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

The leader of the Workers' Party (WP) Pritam Singh, said that he "completely" rejected the findings of the Committee of Privileges (COP)

He also voiced his intention to cooperate with the public prosecutor to clear his name.

The Leader of the Opposition was speaking in Parliament at the debate on the Committee of Privileges' (COP) recommendations, for the actions to be taken against former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan, as well as Singh and WP MP Faisal Manap.

Singh said the findings focused on Raeesah's "uncorroborated testimony" that she was instructed to "take a lie to the grave" by the WP's leadership.

Singh noted,

"The COP deems the fact of its contemporaneousness to be critical in coming to its conclusion. The COP does not question Ms Khan’s credibility even though she was the one who lied in this House, by her own admission, and even though she also lied when she first communicated with me about this matter."

He added, "At no time did I instruct Miss Khan to hide the truth."

What were Pritam Singh's reasons for rejecting the report's findings?

Supposed disregard of evidence that he submitted to the committee

In highlighting that this was his "principal point", Singh said:

"At minimum, I would have expected a listing of all the documents my fellow Workers' Party colleagues and I submitted to the committee to be included in the COP report, to indicate that they were actively considered in deliberations."

Singh added that he could only assume the evidence he submitted had not been considered, despite being served with a summons to produce such items.

"There are objective documents that I submitted to the committee which raised serious doubts about the eventual findings reached in the report, including the unparliamentary language used at various places which is not supported by evidence."

The most egregious example of this issue, Singh said, was the COP's conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation for Raeesah, he had "somehow weaponised" her condition.

The process and the conclusion that he had "weaponised" her condition

Singh then explained why he mentioned the psychiatric evaluation:

• The notes of the WP's own disciplinary panel submitted to the COP, which showed that Raeesah had tendered, on her own accord, documents which revealed that she was the patient of a psychotherapist, which had referred her to a psychiatrist,
• Raeesah voluntarily shared with disciplinary panel that she suffered from disassociation, notes of which were also forwarded to the COP by the panel.
• Singh was asked an open question by the COP as to why Raeesah would make certain statements, and he said he attempted to give a "fair answer" in line with what Raeesah herself had revealed.

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?"

Issues of proportionality and culpability

He added that then in his evidence to the COP, he registered the point that the matter was raised because it covered issues of proportionality and culpability.

He elaborated:

"I believe that Miss Khan should not be excessively punished for a condition she could be labouring under, and the COP ought to see it as a mitigatory point in her favour. This evidence of mine supported by the COP's minutes of evidence, on culpability and proportionality, is ignored by the COP."

Singh said he, therefore, rejected the assertion that in raising the matter of Raeesah's mental health to a fact-finding body, with a view to considering an appropriate punishment on her, he had "somehow smeared" her, or "worse", cast aspersions on those with mental health conditions.

However, Minister for National Development Desmond Lee rejected Singh’s use of the word “weaponise” in a follow-up clarification, noting that it is not in the final report.

COP's case rests on "one pillar", believing Raeesah Khan

Singh also said that the COP's case relied on "one pillar", namely, believing Raeesah's evidence that she had been told to take her lie to the grave. He said:

"This belief rests on an uncorroborated piece of evidence, a WhatsApp text originating from Ms Khan herself. The COP deems the fact of its contemporaneousness to be critical in coming to its conclusion. The COP does not question Ms Khan’s credibility even though she was the one who lied in this House, by her own admission, and even though she also lied when she first communicated with me about this matter.

So if contemporaneous evidence is indeed central, one would expect the COP report to exhibit a fidelity to such evidence. But it does not."

Pritam said that in Paragraph 93 of the report, it makes the case that WP party members Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan were "surprised" that the disciplinary panel of the WP was being set up, and advances the view that it was "self-serving".

However, Pritam pointed to the two's contemporaneous views on the panel when it was set up. He mentioned contemporaneous WhatsApp messages from Loh and Nathan that in his view "directly contradict" the COP's findings of Para 93.

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."

Intends to clear his name and cooperate with public prosecutor, if Parliament accepts COP's findings

Finally, Singh said he intends to cooperate with the Public Prosecutor if Parliament votes to accept the COP's findings:

"In conclusion, with reference to the Leader of the House’s first motion at 2(c), the Workers’ Party disagrees with the reasons behind the lower quantum of fine for Ms Khan, because it is predicated on alleged guidance given to her by myself, Ms Lim, and Mr Faisal, a case which the three of us reject.

On the second motion, I am unable to accept the COP’s findings that offences have been committed under the Parliament Act by me or any other Workers’ Party MPs. Therefore I will object to the second motion as the basis for the recommendations are that offences may have been committed by us.

Nevertheless, should Parliament resolve to adopt the Motion, I intend to clear my name and will cooperate fully with the Public Prosecutor. For this reason, I have kept my comments on the COP report for today’s purposes very narrow and limited."

Follow and listen to our podcast here