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 15 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
Can we invite the rest of the members to come?
Edwin Tong 0:18
Good afternoon, Mr. Man, FISA. I beg your pardon. I'm so sorry. A bit of an instinct. Mr. Faisal, at the start of these proceedings, you walked in with a prepared note, which you said you have now placed on your left side. Yes, who prepared this video is all mine just to remind me of the sequence work, what happened? All right. And this was prepared using what documents as a reminder for yourself, sorry, what other documents did you look at to prepare this note? Okay. This is a sequence and a few others, which you had used to help you prepare is not No, no, no, these are separate separate documents. Yes. So, you have a note and then you have several other documents. This is my basically my database notes that I took down, okay, during what are transacted between us and Raisa, right. And this is because it was handwritten. So I make it into a type format. And this is basically the sequence that I just to remind me, okay, so there are two sets of documents there. One is a sequence of events which you've prepared. And another one is a typed up version of the notes that you took at the DPW. Hearing, Chris, in preparing the sequence of events, did you look at other materials to help you to remember help you to reconstruct the events? No, no. Did you consult with anyone? No. Did you discuss this with anyone else? Discuss, discuss the meaning like speak to this guy. Basically, this is just verify whether I got the date, right note one step at a time. First of all, does not speak over each other because otherwise the transcribers will have a difficulty trying to transcribe and I want to make sure that it is accurate. So first of all, did you discuss this note with anyone else? Yes, I did ask for the date. Correct? Yes, that's the date. Okay. Yeah. Who did you discuss it with? T should be maybe preterm in Syria, what's wrong with them? And Sylvia, so you discuss with preterm and Sylvia dis prepared note that because of the sequence where they got the sequence, right, did he give you any comments? No. They didn't, when you discuss it with them. Did you give the data? You're right, you're wrong. suggests. Is it ready? Okay, what else? Nothing. How this? Was this discussed with them? This basically tell them this kid is basically what I recall. On this day, he most most of the check that I did was on the date itself. Okay. Yeah. How was it discuss with them? Was it in person or by email? In person? When was this? A definite is about maybe one or two days ago. Yeah, just to ensure that I can recall what are two days ago and so you would have met them in the last one or two days? Yeah. Correct. So which day was it?
In the last two days, I want to do this. Yes. Which day? Maybe it yesterday, Mr. day and the day before? So you met him yesterday? And the day before? Yeah. How long was this meeting?
Not so long. Can you give me an idea? Three hours,
Faisal Abdul Manap 3:54
Two to three hours, two to three hours on each day was two or three hours. Did you have other documents with you at this meeting? No. You had no other pieces of paper with you. We do have the what? Basically, the content that we presented to the CC in order the finding of the DP and my so called the fuller version of my notes that I took down from DP did they bring any other documents with them? For this minister in Canada was the relevance of us try to understand the note because I mentioned it on my own. Yes. So but you you say you did it on your own, but he said you also consulted with Rita. Yes. In terms of the date. So I want to understand whether or not you have relevant to the point that we're talking about races what we're trying to imply Can you tell me directly? No, I'm trying to fact find so I'm not implying anything. Mr. Perfect. Find this one. Yes, I'm trying to understand the entire circumstance which surrounds the inquiries that we are asked to look into, as well. How does that mean, this meeting will sorry, have to him? Because I don't understand. And this just don't get the point that why does he need to discuss on this issue? Whereas, you know, as I mentioned to us now, I kind of like, met them catered to, to basically to discuss the issue. Yes. And basically to, when I come up with this note, you asked me, okay, what's the note's for, for me to recall? And check with them? Basically, the dates, whether it's right or wrong, with they've got it right or wrong.
Edwin Tong 5:39
What else? Yes. What else did you discuss with them? about what the basically tried to recover the, you know, what I recall is correct. Okay. Because he said that we the job was basically being being looked into in terms of this case, right. We see as we need to know whether I refresh my mind currently or not. Okay. Mr. Faisal, the three of you are not being looked into. Mr. Raja Khan is the subject of this inquiry. Yeah. I don't understand why are you Mister, mister, when you're asking about you know, what transected? What happened to the two of us, whereas the discussion is now focusing on Mr. Issa. And I found the answer to you. The purpose of me having these notes. Yes. And I appreciate that very much. What I'm trying to understand is whether there are other documents which exist as you know, Mr. relevant to the point that we're talking about, Miss Raisa. Okay, perhaps we have some rules here. I think it's very difficult for the transcriber to record accurately what you say and what I say we both speak over each other. I understand that. Does that mean, but I do want to start over Do we still need to focus on? I would appreciate if we don't interrupt each other? And don't speak over? Because if I asked a question, it's not possible for the transcribers to record it. If you speak over me, you understand that? Now. So the relevance is we are trying to understand whether there are relevant documents which exist, which we haven't seen, which, as you know, Mr. Desperately had been asking you for documents, emails, reports, and so on. And I'm trying to explore whether there are such documents which exist. So let me and your point about asking me about the relevance of the question, it is not for you to ask me, or tell me what to ask. If it is not relevant. Mr. Chairman, will stop me. So let's go on this issue. I direct that question to Mr. Chairman, is that in future? You may, if you like, and Mr. chairman will decide, but let me just carry on. So at this meeting, which took place yesterday and the day before, two to three hours each, were there other documents which Mr. Pritam Singh, and Miss Lim, did they bring along any other documents to this meeting? Mr. Admin, Mr. Pritam, and Mr. will be will be caught up later on. I believe you can ask them that about this. This is I don't intend to answer that. That's my stand for now.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 8:09
Mr. Pfizer mana, you will be called here before the committee of privilege to assist us in investigations so that we can understand the full circumstances behind what has developed. And these are fair questions to ask because you're part of the discussions we are trying to understand whether they are the documents, whether they are the facts that we may not be aware of, that will shed more light. So whatever you're able to review, we will ask the questions of them too. But we will ask the questions of you to be able to answer as much as you want to.
Edwin Tong 8:40
So thank you for admission, the document abroad. I already mentioned what the document abroad. But there was my question. Yeah. My question was what documents Mr. Singh, and Miss Lim bring to these two meetings yesterday and the day before, which took place over two to three hours each not going to answer that question. That's my stand. Let me repeat the question. What documents did Mr. Singh and Muslim bring along to this meeting yesterday and the day before? I'm not answering the question.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 9:07
Mr. Pfizer might not May I understand why are you declining to respond to the question?
Edwin Tong 9:12
Because firstly, as I mentioned is now, me Silvia and Mr. Mr. Pritam, will be here to answer that question. And I may may record wrongly of the document I can see I'm only comfortable of what I feel. I can recall correctly about what I brought to the meeting. You see, Mr. So I don't want to give a untruth or something is deviated from the truth. I don't expect you to speak to any untruth. But it is important to remember that this meeting took place yesterday and the day before. So just over the last two days. Secondly, you were there yourself so you have personal knowledge. Thirdly, each meeting took place over two to three hours each. So in those circumstances, I I am entitled to ask you, from your perspective, what were the documents which Mr. Singh and Muslim brought along to the meeting? Please answer the question, instead of in my answer to a question that I'm privy of what document with me? I'm not privy to what the documents they have with them. Yes. Don't make an answer to the extent that you are aware. Did they bring documents to the meeting? I just want to say that that's what I wanted. My reply to you, Mr. Faisal, to the extent that you are aware, did they bring any documents to the meeting? Mr. Winn? I'm not going
Faisal Abdul Manap 10:35
to answer that question.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 10:37
So far as a man up. Earlier, I mentioned that you have taken a solemn obligation to answer questions truthfully, if you refuse to answer questions directly, or attempt to mislead the committee. And such behavior will be an offence and in contempt of this committee understand? What we're asking off is that in the last two days, you've had fairly extensive discussions, so within two to three hours, we don't expect you to know perhaps all the fine details, but we're asking you, whether we're there such documents, what might they possibly be? And in your best opinion, what would that be? And we will verify with the two said persons. So these are fair questions to ask. And I would expect you to answer them to the best of your ability.
Edwin Tong 11:19
Yes, I did. Did the information. So that will tell the truth, nothing but truth and truth. So avoid,
Tan Chuan-Jin: 11:28
from not telling them to answer questions directly?
Edwin Tong 11:32
Yes. And I'm not here to say that this is my document. It is what I have to say.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 11:39
And just let me say this in the course of discussions, and if the documents you were discussing dates, issues, we are trying to understand, are there other documents that might have been available that others might have brought to the discussions? But I can see that would help us therefore also clarify with them further?
Edwin Tong 12:00
Yeah, to me, what I can say is what the document had brought into the meeting.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 12:05
So you refuse, so replace a record that you refuse it? So that question,
Edwin Tong 12:09
say that's not Mr. Faisal? Can you please reconsider answering the question? Because it is a very serious problem if you either prevaricate or you refuse to assist this committee. So can you please reconsider? Mr. When, as I mentioned that, not when I think the formation of early on I don't want to misled what I'm doing this, but I don't want to misled the committee instead of me trying to say, and I may actually mislead the, the, the committee, Mr. Faisal, all I asked you for repeatedly over the last 10 minutes was, from your perspective, from your knowledge, whether they brought documents? And if so what documents those were, from your perspective, I'm not gonna answer them, because you were in a meeting over two days, two to three hours each set with them to discuss what must be top of your mind this inquiry that's going on? It's quite inconceivable that you can't answer from your perspective, whether they brought any documents to this meeting, and if so, what those documents that when I took my information, and I'm clear that what I've said, and I don't want to mislead if I want to ever want to give something which is, you know, not the truth. That's my standard. i You must not speak any untruth here. And I think I'm speaking the truth. Yes. But I'm also asking you to answer a question from your perspective. And you heard Mr. Chairman stages now that it is a fair question. So please answer the question. I'm not going to answer that question. As I mentioned to you, the purpose is that I want to give any misleading information. Okay. Do you know if they brought any documents to the meeting? Yes. In terms of yeah, they I think they did bring? They did bring because for their own references. Thank you now possible. Do you know what those documents are? As I mentioned, just now, I'm not going to answer that questions. Okay. All right. I've asked you several times in this whole interview refusing to answer indeed, less must now. Did they discuss in the course of the two to three hours with you each time? Your chronology or your recollection of the sequence of events?
Faisal Abdul Manap 14:30
Yes. Mr. When I'm being called to talk about
Edwin Tong 14:38
issue of race or laying in Parliament.
Faisal Abdul Manap 14:44
In this my focus,
Edwin Tong 14:45
thank you. Now, let me explain to you why I'm asking the question. Okay. I sat here for the last two and half hours listening to your evidence. Yes. And if I may just summarize it very generally. I know. There are some details. You're saying there was a Conversation on Eighth of August. Yes, there was a meeting with the CEC on the 29th of October. There was a parliamentary session on the first of November, when Miss Kahn made her personal explanation. But it seems that there's nothing much that you were privy to in the middle, correct recall. Yeah. Yes. So I now find out that you came into this inquiry prepared with a note that sets out the sequence of events. Yes. For, for me to remember. Yes. Yep. Which I would like to understand how that came about. Because if you only had two or three touch points, two or three occasions at which you had meetings with Miss Kahn, concerning the issue that we are inquiring into today, yes, then it would be odd that you have a note like this, which will require a two to three hour meeting over two days, just before today. Know that I prepared the notes on my own. Okay, we're not doing the meeting the prepared notes is on my own. Yes. Because I was out there, whether whether I consulted anyone about my notes and consulted. Okay. us about whether I got the right date, I can share with you the notes. There's nothing for me. We'll come to that. We'll come to that. But I'm just trying to understand whether or not you will given any input to the sequence of events from from Mr. Singh or Muslim? No, because I mentioned to I did my not on my own. Yes, I wrote it. And so what was discussed at this two to three hour meeting, the things that we did discuss about the issue of race as a whole. Alright, trying to basically recall that because here we are, we are supposed to meet up with a committee. Okay. So I don't want to go much into the details of the meeting. What do you mean, my right side as a whole? Can you explain I do not want to go much into the meeting? Because the focus he has mentioned to us now I'm here to answer to the question posed by the committee about the lie. And here I am presenting myself as a witness
Edwin Tong 17:17
Which I appreciate Mr. Faisal. But you see, I'm trying to understand the facts fully. Is I'm giving you the facts. Yes. And you and the facts is coming from the finish line. Yeah, no, I think we have this rule, right, let's talk to each other. So we have the facts. But the relevant sequence of events need to come out. And I'm trying to understand whether or not there was material, which perhaps you have forgotten, which Mr. Singh or Muslim may have reminded you about, or whether you discuss and as you did say the use you discuss Miss Kahn as a whole and spend two to three hours on each day twice over the last two days. So I'm just trying to understand whether or not the evidence you're giving today is influenced by that discussion? No, or whether or not it is entirely your own recollection. It's my recollection, a put it on writing as a missionary is a confirm and confidently see competent DC that is mine. Yes, I've I have no reason to doubt you. In by the way, you asked me repeatedly, I felt that you know, ideally not. I am trying to be as thorough as I can to understand the substratum of facts, which give rise to the sequence of events, and which also support the evidence that you've given today. That's my, that's my objective. Okay, so please don't misinterpret or don't read anything else into it. Now, this note, didn't miss limb or Mr. Singh give you any comments to it. If you talk about your note,
Faisal Abdul Manap 19:11
Mr. Green, I mentioned to you that this is my notes. Alright. So I believe in you want to ask me about the issue that we are talking what we are discussing right now. Was my question. Mr. Faisal, I'm not asking you whether you prepared or not I, I told you I, I believe you on this. Yeah. My question is and listen carefully. Did Mr. Singh or Muslim give you any comments on this note? No, I just stick with them the dates. That's it and did they help you with the dates? According to what you remember what remember this the date? Yes. Right. So they shed their own recollection with you and you discussed it. Correct.
Basically, a estimation, this is what I wrote and asked them with the you know, I got the sequence, right. Okay. So you did discuss the sequence to them, and you did discuss itself. The content was I'm quite I'm very sure. is supposed to be come from me. I don't want to be influenced by anyone else, because this is what I said. This is my words. I don't believe in you know, trying to change it because someone trying to influence me or of giving some other details. Of course. Yeah, understand that this is my responsibility. Of course, this isn't my own my own records my own finding to the committee. Yes. Mr. Faisal. And just to be clear to you, I'm not suggesting otherwise i But But saying By the way, I got it from you. Yes. Implying that
Tan Chuan-Jin: 20:30
I am not at all Do I have your My may interject Mr. FISA mana. If in the course of the last two days yourself, Mr. Pritam Singh, and Mr. Whelan met to discuss to just make sure you get the details right. In preparation for the interviews of the committee a privilege, these are relevant materials, we are just asking to ascertain. There's no accusation being made. Right. So let's just take it at face value. The questions are posed, respond as best as you can, and we carry on. Thank you.
Edwin Tong 21:01
So could you make available the documents that you have with you the sequence of events, as well as your notes of the DEP inquiry, they make that available to the Secretariat and copies to be given to us shortly? Thank you.
The reason? One of the other reasons I go into this Mr. Faisal is because it seems to me that us, one of the most senior members of the Workers Party. From the messages I see, you also are regarded as a somewhat of a confident of Mishcon, especially on Malay Muslim issues. And you're also on the CEC of the Workers Party. Yes. The evidence that you have given puts across a picture of you having almost little to no involvement in what is a huge issue. As far as integrity, honesty, and transparency is concerned. Yeah, it is the case. Yes. And I'm trying to understand why. Because it strikes me that as a senior member of the Workers Party, let alone CC member and so on. Someone in your position would have wanted to be interested in knowing what's going on with your party. And on an issue as grave and serious as this, would you don't agree? It's fair in general is fair. So what? To be very honest with you, as I'm was watching you give evidence to Mr. Lee. What piqued my interest about your note there and your construction of a sequence of events? is how is it that you don't really have much involvement in this, but could spend some time preparing a sequence of events, it strikes me that there is perhaps something that you might need to refresh yourself over? So I see a look. Let me let me finish Mr. Pizer. Let's not speak over each other. Okay. I'm just trying to see what I can be of assistance to you and help you look at the memo and ask you whether there are any other occasions in there besides those dates that I mentioned, which you might now recollect. So please do take a look at the note.
