Since it was revealed that Raeesah Khan told an untruth in Parliament, the Committee of Privileges (COP) has conducted a lengthy investigation and came up with their recommendations.
On Tuesday (15 Feb), a Parliamentary debate was held concerning the COP’s recommendations.
Taking the stand first, the Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Opposition Leader Pritam Singh reemphasised that he did not instruct Ms Khan to hide the truth.
However, he admits that he should have been more proactive and checked in with Miss Khan. Instead, he gave her “too much time” to settle herself before dealing with the matter.
During the COP hearings, one key finding was that Ms Khan was allegedly told by WP leadership to take her lie to the grave. Mr Singh denied the allegations.
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday (15 Feb), Mr Singh maintained that he had not, at any time, instructed her to do so.
Since he learned of her lie, he had no doubt Ms Khan would have to apologise in Parliament for it and had left it in her hands.
Looking back, Mr Singh admitted he gave her “too much time to settle herself” before addressing the matter appropriately with her, saying that he should have been more proactive in checking on her.
This is specific to the period between 8 Aug and 30 Sep 2021 when Ms Khan was supposed to address the matter of her sexual assault with her family before clarifying her lie in Parliament.
In an attempt to explain Ms Khan’s behaviour since resigning from WP, Mr Singh said it was simply “human behaviour”.
He noted that “not everybody reacts with loyalty to their Party or their leaders when they realise that the curtain is coming down on their political careers”.
Mr Singh moved on to address the findings of the COP report, claiming that it had disregarded evidence he had submitted.
He said he had, at a minimum, expected a listing of all the documents submitted by the WP members to be taken into consideration.
With their omission in the report, he assumed this was not the case.
Mr Singh first contended that he had “weaponised” Ms Khan’s mental health condition by seeking a psychiatric evaluation.
He clarified that he had raised the issue because he did not believe Ms Khan should be excessively punished for a condition she was suffering.
The evidence was raised in an attempt for the COP to develop an appropriate punishment for her.
Next, Mr Singh disagreed with the way the COP characterised his evidence concerning Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
He asserted that both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were loyal towards Ms Khan, and he believed that they are “decent, good people and have done a lot for the party”. This was a character reference he had made to the COP, which was allegedly omitted.
Mr Singh wondered if this was strategically done to drive a wedge and disunite the WP.
After the Raeesah Khan saga emerged, the WP candidate selection process was thrust into the spotlight.
To this, Mr Singh said no selection process is foolproof, considering how PAP MPs had been found guilty of criminal conduct, and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) chief was convicted in court.
It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to test a person’s judgement in all circumstances prior to fielding them as political candidates.
Given the structural challenges faced as Opposition members, Mr Singh said he would discuss with his colleagues to finetune the party’s processes.
This also includes listening to Singaporeans’ demands for WP to field individuals who would uphold and meet the standards expected of MPs.
If any candidate selection decisions are wrong, I as secretary-general of the party, take full responsibility.
If you’re looking for a TL;DR version of the debate today (15 Feb), here are the key points.
Leader of the House Indranee Rajah filed 2 motions related to the COP’s report on Raeesah Khan’s untruth in Parliament:
1. Calls on the House to agree with the COP’s finding that Ms Khan is to be fined $35,000 for abusing parliamentary privilege
2. Calls on the Parliament to refer Mr Singh and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap to prosecutors
The 2nd motion also sets out to defer parliamentary sanctions on Mr Singh, Mr Faisal, and WP chairman Sylvia Lim regarding the case until investigations and criminal proceedings against Mr Singh have ended.
To these 2 motions, Mr Singh said:
1. WP disagrees with the reasons behind the lower quantum of fine for Ms Khan
2. He objects to COP’s findings that offences have been committed under the Parliament Act by him and other WP MPs.
Whilst Mr Singh rejects the motion of the House to refer him to the Public Prosecutor, and ultimately, he strives to clear his name.
He continued that he would not object to the Parliament bringing the matter to the Public Prosecutor and would fully cooperate.
Many ministers, including PM Lee, mentioned in Parliament that this issue is crucial as it concerns the integrity of our nation’s leaders and sets a precedent.
As this issue moves forward, hopefully, we will soon be given more answers to the many questions left unanswered, and with that, hold our leaders accountable for their actions.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from MCI Singapore on YouTube.
Some even climbed the nearby clinic's roof just to snap a picture.
His stomach turns carbs into alcohol.
It is unclear why the driver refused to make way for the ambulance.
He admitted to not revisiting the flat regularly.
On 24 April, the temperature in Bangkok was recorded at 40.1°C but reportedly felt like…
She had been a good role model to her sisters.