“Not relevant” to let the public know that WP leaders know about Raeesah’s lies: Pritam Singh, Singapore News & Top Stories
SINGAPORE – Opposition leader Pritam Singh did not consider it relevant for the public to know that Workers’ Party (WP) leaders knew about Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie days after it was delivered in parliament .
Instead, Mr. Singh said he decided to call a press conference on December 2 and release this information because questions were circulating about when and what PM leaders knew about Ms. Khan, he told the Privileges Committee when he testified to him on Friday. (Dec 10).
The Privileges Committee released its third special report on its hearings on Sunday, December 12, which focused on Mr. Singh’s testimony on Ms. Khan’s case.
Mr Singh felt that party leaders’ knowledge of the untruth in August was not important because “at the end of the day it was about Ms Khan and her decision to lie in Parliament, to keep lying “.
“It would be very relevant if the party leadership told him to lie – we didn’t – to continue a story, (which) we didn’t do.”
After Ms Khan confessed to lying to Parliament in a statement on November 1, Mr Singh posted a message on Facebook the same day that said Ms Khan should not have shared an account containing untruths in the House.
The message did not mention that Ms Khan confessed to him, Vice President Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim five days after lying to parliament about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station.
A media statement issued by the Workers’ Party on November 2 that announced the formation of a WP (DP) disciplinary committee on the case also did not mention this.
Culture, Community and Youth Minister Edwin Tong asked if it could have given a false impression that Ms Khan had persisted in her lie alone.
“For this lie to have been firmly upheld and not discussed with senior management would be a different scenario from an MP who lied but confessed early, nearly three months before being outspoken in Parliament,” he said. Mr. Tong said.
He added that it could also have been a mitigating factor when the WP DP made his recommendations to the party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) on how to sanction it.
The DP, made up of the three top executives who knew about the lie on August 8, did not disclose this information to WP members who were asked to comment on the matter.
Mr. Singh disagreed. “In my opinion, that point is based on her telling upper management after being forced to tell upper management what happened,” he said.
On December 2, the WP held a press conference in which it was first revealed that senior party leaders were aware of Ms Khan’s untruths months before.
When asked why he then decided to go public with what he previously considered irrelevant information, Mr Singh said he wanted to eliminate the illusion that the party was hiding something.
âThere have been discussions online about this. And I thought it would be relevant to answer it. And I would expect reporters to ask that question,â he said.
Pressed by Mr. Tong on what is wrong with making this public earlier, Mr. Singh replied, âThis is precisely my point: it hasn’t even crossed our minds. relevance was not even active at that time. “
Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin then asked Mr. Singh why the December 2 press conference was held at around the same time on the first day the Privileges Committee met to hear testimony. , what if she had been summoned because senior WP leaders knew their involvement would emerge when Ms. Khan appeared before the committee.
Mr Singh said it had not occurred to him and that the press conference had been announced publicly a few days earlier.
On why the WP leaders’ prior knowledge of Ms. Khan’s lie in Parliament on August 3 was withheld even from the WP CEC, Mr. Singh said Ms. Khan was before the CEC on October 29 and could have express concern then if she had wanted to.
Mr. Singh reiterated that the need for such disclosure to the CEC had not crossed the minds of the three senior leaders.
“That didn’t strike us in mind. But if (the CEC) had asked (about our involvement), we would have (told them).”