-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chitchat Why Jamus Lim join Workers' Party ?
- Thread starter batman1
- Start date
More good points made by Jamus on an interesting topic. 
Recently, my #SengkangGRC colleague Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威 spoke in Parliament about the importance of having a robust, deep public rental market, alongside the existing one that mainly caters to low-income households. The proposal invited some consternation by the government, who spoke about how mainstreaming rental could weaken communities. The key assumption, I believe, is that homeownership confers, well, a sense of ownership. Notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of homeownership in Singapore, via HDB, is but a long-term, transferable lease, this raises a pertinent question: is ownership associated with greater rootedness (and, by extension, social cohesion)?
There’s actually some research on this issue, from an economic perspective. Stanford economist Saumitra Jha has argued that providing financial assets that provide claims on the future helps align incentives of winners and losers in reform. He applies his argument to a range of historical cases in England, Japan, and the early United States. If we view HDB leases as such assets, we could plausibly argue that the promise of a share in the nation’s future wealth was crucial in
our formative years (disclosure: Saumitra is a friend). I actually buy this argument. The crucial question, however, isn’t whether the promise of HDB leaseholding was an important development tool, one that played a key role in forging common aspirations in our collective past. It is whether such long 99-year contracts remain relevant today, in an environment where high housing prices place enormous burdens on young families, who struggle with affordability, and have little need for leases of such an extended duration.
Rather than “invest” in an “asset” that may not pay off in their lifetimes, would it not be better to allow some families to enjoy their citizenship dividend in a different way (other than via HDB subsidies), perhaps with payouts that they could apply to other investments? The bottom line is simple: It isn’t so much that owning or renting is a superior decision. Rather, these are simply different choices that households make, based on the specific circumstances they happen to find themselves in. In this sense, homeownership is a choice. If we accept this premise, then it’s a small leap to also accept that governments that wish to support families with housing can do so
either with subsidized homeownership (as it is now), or with subsidized public rental options (if they so choose). #makingyourvotecount
Might such policy discourage Singaporeans from sinking roots, and weaken the social fabric? It could, but if we think that locking in talent with homeownership is a viable strategy for a modern society, we are sorely mistaken. It is far better to endow Singaporeans with a sense of ownership and belonging in our society. If public policy fails to engender such loyalty, then it is these policies that have to change (same reason you shouldn’t have a child to save a failing marriage).
Postscript: incidentally, from a financial standpoint, the common argument of “if you rent, you’re paying someone else’s mortgage” only makes sense if you’re unable to find an alternative use of your funds. This is almost never true in a financially developed economy. Think of it this way: would you put a massive downpayment for a flat, and pay a mortgage that includes the interest cost of your loan, if I instead offered you that I had an alternative investment that would multiply your downpayment hundredfold instead? It would be better to take the alternative, because the returns would more than offset any capital gains you could ever hope to have from the flat, even after you paid for the cost of rent in the interim. After all, historically, real estate returns have underperformed equity. This is an extreme example, but the point is simple: depending on one’s preferences for ownership, and alternative investment opportunities available, renting may be a rational decision. So let’s not use the red herring of financial prudence as justification for buying instead of renting.
Jamus Lim
11 hrs ·Recently, my #SengkangGRC colleague Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威 spoke in Parliament about the importance of having a robust, deep public rental market, alongside the existing one that mainly caters to low-income households. The proposal invited some consternation by the government, who spoke about how mainstreaming rental could weaken communities. The key assumption, I believe, is that homeownership confers, well, a sense of ownership. Notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of homeownership in Singapore, via HDB, is but a long-term, transferable lease, this raises a pertinent question: is ownership associated with greater rootedness (and, by extension, social cohesion)?
There’s actually some research on this issue, from an economic perspective. Stanford economist Saumitra Jha has argued that providing financial assets that provide claims on the future helps align incentives of winners and losers in reform. He applies his argument to a range of historical cases in England, Japan, and the early United States. If we view HDB leases as such assets, we could plausibly argue that the promise of a share in the nation’s future wealth was crucial in
our formative years (disclosure: Saumitra is a friend). I actually buy this argument. The crucial question, however, isn’t whether the promise of HDB leaseholding was an important development tool, one that played a key role in forging common aspirations in our collective past. It is whether such long 99-year contracts remain relevant today, in an environment where high housing prices place enormous burdens on young families, who struggle with affordability, and have little need for leases of such an extended duration.
Rather than “invest” in an “asset” that may not pay off in their lifetimes, would it not be better to allow some families to enjoy their citizenship dividend in a different way (other than via HDB subsidies), perhaps with payouts that they could apply to other investments? The bottom line is simple: It isn’t so much that owning or renting is a superior decision. Rather, these are simply different choices that households make, based on the specific circumstances they happen to find themselves in. In this sense, homeownership is a choice. If we accept this premise, then it’s a small leap to also accept that governments that wish to support families with housing can do so
either with subsidized homeownership (as it is now), or with subsidized public rental options (if they so choose). #makingyourvotecount
Might such policy discourage Singaporeans from sinking roots, and weaken the social fabric? It could, but if we think that locking in talent with homeownership is a viable strategy for a modern society, we are sorely mistaken. It is far better to endow Singaporeans with a sense of ownership and belonging in our society. If public policy fails to engender such loyalty, then it is these policies that have to change (same reason you shouldn’t have a child to save a failing marriage).
Postscript: incidentally, from a financial standpoint, the common argument of “if you rent, you’re paying someone else’s mortgage” only makes sense if you’re unable to find an alternative use of your funds. This is almost never true in a financially developed economy. Think of it this way: would you put a massive downpayment for a flat, and pay a mortgage that includes the interest cost of your loan, if I instead offered you that I had an alternative investment that would multiply your downpayment hundredfold instead? It would be better to take the alternative, because the returns would more than offset any capital gains you could ever hope to have from the flat, even after you paid for the cost of rent in the interim. After all, historically, real estate returns have underperformed equity. This is an extreme example, but the point is simple: depending on one’s preferences for ownership, and alternative investment opportunities available, renting may be a rational decision. So let’s not use the red herring of financial prudence as justification for buying instead of renting.
from yahoo.com:
SINGAPORE — A week after Sengkang Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan lied to Parliament in August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to make a police report, she confessed her "untruth" to the Workers’ Party (WP) leadership.
She confessed it to WP chief Pritam Singh after being "repeatedly pressed", said Singh at a press conference on Thursday (2 December). Party chair and co-chair Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap were also aware of the untruth.
After Singh urged her to contact the victim and to extend the information to Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan, who had sought clarification in the House on the matter, she had initially "stuck to the untruth" in communications with Singh, before disclosing "disturbing personal revelations" about her own personal history and sexual assault.
The WP Secretary-General then urged her to speak to her family members on the matter. "In my judgment, it was important that she did so before she could fully address the reasons behind her untruthful conduct in Parliament and to correct the record. In view of her sexual assault and my assessment of her state of mind, I was prepared to give her the space necessary to address the matter with her loved ones."
While she did not attend the parliamentary sittings in September due to a bout of shingles, Raeesah was told that she would have to set the record straight in the House. Singh stressed that before delivering her August speech, Raeesah had been told, "She had put that anecdote down. It was made known to her that, 'You better be ready to substantiate this.'"
"Raeesah repeated an untruth on the parliamentary record, which was totally inconsistent with the revelations she had shared with the party leadership after August," said Singh. The police later said Raeesah did not turn up for an interview despite two requests by the agency to provide case details.
Having agreed with the party that she would set the record straight, Raeesah admitted to the House on 1 November that she had lied to Parliament about the alleged rape victim.
The CEC then met on Tuesday night to deliberate the panel's recommendations and “voted overwhelmingly” to ask the 27-year-old to resign, failing which she would have to be expelled from the party.
At the same meeting, Raeesah tendered her resignation in writing. In her resignation letter to Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, she said that she will continue to assist the Committee of Privileges in its investigation into her breach of parliamentary privileges.
Raeesah had been an MP for a total of 16 months.
Apologising to Sengkang residents and all victims of sexual assault, Singh added that the party leadership was disappointed by Raeesah’s “inexplicable” behaviour in lying to both Parliament and the party.
But wouldn't allowing the untruth to stand have resulted in more questions from the public, and even long-term damage to the party, asked Yahoo News Singapore? Acknowledging this, Singh responded, "If you have done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record right. And indeed, there was a risk that the issue would be exacerbated but only Raeesah knew the truth of what she had said and what she'd experienced, and it was for her to clarify that."
He added that it was a judgment call by the party leadership. "If we verbalise what she told us and that information was incorrect, I'm not sure whether the consequence would have been worse, where Ms Khan later may come up and say, 'Actually, no, that's not really the whole truth of what was said'."
Once she had owned up to her mistake and taken responsibility for it, and the truth of the matter was established on the record, disciplinary action from the party's perspective would follow, added Singh.
He added that he does not know "the extent to which she reached out to residents" about the matter, but she was active on the ground before her resignation.
Does the WP now regret choosing Raeesah as a candidate, and does its selection process need to be reviewed? Singh responded that no candidate selection process can be foolproof.
"Generally speaking, the selection process will raise individuals who are most likely to be able to succeed and do well as increase and I think we've seen that. But I believe every now and then, there will be conduct by some MPs that would be...I can't think of a better word other than inexplicable, based on the knowledge one has at the time."
It was not the first time that Raeesah had come onto the police's radar.
During last year's General Election, two police reports were filed against the 27-year-old over her comments on social media that were alleged to be racially divisive. Following a police investigation, she was eventually issued a stern warning.
WP leadership knew Raeesah Khan had lied a week after her August speech: Pritam Singh
SINGAPORE — A week after Sengkang Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan lied to Parliament in August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to make a police report, she confessed her "untruth" to the Workers’ Party (WP) leadership.
She confessed it to WP chief Pritam Singh after being "repeatedly pressed", said Singh at a press conference on Thursday (2 December). Party chair and co-chair Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap were also aware of the untruth.
After Singh urged her to contact the victim and to extend the information to Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan, who had sought clarification in the House on the matter, she had initially "stuck to the untruth" in communications with Singh, before disclosing "disturbing personal revelations" about her own personal history and sexual assault.
The WP Secretary-General then urged her to speak to her family members on the matter. "In my judgment, it was important that she did so before she could fully address the reasons behind her untruthful conduct in Parliament and to correct the record. In view of her sexual assault and my assessment of her state of mind, I was prepared to give her the space necessary to address the matter with her loved ones."
While she did not attend the parliamentary sittings in September due to a bout of shingles, Raeesah was told that she would have to set the record straight in the House. Singh stressed that before delivering her August speech, Raeesah had been told, "She had put that anecdote down. It was made known to her that, 'You better be ready to substantiate this.'"
Repeated the lie
However, in October, when questioned by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam about her remarks in August, Raeesah repeated the lie - she told the House that she could not elaborate further on the incident as she wanted to protect the victim's confidentiality."Raeesah repeated an untruth on the parliamentary record, which was totally inconsistent with the revelations she had shared with the party leadership after August," said Singh. The police later said Raeesah did not turn up for an interview despite two requests by the agency to provide case details.
Having agreed with the party that she would set the record straight, Raeesah admitted to the House on 1 November that she had lied to Parliament about the alleged rape victim.
Disciplinary panel recommendations
A disciplinary panel was then set up by the WP, but before it could submit its recommendations to the (WP) Central Executive Committee (CEC), Raeesah verbally informed Singh at 430pm on Tuesday of her intention to resign from the party and as an MP.The CEC then met on Tuesday night to deliberate the panel's recommendations and “voted overwhelmingly” to ask the 27-year-old to resign, failing which she would have to be expelled from the party.
At the same meeting, Raeesah tendered her resignation in writing. In her resignation letter to Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, she said that she will continue to assist the Committee of Privileges in its investigation into her breach of parliamentary privileges.
Raeesah had been an MP for a total of 16 months.
Apologising to Sengkang residents and all victims of sexual assault, Singh added that the party leadership was disappointed by Raeesah’s “inexplicable” behaviour in lying to both Parliament and the party.
Why was action not taken earlier?
Pressed by reporters as to why other WP MPs had not corrected Raeesah's "untruth" in October, Singh said it was for her to correct the parliamentary record as she was the one who had spoken it.But wouldn't allowing the untruth to stand have resulted in more questions from the public, and even long-term damage to the party, asked Yahoo News Singapore? Acknowledging this, Singh responded, "If you have done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record right. And indeed, there was a risk that the issue would be exacerbated but only Raeesah knew the truth of what she had said and what she'd experienced, and it was for her to clarify that."
He added that it was a judgment call by the party leadership. "If we verbalise what she told us and that information was incorrect, I'm not sure whether the consequence would have been worse, where Ms Khan later may come up and say, 'Actually, no, that's not really the whole truth of what was said'."
Once she had owned up to her mistake and taken responsibility for it, and the truth of the matter was established on the record, disciplinary action from the party's perspective would follow, added Singh.
Why was Raeesah not present to explain herself?
Asked by Yahoo News Singapore why Raeesah was not present to explain her actions and whether she had spoken to residents on her actions, Singh said, "She has resigned from the party, and so this is a party matter that we have to carry forward, and this is what we're doing now."He added that he does not know "the extent to which she reached out to residents" about the matter, but she was active on the ground before her resignation.
Does the WP now regret choosing Raeesah as a candidate, and does its selection process need to be reviewed? Singh responded that no candidate selection process can be foolproof.
"Generally speaking, the selection process will raise individuals who are most likely to be able to succeed and do well as increase and I think we've seen that. But I believe every now and then, there will be conduct by some MPs that would be...I can't think of a better word other than inexplicable, based on the knowledge one has at the time."
It was not the first time that Raeesah had come onto the police's radar.
During last year's General Election, two police reports were filed against the 27-year-old over her comments on social media that were alleged to be racially divisive. Following a police investigation, she was eventually issued a stern warning.
from msn.com:
The mood is sombre and tense among the folks in blue as I enter the Workers’ Party headquarters on the fourth floor of Teambuild Centre.
I’m here with eight other local journalists, on a blue Thursday, for the press conference where WP’s leadership will address Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan’s resignation.
One month ago, she admitted to lying in Parliament. Two days ago, she resigned from her party and Parliament. This is a media event the party would rather not have.
At 11.58AM, the WP leadership—Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim, and Faisal Manap—enter with the three remaining Sengkang MPs: Louis Chua, Jamus Lim, and He Ting Ru, together.
No pleasantries or preambles. He goes head-on into the question on everyone’s mind: What did WP know about Raeesah’s allegations against the police, and when?
Pritam traces the sequence of events, starting with the speech Raeesah made on Aug 3 during the debate on WP’s motion empowering women, till her resignation on Nov 30.
This is where he drops a bombshell: the party leadership already knew she had lied one week after the speech. I can’t observe any facial expressions on the journalists in the room, as we are masked up, but I’m sure their mouths, like mine, are agape.
Upon questioning, Pritam says that, after learning the truth about her lie, he instructed Raeesah to come clean in Parliament but did not give her a deadline.
This means that the WP sat on this information for a full three months before Raeesah’s apologetic admission in Parliament.
It’s disappointing that a party that has repeatedly called for transparency in the government has kept quiet for months on a lie by one of its MPs.
In the time that it kept quiet, police resources were wasted in investigating the allegation.
At this point, I recall the last time when a WP MP left the party on an embarrassing note: the Yaw Shin Leong incident of 2012. Those old enough will remember how the former Hougang MP was discovered to be having an extramarital affair, didn’t bother to address the allegation, and eventually got expelled from the party.
© Provided by Rice Media Expelled WP MP Yaw Shin Leong in a 2018 photo, after leaving politics. Image: Amos Rao / Facebook
In that case, the revelation to dismissal took one month. I point the discrepancy out to Pritam. He replies that the cases are different, but I’m unconvinced.
Many would say that both politicians have shown fundamental failures in conduct, and there is little reason for the party to act swiftly in one instance while dragging its feet in the other.
But Pritam doesn’t think Raeesah’s case should be quickly nipped in the bud.
“We did not feel we had to rush through the process… it was important to ensure that natural justice takes its course.”
Raeesah’s situation does indeed call for some delicate handling. As she explained in Parliament on Nov 1, her lie had arisen from her trauma as a victim of sexual assault and her fear of revealing this to her family.
Pritam explains: “In view of her sexual assault and my assessment of the scale of her state of mind, I was prepared to give her the space necessary to address the matter with her loved ones.”
“I had to respect some of those very private and difficult fears that an MP had, and I dealt with it the best way that would have been appropriate in the circumstances.”
Frankly, I have mixed feelings hearing this. I get it—Pritam wants to show compassion to an already-traumatised colleague and avoid any impression of throwing her under the bus.
This is a delicate issue because how he treats his party members will reflect his leadership image and, by extension, affect how the party attracts new candidates in future elections. While the presentation is empathetic, some of the calculation is political.
Pritam says he didn’t set a deadline for her to come clean to have time to inform her family. He must have known that his bombshell at the press conference would be in all the headlines.
Maybe this is why he tries to show his compassionate side. Doing so may not answer all questions, but he counts on it to be effective enough to placate some.
But I’m not sure how deep this argument holds; the journalists I chatted with after the press conference don’t seem convinced either and are adamant that the party should have been quicker in taking action.
After all, a lie is a lie.
For a good reason: the politician of the hour, Raeesah Khan herself, is not present. She wasn’t there when I first stepped into the room earlier. I scan the room frequently, but I don’t see any new additions to the press conference.
“Okay, maybe she will walk in later,” I think to myself.
But she is still nowhere to be seen, even during the second segment of the conference, which features her Sengkang colleagues. This is disappointing.
I have come armed with questions for her: Can she elaborate on her plans after she quits WP? Will she rule out electoral politics in the future? What does she have to say to younger voters who have seen her as a beacon of youth empowerment?
Her conspicuous absence in the press conference baffles the journalists present—at least for Nicholas Yong, the assistant news editor for Yahoo News Singapore who sits beside me.
“Why isn’t Raeesah here now to explain her actions?” he asks.
It is a good question. If Raeesah were present, she could explain why, after being told by her party leadership to set things right, she still did not do so until Nov, and only after the Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam pressed her in Parliament in Oct.
© Provided by Rice Media Image: Workers’ Party / Facebook
In her absence, when asked why Raeesah took so long to come clean with the allegations, Pritam could only give an unsatisfactory “That’s not a question I can answer.”
Pritam’s reply to Nicholas is equally baffling. “She has resigned from the party, and so this is a party matter that we have to carry forward, and this is what we’re doing now.”
I look back again to 2012 when former Speaker of Parliament Michael Palmer quit the PAP over revelations of an extramarital affair.
In that press conference chaired by then-Deputy Prime Minister and then-first assistant secretary-general Teo Chee Hean, Michael himself was present to take questions from the press even though he had resigned from the party by then.
© Provided by Rice Media The PAP press conference on Dec 12, 2012, after details of MP Michael Palmer extramarital affair were revealed. Beside him is then-DPM Teo Chee Hean. Image: AFP
Pritam does not go further than the reply he gives to Nicholas, and I can only speculate. Does the party leadership wish to spare her further public scrutiny? Or do they now see her as more of a liability than an asset?
This press conference has been set up to issue a WP narrative. By her glaring absence, the WP is making clear that her own words are no longer an essential part of that narrative.
I listen intently to Pritam’s tone when he talks about Raeesah’s resignation.
“She (has) to take ownership and responsibility for what was done in Parliament.”
“Each WP MP is a leader in his or her own right, and if you have done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record right.”
It was a stark difference from the doorstop press conference during GE2020 when the WP had to present their stance on Raeesah’s social media posts that were alleged to promote inter-racial and inter-religious enmity.
At that session, Pritam, Sylvia, and the WP candidates for Sengkang stood by her as Raeesah made her statement.
Today, the scene is different with Raeesah absent, and Ting Ru, James, and Louis put forward as the face of the WP in Sengkang. The night before the press conference, the cover and profile photos for Sengkang GRC’s Facebook page were replaced with pictures of only these three.
© Provided by Rice Media Image: Sengkang GRC / Facebook
Back in GE2020, Pritam spoke supportively of Raeesah.
About her controversial posts, he said, “I would be a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are,” Pritam said.
Today though, I cannot shake the feeling that the WP seems to be doing some sanitising by leaving Raeesah out of the press conference.
The circumstances are, of course, different. This is a second, more grievous strike by Raeesah. WP leadership may find that they can no longer be protective and understanding like during GE2020. There is also less urgency to protect the candidate now that the GRC has been secured.
As a young voter, I would still like to hear directly from Raeesah and have since reached out to her. It seems, however, that her party has chosen in this press conference to distance itself from her, even if they have taken pains to do so compassionately.
While there is no need for a by-election when one sitting MP withdraws from a GRC, it is still possible for one to be triggered if every member of the GRC resigns—which was how the Marine Parade by-election of 1992 was initiated.
However, 25 minutes into the hour-long press conference, nobody has yet to ask the question.
I fire away: Will the three sitting MPs in Sengkang resign to trigger a by-election so that residents can have a clean, full slate of representatives?
The question is directed to party chairperson Sylvia Lim. She doesn’t answer my question directly; instead, she cites the court’s ruling regarding by-elections and reassures residents that the WP is determined to carry on with three MPs.
I want an explicit, unequivocal on-the-record confirmation and repeat my question: Will they resign?
The answer is now direct: No, they will not.
He Ting Ru, the team leader for Sengkang, then briefs the media on plans for residents following Raeesah’s resignation.
She shares that the remaining three elected MPs will do the heavy-lifting in the constituency, with Aljunied MP and WP vice-chairperson Faisal Manap stepping in as an advisor. The WP will reconfigure the wards within Sengkang so that the area Raeesah focused on will be split up among Ting Ru, Jamus, and Louis.
© Provided by Rice Media This is how Sengkang GRC looks like now after reconfiguration of the divisions. Image: Workers’ Party
I compare this in my head with what the PAP did in 2017 when Halimah Yacob resigned from the party to contest the presidential election. They brought in then MP for Chua Chu Kang GRC Zaqy Mohamad to take over Halimah’s grassroots adviser position in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC.
There was no reconfiguration of divisions, and the Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC continued to have a minority-race elected MP (albeit not elected for Marsiling-Yew Tee) serve their residents.
I point out to Pritam that Sengkang will no longer have a minority MP serving them.
Pritam repeats that Faisal Manap will assist the Sengkang team in an advisory capacity. A Berita Harian journalist follows up that this will still mean one fewer minority MP to speak up on relevant issues.
Pritam gives his assurance to Sengkang residents: “The presence of MP Faisal in the Sengkang team would assure Malay-Muslim residents in Sengkang that their issues won’t be ignored, and through him, can be put at the highest level in Parliament.”
The party leadership is evasive about the reasons against a by-election when I speak to them. Still, I believe there are reasons why they choose not to do so.
Sengkang is a new constituency for the WP, and their hold on it is by no means unshakeable. Sengkang is not an Hougang or Aljunied, where the party has proven its holding power repeatedly.
It became clear that this press conference was organised less to answer questions on the silence about Raeesah’s lie and more about securing the WP’s hold on Sengkang.
A chat I had with a veteran journalist after the press conference also enlightened me on the issue of responsibility, which I neglected. The country is not out of the woods yet, with regards to the pandemic.
Everyone is still worried about their lives and livelihoods, more so with the appearance of the Omicron variant of the virus last week. Having a by-election and distracting everyone from other pressing issues could be interpreted as irresponsibility on the WP after having its reputation tainted by Raeesah.
It is a fair point. But, tellingly, it was not made by the WP.
The mood is lighter now, as journalists start to exchange greetings with the MPs and ask them off-record questions.
The WP has done what they set out to—apologising, explaining the sequence of events given, and reassuring Sengkang residents. This may have been their calculation for the press conference.
As I linger in the room, I hear some muttering from journalists that some questions remain unanswered. In the 24 hours since the press conference, we have indeed seen the news and opinion pages blazing with outrage that the WP did not reveal the truth about Raeesah’s lie earlier. I have to ask myself: Was this press conference a success for the WP?
At first glance, they have attempted to be transparent by laying out the facts, regardless of how inconvenient they were. This may score some political points among Singaporeans who will see that the WP is doing the right thing.
The cynical side of me can’t help but note that this belated transparency could confer the WP some tactical space in the investigations of the Committee of Privileges if the party is implicated. Pritam has not discounted the possibility of being called up by the committee. He has said that he is prepared to give evidence if needed.
The WP has also used the opportunity to affirm Sengkang as their turf. There is no question what their plans are regarding Sengkang-minus-Raeesah. They have put forward a united, confident team for the residents in Sengkang.
Finally, and not to be neglected, the WP has shown empathy to Raeesah, albeit at a very high cost. Some will see Pritam’s apparent kindness in giving Raeesah time to first settle her issues as a mark of an empathetic leader. Others will disagree with him for prioritising empathy over transparency.
The WP has calculated that being open about what they knew and when, distancing themselves from Raeesah, and presenting their plans for the remaining three MPs to stay in Sengkang will suffice. The question of why the lie was allowed to carry on for so long was left unanswered.
Whether these calculations are correct—we will see in the coming days.
I leave the press conference struck by one line from Pritam: “Look, it’s our MP. We take responsibility, and we have to account to the public on what has happened.”
3 Months of Silence and the Missing Raeesah Khan
The mood is sombre and tense among the folks in blue as I enter the Workers’ Party headquarters on the fourth floor of Teambuild Centre.
I’m here with eight other local journalists, on a blue Thursday, for the press conference where WP’s leadership will address Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan’s resignation.
One month ago, she admitted to lying in Parliament. Two days ago, she resigned from her party and Parliament. This is a media event the party would rather not have.
At 11.58AM, the WP leadership—Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim, and Faisal Manap—enter with the three remaining Sengkang MPs: Louis Chua, Jamus Lim, and He Ting Ru, together.
The dubious three months of silence
The party’s secretary-general Pritam Singh kicks things off.No pleasantries or preambles. He goes head-on into the question on everyone’s mind: What did WP know about Raeesah’s allegations against the police, and when?
Pritam traces the sequence of events, starting with the speech Raeesah made on Aug 3 during the debate on WP’s motion empowering women, till her resignation on Nov 30.
This is where he drops a bombshell: the party leadership already knew she had lied one week after the speech. I can’t observe any facial expressions on the journalists in the room, as we are masked up, but I’m sure their mouths, like mine, are agape.
Upon questioning, Pritam says that, after learning the truth about her lie, he instructed Raeesah to come clean in Parliament but did not give her a deadline.
This means that the WP sat on this information for a full three months before Raeesah’s apologetic admission in Parliament.
It’s disappointing that a party that has repeatedly called for transparency in the government has kept quiet for months on a lie by one of its MPs.
In the time that it kept quiet, police resources were wasted in investigating the allegation.
At this point, I recall the last time when a WP MP left the party on an embarrassing note: the Yaw Shin Leong incident of 2012. Those old enough will remember how the former Hougang MP was discovered to be having an extramarital affair, didn’t bother to address the allegation, and eventually got expelled from the party.
© Provided by Rice Media Expelled WP MP Yaw Shin Leong in a 2018 photo, after leaving politics. Image: Amos Rao / Facebook
In that case, the revelation to dismissal took one month. I point the discrepancy out to Pritam. He replies that the cases are different, but I’m unconvinced.
Many would say that both politicians have shown fundamental failures in conduct, and there is little reason for the party to act swiftly in one instance while dragging its feet in the other.
But Pritam doesn’t think Raeesah’s case should be quickly nipped in the bud.
“We did not feel we had to rush through the process… it was important to ensure that natural justice takes its course.”
Raeesah’s situation does indeed call for some delicate handling. As she explained in Parliament on Nov 1, her lie had arisen from her trauma as a victim of sexual assault and her fear of revealing this to her family.
Pritam explains: “In view of her sexual assault and my assessment of the scale of her state of mind, I was prepared to give her the space necessary to address the matter with her loved ones.”
“I had to respect some of those very private and difficult fears that an MP had, and I dealt with it the best way that would have been appropriate in the circumstances.”
Frankly, I have mixed feelings hearing this. I get it—Pritam wants to show compassion to an already-traumatised colleague and avoid any impression of throwing her under the bus.
This is a delicate issue because how he treats his party members will reflect his leadership image and, by extension, affect how the party attracts new candidates in future elections. While the presentation is empathetic, some of the calculation is political.
Pritam says he didn’t set a deadline for her to come clean to have time to inform her family. He must have known that his bombshell at the press conference would be in all the headlines.
