Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)

Leader.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to move both the Motions standing in my name on today's Order Paper one after another and for my opening speech and reply at the end of the debate to range over both Motions.

In view of the earlier decision of this House to have both Motions taken together and the debate to proceed simultaneously on both Motions, I will allow the Motions to be so moved. Leader, please proceed.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move the First Motion standing in my name on today's Order Paper titled "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)".

I also beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on today's Order Paper titled "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)".

Sir, with your permission, can I ask for the distribution of the copies of the two Motions that I have referred to? I thought that it might be more convenient for Members to have copies so that they can refer to them as I am speaking.

Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Sir, may I proceed as the copies of the two Motions are being distributed?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, on the face of it, the Motions before us today require us to make certain decisions about the conduct of certain Members of Parliament (MPs). However, the Motions are of a far deeper and greater significance.

Fundamentally, the Motions are about safeguarding the essence of democracy – our democracy – and preserving its most vital and essential characteristic, which is, trust. They are about the need to ensure the integrity of our institutions, and Parliament in particular, and about the confidence Singaporeans can have in their elected representatives.

These things are not given. Established democracies, like Australia and the United Kingdom, have, in recent months, had to deal with allegations of senior parliamentarians being untruthful. The consequences are the erosion of public trust. Now, regrettably, we have to deal with our own situation of parliamentarians being untruthful.

How we deal with this will reflect on our values and the standards of conduct to which we hold ourselves as MPs.

How did we come to this point? Let me provide a quick recap.

On 3 August 2021, Ms Khan spoke during the debate on the Workers' Party's Motion titled "Empowering Women". She claimed that the Police's response to sexual assault survivors who lodged Police reports was sometimes "disheartening". She alleged that three years ago, she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a Police report against a rape that was committed against the survivor.

She claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying. The Police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she had been drinking. Ms Khan made that statement twice on 3 August and repeated it during a later session on 4 October.

However, on 1 November 2021, Ms Khan confessed in Parliament that she had not, in fact, accompanied the survivor to the Police station. I will refer to this as "the Untruth".

I raised a complaint under Standing Order 100(7)(b) against Ms Khan for breaches of privilege and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges (the Committee).

The Committee was duly convened and began its inquiry on 29 November 2021. The Committee completed its work and presented its Report to Parliament on 10 February 2022, making findings and recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan’s conduct. However, in the course of its inquiry, the conduct of three senior members of the Workers' Party leadership also came into question. This led the Committee to also make certain findings and recommendations relating to them as well.

Before I go into the Report, Mr Speaker, let me say something about the privileges and immunities of Parliament and the corresponding duty that arises.

One of the most powerful things about a parliamentary democracy is the ability to speak freely and candidly in Parliament. This is so that MPs can raise matters of public importance, safe in the knowledge that they have immunity from civil or criminal proceedings outside this House. That is a great privilege. In Singapore, this is enshrined in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962, the PPIPA. But because it is such an important privilege, it must also be used responsibly and must not be abused. This includes the need to be truthful on, and to be able to substantiate, matters said in Parliament or any committee of Parliament.

The other aspect of parliamentary democracy is that MPs are expected to act honourably and to respect the processes of Parliament as an institution, and not act in a manner that would undermine it or the work of its committees.

Thus, dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt of Parliament, including its committees, are offences under the PPIPA.

Parliament is expected to keep its own House in order. Hence, the Act gives Parliament power to deal with such offences ranging from a reprimand, suspension of privileges from Parliament, a fine or even committal to prison and expulsion from Parliament. In addition, if the conduct constitutes an offence listed under Part 5 of the PPIPA, Parliament also has the power to refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor.

Let me now deal with the findings and recommendations of the Committee.

First, in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan for abuse of privilege.

In terms of liability, the case against Ms Khan is clear and straightforward. She has admitted that she lied in Parliament twice on 3 August 2021 and again on 4 October. The Committee has, therefore, found she “acted with disregard for the dignity and decorum of the House” and recommended that Parliament find Ms Khan guilty of abuse of privilege on all three occasions. You will see that this is dealt with in para 2(a) of the First Motion.

The next issue is what penalty she should receive for these abuses of privilege.

Here, it is undisputed that when she lied on 3 August, she was the only one who knew that what she had said was untrue and, therefore, acted entirely of her own accord. Hence, she should bear the full and sole responsibility for those transgressions. The Committee has accordingly recommended that a fine of $25,000 – that is, half of the maximum penalty – be imposed on Ms Khan for lying twice on 3 August. That is dealt with in para 2(b) of the First Motion.

I turn now to the penalty for the lie that was repeated on 4 October 2021. This is the issue that occupied the bulk of the Committee’s inquiry. Because by this time, she had disclosed the Untruth to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and the two senior Workers’ Party (WP) leaders, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, who are the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of WP respectively.

So, the issue is this: when Ms Khan repeated the lie in Parliament on 4 October, was she acting on her own accord or was she acting on the guidance of her senior party leaders?

If she was acting on her own, then the penalty should be higher, because it means that she and she alone was responsible for deliberately repeating the lie despite being told otherwise – as claimed by Mr Pritam Singh – showing a lack of remorse.

But if as a young and inexperienced MP, she was acting on the instructions or guidance of her party leaders, to whom she deferred and to whose views she gave weight, then that would be a mitigating factor, because then she is not the only one responsible. In this case, the penalty should be lower.

Here, the accounts of Ms Raeesah Khan and the three senior WP leaders are diametrically opposed – so much so that, in fact, there can be no possibility of this being a case of differing interpretations or of any misunderstanding. It is a situation where either Ms Raeesah Khan lied to the Committee, or else Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap lied to the Committee. There is no in-between.

Ms Khan’s evidence is that when she repeated the lie on 4 October, it was her understanding, based on what Mr Singh said to her on 3 October, that there would be no consequences if she continued with the Untruth.

Mr Singh, on the other hand, says that Ms Khan did so on her own accord and contrary to instructions given.

Ms Lim and Mr Faisal say they did not discuss the issue with her. They left it to Mr Singh.

Two meetings are key to this issue: the meeting between Ms Khan and the three senior WP leaders on 8 August 2021, or "the 8 August meeting”, and the meeting between Mr Singh and Ms Khan on 3 October 2021 at her home, or “the 3 October meeting”.

Regarding the 8 August meeting, Ms Khan’s evidence was that the three senior WP leaders told her to continue with the Untruth. There was no need for her to clarify the truth in Parliament, and Mr Singh told her to “take the information to the grave”.

The three WP leaders, on the other hand, say that there was simply no discussion on the matter after Ms Khan confessed to them, or, indeed, for nearly two months which passed thereafter. Instead, the discussion moved on to other matters.

Next, the 3 October meeting. This is of critical importance because it took place the evening before the Parliament Sitting of 4 October, where Ms Khan said the lie for the third time. This meeting involved just Ms Khan and Mr Singh. No one else was present.

The issue with regard to the 3 October meeting was whether Mr Singh had made it clear to Ms Khan that she had to tell the truth. Or Mr Singh gave Ms Khan a choice as to whether to tell the truth or keep to the Untruth, and if he did give her such a choice, whether he pointed her in the direction of how that choice should be exercised.

Ms Khan’s evidence is that “the conversation was that if [she] were to retain the narrative or if [she] were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgement”. Her understanding of this therefore was that there would be no consequences if she continued with the lie. She was not instructed to tell the truth.

Mr Singh’s evidence, on the other hand, was that he did not give Ms Khan a choice and that he made it “crystal clear” that she had to tell the truth.

Presented with such conflicting evidence, there is only one way to tell who is telling the truth, and, that is, to test it against objective evidence, which is what the Committee did. They assessed it against the contemporaneous evidence, against written documents, against the conduct of the parties both before and after the relevant events, and they tested it against whether the evidence given to the Committee made sense.

Taking all these into account, the Committee found that Ms Raeesah Khan was telling the truth and that Mr Pritam Singh, and to a lesser extent, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, had lied to the Committee.

(a) Immediately after the 8 August meeting, Ms Khan sent a WhatsApp message to her assistants, stating “they’ve", meaning Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, "agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave”. So, there is written, contemporaneous evidence immediately after the meeting.

