‘Operating brain’ Pritam to be referred to the Public Prosecutor; actions against Sylvia Lim to be deferred.

Singh, COP, committee, Faisal, Khan, consider, evidence, Lim, read, answer, criminal, meeting

The Committee of Privileges (COP) is satisfied that Mr Singh – and to a lesser extent, Mr Faisal and Ms Sylvia Lim – have been untruthful in their evidence, under oath, to the COP.  This may amount to which is a serious criminal offence.

The COP considered it little purpose in sending the 3 senior leaders to another Committee of Privileges for reason that another Committee of Privileges is unlikely to make much in uncovering more evidence.

Of the 3 leaders, Mr Faisal and Ms Lim appeared to have played a subsidiary role in the matter. Both of them attended the 8 Aug meeting and they agreed to Mr Singh’s advice that the Untruth should be buried and that Ms Khan will not have to tell the truth.

Mr Singh appears to have played the key and leading role in guiding Ms Khan. He is described as the operating brain, the key orchestrator of the circumstances which led to the 4 Oct Untruth. He was the only leader who guided Ms Khan on what to do on 4 Oct, in Parliament.

Mr Singh

For his role in the saga, the COP recommends that Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor. Given the seriousness of the matter, the COP considered it better to be dealt with through a trial process rather than by alone.

The Public Prosecutor will have the opportunity to consider all the evidence afresh, and to also consider any evidence that may emerge subsequently (that has not been presented to the COP) before deciding whether criminal charges should be brought against Mr Singh.

Mr Singh will have the full opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel, if criminal charges are brought against him. A court can look at the matter afresh, and consider any further evidence that may emerge, and decide whether any charge(s) have been proven, or not proven, beyond reasonable doubt.

Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap

Both of them lied about the 8 Aug meeting. However, compared to Mr Singh, they played a subsidiary role.

The COP recommends that defer actions against them until Mr Singh’s position has been clarified by the Public Prosecutor, and the completion of criminal proceedings, if any.

In addition, the COP also recommends that Mr Faisal be referred to the Public Prosecutor not for lying but for further investigations into his refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee, and consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.

Mr Faisal had testified that 2 days prior to his giving evidence to the COP, he had met with Mr Singh and Ms Lim on 7 and 8 Dec for about 2 to 3 hours on each day.

However, when asked about these meetings, and the material which Mr Singh and Ms Lim brought along to the meetings, Mr Faisal informed the Committee four times, that he would not answer the question. He refused to answer, despite being reminded that he had been called before the Committee to assist with its investigations, which the documents may shed light on.

The COP said Mr Faisal’s refusal to answer suggests that he wanted to hide the truth – he did not want the Committee to know what the documents were or what Mr Singh, Ms Lim and he were discussing, just the day before the start of the COP proceedings.

His refusal to answer questions may amount to contempt of Parliament.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
On Key

Related Posts