Maybe this is why he tries to show his compassionate side. Doing so may not answer all questions, but he counts on it to be effective enough to placate some.
But I’m not sure how deep this argument holds; the journalists I chatted with after the press conference don’t seem convinced either and are adamant that the party should have been quicker in taking action.
After all, a lie is a lie.
The Missing Raeesah
Halfway through the press conference, I am distracted.For a good reason: the politician of the hour, Raeesah Khan herself, is not present. She wasn’t there when I first stepped into the room earlier. I scan the room frequently, but I don’t see any new additions to the press conference.
“Okay, maybe she will walk in later,” I think to myself.
But she is still nowhere to be seen, even during the second segment of the conference, which features her Sengkang colleagues. This is disappointing.
I have come armed with questions for her: Can she elaborate on her plans after she quits WP? Will she rule out electoral politics in the future? What does she have to say to younger voters who have seen her as a beacon of youth empowerment?
Her conspicuous absence in the press conference baffles the journalists present—at least for Nicholas Yong, the assistant news editor for Yahoo News Singapore who sits beside me.
“Why isn’t Raeesah here now to explain her actions?” he asks.
It is a good question. If Raeesah were present, she could explain why, after being told by her party leadership to set things right, she still did not do so until Nov, and only after the Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam pressed her in Parliament in Oct.
© Provided by Rice Media Image: Workers’ Party / Facebook
In her absence, when asked why Raeesah took so long to come clean with the allegations, Pritam could only give an unsatisfactory “That’s not a question I can answer.”
Pritam’s reply to Nicholas is equally baffling. “She has resigned from the party, and so this is a party matter that we have to carry forward, and this is what we’re doing now.”
I look back again to 2012 when former Speaker of Parliament Michael Palmer quit the PAP over revelations of an extramarital affair.
In that press conference chaired by then-Deputy Prime Minister and then-first assistant secretary-general Teo Chee Hean, Michael himself was present to take questions from the press even though he had resigned from the party by then.
© Provided by Rice Media The PAP press conference on Dec 12, 2012, after details of MP Michael Palmer extramarital affair were revealed. Beside him is then-DPM Teo Chee Hean. Image: AFP
Pritam does not go further than the reply he gives to Nicholas, and I can only speculate. Does the party leadership wish to spare her further public scrutiny? Or do they now see her as more of a liability than an asset?
This press conference has been set up to issue a WP narrative. By her glaring absence, the WP is making clear that her own words are no longer an essential part of that narrative.
I listen intently to Pritam’s tone when he talks about Raeesah’s resignation.
“She (has) to take ownership and responsibility for what was done in Parliament.”
“Each WP MP is a leader in his or her own right, and if you have done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record right.”
It was a stark difference from the doorstop press conference during GE2020 when the WP had to present their stance on Raeesah’s social media posts that were alleged to promote inter-racial and inter-religious enmity.
At that session, Pritam, Sylvia, and the WP candidates for Sengkang stood by her as Raeesah made her statement.
Today, the scene is different with Raeesah absent, and Ting Ru, James, and Louis put forward as the face of the WP in Sengkang. The night before the press conference, the cover and profile photos for Sengkang GRC’s Facebook page were replaced with pictures of only these three.
© Provided by Rice Media Image: Sengkang GRC / Facebook
Back in GE2020, Pritam spoke supportively of Raeesah.
About her controversial posts, he said, “I would be a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are,” Pritam said.
Today though, I cannot shake the feeling that the WP seems to be doing some sanitising by leaving Raeesah out of the press conference.
The circumstances are, of course, different. This is a second, more grievous strike by Raeesah. WP leadership may find that they can no longer be protective and understanding like during GE2020. There is also less urgency to protect the candidate now that the GRC has been secured.
As a young voter, I would still like to hear directly from Raeesah and have since reached out to her. It seems, however, that her party has chosen in this press conference to distance itself from her, even if they have taken pains to do so compassionately.
Will there be a by-election?
This is an obvious question on everyone’s mind, and I expected a mainstream media journalist to shoot a question on it rather quickly.While there is no need for a by-election when one sitting MP withdraws from a GRC, it is still possible for one to be triggered if every member of the GRC resigns—which was how the Marine Parade by-election of 1992 was initiated.
However, 25 minutes into the hour-long press conference, nobody has yet to ask the question.
I fire away: Will the three sitting MPs in Sengkang resign to trigger a by-election so that residents can have a clean, full slate of representatives?
The question is directed to party chairperson Sylvia Lim. She doesn’t answer my question directly; instead, she cites the court’s ruling regarding by-elections and reassures residents that the WP is determined to carry on with three MPs.
I want an explicit, unequivocal on-the-record confirmation and repeat my question: Will they resign?
The answer is now direct: No, they will not.
He Ting Ru, the team leader for Sengkang, then briefs the media on plans for residents following Raeesah’s resignation.
She shares that the remaining three elected MPs will do the heavy-lifting in the constituency, with Aljunied MP and WP vice-chairperson Faisal Manap stepping in as an advisor. The WP will reconfigure the wards within Sengkang so that the area Raeesah focused on will be split up among Ting Ru, Jamus, and Louis.
© Provided by Rice Media This is how Sengkang GRC looks like now after reconfiguration of the divisions. Image: Workers’ Party
I compare this in my head with what the PAP did in 2017 when Halimah Yacob resigned from the party to contest the presidential election. They brought in then MP for Chua Chu Kang GRC Zaqy Mohamad to take over Halimah’s grassroots adviser position in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC.
There was no reconfiguration of divisions, and the Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC continued to have a minority-race elected MP (albeit not elected for Marsiling-Yew Tee) serve their residents.
I point out to Pritam that Sengkang will no longer have a minority MP serving them.
Pritam repeats that Faisal Manap will assist the Sengkang team in an advisory capacity. A Berita Harian journalist follows up that this will still mean one fewer minority MP to speak up on relevant issues.
Pritam gives his assurance to Sengkang residents: “The presence of MP Faisal in the Sengkang team would assure Malay-Muslim residents in Sengkang that their issues won’t be ignored, and through him, can be put at the highest level in Parliament.”
There could be a by-election if WP wanted to, but …
Technically, if the WP wants to clean the slate and demonstrate Sengkang residents’ confidence in their team, they can trigger a by-election.The party leadership is evasive about the reasons against a by-election when I speak to them. Still, I believe there are reasons why they choose not to do so.
Sengkang is a new constituency for the WP, and their hold on it is by no means unshakeable. Sengkang is not an Hougang or Aljunied, where the party has proven its holding power repeatedly.
It became clear that this press conference was organised less to answer questions on the silence about Raeesah’s lie and more about securing the WP’s hold on Sengkang.
A chat I had with a veteran journalist after the press conference also enlightened me on the issue of responsibility, which I neglected. The country is not out of the woods yet, with regards to the pandemic.
Everyone is still worried about their lives and livelihoods, more so with the appearance of the Omicron variant of the virus last week. Having a by-election and distracting everyone from other pressing issues could be interpreted as irresponsibility on the WP after having its reputation tainted by Raeesah.
It is a fair point. But, tellingly, it was not made by the WP.
What’s next for WP?
At 1.00PM, the press conference ends, with Pritam repeating his apology to Sengkang residents and the rest of Singaporeans.The mood is lighter now, as journalists start to exchange greetings with the MPs and ask them off-record questions.
The WP has done what they set out to—apologising, explaining the sequence of events given, and reassuring Sengkang residents. This may have been their calculation for the press conference.
As I linger in the room, I hear some muttering from journalists that some questions remain unanswered. In the 24 hours since the press conference, we have indeed seen the news and opinion pages blazing with outrage that the WP did not reveal the truth about Raeesah’s lie earlier. I have to ask myself: Was this press conference a success for the WP?
At first glance, they have attempted to be transparent by laying out the facts, regardless of how inconvenient they were. This may score some political points among Singaporeans who will see that the WP is doing the right thing.
The cynical side of me can’t help but note that this belated transparency could confer the WP some tactical space in the investigations of the Committee of Privileges if the party is implicated. Pritam has not discounted the possibility of being called up by the committee. He has said that he is prepared to give evidence if needed.
The WP has also used the opportunity to affirm Sengkang as their turf. There is no question what their plans are regarding Sengkang-minus-Raeesah. They have put forward a united, confident team for the residents in Sengkang.
Finally, and not to be neglected, the WP has shown empathy to Raeesah, albeit at a very high cost. Some will see Pritam’s apparent kindness in giving Raeesah time to first settle her issues as a mark of an empathetic leader. Others will disagree with him for prioritising empathy over transparency.
The WP has calculated that being open about what they knew and when, distancing themselves from Raeesah, and presenting their plans for the remaining three MPs to stay in Sengkang will suffice. The question of why the lie was allowed to carry on for so long was left unanswered.
Whether these calculations are correct—we will see in the coming days.
I leave the press conference struck by one line from Pritam: “Look, it’s our MP. We take responsibility, and we have to account to the public on what has happened.”
from yahoo.com:
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh and two other leaders had advised former Sengkang Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a Committee of Privileges (COP) special report released on Friday (3 December), citing Raeesah's testimony.
On 3 October, a day before a parliamentary sitting, Singh visited Raeesah at her home and told her “that if she kept to her existing narrative on the untruths which she had said on 3 Aug, there would be no judgement by him (Mr Pritam Singh),” the report said.
Raeesah understood, from what Singh said, that he was advising her to continue to lie, should the matter come up on 4 October during the parliamentary session, the report added.
On 4 October, Raeesah was questioned by Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam in Parliament. She was asked if the incident that she had recounted in August had in fact taken place.
Raeesah then maintained her lie and said that what she had related on 3 August was true, and that the incident had taken place as described by her.
Also giving evidence to the COP were Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah’s secretarial assistant, Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, and Lim Hang Ling, a WP member and Legislative Assistant.
The next day, Raeesah met with Singh, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim and WP Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap. At the meeting, she told them that she had lied in Parliament on 3 August, and that she had “no way of substantiating the statements she had made”.
The three leaders told her the best thing for her to do would be to continue with the narrative that she had already given in Parliament on 3 August. “If Ms Khan and the WP could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. If the matter was brought up again, there would also be no need for her to clarify and there was no need for the truth to be told,” the report said, citing Raeesah.
Raeesah also told Loh and Nathan on 8 August about what had transpired at her meeting with Singh, Lim and Manap. She messaged the following to them: “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
The message referred to two issues that Raeesah had spoken about in Parliament on 3 August about certain Muslim issues affecting women, and her untrue anecdote about the sexual assault case and allegation against the police, with the reference to a “statement” in the message referring to the Muslim issues.
Raeesah received an email from the police dated 7 October, inviting her to assist them in investigating the matters she had raised in Parliament. Raeesah sought advice from Singh and Lim when she received this email.
They directed her not to respond to the police and to ignore the requests, as the police could not compel her to speak with the police. Her concern was giving a statement to the police without any privileges, as opposed to making a clarification in Parliament where she would have privileges.
On 12 October, Raeesah went to a meeting called by Singh, and met with him and Lim. By then, the two WP leaders came to the view that the matter would not be dropped, and was not going to go away. The three of them discussed the matter together, and decided that Raeesah should come clean and tell the truth. At this meeting, Raeesah asked if disciplinary action would be taken against her and the answer given to her was “no”.
On 1 November, Raeesah made a personal statement in Parliament, clarifying that she had lied on 3 August and 4 October.
Raeesah told the COP she was shocked to learn that the WP had formed a Disciplinary Panel (DP) on 2 November to look into her lies to Parliament.
She attended before the DP on 8 November to explain why she had lied repeatedly to Parliament.
Raeesah subsequently requested to meet the DP again, this time on 29 November, to talk about her performance as an MP. At that meeting, it was suggested to her by Singh and Lim that she should resign as a member of the WP.
Raeesah decided to tender her resignation from WP as she acknowledged that she had made a mistake.
When asked by the COP, Raeesah said that if the WP leadership had told her to come clean to Parliament in October or to assist the police in their enquiries and tell them the truth, she would have done so. She had done neither because they had told her that there would be no judgement if she did not clarify the truth in Parliament. She took that to mean that she should continue to lie. She had also been told not to respond to the police.
The COP asked Raeesah about the contents of the press conference held by the WP on 2 December. During the conference, Singh had said that there had been an order to Raeesah to clarify the truth in Parliament in October, but she had acted contrary to that.
Raeesah disagreed with this, saying there was no order for her to clarify the facts in October and no one from WP advised her to tell the truth.
On 12 October, Raeesah told Loh that she was going to make a statement in Parliament about the true position concerning her statement of 3 August. Loh then requested to meet with Singh, to discuss what Raeesah should say in Parliament, and how she should convey the truth. Loh and Nathan met with Singh later that evening.
At this meeting, Singh told Loh and Nathan that he had met with Raeesah on 3 October about the matter. Singh had left the choice to Raeesah, as to whether she should tell the truth about her 3 August statement, if she was asked about it in Parliament on 4 October. Loh was disappointed that Singh had said this to Raeesah.
Loh was not fully happy with the WP statement of 1 November because it did not reveal Singh’s knowledge of the matter. She felt that the involvement of Singh, Lim and Manap had been intentionally omitted.
Loh said she and Nathan were surprised when the WP set up a DP on 2 November and thought the composition of the DP was self-serving. This was because Singh, Lim and Manap were the very people who had known that what Raeesah had said was untrue and they were the only members of the DP.
Loh added that several parts of the statement made by Singh to the media on 2 December were not true.
In closing, Loh testified that it pained her to have to say all this about the WP.
“She had no agenda, and had been a member of the Workers’ Party for 10 years and gave the cause a reasonable amount of her personal time and youth. She appreciated the ramifications of what she shared but to her, beyond anything else, she felt that it is important to be truthful to the country. Ms Loh was tearing as she said this,” the report said.
Like Loh, he also said that he was surprised when the WP set up a DP and thought that any inquiry should have been done earlier, since the DP members were aware of her lie since 8 August. He also agreed that the DP was self-serving.
Nathan testified that he and Loh went to the DP on 25 November and told them that the CEC and the DP should tell the public about the true line of events.
In total, the COP had met three times so far on 29 November, Thursday and Friday to deliberate on a complaint made on 1 November by the Leader of the House Indranee Rajah against Raeesah alleging breaches of privileges, and examine witnesses, among others.
The COP noted on Friday that Tan would present the special report to Parliament on the same day. It adjourned its meeting to Monday.
