"I love your "Malaysian Accent", can you say it again?"

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Monday, December 06, 2021

Links - 6th December 2021 (1 - Comedy)

Leftist fact-checkers aim to suppress satire and comedy by claiming it is 'misinformation' | The Post Millennial - "Throughout the left-wing media verse, publications that are used to seeing only liberal humor aimed at conservatives are frustrated by jokes that show the hypocrisy, humor, and absurdity of leftist positions.  Liberals control culture, the US government, and the institutions across America. Yet want praise for their efforts, not comic critique, and they have the media tools to suppress those who speak truth to their power. An article from global fact-checkers AFP declared that misinformation spreads online by posing as satire. In their exploration of the problem of satire, AFP unintentionally has created satire itself, of itself, and of fact-checkers everywhere. AFP cites The Onion and The Beaverton as publications that most people know are satirical, and are not fooled by, but they claim that The Babylon Bee, a more recent addition to the landscape of satirical and humour websites, has veered too close to the truth for readers to always be able to make that differentiation... In Emma Green's interview with The Babylon Bee's editor-in-chief Kyle Mann, she forced him to explain a joke that was fact-checked. The joke was that after General Soleimani died, Democrats called for flags to be flown at half-mast... "Do you want me to explain the joke to you?" Mann asks.  "Because the joke is that General Soleimani died and Democrats were sad. If you don't know why that's funny, then you're not the audience for the joke. The funniest part is that it got fact-checked because it was so believable that Democrats would do that. That's a real honor."... NPR ran an article about the latest comedy special from Dave Chappelle on Netflix. They claimed that his special, "The Closer," which was hilarious by the way, was bigoted. The show "uses comedy to veil bigotry," they wrote, going on to say that "Chappelle is using white privilege to excuse his own homophobia and transphobia."  How long before NPR and The Atlantic join with AFP in saying that comedy is simply too dangerous to go unchecked? Once comedy and satire are wrangled and put through the unfunny machine, made to only reflect leftwing political and cultural views and not critique them, what will come under attack next? Hyperbole? Will it become misinformative to exaggerate? To speak in metaphor?"
"White" is how the left insult and dismiss anyone they disagree with and don't like

Why Dictators Don’t Like Jokes – Foreign Policy - "There is a reason why humor is infusing the arsenal of the 21st-century protestor: It works. For one, humor breaks fear and builds confidence. It also adds a necessary cool factor, which helps movements attract new members. Finally, humor can incite clumsy reactions from a movement’s opponents. The best acts of laughtivism force their targets into lose-lose scenarios, undermining the credibility of a regime no matter how they respond. These acts move beyond mere pranks; they help corrode the very mortar that keeps most dictators in place: Fear... By using humor, activists confront autocrats with a dilemma: the government can either crack down on those who ridicule it (making itself look even more ridiculous in the process) or ignore the acts of satire aimed against it (and risk opening the flood gates of dissent). Indeed, when faced with an act of brazen mockery, oppressive regimes have no good choices. Whatever they do, they lose"
Why the left doesn't like satire

Laughing at Power: Satire and Democracy - "Satire is the revenge of the intelligent on the privileged – it is there to prick pomposity and to check power. As the late Molly Ivins once said: “Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful.” It is, in this sense, a true expression of democracy – a way for the people to have their say... Helen Lewis agrees about the sensitivity of those in power. “Authoritarians hate satire because it makes them look ridiculous – and the whole aesthetic of most tyrants is dangerously close to laughable in the first place... In 1941, the Nazis got all worked up about a dog that used to raise its paw in the air, which tells you a lot about their lack of a sense of humor... Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye, for the Geddes Memorial Lecture at Oxford University.  During that exchange, Hislop said: “You should be able to laugh at anything… at anything grim. It’s a both a release and a way of defying it.”"
Ironically having a Nazi salute dog became a "hate crime" more recently

Titania McGrath on Twitter - "If you find yourself laughing at stand-up comedy, it probably isn’t sufficiently progressive."

yamini on Twitter - "my bf (white trans man) and i (brown cis woman) were trying to decide which one of us can tweet a joke we came up with and realized that if he tweets it, it’s racist and if i tweet it it’s transphobic... back to the drawing board"
Abolish comedy!

Dave Smith on Twitter - "People who have been through some fucked up shit are more likely to laugh at some fucked up jokes. People who have had privileged lives are less likely to understand this. For example, make a fucked up joke in a trailer park and then a university and see who gets offended first."
"Humor and laughter make all the fucked-up shit bearable. My Mom would crush with some cancer jokes as she was dying from it."

moon ☾ luca edit on Twitter - ""dark humor" is joking about your OWN trauma. not trauma that you havent experienced."
This is another manifestation of liberal narcissism. Ironic given so many come from literature, and literature is supposed to promote empathy

Why so serious? A laboratory and field investigation of the link between morality and humor. - "Previous research has identified many positive outcomes resulting from a deeply held moral identity, while overlooking potential negative social consequences for the moral individual. Drawing from Benign Violation Theory, we explore the tension between moral identity and humor, and the downstream workplace consequence of such tension. Consistent with our hypotheses, compared with participants in the control condition, participants whose moral identities were situationally activated (Study 1a) or chronically accessible (Study 1b) were less likely to appreciate humor and generate jokes others found funny (Study 2), especially humor that involved benign moral violations. We also found that participants with a strong moral identity do not generally compensate for their lack of humor by telling more jokes that do not involve moral violations (Study 3). Additional field studies demonstrated that employees (Study 4) and leaders (Study 5) with strong moral identities and who display ethical leadership are perceived as less humorous by their coworkers and subordinates, and to the extent that this is the case are less liked in the workplace. Study 5 further demonstrated two competing mediating pathways—leaders with strong moral identities are perceived as less humorous but also as more trustworthy, with differentiated effects on interpersonal liking. Although having moral employees and leaders can come with many benefits, our research shows that there can be offsetting costs associated with an internalized moral identity: reduced humor and subsequent likability in the workplace."
The morally righteous aren't funny

Why so many BLM ultras are white - "The female comic Katherine Ryan has attacked the gender tokenism on BBC panel show Mock the Week. I can explain why the programme has always been dominated by men, despite efforts in recent years to introduce more gender balance. It’s because the format of the programme is competitive, and men are more competitive than women.It’s also because on average men are funnier than women. As Camille Paglia famously argued, men are given to extremes: there are more men of genius for the same reason most serial killers and lunatics are male.Comedy is fundamentally about cruelty or the distortion of reality: it appeals to the dark side of humanity found mostly in the male of the species."

Ricky Gervais: ‘The Office’ Would Be Ruined By ‘Outrage Mobs Who Take Things Out Of Context - "Given today’s culture of cancelation and roving woke mobs, comedian Ricky Gervais believes that his original BBC version of “The Office” would be impossible if it were made in 2020... Ricky Gervais delivered a seismic opening monologue at the Golden Globes in which he roasted liberal Hollywood for posturing woke while allegedly being total degenerates in their private lives, from friendships with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to shady business deals with communist China... “Apple roared into the TV game with ‘The Morning Show,’ a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing — made by a company that runs sweatshops in China,” Gervais said. “Well, you say you’re woke but the companies you work for in China — unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you?”... Gervais added that he did not necessarily believe everything he said in his speech, and only said it to make the best joke possible.“I’ll often take a complete opposite stance to what I actually believe if it makes the joke better. I’ll pretend to be right-wing, left-wing, or no-wing! It depends on the joke”"

Can comedy survive our puritan age? - "TV regulator Ofcom, in a report on the BBC, has classed comedy as an ‘at risk’ genre. In the past decade, the amount of original comedy on the BBC has dropped by more than 40 per cent... Joking around is now a somewhat precarious affair, lest offence is taken, and, like mad dogs playing Chinese Whispers, your ‘joke’ could be the end of you. Cancel culture is very real, contrary to what some ‘commentators’ might tell you. I, myself, have been a victim of it, blatantly and publicly.A friend on Twitter, commenting recently on the decline of comedy, said this was both because humour has become tribalised and because ‘any joke brings with it the risk of cancellation… Why take the risk of trying to be funny?’ An astute observation. With ‘offence warnings’ becoming all the rage this season (for Blackadder, Gimme Gimme Gimme, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, The Royle Family etc), TV production companies are looking increasingly like deer in excessively bright headlights. One pile-on from the Twittermob and it’s panic stations.But those who claim to be offended by something, in case it offends others, rarely speak for those ‘others’. Time and time again, I’ve seen this in action. ‘This is offensive to gays!’, they say. ‘Oh, I’m gay and it doesn’t offend me… why does it offend you?’, I reply. ‘Well, I’m not gay, but some of my friends are, and I’m sure they’d find this deeply homophobic!’ etc etc, ad infinitum. And therein lies the issue. The pitchfork mob, the mass resurrection of Mary Whitehouse and her moral outrage and purity. We’re all back in Salem... as we have all seen, ‘woke’ comedy isn’t comedy at all. It’s moral lecturing in disguise. And it’s pretty poor even at that."

Woke comedy is like joyless sex - "research done by an anti-woke pressure group called Campaign for Common Sense found that 75 per cent of comedians appearing on BBC shows are left-leaning Remainers with progressive views... Something very strange also happens when somebody is described as ‘right-wing’ these days. The leap to ‘far right’ or ‘alt-right’ is often assumed by default, which is just as absurd as somebody who is left-wing being aligned with the murderous totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Chavez.What’s more, not everyone on the left is woke, but the left does have a problem in that woke ideology is rooted in the left. This has made my rational left-wing friends politically homeless, because no one wants to admit that the left has been poisoned by crazy identitarian, divisive bollocks. The left literally has an identity crisis. So, how does this affect comedy, I hear you cry? Well, the greatest comedians have all been free-thinkers, liberals in the truest sense of the word. Joan Rivers would have no truck with the tyranny of woke ideology if she were here today. Nor would Dave Allen, Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor, George Carlin and certainly not Sam Kinison, who would have belly-flopped like a bandana-wearing sweaty beast on top of the audience screaming ‘fuuuuuuuuuckkkkkk youuuuuuu’... [A] comedian commented: ‘If you want jokes to be about politicians on the left then VOTE THEM IN. When they’re the headlines, the decision makers and the actual players they will be the focus on satire.’Either these comedians are deliberately using a strawman argument or they don’t understand the seismic cultural shift to the left, and that the woke left is fast becoming the establishment. The comedy industry being a case in point."

Satire Doesn’t Need a Political Litmus Test - "a coalition of leftist Columbia University student groups had a party to welcome incoming freshmen. The party was held in Potluck House, a special-interest housing community dedicated to food and conviviality, and the decorations were appropriately sans culottes.One student attending the party, however, thought the mockup of a bloody guillotine went a bit too far, and submitted a complaint to the Office of Residential Life. The party’s violent imagery and anti-liberal language, the student said, “threatened [their] identity by creating an unsafe space for capitalists.” Potluck House was officially sanctioned.This is ridiculous. There are few “safer spaces” for capitalism than an Ivy League university located in a global financial hub... Is satire the mere act of making fun? Should it provide catharsis, or a Zen acceptance of the world’s absurdity? Should it studiously avoid being condescending? What kind of social critique should it offer?On much of the left, the consensus has been clear: “Punch up, don’t punch down.” According to this “punch theory,” true satire takes on the powerful. Mocking the downtrodden, on the other hand, isn’t true satire; it’s hate speech. “An armed attack on a newspaper is shocking,” went one popular response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, but “cartoonists (especially political cartoonists) generally reinforce the status quo, and they tend to be white men.” The ombudsman of NPR went further, claiming the cartoons were “hate speech unprotected by the Constitution.” Looking at satire this way has the potential to do real damage. For one, it obscures the culturally specific contexts that make satire effective in the first place. The very question, “What is satire?” is contingent upon personal, very heavily disputed judgments about identity. Was Charlie Hebdo satirizing an oppressed group (French Muslims) or a powerful institution (organized religion)? Does Jon Stewart punch down at the poor rubes of America’s heartland or punch up at the elite politicians who hoodwink them? We all have strongly held notions about identity and power, affected by factors including race, class, gender, religion and sexual orientation. It’s the height of naïveté to assume others, even our political allies, share all of our intuitions about where a certain group lies on the punching scale.In cases like Charlie Hebdo, punch theory helped spread confusion over France’s uniquely extreme style of satire, leading some to mistake the magazine for a fascist rag. But the words of a French leftist, Olivier Tonneau, are instructive: the cartoons were “well within the French tradition of satire — and after all was only intended for a French audience. … I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, you have lost precious friends and allies.” Tonneau’s point about the need to read those cartoons in their local context should have been obvious. Instead, it was lost as leftists in the Anglosphere imposed their own sensibilities upon a different tradition.The second problem with punch theory is that it also leads to the silencing of satirists themselves. The most famous example is Bassem Youssef, the Egyptian satirist who has fiercely mocked every Egyptian government since the 2011 revolution. Youssef was arrested in 2013 on the charge of “insulting Islam,” part of Mohammed Morsi’s broader crackdown on political dissent. During his tenure, Morsi was careful to stress tentative support for free speech. But as he famously said during a speech to the United Nations, sacrilege was different, “an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities.” The reasoning is remarkably familiar: In order for satire to deserve protection, it must punch in the right direction, which Youssef failed to do. Youssef’s struggles are not unique. The Arabic-speaking world has a rich tradition of satire that has frequently gotten its practitioners in trouble. Often, the excuses governments use to crack down on satirists resemble Morsi’s, using blasphemy laws as pretexts. Officials have pushed these measures as a response to what they see as Western hegemony and provocation, from Islamophobic films to irreverent cartoons. None of them dispute that freedom of speech is important in theory. They just don’t want it used in the wrong way.Finally, punch theory does real damage to the left itself. So far, the debate over satire has taken place on the left, partly because of the movement’s internal diversity and academic affinities. A number of writers, most notably Michelle Goldberg, have pointed to another factor: The left’s obsession with cultural signaling reflects the absence of a proactive political agenda, and “is only possible at certain moments: when liberalism seems to have failed but the right is not yet in charge.”... one day conservatism will be culturally ascendant again, and the left will find itself attacked by the very tools it once employed... Before Pat Buchanan was a fearsome Republican adviser and presidential candidate, he and his brothers were roving Catholic vigilantes, setting fire to stores that sold pornography and other “obscene” material. Buchanan didn’t think he was thwarting freedom of speech. He was preventing a decadent, secular elite from “punching down” and imposing its beliefs on traditional Americans. Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals,” an organizing manual for leftists, is now beloved by the Tea Party for its tips on how to demagogue and shout down opposition. It doesn’t matter whether Buchanan and the Tea Party truly believe they are oppressed, or are just playing politics. The notion that true satire never punches down provides reactionaries with a blank check to crack down on political speech they don’t like"

Konstantin Kisin - "The same comedy industry movers and shakers who warned me that I was "damaging my career" by defending free speech are now protecting comedians who are widely reported to be sexual predators. 🤡"
Hold sexual predators accountable... unless they're the right sort of sexual predator

America Is Losing Its Sense of Humor - "Part of the reason for this movement away from joke-telling is perhaps due to what philosopher Jacques Ellul identified as our culture’s shift from word-based to picture-based thinking. In the not-too-distant past, people placed value on humor linked to artfully-constructed narratives and clever turns of phrase. Today, many people in the West do not have the attention spans to track a multi-layered joke, and instead get their laughs from viewing memes, gifs, and absurdities on YouTube. I think the other reason why people shy away from telling jokes, however, is simply that our culture is rapidly losing its sense of humor. And the main cause of this loss may be the rise of a fanaticism associated with the ideology of political correctness. Neil Postman identified this link between fanaticism and the decline of humor in his 1995 book The End of Education:
    “To be able to hold comfortably in one’s mind the validity and usefulness of two contradictory truths is the source of tolerance, openness, and, most important, a sense of humor, which is the greatest enemy of fanaticism.”...
When those who subscribe to the ideology of political correctness do make an attempt at humor, I find that it is usually not funny at all, but caustic and mean-spirited. This observation has also been made by Amos Oz—dubbed Israel’s “most famous living author”— in his book How to Cure a Fanatic... The decline of humor in America is unfortunate both for ourselves and our society. The ability to laugh at ourselves is a normal part of humility, and to laugh at others serves as a recognition of our mutual brokenness. As philosopher Roger Scruton has noted, humor served a particularly important role in sustaining the “melting pot” of America"

The Decline of Laughter | The American Spectator - "A society that does not laugh is one without an important safety valve, and a society in which people interpret crude humor not as the first step toward friendly relations, but as a mortal offense, is one in which ordinary life has become fraught with danger. Human beings who live in communities of strangers are greatly in need of laughter, if their differences are not to lead to civil war. This was one of the functions of the ethnic joke. When Poles, Irish, Jews, and Italians competed for territory in the New World to which they had escaped, they provisioned themselves with a store of ethnic jokes with which to laugh off their manifest differences. Ethnic humor has been studied in depth by the British sociologist Christie Davies, and his findings — in The Mirth of Nations — are a salutary reminder of the ease with which spontaneous social solutions can be confiscated by the po-faced censors who seek to govern us. The jokes and teases that Christie assembles are gestures of conciliation, in which difference is made harmless and set laughingly aside. Yet everywhere in the modern world a kind of puritanical vigilance is extinguishing the ethnic joke, condemning it as an offense against our common humanity. What was traditionally regarded as a way to prevent social conflict is now seen as a major cause of it: The ethnic joke is accused of “stereotyping,” and so tainted with the indelible stain of racism... THERE ARE MANY JOKE-FREE ZONES in our religious literature. The Old Testament is full of them — think of that appalling Book of Joshua — and the Koran is as rigidly humorless as any document that has survived the efforts of humanity to laugh it off. But this points to another area in which humor has become dangerous. Christians, Jews, atheists, and Muslims, living side by side in acute consciousness of the divisions between them, are greatly in need of the religious joke. The Jews, through their experience of the Diaspora, living as strangers and sojourners among communities that at any moment might turn against them, have long been aware of this. As a result the rabbinical traditions are full of self-deprecating jokes, which underline the absurd position of God’s chosen people, living on the margins of a world that does not know that that is who they are. Jewish humor is one of the greatest survival mechanisms ever invented — which has aided not only its own survival but the survival of Jewish identity, through an unparalleled history of attempts to rub it out... the ability of the self-appointed censors to discern ideological sins and heresies has been vastly enhanced by their daily exercises in resentment. Such accusers know how to discern racist, sexist, and homophobic thought-crimes in the most innocent-seeming small talk. And they know no forgiveness, since they are cut off, like all humorless people, from the process of self-knowledge. The desire to accuse, which brings with it a reputation for virtue without the cost of acquiring it, takes over from the normal flow of human forgiveness, creating a wooden personality familiar to all who have had to deal with the lobbies that now control public opinion in America."
Racist jokes actually help racial harmony and reduce racism

BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, Today guest edits: Grayson Perry - "‘Strangely, you never get Tories ever complaining about jokes. But followers of Corbyn, I did find that even if you have written sort of one column in 10, about Corbyn and the rest about Johnson, even that is too much. And there should be no jokes.’...
It's fair to say that during a standard, standard political poll, you probably won't ask people whether they believe that alien life has contacted this planet in the past, but you might argue that would be the decision to make, because if you do believe that alien life has contacted this planet in the past, you're more than twice as likely to vote Leave than you are to vote Remain... ‘Conversations are really difficult when they're about moral things or identity things. That's why the trans issue is so difficult to have a conversation about. Because it's about an identity issue. So those issues take extra care in discussing them’
‘Mmm. Extra care or perhaps just don't. I mean, we have too many conversations online and not enough face to face.’
‘Yeah, maybe but you can't run from it your whole life, right? So wouldn't it be better to be empowered to have them than to, to, be afraid to speak openly and freely. And isn't part of the problem, because so many of us feel like we're walking on eggshells that we can't say what we, what we feel what we want to say? The problem with that is if you live your life like that you'll never develop genuine relationships with people, because not only will you not know what they mean, and they will not know what you mean, but you won't even know what you mean.’...
‘What beliefs the left have, is this system that will fix the world. And maybe it won't, and maybe we need to compromise and, and it won't be as perfect as you hoped’
‘You said the left is oddly more rigid than the right often.’
‘Yeah, I think there's more antipathy from the left in the in the current climate, you know, they seem more puritanical. They have a list of 20 things and if you only agree with 19 of them, then you're a fascist... Being a member of the establishment is quite an interesting place to be and a lot of, I mean, now the left is the establishment, you know, like the champagne socialists of North London are like the last little bit of kind of unlogged forest aren’t they of the socialist left?’"
The infallible left, which cannot take jokes

Shane Gillis' 'SNL' Firing: Comics Mixed Reactions Exposes Growing Rift in Stand-Up World - "the Gillis controversy — which began hours after his hiring, when podcasts surfaced of the 30-year-old Philadelphia comic calling presidential candidate Andrew Yang a "Jew chink" and spewing other racist and homophobic jokes — has become a flashpoint revealing a deep and widening rift in the comedy world. Like every other aspect of American life in the Trump era, stand-up is turning polarized, pitting comic against comic in an escalating civil war over what's acceptable humor and what's unfunny hate speech. "You millennials, you're a bunch of rats, all of you," Gillis defender Bill Burr snarled on David Spade's Comedy Central show. "None of them cares. All they want to do is get people in trouble.""

Why Woke Comedy's 'Punching Down' Rule Is a Joke - "Progressive comics love punching down ... if the targets are Trump voters... Trump fans aren’t rich. They often hail from cobalt blue collar backgrounds and have little political clout. In short, they’re low on the cultural ladder and, therefore, shouldn’t be targets of ridicule. Yet they are, both in this sketch and across the comedy landscape... They’re repeatedly beaten up, mocked on national TV and some higher profile supporters are chased out of restaurants.Meanwhile, today’s woke comedy police cite “punching down” as the biggest thought crime on the books."

Why the woke can't make jokes - "A few weeks ago, the head of ITV’s comedy department, Saskia Schuster, announced at Diverse Festival that the channel will no longer commission programmes written by all-male writers’ rooms.I know what you’re thinking. Yes, it’s incredible but true: ITV really does have a comedy department. A quick check under the comedy category on the network’s streaming service reveals that the only new British comedy programme available at the time of writing is Keith Lemon’s Celebrity Juice, so quite what this department is filling its working hours with when it isn’t attending diversity festivals remains a mystery... Telling jokes carries an appallingly high risk of social embarrassment – not for nothing do stand-up comedians refer to a bad performance as ‘dying’ – and a correspondingly small glimmer of reward. It is competitive – and about pushing at boundaries of taste. Putting writing of any kind on the line to be judged is never a pleasant experience. As a script editor on a soap, I once had to pass on adding one of the greatest writers of his generation to the team because I knew he would be torn apart by it.But I can’t think of anything less likely to produce good ideas, or indeed laughs, than to don the straitjacket of sensitivity and the safe space, of watching what you say, which tends in my experience to create a working atmosphere with all the easy, relaxed affability of Act Four of The Crucible. Schuster’s comments are also telling for what they reveal about how women are viewed by this culture. Anyone who has worked in television for more than a week, and particularly around television writers, will be amused by the notion that it’s a group populated by thrusting macho men and demure little ladies.There are two implicit suppositions behind Schuster’s statement. The first is that women will civilise the rough and tumble chaps, a view of the sexes plucked straight from an Edwardian drawing room. The second is that different levels of employment of the sexes in any workplace are entirely because of male privilege and power. I think there are more male writers for the same reason there are more male criminals – because men are on average more likely to do stupid, irrational things that have a high chance of ruin.Schuster has founded a campaign called Comedy 50:50, whose aim is to reach perfect equity between the sexes in writing comedy... What a limiting view of people and of her fellow writers. Men do man jokes, women do woman jokes, homosexuals do homosexual jokes, black people do black jokes. Nobody has imagination or empathy or fellow feeling. We are apparently parrots loaded with one set of phrases, defined entirely by an arbitrary characteristic.There is certainly a problem with the same kind of people telling the same kind of jokes, as anybody who’s watched or listened to any of the multiple shows “taking a sideways look at the week’s news” such as Mock the Week will know – the people employed are overwhelmingly middle class and Left-wing. But nobody seems in a hurry to understand or address this most glaring lack of diversity... This reflects a modern cultural quirk in the arts: an obsession with process rather than outcome... All art, even the desperately silly and trivial, is now regarded as political and with a mystic power to remodel society. The language of HR courses and inclusivity awareness workshops has cemented around the very daftest things. Somebody should write a comedy about that."

Ricky Gervais Takes On Verbal Terrorism: ‘Don’t Apologize’ - "Ricky Gervais calls himself “a lefty liberal champagne socialist,” but when he says, “I don’t agree that feelings are more important than facts,” he echoes Ben Shapiro. The point of intersection: Both men support speaking freely. This quality makes them somewhat courageous, though it shouldn’t... “it’s not enough to apologize anymore and move on. People want blood, people want you ruined, because it’s a point-scoring competition now.” Even if you’re finely attuned to evolving standards, as Gervais says he is, “You can make your jokes bulletproof at the time, but now you have to make them bulletproof for ten years.” That seems like a lowball estimate. As time passes, people don’t just let their irony detectors rust and fall into disrepair; they seem actively to sabotage them. Willfully ignoring comic intent is a growth industry. In his comedy, Gervais says a lot of things he doesn’t actually mean in order to get a laugh, but that may become an increasingly untenable practice in an age when satire is subjected to stern and humorless fact-checks. “If you water the irony down so much, it’s not irony anymore,” he tells Harris. “I might as well go out and say ‘racism’s wrong, isn’t it,’ and get a round of applause. That’s lovely, but it’s not funny.” He could have added that no comedian would stay in business for very long by being boringly earnest. (That task falls to politicians.) When he’s doing his standup and “ten thousand people are laughing, you don’t care about one heckler. Sometimes I explain the joke to people, and the people who got it are angry. . . . And I have to say, when a comedian apologizes, I go oh, ‘F***ing don’t apologize!’ You can’t please everyone, and you shouldn’t. You can’t legislate against stupidity, and you shouldn’t.”The environment around us seems to be one in which actual racists and actual Nazis feel increasingly comfortable. Why might that be? “Everyone knows that you can make a joke about race without being racist,” Gervais says. Yet everyone who says anything that gets labeled offensive gets thrown into the same box. Disagree with progressive dogma on anything? You must be a white supremacist. Gervais smartly explains this willful failure to distinguish actual malevolence... A favorite tactic of Gervais’s detractors on Twitter is to point out that someone on the right agreed with something he said. Does that bother him? No, actually, he likes finding common ground with people on the other side. Yet “it’s not about the argument anymore. It’s not about the joke. It’s about who’s saying it because there’s a point-scoring system going on now. It’s like everyone’s trying to get into heaven by having more points scored for them and more points scored against the opposition.”Unless you stick to the softest possible level of comedy, every joke is going to have a target, yet “everyone wants to be exempt. . . . They don’t want their beliefs being made fun of so they try and give beliefs human rights. . . . That’s what blasphemy is, giving their beliefs human rights. It’s like saying, ‘you hurt my god, you hurt me.’” Gervais is an atheist, but even he takes note of how efforts to enforce dogma now come primarily from the woke and secular Left. “If you say the wrong pronoun it’s a blasphemy. . . . They stick ‘phobia’ on the end of a word and then you’re racist if you don’t agree with an idea. It’s like me getting offended by someone making fun of maths. Doesn’t change it. Science doesn’t care about your feelings.” He sounds a more optimistic note than I would about where all this is heading when he avers that we’re coming out of the Dark Ages of wokeness: “There are blips, but I think truth is too strong in the end.”... Do not mistake Gervais for a supporter of Donald Trump, whom he calls “this crazy narcissistic baby, this overprivileged dog-whistling moron,” but he sees the connection between the BBC’s attitude and the attraction of Trumpism. “You have conspiracy theories start, like his whole base is racist, which clearly can’t be true,” Gervais says. “Some people just voted Republican. Some people hated Hillary. . . . The swing vote was a certain percentage of people who’ve been tired for the last ten years of being told what they can say and do.”Everyone knows this, and yet what does the Left do? It turns up the volume. “Won’t you listen to the children?” the Left always pleads. My response is: Won’t they listen to the comedians?"

Our culture of victimhood, political correctness and infinite narcissism is destroying comedy - "Olaf Falafel, the winner of Dave’s ‘Funniest Joke of the Fringe’ prize, was accused of insensitivity. His winning gag: "I keep randomly shouting out ‘Broccoli’ and ‘Cauliflower’ – I think I might have florets" prompted criticism from the charity Tourettes Action, which described it as "disappointing" and claimed the joke "brought shame on Dave". The charity even demanded an apology from the Swedish comedian.Last week, my friend Ryan Dalton, one of the least offensive comedians alive, was performing ‘When Nature Calls’, a show about his love of animals. On this occasion, he made a joke which insinuated that pugs are not the best-looking dogs. Two people in the front row stood up and walked out. When asked why they were leaving, their explanation was "We’ve got a pug". Another friend and former winner of the Joke of the Fringe Award, Masai Graham, also fell foul of a snowflake in the audience. The West Brom native was performing ‘101 Naughty Jokes in 30 minutes’ when a woman in the crowd took offence to one of his gags but rather than walking out, berated the rest of the audience for laughing and attempted to frogmarch them out of the venue. When they refused, the woman left, only to return minutes later to collect her forgotten brolly. Awkward. My own show, ‘Orwell That Ends Well’, which deals with controversial subjects like racism, offence, freedom of expression and political correctness, has also not gone without incident. A few days ago a man took exception to something I said and proceeded to shout a series of unprintable expletives, and even called me "racist" – rather odd, given that I was talking about racism directed at me. I'm not usually a fan of identity politics, but I couldn't help but notice that the heckler was a middle-class white man who seemed entirely undeterred by the fact that he was surrounded by ethnic minorities who were all laughing their heads off.So are we living in a culture of offence where more of us are unable to take a joke? There is some truth to that: performing in comedy clubs in London, Brighton and other right-on metropolitan areas does often feel like walking a tightrope, even for fairly inoffensive comedians like me.But the bigger shift has been towards a culture of narcissism. Where in the past being offended by a comedian might have simply meant choosing not to see him or her again, somehow we have convinced ourselves that our opinions matter. Audience members will routinely demand that a comedy club stops booking certain comedians – not because they failed to make the audience laugh but because someone felt like being offended. If 299 people enjoyed the show and one person did not, that individual feels entitled to complain, disrupt the performance or even shame others into walking out with them.Why? Because the currency of modern society is victimhood... the story of someone being offended is irresistible to the media because it provides the ever-elusive clicks, likes and shares we all so desperately desire.The only way to reverse this culture of entitled, aggressive hypersensitivity is to stop rewarding victimhood. We must remind ourselves that the purpose of life is to overcome challenges, not wallow in them. And we have given 'offence' a social cachet it simply doesn't deserve – being offended is, after all, a choice."
To think liberals used to campaign against censorship by saying that if you were offended by a book or movie, you should just not read or watch it

"Rape Jokes by Survivors: A Night of Comedy and Catharsis" Review - "in the case of one comedy show being held in New York City this weekend, rape survivors are the ones asserting their right to joke about sexual assault."Rape Jokes by Survivors: A Night of Comedy and Catharsis" is the brainchild of Kelly Bachman, a New York-based director and comedy fan who’s also creating a documentary about the project. Bachman has enlisted more than a dozen survivors for a night of "storytelling, catharsis and laughter" over a subject that, despite the success of #MeToo movement, is still seen as taboo. Rape jokes still make many recoil — especially, it seems, when those jokes come from women. For Bachman and other survivors, though, a well-constructed rape joke is not only funny, but therapeutic. For some, it’s a necessary step toward catharsis... audiences seem appalled at Brave for daring to talk about it.“If someone came up to me after a show and said, ‘That joke was fucked up,’” Brave says, “I’d say, ‘Well, what’s fucked up is that this did happen to me and my boyfriend did punch me in the face. The joke is not what’s fucked up.’”... To dismiss a rape joke without hearing it out is always a mistake, comedian Adrienne Truscott argues — even if it’s told by a man who’s seemingly never been assaulted.“I think that people are capable of making interesting observations or jokes about things that they don’t necessarily have firsthand experience with,” she says. “I think that I should never tell anyone what kind of joke they should or shouldn’t write. I’m not into censoring anybody.”"

Nipple cripple proves Australia has lost war on political correctness - "Comedians are of course notoriously melancholy creatures but there have been several recent developments that make me more sure than ever that my mate is on the money.One was a report this month that the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions had ordered his Newcastle office to complete a sexual harassment course after a lawyer “tweaked” a colleague’s nipple.Sounds fair enough, you might think, until you read on. You see, it wasn’t a lecherous old man groping a young vulnerable clerk. It was a female solicitor mucking around with a male colleague when she gave him a little nipple-cripple over his shirt. Call the prosecutors!And it gets better. It wasn’t even the bloke who had his nipple tweaked who made the complaint. He wasn’t fussed at all. Instead it was someone in the office who witnessed it and reported it as “inappropriate”.As a source rather plaintively told The Daily Telegraph: “It was just a joke.” But as my comedian mate now knows, there are no jokes anymore. There’s just appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.And so, as a result of a playful exchange between two friendly colleagues who were completely untroubled, dozens of legal experts have to sit through an interminable sexual harassment lecture delivered perhaps by some po-faced bureaucrat or perhaps by a disembodied online portal. It’s hard to know which would be a bigger waste of the taxpayer’s time or money... two people, one white and one black, were talking about how absurd it was that a certain derogatory racial term was still allowed to be used in some contexts. Another person in the office overheard the conversation and reported them.And so it was back to the re-education camps for that happy little workplace. Yes, even a black person discussing a racist word can now be sanctioned for racism.Again, you could be forgiven for thinking that this is as dumb as society could possibly get but, again, you’d be wrong.Because just last week an educator infamously suggested that parents should ask their babies for consent babies before changing a nappy. Needless to say, in any such exchange it would not just be the nappy that was completely full of it... Of course people have the right to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by — indeed, who could stop them? The only question is whether the ultimate power in society should be held by whoever is offended the most.And the fear of causing offence has now reached the point where people who are upset by a conversation they overhear are rewarded for reporting its participants to authorities.Worse still, even the intent or context of any action or conversation doesn’t matter... Seriously, was this new breed of educators trained in East Germany?... Frankly, I don’t want to live in a world run by robots. I want a world where people can say stupid stuff and say sorry in the morning, where people can swear at each other and then shake hands, where a drunken shag isn’t sexual assault and where sexual assault isn’t likened to caring for your newborn child.I want to live in a world that is warm and wild and funny and free. And I want my children to live in that world.And if that world disappears, well — as my old mate said — I’m going to miss it"

Rod Liddle was joking, you idiots - "how come Rod Liddle’s joke about disenfranchising Muslims in the forthcoming election caused more outrage than the revelation earlier this week that many young people actually want to disenfranchise older voters? We all know the answer to this question. It’s because in the world of the woke, in the ruthless and quite racist hierarchy of identities these people have constructed, the Muslim community must be protected from everything, even humour, while old people, especially those nasty white working-class ones who voted for Brexit, are fair game for whatever shit you want to throw at them... Jonathan Swift didn’t really think Irish people should let rich gentlemen eat their babies, and Rod Liddle doesn’t really think Muslims should be denied the vote. It’s remarkable this needs saying... Satire isn’t allowed anymore, it seems. Everyone who’s anyone has condemned Liddle and his jokecrimes. This is ‘not acceptable’, decreed Sajid Javid. Thanks, Saj, but we do not need or want and will never, ever tolerate politicians dictating what jokes people are allowed to tell or publish. Like a mini McCarthyite, the Labour MP Liam Byrne wrote to the BBC’s director-general to insist that the Beeb give no more airtime to Liddle or the Spectator’s editor Fraser Nelson... You know what wasn’t a joke, though? A survey earlier this week which found that 47 per cent of Brits aged between 18 and 34 think older people should not be allowed to vote in big-issue elections – for example on Brexit or Scottish independence... We shouldn’t be surprised. Many of these people want to disenfranchise numerous sections of society. They literally want to crush the votes of 17.4million people, which includes eight million women, millions of working-class people, and a third of ethnic-minority voters. Well, they’re all dumb, racist scum, right? Shove their vote for Brexit down the memory hole."
So much for humour and satire as ways of speaking truth (to power)

Even woke comics aren’t safe - "Russell Howard claims the BBC asked him to tweak a routine in case it offended ISIS. Seriously...  he wrote a bit for his then BBC show, Russell Howard’s Good News, lambasting the ISIS killers as ‘warmongering pricks’ and insisting that they aren’t Muslims, but terrorists. This apparently set off alarm bells with the executives, who made him change it to say that the jihadists aren’t ‘devout Muslims’... if anything this was an odd kind of departure for the corporation. The BBC’s clunky house style has it so that the words Islamic State only ever appear in quote marks or prefaced by ‘so-called’. In Howard’s case, the execs seemed to be conceding that ISIS is, at least a bit, Islamic... Take another example – that of Nimesh Patel. Last year, the New York stand-up and Saturday Night Live writer was pulled off stage at a student event. The organisers took issue with a joke he told about how getting to know gay, black men proved to him that homosexuality isn’t a choice. ‘No one looks in the mirror and thinks, “This black thing is too easy; let me just add another thing to it”’, he quipped.It’s a good line, and no one in the audience could possibly have disagreed with the message of it. But the fact that Patel even ‘went there’ was apparently enough to render his set ‘problematic’. So often we talk about PC as the silencing of opinions certain people find disagreeable. But what we’re looking at here is something more irrational – a knee-jerk fear of even taking on certain issues."

Konstantin Kisin cancels university show over 'behaviour contract' - "A comedian has pulled out of a student charity event after being asked to sign a contract banning him from being offensive about almost anything.Konstantin Kisin was sent a 'behavioural agreement form' which stopped him telling jokes which were not 'respectful and kind'.The form stated: 'By signing this contract, you are agreeing to our no-tolerance policy with regards to racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia or anti-religion or anti-atheism.' Student leaders said the ban was necessary to preserve the event as a 'safe space' and a place for 'joy, love, and acceptance'... Mr Kisin, who has lived in Britain for 20 years, said yesterday: 'I couldn't believe it. The only people who should be controlling what comedians say are comedians. This is a threat to freedom of speech and I have declined the invitation on a point of principle. 'I grew up under the Soviet Union. When I saw this letter, basically telling me what I could and couldn't say, I thought this was precisely the kind of letter a comic would have been sent there.'"

Committee of Privileges (Raeesah Khan) Hearings: Transcripts

This is an index page to access the transcripts that I have generated (via Otter.ai) of the hearings for the Committee of Privileges investigating ex-Workers Party Member of Parliement Raeesah Khan, as a general service.

1) Committee of Privileges Hearing on 2 December 2021 - Mr Lim Hang Ling

2) Committee of Privileges Hearing on 2 December 2021 - Ms Raeesah Khan

3) Committee of Privileges Hearing on 2 December 2021 - Ms Loh Pei Ying

4) Committee of Privileges Hearing on 3 December 2021 - Mr Yudhishthra Nathan

5) Committee of Privileges Hearing on 3 December 2021 - Ms Raeesah Khan

6) Committee of Privileges Hearing on 3 December 2021 - Ms Loh Pei Ying

These have been generated using the govsg YouTube videos, with minimal editing - I mostly just tagged the speakers.  

Though speech recognition technology has made leaps and bounds in recent years, it still isn't good enough for very accurate transcripts. So take them 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 what I have generated or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 9 hours of manual transcription (some people claim this is an interim report and the WP senior leadership need to be interviewed too, but the report doesn't have any indication that it's an interim report: it is, rather, a special report).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later (the transcripts and evidence given to the committee are supposed to be confidential but everything is on YouTube: go figure; that was a very short embargo period). If they do, please use those instead.

If any more videos do come out (since "The Committee... will hear further evidence if it sees fit"), I'll (probably) generate transcripts of those too.

Committee of Privileges Hearing on 3 December 2021 - Ms Loh Pei Ying: Transcript


What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.  

