LiveIndranee raises motion to debate Pritam’s suitability as Leader of the Opposition

Pritam also failed to take responsibility: Indranee

Mr Singh did not admit to his complicity when the truth came to light about Ms Raeesah Khan’s lies, Ms Indranee says.

Instead, he disowned her actions and later sat in judgment of her conduct, while concealing his own role, she adds.

After Ms Khan lied, she knew she was in trouble and asked Mr Singh for advice as her party leader and a mentor.

Mr Singh told her to hide the untruth and guided her to continue with it, Ms Indranee says.

“There was a failure to take responsibility,” she adds.

He also refused to acknowledge the impact of the original lie on the police, Ms Indranee says.

She adds that he dismissed the work they had done and the diversion of public resources, and that the police had to comb through more than 1,400 sexual assault and related cases to investigate Ms Khan’s false claims. 

Issue shows a failure of leadership from Pritam, a contrast with Low Thia Khiang’s approach: Indranee

The case shows a failure of leadership on the part of Mr Singh, Ms Indranee says.

If he had told Ms Khan to come clean when she first confessed her lies to him in August 2021, the entire matter would have taken a very different course, she adds.

“Yes, it would have been inconvenient and uncomfortable to disclose the truth then,” she says. She notes that the WP had just won their second GRC in Sengkang in the 2020 General Election, and Ms Khan was a member of that team.

But the consequences would have been nowhere as grave as what followed. It is at such moments where leaders are tested and leadership matters, Ms Indranee says.

“We have seen the contrast between Mr Singh’s approach and Mr Low Thia Khiang’s leadership.”

Mr Low is the former WP chief, who handed the reins to Mr Singh in 2018. He did not seek re-election in 2020 but remains on the WP’s top leadership body as a member. 

Lies are a problem as Pritam is Leader of the Opposition

Ms Indranee concludes that Mr Singh guided Ms Khan twice to maintain her lies to Parliament, and twice before the COP and also before the court.

Ms Indranee adds that he lied to the public and concealed “material information” from his own party.

“There are simply too many lies – they pile up, one of top of another, each one to cover up a previous lie.”

That is a problem because Mr Singh is also Leader of the Opposition, she says. 

Pritam's lies to parliamentary committee ‘graver than other lies’ as he was under oath

Citing court findings, Ms Indranee says Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders acted in a manner “to conceal their involvement” in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her lie.

Mr Singh carried on lying when he appeared before the Committee of Privileges - actions which were “even graver than other lies”, she adds, as he was speaking under oath.

Wrapping up her recap of events, Ms Indranee says the facts of the case had all been established by the courts, and Mr Singh had accepted the judgment “fully and without reservation”.

Conduct of three WP leaders ‘improper and wrong, legally and morally’

Despite having prior knowledge of Ms Khan’s lies, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal made up the disciplinary panel that looked into her actions.

Referencing what Mr Singh told Ms Khan - that he would not judge her - Ms Indranee says: “Well, he did proceed to sit in judgment upon her, personally.”

They recommended to the party’s central executive committee on Nov 30, 2021, that Ms Khan be expelled from the party within 24 hours if she did not resign.

It is “most troubling” that they failed to disclose – to both their party and the public – that they knew about the lie all along, and had been involved in advising Ms Khan to stand her ground, Ms Indranee says.

She adds: “One does not need to be a lawyer or a parliamentarian to know that this is improper and wrong, legally and morally.”

WP leaders decided to come clean only after Low Thia Khiang’s advice

Court proceedings revealed that the WP leaders “only decided to come clean” after former party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang had advised them to do so on Oct 11, 2021.

He had impressed upon Mr Singh and Ms Lim that Ms Khan “had to clarify the untruth and apologise to Parliament, regardless of whether it might be discovered by the Government”.

The pair were dishonest with him, however, and did not divulge that they had known about Ms Khan’s lie beforehand, says Ms Indranee.

Mr Low himself said in court that he found out about their involvement only two years later, in 2023.

WP leaders’ attitude towards Raeesah Khan’s lie ‘clear and simple’

While Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal denied that they had told Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, the court found otherwise.

“Their attitude had been clear and simple: they believed that there was no need to tell the truth because they did not think the matter would surface again - they thought it would be buried forever,” says Ms Indranee.

Mr Singh did not discuss the lie with Ms Khan nor get her to correct it, even though he checked her other parliamentary work. He brought up the matter only on Oct 3, 2021, a day before Parliament was due to sit.

The court found that he had guided her to continue her lie in Parliament on Oct 4. When grilled on the lie by Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, Ms Khan stood by her words, without any intervention by Mr Singh or Ms Lim.
 

‘Not a single lapse’: Indranee says Pritam Singh lied repeatedly to parliamentary committee, public and courts

Ms Indranee says Mr Singh’s actions were “not a single lapse”, as he had lied repeatedly and doubled down each time, citing how his court case established “many disturbing facts” about his conduct.

She says he guided Ms Khan with keeping up her charade, then recommended to the WP’s central executive committee that she be expelled if she did not resign, despite knowing beforehand that she had lied.

Mr Singh also lied to Singaporeans when he publicly rejected Ms Khan’s accounts of the matter and accused her of lying.

Ms Indranee adds that Mr Singh lied to the Committee of Privileges twice, and stuck to his lies during his court trial.

Indranee sets rules for debate

Parliament’s Standing Orders – the rules that govern how parliamentary business and debates are conducted – do not usually allow for comments or questions that make assertions about a parliamentarian’s personal character.

But there are exceptions, Ms Indranee says.

These include circumstances where it pertains to the individual’s conduct as an MP, and if there is a substantive motion on the matter.

The matter involving Mr Singh fulfils that condition, Ms Indranee says.

“It is therefore necessary for us not to skirt around the conduct with euphemisms but to name it squarely, so that everyone understands the issues clearly and can debate them properly,” she adds.

Parliament ‘has to decide’ what to do in the light of court findings

Following Ms Khan’s admission to lying in Parliament, a parliamentary committee was convened on Nov 29, 2021, to look into the matter.

Ms Indranee recaps the events that led to the formation of the Committee of Privileges.

Ms Khan told the committee that WP leaders - namely Mr Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim, and Mr Faisal Manap - had advised her to continue with her lie. All three denied this.

Ms Khan was later fined $35,000, while Mr Singh was charged in court over giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee. Mr Faisal was referred to the public prosecutor and later issued a police advisory for refusing to answer the committee’s questions.

Parliament had deferred making a decision on what to do about all three WP leaders until after Mr Singh’s case was concluded. It now “has to decide what to do” in the light of the court’s decision, says Ms Indranee.