Raeesah testified WP chief Pritam Singh and leaders advised her to maintain lie in Parliament: Committee of Privileges report
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh and two other leaders had advised former Sengkang Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a Committee of Privileges (COP) special report released on Friday (3 December), citing Raeesah's testimony.
On 3 October, a day before a parliamentary sitting, Singh visited Raeesah at her home and told her “that if she kept to her existing narrative on the untruths which she had said on 3 Aug, there would be no judgement by him (Mr Pritam Singh),” the report said.
Raeesah understood, from what Singh said, that he was advising her to continue to lie, should the matter come up on 4 October during the parliamentary session, the report added.
On 4 October, Raeesah was questioned by Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam in Parliament. She was asked if the incident that she had recounted in August had in fact taken place.
Raeesah then maintained her lie and said that what she had related on 3 August was true, and that the incident had taken place as described by her.
Also giving evidence to the COP were Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah’s secretarial assistant, Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, and Lim Hang Ling, a WP member and Legislative Assistant.
Raeesah told Singh about the untruth on 7 August
On 3 August, after Raeesah’s speech, Singh asked her about the anecdote she cited in Parliament. On 7 August, Raeesah said she spoke to Singh and told him that her statement on 3 August was untrue.The next day, Raeesah met with Singh, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim and WP Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap. At the meeting, she told them that she had lied in Parliament on 3 August, and that she had “no way of substantiating the statements she had made”.
The three leaders told her the best thing for her to do would be to continue with the narrative that she had already given in Parliament on 3 August. “If Ms Khan and the WP could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. If the matter was brought up again, there would also be no need for her to clarify and there was no need for the truth to be told,” the report said, citing Raeesah.
Raeesah also told Loh and Nathan on 8 August about what had transpired at her meeting with Singh, Lim and Manap. She messaged the following to them: “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
The message referred to two issues that Raeesah had spoken about in Parliament on 3 August about certain Muslim issues affecting women, and her untrue anecdote about the sexual assault case and allegation against the police, with the reference to a “statement” in the message referring to the Muslim issues.
Met Singh and Lim in October about next steps
On 4 October, after she had lied again about the sexual assault case, Raeesah met with Singh and Lim. They met at Singh’s office in Parliament that has been given to the Leader of the Opposition. They discussed the next steps, including about a possible Committee of Privileges which might be set up to look at Raeesah’s conduct. Neither Singh nor Lim asked Raeesah why she had lied again nor did they suggest that she clarify the truth in Parliament.Raeesah received an email from the police dated 7 October, inviting her to assist them in investigating the matters she had raised in Parliament. Raeesah sought advice from Singh and Lim when she received this email.
They directed her not to respond to the police and to ignore the requests, as the police could not compel her to speak with the police. Her concern was giving a statement to the police without any privileges, as opposed to making a clarification in Parliament where she would have privileges.
On 12 October, Raeesah went to a meeting called by Singh, and met with him and Lim. By then, the two WP leaders came to the view that the matter would not be dropped, and was not going to go away. The three of them discussed the matter together, and decided that Raeesah should come clean and tell the truth. At this meeting, Raeesah asked if disciplinary action would be taken against her and the answer given to her was “no”.
On 1 November, Raeesah made a personal statement in Parliament, clarifying that she had lied on 3 August and 4 October.
Raeesah told the COP she was shocked to learn that the WP had formed a Disciplinary Panel (DP) on 2 November to look into her lies to Parliament.
She attended before the DP on 8 November to explain why she had lied repeatedly to Parliament.
Raeesah subsequently requested to meet the DP again, this time on 29 November, to talk about her performance as an MP. At that meeting, it was suggested to her by Singh and Lim that she should resign as a member of the WP.
Raeesah decided to tender her resignation from WP as she acknowledged that she had made a mistake.
When asked by the COP, Raeesah said that if the WP leadership had told her to come clean to Parliament in October or to assist the police in their enquiries and tell them the truth, she would have done so. She had done neither because they had told her that there would be no judgement if she did not clarify the truth in Parliament. She took that to mean that she should continue to lie. She had also been told not to respond to the police.
The COP asked Raeesah about the contents of the press conference held by the WP on 2 December. During the conference, Singh had said that there had been an order to Raeesah to clarify the truth in Parliament in October, but she had acted contrary to that.
Raeesah disagreed with this, saying there was no order for her to clarify the facts in October and no one from WP advised her to tell the truth.
Loh’s testimony
Loh testified that when Raeesah lied again on 4 October in Parliament, she was shocked and scared for the former MP.On 12 October, Raeesah told Loh that she was going to make a statement in Parliament about the true position concerning her statement of 3 August. Loh then requested to meet with Singh, to discuss what Raeesah should say in Parliament, and how she should convey the truth. Loh and Nathan met with Singh later that evening.
At this meeting, Singh told Loh and Nathan that he had met with Raeesah on 3 October about the matter. Singh had left the choice to Raeesah, as to whether she should tell the truth about her 3 August statement, if she was asked about it in Parliament on 4 October. Loh was disappointed that Singh had said this to Raeesah.
Loh was not fully happy with the WP statement of 1 November because it did not reveal Singh’s knowledge of the matter. She felt that the involvement of Singh, Lim and Manap had been intentionally omitted.
Loh said she and Nathan were surprised when the WP set up a DP on 2 November and thought the composition of the DP was self-serving. This was because Singh, Lim and Manap were the very people who had known that what Raeesah had said was untrue and they were the only members of the DP.
Loh added that several parts of the statement made by Singh to the media on 2 December were not true.
In closing, Loh testified that it pained her to have to say all this about the WP.
“She had no agenda, and had been a member of the Workers’ Party for 10 years and gave the cause a reasonable amount of her personal time and youth. She appreciated the ramifications of what she shared but to her, beyond anything else, she felt that it is important to be truthful to the country. Ms Loh was tearing as she said this,” the report said.
Nathan's testimony
Nathan agreed with Loh’s evidence that the WP’s statement on 1 November should have indicated that the WP’s senior leaders were aware of Raeesah’s lie. The statement had not made clear that she had sought counsel from the WP’s senior leaders.Like Loh, he also said that he was surprised when the WP set up a DP and thought that any inquiry should have been done earlier, since the DP members were aware of her lie since 8 August. He also agreed that the DP was self-serving.
Nathan testified that he and Loh went to the DP on 25 November and told them that the CEC and the DP should tell the public about the true line of events.
COP members
The COP comprises Tan Chuan-Jin, COP Chairman and Speaker of Parliament; Grace Fu, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment; Desmond Lee, Minister for National Development and Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration; Rahayu Mahzam, Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Health; Dennis Tan, Hougang MP; Edwin Tong, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law; Don Wee, Chua Chu Kang MP; Zaqy Mohamad, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Manpower and Deputy Leader of the House.In total, the COP had met three times so far on 29 November, Thursday and Friday to deliberate on a complaint made on 1 November by the Leader of the House Indranee Rajah against Raeesah alleging breaches of privileges, and examine witnesses, among others.
The COP noted on Friday that Tan would present the special report to Parliament on the same day. It adjourned its meeting to Monday.
from yahoo.com:
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) on Sunday (5 December) said that the interim report by the parliamentary Committee of Privileges (COP) was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made.
The statement comes two days after the release of the report in which former Sengkang Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan testified to the COP that WP chief Pritam Singh, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim and WP Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer.
“The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, had made it clear on 2 December, that he is prepared to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges,” said the WP in a statement.
The party noted that some members of the public have asked why its leaders have not responded thus far to the report.
“We understand that the Committee’s work remains in progress. It is thus prudent for a response to be given at the appropriate forum and juncture.
“We thank all who have conveyed messages of encouragement to the Party, including residents of Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC and Sengkang GRC, Party members, volunteers, as well as members of the public.”
Three other witnesses also gave evidence to the COP: Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah’s secretarial assistant, Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, and Lim Hang Ling, a WP member and Legislative Assistant.
The COP noted on Friday that Tan Chuan-Jin, COP Chairman and Speaker of Parliament, would present the special report to Parliament on the same day. It adjourned its meeting to Monday.
WP: COP report didn’t factor WP leaders’ evidence regarding ‘serious allegations’
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) on Sunday (5 December) said that the interim report by the parliamentary Committee of Privileges (COP) was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made.
The statement comes two days after the release of the report in which former Sengkang Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan testified to the COP that WP chief Pritam Singh, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim and WP Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer.
“The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, had made it clear on 2 December, that he is prepared to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges,” said the WP in a statement.
The party noted that some members of the public have asked why its leaders have not responded thus far to the report.
“We understand that the Committee’s work remains in progress. It is thus prudent for a response to be given at the appropriate forum and juncture.
“We thank all who have conveyed messages of encouragement to the Party, including residents of Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC and Sengkang GRC, Party members, volunteers, as well as members of the public.”
Three other witnesses also gave evidence to the COP: Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah’s secretarial assistant, Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, and Lim Hang Ling, a WP member and Legislative Assistant.
The COP noted on Friday that Tan Chuan-Jin, COP Chairman and Speaker of Parliament, would present the special report to Parliament on the same day. It adjourned its meeting to Monday.
from yahoo news:
SINGAPORE — With the resignation of Raeesah Khan from the Workers' Party (WP) and as a Member of Parliament (MP), Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) will be redrawn into three divisions, with her Compassvale ward divvied up among the three remaining GRC MPs, said the WP on Thursday (2 December).
The ward will be taken care of by Sengkang MPs He Ting Ru, Louis Chua, and Jamus Lim, while party vice chair and Aljunied MP Faisal Manap will also chip in.
Further, party chair Sylvia Lim stressed that under the Parliamentary Elections Act, there can be no by-election issued in a GRC unless all the members have vacated their seats. She noted that this was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2018, when it rejected an application to hold a by-election in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, following Halimah Yacob’s resignation as MP in order to run for president.
"The fact is that in the General Election last year, the voters of Sengkang gave the Workers Party a mandate to represent them in Parliament," said Lim. When asked if the remaining Sengkang MPs might step down to trigger a by-election, she replied emphatically, "No."
At a press conference held at the WP headquarters, party chief Pritam Singh earlier acknowledged that, a week after Raeesah Khan lied to Parliament in August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to make a police report, she had confessed the "untruth" to the party leadership.
Raeesah admitted in Parliament on 1 November that she had lied about the incident involving the alleged rape victim. The 27-year-old eventually resigned from the WP and as an MP on Tuesday.
INFOGRAPHIC: Workers' Party
Yahoo News Singapore asked if the party had given any thought to Raeesah's eventual replacement, with an eye on the next General Election. Singh, who had earlier said that the party's vetting process for candidates would be reviewed, said this was "quite premature".
Yahoo also asked: Given that the WP's parliamentary presence is now down to nine MPs, how would this affect the party's ability to raise issues in the House? And was it prepared for the issue to be raised in the House again, with the attendant implications: how can Singaporeans trust that a WP MP is telling the truth?
Singh responded that a WP MP who is not truthful would have to account for their conduct, and face "very harsh outcomes". He also admitted that losing an MP is a "big thing", but noted that the WP MPs had continually raised important issues such as on wealth tax and inequality.
"This is a strong team that we have here. And the team is made of stern stuff. The challenge just got harder. But I cannot think of any better people to take on that challenge," said the WP chief.
Voters 'gave WP a mandate': Sengkang to be redrawn into 3 divisions
SINGAPORE — With the resignation of Raeesah Khan from the Workers' Party (WP) and as a Member of Parliament (MP), Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) will be redrawn into three divisions, with her Compassvale ward divvied up among the three remaining GRC MPs, said the WP on Thursday (2 December).
The ward will be taken care of by Sengkang MPs He Ting Ru, Louis Chua, and Jamus Lim, while party vice chair and Aljunied MP Faisal Manap will also chip in.
Further, party chair Sylvia Lim stressed that under the Parliamentary Elections Act, there can be no by-election issued in a GRC unless all the members have vacated their seats. She noted that this was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2018, when it rejected an application to hold a by-election in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, following Halimah Yacob’s resignation as MP in order to run for president.
"The fact is that in the General Election last year, the voters of Sengkang gave the Workers Party a mandate to represent them in Parliament," said Lim. When asked if the remaining Sengkang MPs might step down to trigger a by-election, she replied emphatically, "No."
At a press conference held at the WP headquarters, party chief Pritam Singh earlier acknowledged that, a week after Raeesah Khan lied to Parliament in August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to make a police report, she had confessed the "untruth" to the party leadership.
Raeesah admitted in Parliament on 1 November that she had lied about the incident involving the alleged rape victim. The 27-year-old eventually resigned from the WP and as an MP on Tuesday.
Who will replace Raeesah?
INFOGRAPHIC: Workers' Party
Yahoo News Singapore asked if the party had given any thought to Raeesah's eventual replacement, with an eye on the next General Election. Singh, who had earlier said that the party's vetting process for candidates would be reviewed, said this was "quite premature".
Yahoo also asked: Given that the WP's parliamentary presence is now down to nine MPs, how would this affect the party's ability to raise issues in the House? And was it prepared for the issue to be raised in the House again, with the attendant implications: how can Singaporeans trust that a WP MP is telling the truth?
Singh responded that a WP MP who is not truthful would have to account for their conduct, and face "very harsh outcomes". He also admitted that losing an MP is a "big thing", but noted that the WP MPs had continually raised important issues such as on wealth tax and inequality.
"This is a strong team that we have here. And the team is made of stern stuff. The challenge just got harder. But I cannot think of any better people to take on that challenge," said the WP chief.
from msn.com:
SINGAPORE — The Committee of Privileges tasked to investigate the complaint filed against former Workers’ Party (WP) Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan decided to release its special report last Friday (3 December) based on the oral evidence heard before it on Thursday and Friday, said the Office of the Clerk of Parliament on Monday, according to a report by The Straits Times (ST).
The COP said it will keep Parliament informed of its investigations "in a timely manner when appropriate" and present the final report in due course. It did not elaborate in response to queries by ST over its decision to release the report before it called WP leaders to testify.
According to the Clerk of Parliament, the COP will continue investigating and hear further evidence if it sees fit.
The statement comes a day after the WP said the interim report by the COP was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made.
In the report, Raeesah testified to the COP that WP chief Pritam Singh, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim and WP Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer.
“The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, had made it clear on 2 December, that he is prepared to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges,” said the WP in a statement.
Three other witnesses also gave evidence to the COP: Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah’s secretarial assistant, Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, and Lim Hang Ling, a WP member and Legislative Assistant.
The COP noted on Friday that Tan Chuan-Jin, COP Chairman and Speaker of Parliament, would present the special report to Parliament on the same day. It adjourned its meeting to Monday.
COP’s Raeesah Khan special report released to keep Parliament informed of probe’s progress: Clerk of Parliament
SINGAPORE — The Committee of Privileges tasked to investigate the complaint filed against former Workers’ Party (WP) Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan decided to release its special report last Friday (3 December) based on the oral evidence heard before it on Thursday and Friday, said the Office of the Clerk of Parliament on Monday, according to a report by The Straits Times (ST).
The COP said it will keep Parliament informed of its investigations "in a timely manner when appropriate" and present the final report in due course. It did not elaborate in response to queries by ST over its decision to release the report before it called WP leaders to testify.
According to the Clerk of Parliament, the COP will continue investigating and hear further evidence if it sees fit.
The statement comes a day after the WP said the interim report by the COP was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made.
In the report, Raeesah testified to the COP that WP chief Pritam Singh, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim and WP Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer.
“The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, had made it clear on 2 December, that he is prepared to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges,” said the WP in a statement.
Three other witnesses also gave evidence to the COP: Loh Pei Ying, Raeesah’s secretarial assistant, Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer with WP, and Lim Hang Ling, a WP member and Legislative Assistant.
The COP noted on Friday that Tan Chuan-Jin, COP Chairman and Speaker of Parliament, would present the special report to Parliament on the same day. It adjourned its meeting to Monday.
from msn.com:
Singapore — Workers Party MP Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC) offered a sort of marketing lesson on Facebook that had nothing to do with his job as an economics professor… and yet, perhaps it did.
Associate Professor Lim showed that he is aware that netizens sometimes have an issue when he posts about “unfamiliar” foods. So when he put on social media a picture of a dish that he and his family enjoyed recently, he even provided a breakdown of how much all the ingredients actually cost.
The MP, whose social media posts cover a whole range of topics including economics, exercise, education, anecdotes about his life, and yes, food, shared this photo on Facebook on Tuesday of “miso-glazed cod on a bed of wild rice, with a side of char-grilled broccolini”.
He pronounced himself delighted to have found some frozen cod – a fish usually quite pricey here – which was “not just affordable, but on sale to boot”.
“For us, it was a neat way to incorporate a taste of Japan into our otherwise-pedestrian dinner. It also speaks to the power of interweaving cultures and cuisines, something we have been doing in Singapore for centuries, and something that continues till this day,” the MP added.
In a postscript, he detailed every ingredient:
“2 pieces of cod ($6.50 per 200g piece, plus another 30 per cent off!); 3 tbsp mirin ($0.50); 3 tbsp cooking sake ($0.61); 4 tbsp miso ($0.55), 2 tbsp sugar ($0.05); 1 tbsp canola oil ($0.07); 1 tsp dark sesame oil ($0.07); 2-inch piece of ginger, grated ($0.25) (marinade all that in an IKEA ziplock bag, $0.10, for at least 24 hours); 1 bunch broccolini ($5); 1.5 cups brown/wild blend ($2.60); 1 onion ($0.40); bay leaf, couple pinches dried thyme, paprika dusting ($0.16), you could shore in a handful of pine nuts if you’d like; vegetable broth ($7.20). Total: $28.01.”
It would have cost $7 less, he said, if they had made it with vegetable bouillon instead of the broth used.
Prof Lim seemed very happy with the meal, writing, “Fed the 3 of us, plus baby (priceless), with leftovers.”
Several of those who commented were surprised, and even saddened, at his postscript.
Prof Lim had written in a post in October that when he was younger, he had worked his way around two-thirds of the recipes in a French cookbook. He often posts photos of food he enjoys. Several netizens have criticised him for that.
When he posted about his “cold kitchen” supper, mostly comprising cheese, crackers and fruit, there was some degree of sour-grading from netizens about the “expensive food”.
And it happened again when he posted a photo of, zatar-with-labneh-and-toast breakfast, which he wrote they first learned of while living in the Middle East.
This happened as well when he posted shortly before the holidays last year that he enjoyed panettone, and some commenters dissed it as just fancy raisin bread.
It is, in fact, a sweet bread that originated in Milan, Italy, which is often associated with Christmas and has now become a festive staple in some supermarkets and food shops.
While the MP’s food choices became fodder for some, it prompted Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh, who had received some panettone as a gift that Christmas, to remember his fellow MP.
In a Facebook post on Monday (Dec 21), Mr Singh said: “Until Jamus Lim introduced panettone into the political lexicon of Singapore on 11 Nov 2020, I, like a fair few Singaporeans I hazard, had no idea what it was. But word is spreading.”
Jamus Lim breaks down the cost of his meal because some ‘seem to get curiously incensed when I post about unfamiliar foods’
Singapore — Workers Party MP Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC) offered a sort of marketing lesson on Facebook that had nothing to do with his job as an economics professor… and yet, perhaps it did.
Associate Professor Lim showed that he is aware that netizens sometimes have an issue when he posts about “unfamiliar” foods. So when he put on social media a picture of a dish that he and his family enjoyed recently, he even provided a breakdown of how much all the ingredients actually cost.
The MP, whose social media posts cover a whole range of topics including economics, exercise, education, anecdotes about his life, and yes, food, shared this photo on Facebook on Tuesday of “miso-glazed cod on a bed of wild rice, with a side of char-grilled broccolini”.
He pronounced himself delighted to have found some frozen cod – a fish usually quite pricey here – which was “not just affordable, but on sale to boot”.
“For us, it was a neat way to incorporate a taste of Japan into our otherwise-pedestrian dinner. It also speaks to the power of interweaving cultures and cuisines, something we have been doing in Singapore for centuries, and something that continues till this day,” the MP added.
In a postscript, he detailed every ingredient:
“2 pieces of cod ($6.50 per 200g piece, plus another 30 per cent off!); 3 tbsp mirin ($0.50); 3 tbsp cooking sake ($0.61); 4 tbsp miso ($0.55), 2 tbsp sugar ($0.05); 1 tbsp canola oil ($0.07); 1 tsp dark sesame oil ($0.07); 2-inch piece of ginger, grated ($0.25) (marinade all that in an IKEA ziplock bag, $0.10, for at least 24 hours); 1 bunch broccolini ($5); 1.5 cups brown/wild blend ($2.60); 1 onion ($0.40); bay leaf, couple pinches dried thyme, paprika dusting ($0.16), you could shore in a handful of pine nuts if you’d like; vegetable broth ($7.20). Total: $28.01.”
It would have cost $7 less, he said, if they had made it with vegetable bouillon instead of the broth used.
Prof Lim seemed very happy with the meal, writing, “Fed the 3 of us, plus baby (priceless), with leftovers.”
Several of those who commented were surprised, and even saddened, at his postscript.
Prof Lim had written in a post in October that when he was younger, he had worked his way around two-thirds of the recipes in a French cookbook. He often posts photos of food he enjoys. Several netizens have criticised him for that.
When he posted about his “cold kitchen” supper, mostly comprising cheese, crackers and fruit, there was some degree of sour-grading from netizens about the “expensive food”.
And it happened again when he posted a photo of, zatar-with-labneh-and-toast breakfast, which he wrote they first learned of while living in the Middle East.
This happened as well when he posted shortly before the holidays last year that he enjoyed panettone, and some commenters dissed it as just fancy raisin bread.
It is, in fact, a sweet bread that originated in Milan, Italy, which is often associated with Christmas and has now become a festive staple in some supermarkets and food shops.
While the MP’s food choices became fodder for some, it prompted Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh, who had received some panettone as a gift that Christmas, to remember his fellow MP.
In a Facebook post on Monday (Dec 21), Mr Singh said: “Until Jamus Lim introduced panettone into the political lexicon of Singapore on 11 Nov 2020, I, like a fair few Singaporeans I hazard, had no idea what it was. But word is spreading.”
Jamus Lim
8 December at 23:14 ·
Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威
8 December at 23:03 · Instagram ·
Thinking about what to do during the school holidays? How about a football boot camp led by a former National footballer! ⚽️
The boot camp will be led by our very own SK resident, who was the captain of Singapore’s Youth Football Teams at all age groups till the U23 level, YOG bronze medalist and one of 25 youths globally appointed as one of the International Olympic Committee’s Young Leaders Programme.
To sign up, scan the QR code or fill in your details at the link here http://bit.Iy/3oC1R0I Slots are limited due to prevailing measures so sign up today!
#TeamSengkang The Possible Play
from yahoo.com:
SINGAPORE — Aljunied Member of Parliament Faisal Manap denied that the Workers' Party's (WP) senior leaders had instructed Raeesah Khan to take her lies before Parliament "to the grave", as he testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP) on Thursday (9 December).
However, he also acknowledged that the party's Central Executive Committee (CEC) voted in favour of the former Sengkang MP's expulsion despite not all CEC members having knowledge of the full facts – namely, that she had confessed her lie to WP chief Pritam Singh, party chair Sylvia Lim and Faisal days after she had uttered it in August.
In addition, the 46-year-old was held in contempt of Parliament as he repeatedly refused to answer the COP's queries on what documents had been brought along to his meetings with Singh and Lim on Wednesday and Thursday, prior to his testimony before the COP.
A second special report, incorporating Faisal's testimony, was released by the COP on Saturday. Following a meeting of the COP on Monday, Faisal, Lim and Singh were all called to testify before the COP, with Faisal testifying for six hours on Thursday.
The Committee has been tasked to investigate a complaint by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah pertaining to Raeesah's conduct in Parliament.
Last Thursday, Raeesah told the COP that the trio of WP leaders had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a COP special report released the day after the 27-year-old's testimony.
Following her meeting with Singh, Lim and Faisal, Raeesah had sent a WhatsApp message to her aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
Following the release of the first COP report, the WP noted that it was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made. In response, the COP said that it had done so to keep Parliament informed of the probe's progress.
Faisal told the COP that he had been called to an hour-long meeting at Singh's house on the morning of 8 August, together with Lim and Raeesah. He had been under the impression that the discussion would primarily be about other issues which Raeesah had raised during her statement in Parliament on 3 August, namely female genital cutting and polygamy.
Instead, Raeesah said that she had suffered a sexual assault as a student in Australia when she was 18. She then broke down and cried. She also confessed to the trio that the anecdote she had told Parliament about accompanying an alleged rape victim to make a police report was untrue.
This was the first time that Faisal discovered Raeesah had lied to Parliament. He was also unaware that she had spoke to Singh before the meeting to inform him that she had lied. "Mr Faisal said that he, Mr Singh, and Ms Lim were overwhelmed by what Ms Khan shared about her sexual assault," said the COP report.
"There was no anger against Ms Khan, after she shared her experience. Nor did Mr Singh indicate that Ms Khan should go before the COP. Mr Faisal said that he, Mr Singh and Ms Lim had tried to console and comfort Ms Khan," said the report. Faisal was worried about Raeesah's well-being, especially as he was a former counsellor, and even suggested that he could partner an asatizah (Islamic religious teacher) to counsel her.
After Raeesah calmed down, Faisal raised the issues of female genital cutting and polygamy and asked her to put out a Facebook statement later that day to clear the air, as there was unhappiness among the Muslim community about what she had said. Raeesah agreed, and Singh and Lim did not object.
After the meeting, Faisal did not discuss the issue with Raeesah, Singh or Lim. "In short, he told COP that he was not involved in anything relating to the untruth." From 8 August till 29 October, Faisal did not communicate further with them on Raeesah's untruth. He was neither involved in nor aware of any discussions that the others might have had amongst themselves on the issue during this time.
The MP agreed that it would have struck him almost immediately that Raeesah's lie was a "big problem". He also agreed that it would have been logical to have asked questions about her intention to clarify the lie, at various points in the events that transpired.
However, he left Singh to handle the matter because he trusted the WP chief and believed that Singh had the information to make the judgment call on the matter. He also trusted Raeesah to do the right thing.
Singh did not update Faisal at any point in time about how he was handling the matter. Faisal agreed that it would be reasonable for Raeesah to assume that her senior party leaders were not concerned with the untruth she had told in Parliament, because they said nothing, made no comment and did not tell her what she should do.
"However, he felt that if Ms Khan had wanted guidance from him, Ms Lim or Mr Singh, she should have proactively asked them for guidance, when they remained silent on the issue at the 8 Aug meeting. In Mr Faisal’s view, Ms Khan was an adult and the mother of two children, and was not young," said the report.
"He said that Ms Khan was lying about this, but he could not explain why she would do so," said the report. Nevertheless, he agreed that everything that Raeesah had done after the 8 August meeting would be consistent with her account to Loh and Nathan of what happened during the meeting, if that account was true.
Faisal was not in Parliament during Raeesah’s exchange with Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on 4 October, where she repeated her lie, as he had arrived in the chamber later. He learnt about the exchange later that day.
At that point, the WP CEC was unaware that the trio of party leaders knew Raeesah had lied before Parliament twice on the same matter. However, Faisal did not do anything, nor did he speak with anyone about it. "To his mind, this was a matter for Mr Singh to deal with. The timing of when to have Ms Khan correct the record in Parliament would depend on Mr Singh’s judgment," said the report.
He added that he did not check with Singh on the matter because he trusted Singh and "that was also the type of person he was – he did not go by mere logic," said the report. He also did not raise the matter with Raeesah, because she neither raised the issue nor sought his guidance on it.
"Mr Faisal agreed that Ms Khan’s conduct in Parliament on 4 Oct would be consistent with her account of what Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had told her to do at the 8 Aug meeting, if it was true, i.e., that she was to continue with her narrative, and lie."
However, Faisal did not feel it was necessary to inform the CEC of the full facts of the DP’s knowledge or involvement. He said that these matters were not relevant specifically to the DP’s work, because the DP’s recommendations were to be based only on what it had been told, or the information that it gathered, between the specific dates of 8 and 29 Nov 2021.
Whatever was not raised to the DP during these two dates would not be considered.
He agreed that the party members who came forward to share their views would not have been able to give an informed view, as they did not know all the facts. He also agreed that whether Raeesah was persistent in her lie, or whether she had sought the guidance of senior leadership and confessed to them about the lie, would be relevant to the level of sanction that the DP would recommend.
