What a bloody mess has Raeesah Khan left behind
Facebook: Raeesah Khan
Sense And Nonsense by Tan Bah Bah
Share
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://theindependent.sg/what-a-bloody-mess-has-raeesah-khan-left-behind/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=What+a+bloody+mess+has+Raeesah+Khan+left+behind&url=https://theindependent.sg/what-a-bloody-mess-has-raeesah-khan-left-behind/&via=Independentsg
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...at+a+bloody+mess+has+Raeesah+Khan+left+behind
https://telegram.me/share/url?url=h...at+a+bloody+mess+has+Raeesah+Khan+left+behind
https://reddit.com/submit?url=https...at+a+bloody+mess+has+Raeesah+Khan+left+behind
February 13, 2022
By Tan Bah Bah
What a potentially bloody mess has Raeesah Khan left behind for Singapore politics. Her lie and subsequent refusal to take quick ownership of her wrongdoing are now causing a trail of repercussions which may take a while to play out. Threats of legal prosecution or action against Workers’ Party leaders have been thrown into the fray – and casting a serious pall on the future of Opposition politics.
Objectively, from here on, what’s the best-case scenario out of the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges findings for the WP?
The PAP-dominated Parliament, in its infinite wisdom and benign inclusiveness, decides to be “forgiving” and wants to move on from this sorry chapter. It gives Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap (maybe even Sylvia Lim) a sanctimonious tongue-lashing, maybe fines Singh $1,900 and throws a verbal warning at Faisal. Leader of the House Indranee Rajah delivers a speech about responsible conduct and the lessons learnt from the whole episode. And everything will be back to normal, allowing the country to devote its energy and time on solving other real problems – like cost of living, struggle for jobs and Covid-19.
May happen.
Or maybe not. The not part may be this: Parliament accepts the COP’s recommendations of further action against the WP leaders and refers the findings to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for it to follow up, whether to bring them to court to answer whatever charges the Public Prosecutor (AGC) thinks fit.
Then come the ifs and whats.
If Pritam Singh and company get the whole nine yards (expulsion from Parliament, among the punishments), there will be political consequences – for Aljunied GRC and the WP.
By-elections will probably have to be held. The WP will have to dig deep into itself to deal with a situation where its most senior leaders are incarcerated. But even in the event of such a scenario, I have no doubt whatsoever that the WP will survive. Its leadership ranks are not thin. It has long ceased to be one-man show or an Hougang outlier. Its leadership ranks are not thin, its infrastructure strong and its community support and voter base quite substantial, judging by the quick response for help to finance its legal costs in the AHTC trial saga (which has not yet seen conclusion). New leaders, if necessary, will emerge. The party represents an irreversible yearning of Singaporeans, particularly the younger voters, for a fairer and more tolerant society.
Adversity will only strengthen the party’s resolve.
I think even the sanctimonious-sounding and play-by-the-book People’s Action Party will have to be careful not to overreact and unwittingly provoke a backlash of anger and disenchantment the results of which will surely be reflected in GE2025.
As the COP “findings” stand, the committee (presumably excluding WP’s Dennis Tan) prefers to believe Raeesah Khan rather than Pritam Singh. The issue was why Pritam had not immediately advised her to admit her lying. She said she was waiting for a clear signal which she claimed did not come. Singh said he had clearly told her she had to take responsibility for her action and had to relate the circumstances of why she concocted the lie to her family and husband first. He wanted to give her space to deal with her problem. Among the “contemporaneous evidence” the COP says backs up her claim that Singh asked her to take the untruth to the grave were the messages and statements offered by Khan’s two aides.
So we have a situation where we have to believe one or the other.
Dennis Tan, the sole WP member of the COP, disagreed with substantial parts of the report on the findings and recommendations. One of his objections was that it was “not relevant” whether or not Khan was instructed by her party leaders to lie. “He felt that it was a ‘dangerous line’ which would encourage young MPs to ‘run to a leader’ to get advice in future in order to absolve them of their own responsibility because every MP should be responsible for his or her own action,” according to the minutes. Khan had lied on several occasions in Parliament and to Singh on Aug 7. “Tan said that Singh might not have followed the textbook in covering his actions with clearer communications but that does not mean he has lied,” the minutes recorded.
This sentiment has been echoed and amplified by public reaction.
Here is one: “I think PS has a very different management style from what we expect of the PAP. He seems to be more ‘modern’ and willing to take a softer approach. The bad news is, PAP expects everyone to act according to their ‘by-the-book’ actions, which is why PS is in this mess.”
Here is another: “I don’t know what other people think but personally I’d much prefer to be under such a leader. I think there are more than enough ‘Hard Machiavellian Leaders’ around and having more would do us no good. PS might have lost the politicking but he has earned my deepest leadership respect.”
One parting shot:
“It is also regrettable we can’t form a COP into (the) lies on Tracetogether.”
Last edited:
