Raeesah Khan lied!

[Rm2s]

IMHO, to prevent similar situation in the future, the law has to be updated.

Any MP; when they come to know about lie being told in parliament, the MP must report the lie to parliament immediately. If there no session scheduled, submit a written report.

It must not be left to the MP to decide or their senior to give them "space" and be "compassionate". A lie is told, report it. Let the relevant authority to decide when to make that report public, that is not the job of the MP or their party senior's.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Rm2s
spelling

[Fcw75]

https://fb.watch/9TDT9c0evr/

"oh ok"

Listen to the agonising silence from Edwin.

And just silence with breathing sound.

It’s like PS schooled ET, the senior counsel.

🤣

Edited December 14, 2021 by Fcw75

[Victor68]

41 minutes ago, mikk123 said:

what generation is not the reason for the difference in views. We are all Singaporean and wants the country to do well. We need to be critical of the man who will be tasked to lead this country. 

RK lied in parliament is serious matter. 

PS knew the lie and kept it under cover and that is wrong. The impact of MP and leader of MP words have far wider and stronger impact than you and me. 

There is where you couldn't understand. Nobody has said RK lied is correct. You read it this way? The urguement centered around WP selection process. 

Next point you rise here is about PS knowing RK lied but choose not to disclose. Again, can you confirm PAP has never done the same? 

[Yewheng]

20 minutes ago, Rm2s said:

IMHO, to prevent similar situation in the future, the law has to be updated.

Any MP; when they come to know about lie being told in parliament, the MP must report the lie to parliament immediately. If there no session scheduled, submit a written report.

It must not be left to the MP to decide or their senior to give them "space" and be "compassionate". A lie is told, report it. Let the relevant authority to decide when to make that report public, that is not the job of the MP or their party senior's.

Yes.. what a good idea.. hope law minister do read this post.. and consider it..

[Ender]

1 hour ago, Kar_lover said:

Burden of proof is on the accuser. And 2 wrongs don't make a right. For sure, so far, no PAP MP has been known to have lied to parliament.

Apparently ET doesn't thinks so. He feel he is entitled to suggest what Ps did or didn't do, and expect Ps to bear the burden to 'disprove' et's hypothesis.

 

 

 

[Kar_lover]

34 minutes ago, Ender said:

Apparently ET doesn't thinks so. He feel he is entitled to suggest what Ps did or didn't do, and expect Ps to bear the burden to 'disprove' et's hypothesis.

 

 

 

U are quoting out of context. This is already an investigation/enquiry that is in progress stemming from RK already ADMITTING that she lied and that WP knew about it and did nothing. There is no burden of proof to be made here. ET is not alleging anything, he is putting forward a "suggestion" based on testimony/evidence received. What's wrong with that? In the light of contradicting testimony/evidence, i don't think there is nothing wrong to "test" an evidence/testimony in order to ascertain its truthfulness/validity to ensure it's not another lie. 

My original reply was in response to Vegas asking to confirm that PAP never lied. My point was I think it is quite difficult to prove to someone that a person never did something. It is for the person alleging that he did it to prove it. You are distorting my reply with an unrelated post.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Kar_lover

[Ender]

8 minutes ago, Kar_lover said:

U are quoting out of context. This is already an investigation/enquiry that is in progress stemming from RK already ADMITTING that she lied and that WP knew about it and did nothing. There is no burden of proof to be made here. ET is not alleging anything, he is putting forward a "suggestion" based on testimony/evidence received. What's wrong with that? In the light of contradicting testimony/evidence, i don't think there is nothing wrong to "test" an evidence/testimony in order to ascertain it's truthfulness/validity to ensure it's not another lie. 

My original reply was in response to Vegas asking to confirm that PAP never lied. My point was I think it is quite difficult to prove to someone that a person never did something. It is for the person alleging that he did it to prove it. You are distorting my reply with an unrelated post.

 

 

Since I quote out of context I shall stop l this line of discussion.

[Freeder]

1 hour ago, Fcw75 said:

https://fb.watch/9TDT9c0evr/

"oh ok"

Listen to the agonising silence from Edwin.

And just silence with breathing sound.

It’s like PS schooled ET, the senior counsel.

🤣

It was this part that I thought my phone hanged.. 

Nbzz, actually was ET kanna snooked…
Asked so much until Ownself confused Ownself .. KNN

[Rm2s]

16 minutes ago, Kar_lover said:

U are quoting out of context. This is already an investigation/enquiry that is in progress stemming from RK already ADMITTING that she lied and that WP knew about it and did nothing. There is no burden of proof to be made here. ET is not alleging anything, he is putting forward a "suggestion" based on testimony/evidence received. What's wrong with that? In the light of contradicting testimony/evidence, i don't think there is nothing wrong to "test" an evidence/testimony in order to ascertain its truthfulness/validity to ensure it's not another lie. 

My original reply was in response to Vegas asking to confirm that PAP never lied. My point was I think it is quite difficult to prove to someone that a person never did something. It is for the person alleging that he did it to prove it. You are distorting my reply with an unrelated post.

 

 

We are in a situation where no-one kept any records of what they said, it is a classic "she said he said".