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

If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 9 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later (the transcripts and evidence given to the committee are supposed to be confidential but everything is on YouTube: go figure; that was a very short embargo period). If they do, please use those instead. In the meantime, you may profit from the following: 

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:00  
call the meeting to order such an advance please invite the witness to the witness table. Thank you

Morning Mr. Mr. Cozzi. For the record please state your name occupation positions your home

Loh Pei Ying  0:34  
Hi, sir. My name is low paying. I'm Tukey yes all this year and PSP seriously mentioned, I am the hit and co founder of continental list, a data visualization and editorial studio here in Singapore. And I'm also Academy member of the Workers Party and prior to her resignation, secretarial assistant to this very second.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:05  
Okay, thank you. Thank you for coming back in a short notice, I'd like to remind you that you had made an affirmation yesterday to tell the truth. And the proceedings today is a continuation of yesterday's hearing. It has to bond to your solemn obligations, not like hand over to Mr. Winter for some further clarification and questions. Good morning.

Edwin Tong  1:24  
Good morning. Mr. I'm very sorry to trouble you again. I thought I'd like to just ask you two broad questions. Okay. The first one is just a request in relation to the documents that you have sent. Right. And I know you worked over lunch yesterday. So I appreciate that very much. Some some of the documents, some of the trails of the messages would help us set the context, because some of them in isolation doesn't give us the full picture. So I would appreciate if you can work with staff to just work through, as I said yesterday, it is not our intention to look into your personal matters. But I will hope that you can give us a bit more context to the discussion that led to some of these messages, if the preceding ones. And if I could just refer you to the transcript yesterday is be slow able to have a copy of the raw transcript that we have.

I'll just read it to you for the moment, Mr. I, at one juncture, and asked you for documents at several junctures. At one juncture at page 23, I said, for ask you for this WhatsApp chat group, could you also produce it to the GOP, at least in relation to the discussions of the third August speech and any discussions you would have arising from this? And then further on, I said at line 22, your discussions on that and anything else they may have developed from that thereafter. So I'll be grateful if you could have that kind of formulation in mind when you look at a particular message or email, so that the full chain and the full trail can be made available for contextual purposes.

Loh Pei Ying  3:07  
Admittedly, I'm quite uncomfortable sharing this because I mean, there were a lot of things that and a lot of opinions that people throw around and yeah, and sometimes, you know, in our own zealousness, we say, really stupid things. And I know some of these are quite embarrassing, so I really don't want to share them. Whilst I

Edwin Tong  3:29  
understand that I think the difficulty we have is that we do have to look into all the factual matter. And whilst it is an expression of an opinion, or expression of a view, perhaps in a private chat, there's certain contextual relevance to it in the context of events that have been happening contemporaneously, and that sheds light on them. And some of them also give us factual. Allow us to answer some factual questions such as when what took place and with between who, which some of your messages already shed light on. So it is in that context, I'm asking you to see it. And I hope you appreciate that we are not trying to delve into personal matters, but it is relevant to the inquiry and our request that you do provide them. If you are uncomfortable, I would suggest that subject to Chairman's views, we could have a staff from Parliament, sit down with you. And you could explain if something is personal and not related to the inquiry, we can always remove it because I do appreciate that. Sometimes these personal remarks are interspersed with what might be of relevance to the corp. So we can do that. But otherwise any expression any view form on any of the matters that we spoken about, particularly the key points that are requested? I would like for those to be produced.

Loh Pei Ying  4:54  
Perhaps we could agree on what those key points are first before I want to open my whatsapp On the parliament staff,

Edwin Tong  5:01  
okay, I can tell you from memory, what those key points are. And perhaps it's best I give you a date reference, because that's probably the best way in which you would be able to identify the documents and the trails. From memory. And I will check later on if I missed anything out. That August, there was a speech, you said that there was an animated discussion. Fourth August. There was, I think, some other discussion. Seventh August, there was some discussion and zoom chat, date, August, there was you don't have to take this. Just get someone to give you the transcript. In August, there was a meeting between Mr. Pritam Singh, Mr. Muslim and Mr. Manoj with Miss Hahn. And there were some discussions thereafter. And I think your evidence was that there was nothing else between August and sometime in October, nothing else between eighth of August to fourth of October. So I think I did say just check that that is the case. Yeah. And I went to check, many don't have, then the next one is, I think third of October. I believe it was a Sunday, fourth October, which was the date of the speech. There was several dates in between where I think you said you couldn't remember. But the next date of relevance is 12, October, where there was a discussion at Mr. Singh's house, I think you put in a request to meet. There was then you explained that there was some review and comments on drafting. And I know of at least one date on the 22nd of October, where there was actually a meeting. I don't know whether there were others. So you said you would check and whether there were drafts exchanged. That culminated, I think in the speech made on the first of November. So any discussions arising from or related to the speech would be relevant, along with the announcements on that day itself, made by Workers Party, there was a statement by the Secretary General, on a second of November, there was a statement by the Workers Party media team on a setting of the DP on a fourth of November, it was a Deepavali. And you had a meeting with Miss sun at her home, where she was producing evidence, and I think you discussed it with her. And thereafter, you weren't sure about the dates thereafter. So I said, check. But the next day you gave us that also of relevance is 25th. November, where you said you met with the Workers Party team, the DP. And the other date that was significant was 29th. November when I think Miss Han went before the DP again, and 30th November when she resigned. And I think that was the end of it, because yesterday was the second of December, which is when the press conference took place. Okay, so that's the timeframe that we had evaluated and discussed, when we discussed your evidence yesterday.

Loh Pei Ying  8:03  
There are some things that are within this time frame that I also that's that obviously concerned, this issue, but they are quite confidential. And am I allowed to tell the parliament stuff that I don't want to share those? They are, they do my opinion, they are not relevant in the preceding stages, you know, chatter about what's going on.

Edwin Tong  8:27  
I can't really make a judgement until I know what it is. So it's difficult for me to say all I can say is that the request would cover all things have relevance, and it relates to I've tried to bet as best as I can articulate the periods.

Loh Pei Ying  8:44  
Sometimes, for example, we won't mention names of friends and other volunteers who have given or share their opinions with us. And I would really, really like to keep their identities anonymous. If I

Edwin Tong  8:57  
can use what what we could do subject again to Mr. Chairman's approval is we could actually redact those, we can do that. Yeah, we can redact specific messages. I know you can't quite do it when you're trying to do it on the phone and taking a screenshot, but, and I'm not very technically inclined, but in hardcopy form, you can actually physically redacted.

Loh Pei Ying  9:14  
Can I redact it on my own phone before I pass it to?

Edwin Tong  9:18  
You can you can, you can, but I will also suggest that for those that you redact, you might want to redact the offending portions or the sensitive portions, leaving the rest of the text available, because that allows someone to make an evaluation as to whether that is actually relevant or not. So could you do that?

Loh Pei Ying  9:40  
Okay, I'll try my best. Okay.

Edwin Tong  9:41  
I know it's a imposition on you and I yeah, I

Loh Pei Ying  9:45  
mean, I have a lot of these things are never designed for solid is a private conversation between myself and other people. And I know I am a members of a member of the Workers Party and I mean, no offense. Sometimes I say, you know, the best things. Yeah. So

Edwin Tong  10:04  
trust me, Missoula. We've heard it off. Okay, I think no offense, and I think my colleagues don't either. Yeah, I know it's an imposition. And I will say to you that it is not our intention to delve into personal matters or give you that assurance. But we do have a duty to ensure that all matters of relevance comes before the GOP. So that's my, that's my challenge.

Loh Pei Ying  10:25  
Will you be asking any of other people who are in this conversation the same?

Edwin Tong  10:31  
It really depends on the extent to which they were aware. And it was, in fact, because of what you told us that we have no reason other than, from what you've said, so far. I don't see anyone else being as closely associated with the events as yourself and Mr. Nothern. But I really don't know until I see the other materials.

Loh Pei Ying  10:49  
Okay. Okay.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  10:51  
Okay, just to reiterate, I think why this is important, as you have realized, I mean, as ongoing developing comments made on the issues, you realize that there are some discrepancies. And I think it's important for us to fully understand how things evolved. Because ultimately, the focus of this committee privilege sharing is really about Miss Kahn, what she said, why she said, Because ultimately, we also need to determine her level of responsibility for what happened. And I think all the different conversations perspectives about how things evolved. And the sense of it is important. And as mentioned, I think, as we edit our WhatsApp and all that I can imagine certain parts, we just cut it out. But I think the other way to do it is to print it out. And then you mock up those parts that you feel this comment that person, I think we can do that, but at least allows us to still follow the general sense of the fluid, more or less have a sense of what else was covered. That would really be useful, I think.

Loh Pei Ying  11:58  
And can I I guess, can I have a guarantee that their conversations will be kept strictly to Ondina eyes for all of the people on this panel and not me on this committee? And I can

Tan Chuan-Jin:  12:09  
do that, I can do that, should there be a need to make anything's public? I think this one, we will, we will clarify and make sure that we clear that with you. But otherwise, it is for the committee, your privilege, the CLP to review that, as evidence,

Edwin Tong  12:21  
Mr. The proceedings are confidential, as we had told you yesterday as well. The thing is that we are a body that has been set up by Parliament to make findings and we have to report to parliament. So to the extent that things are relevant to the issues that we face, we do have to report to parliament and to that extent, it goes to Parliament and becomes public. And I think that is unavoidable. That's our our duty. But obviously, it is also for us to determine what's relevant and what's not relevant. And to the extent that there are private conversations, you know, irrelevant on you know, banal things, I don't think that will form part of the record. And I'm quite happy for us to look at that and have that either redacted or expunge from the record altogether. But I think, as I said earlier, in order for us to make that judgment, we do have to be broader, and then we narrow down from there. So I hope you understand. So it has to be produced first.

Loh Pei Ying  13:17  
Yeah, I mean, I don't, honestly, I don't feel like I have much of a choice. It makes me really uncomfortable to do this. But I will, I will try to, you know, collaborate as as best as I can.

Edwin Tong  13:31  
Okay, I appreciate that. Now, the second area, I wanted to get your confirmation was this, in one of the documents that you gave us yesterday, there is a WhatsApp message just on its own. I would like to correlate that to evidence that we heard from mishaan yesterday, so that it gives you the context, so you have a bundle of the notes of evidence before you. If I could trouble you to please turn to page 159. And you will see that at the top left hand corner of the page.

And to give you a context, I'm asking mishaan questions, and I was focused on the period on the seventh of August. And just for context, you remember seventh of August when she had a conversation with Mr. Singh. And thereafter they set up a meeting with the three of the party leaders. So if you look at Miss Hans statement around line 1516, have a quick look. I made that reference and she answered there was a short phone call then there was a meeting, because the context now if you go over the page, I then asked her at line 10. On this occasion, Miss Lim Mr. Manoj will also present as a Mr. Singh's house, she says yes. Did you put it in clear terms to them as well that the statement you had made was false answer. Yes. Could they have misunderstood? Answer? No, they couldn't. not ask them what was asked her what was their reaction to this? She says it was incredible disappointment. There was a lot of anger. But I think there was some compassion there as well. The reaction there was that if I was not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August. And I said, Let me understand that last statement. You said, if you're not going to be pressed, then you take the narrative that you started in August. Answer. Yes. It means if we can get away with it, we don't need to clarify the lie. Correct? I think in the simplest terms, yes, you are correct. I have no further exchange with her and at line 19. I said, So the upshot of the meeting a few days after seven August, was that a Workers Party leadership decided that there'll be no need to clarify the position, they will keep the line in place. Since if you're not pressed, there's no need to clarify the truth, correct? Answer. Correct. And then you go with a page. I asked her, and this is where it's relevant to you. line five, did you discuss this with Miss Lowe thereafter? Answer? Yes, I did. In those discussions, did you give an account of what happened? Answer? Yes, I did. Would that be by message? Yes, that would be by messages. And I noted that to be an approval. And those messages would capture the thrust of what you had discussed with Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Miss Lim answer, yes. And then asked me to make a note of it. And at line 19, I said those messages would have been contemporaneous, meaning they would have been roughly around the same time as when you concluded the meeting with three of them. Answer Yes. And she says, and I asked her what was Miss Lowe's reaction, she says I don't remember her reaction by message. But I think when we spoke about it afterwards, there was a sense that the best thing to do would be to tell the truth. So that's the context of the evidence that Miss Han had given. Now I have a few questions for you. First, there was a conversation that Miss Han had with you, after she met with the three of them. Can you describe it for us, please?

Loh Pei Ying  17:03  
And I'm being I want to think that I'm being completely honest here. Because again, I cannot there was a lot of like chatter. But to my knowledge, that message that I shared with you is the only one where she had explicitly stated the nature of the conversation that, you know, with reference, specifically only to this police accusation. Because, you know, unfortunately, they said, take it to their grave, which when I went back to look at it, I was like, I mean, that's pretty bad.

Edwin Tong  17:39  
Yeah, sorry to interrupt your backup today, in a minute, what what I was referring to is, if you look at the bottom of line four, page 60 162, to the top of 163. She's saying that, besides the messages that she did speak to you afterwards, do you remember that conversation?

Loh Pei Ying  17:55  
Yeah, so I looked through the messages. And in right following right after that message that I've sent to you, what Miss Han proceeded to do was to just send us a draft of the statement that she was going to put out that day. And that statement refers specifically to matters concerning, for example, that FGM and polygamy. And my reaction to those was simply to just, you know, finesse that that draft, I didn't do my knowledge. I can't recall responding to their reaction, like to what the party leaders had said,

Edwin Tong  18:31  
yeah. mishaan seems to recall that there was a sense that the best thing to do would be to tell the truth in reference to your conversation with her. I mean, that, to my mind was also consistent with what you told us. Yeah.

Loh Pei Ying  18:43  
As I said, there might be some degree of Miss remembering happening. But as I mentioned, and and this is what I look through the chats and I remember when she was pressed by Minister Shanmugam on the fourth of October, I told her, I think best you tell the CC Yes, yeah.

Edwin Tong  19:04  
But in fact, actually, in August, and this is the eighth of August. Yeah, I think really made the point clear to her.

Loh Pei Ying  19:12  
I must have said it, at least on Zoom. I don't recall because, admittedly, we were very aware that this is a highly confidential and highly sensitive matter, and we explicitly avoided going about it in chat.

Edwin Tong  19:25  
Okay. She also seems to at least recall that there were several messages or at least a series of messages besides just the one that you had sent to us. Do you recall if there are others which might shed light on this mean, for example, if the messages don't directly concern, what was discussed at the meeting, but also her view of what the meeting said your response and what to do thereafter that will also be relevant

Loh Pei Ying  19:56  
Yeah, I know that but I I mean, later the parliament stuff can verify what I'm saying I, to my knowledge from when she told them on the eighth of August to the fourth of October, we really didn't chatter about it anymore. Because to me my mind, she had taught party leadership. And, you know, in my mind house was like, just put this behind us and you know, move on.

Edwin Tong  20:18  
Okay. On that day itself, the takeaway from that meeting after Enough of all this, would I know you were not there. But as I said, there was an exchange of messages, she sent you in a message, you must have looked at it and taken something away from it. Would what I've just read you at page 160, through 216, to accurately summarize the gist of the takeaway from the meeting with the Workers Party leadership,

Loh Pei Ying  20:56  
I really cannot say if it's accurate or not, because all I all the knowledge that I have of that meeting, was that one message?

Edwin Tong  21:04  
Okay, based on one message, and maybe you can have a look at that one message. Is there a copy for Mr. Mrs. Lowe? Thank you, you go to the eighth of August. I think you recall it because you quoted from this earlier. Eighth of August. It's time stamped 12:41pm, which I presume that's the time you it was received, or sent. It says, Hey, guys, I just met with batim, Silvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issues and the police accusation. I told him what I told you guys, and they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested I write a statement to send out this evening. What was your reaction when you receive this? What was your takeaway from this message?

Loh Pei Ying  22:03  
Me Tony wearing Okello like, that's what the parking meters decided.

Edwin Tong  22:08  
Meaning don't clarify the truth of the statement.

Loh Pei Ying  22:11  
Yeah, as I said, in my, I avoided commenting on it on text message. I believe this was also like one of those like, heightened h2 phase to hitch a period. So we also didn't meet in person. And I genuinely did not deliberate on this any further until the fourth of October, I

Edwin Tong  22:33  
understand. But I just wanted to understand your state of mind when you saw this message, because this is obviously sent to you. Hey, guys, refers to yourself. And Mr. Nothern? Right. Yeah.

Loh Pei Ying  22:46  
I'll have to be very frank and admit that I really think that I trusted.

Edwin Tong  22:51  
You trusted the Workers Party leadership judgment. Yeah. But what was your view from this? What does take the information to the grave mean?

Loh Pei Ying  23:01  
Don't tell anyone.

Edwin Tong  23:06  
Yesterday when we went through what was discussed on the third of October, and again, to give you the context, Miss Lowe, you told us yesterday that third of October, there was a meeting between Mr. Singh and Miss Han. Yes. At her home. Yeah. But you only heard about it subsequently. When is the thing narrated it to you on the 12th of October? Do yourself, Mr. Northern? Yeah. And you also told us that Mr. Nothern could corroborate what you heard, right, which we will put to him in a moment. One of the takeaways from that discussion that Mr. Singh conveyed to you was that he told mishaan On the third of October, that I forget the words precisely, but it's something along the lines of keep to the narrative. And I won't judge you.

Loh Pei Ying  23:57  
I don't know about the first half of that. But definitely in the fall, and I will not judge you.

Edwin Tong  24:02  
Okay, maybe I'll do be more accurate, I should just show you what was said so that we are on the same page, if you could, and I'm giving you miss.

First give you miss Hans account of this, okay. If you could pick up that bundle and turn to page 153.

And I just would like you to start with line 16. So to give you the context, this is the picture. This is the reference point I had a conversation with leader and opposition. Composition was that if I were to retain the narrative, if I were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgment. When was this third October in my house? Over the page, she gives an interpretation of that now Your Account yesterday can be found at page 39. And we look at line seven. You said this is information that I have that he shared with me after fourth October. So I believe you met you meant 12 October, which is after the event itself. I believe she met Mr. Pritam Singh the day before, which is the third of October. And then you said, at line 13. But definitely I know in the subsequent meeting that I had with Mr. Pritam Singh in person at his place that he shared with me, he had met her the day before. And he told her that he he had a feeling that this might come up. And I don't know the full details of what he said to her. But he shared with me that he said, I will not judge you. So this would be in the context of if we accept Miss hunts narrative, what I showed you earlier, this will be the context of the prevailing, thinking that in August, the Workers Party leadership had said not to disclose the information and to take it to the grave. There'll be a fair assumption. Yes. Thank you. Okay, I've got no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  26:28  
Any other questions for other members? Mr. Donohue Hadley for yourself? Your clarification?

Don Wee  26:35  
Sure. Good afternoon, Miss Lowe.

Loh Pei Ying  26:39  
Good afternoon. Hi. Yesterday, I

Don Wee  26:41  
inform you that the Workers Party press conference had happened. Yeah. When we were speaking, or when we were hearing from you yesterday. So I mentioned that during the press conference that the Workers Party leadership was aware of the untruth a week, after the third of August, Parliament sitting instead of third of August, I mentioned third of October. Yeah. So tasks, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify his Thank

Loh Pei Ying  27:07  
you. I remember that too. I was quite shocked when I open my phone to see that there was not correct, you

Tan Chuan-Jin:  27:16  
know, the clarification. Any other further questions for Miss Liu from other members? Then so there are no other further questions. I think as I discuss it, we can go through some of the

Loh Pei Ying  27:38  
Yeah, actually, I would like to clarify one thing that I said yesterday, because after I looked at my conversations, I realized that maybe why represented yesterday was not completely accurate. I think Mr. Tong asked me that, what my primary advice to her was after the third of August, prior to having known the truth, I had maintained I had said that I recommended that she stick to a line of confidentiality as the reasoning for not giving further information to Parliament. And I believe that was not accurate. As you can see in the text messages, I had just kind of told her that, you know, okay, yeah, mistake nine, you know, kind of move on from it. I had said that I had recommended that to her, because, actually on that day itself, or rather, the day after, I believe on the fourth of August, my my husband and I had a very heated debate on this issue. Obviously, he was also upset that the police had been maligned. And I told him you know, it's the absolute right thing to maintain the line of confidentiality for the victim and that's why I think got stuck my head. So it was said to him or not to her.

