!chuds they probably deserve it for still running her after this tweet

when she did a fake #MeToo

Literal DEI hire

Kill all commies

Play

SINGAPORE – Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, who is representing Workers' Party (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, sought to paint former WP MP Raeesah Khan as a habitual liar from the moment her cross-examination began on Oct 15.

After more apparent inconsistencies were put to Ms Khan, it became clear that this was part of the defence's bid to impeach Ms Khan's credit as a witness.

Such impeachment can happen if a witness gives testimony that is inconsistent with his or her former statements, according to the Evidence Act.

The attempt sparked a 30-minute debate on the second day of Singh's trial around whether there was really a discrepancy in Ms Khan's testimony. Mr Jumabhoy, a former prosecutor, argued that Ms Khan's statement to the police should be allowed as evidence for purposes of this impeachment process.

Ms Khan had to step out of the courtroom while these arguments were made, but the court was adjourned for the day before the matter was resolved.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan is expected to continue to hear the defence's argument for impeachment on Oct 16, when Singh's trial resumes.

Singh is fighting two charges over his alleged lies to the committee convened to investigate Ms Khan's untruth in Parliament.

Ms Khan had, on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 the same year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.

If convicted, he could be fined up to $7,000, jailed for up to three years, or both, on each charge.

Lies upon lies

The defence's three-hour cross-examination was littered with charged moments.

On one occasion, Mr Andre Jumabhoy confronted Ms Khan with the question: "You are, in fact, a liar, correct? You tell lies non-stop, don't you?"

"Yes, I lied," Ms Khan said in response to the first question. She also asked what Mr Jumabhoy meant by "non-stop".

In another instance, Mr Jumabhoy sought to show that Ms Khan had built upon her original lie with more lies, noting that she had managed to lie at least four times in a message to Singh. "That's pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination," the lawyer said.

The message in question was Ms Khan's response to Singh when he asked, soon after she delivered her untrue anecdote in Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, if she was still in contact with the woman mentioned.

Ms Khan had told Singh then that the incident took place three years earlier in the early part of the year, and that she had met the victim at a bus stop near Bedok police station.

In response to Mr Kumabhoy's statement, Ms Khan said: "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear". He then remarked that she is "seen to be well-thinking enough" to add facts to support her accounts.

Ms Khan then said: "I would think being well-thinking would be coming out with the truth."

The defence also had her reaffirming her other lies to Singh, including that the number of the person who put the victim in touch with her was not working any more, or that she was not in touch with an organisation but rather "someone who came into my friend's radar".

At one point, Mr Jumabhoy asked about the lies she made in text messages, saying: "You're adding more substance, aren't you?", "You're adding more facts to support a lie", and "So it's a lie heaped upon a lie. And it's going to be wrapped up in more lies isn't it?".

Ms Khan agreed to all these statements.

When Mr Jumabhoy asked if that was how she treated someone she revered – a point she had made when questioned by the prosecution – she said she allowed her lies to snowball as she feared disappointing Singh.

She later told the court that she could have continued lying, but chose to admit the lie over a phone call to Singh on Aug 7. The lawyer put it to her that Singh had to ask her "point-blank whether the anecdote was true", and that she had not volunteered the information. She agreed.

Mr Jumabhoy also asked if she had clarified what the WP leaders wanted her to "take to the grave" during the Aug 8, 2021 meeting. That day, she had confessed her lie to Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. She said she did not.

With that, the lawyer put it to her that it was her assumption that the leaders had wanted her to take her lie in Parliament to the grave, and she said: "Yes".

'Substantiate?'

Mr Jumabhoy also sought to discredit Ms Khan based on her testimony before the Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021. During that hearing, she said she did not know what Singh meant when he circled the problematic anecdote on a printed copy of her Aug 3 speech before it was delivered, and wrote "Substantiate?" next to it.

Mr Jumabhoy read out text messages between Singh and Ms Khan on Aug 3, shortly after she delivered the speech containing the lie. In them, Singh said: "I had a feeling this would happen. I highlighted this part in your draft speech. You should write to the police to clarify this matter."

She had told Singh: "I thought I edited it enough to remove this possibility."

If she had edited the statement, why did she say "no" when earlier asked if she made an edit based on Singh's comment, Mr Jumabhoy asked.

At this point, Ms Khan asked the lawyer to repeat or rephrase his questions several times, as he continued to poke at this apparent inconsistency.

After she asked for clarity a third time, Mr Jumabhoy read out her text message again. "That's your message there. You are now telling Mr Singh a lie."

"What was your question again?" Ms Khan asked.

The lawyer repeated his question a fifth time, and Ms Khan answered "no" when asked if she was telling Singh a lie in that instance. This was because she thought she had already edited the speech enough before Singh's feedback, and thus did not make further edits after seeing his comment, she added.

During the COP hearing, Ms Khan had also said: "At that point in time, I did not understand what that meant but, upon reflection, I understand now why he circled it and why he said what he said."

She repeated this in her testimony on Oct 14, adding that she did not make further changes to the speech even after seeing Singh's comment as she "didn't really understand the severity of what he wrote".

"I thought if it was something important, he would sit down and have a conversation with me, but he didn't, so I didn't make any changes," she said in court when questioned by the prosecution.

Play

Mr Jumabhoy later asked point-blank if Ms Khan was saying it is true she did not understand what "substantiate" meant, despite the evidence that she had given so far in court.

Ms Khan said nothing, prompting Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan to say: "You'd want to respond to that".

"No, I don't think I've anything else to say to that," Ms Khan said.

Mr Jumabhoy then said her evidence to the COP was that she "didn't understand" what substantiate meant, whereas her statement in court was that she understands the term to mean "make sure it happened" or "make sure it is true". This is fundamentally different, he added.

Ms Khan told the court that she feels like she is saying the same things in different ways.

Defence says message on taking info to the grave was 'never sent'

The defence also suggested the possibility that Ms Khan's message to WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan on Aug 8, 2021 about taking "the information to the grave" was never sent.

In leading the evidence towards this, Mr Jumabhoy said Ms Khan was aware that the message was significant, but decided not to mention it until after Ms Loh had brought it up before the COP.

He pointed out that the message in question was deleted from her phone and had to be extracted from Mr Nathan's phone.

Ms Khan said her phone was "a really old phone" that was "constantly crashing", which was why she deleted a number of mobile applications, including WhatsApp.

Later, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock sought to clarify if the defence's position was that the message was forged or not sent. Mr Jumabhoy said given that Mr Loh and Mr Nathan did not react to the message, "it appears that it was never sent".

The judge interjected to say he did not understand the point being made, adding: "They didn't react means she didn't send? They might have many reasons not to react? I think we can leave it to that."

Prosecution objects to impeachment application

Near the end of the session, the prosecution protested when Mr Jumabhoy sought to establish that Ms Khan had produced one version of evidence in front of the court, and another in her statement to the police.

Singh had sent an e-mail on Oct 1, 2021 reminding MPs of parliamentary protocol, which Ms Khan had described in court as "almost a dig at me". But Mr Jumabhoy noted that Ms Khan said "something quite different" to the police – that she was frightened that the untruth would be brought up in Parliament.

Mr Ang objected to the defence's "liberal" reference to police statements, noting that there must be a "material inconsistency" before he could do so.

"I've not objected so far because I am waiting for him to come to a material discrepancy. Surely, he must tell the court what it is," Mr Ang said.

The judge agreed, saying that the discrepancy to launch this impeachment process has to be "material", but the defence had not "really laid the ground for that". This was why he had a problem with how Ms Khan's questioning had gone, he said.

Ms Khan was then asked to leave the courtroom for the defence to make its application, following which both lawyers rose to their feet. Mr Ang said he was struggling to understand Mr Jumabhoy's characterisation of the discrepancy, adding that he was not sure why Ms Khan's reaction to the e-mail was material.

"The simple point is that this e-mail speaks for itself. All of us can read it," Mr Ang said.

He then said: "All this other evidence of whether it was a dig and whether she felt fear, all this is not the main point. One does not go through the whole impeachment procedure for something that is not really material."

Mr Jumabhoy insisted that what Ms Khan presented as evidence in relation to the e-mail involved "two fundamentally different reactions".

He also argued that Singh's e-mail on Oct 1 "has to be a nudge" to clarify her untruth if viewed against the evidence of her police statement.

But Mr Ang said Ms Khan didn't state if she viewed the e-mail as a nudge, direction or push to clarify the untruth.

She read it as a warning to all WP members that they have to substantiate any anecdotes made in Parliament, and not a direction to correct the lie she had already made, he noted.

Singh is represented by Mr Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, from Mr Jumabhoy's law firm. Singh's father, Mr Amarjit Singh, a former district judge, is also part of his legal team.

Ms Khan's cross-examination is expected to continue on Oct 16.

F35's are so cool

SINGAPORE - Dr Lee Wei Ling, the daughter of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, has died at the age of 69, four years after she was diagnosed with a rare, degenerative brain disease.

Her death was disclosed by her younger brother Lee Hsien Yang, who said in a Facebook post at 5.50am on Oct 9 that she died at home.

The wake will be held at the Singapore Casket, Pearl and Sapphire Hall, in Lavender Street, from Oct 10 to Oct 12, he added in a subsequent post.

Dr Lee, the second of three children, was also the sister of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Writing on Facebook, SM Lee said his sister was a fighter, and her character remained unchanged throughout her life.

"She was fiercely loyal to friends, sympathised instinctively with the underdog, and would mobilise actively to do something when she saw unfairness, or suspected wrongdoing," he added.

Dr Lee, a neurologist who headed the National Neuroscience Institute as director from 2004 to 2014, was diagnosed with progressive supranuclear palsy in 2020.

The condition affects physical movements, walking, balance and eye movements, and eventually swallowing, and can lead to serious complications such as pneumonia and choking.

In a Facebook post, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said Dr Lee had devoted her life to medicine. "Throughout her career, she was unswerving in her focus on patient welfare and medical ethics."

PM Wong added that Dr Lee had also written newspaper columns later in her career, where she shared her stoic outlook on life as well as stories of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

"Many readers would have come away enriched by her strong convictions and incisive observations," he said.

SM Lee said his sister had expounded her views "trenchantly and vividly" in her column in The Sunday Times.

Some of these pieces were later published in a book titled A Hakka Woman's Singapore Stories: My Life As A Daughter, Doctor And Diehard Singaporean.

Born in 1955, Dr Lee was the only daughter and middle child of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Madam Kwa Geok Choo.

Her father became Singapore's founding prime minister the year she turned four.

Dr Lee's achievements were chronicled in newspaper articles over the years, such as when she became one of the youngest Singaporeans to attain a black belt in karate in 1970, and when she graduated top of her class year after year and became a President's Scholar in 1973.

In an interview with Today newspaper in 2003, she spoke of being a role model for national policies when she was young.

"I had to be very effective at being bilingual because I had to prove that the bilingual policy was going to be a successful policy. I had to take a third language in addition. I had to try and do well academically. I had to be a cadet because that time was the days of the rugged society, remember? I had to be a model to other students," she had said.

Announcing her diagnosis in a Facebook post on Aug 8, 2020, Dr Lee described it as a "rather nasty brain disease" that will result in death "for the fortunate".

She had said then: "My immediate reaction to the news was '忍'(ren), or 'endure' in Chinese, of which the traditional character has a knife above a heart. I have been practising '忍' since I was in Chinese school, recognising that life has many unpleasant, unavoidable situations.

"It would be nice if this entire episode turns out to be a nightmare and that I will wake up. But it is getting increasingly real and inescapable every day."

SM Lee said one of his early memories of his sister was of her first day in kindergarten, when she cried all the way home while on the school bus, despite his best efforts to comfort her. "After that, our mother arranged for our grandfather to pick us up after school instead."

An early January baby, she was almost seven by the time she went to Primary 1, SM Lee said.

"She was older than and way ahead of her classmates, and got thoroughly bored in class," he added. "So at the end of the year she got a double promotion to Primary 3. She continued to do well in school, being very competitive and very determined, and eventually won a President's Scholarship."

Dr Lee loved animals, especially dogs, and wanted to become a vet, SM Lee recounted. But after being dissuaded by their parents, she took up medicine instead, topping her class at the University of Singapore – now the National University of Singapore – before becoming a paediatric neurologist, specialising in epilepsy.