(b) Her evidence was corroborated by Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.

(c) On the three WP leaders’ own evidence, between 8 August and 3 October, nothing was discussed about clarifying the lie, but they all agreed that telling the Untruth in Parliament was a serious matter and should be corrected.

(d) There were no correspondence or documents from them on the issue at all.

(e) They did not speak with Ms Khan on the issue.

(f) While Mr Singh had claimed he was concerned with ensuring that Ms Khan’s family was told about the sexual assault before clarifying the Untruth, not once did he or the others check if she had spoken with her parents.

(g) No steps were taken for any clarification to be made in Parliament, ahead of the September or October Sittings.

(h) The other WP CEC members were kept in the dark. Mr Singh established a Disciplinary Panel consisting of the very same people who knew that she lied – himself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap – and they did not disclose this to the CEC.

All of these are consistent with a situation in which she was told to maintain the lie.

As to the 3 October meeting, the Committee found “the evidence was quite clear that Mr Singh strongly pointed Ms Khan towards continuing with the Untruth on 3 October”. They found as follows.

(a) On 3 October, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home specifically to advise her on what to say at the 4 October Parliamentary Sitting because he “had a feeling” that the topic might come up. He did not tell Ms Lim or Mr Faisal Manap about the meeting.

(b) At this meeting, Mr Singh did not tell Ms Khan to proactively raise the matter, or to tell the truth. This is not disputed but this common position was only arrived at after inconsistencies in Mr Singh’s evidence was pointed out and he changed his evidence.

(c) Mr Singh initially said Ms Khan had to proactively clarify the truth on 4 October even if the issue did not come up. But when it was pointed out that no preparations had been made, there were no draft statements, for example, then he said no preparatory steps were taken because it was uncertain if Ms Khan would have to clarify the truth. At this point, he realised his earlier evidence was untenable and he changed his position and admitted that he did not tell Ms Khan to come clean proactively on 4 October. He then said she should tell the truth if raised.

(d) But Mr Singh’s claim that he made clear on 3 October that Ms Khan should clarify the truth if raised is contradicted by the fact that no preparation whatsoever was made prior to 4 October to prepare for the truth to be told. Ms Lim admitted, in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Lim clarify the truth the next day on 5 October, that this was not possible because time was needed to carefully structure Ms Khan’s clarification and to make the necessary preparations. [Please refer to "Clarifications by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Leader of the House", 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Corrections by Written Statement section.]

This is borne out by what happened after the decision was taken to come clean on 12 October when the whole WP machinery swung into action – there were discussions on what the draft statement should look like, the drafts were personally vetted by Mr Singh and shown to their CEC, their activists and their social media teams were prepped and so on.

(e) On 4 October, as Minister Shanmugam was asking Ms Khan in this Chamber to confirm if the incident had really occurred as she had described, Ms Khan texted Mr Pritam Singh to ask “What shall I do Pritam?” If, as he claimed, he had been clear that, if asked, she should tell the truth, there would have been no need for her to text him for guidance.

(f) Further, if Mr Singh’s evidence was true, it would mean that when Ms Khan lied again on 4 October, she would have flagrantly disobeyed his instruction of the previous day. So, you would expect that in such a situation, he would immediately have demanded an explanation. Yet Mr Singh did not speak to Ms Khan for the rest of the day, until close to midnight. And even then, there was no instruction to clarify the truth the following day on 5 October when Parliament was still sitting.

(g) Mr Singh told Ms Khan that he would not “judge her”. This makes no sense if he had told Ms Khan to tell the truth, as there would be nothing to judge. However, it makes a lot of sense if he had told or encouraged her to continue the lie.

(h) Ms Loh Pei Ying’s and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan’s evidence contradict what Mr Singh said. On 12 October, Mr Singh told Ms Loh and Mr Nathan that he had met Ms Khan on 3 October and told her “I will not judge you”. Both Ms Low and Mr Nathan understood this to mean that Mr Singh had given Ms Khan a choice as to whether or not to come clean, and that if she chose to repeat the Untruth she would not be judged.

(i) Mr Singh claimed he did not give Ms Khan a choice as to whether to tell the truth. But this is contradicted by Ms Lim’s notes taken during the Disciplinary Panel, in which she recorded Mr Singh as telling Ms Khan that “I told you it was your call”.

(j) On 7 October, Ms Khan had sent an email to Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap seeking their advice on what to do because she had just received an email from the Police requesting her assistance. In her email, she thanked the senior WP leaders “for listening to me, for caring for me and for guiding me throughout this without judgement”. The Committee found that if Mr Singh had, indeed, told Ms Khan on 3 October to tell the truth, then after she lied again on 4 October, which would have been a breach of that instruction, she would not be thanking them for guiding her without judgement. Here, the operative word is "guiding". Implicit in her email is that she had followed their guidance until then.

The Committee found that by telling Ms Khan on 3 October that "there would be no judgement", Mr Singh had left her with the view that if she were to continue with the Untruth, there would be no judgement on her. The Committee further found that taken together, the events of the 8 August and 3 October meetings would essentially point Ms Khan in one direction, which is, to keep to the Untruth if the issue was raised, with the assurance that Mr Singh would not judge her if she did so.

The Committee therefore found that Ms Khan’s culpability in respect of her repetition of the Untruth on 4 October was mitigated by the following:

(a) the fact that she was a first-time MP who confessed to and sought guidance from her Party leaders as to what to do;

(b) regrettably, the guidance they gave, and which she followed, was to maintain the lie; and

(c) her conduct and evidence showed that she would have come clean, if she had been advised to do so from 8 August.

The Committee also took into account that Ms Khan's mental health had been "unfairly and publicly attacked, in particular, by Mr Singh", and that Ms Khan had resigned as a Member of Parliament. The Committee has, therefore, recommended a lower fine of $10,000 in respect of the repetition of the Untruth on 4 October 2021. This is dealt with in paragraph 2(c) of the First Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn now to the recommendations regarding Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim.

Based on the objective evidence before the Committee, the Committee made these findings:

(a) that all three senior Workers' Party leaders have lied to the Committee as to what was discussed at the 8 August meeting, and that they guided Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth she had told;

(b) that Mr Singh lied about what had happened at the 3 October meeting and essentially gave Ms Khan to understand that it would be all right to maintain the Untruth if the matter came up in Parliament the next day.

In addition, Mr Faisal Manap refused to answer a question from the Committee at least eight times, despite being reminded that he had been called before the Committee to assist with its investigations, and that his refusal would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of Parliament.

The Committee considered that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap's conduct could constitute contempt of Parliament and offences under Part 5 of the PPIPA. As the Committee was convened to look into the complaint against Ms Khan, the Committee noted that it was beyond its purview to recommend any penalty in respect of the three senior Workers' Party leaders for their conduct which arose in the course of the inquiry.

Parliament, however, has the power to consider what should be done and take the appropriate action. To assist Parliament in this task, the Committee has made the following recommendations for our consideration:

(a) that while Parliament has the option to refer the three senior Workers' Party leaders to another Committee of Privileges, it is unlikely that another Committee would make much progress in terms of uncovering more evidence; and

(b) that a distinction should be drawn between the conduct of Mr Singh on the one hand, and Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap on the other, given their different roles and conduct. The Committee noted Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal Manap's roles were "relatively subsidiary", while Mr Singh appeared to have played "the key and leading role in guiding Ms Khan in respect of the Untruth".

The Committee has therefore recommended that Parliament refer Mr Singh's conduct to the Public Prosecutor (PP), with a view to considering whether to institute criminal proceedings. This is addressed in paragraph 2 of the Second Motion.

Mr Speaker, some may wonder why Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap should be referred to the PP and why this cannot be dealt with "in-house" by Parliament. Others may also wonder why it is the case that, for Ms Khan, who lied to Parliament, a fine is proposed whereas in the case of Mr Singh, who also lied, but to a Committee of Parliament, he should be referred to the Public Prosecutor (PP) instead of just being fined like Ms Khan.

These are important questions and I want to address them. Let me just explain a little bit about the PPIPA and how it works.

