Goody Feed Team, Author at Goody Feed

The first tranche of the Pritam Singh trial, which lasted for nine days has concluded on 24 October, with the second tranche set to begin on 5 November. If you’ve forgotten what happened, fret not; here’s a recap of the nine-day trial, so you can watch the new tranche without wondering what lao hong is, or why people were talking about some redacted message. If you prefer to watch a video instead, here’s a 7-minute recap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?vvrxTvsOcJS0&listPLoa9nNa48ZVVgUOs4vYirCdsJQpkbUe51 Prefer to read? Here goes. The first nine days of the trial saw the prosecution bringing in their witnesses. They intended to call five witnesses: Raeesah Khan, Loh Pei Ying, Yudhishtra Nathan, Low Thia Kiang, and a police officer who conducted the investigation. Eventually, only four took the stand. Raeesah Khan's Testimony Not many new details were revealed during Ms Khan's testimony. She continued with what she had mentioned in the Committee of Privileges (COP), and the defense lawyer cross-examined her, claiming that she is a liar in general. Ms Khan had to admit to this, considering her repeated lies in Parliament. The defense sought to impeach Ms. Khan as a witness, which would mean that her court testimony wouldn't be considered. They accused her of being inconsistent, particularly regarding an email sent by Pritam Singh to all sitting Workers' Party (WP) MPs on 1 Oct 2021, reminding them about parliamentary protocol and the importance of backing up what an MP says in Parliament. In a police statement, Ms Khan had said she felt "fear" after receiving the email, worried that her untruth would be brought up again in Parliament. However, during the trial, she said she felt the email was almost a dig at her or sent because Singh wanted to "placate the other MPs in whatever frustrations they had against me." The defense made another impeachment application, also accusing her of inconsistency. It’s still unknown if she would be impeached. Loh Pei Ying’s Testimony Loh Pei Ying, who appeared alongside Nathan in the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing, was the next to take the stand. While her testimony was mostly similar to what was mentioned in the COP, it was revealed that she had redacted a message in a group chat that might be relevant to the case. The message, sent by Nathan, read: "In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts (about) her age accurate." This implies that Nathan suggested letting the lie continue. However, during the COP, Ms Loh claimed that the redacted message was related to another MP, but during the trial, she admitted to lying and confirmed that it was indeed about Ms Khan. Ms Loh also deleted many messages after the COP, raising questions about the alignment of evidence between her and Nathan. During the trial, Ms Loh was questioned about her use of the term "lao hong" to describe Ms Khan during the Workers' Party (WP) disciplinary panel in November 2021. "Lao hong" typically refers to food that has gone stale and lost its freshness, like a biscuit that is no longer crispy. Ms Loh explained that she used the term because Ms Khan was quite susceptible to criticism, sparking a debate between her and the defense lawyer about the definition of "lao hong." Yudhishtra Nathan's Testimony When Yudhishtra Nathan took the stand, not many new details were revealed, as most had already come to light during Loh Pei Ying's testimony. Nathan confirmed that he had redacted the message partially to show himself in a good light, aligning with what Ms Loh had said. Low Thia Kiang's Brief Testimony The former WP chief, Low Thia Kiang made, a surprise appearance in court, but his time on the stand was brief, lasting only 45 minutes. He suggested that Ms Khan apologize and clarify the lie in Parliament, as that was where the untruth was originally told. The defense only asked Low one question: "Mr Low, do you agree that a lie that's been told on record in parliament would have to be clarified in parliament?" The Police Officer’s Non-Appearance Police investigation officer Roy Lim did not take the stand, as both the prosecution and the defense agreed on the facts, rendering his testimony unnecessary. What's Next? The trial's next phase will assess if the prosecution has established a prima facie case against Mr Singh. That means the prosecution must show sufficient evidence supporting each element of every charge. Both parties have submitted written arguments, though the defence indicated it would make submissions for only one charge when the trial paused on 24 Oct. If the prosecution's evidence fails to prove all elements of their charges, the court will dismiss the case under a "no case to answer" ruling, leading to Mr Singh's acquittal without defence presentation. A strong prosecution case will result in the trial's continuation, requiring Singh to present his defence. Mr Singh can then choose between testifying under oath or maintaining silence. In other words, the second tranche would be much more exciting.