know, in my mind house was like, just put this behind us and you know, move on.
Edwin Tong 20:18
Okay. On that day itself, the takeaway from that meeting after Enough of all this, would I know you were not there. But as I said, there was an exchange of messages, she sent you in a message, you must have looked at it and taken something away from it. Would what I've just read you at page 160, through 216, to accurately summarize the gist of the takeaway from the meeting with the Workers Party leadership,
Loh Pei Ying 20:56
I really cannot say if it's accurate or not, because all I all the knowledge that I have of that meeting, was that one message?
Edwin Tong 21:04
Okay, based on one message, and maybe you can have a look at that one message. Is there a copy for Mr. Mrs. Lowe? Thank you, you go to the eighth of August. I think you recall it because you quoted from this earlier. Eighth of August. It's time stamped 12:41pm, which I presume that's the time you it was received, or sent. It says, Hey, guys, I just met with batim, Silvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issues and the police accusation. I told him what I told you guys, and they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested I write a statement to send out this evening. What was your reaction when you receive this? What was your takeaway from this message?
Loh Pei Ying 22:03
Me Tony wearing Okello like, that's what the parking meters decided.
Edwin Tong 22:08
Meaning don't clarify the truth of the statement.
Loh Pei Ying 22:11
Yeah, as I said, in my, I avoided commenting on it on text message. I believe this was also like one of those like, heightened h2 phase to hitch a period. So we also didn't meet in person. And I genuinely did not deliberate on this any further until the fourth of October, I
Edwin Tong 22:33
understand. But I just wanted to understand your state of mind when you saw this message, because this is obviously sent to you. Hey, guys, refers to yourself. And Mr. Nothern? Right. Yeah.
Loh Pei Ying 22:46
I'll have to be very frank and admit that I really think that I trusted.
Edwin Tong 22:51
You trusted the Workers Party leadership judgment. Yeah. But what was your view from this? What does take the information to the grave mean?
Loh Pei Ying 23:01
Don't tell anyone.
Edwin Tong 23:06
Yesterday when we went through what was discussed on the third of October, and again, to give you the context, Miss Lowe, you told us yesterday that third of October, there was a meeting between Mr. Singh and Miss Han. Yes. At her home. Yeah. But you only heard about it subsequently. When is the thing narrated it to you on the 12th of October? Do yourself, Mr. Northern? Yeah. And you also told us that Mr. Nothern could corroborate what you heard, right, which we will put to him in a moment. One of the takeaways from that discussion that Mr. Singh conveyed to you was that he told mishaan On the third of October, that I forget the words precisely, but it's something along the lines of keep to the narrative. And I won't judge you.
Loh Pei Ying 23:57
I don't know about the first half of that. But definitely in the fall, and I will not judge you.
Edwin Tong 24:02
Okay, maybe I'll do be more accurate, I should just show you what was said so that we are on the same page, if you could, and I'm giving you miss.
First give you miss Hans account of this, okay. If you could pick up that bundle and turn to page 153.
And I just would like you to start with line 16. So to give you the context, this is the picture. This is the reference point I had a conversation with leader and opposition. Composition was that if I were to retain the narrative, if I were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgment. When was this third October in my house? Over the page, she gives an interpretation of that now Your Account yesterday can be found at page 39. And we look at line seven. You said this is information that I have that he shared with me after fourth October. So I believe you met you meant 12 October, which is after the event itself. I believe she met Mr. Pritam Singh the day before, which is the third of October. And then you said, at line 13. But definitely I know in the 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 told her that he he had a feeling that this might come up. And 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. So this would be in the context of if we accept Miss hunts narrative, what I showed you earlier, this will be the context of the prevailing, thinking that in August, the Workers Party leadership had said not to disclose the information and to take it to the grave. There'll be a fair assumption. Yes. Thank you. Okay, I've got no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 26:28
Any other questions for other members? Mr. Donohue Hadley for yourself? Your clarification?
Don Wee 26:35
Sure. Good afternoon, Miss Lowe.
Loh Pei Ying 26:39
Good afternoon. Hi. Yesterday, I
Don Wee 26:41
inform you that the Workers Party press conference had happened. Yeah. When we were speaking, or when we were hearing from you yesterday. So I mentioned that during the press conference that the Workers Party leadership was aware of the untruth a week, after the third of August, Parliament sitting instead of third of August, I mentioned third of October. Yeah. So tasks, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify his Thank
Loh Pei Ying 27:07
you. I remember that too. I was quite shocked when I open my phone to see that there was not correct, you
Tan Chuan-Jin: 27:16
know, the clarification. Any other further questions for Miss Liu from other members? Then so there are no other further questions. I think as I discuss it, we can go through some of the
Loh Pei Ying 27:38
Yeah, actually, I would like to clarify one thing that I said yesterday, because after I looked at my conversations, I realized that maybe why represented yesterday was not completely accurate. I think Mr. Tong asked me that, what my primary advice to her was after the third of August, prior to having known the truth, I had maintained I had said that I recommended that she stick to a line of confidentiality as the reasoning for not giving further information to Parliament. And I believe that was not accurate. As you can see in the text messages, I had just kind of told her that, you know, okay, yeah, mistake nine, you know, kind of move on from it. I had said that I had recommended that to her, because, actually on that day itself, or rather, the day after, I believe on the fourth of August, my my husband and I had a very heated debate on this issue. Obviously, he was also upset that the police had been maligned. And I told him you know, it's the absolute right thing to maintain the line of confidentiality for the victim and that's why I think got stuck my head. So it was said to him or not to her.
Don Wee 28:56
I understand that thank you very much Mr.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 29:01
So is discuss, maybe you are able to go through and if you're comfortable, perhaps if any, discussing my staff, have someone senior to talk to you and then perhaps help you in a review of your materials if you feel that there's a need to set the reasons for doing so is to understand the backdrop and I think you understand the gravity of the issues which is why I think the circumstances how things evolve the dynamics of it is important for us to lay out we are mindful of the sensitivity. So like I said, some of these things, if it makes it easier printed out, then you can mark it up accordingly. And then that would be helpful for us.
Loh Pei Ying 29:39
Yeah, I mean, I am not comfortable with that. But if I can just choose on my own I think
Tan Chuan-Jin: 29:44
that is fine. Right? But I hope you understand the reasons why we are doing I
Loh Pei Ying 29:47
fully understand. I have also I don't know if I will be called again.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 29:53
If there is you will be submitting any further documents I think I've been going through there are still other materials that you might be sending us emails or any other materials beyond
Loh Pei Ying 30:03
just the WhatsApp stuff. I just, I mean, I had obviously a long think about what's been happening yesterday. And I just want wanted to give, to some extent a bit of a personal statement if I'm allowed.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 30:18
Yes, you me? Yeah.
Loh Pei Ying 30:22
Just in case, I guess anyone thinks that I'm coming in as an agenda of sorts. I just want to clarify that I have been, you know, a member of the Workers Party for 10 years. And I've give the cause a reasonable amount of my personal time and my youth. And I'm very aware of the ramifications of what I've shared, including these WhatsApp conversations. And please go, yeah, it pains me greatly. But to me beyond anything else, it's important to be truthful to my country.
Edwin Tong 31:03
Missile, thank you very much. I want to assure you that we are also here on a fact finding mission, there is no agenda upfront by us. And we're not pre conceived on any views. It is our job to be impartial and neutral. And we appreciate the candor. And that's all that we expect. And we appreciate all of our witnesses. Thank you.
Loh Pei Ying 31:24
I'm genuinely very fair.
Edwin Tong 31:28
Yes, thank you. Sorry, no, it's okay. Thank you.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 31:37
So there are no further questions for now. We would like to thank you for coming before the committee transcript the proceedings will be shared with you for very for the verification, please go through it and event the other minor amendments, please make the changes and send us transcripts back to us. As mentioned yesterday, do note that the transcripts in any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone or published and must be kept strictly confidential and to the committee has presented its report to parliament. You may withdraw now. But as mentioned, I think we can work on the relevant documents etc into blacked out any of the materials, that portions of it that you may not be comfortable with. If you need to can talk to all the staff if it helps to assist that process. And staff will be accompanying out to the waiting room. Thank you very much. So Jen loves pizza company openness. Once again. Thank you very much. Mr. Thank you.