Under the PPIPA, there are what, I would term, and this is my term, general offences: offences of dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt. These, Parliament can and often would deal with itself. But there is also a certain category of offences which could be dishonourable conduct or you could classify them as contempt, but they are very specific under Part 5 of the PPIPA. These include lying to a Committee in Parliament and refusing to answer questions as well as refusing to produce documents. There are other offences listed in Part 5. These are a special category. What is common about them and why they are also regarded as serious, is that they, essentially, pervert, obstruct or prevent the processes of Parliament. For the Part 5 offences, Parliament has the power to refer these to the PP. The PPIPA does not provide for other offences to be referred to the PP. It has to be under Part 5.

And you could have an offence, which is a Part 5 offence, but which Parliament may choose not to refer, if it does not think it is that serious. So, in this case, the Committee found that all three lied, but it is only recommending to refer Mr Singh to the PP, not Ms Sylvia Lim, not Mr Faisal Manap because their roles were subsidiary and their lies were not as egregious.

Then you may ask, so what is the difference between Mr Pritam Singh's lie and Ms Khan's? The seriousness of the conduct on the part of Mr Singh is this:

(a) Ms Khan lied to Parliament, and that was bad enough. But Mr Singh on the other hand, if what the Committee found is correct, not only lied but lied under oath. And not only that, but this was in proceedings before a Select Committee of Parliament conducting a formal inquiry and tasked with finding out the truth. Then, there is the question of the consequences of a lie in this context – because it would, if believed, have had a bearing on the punishment to be meted out to Ms Khan. The lies would have determined the fate of another MP who was being looked at before the Committee of Privileges. And that is a different order of seriousness altogether. That is a Part 5 offence under the PPIPA, and that is the reason why the Committee had recommended referring Mr Singh to the PP.

(b) The other thing is that it would mean Ms Khan was following his guidance when she lied on 4 October. And that is also very serious.

(c) So, given the seriousness of the matter, it would be the fairest course of action to all concerned to refer it to the PP. The PP will have the opportunity to consider all evidence afresh, including new evidence, in deciding whether or not to prefer criminal charges against Mr Pritam Singh.

It would also give Mr Singh the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel, if criminal charges are brought.

(d) Fourth, the matter would be adjudicated by the Courts which are independent.

In the case of Mr Faisal Manap, his refusal to produce documents or answer questions can also amount to an offence under the PPIPA, and that is the Part 5 offence, so the Committee has recommended that he also be referred to the PP. This is addressed in paragraph 2 of the Second Motion.

Apart from the offences to be referred to the PP, there remain the following potential offences under the PPIPA that need to be dealt with by Parliament:

(a) Dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament on the part of Mr Pritam Singh, for lying to the Committee, and for his role in guiding Ms Khan to lie to Parliament. The Committee has recommended that Parliament defer any action on this until the criminal proceedings (if any) are completed. This is dealt with in para 3(i) of the Second Motion.

(b) Dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament on the part of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap for lying about the 8 August meeting and for their initial concurrence in the guidance to maintain the lie by agreeing that it should be taken to the grave. Likewise, the Committee has recommended that any decision on this be deferred until the outcome of the referral of Mr Singh's conduct to the PP. This is dealt with in paragraphs 3(i) to (ii) of the Second Motion.

In conclusion, the conduct of Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap will be considered by the PP under the criminal justice process. Parliament will only consider the remaining issues (if any) after the criminal justice process has taken its course, by which time we will have the benefit of what emerges from that process. This is the fairest way forward for all.

Mr Speaker, the recommendations made by the Committee are sound and balanced, given the circumstances. I would ask Members to accept them and to support the Motions, as I do, so as to uphold public trust in Parliament and in our democracy. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

The first Question is as moved by Leader of the House on the Motion titled "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)".

The second Question is as moved by Leader of the House on the Motion titled "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)".

In accordance with the earlier decision of this House to have a simultaneous debate on both Motions, I will now call on Members to make their speeches. Members are allowed to consider both Motions in a single speech.

At the end of the debate, I will put the questions on both Motions separately so that the House can express its vote on each Motion. In addition, I will also disallow any amendment to either Motion that has the effect of negativing or nullifying the other Motion.

Any Member who wishes to vote against either Motion can do so directly without such amendments. Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been about 25 years since a Committee of Privileges (COP) Report has been tabled in this House. When seen as a whole, the COP's processes and the Report before Parliament leave many questions, gaps and omissions and, by extension, suggest political partisanship.

A key question is: who did this House commit to the COP? Raeesah Khan or the Workers’ Party leadership? The COP did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why Ms Khan lied in Parliament nor why she had a propensity to lie with respect to her anecdote, both in and out of this House. The fact that she had concocted a lie to bolster her anecdote in Parliament was not balanced against her evidence to the COP. What took centre stage instead was her uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to take her lie to the grave by the Workers' Party leadership, a fabrication which never came out from any witness at the COP except Ms Raeesah Khan herself.

I reject this finding completely. At no time did I instruct Ms Khan to hide the truth. At the meeting on August 8, none of the three Workers' Party leaders told Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave.

I will speak on two main areas before concluding with a section on candidate selection in the Workers' Party. First, I will reflect on my judgement with respect to Ms Khan's reasons for lying in Parliament, arising from my meeting with her on 8 August. Second, I will raise some broad points about the selective nature of how the COP Report dealt with the evidence before it. However, as I intend to clear my name and cooperate with the Public Prosecutor, my comments on the COP Report will be limited in scope.

The most difficult aspect of this episode for me personally, and most certainly something that I have reflected on, is the approach to take when a fellow MP tells you, first, she is a rape victim; and second, how this episode caused an untruth to be told in Parliament.

From the moment I learned after the August Sitting that Ms Khan had lied in Parliament, there was no doubt in my mind that she would have to confess in Parliament that she had lied and that she would have to apologise for it in this House. I have shared publicly that the matter of the lie was something for Ms Khan to explain in Parliament.

My firm belief is that a Member of Parliament must be accountable in Parliament for what they say in Parliament. In addition, I considered that whenever she confessed, Ms Khan would have to explain her reason for telling her lie. I did not want Ms Khan's parents or loved ones to be caught by surprise before she had a chance to speak with them.

Looking back though, I gave Ms Khan too much time to settle herself before closing this issue with her. Between 8 August and 30 September, I should have been proactive and checked where she was in addressing the matter with her family. That omission is mine alone. I acknowledged the same to the COP in my evidence.

However, I will continue to be as sympathetic to anyone who shares such deeply personal details with me. My instinct, even today, would be to keep the information of the sexual assault to myself, or to a very small group of trusted individuals, given its highly personal and sensitive nature. I would allow such a person space to deal with the matter. I still believe that it was right that the clarification was made in Parliament rather than out of it.

That said, I will discuss with my party colleagues how, as an organisation and political party, we can handle such matters better while taking into account how delicate they are.

Sir, on to my brief comments on the COP Report.

For today, the principal point I will make is the disregard of evidence I submitted to the Committee. At minimum, I would have expected a listing of all the documents my fellow Workers' Party colleagues and I submitted to the Committee to be included in the COP Report, to indicate that they were actively considered in deliberations. I can only assume they were not considered, despite my colleagues and I being served with a summons to produce.

There are objective documents that I submitted to the Committee which raised serious doubts about the eventual findings reached in the Report, including the unparliamentary language used at various places, which is not supported by evidence.

The most egregious, in my mind, is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation from Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition. The following points need to be considered as to why I mentioned the psychiatric evaluation.

First, the notes of the Workers' Party Disciplinary Panel, or DP, which was submitted to the COP show that Ms Khan tendered on her own accord, documents which revealed that she was the patient of a psychotherapist who had referred her to a psychiatrist.

Second, on 29 November, Ms Khan voluntarily shared with the DP that she suffered from dissociation. Once again, the relevant DP notes were forwarded to the COP.

And third, I was asked an open question by the COP as to why Ms Khan would make certain statements. I attempted to give a fair answer in line with what Ms Khan herself had revealed.

If the COP was indeed a fact-finding body, should I not have raised the matter of Ms Khan possibly labouring under a condition to the COP?

In my evidence to the COP, I registered the point that the matter was raised because it covered issues of proportionality and culpability. I believe that Ms Khan should not be excessively punished for a condition she could be labouring under and the COP ought to see it as a mitigatory point in her favour.

This evidence of mine, supported by the COP's Minutes of Evidence on culpability and proportionality, is ignored by the COP. So, I reject this assertion that in raising the matter of Ms Khan's mental health to a fact-finding body with a view to consider an appropriate punishment, I had somehow smeared her, or worse, somehow cast aspersions on those with mental health conditions.

Another point I strongly disagree with the COP is how my evidence was characterised with regard to Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan's representations in antagonistic terms. I shared my view with the COP that in my opinion, loyalty to Ms Khan was an operative consideration on the minds of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.

Ms Khan, in her own WhatsApp text to me on 22 November at Annex C-29, states that she would respect any decision the Disciplinary Panel (DP) makes, even if it is to resign. In my DP notes of 25 November covering the meeting with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan which, again, was submitted to the COP, Ms Loh made it clear that Ms Khan's resignation should not be on the cards because, in her view, what she did in Parliament was not serious and it was not as if Ms Khan had "laundered money". I believe many would take a different view that telling untruths in Parliament is serious.

Such documentary evidence placed before the COP would show that I had good reasons for concluding that loyalty to Ms Khan was a consideration for her closest allies. Ms Loh's perspective of the gravity of what Ms Khan did is one of those good reasons. Once again, such evidence does not appear to have been considered by the COP.

I can only speculate why. Could it be to strategically drive a wedge and disunite the Workers' Party and show that its leaders recklessly cast aspersions on their own members? And in making the point, the COP Report carefully omits the only character references I made in reference to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.

And what did I say? I quote, that "they are decent, good people and have done a lot for the party". I still hold that view.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the COP's case at its highest relies on one pillar – it believes Ms Khan's evidence that she had been told to take her lie to the grave. This belief rests on an uncorroborated piece of evidence, a WhatsApp text originating from Ms Khan herself.

The COP deems the fact of its contemporaneousness to be critical in coming to its conclusion. The COP does not question Ms Khan's credibility even though she was the one who lied in this House, by her own admission, and even though she also lied when she first communicated with me about this matter.

So, if contemporaneous evidence is indeed central, one would expect the COP Report to exhibit a fidelity to such evidence. But it does not.

For example, at paragraph 93 of the Report, it makes the case that Ms Loh was surprised the DP was set up and that it advances Mr Nathan's view that the DP was self-serving.

However, what were Ms Loh's and Mr Nathan's contemporaneous views on the DP when it was set up? I submitted my WhatsApp texts with both of them to the COP. Once again, this evidence is left out from the COP Report.

For the record, Ms Loh's contemporaneous reply upon receiving my message was: "I see. Is there something you need me to do?"

Mr Nathan's reply was clearer: "Hi, Pritam: Noted on this. I know it's difficult, but I think party members and supporters will be comforted by it."

These contemporaneous WhatsApp messages directly contradict the COP's findings at paragraph 93.

This leaves me to consider Ms Khan's behaviour after her resignation and her motivations for making her uncorroborated claim at the COP that she was told to take her lie to the grave. I would offer that the more natural explanation as to why she would do so is that it was in line with human behaviour, logic and common sense, to use the words of the COP. Her post-resignation behaviour was natural in the arena of political participation.

When our first Prime Minister executed the transfer of power from the 1G to 2G leadership, according to five-time PAP MP for Whampoa, Dr Augustine Tan, there was a lot of strain, tension and resentment when older Members and Ministers were told to step aside for the 2G PAP. In response, one outgoing Minister even spoke against the candidature of Prime Minister Lee at the 1984 elections. Such was the level of disenchantment.

The comparison with Ms Khan's behaviour and testimony at the COP is apt because not everyone reacts with loyalty to their party or their party leaders when they realise that the curtain is coming down on them or their political careers.

How did Toh Chin Chye, former Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the PAP, react when he was pushed to the backbench? He became a vocal critic of PAP policies and famously said, "How can I remain a dumb cow?" As to the handover of power, he said, "For old party members who had been loyal, it was a painful process. You don't repay their loyalty by throwing them out. We had the responsibility to help them find jobs."

In fact, so serious was the concern of the unhappiness amongst some members of the PAP old guard about political renewal that the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, as Secretary-General of the PAP, suggested to his Assistant Secretary-General Goh Chok Tong to pack new cadre members into the People's Action Party, in case the question of succession and renewal came to the fore at the next PAP party conference.

Sir, for the record, there are no "jobs for the boys or girls" for ex-Workers' Party MPs. When your departure is precipitated by an overwhelming loss of support from your party members and colleagues, except for your closest allies, from a human behaviour standpoint, I can understand why a person would turn against one's party leaders.

My final point, Mr Speaker, is on the legitimate questions raised by Singaporeans about candidate selection in the Workers' Party.

As this House knows, and as the Government has also previously shared, for example, when the chief of the Singapore Civil Defence Force was convicted in Court, no selection process is fool-proof, and people can change. Even PAP MPs have been found guilty of criminal conduct or forced by their party to vacate their seats for other reasons. Potential PAP general election candidates have also been substituted at the eleventh hour.

The point is that even people who exhibit politically attractive character traits can turn out to be unsuitable. The Workers' Party also has had its fair share of the same experience.

It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to test a person's judgement in all circumstances prior to fielding them as political candidates. This is so even for the PAP, with its massive resources and far greater ease in finding willing candidates, compared to opposition parties.

However, the Workers' Party does not use these realities as an excuse. In the main, our candidate selection processes can always be better in spite of the extraordinary circumstances and the political culture of a one-party dominant state.

I will confer with my colleagues with a view to finetune the processes in the Workers' Party as best as we can, taking into account the structural challenges we in the Opposition face. This would include the absolutely legitimate demands of Singaporeans that the Workers' Party field individuals who do not lower the esteem of Parliament, or who do not meet the standards expected of Members of Parliament. Of course, I will endeavour to the best of my abilities to ensure that our candidates are rational, responsible and respectable. And if any candidate selection decisions are wrong, I, as Secretary General of the party, take full responsibility.

In conclusion, with reference to the Leader of the House's First Motion at 2(c), the Workers' Party disagrees with the reasons behind the lower quantum of fine for Ms Khan, because it is predicated on alleged guidance given to her by myself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, a case which the three of us reject.

On the Second Motion, I am unable to accept the COP's findings that offences have been committed under the Parliament Act by me or any other Workers' Party MPs. Therefore, I will object to the Second Motion as the basis for the recommendations is that offences may have been committed by us.

Nevertheless, should Parliament resolve to adopt the Motion, I intend to clear my name and will cooperate fully with the Public Prosecutor. In view of this, I have kept my comments on the COP Report for today's purposes very narrow and limited.

Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Mr Speaker, Mr Pritam Singh said that the recommendations by the Committee of Privileges rest on only one fact, only one pillar.

The reality is that in examining the evidence provided by him and his Workers' Party colleagues, MPs, cadre members, and the back and forth, the Committee came to conclusions on the basis of questions that they had, gaps in the logic, and omissions in the submissions of the documents.

The questions, gaps and omissions that he began his statement with are still present, and they are questions, gaps and omissions about what happened within the Workers' Party. What was the truth of the matter between him, his colleagues and Ms Raeesah Khan?

He talks about political partisanship and, unfortunately, the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges would lead a reasonable reader to come to the conclusion that it is him and his colleagues who engaged in political partisanship, by choosing to obfuscate the matter and to deal with Ms Raeesah Khan the way that they did.

He asked why was the Committee of Privileges not interested in getting to the bottom of why Ms Raeesah Khan lied. But actually, the reality is, they did. She herself gave a clearer explanation. He and his colleagues doubt that explanation and he has tried to justify why; I understand.

He asserts his innocence, but he has not yet filled in the gaps and omissions, nor has he answered the questions. These questions on the facts do go to the very heart of the matter as to whether or not Mr Singh has been honest in his dealings, including with Ms Khan.

On 8 August, Ms Khan went to Mr Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Lim, confessed to speaking an untruth in Parliament. And on their own evidence, not a word was spoken about how and when Ms Khan would tell the truth. In fact, Mr Faisal Manap said zero discussions were had; no question, no comment, despite an extensive discussion about a completely separate matter. Mr Singh has not explained how this is possible or even half credible.