"She brought to medicine the same intensity and commitment she did to everything, and developed close bonds with her patients, many of whom she treated over many years," SM Lee said.

Dr Lee was also the doctor in the family, who would be consulted when a medical problem arose, big or small, he added.

"When I had lymphoma, she took a close interest in my treatment and progress," he said.

He also recounted how Dr Lee had done a quick examination of one of her nephews who came to the weekly family lunch with a tummy ache. She suspected appendicitis, and sent him to be properly examined. Her diagnosis turned out to be right.

SM Lee said his sister stayed on at the Lee family home at 38 Oxley Road with their parents after he and Mr Lee Hsien Yang married and moved out.

"She kept a watchful eye on their well-being as they grew older. She supervised our mother's care after her strokes. She took care of my father, too, who was himself growing older and frailer even as he looked after our mother, and especially after she died in 2010," he added.

"Years ago, when I was about 13, my father felt his life to be in danger, and told me that if anything happened to him, I was to take care of my mother and younger sister and brother," SM Lee said.

"Sadly, after he passed away in 2015, a shadow fell between my siblings and me, and I was unable to fulfil his wish. But I held nothing against Ling, and continued to do whatever I could to ensure her welfare."

Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang were the joint administrators and executors of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. In 2017, they made public their dispute with SM Lee over the will with regard to 38 Oxley Road.

After Dr Lee was diagnosed with progressive supranuclear palsy in 2020, she took it with her usual fortitude and stoicism, and posted about it as one of those things in life to be borne and endured, SM Lee said.

"She knew what it meant, and made the most of the time she had, even as her health declined. Now she has left us. I will deeply miss Ling. May she rest in peace."

Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote in the Facebook post: "At our father's funeral in 2015, Ling closed her eulogy thus: 'I can't break down (and cry), I am a Hakka woman.'

"Ling, I am less stoic than you."

He requested no flowers to be sent, adding that donations to charities such as Canossa Mission Singapore, Parkinson Society Singapore and Total Well-Being SG would be meaningful to Dr Lee.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, lawyer Lee Suet Fern, were being investigated by the police for potential offences of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will.

The couple left Singapore amid investigations, said the police in March 2023.

Responding to queries, Mr Lee Hsien Yang confirmed that he would not be returning to Singapore for his sister's wake and funeral, and that his son Li Huanwu will be helping from Singapore.

!asians

!asians

Play

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/iswaran-pleads-guilty-on-first-day-of-trial

SINGAPORE - On what was to be the first day of a highly anticipated trial to clear his name, former transport minister S. Iswaran was convicted on Sept 24 after he pleaded guilty to five of the 35 charges he faced.

Events took an unexpected turn after the prosecution agreed to amend two corruption charges to less serious charges of obtaining valuable items as a public servant.

Iswaran, 62, admitted to obtaining valuable items worth more $400,000 in total from Formula One (F1) race promoter Singapore GP's chairman Ong Beng Seng and Mr David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of mainboard-listed construction company Lum Chang Holdings.

He has paid back more than $380,000 to the state and will forfeit the items he received.

The prosecution, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, pressed for six to seven months' jail for Iswaran.

Mr Tai argued that as a minister for 12 years, Iswaran's acts have had significant impact on the reputation of the Singapore Government, which is well-known for its commitment to integrity.

He said that if public servants could accept substantial gifts in such a situation, public confidence in the integrity of government would be undermined.

"Not punishing such acts would send a signal that such acts are tolerated," he said.

But Iswaran's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, argued that the former minister should serve no more than eight weeks in jail.

Mr Singh said there was nothing to suggest that his client's loyalty and duties to the Government were compromised.

In response, Mr Tai contended that it was important for the court to set the "correct marker" on the punishment to be meted out.

Justice Vincent Hoong said he would take time to further consider the arguments, and that he would give his decision on the sentence on Oct 3.

Iswaran had pleaded guilty to four charges of obtaining valuable items as a public servant, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. Another 30 charges will be taken into consideration for sentencing.

He is the first person to be convicted of the offence since Singapore's independence.

Section 165 of the Penal Code makes it an offence for a public servant to accept or obtain anything of value, for free or for inadequate payment, from anyone with whom he is involved in an official capacity.