I am surprised that people took offense when the committee member testing their case logic in trying to see how each "said evidence" hold up. It would appear that ET behave like RK's defense lawyer but as far as he (and the entire COP) is concerned, so far no concrete (as in recording, meeting minutes, etc) evidence to collaborate any of the evidence given (from RK or PS). The only facts we know is RK lied, PS (and 2 other WP senior members) knew and the lie was kept from parliament for almost 3 months.

RK said he was told not to reveal the lie, PS said it is completely untrue, so how? 

The committee would have to piece together piece by piece, day by day, repeat the process and to see which hypothesis make sense.

[Fcw75]

23 minutes ago, Freeder said:

It was this part that I thought my phone hanged.. 

Nbzz, actually was ET kanna snooked…
Asked so much until Ownself confused Ownself .. KNN

And the parting sentence from PS:

You Don’t Have It!

🤣

Edited December 14, 2021 by Fcw75

[Kar_lover]

2 minutes ago, Rm2s said:

We are in a situation where no-one kept any records of what they said, it is a classic "she said he said".

I am surprised that people took offense when the committee member testing their case logic in trying to see how each "said evidence" hold up. It would appear that ET behave like RK's defense lawyer but as far as he (and the entire COP) is concerned, so far no concrete (as in recording, meeting minutes, etc) evidence to collaborate any of the evidence given (from RK or PS). The only facts we know is RK lied, PS (and 2 other WP senior members) knew and the lie was kept from parliament for almost 3 months.

RK said he was told not to reveal the lie, PS said it is completely untrue, so how? 

The committee would have to piece together piece by piece, day by day, repeat the process and to see which hypothesis make sense.

Exactly, only through questioning will the truth will hopefully, in the end, emerge. It's the same at work (or even at home) too. I even came across people saying RK so poor thing, lost her job as MP, lost face/reputation, etc so COP should show compassion and should stop questioning her and just let her as she has already paid the price *facepalm*

 

[Unfazed]

1 hour ago, Victor68 said:

There is where you couldn't understand. Nobody has said RK lied is correct. You read it this way? The urguement centered around WP selection process. 

Next point you rise here is about PS knowing RK lied but choose not to disclose. Again, can you confirm PAP has never done the same? 

1 hour ago, Victor68 said:

There is where you couldn't understand. Nobody has said RK lied is correct. You read it this way? The urguement centered around WP selection process. 

Next point you rise here is about PS knowing RK lied but choose not to disclose. Again, can you confirm PAP has never done the same? 

Pls dun argue or even worth debating with a small fry that makes lots of buzzing noise...now wait, small fry not even a small fly can't make any noise so we dun even know what it is, it is just an emotional AI bot that it was programmed to keep spinning the same messages just in different writing form but eventually had to use back some same writing form as it runs out of new programs. Small fry is starting to sound like ET dun u think. Lol...

[Chongster]

11 minutes ago, Rm2s said:

We are in a situation where no-one kept any records of what they said, it is a classic "she said he said".

I am surprised that people took offense when the committee member testing their case logic in trying to see how each "said evidence" hold up. It would appear that ET behave like RK's defense lawyer but as far as he (and the entire COP) is concerned, so far no concrete (as in recording, meeting minutes, etc) evidence to collaborate any of the evidence given (from RK or PS). The only facts we know is RK lied, PS (and 2 other WP senior members) knew and the lie was kept from parliament for almost 3 months.

RK said he was told not to reveal the lie, PS said it is completely untrue, so how? 

The committee would have to piece together piece by piece, day by day, repeat the process and to see which hypothesis make sense.

I concur with my learned friend.

 Is this how the court lawyers  say it?  Only thing is the cop does feel like judge, jury, prosecutor all roll into one, without defense lawyer.  Not that pritam needs one… 

[Beregond]

12 minutes ago, Fcw75 said:

And the parting sentence from PS:

You Don’t Have It!

🤣

This RK farce is damn funny.

Want to throw black paint on other. suddenly realise black paint spray on ownself.😆

[Beregond]

😅

[Rm2s]

37 minutes ago, Chongster said:

I concur with my learned friend.

 Is this how the court lawyers  say it?  Only thing is the cop does feel like judge, jury, prosecutor all roll into one, without defense lawyer.  Not that pritam needs one… 

I can see your point, the COP does seems unbalance with only 1 opposition MP represented.

Having said that, the Singaporean public are generally quite smart and well educated, so for me any illogical conclusion from the COP will not go down well, whether or not it is spoken loudly online. Now that the entire proceeding has been published on YouTube, it is even more critical to conclude this properly.

At this point, my personal view is that the whole argument hinges on 1 sentence:

"If the case come up, RK is to take ownership and responsibility when parliament sits on 4th October."

PS said this means she must come clean.

RK seems to think other wise. In fact, when the matter did come up, she whatsapp PS "What should I do Pritam?" while Min Shan was questioning her.

Again, so how?

Edited December 14, 2021 by Rm2s

[Civic101]

I have the understanding that the COP was convened to determine what penalty should be meted out to RK who admitted she had lied in parliament, but it seems to me that the objective of the COP now is something else?🤔

[Rm2s]

15 minutes ago, Civic101 said:

I have the understanding that the COP was convened to determine what penalty should be meted out to RK who admitted she had lied in parliament, but it seems to me that the objective of the COP now is something else?🤔

You can read the official terms of reference for the COP here (yes I googled as I was curious too):

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/selectcommittee/selectcommittee/download?id=435&type=report

In Annex A, last para.