Why is it that they were able to discuss the clarificatory statement on FGC and polygamy, but felt unable to make a single comment on a far bigger issue, a lie told in Parliament? Is this credible that this could have happened?

As to their concern about her mental state, why was there not a single word spoken between them, not a single contemporaneous exchange of email messages? What did they discuss amongst themselves? What did they decide to do or not to do? More importantly, why was there not a single step taken to prepare Ms Khan to tell the truth?

By their own admission, in the almost two months that followed the meeting on 8 August, there was no discussion, no one spoke to each other. Neither Mr Faisal Manap nor Ms Lim asked Mr Singh what he was doing to ensure that the truth will come out. Did Mr Singh check with Ms Khan or her parents as to whether they had become aware of the sexual assault? As Mr Singh has explained, he has perhaps given a bit too much time, but he stated it as a precondition, his foremost concern, he did not once ask about this.

The Workers' Party CEC was also not aware, neither were the Party members or cadres. In short, not a single step taken all the way from August until 3 October, remotely could be construed as preparing Ms Raeesah Khan to come clean and tell the truth. Why? We still do not know. That is an omission, a gap, a question.

But looking at all the rest of the statements, the evidence that is produced, is it not consistent with Ms Khan's account, which is that, if the matter did not come up, she would not have to tell the truth? Then, the truth could remain buried.

Mr Singh should explain clearly why no steps were taken, if indeed it was important and it remains important for Workers' Party MPs to come clean, to tell the truth, to clarify an untruth told in Parliament, as he claims.

On 3 October, Mr Singh went to see Ms Khan, did not tell Mr Faisal or Ms Lim about this meeting. He says that he made it clear that Ms Khan should tell the truth. But he also admits, at the same time, that he did not say to her that she should tell the truth. Only four words were necessary. Five words. "Raeesah, tell the truth, please." Five words. Why did he not say that? Why did he instead, say another five words, "I will not judge you"? Not judging someone is only relevant if Ms Khan was to continue the lie. There was nothing to judge if she was going to be truthful.

If he had been so clear with Ms Khan, why is it then on 4 October, when Minister Shanmugam raised the matter, Ms Khan texted Mr Singh, "What should I do, Pritam?"

So, she continued with what she was told to do: continue with the narrative, continue with the lie. But Mr Singh's conduct tells us something as well. If he had been clear with Ms Khan to clarify the lie, why did he not respond to Ms Khan on that day and say, "It has already been made clear. Tell the truth. There are no two ways about it." Why not insist that she stand up, correct the untruth that she had just repeated? Why not do this when she had just repeated the lie in front of him and the entire Parliament? And later, when they met, what did Ms Khan say? Mr Singh himself said that the first words to him were, "Perhaps, there is another way, that is, to tell the truth". Which to a reasonable person, sounds very clear. Ms Khan was suggesting to Mr Singh a different path away from telling a lie. Again, why not, at that point, make it clear that she needed to come back to Parliament now and clarify?

One untruth is a problem. The second time, worse. And why not at that point, ensure that the second lie in Parliament, the one which he, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap were aware of to be a lie, be clarified immediately?

The Workers' Party stands for honesty, integrity, accountability. Where was all of that when Mr Singh was privy to a lie being told again in Parliament? And for all the excuses given about making sure that her father was aware, did Mr Singh ask Ms Khan whether her father was aware already? He says no. But why not? It was so important, it was the only reason he offers for Ms Khan not having to come clean earlier. Yet, at the critical moment, he does not bother to ask, he does not get the details.

On top of this, the Committee of Privileges heard from Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan. They both spoke to Mr Singh independently on 12 October, when he gave an account of what he had discussed with Ms Khan on 3 October. Both came away with the clear consensus that he had given Ms Khan an option, a choice. It was for her to decide. Completely contrary to what Mr Singh had said to the Committee of Privileges.

This is further supported by Ms Lim's own contemporaneous written notes on 29 November Disciplinary Panel meeting with Ms Khan. Mr Singh himself had described what he had said to Ms Khan on 3 October as, "It was your call". Mr Singh accepts that she, Ms Lim, was accurate in her recording. This makes it quite clear. Mr Singh was recounting his own conversation with Ms Khan on 3 October and said, "It was your call".

Again, an omission, a question left unanswered which runs up against Mr Singh's self-professed understanding that Ms Khan was left with no doubt on 3 October that she would have to come and tell the truth the next day.

On 7 October, the Police sent an email to ask Ms Khan for an interview. Ms Khan ignored it after counselling with Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. Why not advise her to come clean if that was so important to them? If it had been the intention all along for Ms Khan to come clean, explain herself, clarify the lie, then why not cooperate with the Police when they asked? What is there to hide if you are interested in integrity, honesty and accountability?

Further, Ms Khan then writes to Mr Singh and the others and says, "Thank you for guiding me through this without judgment". And according to the various testimonies, as of 7 October, exactly what guidance had been given? The only guidance that we are clear on her testimony was for her to continue with the narrative and not judge her. She had repeated the lie three days earlier. It underscores the idea that Mr Singh meant on 3 October when he assured her he would not judge her: follow the guidance, continue with the lie, there will be no judgement.

It was Mr Singh's own evidence that 12 October was the first time that Ms Khan was told that she should come to Parliament and tell the truth. That is the first time that this was expressed: for Ms Khan to tell the truth here in this House, to Parliament. At no time prior to this did Mr Singh tell Ms Khan that she should tell the truth, including when he had heard her double down on the lie on 4 October. Why?

Members will also remember that Mr Singh changed his evidence before the Committee of Privileges on this key point several times. He first said that Ms Khan was to come clean and raise it on her own accord, regardless of whether it was brought up or not. If that is the case, then he must have known on 3 October that it will come up one way or another on 4 October. Which means some preparation would have to be done prior to 4 October. But when it was pointed out to him that not a single step in preparation was done, he then changed his evidence. He then said she would bring it up and clarify only if she was asked. What is the truth? There is still a gap, an omission and a question. And Mr Singh has not provided an answer to it.

But the reality is that none of these questions, which go to the heart of the issue, has been addressed. These are important because they tell us whether Mr Singh has been honest or not in his evidence to the Committee of Privileges. These also tell us the kind of conduct that Mr Singh is prepared to engage in, in order to keep a lie hidden. Keep a lie, a lie.

Mr Singh should come out clearly and tell Parliament what is his response to the specific findings in the Committee of Privileges. What is his explanation for the various inconsistencies that have occurred on the facts based on his own accord? What is his explanation for the complete and deafening silence about an absence of steps whatsoever that could have been seen as consistent with wanting the lie to be clarified? For months, why is there nothing between him, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap? Why is there no contemporaneous communication between them? Between me and my colleagues, just to settle what time we should meet in order to go through our Parliamentary Questions, we would exchange various pages of emails. But this, for a most important matter, nothing. Deafening silence. If it is so, it is hard to believe.

What about the Disciplinary Panel, which was set up to look into Ms Khan's conduct? Why not disclose to the Workers' Party CEC, their own members and their own cadres, that, in fact, Ms Khan had already admitted, come clean to three of the senior Workers' Party leaders, that they had discussed it with her, given her guidance and also disclosed that Mr Singh met with Ms Khan on 3 October? If indeed he had told her to tell the truth, would that not be relevant to the proceedings of the Disciplinary Panel? Would that, not mean that Ms Khan had gone against and disobeyed Mr Singh's advice and instructions?

If you look at it as a reasonable person, one conclusion is that Mr Singh's account of the facts did not happen. Which is why Mr Singh was eager to suppress this highly relevant and critical bit of information – the involvement of all three Disciplinary Panel members and their knowledge from August about the lie.

Still, a gap, an omission and a question unexplained.

Not explaining questions, not answering questions were something that Mr Faisal Manap also did. He refused to answer questions put to him by the Select Committee. He asked for this to be recorded. Quite extraordinary. I was quite struck by how extraordinary this behaviour was when I was watching it. He must have understood the severe consequences. Watching the video, reading the transcripts, the conclusion I came to at the time is that he knew that saying anything at all would be damaging to Mr Singh and Ms Lim. He could have lied to protect them. But he chose to remain silent, understanding the consequences, because lying under oath or affirmation, lying to a Select Committee, is a serious matter, needs to be dealt with properly.