Iswaran also pleaded guilty to a fifth charge of obstructing the course of justice, for making payment of $5,700 for a business-class flight he had taken from Doha to Singapore in 2022 at Mr Ong's expense.

Setting out how this trip came about, Mr Tai told the court that on Dec 6, 2022, Mr Ong had asked Iswaran if he would like to join him on a trip to Qatar.

Mr Ong told Iswaran he would be travelling on his private jet, and the former minister would be going as his guest. The billionaire hotelier added that he would take care of all of Iswaran's expenses, including hotel accommodation.

Iswaran accepted the invitation and applied for urgent personal leave.

On Dec 10, 2022, he travelled to Doha on Mr Ong's private jet. The value of the flight was more than $10,000, said the prosecutor.

Upon reaching Doha, Iswaran checked into Four Seasons Hotel, and the value of one night at the hotel was over $4,000.

Iswaran then flew back to Singapore on a business-class flight that cost $5,700, which was paid for by Singapore GP on Mr Ong's instructions.

In May 2023, while the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau was probing a separate matter relating to Mr Ong's associates, investigators came across the flight manifest of the flight to Doha.

After learning that the flight manifest had been seized, Iswaran asked Mr Ong to bill him for the expenses related to the Doha trip. He issued a cheque for $5,700 to Singapore GP for the commercial flight.

Iswaran also admitted obtaining premium tickets to the 2017 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, with a value of $42,265.

The court was told that Iswaran had told Singapore GP deputy chairman Colin Syn that he required 10 Green Room tickets for the Singapore F1 Grand Prix in 2017.

The Green Room is a hospitality suite that offers a premium experience to enjoy the race. Each ticket is worth over $4,000.

Iswaran then gave these tickets to his friends and family to attend the race without paying for the tickets.

Iswaran also obtained a Brompton T Line bicycle worth more than $7,900 from Mr Lum in 2022 as a present for his 60th birthday.

In November 2021, Iswaran asked Mr Lum to help him source for whisky and red wine after sending him a screenshot of a bottle of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky.

In January 2022, Mr Lum arranged for 14 bottles of alcohol to be delivered to Iswaran.

In relation to these Section 165 offences, Mr Tai said the facts showed that Iswaran was more than a passive acceptor of the gifts in question.

In mitigation, Iswaran's lawyer, Mr Singh, said Iswaran has recognised that he was wrong to have accepted the items from Mr Ong and Mr Lum.

Mr Singh, who addressed the court for more than two hours, said the items were given in the context of his friendship with Mr Ong and Mr Lum.

But Mr Tai said that friendship is neither a defence nor a mitigating factor to the charges under Section 165.

"The closer the social relationship, the more important it is for public servants to avoid taking gifts," he said.

Mr Singh also argued that there were no losses suffered by the gift givers.

Referring to Iswaran's trip to Doha on Mr Ong's private jet, Mr Singh said the chairman of the World Cup had invited Mr Ong to watch the quarter-finals in 2022, and Iswaran was invited on the trip.

Iswaran had considered the trip an opportunity to learn how a city like Doha staged and organised a world event, Mr Singh said.

Mr Ong had already made arrangements for the private jet, added Mr Singh, and that the cost would have been incurred regardless of whether Iswaran was on board.

As for the F1 tickets, Mr Singh said they were not for sale to begin with, so there was no loss. He added that Iswaran distributed the tickets to others, so they could enjoy the race and promote it.

But Mr Tai also said the fact that the giver did not suffer a loss was not a mitigating factor.

"We reject any submissions that there was no harm or minimal harm. Any offence under this section 165 damages the Government's interest," he said.

At one point, Mr Tai stated that he wanted to clarify that the charges were amended but Iswaran was not acquitted of corruption.

Mr Singh then objected, saying that he never suggested that there was an acquittal.

The two then got into an extended exchange, with Mr Singh raising his voice at certain points.

But Justice Hoong said it was "pointless" to go into an argument into why the charges were amended, which was not relevant for sentencing.

In a statement to the media, the Attorney-General's Chambers said that in deciding whether to amend the charge, it considered the "litigation risks" involved in proving the corruption charges beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

The statement said that given that there are two primary parties to the transactions, both parties would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.

The AGC added that it will take a decision in respect of Mr Ong soon.

After the hearing, Iswaran spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court building.

He said: "As you know, my lawyers have stated the position clearly, and as you're well aware, the matter is now sub judice, so it's not appropriate for me to say anything more.

"I just want to thank all of you for coming, and let's see how it goes."

!ranchers

Only around a third of Singapore's practicing Catholic population was able to attend the papal Mass due to seating restrictions at the stadium, which has a capacity of only 50,000. On the other hand, there were rougly 100 priests from nearby Vietnam on hand to concelebrate with the pontiff.

In his homily, Pope Francis said some people might think it is "naïve" to say that "nothing lasting is born or grows without love," and that the growth of a successful society is due to families and individuals who make extraordinary sacrifices out of love.

However, the proof is in the city itself, he said, saying, "behind each of the works in front of us there are many stories of love to be discovered," in communities and parents who provide for their families, and in the professionals and workers who are "sincerely engaged" in their various tasks.

"Sometimes the greatness and grandeur of our projects can make us forget this, and fool us into thinking that we can be the sole authors of our lives, of our wealth, our wellbeing, our happiness," he said, but said that "ultimately, life brings us back to one reality: without love we are nothing,"

Faith is the source of this love, he said, because God loved the world enough to sacrifice his only son to free and redeem humanity, and therefore, "It is in Christ that all that we are and can become have their origin and fulfilment."

Beyond the masterpieces of architecture and innovation characteristic of Singapore, Pope Francis said the most beautiful aspects of society are "the brothers and sisters we meet, without discrimination, every day on our path, as we see in Singaporean society and the Church, which are ethnically diverse and yet united and in solidarity!"

Genuine charity, the pope said, is capable of respecting the vulnerable and weak, capable of accompanying those looking for direction in life, and it is also "generous and kind in forgiving beyond all calculation and measure."

To this end, he pointed to the Virgin Mary, who "has given hope to so many people by her support and presence, which she continues to do," and to Saint Francis Xavier, "who found hospitality here many times during his missionary journeys."

Pope Francis closed urging Catholics in Singapore to make "a constant commitment to listening and responding readily to the invitations to love and live justly that continue to come to us today from the infinite love of God."

Play

Play

SINGAPORE: Pope Francis will deliver a state address in Singapore on Sep 12, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on Tuesday (Sep 10).

The head of the Vatican will visit Singapore for the first time, from Sep 11 to 13.

His visit is part of a wider trip to the region that includes stops in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste. This 12-day trip is the longest overseas trip of Pope Francis' papacy.

There are around 395,000 Catholics in Singapore according to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore. The last papal visit here was in 1986 by Pope John Paul II, five years after Singapore officially established diplomatic relations with the Holy See, or the central governing body of the Catholic Church.

Pope Francis, who is 87, will receive a ceremonial welcome at Parliament House on Sep 12, and call on President Tharman Shanmugaratnam, said MFA.

He will also meet Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.

A new orchid hybrid will be named in Pope Francis' honour and unveiled at the ceremonial welcome, said MFA.

After the ceremonial welcome, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Pope Francis will deliver speeches at the state address at the National University of Singapore's University Cultural Centre.

Later that evening, Pope Francis will attend mass and deliver the homily to 50,000 people at the National Stadium.

On Sep 13, he will visit the elderly and sick at Saint Theresa's Home. After that, he will attend an inter-religious meeting at Catholic Junior College, before leaving Singapore for Rome.

Pope Francis will be accompanied by Pro-Prefect of the Dicastery for Evangelization Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Substitute of the Secretariat of State Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra, Secretary for Relations with States Archbishop Paul Gallagher, and other senior Vatican officials., said MFA in the press release.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to attribute the figure for the Catholic population in the country to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore.

@Corinthian

I got invited to my sister in laws wedding 😬 and need an excuse not to go. Is there a way I could plausibly get banned from Singapore without getting into any trouble in the US?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9l8zx2wn4o

https://www.xiaohongshu.com/user/profile/5a68a1f8e8ac2b2260167d93?exSource=&tab=note