Faisal Abdul Manap 23:21
is here with me?
Edwin Tong 23:23
Okay. So let's, let's start with what you said about the eighth of August. Yes. So you were concerned with miscounts speech earlier about female genital mutilation is the polygamous marriages, right? Yes, yes. And so we saw earlier, an exhibit, which contains miscounts Facebook publication on the eighth of August, right. You let me summarize the evidence from Earlier you told us that you went into this meeting, focus on this issue FGM and poly polygamous marriage marriages. And you were very keen to ensure that there was a clarification. Yes, correct. And she then accounted to you about her own sexual assault experience? Yes. And you're in your words overwhelmed by Yes. Right. And you said that she was she had broken down and she was crying. Those are your words. Right. Okay. Now, would you accept that? She took on board your suggestions, JAWS and probably missed the things and Muslim suggestions from the meeting and went back and prepared the note.
Faisal Abdul Manap 24:45
suggestion on,
Edwin Tong 24:47
on what note on FGM and polygamy alone the FGM and polygamy? Yes. Yeah. We basically we did mention to that is you need to come up with a statement you Even as suggestions, right? Not not really not really. Yeah. You early on in response to missed the least question, you said that that's at one stage, Miss Carr had come down. And then you were able to proceed to discuss Yes. Mm issues, right. Yes. Right. At a point in time when she had come down, did you discuss with her? What relevant issues might arise? The views from the ground, how she should tackle any clarification and so on? They basically that has been done throughout from the third to before we met. So there's a whatsapp communication between me and her. Yes, updating her about, you know, the, what I call it. The comment from the committee and what I responded, understand. All right. Mr. Faisal, tried to cut you off on this time, but I'm focused on the eighth of August. I know you have preceding line of messages with this by recall that we just wanted to come up with the the statement, yes. And address the concern of the committee, and you would have given her suggestions as to how to come up with a statement and to address the concerns of the community. Correct. I did get, as I mentioned earlier to Mr. Okay, I did tell her about the need to put the point of where she's not against Islamic teaching. Yes. Okay. Great. And in your view, she did so right. Eventually, with a post? No, she omitted the thing. She didn't he didn't put up the thing. But she put up a post thereafter, on the same day, right. Yes. And that was the consensus that you had reached on that at that meeting. Right. That you should probably the WhatsApp after she came after we after we left. She came out. Let me let me I'm not talking about WhatsApp here, yet. Yeah. So don't jump ahead of me. I'm sorry about that. I am talking about a Facebook post. Yes. At the meeting you discussed for her to put up a further clarification or a correction. Correct. Concerning FGM. And polygamy? Yes. To address concerns of the community. Correct. Which you had shared with her? Yes, me few few. This got me furious. Go ahead. And also at the meeting, not not much of the meeting much of the media because this to him, but the concern that we have sharing. Okay. So she went back and she then drafted the post it Did you see the draft? Yes. She she WhatsApp to me. Yes. Did you give comments? Yes.
Edwin Tong 27:27
Did you exchange comments several times? Yes. And then thereafter, she posted it. Right. Yes, with your comments are taking on board your comments. She didn't agree with me when I told her to put the statement where she against she's not against the the thing that I told that. Okay, whatever is yours is yours, but I prefer you to put this but if you choose not to put it. And and it's supposed to be her own words. Okay. Yeah, of course, it has to be her own words. Yeah. But you would, and she would be entitled to say I accept some but not accept some yes, indeed of your suggestions. Right. Which is must be the reasons why you exchanging text after on comments. Right? Correct. Correct. Okay. You also gave us the impression that she was very affected by this incident, and in fact wanted to resign. Correct? Correct. Now, I'd like you to pick up this bundle, you you will refer to earlier the quality bundle that this is given to us by Miss loping of the messages that were exchanged between herself. And Miss Lowe, Miss Kahn and Mr. yudishe turn oven. Okay. Do you have it? Mr. Pizer? Yes. Which fish? Okay. Yeah, I know it's a very substantial bundle, can you please turn to page 21? You'll see the page numbers on the bottom right hand side.
Mysamma Mr. Okay. So just for context first, you know, Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern. Right. I do know them but not close to them. Okay. But you know that they are a current members of the Workers Party. Correct. And be there also activist who support misconduct in Hawaii as income, correct? Correct. You will also know that these two activists are close to miss Kahn, right?
Faisal Abdul Manap 30:00
I only know that they're very close when we interview them during the DPL. I mean, before they know that they're supporting her. Okay. All right, thank you, meaning they work closely with her, they will discuss her social media postings with us. This may be just with her right? It's my general understanding. Okay. So this is a WhatsApp group that has the three of them together. Okay. So you will see, beginning from around the middle of the page at page 21, that they start having a discussion very early the morning or late at night, depending on how you look at it at 12am. Okay, right, then you just quickly scroll down and go to the next page. And you'll see very briefly that sometime in the late morning, at around the time that you had the meeting with Miss Kahn at Mr. Singh's home. low paying says there's nothing wrong with your values and believe there's nothing wrong with you standing for it. She goes on to say what strongest people want you to change it and consider something you don't stand for. So her advice, so just let the Jabra away. And she goes on to say this Muslim community thing you'll pass. Honestly, remember, it's only compass, Vilas income that matters. And she then says, I spent the morning reading FB, which is I think, is Facebook. And the support for your speech Ray is just as loud as the voices against it. So that's something that would convey to miss Kahn that the comments on her speech were not one sided against her. Right. The comments on a speech from the from the general community and on the social media community, we're not one on one set, based on this. Yes. This is Miss Kahn reading it. And so this is the impression she will get right. And I think if you correlate that to the evidence you gave earlier, it is around this time that she would have gone to meet with you and Mr. Singh and Miss Lim 11. Relevant, okay. Then you go over the page to page 23. Miss Kahn then emerges from the meeting with you. And you mentioned earlier that the meeting was from 11 to about 12 or so. Right? Yes. So at 1241. Miss Condon writes, To miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern. And this is a WhatsApp message that Mr. Lee took you to earlier. Okay. And I would like you to look at the last the message after that. And she says, these past few days have been filled with lots of reflection on my part, I thought about my role as a member of parliament and as a Muslim woman. I don't think these identities are separate. And both are important parts of who I am today. I have already many opinions from both sides. This is at 12:42pm. Yes. Right as she steps away from the meeting that she had with you and Mr. Singh's home, correct?
Faisal Abdul Manap 33:02
Yes. Would you agree?
Edwin Tong 33:06
Maybe I'll ask you to look at a few more messages. So go down the page. She then says at 1247. Five minutes later, I think I want to share that I'm a Muslim woman, and no one can take that away from me. And if you go over the page, several other suggestions from Miss Lowe and yudishe, who had tough 49 says, honestly don't really need to explain yourself. Rightfully, I feel and so on. So, Mr. Faisal, yes. Right after coming out from this meeting, Mr. Miss can at least based on these messages to her close associates, makes a very bold statement. very stout statement. I am a Muslim woman. And no one can take that away from me. Yeah, she's proud of that fact. As standing by Correct. Based on the based on this. Yes. Do you see any way in the immediate aftermath of the meeting with you that Miss Kahn was affected by the discussion, or that she had expressed any desire to resign to her closest associates? Business messages? No, no. In fact, your view was that she should not resign, correct? Yes. You had expressed that to her Correct? Yes. You had quoted her several religious phrases during support her because psychologically correct. And you must have formed that view because not only were you supporting her with religious phrases to give a moral support, I assume, which is Yes, very good view, but also because you believe that she had a role to play in a Workers Party. She's an MP. Yes, yes. And she can continue being an MP, correct? Yes. Which is why you said don't resign? That's your view, correct? Yes. And you felt that she had a role to play also to serve her residents in the capacity as the Workers Party? MP, correct? Yes. And so when you give, gave your perception of or your sense of what happened on the eighth of August meeting? I think one has to look at it in conjunction with what she shared privately with her own close associates. And also with the view that you form, correct. The view that I form on, on whether she's should resign or not.
Faisal Abdul Manap 35:52
to resign came?
Edwin Tong 35:54
The reason the one I mentioned answer my question, and you can elaborate? No, let me let me look at this. There's a bit of incorrectness. In terms of the way the sequence of your question because the design comes much later is not related to let's take a step by step scenario. Let's take a step by step. Would you agree that the description of how she came across at the meeting on the eighth of August with you has also to be looked in the context of her private expressions with her two closest associates? Correct? Yes, yes. And we agreed earlier that in none of those discussions based on WhatsApp, was there any expression of a desire to resign? Yes. No, I will put it to you. Based on what we saw earlier, was there any feeling of doubt concerning what she's put out? From a Muslim perspective? Correct. From the outset? Yes. In fact, as I as we saw, she stoutly defends the position Korea agrees. And concerning a desire to resign, you talked about a timeframe. So let's look at the timeframe. The relevant period for consideration, obviously, which eventually led to her resigning would obviously be the speech she made in Parliament on the third of August as a starting point, because the falsehoods were there, all the way through to the 30th of November when she did resign. Okay, right. So let's answer my question. Is it to see that something's not right with your, your? What if? My question, yeah, okay, tell me what's not right. Because I didn't mention to Mr. Desmond, early on that. During the DP second meeting, she did mention to us that point time where she felt very affected by the issue of the FDC. And polygamy, she felt that you're going to become a liability. Okay, yeah. So this, this, but in particular, she wants she feel like she wants to resign because of the sheer fact she's becoming a liability due to these two sort of timeframe issues, the August period, because she made a speech in August. Right. So those two issues arise in August, correct? Yeah. Okay. Let me maybe simplify it for you, Mr. Faisal. So we are clear your expression to her that she should not resign him after August, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now, you also will know that right after this meeting on the eighth of August, Miss can proceeded to serve her residents attend functions, events? Yes. as per normal, right. Yes. Did you think that there was anything unusual in the way in which she discharged her responsibilities and duties as an MP to her residents? I can say much about it, because I wasn't there to know what's going on. I mean, she she she does continue her. Yeah. Yeah. As far as you are aware of, did you think that there was anything or did you hear about anything being unusual?
Faisal Abdul Manap 39:07
Nothing. Nothing. Right. She attended. NDP and you were there as well. Yes. On occasion, did she tell you that she wants to resign? No. She was selected as a member of the inter Parliamentary Assembly. Well, you were only aware of the she put up to posting. Yeah. And she attended the committee meeting on political matters. For the 42nd ASEAN in the Parliamentary Assembly. I think that's the post that you refer to right. You will also be aware, and I think she's made this public that she also in fact covered. Professor J Muslims MPs duties, right. Yeah, I think when he was away he was way and this would be on the 23rd of August. I'm not sure but the date, but it will be I know that there's a I understand that she she did cover JMS. Yes. And that is in addition to her own MPs, which also resumed around that period of time. Right. We should I believe so. Yes.
So, usual activities responsibilities as an MP just so that we are clear. I know we will do it would be market visits, house visits, and I can see that activities I know she's really she does. She did her this would be what, what you you know that she does right. I do not know about it. I just know that she does. She resumed MPs duty. Alright, in your was not so sure. Okay. And fair enough. And you didn't hear anything? Unusual to what right, I think. Okay, thank you.
Now, let's go back to the eighth of August again. Okay.
Edwin Tong 41:16
You said earlier that the discussion on the FGM. And polygamy was a short discussion. You exchanged some views? Yeah. Was there more than that? Can you tell me? I can you recall what, when? The details? Okay. Yeah. To be honest. Yeah. But was it a long discussion, short discussion? Was it a heated discussion? Was it a? Obviously, it's not any there's no anger? No, no heated discussion on the polygamy issue? Because I mentioned that much earlier. We have kind of like, discuss or give her point, my point of view of the whole thing? Yeah, yeah. So actually, that's right. Mr. Faisal, that's the powers getting to that actually, the eighth of August, as far as the FGM and the polygamy issues. The meeting on the eighth of August was really a combination of discussion, topics, comments that you have already initiated with Miss Kahn? over several days, correct? Yeah, in a way to to come to an agreement of you know, you need to come up with a statement. Yeah. Meaning is it was not raised for the first time on Eighth of August, it was a combination of several discussions along the way. Right. Okay. Can I go back to the point where I discussed with Raisa key basically from from the tip right after his speech until the it is more of the, the my my what I call it my observation of the social media posting, as far as my personal views, how I responded, Because I did receive a lot of clarity on that.
Edwin Tong 42:52
I understand. It's me, and my point is all of this was your personal views, and the community views was all shared with Miss Kahn before the eighth of August. Yes. Right. So it's not as if you need to discuss that afresh Correct. You need to discuss on on the statement, basically what to do, but these issues to come up with no views, correct. community views, correct. She already knew, right. Okay. So, if that was the case, what else did you spend the rest of the time at the meeting discussing? His admission is now we are focusing after she confessed of being? Okay, this the major part of the discussion upon that day to the console, and basically to listen to her and give her support. Yes. Okay. That compressed, meaning that they can basically take up much of the time. Okay. But you would accept that she also made a confession to you, Mr. Singh and Miss slim that what she said in parliament on third of August was false, right. Yes. This to be clear, would be the falsehood that she spoke about in connection with that anecdote that she used to support her speech. Yes. About accompanying sexual assault victim to be a police report. Right. which never happened. Yes. Would you agree that that anecdote, if true, would cast a bad light on the police?
Faisal Abdul Manap 44:23
So again, would you
Edwin Tong 44:25
agree that that anecdote, if true, yeah, would would cast a bad light on the page
Faisal Abdul Manap 44:31
in general if you make an untruth?
Edwin Tong 44:36
Call it does. Have a bit lighten. Yes. And untruth is bad enough. Yeah. But in this case, the untruth relates to the reaction of the police to a sexual assault victim making a police report. Yeah. So if that story or the anecdote was true, it would put the police in a very Red Light, right? Again, if this can be the case whatsoever, I rephrase, starting to lose my concentration. That's, I understand if that story or the anecdote that Miss Kahn spoke about in Parliament was true. People will think badly of the police, right? Yes. Correct. Yes. And the reason for that is because they will think that the police don't treat sexual assault victims properly. Right. The impression the public gonna get Yes, yes. And at the same time, sexual assault victims would also be worried about making a report to the police, if that anecdote was true, correct? Yes. And on top of this, lying in parliament is a very serious problem. Right? Agree. In fact, it might be an offence Correct. Agree. And you will also appreciate I mean, we even came into parliament the same time. So you would be you would regard yourself as one of the most senior members of the Workers Party, as an MP, serving your third term, you would appreciate the gravity of that situation? Correct. And would you also accept that either lying in Parliament or allowing a lie to be perpetuated in Parliament? Both are just as bad, correct? Indeed, yes. Correct. If you know of a true fact, which would correct a deception on parliament, then keeping quiet is also a problem, correct? Indeed, we will also possibly amount to an offense correct, indeed. And so when Miss Kahn made this confession to you, and to Mr. Singh and Muslim, there must have been a very serious reaction from all three of you. Correct? Can you elaborate more what you mean by serious renshi? Sure. You must have been very alarmed that one of your MPs had now come and told you that she had spoken an untruth in Parliament. Correct? No, do you agree? No, as I mentioned a little miss minister, Desmond Lee, that we are myself overwhelmed. And I give you a sequence where, let's say if my daughter were to, I understand that, yeah. But I'm now focused on the fact that, yes, we are all and I think, quite rightly, very sympathetic to the experience, not just of misconduct of any sexual assault victim. But at the same time, I think as an experienced member of parliament, as one of the leaders of the Workers Party, the immediate other issue that you will be very aware of, is that there is a serious problem in telling a lie to Parliament. Yes. And now, as of the eighth of August, you and two other very senior members of the Workers Party are aware. Yes. So my question is, when you found out about that, despite being overwhelmed with sympathy, which is quite right. You must also have been quite alarmed that this has happened. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Edwin Tong 48:29
Thank you. And the alarm stems from the fact that a lie has been told in Parliament. Yes. Right. And that lie, besides being a lie and a deception on parliament, also impacts police and sexual assault victims. Yes, yes. So it's a issue that must have struck you almost immediately that there's a lie. It's a big problem. It has impact on police and sexual assault victims. Now, in that context, what was discussed between yourself, Mr. Singh and mislim? Once you heard a new of a confession by Miska? Sorry, I mean, our discussion on the issue of the lie. Well, let me paint the scenario for you. Okay. So you are at Mr. Singh's home. Yeah. Miss Kahn has
made some confessions, one of which is her own experience for which you felt sympathetic, and the other is the confession or admission to a very serious problem in Parliament. The lie in Parliament. So my question is, and I know what you said to my colleague, Mr. Leon, yes. On the sexual assault experience. My question is what was discussed between the three of you and Miss Kahn concerning the line parliament. submission to Mr. Leon, we did not touch further on that thing. Because the focus point time was more on her well being. And basically, when Pritam asked that, you know, whether she told her parents that become actually a very grave concern to us, as she told her parents the lie, or
Faisal Abdul Manap 50:34
sexual assault.
Edwin Tong 50:37
So are you suggesting that there was no reaction whatsoever? Upon being told that there was a lie, spoken in Parliament just a few days before that, this way, come back to the point where I explained to Mr. Faisal, I think it's important to answer the question directly, and then you can give your explanation if you like. Okay. So let me repeat again. Okay. I'll just
I said, Are you suggesting that there was no reaction whatsoever? From all three of you, upon being told that there was a lie spoken in Parliament? Just a few days before that? Yeah. Because I personally was overwhelmed. Because the sequence admission is the sequence that you know, she does. Firstly, she she she she got something. Yes. And like. So this was a sequence that took place on the eighth of August. Yes. Sequence meaning the sequence of What? What? Yeah, let me finish the sequence of who said, what, at the meeting on the eighth of August? Is that what you're saying? What Raisa said to us? No. When you mentioned sequence earlier, you mean the sequence of how she told you, he and your reaction? Correct. My reaction, yours and Mr. Singh and Miss Muslims reactions? Yeah. Is that what you refer to when you use the word sequence? The sequence of what she said? How she see how she broke the news? It basically she said that she's a sexual assault victim? Yes, we heard that. Yeah. You heard that. That's what I meant. That's what I meant that the sequence I'm referring to. Okay. I'm referring to your reaction. Yeah. What was your reaction? As I mentioned, I was shock, because a woman by the first statement that she made, so I let me be clear. Okay. I heard in detail your evidence earlier, and I don't need to revisit that. I'm focused on whether you or Muslim or Mr. Singh, had any reaction to her admission that she had lied in Parliament just a few days before. Mr. Nunez mentioned this. Now. We were overwhelmed by the first statement. And as I mentioned, as human being cannot, can I be overwhelmed by certain things certainly changed to become like, subtle. Were you lying? Okay. No, no, I know, because this is a state of reaction. Mr. Pfizer? Yeah. Okay. Perhaps I put it this way. We all have a range of emotions, right. But we also have responsibilities, indeed, and in the meeting that day, are amongst the most if not the most senior of leadership? In the Workers Party. Yes. And you are faced with admission by one of your colleagues, fellow MP. Yes. Realize we've spoken in Parliament's Yes, there is an experience that she's also recounted about her own self. Yes. For which sympathy was felt? Yes. But I find it surprising that there was just no reaction whatsoever from any of you. To a confession to you, that Ally has been spoken in Parliament. Can you explain why that case? Can I go back to the sequence when he when Raisa mentioned about the sexual assault? Gabrielle over them? You're right. As a senior member of Workers Party and is MP, one of the seniors senior MP in in, in Workers Party. Not only do I have my consent on the party, and the lady, she said, but I said with my cousin on her. And this is what you is what has been stated by mishaan. And the thing what this was mentioned by Minister Desmond he that she trusted me. She trusts me. Okay. So on that basis. Okay. There's some form of understanding between me and her. And of course, my compassion will be my my evolution appointment that I need to address that issue for Senate to prioritize and address the issue of her. Yeah. I understand Michelle with me that difficult part of what she went through. I understand Mr. Faisal. I mean, like you said, and I put it in your own words. Part of you was concerned For her personally, as you say you're a bit of a mentor to look after her. But you're also concerned about your party. In a member. There's also a concern. Yes, of course. Yeah. So I'm trying to address the latter part. What did you do about that concern? submissions, I was overwhelmed by the first concern that you could not say anything at all, to the reaction as to the admission that shed light. This is the truth. I'm telling you. I don't know what were you leading me towards? But I feel that this what I've been saying the truth, that I feel overwhelmed. I'm leading you to the truth. So I'm telling the truth. Okay. Sorry, Mr. A,
can I see you leading me to the truth? Yes. I just want as low as to sort to say as though you know, the truth. No, I'm telling the truth. I'm trying to get a truth from you. Mr. Faisal, I wasn't there. And it is, I will say to you, Minister, dismally early on. So bear with us. Right. We have to, I'm sorry about that. Not just ask questions. But the reason we asked Mr. Faisal is because we are we have to not just make a finding, but we have to give a reason and a basis. Okay. So I hope you understand when I asked you questions that surround not just what you said, but why you said, Why you didn't say, yeah, what was your reaction? And it is really to understand the basis of findings that we will be making eventually. Okay, understanding. So I go back to my point. The reason I asked you those questions earlier tonight, I'm not trying to to trick you. Okay. Mr. Faisal, I am trying to say, your state of mind as a season senior member of Workers Party reacting in a way that I think we all do when we are told that there's an untruth spoken in Parliament. Yeah, very serious, impacting police and behavior of sexual assault victims. When you're told about that, even though I understand the fact that you're overwhelmed, and you're very affected by what she had said about her own experience, which I understand and I, and I think it's good that you were there for her as well. But my I also have to address my mind to what is the reaction to the other part of her admission, which I think is also very serious. Would you Would you not agree? Also very serious, right? It's a fair thing for you to ask me. Yes, I do agree. So this meeting that took place on the eighth of August, started by 11, you said went on till about 12. So an hour hour plus? Are you saying that in the entire period of time, apart from Miss Kahn, speaking about the admission that she lied in Parliament? No other words were spoken by you? or Muslim or Mr. Singh about this issue at all? issue of the lie? The lie? Yes. Not a single word was then spoken. Yes. Because we are concerned about the we have, for me, I prioritize the focus on sorry, on the issue of her distress, okay. No to base on her confession after she got the surface. He made the confession. But she has been What about Mr. Singh and Mr. Lim. I'm overwhelmed to rest and I don't really look around the meaning of them that I'm tired. And I don't have the time to look around and looking at. You see, it's a it's a meeting in India. Indeed. Indeed. Yeah, indeed. Yeah. I think it's a meeting Yeah. Mr. Singh's home. Yeah. Because I don't really like, you know, yeah, looking at Mr. Singh looking like, What's your relation? And I don't do that. I mean, it's, I assume it's not such a big room or on the dining table, in the dining area. So within a very clear line of sight of each other. And you're talking about an issue that is this minor issue because, yeah, a counselor need to focus on what has been presented. Okay. And if you see that a maintain my my contact with Trump. Yeah, unless I need to record something. So that is my way of focusing. But your you wear several hats. Mr. Faisal, your counselor indeed. You're also a fellow member of parliament and the sinner, Leah's party? Yes. As a senior member of workers party, I do have my concern about the well being of the younger. Yes. MP who trusted me. Yes. I understand all that. And I think we agree. Yeah, she just said you. She saw you as a mentor. She will listen to you. And she reached out to you on occasion for assistance, right? Yes. So but we're not as close I mean, maybe not close, in a sense. Yeah, I can see that. But I was in work on Sunday. Yeah, yes. But I think we got it on a transcript. So let's focus on the second part of what she said. Because I, I mean, to be honest with you, I think it is somewhat surprising that an admission is made like this by a fellow member of parliament, about a hearing, sitting that just took place a few days ago, that there was a lie. And we all appreciate the gravity of
a lie and a deception on parliament, especially in the context of police reaction to sexual assault victims. So I find it hard to follow why there was just no reaction whatsoever. From any of the three of you who were present, understand. Is there any other explanation? That's possible? This is what I recall. And this is what what I've shipped to me is what happened? Yeah. So this meeting, when it ended, did miss can leave the meeting first. Yeah, I think she she left the meeting first. And Pritam let her out. Follow by his knee. And Sylvia, we go out at the same time, but there's a distance between us. Yeah, we don't go as a group. So did you discuss with Muslim or Mr. Singh? No, at all? No. So you left all in silence? And yes, there was no discussion, no discussion on the line. But of course, as much as now. We at the meeting we did discuss about okay, she needs to come up with a statement for the FDC and polygamy. Yeah. But by the time the meeting ended, I think Miss Kahn was fairly, I mean, your words composed? Yeah, able to talk about the statement. And we saw her messages immediately after the meeting. Yeah. Right. So coming back to the second part of admission.
Are you saying that whilst you were at Mr. Singh's home on the eighth of August, there was no discussion with your fellow workers party leadership on this, on this referring to the lies in Parliament? Not a single word. Are you sure? Yes. And when you finished this meeting on the eighth of August you would, despite being overwhelmed by Mishcon sexual assault experience, you would have at some stage registered that, hey, there was something else that was very serious that she told us at the meeting, right? Where is that mean? Sing it to myself, meaning you would have remembered you would have recalled? It will dawn on you. Yeah, that there was something else very seriously. She told you. Right. When was that? mean? Well, I do understand that this information is and it was based on her well being. But I do understand throughout that the issue is not being addressed. No. Mr. Pfizer, I'm asking a different question. I'm saying after the meeting finished. Yeah. Because you told us Okay, hang on. You told us very clearly that throughout the time at the meeting, after she uttered those words, none of you discussed it. And there was zero discussion on it. Correct? Yes. Do I characterize your evidence correctly? Correct. zero evidence on it. Not a word was spoken about it? Correct. By any of you? Yes. The recall. Not a question was asked at all whatsoever. Yes. Not as to her. Okay. Amongst Yourselves. Also, not we did not want to talk about the weather. about who else knows about sources is different. Correct? Yeah. Okay. So 00 So now I'm at the stage after the meeting. Okay. And I said at some stage after the meeting, he would have done on you are registered to you that there was this something else that was very important, which Miss can confessed. Right. Yeah. Because in my mind, okay, when was that? Well, it's always been in my mind that there's another issue that you know, we did not address okay. So, in your mind, when did you go and address it? I do not address it. It's not it doesn't, because you didn't think about it or address it at all. I know. There's a there's no no closure to that discussion. Okay, but I did not pursue in any way whether with rice with or Silvia, about this theme because the submission to minister Lee On the utrust, being a senior member of the Lucas party and have been with Pritam in Syria for the past 10 years is an empirically and more visible Syria because I joined the party in 206. I have to trust that you know, Pritam, who knows Raisa better molecule buyers will take the right step. And the trust that Reza has in me, right. So trusted that she will do the same thing, the right thing. Okay. So let's, let's break it down a bit. You left the meeting? Yes. You didn't thereafter discuss the issue of the lie with either Muslim or Mr. Singh? Yes. At all? Yes. Are you sure? Yes. And you therefore would know. You therefore, let me rephrase this. And because you didn't discuss with them at all, you therefore would not know if they have dealt with the problem. Correct. Okay. Can you repeat it this way? Since you didn't discuss them? Since you didn't discuss it with them at all? After the meeting? Okay. Or even at the meeting? You would have no idea if either Muslim or Mr. Singh addressed the problem, correct? Yes, correct. But you accept that it is a problem that has to be addressed, Chris? In fact, it's a very serious problem, correct? Yes. In your own mind, would it have to be addressed? Yes. That's why I say I trust preterm and Raisa whom she trusted me to trust me to know what is the right thing to do. Okay. So in your mind, what steps should have been taken to address it? She should come clean already. She should admit, put the record straight Minga record correctly recorded what she's mentioning on the third of August. Okay. When? When should she come into it?
Get biscuit is the part where I answer my question. Yes, I'm sitting occasions when? When is because the point of you will do the timeframe on the timeline a little bit too preterm? Because Peter need to make a judgement based on her assessment of prices? Condition. Right. So you say you didn't discuss anything with either of them? Yes. But somehow, you know, there is my assumption. Yeah. You see, and I think you're trying to preempt by question, because you saw the Lord, empty. You saw the logical I'm not blaming you see, if you didn't discuss with them at all, period, zero, you say? How then would you know that Mr. Singh, would only allow Ms. Khan to come forward? When the assessment is, she's okay to do so. As long as you know, that I mentioned to you earlier on that we have been particularly MPs for the past 10 years. We know our style, we know our each of one of us corrector. So based on that, of course, will come to my assumption that Pritam will do what is need to be done. And the trust that Reiser will do the right thing.
You said in answer to my question, when I asked you when you said I leave it to Britain because Britain needs to make a judgement based on his assessment of racist condition. Yes, I did not communicate the Olivia to you preterm. But in personally, that's my thoughts that I believe it to preterm to manage this case, is on his judgment. Mr. Faisal, for someone to come to that conclusion, you need several steps behind that statement that you just made. There are several steps that need to be taken before you reach the conclusion. What do you suggest to roosters? Step number one, it's a serious problem. Indeed, number three. Number two, there needs to be a clarification. Number three, clarification about the lie from myself, yourself. And number three, Mr. Singh needs to make a judgment. Number four, there has to be an assessment of racist condition. Yes. How is it that you can form this view of Mr. Singh? If you don't communicate with him about this issue at all? As mentioned earlier, we have been colleague for 10 years. Have you ever had another occasion when a member of parliament lied in Parliament? Mr. My name Mr. Faisal. Sorry, again. Have you ever had an occasion previously, where Workers Party MP lived in Parliament? I didn't recall of someone who lied in Parliament during your term. Okay, what can we call it personally about myself? Libby, I don't need to ask you. Questions. I just want to ask you. Yeah, very clearly. Yeah. In your 11 years or so in Parliament. Yeah. During the time that you say, you know, Mr. Singh. Yeah. Very well, in that period of time. Are you were you aware of any other occasion where a member of parliament spoke in untruth? Yeah. Basically, I recall the time where Peter was alleged to be saying that he plagiarize. Yes, that I think we know where we're coming from. I want to know whether there's another previous occasion that is similar to miss Khan's occasion when there was an outright lie, which affects the proceedings in Parliament directly and which affects the police and sexual assault victims, yes or no? No. Was there another me senator, but okay, was there another occasion when a fellow member of parliament came to you to make a confession about having experienced a sexual assault? Personally? No. So these are two important but completely new scenarios, Mr. FISA. Right. And you were told about this. On the first occasion, on the eighth of August, all of these events, the lie as well as the sexual assault, correct? Yes. In your entire experience with Mr. Singh. Neither of you have experienced this in the party. Right. And so to say that you would be able to tell that Mr. Singh, will sort the problem out by making a clarification, but make a judgement on racist condition. You could not have reached that understanding without having discussed it with him, right? That is me. That's what I'm, what Tolu is, me, as I trust someone. Okay. I've known him for 10 years. Based on that 10 years. I believe he will do the right thing. Yes, we all can say that. But nobody told you that we do. Or we also have to understand the basis of why you have that belief. Right. And it's because the business that we think for 10 years, but you also know that this experience is a completely novel one indeed but I know his values and his values and his character. And so in a trust a trust him. Okay, scenario will be different throughout. Yes, but how you handle this narrow different scenario is based on your values and your principles. Okay. And I know him for the past 10 years, I don't disagree with that, you know him for the past 10 years and you know him well, I'm trying to explore with you your basis of that that was okay and anything else, nothing else, nothing else. So, your entire basis of knowing that Mr. Singh would be in a position to and will judge when is best for Raisa to come clean and explain the lie in Parliament based on her own assessment and condition is all based on your knowing Mr. Singh for 10 years, his values and principles anything else?
Nothing else? Okay. So, you know of no other information, no other fact. No other person told you anything which formed that impression on your on your part, correct. impression on sorry, the understanding that Mr. Singh would solve the problem in a way that we have just explained, you know, of no other basis on which you can say, gave you the comfort that he will do so. Right. Yeah. is based on my own work. My trust in him Yeah. Now, going back to the eighth of August, in the Mr. Singh's home on the dining table. If, and now, I'm asking you to look at it from miscounts perspective. She comes forward and she makes to admissions to the senior leadership of the Workers Party. Yes. The first confession about her own experience as a sexual assault victim would not have been necessary. But for the second confession, correct.
Faisal Abdul Manap 1:14:42
So I didn't get what you're trying to ask from
Edwin Tong 1:14:46
her disclosure of her own experience as a sexual assault victim would not have been necessary. But for the fact that she was trying to explain the circumstances behind telling a lie in Parliament, right You asking me I'm looking for Miss Han perspective. I'm, I'm there just for you to look at from her perspective, the perspective of someone who sat in the meeting, listening to miss Kahn? No, I thought you did mention that. My looking from mishaan perspective. So we, from her perspective, she's coming forward to work as party leadership, enabling you to make two confessions. Okay. Right. Now, you heard those confessions. Right. From your perspective now, just so you're clear perspective again, the first admission about her own experience as a sexual assault victim, yes. Was only necessary to tell you because she was also making the second confession, right. I don't know what was intention to her. To mention, from your perspective, think about it as a matter of logic, if there was no lie in Parliament, meaning she did go and accompany someone to see the police. If there was no such lie, there would have been no need to talk about her own experience as a sexual assault victim, right.
I can I can. I can see much on that. Because admissions know that I don't know her intention. No, I'm not asking you for her intention. I'm asking you for someone who is the recipient of the information? Yes. She comes in makes a confession to confession. Sorry. I'm saying that the confession about her own experience as a sexual assault victim? Yes. Only came about because she liked in Parliament. Right? He is yes. Because yeah, it will have big light on the third. That's correct. So she disclosed her own experience to explain why she did so. Correct. Okay, she did it. She didn't link the thing together. As admissions. No, she just came to us told us that she just but I'm not asking you to give me a verbatim account of what she said. I'm saying your takeaway logic is pure logic, right? If she did lie in Parliament, there'll be no explanation whatsoever. That's general but I don't have that. I'm not a judgmental person, which I kind of like, I'm not asking you for judgment. Mr. FISA. No, don't get me wrong. I'm simply putting a matter of point of logic to you. If there was no question of a lie, yes, that means the account attending the police station with a victim was true. Then the second explanation about her own self would not arise, right? Because it's true. She did go to the police. They go to the police station with a victim. Sorry, I just didn't get the point that you're trying to ask me. If I'm sorry. Okay. It's okay to go one step at a time. So she told a lie in Parliament, right? Indeed. The Lie was that she went to the police station with a victim. Right? Yes. And then she explained that the police treated the victim badly, right? Yes. And she put it down as a personal account, one that she saw because she was there, right? Yes. That's false. Right? Is false false in that he never happened. She never went to the police station. Okay. And she never accompanied a victim to the police station. Right. If the account was true, there's nothing to explain. In parliament. Right? Because it's Yes, correct. And it is therefore, in trying to explain the untruth, meaning she is now saying to you, Mr. Faisal, look, I didn't actually accompany anybody. Yes. But I got the information from my own experience in a support group. Okay. She's trying to explain to you how she got the information, correct. Yeah. And it is in that context, that she needs to disclose that she's in a support group. Right. Yes. And she was in a support group because she herself was a victim of a sexual assault. Right? Yes. Right. So therefore, it follows that if there was no lie, there was no question of a lie in Parliament about going to the police station. The second issue of her own experience as a sexual assault victim wouldn't come up, right. Yes. That's what I was getting to. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. So, the main point of the meeting, to discuss this, besides the statement was because she had lied in Parliament. No, I was told by Pritam we agreed that we need to meet to discuss about the statement. Yes, no, I listen to my question carefully. I said. Let me repeat it. I said the the main point of the meeting to discuss this, besides the statement was because she had lied in Parliament. Correct. You mean the the the agreement? August coming? The August, as mentioned to Mr. Lee on my understanding on the eighth of August meeting is to discuss about statement to come up to two, but the FDC and the polygamy. So, yes, I'm not privy to the other two part where she's going to come and confess about the lie. Okay. So, now ask you to look at it as a person who attended the meeting? Yes. And who was there? And you said your eyes was on Miss can drop. Yeah, remember? Okay. She comes forward. And she makes two important disclosures. Miss confessions. Right. You agree both are important confessions. Right. Okay. And so she has told her senior party leaders that she has lied in Parliament. This and there's no reaction whatsoever. Writing, I think earlier. She, I want to I'm looking at it now. From this angle. There's no reaction whatsoever. Right.
Now, this will be similar to what I've said to you earlier. Please, please state the answer. There's no reaction correct answers. Yes. I'm overwhelmed by the first part. woven by the first confession. Yeah. Okay. So there's no, there's no reaction. Correct. reaction to that part of our lives, right. Yeah. So machinery overwhelmed. You said zero just now. Right? Yeah. Didn't ask you a question. Correct? Yeah. It didn't tell her what to do about it. Yes. didn't discuss details with her. Yes. Didn't ask her. Why is it untrue? Yes. didn't discuss with her whether or not nothing? Zero. As you mentioned, Ella, zero. Thank you. So, from her perspective, she walks into a meeting with her senior party leaders, she discloses and confesses to having lied in Parliament. There's zero reaction from a senior party leaders. What do you think she would walk away with? I can't answer that on her behalf. But again, if you back goes back to what she taught being and miss a new dish, right? There was that she said, after she left the thumbs. Yes. Okay. She's more talking about she's more relating to them about No, she's being a Muslim. She's being a Muslim woman. Okay, and so forth. And All right, so let's let's take the WhatsApp now. Okay, you are on the Mundell. We saw earlier page. 23. Right. Yeah. Okay, let's do it. Let's get the WhatsApp. Hey guys, I just met with preterm children. Yep. You have that. Now. Good. Okay. So this message, Mr. Faisal has got four lines. Here Hey, guys, I just spent with Pritam Sylvia and Faisal firstline. Yes, it's true. Right. Met with me preterm in the slides, too. Right. Correct. And we spoke about the Muslim issues and a police acquisition. Yes. Like she confessed. Also true. Right. So she confessed the confession but yeah, but this statement is true. Right. We spoke we spoke right? It's not we spoke. She's the one who told us she after we didn't speak about it. Okay. But with that qualification is true. Right. We spoke Vinnie came up. Yeah, we spoke about the Muslim issues. And the police equation estimation is no admission to the zero. I disagree. We say if you if we spoke is so you're saying you're? You're saying she spoke but you didn't speak? Yeah. Yeah. Subject to the qualification design is true. Right. So Reagan, subject to that qualification that she spoke and you didn't spoke based on the evidence this line is true, right? Yes. Okay. Next line. I told him what I told you guys, and they agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. true or not true? Not true. Not true. Next line, they also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening. True, true, true. So let's look at it from your perspective. She goes into a meeting, she makes a confession. She follows up with an almost contemporaneous message to her close associates. And you are saying that her account of what she was told by you is untrue. Reagan gone off her counter what she was told to take the information to the grave is untrue. Okay. Get Can you tell them? Let me know, let me ask the questions. Can you tell me Mr. Faisal? Why would miss Kahn lie to her friends? I do not know. Can you think of a good reason? I can. You are a mentor? Indeed, yes. Yes. Why would she come out of the meeting? Almost? Let me finish here. Why would she come out of the meeting with you come, made a confession, a very serious one to a senior party leaders step out, almost immediately send a message about what happened? And why would she lie? And why would she just give a one line lie and the rest of the statement is correct. Can you think of a good reason? I can't think of a good reason because it says mentioned to us now. Trust me, I trust us to do the deal. To do what is correct. That's why I'm very perturbed. When she came up with this statement to say that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. Yes, but one very lie. Mr. Faisal,
there is I don't understand. You think about it. I can think about it because I don't understand what she's when she needs to utter this word upgrade. It didn't happen. Think about it now. Okay. There's nothing for me to do mystery, because I can't understand where she if you don't, don't jump ahead, please. Mr. Visor. Let me ask the questions. Okay.
Faisal Abdul Manap 1:26:27
She
Edwin Tong 1:26:29
volunteered the information. digitally. You didn't find out before she told you right. Yeah, yeah. So she went to a meeting with her most senior party leaders. Chairman, vice chairman. Sec, Jen. And volunteered the information confessed. Yeah. Would you accept that one reasonable interpretation of what she did? On the eighth of August was to make a confession to a senior party leaders and get guidance on what to do. On hotpot Yes. Fair. Right. Fair. And as a young MP, barely a year in chamber, yes. Meeting with the most senior party leaders coming with a confession. It'd be fair for her to expect that going into the meeting, she will get guidance from three of you. Correct? Yes, correct. On what to do and how to handle the problem, right? Yes, correct. Right. And she did it on her own volition. She stepped forward to confess on her own volition. She wasn't found out. Right? She wasn't. She wasn't found out by you or by Pritam. or Mr. Singh or Muslim. Right. Based on the transcript, right. I believe that she did mention to Peter on the seventh. Yes. But he didn't find out. She told him right. The only Pritam. And as I said, because I don't know what to do. I'm only addressing the point because you seem to know your transcripts. Well. And you know that he was brought up on the seventh. So I'm saying that it was told to him not that he knew first right. And it look at what was by as far as your recollect. As far as you recollect. You mean that is Who is she who admitted to Pritam? Yes, I don't have the information. Okay. So as far as you know, I don't have the information. Oh, no. As Mr. As, as far as I know. Like I said, I don't have the information. Mr. Faisal, don't Yes. Don't worry, you know, I'm not worrying. I'm trying to answer Mr. Mee. You see, the reason why I start my questions with as far as you know, is because I'm trying to ask you for your knowledge. I am not here to ask you to speculate. I don't have any doubt about that misstatement. But I'm answering to your question. No, but you see, Mr. Faisal, you cut me off before I even finish? I just say I'm sorry, buddy. I just said, as far as you know, any you cut me off? Okay. I'm sorry. But okay. As far as you know, as far as you know, did miss limb find out about the lie? Or where she told for the first time at the meeting on the eighth of August? I don't know about it. But as far as you are concerned, you only knew on Eighth of August. Right. And there is no suggestion on the eighth of August that either of mislim or Mr. Singh? Live up Mr. Singh for the time being. There is no suggestion on the eighth of August that mislim knew about this lie before Miss Kahn told her right. To Regan. Sorry. There's no suggestion on the eighth of August at the meeting that mislim knew about the lie before the eighth of August, correct. Right. So at least for the two of you, as far as you know. Yeah. It was Miss Kahn coming forward voluntarily, right. Yes, as far as we know. So she's coming forward making the confession. So my question again, Why would she step out of this meeting? And tell a lie? Yeah. To her closest associates? Can you think of a good reason? To repeat that? I don't know. I don't have any good reason for me to think of because it wasn't. I did I expect to see all these so I don't know. Mr. Again, again, can I just bring you to the WhatsApp message? No. Yeah. If you if you'd like to clarify, I can get some time later. But I like to carry on my line of questioning Okay.
When she came to see you, and Mr. Singh and Muslim. And I think we agreed earlier that she was there, it's reasonable assumption that she was there to get guidance and advice from you, three of you. Right. reasonable assumption. Correct. Let's say your for a moment, we assume that there was zero discussion on this. Okay. Would you think that one takeaway by Miss can from the meeting will be that my senior party leaders are not concerned at all about the lie?
I cannot speak on her behalf. No. But the thing is that Mr. Mr. Faisal, yeah, I'm not asking you to speak on our behalf. Yeah. Well, you asked me what do I think? Because you see, we all agreed that the common assumption is that she's coming to see you make a confession. Senior party leaders. Yeah, I'm sure it's reasonable to her assumption, but it's reasonable for her to believe that she will get guidance and advice from you. Correct. So if you don't say anything, zero, no questions? No comments? Yeah. Don't tell her what to do. One one reasonable take away from her is that her senior party leaders are not concerned with the issue. We need advice about Confession. No, Mr. Faisal, let me be clear, let's focus on the lie to Parliament. Okay. Yeah. So one reasonable assumption by her would be that my senior party leaders are not concerned with it. Right. She may have that assumption, but any must be any will be a reasonable assumption. Right? Yes. On her part. Yes. Yes. Yes. Because she told you a lie about the brother. She told you that she told a lie in Parliament. Very serious. Yeah. And you don't say that's wrong? You don't say please correct it. You don't say? What happened? You don't say how do we fix it? You don't tell her to fix it? Yeah. You don't tell her let's take steps to tell the CEC. Let me finish? Yeah. You don't tell anybody about it. You don't tell her anything? Yes. So it's a fair assumption on the part that my senior party leaders actually think is okay. Okay. I have to retract that it's not a fair assumption, after thinking, Marie, that she has the right to ask us. Why aren't you all giving me advice on this confession I made? You mean, after I come to you. And I said, I lie in Parliament after she came in. Let me finish. After I come to you. And I said, I've lived in Parliament. You don't say a thing? Zero. And I don't have the onus of asking. What do we do? If there's no intention of coming to see us to seek guidance? See, after he told us he was as the opening opening statement, I believe she still has the opportunity to ask because this is that was the intention of coming to us as part of our guidance. And that's why Why didn't she continue and as I have not get the guidance when you're getting at this particular issue, and that didn't happen. And that's your position as a senior party leader, all three of you. Submitted do you have to make a judgement? What the honor, three, three issues has been confessed of being being being shed by Raisa her well being at a point in time is our priority. I accept that Mr. Faisal, I accept that. And I I also applaud that that her well being inky rarity. Thank you. But I also put to you that this three most senior members of the Workers Party is present. She has come forward voluntarily. She's made a confession to confessions, one, about her own experience in the end to which we agree was the main confession, because without the second one, the first one would be irrelevant. She lied in Parliament. Yes. You also agree with me that it was reasonable for to assume in that context that she was in meeting with a senior party leaders that she would it would be reasonable for to assume that guidance be given to her. It's reasonable to assume yes. But I think was said to her zero. Yes. It tends to ask for clearance. before she leaves because they have the intention of coming to get guidance, and she looked good. She didn't get the guidance from us. She should ask. Okay, what's the purpose of the discussion, the purpose of the meeting that we are open to listen, you open to be asked by her. Can you please make her get this guide me on what needs to be done? But she's, but Mr. Faisal, yeah, she she's, first of all, she's a young lady. But she's secondly is an adult. She's a mother of two. Yes. She's a young lady. But she's not young. He's 20. How do you define young? Mr. Green? I don't think we should get into that discussion. She is young. She, more importantly, as an inexperienced first term MP? I agree. Yes. Coming to her seniors. Yeah. So to seek guidance? Yes. Yes. Correct me is to get guidance to seek and to get guidance. Yes. But we require about it because we are overwhelmed by the by her confession of you. Did she come to the point at a I've not get the guidance on this policy issue did she did she, she didn't do that. And instead, when she came out the first thing that she mentioned to them, and to the Miss Lo and quickly, Nathan, if you look further down, she's more of sharing her role. You know, she
said, I thought about my role as Member of Parliament. This is the one this portion of of her being affected by, you know, by by, by people, the social media comment on her, she's more interested of sharing this part with the two of them. And just one line stating that the best thing to do is to take information to the grave. And that's what she said, what she shared with them on the issue of she come to see us to seek guidance. Yes, let me and she's more interested or telling the two of them. She felt she's more. She's a Muslim woman, very stoutly, right? She said that very strongly, very firmly, right? Indeed. Yes. Thank you. Now, let me let me give you a plausible explanation why she emerged from that meeting. And she focused on this. Okay, yes. You pick up her evidence. miscounts evidence this would be on second December.
I think Mr. Lee, my colleagues showed you this earlier. So I think you refresh your you remember it? So I'll take you through it very quickly. Starting from the top line, Miss whose house Mr. Pritam sings house both the only speech in speech at seven are sorry. Sorry, I should have told you the page number. Give me okay. You can take some time to read it quickly if you'd like. it good enough. Okay. So Mr. Singh's house, Mr. Lim, Mr. Manoj was present. Was it put in clear terms that a statement you made was false answer. Yes. Could you have misunderstood? No, they could not. Okay, pause for a moment. All this is true right. Now, she declared me he confess. Okay. Then he goes on what was their reaction? It was incredible disappointment. There was a lot of anger. But I think there was some compassion as well. The reaction 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. Then I asked her some questions about what that means. She talked about Mr. Pritam Singh's initial response, then how he changed his mind. And then right at the bottom, I said, the upshot of the meeting a few days after seven August and this is actually the eighth August meeting, was that the Workers Party leadership decided that there'll be no need to clarify the position to be able to keep the lie in place. Since if you're not pressed, there's no need to clarify the truth Correct? answer correct. Now pause for a moment, Mr. Pfizer. You want to read further I'm okay. Okay. Now, let me suggest to you why her immediate post eight August, meeting messages to her closest confidence and Associates was focused on the Muslim issues. On her account, she went to the meeting, she made her confession, she told you about a sexual assault experience. But she told that to you in the context of explaining how she learned of the information, meaning the way the police treated sexual assault victims. She also told you that the anecdote she told him parliament was false. The three of you told her this anecdote about the false. This lie about the false anecdote should not be told to anyone should take it to the grave in her words. But on the Muslim issue is A statement by this evening. Yes. Okay. So that's what that's, that will be her account of what happened. And so based on that alone, okay, that means based on her account, Mr. Faisal, I'm not asking you to base it on what you disagree with, but based on her account, okay. The messages that are exchanged immediately after the eighth of August would be entirely consistent with her account of what happened at the eighth of August meeting, correct. Her account? Yes, sir. Account? Yeah. Missing her accounts? Yes. So consistent with her account? Right. Yeah, he trained to see that this two portion, consistent consistently, as I'm trying to say that, based on what she said, happened on August. Yeah, everything that happened thereafter, in her private messages with a closest associates would be consistent with that, right. You understand? Don't get that. That means. I just read to you her account. What happened? Yeah. I'm saying to you take it on the basis of her account. Okay, what Miss consise? Okay. The messages that we now see on the bundle between herself and her closest associates would be consistent with her account. Right? Yes. You'll be consistent because number one, she was told by the Workers Party leadership to bury the matter. Ticket to the grave, not talk about it. If you're not pressed this account to her account. Yeah. And so you don't see any other discussion on this thereafter? Korea. Conversely, on the Muslim statement, clarification, she was told, put out a statement by this evening.
And so she proceeds to discuss with her associates what the Workers Party leadership told her to do, which is to put out a statement grace. And, in fact, for the rest of the day, as I showed you earlier proceeds to prepare the draft Random Draft by you discuss it with you. I think she cleared it with Mr. Singh as well. Yes. And as she posted it, right. Yes. So everything that she has done after the eighth of August meeting, is in fact consistent with her recollection of what happened at the meeting. Right. Her recollection, her recollection, correct. And consistent with the WhatsApp that she sent to her friends at 1241. On the eighth of August, correct, yes. So I come back to this other point, she is now in a close chat with her associates, and people who had helped her and she told us and Mr. Nothern, and Miss Lowe also told us that in fact, she also confessed the lie to them. This, you may or may not know, okay, if you had not seen the transcripts earlier. So in that context, she has confessed it to her associates, apart from her family, husband, senior workers, party leadership, these are the only two other persons who are aware that she told a lie in Parliament. And she told him before she went to meet with you on the eighth of the abuse I'm putting to you I'm saying she then comes to this meeting. And you see her current meeting in the WhatsApp in this context, with a close group of associates in a close message, not published anywhere. I go back to my original question, Mr. Manoj, Faisal, I beg your pardon? I'm I will try to remember. Why would she lie about this? So I've been telling you from just knowns that mean that I do not know. And this is something which I don't understand, but her right, how could you help? How could she tell such a grift lie to say that we were told, she was told by us to bring the information to the grave. But this is a contemporaneous record. But within minutes of coming out of the meeting, she sends this message. Karina, why would she lie? This is my, my, the same question to us. Wait, did she lie? I do not have that answer. And so everything that she has done thereafter with her associates, as you yourself said, is consistent with her account of what happened. Right? Can Correct, right? Yes, yeah. And she's not telling it to the whole world. She's keeping it to a trusted group of people. Correct, correct? Correct. No reason to lie right in that context? I can answer that. Because I don't know what where she lied. I don't know. I'm very, to be honest, like, you know, when when, when the news came out, she said that the two of us asked her to bring the information to the grave. I didn't know how to read. I was like, dumbfounded. Okay, but trust me. Yes, she did. And I trust her with the way she did what she has done. Put it this way. Mr. Faisal, would you agree that it is actually out of character for Miss Kahn to lie? From what you know, of her? As I mentioned to her, I don't judge for me that, you know, being a counselor, which does have these values that know, everybody's insurnace proven guilty, and by any encounter with her before that, so I don't want to know, but to say I am not asking you from a perspective of someone who has counseling. This my values? Yeah, basically. But you're on top of your values. You are also close with her in the sense that we have discussed earlier you share religious messages with her encourage her? She looks up to you, she needs with you. In that context. Mr. Faisal, you would accept that it is out of character for Miss Kahn to lie? Not as I mentioned that I do not want to judge because I don't see her. Don't I'm asking you to judge. I'm asking you for your Indian terrain, correct? Correct. Your personal evidence? Based on everything? You know, yeah. I'm not asking you beyond that. Understand, based on all of that only, yes, it is out of character for the line. Right. Right. Yes. That's why I was very surprised and very, very shocked that why she need to see that. You know, we ask her to bring the information to the grave. I can comprehend.
No, you mentioned earlier that your next interaction about this matter, or with Miss Kahn was or other with Miss can on this matter. Matter meaning the lie. Okay. So we are clear. You understand me? That the lie? Okay. Let me let me so early on. I don't want to let me know if I misunderstood you earlier on in answer to Mr. Lee's question. You said that eighth of August, you parted ways. Is zero was spoken about the lie. And you went off and you left it to Mr. Singh and Muslim. And the next time you had anything to do with Miss Kahn over the lie, was on 29th of October at the CC meeting. Yes, I hear you correctly. Yes. Okay. So when you were summoned to attend this CC meeting, which I think is a special unscheduled one, courageous, did you ask yourself what it is about?
No. Okay, because I know that there's a confession. Right. Okay. So I believe that it comes to a point where she wants to make a confession. Go didn't basically basically that was that my mindset is it is meant for her to to confess. Yeah. Meant for her to confess Yeah, to to confess to see what she's going to say to present in Parliament. But how did you know that she was going to present anything in Parliament. So that point in time, because I assume that basically she have decided after what happened in Parliament on the fourth. When she was asked by Mr. Mr. Shanmugam, right, so I believe that this come through pundit she wants to, to to share with the SEC, the assumption that she wanted to come to CCN share with the SEC. Was she going to sit in Parliament on the first of November? How did you know that assumption? So having heard nothing further, having heard her repeat the lie? Or at least seen her repeat the lie in Parliament on the fourth of October? Yes. Why out of the blue? Would you assume on the 29th of October, that now she will change tack and complain? Because I mentioned earlier that I put the trust in Pritam and know that, you know she needs to come clean. She need to make the clarification in Parliament. So I believe that you know, is soon that is the time where she wants to come to CC to basically to share all that you learned without talking to anyone? Yeah, based on my recollection, yeah. So now based on your recollection? Are you able to remember if you did discuss it with Miss Kahn or with anyone else? Northern team? So you're sure. And you need to check your sequence of events? No, my spelling is very simple that you know, it's not very detailed. I don't have the in my function. So if I hear you correctly, after you say goodbye on the eighth of August, yeah. And was told about this very serious ly very serious issue in Parliament. You had yourself zero involvement in this issue? Yes. Except hearing on a fourth of October that she continued to lie again. Right. Yeah. But somehow was able to three weeks later, despite her repeating the lie, yeah, on fourth of October, three weeks later, you somehow realized that she was not going to come? She gonna? She gonna come clean 90 cents? Or how did you know? Because I mentioned do that. Understand it? As I mentioned to you earlier on that a bit, Sam, that she will make this happen where? Yes. Soon. How soon is based on some judgment? So just based on trust? Yes. So what if missionally Okay, and so how did you know that? Based on Mr. Pritam judgment, the time was now on the 29th of October. And so we really don't know as you'll be ready to make the confession. So so we're getting in. Okay. See, I asked you about your involvement on the 29th of October. And you said that there was a meeting called by the see call for the CC for her to explain her confession to to see what you want to say in Parliament? Yeah, correct. That was she is now ready to come clean. Right? Yes. So my question is, how do you know that? And you remember you answered me early on when I asked you before going to the meeting. Did you know what it was about? And you said it was for her? Yeah. My assumption. Yeah. Your assumption. Yeah. So again, like your first assumption about Mr. Singh, handling the matter. This conclusion also relies on several assumptions. Right. So getting can follow you. Okay, on the 29th of October, for you to form the view that this CC meeting was for Miss Kahn to come and explain that she will come clean in Parliament on the following parliamentary sitting. Yeah, there will have to be a few assumptions. giving rise to that conclusion. Right. Yeah. Okay. The assumptions are first, Miss Kahn, despite having repeated the lie just a few weeks ago, was now ready to take a completely different position. Yes. The second assumption is that she's now ready to do so bearing in mind your concerns over her mental
interesting readiness and mental state. Right. Correct. Yeah. And the third assumption is that Mr. Singh would have made that assessment that she is now ready to do so. Yes, right. Yes. So somehow you were able to come round with all these assumptions and form the correct view that she was ready to explain to the CEC that she was going to come to you in Parliament. Yes. Is that what you recollect?
Faisal Abdul Manap 1:53:29
Yes. The assumption like this misconception.
Edwin Tong 1:53:33
It's quite a coincidence, right. This this what I recall the truth, nothing but the truth. Okay. Mr. Faisal, on the fourth of October, you will give evidence earlier that you weren't in chamber when? Yes. The exchange happened between Mr. Shanmugam and curry, Miss Kahn. Right. Correct. But you learned a bit subsequently? Yeah. You would have been shocked, right? sharpness. Correct. Short exchange? Yeah. Yes. You would have been very worried, correct? Yes. You would have appreciated that. This was a serious problem is added for Miss Kahn. Yeah. Right. You would have appreciated that the Workers Party was in trouble, correct? Yes. So leaving aside your view or your confidence in Mr. Singh, that he would figure out when's the right time for Miss Khan to come clean? Wouldn't you also be concerned that hey, now, by this time Mislim, Mr. Singh, myself, are aware of information that will completely contradict what Miss Kahn said in Parliament. Yeah. Which she repeated several times. Yes. We should continue to assert to the detriment of the police and to the disadvantage of sexual assault victims. Right. Yes, in that context, wouldn't you be concerned that by now, the Workers Party has to do something? The concern? Is that was there yes or no? Yes, the question was there. But again, it doesn't have in Pritam, that he will do the right thing. And I believe I trust that Reiser will do the right thing. The trust in Mr. Pritam. Mr. Singh, was for her to make a judgment on when Mrs. Khan would come clean, right. Yes, we discussed it earlier. Yes. But now I'm asking you a different question. From the party's perspective, knowing what you now know. Would it be important to ensure that the party is protected? I believe that when Mr. Pritam did not mention Peter, Mr. Pritam. Did Did his judgment he take into consideration the party well being as well as the member Well, being was a part of the party and MPs of the party. But you see, Mr. Faisal, you would have no knowledge of that because you had zero conversations with him. This was based on trust. So this is another one where you based on trust and yes. That despite now, yourself, now being in I will say a difficult position yourself. You still felt that it was okay not to have to discuss. Difficult to interrupt me. Don't interrupt me. Let me finish. Let me rephrase. This is now at this stage on fourth of October, despite yourself being in a difficult position. You still felt it was okay. Not to discuss with Mr. Singh? Yes. The reason I said you're in a difficult position. Mr. Manoj, is this early on? You agree with me that lying is a miss constituted? I thought I'm in a difficult position now know, from back then October 4. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm glad we cleared it up, but 1/4 of October. Okay. So you agree that you were in a difficult position on the fourth of October, right? Because by now, unlike the third of August, you know, that what was said in Parliament and reported widely in the press is false. Yes. We agreed earlier that lying in parliament is bad and possibly an offence correct. But allowing a lie to perpetuate in parliament is also bad, and possibly an offence right, indeed. And that would affect you personally, indeed. And Mr. Singh and Muslim as well. Yes. Right. Isn't it important to then make sure that this lie is then clarified? Does that mean no answer my question, isn't it important? I know you will say you trust Mr. Singh. But it's in the in the is it linked to my trust? Mr. Singh? I can dealing it. Yes. But there's no way you would have known if he was dealing with it? And how right? Aren't you at the least bit interested in how it's going to be dealt with? That is the business of trusting someone. We know he has the interests of at heart, his interest is the party
need to come clean or mean to come clean? By need to make judgment calls? And yes, I mean, in difficult to say not only me Pritam silver and sodas. So I believe Raisa, but in Syria, but you see, but you have to make a judgement in August. Your evidence is you left it entirely to him because you trusted him. Yes, to make the judgment call on when she'll be ready when she will come clean. Yes. But I think you will agree with me that the dynamics have changed in October by October 4. All right, right. Because now, it is no longer one MP lying in Parliament. It is one MP lying in Parliament. Again. Three other MPs from the same party, knowing that it is a lie. Change quite fundamentally. Right. Agree. It's already changed. But the dynamics have changed the circumstances arranged quite fundamentally correct. Right. That means we are in a more difficult situation correct as Yes. So don't you think it's important to speak up? The thing? submission is not that we are in difficult situation. But I still have trust in preterm that because I know that whatever preterm is doing and the judgment call to be made is to be done with proper constitution taking into consideration of all aspects of the well being of Reiser Yes, being at a party. Yes, but I think we all we agreed earlier that you've ever faced a situation in your political career that you've had to deal with in the lie in Parliament by a fellow in the party member, right? Yeah. So it's a new situation. For you, yes. And so now on the fourth of October, sorry, on the fourth of October, you are directly. You're directly involved, indeed. And besides, I mean, Mr. Faisal, leave aside whether you are, you know, directly involved guilty of an offence or not. But don't you think that the honorable, transparent thing to do is to make sure that it comes out quickly? Yes or no. The word quickly is, is again, to me, is based on what bithumb Dutchman call that he wants to meet into me, because I do agree with you, mister. Can you allow me to? Yeah, yes, we are indeed in a very, very difficult situation. Myself, Pritam. And Silvia? Yes, but that difficult situation was really difficult on the eighth of August, when you give it's very difficult for information D. But it is now worse because it's all said publicly and in Parliament. Yes, you're right. You're in very difficult situation. And so I am taking it as a matter of logic, okay. Yes, I understand you, you have personal knowledge. And I don't, as a matter of logic, in that situation at a number of levels, you will want to make sure the information comes out as quickly as possible, right. That must be the case Correct? Not as quickly as possible, but to the extent of what is best? When is the best time to come out? Because the judgment that need to be made by by Pritam, based on the constitution that he has to take into, which is the well being of racer. the well being of the party? Yes, you have to be accountable to Parliament. So he has to make that judgment. And I trust him in making the right judgment. Like when the time for the right time to, to to basically have to put the record straight. I mean, correct the record in in parliament for Reiser to do so? Yeah, I can understand that in August. That's based on your evidence. Yes. Because it's not been repeated. Yeah. And your concern about this Raisa? Mishcon? We are now at its time span, which is two months later? Yes. Almost eight weeks later. Okay. And in this eight weeks, according to you, zero, right. I think has been discussed. Yes. So you have no idea whether Miss Kahn is okay or not. Okay, ready, not ready, what was discussed and so on, according to you. But you then find out because you're not in chamber yet. She's repeated the lie in. And we agreed earlier that this lie adversely affects the police and sexual assault victims. Yes. And so in this context, as I said, leaving aside personal considerations, whether you're guilty of any offenses or whether there's any problem, but don't you think that as a matter of openness and transparency, it will be important to bring out the clarification as soon as possible.
Indeed, but as soon as possible, the timing wise, what is the best time is to be back to the judgment call of Mr. Pritam. Okay, because he knows all the information he is acquired. He knows the actual situation then. Of course, I'm Phil very troubled that way missions now. Okay, flinging more trouble as in August, as compared to yesterday, but there must be a reason for PETA not to be able to get rice. I don't know what the reason was back then. Yeah. So when you saw on the fourth of October that she repeated the lie, you knew that there was a bigger problem than in August, right? This naturally this is the second lie. Okay. So, did you then go and ask Pritam Hey, what's going on? Is she ready now to carry on? I didn't know because there is still an X sitting on the fifth of October Yeah, I did not write Yeah. Why not? Because I could go back to the point at trust preterm there must be certain thing that he still need to evaluate or certain things that that make him not to push Raisa, which I don't know what the reason was there. I see. I might almost understand not entirely but I'm almost almost understand why you might say Mr. Singh will make an assessment of miscounts state of readiness. But what is to stop you from asking Mr. Singh what is happening trust? Without asking question is Dutchman so you trust his judgment noodles? If that is the case, why don't you just leave everything to him? Worry Everything else, the way you run your party, the way you run your liberty, the way you run your party, the way you run a CC, the way you run alginate GRC. We give him the trust of becoming our SG to lead the party and we put the trust in Him that He will make a good judgment. And and then in terms of in the context of this case, he has the information which I do not have. Did you make an attempt to find out the infamy? No. Why not? Trust you have your own duties, mister. Understand that but what my what my Dutchman called back then, and your own duty as a member of parliament. Ever mind that you're a senior member of the Workers Party. Any member of parliament has a duty to ensure that no untruth remains on your record, right. That's what we want to do. We will you have to do right. Yes. Correct. And so when you knew that an untruth not only remained on the record for eight weeks, yes. What was repeated on the fourth of October several times? Yes. Why didn't you do something about it? Because I know that the truth will come up, just preterm is to make a judgement, which I don't know what's stopping him, because I wasn't privy to what he has at that point in time. So why not ask this admission to this? No, that was my judgment call which I base this on trust? I know logically, you may find it. Not acceptable. But there is no one asked you. Don't worry about me. If he asked you logically, do you find it acceptable? Logically, no. But there is me? Yeah, but the third person I am so sorry. I don't go just by sorry to say by mere mere logic, because if I go by mere logic in the parliament, I will not bring up consistently things that I've been trying to bring out in Parliament. Never mind about that. Okay. But let's focus on logic. You and I agree that logically, what's happened? Doesn't make sense, right? Yeah. logically correct. Yes. There's just no logic to the sequence of events that I've just taken you through, right. Why you didn't ask him why he didn't find out whether she's ready. Why he didn't find out whether next day she could go out there and explain and clarify. Yes. And meanwhile, you appreciate it seriously. And I'm sure you do your duty as a member of parliament, to uphold parliament and to ensure that there is no falsehood or untruth that remains on the record in Parliament, right. And this service, can I So to summarize, this is what goes against the logic, right. Yeah, that you know that this is a problem at so many levels to your party, to Mishcon to yourself to your fellow leaders of the Workers Party. I'm aware of it, what's the logic behind it? My submission to you? Right? No logic, right. From the perspective of logic, logic, yes, no logic. Yeah, but can I explain? Yes. And how I link links, I don't know it's going to be a bit time consuming.
time consuming, but again, if they tell you the person the my values are my principal, okay. When I was asked by Mr. Shanmugam green why I disagree to separate politics and religion. Right. So I did mention that I can separate because logically you can be separated spiritually based on my values it can Okay, I mister that's how I want to explain my part of you know, I do understand logically per se, yes. But based on my values, okay. Yeah, so let's agree on this right logically, you would agree that what has happened your reaction the fact that you didn't come clean earlier or you check with Mr. Singh about what's holding Miss Kahn back all that makes no sense logically Rhiness now Mr. Faisal
if you can please pick up the bundle of WhatsApp messages, not the big one that you see earlier see here. But early on my colleague Mr. Lee referred you to think the thinner one yes. And this is the one where with your messages, check this Yes. Do you have
Tan Chuan-Jin: 2:09:57
flipping through this? Can I just ask a quick question? Mr. FISA man, are you saying that you base this on trust? I just want to understand the consistency of which you approach this as a senior member and the Workers Party. If this, which is a very major issue you see in the course of the many weeks did not ask did not inquire did not discuss because you trusted Mr. Singh to do this. Is that the same approach you take with every other issues? You basically don't need to ask Tony to clarify everything you just anything, Mr. Pritam Singh,
Edwin Tong 2:10:30
this what I mentioned is known as a desperate call for for this particular context, not in this
Tan Chuan-Jin: 2:10:35
particular context. I'm so I'm trying to understand the consistency of your principle. Because if you trust Him, yeah, on such a sensitive and difficult issue, yes. Then everybody should, as you should don't need to discuss or raise your points, you just let it be. Is that how you approach? No. So why is this different? In this case, I
Edwin Tong 2:10:53
have my own principles and values in life. In this case, based on principle
Tan Chuan-Jin: 2:10:58
to value even though it may not seem logical, you're prepared to just trust Him and not ask not clarify, even though on a broader principle base basis as a parliamentarian accountability of Parliament party. critical issue, there's no need to ask, but other issues you might discuss. And you might raise question,
Edwin Tong 2:11:20
because of the sensitivity of the issue, the difficulty issue, the difficulty of the issue, the challenges of the challenging circumstances of the the issue that we're facing, so my judgment call is to live it to pretend because there's more information. So would
Tan Chuan-Jin: 2:11:35
you agree that as an average person listening to this conversation, as mentioned, this would not seem logical? Yeah. Understand? Thank you.
Edwin Tong 2:11:45
Mr. Vice also, you have the bundle now. Yeah, do okay. This is your message with messages with Miss Kahn. Okay. Let me ask you to turn to page 11. This page. Okay. Now, I like to focus on somewhere in the top 1/3 of the page, you see 10? Five, and that's fifth of October 10? Five, can you see that? You see that? Yes. Okay. It's a message from you. The preceding message was the last message on record was 29th of September. So this is a chain that you initiated. And you say on the fifth of October at 2:44pm, as a molecule, stay strong sis. Allah will always be with those who are in need of his assistance. Do regularly turn to him. Yes. And anytime we need views and opinions, Inshallah, I will set aside time. Yes, that's your message. Right, which you initiated? What prompted this message?
I think because of the October session, parliament session, I believe so it was a fourth of October. Sorry, fourth. Yeah. Because I needed I didn't, I didn't respond. I didn't give any encouragement on the fourth. So on the fifth, I can have whatsoever to give her this encouragement. Okay. So let's agree on a few things. First of all, you are in, you're able to be in direct communication with Miss Kahn. Yes. Right. There's no question about that. Right. And so if you wanted to, you will be able to ask her a direct question. Concerning clarification of a lie in Parliament, right? Yes. But which you don't do? Yes. Would you accept that? Not talking to miss Kahn, and asking her a question about the lie in Parliament, and when she will clarify, is consistent with the WhatsApp message that she sent after the eighth of August from the meeting? Her account,
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:14:07
sorry, again, I don't get the link of why transit to the
Edwin Tong 2:14:12
so you remember, we went through the WhatsApp message that she sent to Mr. Nothern. And Miss Lowe after the eighth of August. Yeah, right. We want to bring the bring the information to the dentist, right? Yeah, that's right. So I told you that there were four sentences. You disagree with one of them, right? Yeah. Okay. So, as I said, you just don't take it on the basis of her account. Okay, so I'm asking you to assume Miss Khan's account based on miscounts account, if she's right. We will not expect to see any discussion on the falsehood. Correct. Based on her account, yes. Based on understanding based on my understanding, okay. Would you agree?
Sorry, can you hold this just to make sure Okay, so She has had a meeting with you. She came out of the meeting and sent a WhatsApp message with an account of what happened. And she says that you told you plus Muslim and Mr. Singh told her to take the information to the grave ranking based on the account. It will be consistent not to see any further discussion on the falsehood on the false anecdote correct the impression that she she has based on her account, yes. Okay. Correct. Yeah. And that's why we don't see any discussion between you and her on the lie on attempts to go to Parliament to clarify the lie. Correct. Based on her, based on her account, sending them the account? Yes. Okay. In other words, the fact that there's an absence of any discussion on the lie, in your discussions with Miss Kahn is consistent with her account. Correct. Her account count? Yes. Her impression, correct. Yes. And so here on the fifth of October, you are initiating a discussion with her? Yes. And this must have arisen as a result of her speech or the responses she gave in parliament the day before to Mr. Shanmugam, questions, rice? I believe so. And you will remember that on, in fact, on the fourth itself, and definitely on the fifth, there were a number of press reports which reported that incident that exchange, yes. Right. And there were some reports which suggested that perhaps Miss Kahn actually does not have the details to share. Correct. What What details, meaning there were some to be more direct, there were some reports, which suggest that perhaps Miss Kahn was not telling the truth. made them aware of them? Yes. It's all public information, correct? Yeah. Yes. The media report that is needed. So, and there must have been pressure on Miss Karna as a result of that is correct. Yep. And so your message is really a reaction to that to try to comfort her Correct? No. Okay. Comfort in terms of what happened? The exchange between her and in mean? Well, I mean, if you read this message that I've just showed you, it's a comforting message, right? If you're meant to show support to her. Right, right. Meant to reach out to her to say you're there for her if you need views, opinions, or make time for you. Right. So it's a reaction is a response to what she said in parliament in the Adverse Reaction actually got the exchanges that she had with ministration. That's right. And also the the, the way in which the press reported the account? Okay. Correct. The second part may not be may be the motivation for me to send that particular message is more of the first but, you know, the exchange was I know, it's tough to to have exchanges with Mr. Chang. One, the tough one, but we don't have to go to that. No, I just explained it, you know, again, that's the reason why I tried to comfort her to give her an order of comfort. Okay. So but a day later, she then reaches out to you and says, are you free to meet today? Yes. See that? Yes. And basically, you track it down. And you conclude that you didn't meet on the sixth. But you met on the seventh? Yes. Right. You did meet on the seventh, right, indeed. And it was just the two of you. Yes. What was discussed, but her get a submission that earlier to Mr. Lee. When I said to her to talk to her parents, between the third and the fourth, due to the issue of polygamy and FDC. Right, that that's in August, they're gonna correct it linked to that, but because initially, I offered to talk through to her parents, but she said, Okay, initially, she said, okay, and she declines offense, okay. Subsequently, not subsequently, the next message that I received from her after she said that I need to come to her house, she mentioned that candy, I do need to see you to six advice. So regarding wearing a feature, meaning she wants to end her job, but she felt that, you know, she didn't know how the impression that would be on on the committee in terms of you know, she's a public figure, she may, you know, go to Parliament without a job. And when she's on her own, she went to she will be joining the job. So, I told her that anytime I'm open for you to contact me and can discuss. So that didn't take place. Only on the seventh. Then we continue on.
So you met on the seventh? Yes. Okay. By that time, you knew that she had repeated the falsehoods in Parliament. Yes. And you saw the press reports about that, right? Yes. The issue of the forces didn't come up in your discussion with her. No. You didn't ask her about it? No. That would be unusual, right? Logically. So again, it would be logical to ask her about it, right? Yes, but I don't have the pointer. I don't have the intention to us. Because as much as mentioned early on, that is a sensitive issue. So many things at stake. So that is my concern. And that is my judgment call, again, that I leave it between her and Britam. To make that decision, yeah. But to have a meeting with her, right, a few days after this occasion, Parliament, and you yourself, agreed me earlier that by the fourth of October, dynamics have changed, it's become more serious. A lot more is at stake. And a lot more harm has been caused. Tomorrow parliament, to the police, to sexual assault victims. Are you saying that that never figured in your conversation that we may need to lead you back to the point where I say that I have trust in Britam? Okay, I trust because you trusted me. So I trust that you're going to do the right thing. And issue is very sensitive issue. Meeting stakes. So I leave it my judgment back then is to let bithumb and mishaan to make that decision. Again, I come from not having direct knowledge, like you I'm doing but you know, we do have to make findings and work out understands right and say so excuse me for asking you more. So this is to start from, you know, eighth of August. This is an issue that Miss cat had come to you and confessed. She told a lie in Parliament. Yes. Okay. You trusted Pritam to handle it. But by the fourth of October, you must realize that the problem has become worse. Indeed. Right. Not getting better. Right. And you had no idea. When if at all, there will actually be a clarification. Right? No idea, but I know it will come. Okay. But it didn't come on a fifth. Yes. Which is the next day? Yes. And you then in the knowledge of all this realize that Mrs. Khan had a difficult session in Parliament. You sent her a message. There was some speculation in the press that she was not telling the truth. Yes. Which you know, is the case? Yes. In that context, it will be logical to discuss it with her right. Okay. Basically, if yes or no first, then you can explain? Logically, yes. Yeah. So, which means it's just illogical that you didn't even raise this with her at all right. From the perspective of many is, seems to be logical. Yes. You will accept that from the perspective of many, yes, your behavior with her is just illogical, right? Yes. Then, can you offer us one reason why besides the fact that you trust Mr. Singh, which is the only reason this is the reason because at the end, if she comes to me, and she's troubled by the know what has happened in the past few days, she would ask me further, what do you think about what I need to do? Isn't it logical for her not to do that? She knows me confidently, but she chose not to do it. If she chose not to do that point in time, I believe that she has must have worked with Tom on certain things. So you chose not to ask her? Even though by the fourth of October, you have no muscle interest in it, mister. Yes, indeed. So I was in a very difficult situation. But I believe that trusting her that she knows the right thing to do. And Pritam. I know that he needs to know, he needs to do the right thing. Based on that trust, a little matter to them. And again, as as I mentioned that if if Reiser were to ask me, during the seventh October meeting, I will, I will openly talk about it, but she didn't. So assume that point time, okay, that there's no need for us to talk about it. Because she doesn't know what it is they're pressing for the body, as you know that she trusted me, as mentioned by Mr. Lee, who have come in and talk to me about it on the seventh. So you agree that she would she trusted you? Yes. No. This. She mentioned before, I don't know her level of trust in me, but it was somewhere in transcripts that she trusted me.
I mean, this is I'm asking you for your perspective. Yeah. She trusted you. Yes. So your point is that if she wanted to talk about it, she would raise it indeed. Just as If she needed advice on the eighth of August, she would ask. Yes. And, sorry, the fact that you're a senior party leader is not relevant. Even if she does. No, she doesn't ask you just will not give the advice. Just to give you a big background work, how I do my Muslim cousin, I'm sure. oriented, counselor, fine, fine. But please answer the question first, then you explain. Yeah. So the real question is, and the fact that Syndra the fact that your senior party leaders irrelevant, and even if she had us, you just will not give the advice. And even if she had, if she had not asked, you will not give the advice. Yes. Based on my values of, you know, if it is not being brought up in counseling attempts, no, you need to work with the
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:25:55
issue that's been presented.
Edwin Tong 2:25:58
Yeah. So again, they come through upon it, you know, that's, again, a judgment call, shall be that, you know, if she needs my advice on what happened on the fourth on the fifth? Sure, it was up to me, because she trusted me. But she, she has a full trust in me. So as mentioned in, in this document here. Miss Kahn told us that between the Workers Party MPs, there's a group chat. Yes, correct. Yes. Was this was this issue discussed on a group chat? What issue of clarification and ally in Parliament? On the fourth, no digression to happen on the fourth at any time. Was this discussed? On a group chat? Between Workers Party MPs? I can recall it. I only can recall it on the fourth. There's no. After the exchange between Minister Shannon and Miss Kahn, there's no discussion of this in the chat. Before, before, before after? Looking at the time, I believe that because I need to check because, you know, my presence in in the panel on the fourth, right, so I did kind of look at the the fourth of October
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:27:18
was silence.
Edwin Tong 2:27:19
No. Before or after the fourth was this issue of misconduct lie in Parliament ever discussed or raised in the group chat that you have with other workers party? And I can only attest that after the fourth, there's no discussion after the particularly on that particular day. Okay, what about before the fourth? I can recall at any time, because their discussion, I can recall, you can't recall. on an issue like this, that is so important. You can't recall if it was discussed on a group chat. And it's very important, but there's so many things, how many Whatsapp group? Do we have? So many things? I think you need to be fed to me that I'm not trying to misled the committee. But But unsay can't recognize me. I can't recall because too many things happening. You will also have a group chat with senior WP leaders amongst ourselves. What do you mean by senior WP leaders asking you whether you have one, cc members or a subset of CC members? If you want to know whether there's a discussion on this? Okay, no, no, no, no, don't don't know. You're asking me something which is not related. How Why? Why is there need to know whether Do I have a WhatsApp group with a senior MP is nothing whereas I'm telling you that Mr. mindat? There's no discussion on this. Okay. Let me Don't Priam my question. Is there a WhatsApp group chat between you and senior members of the Workers Party team on Whatsapp group on on parliamentary matters matters which affect the party anything? Can you list? What do you mean by Sr? And no, either groups which include either Mr. Singh, and or Muslim. On this issue, no, I said on any issue. Party matters. Parliamentary matters. No, we have no such group chat. Yeah. Only only bit, the MP scripture. Right. You think about me Pritam. And Sylvia does the two of us in general, you don't have are the three of you on chats, which include other members of the Workers Party? Mr. Bean, I know that was the relevance of us because I'm disclosing something is confidential to us is asking because you see, molars playlist, I'll explain this and I'll let Mr. Chairman decide whether it's relevant. Yeah. There's a distinct lack of occasions where you can give evidence. There's a paucity of evidence. There's not much based on your recollection. And I'm simply asking whether it was discussed. And I believe I'm titled to because you yourself have accepted that it goes against logic not have raised this not to ask questions. Yes. So I think I'm entitled to ask you, but I'll let Mr. Chairman decide
Tan Chuan-Jin: 2:30:14
this was I think these are very questions we are not asking on the topics that may be sensitive and other issues and to divulge them, but we are asking for whether such groups exist and whether this particular topic has been discussed. So I think these are fair questions. So,
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:30:35
it's not being discussed
Tan Chuan-Jin: 2:30:37
regarding motions raised as to the kind of groups available and so
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:30:42
the group is in context of this particular issue. No.
Okay. Yeah.
Edwin Tong 2:30:52
The fact that there's no discussion at all, after this was disclosed to you, by Miss Kahn, on the eighth of August, this would also be consistent with her account, or what happened on the eighth of August Correct. To regain Can you repeat misstatement? I've asked this question before in the context of a different subject matter. But let me repeat it. The fact that there's just no discussion at all, and I'm paraphrasing your own evidence, Mr. Faisal, is entirely consistent with Miss Khan's recollection of what she was told. On the eighth of August, correct? I didn't really get your question. But I want to say that there's nothing happened on the eighth of October, as claimed by Miss Hanson that we asked you to take the information to give. So there's no, there's no need for a discussion between us on this? So let me rephrase my question. And please answer the question. Don't frame a different question, and then say that you can't. Let me listen carefully. Sorry. And I think you will know that I've asked this question before. So let me put it to you again. The fact that there is simply no discussion at all. And as I said, I'm paraphrasing your evidence. You are very vehement in saying that there was no no discussion at all. earlier. The fact that there's no discussion at all, is entirely consistent with miscounts recollection of what she was told on the eighth of August. Correct. And I'm asking you to say this answer this question in the context of the assumption that Miss Khan's version is correct. as I did earlier, Miss son assumption is correct. Based on mishaan, yes. Correct. The impression that Mr. isn't going to get out of this, right, based on her account of what happened? Answer this question. Jonathan. Okay. Actually, you've answered it before. But let me try again. Because I think I did have some difficulty when you asked me this, but you eventually understood what I'm saying. And I think it's the same, the same point, but now in the context of discussions between Workers Party MPs, but let me try again. There was a meeting on the eighth of August, right? Yes. Miss Kahn has produced an account of what happened at the meeting. And she says that she was told to take the information to the grave, right. This count, and when I say her account, this is what I mean. Okay. That means her understanding and her evidence and account what happened on the eighth of August. Okay. Correct. Based on her account, okay, this is the premise I want you to adopt. Okay. Let me ask my question. The fact that there's simply no discussion at all, between the Workers Party MPs on the question of the lie, or the clarification of the lie, is entirely consistent with miscounts recollection, and her account of what happened on the eighth of August, correct.
Okay, can I can I just clarify that? She assumed she assumed that, you know, I'm asking you to assume that she's correct. Okay. Agree. Agree. Okay. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to trick you. I don't have that in mind. Mr. But just I have difficulty in understanding. Yeah, if you have, I mean, part of me, but if you have any difficulty at any time, just stopping. Okay. I'll explain this what I did. Okay. So just what I'm clear, based on miscounts account, okay, assuming that's true. The fact that there's no discussion at all about the lie, or the clarification of the lie, that would be consistent with Miss Khan's account? Yeah. Or what happened on the eighth of August, right?
Yeah. Mr. Faisal, Feisal early on Mr. Lee asked you some questions about the disciplinary panel, you remember. I would ask you some questions about it. Okay. We thought you had you had said this earlier, and I just want to see what I noted it down accurately or not?
You had said that the DP was focused on matters from the eighth to the 29th. The eighth is because that's the first day that you set to receive any evidence, correct? Yes. Did I hear you correctly? Correct. from eight to two, which means that anything and everyone who appeared before you and gave you evidence that has got to be considered, right, yes. And early on, you mentioned that to miss to Mr. Lee, that questions about your own role, including your knowledge from Ms. Khan, on the eighth of August, those are not relevant, because they fall outside of the period. Correct? Is that Yes. And when you say that you are trying to explain that all that's relevant is what people come and tell you, people meaning those who are relevant for you and those of you call members, activist volunteers, and plus miss hein. And Miss Carr. Yes, yes. And it's not relevant that you yourself with Miss Lim and Mr. Singh, were actually privy to the information before you set on the DP. So again, can you repeat that, but you are saying it's not relevant that you and Mr. Singh and Miss Lim, were privy to information directly from Miss Kahn, and she had confessed to you earlier? You're saying that's not relevant, relevant to to the issues that you need to decide the recommendations you want to make the kind of punishments and sanctions you want to impose a miscount? Yeah. Not relevant. Yeah. Do you agree that the DP has a duty to be upfront, truthful, open? And honest? Yes. And the DP should be in no position to decide on matters in which it has his own interest in where there's a conflict, correct? We don't decide we made a recommendation to the CC s. But you can't even make a recommendation on a matter on which you have a conflict. Correct. You can make a recommendation based on what has been presented to us between a 239 You can't make a recommendation on a matter where you yourself have an interest. Correct. What kind of interests do I have in this? Generally? I'm asking you a general question, if you generally, yes. But in this context, I don't have any interest, because no interest. So you agree with me earlier that telling a lie in parliament is wrong? Indeed. But allowing a lie to carry on in parliament is also wrong, currently. And at least for the latter category, you could be investigated as well, right. So would Mr. Singh and Muslim right. Yes, in general, yes. So you have an interest in the matter directly? Correct. What kind of interest can I seek clarification, but I just said you could be investigated yourself? Yes. Correct. For not allowing the lie to be clarified. Right. Yes. If that is the case, don't you think you have a conflict of interest in sitting on the DP? No, I don't. Why? Because the DP will present what has been presented to us by Miss Reiser and she has the opportunity to inform us, you know, on the eighth way, did you all ask me to take the information to the grave. Right. So she has all the opportunity that she has to state this SDP we have to Okay, bring it up to the CC let me put it another way. Mr. Faisal, again, on the assumption that Miss Khan's account is correct. Okay. You understand me so far, gone have seen that we asked to bring the On a function to the grave, okay. If she's correct, then two things could arise from that. Number one, we can understand her behavior and her conduct on the fourth of October. Right. Okay. Because she's not disclosing the truth. And you she's right. In her account. She's been told to bury the truth. Right? Yes. And so that will be consistent with what she did on the fourth of October in Parliament. Correct. Based on her comments on concrete, yes. The second thing is that the people who told her to bury the truth would be yourself, Mr. Singh, and Muslim. If she's correct, right. If she's correct, yes, yeah. And so isn't that a relevant factor for consideration by the DEP? Okay, the thing that we only got to know
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:40:55
that she said that you asked her to take information will give is on the
Edwin Tong 2:41:02
on her information or her disclosure to Corp? Yes, yes, yes. But prior to that, we don't know that. She has that in mind or whatever to get her to do so. Yes. But so do know, from the start that you have personal knowledge, indeed, beginning from eighth of August directly scan right, indeed, correct. Correct. But we don't have the knowledge of shim making that was accusing us of asking her to bring the information to the grave. So when we form the DPA don't feel any conflict of interest? Because we didn't tell her that. Fair enough. Yes. Let me explain to you why I bring this point to you. You have direct knowledge of the accounts from her. Correct. Right. As far as you are concerned, you know, that has been disclosed to yourself, Mr. Singh and Mr. Muslim? Yes. You didn't hear this come out in Parliament on the fourth of October. Meaning there is no clarification. You have no idea what Mr. Singh told to miss can or why Miss can didn't disclose it. Right. It could well be that she was told to bury it. Right. This on sports? You don't know anything now? Right? Yeah. Possible. It could be that she was told to do so. But she refused. Yes. If you have direct personal knowledge, and spoke to miss Kahn, and in your words, Mr. Singh is responsible for guiding Miss Kahn on when to make the disclosure. And you know that the disclosure was not made on the fourth of October. Don't you think those are relevant facts? Which the DP must consider? Consider in terms of whether it's a conflict of interest? Well, first of all, whether it's a cover of interest for you to sit in judgment of that, no. And secondly, secondly, whether or not you're able to, in an unbiased fashion, make a judgment on Miss, can you answer my question. Yeah. But it linked back to the point that as you as S S S, we have discussed that initially, I told her not to resign. Right. You told him not to resign. Right. Yeah. Instead of here. Yes. Because you felt that she could carry on? Yes. Right. So I don't see was the conflict of interest? Let's see, if, if if, you know, institution remember dp and a conflict to the point of that she may feel that she's being told to, to bring them method to grief. So this is don't get the link. Do you agree that it is important to be open? And let your members know, that actually miss Kahn had on her own accord? And voluntarily, indeed confessed? Indeed, yes. But the timing wise, wait, wait, let me finish. Do you agree that yes, it would be relevant for your members to know. No, not only my members, all it needs to be done in Parliament. No, it's got to be done publicly. Right. You got to tell the public that, Hey, Miss Kahn came no get to confess to the senior leadership of the Workers Party. And it is not as if she continued to lie on the fourth of October on her own without the knowledge of everybody else is right. And I strongly feel it's not right. It's not everything. I strongly feel it's not right for me to come up. Open whereas she is the one. She was the one who said the lie in Parliament she need to make the record proper herself. I think that the noble thing to do, respectable thing for me to do is a different point. Mr. Faisal, whether she clarifies in Parliament, I understand your point is for her to do. I think that's the thrust of the press statement that you're made on the second of December last miss. You were there, right. Yes. The question is a different one. You are now a member of the DEP. Correct? Yes. You're asking members to come and give an account to you? Yes. Right. This includes what you should do to miss Kahn. Right. Yes, it includes whether to expel her or not, right. Yes. It includes what other kind of punishment to sanction on her if not expulsion, correct. Yes. So the nature of conduct is important, right? Yes. And whether she was
persistent in her life, or whether she sought the guidance of senior leadership and told them is relevant, right. relevant to the level of sanction or punishment that you will recommend?
Agree. Yes. And that's precisely what at least to activist, Mr. Nothern. And Miss Lowe told you when it came before the panel and made a submission to you write. To me, sorry, to me what you as a member of the DEP. Yeah. Correct. Answer my question. I don't get it. But you are a member of the DEP. Yes. We agreed earlier that you would be inviting questions and submissions from members, activist volunteers or the party, right? Yes. And so two of those members, senior members, cutter members, Mr. yudishe, Yudhishthira, Northern and sloping, they came to the DEP, right? Correct. Yes. And they made a submission to the DEP, that the DEP should be honest and disclosure an honest and open and disclose its own level of involvement Correct. disclose to the public and the members. But the DEP is investigating the issue. And we will present what is the finding that we have to CC and there's our responsibility to party is to present the second of December, transcripts. Which turn please to page 5151. Okay, so this is Miss loss evidence. And she told us that she came to the DEP or she went before the DEP on the 25th of November. And you were present at the DEP right. Now go over the page. Go over the page to page 52. In the middle of the page. Sorry, the top 1/3 of the page Miss low paying. She says we came prepared with quite a number of points. You see that? Yes. The first point, we had a feeling that one of the decisions they might make will be to expel Miss can from the Workers Party. You see that? Yes. Next section. One of the reasons I gave was everybody makes mistakes. While hers was very severe. Other WP MPs have also made mistakes. And that expelling her would be a very bad was set a very bad precedent. Yes. And then she goes on and said this, and I want you to focus on this paragraph. I also told them that the CC and especially the DEP should tell the public the true timeline of events which I've shared here today. That when they did when they knew what causes of action they took I told them you should make this public knowledge bearing confidential and personal information. You remember the submission to the DP?
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:49:42
thing? Yeah,
Edwin Tong 2:49:44
yes, yes. Go further down the page. She said she's, I suggested to her that the reason you raise that is because it will be in a spirit of frank, open and transparent. She says yes, I believe that and that is necessary for the people in the public. To know, she says, I fully agree with that. You remember that submission by Miss Lowe to you? Yeah. Did you accept it? Meaning that the public to know dead? And we are doing the investigation of the Yes, of course, we've come up with not come to conclusion that what are the listenership members are coming to you to give you suggestions on what we've missed? can let me finish? Yeah. How can you expect that these members will give you an informed view or opinion? If they don't know, that misconduct come to you confessed fully? How can they give you an unbiased? full and frank opinion? Right, you understand now where I'm coming? Coming from? Yes. So can you answer the question give me basically we can't disclose. For me personally, I feel that Mr. Faisal, you can't disclose, or you don't want to disclose? I can't disclose. Because the the understanding that we have the trust that you have, in all this information, as I mentioned early on is a sensitive issue. To raise a constant a lot of parties, even races. You know, families. Mr. Faisal, let me let me come on. It's not relevant Mr. Pizer. Her family did it was my Listen, her family circumstances not relevant. It's relevant to me. What's relevant in this exchange? Please focus on evidence I just showed you. What's relevant in this context for Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern, was at USDP. should disclose to your members that actually miss Kahn, just a few days after the falsehood, in August had come to you and Mr. Singh and Miss limb to confess fully and to seek your advice if I disclose to them. Isn't that a betrayal of trust? That she trust in me? Mr. Faisal, I think there is no way coming from a logical Yes, I do agree with you. Mr. How can a member come and give you an honest opinion, and unbiased opinion? The I if I thought, which is the impression that your press release conveys? If I thought that only miss Kahn was aware of the falsehood, and she proceeded to repeat the falsehood, without telling the senior party leadership, that would be a very different impression than if she had told a senior party leadership first. Right. You would agree that correct. It's a matter of logic, fairness, and logic. Yes. And fairness. And the difficulty we are facing the point is Faisal and fairness Correct? Logically, yes. And fairness logically, yes. I'm putting to you and fairness correct, in terms of logically is yes. Fairness is yes. Need to uphold the fairness, meaning it will be fair to miss can correct? No, it has to be fair to miss can and to the integrity of the entire process. Because if you have people coming forward to make a recommendation on what you should do, which includes expelling Miss Kahn from your party, then it's only fair to miss Kahn, that they also know that she had gone to the senior party leadership and come clean. Explain fully, openly, transparently. Right. Logically, it would only be fair, correct, logically. And that's exactly what Miss Lowe was telling you. Right? Yes. Those that you brought along today. Does it include an account of what she told you? I didn't have a part of Miss Lohan. And the material we met with the meeting we had with Miss Lowe and Mr. Madden. You don't have I don't bring it along with me. But you have recorded it. Indeed. In your report to the SEC. Did you include what Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern said? No, we can have some you include No. Why not? Because the thing that represented three CCC is that basically what is our recommendation? Based on our assessment that we did throughout the DEP period? We don't actually give the detail is the recommendation of what we feel based on basically based on our interview with those who attended the DEP.
So you didn't disclose to the CEC, as I heard your answers to Mr. Lee earlier that on the eighth of August, you had a meeting with Miss Kahn. Right. And she told you the truth on the eighth of August. It was not part of your briefing to the system but the briefing, right? Yeah. You also did Tell the CDC that to senior Carter members closest to miss Kahn, most intimately involved with the process. And with whom Mr. Pritam Singh, had discussed, the drafting of the first November statement in detail comes before the DEP makes a submission to the DEP, that you should come clean and be open and transparent. You also didn't disclose that to the CC right? And Correct. Yeah, and many others. Yeah. So when the CEC, according to a press release, voted overwhelmingly in favor of expelling Miss Kahn, they did so without knowledge of this information, right? Information of at least the 28th of information that I just told you, yeah. That you knew, from eight August, all three of you on a DP knew on eight August. That's information number one. And information. Number two, is that Miss Lowe, and Mr. Norton, who, you know, in this, in the context of this case, Mr. Faisal, are not just ordinary Carter members, there are current members who are closely working with Miss Kahn. And as I told you, in preparing everything, for Miss Carr to make the explanation on the first of November, they were involved in the drafting and reviewing of the draft with Mr. Singh and with mislim. Not previous, I'm telling you. And yet, why are these important bits of information that goes towards the logic and fairness of the process? And I would say the entire integrity of the process, why were they not put your CAC before they made a vote? Basically, what I can tell you, he presented, the recommendation, the steps taken, and we not only miss laws, and Mr. Nothern, sharing the you know, will not disclose the so many other party members, so we don't disclose the recommendations that you are putting forward, or you had put forward would include recommendations from members who have you heard submissions from right now we sum up, correct? Yeah. And those members would have no idea that actually miss Kahn had confessed to the senior party leaders in August, right? Yes. They had no idea. Right. Yes. So don't you think the recommendation and our views to the DP would be completely biased? No. misinformed? No, because I mentioned to the DP present what has been collated? Yes. Yeah. What's been collated including us from and we sum up, and we put a recommendation to the CC Yes, but you sum up views of members, and those members who had no idea that in fact, Miss Kahn, yes. Had come clean. Yes. Right. Yes. So don't you think Mr. Faisal, in the interest of fairness that that's information that in in all fairness and just out of good order and good sense and responsibility it should have been put to the CC right.
Faisal Abdul Manap 2:58:22
Logically.
Edwin Tong 2:58:36
If the notes concerning Miss Lowe and Mr. dardennes submissions are not there in the follow you have today, that means that there are other relevant materials concerning the DEP which you have not brought here today, right. The qPCR lf my DP, I only bring along the notes that I took when we had razor come in, you know, presented itself to us. Okay, so, can you please give us a copy of what you brought today. Plus, on top of that, can you go back and look at what other relevant documents you have concerning the DEP, either in terms of the submissions that you received from members, or the considerations that you had in mind or the deliberations you had with the fellow DEP members and also the recommendations that went to the CAC and any discussion on the recommendations? Okay,
Desmond Lee 2:59:33
okay. Mr Vice how sorry, can I just get some clarity from you shrimps The DPS recommendation to the CEC you set out presentation of the findings. Yes. Yeah. The findings, and you had a recommendation. Yes. The recommendation to the CC by the DEP was that Ms can either resign or be expelled from the party failing to do so we that was the DPS recommendation. Yes. And, yes. And the CDC accepted that recommendation. Honestly, we had a vote. Yes. So it's unanimous. Yeah. They were overwhelmingly agrees with almost everyone or that means not everyone voted. Overwhelmingly, it was overwhelmingly endorsed the recommendation by the DEP that she either resign or be expelled. And can I just be sure. And have you on the record that this the DEP did not tell the CEC in your presentation, that Miss Kahn, according to you had confessed, shed light on the eighth of August. So Eric was not in the presentation. This one is not a representation. Yeah. And the CC members quite apart from it not being the presentation data themselves will not wait until the second of December. Okay,
Edwin Tong 3:01:21
basically, that we did have a race, actually, during this EC meeting, right. Okay. We started off with having Raisa to be present at the meeting for her to do explain about her resignation, because you did mention earlier on earlier in the day that she want to resign so as to explain to the CC she she was present at this meeting was and this issue as soon as the minute we create the institution where the SEC can actually ask.
Desmond Lee 3:01:54
Okay, to clarify. So there's this transparency in terms like she can share what you want to share. She says who has the right to us, Christ. So in the whole course of that meeting, right up to the vote. The CC was not told that Miss Kahn had according to you confess to miss if I recall thing and yourself this, you recall it, that information did not appear? Yes. So would I be right to say that the CEC voted effectively to make Miss Kahn resign as a member of this Parliament, without knowing that actually, she had confessed to the lie to three of you a few days after the third of August. Effectively, that is so right. They didn't know. They didn't know. Thank you.
Edwin Tong 3:02:50
And there was a point when we established earlier Mr. Faisal, that the overwhelming vote by the CDC was done without knowledge of the fact that they had disclosed. They let me rephrase that. It was overwhelming vote by the CDC, for Miss Kahn to be expelled from the party. Yeah, was reached, without knowing that Miss Kahn had come to you and Mr. Singh and Miss limb to confess to the falsehood, and in your words, in reasonable to come and expect that advice be given? Correct? Yes. And it was also not disclosed to the CC, that senior Carter members close to miss Kahn had made a very strong pitch to the DEP, for the DEP to disclose their own involvement to disclose their own knowledge. And to come clean with the public. Yes, correct. Correct. Mr. Faisal, I'm going to finish with I just want to check some evidence with you just so that I know that because as we have agreed earlier, I think sometimes the logic doesn't fit. So I just want to make sure that we agree and when I understand you, you're the first time you heard about the falsehood to false No, it was on the eighth of August, correct? Yes. At that meeting, nothing else was said no question asked. No clarification. No further comment. Absolutely nothing zero was said at the meeting. Right. Regarding the regarding lie, correct. And everything I'm asking you about is about Okay. Unless I say otherwise. And as far as your position is concerned, that is the case all the way through, including through October 4 And fifth which was the next parliamentary sitting? Yes, correct. Just so I am clear, actually, the next parliamentary sitting from the eighth of August was not October, but actually September, right to begin the next parliamentary sitting if the intention was for Miss can to clarify would actually have been September right. Yes, yes. So as far as you know, no steps were taken anywhere in September, right through October, not. Not that your preview off. But as far as you know, none, zero, right. Yes. And we had agreed that all of this will be consistent with Miss Khan's own account of what happened and agreed on the eighth of August meeting, right. is based on her account, you'll be consistent with that Correct? Correct. And as a senior member of the party vice chairman, you did not ask Mr. Singh. He did not ask Miss Kahn, you didn't ask Miss Lim. You just didn't ask anyone? Yes. All Correct. Correct. No one told you any information at all? Yes. Known period? Yes. Right through from the fourth and fifth of October, even though by the time the lie was repeated. Is that correct? Yes. And early on, you said that when I asked you whether it's reasonable for Miss Kahn to come to the meeting on the eighth of August, expecting that she be given guidance and advice, and you said yes, right. Whether it's reasonable for Miss Kahn to come to the meeting, expecting to be given guidance and advice, and your answer was yes. Earlier, right. Yes. But you are. But you went on to say that since she didn't ask. You didn't give any advice. Either on Eighth of August, or any time thereafter, including the meeting that you had with her on the seventh? Sixth of October 7. The meeting you had with her was on the seventh of October? Yes. Correct. Yes. Okay. And even though you knew by the seventh of October, that the police had now reached out to her for an interview. Yeah. Which means that besides the lie, and the repeat of the lie, there's now a request by the police to come for an interview. Yes. You still didn't think it was appropriate to ask what is going on? To ask for some information. It was my judgment, call them. And that's based entirely on your knowing Mr. Singh for 10 years. Is that right? Yes. And also based on race, I didn't pick it up on the seven that we met. So I believe my assumption that everything is going on. Well. Okay. And
you were happy to leave the handling of this matter to Mr. Singh, even though you had no idea what he was doing, and whether or not this matter would eventually be clarified in Parliament? I believe he will have it. He will get reset to Yes. But you have no. no basis for doing that, besides your knowledge of Mr. Singh. Right. It's the trust I have in him. Yes. Right. And the fact that there's no discussion about the lie, and the clarification anywhere between you and Mr. Singh and Muslim, and as you said earlier in any of your Workers Party MPs chats? Yes, would be entirely consistent with Miss Khan's own account, or what happened on the eighth of August, correct? Yes. And you remain in this position, despite the fact that the police had asked her for an interview on a seven year sober. By the seventh of October, when you knew that the police had made a request? Did you ask yourself whether this was a legitimate request by the police? It would have been this would have been a fair request. Right and fair requests, because the police is now under pressure. Due to the false accusation. There's a falsehood that said in parliament that, you know, the police didn't know at that point in time. Yeah. And they had to clarify. Right. They have too many they invited her to give further clarification. It is a fair invitation. Right. I feel it's fair. Did you think that Miss Kahn should agree to go and see the police and be interviewed? In terms of the in terms of rationally? Yes, rationally? Yes. She should. I mean, in general, in general, in general, that, you know, she may want to meet up with the police. Yes. But as I mentioned to you earlier on, that there's so many things to consider the point in time, this meeting is the need to evaluate in terms of Reiser as well as Pritam. So I live in meta to them, and you should be able to make the best decision on this issue. Maybe agreed. It's a fair request is in general in general. Yes. You said rationally and logically. Generally, the police strike general because any any I mean, you're talking about being a parliament parliamentarian, right. So I don't know in terms of Lower the is it? No, let's not. Yeah. I mean, I don't want to get into legal positions by just as a matter of, you know, the facts, you know, in general fact. Yes. You know, the facts, you know, is untrue. You know, the police asking her for interviews, you know that the longer the falsehood remains on the record it worse it is for the police, the worse it is for the members of the public, in particular sexual assault victims. So in that context, don't you think it's important, reasonable, rational, logical PhotoScan. can verify this. And so the only reason why you thought that needed to be done is because, Mr. Singh, you know, Mr. Singh, well, and you trust him, then he has the information that, you know, that we should not have to, for him to make an evaluation, right. attachment and evaluation are which you didn't ask, but which you didn't ask? Yes. I didn't ask. Would it be fair to say that, actually, in this case, almost every proposition I have put to you, or over the course of this whole afternoon on logic, on reasonableness, you would agree with me? Yes. But that What stops you from agreeing with me entirely? Is that you trust Mr. Singh. And I don't have any information, which is which he has been which you didn't ask about, which I didn't ask. So in other words, it's a trust in Mr. Singh. Otherwise, everything else that I've said, including what happened? Yes. The follow ups, the logic of what I have told you, is very strong. Right. I can see that. And the proposition I put to you will be reasonable and rational. The only thing that in your mind stops you from agree with me entirely. Is that you trust Mr. Singh, and that you believe that he has the right information to make the judgment call? Correct. All right. Thank you, Mr. FISA. I've got no further questions at this point. But could you please get the relevant documents, including the look through the chat and see whether there's anything in there and if they are, please do disclose it to us? And subject to that I've got no further questions at this point.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 3:12:12
Are there any questions from other members? Grace, Zaki. Dennis? Don't Don't leave it on.
Don Wee 3:12:26
Hi, evening, Mr. Faisal. So Miss can inform us last week that she had discuss her third of August speech, which comprise of various topics with each other. In a quote at the meeting in specificly, she said, and I quote, I discuss it with Pfizer minor. Yeah. So therefore, at the meeting, you were aware of various parts of her third of August speech, meaning the FGC the polygamy, polygamy is Yes. As well as the alleged police mistreatment. Okay.
Edwin Tong 3:13:05
We only discuss about the issues, potential Muslim community.
Don Wee 3:13:10
Okay. Yes. Thanks.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 3:13:15
Zaki. Mama.
Zaqy Mohamad 3:13:20
Thanks, Chairman. Mr. Faisal, earlier, I know your there was a lot of exchanges within you and Mr. Minister Tong on, you know, the DP ever question apart from Miss Lowe and Mr. Nothern. On the DP. Were there others who responded to WPS call for members to come forward to give you know, their concerns, feedback or even issues on the statement on the conduct of Miss riser card? There there were and how many we are asked with them
Edwin Tong 3:13:52
every day. I don't want to disclose because the internal party, okay, information,
Zaqy Mohamad 3:13:57
then maybe Can I ask? Were there members who asked about whether you know, WP knew when you knew about No, no one asked about that. So it was it's interesting to know about transparency or when the leadership new bodies.
Edwin Tong 3:14:16
If you ask me, there's one more Yeah. Okay. But, yeah, but I believe I shouldn't be dwelling much into this because we have given the confidentiality to the assurance of confidentiality to this people who attended our session. Okay. No, no comfortable to share.
Zaqy Mohamad 3:14:33
Okay. No, but Mike, my concern was more no one asked that, you know, the party knew this beforehand. No. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Grace.
Grace Fu 3:14:44
Thank you, Mr. Faisal. Can I just follow up on the Mr. Don Reese question? Yes. He asked you whether Miss Kahn has discuss her speech, that August speech with you? Yes. And You said that you've only discussed issues pertaining to the Muslim community in DNI ticket that it is the FGC. Yes. She has discussed that with you. Yes, the polygamy is discussed with you, and police treatment of sexual assault victim, not the part that she is skon that that she has been herself a victim. But the fact that there is this call in her speech for police to step up in their interview of victim tested, is that in a discussion with you?
Edwin Tong 3:15:36
I don't recall that because even in her first, her submission of a first draft, right, is what she said. And I did check, you know, that she didn't include and so I believe that, you know, is not included, the initial be mentioned about about the way how the police treated the
Grace Fu 3:16:02
so I think it has speech there two parts, one about her accompanying second part is really about how, you know, we should be the ability of the police in terms of a way to interview and so on. So are you saying that both items were not in the draft only the first part about her company,
Edwin Tong 3:16:22
the issue, to call me up to ask me flew into the to look at her speech is basically to ensure that, you know, this strong feeling about the FDC and polygamy so I didn't go into other aspects of speech.
Grace Fu 3:16:40
We understand from iscan, that it's the practice of the Workers Party to post the draft. So given that this is a speech that has implication the Muslim community, yes. Did you have a chance to look at the speech?
Edwin Tong 3:16:57
Yeah, she she printed it out. And then we met thing, maybe a day before she presented delivered a speech. Okay. But prior to that, we did have a discussion. I mean, we have at least two or three discussion among the MPs, you know, what topics need to be brought up? So I did give my view. And by that, then she has not she had not drafted the speech, but she voiced out a view of wanting to bring up the issue of polygamy and FDC. Which a total, you know, in the admitting that it should be avoided.
Grace Fu 3:17:37
Despite what you tell her, it was in her in the speech that has been posted on the shed with the other MP, Cindy. So you have seen the draft speech before it was delivered.
Edwin Tong 3:17:51
I didn't see because she put it up very late on Sunday evening. So the next day, she asked me to meet up with the loss of his office, he printed out and she allowed me to go through.
Grace Fu 3:18:06
And he only highlights the area on FGC, and polychromy. Not the part that
Edwin Tong 3:18:11
because that's what she presented to me that portion of the speech.
Grace Fu 3:18:14
So you didn't have sight of the speech of the draft speech.
Edwin Tong 3:18:19
Didn't get a segment especially she uploaded, but I didn't go through that speech. So the only time that I read the speech is the one that she presented to me. It is other my portion on FDC and polygamy so can just go to it. So I only have only read that particular part.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 3:18:40
Thank you, Israel, you must have any question. If there are no further questions for now, we would like to thank you for coming before the committee, a transcript of the proceedings will be shared with you for verification. So do go through it. And you've only minor amendments, please make the changes and transcripts that to us Do note that the transcripts and any evidence given to the committee and not be disclosed to anyone or publish and must be kept strictly confidential until the committee has presented the relevant report to parliament. You may withdraw now, but I don't believe we'll we need to be calling Mr. FISA mana back today? Not likely. So we as requested we will need some of the documents as highlighted earlier in terms of correspondence and so on related to some of the matters that have been raised and have been requested to you and our staff will continue to the waiting room. So once again, thank you very much for patience and proclamation. So John Adams is the company the witness. Thank you. Thank you
is a good time to take a break take a break
put up past staff you can make a copy of the notes that similar we've been making available to
you