Don Wee  28:56  
I understand that thank you very much Mr.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  29:01  
So is discuss, maybe you are able to go through and if you're comfortable, perhaps if any, discussing my staff, have someone senior to talk to you and then perhaps help you in a review of your materials if you feel that there's a need to set the reasons for doing so is to understand the backdrop and I think you understand the gravity of the issues which is why I think the circumstances how things evolve the dynamics of it is important for us to lay out we are mindful of the sensitivity. So like I said, some of these things, if it makes it easier printed out, then you can mark it up accordingly. And then that would be helpful for us.

Loh Pei Ying  29:39  
Yeah, I mean, I am not comfortable with that. But if I can just choose on my own I think

Tan Chuan-Jin:  29:44  
that is fine. Right? But I hope you understand the reasons why we are doing I

Loh Pei Ying  29:47  
fully understand. I have also I don't know if I will be called again.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  29:53  
If there is you will be submitting any further documents I think I've been going through there are still other materials that you might be sending us emails or any other materials beyond

Loh Pei Ying  30:03  
just the WhatsApp stuff. I just, I mean, I had obviously a long think about what's been happening yesterday. And I just want wanted to give, to some extent a bit of a personal statement if I'm allowed.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  30:18  
Yes, you me? Yeah.

Loh Pei Ying  30:22  
Just in case, I guess anyone thinks that I'm coming in as an agenda of sorts. I just want to clarify that I have been, you know, a member of the Workers Party for 10 years. And I've give the cause a reasonable amount of my personal time and my youth. And I'm very aware of the ramifications of what I've shared, including these WhatsApp conversations. And please go, yeah, it pains me greatly. But to me beyond anything else, it's important to be truthful to my country.

Edwin Tong  31:03  
Missile, thank you very much. I want to assure you that we are also here on a fact finding mission, there is no agenda upfront by us. And we're not pre conceived on any views. It is our job to be impartial and neutral. And we appreciate the candor. And that's all that we expect. And we appreciate all of our witnesses. Thank you.

Loh Pei Ying  31:24  
I'm genuinely very fair.

Edwin Tong  31:28  
Yes, thank you. Sorry, no, it's okay. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  31:37  
So there are no further questions for now. We would like to thank you for coming before the committee transcript the proceedings will be shared with you for very for the verification, please go through it and event the other minor amendments, please make the changes and send us transcripts back to us. As mentioned yesterday, do note that the transcripts in any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone or published and must be kept strictly confidential and to the committee has presented its report to parliament. You may withdraw now. But as mentioned, I think we can work on the relevant documents etc into blacked out any of the materials, that portions of it that you may not be comfortable with. If you need to can talk to all the staff if it helps to assist that process. And staff will be accompanying out to the waiting room. Thank you very much. So Jen loves pizza company openness. Once again. Thank you very much. Mr. Thank you.

Committee of Privileges Hearing on 3 December 2021 - Ms Raeesah Khan: Transcript


What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.  

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

If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 9 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later (the transcripts and evidence given to the committee are supposed to be confidential but everything is on YouTube: go figure; that was a very short embargo period). If they do, please use those instead. In the meantime, you may profit from the following:

 Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:01  
So John Adams, please invite the next witness to the witness table. After Miss Kahn, please take your seat. For the record again, please state your name, your occupation and positions in my home.

Raeesah Khan  0:22  
My name is Dr. Lisa Hahn. And I don't hold any positions currently.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:27  
Thank you very much for coming back again, at short notice, I'd like to remind you that you made an affirmation yesterday to tell the truth, the proceedings today is a continuation of yesterday's hearing. And you're still bound to your solemn obligations. Thing, the thank you very much for submitting some of the documents that you had sent to us, I think the main thing we thought you might want to perhaps make clear is whether you could go through your various channels of communications, and perhaps look at making available more of some of the materials that might be pertinent to what you share. And I think what you're covered, and that might or even if you're not shared it yesterday, but that may help to shed light on the circumstances behind which things evolve from when you made the original statement in between, and eventually to your statement that you made on November 1. We have received from you but we believe that there could be as more materials, if that could be made available to us as well, please, materials would they be emails, WhatsApp messages, anything that can help, I guess, validate some of the points that are made or give a fuller sense of the conversations taking place. Because that will give us It helps us in the committee to have a better feel of how the different things have evolved over time.

Raeesah Khan  1:46  
Okay, I'm not sure what else I would have.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:51  
Would you have other materials that you would, there were other materials that you felt that perhaps you're not so comfortable to share? Because one of the things would be that we could print it out, you could always use a marker, and we can black out either a particular compensation piece or reference to other people that you may not be comfortable with. But the rest of conversations might be helpful for us to understand how things evolve.

Raeesah Khan  2:13  
Okay. I'm not really sure what other materials I would have saved from what I've given already.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:22  
So in your mind, you have gone through the other few items, I think that the admin staff has this Manawa and dot png, these are graphics, I suppose. Yes. Yes. So if we are not able to print them out at the moment, I don't

Raeesah Khan  2:37  
use attachments as well this morning. Yes, yes, still,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:41  
we are able to print out three of them. But for the Manawa ones, we are not able to so Pepsi.

Raeesah Khan  2:46  
Okay, sorry, I thought it was visible enough. But I will send those as well.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:51  
Okay, so they'll be useful

Edwin Tong  2:54  
missa missa, perhaps assist in that. We are not after any of the personal documents that you have things which you may have private messages with friends with family. As I said yesterday, we're not after those, and we don't want to intrude into your privacy. But we do have a duty to look at all material that is relevant to the proceedings, and relevance of the issues that we explored with you yesterday, all the way from August, when you first made the speech on the third of August, right through to the press conference that took place yesterday. That's the time horizon that we have in mind. And within that, I think you will remember that we do talk about key events. For example, your meeting on the eighth of August that Mr. Singh's house third of October when Mr. Singh visited you, fourth of October when you had a meeting at the ellos office, in Parliament, and so on. If you'd like I can give you a complete list, but I think it's in the transcripts. And I did tell you to take notes of it. So those are the key moments, key events. And I'd like you to think about those as the key points. And anything arising from or related to each of these key moments would be material that is relevant, whether it's email, Telegram chats, WhatsApp, or any other social media platforms, not of a purely personal nature, but where you discuss an issue, even with a friend or with a family that might relate to an issue that we have discussed. So that's the formulation of what I'm what we would have in mind. Okay, okay. Okay. Thank you very much.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  4:26  
Any other questions from any other members?

Dennis Tan  4:30  
No. Mr. Chairman, just a clarification. The morning isn't just a clarification on a WhatsApp message that you have sent to your essay Miss lupane on Eighth of August Can I refer to the other documents on the table? The screenshots or the WhatsApp conversation between Miss loping Russia con? And yudishe Ug stron, Arden, etc, which was disclosed by Miss loping,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  5:21  
can we make that available that Miscanthus

Dennis Tan  5:27  
is pitch to thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  5:39  
So just were these are examples of some of the conversation that you may have had on the issues that might be pertinent. So if you have these, these will be useful as well.

Raeesah Khan  5:47  
Okay, so I would like the exact same

Tan Chuan-Jin:  5:52  
if there are such this, Mr. denseness a further question, but I'm just adding that these are examples of conversations you may have had with colleagues, friends, etc, they may have discussed on issues, such as these would be useful if you could make them available to us as well.

Edwin Tong  6:07  
With the with the entire trail so that it's relevant in the context of it. That's what we said to miss Lotoo.

Raeesah Khan  6:13  
Okay, I understand. That is.

Dennis Tan  6:15  
Yeah, I just have a short clarification. I will look at page two, right at the bottom on the eighth of August, Sunday, you sent a message to miss Lowe pain. And right at the bottom of that message. You said that they also suggested I write a statement to send out this evening. Yes. Okay. May I know did you follow up on this?

Raeesah Khan  6:44  
Yes, I did write a statement made me

Dennis Tan  6:47  
can you tell us what is this segment?

Raeesah Khan  6:51  
It's available on Facebook, actually, but it was about the comments I made about the Muslim issues affecting women.

Dennis Tan  7:06  
But it was not about the the issue regarding you accompanying a, a another person to the police station, right? No. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  7:21  
Any other clarifications? No, there being no further questions for now, we would like to thank you again for coming before the committee transcribed the proceedings will be shared with you for verification, to go through it. If you have any other minor amendments, please make the changes and send the transcripts back to us. Again, as mentioned yesterday, note that the transcripts and evidence given to the committee's are not to be disclosed to anyone and publish must be kept strictly confidential. Until the committee has presented its report to parliament. As I mentioned earlier, you have seen the examples. These are some of the messages that are pertinent and useful as you would have corresponded with whether it's Mr. Nothern or miss Lowe or any others that might be useful. I think it would give us a good sense of how things evolve. So these would be very much appreciated. Okay, I understand. Thank you. So you may be dropped for now. So our staff will accompany you to the waiting room. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks, Ron. Speaker, company witness. Thank you once again. Thank you

Committee of Privileges Hearing on 3 December 2021 - Mr Yudhishthra Nathan: Transcript


What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.  

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

If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 9 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later (oddly, the transcripts and evidence given to the committee are supposed to be confidential but everything is on YouTube: go figure). If they do, please use those instead. In the meantime, you may profit from the following:

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:00  
is the next witness here. If you can invite the next witness to the witness table please thank you.

Afternoon Mr. Levin, please take your seat. You may remove your mask for the record, please state your name your occupation and positions that you may hold.

Yudhishthra Nathan  0:26  
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee privileges My name is you destroy naarden. My occupation is I'm a graduate student. So that's kind of my position despite University. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:41  
Thank you very much for coming for being here today. The evidence that you'll be giving today before the committee will be taken on oath and you will so desire can take an affirmation as well so Clerk, please administer the oath

Clerk  1:07  
or affirmation on your left hand and raise your right hand and you may proceed to recite

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:14  
by the shrine oven, do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence which I shall give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:25  
Thank you, please be seated. Now the committee of privilege is looking into the complaint made by the leader, the leader of the House, Miss Indrani. Raja against former member of St. John GRC. Miss raesha Khan, for breach of privilege. So again, thank you for attending today's hearing to give evidence before the committee and to answer the questions which members of the committee would like to put to you. You do have a solemn obligation to answer questions truthfully. If you refuse to answer questions directly or attempt to mislead the committee, such behavior will be an offence and in contempt of this committee are not called Mr. Winter questions.

Edwin Tong  2:06  
Thank you for being here to come and assist us up. I just want to give you some opening remarks in the background, you know, that mishaan is facing a complaint by the Leader of the House. It relates to untruth spoken in Parliament, and also a failure to substantiate allegations made in Parliament. That's the broad nature of the complaint. She has admitted to them. And I think you might be familiar with what happened in Parliament on the first of November. This up is set up to understand the specific circumstances fact find, and also in the appropriate case to make recommendations as to the appropriate sanctions, if any. In that context, the nature and contexts and circumstances in which this took place would be relevant for us to consider, which is why we're inviting evidence from anybody who's able to shed light on how the statements came to be made and the events that took place thereafter. Because as you can appreciate that goes towards the level and degree of culpability. So that's why we are taking this evidence. In the course of this session, I will ask you specific questions, I'll be grateful to answer them. If there's a need to elaborate and irrelevant, I'll ask you to elaborate on them. Along the way, there might also be you might reference messages or emails or documents, and if they are relevant and subject to that Mr. Chairman's approval, I will ask you to produce them as well to this up. Finally, if there's anyone else in the course of giving your answer, whom you think will be able to shed more light on relevant issues, please do raise them to us. Okay,

Yudhishthra Nathan  3:40  
okay. Okay.

Edwin Tong  3:40  
Thank you. Now, Mr. Nothern. We contacted you yesterday, because it arises from the evidence admissible gave us and she told us that Miss Lowe and yourself were close friends. Would that be right? Yes. And that you were both assisting mishaan in relation to the issues concerning the third of August speech in Parliament. issues arising from that speech issues arising thereafter. Yes. But not the preparation of the speech? No. Okay. You are presently a student you said a graduate student. Yes. Now, just a little bit of background for of yourself. You started as a member of the Workers Party in 2013. They'll be correct.

Yudhishthra Nathan  4:33  
No, I started as a volunteer of the Workers Party in 2013. But I only became a member I think in early 2016. Yes.

Edwin Tong  4:45  
And you are presently in the Workers Party youth wing

Yudhishthra Nathan  4:47  
Expo. No, I'm no longer in the thing Expo because my term had expired. See,

Edwin Tong  4:52  
so when was that term up?

Yudhishthra Nathan  4:55  
I believe. Do forgive me if I get this wrong. Roughly around 2019.

Edwin Tong  5:01  
And up to that point in time, how long would you have spent in the youth wing Expo?

Yudhishthra Nathan  5:08  
It was a two year term. But the term got carried forward by I think about six months to a year because of COVID. Because we couldn't get them to have our conference. See,

Edwin Tong  5:20  
you would have worked closely with Mr. Pereira. Who was the president during the period of your term? Yes. You would also work on occasion with senior members of the Workers Party

Yudhishthra Nathan  5:36  
in relation to the youth wing or

Edwin Tong  5:38  
on various matters, I mean, obviously, you think your primary focus, but on various matters as well.

Yudhishthra Nathan  5:43  
Actually, no, you think it was just, I think in the Workers Party. I'll speak for myself. So like many other members, I wear several hats. So in relation to your question. Yes, I do work with senior members of the Workers Party leadership.

Edwin Tong  6:02  
Can you tell us who that would be?

Yudhishthra Nathan  6:04  
Pretty much all of the MPs at various points in time, but primarily because I'm Sengkang GRC. Volunteer, have been so since the former member of parliament Miss levy lens term, because I'm a resident there. So essentially, I'm based there. So over the past, I'd say, two years, I've been working with the second GRC MPs most of the time. Okay.

Edwin Tong  6:34  
But prior to that, you will also have worked with the other elected MPs. Yes. So those from LGD GRC. And from our Congress MC. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Are you a current member of the Workers Party? Yes, yes. You also featured in the G 2020. Video, I seem to recall, yes, I was. Now, there's this phrase that is commonly used to describe you just want to see whether that's accurate. You're known as the man behind the scenes, is that come across this familiar?

Yudhishthra Nathan  7:09  
Um, I haven't heard that term being ascribed to me in particular, but I think it's fair to say that most of the members of the Workers Party are many women behind the scenes. So I would accept that.

Edwin Tong  7:21  
Okay. And it was used of you in a context that you often around not always in the forefront, but often supporting party events and being involved in party activities. Yes, yes. There'll be a fair description of you. Yes. Okay.

To give you some context, again, as I said, Mrs. Lowe had some references to occasions when she was present with you. She there were also some occasions where she had joined discussions with you, like, for example, across a zoom session with my son. There will also have been occasions where she attended meetings with you, together with you. And at various junctures, she said Mr. Nothern, would be best to best place to corroborate certain things. So it is in that context that we've asked to meet with you. And those are the questions that I will ask you will focus on those areas. Miss Han has also given evidence to this committee of privileges, and you will see in front of you to your right next to the blue file the transcript from yesterday. So what I will do is, I will refer you from time to time to those transcripts, because it's best for you. And I, I think best for you to hear exactly what they have said and then I'll ask you some questions. Okay. So that's what we will be doing. Now. Let me just start with what happened in August. So mishaan made a speech on the third of August in Parliament. Like you, we agreed earlier, you didn't assist in the preparation of the speech? No, no, right. Yes. And but shortly after the speech was made, you will become aware that such a speech was made. Yes. Where would that be?

Yudhishthra Nathan  9:06  
Well, I also well, the speech had been made probably on the day itself, and I heard about it in the news.

Edwin Tong  9:14  
Did you have a reaction to the speech?

Yudhishthra Nathan  9:18  
Yes, because by the time that I had become aware of the speech, I had also seen the exchange between Miss Kahn and Minister of state if I'm getting his title, right, I hope I am. Jasmine Tang, yes. And so I did watch that exchange and I thought that I initially thought that it was alright for Miss can to have raised an anecdote as an MPS MPs do but I also think agencies have a right to respond to that into question that.

Edwin Tong  10:12  
At what juncture Did you? Did you speak to mishaan at a point in time? Or was it just an observation of the speech? So that you that you had?

Yudhishthra Nathan  10:22  
I did speak to Miss Kahn, actually.

Edwin Tong  10:25  
Can you tell us when and give us a gist of the conversation?

Yudhishthra Nathan  10:28  
Alright, um, I spoke to miss Kahn. In between, sorry, let me backtrack. I spoke to miss Kahn, just after the exchange that she had with the minister, because she gave me a phone call.

Edwin Tong  10:46  
We can you she gave you a phone call. Yes, this would be on the third of August, on the third of August. Okay. Can you tell us roughly what time this was, and maybe give us a gist of the conversation?

Yudhishthra Nathan  10:58  
I think it must have been in the late afternoon, I can't remember the exact time. All she said was that she asked me if I had watched the speech. I told her that. I had, I hadn't, but I had caught up with it on the news through the live stream. And she told me that Mr. Pritam Singh was asking her for details about the victim whom she had accompany. And she was worried because she was saying that, because of confidentiality reasons, she wouldn't have been able to provide that to him. So I think she caught me out of having a sense of discomfort of telling Mr. Singh that she wouldn't be able to provide him with the details. So I just told her just terms the thing that because of confidentiality, if that's what you believe, then you it might be a problem to get the details.

Edwin Tong  12:06  
At that point in time, did she tell you that the anecdote that she cited was untrue, no. So you gave her your views on the basis that the anecdote was true? Yes. But that the only reason operative at a point in time for not disclosing further details was confidentiality.

Yudhishthra Nathan  12:26  
Yes. Well, actually, I would add that Miss Kahn mentioned to me that she had met this victim by way of helping some organization. And so it was both the issue of confidentiality and also the issue that hypothetically if there had been or not, hypothetically at that time, but to my knowledge, if there had been such an organization, then because of confidentiality, she might not have been able to get the information from the organization. So I said, perhaps you could explain this to Mr. Singh? If that's what you agree with.

Edwin Tong  13:06  
But all that was on the basis that you had not been aware that the animal was false? Yes. So you were giving views? I mean, like any other member of the public watching the speech? Yes. Okay. Was there anything else discussed? On television? No. Was it a long call short call?

Yudhishthra Nathan  13:22  
I was rather short call. Okay.

Edwin Tong  13:25  
Now, I'm assuming that after the third of August, until the next reference point I have, which is the seventh of August, you didn't hear further from mishaan on this issue?

Yudhishthra Nathan  13:37  
No, I know, it's not your question, because I did have a conversation with her, where she expressed to me again that she had problems giving Mr. Singh the details. And so I again, repeated what I had told her in the forum was this. I think I can't remember the exact date but it was between was after the third of August and before the seventh of August.

Edwin Tong  14:07  
Okay, let me now go to the seventh of August. If you see a stack of papers to the right of the Blue file, could you please pick it up? To give you a sense, Mr. Nothern. These are documents which Mr. Lowe had furnished to us yesterday. And they also they contain chats to which you're also privy. So if I can ask you to please turn to page

first of all, the first page, you will see that that's a chat group that you have with Miss Han and Miss Lowe, correct? Yes. And here she is. There's an exchange of information or comments about the speech itself. I would like to turn over the page to page two. On page two desert chat exchanged on the seventh of August. And in the evening, my son says, it's probably one of the worst things I've done in my life. And it is not clear who this is, is who's responding. I can't really tell it says What did you do? Ray does sound scary? Was that from you from Miss locks, Miss Lowe. And then she says perhaps if you guys are free tomorrow and come over, when she says, You guys, it means slowing yourself. Yes. I did something stupid and unnecessary. Miss load and says is it internal and easy to contain? Answer? Yes. If Pritam wishes for it to be is the only other person besides my husband to know. Did you resign? I didn't. Now pausing there for a moment, at this juncture, were you aware of this chat? This discussion? Yes, you will. So you knew that there was something bad? In her words that had happened? Yes. One of the worst things in my life, as she says. Did you know what it was? No. But you knew that Miss Hans husband and Mr. Singh were the only people who knew about it. At this juncture,

Yudhishthra Nathan  16:15  
according to what Miss Kahn had informed us, in accordance with that, yes.

