Workers' Party Chief Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition (LO)

[Tianmo]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:20 PM, Rskc said:

Well said. All I can say is inept, incompetent, weak leadership. I would even rank WP now lower than PSP in term of leadership. Maybe LTK should come out of retirement. 😄

I don't think it's fair to say WP is rank lower than PSP in term of leadership. 

The current position of PSP and their leaders are no way near WP. The chain of command in WP is more stable than PSP. With an aging TCB and 2 hopeless empty canons firing blanks in parliament, with no clear younger capable leadership in the chain of command, PSP can disappear anytime.

 

[Wind30]

On 10/17/2024 at 7:23 PM, Tianmo said:

You like time line, so let just talk a little basic time line.

Aug 3, RK lied. Same day Desmond Tan ( minister of state for home affairs) asked for details, she denied. 

Aug 7, RK told PS she actually lied. 

Oct 4, Shanmugan ( minister of law and home affairs) pressed RK 4 times for details, and she denied. Shanmugan then wrapped up his questions by telling Raeesah that the matter is far from over.

Nov 1, RK confessed that she lied. 

This is the most basic time line. 

Firstly, how often have you come across a case where the PAP gov walks away quietly from any allegation without a challenge? 

The minister of state for home affairs, took action on the same day, and he used the term "serious" allegation. Which part would give you an idea that they were going to let it rest?

PS knew of the lie 4 days later, do you think he thinks MOH will just let it go, after Desmond left without any detail? 

When shanmugan came for RK, do you think PS believed that Shan will stop without tasting blood? 

Whatever happened in between is not important anymore. He knew the lied but allowed her to continue it with Shanmugan in Oct. He did not stand up for her, non did he took a firm stand and chop her off. 

PS is the chief of WP, and the Leader of Opposition, not any rookie politician.

I think of 4 multiple choice. 

a) PS knew the danger, but soft hearted and wants to save RK?

B) PS wanted to take the opportunity to remove RK from WP?

C) PS did not sense the danger and thinks he can sweep everything under the carpet and pretend it didn't happen?

D) PS weak, ,don't know how and cannot handle the event?

 

 

 

.... I think you have to really follow the events to try to deduce what Pritam is trying to do at various timeline. Also the assumption is that Pritam is fairly intelligent and rational and will not do things that are OBVIOUSLY stupid. 

On aug 7, My guess is Pritam hopes that he can delay any announcement until the next parliamentary meeting. Partly because RK said she had not told her family about it. That was Pritam official reason that he gave. 

The main problem is the Oct 3 meeting between RK and Pritam. This is where RK's word vs Pritam's word. Since they held a meeting ONE day before the parliamentary meeting, all of us can assume, Pritam is worried that PAP will press the issue. He is not stupid so the meeting is to plan for what happens when PAP ask about this issue.

There is just two versions of the story

1) RK's version where she said Pritam told her to take it to the grave

2) Pritam's version where he told RK to take "ownership and responsibility" of the matter.

I think all of us MCFers are highly intelligent and handsome. Even if we disregard RK's history of lies, if you are in Pritam's shoes, what would you advise RK on Oct 3??? What is the more logical scenario??? Why would you ask RK's to take it to the grave in the event that PAP decides to pursue the issue??? There is just nothing to gain for Pritam to act in such a way, and everything to lose. you can't assume Pritam is an idiot that thinks RK can take it to the grave when PAP presses the issue. I thought RK's version is not something even remotely believable.

If anything, maybe Pritam told RK to take it to the grave IF PAP does not press the issue the next day. That I can believe. RK probably left out the IF part.

To me, the most likely scenario is RK chicken out during Oct 4... and lied again.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Wind30

[Wind30]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:20 PM, Rskc said:

Well said. All I can say is inept, incompetent, weak leadership. I would even rank WP now lower than PSP in term of leadership. Maybe LTK should come out of retirement. 😄

... I think most people are competent... except maybe RK... 

[Wind30]

On 10/17/2024 at 2:25 PM, Lala81 said:

I just read the CNA article on what LPY said this morning.
LPY's is my wife's casual friend. I don't know her at all.

But I would just say that for someone to volunteer at the Party for 10 years out of her own time/will. Then suddenly be disappointed in the leader of the Party's handling of the situation to such a degree that she quits, just says a lot lor. 

Whether RK was lying about what PS said in their private meeting, no one knows. The not forcing RK to admit her lie is just slap forehead moment. Saying words in ambiguous terms. Everything is wishy washy. 
I just feel that PS and Sylvia Lim have fumbled the good pass that LTK passed to them. I don't have any faith in the current WP. As simple as that. 

Would this debacle in terms of handling the fallout of RK's lie have happened if LTK was in charge. The answer is just no...

 

I hope your wife don't treat LPY as a close friend.... I think she is not that far from RK... If you looked at what Loh said, Nathan suggested not giving details to the COI which Pritam shot it down and ask them to be transparent. That says a lot about Pritam, especially coming from the Prosecution witness. I still think the Trial will give good publicity to WP, because ownself praise ownself is super unconvincing but when the prosecution witness start to say good things about Pritam...

 

-----------------------------------

Loh Pei Ying redacted Yudhishthra Nathan’s message as she didn’t want him to appear poorly, she says

Mr Andre Jumabhoy presses Ms Loh Pei Ying on the reason she chose to redact the message sent by Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.

“It was to hide information, wasn’t it?” asks Mr Jumabhoy. “To hide information on the issue Parliament was deciding? To preserve Yudhishthra Nathan’s integrity? To preserve your integrity and to preserve Raeesah Khan’s integrity?”

“I wouldn’t say that,” says Ms Loh repeatedly.

Judge Luke Tan asks: “Then what would you say?”

Ms Loh explains that Mr Nathan had felt guilty about what he suggested in the message. “I didn't want this to come to light that would make him appear poorly because he did eventually change his mind.”

Mr Nathan had brought up the message during the meeting with Pritam Singh and Ms Loh on Oct 12, 2021, she says.

The Workers’ Party chief had said Mr Nathan’s suggestion – to “not give too many details” – was not a good one, adds Ms Loh.

Ms Loh says she eventually assessed that the message “was not material to investigations” when she was submitting evidence to the Committee of Privileges, and thus redacted it. 

The former WP cadres had come clean to the police about the message during police investigations, she says.

Mr Jumabhoy says: “Pritam Singh shot (Yudhishthra Nathan’s suggestion) down, right? He shot it down?”

Ms Loh replies: “Yes, he did shoot it down.”

----------------------------------------------

Loh Pei Ying wanted to find other victim stories to support Raeesah’s anecdote

Mr Andre Jumabhoy references an exchange between Ms Loh Pei Ying and Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 7, 2021, three days after Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugan pressed Ms Khan about her anecdote in Parliament.

Mr Jumabhoy reads a message by Ms Loh to Ms Khan: “You might want to gather some cases of people who are willing to tell their stories to you and present that instead.”

The defence lawyer suggests that Ms Loh had asked Ms Khan to cover her lie with other stories, and “obstruct an investigation”. 

Ms Loh replies that she was trying to help Ms Khan prove her point – that sexual assault victims suffer victim-blaming – by finding other stories that fit the bill.

This was a “grey area to operate”, and would allow Ms Khan to “avoid lying again but still address her original point in Parliament”, says Ms Loh.

Mr Jumabhoy asks Ms Loh to clarify what “grey area” means.

Ms Loh replies: “The grey area between not lying any more but still supporting police investigations.”

Judge asks: “Police investigations into what, by using these other analogies?”

Ms Loh says: “Supporting police investigations into the fact that police can make sexual assault victims uncomfortable.”

Judge asks: “So not the police investigations into her anecdotes?”

Ms Loh: “That’s right.”

https://www.straitstimes.com/live-singapore-wp-pritam-singh-trial

Edited October 17, 2024 by Wind30

[Sosaria]

On 10/17/2024 at 11:37 PM, Wind30 said:

I hope your wife don't treat LPY as a close friend.... I think she is not that far from RK... If you looked at what Loh said, Nathan suggested not giving details to the COI which Pritam shot it down and ask them to be transparent. That says a lot about Pritam, especially coming from the Prosecution witness. I still think the Trial will give good publicity to WP, because ownself praise ownself is super unconvincing but when the prosecution witness start to say good things about Pritam...

 

-----------------------------------

Loh Pei Ying redacted Yudhishthra Nathan’s message as she didn’t want him to appear poorly, she says

Mr Andre Jumabhoy presses Ms Loh Pei Ying on the reason she chose to redact the message sent by Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.

“It was to hide information, wasn’t it?” asks Mr Jumabhoy. “To hide information on the issue Parliament was deciding? To preserve Yudhishthra Nathan’s integrity? To preserve your integrity and to preserve Raeesah Khan’s integrity?”

“I wouldn’t say that,” says Ms Loh repeatedly.

Judge Luke Tan asks: “Then what would you say?”

Ms Loh explains that Mr Nathan had felt guilty about what he suggested in the message. “I didn't want this to come to light that would make him appear poorly because he did eventually change his mind.”

Mr Nathan had brought up the message during the meeting with Pritam Singh and Ms Loh on Oct 12, 2021, she says.

The Workers’ Party chief had said Mr Nathan’s suggestion – to “not give too many details” – was not a good one, adds Ms Loh.

Ms Loh says she eventually assessed that the message “was not material to investigations” when she was submitting evidence to the Committee of Privileges, and thus redacted it. 

The former WP cadres had come clean to the police about the message during police investigations, she says.

Mr Jumabhoy says: “Pritam Singh shot (Yudhishthra Nathan’s suggestion) down, right? He shot it down?”

Ms Loh replies: “Yes, he did shoot it down.”

----------------------------------------------

Loh Pei Ying wanted to find other victim stories to support Raeesah’s anecdote

Mr Andre Jumabhoy references an exchange between Ms Loh Pei Ying and Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 7, 2021, three days after Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugan pressed Ms Khan about her anecdote in Parliament.

Mr Jumabhoy reads a message by Ms Loh to Ms Khan: “You might want to gather some cases of people who are willing to tell their stories to you and present that instead.”

The defence lawyer suggests that Ms Loh had asked Ms Khan to cover her lie with other stories, and “obstruct an investigation”. 

Ms Loh replies that she was trying to help Ms Khan prove her point – that sexual assault victims suffer victim-blaming – by finding other stories that fit the bill.

This was a “grey area to operate”, and would allow Ms Khan to “avoid lying again but still address her original point in Parliament”, says Ms Loh.

Mr Jumabhoy asks Ms Loh to clarify what “grey area” means.

Ms Loh replies: “The grey area between not lying any more but still supporting police investigations.”

Judge asks: “Police investigations into what, by using these other analogies?”

Ms Loh says: “Supporting police investigations into the fact that police can make sexual assault victims uncomfortable.”

Judge asks: “So not the police investigations into her anecdotes?”

Ms Loh: “That’s right.”

https://www.straitstimes.com/live-singapore-wp-pritam-singh-trial

LPY caught in a lie, looks like prosecution case is sinking. RK and LPY really sabo everywhere they go

Prosecution thought could rely on them, also got sabo-ed.

[noobcarbuyer]

The part in bold is the most interesting.  Wasn't MP Rahayu Mahzam a member of the Committee of Privileges? She's a PAP MP from Jurong GRC if I am not mistaken.

 

https://mothership.sg/2024/10/loh-pei-ying-admits-lie-redact-messages/

When asked if she deliberately hid Nathan's message when submitting the document to the COP, Loh requested to clarify, but Jumabhoy pressed on.

Loh then admitted that she had hidden the message.

"You hid [the message] on the basis that it was about something else," Jumabhoy pointed out, to which Loh said, "Yes".

"That's a lie," said Jumabhoy, and Loh said "yes" again.

As the questioning continued, Jumabhoy stated that Loh's action was clear by redacting the message, as the message "doesn't look good" for Nathan.

Loh agreed.

"And that doesn't look great on your group," Jumabhoy added.

"That doesn't look good on him," she clarified.

Loh added that she was worried the documents would become public and that Nathan would be attacked for his comment; thus, she redacted the message.

Loh then shared that she had redacted the message after sitting down with senior parliamentary staff and MP Rahayu Mahzam — a member of the COP — for three hours to review all her text messages. They reviewed all her messages "that were relevant to the COP" and agreed on what could and could not be redacted.

When questioned by Jumabhoy if Rahayu knew that Loh was redacting that particular message, Loh replied:

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

Edited October 17, 2024 by noobcarbuyer

[noobcarbuyer]

From CNA 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pritam-singh-trial-raeesah-khan-loh-pei-ying-admits-lied-jumabhoy-defence-grilling-4684846
 

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.

One of the messages in the group chat, sent by Mr Nathan on Oct 12, 2021, stated: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts abt her age accurate.” 
 
Ms Loh had stated that she redacted this 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.

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by noobcarbuyer

[Ender]

On 10/17/2024 at 11:54 PM, Sosaria said:

LPY caught in a lie, looks like prosecution case is sinking. RK and LPY really sabo everywhere they go

Prosecution thought could rely on them, also got sabo-ed.

I believe the COP relied heavily on the testimonies of these three liars to make their case against PS. So now all three have their testimonies poked holes liao, does the prosecution has other bullets other than these three liars? And how did the COI panel missed out these as they are the one that tally every statements, be it whatapps , emails or SMS, and present it to prosecution.

[inlinesix]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:11 AM, noobcarbuyer said:

The part in bold is the most interesting.  Wasn't MP Rahayu Mahzam a member of the Committee of Privileges? She's a PAP MP from Jurong GRC if I am not mistaken.

 

https://mothership.sg/2024/10/loh-pei-ying-admits-lie-redact-messages/

When asked if she deliberately hid Nathan's message when submitting the document to the COP, Loh requested to clarify, but Jumabhoy pressed on.

Loh then admitted that she had hidden the message.

"You hid [the message] on the basis that it was about something else," Jumabhoy pointed out, to which Loh said, "Yes".

"That's a lie," said Jumabhoy, and Loh said "yes" again.

As the questioning continued, Jumabhoy stated that Loh's action was clear by redacting the message, as the message "doesn't look good" for Nathan.

Loh agreed.

"And that doesn't look great on your group," Jumabhoy added.

"That doesn't look good on him," she clarified.

Loh added that she was worried the documents would become public and that Nathan would be attacked for his comment; thus, she redacted the message.

Loh then shared that she had redacted the message after sitting down with senior parliamentary staff and MP Rahayu Mahzam — a member of the COP — for three hours to review all her text messages. They reviewed all her messages "that were relevant to the COP" and agreed on what could and could not be redacted.

When questioned by Jumabhoy if Rahayu knew that Loh was redacting that particular message, Loh replied:

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

On 10/18/2024 at 12:19 AM, noobcarbuyer said:

From CNA 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pritam-singh-trial-raeesah-khan-loh-pei-ying-admits-lied-jumabhoy-defence-grilling-4684846
 

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.

One of the messages in the group chat, sent by Mr Nathan on Oct 12, 2021, stated: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts abt her age accurate.” 
 
Ms Loh had stated that she redacted this 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.

 

Read this headline

Quote

Loh Pei Ying redacted Yudhishthra Nathan’s message as she didn’t want him to appear poorly, she says

Mr Andre Jumabhoy presses Ms Loh Pei Ying on the reason she chose to redact the message sent by Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.

“It was to hide information, wasn’t it?” asks Mr Jumabhoy. “To hide information on the issue Parliament was deciding? To preserve Yudhishthra Nathan’s integrity? To preserve your integrity and to preserve Raeesah Khan’s integrity?”

“I wouldn’t say that,” says Ms Loh repeatedly.

Judge Luke Tan asks: “Then what would you say?”

Ms Loh explains that Mr Nathan had felt guilty about what he suggested in the message. “I didn't want this to come to light that would make him appear poorly because he did eventually change his mind.”

Mr Nathan had brought up the message during the meeting with Pritam Singh and Ms Loh on Oct 12, 2021, she says.

The Workers’ Party chief had said Mr Nathan’s suggestion – to “not give too many details” – was not a good one, adds Ms Loh.

Ms Loh says she eventually assessed that the message “was not material to investigations” when she was submitting evidence to the Committee of Privileges, and thus redacted it.

The former WP cadres had come clean to the police about the message during police investigations, she says.

Mr Jumabhoy says: “Pritam Singh shot (Yudhishthra Nathan’s suggestion) down, right? He shot it down?”

Ms Loh replies: “Yes, he did shoot it down.”

 

[inlinesix]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:20 PM, Rskc said:

Well said. All I can say is inept, incompetent, weak leadership. I would even rank WP now lower than PSP in term of leadership. Maybe LTK should come out of retirement. 😄

PSP is a different league la.

1 Single Parliamentary term change 4 Party Secretary🤭

[Tkseah]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:11 AM, noobcarbuyer said:

The part in bold is the most interesting.  Wasn't MP Rahayu Mahzam a member of the Committee of Privileges? She's a PAP MP from Jurong GRC if I am not mistaken.

 

https://mothership.sg/2024/10/loh-pei-ying-admits-lie-redact-messages/

When asked if she deliberately hid Nathan's message when submitting the document to the COP, Loh requested to clarify, but Jumabhoy pressed on.

Loh then admitted that she had hidden the message.

"You hid [the message] on the basis that it was about something else," Jumabhoy pointed out, to which Loh said, "Yes".

"That's a lie," said Jumabhoy, and Loh said "yes" again.

As the questioning continued, Jumabhoy stated that Loh's action was clear by redacting the message, as the message "doesn't look good" for Nathan.

Loh agreed.

"And that doesn't look great on your group," Jumabhoy added.

"That doesn't look good on him," she clarified.

Loh added that she was worried the documents would become public and that Nathan would be attacked for his comment; thus, she redacted the message.

Loh then shared that she had redacted the message after sitting down with senior parliamentary staff and MP Rahayu Mahzam — a member of the COP — for three hours to review all her text messages. They reviewed all her messages "that were relevant to the COP" and agreed on what could and could not be redacted.

When questioned by Jumabhoy if Rahayu knew that Loh was redacting that particular message, Loh replied:

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

Defence should call Rahayu Mahzam to the stand to understand the dedaction.. now COP just looks like it is selectively looking for evidence to find fault with PS.. 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Tkseah

[inlinesix]

On 10/17/2024 at 11:54 PM, Sosaria said:

LPY caught in a lie, looks like prosecution case is sinking. RK and LPY really sabo everywhere they go

Prosecution thought could rely on them, also got sabo-ed.

Looks like your comment is based on that 2 snippets.

RK is different league. Reading through testimony is like puke blood.

LPY was firm with her testimony the entire day. This 2 snippet came out just court adjourned.

Defense will continue to cross examine her today.

https://www.straitstimes.com/live-singapore-wp-pritam-singh-trial

[Wind30]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:14 AM, inlinesix said:

Looks like your comment is based on that 2 snippets.

RK is different league. Reading through testimony is like puke blood.

LPY was firm with her testimony the entire day. This 2 snippet came out just court adjourned.

Defense will continue to cross examine her today.

https://www.straitstimes.com/live-singapore-wp-pritam-singh-trial

She is quite the scheming kind, no? Asking rk to find “other” rape victims to cover up her lie??? That is not something I would do…. I would not even have considered such a path, not to say suggest it to someone I am trying to help. 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Wind30

[Tianmo]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:23 AM, Wind30 said:

She is quite the scheming kind, no? Asking rk to find “other” rape victims to cover up her lie??? That is not something I would do…. I would not even have considered such a path, not to say suggest it to someone I am trying to help. 

So what would you have done to help?

 

[Rskc]

On 10/18/2024 at 5:58 AM, inlinesix said:

PSP is a different league la.

1 Single Parliamentary term change 4 Party Secretary🤭

Haha. I know what you mean for this angle.

I just expect a lot more from an official leader of opposition. If he is just an MP, maybe ok.

[inlinesix]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:04 AM, Rskc said:

Haha. I know what you mean for this angle.

I just expect a lot more from an official leader of opposition. If he is just an MP, maybe ok.

I said previously that PS is disappointing Oppo Leader despite having an office.

A message should be sent that he needs to buck up.

[inlinesix]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:23 AM, Wind30 said:

She is quite the scheming kind, no? Asking rk to find “other” rape victims to cover up her lie??? That is not something I would do…. I would not even have considered such a path, not to say suggest it to someone I am trying to help. 

She was very clear with her reply to judge.

Scheming maybe.

[Tkseah]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:04 AM, Rskc said:

Haha. I know what you mean for this angle.

I just expect a lot more from an official leader of opposition. If he is just an MP, maybe ok.

Sure PS would have been more firm and decisive in his response.. and I hope he will survive this episode and improve on leading WP.. Pap leaders on the other hand have gotten away with much worse decisions without repercussions.. such is politics..