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 Raj Joshua Thomas.

Sir, I support the Motions.

As regards the first Motion, the conclusions of the COP and the recommendations flowing from these conclusions are obvious as Ms Raeesah Khan had admitted to making the untruth. I will elaborate on my support of the second Motion, that is, the Motion to refer the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP.

The facts underlying the second Motion arose in the course of the COP’s inquiry into the untruth. In order for the COP to have come to its conclusions, it must have inadvertently formed its mind on the testimony given by the persons who had appeared before it. As regards Mr Singh’s testimony, the COP has said that it has disbelieved several parts of it, thus giving rise to the possibility that the serious criminal offence of perjury had been committed. As regards Mr Faisal Manap’s testimony, he had declined to answer several questions that the COP had posed to him, which may amount to contempt of Parliament.

As set out by the COP, and as mentioned by the hon Leader of the House earlier, Parliament is perfectly equipped and empowered by law to deal with these two matters itself. However, the conclusions and recommendations of a fresh set of COP procedures considering these two matters are highly unlikely to depart from the conclusions already reached in the present proceedings.

Furthermore, the potential punishment that may flow from a finding of guilt may have political consequences, in particular, affecting the make-up of Parliament and would, inevitably, suffer from the mien of being politically motivated. This was also mentioned by the Prime Minister. The gravity of the offences, if made out, would then be lost in such circumstance.

In this regard, my view is that it is the correct thing to do, as recommended by the COP, to refer these two matters to the PP and, if the PP deems necessary for these matters to go to the Court, then for them to go to the Court. In fact, Sir, I would be extremely uncomfortable if the COP’s recommendations were the opposite, that is, for Parliament itself to take action against Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap based on the facts that arose from the COP's inquiry.

In fact, referring the matter to the PP affords Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap what may be seen as a second, even third bite of the cherry, because both the PP and the Courts, if it proceeds to the Courts, would consider all the facts anew. If the matter goes to Court, Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap would also be able to avail themselves of the adversarial process in criminal proceedings, with all the protections of the Criminal Procedure Code and the application of the higher evidentiary threshold of beyond reasonable doubt for criminal matters.

In this regard, I am glad that Mr Singh has said that he intends to cooperate fully with the PP, and the points that he and Mr Faisal Manap and, in fact, that Ms Lim made earlier as well are relevant and can be raised in these proceedings.

This should be a position that sits well with all parties in this House. Both the Government and the Opposition have expressed in this House and recognised that the Courts should be the impartial arbiters of truth in matters where there may be political consequences or overtones. An example is the debate on POFMA. In fact, this was precisely one of the positions taken by the Workers’ Party as regards FICA last year.

The Courts are also alive to this role as an independent arbiter in matters that may have a political hue. In a decision in 2020, in which the Court of Appeal considered a matter where the convicted party sought to vary his sentence from a fine of $5,000 to a jail term so that he would not be disqualified from running in the next elections, the Court of Appeal held: “…it would bring the Judiciary and the administration of justice into disrepute if we were to impose sentences with an eye towards the political process. After all, a Court that chooses to impose an inappropriate sentence in order to avoid disqualifying a candidate from standing for election as a Member of Parliament could just as easily do the same thing to achieve the opposite end. In truth, both outcomes are equally abhorrent and impermissible”. The Court of Appeal added that: “the only guide for a sentencing Court is that it must strive to impose a condign sentence”. "Condign", of course, meaning "appropriate".

Sir, I have seen some online chatter that it is a foregone conclusion that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap will be convicted and lose their seats. I do not think, Sir, that it is a foregone conclusion. There had been instances in which the Courts have decided against the Government, even in favour of an opposition political party. Members may recall that in an October 2021 decision, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, in part, by the Singapore Democratic Party challenging a Correction Direction by MOM. In its grounds of decision, the Court of Appeal set out its reasons in extent as to why it allowed the appeal. We can expect that the Court will undertake a similarly rigorous examination of the facts and the law in these matters, as it does on all matters. I am heartened that Mr Singh had also said earlier that he expected that he would get a fair hearing if it went to that.

