Committee of Privileges recommends Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh face further probe, $35,000 fine for Raeesah Khan over lies in Parliament

By Justin Ong, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

A parliamentary committee has recommended that former Workers’ Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan be fined and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor for their roles in lies told by Ms Khan in Parliament in August and October last year.

The Committee of Privileges said Ms Khan should be fined a total of $35,000 over lies she told the House in August and October last year.

It also said the Public Prosecutor should further investigate Mr Singh’s conduct before the committee, “with a view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted”.

The committee said it was satisfied that Mr Singh was untruthful in giving evidence under oath, and that this may amount to perjury, a serious criminal offence.

The committee, whose report was released yesterday, similarly recommended that WP vice-chair Faisal Manap, an MP for Aljunied GRC, be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations over his refusal to answer relevant questions put forth during its hearings, and to also consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.

The committee’s recommendations are expected to be debated when Parliament sits next week, with Leader of the House Indranee Rajah set to move a motion for MPs to vote on.

The panel is chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and comprises six other People's Action Party lawmakers and Hougang MP Dennis Tan from the WP.

It recommended that Ms Khan be fined $25,000 for stating an untruth in Parliament on Aug 3, when she claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where officers allegedly handled the matter insensitively and drove the victim to tears.

She repeated the untruth on Oct 4 - for which the committee is recommending an additional fine of $10,000.

In November, Ms Khan confessed in Parliament that she had in fact heard this anecdote in a support group she was part of, and had shared it without the victim's consent.

Ms Khan, 29, resigned as a WP member and MP for Sengkang GRC on Nov 30, a mere 15 months after being sworn in as Singapore's youngest MP after the 2020 general election.

Appropriate sanctions for the WP leaders should be deferred until after the conclusion of investigations or criminal proceedings, if any, against Mr Singh, said the committee.

The committee hearings in December saw the public release of six special reports and over 30 hours of video recordings of testimonies.

They were filled with conflicting accounts of what transpired between and around Ms Khan’s telling of the lie on Aug 3, her repeated fib on Oct 4, and her eventual admission on Nov 1.

Laying out its considerations behind the sanctions in a report numbering over 1,000 pages that it presented to Parliament on Thursday, the committee said Ms Khan must “take full and sole responsibility” for the untruth on Aug 3, which she had uttered twice while making a clarification on the same day.

For repeating the lie on Oct 4, the committee said it was recommending a smaller fine of $10,000 – compared to $25,000 for the August act.

The committee noted that while ordinarily, repeating an untruth should carry a higher penalty, there were “mitigating circumstances” - including that Ms Khan had confessed internally to WP leaders on Aug 8; that she had been acting thereafter on the guidance and advice of WP leaders to “bury” or continue the untruth; and that she ultimately resigned from Parliament.

Mr Singh was singled out by the committee for being the “key orchestrator” and “operating brain” behind the circumstances leading to Ms Khan’s repeated untruth on Oct 4.

The committee suggested that Parliament refer Mr Singh to the Public Prosecutor, citing – among other things – its belief that Mr Singh had lied to them on affirmation; and that the “seriousness of the matter” would be best served through a trial process where a court could look at the matter afresh and Mr Singh could defend himself with legal counsel.

While the committee was of the view that WP chairman Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal had played a “relatively subsidiary role” compared to Mr Singh, it noted that Mr Faisal’s “flagrant and inexcusable” refusal to answer questions posed by the committee could amount to contempt of Parliament.

These questions were pertaining to a meeting between the three leaders before Mr Faisal appeared before the committee on Dec 10.

The committee thus recommended that Mr Faisal also be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation.

Its report noted that WP MP and committee member Dennis Tan had objected to all the findings during a review of a draft, but had no further comments after a round of deliberations by committee members over his objections.

Posting on Facebook shortly after the release of the report, Mr Singh, who is WP chief and an MP for Aljunied GRC, said he and Mr Faisal would continue their work as per normal till the matter is resolved.

He noted that there remain a number of unknowns, assuming Parliament adopts the committee’s recommendations.

“These include the eventual decision of the Public Prosecutor to prosecute, the intervening time before the matter goes to trial, the eventual verdict and any sentence meted out, and the prospect of both Faisal and I losing our parliamentary seats and stepping down as Members of Parliament if either of us is fined $2,000 or more,” Mr Singh added.

By Hariz Baharudin, Assistant News Editor, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh appears to have been the "operating brain" and key reason why former WP MP Raeesah Khan repeated her lies in Parliament, said a parliamentary committee.

In a report released on Thursday (Feb 10), the Committee of Privileges said it was satisfied that Mr Singh had been untruthful in his evidence, under oath, during its hearings held in December last year. This may amount to perjury, a serious criminal offence, it added.

The committee recommended that Mr Singh, who is Leader of the Opposition, be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations.

In its report, which was the culmination of the committee's probe into lies told by Ms Khan in Parliament in August and October last year, it also said that Mr Singh had made "regrettable" allegations about Ms Khan's mental health and against two WP cadres.

Ms Khan had on Aug 3 claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where officers allegedly handled the matter insensitively and drove the victim to tears. She repeated the untruth on Oct 4.

Mr Singh had visited Ms Khan at her home on Oct 3. During that meeting, he had used words that indicated to her that she should continue with the untruth, said the report.

The committee heard that Mr Singh had told Ms Khan that there would be no judgment by him if she kept to her narrative on the lies she told on Aug 3.

While it was possible to describe such a statement as a choice given to Ms Khan, as Mr Singh had testified, the committee said this would be an incomplete description. It would be more accurate to describe the statement as a strong guidance to continue lying, the committee added.

"He was the primary cause, the operating brain, for Ms Khan repeating the untruth in Parliament on Oct 4. He orchestrated it. He could easily have told Ms Khan to tell the truth. And she would have listened to him," it said.

"He did not advise telling the truth. Instead, he suggested to her to continue with the untruth. Ms Khan followed his advice."

According to the report, Mr Singh acted with "considerable surreptitiousness", and did not tell other members of the WP leadership that he was going to meet her.

"At the meeting, Mr Singh did not tell Ms Khan to proactively raise the matter and also did not tell Ms Khan that she should tell the truth. This is not disputed," the report said.

The report also noted that Mr Singh left the Oct 3 meeting on the basis that Ms Khan will continue to lie in Parliament, as neither he nor the party made preparations for her to come clean in case she had to admit the truth if the matter was raised.

Various steps would have been taken if she was to admit to her lie, the committee said, highlighting the actions that were taken in preparation for when Ms Khan told the truth on Nov 1. This included a prepared clarification that would have been reviewed by party leaders and informing the WP's central executive committee.

"Mr Singh was obviously quite settled in his mind, that based on his advice, if the matter came up, Ms Khan will just repeat the untruth," the committee said.

It added that in his testimony, Mr Singh gave some reasons as to why Ms Khan ought to know that she should tell the truth, including how he had asked her to substantiate her false anecdote before she spoke about it in Parliament in August, and how he had sent a general e-mail to all WP MPs on Oct 1 informing them that they had to be able to substantiate any statements made in Parliament.

But none of these reasons provide a credible basis for Mr Singh to reasonably believe that he had made clear to Ms Khan that she should tell the truth on Oct 4, the committee said.

The COP also outlined how Mr Singh had made regrettable statements that were not true, including allegations about Ms Khan's mental health.

The WP chief had suggested that Ms Khan's alleged dissociation could have caused her to lie to her aides on Aug 8 that she was told by party leaders to "take the information to the grave", said the report.

Dissociation is a mental health condition where a person disconnects from one's thoughts and feelings.

But the committee also noted that Mr Singh had testified that there was nothing unusual about Ms Khan's performance as an MP between August to September of last year, which meant that his statements about her mental state were "at odds" with his conduct at the relevant time.

In her testimony, Ms Khan denied the allegations about her mental health, and had expressed her "disquiet" that such allegations had been made.

The report also mentioned how she agreed to an independent evaluation of her mental state, which found that allegations about it were without basis.

"We consider it regrettable that Mr Singh made allegations about Ms Khan's mental health. It was particularly regrettable, in part, because Mr Singh has been the person, untruthful to this Committee, on the key points, as to what had happened," said the committee.

It noted that Mr Singh "essentially made unsubstantiated allegations, that Ms Khan was unstable and unreliable because of her mental health - and that this was connected to her being a sexual assault victim".

