If WP taking Aljunied GRC, then Sengkang GRC was "A New Hope", this could be when the PAP strikes back. (For background, click on this link.)
The Committee of Privileges (COP) had completed its inquiry and recommended that Raeesah Khan be fined, and two of the WP leaders, Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap be referred to the Public Prosecutor for investigation as to possible perjury and contempt of Parliament. And Parliament has voted to accept the recommendations of the COP.
However, "the report did not recommend any action towards WP chairman Sylvia Lim, in view of her voluntary assistance to the committee."
Sylvia Lim took exception to this characterisation of her and spoke in clarification:
Basically she argued that she did not contradict Pritam's testimony, but had corroborated it (like a good team player).
This was a comment on Facebook:
The problem is all of them are lawyers or law-trained. Lawyers need 50 words to say what you and I say in 5 words or less. They are trained to dissect words and their meaning. "Not black" doesn't mean white. "Not white" doesn't mean black. So faced with the dilemma RK presented them, how should they (or PS) have advised RK? "Tell the Truth" is just 3 words. "You should tell the truth" is just 5 words. Those two sentences were never uttered by PS (or at least never recorded in Sylvia Lim's notes, nor testified by RK). Instead we have a phrase: "I will not judge you". Why would RK need this "assurance" or why would she be assured by this disclaimer? If the advice she was given is "tell the truth", and PS's "it's up to you" does not give her the choice (as Sylvia, also a lawyer/law-trained has taken great pains to interpret in the video), why does PS need to assure RK that he "will not judge" her? Judge her for what? For telling the truth? For following his direct instruction (which is not evident in anyone's testimony)? "I will not judge you" is an assurance given to someone to whom you have given morally ambiguous advice, and a choice as to whether to choose the moral or "not moral" option.
BUT... don't worry WP fans. Nothing will come of this. Nothing significant anyway.
Parliament will refer this to the Public Prosecutor for investigation and action. To see if PS should be charged with perjury. I am reasonably sure that after a year-long "investigation", the Public Prosecutor will inform Parliament that in their assessment, the case against PS (and Faisal) cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, it would be a waste of public resources to proceed to a formal charge. Perjury is hard to proof when it relates to the meaning of words. "Cannot lie right?" can be interpreted (by a lawyer) as the same as "tell the truth", just as "not white" can be argued to mean "black".
If I were the Public Prosecutor (with all MY attendant faults and limitations), I would respond to Parliament, after reviewing the facts of the case, that I cannot make a case beyond reasonable doubt that Pritam Singh committed perjury. And therefore, it would be my recommendation not to proceed with the charge.
If it were an empirical "truth" like, "were you at this location at this date and time", the truth of the matter can be proven with say a CCTV recording of your presence (or likeness) at the date, time and place, and if you had stated, under oath, that you were NOT present at the date, time, and place then clearly a case for perjury can be made beyond reasonable doubt.
Or you might have an identical twin.
However, in this case, the crux of the matter lies with whether Pritam Singh (PS) had advised Raeesah Khan (RK) to tell the truth. RK has testified that he had advised her to take the truth to the grave.
PS said that he had told her to tell the truth, and Sylvia Lim can be counted on to corroborate his statement (as she has done in the video). Certainly her notes have PS asking, "cannot lie right?" which, any reasonably competent lawyer can argue is equivalent to "please tell the truth".
On purely numerical grounds, it is two to one in defence of PS position.
Of course, RK got a different understanding. "Cannot lie, right?" was subsequently followed by "it's up to you", and "I will not judge you". She concluded that PS wanted her to continue to lie. So she did.
Now if you are sympathetic to WP and/or PS, you would focus on the fact that PS had said, "Cannot lie, right?" and that this is corroborated by Sylvia Lim in her contemporaneous notes of the meeting. PS will depend on this utterance as recorded to maintain that he had advised RK to tell the truth and so his statement to the COP that he had advised RK to tell the truth was in fact the truth. So he had not lied, nor committed perjury.
If you are a cynical bastard (like me), you would look at the whole effect of "cannot lie, right?", "it's up to you", and "I will not judge you" and how this might be understood by RK in the context of the whole conversation. And perhaps consider that this "misunderstanding" was manufactured or intended to allow RK to continue to lie, while not exposing PS's moral ambiguity. Again, in what context would an assurance like "I will not judge you" be made? A reasonable assumption would be if a less than moral option was offered and you are assuring the other that you would not judge her whatever her choice, which may include the choice of the immoral (or amoral) option.
But, you need to be really cynical to entertain this possibility.
Which then brings us to the question of whether the Public Prosecutor would be as cynical, and whether the prosecution can convince a judge to be as cynical.
And regardless of whether the judge can be so convinced, the larger legal question that the judge has to consider is whether it was proven (in the trial) beyond reasonable doubt that PS had committed perjury.
And the simple answer is, it cannot. (At least not in this cynical bastard's assessment.)
PS has a prima facie, nay, a corroborated statement that he had, arguably, asked RK, if rhetorically, that she "cannot lie, right?" And that would provide reasonable proof that he had in fact told (or at least strongly suggested to) RK that she should tell the truth. The cynical interpretation of the overall effect of his other utterances are speculative and conjectural and subject to (biased) interpretation.
Were there other instances where the COP found that he might have lied? I do not know. I thought this was the crux of the question. If the Public Prosecutor has other instances of PS committing perjury, they would also have to prove those beyond reasonable doubt.
Interestingly, the charge that Faisal Manap was in contempt of Parliament may be easier to prove. His refusal to answer is on record, and that is prima facie evidence that he refused to answer the COP's questions and that is tantamount to contempt of Parliament.
TL:DR
You may personally believe RK or PS. It does not matter. The question is what can be proven in court, beyond reasonable doubt. And there is more than reasonable doubt that PS committed perjury.
Politics is such that those who support WP (and PS) will likely continue to support WP.
And those who support PAP will continue to do so.
The AHPETC saga did not stop the WP. Most people don't even know what the issue was, and can't explain what was the wrong-doing. To WP supporters, it was just the PAP trying to "fix" the WP.
Similarly, this incident will also be seen as the PAP trying to "fix" the WP. Nuances and niceties are too subtle for the average voter. The simple soundbite matters more.
PAP may try to take the high road and expound on the integrity and dignity of Parliament and the sanctity of its procedures, but it would matter little to the average voter, and sound like self-serving bloviating by the PAP, even as the average person is concerned with the pandemic (and its attendant issues like Vaccine efficacy, vaccination for children, side effects, pandemic measures), inflation, the impending GST increase, and the carbon tax.
Worse of all, the Public Prosecutor will most likely find that it is a weak case against PS and the WP leadership. And would likely not prefer charges against them. Which will suggest that the PAP's accusation are without merit. Or even if the Public Prosecutor were to proceed with the contempt charges against Faisal Manap, PS would have escaped the legal trap. This would only burnish his image.
I see why the PAP MUST do this. But it would be for nought.
Then there is Raeesah Khan.
On the face of it, there is nothing that needs to be done. She can fade away into obscurity. She will be shunned by opposition parties, tainted by her disloyalty. Unredeemed. Unforgiven. Forgotten.
BUT I think that there is something the PAP can do to redeem and "rehabilitate" her politically. Not to be a PAP MP, but perhaps to be involved in victim's rights or sexual assault victims welfare. She has a passion and a vested interest in that. Work with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment