Raeesah Khan's stories aka lies

[TerrexLee]

Raeesah Khan has three materially different versions of what happened at the August meeting when she met Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap to discuss her lie in Parliament.

First, upon questioning by PAP MP Edwin Tong about the reaction of the leadership when being told of the lie, Raeesah says:

“It was incredible disappointment, a lot of anger, but I think there was some compassion there as well.

The reaction was that, if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August”

When Edwin clarifies: “Let me understand the last statement. You said that if you were not going to be pressed, and then you going to retain the narrative that you started in August, it means if you can get away with it, we don’t have to clarify the lie, correct?”

Raeesah then replies: “I think in the simplest terms, yes you are correct.”

This is VERSION 1.

Edwin then rephrases Raeesah’s evidence: “And so, the WP leadership who was present there, their initial reaction to being told that there was a lie or falsehood said in Parliament was to try and duck the issue if possible, and if it doesn’t come up, then the truth need not be told eventually.”

Raeesah now gives a second version of what happened, which is a VERY DIFFERENT answer to her first version. This is VERSION 2, and one that appears most likely to be true:

A lot more at https://shrtcô.de/3jBgKx (scroll down to read)

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

her cells originally from Yeendeer

 

[Cottonmouth]

Her hole must be fired with 6 bullets each from 50 guns.

 

[Loofydralb]

her cells originally from Yeendeer

They managed to eliminate the head shake from their genes

 

[pvtpublic]

Raeesah Khan has three materially different versions of what happened at the August meeting when she met Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap to discuss her lie in Parliament.

First, upon questioning by PAP MP Edwin Tong about the reaction of the leadership when being told of the lie, Raeesah says:

“It was incredible disappointment, a lot of anger, but I think there was some compassion there as well.

The reaction was that, if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August”

When Edwin clarifies: “Let me understand the last statement. You said that if you were not going to be pressed, and then you going to retain the narrative that you started in August, it means if you can get away with it, we don’t have to clarify the lie, correct?”

Raeesah then replies: “I think in the simplest terms, yes you are correct.”

This is VERSION 1.

Edwin then rephrases Raeesah’s evidence: “And so, the WP leadership who was present there, their initial reaction to being told that there was a lie or falsehood said in Parliament was to try and duck the issue if possible, and if it doesn’t come up, then the truth need not be told eventually.”

Raeesah now gives a second version of what happened, which is a VERY DIFFERENT answer to her first version. This is VERSION 2, and one that appears most likely to be true:

A lot more at https://shrtcô.de/3jBgKx (scroll down to read)

important to get Version 2 out. reproduced below:
-------------------------------------------

Raeesah now gives a second version of what happened, which is a VERY DIFFERENT answer to her first version. This is VERSION 2, and one that appears most likely to be true:

“I have to say though, that Pritam Singh’s initial response was that I should go to the Committee of Privileges, but after discussions and me explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place, that changed.”

According to VERSION 2, Pritam Singh’s first reaction was to tell Raeesah to go to the Committee of Privileges.

I say VERSION 2 is the most believable version because 1) it is the version that is the most averse to Raeesah’s interest because it shows that she was told to come clean and 2) it makes sense that a seasoned politician like Pritam would immediately tell her to come clean.

What might have changed Pritam’s mind from his initial reaction, to tell Raeesah to come clean?

The answer is in the second part of Raeesah’s recollection in VERSION 2: it was Raeesah who convinced Pritam to change his initial position by “explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place”.

What were these circumstances that Raeesah explained? From Raeesah’s November speech in Parliament, we know that the circumstances were the fact that Raeesah was a victim of sexual assault herself, which led her to tell the lie because she did not want to reveal she was part of a survivor group.

However, as Indranee Rajah points out in the same Parliamentary sitting, the sexual assault against Raeesah was completely irrelevant to her initial lie.

Unfortunately, it appears that the WP leadership, in being “compassionate” (in Raeesah’s words), gave Raeesah time to discuss the issue of her sexual assault with her family and exercise her best judgment about when and how to tell Parliament about her lie. This is what the WP has said publicly.

Now we come to Raeesah’s VERSION 3, and this VERSION 3 is clearly false EVEN ON RAEESAH’S OWN EVIDENCE. VERSION 3 is the version that Raeesah feeds to her assistants, Mr Yudhishthira Nathan and Ms Loh Pei Ying through a whatsapp group after the post-7 August meeting. After the meeting, Raeesah tells Mr Nathan and Ms Loh that the WP Leaders had asked her to "take the information to the grave".