After the DP was formed, neither Lim nor Singh discussed with Faisal whether the 8 August meeting and what Raeesah told them should be part of the DP’s report to the CEC. And when the DP presented its recommendations to the CEC on 30 November, it also did not disclose this meeting when it recommended that Raeesah either resign or be expelled from the party.
It also did not disclose to the CEC that Loh and Nathan, senior cadre members who had worked closely with Raeesah, had made very strong statements to the DP for the DP members to disclose their own involvement and knowledge, and come clean with WP members and the public.
Consequently, the CEC voted in favour of Raeesah's expulsion without knowledge of the full facts.
However, when asked about these meetings and the documents which Singh and Lim had brought along, Faisal informed the COP four times that he would not answer the question. He refused to answer, despite being reminded that he had been called before the COP to assist with its investigations, which the documents may shed light on.
It was also explained to Faisal that a refusal to answer the COP’s questions would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of Parliament. He was invited to reconsider his refusal to answer the question.
Nevertheless, Faisal confirmed that the COP should place on record that he was refusing to answer the question, and repeated four more times that he would not be answering.
Raeesah Khan lied, WP leaders did not ask her to take Parliament lie 'to the grave': Faisal Manap to COP
SINGAPORE — Aljunied Member of Parliament Faisal Manap denied that the Workers' Party's (WP) senior leaders had instructed Raeesah Khan to take her lies before Parliament "to the grave", as he testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP) on Thursday (9 December).
However, he also acknowledged that the party's Central Executive Committee (CEC) voted in favour of the former Sengkang MP's expulsion despite not all CEC members having knowledge of the full facts – namely, that she had confessed her lie to WP chief Pritam Singh, party chair Sylvia Lim and Faisal days after she had uttered it in August.
In addition, the 46-year-old was held in contempt of Parliament as he repeatedly refused to answer the COP's queries on what documents had been brought along to his meetings with Singh and Lim on Wednesday and Thursday, prior to his testimony before the COP.
A second special report, incorporating Faisal's testimony, was released by the COP on Saturday. Following a meeting of the COP on Monday, Faisal, Lim and Singh were all called to testify before the COP, with Faisal testifying for six hours on Thursday.
The Committee has been tasked to investigate a complaint by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah pertaining to Raeesah's conduct in Parliament.
Last Thursday, Raeesah told the COP that the trio of WP leaders had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a COP special report released the day after the 27-year-old's testimony.
Following her meeting with Singh, Lim and Faisal, Raeesah had sent a WhatsApp message to her aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
Following the release of the first COP report, the WP noted that it was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made. In response, the COP said that it had done so to keep Parliament informed of the probe's progress.
Faisal told the COP that he had been called to an hour-long meeting at Singh's house on the morning of 8 August, together with Lim and Raeesah. He had been under the impression that the discussion would primarily be about other issues which Raeesah had raised during her statement in Parliament on 3 August, namely female genital cutting and polygamy.
Instead, Raeesah said that she had suffered a sexual assault as a student in Australia when she was 18. She then broke down and cried. She also confessed to the trio that the anecdote she had told Parliament about accompanying an alleged rape victim to make a police report was untrue.
This was the first time that Faisal discovered Raeesah had lied to Parliament. He was also unaware that she had spoke to Singh before the meeting to inform him that she had lied. "Mr Faisal said that he, Mr Singh, and Ms Lim were overwhelmed by what Ms Khan shared about her sexual assault," said the COP report.
"There was no anger against Ms Khan, after she shared her experience. Nor did Mr Singh indicate that Ms Khan should go before the COP. Mr Faisal said that he, Mr Singh and Ms Lim had tried to console and comfort Ms Khan," said the report. Faisal was worried about Raeesah's well-being, especially as he was a former counsellor, and even suggested that he could partner an asatizah (Islamic religious teacher) to counsel her.
After Raeesah calmed down, Faisal raised the issues of female genital cutting and polygamy and asked her to put out a Facebook statement later that day to clear the air, as there was unhappiness among the Muslim community about what she had said. Raeesah agreed, and Singh and Lim did not object.
No discussion with Singh, Lim or Raeesah
None of the three leaders reacted to Raeesah’s confession to them, and they did not discuss what to do about it, even though Faisal was "quite alarmed". He said that this was because they had been "overwhelmed", and their main concern was for her well-being. "Mr Faisal said that he understood that it would be hard to understand why the three of them did not react to Ms Khan’s confession that she had told an untruth in Parliament," said the report.After the meeting, Faisal did not discuss the issue with Raeesah, Singh or Lim. "In short, he told COP that he was not involved in anything relating to the untruth." From 8 August till 29 October, Faisal did not communicate further with them on Raeesah's untruth. He was neither involved in nor aware of any discussions that the others might have had amongst themselves on the issue during this time.
The MP agreed that it would have struck him almost immediately that Raeesah's lie was a "big problem". He also agreed that it would have been logical to have asked questions about her intention to clarify the lie, at various points in the events that transpired.
However, he left Singh to handle the matter because he trusted the WP chief and believed that Singh had the information to make the judgment call on the matter. He also trusted Raeesah to do the right thing.
Singh did not update Faisal at any point in time about how he was handling the matter. Faisal agreed that it would be reasonable for Raeesah to assume that her senior party leaders were not concerned with the untruth she had told in Parliament, because they said nothing, made no comment and did not tell her what she should do.
"However, he felt that if Ms Khan had wanted guidance from him, Ms Lim or Mr Singh, she should have proactively asked them for guidance, when they remained silent on the issue at the 8 Aug meeting. In Mr Faisal’s view, Ms Khan was an adult and the mother of two children, and was not young," said the report.
WhatsApp message untrue, says Faisal
On the WhatsApp message Raeesah had sent to her aides, Faisal maintained that everything in it was true, except for the claim that they had spoken with regards to the police accusation, and that the senior leaders had asked her to take the lie in Parliament “to the grave”."He said that Ms Khan was lying about this, but he could not explain why she would do so," said the report. Nevertheless, he agreed that everything that Raeesah had done after the 8 August meeting would be consistent with her account to Loh and Nathan of what happened during the meeting, if that account was true.
Faisal was not in Parliament during Raeesah’s exchange with Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on 4 October, where she repeated her lie, as he had arrived in the chamber later. He learnt about the exchange later that day.
'Shocked and worried'
Faisal was shocked and worried by the exchange and appreciated that this was a serious problem for Raeesah and that the WP was in trouble. This put him and the WP in a “more difficult position”, as she had now lied twice in Parliament.At that point, the WP CEC was unaware that the trio of party leaders knew Raeesah had lied before Parliament twice on the same matter. However, Faisal did not do anything, nor did he speak with anyone about it. "To his mind, this was a matter for Mr Singh to deal with. The timing of when to have Ms Khan correct the record in Parliament would depend on Mr Singh’s judgment," said the report.
He added that he did not check with Singh on the matter because he trusted Singh and "that was also the type of person he was – he did not go by mere logic," said the report. He also did not raise the matter with Raeesah, because she neither raised the issue nor sought his guidance on it.
"Mr Faisal agreed that Ms Khan’s conduct in Parliament on 4 Oct would be consistent with her account of what Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had told her to do at the 8 Aug meeting, if it was true, i.e., that she was to continue with her narrative, and lie."
WP Disciplinary Panel
Following Raeesah's confession of her untruth to Parliament on 1 November, Singh asked Faisal to be part of a Disciplinary Panel (DP) against her. The DP was formally established on 2 November. At this point, the rest of the CEC did not know that Raeesah had confessed her lie to the trio. This continued to be the case, when the CEC met on 30 November to deliberate on the DP’s recommendations.However, Faisal did not feel it was necessary to inform the CEC of the full facts of the DP’s knowledge or involvement. He said that these matters were not relevant specifically to the DP’s work, because the DP’s recommendations were to be based only on what it had been told, or the information that it gathered, between the specific dates of 8 and 29 Nov 2021.
Whatever was not raised to the DP during these two dates would not be considered.
He agreed that the party members who came forward to share their views would not have been able to give an informed view, as they did not know all the facts. He also agreed that whether Raeesah was persistent in her lie, or whether she had sought the guidance of senior leadership and confessed to them about the lie, would be relevant to the level of sanction that the DP would recommend.
After the DP was formed, neither Lim nor Singh discussed with Faisal whether the 8 August meeting and what Raeesah told them should be part of the DP’s report to the CEC. And when the DP presented its recommendations to the CEC on 30 November, it also did not disclose this meeting when it recommended that Raeesah either resign or be expelled from the party.
It also did not disclose to the CEC that Loh and Nathan, senior cadre members who had worked closely with Raeesah, had made very strong statements to the DP for the DP members to disclose their own involvement and knowledge, and come clean with WP members and the public.
Consequently, the CEC voted in favour of Raeesah's expulsion without knowledge of the full facts.
Contempt of Parliament
Faisal noted that, prior to giving testimony before the COP, he had held discussions with Singh and Lim on Wednesday and Thursday, for about two to three hours on each of the two days.However, when asked about these meetings and the documents which Singh and Lim had brought along, Faisal informed the COP four times that he would not answer the question. He refused to answer, despite being reminded that he had been called before the COP to assist with its investigations, which the documents may shed light on.
It was also explained to Faisal that a refusal to answer the COP’s questions would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of Parliament. He was invited to reconsider his refusal to answer the question.
Nevertheless, Faisal confirmed that the COP should place on record that he was refusing to answer the question, and repeated four more times that he would not be answering.
from yahoo.com:
SINGAPORE — Raeesah Khan's lie about having accompanied an alleged rape victim who was mistreated by police did not cause the police to be adversely impacted, Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP) on Friday (10 December).
According to the third special report released by the COP, Singh was asked if it was “okay to have a lie in Parliament where the lie relates to the reaction of the Police, bad reaction... to a complaint by a sexual assault victim”.
In response, the Leader of the Opposition noted that police are not a "broken-back” organisation. He questioned the amount of work put in by the police to check on the allegation, and didn’t feel that a wrong had been done to the police by the former Sengkang Member of Parliament's (MP) allegations against them.
Echoing party vice-chair Faisal Manap's testimony on Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition also denied that he had told Raeesah – who resigned on 30 November – to take her lie "to the grave". When asked why Raeesah might have lied about this, Singh said that Raeesah had told the party's disciplinary panel that she might have disassociation, a psychological condition that affects one's sense of identity and perception of time.
Singh, who is also an MP for Aljunied, asked the COP to consider asking Raeesah to undergo a psychological assessment.
A third special report based on Singh's testimony was released by the COP on Sunday.
Singh sat before the COP for a total of about nine hours, with questioning led by Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong. The exchange between the two quickly became testy, with Tong remarking at one point, "Let's put across some rules. First, I think we don't speak over each other. Don't interrupt me."
Singh said in response "I hope it works both ways, sir." And when Tong, who is also Second Minister for Law, commented that the 45-year-old appeared to know his positions very well, Singh replied, "Well, I am Leader of the Opposition."
At one point, when Singh asked how many sexual assault victims Tong had dealt with, the Minister bristled and told Singh to refrain from making personal references to him. Singh replied, “Mr Tong, I think you’re being hyper-sensitive. I am not making any personal reference against you.”
A second special report, incorporating Faisal's testimony, was released by the COP on Saturday. Faisal, party chair Sylvia Lim and Singh were all called to testify before the COP, with Faisal testifying for six hours on Thursday. Sengkang MP Jamus Lim has also been called to testify.
The Committee has been tasked to investigate a complaint by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah pertaining to Raeesah's conduct in Parliament.
Last Thursday, Raeesah told the COP that the trio of WP leaders had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a COP special report released the day after the 27-year-old's testimony.
Following her meeting with Singh, Lim and Faisal, Raeesah had sent a WhatsApp message to her aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
Following the release of the first COP report, the WP noted that it was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made. In response, the COP said that it had done so to keep Parliament informed of the probe's progress.
Nicholas Yong
·Assistant News Editor
Sun, 12 December 2021, 4:12 pm·12-min read
Workers' Party chief and Aljunied Member of Parliament Pritam Singh testifies before the Committee of Privileges on Friday, 10 December 2021. (SCREENGRAB: Gov.sg YouTube channel)
SINGAPORE — Raeesah Khan's lie about having accompanied an alleged rape victim who was mistreated by police did not cause the police to be adversely impacted, Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP) on Friday (10 December).
According to the third special report released by the COP, Singh was asked if it was “okay to have a lie in Parliament where the lie relates to the reaction of the Police, bad reaction... to a complaint by a sexual assault victim”.
In response, the Leader of the Opposition noted that police are not a "broken-back” organisation. He questioned the amount of work put in by the police to check on the allegation, and didn’t feel that a wrong had been done to the police by the former Sengkang Member of Parliament's (MP) allegations against them.
Echoing party vice-chair Faisal Manap's testimony on Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition also denied that he had told Raeesah – who resigned on 30 November – to take her lie "to the grave". When asked why Raeesah might have lied about this, Singh said that Raeesah had told the party's disciplinary panel that she might have disassociation, a psychological condition that affects one's sense of identity and perception of time.
Singh, who is also an MP for Aljunied, asked the COP to consider asking Raeesah to undergo a psychological assessment.
A third special report based on Singh's testimony was released by the COP on Sunday.
Singh sat before the COP for a total of about nine hours, with questioning led by Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong. The exchange between the two quickly became testy, with Tong remarking at one point, "Let's put across some rules. First, I think we don't speak over each other. Don't interrupt me."
Singh said in response "I hope it works both ways, sir." And when Tong, who is also Second Minister for Law, commented that the 45-year-old appeared to know his positions very well, Singh replied, "Well, I am Leader of the Opposition."
At one point, when Singh asked how many sexual assault victims Tong had dealt with, the Minister bristled and told Singh to refrain from making personal references to him. Singh replied, “Mr Tong, I think you’re being hyper-sensitive. I am not making any personal reference against you.”
A second special report, incorporating Faisal's testimony, was released by the COP on Saturday. Faisal, party chair Sylvia Lim and Singh were all called to testify before the COP, with Faisal testifying for six hours on Thursday. Sengkang MP Jamus Lim has also been called to testify.
The Committee has been tasked to investigate a complaint by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah pertaining to Raeesah's conduct in Parliament.
Last Thursday, Raeesah told the COP that the trio of WP leaders had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a COP special report released the day after the 27-year-old's testimony.
Following her meeting with Singh, Lim and Faisal, Raeesah had sent a WhatsApp message to her aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
Following the release of the first COP report, the WP noted that it was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made. In response, the COP said that it had done so to keep Parliament informed of the probe's progress.
In the days following Raeesah's parliamentary speech on 3 August, Pritam pressed her for more details of the alleged victim, but she claimed that she was unable to contact the victim.
On 7 August, Raeesah called Singh. During the conversation, he asked her directly if the anecdote she related in the House had indeed happened. She then confessed that it was false, leaving Singh "really angry and upset", and he cut the call.
The following day, a meeting was held at Singh's house with Raeesah, Lim, Faisal and Singh. She then explained that she had lied because she was labouring under a traumatic episode after having been the victim of a serious sexual assault. "She was upset, and cried as she shared her experience," said the report.
However, there was no substantive discussion at the meeting on what to do about Raeesah's lie as everyone was shocked at the news, said Singh. They were sympathetic to her and were more concerned about her well-being. "Mr Singh did not direct or instruct Ms Khan to clarify the untruth. He also did not recall Ms Lim or Mr Faisal discussing what to do with the untruth and how to clarify it," said the report.
As Raeesah was leaving Singh’s house, Singh told her, “We’ll have to deal with this issue, but speak to your parents first.” In view of her sexual assault, Singh was prepared to give her time, and added that it was important for her to speak to her parents because that would be a condition prior to her coming clean in Parliament.
However, the LO agreed that "it would be fair to say that Ms Khan would have left the 8 Aug meeting not being very clear in her mind about the Party leaders’ instructions on how to deal with her lie", said the report.
After the 8 August meeting, Singh did not discuss the matter with Raeesah again until October. Between the meeting and end-September, no steps were taken by him, Lim or Faisal to ensure that Raeesah would come clean. He stressed that it was her responsibility to speak to him about the matter, after she had settled things with her parents.
On the evening of 3 October, a day before Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam confronted Raeesah on her allegations in Parliament, Singh visited Raeesah’s home with his wife. He then told her that it was entirely possible that someone might ask her about her August anecdote in Parliament the next day.
He said that “if the issue came up”, Raeesah had “to take responsibility and ownership of the issue”, and if she did so, he “will not judge” her. But he admitted that he did not specifically tell her to speak the truth, and none of the usual preparatory steps, such as discussing a draft statement, were taken vis-à-vis the clarification that she might have to deliver.
None of these steps were taken before the October sitting because he was unsure if the matter would come up, and if it did not come up, then Raeesah may not have clarified. He added that if the matter was not raised, then he had no plans to voluntarily get the issue clarified, because it was her responsibility.
Singh was then asked about Raeesah's testimony to the COP that he had said if she continued the narrative, he would not judge her for doing so. "That's not true," said Singh, who added that based on what he had told Raeesah, he had an expectation – as opposed to an understanding – that she would clarify the truth, if the matter was raised.
"Though not articulated to Ms Khan, what Mr Singh meant by this was that he will not judge Ms Khan if she took responsibility and ownership," said the report. However, he did not ask if she had informed her parents about the assault, though he had set that as a precondition before she clarified the truth in public.
"Mr Singh agreed that Ms Khan’s message was completely at odds with his evidence: that as of 3 Oct, he expected her to tell the truth if the matter came up...and yet she was asking him for instructions," said the report. But the WP chief did not respond as he did not see the message till after the exchange.
Singh then met with Raeesah in the LO office that same evening for a “very, very short” meeting. Singh recalled that Raeesah was in a daze and said, “Perhaps there is another way. That is, to tell the truth.”
Singh then said he was very upset and replied, “But look at the choice you made.”
Asked if her words reasonably suggested that Raeesah was under the impression, until that point, that she was not to tell the truth, Singh disagreed. The LO told the COP, “She jolly well should know what to do. She has to tell the truth, end of story.”
When asked why he had not advised Raeesah to explain her position to the police, despite being invited to do so three times, Singh said that this was because it was clear to him that her untruth had to be corrected in Parliament, where it was originally made.
On 12 Oct, Singh initiated a meeting with Raeesah and Lim. While Raeesah had told the COP she wanted to discuss the advice that she received from her lawyers about the police request, Singh said he wanted to discuss how she should correct her untruth in Parliament. This was the first discussion they had had on this issue after 4 October.
At the meeting, Raeesah was initially still unwilling to correct the falsehood in Parliament, which made Lim very upset. Singh impressed upon Raeesah that there was no other way but to do so, and she eventually agreed.
Asked if it would have been open, transparent and honest for these facts to have been disclosed, Singh said that it was not important for Parliament, and not relevant for the public to know this.
But would the suppression of Raeesah's August confession, and that Singh had spoken with her on 3 October, give the impression that it was all her doing?
Singh responded that it was irrelevant to mention these facts in the two press statements. "According to Mr Singh, the involvement of himself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal in the events that unfolded would only become relevant if they could be shown to have directed Ms Khan to lie."
It was pointed out to Singh that the press conference was held at around the same time that Raeesah gave her testimony. However, he denied that he had disclosed for the first time the extent of the party leaders’ involvement because he knew that these facts would also come out in the evidence given to the COP.
He added that the timing of the press conference was coincidental. The LO noted that by that time, there had already been questions and ‘chatter’ in the online space as to when and how much the WP leaders knew about Raeesah’s untruths. He therefore decided to address this issue, as he anticipated that journalists would ask questions about it.
Singh was asked why the DP had not disclosed to either the CEC or party members that he, Lim and Faisal had known of Raeesah's lies. He disagreed that it was relevant whether Raeesah had kept the untruth hidden for many months, or if she had confessed the lie to the senior leaders at an early stage.
He said that the level of Raeesah’s perceived culpability would not make a difference to members’ submissions, nor would the extent to which she had cooperated with the party. He added that the CEC could have asked the DP whether and when the DP knew about Raeesah’s 3 August untruth, if it wanted.
Singh said that it never crossed his mind and that of Lim and Faisal that there was any problem.
Police not negatively impacted by Raeesah's lie: Workers’ Party chief Pritam to COP
SINGAPORE — Raeesah Khan's lie about having accompanied an alleged rape victim who was mistreated by police did not cause the police to be adversely impacted, Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP) on Friday (10 December).
According to the third special report released by the COP, Singh was asked if it was “okay to have a lie in Parliament where the lie relates to the reaction of the Police, bad reaction... to a complaint by a sexual assault victim”.
In response, the Leader of the Opposition noted that police are not a "broken-back” organisation. He questioned the amount of work put in by the police to check on the allegation, and didn’t feel that a wrong had been done to the police by the former Sengkang Member of Parliament's (MP) allegations against them.
Echoing party vice-chair Faisal Manap's testimony on Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition also denied that he had told Raeesah – who resigned on 30 November – to take her lie "to the grave". When asked why Raeesah might have lied about this, Singh said that Raeesah had told the party's disciplinary panel that she might have disassociation, a psychological condition that affects one's sense of identity and perception of time.
Singh, who is also an MP for Aljunied, asked the COP to consider asking Raeesah to undergo a psychological assessment.
A third special report based on Singh's testimony was released by the COP on Sunday.
Singh sat before the COP for a total of about nine hours, with questioning led by Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong. The exchange between the two quickly became testy, with Tong remarking at one point, "Let's put across some rules. First, I think we don't speak over each other. Don't interrupt me."
Singh said in response "I hope it works both ways, sir." And when Tong, who is also Second Minister for Law, commented that the 45-year-old appeared to know his positions very well, Singh replied, "Well, I am Leader of the Opposition."
At one point, when Singh asked how many sexual assault victims Tong had dealt with, the Minister bristled and told Singh to refrain from making personal references to him. Singh replied, “Mr Tong, I think you’re being hyper-sensitive. I am not making any personal reference against you.”
A second special report, incorporating Faisal's testimony, was released by the COP on Saturday. Faisal, party chair Sylvia Lim and Singh were all called to testify before the COP, with Faisal testifying for six hours on Thursday. Sengkang MP Jamus Lim has also been called to testify.
The Committee has been tasked to investigate a complaint by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah pertaining to Raeesah's conduct in Parliament.
Last Thursday, Raeesah told the COP that the trio of WP leaders had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a COP special report released the day after the 27-year-old's testimony.
Following her meeting with Singh, Lim and Faisal, Raeesah had sent a WhatsApp message to her aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
Following the release of the first COP report, the WP noted that it was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made. In response, the COP said that it had done so to keep Parliament informed of the probe's progress.
Nicholas Yong
·Assistant News Editor
Sun, 12 December 2021, 4:12 pm·12-min read
Workers' Party chief and Aljunied Member of Parliament Pritam Singh testifies before the Committee of Privileges on Friday, 10 December 2021. (SCREENGRAB: Gov.sg YouTube channel)
SINGAPORE — Raeesah Khan's lie about having accompanied an alleged rape victim who was mistreated by police did not cause the police to be adversely impacted, Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP) on Friday (10 December).
According to the third special report released by the COP, Singh was asked if it was “okay to have a lie in Parliament where the lie relates to the reaction of the Police, bad reaction... to a complaint by a sexual assault victim”.
In response, the Leader of the Opposition noted that police are not a "broken-back” organisation. He questioned the amount of work put in by the police to check on the allegation, and didn’t feel that a wrong had been done to the police by the former Sengkang Member of Parliament's (MP) allegations against them.
Echoing party vice-chair Faisal Manap's testimony on Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition also denied that he had told Raeesah – who resigned on 30 November – to take her lie "to the grave". When asked why Raeesah might have lied about this, Singh said that Raeesah had told the party's disciplinary panel that she might have disassociation, a psychological condition that affects one's sense of identity and perception of time.
Singh, who is also an MP for Aljunied, asked the COP to consider asking Raeesah to undergo a psychological assessment.
A third special report based on Singh's testimony was released by the COP on Sunday.
Singh sat before the COP for a total of about nine hours, with questioning led by Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong. The exchange between the two quickly became testy, with Tong remarking at one point, "Let's put across some rules. First, I think we don't speak over each other. Don't interrupt me."
Singh said in response "I hope it works both ways, sir." And when Tong, who is also Second Minister for Law, commented that the 45-year-old appeared to know his positions very well, Singh replied, "Well, I am Leader of the Opposition."
At one point, when Singh asked how many sexual assault victims Tong had dealt with, the Minister bristled and told Singh to refrain from making personal references to him. Singh replied, “Mr Tong, I think you’re being hyper-sensitive. I am not making any personal reference against you.”
A second special report, incorporating Faisal's testimony, was released by the COP on Saturday. Faisal, party chair Sylvia Lim and Singh were all called to testify before the COP, with Faisal testifying for six hours on Thursday. Sengkang MP Jamus Lim has also been called to testify.
The Committee has been tasked to investigate a complaint by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah pertaining to Raeesah's conduct in Parliament.
Last Thursday, Raeesah told the COP that the trio of WP leaders had advised her to maintain the lie she told Parliament on 3 August about accompanying an alleged rape victim to a police station and her allegations over insensitive remarks by a police officer, said a COP special report released the day after the 27-year-old's testimony.
Following her meeting with Singh, Lim and Faisal, Raeesah had sent a WhatsApp message to her aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, “Hey guys, I just met pritam, Sylvia and Faisal. And we spoke about the Muslim issue and the police accusation. I told them what I told you guys, and they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggested that I write a statement to send out this evening.”
Following the release of the first COP report, the WP noted that it was released without having taken the evidence of WP leaders against whom serious allegations have been made. In response, the COP said that it had done so to keep Parliament informed of the probe's progress.
'Really angry and upset' by her confession
In the days following Raeesah's parliamentary speech on 3 August, Pritam pressed her for more details of the alleged victim, but she claimed that she was unable to contact the victim.
On 7 August, Raeesah called Singh. During the conversation, he asked her directly if the anecdote she related in the House had indeed happened. She then confessed that it was false, leaving Singh "really angry and upset", and he cut the call.
The following day, a meeting was held at Singh's house with Raeesah, Lim, Faisal and Singh. She then explained that she had lied because she was labouring under a traumatic episode after having been the victim of a serious sexual assault. "She was upset, and cried as she shared her experience," said the report.
However, there was no substantive discussion at the meeting on what to do about Raeesah's lie as everyone was shocked at the news, said Singh. They were sympathetic to her and were more concerned about her well-being. "Mr Singh did not direct or instruct Ms Khan to clarify the untruth. He also did not recall Ms Lim or Mr Faisal discussing what to do with the untruth and how to clarify it," said the report.
As Raeesah was leaving Singh’s house, Singh told her, “We’ll have to deal with this issue, but speak to your parents first.” In view of her sexual assault, Singh was prepared to give her time, and added that it was important for her to speak to her parents because that would be a condition prior to her coming clean in Parliament.
However, the LO agreed that "it would be fair to say that Ms Khan would have left the 8 Aug meeting not being very clear in her mind about the Party leaders’ instructions on how to deal with her lie", said the report.
After the 8 August meeting, Singh did not discuss the matter with Raeesah again until October. Between the meeting and end-September, no steps were taken by him, Lim or Faisal to ensure that Raeesah would come clean. He stressed that it was her responsibility to speak to him about the matter, after she had settled things with her parents.
On the evening of 3 October, a day before Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam confronted Raeesah on her allegations in Parliament, Singh visited Raeesah’s home with his wife. He then told her that it was entirely possible that someone might ask her about her August anecdote in Parliament the next day.
He said that “if the issue came up”, Raeesah had “to take responsibility and ownership of the issue”, and if she did so, he “will not judge” her. But he admitted that he did not specifically tell her to speak the truth, and none of the usual preparatory steps, such as discussing a draft statement, were taken vis-à-vis the clarification that she might have to deliver.
None of these steps were taken before the October sitting because he was unsure if the matter would come up, and if it did not come up, then Raeesah may not have clarified. He added that if the matter was not raised, then he had no plans to voluntarily get the issue clarified, because it was her responsibility.
Singh was then asked about Raeesah's testimony to the COP that he had said if she continued the narrative, he would not judge her for doing so. "That's not true," said Singh, who added that based on what he had told Raeesah, he had an expectation – as opposed to an understanding – that she would clarify the truth, if the matter was raised.
"Though not articulated to Ms Khan, what Mr Singh meant by this was that he will not judge Ms Khan if she took responsibility and ownership," said the report. However, he did not ask if she had informed her parents about the assault, though he had set that as a precondition before she clarified the truth in public.
'What should I do, Pritam?'
At the 4 October sitting, Shanmugam gave a short Ministerial Statement about Raeesah’s anecdote, and sought clarification from her. While he was doing so, she texted Pritam to ask, “What should I do, Pritam?”"Mr Singh agreed that Ms Khan’s message was completely at odds with his evidence: that as of 3 Oct, he expected her to tell the truth if the matter came up...and yet she was asking him for instructions," said the report. But the WP chief did not respond as he did not see the message till after the exchange.
Singh then met with Raeesah in the LO office that same evening for a “very, very short” meeting. Singh recalled that Raeesah was in a daze and said, “Perhaps there is another way. That is, to tell the truth.”
Singh then said he was very upset and replied, “But look at the choice you made.”
Asked if her words reasonably suggested that Raeesah was under the impression, until that point, that she was not to tell the truth, Singh disagreed. The LO told the COP, “She jolly well should know what to do. She has to tell the truth, end of story.”
Request from police
On 7 October, Raeesah received an email from the police requesting assistance on her parliamentary anecdote. She forwarded it to Singh, Lim and Faisal, and asked for their advice on what to do. Singh confirmed that he did not advise her to respond to the police, though he agreed that the police request was reasonable.When asked why he had not advised Raeesah to explain her position to the police, despite being invited to do so three times, Singh said that this was because it was clear to him that her untruth had to be corrected in Parliament, where it was originally made.
On 12 Oct, Singh initiated a meeting with Raeesah and Lim. While Raeesah had told the COP she wanted to discuss the advice that she received from her lawyers about the police request, Singh said he wanted to discuss how she should correct her untruth in Parliament. This was the first discussion they had had on this issue after 4 October.
At the meeting, Raeesah was initially still unwilling to correct the falsehood in Parliament, which made Lim very upset. Singh impressed upon Raeesah that there was no other way but to do so, and she eventually agreed.
Press statements left out key facts
Following Raeesah's confession of her lie on 1 November, Singh put up a Facebook post on the matter that day, and the WP put out a media statement announcing the formation of a Disciplinary Panel (DP) the next day. Neither statement disclosed the fact that Raeesah had confessed the lie to senior party leaders on 8 August.Asked if it would have been open, transparent and honest for these facts to have been disclosed, Singh said that it was not important for Parliament, and not relevant for the public to know this.
But would the suppression of Raeesah's August confession, and that Singh had spoken with her on 3 October, give the impression that it was all her doing?
Singh responded that it was irrelevant to mention these facts in the two press statements. "According to Mr Singh, the involvement of himself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal in the events that unfolded would only become relevant if they could be shown to have directed Ms Khan to lie."
Facts 'not relevant' to CEC, party members
Following Raeesah's resignation on 30 November, the WP held a press conference on 2 December where it admitted that it had known of Raeesah's lie since August. Singh was then asked why had chosen to disclose the party leaders’ knowledge and involvement from August, when he had previously held that it was irrelevant to the public.It was pointed out to Singh that the press conference was held at around the same time that Raeesah gave her testimony. However, he denied that he had disclosed for the first time the extent of the party leaders’ involvement because he knew that these facts would also come out in the evidence given to the COP.
He added that the timing of the press conference was coincidental. The LO noted that by that time, there had already been questions and ‘chatter’ in the online space as to when and how much the WP leaders knew about Raeesah’s untruths. He therefore decided to address this issue, as he anticipated that journalists would ask questions about it.
Singh was asked why the DP had not disclosed to either the CEC or party members that he, Lim and Faisal had known of Raeesah's lies. He disagreed that it was relevant whether Raeesah had kept the untruth hidden for many months, or if she had confessed the lie to the senior leaders at an early stage.
He said that the level of Raeesah’s perceived culpability would not make a difference to members’ submissions, nor would the extent to which she had cooperated with the party. He added that the CEC could have asked the DP whether and when the DP knew about Raeesah’s 3 August untruth, if it wanted.
Conflict of evidence
Given that the DP comprised Singh, Lim and Faisal, it was pointed out to Singh that there was a conflict of evidence, as Raeesah claimed she had been told by the trio to continue with her lie. Would this not be seen as a cover up, if Raeesah was telling the truth?Singh said that it never crossed his mind and that of Lim and Faisal that there was any problem.
from yahoo.com:
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) chair Sylvia Lim has testified that she disagreed with Raeesah Khan’s statement before the Committee of Privileges (COP) tasked to investigate the lies by the former Sengkang MP in Parliament about an alleged sexual assault case.
Lim was responding on Monday (13 December) to a question about the statement by Raeesah that a consensus had been reached between Lim, WP chief Pritam Singh and vice-chair Faisal Manap at a meeting on 8 August to “take it to the grave” regarding Raeesah’s lies and maintaining them.
Raeesah alleged in a parliamentary session on 3 August that she had accompanied a rape victim to a police station previously and claimed that the victim was subject to insensitive remarks by a police officer about her dressing and questions on whether she had been drinking.
Lim was also asked if she could rule out any of Raeesah’s mental conditions including dissociation that may have caused the ex-MP to make the “to the grave” statement. “Ms Lim said that she could not rule anything out,” according to the COP’s fourth special report released on Tuesday.
“Ms Lim agreed that as an experienced politician, she immediately appreciated that Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament was a serious and grave matter that had to be addressed. The lie would have to be clarified, though she (Ms Lim) did not apply her mind to the question of how and when it should be corrected, at that time.”
Lim said she did not recall any conversation between Singh, Faisal and herself on the day concerning Raeesah’s lie in Parliament, or the next steps that needed to be taken.
Lim said that as Singh knew Raeesah best and was guiding her, she left it to Singh to follow up on this matter with Raeesah.
During the parliamentary session on 4 October, Raeesah maintained the lies about the alleged incident when confronted by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.
Lim arranged to meet Raeesah later in the afternoon in part to ascertain Raeesah’s “emotional state after the exchange in Parliament”.
“She (Lim) was frustrated because it did not appear that there had been any progress made, to move Ms Khan towards correcting the parliamentary record”.
When asked if Lim had discussed with Singh about his discussions with Raeesah, “Ms Lim said that she had not done so, as it never crossed her mind that Mr Singh and Ms Khan would have agreed to ‘double down’ on the lie. Ms Lim said that she could also not fathom the possibility of Mr Singh giving Ms Khan the option of choosing between telling the truth, or continuing the lie.”
Lim confirmed that the 12 October meeting was the first time that “an express commitment” was made for Raeesah to clarify the lie in Parliament.
On 1 November, Raeesah admitted to her lies in Parliament and made a tearful apology. She also revealed to the House that she was a victim of sexual assault. Later in the session, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah filed a complaint for a COP to convene and investigate Raeesah's lies.
Associate Professor (A/P) Lim, who is a member of the CEC, said that apart from what he was told at the 29 October meeting about Raeesah’s lies in Parliament and her intention to clarify in Parliament on 1 November, “he generally learnt of the facts concerning this matter only when they became public”.
A/P Lim was also asked by the COP that as a member of the CEC, he should have expected that Raeesah’s confessions to the WP leaders on 7 and 8 August, and the latter's knowledge as on 4 October to be told to the CEC.
The MP said that “he trusted the party leadership to inform the CEC of all material facts. Given that the party leaders had not told the CEC about their involvement in the matter from an early stage, A/P Lim trusted that these facts were not material".
He added that if Raeesah had planned to subsequently confess, then her earlier confessions to the WP leaders would not have been material.
WP’s Sylvia Lim disagreed with Raeesah’s testimony on ‘take it to the grave’: COP report
SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) chair Sylvia Lim has testified that she disagreed with Raeesah Khan’s statement before the Committee of Privileges (COP) tasked to investigate the lies by the former Sengkang MP in Parliament about an alleged sexual assault case.
Lim was responding on Monday (13 December) to a question about the statement by Raeesah that a consensus had been reached between Lim, WP chief Pritam Singh and vice-chair Faisal Manap at a meeting on 8 August to “take it to the grave” regarding Raeesah’s lies and maintaining them.
Raeesah alleged in a parliamentary session on 3 August that she had accompanied a rape victim to a police station previously and claimed that the victim was subject to insensitive remarks by a police officer about her dressing and questions on whether she had been drinking.
Lim was also asked if she could rule out any of Raeesah’s mental conditions including dissociation that may have caused the ex-MP to make the “to the grave” statement. “Ms Lim said that she could not rule anything out,” according to the COP’s fourth special report released on Tuesday.
8 August meeting
On 8 August, Lim met with Pritam, Faisal and Raeesah at Singh’s house to discuss Raeesah’s statement in Parliament. During the meeting, Raeesah admitted to the three WP leaders that she had lied in Parliament. Raeesah also admitted she had heard the anecdote during a victim support group that she attended, because she was also a victim of sexual assault.“Ms Lim agreed that as an experienced politician, she immediately appreciated that Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament was a serious and grave matter that had to be addressed. The lie would have to be clarified, though she (Ms Lim) did not apply her mind to the question of how and when it should be corrected, at that time.”
Lim said she did not recall any conversation between Singh, Faisal and herself on the day concerning Raeesah’s lie in Parliament, or the next steps that needed to be taken.
Between 8 August meeting and 4 October parliamentary session
Between the 8 August meeting and until the parliamentary sitting on 4 October, no steps were taken towards having Raeesah to clarify the lie before Parliament, said Lim, adding that she did not think that anything concrete was done during this period.Lim said that as Singh knew Raeesah best and was guiding her, she left it to Singh to follow up on this matter with Raeesah.
During the parliamentary session on 4 October, Raeesah maintained the lies about the alleged incident when confronted by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.
Lim arranged to meet Raeesah later in the afternoon in part to ascertain Raeesah’s “emotional state after the exchange in Parliament”.
“She (Lim) was frustrated because it did not appear that there had been any progress made, to move Ms Khan towards correcting the parliamentary record”.
12 October meeting
At a subsequent meeting on 12 October, Raeesah met with Lim and Singh at the latter’s house, where Raeesah “indicated some reluctance to correct the record”.When asked if Lim had discussed with Singh about his discussions with Raeesah, “Ms Lim said that she had not done so, as it never crossed her mind that Mr Singh and Ms Khan would have agreed to ‘double down’ on the lie. Ms Lim said that she could also not fathom the possibility of Mr Singh giving Ms Khan the option of choosing between telling the truth, or continuing the lie.”
Lim confirmed that the 12 October meeting was the first time that “an express commitment” was made for Raeesah to clarify the lie in Parliament.
On 1 November, Raeesah admitted to her lies in Parliament and made a tearful apology. She also revealed to the House that she was a victim of sexual assault. Later in the session, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah filed a complaint for a COP to convene and investigate Raeesah's lies.
Jamus Lim's testimony
Sengkang MP Jamus Lim also testified before the COP, specifically regarding the the 29 October meeting and the 30 November meeting of the WP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC).Associate Professor (A/P) Lim, who is a member of the CEC, said that apart from what he was told at the 29 October meeting about Raeesah’s lies in Parliament and her intention to clarify in Parliament on 1 November, “he generally learnt of the facts concerning this matter only when they became public”.
A/P Lim was also asked by the COP that as a member of the CEC, he should have expected that Raeesah’s confessions to the WP leaders on 7 and 8 August, and the latter's knowledge as on 4 October to be told to the CEC.
The MP said that “he trusted the party leadership to inform the CEC of all material facts. Given that the party leaders had not told the CEC about their involvement in the matter from an early stage, A/P Lim trusted that these facts were not material".
He added that if Raeesah had planned to subsequently confess, then her earlier confessions to the WP leaders would not have been material.
Jamus plays football. 
Last weekend, I joined the other #SengkangGRC MPs and dropped by a football bootcamp, organized by a Sengkang resident and former national footballer. I was delighted to see that there were both female coaches and kids; such participation bodes well for the future of women in the sport.
Speaking of the future of Singapore football, we also discussed what we felt was one of the gaps in the talent pipeline: that many excellent players would often drop out after playing competitively in school, because of the pressures of getting a “real” job. In my mind, such attrition has always been a massive loss, and a major impediment to our national football aspirations (the current success of our Lions in the Suzuki Cup notwithstanding). Hopefully, this effort will play a small part in bolstering that talent pipeline, too! #TeamSengkang
Jamus Lim
13 hrs ·Last weekend, I joined the other #SengkangGRC MPs and dropped by a football bootcamp, organized by a Sengkang resident and former national footballer. I was delighted to see that there were both female coaches and kids; such participation bodes well for the future of women in the sport.
Speaking of the future of Singapore football, we also discussed what we felt was one of the gaps in the talent pipeline: that many excellent players would often drop out after playing competitively in school, because of the pressures of getting a “real” job. In my mind, such attrition has always been a massive loss, and a major impediment to our national football aspirations (the current success of our Lions in the Suzuki Cup notwithstanding). Hopefully, this effort will play a small part in bolstering that talent pipeline, too! #TeamSengkang
Jamus is pleased with the improvement at Anchorvale.
https://www.facebook.com/jamusjlim?__tn__=<<*F
It’s been around two months since #Anchorvale has transitioned into a different management model for the estate, with a property team directly hired by the #SengkangGRC Town Council. The decision to do so was unanimous, and I am pleased to see that this choice is bearing real fruit. Not only have we received significantly more complimentary emails about the responsiveness and professionalism of our new hires, complaints about estate issues have also fallen dramatically. This improvement is most evident during my weekly estate walks, where residents remark that they can see the difference. The team is working down a backlog, alongside longstanding issues that we inherited, many dating to years ago. We will continue to work hard at improving the day-to-day quality of life in the estate, as we are committed to do, and for which we place the utmost priority. #TeamSengkang
https://www.facebook.com/jamusjlim?__tn__=<<*F
Jamus Lim
13 hrs ·It’s been around two months since #Anchorvale has transitioned into a different management model for the estate, with a property team directly hired by the #SengkangGRC Town Council. The decision to do so was unanimous, and I am pleased to see that this choice is bearing real fruit. Not only have we received significantly more complimentary emails about the responsiveness and professionalism of our new hires, complaints about estate issues have also fallen dramatically. This improvement is most evident during my weekly estate walks, where residents remark that they can see the difference. The team is working down a backlog, alongside longstanding issues that we inherited, many dating to years ago. We will continue to work hard at improving the day-to-day quality of life in the estate, as we are committed to do, and for which we place the utmost priority. #TeamSengkang
