WP leaders’ prior knowledge of Raeesah Khan’s lie is only material if they told him to lie in the grave: Jamus Lim, Politics News & Top Stories

SINGAPORE – The fact that three leaders of the Workers’ Party learned of former MK Raeesah Khan’s lie from August 8 would only be “important information” to be disclosed to the party’s highest governing body. ‘they had – as she claimed – asked her to take her lie to the grave, Associate Professor Jamus Lim said.

But if Ms Khan had been told to tell the truth afterwards after some time, then her previous confession to party leader Pritam Singh, President Sylvia Lim and Vice President Faisal Manap would not have been fact. important or relevant to the central executive of the WP. (CEC), Professor Lim told the Privileges Committee on Monday (December 13).

According to a fourth special report released by the committee on Tuesday, Professor Lim – a member of the WP CEC – had said that whether the prior knowledge of senior party leaders on the case was important, it “would depend on the veracity of the case. “.

The report states that Professor Lim initially agreed that the CEC should determine the truth, taking into account the recommendations of a disciplinary panel composed only of Mr. Singh, Ms. Lim and Mr. Faisal.

“He later said he did not know who determined the truth and that the truth was what everyone was trying to find out,” according to the report.

During his testimony, Professor Lim confirmed that he was unaware that Ms. Khan had told Mr. Singh, Ms. Lim and Mr. Faisal about her lie when the CEC approved the formation of the disciplinary committee on November 2.

He was also unaware of his confession to the three leaders when the CEC ruled on the panel’s recommendations on November 30.

The report states that Professor Lim was asked whether he, as a member of the CEC, would have expected the disciplinary panel to be “disinterested in the episode and the surrounding circumstances, so that they had no personal interest in the matter they were supposed to be investigating ”. .

He was also asked if he expected the CEC to be informed of Ms Khan’s confession to party leaders and what they knew on October 4, when Ms Khan repeated her lie to Parliament in response to the Minister of Interior and Law, K. Shanmugam.

In response, Professor Lim said, “If there was something material, I hope the management would have shared it with us.”

Professor Lim, a member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, also told the committee that the points raised by the disciplinary panel were secondary to its decision.

He said: “I trusted the disciplinary panel to define what was material and necessary. But it would have been irresponsible of me to have made a decision of this gravity without also thinking independently about what I could. bring together, as well as… the philosophy and principles underlying this decision.

“So I spent a lot of time deliberating in myself, personally, again, almost to a point where the few points that were raised by the disciplinary panel at this CEC meeting, were essentially secondary to my decision.”

Professor Lim also confirmed that on October 29, the CEC was made aware at an extraordinary meeting of Ms. Khan’s lie to Parliament and that they would provide a personal explanation to clarify the next session of Parliament on November 1.

His draft personal explanation was recited to CEC members who discussed it and made suggestions.

“Some members felt that the reference to Ms Khan as a victim of sexual assault might sound like an excuse, but Professor Lim felt it was important for her to say so,” the report said.

According to the report, Professor Lim said that apart from what he was told at the October 29 meeting, he generally only learned the facts about this case when they became public.

The people he had obtained comments from were also unaware of these facts as they were not public knowledge as of November 30, when the panel presented its recommendations to the CEC.

Comments are closed.