Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament (MP) Jamus Lim was interviewed by the Committee of Privileges (COP) on Dec. 13, as part of its ongoing investigation into former Sengkang GRC Raeesah Khan.

A 1-hour video recording of the hearing where he gave evidence was uploaded on Dec. 14, along with a fourth special report summarising his evidence, as well as evidence given by fellow Workers' Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim.

Why was Lim interviewed?

Lim was interviewed — mostly by COP member and Minister for National Development Desmond Lee — with regard to his involvement as a member of the WP's Central Executive Committee (CEC), who had been present at an "extraordinary CEC meeting" on Oct. 29.

He was also interviewed in his capacity as Raeesah's fellow Sengkang GRC MP at the time of her speech in Parliament on Aug. 3 which contained a lie, and during her admission of the lie on Nov. 1, up to the point of her resignation.

Discussion about what Raeesah would say on Nov. 1

Lim told the COP that the CEC discussed what Raeesah would say in her personal explanation in Parliament on Nov. 1.

One of the matters discussed at the Oct. 29 meeting was the question of whether she should share her own experience of being a sexual assault victim.

Lim said there was discussion in the meeting about why Raeesah "chose to share this aspect".

Lim said his personal view was that it was "something that was important to state".

He "recommended that she share that background, that context".

This, Lim said, was because of his role as a professor of Economics who deals with rationality. He explained that to him, "what she shared was a little bit irrational, in terms of why she lied not what she shared, why she chose to speak an untruth in Parliament to back up the background."

Thus, he said, he thought it was important for Raeesah to share her thinking in Parliament, even though it was his view that the incidents (i.e. her personal experience, and the experience of the person whose anecdote she had shared) had been "conflated".

WP CEC's lack of knowledge of Pritam Singh, Faisal Manap, and Sylvia Lim's involvement

Lim also gave evidence on the involvement of the WP CEC in the disciplinary action taken against Raeesah.

Lim also said that the CEC was not informed of Singh, Faisal, and Sylvia Lim's prior knowledge of Raeesah's lie at the point where they were called upon to approve the formation of a disciplinary panel (DP) which comprised those three WP leaders. The CEC was also not aware of this on Nov. 30, when it was called upon to make a decision based on the DP's recommendations, said Lim. In this regard, his account of the facts was aligned with what WP Secretary-General Pritam Singh, and Vice Chair Faisal Manap told the COP.

Lim was asked by Lee: "As a member of the CEC appointing a disciplinary panel, you would assume that the panel looking into this matter would be disinterested from the episode and the surrounding circumstances — that means no personal interest; no involvement in the facts for which they're supposed to investigate. Would there be a fair assumption...?"

In response, Lim said he trusted that the WP leadership would inform the CEC of "anything material" to their assessment of Raeesah's culpability and the action to be taken against her.

What is "material" information for the CEC?

However, he added that what he considered "material" for the CEC would depend on the truth of the matter, in response to a line of questioning by COP Chairman and Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan Jin.

Tan had asked the following question:

"As conveyed by Mr Pritam Singh, he had told Ms Raeesah Khan on 3rd October to take ownership and responsibility. And also the fact that he wouldn't judge her. And in his mind as he shared with us his intent was for her to come clean and to tell the truth on the 4th of October, should the issue arise. Would that not be an aggravating factor? ... In terms of her culpability — because she has been told. She lied once on 3rd August and then again on 4th October — especially if indeed it's true — expressly told by her leader that she should tell the truth. Wouldn't that be material in your assessment of her level of responsibility and in terms of disciplinary action? It would be, wouldn't it?"

While Lim said he was "trying to process" what Tan meant, Tan then interjected:

"You said it would be relevant only if it's material. So I'm asking you — the fact that, if she was told to tell the truth, if indeed that's true, on the 4th [of October], and she didn't, would that not be material for the CEC to evaluate? As to her level of responsibility, culpability, disciplinary action."

Lim responded: "If she had been told to tell the truth, and she planned to ultimately tell the truth, I do not think that that would necessarily be material."

To which Tan contended: "So basically in your mind nothing is material? The fact is, the fact that the three of them knew. So there's actually no circumstances in which it would be material except if indeed they told her to suppress the truth. Otherwise, any other scenario wouldn't be material? Would that be correct?"

Lim replied that he had not thought through "all the possible hypothetical scenarios" for which things would be material or not, and later reiterated that his view was that he trusted that the leadership "would have put all the material facts on the table".

He also said that if it had indeed been the case that Raeesah had been told that "she would ultimately need" to admit her untruth, that he would think that it would not be material to share that information with the CEC or the rest of the WP members.

Related stories

https://mothership.sg/2021/12/sylvia-lim-raeesah-khan-lie-frustrated/?

Top image screenshots via gov.sg on YouTube

Follow and listen to our podcast here