In this regard, I trust that all parties will allow the legal process to run its course, from the PP’s consideration of whether an offence is disclosed, to, if it turns out as such, the deliberation and ultimate decision by the Court. Parties, whether represented in this House or otherwise, should not cast aspersions on the Office of the Public Prosecutor and on the Courts, especially if the ultimate outcome is not one they expected or had hoped for.

While this matter involves members of political parties, Sir, I do not see the recommendations as political machinations. As is evident, the COP or the Government could not possibly have been aware of the facts underlying the Second Motion until they were disclosed in the COP proceedings. I see these Motions and any Court proceedings that may follow as an exercise to protect the public interest and the integrity and the standing of this House, and as a reminder that Parliament and Parliamentarians must deal in the currency of truth and that a failure to do so must have consequences. But equally, where there is no wrongdoing, an accused person must have a fair chance to vindicate himself. Not only must it be a fair chance, but it must also be seen to be a fair chance.

Politics is politics, Sir, but the facts are the facts, and the law is the law. In the circumstances, my view is that the best forum to determine the facts in these matters and to apply it to the law, is the Courts.

Ms Sim Ann.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, thank you for letting me join this debate. The saga involving former Member of Parliament Ms Raeesah Khan's lies has now culminated in the Report of the Committee of Privileges, published on 10 February.

I read it with a very heavy heart.

The core issue of the Report is about lies. Ms Raeesah Khan first spoke an untruth in Parliament last August, which is already no small matter. The Workers' Party (WP) leadership was found to have guided her and condoned her in perpetuating the lie. This is more serious. Even worse, WP leadership was found to have lied to the COP in attempting to cover up their role in the saga. This is a potential criminal offence.

This is a major problem which needs to be dealt with seriously. The COP has recommended fining Ms Raeesah Khan and referring WP Secretary-General Mr Pritam Singh and Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor for lying under oath and refusing to answer the COP's questions and showing contempt for Parliament, respectively.

But some question whether things are truly this serious. Some WP sympathisers pointed out that the majority of COP members are from the PAP and painted the proceedings as bullying. Even some among the ruling party's own supporters are worried that it will be penalised by the public opinion. Clearly, the Workers’ Party is prepared to make the most of such sentiments, as evidenced by its statement issued on 11 February, suggesting that if Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap are referred to the PP, then the work of the COP is politically-motivated.

These sentiments have obscured the central point, that is, as a democratic country, can we tolerate lying politicians? We must be clear on this question.

Singapore is a one-man-one-vote democracy. Every voter votes for the party he supports, and governments are formed from the outcome of popular elections. Voters must be able to trust that political parties and candidates are truthful and do not spout untruth at will. Only then can electoral outcomes reflect the will of the citizenry. If politicians are free to lie and act in a way that is inconsistent with their words, then voters cannot trust political parties. Elections become meaningless and our democratic system would gradually disintegrate.

Of course, we cannot count on every politician being irreproachable in his conduct and values. There should also be safeguards built into the system. This is why contempt of Parliament or lying in Parliament would be subject to investigations by the COP, and penalties meted out by Parliament. Lying to the COP would be dealt with more seriously. If there are still questions regarding whether the person giving evidence is truthful, then our Courts would be the final arbiter of the truth.

Any democratic society that hopes for stable governance must commit to upholding the truth. The problem is that the truth is never universally popular. A responsible ruling party will not lie, nor should it. But this also creates space for its opponents to use half-truths or empty promises to win support.

When faced with an honest ruling party with a proven track record, every opposition party can choose between two paths. The first path is to deal only with the truth, point out where the incumbent has genuinely fallen short in terms of its policies and propose workable alternatives. The second path is to opportunistically and cynically distort the truth and inflame emotions, all for the sake of winning more support and votes at little cost. A responsible opposition party should commit only to the first path and stoically reject the second path.