People I have spoken to about the Committee of Privileges, my residents, have not always followed the intricate details of the allegations in the testimony. But when I asked them the question, did Mr Pritam Singh lie, the response is usually one of: "maybe", "possibly", "probably" or "I don't know".

Most reasonable people admit a serious possibility that he might have lied. And the Committee of Privileges has come to the conclusion that he did, indeed, lie, a serious transgression that, ordinarily, would require an investigation, leading either to exoneration or prosecution. Ordinarily, because that is the standard of the law that should apply to all of us.

Mr Singh and the Members of the WP have made many speeches – rhetorical flourishes about accountability and transparency. They put across the idea that these are high principles that they believe in. But a key test of one's principles is whether you apply them to yourself for a greater good because action speaks volumes, much more than high-soaring rhetoric. And there is no sign of that action in the details that the Committee of Privileges has recorded about what happened within the WP, away from the public spotlight, their communications, the conduct of the Disciplinary Panel, the statements by Mr Singh, their actions and their inactions.

What now is the right thing to do, given that the Committee of Privileges has found Mr Singh to have lied? What now is the right thing to do if you are not convinced by the Committee of Privileges Report, but you accept that Mr Singh may have lied?

Mr Speaker, in both cases, I believe the right thing to do is to support the Motion for three reasons.

First, we cannot normalise lying by politicians or, even worse, reward it. This sorry saga has already eroded trust in our institution. Only a clear and unambiguous resolution will restore trust in the political process.

Second, we must consider the impact on the future of our parliamentary democracy. We would not accept such behaviour among our own MPs or anyone else. We did not let the matter rest when there was suspicion that Ms Khan lied to the House. We must hold Mr Singh to the same standard.

In future, there will be mistakes, there will be transgressions. We must be able to deal with them and MPs must not think they can get away with lying, deceiving Parliament and the public. They must come clean, apologise and face the consequences. As a House, we must maintain our standards and our moral imperative to do the right thing now and for the future.

Third, Mr Speaker, the allegation that Mr Singh planned and executed, what sounds like a ruthless deception of his party, the public and Parliament, under oath to the Select Committee and then, possibly, threw his own party cadres under the bus when they exposed him, it cannot be left to fester unresolved, weakening trust in politics, politicians and this institution. It must be dealt with unambiguously and, if necessary, by the Courts with neither fear nor favour, for the sake of our democratic institutions.

Mr Speaker, what we do now will set the tone and standards for our future. It will, indeed, impact upon our democracy and the strengthening of our institutions, but in the opposite way that many members in the media have described. To oppose the Motions before us is to say that one values who a person is more than what they do – the very opposite of our ideals of meritocracy. To oppose the Motions is to say that a politically useful outcome is more important than upholding values, to accept the weakening of norms as an acceptable price to pay for political success. And I find this all unacceptable.

To support the Motions is to fight for a Singapore that is special, where politicians can be trusted and are expected to be honest, capable and upright. To support the Motions is to fight for a Singapore where politicians do the right thing, not the politically convenient thing. To support the Motions is to believe in our values and our integrity. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I support the Motions.

Minister Desmond Lee.

Mr Speaker, a clarification for the Leader of the Opposition. As a Member of the Committee of Privileges, I heard Mr Singh say earlier, very specifically, that, I quote, "I had somehow weaponised her condition", referring, I presume, to the Committee of Privileges' findings on what he had said about Ms Khan's purported mental health conditions; "weaponised her condition". Perhaps I can ask the Leader of the Opposition where in the Report he sees us use that term.

Mr Speaker, let me have a look at the Report. It is in my folder; I will reply to that.

Yes, you may. Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, I think the Prime Minister can go ahead with his speech. I will try and get the information as soon as possible. But I think, generally speaking, the nature of the way my decision to bring up Ms Khan's condition was expressed in my speech for three reasons. I brought up those three reasons. I think it is incontrovertible that the COP used very uncharitable, I would even say unparliamentary, words to describe what I did. So, my speech sought to explain why I felt I was legitimate in raising the matter of Ms Khan's condition.

Mr Speaker, just to clarify, is Mr Singh saying that he saw the word "weaponise" in the Report and he referenced it in his speech earlier?

Mr Speaker, I just said I will have to check that. Let me have a look at it. I think it is a fair question. If, indeed, that word was not used and it was not right for me to use it, I am happy to withdraw it. But let me just, at least, look at the Report.

Mr Speaker, I ask because "weaponise a condition" was a very specific term which was used in a draft of the Report's findings but which was subsequently taken out when the Committee discussed this in secrecy. And, so, it does not appear anywhere in the Report. So, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, who told him about the use of the term "weaponised" with respect to Ms Khan's mental health condition?

Mr Speaker, I looked at how the COP Report had put together that particular paragraph regarding Ms Khan's mental health condition. And this was the word that occurred to me as to what the COP was trying to do.

Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Order Paper, we are debating what actions Parliament should take, having received the Report of the Committee of Privileges. But as the Leader of the House told us just now, the broader issue before us is how democracy should work in Singapore.

What are the institutions, the norms, the values, that are essential for our democratic system to function properly? How do we apply these general principles to specific cases, like the one before us now, so as to protect these institutions, norms and values? And how can we secure our democracy for the future, so that it can long deliver happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation? These are the three more fundamental questions that I wish to discuss today.

The quality of a country's democracy hinges on its people's values: what they judge to be right or wrong, what they deem important, the causes they espouse, the ideals they embrace. Whichever example you look at, at whatever point in history, you will find that good and functioning democracies have clear, strong norms. These norms are upheld both by the governed and those who govern them, or those who aspire to govern them one day.

That is how healthy democratic systems can elect good, incorruptible people with the right values and drive a virtuous cycle where good democracy begets good governance, and good governance begets good politics.

This cycle must be underpinned and sustained by strong institutions. Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. It is where the most important matters of state are discussed, laws are enacted, supplies of money are voted, with the Government setting the direction and proposing policies, while answering to the public through Parliament and the Opposition holding the Government to account while also being a government-in-waiting should the ruling party lose the support of the people.

To fulfil its vital role, Parliament must be respected and its Members, processes and proceedings must be trusted.

Clear norms and incorruptible values are essential to protecting the dignity and standing of Parliament. The system cannot work if the standing of Parliament is called into question. This is why we need to set the right norms of conduct among Parliamentarians and guard them carefully. Tell the truth always and do the right thing by Singapore, even when it is hard or awkward; in fact, especially when it is hard or awkward. If something goes wrong, or something wrong has been done, own up and take responsibility. Do not hide, dodge or spin further lies, to obfuscate and cover up the original fib.

The right norms can only be upheld by people with the right values because norms are not merely social conventions that people comply with for appearance's sake. They have to be expressions of internal values that people believe in and hold dear. MPs must be people with integrity at their core, who speak and act in an upright manner, always putting duty before self, and country before party.

And our highest duty – our ultimate loyalty – is not to our party, but to Singapore. That is why when taking office, MPs swear "to bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore". In fact, this applies to everyone engaged in Singapore politics, MP or not.

As Workers' Party cadre Ms Loh Pei Ying, who was Mr Pritam Singh's former assistant, told the Committee: "It pains me greatly, but to me, beyond anything else, it's important to be truthful to my country". I believe every Member of this House will agree with her.

Our democratic system also depends on the people of Singapore: voters endorsing, insisting on and backing the same norms and values, so that they can discern for themselves – as Ms Loh did – when something is wrong and hold accountable those in power, or aspiring to power, when their actions fall short of these high standards. That is how a democracy can function properly.

Inculcating voters and their leaders with the right values is the work of decades. It takes unremitting effort and passion, and it does not always succeed.

Most countries are founded and start off on the basis of high ideals and noble values. But more often than not, beyond the founding leaders and the pioneer generation, over decades and generations, gradually things change.