Edwin Tong  16:20  
I'm told you then had a Zoom meeting with Miss Lowe and mishaan on the same day. Yes, that evening or night rather. So on the seventh of August, yes. Okay. Can you briefly describe what happened at the zoo meeting?

Yudhishthra Nathan  16:34  
So at the zoo meeting, Miss Kahn had reiterated that she had done something terrible. And essentially, she told us that it related to the speech that she had made on the third of August, and that she had essentially lied in her speech about having followed the victim to the police station. She said that she then broke down, and she explained to us the context of sexual assault that she had experienced, which she relayed to the house on the first of November,

Edwin Tong  17:16  
which relate to the which she relayed to the House

Yudhishthra Nathan  17:19  
about the sexual assaults on the first of November. Yes.

Edwin Tong  17:25  
What else was discussed at the zoo meeting?

Yudhishthra Nathan  17:30  
At The Zoo meeting? Oh, I think we had we had asked her who else knows about this, once again, whether she had informed the party leaders most importantly. And she said that she had. She had informed Mr. Singh prior to her Zoom meeting. And we had a conversation about the assault. And she shared that it had occurred overseas during her university days.

Edwin Tong  18:09  
What did she say she had informed Mr. Singh? I just want to be clear, because when she's informed, what exactly was it that you understood her to have informed as a single mom?

Yudhishthra Nathan  18:22  
Based on my understanding? I took away that she had informed Mr. Singh that she had lied in Parliament. And at that juncture, I don't think I was very certain as to whether she had informed him about the assault.

Edwin Tong  18:43  
Okay. But you were clear in your mind from what she said that Mr. Singh was aware that there was a falsehood set in Parliament on the third of August? Yes, according to miss chi. Now, I'd like you to look at the bundle of transcripts. And I wanted to show you what Miss Lowe's reaction was, when I asked her about this point, if you could please turn to page 21.

Mr. Nothern, these are raw transcripts in that they have not been edited. So there are some minor typographical errors and so on, which will be corrected eventually. But if you look at line 15, I asked, Were you concerned that the statement we made in Parliament there was not true? Miss Lowe said yes, I was concerned. Will you similarly concerned?

Yudhishthra Nathan  19:30  
Of course.

Edwin Tong  19:31  
Thank you. And did you give her any views on that? Mr. Said, I didn't feel a need to because as I said, at that point in time of time, she told me I also had knowledge that our party leader Mr. Pritam Singh already knew, and it didn't feel like I needed to take any further action on that. Then I asked her whether she was able to describe Mr. northerns reaction on Zoom discussion. So let me pause there for a woman ask you two questions. First, what was your reaction to being told? That mr. Singh was aware and apprised of the situation. And secondly, depending on what you say to the first question whether you would also subscribe to miss loss sentiment that since Mr. Singh, as the party leader was already aware, they she didn't feel that any further action needed to be taken on.

Yudhishthra Nathan  20:20  
So going back to the first part of your question, you asked me about my reaction to the knowledge that Mr. Singh had known. I would say that I was glad. I mean, which is a weird word to use, given the very sad circumstances. But I was glad because at least the party leadership knew I think instinctively we are I can speak for myself, and I do believe Miss law viewed it the same way we wanted. We will concern as to whether the party leaders, because obviously if MP comes to you and says I lied in Parliament, I think it's only right that the party leaders are aware of it, and that the investigate the matter.

Edwin Tong  21:10  
I think besides feeling glad, I think really what you're saying is you're assuaged that the party leadership was aware? Yes. And felt that this was in their hands. Yes, yes. Did you have alternate?

Yudhishthra Nathan  21:24  
Can I clarify? Because you mentioned party leadership. So insofar as party leadership can refer to one person in this case, at this point in time, it was Mr.

Edwin Tong  21:35  
Singh. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for being precise. Now. So therefore, I take it that you also would agree with what Mr. expressed here? Yes. Okay. If you remember, there was a press conference yesterday by the Workers Party. Yes. And if you like, I can show you the press report. But if you remember, there was one statement made by Mr. Singh, that when mishaan first disgusted with him, she had to he had to press her for the truth. And that she was not forthcoming initially. Now, in that context, I'd like you to since you were discussing this with her on the seventh of August. Did you think that she was holding anything back from Mr. Singh? And not being truthful to Mr. Singh?

Yudhishthra Nathan  22:34  
I feel like I can't quite answer that question, because I've no first hand knowledge of exactly what she had told Mr. Singh.

Edwin Tong  22:41  
Right. I'm asking you based on your impression, being in a Zoom meeting, having a discussion with her. In fact, you had a prior discussion with her on the third of August itself. Of course, at that point, I didn't know. But now that you are aware, and she had made an account to you, you felt glad assuaged. So what's your your impression?

Yudhishthra Nathan  23:02  
My impression was that it was good that she had told Mr. Singh and informed him that she had lied. But I think at that point in time. I can't understand why Mr. Singh said that, because at that point in time when I heard that, I mean, naturally, I think, when MP tells you I've lightened parliament, well, my first reaction was why on earth would you do that? After everything that we fought for? First of all, secondly, the question then becomes exactly why did you lie in Parliament? What made you think that that was a good idea? So in Ms. Khan's case, it was related to the sexual assault. And I think even at that point in time, of course, even though it's natural

Edwin Tong  23:58  
that I forgot your but I just want maybe I wasn't clear. My question. I. I was just after this actually. Was there any doubt as of the seventh of October, August, when you had the Zoom conversation with Miss Hahn and Miss Lowe? Was there any doubt that Mr. Singh was aware that a falsehood had been set in Parliament by Miss Han on the third of August? In your mind?

Yudhishthra Nathan  24:21  
In my mind, based on what Miss Khan had told us? No, there was no doubt.

Edwin Tong  24:25  
Did you have any reason to believe that Miss Han by this time would be less than honest with Mr. Singh about the falsehoods?

Yudhishthra Nathan  24:35  
I feel like I can't say a definite yes or no to the answer, because as I was about to explain earlier, my own reaction was that you did this because of the context of the assault, but I think I hadn't quite understood the thought process in between experiencing that assault, of course. And essentially

Edwin Tong  25:00  
by me in a way was, that is one of the issues I'm not here exploring the thought process behind the assault because it's not germane to my my line of questioning. I'm trying to establish if s of seventh of August, Mr. Singh was aware that a falsehood had been said in Parliament by Miss Hart. Yes. And that, in fact, was the entire premise of having the Zoom conversation in the first place, right that she had spoken to Mr. Singh about it, told him about it. And now wanted to discuss it with yourself and Miss Lowe.

Yudhishthra Nathan  25:39  
I'm not sure if the premise was that she wanted to discuss it with us because she had discussed it with him first, it was more of I think she just wanted to

Edwin Tong  25:48  
apprise you and Miss Lowe of the fact that she had told him know that she had told the lie in the first place and told him

Yudhishthra Nathan  25:57  
and when we had questioned her, she said that she had told him

Edwin Tong  26:02  
and in that context, you use the word glad. And I said a switch and you agree. Yes. Okay. Now.

Mr Condon said that the next day she had arranged to meet with Mr. Singh Miss man up and Mr. Lim and Mr. Pritam Singh is home. Were you aware of this meeting before it took place? No. But you do know that they met on the next day on the eighth of August at Mr. Singh's home. At some stage right.

Yudhishthra Nathan  26:46  
I was aware, on the eighth of August that she had had a conversation with Mr. Singh, Miss Sylvia Lim and Mr. Faisal mana, but I'm not aware of when that conversation had occurred. Exactly. But my impression was that it was between certainly between the third of August and the eighth of August, inclusive of the

Edwin Tong  27:09  
well put it this way, Mr. Nothern, you had a conversation with Miss Kahn, on the seventh of August, quite late in the evening after 7pm. Yes. Right. And as of that date, she didn't tell you that there was a meeting with Mr. Manoj and Mr. Muslim? No. So it couldn't have taken place prior to that. Right.

Yudhishthra Nathan  27:34  
Unless she omitted that information. But I would

Edwin Tong  27:38  
Don't speculate. I mean, as far as you know, she decides I know, right? No. Okay. In fact, in the context of the kind of discussion you were having on Zoom, it would have been natural for her to have said it to you if there was such a meeting, right? Yes, yes. The next day, at about 12:30pm, she sent a text, including to you, if you can pick up the same bundle? Again, you will see it on page where we left off earlier, you just go further down the page. Yes, on Eighth of August at 12:41pm. She updates. She says hey guys, and I think this time around, you're on the chat, right? The chat group only consists of the three of us, yes. Okay. But it, therefore means she's addressing it to your Miss Lowe and yourself. Yes. I just met with Pritam Silva and Pfizer. I just met so meaning sometime on the eighth of August.

Yudhishthra Nathan  28:32  
Possibly, yes, I would, I would assume that to reasonable interpretation of what she said.

Edwin Tong  28:41  
What's your interpretation? When you receive this message on the eighth of August at 12:41pm? I just met with Pritam Silva and Pfizer that it was that morning? Yes, yes. Now let's, I'm not trying to find ways to tribute one language. I'm just trying to get to the facts. So I've had to establish because you you started by telling me sometime between the third and the seventh. So I've had to establish that it could not have been between a third or the seventh 7pm Because there was a zoom, there was this message. So I don't think we are trying to play games in terms of the language. No, I totally accept. I totally accept your eye. And if you have any need for clarification, please stop me and I'll show you the transcripts. And I'll show you what mishaan and Miss Lowe said I'm not trying to put words in their mouth. In fact, I put the transcript in front of you so that you know exactly what they said. And then I asked you on that premise. Okay. So on the eighth of August sometime before 12:41pm, there was a meeting. Miss Kahn has given evidence that this took place at Mr. Singh's house for your information, okay. And we spoke about the Muslim issues and a police acquisition. I told him what I told you guys, and they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to say As evening when you receive this message, what was your takeaway? What was your impression of this message?

Yudhishthra Nathan  30:09  
My impression was there. I was surprised because I assumed that the Miss Khan had informed them that they would investigate the matter further. And so when they said that they would take it to the grave, as Miss Kahn had put it, I was surprised by that

Edwin Tong  30:32  
your understanding of the phrase ticket to the grave means don't clarify the truth and let it be correct. Yes. I'd like to show you what this concept to me when I asked her about the same occasion. So if you could please pick up that bundle. And please, Mister another look at page 160. I wanted to give you the context, so that you know, finally where this where the questions would come from. So the context starts at line. Eight or nine meeting was a Mr. Pritam Singh's house, she says. And then I said on this occasion, Miss limb and Mr. Manoj were present. She says yes. I asked her line 13. Did you put in clear terms to them as well that the statement you had made was false answer. Yes. Could they have misunderstood? No, they could not. What was their reaction to this? Answer by Miss Kahn, it was incredible disappointment. There was a lot of anger. But I think there was some compassion there as well. The reaction was that if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August. I said, Let me understand the last statement. You said, if you're you are not going to be pressed, and then you take the narrative that you started in August? Yes, it means if we can get away with it. We don't need to clarify the lie. Correct. Miss Kansas? I think in the simplest terms, yes, you are correct. So it was in this context that I asked Miss Han, then what did she communicate to yourself and to miss Lowe. And if you go over the page, page 162. I then asked, Did you discuss this with Miss Lowe thereafter? She says, Yes, I did. In those discussions. Did you give an account of what happened? Yes, I did. Would that be by messages? Yes, there will be by messages. And those messages would capture the thrust of what you had discussed with Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Miss Miss Lim. Then she says yes. And then I asked her whether those passages at line 19 would have been contemporaneous, meaning they would have been roughly around the same time as when you concluded the meeting with the three of them. Answer? Yes. So this was Miss Hans, take away from it. I, I know you were not at the meeting. So I'm not going to ask you about what you what you perceive to have that meeting. But what your impression, or your take away from receiving this message that we have just seen on the eighth of August at 12:41pm. Be consistent with what Mr. had told us yesterday. In other words, that if you're not pressed for any answer on this, you can let it be and don't have to clarify.

Yudhishthra Nathan  33:35  
That is the impression that I got between I mean, from her message based on the message as reflected in the screenshot here,

Edwin Tong  33:45  
right. Now, Miss Lowe, Amazon told us that after this occasion, on the eighth of August, there was not much if at all discussion on this issue for the next six weeks or so. Would that also be your recollection? Yes, six weeks or so meaning until around the third of October?

Yudhishthra Nathan  34:11  
The third of October.

Edwin Tong  34:14  
I will come to the October sitting in parliament in a moment. Okay. I just want to get your evidence as to whether between the eighth of August and roughly the third of October, there was any other discussion, meetings, chats concerning this issue. Not

Yudhishthra Nathan  34:30  
with myself involved or with Miss Lowe, as in the three of us didn't need to discuss this issue. In fact, we were we were discussing the the other issue on Muslim issues which occupied the second part of

Edwin Tong  34:47  
speech. Okay, I understand, but besides that, on the question of the false anecdote, was there any discussion?

Yudhishthra Nathan  34:55  
I don't recall any discussion. Okay.

Edwin Tong  34:57  
If mishaan had separate discussion with Mr. Singh, Mr. Minor or Muslim? Would it be your expectation that she would update you and Miss Lowe?

Yudhishthra Nathan  35:12  
Do you mean during that period of time? Yes.

Edwin Tong  35:16  
Just as she did when she went to have a meeting on the eighth of August, she sent you a message almost immediately after. So my question is, the two of you on a group chat with her, from what I gather from both of mishaan and Miss Lowe, the three of you are quite tight. And you do do spend some time discussing these issues. Miss Lowe says she cared for Miss hands well being and was concerned with her. Given that she felt that making a false statement in Parliament was serious. So it is in that context, I'm asking whether you would expect that if Miss Han had further interaction with any of the three in Workers Party who were aware of the falsehood, whether she would have updated you,

Yudhishthra Nathan  35:57  
I don't think she would have necessarily updated us during that period of time. Simply because most of the time, you're not privy to conversations that MPs have with the leadership of the party, unless they choose to share it with us. But I would imagine that at some point, she would have shared that.

Edwin Tong  36:19  
And as of now, I mean, you're not aware of any discussion that she might have had with the Workers Party, between the Workers Party, three of the workers, party senior leaders, who met her on the eighth of August, between the eighth of August and sometime in October, early October, right. Actually, as you know,

Yudhishthra Nathan  36:41  
are you asking me in relation to a particular point in time, or essence, from my point of view, or as of now?

Edwin Tong  36:49  
So either now, or at that time, that's your frame of mind? Okay. Okay. The relevant date period will be eighth of August, which is the date on which this message was sent? Yes, until the third of October, which is the eve of the next parliamentary setting in October. So this is the date range, almost two months. My question is, did you know then? Or do you know now of any discussion that mishaan may have had with either Mr. Singh, Muslim, or Mr. Manoj concerning the fault? And he said in Parliament,

Yudhishthra Nathan  37:29  
I believe, as of the third of August, as well as the nothern. Yes, it August. Oh, no. I meant, I meant third October, sorry, as of third October, as well as fourth October at that point in time, I was not aware that she had had a conversation with the party leaders. From what I recall.

Edwin Tong  37:58  
As of now, do you know of any discussion that Amazon may have had with the party leaders? Those three in question in this time zone? Yes, you're right. Yes. Okay. Tell us which day she had a meeting or discussion with party leaders.

Yudhishthra Nathan  38:14  
The date that I recall, is the third of October on the eve of the fourth October parliamentary sitting.

Edwin Tong  38:20  
Okay. Prior to the third October, in this date range. Are you aware of any other meetings or discussions that she had with the three party leaders?

Yudhishthra Nathan  38:29  
I can't recall. But I honestly can't recall now. But I think perhaps I could get back to you if if that's something that is if that's something that you'd like to hear from me in the future

Edwin Tong  38:44  
is I I, again, I'm not trying to surprise you or trick you. Okay. So please don't look like you're very worried. I'm trying to establish a frame of mind. And mishaan had told us that there were no discussions. Miss Lowe had told us that, because it was there was a decision that was passed down. And it was been pretty clear terms. There was I was left off musanze impression was, as she told me, if I'm not pressed, we let the lie remain no need to clarify the truth. And she was not pressed. And so nothing happened in this period of time. I'm just trying to get your recollection of the same occasion.

Yudhishthra Nathan  39:25  
I would say that I have no recollection of there having been off myself having been informed of a meeting before the third of August 3 of October sorry. Apologize.

Edwin Tong  39:39  
Okay. The nurse as far as mishaan is concerned now, there is one occasion, which Miss Lowe referred us to where this issue briefly came into play. And that was on the 10th of August. Okay, I'll just show you what she said to me now see whether you recall. So if you could please pick up the bundle again? Yes.

And please turn to page one to eight. somewhere around the middle of the pitch, Miss Lowe was responding to a question from me concerning some of the press reports from yesterday. If you could quickly cast your eye over the next few lines, she says, admittedly, I was not privy to the specifics of the conversation between Miss conda Mr. Singh, and so on line 24. So when Miss Kahn told me on seven August the truth, I had a meeting with Mr. Pritam Singh, on 10th August on a separate matter, and while we were waiting, and I mean, your your name was omitted from this, but she referred to here. I don't know why she said Poor Mr. Nothern. was also with me at this meeting about a separate matter. We are good friends. Okay, briefly, Mr. Pritam Singh confirm that he knew with me now. This was Miss Llosa calm. I'm not asking for your recollection of this account.

Yudhishthra Nathan  41:17  
So what happened was that I was informed by Miss Lowe that Mr. Pritam Singh had wanted to meet the two of us on the 10th of August. And so but the thing is, he hadn't told us why he wanted to meet us. So we had assumed that perhaps because we found out on the seventh of August, so we thought, okay, perhaps he wanted to discuss this with us or to find out our views or to find out perhaps what we had known or had heard from his con. But it actually turned out that when we met Mr. Singh, he, the purpose the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss another party matter completely unrelated, which he wanted input on. But on the sidelines of that meeting, we did discuss Miss Kahn, having essentially told us that having come clean,

Edwin Tong  42:19  
what does that mean, having come clean?

Yudhishthra Nathan  42:21  
Having come clean in the sense

Edwin Tong  42:23  
that she likes spoken light in Parliament? Yes. Okay. Can you describe the nature of the conversation that you had with Mr. Singh with Miss Lowe, from what

Yudhishthra Nathan  42:33  
I recall? We, of course, expressed disappointment that Miss Kahn had light and shock. But I think from what I recall, Miss Lowe and Mr. Singh, were

talking about how or other Miss Lowe was telling Mr. Singh that sexual assault victims do experience trauma, and that can sometimes

make them in some circumstances be less likely to want to tell the truth out of fear, perhaps I remember Ms. law saying that this was a point that she wanted to communicate to Mr. Singh, just from her own ms law happens to be someone who has good knowledge about issues of women's rights and sexual assault cases in Singapore. And so just to summarize, my understanding of that meeting, as as it relates to the lie, was that we all had, we were on the same page, in terms of knowing that she had lied to Parliament and in terms of knowing that she had cited the sexual assault as her reason for that.

Edwin Tong  43:59  
Okay. A few questions. Did Mr. Singh tell you or miss Lowe, that misson had to come to Parliament at the next meeting? To clarify the lie? No, did Mr. Singh say to you that it was important for Miss sun to quickly inform her family of the sexual assault incident, so that she could then proceed to clear up the lie in Parliament? No. Did Mr. Singh discuss with either yourself or miss Lowe any steps to be taken in relation to the clarification of the lie perhaps outside of parliament on social media on other platforms that you might have had? No. Right. Thank you. Thank you, apart from so if I understand your evidence correctly, between eighth of August and the second of October. As far as you know, there were no discussions between Miss Han and the senior leadership of the Workers Party comprising Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Muslim, as far as I know, know. And as far as you were involved this occasion we have just gone through on the 10th of August was the only occasion where you had occasion to discuss with Mr. Singh or anyone else in the Workers Party senior leadership about this issue.