"He used the mental health issues as a smear against Ms Khan, to explain away his own conduct and lies to this Committee," it said.

Mr Singh had made allegations against WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan as well, and had attacked them even though they had spoken the truth, said the report.

After she lied in Parliament, Ms Khan had confided in Ms Loh, her secretarial assistant, and Mr Nathan, a WP member who had assisted her.

Ms Loh and Mr Nathan met Mr Singh on the night of Oct 12, after Ms Khan told them she would have to make a statement in Parliament to clarify her lies.

They told the committee that it was during this meeting that they learnt that Mr Singh had met Ms Khan on Oct 3, and that he had told Ms Khan he had a feeling the issue might come up the next day.

Ms Loh said Mr Singh had shared with her that he would not judge Ms Khan.

Separately, Mr Nathan told the COP that the WP chief had expressed to them that regardless of whether Ms Khan had decided to tell the truth or not, he would not judge her.

In his testimony, Mr Singh told the committee that he did tell the two cadres that he expected Ms Khan to take ownership and responsibility for the matter, and it was in this context that he told them about how he would not judge her.

He had also explained to the committee that what he meant was Ms Khan was a leader in her own right and had a choice in the matter.

In its report, the committee said that Mr Singh had alleged that the two party members had a "skewed impression" and that they could have lied "out of loyalty" to Ms Khan.

But the committee found both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan to be truthful witnesses who had little to gain by lying, and much to lose by telling the truth.

The report noted that Ms Loh had previously been Mr Singh's secretarial assistant, whom he had spoken about in glowing terms, and that Mr Nathan had worked for WP MPs at various points and was featured in a party video for the 2020 General Election.

"It is regrettable that Mr Singh attacked those two young persons, who spoke the truth. It is quite un-Parliamentary, and quite shameful conduct, on the part of Mr Singh, to accuse them of lying," said the report.

By Justin Ong, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

Former Workers' Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan must take full and sole responsibility for her initial lie in Parliament in August last year, said a parliamentary committee.

When Ms Khan repeated the lie in October, she had done so under the guidance of senior party leaders, the Committee of Privileges noted in a lengthy report released on Thursday (Feb 10).

This "mitigating factor", among others, led to the committee recommending a smaller fine of $10,000 for her lie in October, compared with $25,000 for the original untruth.

The committee also concluded that Ms Khan's version of events from Aug 8, when she first came clean about her lie to three WP leaders, was "more credible" when set against the conduct of the trio - namely party chief Pritam Singh, chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap.

On Aug 3, Ms Khan had fabricated details in Parliament about police officers mishandling a sexual assault case. She confessed in the House in November that this was in fact an anecdote from a support group she was part of, as a sexual assault victim herself.

She resigned as a WP member and MP for Sengkang GRC on Nov 30.

The committee, in its report, said Ms Khan was guilty of abusing parliamentary privilege, and had "acted with disregard for the dignity and decorum of the House in making a serious allegation against the police in Parliament, that was untrue in some parts, and was unsubstantiated".

In considering the appropriate penalties to recommend to Parliament, the committee took into account previous cases, such as those similarly involving false or unsubstantiated allegations in the House.

For instance, the Singapore Democratic Party's Dr Chee Soon Juan - though not an MP - was fined $25,000 in 1996 for fabricating data and committing perjury among other misleading acts, while making representations as a member of the public to a select committee on healthcare subsidies in polyclinics and hospitals.

The committee noted, however, that this was a case of lying to Parliament rather than abuse of privilege.

It said a precedent more apt to its deliberations over Ms Khan involved former WP leader J. B. Jeyaretnam, who in 1987 was fined $1,000 for making unsubstantiated allegations, including over the supposed wrongful arrest and detention of one Lim Poh Huat.

Mr Jeyaretnam did not provide details on the allegation, which he repeated in Parliament a few days later while also falsely claiming he had made a police report on the matter.

The committee pointed out that when Ms Khan lied on Aug 3, only she was aware of the untruth.

While still liable for repeating the lie on Oct 4, the first-time MP was no longer solely responsible as from Aug 8, she was acting on the advice of senior WP leaders to bury and continue the untruth, said the committee.

