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)

Mr Speaker, I would like to return to the earlier clarification that I sought. And the Leader of the House mentioned that after the Prime Minister's speech, he would let us know where he saw in the Report the reference to that specific term "weaponised".

I asked because it is a very specific word, it is a very specific way of characterisation. And this is important for the integrity of the COP process.

The initial draft read as follows: "Mr Singh essentially weaponised unsubstantiated allegations that Ms Khan was unstable and unreliable and that she was prone to lying because of her mental health and this was connected to her being a sexual assault victim."

But in the Report before this House, which is the only public report put out, at page 58, paragraph 176(4), it says: "Mr Singh then alleged that Ms Khan had mental health problems and suggested that she was predisposed to lying", so on and so forth.

So, that phrase was debated in Committee and we decided to remove it. And this is what you see.

So, Mr Pritam Singh would not have reference to the specific term unless somehow earlier drafts were shared with him. So, can he confirm or deny that people told him about the drafts? So, that is my first clarification. I have a clarification to make after this.

Mr Speaker, indeed, the word is not in the Committee Report. And I mentioned earlier that the word "weaponised" was my characterisation of what I made of that particular paragraph. Indeed, the word is also used publicly. I cannot remember whether I read this specifically, but Rice Media has an article which says: "Now that the claims on Raeesah Khan's mental health have been refuted, how do you feel about weaponising an individual's mental health in an investigation?"

So, generally, that was my characterisation of what I saw the COP Report was doing and, hence, the choice of my usage of the word "weaponised". I did not refer in my speech to saying that the Report specifically used the word "weaponised". I said, "the most egregious is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation for Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition". I hope that clarifies.

Just to confirm before this House, Mr Singh was not referring to any drafts or reference to earlier drafts. No? Thank you.

Sir, can I just take the second clarification that in his speech, Mr Singh had said that the Committee of Privileges Report somehow was incomplete or inaccurate because it does not reflect all the evidence that was submitted. There was voluminous material submitted to the Committee and transcripts running to the thousands of pages, which we took time and care to go through.

He, in particular, said that the report did not reflect or did not capture or did not include or did not annex Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhisthra Nathan's contemporaneous views about the formation of the DP as one example of his sense that the COP was not complete in its findings.

Mr Singh had cited a few lines from what Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhisthra Nathan had sent in via WhatsApp. And Members had heard the exchange earlier, their responses to him when he messaged them about the DP hearing. What Mr Singh omitted to mention were two points.

First, that Ms Loh Pei Ying had messaged him to express grave reservations about the DP, as well as Mr Singh's suppression of material facts concerning his involvement to the DP. And I would like to read to Members because the Report annexes all of these.

On 10 November, I quote, Pei Ying tells Mr Singh: "Hi Pritam, I've tried to reserve my comment on the Disciplinary Panel so far, but I just saw the message that was sent out to everyone. I feel that it's plain as day to me and people involved in her apology that this is a little backwards paddling. Clearly, the party didn't anticipate the backlash despite warnings, and it's trying to do something to quell people's anger. While I agree with it, I can empathise with it, I don't think it is at all fair to let party members think they have a say in this process. If this is done as a mock consultation exercise, then party members will be unhappy their opinions weren't really considered. If it is not a mock exercise, then they will likely ask Raeesah to resign when they do not have the full facts. I welcome the DP to be transparent and share the involvement in this, their findings barring personal information, so the party can make an accurate decision."

Mr Pritam Singh replies: "And I hear you, PY, but I do think we need to give party members a platform to have their say on this important matter rather than commiserate privately or between each other and believe that the party leadership decides things without considering their views."

Pei Ying replies: "I get that. But the DP hasn't exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement."

Mr Pritam Singh replies: "Despite that it will be good to hear people out."

Pei Ying replies: "But their opinions are not accurate because they don't have the facts. Everyone is of the view that we can cut her loose and distance the party from her mistake. But if she's out of the party, she still subjected to the Committee of Privileges and there's not much we can do to what she says and shares when it gets there."