In a democracy, dealing only with truths that are not universally popular comes with a price, which is why both incumbent parties and opposition parties face an ever-present temptation to relax their commitment to the truth. This is a temptation that is as dangerous as the temptation to be corrupt. As the people's representatives, we have to stay vigilant about the thin end of the wedge and guard against lies, however small, while party leaders must hold themselves and their Members of Parliament to the highest standards. All parties must fully support mechanisms that protect the truth.

What weighed on me is that the COP Report shows that the Workers' Party leadership is leaning not towards the first path, but towards the second path.

They have demonstrated an opportunistic and cavalier attitude towards the truth, when it came to deciding whether Ms Raeesah Khan should own up, and when and how it should be done.

First, when they came to know about Ms Khan's lie, the Workers' Party leaders did not cause her to clarify immediately and proactively. They tried their luck with a "wait and see" approach. If the matter was not brought up, Ms Khan was to "take the information to the grave".

The Workers' Party leaders also guided her to maintain her original narrative, resulting in her doubling down on the untruth in Parliament on 4 October, compounding her initial offence.

The Workers' Party then arranged for Ms Khan to assume full responsibility for both occasions where she lied, on 1 November, while obscuring the Workers' Party leaders' role in guiding her.

Clear conflicts of interest were present in the hastily convened Disciplinary Panel that was announced by the Workers' Party on 2 November. The three Workers' Party leaders withheld from its CEC the fact that they had already known about Ms Khan's lies, and the guidance that had been given to her. All the blame for doubling down on the lie was pushed onto Ms Khan. The CEC subsequently resolved that she should resign or be expelled from the party.

Problems cannot remain covered up forever. The COP was tasked to investigate this case. But when the Workers' Party leaders appeared before the COP, their performance was even more chilling.

When asked about the impact of Ms Khan's lie on the reputation of the Police, Mr Pritam Singh attempted to minimise the issue. His view was that the Police was not a "broken-back" organisation, implying that it was, therefore, alright to make false allegations about them.

He also claimed that he had not required Ms Khan to clarify the truth as he wanted her to have time to inform her parents of her sexual assault. But as he did not follow up to see if this was indeed done, this excuse proved incredible.

The Workers' Party leaders also suggested that Ms Khan might be mentally affected and possibly more prone to lying due to her having been a victim of sexual assault. This was proven to be baseless by a mental health professional.

On the whole the COP found Mr Singh to have lied under oath, while Mr Faisal Manap was in contempt of Parliament by refusing to answer the COP's questions. These are possible criminal offences.

Who have been hurt by the Workers' Party leaders' machinations?

First, Ms Khan herself. She lost her party membership as well as her parliamentary seat. I imagine that over the past few months, every day would have been unbearable for her. If she had heard what Mr Singh said about her earlier, she would have been cast under an even darker shadow. I hope that she can walk out of that shadow and soldier on bravely and optimistically.

Second, the Workers' Party as a whole, and its supporters. You only need to read the statements by party cadres Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudishthra Nathan to feel their pain.

Third, Parliament. The scant regard for Parliament's dignity and credibility demonstrated by Workers' Party leaders, despite being Members of Parliament themselves, has undermined its prestige.

Fourth, victims of sexual assault and mental health patients. The statements made by Workers' Party leaders have reinforced the prejudices that these people already face.

Last but not least, our political ecosystem. Condoning the lies and being cavalier with the truth already undermine the foundation of honesty and trust that our democracy is built on. To exploit the public’s sympathy for the underdog and paint the COP as being politically-motivated not only distract the public from the core issue, but also seek to numb the public to lies and dishonesty gradually.

It is wrong to lie, and it is worse for a Member of Parliament to do so. But if party leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition, lie, then it must be looked into seriously. The behaviour of a party leader sets the tone for the values of the entire party and is critical to the preservation of healthy dynamics within our political ecosystem.