Things start off with passionate intensity. The leaders, who fought for and won independence, are often exceptional individuals of great courage, immense culture and outstanding ability. They came through the crucible of fire and emerged as leaders of men and nations. They are the David Ben-Gurions, the Jawaharlal Nehrus and we have our own, too.

Imbued with enormous personal prestige, they strive to meet the high expectations of their peoples to build a brave new world and shape a whole new future for their peoples and for their countries.

But beyond that initial fervour, succeeding generations often find it hard to sustain this momentum and drive. They start out as healthy democracies with idealism and zeal. But over time, the tone of the society changes. All too easily – a slip here, a blind eye there, a fudge, a trim – and gradually things go downhill. The texture of politics changes. Respect for politicians declines. After a while, the electorate comes to think this is the norm and you cannot expect better. And so, standards get debased, trust is eroded and the country declines further.

Many political systems today would be quite unrecognisable to their founding leaders. Ben-Gurion's Israel has morphed into one which can barely form a government, despite four general elections in two years. Meanwhile, a stream of senior politicians and officials in Israel face a litany of criminal charges, some have gone to jail. While Nehru's India has become one where, according to media reports, almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder, though it is also said that many of these allegations are politically-motivated.

What is to prevent Singapore from going down the same road? Nothing. We are not intrinsically smarter or more virtuous than other countries. Modern Singapore does not come born with a fail-safe mechanism. Our founding fathers did their best to build strong foundations and institutions. Even after the Barisan Socialis, which was then the main opposition party, decided to vacate its seats in Parliament in 1966 and left the field entirely to the PAP, our founding fathers maintained our parliamentary democracy and multi-party system.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew once explained at that time, with the PAP completely dominant, he could have changed the Constitution and made this a one-party state. But he deliberately chose not to because he knew that, without the need to contest and win elections, the governing party would, over time, become complacent and flabby and that would be disastrous for Singapore.

So, the founding fathers took the more robust way. They kept politics contestable, they built up institutions, Parliament, the Judiciary, the Civil Service, the Police and Armed Forces and, later, the Elected President and the Council of Presidential Advisers to enable Singapore to operate on a more resilient basis, not dependent on a few key people pulling all the levers, pushing all the buttons, making everything work. Still, to operate these institutions, you need good people and they needed to recruit, train and deploy Ministers, Members of Parliament, Judges, civil servants, experts in many fields, people of ability and commitment with a sense of public service and, above all, with honesty and integrity whom Singaporeans could rely upon to do their duty, put Singapore first and make this country succeed. And that is how the system we have today came to be.

It is incumbent on all of us, each succeeding generation, to protect and build upon this system that we have inherited and this requires us to uphold integrity, enforce rules and standards, apply the same rules equally to everyone, make sure nobody is above the law. If we can do that consistently, persistently, unflinchingly, then we have a shot at making things work.

People can trust our leaders, systems and institutions, our democracy can mature, deepen and grow more resilient. As both the governed and the governing embrace and express the right norms and values, Singapore can continue to flourish.

But if we allow ourselves to slacken, loosen standards here just a bit, overlook a lie there just this time, the virtuous cycle will stutter and start to fail.

What is the key factor that keeps this virtuous cycle going, keeps Singapore on the up and not on the down? It is trust.

On his 100th birthday, Mr George Shultz, the former US Secretary of State, reflected on this. This was a year and a bit ago, December 2020. He wrote an op-ed upon reaching 100 years old and he said it was one of the most important lessons in his long life that trust is the "coin of the realm". "When trust was in the room," he wrote, "good things happened. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details."

We saw how this worked in the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust was a key factor why some countries did better than others. I have been saying this for two years but, recently, there was a study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal, which confirmed this. It studied multiple countries and found that countries with high levels of trust and, together with low corruption, saw lower infection rates and higher vaccine coverage because the people's trust in government and their trust in one another made much more difference to the outcome than the resources spent on healthcare and even whether they had a universal healthcare system or not. What mattered mostest was: did they trust one another, did they trust their leaders?

Singapore is fortunate to be one of these "high trust" societies. We have tried to build upon it during the pandemic but it is something that we have today because we have nurtured it for decades and built it up patiently, assiduously, step by step, never allowing it to be eroded and, therefore, having this with us when we go into battle. An enormous asset.

The opposite happened in other countries, for example, in the US and the UK. In the US, trust in the political system has all but broken down. Three-quarters of Republican voters have been made to believe that the last presidential election in 2020 was stolen, that Mr Biden is not a legitimate president and Mr Trump should be the president today. How do you uphold a system when a large segment of the population is convinced that the elected government is illegitimate? Every issue is politicised, government becomes gridlocked, the country suffers. And that is a key reason why many Americans refused to be vaccinated or to wear masks, why they revolt against measures to keep themselves safe and why they have suffered so many COVID-19 deaths.

Or look at the ongoing uproar in Britain about the "partygate" scandal in Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments no less. The scandal has been attributed to failures of leadership and judgement in an official government report. By ignoring its own rules, the current UK government has caused a severe breakdown of trust and lost credibility in its COVID-19 controls.

Singapore may be a "high trust" society today, but nothing guarantees that we will always remain one. It is essential that we steadfastly maintain our high standards, ensure that we have leaders who embody the right values, call out wrongs when wrongs are done, mete out punishment when punishment is due, preserve the sanctity of our institutions, never take public trust for granted and never allow lies, half-truths and falsehoods to become the accepted norm in politics. That is what is at stake as we deliberate Parliament's response to the Committee of Privileges' Report.

Ms Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament twice on 3 August last year and the third time when questioned two months later on 4 October. Subsequently, she admitted to lying to Parliament. To deal with this breach of Parliamentary privilege, we convened the Committee of Privileges. Ms Raeesah Khan was called up, as were other witnesses. The Committee deliberated extensively before reaching a reasoned conclusion that Ms Khan was guilty and should be fined for each occasion she lied. I hope all Members can agree with these findings and the penalty to be imposed on Ms Khan.

But in the process of the Committee's deliberations, two other significant issues arose. The Committee has drawn them to Parliament's attention and suggested to Parliament how to deal with them. First, whether the three Workers' Party leaders, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim, had instructed Ms Khan to continue with her lie in Parliament. If they did, this is surely as serious or more serious than misconduct as Ms Khan speaking an untruth in Parliament. Parliament will need to deal with this, but only after we have cleared the second even graver matter and this graver matter is, as the Leader has explained, whether, after having taken solemn oaths to tell the truth, the three Workers' Party leaders told untruths to the Committee of Privileges in order to cover up their instructions to Ms Khan to continue lying.

It became clear to the COP that there were striking contradictions between what the three Members of Parliament claimed to the Committee were their honourable intentions and the hard evidence of what they actually did or very often failed to do. And there were serious inconsistencies even between the accounts of the Workers' Party leaders. Being untruthful under oath is no small matter. It means lying despite solemnly affirming that you will tell the truth, in this case, not once, not twice, but repeatedly, over many hours of extensive questioning and on several days.

The Committee's assessment is that these untruths were not accidental or incidental errors but deliberate premeditated acts done with a definite intent to mislead and to deceive. They are not just breaches of parliamentary privilege but, if proven in Court, they amount to perjury, lying under oath, and perjury is a serious criminal offence.

So, there are two distinct problems. One, whether the three Members of Parliament instructed Ms Khan to lie; and, two, whether the three Members of Parliament themselves lied under oath. Both, if established, reflect very badly on the Workers' Party leaders and, in particular, on the Leader of the Opposition. Both issues, if not dealt with properly, will dishonour Parliament and bring this august institution into disrepute.

Some asked: was Ms Khan not the one who lied? Why are the Workers' Party leaders being treated more harshly? As the Leader of the House noted just now, if the Committee is right, then Mr Singh and his fellow Workers' Party leaders themselves lied and presented untruths to the Committee. They lied under oath to protect themselves, to cover up their role and to push the blame solely onto Ms Khan, claiming that she and other witnesses, like Ms Loh Pei Ying, had lied to the Committee. This is, indeed, more serious than what Ms Khan did, if it is so. By lying under oath, they sought to frustrate the Committee process. They displayed the same kind of misconduct that the Committee was set up to address. They betrayed the trust reposed in them as Members of Parliament and, not least, Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition. And this, I hope, Members appreciate, if true, is a very grave matter.

So, Members must decide what Parliament will now do about this. Can we pretend nothing happened? Or if that is too much to stomach, given the strong evidence laid out by the Committee, perhaps we lower our standards just a little, note that untruths were told but argue that it was, after all, not so serious a lie and no harm was done.

If we do either of these things, we, too, would become complicit in dishonouring and demeaning Parliament. We must take the transgressions seriously and act on it and I am glad that is the conclusion the Committee has come to and recommended to the House.

What alternative choices did the Committee have? It could have recommended to Parliament to administer a token slap on the wrist. But that would show that we were taking a very serious matter rather lightly. Worse, by lowering our norms, we would be telling Singaporeans that it is really not so bad for elected leaders to lie.

Alternatively, the Committee could have recommended that Parliament itself metes out an appropriately heavy penalty. This is something that Parliament has the power to do. But had the Committee recommended that and Parliament decided on the penalty itself, the Opposition would surely have cried foul and accused the PAP of using its majority to persecute the Opposition. In fact, they are already insinuating this as a smokescreen to obscure the real issue, that the Workers' Party had lied while under solemn oath.

I believe, therefore, that what the Committee recommends is the best way forward.

Since a criminal offence appears to have been committed, let Parliament refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Let the Public Prosecutor consider the evidence afresh. Let the system work. If the charges are filed, Mr Pritam Singh and also Mr Faisal Manap can defend themselves in Court. The Court will have to be satisfied that their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, if they are innocent, they have nothing to fear.

I commend this course of action to the House. And if I were Mr Singh, I would vote in favour of both Motions.

Fine Ms Khan, because she is guilty beyond doubt. In fact, Mr Singh's own party member Mr Dennis Tan, who was on the Committee, thinks she should be fined more heavily for the second offence.

And if Mr Singh maintains that he and his fellow Workers' Party leaders have done nothing wrong, he should also vote in favour of referring his own case and that of Mr Faisal Manap to the PP. Indeed, he should demand a Court trial, in order to have the full opportunity to defend himself, to vindicate his reputation and clear his name. That is what I would do if I were Mr Singh.

Regrettably, pro-Workers' Party voices on the social media have taken quite a different tack. Before the matter can be conclusively determined, if necessary, in Court, they are doing their best to confuse the issues and rouse sympathy. They are asking the public to clear the names of the three MPs, suggesting that referring the case to the PP is political persecution.

What they are really saying is this: do not look too carefully at what Mr Singh did. Just remember who he is. He is the Opposition that you voted for. He is the Leader of the Opposition. By virtue of his position, he should not be referred to the PP and any action against him must, by definition, be politically-motivated. Because who he is is more important than what he has done – even if he may have committed a crime.

Some people may be taken in and sympathise with this story. They say, why not just let the matter rest? Can we not find a compromise solution? After all, it would be easier for the Government not to have to pursue this matter against the three MPs. We have a full enough agenda.

But, Mr Speaker, as long as the PAP is the Government, we will not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to uphold the right norms in this House and to imbue Singaporeans and their leaders with the values critical to sustain trust in the system and critical to our success.

Mr Singh succeeded Mr Low Thia Khiang as Secretary General of the Workers' Party. Mr Low served for a very long time – 30 years as an MP, 17 years as party leader. He sat opposite me, where Mr Singh now sits. Mr Low was a formidable political opponent, but he was a patriotic Singaporean. He set a different tone for the Workers' Party. He said he hoped the Workers' Party could help to build a "First World Parliament" in Singapore. He must be saddened that, instead, this is what his successor has done.

Because what has happened is a betrayal of what Workers' Party claimed that it stood for. But judging by Mr Low Thia Khiang's public comments, he is confident the party can ride this out. And it need not be a setback for our democracy either, provided we hold Mr Singh and his colleagues accountable for dishonouring the standards of this House, and also for possibly breaking the law.

Mr Speaker, we are all engaged in the same project – to build up Singapore's democracy and create a political system that will serve Singaporeans well for many years to come, and, to do that, we must uphold the right norms and reinforce the right values. I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation and I accept that. I expect that is the way Singapore will go in the longer term. That is how every parliamentary democracy evolves and it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the Workers' Party won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr Singh the Leader of the Opposition and equip him with the resources and support to play this role. That is the way a responsible government can help a credible, responsible opposition to emerge and contribute to the maturing of our political system.

But the office of Leader of the Opposition carries certain responsibilities: setting the tone for opposition MPs; enforcing standards of conduct on his own party; and, above all, maintaining his own integrity and keeping himself beyond reproach. The Leader of the Opposition does not have a blank cheque.

Mr Speaker, integrity is the linchpin of democracy.

The stakes of today's debate might have been lower if the opposition were a negligible presence, as they were from 1966 until the 1980s. The PAP was overwhelmingly dominant. The public, generally, had low expectations of opposition parties and politicians. The tone of the country and its governance was set by the PAP and the high standards that the PAP imposed on itself.

But with Singapore heading towards a more contested political landscape, the competence and honesty of the opposition is no longer an inconsequential matter. The question of "what are the right values and how should we uphold them?" becomes of fundamental importance for both the opposition and the governing party. Every election, henceforth, will be about who wins the mandate to run this country.

If the system is working properly, the governing party will be re-elected so long as it remains honest, competent and trusted. If the governing party falls short and Singaporeans come to deem an opposition party more honest and incorruptible, more competent and more trustworthy, then the governing party should be voted out, and that opposition party should be voted in to form the next government.

We cannot assume that the PAP will always continue in Government. Nor can we assume that the Workers' Party, or some other opposition party, or any other opposition party, will always stay in the opposition. I do not know when, or how, there will be a change of governing party in Singapore one day. My job as party leader is to make sure the PAP governs well to the best of its ability, so that it retains the mandate of the people for as many elections as possible.

But my duty as the leader of the country is also to maximise the chances that whichever party wins future elections, it will uphold and be held to the same high standards of proper conduct and honesty as the PAP, so that our democratic system can continue to operate properly, whichever party is in charge, and would not go down the drain.

Because a small island city-state like Singapore – the only one in the world like this – needs a strong, effective and good government, whoever leads it. With our lives and future at stake, everyone participating in the system must be held to the same standards. There can be no excuses, no double standards and no pardoning of inexcusable behaviour, just because the offending party portrays itself as the underdog.

Mr John Major, the former British Prime Minister recently made a speech, triggered by "partygate", I am sure, lamenting the state of British politics today. It was a cri de coeur cry from the heart. Let me read you a few excerpts:

"There has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time. We are told that politicians are 'all the same' and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life."

"But politicians are not 'all the same'. And lies are just not acceptable."

"To imply otherwise is to cheapen public life and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead."

"But some do – and their behaviour is corrosive. This tarnishes both politics and the reputation of Parliament. It is a dangerous trend.”

"If lies become commonplace, truth ceases to exist. What and who, then, can we believe? The risk is … nothing and no-one. And where are we then?"

"If trust in the word of our leaders in Parliament is lost – then trust in government will be lost too."

John Major's is a Western view, but in Eastern societies, too, norms and values are crucial. In fact, even more than in Western philosophy because Western philosophy says "checks and balances" but Eastern philosophy says "your virtue, your moral standing, that is what gives you the right to govern."

In Confucian thought, there are four social guidelines, there is "四维", that hold a state together: rituals, righteousness, probity and shame – "礼义廉耻".

Probity, or desisting from corruption, is about upright behaviour; it is a norm that can be enforced using laws. But shame, a reaction to wrongdoing, is a moral disposition; it is about one's own sense of right and wrong, whether we know we have done the right thing, or we know we have fallen short even when nobody said so. That has to come from within ourselves, from our own values, our own consciences.

Absent that sense of shame, people may comply with laws for fear of punishment, but they will lack the moral compass to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do and to take responsibility when they have fallen short of the standards expected of them.

What I personally find most disappointing in the Workers' Party narrative and in their response, including in this House today, is the complete absence of any admission that the three MPs have done anything wrong. There is no contrition. Whether from a Western or an Eastern view, if lack of shame becomes the public norm, our political system will break down, progressively and irreversibly.

Order. Leader.