So, that is one set of WhatsApp messages that adds more complexion to what Mr Singh had read out earlier and which was also raised to Mr Singh. In fact, it is in the transcripts. If Mr Singh may remember, at paragraphs 10813, 10814, as well as 10815, 10816, 10817, where that extract was read out to him and he gave his views. So, it is a lot of these materials that are annexed in the Report.

Another response I have is that, in fact, on the same day that the DP was formed, on 2 November, this is what Ms Loh Pei Ying said to Mr Yudhisthra Nathan via WhatsApp, also contemporaneous, also in evidence. I will read it out to Members, in case you have not read it. It is in "Annex CC"-something. I will give you the numbers later.

It is very small, but it says at the bottom, in relation to their discussion with Mr Singh, immediately, they contemporaneously exchanged messages with each other. And Ms Loh Pei Ying said, "Pritam just told me himself about the disciplinary committee… he didn’t say much more".

Mr Yudhisthra Nathan said, "He sent me the same message too".

Ms Loh Pei Ying replied, "I wonder why he is informing the both of us tho… I asked him if we would be questioned… he said no".

Mr Yudhisthra Nathan said, "OMG lol, tht didn’t cross my mind… I think he wanted to tell us just so we heard it from him before the party pg which is nice I guess... But I do feel he n Sylvia underestimated the backlash”.

Ms Loh Pei Ying said, “funny he made the special effort to tell the both of us but not rae? I also think he’s being too reactionary… I would have let it simmer for another 2 days", so on and so forth. At the bottom, Ms Loh Pei Yong said: "Here it comes”.

Mr Yudhisthra Nathan said, “he also being dragged”.

Ms Loh Pei Ying said, “so i don’t trust Pritam to put himself above things lol… like when it affects him personally, I’m worried he’ll cut the cord”.

So, these and other messages are in the Annexes, some of them are in the evidence and some of the messages were placed in front of Mr Singh and some of the other witnesses. They are in the transcripts. So, in a sense, all the evidence, all the exhibits will be placed before the Public Prosecutor (PP). And I welcome Mr Singh's support that all these will be placed before the PP to be considered so that he can clear his name and put his explanation out.

Speaker, can I confirm whether those documents will be returned to me?

The Committee will respond to you formally on that. Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 6.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.50 pm until 6.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 6.15 pm.

Mr Speaker, in my speech, I wish to make a critical clarification on a specific finding by the COP. I will touch on the referral, or intended referral, of Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Pritam Singh to the Public Prosecutor, and I will also argue why some reforms to the COP and its processes are much needed.

Sir, during the COP deliberations, a matter has risen about the handwritten notes tendered voluntarily by me to the Committee. These notes were used as evidence against Mr Pritam Singh to support the finding that he had given Ms Raeesah Khan a free choice to continue the lie she had told in August.

It is necessary for me to correct misconceptions that have arisen from the COP's findings here. At paragraph 237 of the Main Report, the COP finds that my handwritten notes were useful to the Committee in its deliberations. The COP further notes, among other things, the following:

Paragraph 237(3): "Ms Lim, a lawyer and Chair of the Workers' Party, would have appreciated the effect of such evidence. It would be, and was, extremely damaging to the testimony given by Mr Pritam Singh. It directly contradicted Mr Pritam Singh's evidence that he did not give Ms Khan a choice."

Paragraph 237(4): "Ms Lim was clear in her testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to the Workers' Party Members of Parliament, an obvious point. That was also directly contrary to what Mr Singh had done and Ms Lim recognised that."

Speaker, I take a different view. If read in the proper context, my evidence is not inconsistent and not damaging to Mr Pritam Singh. In fact, it is consistent with his evidence that he was telling her she had to tell the truth. Let me explain why.

I had testified that the extracts from my notes had to be seen in totality to understand it. First, let me quote the extract from my handwritten notes which were recorded in the form of question and answer.

"Question by PS (Mr Pritam Singh): Before October session, I met you and told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl (Parliament) occur to you?"

"RK (Raeesah Khan): Yes, but consumed with guilt and own experience. Thought it wouldn't come up."

"PS: Can't lie, right?"

"RK: Yes."

Sir, just looking at this extract, we see that when Mr Pritam Singh said to her: "Can't lie, right?", Ms Khan did not contradict him. She said: "Yes", which is an acceptance that you cannot lie. Does this not mean that she understood what he meant all along that she had to tell the truth? When he put to her that she could not lie, she did not say that she was given a choice.

Secondly, Sir, I am baffled by the COP's conclusion that I had somehow recognised that Mr Pritam Singh had acted contrary to an MP's duty to tell the truth. As I was puzzled as to why the COP stated that, I examined the footnotes used by the COP for this conclusion. I submit that the evidence I gave does not support this finding.

For this, please allow me to refer to the transcripts of evidence.

The COP cited footnote 421 as the basis for saying that I was clear in my testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to Workers' Party MPs. But if one looks at footnote 421, it refers to a particular paragraph of my evidence, which is as follows, paragraph 12554, where I said: "You see, it never crossed my mind and I cannot fathom this possibility that Pritam would have given her the option to choose between telling the truth or continuing the lie. That never crossed my mind and I do not believe it to be true."

Sir, the COP did not quote this paragraph accurately when it stated that I was clear that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to MPs. I had also stated at the same time that I could not imagine Mr Pritam Singh giving Ms Khan a choice, and I did not believe it.

That puts a totally different complexion on the paragraph cited by the COP.

Later in my testimony, I was asked by the Chairman about the notes I recorded. I was questioned repeatedly about whether I agreed that the phrase "it is your call" could be interpreted as giving her a free choice to decide whether to tell the truth or not. When I referred back to the evidence that the COP relied on, I find that four vital paragraphs that immediately followed were not included, which are critical to properly understand my evidence.

The COP finds that I recognised that Mr Pritam Singh had acted contrary to a Member of Parliament's duty to tell the truth. For this, it quoted my evidence from transcripts at paragraphs 12936 to 12945. Please let me spend a little time on this.

Here are the paragraphs that the COP relied on.

At paragraph 12936, the Chairman said: "In that last page, you mentioned regarding the conversation on 3 October. At the top of the page where Mr Pritam Singh said: “Before the October session, I met you and told you it was your call.” So, meaning that it was really up to her to decide what to do."

And my answer was, "I don’t know the context but he phrased it in this way."

Then the Chairman asked, "From this, it would seem to be that it’s really for her to decide, which is, I guess —", and I said, "She has to decide, yes." And the Chairman said, " —I guess, if you follow from this, when he said that: 'I will not judge you', is that 'You decide what you want to do, I will not judge you for that'. Would that be a fair interpretation, as you see it? I know you were not there —" And I said, "I wasn't there."

Then the Chairman continued, "I'm saying that as from what he has recounted here, as you have recorded, and what we know now of what would had been said specifically, this would be a reasonable interpretation of it?... That line came from Mr Pritam Singh himself who said: ‘to take ownership and responsibility, I will not judge you’."

"So, I’m just asking", that was the Chairman asking me, "based on what Mr Pritam Singh has shared, and given what he said now here, would that be a reasonable interpretation, that it was really left for her to decide?"

And my answer, "Well, I mean, I don't know what he said because I've put myself on a news block-out for the last few days. But in any case, it is recorded as it is recorded, yes."

The COP then cut off its reference abruptly here. Now, up to this point, I was, at best, telling the COP that I was not there at the meeting on 3 October. Where was there any recognition by me that Mr Pritam Singh had done something contrary to the duty of an MP to tell the truth?

Crucially, the COP ignored the next four paragraphs which show that the Chairman was still continuing his clarifications with me, which I shall now read out.

Paragraph 12946, "Chairman: Just to remind you, the specific line he said was: 'to take ownership and responsibility and I will not judge you'. So, these few lines came out across clearly as what he conveyed."

And I said, "Okay".

And the Chairman said, "And I'm just asking you, that based on what you've recounted here, it would suggest that the option was left to Ms Khan to decide what to do".

And my response was: "I think it also has to be looked at in the whole context, because what we recorded here was that: 'I told you it was your call, did the need to tell the truth in Parliament occur to you?' Then she says: 'Yes, but I was consumed with guilt in my own experience and I thought it wouldn't come up.' Of course, she’s not saying here: 'You gave me a choice, so I made that choice'. She says: 'I was consumed with guilt in my own experience and I thought it wouldn't come up.' And he says, 'But you can't lie, right?' And she says: 'Yes'. So, it has to be taken, I think, in totality to understand it. Like I said, I wasn't there but this is what I recorded."

So, Mr Speaker, these last four paragraphs were curiously excluded from the COP's footnote 422, even though it was part and parcel of the Chairman's clarifications on the same topic. If included and properly understood, I submit that my evidence does not support the COP's conclusions.

Next, Sir, I will touch briefly on the referral to the Public Prosecutor (PP) or the intended referral to the PP of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap.

Sir, if Parliament so resolves to refer both of them to the PP, it is only right to expect that the PP, law enforcement and the Courts will handle this matter impartially. How they approach this matter has serious ramifications.

A Court conviction may prematurely terminate the service of an MP who has been duly elected by the people. It is provided in Article 45 of the Constitution that convictions in a Court of law can disqualify an elected Member of Parliament from Parliament if the fine is $2,000 or more. Contrast this with fines meted out by Parliament itself under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which can go up to $50,000 but will not disqualify an MP from continuing to serve this House.

Sir, before I end, I would like to make some observations about the COP composition and processes.

Sir, the COP has disciplinary functions and recommends punishments for MPs. There has been public discussion of the composition of the COP, as it is overwhelmingly dominated by ruling party Members.

I find the state of affairs unsatisfactory as well. As it currently stands, the Committee only has one out of its eight Members from the opposition Workers’ Party. This does not bode well for a fair hearing in Parliament, where the ruling party has a super majority of 90%.

There is public interest to ensure that elected MPs are subject to fair parliamentary hearings. One way towards this is to have a more balanced composition.

My suggestion is that Parliament consider amending the Standing Orders on the composition of the Committee of Privileges. If the Committee’s total strength is to remain at eight Members in all, then, three Members should be from opposition parties. This is likely to result in a less one-sided hearing and fuller consideration of relevant evidence.

I now move on to some observations of the COP process.

First, on representation before the COP, I would like to ask how the Committee decided on conducting the questioning of witnesses by itself? In a past COP in 1986, Parliament resolved to have questioning conducted by a law officer of the Legal Service. It was further resolved then that lawyers be allowed to represent the MP and other persons as well.

It seems to me that such a process is better. It would enable the Committee to sit back and concentrate on evaluating the evidence dispassionately, rather than have Committee Members actively positing a certain case theory and trying to break witnesses down.

If legal representation is allowed, there may be less need for Parliament to make referrals of cases to the PP. May I ask on what basis did the Committee decide to do the questioning itself and not allow lawyers in?

Secondly, I believe guidelines are needed to safeguard the dignity of such parliamentary hearings. Members of the public have noted the strenuous questioning of Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Singh. Mr Faisal Manap was questioned for about six hours in a single day. In Mr Singh’s case, the questioning was done for nine hours in a single day, which, including waiting time, took 12 hours.

While my own questioning was less than three hours, I waited for two days in a guarded room and was denied the use of any communication devices. When I needed to visit the bathroom, I was accompanied by security. When I requested to use the disabled toilet to have more space, permission was sought.

Does all this not border on oppressive? Our Courts of law do not subject witnesses to such treatment.

Sir, to summarise, I have clarified the effect of my handwritten notes in detail. I have also commented briefly on the referral to the PP that Parliament will be voting on. And I have also made my own observations about COP processes and why I think reform is needed.