Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House

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 "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)", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.]

Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5):

In my opening speech on the Two Motions, I referred to a context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Lim clarify the truth the next day on 5 October. I wish to make a factual correction, as I was referring to the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Khan clarify the truth the next day on 5 October. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:

Ms Lim admitted, in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Khan 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.

(b) Statement in reply speech

The following statements were made in the reply speech given by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House during the simultaneous debate for the Two Motions at the Sitting of 15 February 2022:

That was dealt with at paragraph 55 of the Report. 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?" [Please refer to "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)", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.]

Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5):

In my reply speech on the Two Motions, I said that, at paragraph 55 of the Report, the Committee had stated that the questions posed by Mr Singh to Ms Khan were quite telling, because 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. ..." I wish to make a factual clarification, that the Committee dealt with this issue at paragraphs 85-86 of the Schedule to the Report, and that Mr Singh would be saying “… You went against my instructions on telling the truth to Parliament”. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:

That was dealt with at paragraphs 85 to 86 of the Schedule to the Report. 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 on 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?"

(c) Statement in reply speech

The following statement was made in the reply speech given by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House during the simultaneous debate for the Two Motions at the Sitting of 15 February 2022:

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 "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)", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.]

Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5):

In my reply speech on the Two Motions, I said that arising from the finding that Mr Faisal Manap had (inter alia) refused to give documents, the Committee’s recommendation was for that to be referred to the Public Prosecutor. I wish to make a factual correction, that the relevant finding was that Mr Faisal Manap had (inter alia) refused to identify documents. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:

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 identify documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor.