Debated in Parliament on 1 Nov 2021.
On 3 August, I spoke in this House on the Motion on Empowering Women. During my speech, I had shared an anecdote of a survivor of sexual assault. I was not present with the survivor in the Police station as I described. The anecdote was shared by the survivor in a support group for women, which I was a part of.
I did not share that I was a part of the group as I did not have the courage to publicly admit that I was part of it.
I attended the support group because I, myself, am a survivor of sexual assault. I was sexually assaulted when I was 18 studying abroad. That assault has traumatised me till this day. The fear and shame accompanying sexual assault is extreme and long lasting, as it has been and still is for me.
Unlike the survivor whose anecdote I shared in this House, I did not have the courage to report my own assault. Yet, as a survivor, I wanted so deeply to speak up and also share the account I had heard when speaking on the Motion without revealing my own private experience.
I should not have shared the survivor's anecdote without her consent, nor should I have said that I accompanied her to the Police station when I did not. It was wrong of me to do so.
To survivors of sexual violence, I hope that this does not deter you from reporting your assaults. In sharing an anecdote without consent, I disregarded the principle of consent in discussions around survivors' consent and sexual assault. As a survivor myself, I feel this failure deeply.
It is important for me to take responsibility for my actions, for my error of judgement and to set the record straight.
I wish to correct the record by retracting the anecdote that I shared on 3 August and I wish to apologise to the Singapore Police Force.
LastIy, I want to apologise to the survivor whose quote I used, to the House, to my constituents, to the Workers' Party, its members and volunteers, and to my family, especially to my parents. To the residents of Sengkang, I will work even harder for you. Thank you.
Leader.
Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to seek some clarifications from the Member?
Yes, please.
I would like to start by saying to the Member that I am very sorry to hear that she was a victim of sexual assault. I can understand that that must be very difficult and I hope that she will have the courage to be able to come through this and to be stronger as a result.
However, as the Member's statements do also disclose some rather startling disclosures – a bit of a bombshell, I might say – I do have to seek some clarifications because I need to know what exactly should follow from this disclosure. So, I hope the Member will understand and bear with me as I seek these clarifications.
The Member, as I understand it and see if I have noted what she said correctly: she said that she had shared an anecdote but in fact, she had not gone down to the Police station as she had previously described. Is that correct?
Ms Raeesah Khan.
Thank you, Leader of the House. Yes, it is correct and hence, why I am making this apology today.
Yes, I understand.
That means, can I check, because I think the Member had spoken on the Workers' Party's Motion on Empowering Women on 3 August and the Member had made this statement, "Three years ago, I accompanied a 25-year-old survivor to make a Police report against a rape that was committed against her. She came out crying. The Police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she was drinking."
Hence, in the light of what the Member has just told us, that statement, at least the part about her accompanying the survivor to the Police station and what the Member allegedly saw, that part is untrue. Can the Member confirm that?
Yes, I confirm that. That was not the whole truth.
And, because later in that day, the Minister of State Desmond Tan had sought some clarifications from the Member and the Member, in her response, said, "Like I mentioned, it was three years ago and I do not wish to re-traumatise the person that I had accompanied."
Can I ask the Member to confirm that that statement: "the person that I had accompanied", was also untrue?
Yes, that was untrue. That was not the truth.
Firstly, I want to say that when I was questioned subsequently, what was going through my mind was that I wanted to protect the survivor and the people who were in the group.
Secondly, like I mentioned, it is really difficult to share a traumatic experience like this and to share that I was a part of that group in the first place.
So, I just wanted to clarify that these were the things that were going through my mind when I was answering these questions. Thank you.
I understand. I am just trying to establish the facts so that we all know exactly what transpired and then we can think a bit further of what should follow from that.
About two months later, I believe, the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs for further clarification in this House. So, that would have been on 4 October 2021. This was the exchange that took place.
The Minister for Home Affairs had asked her for details. The Member had said she would like them to remain confidential and the Minister for Home Affairs had said this, "Sir, I do not understand this point about confidentiality. Can I ask through you, Sir, for Ms Khan to confirm in the House that everything she told us is accurate, that she did accompany such a person and such an incident did happen?"
And Ms Khan's answer was "Yes". Can I ask the Member to confirm that that statement when she said yes, was untrue?
It was not the truth. Yes.
Thank you. I have a few more clarifications. Please bear with me.
If I understood the Member correctly earlier, she had said that the reason and the thinking behind what she did was that she did not want to disclose publicly that she was a member of the survivors' group. Is that correct?
Yes, I did not want to disclose publicly that I was a part of a women's support group.
I understand. I want to understand from the Member why it was necessary, actually, to say those untruths because the Member could easily have related the anecdote by saying that she heard from someone who had this experience. That was all that would have been necessary to do. The Member would not have had to refer to the support group or even disclose its existence; and there would certainly have been no need to reveal that she was part of the support group.
Sir, I would like to ask the Member this: does the Member agree that it would have been possible to tell the story without reference to the support group or telling the untruth?
Thank you for those clarifications. I have been really reflecting on this episode and why I told the anecdote the way it was, and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that I did not have my own courage to report my own assault. So, I felt very compelled to ensure that other survivors who do get the courage to report the assault to have that process done with respect and dignity.
But I recognise the Leader of the House's comments and I do recognise that it was not the right way to go about it. That is why I am here today, admitting that it was a mistake and here making a very frank apology. Thank you.
I understand that. So, I do completely empathise with the reason why the Member felt it was necessary to speak up. All I am asking is this and I am not sure that I had a response. But my question was simply this: it would have been possible to tell the story without the untruths and without referring to the survivors' group. Would the Member agree?
So, if I was unclear, I apologise. Yes, I do feel like it would have been possible. But in my haste and in my passion to advocate for survivors like myself, I did a mistake.
Right. Then, the other thing I am a bit puzzled about is this: I can understand the mistake on the spur of the moment. But the only thing is that on 3 August, I had specifically stood up in this House to remind Members of the need to substantiate allegations made. And I had said this: "I just wanted to remind Members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, Members must be prepared to substantiate them. This is just a reminder to Members so that in future, they will understand."
So, I said that on 3 August. Two months later, when the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs about this incident, which is two months' time to reflect, why did the Member then repeat the untruth?
Thank you. Like I mentioned before, I think there were two things that were going through my mind. The first was that I really wanted to protect the identity of the survivor and the survivors in the women's support group. And secondly, a lot of people did not know about this assault until very recently including my family. So, I was not ready at that point to come forward with this information. But after being able to have discussions with my family, with my friends and also informing the relevant people, it was it was clear that I wanted to make this apology; I wanted to make this personal explanation like I have done so today.
Thank you. I have to check another matter. Although the Member has retracted and apologised and, indeed, that is the correct thing to do given the circumstances that she has explained, the Member has also said that she was relating another survivor's story. This means that there still is an allegation against the Police – not the Member accompanying somebody and going down, but there is a survivor there with an allegation against the Police, which has been related to this House. That means there is still an issue of the need to substantiate the allegations.
A withdrawal and an apology do not purge or wipe out a previous failure to substantiate the allegations. What I am trying to understand and this is very important, I need to understand what the Member knew at the time the allegation was made. Is this a case where, based on what the survivor said, the Member — or let me backtrack a bit. Because when the Member was asked about it, she said, "With regard to confidentiality, I would not like to reveal any of the information." So, is this a case where, based on what the survivor said, the Member actually knows the details but did not want to disclose them because of confidentiality? Or is this a case where the Member actually does not know any of the details?
Thank you. I do not know any of the details. All I knew was what I shared in my speech on 3 August and that was an account from the survivor. I understand that it is not going to be able to be verified and hence, I have withdrawn my anecdote and apologised to the Singapore Police Force as well.
Thank you. On the confidentiality point, if I heard the Member, say, let me just check my notes for when the Member was speaking. Yes, the Member said, on confidentiality, that she should not have shared the survivor's story without her consent.
Can I ask the Member why she said that?
Yes, one of the principles of being in a women's support group is that the details should remain confidential. And that is something that I shared in my speech that I feel this failure deeply. Because I, myself, am a survivor, so, I understand what it feels like to have information out there that that I did not consent to. This has been a lesson of consent for me. And yes, like I said, it is a failure I take very deeply.
So, when the Member was asked for details in Parliament, she said that she did not want to disclose because of confidentiality. But based on what the Member has just said, actually, by that time, because the story had already been recounted, it means the Member had already breached the confidentiality to the survivor. Is that not correct?
That is correct, yes.
Just one last couple of clarifications. I think the Member ended by saying that she promised the residents of Sengkang that she would work even harder for them.
About a year ago, the Member made this promise also to the residents of Sengkang. I think this was what was reported in The Straits Times, dated 17 September 2020. The Member had said, "From these interactions, I have also learnt that as a leader, I have the power to start difficult conversations and that it is vital to frame these conversations in a considerate and accountable manner. As an MP, I hope to use the appropriate platforms to speak out on matters concerning my constituents". That was the promise made last year to the residents of Sengkang.