Remember, in VERSION 2, Pritam Singh had told Raeesah to inform the Committee of Privileges, but RAEESAH WAS THE ONE who changed Pritam’s mind. On Raeesah’s own evidence, VERSION 3 is a gross mischaracterization of what happened at the meeting. Pritam didn’t tell her to “take the information to the grave”, he in fact expressly told her to come clean to the Committee of Privileges.

Raeesah admits that, apart from the whatsapp she sends to her assistants sharing VERSION 3, she has no other contemporaneous records or proof of what she alleges happened at the August meeting.

The interim report was released by the Committee of Privileges late on Friday evening, before Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal were given an opportunity to share their recollection of events.

Until then, it might be wise to withhold judgment.

 

[mojito]

important to get Version 2 out. reproduced below:
-------------------------------------------

Raeesah now gives a second version of what happened, which is a VERY DIFFERENT answer to her first version. This is VERSION 2, and one that appears most likely to be true:

“I have to say though, that Pritam Singh’s initial response was that I should go to the Committee of Privileges, but after discussions and me explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place, that changed.”

According to VERSION 2, Pritam Singh’s first reaction was to tell Raeesah to go to the Committee of Privileges.

I say VERSION 2 is the most believable version because 1) it is the version that is the most averse to Raeesah’s interest because it shows that she was told to come clean and 2) it makes sense that a seasoned politician like Pritam would immediately tell her to come clean.

What might have changed Pritam’s mind from his initial reaction, to tell Raeesah to come clean?

The answer is in the second part of Raeesah’s recollection in VERSION 2: it was Raeesah who convinced Pritam to change his initial position by “explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place”.

What were these circumstances that Raeesah explained? From Raeesah’s November speech in Parliament, we know that the circumstances were the fact that Raeesah was a victim of sexual assault herself, which led her to tell the lie because she did not want to reveal she was part of a survivor group.

However, as Indranee Rajah points out in the same Parliamentary sitting, the sexual assault against Raeesah was completely irrelevant to her initial lie.

Unfortunately, it appears that the WP leadership, in being “compassionate” (in Raeesah’s words), gave Raeesah time to discuss the issue of her sexual assault with her family and exercise her best judgment about when and how to tell Parliament about her lie. This is what the WP has said publicly.

Now we come to Raeesah’s VERSION 3, and this VERSION 3 is clearly false EVEN ON RAEESAH’S OWN EVIDENCE. VERSION 3 is the version that Raeesah feeds to her assistants, Mr Yudhishthira Nathan and Ms Loh Pei Ying through a whatsapp group after the post-7 August meeting. After the meeting, Raeesah tells Mr Nathan and Ms Loh that the WP Leaders had asked her to "take the information to the grave".

Remember, in VERSION 2, Pritam Singh had told Raeesah to inform the Committee of Privileges, but RAEESAH WAS THE ONE who changed Pritam’s mind. On Raeesah’s own evidence, VERSION 3 is a gross mischaracterization of what happened at the meeting. Pritam didn’t tell her to “take the information to the grave”, he in fact expressly told her to come clean to the Committee of Privileges.

Raeesah admits that, apart from the whatsapp she sends to her assistants sharing VERSION 3, she has no other contemporaneous records or proof of what she alleges happened at the August meeting.

The interim report was released by the Committee of Privileges late on Friday evening, before Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal were given an opportunity to share their recollection of events.

Until then, it might be wise to withhold judgment.

It would be wise to delay seeking their response as the inter net is rife with speculations and theories on how it came to be. May be a week or so that would be perfect.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

important to get Version 2 out. reproduced below:
-------------------------------------------

Raeesah now gives a second version of what happened, which is a VERY DIFFERENT answer to her first version. This is VERSION 2, and one that appears most likely to be true:

“I have to say though, that Pritam Singh’s initial response was that I should go to the Committee of Privileges, but after discussions and me explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place, that changed.”

According to VERSION 2, Pritam Singh’s first reaction was to tell Raeesah to go to the Committee of Privileges.

I say VERSION 2 is the most believable version because 1) it is the version that is the most averse to Raeesah’s interest because it shows that she was told to come clean and 2) it makes sense that a seasoned politician like Pritam would immediately tell her to come clean.

What might have changed Pritam’s mind from his initial reaction, to tell Raeesah to come clean?

The answer is in the second part of Raeesah’s recollection in VERSION 2: it was Raeesah who convinced Pritam to change his initial position by “explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place”.

What were these circumstances that Raeesah explained? From Raeesah’s November speech in Parliament, we know that the circumstances were the fact that Raeesah was a victim of sexual assault herself, which led her to tell the lie because she did not want to reveal she was part of a survivor group.

However, as Indranee Rajah points out in the same Parliamentary sitting, the sexual assault against Raeesah was completely irrelevant to her initial lie.