Yudhishthra Nathan  45:30  
No. That's not true, because tell me, okay, so essentially, the first time was on the 10th of August at that meeting with Miss Lowe. The second time the next time we discussed it was on the 12th of October.

Edwin Tong  45:50  
Yes. Okay. Mr. Nothern. I asked you about eighth of August until second of October.

Yudhishthra Nathan  45:58  
I do apologize. So in that case, no.

Edwin Tong  46:01  
Okay. Thank you. Now. I will come to the third of October in a moment, but I just following the chronology on the third of October. Again, I know you were not present. And you only learned about it subsequently. And I think it was around the 12th of October. It was on the 12th of October. Yes. Just have that as a marker for the time being but based on what you found out on top of October, on the third of October, Mr. Singh went to visit Miss Han at her home. Yes, right. Were you aware what they had discussed?

Yudhishthra Nathan  46:49  
only insofar as Mr. Singh had related to us as meaning is law and I at his residence on the 12th of October he

Edwin Tong  46:57  
did Mr. Singh tell you that he discussed with my son the possibility that issue might arise in Parliament on the next day, the fourth of October? Yes, yes. And did he discuss with you?

Maybe it's best I show you miss Hans recollection. And then I asked you whether you it comports with what you discussed with Mr. Singh. So that I don't put words in her mouth. Okay. PAGE 153 of this transcript. So, at the top, you'll see I started with some questions. And then I referred her to think this was in the context of some press statements made yesterday. And I'd like you to focus on line 13. Can you remember the occasion at which you were asked to clarify the statement before the October sitting? mishaan says at line 16. Before the October sitting, I had a conversation with Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh. And the conversation was that if I were to retain the narrative of if I were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgment. Can you tell us which date this took place that October where did this take place in my house? Now would miss Khan's account of it here? Be consistent with what Mr. Singh informed you?

Yudhishthra Nathan  48:32  
Yes, okay.

Edwin Tong  48:52  
Now keeping with the chronology on the fourth of October, there was a parliamentary sitting. mishaan then proceeds to Parliament and Miss Minister Shanmugam raised several questions to Miss Miss Kahn has accepted that her answers at least some of our answers to Mr. Shanmugam questions were untrue. I think you will be aware of which statements table if you would like RK take you through it but I think it's a matter of record what she said on the first of November, two minutes and Ronnie as far as you are aware, at the time these statements were made, which were false. The only people who are aware that they were false at that time would be Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj and Muslim. Correct.

Yudhishthra Nathan  49:45  
In terms of the authentic WP parliamentary party, then yes. Apart from there would have been Miss Lowe myself and Miss Khan's husband.

Edwin Tong  49:55  
Yeah, I mean, I What I meant was in Parliament, all right. Yes. only people you are aware of will be aware that it was false was Mr. Singh, Mr. Mr. Manoj, and Muslim? Yes. Were you aware that after? Okay, let me back up a little bit. Did you speak to Miss sun? either before or after the speech was made? I should call you Did you call her? Did you text her?

Yudhishthra Nathan  50:26  
On the fourth of October? I don't think we had. I don't recall having had a conversation with her possible that we might have had, but I might have forgotten it.

Edwin Tong  50:41  
Can you think carefully and see whether you're able to verify with your phone? If it goes back that far, whether you spoke to her or she spoke to you, or whether you had exchanged messages, either before she spoke in Parliament, or after?

Yudhishthra Nathan  50:58  
Certainly after, but I don't think it was on the fourth of October.

Edwin Tong  51:03  
Okay. Can you give me a rough idea when you spoke with her?

Yudhishthra Nathan  51:06  
I spoke with her on from my recollection, either on the 12th of October or just before?

Edwin Tong  51:16  
Okay, and what was the gist of their conversation?

Yudhishthra Nathan  51:19  
Miss Kahn had given me a phone call. And she said you dish Pritam. And Silvia want me to come clean to Parliament. And I think that I want to do so as well. That's essentially what she told me.

Edwin Tong  51:32  
There was just before the 12 Oct, which triggered the meeting that you had, yes. Okay. But shortly after the speech was made, was there any discussion that you had with her?

Yudhishthra Nathan  51:46  
I can't recall now. Okay.

Edwin Tong  51:48  
Could you please check maybe later on when you have a phone, either in terms of the messages on whichever platform you normally communicate? And also your phone locks? Were you aware that after she made the speech in Parliament, mishaan had a meeting with Mr. Singh and mislim in parliament in the ELO office?

Yudhishthra Nathan  52:11  
Could you repeat your question? Sorry. Yes,

Edwin Tong  52:12  
of course. Were you aware that after she made the speech in Parliament, Miss Han had a meeting with Mr. Singh and Muslim in parliament in the ELO office?

Yudhishthra Nathan  52:20  
This is the speech on the third of August, October, on the fourth of October. No, I was not.

Edwin Tong  52:42  
Okay, now, let's say I'm clear between the fourth of October and this conversation that you said took place around the 12th of October. Were there other discussions you had with my son on decision? I can't recall. Did you have any discussions with anyone else on this issue?

Yudhishthra Nathan  53:01  
I can't recall. I don't think

Edwin Tong  53:02  
so. Okay, perhaps me I don't expect you to remember offhand. But maybe you can check your phone locks again. And maybe the messages receive that jobs. any memory of any discussions on this. Okay. Now, let's go to the 12th of October now. You would have you had a composite call from Miss Hahn? Yes, she says she wants to come and explain and clarify in Parliament. Miss Lowe told us that. yourself and Miss Lowe then asked to see Mr. Singh.

Yudhishthra Nathan  53:35  

Edwin Tong  53:37  
Can you tell us why you made the request to see Mr. Singh?

Yudhishthra Nathan  53:42  
I think we were concerned that I mean, of course, you know, it was good that she wanted to come clean. But we were concerned. Always I was concerned on two fronts. The first was there. It was more of a concern of how she would make an apology what information she would share in doing so. So for example, my take was that if she were to tell parliament that she liked parliament will also be important that she explains the reasons as to why she lied to Parliament. But Ms. Lowe and I because we were very well aware of Ms. Khan's anxiety over the matter and her mental health. We knew that even though it was important, and of course, we believe that it was important for her to explain the reason that it would be important for her to also be sure that she's comfortable explaining and essentially telling the whole country that she was sexually assaulted. So we just wanted to have a conversation with Mr. Singh, about that, okay.

Edwin Tong  54:58  
And so that you Evening. You had a meeting with Mr. Singh? Right. Miss Lowe and yourself. Yes. Was Busan present? No. Did you report to Misawa with discussing what had transpired? Yes, you did. What did you tell her?

Yudhishthra Nathan  55:13  
I would have told her that. I, I think I would have told her that Mr. Singh had relayed to us what he had told her on the third of October. Yes.

Edwin Tong  55:29  
That's the composition about. I showed you earlier about retaining the narrative. There'll be no judgment. Yes, that's the one. Okay. Did you so you you told mishaan that this is what Mr. Singh told you. He had told her on the third of October. Yes. Am I clear? Yes. Okay. Besides that, was there anything else of significant that happened until October?

Yudhishthra Nathan  55:54  
On the third of October? Sorry, on the 12th of October. of significance? No, that was the the thing that struck me the most. Okay. Oh, I could add that. We are other I have added earlier that we were there to talk about just making sure that Mr. Singh had also spoken to miss Kahn about her comfort level of bringing up the assault, I saw the importance of bringing up the the assault to Parliament in her explanation. So that was what we we were there to talk about with Mr. Singh. Yes.

Edwin Tong  56:42  
Okay. Which the importance of that? I mean, the two, I would say at least two angles to that first, the importance of that would be to explain why there was a lie. Yes. And the other would obviously be to explain, or try and give an explanation as to why and how she came to know of this account.

Yudhishthra Nathan  57:06  

Edwin Tong  57:07  
I, as I understand it, I mean, the way in which she put explanation, it was because she was assaulted. She was herself part of the group. In the context, she heard about it. Yes. And so that was the construct of the explanation, so to speak, right? Yes. Okay. After the 12, October, there would have been various attempts to draft the statement that she would eventually deliver on a first November, right? Yes, I'm told that you did not draft it, but you gave input? Yes. Can you just describe the process to me? What did you do? Who else gave input for comments came in? What was the nature of the edits that were sought to be made to the statement?

Yudhishthra Nathan  57:50  
So first of all, Miss Lowe and I, we gave inputs. Just like how we've been giving inputs, just like how other members give inputs to MP speeches in parliament from time to time when we are asked to, to help. Or indeed, if we if we offer to help. And so as in other cases, and like in this case, the nature of the inputs were all say, improving the flow of the language. Making sure that we could read it and understand what she meant. And so if we didn't understand what she meant, we would tell her okay, maybe you could be a bit clearer about this pot. Maybe you could rearrange certain paragraphs, so that the flow is better. So, we were involved primarily in that regard. But also Mr. Singh and Miss Lim were involved in the drafting of the statement, but I should add that the statement that she put to the house in terms of material context of the of the statement, the material contents of the statement, sorry, those were all miss cans, views. What was

Edwin Tong  59:15  
the How was this draft? I mean, was it you sit down together in one place, or did you send it by comments? Was it in writing? It was in writing pen and paper and paper? Yes. Did you meet physically?

Yudhishthra Nathan  59:28  
We did meet physically, I can't remember how many times.

Edwin Tong  59:52  
Sorry, Mr. C was a pen and paper process Yes. Written on drafts. Yes. Coming together to meet with each other to discuss the edits. Yes.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:00:07  
So essentially, we, Mrs. Lowe and I, we were there. We contributed to some of the edits. But my understanding is that there were drafts going between misconduct Mr. Singh, or other Mr. Singh, misconduct. Report draft, Mr. Singh. So there were quite a number many meetings were there. I can't remember the number of meetings but the jury that you attended, how many that I attended? I can't remember the exact number. But one meeting does stand out. Because at that meeting, all of us were present. Miss Kahn, Mr. Singh, Miss Lim, Mr. And myself.

Edwin Tong  1:00:49  
At least one meeting all of you are present. Yes. But there are other meetings where not all of you are present.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:00:53  
There were other meetings when? I don't. So so the reason why I'm not the reason why I can't remember is because we had committed so misto Muskaan and myself yet communicated back and forth about misconduct concerns about her language in the draft. So I can't remember how many meetings we Okay. might have had.

Edwin Tong  1:01:21  
Okay. Based on these discussions, the meetings, the comments, the edits that were that you're aware of? Would you say that the eventual draft that was delivered by Miss Kahn on the first of November was something that Mr. Singh and Muslim were comfortable with? Yes. Because they give their input and use it. There are many drafts, presumably to reflect the different edits. Yes. Prior to this call that you had with Miss Kahn, I think you said on 12, October, or perhaps shortly before that, where she said, I am now going to clarify the statement and tell the truth. Now. Were you aware of any other occasion on which she had articulated that desire, or that intention prior to 12? October,

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:02:13  
prior to 12? October? Not very explicitly, but Miss loi and I had had conversations with her,

Edwin Tong  1:02:25  
because as Mrs. Lowe had put it to me yesterday. Her sense was that it's better to come clean in Parliament about the falsehood was so your view?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:02:36  
Yes. And also miss Lowe had the view that Miss Kahn should account to the WPC see,

Edwin Tong  1:02:44  
okay. Yes, she did tell us that. Yes. But there was something between the three of you. Yes, but did on any other occasion, did Miss Tang, say, to your knowledge, say to the Workers Party leadership that she was going to clarify the truth prior to October? No, not to my knowledge. Were you aware of any occasion on which the Workers Party senior leadership, any one of them, telling Miss Kahn to do so prior to October?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:03:14  
Prior to tough October, instructing her telling her know,

Edwin Tong  1:03:21  
in the press conference yesterday, there were several articles which picked up Mr. Singh's comment to a press where he had said, and I'm quoting this from memory, my colleague will try and find the relevant portion where he had said, he had characterized the instruction to mishaan to clarify the untruths in October in the October sitting of Parliament as an order in inverted commas. An order to your knowledge, was this something that Miss carnate shared with you know, from your interaction with Miss Hahn, and I'm talking about starting from eight, October, eight August, we went through that all the way through to third October, 4 October. And you said that there might have been a conversation just before 12 October in this period of time. It would have been inconsistent for there to have been such an order for mishaan to clarify in parliament in October, would it not? It would have been inconsistent. Yes, because we are talking about a message that was sent which says take the information to the grave in August. Nothing was heard thereafter for the next six weeks. In October, there was a discussion which says you retain the narrative. There'll be no judgment on you. On fourth of October, the statement was repeated in Parliament. In fact, mishaan defended the position as it turned out falsely but Three members of the senior leadership of Workers Party were present in Parliament at least on fourth of October when a statement was made. So in that context, I think you will agree with me that any suggestion that prior to the sitting on the fourth of October that there was an order for Miss Khan to clarify the falsehoods in parliament in October would be untenable right? Yes.

Earlier on I talked about a CNN article I just want to for completeness read it to you so that you understand where I'm coming from. This is what I read to miss Lowe yesterday as well there was an article which quotes Mr. Singh yesterday as saying. Sorry, I missed another thing, just give me a moment no worries. So give me

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:06:55  
a minute or two, no worries at all

Edwin Tong  1:06:57  
try to find it. Okay, I found that can you please turn to page 131 of the bundle?

Sorry, sorry. To give you context at 130, I was quoting from a CNA report, I said that at page 130, line three, line four. So I read various portions, the portion I'd like you to focus on is 131. Where I Sit at line 10. Let me quote another portion to you. When asked why the claim was allowed to remain, I think the word is unchecked, or unclarified. Mr. Pritam Singh said, and I quote, each is a leader in his own her own right. And if you've done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record, right. But only Russia knew the truth of what she had said and what she'd experienced. And it is up to her to clarify the record. And I think that would have been adequately communicated through her personally.

And in one of the responses to one of the answers in response to a query from the press, Mr. Singh, use the word order that why she didn't follow orders to clarify the falsehood and let me just read it to you, it says at you go to the same bundle at 132. bottom of the page are going to say that the President asked Mr. Singh some questions. And this is what the report says. And I read it to you. In response to questions over why Miss Han did not follow orders to clarify the matter in October. Mr. Singh said, why she didn't take heed of that instruction. Why did she ignore it? And this is not a question I can answer. So it was in that context that I had asked you those questions. And I think I've got your answers on the record. So thank you very much.

In the just pick up on the chronology again in the WhatsApp chats that Miss Lowe had given to us. There was one reference to a 22nd October meeting to discuss the draft of the statement that will be delivered in Parliament. So I take it at least on that day. There was such a meeting. And is the thing says to miss Lowe let yudishe know as well, that presumably is you and you were present at the meeting. So that at least on 22nd of October, there was such a meeting, correct?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:10:17  
Yes. So that was the meeting that I referred to earlier.

Edwin Tong  1:10:21  
Yes. Where you met together? And you did. Mr. Singh was present Muslim was present. Yes. And you exchanged comments on the draft? And there were some handwritten notes and settled on the drafting. Yes. But I assume after that there would have been further additions to it right.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:10:37  
After that there. There were further additions. But Miss LOI? No, we're not aware of all of those additions.

Edwin Tong  1:10:49  
The next date in the timeline is on the first of November, when mishaan makes us speech in Parliament. Did you watch that speech? Yes. So you followed the series of questions that followed thereafter by the leader of the White House. Yes. Okay. And then after the Workers Party issued a statement from the Secretary General. Are you familiar with that? Yes. Miss Lowe told us that she felt that the statement, and I think it's a point we'll get to when we talk about when you went with her to see the display panel, she felt that a statement could be broader and could inform the public of the details that were already known to the senior part senior leadership or the Workers Party at that point in time. Is that something you would agree with as well?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:11:50  
It does pay me to say this, because it relates to my own party senior leadership ban. Ban says yes.

Edwin Tong  1:11:58  
And the reason you say yes, is because the statement issued immediately after the first of November, when mishaan made her speech. In fact, shortly after that the tenor of that statement appears to draw a line between what she did, what she knew and what she did, and the rest of the party. Would that be a fair statement?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:12:24  
Can you repeat that? Again? I'm very sorry. Sure.

Edwin Tong  1:12:26  
I said the reason you said yes is because the statement issued immediately after first November appears to draw a line between what mishaan did and knew and the rest of the party and asked whether there'll be a fair statement.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:12:43  
I don't quite understand what you mean by with the rest of the party.

Edwin Tong  1:12:48  
It seems to suggest that no one else was involved in managing this process. No one else was involved in understanding and knowing that this was untrue. It appeared to suggest that, hey, this is the first time we became aware of it as well. And you know what an MP should not be speaking on truth in Parliament. There was no suggestion that actually, from a very early stage, mishaan had informed her senior party leaders work with them to devise a solution, listen to them, sought their counsel and acted in accordance with the guidance that they have given. That's where I'm coming from. Would you agree with that? Yes. On a second of November, the Workers Party set up a disciplinary panel. Were you surprised that there was a dispute panel set up?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:13:40  
I was I was surprised that it was set up at that point in time.

Edwin Tong  1:13:49  
And the reason you're surprised is because if there is discipline to be meted out, it ought to have been an inquiry that should have been done earlier. Yes, correct. Because the very people who sit on that disciplinary panel, the same three people were the same three people who were aware, as of the eighth of August, some three months prior to this, that what she had said in Parliament was false, and that she had continued to repeat this falsehood, two months later. And I think that's where you're coming from, correct? Yes. On the fourth of November, it's a Deepavali. Miss Lowe informs us that she was present at Miss Hans home. Were you also there?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:14:39  
On the fourth of November, I can't remember if it was on that particular date, but Miss Lowe and I did pay a visit to miss Kahn.

Edwin Tong  1:14:50  
Okay, were you aware of many visits to miss Hans home with Miss Lowe? Because if not, then it's likely that they are accurate. It was Deepavali, she was quite clear about that.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:15:06  
We didn't have many visits to miscounts home. So it was probably that probably by hesitate to confirm because I celebrate the barley. And I didn't celebrate this year. But I, I would have thought that okay, I would have remembered that it would have been on that day,

Edwin Tong  1:15:22  
I understand where you're coming from. She told us that she Well, first of all, Miss Kahn was down. And she wanted to be with her. And secondly, she was also aware that Miss Han had been summoned to see the DP. And she had also been asked to provide some evidence. Do you recall that? Yes. And the purpose of the visit was, well, first of all, to be with her and comfort her and secondly, to discuss the nature of the proceedings that will take place and what position she might take.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:15:55  
I would say that our purpose really was the former just to keep her company, but naturally, because this was forthcoming, we discussed it.

Edwin Tong  1:16:05  
Okay, I understand. Now, I want to get to the 25th of November. And but before I do that, I just like to ask if you remember any occasion of significance concerning either the false anecdote or the disciplinary panel, or anything that arises from the speech on the first of November, anything of significance between the fourth of November and the 25th of November,

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:16:30  
between the fourth of November and 25th of November

Edwin Tong  1:16:35  
4, meaning the I mean, what I regard as a meeting at a home on Deepavali, which you may or may not agree to, and then a 25th, which I believe is the date in which yourself and Miss Lowe went to see the DP.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:16:49  
The only thing of significance that I remember was the message that we got on 10th November, inviting you to, to all workers, party members to make submissions. Besides that, besides that. I can't remember anything particularly significant, but I should add that there was quite a number of things, a number of conversations that were going on, because naturally, Miss Kahn was worried about what the disciplinary panel would find. I do remember that Miss Lowe had contacted Mr. Singh, because she had expressed to him and she had expressed to me the same concerns that she was worried about the nature of the sessions with the members. Because the membership didn't have what we understood to be the fuller picture. And so it would be a bit odd for members to share views about because they're supposed to be investigating her discipline with regard to the lie. But

Edwin Tong  1:18:09  
I understand where you're coming from Mr. Nothern. And I think I also understand Miss los reservation in the point is this. You have three members of the senior party leadership. They are the ones on the Display panel. Essentially, they are the ones who decide Miss hands, fate, right, make recommendations to the CC. They're also the same three, who were the first and up to that point in time in November, the only people in Workers' Party to know that what was handset in Parliament was false. And had given advice and met with her. And we're aware that she had acted in a manner which is consistent with that advice. And so not disclosing this, when you invite a broader spectrum of party members, activist volunteers who come and give a view will only be inviting a slanted and jaundiced view, correct?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:19:07  
I would say that, can I respond to that in three parts based on what you just said? The first is that I think you mentioned that they ultimately have let me rephrase, because I don't want to misquote you. But you You suggested that the three of them would have decided her fate. I think technically, if she hadn't resigned then it would have been the CDC technically, but I think the three of them would have had influence simply,

Edwin Tong  1:19:35  
what I meant was if you look at the terms of reference given to the DB, they are supposed to fight fine and make recommendations as to what to do with her. So z z.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:19:43  
In my view, the DP is almost like analogous to this committee in that eventually, you come up with the recommended penalty. And then just as how Parliament would debate the report of this committee, the CC Then debate the findings of the DEP and vote on that recommended penalty. So that's the first thing. The second thing that you mentioned was that the three of them were the only ones in the WP to have had knowledge, technically Miss Lowe and I did as well. So

Edwin Tong  1:20:14  
I may not have said it, but I meant the senior leadership of WP. Yes.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:20:19  
And certainly on the issue of whether members would have had a slanted view, I think Miss Lowe and I were concerned that they would have had an uninformed view.

Edwin Tong  1:20:35  
Well, we use different words, but I think we all know, uninformed view, because if you don't know that the people leading the inquiry had, in fact, given advice to the very person under inquiry, and that person acted in accordance with the advice, rightly or wrongly, that would be an uninformed view, it would be maybe even a biased view. Correct? Yes. And I think that's where you're and miss those reservations were that if you invited a broader party discussion on this, without informing people of these facts, you will naturally have a very different view or an characterization of the conduct, right? Yes, and in many ways, not dissimilar to what this tribunal or this panel has committee is doing. If mishaan had acted on our own volition, suppressed information, kept it away from anybody else on a frolic of our own. That's one state of mind. It will be a very different state of mind if one made a mistake, consulted with senior party leaders owned up to it in a full and frank fashion, sought advice and counsel, got that advice and counsel acted income in a manner completely consistent with their counsel, and then be subjected to an inquiry by that very same people who have given her advice. I think that's the heart of the matter. That I'm getting to Mr. Northern. And I think you understand what I'm saying. That I think creates, in your words, and uninformed a bias and I would say completely jaundice. And I would add further, I would say self serving, disciplinary panel by the Workers Party. Would you agree?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:22:49  
I think that in the context of everything that did transpire and did occur, it does pay me to say this, but I would agree.

Edwin Tong  1:23:03  
Thank you. I understand where you're coming from. And I thank you for your candor. But it is important for this tribunal to appreciate the gravamen of the situation, and to understand the relative culpability of the different individuals and the circumstances. And I think that's what this inquiry is here for. And I appreciate your assistance and your candor for this. Now to just make sure that we close the loop on the earlier point. Miss Lowe told me that she had sat with you and prepared for this meeting on the 25th of November before you went to see the DEP. Would that be right?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:23:54  
I can't remember if we sat down physically or if we had just communicated

Edwin Tong  1:23:59  
sorry, I don't mean physically sat down. But he at least had a meeting of minds and consensus on what you're presented a dB. Yes. Right. And if you could please look at the bundle at page 91.

Pitch data one, line 11. It's a long statement of series of statements from Moore's law. So if you could just cast IRA, I won't read it. But she basically says start by saying we came prepared with a few points and I think that we refers to you as well. Yes. And then she made a number of points there. I just wanted to get your confirmation that what she said from line 11 all the way through to the next page at page 92. Line 23 you will agree with because I then make the further point that Mr. Nava make the same points as you and she says yes, we made it together.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:24:59  
Me Tip allowed some time to read

Edwin Tong  1:25:01  
I was just going to tell you what I was getting through it and give you some time to read it Alright?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:26:36  
I've read it and I agree with what Miss Lowe share with this committee.

Edwin Tong  1:26:41  
Okay, thank you very much Mr. Norton. No, one of the points made to the committee quite strongly I think Miss Lowe X articulated in very passionate terms was that Miss Lowe ought not be made to resign or be expelled from the party. That's the point that you also made.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:27:02  
Can you repeat that last bit? Cuz the the sound of the door of sorry and feed it to you? I do apologize. No

Edwin Tong  1:27:08  
problem. I said one of the points made to the committee quite strongly. And I think Miss Lowe articulated it very passionately, was that mishaan should not be made to resign or be expelled from the party. Would that be something you agree with as well?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:27:24  
I was of the view that Ms. Khan should have continued SMP in spite of the mistakes that she had made. But I was also personally of the view that if the CC had decided that she should be expelled, then Soviet?

Edwin Tong  1:27:44  
Were you aware of the meetings or interviews that Miss Han had with a DP? Yes. Can you share what you know? And also how you know presumably what I've heard from her?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:27:58  
I heard directly from his con. Okay.

Edwin Tong  1:28:00  
Can you give us a perspective when to place what was asked of her, but she was asked to produce what comments were made to at this sessions.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:28:14  
So I think, from the outset, I should mention that the disciplinary committee meetings were supposed to have been confidential by fully accept that it's important to respect Parliament's authority on this. And I and so I hope that my fellow party members, I understand why revealing some details, which I'm aware of. My understanding is that Miss Kahn had had two meetings with the disciplinary panel. The first was before they had commenced before the panel had commenced meeting members to seek their views. And in that meeting, Miss Kahn had prepared for the meeting. Assuming that they would have asked her about the details of her involvement in the support group. The details that details of essentially what she had shared in her personal explanation to the house on first of November. I'm not sure if they did ask her about that. But from what misconduct had relate to miss Lowe and I, they had instead focused on other aspects of her handling her job as a member of parliament. So that was the first meeting. My view or rather, according to my knowledge, I don't think there was supposed to have been a second meeting but miss Kahn had appeal to the panel, in particular to Mr. Singer to have to meet them a second time. And she had done so because she had wish to share with them her plans for Well, first of all her achievements as a MP over the past one plus years. And secondly, her plans for campus fail. Should she have been? Essentially? Should she have continued as a MP?

Edwin Tong  1:30:34  
Okay, thank you. Do you have a rough date of the first meeting? Like this?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:30:38  
I don't remember the date of the first meeting.

Edwin Tong  1:30:41  
The second meeting, I think Miss Santos took place on the 29th of November

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:30:47  
29 of November, a day before she resigned? Yes,

Edwin Tong  1:30:51  
there was Monday this week. Monday. I do apologize. Was

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:30:55  
it Monday, I've lost track of time because so many things have been happening. Very quick pace. But it was in the morning of, of that DNA.

Edwin Tong  1:31:05  
Okay. Now, thank you for that. Let me ask you a few questions. First of all, the expectation that she will be asked about the support group that Miss Han had would have arisen from the request by the DEP to meet with her. Right. Yes. misson shared with us yesterday that she was asked to produce evidence of that support group. There was an email that was sent to her did she tell you?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:31:32  
She did tell us that there was an email? I believe it was from our party chairman slim. Yes. But I can't remember the details of that email. But I do remember that after having received that email. She was of the view that she was supposed to furnish details on what she had told parliament, yes.

Edwin Tong  1:31:53  
But instead, when she went to this meeting with the DEP. There was Holly, if at all, any questions on the support group,

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:32:03  
based on what Miss Kahn had relayed to ask yes.

Edwin Tong  1:32:07  
And instead, there was a general discussion on her achievements and competent to handle her job on a day to day basis. Correct.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:32:18  
Based on what Miss Kahn had relayed to us, yes.

Edwin Tong  1:32:21  
And the discussions on the events in question which gave rise to the DP, ie the false statements in Parliament, and the conduct surrounding their to, in your discussions with Miss Miss Kahn digitally, whether they were they were gone into at all, or in any fashion?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:32:46  
I can't remember if she had, but what I do remember is that she was very surprised that either the, she was very surprised that either most of the time or all of the time, I can't remember they had focused on her conduct as MP more generally more often, and not on the

Edwin Tong  1:33:08  
events running the false statements. Yes. Which I would suggest to you is odd, given that the entire terms of reference of the display panel was and I read from the workers party's media statement was that they CZ has approved the formation of a DP to look into the admissions made by MP res icon on first November arising from an earlier speech made by the MP in Parliament on third August 2021. So to go into general conduct of achievements and activities and accomplishments as an MP in general terms, and not covering these specific points about the falsehood, would that not strike you as being odd?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:33:57  
To be fair to the disciplinary panel, I think, in assessing her conduct, after her personal explanation on November 1, and in context of that, I think it's reasonable to expect a disciplinary panel to also look at other areas. But I was surprised that it seemed like the relative degree of importance given to the context of the lie. And the context of her broader conduct was lopsided.

Edwin Tong  1:34:34  
Yes. So what you're saying is that it's not unreasonable to expect a general inquiry into what else you've done, because that goes towards mitigation, perhaps that goes towards what's the appropriate sanction. But it is odd that the thrust of the discussion was on that rather than the primary issues for which the DP was set up. Right. I didn't feel that Yes. And one reason possibly is because the very same three people involved in DP really had fair, detailed, intimate knowledge of what had gone on.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:35:06  
I did feel that. So as I mentioned, when we found out that disciplinary panel was going to be formed, I did share earlier that I was surprised at that point in time. And one of the reasons why I was surprised was because technically they know the details. So to assume, so, you will assume that if a disciplinary panel to be called that they will inquire about further details,

Edwin Tong  1:35:39  
which they did not in this case, which

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:35:41  
to my understanding, based on what Miss Kahn had said. They either did not all, perhaps they did, but to a very small extent.

Edwin Tong  1:35:56  
And because the thrust of this first meeting was on her general accomplishments and her work as an MP on the ground in compass Vale, it prompted her to have to come back a second time to make a request to see them to explain her accomplishments because she had not been given notice that there will be this you on the first meeting, right? I would agree with that. Yes. Right. And she then went to this meeting. And she told us that she prepared, did some homework, made a presentation on what she had done and what she hopes to achieve, and made the presentation on the 29th of November in the morning. Now, up to that point in time. And the reason I'm asking you this is because I'm trying to evaluate the events that quickly unfolded thereafter. Did Miss Han, discuss with you and tell you that she intended to resign a position as an MP?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:36:52  
Minister tongue, I think that the truth is that Miss Kahn did not want to resign as an MP before 30th of November, because she had told us that she wanted to continue serving her residents because I quote, if I may quote her, she said, I have a duty to my residents.

Edwin Tong  1:37:15  
And I mean, you know her directly I have spoken with her, but I looking at it from the outside in looking at what she has done, and her conduct on the 29th of November in wanting to come and persuade the DEP. Despite being somewhat blindsided by the first meeting that there was a discussion on a general achievments came back and made a presentation and basically was a stopped defense of her position. And looking forward and telling them what she intends to achieve as an MP that's far from the conduct of someone who has thrown in the towel and wants to resign, right? Yes. And so between the 29th of November and the 30th of November, what changed

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:38:05  
between the 29th of November and 30th, November? Based on my understanding with based on my understanding, due to a conversation that I had had with Miss Kahn, after her second interview with disciplinary panel, she informed me that after she had told the panel about plans for Compass Vale, the panel had, I'm not sure if collectively or if it was one or two of them had suggested to her that she may want to consider resigning because she had lost the confidence of her colleagues.

Edwin Tong  1:38:49  
Did that suggestion affect Miss Kahn? Yes. Can you give us a bit more detail as to how it affected her?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:38:58  
I should add Yes, in my view, in my opinion, it affected her because in that phone call that she had with me. She it almost seemed as if she was very, I mean, she went into the meeting. In fact, before the meeting. She was telling me that she was nervous to present this to the disciplinary panel I was telling her. But you have to be nervous about. I mean, if you really want to continue being an MP then, you know, go for it. And so she had gone in, I think with the hope that they would hear her out. And so when I had that conversation with her after she sounded rather disappointed that in spite of the fact that she had tried to address the concerns about her general conduct as a MP and her general competence in different areas as MP that that was what she had heard from the panel.

Edwin Tong  1:40:08  
Alright. And shortly after that, she decided to resign.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:40:13  
She did see, she decided to resign, in my view on the 30th of. Okay, so essentially, after she had come out of that second meeting, she started asking herself what are the odds that the party, whether it's the SEC, the broader membership, the leadership, but the odds that they wanted her to, to continue on, and I think she felt that the odds were quite low. And so she, in my view, that's why I think she decided to resign the next day,

Edwin Tong  1:40:54  
the odds of her being able to receive continued support from the party was quite low,

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:41:02  
meaning to say if you were to continue as a MP, well, first of all, whether she'd be able to survive the CC vote on the on the 30th of November. And by survive, I mean, not be expelled. And secondly, in terms of whether, even if she were to survive that, that vote, whether she would be able to have a good working relationship with her parliamentary colleagues from the party, as well as whether the membership of the party would accept, thirsting on. So this, to my knowledge, based on my conversation with her on the 29th of November was what was going on in her mind? Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:41:48  
I mean, to that, I would add a key consideration must surely be that if the party and represented by the most senior of the party members are coming to you, and asking you to consider resigning. I think that's a very strong signal, isn't it?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:42:06  
I see two things. Firstly, to be fair to the senior leaders of the party, they didn't explicitly instruct her to resign. But secondly, given their seniority, I think that you see, the thing is, I don't for a second believe that the cc of the Workers Party are a monolith. I think they all have their own minds, and they can make decisions by themselves. But I think naturally, if you've lost the support of or seemingly lost the support of your party leadership, then that would spell the end of the road.

Edwin Tong  1:42:54  
Yes, I mean, to your point that they didn't explicitly ask her to resign. I mean, I think you and I know that you don't quite need to spell it out. In many words, here you have the senior party leadership, in whatever form of language, I think the message was quite clear, right.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:43:11  
I think that Miss Kahn, felt like the message was clear.

Edwin Tong  1:43:23  
There was a cc meeting on the 30th of November, I think, at least based on what I know, from public sources, it was supposed to have been sometime in the evening or the 30th of November. By that time, were you aware and you can you may not be aware, but if you can, please help us? Were you aware if the disciplinary panel had already completed its work, present, prepared a report and presented it to the CEC?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:43:48  
And no, I was not aware that they had already. So my understanding was that when I heard that there will be a cc meeting that evening. My understanding is that the disciplinary panel would present their report to the CC and then they would deliberate on the matter. But I should also add that Proceedings of the CC are not as in as members of the WP rather ordinary members, Academy members Proceedings of the CEC are not something that we are privy to on a usual basis. So I don't wish to mislead the committee by saying that this is my by saying that this is definitely

Edwin Tong  1:44:33  
no which is why I targeted my question by saying to your knowledge, as far as you know, there was no such report that was prepared and not to your knowledge such report was not done and not presented to the CC No. And the last at least, very close to the 30th was still miss Kahn who had come before the CC to give representations which presumably the DP will take into account as well.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:45:01  
Can you repeat that sorry.

Edwin Tong  1:45:04  
The DEP is set up to investigate fact find make recommendations and report to the CEC. The DEP is under an obligation, obviously to listen to all the submissions that comes before it. Whether it agrees or disagrees, it has to consider and make a view. And based on that, make a report and send to the CDC. What I'm saying is the last, at least, what we know as the last or very late submit submission was made by Miss Kahn on the 29th itself, just the day before. And that must also have been something that is DEP should consider in making its report. Right? Yes. All right. Now, Mr. Nothern, I've prepared a chronology of events, which roughly accords with what I've taken you through and I want to just show it to you so that you can confirm parts of it. Could I have copies given to Mr. Carton please?

So Mr. Wrather, let me just orientate you to this document. It's a chronology starting from third of August, right through to the second of December, which is yesterday. And it covers the key discussions that we've had over the course of this morning, or afternoon. And as far as I can tell, you have agreed to this in the form that I've set out here. Save some additions and clarification that I'll take you through now. And if there's anything else you don't agree with, let me know. And then we'll go through it. So let's start from the top third of August, there was a speech in Parliament thing, that's a fact. You will agree. Tell me if you don't agree. Okay. You also mentioned that sometime in between the third and the seventh, you had spoken with Miss Han. You recall

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:47:14  
between the third and the seventh? Yes, that's right. Okay.

Edwin Tong  1:47:18  
On the seventh, mishaan spoke to Mr. Pritam Singh and told him that she has spoken and untruth in Parliament.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:47:26  
And no, on the seventh, Miss Kahn had informed Miss Lowe and I that she had lied and that the only other people who knew her husband, Mr. Singh, yes.

Edwin Tong  1:47:38  
So she would have spoken to Mr. Singh, which is what I asked you about earlier? Oh,

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:47:43  
I do apologize. I thought I heard you say that she had spoken to Mr. Singh on the seventh of August.

Edwin Tong  1:47:51  
She had spoken to Mr. Singh by the seventh. Yes, that's right. So if you want, we can say by the seventh of August, on the eighth of August, let me take you through these points. There was a meeting that took place I'm asking you not so much to speak to someone's intention, which I know you can do. I'm asking you whether now that we've gone through the facts and circumstances, whether or not these points here represent factual matters, which happen in the timeline, because this will assist us in forming a view on the timeline. Okay. And this information, sometimes, like for example, a 10th of October sitting, you might learn about something that happened prior to it later. But you do know on the 12th, that a meeting took place on the third and that would be part of the flow as well. That's what I mean. Okay. So there was a meeting that took place at Mr. Singh's house, where these people were present Mr. Singh, Miss Lim and Mr. Manoj. I put a page reference here. Miss Han told them that statement she made in Parliament was false. If you'd like you can turn to the page and have a look at it. This is her evidence.

When asked about the reaction, Miss Han said incredible disappointment, lots of anger. And so I read this to you earlier. Yes. And you said this also comported with what you saw of the message, what you thought of the message you received at the mishaan agreed that the upshot of the meeting was that the members of the Workers Party, I decided that there'll be no need to clarify the position and so on, again, is at page 161 of our evidence at EA after the meeting RK which is mishaan Send a Text entirely to yourself as well. And I think we saw the text earlier. And this was sent contemporaneously at around the same time when the meeting was concluded, which was 12:41pm on the eighth of August. Do you need to see the text

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:49:57  
again? Okay, just to check the time.

Edwin Tong  1:50:00  
Second page at the bottom, eighth August 1241. Yes, that's right. There we go to the 10th of August. You remember you described a separate occasion that more both Miss Lowe and yourself went to see Mr. Singh on a separate matter. Yes. And the takeaway from this, both from Miss Lowe and yourself was that Mr. Singh knew about the falsehood in Parliament. Yes. At 10th August be Miss Lowe was a switch that senior leadership was aware. And it was expectation that a problem will be sorted out at that level. I think you also share that view. Yes. The next key occasion because I think we agreed that there was nothing until the third of October, right. So the next key occasion is on the third of October, Mr. Singh visits mishaan at her home. He, Mr. Singh was expecting that Miss Han will be pressed about her life since it was the first occasion since August that she'll be back in Parliament. Correct? Correct. And then I I just put in which I read where she says if I were to retain the narrative, or if I were to continue the narrative, there'll be no judgement at all, a fourth of October, several things one, mishaan addresses Minister Shanmugam, his questions in Parliament. To there were several clear and direct false statements that were made in response to Mr. Shanmugam. Three at the time, the statements were made Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Miss slim, would have been aware that they were false as you were making those statements in Parliament, correct? Yes. I think we went one step further and said that actually, only they from the members of Parliament would be aware.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:51:51  
Yes, right.

Edwin Tong  1:51:54  
Fourth, October at D. This one, you said you were not aware, there was a meeting that took place at the elbow office, but to be fair to use it you're not aware. So this reference point is coming from mishaan directly. So say for this, I will not ascribe any direct knowledge of you on your part to this because you said you are not aware. Okay. So you can ignore D. Alright. And as a consequence, you can also ignore the last paragraph. Okay. Now, paragraph, cough October, this one you will be aware misson first calls yourself and Miss Lowe and says that she will admit and clarify the false statements in Parliament. You didn't have a discussion?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:52:36  
She called us separately.

Edwin Tong  1:52:39  
Okay, separately.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:52:40  
And I'm not sure if she called me slow, but she did call me.