The Member, in the Motion on Women's Empowerment, had the platform to speak here about women's issues. The Member had the power to use her position as an MP (Member of Parliament) to advocate. Can I ask the Member that having regard to the fact that the Member has not been truthful to Parliament and not able to substantiate the allegations because the Member had no details, will the Member regard that promise last year to the residents of Sengkang to have been kept?
Thank you. Yes, I do because I am here today and I am accountable for my actions. I have apologised to the House. I have retracted the anecdote that I made and I have also apologised to the Singapore Police Force. I recognise that there was a lapse of judgement, but I am here today to apologise for it. And I think that goes back to the spirit of what I initially said a year ago.
I understand. There is a distinction, though. The Member is apologising for not having kept the promise. My question was this: that means that the promise was not kept, is that not correct?
I think one of the important parts of that post was that I would remain accountable. And I think today, here standing in Parliament, I am remaining accountable to my voters and to myself and to the principles that I wish to uphold.
I thank the Member for that. That was not quite the way it was framed, but that is all right. The way that it was framed was that it was vital to frame conversations in an accountable manner. But I thank the Member for her clarifications.
These are all the clarifications I have, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Member. But in light of what has been disclosed, it is not possible for me to leave the matter as it is and I have to raise a point of order.
I wish to raise a point of order under Standing Order 100(7)(b). The point of order is this: the Member has, by her own admission, lied to the House three times: in her original speech, in the clarifications arising from that speech, and two months later, in her response to the Minister for Home Affairs.
The Member has also confirmed that when she made the statement, she did not really have any details. That means that she was, at the time of making the statement, not able to substantiate her allegation and in fact had very little basis for doing so.
What this means is that, as a result of that, there is a cloud hanging over the Police. The Police had to go and do investigations and a lot of time and resources were spent on that. It is unfair to the Police and I think the Member has acknowledged that.
But most of all – and this really is the most distressing part – what has happened does a great disservice to the survivors of sexual assault and rape victims. The reason is this: because it is hard enough for such women, who are victims, to tell their stories and they have great difficulty in getting people to believe them sometimes. So, when relating their stories – and that is based on a lie and an inability or unwillingness to substantiate the story – it makes it that much more difficult for these women to come forward and to tell their stories. Because it is like ink in water; it spreads throughout and it casts doubt and suspicion on the stories. And it makes it that much harder for women to be believed. It undermines what we are trying to do and, especially in this year, of trying to advance women's development.
As I have said before, as Members of Parliament, we are granted privileges. One of those privileges is to be able to speak in Parliament with immunity. Unlike other people, we can do so without fear of prosecution because of the underlying public policy interest, which is, to be able to raise things. And it is very, very important when we do so, that we must be able to speak truth in this House and when we assert or make allegations, to be able to back them up.
I wish to say to the Member that I do hope that, given her past experience and what she has described and shared, she will heal. I hope that she will have time to recover from her issues on a personal level and repair relationships which, she has acknowledged, have been strained.
But the Member is also a Member of Parliament and, therefore, subject to duties and responsibilities which everyone in this House is also subject to. One of these, of course, is that when you have parliamentary privilege, you must neither breach that privilege nor abuse it.
I have great reluctance because I have sympathy for the Member's personal circumstances. But as Leader of the House, I also have a responsibility and that is: to ensure that, in this Chamber, all Members of Parliament discharge their duties faithfully and accountably and responsibly; and also that, if there are any breaches of privilege, that that has to be dealt with. I have to ensure the integrity of our Parliament because Parliament is a platform that other people look at. Singaporeans look at what we discuss here. They believe what we say. When there is untruth, it undermines the trust. Other people, the international forum and other countries look at what is discussed in this platform. What we say and what we do must be based on truth and integrity, because, again, if we do not do that, it undermines the reputation of our Parliament, our institutions and the faith that our people have in us.
Therefore, given what we have heard today, I really have no choice but to raise a complaint, under section 100(7)(b) of the Standing Orders, for breach of privilege suddenly arising based on: firstly, the disclosure by the Member that she has not been truthful or has lied to Parliament, not once, not twice, but three times; and also because she has been unable to substantiate an allegation that has been made.
These are matters which, prima facie, affect the privileges of Parliament and I, therefore, reluctantly, have to ask the matter, Mr Speaker, to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I am satisfied that the matter complained of, prima facie, affects the privileges of Parliament. So, pursuant to Standing Order 100(7)(b), the matter shall stand referred to the Committee of Privileges. Leader.
Mr Speaker, as I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges and as I am the complainant in this case, I would wish to recuse myself from the Committee of Privileges. Also, on behalf of Minister K Shanmugam, who has sought leave of Parliament to be absent today as he is outstation, because his Ministry is involved, he would seek to be recused from the Committee of Privileges as well.
Noted. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
PAPERCUTS