Unfortunately, it appears that the WP leadership, in being “compassionate” (in Raeesah’s words), gave Raeesah time to discuss the issue of her sexual assault with her family and exercise her best judgment about when and how to tell Parliament about her lie. This is what the WP has said publicly.

Now we come to Raeesah’s VERSION 3, and this VERSION 3 is clearly false EVEN ON RAEESAH’S OWN EVIDENCE. VERSION 3 is the version that Raeesah feeds to her assistants, Mr Yudhishthira Nathan and Ms Loh Pei Ying through a whatsapp group after the post-7 August meeting. After the meeting, Raeesah tells Mr Nathan and Ms Loh that the WP Leaders had asked her to "take the information to the grave".

Remember, in VERSION 2, Pritam Singh had told Raeesah to inform the Committee of Privileges, but RAEESAH WAS THE ONE who changed Pritam’s mind. On Raeesah’s own evidence, VERSION 3 is a gross mischaracterization of what happened at the meeting. Pritam didn’t tell her to “take the information to the grave”, he in fact expressly told her to come clean to the Committee of Privileges.

Raeesah admits that, apart from the whatsapp she sends to her assistants sharing VERSION 3, she has no other contemporaneous records or proof of what she alleges happened at the August meeting.

The interim report was released by the Committee of Privileges late on Friday evening, before Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal were given an opportunity to share their recollection of events.

Until then, it might be wise to withhold judgment.

I want to know why the point on her sexual assault(if it even happened) is even and how it is relevant to her lies in parleement, and seems this card is being played. Where is the proof she got sexually assaulted? Did she report to the police? Where did it happened? Sound like lies covering up lies

What were these circumstances that Raeesah explained? From Raeesah’s November speech in Parliament, we know that the circumstances were the fact that Raeesah was a victim of sexual assault herself, which led her to tell the lie because she did not want to reveal she was part of a survivor group.

 

[LexLuthor]

I want to know why the point on her sexual assault(if it even happened) is even and how it is relevant to her lies in parleement, and seems this card is being played. Where is the proof she got sexually assaulted? Did she report to the police? Where did it happened? Sound like lies covering up lies

What were these circumstances that Raeesah explained? From Raeesah’s November speech in Parliament, we know that the circumstances were the fact that Raeesah was a victim of sexual assault herself, which led her to tell the lie because she did not want to reveal she was part of a survivor group.

The authenticity of the sexual assault she claimed is not entirely irrelevant. The sexual assault will reveal the authenticity of the survival group. If a survival group truly exists, further probe can be made to find out if someone in the survival group could corroborate Raeesah's story.

If it can be established that there was a survival group that Raeesah spoke about, and there was a victim in the survival group who complained about the manner in which the police handled her case, then the focus would be brought back to the alleged mishandling by the police. Raeesah's lie would be completely irrelevant by then.

If I had an axe to grind with WP, it would not be in my interest to find out the truth about the sexual assault, the survival group and the rape victim which might lead to the truth about the alleged mishandling by the police. I would just focus on Raeesah's lie and blow the matter out of proportion.

 

[pvtpublic]

It would be wise to delay seeking their response as the inter net is rife with speculations and theories on how it came to be. May be a week or so that would be perfect.

I like Version 2.

it appears the most logical. but the Khan name gets dragged though the m&d. Like the Wees recently. (side track, all the more reason to bring back estate duty tax. too many young princelings running amok with grandpa's money)

remmy's perspective provides a concise overview of this kerffufle and helps us move on.

moving on already.

 

[pvtpublic]

I want to know why the point on her sexual assault(if it even happened) is even and how it is relevant to her lies in parleement, and seems this card is being played. Where is the proof she got sexually assaulted? Did she report to the police? Where did it happened? Sound like lies covering up lies

What were these circumstances that Raeesah explained? From Raeesah’s November speech in Parliament, we know that the circumstances were the fact that Raeesah was a victim of sexual assault herself, which led her to tell the lie because she did not want to reveal she was part of a survivor group.

the sexual assault is relevant in that it changed PS' mind to give her a chance.

she manipulated PS with it and knew he would be compassionate.

should we punish a man for being compassionate to a woman? is compassion now a detestable character trait in an individual?

PS is clearly a moralistic and compassionate man. if anything at all, this makes him an even better leader for Singapore. a vastly different character from the cold calculating machinery of the PAP.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

the sexual assault is relevant in that it changed PS' mind to give her a chance.

she manipulated PS with it and knew he would be compassionate.

should we punish a man for being compassionate to a woman? is compassion now a detestable character trait in an individual?

PS is clearly a moralistic and compassionate man. if anything at all, this makes him an even better leader for Singapore. a vastly different character from the cold calculating machinery of the PAP.

So the point is, was she sexually assaulted? Or is she making things up?

 

[pvtpublic]

So the point is, was she sexually assaulted? Or is she making things up?

irrelevant at this point. she made the claim, so assume it's true for now.

even if it were false, it wouldn't matter vis-a-vis PS' decision to let her carry on with the narrative. because the decision to be compassionate was premised on her word.

after all what kind of asshole would PS be if Khan said "I was assaulted" and he said show me the proof... of course he had to take her at her word for it at that juncture.

if anything, it's on her and the Khan name.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

The authenticity of the sexual assault she claimed is not entirely irrelevant. The sexual assault will reveal the authenticity of the survival group. If a survival group truly exists, further probe can be made to find out if someone in the survival group could corroborate Raeesah's story.

If it can be established that there was a survival group that Raeesah spoke about, and there was a victim in the survival group who complained about the manner in which the police handled her case, then the focus would be brought back to the alleged mishandling by the police. Raeesah's lie would be completely irrelevant by then.

If I had an axe to grind with WP, it would not be in my interest to find out the truth about the sexual assault, the survival group and the rape victim which might lead to the truth about the alleged mishandling by the police. I would just focus on Raeesah's lie and blow the matter out of proportion.

She is using the sexual assault as justification for her lies n to elicit sympathy. The way the story unfolds. I highly doubt she was sexually assaulted. N she is an ah neh. From black can talk to White. N knowing how much leeway women are given w regards to sex cases , they have been known to make up cases etc. This could be another one of those BS elicit sympathy stories. If it can be proven she made tat up too. She will be discredited so bad. She will be a leaper forever and it's wat she rightly deserves. Anyway I agree for now just focus on her lies in parleement

 

[mojito]

the sexual assault is relevant in that it changed PS' mind to give her a chance.

she manipulated PS with it and knew he would be compassionate.

should we punish a man for being compassionate to a woman? is compassion now a detestable character trait in an individual?

PS is clearly a moralistic and compassionate man. if anything at all, this makes him an even better leader for Singapore. a vastly different character from the cold calculating machinery of the PAP.

Had the Singh told her off after the tall story and kept to the original plan she would have kept her seat. What compassion and morals results is everything in life which is better u tell me?

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Had the Singh told her off after the tall story and kept to the original plan she would have kept her seat. What compassion and morals results is everything in life which is better u tell me?

Keeping her will be worst. The right thing Is get rid of her now n do damage control.

 

[rushifa666]

No policeman believes spf did not fuck up. Only dumb public does.

 

[red amoeba]

Muslim pig told a lie, indian snake ask her don't admit, keep denying. Muslim pig lied through her cunt. Indian snake kept quiet. then another indian king cobra called her bluff. Muslim pig continued lying. Backroom, poodles exert pressure on indian snake and muslim pig. Muslim pig crumble under pressure probably through threats (including her assistant, the Chinese hen who threaten to pull the rug under her). Muslim pig folded and Indian monkey completed the act on stage via that show and tell beamed in the circus.

Entertainment committee convened. Indian snake pulled another trick, put up a bluff. Indian monkey had a card up her sleeve, through the Chinese monk, revealed the recording. Like they say, Indian snake threw the muslim pig under the bus, muslim pig threw indian snake under a 3-tonner.

More trouble looming for indian snake and his accomplice, the Chinese warthog. Meanwhile the wounded teochew lion must be wondering what the fuck did this bunch of clowns screw up.

 

[Confuseous]

The everchanging tales tell of family kitchen talk to preserve family name and
drag everyone else through the m&d. If this is not the case, won't be surprised
if she pleads bi-polar and get sent to IMH for free consultation to get out of the
mess.

 

[myfoot123]

Seng Kang GRC voters will continue to support WP regardless of the findings. PAP toxic playbook is more disgusting than Raeesah Khan's lies. As Goh Chok Tong used to say in the past, everyone makes honest mistakes. ​

 

[winnipegjets]

No policeman believes spf did not fuck up. Only dumb public does.

Khan maybe colourful in her narrative of rape victims or maybe she is relating an actual incident. Where she goofed up was sharing it publicly before getting consent from the victim. When the victim refused to back her up, Khan was left with no choice but to 'confess' that she lied. Perhaps the victim was coerced by the powers to sabo Khan. Who knows?

As for the parliamentary hearing, it is a farce. PAP Tong was posing leading questions. In parliament, questions for the ministers have to be submitted days in advance. S Why shouldn't this be a requirement for hearing? Khan should have been allowed legal representation at this hearing.

What is the point of this hearing when the 'accused' has already voluntarily accepted the ultimate 'punishment' - given up her MP position? Shame her more to make her unemployable?

To start anew, Khan has no choice but to leave this glorious land.