Edwin Tong  1:52:43  
Okay. I will not. She did call Miss Lowe. And I have that from her. But

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:52:48  
what I meant was that I knew that she had communicated to miss Lowe but by way of text or call I'm not sure.

Edwin Tong  1:52:54  
Okay. All right. I understand that. So subject to that caveat. You will agree with the 12 of October entries? For a yes. For B there's a message that she sent. I think you see that in the bundle as well. And then for C you agree because you then met with Mr. Singh at his home that evening? Yes.

On the 22nd of October, again, I took this from one of the messages from Miss Lowe. I think you were present. And you said this is one occasion where you exchange views on the drafting. Yes. First November mishaan makes a speech in Parliament. WP issued a statement. I think that's a matter of record. Like why second of November, the DEP was set up on a fourth of November. I think you said you weren't sure whether it was on Deepavali. So I I also take the caveat, but I think your recollection is that there was such a meeting you're just not sure which day Yes 25th November, we heard your evidence on this. There was a meeting that you and Miss Lowe requested to see the DEP and you did so at Workers Party HQ on the 25th of November at 8:30am

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:54:07  
pm pm pm

Edwin Tong  1:54:12  
All right, I will subject to that they meaning yourself Miss Lowe tall Workers Party DP that RK should not resign. And I quoted Miss last evidence which

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:54:28  
may I say something about point B so it says here the tell the WP DP that RK should not resigned? I think it's more accurate to say that we told them that in our view she should not be expelled from the party. Yeah, I don't think we were essentially it would have come down to the same outcome. Yeah, so in that sense, I don't disagree with the, the meat of point B,

Edwin Tong  1:55:06  
the substance of B would be what you would agree with. Yes. Right. That's what you're trying to say. Okay. Thank you. On C, I think I asked you to read this. And you said you agree, right? Yes. Okay. 29th November. We just covered this earlier this week. RK met with a Workers Party DP at HQ to discuss her performance as an MP. You recall, we talked about this, she came to present. And then she's asked to consider resigning.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:55:38  
1030 sounds right. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:55:41  
Okay. To the line be she's asked to consider resigning. Yes. We just talked about this. And then 30th she resigns. Second. There's a press conference. Okay, yes. So can I take it Mr. Nothern, that you agree with this document? Save that. On the fourth of October? Under Item D. You have no personal knowledge of such a meeting? Yes. And that item 12. October item A the call. You're not sure what form miscount communicated to miss Lowe, whether it was a call or a message, but you do know that they communicated correct. And on item be at 25th. November, in substance you will agree.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:56:25  
On 25th of November. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:56:28  
Thank you. I beg your pardon. My colleague reminds me that should be 25th. November 8:30pm. Instead of Yes,

Unknown Speaker  1:56:38  
Chairman. Sorry to interrupt minister. I just want to clarify. Let me finish a point of view on the 22nd. I can't wait for your for you to finish. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:56:48  
So based on this, this would be an accurate timeline, in your view with the discussions that we've just had. Correct.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:56:58  
I'm also adding the caveat that I'm not sure if I can't remember the exact date of the it says here that we met at the WPA HQ on 22nd. October. I can't remember the exact date. But as discussed earlier, it was at around that time. Okay.

Edwin Tong  1:57:17  
It's either on or shortly after 22nd. October. Would that be fair? Yes. And now I just tell you why I say this, if you just pick up this bundle with the WhatsApp messages and go to around the fourth page. You'll see at the bottom of that page 22nd. October, there's a message between Pritam Singh and Miss Lowe. And on the 22nd of October, there was a message that says change of time meeting at 11am. Maybe that might have been the next day or the day after so 23rd 24th October, perhaps would that be fair?

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:57:57  
Yes. Because this screenshot is from the message was from was at 7:30pm. So I think, yeah, yep. I agree with that.

Edwin Tong  1:58:08  
So shall I say 23rd or 24th? October? I or perhaps we see this shortly after 22nd. October? Would there be more

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:58:20  
I think the best way to present shortly after 7:30pm on 22nd of October. Yes, but this is something that I can help to clarify down the road

Edwin Tong  1:58:33  
if necessary. That will be useful. Thank you. Okay, besides what we've just discussed, is there anything else you disagree with on this chronology? No. Mr. Tan can clarify.

Dennis Tan  1:58:47  
Or Minister actually, I just want to clarify with you on your description of the 22nd of October and you had put in a WPA had a meeting. I think this is isn't I think from the evidence yesterday, there was some description of who, which were the individuals and the meeting, right. So isn't it more appropriate to put the name of the individuals at the meeting rather than to say the WP N meeting and WP H is the description? Well, I the accuracy and the distribution? I can put it to to Mr. yudishe as well.

Edwin Tong  1:59:20  
Okay, let's put it this way so that we don't get involved for for better description. Let's so the WP here refers to Mr. Singh, Muslim mishaan yourself. Miss Lowe? Yes, correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. So with those clarifications, would you agree with this chronology? Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I go no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Miss another.

Yudhishthra Nathan  1:59:47  
Thank you, Minister.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:59:49  
Mr. Grace, any question

Grace Fu  1:59:53  
Thank you Mr. Madden. Yesterday when Miss Kahn gave her evidence. She mentioned that her decision to go to the parliament to give a statement or to give a full account of what happened on first November, was made on the 12th of October

just to recall, somewhere on the fourth, that was when she was asked to give details in the parliament by Minister Shan at at the end of that, that sitting there was a meeting with Mr. Whelan, Miss potassium ellos office, she hasn't made up her mind yet. And seventh October, she has received an email from the police to give details. She hasn't made up her mind yet, about coming clean to the so called going to the parliament to give account. And it's on 12 October that she has made that decision with party leaders Miss Sylvia Lim and Miss Peter, Mr. Pritam Singh. You're able to confirm that she is consistent to what she has told you.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:01:27  
Everything in in what you just described. I find consistent except I can't confirm the the part about seventh October, having I think you mentioned she received an email from the police to

Grace Fu  2:01:46  
share with you about having to respond receiving this email or having to respond to the police.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:01:52  
She did share with us that she received an email from the police. But I think at that point in time, Miss Kahn was essentially also waiting on advice from the higher ups. In other words, the senior party leadership as to how she should respond

Grace Fu  2:02:14  
to give you any inclination that she will go to the parliament and first November to make that statement that she made.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:02:21  
She did say that. So I don't want to misquote Miss Kahn on the or what she told me, the leaders might have said, but my impression was that she or they all of them had decided that going to Parliament would have been the preferred option as opposed to

Grace Fu  2:02:51  
before after 12 October meeting that they had.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:02:58  
I can't remember.

Grace Fu  2:03:01  
So I believe was the time when you had a meeting with Miss Lowe.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:03:05  
I do apologize. It was before the 12th of October because on the 12th of October. Miss Kahn had said that the party leaders and she herself had wanted to come clean. May I retract what I just said about whether it was before the tough of October? Because I think now thinking about it. I honestly can't remember whether it was before or after top of October.

Grace Fu  2:03:34  
I think we've just gone through the sequence of events. I think it's clear that she will admit this a so nothing in between fourth October and 12. October right. So basically I was trying to ask whether she has informed you about police and whether she has indicated to you whether that has made her make a decision change her mind about coming to the statement to make the statement in Parliament.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:04:07  
So I can't remember if the police had contacted her before after tough October, but I knew that bye bye knew that at all. So possibly just after tough October. They had agreed that the preferable thing to do in their view was to come to Parliament instead of attend the police interview or meeting.

Grace Fu  2:04:42  
Miss can share with you about when she confided this to her family besides her has.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:04:51  
She did she said that she confided after the 12th of october so in between the 12th of October and the first of November, closer to the first of November, because she had a great deal of hesitation in wanting to read enough hesitation in breaking the news to her parents.

Grace Fu  2:05:14  
So am I right to describe the event as she has made the decision on 12. October thereafter, she informed her family after 12 October, yes, it's just I'm just trying to understand the events so as to get a better position or understanding of the statement made by Mr. Pritam Singh in the press, that actually the few months lapse from August was actually to give her time to inform her family. Have they is that this is that the reason for her to delay or as we have heard, actually, the decision was made on 12, October, before there was a need to inform prior to that, the position was to keep the narrative and not to disclose. The critical date was October.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:06:11  
I do think that there is some truth to what Mr. Singh said, because essentially, on the top of October when we met at his house, he did express this concern that her family was not aware of what happened.

Grace Fu  2:06:40  
Did Mr. Pritam Singh expressed his concern in August when you met?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:06:50  
I don't remember.

Grace Fu  2:06:52  
So was it a factor as to why the decision was taken only on 12? October? Or I would put it to you that the decision was made on 12, October, before they decided that it's time to tell the family

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:07:08  
I think it could have been one of the factors but I am unable to to speak on Mr. Singh's behalf.

Grace Fu  2:07:16  
Have has in your discussion with Mr. Singh, you have several rounds of discussion, has that need to inform the family been a factor?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:07:27  
It was a factor. But in what way? In just in having concern that she would have to essentially deal with this personal matter of telling her family at home before essentially revealing to, before coming clean to Parliament to the nation. In a sense, this was something that was affected, or concern that I think all of us had throughout the process. So as I mentioned earlier, when we first heard about it, obviously, we knew that because only her husband had known about it at that point in time on by the seventh of August. Naturally, I think, certainly for myself, and I suspect for Miss Lowe as well, there was a concern that she will have to at some point tell her parents this. So I do think that it was a factor. But I'm unable to say as to whether it was the main factor that or indeed I I would hazard a guess that it wasn't the main factor that led to the long period of that weight between them knowing that she had light and topology on first of November.

Grace Fu  2:08:54  
If it had been a main factor, then I think your series of meetings would have been to discuss when Miska should tell the family and what is the earliest time that she should go to the parliament. That didn't happen in August. That didn't happen in September the only happened in the second half of October after 12 October to be exact.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:09:20  
So, I agree with the way you described it, but I will also say that that discussion may not hypothetically may not have involved Miss Lo and I it could have been discussed by and I say could have hypothetically been discussed by the party leaders and Miss can by themselves. So I I generally agree with how you described it, but because you mentioned your meetings so that will imply my meeting. with Miss Kahn. So I think that's not necessarily true because whether Miss Conway to inform her family about it or not, I think it is almost like above Miss laws and my paygrade to use the term not that we are paid to help out in the Workers Party.

Grace Fu  2:10:20  
No, I totally understand the concerns about miscount well being as well as her need to inform the family. But am I right to say that that did not come into the picture of your general discussions until after 12. October? Of course, there's a general concern about her well being and how her family will respond to it. But that wasn't the main decision. To on the timing on which November statement was made.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:10:52  
I would say that it didn't generally occur, mainly main concern.

Grace Fu  2:10:57  
Thank you. There was also a discussion about in Miss I don't have the transcript with me, but I think Miss can mentioned something about there will be no judgment from Mr. Pritam. Singh sometime in August. Or know about mean third October? Yeah. Was it just from NYX? Con herself? Or did you also hear this from Mr. Pritam Singh himself? Because from what we were told yesterday by Miss Lowe, that that was a confirmation that Mr. Pritam Singh has also given there was an understanding she has gotten from Mr. Pritam Singh.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:11:56  
So this was something that we heard both from Miss Kahn as well as from Mr. Singh.

Grace Fu  2:12:01  
Can you tell us how did you hear it? And what's the occasion that you have heard it?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:12:07  
Miss Lowe, and I heard it on the top of October when we met with Mr. Singh at his place of residence. And he had expressed to us that regardless of whether she had maintained the line of argument of maintaining the survivors or the victims, confidentiality or whether she decided to tell the truth that he would not judge her.

Grace Fu  2:12:47  
How did you interpret that?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:12:52  
I I thought I mean, I thought two things, I think first of all,

personally, it did sound like he was empathizing with her. I think that's natural for anyone to do. But at the same time, I also thought that

it was a bit indecisive. Not a bit indecisive. It was it was rather indecisive.

Clerk  2:13:27  
Thought this was something was the context that led to that statement. Was it something that you asked was that something that's offered by Mr. Singh? Could you remember?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:13:38  
I don't remember what exactly we had been discussing before that. So I I feel I can't give you a factual answer to that question.

Clerk  2:13:53  
When Mr. Singh said that, was it to give you assurance of a position or to give you an indication of the party leaders position? What context was it?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:14:06  
I think it was an indication of his personal position on the matter. But I think that ordinarily, we took it to mean that there was also the leadership's the senior leadership's position on the matter. And perhaps that was an assumption on our part, but yes. Thank you. Thank you, we

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:14:38  
just build on what Mr. Grace who just asked you. So essentially, your impression from what Mr. Singh conveyed to you on 12 August suggests to October, which suggests that as opposed to what was said in the press statement, the press conference that was really decent, as read by Mr. Tong earlier, that an order was given for her to come clean. That was an impression that you got from that conversation with him that was an impression that that would have been a direction given to her to come clean. Know what? And so perhaps if you could explain to us, what would your impression be that actually to continue on the present trajectory of maintaining the narrative, and that it wouldn't judge on that you should continue to do so.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:15:31  
I think that I mean, just taking what Mr. Singh had told me is low and I, in terms of its ordinary meaning, I think that if you tell me that I'm not going to judge you, if you do A or B, then it simply means that I'm not, I'm neither instructing you to do A or B. But at the same time, I'm also not. At the same time, you are free to do what you will.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:15:58  
Suddenly, what it would mean is that there wasn't a direction given to her to take a particular or to take the to take the action of confessing and coming clean. Yes, that's sort of the statement mate, according to the CNA article that he said, and that he couldn't understand why she didn't respond. And she had to account for that. Yes. But the questions for other members, Lucky. Dennis, anything? Don't?

Don Wee  2:16:28  
I do. Sorry. So afternoon. So just so you mentioned that when Miss can receive the invitation from police to meet up, you mentioned that she respond, and that is based on how the party leadership, we have guided her. So based on your understanding of Miss Kahn, do you think she would have accepted the meeting invite? Should the party leadership had guided her to do so?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:17:02  
I think that she may have been I think I can't visit your understanding of her. I think it'd be a bit unfair for me to make a judgement as to what she would have done in that case. Yeah.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:17:26  
Okay. Any other further points anyway?

Zaqy Mohamad  2:17:30  
Just a quick one. On another question. Don't ask, Was there any

indication from her as to why making a statement in Parliament was better, rather than making a police statement or responding to the police? Because she, they wrote two or three times? She didn't respond all three times. But I'm quite sure she was advised, as you said, But did she say why?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:17:58  
I believe that there was this idea that at that point in time, actually now thinking about it, there's no specific reason as to why. There's no specific reason that I can recall as to why that occurred. So it's, it's a bit of a question in my mind as well. Yeah.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:18:30  
So the issue of police writing to her and her not responding, this was not an issue that she discussed with you.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:18:36  
She did discuss it with us.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:18:40  
And transpire,

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:18:41  
she I think, I believe she consulted a lawyer to get some legal advice as to, but that's the thing is I'm not sure as to what. So I am not entirely certain of the conversations that she would have had with the party leadership on this matter. But now, I mean, reflecting I do remember, thinking that I had no reason to disbelief that her going or not going to speak to the police was not collective decision made by the party leadership and herself.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:19:26  
So meaning that your impression would be that there was probably some discussion with the party leadership and that was the collective decision that she wouldn't respond to the police. Yes. In your discussions with her on this issue with regards to the police, what else was covered?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:19:47  
I do believe that there was some discussion on parliamentary privilege because when it comes to Parliament, you can Have a certain degree of freedom without, of course abusing it. As opposed to speaking to the police where you wouldn't have that. But the thing is, I cannot remember where this point was made or why it was me. I just remember that that was something that floated in the conversation.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:20:21  
What else was covered?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:20:29  
I think that was about it. Based on my understanding, okay.

Grace Fu  2:20:34  
Just follow up on this discussion. Is that conversation between you and Miss can done through phone call? Or is it messages?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:20:48  
I can't recall. Now,

Grace Fu  2:20:50  
we asked that maybe you can track your chats, I will locks. If there's any luck of those conversations. That'll be very helpful for us. All right, thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:21:04  
So there are no further questions. For now we'd like to thank you for coming before the committee is highlighted, there are a number of references that means Edwin and others might have raised with regards to, I think materials that might be useful as you have seen the text messages between yourself and your group chats. So some of the issues that have been raised here, it will be useful, whether through WhatsApp, Telegram, whatever means that comes you may have with the others, emails, and so on and so forth. It'd be useful to furnish it to us so that we can also cross reference and check on it. There may also be other conversations or issues pertaining to this case that may not be placed here. But if you feel it's us who do let us know, if I need to ask you, is there any other witnesses you think, would be useful to come before committee of privilege to, for us to interview to better understand the circumstances with regards to this case?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:22:06  
To be honest, no. And I say that and because the vast majority of our party members and I would hazard a guess the majority of members of parliament and CC members may not have had the full picture of what had happened since August.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:22:25  
So would it be correct to say that even as shared with us by Miss Reece icon, as was conveyed to her by the disciplinary panel, that she doesn't have the confidence of our colleagues in Saigon GRC, you will be fair to say that the members in single GRCs along with the rest of the other members would actually not have a clear idea of actually all these things have transpired that she had sought advice, she sought counsel. And as of now probably wouldn't have that full picture. Would that be fair assumption?

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:22:58  
Unfortunately, I do think that that's a fair assumption. The three remaining MPs in sync on GRC never asked for any of this to happen. And they've just been keeping their jobs trying to do what's best for the residents. And, of course, I'm not privy to conversations that MPs have amongst themselves. So I cannot say with certainty what they do and do not know. But I think it's important for me to know that the members of my party, and as you mentioned, the Sengkang GRC, members of Parliament may not have had the full picture. But I don't want to say that with 100% certainty because I could be wrong

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:23:45  
fully on this. So do furnish us with whatever details, emails, Telegram messages, etc. As much as possible, I think, as as we have explained, really are our job is to fact fine. Obviously, as you realize this is a grave matter. It's very different from being misinformed, erroneously highlighting facts that might be inaccurate, but it was a deliberate lie. And I think what we're trying to determine this, the circumstances behind which and ascertaining what sanctions we may take, and therefore any factors that might be mitigating would always be useful. That's why the full context says why we've entered the details that we have with regards to how things evolve the various conversations taking place, impressions, that the viewers that would help us form a view as to the degree of responsibility the respective individuals might bear. So a transcript of the proceedings will be shared with you for verification. So do go through it. And if you have any minor amendments, etc, please make the changes and send the transcripts back to us. Please do know that the transcripts any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone not to be published. And I think the conversations that we've had here to be kept strictly confidential, until the committee has presented his reports to Parliament. So there are various reports that we may need to make to Parliament. And that would include the relevant summaries, transcripts for the gist that may be submitted, and thereby being in the public domain as well. So for now, you may withdraw but do remain in Parliament House. We won't, I don't think that we need to call you back today. But I think there'd be some follow up. I mean, that might be required, if needed, staff of a company out to the waiting room.

Edwin Tong  2:25:30  
Mr. Chairman, I just want to so to make one clarification, which is that early on, we'd ask you for a variety of documents and chats and so much you see your check. So rather than go back and forth, I just thought I'll clarify with you what we are after you saw some of the examples we we showed you earlier. But what we are told previous witnesses was that it's not sufficient, just give us that particular message. It's we need to see the trail. Of course, not irrelevant discussions with friends and non interested parties. But the trail needs to be established so that we are able to understand the context in which some messages are set. So Bear this in mind. Secondly, bear in mind that, you know, I've gone through with you the key dates, beginning from August to November. Those are data you should have in mind. And anything that relates to or arises from the false statement, or the discussion that you had with the parties on any of those key dates should also become documents that you will produce. Okay, thank you very much.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:26:28  
And just to add, I know that in the editing might be a bit complex, but if there are portions because obviously interspersed in every conversations, and maybe a lot of stuff that that's not really relevant, why you could do is to print them up and then muck it up. So while maybe certain names if it's not necessary to be there as an comments that might be relevant, but the rest of compensations would help us have that full sense of that flow that will be useful. So if sometimes it can accompany miss another now, but thank you once again, for being here and sharing with us your perspectives. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Yudhishthra Nathan  2:27:03  
Thank you.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes