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

A disagreement occurred between leader of the Workers' Party (WP) Pritam Singh and Minister for National Development Desmond Lee over whether the former had "weaponised" Raeesah Khan's mental condition during the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing, and if the report had considered all the evidence submitted by WP.

The exchange on the Feb. 15 sitting of Parliament follows the release of the COP report on Raeesah's untruths, as well as the COP's recommendations to refer Singh and fellow WP MP Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor.

Raeesah's alleged mental condition

Previously, Singh shared during his testimony that Raeesah had informed him she suffered from a mental condition known as dissociation.

Therefore, he said it was "possible" that she had lied in her WhatsApp message that claimed the WP leaders told her to take her untruth "to the grave".

Singh added that it would be helpful for the Committee to evaluate her mental health condition.

A psychiatrist subsequently confirmed that Raeesah was not suffering from any significant psychiatric disorder when she spoke in Parliament on Aug. 3, Oct. 4 and Nov. 1, or before the COP on Dec. 2 and 3.

In her testimony before the COP, Raeesah said that it was "extremely out of line" for Singh and WP MP Sylvia Lim to have used mental illness as a means to discredit her.

Word "weaponised" initially in earlier drafts of report, but later removed

In his speech on Feb. 15, Singh "completely" rejected the COP's findings, adding that the committee had disregarded the evidence he submitted.

Additionally, he said:

"The most egregious in my mind, is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation for Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition."

Singh then asked, "If the COP was indeed a fact-finding body, should I not have raised the matter of Miss Khan possibly labouring under a condition to the COP?"

"Weaponised" not in final version of COP report

Lee subsequently sought a clarification as to when the COP report specifically used the word "weaponised".

He explained that he asked "because it is a very specific word. It's a very specific way of characterisation. And this is important for the integrity of the COP process."

Lee revealed that an initial draft read as follows:

"Mr Singh essentially weaponised unsubstantiated allegations that Miss Khan was unstable and unreliable and that she was prone to lying because of her mental health, and this was connected to her being a sexual assault victim."

However, the word "weaponised" was removed from the final report, and that paragraph was amended to:

"(Paragraph 176, sub-para 4)

Mr Singh then alleged that Ms Khan had mental health problems and suggested that she (rather than he), was pre-disposed to lying. Mr Singh essentially made unsubstantiated allegations, that Ms Khan was unstable and unreliable because of her mental health – and that this was connected to her being a sexual assault victim."

Lee then asked Singh if he could confirm or deny whether he had access to earlier drafts which included the specific term.

"Weaponised" used in Rice Media article: Pritam Singh

Singh confirmed that the word "weaponised" was not in the report, and admitted that he had used it to characterise what he believed that particular paragraph insinuated.

He had also used the term as he claimed he had seen it used publicly in a Rice Media article, which influenced his characterisation of the report's contents.

"Rice Media has an article which says, 'Now that the claims on Raeesah Khan's mental health have been refuted, how do you feel about weaponising an individual's mental health in an investigation.'

So generally, that was my characterisation of what I saw the COP report was doing and hence the choice of 'my usage of the word 'weaponised'."

Singh said he did not say in his speech that the report included the word "weaponise", but rather it was his characterisation.

Lee: All evidence included in report

Singh also claimed during his speech that the COP report failed to consider all the evidence the WP submitted.

One example Singh used to support this notion, was that it did not reflect or capture WP secretarial assistant Loh Pei Ying and WP volunteer Yudhishthra Nathan's views about the formation of the Disciplinary Panel (DP).

He said that the report makes the case that Loh and Nathan were "surprised" that the disciplinary panel of the WP was being set up, and advances the view that it was "self-serving".

Below are the two contemporaneous messages Singh said the report did not include:

• Loh: "I see. Is there something you need me to do?"
• Nathan: "Hi Pritam, noted on this. I know it's difficult but I think party members and supporters will be comforted by it."

Pritam Singh on contemporaneous WhatsApp messages

Lee challenged this in a follow-up clarification, stating that the report had included two points in the annexes that Singh omitted in his speech, which showed that Loh and Nathan had reservations about the panel.

Loh had messaged Singh, firstly, about her reservations regarding the formation of the DP, and secondly, about the DP being unaware of Singh's involvement thus far.

In response, Singh then reiterated his stance that not all the information he submitted was included in the report, and put on the record.

Lee then rebutted that the committee had relied on more than just contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, but on the "whole suite of action, or inaction" by WP.

"Be that as it may, all the evidence submitted by all witnesses was placed before the committee was referred to. We assess the evidence, we came to our conclusions, and we placed it in the report.

But all material including material that the relevant witnesses, including from the Workers' Party leadership had submitted would be placed before the Public Prosecutor for consideration."

Follow and listen to our podcast here

Top photo from CNA / YouTube