• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Guess??? - 'Defeated and betrayed' by the people I look up to: Raeesah Khan on second day of Pritam Singh's trial

Hightech88

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
4,233
Points
113
This PCB Evil bitch who nearly brought down the whole WP party leadership with her cunning lies and deception still have the cheek to say what ranjiao 'Defeated and betrayed' by the people I look up to.." LOL.

She is a farking CECA-Hybrid no wonder can twist and turn like a snake, NBCB..:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...gh-trial-lie-parliament-workers-party-4678581

'Defeated and betrayed' by the people I look up to: Raeesah Khan on second day of Pritam Singh's trial​

Former Workers' Party member Raeesah Khan was questioned by the prosecution on the disciplinary panel sessions that she had sat through with party leaders, following her lie in parliament on Aug 3, 2021.

'Defeated and betrayed' by the people I look up to: Raeesah Khan on second day of Pritam Singh's trial

Raeesah Khan arrives at the State Courts on Oct 15, 2024. (Photo: CNA/Syamil Sapari)

SINGAPORE: Former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan said she had felt "very defeated and betrayed" after party leaders grilled her on her conduct as a Member of Parliament (MP) during disciplinary panel sessions.

Testifying on the second day of WP secretary-general Pritam Singh's trial on Tuesday (Oct 15), Ms Khan said that the panel made her feel like the people she trusted the most had "turned around" and used the disciplinary panel to criticise her, and to "almost pretend" that they had not been guiding her on the false anecdote she gave in parliament.

The disciplinary panel's proceedings led Ms Khan, a former Sengkang MP, to think that they would ask her to resign, she testified.

The prosecution was resuming its examination-in-chief of Ms Khan, which began on Monday. Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy had taken Ms Khan through a timeline of events in chronological order, starting from the day she recounted the false anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021.

Ms Khan had lied about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.

She repeated the lie when asked to clarify its details during a subsequent sitting on Oct 4, 2021.

Her account triggered a series of discussions, questions and clarifications, finally resulting in Ms Khan coming clean, and the matter being referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
.
.
.
.
----------------

Screenshot 2024-10-16 124031.png
 
She basically did what no PAP member has been able to do - set WP back by at least 10 years! Lol

Pritam deserved to get screwed because he was the clown who defended her rubbish social media postings when she was running as a candidate

This aging well like cheese



  • Ms Raeesah Khan, Sengkang GRC candidate for WP, said that she regrets her insensitive remarks
  • WP chief Pritam Singh said that she will continue with election campaign
  • Mr Singh added that he has “no regrets” about fielding Ms Raeesah
 
She basically did what no PAP member has been able to do - set WP back by at least 10 years! Lol

Pritam deserved to get screwed because he was the clown who defended her rubbish social media postings when she was running as a candidate

This aging well like cheese



  • Ms Raeesah Khan, Sengkang GRC candidate for WP, said that she regrets her insensitive remarks
  • WP chief Pritam Singh said that she will continue with election campaign
  • Mr Singh added that he has “no regrets” about fielding Ms Raeesah


Yep, she is a farking landmine which Pritam naively stepped on, perhaps lured by her privileged background and atas way of speaking with a laid-back Aussie accent, LOL.

From the moment I first heard her opening her mouth in parliament, one can sense something is amiss about this lady already. Her replies or explanation are always vague, evasive and deceptive to suit her hidden agenda or to cover up her lies and mistakes.

This PCB evil lady is a jinx to any organization and should count herself lucky to be in Singapore.

If she is caught in her ancestral motherland in Pakistan with all her deceptive ways exposed, she would have been stoned to death in public, LOL.
 
On day 3, can see this PCB Evil bitch still want to attempt the stunt of creating smokescreen with all kinds of deceptive prata skills to push the blame of her lies to the WP leaders esp. Pritam Singh. She will continue to wriggle her way out with superb ability to even escape from maximum security prison, LMAO.
This kind of wicked lady should be lynched in public, no need to talk so much anymore NBCB.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...d-questions-defence-tries-impeach-her-4682291

Day 3 of Pritam Singh's trial: Raeesah rebuts pointed questions, defence tries to impeach her​

On Day 3 of the trial, defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy continued grilling Ms Raeesah Khan on the stand, throwing out applications to impeach her credibility as a witness and prompting heated responses from her at some points.

SINGAPORE: The trial of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh entered its third day on Wednesday (Oct 16), with key witness Raeesah Khan continuing in the cross hairs of defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy.

With lob after lob, Mr Jumabhoy attempted to undermine her credibility by asking her about alleged differences in her answers, whether it was before the Committee of Privileges, a Workers' Party (WP) disciplinary panel, or even in court itself.

Ms Khan, who resigned from the party in late 2021 after confessing to her false anecdote about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, was on the stand as the prosecution's first witness.

The 30-year-old woman found herself testifying against her former party leader, a man she said she revered and looked up to as a mentor who "really knew everything" and "would have all the answers".
ADVERTISEMENT

In her replies, she testified that she had maintained her lie because Singh had given her "advice" along the way, including telling her that he would not judge her if she continued the narrative, and that this "is something we will all have to take to the grave".
In contrast, the defence team said Singh had never told her to continue the false narrative nor told her to lie.
In an almost-sardonic line of questioning, Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that Ms Khan needed Singh's directives to tell the truth, but had not needed any directives to make the multiple lies she did.
The former prosecutor had begun his cross-examination on Tuesday, but it was on Wednesday that Ms Khan began reacting more to his questions, raising her voice or looking to the judge when he asked a question she frowned at.
Here's what went down on Wednesday.

IT WAS 3 AGAINST 1: KHAN​

In an emotionally charged exchange, Mr Jumabhoy asked why, if what Ms Khan said about the WP leaders telling her to maintain her lie had been true, did she not confront them when it all fell apart.

Mr Jumabhoy pointed to a hearing Ms Khan attended before a WP disciplinary panel in November 2021, after the lies had been exposed and she was facing disciplinary action by the party.

"So you get to the disciplinary panel on the 29th. They convene another hearing for you. You go in knowing, Mr Singh has already said this is your mistake, and you don't say anything in that disciplinary panel session to say that - it's you guys who told me what to do," said the lawyer.

In response, Ms Khan said: "I think the context that is missing here is the power dynamics in that meeting. I mean, it's three, to me ... very, very powerful people and imagine that these are the people that have been advising you, and suddenly in a meeting ... they pretend like, or they don't even mention they are the ones advising you."

"I was shocked, I honestly was dumbfounded because it kind of felt like, to them, it didn't happen."

Mr Jumabhoy pressed for an answer to his question on whether Ms Khan had said anything to say - "it was you guys who were telling me what to do".

He pointed out that according to her, there was "no doubt" in her mind that Singh was "putting this squarely on you".

"I mean at that point in time, I still thought they had the best intentions for me, and I didn't realise this was what they were doing," said Ms Khan. "If I did realise that, I would've said - look, I know it's a very tough situation, but you also advised me the entire way. I would've said that if ... I knew they did not have the best intentions of me."

Mr Jumabhoy then pointed to a message Ms Khan sent to a group chat with two other WP cadres, where she "knew what (Singh) was doing".

"I mean, I didn't know to what extent they were doing that," explained Ms Khan. "I didn't know they were taking down notes, they were - almost now retrospectively, almost looks like they were gathering enough evidence to point to the fact that they didn't advise me in the first place. I didn't know that."
"I went in thinking these three leaders ... had my best interests at heart. And when you're confronted by these people you view as giants, it's very hard to confront them in a negative way, and I didn't do that at either of the disciplinary panel meetings."
ADVERTISEMENT

When pressed by Mr Jumabhoy that she knew "exactly" what Singh was doing, Ms Khan raised her voice: "Yes, because at that point in time, I mean, I didn't know what extent he would go to absolve himself."

She added that it "felt scary" to her to confront someone like what the lawyer was suggesting.

"And mind you, there were three people in front of me. I was alone. And you know, it was kind of like, question after question, barrage of questions, and then I mean it felt like it was three against one and how am I in that position be able to say - look the three of you are kind of blaming me for this entire thing," said Ms Khan.

"I know I've taken full responsibility (for) what happened but it was a very scary prospect for me to sit there and say - look you told me what to do. What would the response have been?"

THE LIE, THE TRUTH AND THE RETAINED NARRATIVE


Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Jumabhoy had questioned Ms Khan about how she had been in parliament for over 13 months by October 2021, and how she was 27 and "not a teenager".

"And you know, don't you - right from wrong?" asked the lawyer.

He added that Ms Khan had not needed a directive to lie to her friends.
"And you certainly didn't need a directive when you lied to Mr Singh," he continued. "So, you seem, according to you, to need a directive to tell the truth?"
In response, Ms Khan said she wanted to go to her leaders for advice after making the "mistake", referring to her false anecdote.

Ms Khan testified that she thought the lie "wouldn't come up". After first telling it in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, she skipped the September sitting due to shingles.

A day before the next sitting on Oct 4, 2021, Singh visited Ms Khan's home with his wife. Here, Ms Khan claimed that Singh said "something along the lines of - I don't think the issue will come up but if it does come up he's not going to judge me for continuing with the narrative".

She said she was prepared to lie again on Oct 4, 2021, because she was "terrified of what would happen" if she told the truth, and because "it seemed that Pritam was supportive of me continuing to lie".

However, when parliament convened that day, Law Minister K Shanmugam pressed her for answers about her anecdote including when it was and which police station it was at.

After texting Singh what she should do and not receiving any immediate reply, Ms Khan told Mr Shanmugam that she would not be giving further answers, citing confidentiality.

"That's a lie you came up with all by yourself right," asked Mr Jumabhoy. Ms Khan acknowledged this.

"We've seen how you are quite capable of coming up with lies yourself in relation to the minister's question on Oct 4. After that you went out and you drafted a statement, correct?" asked the lawyer.

Ms Khan agreed. She drafted a statement in her phone that read: "I am disappointed then that the route the government has taken is, instead of deliberating my suggestions, they have instead pushed me to break all forms of confidentiality and consent. If the Minister understood the pain that survivors go through, how much anguish we experience, both physically and mentally, he'd be focused on helping survivors instead of grilling them."

She did not wind up making this statement, as she sent it to her confidante Ms Loh Peiying, who said "it would be a terrible thing to say".

Mr Jumabhoy said: "So despite being in a state of fear, you prepared this statement, which basically accuses the government of doubting survivors."
Ms Khan acknowledged this.

"The government doesn't doubt survivors. It doubts you. That's right," said Mr Jumabhoy.

"Yes," replied Ms Khan.

The lawyer then said this was "a big difference", but it was not what her statement reflected. He went on to say that Singh was not involved "at all" as far as Oct 4, 2021 was concerned, and how Ms Khan responded to Mr Shanmugam without being told what to do, or drafting the message saying the government should not doubt survivors.

"That's all you," he said, to which Ms Khan agreed.

The lawyer also showed Ms Khan a message she sent to a group chat with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, where Ms Khan wrote: "Pritam has actually been really great."
When this message was sent on Oct 5, 2021, the false anecdote "was all blowing up", and her message was that "Pritam has actually been really great", said Mr Jumabhoy.

"So the people you are praising at this stage are the people who had told you to lie," he said.

Ms Khan responded that it was not about them telling her to lie, but taking time to advise her and show her what she thought was compassion.
Mr Jumabhoy then suggested to her that Singh never told her to lie in the first place, or to make up more lies.

"That's all you," he said.
"He told me to continue the narrative, that I'd been lying," answered Ms Khan.
"Did he tell you to make up more lies, yes or no?" asked the lawyer.
"No," Ms Khan said.

Mr Jumabhoy also questioned Ms Khan on whether she had met her WP friends, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the night before they were to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges, to align their evidence.

At first, Ms Khan said they did not meet so much to talk about what they were going to say in their evidence. Instead, "we just met kind of just to be there for each other", she said.

Mr Jumabhoy then questioned her if she had intended to lie about when Singh knew her anecdote was false: "Did you say to Ms Loh that you were going to lie about when Pritam knew?"
"No," replied Ms Khan.

"And did Ms Loh talk you out of doing that, because it would clash with evidence that she wanted to give to the COP?" asked the lawyer.
"Yes," answered Ms Khan.

Mr Jumabhoy paused. "You say 'No I didn't do that', I talked about what you wanted to say, then you said - 'yes, Ms Loh talked you out of that?"

She answered: "I wouldn't say talk me out of, but ... the conversation was, if we were asked, we would come up with the truth. There would be no question about it."

She then agreed that they had indeed discussed what evidence to give to the COP.

raeesah_khan_pritam_singh_timeline_infographic.png

DEFENCE SUBMITS 3 IMPEACHMENT APPLICATIONS​

Throughout his cross-examination, Mr Jumabhoy applied at various junctures to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness.

Ms Khan was asked to step out of the courtroom as the defence submitted its applications, which was made with the ultimate aim of proving that Ms Khan was an unreliable witness.

Mr Jumabhoy finished his cross-examination for the first application on Wednesday morning. He then made two more applications for leave to cross-examine Ms Khan on what he said were material inconsistencies in her court testimony and her police statement.

After hearing both applications, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock disagreed that there were material inconsistencies. He noted that impeachment was not a process entered into lightly and that there had to be serious material inconsistencies that went to the crux of the charge.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan agreed with the prosecution, adding that he did not see any inconsistencies in respect of the second application. He dismissed both applications.

The defence lawyer then separately submitted an application for Ms Khan to be shown a portion of her police statement on Jun 5, 2022, to refresh her memory.
This was in relation to her evidence on whether Singh had told her to "just tell the truth" if she was asked follow-up questions in parliament after she came clean about her anecdote on Nov 1, 2021.

Ms Khan agreed that Singh had asked her to tell the truth in follow-up questions.

The defence wrapped up its cross-examination of Ms Khan towards the end of the hearing on Wednesday. The prosecution then began its re-examination, where it clarified Ms Khan's responses during cross-examination.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy asked Ms Khan to clarify the sequence of events that occurred on Aug 8, 2021, when Ms Khan had met Singh, WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap.

Ms Khan said the group started discussing the speech that she made on Aug 3, 2021 about Muslim issues, before speaking about Ms Khan's experience with sexual assault, her lie in parliament and then about her sending a statement on the Muslim issues.

The trial will resume on Thursday with the prosecution's re-examination of Ms Khan. Thereafter, Ms Loh is expected to take the stand.
------------------------
 
As expected, this CCB Ms Loh is also another farking bitch now finally sexposed as a liar. She should be thoroughly investigated on why she had strangely supported Raeesah Khan earlier on.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...46?cid=internal_sharetool_iphone_17102024_cna

Pritam Singh trial: Raeesah Khan's ex-assistant Loh Pei Ying admits under defence grilling that she had lied​

Ms Loh Pei Ying, who is a prosecution witness in the trial against Pritam Singh for alleged lies, admitted to lying by hiding a message from a party member suggesting to continue Ms Raeesah Khan's lie.

Pritam Singh trial: Raeesah Khan's ex-assistant Loh Pei Ying admits under defence grilling that she had lied

(From left to right) Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah Khan and Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy outside the State Courts on Oct 17, 2024. (Photos: CNA/Lim Li Ting)

SINGAPORE: In a shock turn in the ongoing trial of Workers' Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh, Ms Loh Pei Ying - former WP cadre member and assistant to Ms Raeesah Khan - was exposed for lying in a trial centred around untruths.

Confident, composed and articulate in the morning when she was testifying for the prosecution about how the aftermath of Ms Khan's own lie had played out, Ms Loh broke under questioning by Singh's lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy.

It was revealed that she had redacted a message to be presented in a document to the Committee of Privileges (COP) because it was from party member and friend, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, saying that "we should just lie about it some more".

However, she gave another reason for the redaction that was not the truth.

Ms Loh, who left the party in November 2022, was on the stand as a prosecution witness on Day 4 of the trial against Singh, which has so far unearthed alleged lie upon lie.

Singh is contesting two charges of lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) about what he intended to do after he found out that his then-MP Ms Khan had lied in parliament.

Ms Khan gave a false anecdote on Aug 3, 2021 in parliament about how she had accompanied a rape victim to a police station, where the victim was allegedly asked about her dressing and alcohol consumption.

She confessed to the lie only in November 2021 and a COP was later convened to look into her conduct. In her testimony, she claimed Singh had given her advice which she took to mean she should maintain her lie for a certain period of time.

As a result of the COP, she was fined S$35,000 and resigned from WP and as an MP, and Singh was charged with rare offences of lying in parliament.

Broadly, Singh's case so far is that he never told Ms Khan to maintain her lie, but Ms Khan and Ms Loh, her close confidante, had testified contrary to this.

THE LIE BY MS LOH​

Just before the trial wrapped up on Thursday evening, Mr Jumabhoy questioned Ms Loh about a document she had prepared to present to the COP.

The document contained messages from a group chat she shared with Ms Khan and Mr Nathan, who was a member of WP's media team and fellow cadre member. Aside from party leaders, only Ms Loh and Mr Nathan knew about the fact that the rape story was a lie at that point.

Ms Loh had stated that she redacted a certain message because it was related to another MP.

"That's a bare-faced lie, isn't it," said Mr Jumabhoy.

Ms Loh paused, dropped her head from side to side, and answered: "Sure."


"In the COP, you submitted a document and deliberately edited it, didn't you?" asked Mr Jumabhoy.

Ms Loh repeatedly tried asking to be allowed to clarify, but no permission was given.

"Answer my question," said Mr Jumabhoy. "You submitted a document and deliberately hid this comment. And you hid it on the basis that it was about something else."

"I hid it, yes," said Ms Loh. "I hid it because at this point I understood Mr Nathan felt bad about having made the suggestion."

"You hid it on the basis that it was about something else. That's a lie," said Mr Jumabhoy.

"Yes," admitted Ms Loh.

"It's clearly not about coming clean at this stage," said the lawyer. "Mr Nathan is suggesting that - we should just lie about it some more, correct?"

"That is his suggestion yes," said Ms Loh.


"And you felt confident enough in probably the most formal setting most of us will ever encounter to put forward a false version of what he's actually saying?" asked Mr Jumabhoy.

Ms Loh then said she did not hide the message to preserve the integrity of Ms Khan, Mr Nathan or herself.

"I was worried these documents would become public and I didn't want him to be attacked for it, but the entire conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff and Ms Rahayu Mahzam who sat beside me and verified every message before it was redacted on my phone, they agreed it should be redacted," she said.

Ms Loh said she had spent three hours going through WhatsApp messages with Ms Rahayu and another parliamentary staff member, before Ms Loh went home and prepared the document containing the messages for the COP.

Mr Jumabhoy then questioned if Ms Rahayu knew what she was redacting, and agreed to the redaction.

"No, this redaction is mine, but my position is that she would have seen (the message)," said Ms Loh.

Ms Loh agreed that the redaction was to hide information, but refused to agree that it was to preserve the integrity of Mr Nathan, Ms Khan, or herself.

"Mr Nathan felt very guilty that he had made this message and he had said this, and we had discussed this before ... I didn't want this to come to light, that would make him appear poorly, because he did eventually change his mind, and it didn't really, materially materialise, this wasn't something that (we) acted on," said Ms Loh.

Earlier, Mr Jumabhoy questioned Ms Loh on a message she had sent suggesting that Ms Khan gather more anecdotes from sexual assault survivors to present that instead. This was when they already knew a police investigation into Ms Khan's lie was likely.

Mr Jumabhoy asked Ms Loh why she was telling Ms Khan to "hide behind another anecdote that isn't hers".

Ms Loh objected, saying she was not asking Ms Khan to "hide behind anything", but instead was "brainstorming solutions to the scenario".

"And is the solution to the scenario to obstruct an investigation? Is that your solution?" asked Mr Jumabhoy.

"No," replied Ms Loh.

"Is the solution to ... pervert the course of justice?" Mr Jumabhoy continued.

"No," Ms Loh answered.

When allowed by the judge to clarify her answers, Ms Loh said: "We are friends. This (chat) is a private channel. I'm suggesting options ... if she doesn't want to tell the truth, there's a grey area to operate in that could be a little uncomfortable but could possibly work. She could avoid lying again, but still address the point she raised in parliament, which is that (some) sexual assault victims have unpleasant experiences in police investigations."

JUMABHOY QUESTIONS LOH ABOUT FINDING OUT ABOUT KHAN'S LIE

Earlier on Thursday, Mr Jumabhoy asked Ms Loh about the first time she found out about Ms Khan's lie, which was during a Zoom video call on the night of Aug 7, 2021. Mr Nathan was part of this call.

Ms Loh described talking about the history of the party, as she and Mr Nathan had been involved in a WP anniversary book.

"(We gave) her a bit more grounding and context and sort of how this would play out and (the) perception that people would have. (Ms Khan) had been labouring under (a) perception, even before this meeting, that she would be (particularly) antagonised by the government," said Ms Loh.

Ms Loh had wanted to tell Ms Khan that opposition politicians being questioned by the government was "par for course for politics" and that they had to be "always on our guard".

"Ms Khan was under the impression that she had been extra antagonised, (under) extra scrutiny and that she just had been treated unfairly in general in her entire experience as a politician," said Ms Loh.

"I was trying to help her understand that what she was going through was almost mild in comparison to some other individuals in WP history, some of whom have been exiled from the country."
Asked if she had advised Ms Khan to correct her lie, Ms Loh said that was not her role or responsibility.

"In that call, I was a friend or confidante, taking a course of correcting something like this in parliament requires significant thinking and planning and that needed advice ... For lack of a better phrase, it's above my pay grade," Ms Loh testified.

MEMORY ON CONVERSATION WITH SINGH "FUZZY"​

Mr Jumabhoy also questioned Ms Loh on her meeting with Singh at the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council on Aug 10, 2021.

Ms Loh said that she had met Singh in person and spoken to him for about 10 minutes before Mr Nathan joined them.

Testifying that her memory of the event was "fuzzy" Ms Loh said that she spoke about Ms Khan's future performance as an MP, and about how traumatised sexual assault victims could react.

"The exact exchange is fuzzy for several reasons because we avoided talking about it explicitly, it was relatively fleeting, a relatively quick exchange. I did quite a bit of the talking," said Ms Loh who recalled that Singh had, at some points, been nodding to what she said.

She recalled telling Singh that it was "important" to affirm Ms Khan's experience and give her the "benefit of the doubt".

Mr Jumabhoy then asked what Singh had been nodding about, and Ms Loh stressed again that her memory was fuzzy.

"I recall asking Mr Singh if he thought the matter would come up (in parliament) and he nodded."

After a further exchange on this point, Principal Deputy District Judge Luke Tan intervened to ask what point Singh nodded to.

Ms Loh said that she could not recall the exact question and words, but that it was related to whether Singh thought the issue would come up in parliament.

Almost immediately however, Ms Loh clarified to the court that Singh had shaken his head, not nodded.


Noting the change in testimony, Mr Jumabhoy asked if Singh had in fact nodded or shook his head.

"My memory is fuzzy that's the best I can answer," said Ms Loh.

Mr Jumabhoy ended his cross-examination for the day after the bombshell exposure of her lie. The trial will resume on Friday morning with Ms Loh on the stand.

----------------------
 
Last edited:
Yep, she is a farking landmine which Pritam naively stepped on, perhaps lured by her privileged background and atas way of speaking with a laid-back Aussie accent, LOL.

From the moment I first heard her opening her mouth in parliament, one can sense something is amiss about this lady already. Her replies or explanation are always vague, evasive and deceptive to suit her hidden agenda or to cover up her lies and mistakes.

This PCB evil lady is a jinx to any organization and should count herself lucky to be in Singapore.

If she is caught in her ancestral motherland in Pakistan with all her deceptive ways exposed, she would have been stoned to death in public, LOL.
PS had no work experience prior to becoming an MP.

Still remember Opinion Asia ? I was surprised MIWs didn't tear him down the first time when he stood for election.
 
Mr Jumabhoy is a good & well known lawyer.

Currently, his tactic is only common - to destroy the CREDIBILITY of the Prosecution witness, by proving that they are liars & should NOT be used as witnesses to any event in a Court of Law.

Unfortunately for him, our Judiciary members are of far profound knowledge in legal matters. While the prosecution witnesses are indeed liars, but they had ALREADY CONFESSED, & in the end, will have to face prosecution later for what they had done, if not already done so, as NONE is above the Rule of Law, those witnesses DO know what is in store for them, more so the harm that they had done to innocent officers whom had been grilled & even faced with possibility of suspension by authorities investigating, as an ELECTED MP words are never taken lightly, on what eventually turned out to be a confessed lie, unnecessary hours & resources spent & wasted, & thus what they said under oath is credible, more so BACKED UP WITH text evidences...

On a personal level, the insignificant nobody me would prefer to have a few more capable opposition figures in our Democracy & Parliament, for checks & balances, to stop complacency & hubris, BUT they MUST have the highest standing of Leadership principles, or else it would only degrade our Democracy when political figures enter Parliament only to uplift themselves but not the lives of citizens.....

Truth is one of them, as truth stand on its own pedestal & will never be shaken.

It is only comprehensible of what the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament had done. Getting elected is no mean feat in Singapore, & thus he will do what it takes to keep the opposition in Parliament, but in the end, voters will have search within their hearts - is such a principle to uplift lives of citizens or only themselves? If lying is a way of life, then what holds for the future for Singapore?
 
Last edited:
Yep, she is a farking landmine which Pritam naively stepped on, perhaps lured by her privileged background and atas way of speaking with a laid-back Aussie accent, LOL.

From the moment I first heard her opening her mouth in parliament, one can sense something is amiss about this lady already. Her replies or explanation are always vague, evasive and deceptive to suit her hidden agenda or to cover up her lies and mistakes.

This PCB evil lady is a jinx to any organization and should count herself lucky to be in Singapore.

If she is caught in her ancestral motherland in Pakistan with all her deceptive ways exposed, she would have been stoned to death in public, LOL.
Even at this hearing she's constantly playing the victim card. Talking about "feeling betrayed", being the youngest MP, mental health issues and all that same old shit.
 
Even at this hearing she's constantly playing the victim card. Talking about "feeling betrayed", being the youngest MP, mental health issues and all that same old shit.
Good to Fix a Problem
 
Back
Top