"Her conduct and evidence show that if she had been advised on Aug 8, to come clean, she would have done so," it added.

The report highlighted that after her meeting with WP leaders that day, Ms Khan immediately sent a text message to her secretarial assistant Loh Pei Ying and another party member assisting her, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, to share that she had been told to "take the information to the grave".

The two aides were due to meet Mr Singh in two days' time, without her, and would have found out if she was misreporting what happened at the Aug 8 meeting, the committee observed.

"In the committee's view, the contemporaneous message is a clear indicator that Ms Khan is telling the truth," the report read.

"When asked about the contemporaneous message, Mr Singh said that Ms Khan had mental health issues and may therefore not have told the truth to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. The committee finds this suggestion from Mr Singh to be both untrue and regrettable."

The committee noted that after Aug 8, the three WP leaders had not discussed with Ms Khan anything to do with her lie.

"If there was a genuine desire to have this untruth clarified, there would have been at least some discussion taking place between the three senior WP leaders on what to make of the confession, what next steps to take, and at least some indication of a rough timeline," said the committee.

"By their own admission, none of this was done."

It noted that Ms Khan came clean on Nov 1 after being told to do so by Mr Singh and Ms Lim on Oct 12; and that her mental health had been "unfairly and publicly attacked, in particular, by Mr Singh".

The committee took these factors into account in making its recommendations.

"Ordinarily, repeating an untruth should carry a higher penalty," it said.

"However, a lower amount has been recommended because of the mitigating circumstances."

By Goh Yan Han, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

Parts of Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim's testimony before the Committee of Privileges were useful, even though she also lied under oath, the committee said in a report on Thursday (Feb 10).

The committee said Ms Lim had provided evidence that informed its finding that Leader of the Opposition and WP chief Pritam Singh had guided former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan to continue her Aug 3 untruth in Parliament ahead of the Oct 4 parliamentary sitting.

The committee referred to her notes on the WP's internal disciplinary panel meeting on Nov 29, between Mr Singh, Ms Lim, party vice-chairman Faisal Manap and Ms Khan.

Ms Lim recorded in her notes that Mr Singh had asked Ms Khan: "Before Oct session, I met you + told you it was your call..."

The Committee of Privileges said it came to know of this only after Ms Lim voluntarily made the notes available on Dec 13, the day she appeared before the committee to give evidence.

In her testimony, Ms Lim was asked for her views on what Mr Singh had said to Ms Khan during the Nov 29 meeting. She told the committee that he seemed to have said it was for Ms Khan to decide what to do on Oct 4, if the issue arose in Parliament.

The committee said Ms Lim had specifically referred it to the part of her notes, which showed that on Nov 29, Mr Singh had said to Ms Khan that he had given her a choice on Oct 3 on whether to tell the truth.

"Ms Lim, a lawyer and chairman of the WP, would have appreciated the effect of such evidence," it said.

"It would be, and was, extremely damaging to the testimony given by Mr Singh - it directly contradicted Mr Singh's evidence that he did not give Ms Khan a choice."

That Ms Lim was prepared to voluntarily tender this evidence, which was damaging to the leader of her party, is relevant and should be taken into account by Parliament in assessing Ms Lim's position, said the report.

However, the committee also found that Ms Lim, together with Mr Singh and Mr Faisal, had lied under oath in their testimonies based on evidence it has available.

It cited the Aug 8 meeting between Ms Khan and the three senior WP leaders. At the meeting, the committee said, Ms Khan had confessed to lying in Parliament on Aug 3, and Mr Singh had told her to "take the information to the grave".

In their testimonies in December, the three leaders had denied this version of events, which had been given by Ms Khan.

In another part of her evidence, Ms Lim said she could not "fathom" the possibility that Mr Singh would have given Ms Khan a choice to lie again if the matter of the untruth came up in Parliament on Oct 4, said the committee.

"Ms Lim and Mr Faisal have each been somewhat helpful to the committee, albeit in a limited way," it said. "Parliament could therefore consider itself dealing with their conduct, at an appropriate time."

By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

The lies told by Leader of the Opposition and Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh to a parliamentary committee set up to look into the conduct of his party's former MP Raeesah Khan could amount to perjury, a serious criminal offence, said the committee in its report released on Thursday (Feb 10).

Given the seriousness of the matter, Mr Singh should be referred to the public prosecutor for further investigation, with a view to consider criminal proceedings against him, added the Committee of Privileges.

This recommendation comes as the committee found Mr Singh to have played "the key and leading role" in advising Ms Khan not to come clean in Parliament after she first fibbed on Aug 3 about having accompanied a sexual assault survivor to the police station.

The committee, in its report, also found that Mr Singh had lied during the committee's hearings, in asserting that he had made clear to Ms Khan she should set the record straight in Parliament.

Describing this conduct as "dishonourable... and a contempt of Parliament", the committee said it was beyond its purview to recommend that any penalty be imposed on Mr Singh and two other WP leaders, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, who also knew from Aug 8 that Ms Khan had lied.

But Parliament has the power to consider what should be done, and impose appropriate sanctions based on the findings, said the committee, in recommending that Mr Singh be referred to the public prosecutor.

The committee noted that Parliament has the powers to deal with unacceptable conduct on its own, and does not have to refer such matters to the public prosecutor.

Under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Parliament itself has the power to impose sanctions, including jail sentences, fines and suspensions.

For dishonourable conduct or contempt, Parliament can order an MP to be jailed for a period not more than his remaining term, impose a fine of up to $50,000, suspend him for a period not more than the remainder of the current session of Parliament, and ask the Speaker of Parliament to reprimand or admonish him.

The Act also states that Parliament can refer a matter to the public prosecutor when an MP has committed certain kinds of offences.

Included in the list of 18 offences in Section 31 of the Act is "wilfully make a false answer to any question material to the subject of inquiry put during examination before Parliament or a committee", which the committee had cited in its report in considering the actions available to Parliament.

The committee said that the default position is that Parliament should itself deal with matters that arise in a parliamentary context.

However, given the seriousness of Mr Singh's actions, which included lying on affirmation, "it appears to us best, in this case, that it be dealt with through a trial process, rather than by Parliament alone", added the committee.

Giving several reasons why it prefers this course of action, the committee said the public prosecutor would have the opportunity to consider all the evidence afresh, as well as any other evidence that may emerge subsequently, before deciding whether criminal charges should be brought against Mr Singh.

If he is charged, Mr Singh will also have the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel, the committee added.

Lastly, the committee said a court can look at the matter afresh and consider any further evidence before deciding if Mr Singh should be found innocent or guilty.

The committee also noted that Parliament can convene another Committee of Privileges to look into the conduct of Mr Singh, as well as that of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.

However, it added: "There may be little purpose in having the three senior WP leaders being sent to another Committee of Privileges. It is unlikely that another Committee of Privileges will make much progress, in itself, in uncovering more evidence."

The recommendation by the committee had sparked discussions online about whether Mr Singh might end up being subject to harsher punishment than Ms Khan.

According to the Constitution, a person is disqualified from standing as an MP if he has been "convicted of an offence by a court of law in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon".

The disqualification ceases at the end of five years from the end of the jail term, or from the date the fine was imposed.

Under the Penal Code, the punishment for giving false evidence can be a jail term of up to three years and a fine. This means that Mr Singh could stand to lose his parliamentary seat, and will also be disqualified from running for elections for five years, if he is charged and found guilty.

On the other hand, this will not happen if Mr Singh is fined or jailed by Parliament, though Parliament can also expel him.

Some have asked why Mr Singh was being referred to the public prosecutor, while Ms Khan who lied in the first place was dealt with by Parliament.

Asked about this, Singapore Management University Associate Professor of Law Eugene Tan told The Straits Times that Mr Singh's misconduct "is far more serious" compared with Ms Khan's.

He noted that Ms Khan had breached parliamentary privilege and had also admitted to her lie, and so it was right for the matter to be dealt with by Parliament.

In contrast, Mr Singh by lying on affirmation had gone beyond breaching privilege and moved "into the realm of criminal wrongdoing", he said.

Prof Tan added: "The public prosecutor process is better for the People's Action Party-dominated Parliament and Mr Singh. It would be seen to be fairer and remove any political sting to the sad saga."

Criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, said the public prosecutor would also be able to do a more thorough investigation, as it would be able to direct the police to look at phone or e-mail records.

He added: "Eventually, the public prosecutor must decide whether it is a compelling enough case to proceed with a charge, and it could well decide not to proceed."

By Goh Yan Han, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

Workers' Party vice-chairman Faisal Manap's refusal to answer the questions put to him by the Committee of Privileges during his testimony last December was "flagrant and inexcusable", said a report by the committee released on Thursday (Feb 10).

His refusal to answer suggests that he wanted to hide the truth, it added.

The committee had held a series of hearings in December to investigate a complaint against former WP MP Raeesah Khan, who lied in Parliament about the details of a sexual assault anecdote on Aug 3, and repeated the lie again in October.

During his testimony on Dec 9, Mr Faisal said he had met party chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh and chairman Sylvia Lim on Dec 7 and 8 for two to three hours on each day.

He had brought notes to the hearing, including a note he had prepared on the sequence of events pertaining to Ms Khan's telling of falsehoods in Parliament.

He said that during the meetings with Mr Singh and Ms Lim, he had checked with them whether the dates in the note were correct.

When asked about these meetings and the material that the other two party leaders had brought along, Mr Faisal informed the committee four times that he would not answer the question.

"I don't understand why you are asking about what transacted, what happened between the three of us when the discussion is now focusing on Ms Raeesah. I've already answered you about the purpose of me having these notes," he said during his testimony.

During the hearing, the committee had explained to Mr Faisal that a refusal to answer its questions would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of Parliament.

The report said: "Despite that, Mr Faisal confirmed that the committee should place on record that he was refusing to answer that question. He also repeated four more times that he would not be answering the question."

His refusal to answer, the committee said, "suggests that he wanted to hide the truth".

"He did not want the Committee to know what the documents were or what Mr Singh, Ms Lim and he were discussing, just the day before the start of the COP proceedings. He must know that his answer would be deeply embarrassing or incriminating."

Mr Faisal's conduct may amount to a contempt of Parliament, the committee said, recommending that he be referred to the public prosecutor for further investigation into whether criminal proceedings are necessary.

The committee also noted in its report that Mr Faisal was "honest enough to agree that the three senior WP leaders' conduct made no sense if they had wanted the truth to be told".

"He also agreed that he had no logical explanations for his conduct. He was struggling between having to lie to the Committee, and the actual truth," it said.

"He chose to keep to some of the lie, while also admitting that he made no logical sense."

The committee had, for instance, noted the lack of discussion about the matter between the three leaders and Ms Khan, and among the three leaders themselves, following her confession to them on Aug 8.

It also pointed out that Mr Faisal accepted that it did not make any sense that he did not ask Ms Khan any questions about her behaviour when he found out on Oct 4 that she had lied in Parliament again. Neither did he discuss the matter when he met her on a separate issue on Oct 7.

Mr Faisal admitted that it was illogical that he did not raise the issue with Ms Khan during their Oct 7 meeting, the committee said.

By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

The only Workers' Party (WP) member on a parliamentary committee investigating abuse of privilege by former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan disagreed with all the findings of the committee's report released on Thursday (Feb 10).

Hougang MP Dennis Tan voted against the final version of the report during the latest meeting of Parliament's Committee of Privileges on Tuesday.

He had also voted against releasing video recordings of hearings held in December and six previous special reports summarising the evidence given by various parties.

Mr Tan also sought a higher fine for Ms Khan than was recommended by the committee.

In its report, the committee found Ms Khan guilty of abuse of privilege after she lied to Parliament on several occasions, and recommended she be fined a total of $35,000.

The committee had recommended a $25,000 fine for the first two times Ms Khan lied on Aug 3, as she was the only person at the time who knew she had told an untruth and bore full responsibility for her actions.

It recommended a reduced fine of $10,000 for Ms Khan's repetition of the lie on Oct 4. By then, she had admitted the lie to three senior WP leaders - namely party chief Pritam Singh, chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap - and was acting under their guidance.

Mr Tan disagreed with this and called for a $15,000 fine for Ms Khan's repeated lie, as he was of the view that there were no mitigating factors for the fine to be lessened.

Mr Tan said it would be a "slippery slope to allow someone some form of leeway, as long as I go and tell my party leader about it", the report noted. MPs could then blame their leaders for a lack of response or a slow response, he added.

He also said it was not relevant whether or not Ms Khan was instructed by WP leaders to lie, as factoring this in would encourage young MPs to "run to a leader" to get advice in future and absolve themselves of responsibility.

Even if the WP leaders had told Ms Khan to lie, the onus should have been on Ms Khan to disagree with them and insist on coming clean, Mr Tan said.

On the conflicting evidence presented to the committee, Mr Tan said he preferred Mr Singh's testimony over Ms Khan's as he "could not believe" that Mr Singh "would come up with a plan to bring the statement to the grave".

Mr Tan also found it inconceivable that the senior WP leaders would think it was possible to cover up the lie as they would know that the police have resources to verify the truth, the report added.

In Mr Tan's view, Mr Singh's only fault in the incident was that he should have insisted that Ms Khan make preparations and admit the lie in Parliament sooner. Mr Tan said that having heard all the evidence, Mr Singh had not deliberately intended to conceal the lie.

Mr Tan also said he "did not quite agree" with the evidence given by WP cadre members Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, as they were "too close" to Ms Khan.

He said he accepted and preferred Mr Singh's evidence over that of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, though he was also not accusing them of lying.

By Hariz Baharudin, Assistant News Editor, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

Leader of the Opposition and Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh said he will continue his work "as per normal" until the recommendation for him to be investigated by the public prosecutor, as outlined by Parliament's Committee of Privileges (COP), has been resolved.

WP vice-chair Faisal Manap - whom the committee also recommended face further investigations for refusing to answer questions it put forth to him - will do the same, said Mr Singh in a Facebook post on Thursday (Feb 10).

His post came in response to the committee's report, which it presented to Parliament and made public earlier on Thursday.

In its report, the committee had recommended Mr Singh be referred to the public prosecutor for further investigations "with a view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted in respect of his conduct before the COP".

The committee had said it was satisfied, on the evidence, that Mr Singh had lied on affirmation. Parliament is set to debate the recommendations when it sits next week.

In his statement, Mr Singh said there remains a number of unknowns, assuming Parliament adopts the committee's recommendations.

"These include the eventual decision of the public prosecutor to prosecute, the intervening time before the matter goes to trial, the eventual verdict and any sentence meted out, and the prospect of both Faisal and I losing our parliamentary seats and stepping down as Members of Parliament if either of us is fined $2,000 or more," he added.

"Until there is some resolution to these matters, which may take some time yet, Faisal and I will continue our work - including but not limited to Meet-the-People Sessions, estate walks, house visits and other parliamentary commitments - as per normal."

WP will likewise continue its activities, including outreach efforts in previously contested constituencies, Mr Singh said.

"I will speak more extensively on the COP report in Parliament when it is tabled for debate, expected to be some time next week," he added.

WP members on Thursday received a message saying that the party will be releasing a statement on the COP's report "shortly" and that the matter will be debated in Parliament next Tuesday.

The message added: "Members are urged to pay attention to that debate. In the meantime, the Party will continue its work both in constituencies with WP MPs and in other constituencies where WP teams are active."

The committee's report followed a series of hearings held in December that looked into lies that former WP MP Raeesah Khan had told in Parliament last August and October, as well as the WP leaders' involvement in the matter.

By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2022

A parliamentary committee has found former Workers' Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan guilty of abuse of privilege for lying to the House, and recommended that she be fined a total of $35,000.

The Committee of Privileges on Thursday (Feb 10) also recommended that WP chief Pritam Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation into his conduct before the committee.

The committee is chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and comprises six other People's Action Party lawmakers and Mr Dennis Tan, an MP from the WP.

The committee's report will be debated in Parliament next week and MPs will vote on whether to accept its recommendations.

The committee recommended that Ms Khan, 29, be fined $25,000 for stating an untruth in Parliament on Aug 3 last year.

During a debate on empowering women, the then-MP for Sengkang GRC lied that she had accompanied a victim to a police station where officers allegedly handled the matter insensitively and drove the victim to tears. She repeated the allegation in a subsequent clarification later that day.

The committee concluded that she was the only person aware at that time that what she had said was untrue. She should therefore take full and sole responsibility for lying to Parliament twice on Aug 3.

On Oct 4, Ms Khan repeated the lie in the House. The committee found that she was acting according to the guidance of three senior WP leaders, namely party leader Pritam Singh, chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap.

It recommended a reduced fine of $10,000 for the repetition of the untruth on Oct 4, in view of "substantial" mitigating factors.

The committee also took note that Ms Khan had resigned from Parliament on Nov 30. She had also admitted the lie to the WP leadership but was not instructed to tell the truth at the next available sitting. Instead, she relied on the "wrong advice" of the WP leaders to continue to lie, the committee said.

The committee concluded that Mr Singh was the "operating brain" and the key reason why Ms Khan's untruth was not clarified immediately after Aug 8 - when she admitted she had lied to the three party leaders - and why she repeated the untruth on Oct 4.

The committee said a WP disciplinary panel consisting of Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal was self-serving and had been "engineered" to cover up their own roles in the matter. Although Ms Khan had admitted her lie to the three leaders, the panel did not reveal this to other party members.

The WP leaders also did not produce any contemporaneous evidence that supported their version of the disputed facts.

The committee added that Mr Singh was the only WP leader who gave Ms Khan guidance on what to do in Parliament on Oct 4, while Ms Lim and Mr Faisal played a "subsidiary role".

The committee does not have the power to recommend penalties be imposed on Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, as it was convened specifically to look into complaints against Ms Khan.

However, it said the trio had not been fully truthful in their testimonies under oath during the hearings, and this may amount to perjury, a criminal offence.

It recommended that Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations and with a view to consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted regarding his conduct before it.

While Parliament can impose punishments on Mr Singh on its own, the committee said the seriousness of the matter warranted a trial process. The Public Prosecutor will be able to consider all evidence afresh, including evidence that may not have been available to the committee. Mr Singh would also have the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel.

The committee called for Mr Faisal to be similarly referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations, namely into his "flagrant and inexcusable"refusal to answer relevant questions, and to also consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.

While lying to Parliament is considered abuse of parliamentary privilege and is a serious matter, it is not a criminal offence as MPs are given immunity from prosecution and civil lawsuits for statements made in Parliament.

However, lying in response to questions posed by a committee is considered a criminal offence under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which carries a maximum fine of $7,000 and a jail term of up to three years or both.

Refusing to answer relevant questions and prevaricating as a witness are also offences which can result in a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail term of up to two years or both.

Parliament may refer such matters to the Public Prosecutor.

Notes taken by Ms Lim made up a key piece of evidence that the committee relied on in determining that Mr Singh had guided Ms Khan towards repeating the lie.

During a Nov 29 meeting with the WP disciplinary committee, Ms Lim had recorded what Mr Singh had said to Ms Khan as: "Before Oct session, I met you + told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl occur to you?"

Ms Lim had produced the notes voluntarily and the committee had not previously been aware of them, it said.

"Ms Lim, a lawyer and Chairman of the WP, would have appreciated the effect of such evidence," said the committee. "It would be, and was, extremely damaging to the testimony given by Mr Singh - it directly contradicted Mr Singh's evidence that he did not give Ms Khan a choice."

The fact that Ms Lim had volunteered this evidence should be taken into account by Parliament in assessing her role in the matter, the committee added.

The committee said it was regrettable that Mr Singh had made allegations against WP members Loh Peiying and Yudhishthra Nathan, and about Ms Khan's mental health.

In the course of the hearings, Mr Singh was asked about a WhatsApp message sent by Ms Khan to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan stating that Mr Singh had told her to suppress the lie and to "take the information to the grave".

He told the committee that Ms Khan had mental health issues and may not have told Ms Loh and Mr Nathan the truth. This was disputed by an independent psychiatrist, Dr Christopher Cheok, who had examined Ms Khan.

The committee noted that Mr Singh had also suggested Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had a "skewed impression" and could have lied in their evidence to the committee out of loyalty to Ms Khan.

"It is regrettable that Mr Singh attacked those two young persons, who spoke the truth," said the committee.

It added that it accepted Ms Loh and Mr Nathan's testimonies and found Mr Singh's testimony inconsistent with his conduct and the contemporaneous evidence.