Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg
During the Committee of Privileges' hearing with former Workers' Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan on Dec. 2, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong referred to a news article about a comment made by WP chief Pritam Singh.
However, there may have been a misunderstanding over the context of Singh's remarks to a question, due to an error in the article.
Oct. 3 conversation
During the hearing, Tong referred to a news article "from CNA", titled, "WP leadership knew about Raeesah Khan's 'untruth' a week after her original speech in August", ascribed to Pritam Singh.
The article was likely to be published moments before the hearing.
Tong quoted from the article, "Ms Khan also repeated the untruth in Parliament in October, despite being asked to clarify the matter then, said Mr Singh".
Tong then asked if Raeesah could remember the occasion in which she was asked to clarify the statement before the October sitting of Parliament.
Raeesah then referred to a conversation she had with Singh before the October sitting. This conversation took place on Oct. 3, in her house, with no one else present.
There were also no exchanges of emails and messages as a result of the discussion of this issue, Raeesah said.
Raeesah said, "The conversation was that if I were to retain the narrative, or if I were to continue the narrative there would be no judgement."
A transcript of what was said next follows:
"Tong: The discussion for you to retain the narrative and there will be no judgment. Can you give me your interpretation of that? What do you make of that statement?
RK: My interpretation was that, um, that there would be no consequences for me to continue the narrative that I had begun on the... in August.
Tong: In other words, there will be no consequences on you if you continued to, continued the lie and keep up the contention, that there was this occasion, this anecdote that you had described on the third of August despite it being a lie.
RK: That was my interpretation, yes.
Tong: And there was therefore no attempt by Mr Singh to ask you to clarify the matter, in favour of putting out the truth.
RK: Not at that point in time, no.
Tong: Not on the third of October.
RK: No."
Edwin Tong refers & reads the article
At this point, Tong referred to the same article again.
"Right. This news article goes further. There was I think a press statement made by Mr Singh. And there follow, I think, some press questions, and I'll just like to draw your attention to a part of the report which is titled 'Taking Responsibility'. Mr... let me just read it to you verbatim. And I quote:
When asked why the claim was allowed to remain uncorrected, and the claim here refers to the anecdote, Mr Singh said, and I quote, each Worker's Party MP is a leader in his or her own right. And if you've done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record right."
Tong then continued:
"In response to questions over why Ms Khan did not follow orders to clarify the matter in October, Mr Singh added, and I quote, these are his words, 'Why she didn't take heed of that instruction. Why did she ignore it? That's not a question I can answer.'"
Here's the section of the article that Tong was referring to:
Screenshot from CNA.
Tong invited Raeesah to comment on what Singh supposedly said in the WP press conference
Tong then invited Raeesah to comment on this, in light of what she said about her discussion on Oct. 3.
Raeesah said regardless of the discussion she had, she agreed it was her responsibility to come forth with the truth and take responsibility, and added, "I think, despite advice, I should have taken the step to rectify my mistake then."
Tong then discussed this supposed "order" by Singh with Raeesah:
"Tong: This contention that there was an order for you to clarify the matter in October. Can you give us your views?
RK: (pause) I mean, I'm hearing this for the first time so I... um...
Tong: Would you agree with the characterisation that there was an order for you to clarify the matter in Parliament in October?
RK: I do not agree with that characterisation.
Tong: In fact, had there been such an order, we would have expected to see Mr Singh stand up on Oct. 4 or shortly thereafter and confront you, either directly or through messages, with a question as to why you didn't follow the order, correct?
RK: I cannot assume what he would have done, but that was not what was happening.
Tong: That didn’t happen.
RK: Yes.
Tong: At any point in time shortly after the Oct. 4, did Mr Singh come to you and say, “why didn't you follow the order that we agreed on?” Did he say that to you?
RK: No."
If you would like to view the exchange for yourself, it starts at 7:33 of the following video:
What did Singh say during the WP press conference?
Now, what did Singh say during the WP press conference, which also took place on Dec. 2?
In his initial statement at the press conference, Singh said:
"In the course of preparing for her speech on the motion titled, 'Empowering Women', on the Workers' Party motion, entitled, 'Empowering Women', on Aug. 3, Raeesah Khan was put on notice through the Workers' Party usual pre-parliamentary processes to be ready to substantiate her account that she had followed the victim to the police station, in the event she was queried in the course of the debate.
After Raeesah delivered her speech, and in the course of the days that followed, I asked Raeesah to make her best efforts to contact the victim, or to contact the individuals who brought the victim's case to her attention, and to extend the necessary information to Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan, who had sought more details on the matter in Parliament."
This part can be found at 1:31 of the following video:
Singh then replied:
"I think I’ve referred to that very early on in my statement already. There was a process that was undertaken. She had put that anecdote down, it was made known to her that you had better be ready to substantiate this, because it is an allegation.
On its own, an allegation, you can make that allegation. I don't think any of us will stop an MP from doing that. But she was put on notice to substantiate it. So the process did not fail in that regard.
Why she didn't take heed of that instruction, why did she ignore it? That's not a question I can answer."
This question and answer can be found at 21:58 of the above video.
Therefore, it seems apparent that when Singh was speaking of an "instruction" in this instance, he was in fact referring to the pre-parliamentary process on Aug. 3 for Raeesah to be ready to substantiate her account.
It would also appear that the CNA article associated this quote by Singh to alleged "orders" to clarify the matter in October.
However, this does not appear to be the case.
Update
Currently, the special report by the Committee of Privileges includes this Annex B, Paragraph 19 (a):
Screenshot from Committee Report to Parliament.
This misunderstanding may have occured due to the press conference and the hearings on Dec. 2 overlapping.
The press conference occured at 11am on Dec. 2.
There were three hearings that took place on Dec. 2, lasting more than five and a half hours in total.
The committee conducted hearings with Raeesah, her secretarial assistant Loh Pei Ying and her legislative assistant Lim Hang Ling.
The "live" nature of the hearings, with Tong and Raeesah not having ample time to verify the accounts by Singh, could have led to this misunderstanding.
The CNA article has been updated. Currently, the relevant section that Tong was referring to now looks like this:
Screenshot from CNA
There is also an editor's note at the end, which reads:
"Editor's note: This article was corrected on Dec 4 to accurately reflect the question which Mr Singh was responding to when he spoke about why Ms Khan didn't take heed of instructions. We apologise for the error."
Top image from Gov.sg YouTube and WP Facebook page.
Follow and listen to our podcast here