Mr Speaker, this regrettable saga began with condoning one lie. It snowballed beyond control because those involved kept trying to cover their tracks. Nonetheless, before the debate today started, I had held out hope that the Workers' Party leaders could be forthright and sincere and support the two Motions. However, the speeches of the three Workers' Party leaders earlier showed no intention to make things right. They seem to have made up their mind to carry on with perverse prevarication. If so, our democratic system would simply have to deal with their tactics every step of the way.

I hope that when all is said and done, the Workers' Party leaders can come to realise the meaning of the idiom “a country is nothing without the people’s trust”. For other Workers' Party Members of Parliament, it is not too late yet. I hope they can support the two Motions based on their conscience and their initial resolve to serve the people, so that the Workers’ Party can shake off the shadow of prevarication, choose to be truthful and get back on the right track.

Mr Speaker, I support the Motions.

I will now call upon Leader to make a reply on both Motions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I had listened to the speeches of Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. They have raised a number of points, but the points do not really address the core of this matter. They do not address the key findings of the Committee of Privileges.

So, I can understand, tactically and strategically, why you do that, because you have got this big uncomfortable report that says these really strong statements. So, it is probably, as a strategy, a good idea not to deal with those head-on, but to pick small little things here and there, and to hope that other people will look at that.

But since that is how it has been presented to this House, let me address all those small little points first, before I come back to the key issue.

The first thing Mr Singh had said is that it has been something like 25 years since we have had to have proceedings before the Committee of Privileges. Yes, indeed. And it is a very shameful thing that we had to have a Committee of Privileges for something like this. For so many years, we were able to do without it. But now, after we have the office of the Leader of Opposition, we have Workers' Party coming in, and then, we have to deal with this. So, yes, it has been some time.

But I suppose when these things happen, they serve as a good reminder to all of us about the values that we uphold and the things that we need to do. And in some ways, this process has been educational.

The second thing Mr Singh said was that the COP did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why Ms Khan lied in Parliament. Actually, there are hundreds of pages in the COP Report that are all directed to why did she lie on 4 October.

The first part, we know, was off her own bat. It is undisputed. That was something she did of her own accord. She admits it; it is not in dispute.

The big question was why it was done on 4 October. And reams and reams of paper have been directed at precisely that question. So, I do not think one can say that the Committee of Privileges did not want to get to the bottom of why she lied.

The next thing Mr Singh said was the fact that she had concocted the lie was not balanced against her evidence to the COP. What that allegation really is is this. The allegation is that she has lied before, she must be lying again. In Courts which deal with this, it is known as the similar fact evidence rule. Just because somebody has done something once, does not necessarily mean that they are guilty of the same thing again. If you want to get to the bottom of something, if you want to get to the truth of something, you always have to look at each instance by itself and weigh it objectively. And that is exactly what the Committee of Privileges did.

The next thing Mr Singh said was that what took centre stage was the uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to lie.

I spent a great deal of time in my opening speech listing out what exactly the factors were that the Committee of Privileges took into account, in terms of corroborative testimony, contemporaneous evidence, written documents, the evidence of other witnesses, and whether or not something made sense. So, I do not think that that is a fair accusation to level against the Committee of Privileges.

The next thing he mentioned was the selective nature of the COP Report. It did not mention certain documents, he said. But then, as we can see, when he made reference to certain WhatsApp messages, Minister Desmond Lee read out other WhatsApp messages. I mean, there was so much evidence, you cannot possibly be referring to every single piece. But what is clear is that the Committee took into account and considered all relevant documents.

So, the essence of the allegation by Mr Singh is that the Committee had cherry-picked the evidence. Well, Mr Singh is a lawyer. I am a lawyer. He knows that evidence that is given is considered by a tribunal. Relevant evidence is referred to. Not all evidence that is put in is relevant. And when you write your final report, you refer to relevant evidence.

Tribunals, and in this case the COP, do not necessarily have to put in everything that was submitted, but they did include a lot of documents – the Report does include many documents submitted by Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. If he feels that something is relevant and was not taken into account, he will have the opportunity to refer to it, if this matter goes to Court.

But then, what is important is that, at this point of time, we should not try to give the impression that the COP purposely left out certain things or cherry-picked evidence.

I come now to Ms Lim's speech just now. I think she made reference to the notes that she took during the Disciplinary Panel proceedings. And obviously, because that piece of paper, those notes were very damaging to Mr Singh, she sought to explain it, to put her interpretation on it and to suggest that this was not really taken into account by the COP.

That is not actually accurate. I think at paragraph 51 of the Report, the Report expressly quoted her as saying that her notes had to be taken in totality to understand it. It said that Ms Lim said she did not know the context in which Mr Singh used the phrase and essentially the Committee noted her position. So, it is not as though the Committee did not consider the things that Ms Lim said just now.

The other thing is Ms Lim said much about the fact that the notes did not just refer to the words "It was your call". The notes also had the phrase "Did the need to tell the truth occur to you", "can't lie, right?" And she suggested that those notes were really in favour of Mr Singh.

That was dealt with at paragraph 55 of the Report. [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.]

The way the Committee dealt with it was, they said that those questions were quite telling. If Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying, "I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions in telling the truth to Parliament. That was a serious breach of party discipline." He would not be saying as he did, "I have told you that it was your call. Why it did not occur to you to tell the truth" and "can't lie, right?"

So, in short, the points that Ms Lim talked about just now were something that the Committee considered, and it is in the Report.

Then, the next strategy is really to cast some aspersions on the COP itself and to suggest that, somehow, there is something wrong with the composition of the COP.

The composition of the COP is dealt with in the Standing Orders of Parliament, in Standing Order 100(7), sub-paragraph (a)(i), "There shall be a Committee to be known as the Committee of Privileges to consist of the Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection as soon as may be after its appointment, in such manner as shall ensure that, so far as it is possible, the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in Parliament is reflected in the Committee".

In other words, what the Standing Orders seek to do, is to make sure that the Select Committee, which is a standing Select Committee, reflects the same balance that is here in Parliament. And Mr Singh has spoken many times about why do we not have more Select Committees, and about the supremacy of Parliament.

So, all of these are in the rules which have been there for a long time. And these rules, they have been revised from time to time. And if I recall correctly, I believe Mr Low Thia Khiang was on the Committee for the revision of the rules at one stage. They have always had an Opposition Member. And nobody has complained about the composition of the Committee.

And, in fact, when we had to determine who would be the Opposition representative on the Committee of Privileges, Mr Dennis Tan was nominated by Mr Singh and he certainly did not complain at that time, or say that he should have more Opposition Members.

So, it just really rather does sound as though, if you do not like the outcome of the Committee of Privileges, then you complain about how it is composed, when it was never an issue before.

Then, I think Ms Lim talked about the length of the proceedings, why was it necessary to question Mr Singh for so long. The answer is that the length of time that it takes to do an inquiry or to question somebody, really depends on the answers that they give.

I have done cross-examination in Court myself. The witnesses who give you the answers in a straightforward and straight manner, actually go off very quickly. The ones who do not give a straight answer, the ones who you really have to extract the information from, those take a long time. In this case, Ms Lim’s evidence was relatively short, because the answers that she gave were to the point.

Then, I should also say that she questioned how come there was no legal representation on the Committee of Privileges for the people who appeared before it. Well, the default position is that, for the Committee of Privileges, generally speaking, they do the questioning. But by special application, where it is necessary, if there is good reason for it, witnesses can apply to bring outside counsel. But I think the more important point to remember here is that Mr Singh is a lawyer. And so is Ms Lim. I do not think they really needed external counsel to be able to answer the questions that were put to them, which were not particularly difficult – well within their ability to understand and respond to.

So, now, I come to the point about what these speeches did not address. The speeches did not address the core findings of the Committee of Privileges, which was: why did it take so long to have the truth told to Parliament?

You would think that from the time that it is disclosed to them, the first reaction should be: "Oh, no, this is terrible. We better go back and clarify". But no, this matter dragged on for one month, two months, three months. And it only came about after the Police had already put in their request for an interview and it became clear that this issue was not going to go away.

The other is this very puzzling thing about why there was no direct instruction to tell the truth. Because after all this evidence – and this is not disputed – there was no clear instruction from Mr Singh, or anybody else, to say, "Raeesah, please go back to Parliament and tell them the truth." Instead, there is this parsing of words, this "take ownership", "take responsibility", "I will not judge you". I mean, how difficult is it to just say, "Raeesah, tell the truth"? How difficult is it to do that? Not very. Anybody should know how you can do that.

So, this business of asking Ms Khan, being worried about her telling her parents, or have the parents found out, if that was so, how come nobody asked her whether she had told her parents? Why was no effort made to find out if she had cleared that, so that she could come back to Parliament and tell the truth?

And why was their own party not told about it? How do you have a Disciplinary Panel that is set up to sit in judgement upon somebody, to judge her for something where, in fact, she has already told you – you know what she has done from months back? But you are sitting there, in judgement on her.

I mean, these are questions that have not been answered, and these are pertinent questions. So, that leaves us with a situation where we have to decide what to do.

And as I wrap, let me just wrap where Mr Singh began when he said, "Who did this House commit to the Committee of Privileges – Raeesah Khan or the WP leadership?"

Now, that is somewhat misleading. You see, under the Standing Orders and the way the procedure goes, when a complaint arises and it comes to Parliament's attention, Parliament has to deal with it somehow. You cannot ignore it, right?

So, in this case, once Ms Khan came to Parliament and admitted that she had lied, it had to be looked into. I referred it to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges was inquiring into the complaint about her. But in the course of that, these things came up and it became clear to the Committee of Privileges that there is a problem. Because they think that the three senior WP leaders were lying and had guided her to not tell the truth in Parliament, until there was no other choice.

What is the Committee of Privileges supposed to do? Pretend it did not happen? Ignore it? It cannot do that. It was not set up to look into the three WP leaders. That part is correct. But if you are then seized with information, or it comes to your attention, that the three WP leaders have done something wrong, the Committee of Privileges has a duty to come back to Parliament and tell us, which they have done in the Report. And we here, in this Chamber, now have a duty to consider it and to do something about it.

There are only three things we can do. One, we can just say, "I am not going to look at it. I do not want to discuss it. I do not want to deal with it." And that would be wrong. It would be wrong for all the reasons that the Prime Minister has said. It would be wrong because it would be an abdication of our responsibility. And it would be wrong because it is a rejection of our values.

The second thing we can do is to say, "Okay. Let us punish them straightaway." But then, Mr Singh is saying that he denies this. He is saying that they did not do these things. So, he is actually objecting. And so, you could ride roughshod, you could steam roll, but that is not the right thing to do either. Because just like Ms Raeesah Khan was inquired into, somebody has to inquire into this.

And there are only two ways. One is, you set up another Committee of Privileges. And the COP has said they do not think it is going to get very far because they have pretty much heard what there is to hear. And if you go back, you are going to have the same thing and, not only that, there are probably going to be aspersions cast on the new Committee of Privileges.

So, for the more egregious, serious transgressions – in this case, the findings that Mr Singh had lied and that Mr Faisal Manap had prevaricated, refused to give documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor. [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.] And the other things, for example, that Ms Lim lied, that Mr Faisal Manap lied, those we hold back until the PP has decided what to do.

So, whatever it is, we cannot run away from the fact that we have before us a Report. The Report has highlighted things that we cannot ignore and we have to make a decision. And referring Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP is the fairest thing to do because, if they maintain their innocence, they will have a chance to vindicate themselves. They will be entitled to legal counsel, legal representation and it will go before the Courts who are independent and they need not fear that there is any political interference.

So, I think, Mr Speaker, I have dealt with the various things that have been raised.

The only thing I wanted to check with Mr Singh was this. Because I had understood, when he spoke just now, that there are some things that the Workers' Party or he agrees to. One is the finding against Ms Raeesah Khan for abuse of privilege. I think that is not disputed. The second thing is that of the fine in respect of the untruths told on 3 August (twice). That, I think, is not disputed and they agree with that.

What they do not agree with is the fine for the third time that she lied, the $10,000, because implicit in that was that she was acting on their guidance. So, they do not agree with that and they do not want to vote on that.

What I am asking Mr Singh is whether he can clarify that they would be prepared to vote in favour of the first two parts of the First Motion, but not in favour of the last part, which imposes the $10,000 fine.

And then, in respect of the Second Motion, because I had heard him say that he wishes to clear his name and that he will go before and cooperate with the PP, I am asking: is Mr Singh prepared to agree to the part of the Motion which says that he and Mr Faisal Manap be referred to the PP? I can understand that they do not want to vote on the other parts of the Motion.

So, perhaps, if Mr Singh could clarify that part and then we can think about how we can deal with the votes on the two Motions.

Mr Singh.

I understand. And for the first one, they would be prepared to vote in favour of the first paragraph, that is, taking note of the special reports. That is alright?

Leader, could you put that question again?

Okay. So, it is really only in respect of the $10,000 fine.

Mr Speaker, rather than standing up and sitting down, may I be allowed to just stand at the rostrum?

Please do.

Leader, please.

Okay. I am not going to ask you anything else, so you may sit down.

Normally, when you vote for a Motion, you vote for the Motion in its entirety. So, if there are three things in the Motion and you agree with two, but not one, normally, you would vote against the entire thing, right?

But there is a way to allow us to vote for 2(a) and 2(b), and remove 2(c) which is voted on separately, if we lift the Standing Orders. And what I will do, with the Speaker's permission, is to ask to lift the Standing Orders in respect of the First Motion, to allow the votes for 2(a) and 2(b) to be taken, and then for 2(c) to be taken separately, which will then record that the first two were unanimously passed, and the third one was rejected by the WP.

Please proceed.

I would have to ask for the procedural note. Would the Clerks have a copy of the procedural note for this? Just give me a moment, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the question on the First Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question to be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion; and that the second question to be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion.

Hon Members indicated assent.

Leader, please proceed.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the question on the First Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges' Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion, and that the second question be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That on the First Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion, and that the second question be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would not be seeking to lift the Standing Orders in respect of the Second Motion since Mr Singh has said that they would not be agreeing to any part of it, with the important caveat that they have put on record that he and Mr Faisal Manap are prepared to be referred to the Public Prosecutor to clear their names.

Mr Speaker, may I propose that we proceed with the original amendments to the process that Leader had articulated, to split the second vote because there are other Members in the House and they may have different views from the clauses as we have described. I would propose that we do split the Second Motion into two votes.

So, as moved by the Leader of the House, shall we proceed?

Sir, I think what Dr Janil Puthucheary is asking me to do is to also move to allow the Second Motion to have split votes, the reason being that there may be other Members in the House who may not wish to vote it in its entirety. So, if you will permit, I will then move a Motion now to seek that the Second Motion be allowed to be voted in a split manner as well.

Understand. Please do.

Let me just make sure that I understand Dr Janil Puthucheary correctly. Yes.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the question on the Second Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be put and voted in two parts: that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion.

Hon Members indicated assent.

Leader, please proceed.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move that notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the question on the Second Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be put and voted in two parts: that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That on the Second Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion.

We have now come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the necessary questions to the House for decision. We will first deal with the Motion on the Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan).

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

*That this Parliament: (proc text)]

*1. Takes note of the Special Reports of the Committee of Privileges contained in: (proc text)]

*(a) Paper Parl 5 of 2021; (proc text)]

*(b) Paper Parl 6 of 2021; (proc text)]

(c) Paper Parl 7 of 2021;

*(d) Paper Parl 8 of 2021; (proc text)]

*(e) Paper Parl 9 of 2021; (proc text)]

*(f) Paper Parl 10 of 2021; (proc text)]

*(g) Paper Parl 11 of 2021; and (proc text)]

2. Agrees with the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges relating to Ms Raeesah Khan, as stated in the Committee’s Report contained in Paper Parl 13 of 2022, and resolves:

*(a) that Ms Raeesah Khan is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament for an untruth (“Untruth”) spoken in Parliament on 3 August 2021 (twice) and repeated on 4 October 2021; (proc text)]

(b) that a fine of S$25,000 be imposed on her for stating the Untruth twice in Parliament on 3 August 2021.

The second question.

Question put, "That this Parliament agrees with the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges relating to Ms Raeesah Khan, as stated in the Committee’s Report contained in Paper Parl 13 of 2022, and resolves that a fine of S$10,000 be imposed on Ms Raeesah Khan for repeating the Untruth on 4 October 2021".

Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, can I request that the dissent of the WP MPs be recorded.

Yes. Those who are dissenting, please stand in your place so that we can record your dissent.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded.

Thank you, you may sit.

Resolved,

That this Parliament agrees with the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges relating to Ms Raeesah Khan, as stated in the Committee’s Report contained in Paper Parl 13 of 2022, and resolves that a fine of S$10,000 be imposed on Ms Raeesah Khan for repeating the Untruth on 4 October 2021.

We will now deal with the next question on the Second Motion.

Question put, "That this Parliament: 1. Notes that it appears from the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) (“Report”) that offences under Part 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may have been committed before the Committee of Privileges; and

2. Resolves, under section 21(1)(c) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, to refer the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap before the Committee to the Public Prosecutor".

Leader of the Opposition.

Noted. Would you like to record your dissent? Those recording your dissent, please stand.

Yes.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded.

Thank you, you may sit.

Resolved,

That this Parliament: 1. Notes that it appears from the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) (“Report”) that offences under Part 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may have been committed before the Committee of Privileges; and

2. Resolves, under section 21(1)(c) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, to refer the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap before the Committee to the Public Prosecutor.

That brings us to the last question.

*Question put, "That this Parliament further resolves that the findings in the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) ("Report") regarding: (proc text)]

*i. Mr Pritam Singh's, Ms Sylvia Lim’s and/or Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's respective roles as set out in the Report, in relation to the untruth spoken by Ms Raeesah Khan in Parliament on 3 August 2021 (twice) and repeated on 4 October 2021; (proc text)]

*ii. Ms Lim/Mr Faisal's stating of untruths to the Committee on oath/affirmation; (proc text)]

and the appropriate sanctions in respect thereof, be deferred until after the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings (if any) against Mr Singh."

Would you like to record your dissent?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

You may just stand in your place.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded.

Thank you, please be seated.

Resolved,

That this Parliament further resolves that the findings in the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) ("Report") regarding:

i. Mr Pritam Singh's, Ms Sylvia Lim’s and/or Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's respective roles as set out in the Report, in relation to the untruth spoken by Ms Raeesah Khan in Parliament on 3 August 2021 (twice) and repeated on 4 October 2021;

ii. Ms Lim/Mr Faisal's stating of untruths to the Committee on oath/affirmation;

and the appropriate sanctions in respect thereof, be deferred until after the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings (if any) against Mr Singh.

Leader, Adjournment of Parliament.