Raeesah Khan lied!

[Victor68]

3 minutes ago, Bacteria83 said:

The point is to narrow down thing. If she is having depression or other mental issue and even she herself dont know why she will behave or act in a certain way, then is there still any point to focus on what she said was truth?

You have your own belief of how it should be run, I rest my case.

Somehow you just couldn't understand my point. Mad, then no COP because no case liao. Open COP then check mad or not? So now, not mad, any change to case? 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Victor68

[Invigorated]

47 minutes ago, Wind30 said:

…. Errr… actually,  I don’t know why pap put the cop on YouTube. If you watch the proceedings it is very telling the way pap treat RK vs PS.

I am not sure what your logic is but RK has lots to gain by saying she was acting under orders from PS in her second lie. Isn’t that common sense, deflecting the blame???

at the end of the day, I say many weeks ago, unless pap has hard evidence, it is a huge huge mistake going after PS integrity by suggesting he asked RK to lie. If it’s RK word vs PS plus WP leadership, only err moron will take RK’s word over PS. 
in fact I thought it is such a big blunder that I felt pap has some hard evidence hidden up their sleeves. Else why would they go after PS and then fail looking like a loser, when this RK thing is a big win for PAP. If you try to throw shade at someone and fail, it has the opposite effect. WP willl gain more trust among the public. 

RK is already out of WP. Whether she accuses PS or confesses that she lied 100% on her own accord, what would be the difference in the punishment?

Could you explain 'lots' to gain?

Obviously this is political leverage that the govt is banking and as long as WP provides the source material, I'm sure they will milk it. Anyone blind can see it and it's not even the point behind my post so I don't know what you are trying to debate with me about here.

That said, this revelation may not be important to you obviously, as many hardcore supporters will close their eyes to whatever is being revealed, PAP or WP alike. So your toughened and unrelenting support for your ideal team is totally understandable. This COP is meant to shake the middle ground who are sitting on the fence and whether it backfires, who can tell?

Do you see anyone sitting on the fence coming forward to support the WP? Or pap supporters switching over to WP? How do you justify 'gain more trust' if you haven't something quantifiable?

[Victor68]

An opposition member lied in parliament and she admits it. The party didn't handle it well. Both are factual as far as current evident shows. COP and the saga that follows make me sick. Painting themselves as angel is even worse. Once you claim to be angel, you really need to show your consistency. 

[Fcw75]

What’s the purpose of this COP again? 

[Freeder]

17 minutes ago, Fcw75 said:

What’s the purpose of this COP again? 

Catch Oppo Party…

[Rm2s]

9 hours ago, Victor68 said:

An opposition member lied in parliament and she admits it. The party didn't handle it well. Both are factual as far as current evident shows. COP and the saga that follows make me sick. Painting themselves as angel is even worse. Once you claim to be angel, you really need to show your consistency. 

The fact as you mentioned; RK lied. Confirmed. No one is disputing that.

When asked why she is not coming forward earlier, she said the leaders told her to "take it to the grave"

PS and the rest of the leadership is called; they said they didn't ask her to "take it to the grave" and PS said she might have mental issue (more specifically she might be suffering from PTSD and disassociation), recommend COP to check.

COP called an expert mental health professional to be an assessor to determine if what was said about RK is true. Assessor examined video evident (all three parliament speeches by RK, all video testimony during COP, spoke to her twice in person) and gave his opinion that she has no PTSD or suffered from disassociation during those times when she spoke. If I may add, from the assessor, it is very rare that an assessor get a chance to view recordings of an event for him to make assessment, it is very useful for him.

This is where we are at. She said, they said. Who is right? All under oath.

Not sure why so many find the calling of an assessor unnecessary or trying to proof she is not lying. The calling of assessor was recommended by PS and the intention is to have independent assessment if she is suffering from PTSD or disassociation. The assessor cannot tell if she is lying or why she lied, as he puts it, "its beyond my limit".

[Victor68]

5 minutes ago, Rm2s said:

The fact as you mentioned; RK lied. Confirmed. No one is disputing that.

When asked why she is not coming forward earlier, she said the leaders told her to "take it to the grave"

PS and the rest of the leadership is called; they said they didn't ask her to "take it to the grave" and PS said she might have mental issue (more specifically she might be suffering from PTSD and disassociation), recommend COP to check.

COP called an expert mental health professional to be an assessor to determine if what was said about RK is true. Assessor examined video evident (all three parliament speeches by RK, all video testimony during COP, spoke to her twice in person) and gave his opinion that she has no PTSD or suffered from disassociation during those times when she spoke. If I may add, from the assessor, it is very rare that an assessor get a chance to view recordings of an event for him to make assessment, it is very useful for him.

This is where we are at. She said, they said. Who is right? All under oath.

Not sure why so many find the calling of an assessor unnecessary or trying to proof she is not lying. The calling of assessor was recommended by PS and the intention is to have independent assessment if she is suffering from PTSD or disassociation. The assessor cannot tell if she is lying or why she lied, as he puts it, "its beyond my limit".

I like your constructive comments. PS did query to some extent is she having mental issue by saying what she said. Did he recommend for medical check on her? I didn't seem to read or hear this line.

Even if he has recommended, he also said many other things, why COP picks this particular phrase to act on? Going forward, would COP continue to act on all his recommendation?

What most of us is asking, her mental health if in question, should be checked before even COP commence. Now confirms not mad, what does it prove? She is still lying right? 

[Rm2s]

From what I can gather, RK mental health only came into question when PS mentioned it during his testimony.

She lied in parliament, confirmed, no one is disputing that.

One of COP terms of reference is assigning culpability hence going through day by day what happened.

[Victor68]

I am sure we appreciate COP diligent in ensuring they carry out whatever claims thrown at them. If that is so, they should do it for all and future claims. 

Of course, it still boils down to why doubt someone you choose to believe to question others now? Then the whole COP idea is in question. 

If this COP is to determine if KS lied. Then it makes sense to conclude she did. Now it is used for other purpose. It make this whole saga a joke

Edited December 24, 2021 by Victor68

[Freeder]

13 hours ago, Victor68 said:

If you watch RK COP, she look away from ET trying to recall instead of direct answer. Show she is reciting something briefed to her with the lead questions. She kept turning her thumbs. Me trying to be a psychiatrist lah. Now everyone so clever. Haha

To COP, all these actions are normal for a liar..

Furthermore, ET not humsum of course look away lah..

For me, she’s a siao lang ….. dee siao for sure….

[Rm2s]

The least all can agree is no one doubt that RK lied.

If you followed the sequence of events so far:

RK said leaders told her to "take it to the grave"

COP called the leaders to give their version of the event.

PS said she might have mental issues. Please check.

COP call an expert assessor to do his work.

COP called RK to ask why her version different from the leaders.

We are still stuck.

She said, they said and she said.

[Mkl22]

14 minutes ago, Rm2s said:

The least all can agree is no one doubt that RK lied.

If you followed the sequence of events so far:

RK said leaders told her to "take it to the grave"

COP called the leaders to give their version of the event.

PS said she might have mental issues. Please check.

COP call an expert assessor to do his work.

COP called RK to ask why her version different from the leaders.

We are still stuck.

She said, they said and she said.

One thing that is not stuck. CONTINUOUSLY WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS ON THIS.cause it going nowhere.  
I think I rather listen to this encik’s repetition

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Mkl22

[Kopites]

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-meme-makers-won-raeesah-khan-saga-074727267.html

😁😁😁 got it from Yahoo news.

Always listen to the good stuffs. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Kopites

[Victor68]

30 minutes ago, Rm2s said:

The least all can agree is no one doubt that RK lied.

If you followed the sequence of events so far:

RK said leaders told her to "take it to the grave"

COP called the leaders to give their version of the event.

PS said she might have mental issues. Please check.

COP call an expert assessor to do his work.

COP called RK to ask why her version different from the leaders.

We are still stuck.

She said, they said and she said.

We all paid 😫

[Nolicense]

1 hour ago, Rm2s said:

The fact as you mentioned; RK lied. Confirmed. No one is disputing that.

When asked why she is not coming forward earlier, she said the leaders told her to "take it to the grave"

PS and the rest of the leadership is called; they said they didn't ask her to "take it to the grave" and PS said she might have mental issue (more specifically she might be suffering from PTSD and disassociation), recommend COP to check.

COP called an expert mental health professional to be an assessor to determine if what was said about RK is true. Assessor examined video evident (all three parliament speeches by RK, all video testimony during COP, spoke to her twice in person) and gave his opinion that she has no PTSD or suffered from disassociation during those times when she spoke. If I may add, from the assessor, it is very rare that an assessor get a chance to view recordings of an event for him to make assessment, it is very useful for him.

This is where we are at. She said, they said. Who is right? All under oath.

Not sure why so many find the calling of an assessor unnecessary or trying to proof she is not lying. The calling of assessor was recommended by PS and the intention is to have independent assessment if she is suffering from PTSD or disassociation. The assessor cannot tell if she is lying or why she lied, as he puts it, "its beyond my limit".

[Gizmore]

RK lied. Fact.

WP did not report it at first instance. Fact.

Is there an SOP within Parliament that states WP must report immediately? Not sure. Probably but not explicitly. 

Morally, WP needs to clarify at first instance. At least that's what I feel. If I'm PS, I would have stood up and interrupt RK in Parliament, correct her there and then when she has the chance to tell the truth and didnt. (Yes I'm giving PS the benefit of the doubt here. Hey RK is a liar, no reason for me to give her the benefit)

Was RK given the orders to bring the lie to grave? Its RK words vs PS. I don't think it will ever be known. 

I don't see any more interview is going to bring about any new details. Its just going to be reiteration of each version of events.

I think let's not waste any more time and resources on this. At things stand, criminally prosecute RK according to law. Reprimand PS (WP) stenly that have a moral duty for factual information in Parliament. One more mistake PS gets stripped of his LO.

 

 

 

[inlinesix]

36 minutes ago, Gizmore said:

I think let's not waste any more time and resources on this. At things stand, criminally prosecute RK according to law. Reprimand PS (WP) stenly that have a moral duty for factual information in Parliament. One more mistake PS gets stripped of his LO.

To do the last part, MIW needs to do the same for TT shit.

Morally, MIW have a obligation to inform parliament as soon as it is aware.

[Wind30]

7 hours ago, Rm2s said:

The fact as you mentioned; RK lied. Confirmed. No one is disputing that.

When asked why she is not coming forward earlier, she said the leaders told her to "take it to the grave"

PS and the rest of the leadership is called; they said they didn't ask her to "take it to the grave" and PS said she might have mental issue (more specifically she might be suffering from PTSD and disassociation), recommend COP to check.

COP called an expert mental health professional to be an assessor to determine if what was said about RK is true. Assessor examined video evident (all three parliament speeches by RK, all video testimony during COP, spoke to her twice in person) and gave his opinion that she has no PTSD or suffered from disassociation during those times when she spoke. If I may add, from the assessor, it is very rare that an assessor get a chance to view recordings of an event for him to make assessment, it is very useful for him.

This is where we are at. She said, they said. Who is right? All under oath.

Not sure why so many find the calling of an assessor unnecessary or trying to proof she is not lying. The calling of assessor was recommended by PS and the intention is to have independent assessment if she is suffering from PTSD or disassociation. The assessor cannot tell if she is lying or why she lied, as he puts it, "its beyond my limit".

I don't think you watch PS testimony. PS did not say RK has mental issues. I think PS said RK told him she was seeing a therapist and have issues.... Wah lao, if you watch the whole thing, you will realise everything started with RK and was made worse by RK. The MOST reasonable explanation is when grilled by WP, she played the pitiful mental card....

At the end of the day, we have one CONFIRMED liar... and we are putting her testimony vs WP leadership testimony... unless PAP has hard evidence, I really think should not waste everyone's time... if the COP can't prove anything it is just a big waste of time.

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Wind30