Raeesah vs Pritam testimonies suggest an intent by WP to switch narratives

Dec 15, 2021 | 🚀 Fathership
On Oct 4, Raeesah Khan repeated a lie in Parliament. She was referring to an anecdote she had told in Parliament on Aug 3 about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, which she later said was untrue.

On Oct 3, the day before the Parliament sitting, Workers' Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh, accompanied by his wife, met with Raeesah at her house.

At the brief meeting, Pritam told Raeesah that it was entirely possible that someone might ask her about her 3 Aug anecdote, in Parliament the next day. He said that “if the issue came up”, Raeesah had “to take responsibility and ownership of the issue”, and if she did so, he “will not judge” her.

Oct 3 meeting - What Pritam said vs what Raeesah said

Pritam Singh

According to Pritam, here's what he said about the conversation he had with Raeesah:

"And I tell her, look, I am not sure what is going to happen with this thing that has, this anecdote that you've told. But it is entirely possible that there could be a clarification made, somebody may ask you something about it. And it is important that you take responsibility and take ownership of the issue.

And I did say, and she started getting a bit uncomfortable when I said that. And then I told her, I will not judge you. And I will not judge you meant I will not judge you if you take responsibility and ownership. That was the gist of the conversation.

Pritam added that at no point did Raeesah say 'Pritam, I don't know what to do. Please help me. I need guidance. I need advice.'

Raeesah Khan

According to Raeesah, she claimed that Pritam said if she kept to her narrative on the untruths which she had said on Aug 3, there would be no judgment by him.

Raeesah understood as Pritam saying that he was advising her to continue to lie, should the matter come up the next day during the parliamentary session.

She added that Pritam did not ask her to clarify and state the truth in Parliament.

Raeesah: "What should I do Pritam?"

At the Oct 4 Parliament sitting, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam gave a ministerial statement about Raeesah’s anecdote, and sought clarification from her.

As Shanmugam was making his ministerial statement, Raeesah sent a Whatsapp message to Pritam, asking: “What should I do, Pritam?"

Pritam did not respond to Raeesah before she stood up to answer Shanmugam’s questions. Raeesah then repeated the lie on Oct 4, in response to Shanmugam’s questions.

Pritam said that he read Raeesah’s message to him at 12.45pm, after the exchange between Raeesah and Shanmugam. Pritam replied to Raeesah: "Will speak after sitting. Keep Chair and I posted."

The report said Pritam remembered that he, WP chairman Sylvia Lim and Raeesah had met late that night, some time past 11pm, for a “very, very short” meeting.

Sylvia confirms this separately by testifying that the meeting was "around 11.15pm" and happened at the Leader of the Opposition office.

Pritam recalled that Raeesah was in a daze and said: "Perhaps there is another way. That is, to tell the truth."

Pritam claimed in his testimony that he was very upset upon hearing Raeesah's remark and replied: "But look at the choice you made." He recalled that at that moment, Raeesah completely broke down.

According to Sylvia, she cannot recall if Raeesah responded to Pritam's comments.

The meeting ended off with Pritam saying that they would discuss this further.

He says, she says

Raeesah's contemporaneous message: "What should I do, Pritam", and her later alleged remark "Perhaps there is another way. That is, to tell the truth" suggests that there is an alternative narrative.

We recalled from the Oct 3 meeting that Pritam allegedly told Raeesah to "take responsibility and ownership of the issue" but according to Raeesah, Pritam said if she kept to her narrative, there would be no judgement on him.

The text sent by Raeesah on Oct 4 to Pritam before she answered Shanmugam suggests an anomaly with what Pritam claimed.

If Raeesah was told to come clean as implied by Pritam, then why did Raeesah sought last minute guidance from him that was worded in a manner which suggests a disconnect with Pritam's alleged instructions.

Would it not be far-fetched to assume that the right course of action to take after her Oct 3 meeting with Pritam was that she should nip the bud, take ownership of her lie and confess in Parliament on Oct 4?

Or was Raeesah truthful in claiming that Pritam's alleged directive was to keep to the lie?

To test Raeesah's testimony, we look at the remark "Perhaps there is another way. That is, to tell the truth."

If Pritam's testimony was that he suggested Raeesah to tell the truth on Oct 4, why then did Raeesah made the remark that implied there was a preceding directive that is opposite to what Pritam claimed to have told Raeesah?

On 12 Oct, Raeesah met with Sylvia and Pritam. During that meeting, it was made explicit to Raeesah that she should "come clean" on the next available Parliament sitting in November. Sylvia confirmed that this was the first time that an express commitment was made for Raeesah to clarify the lie in Parliament.

On 1 Nov, Raeesah delivered a statement in Parliament, clarifying the untruths that she had told Parliament on 3 Aug and 4 Oct.

Despite Pritam's supposed Oct 3 directive to tell the truth, Raeesah allegedly went against it. Ironically, when an explicit instruction was made on 12 Oct by Sylvia and Pritam for Raeesah to confess by the next parliamentary sitting, she obediently did so.

Is the marked change in position from Raeesah a result of her own volition or was she following Pritam's directives to the T the whole time?

Leong Mun Wai pulled a 'Raeesah Khan' in Parliament on Telegram hearsay

Jan 13, 2022 | 🚀 Fathership
On Tuesday (Jan 11), Progress Singapore Party (PSP) member Leong Mun Wai claimed that he received feedback from residents, "that some teachers have already practised vaccination diferentiated safe management measures in schools".

When asked by Education Minister Chan Chun Sing to name the schools and teachers involved, Leong backpedalled and said that the feedback was through Whatsapp and that he would need to ask 'his' residents before making a clarification. He later disclosed that the feedback originated from a Telegram group called SG Concerned Parents.

After a terse exchange between Chan and Speaker of the House Tan Chuan Jin, Leong admitted that the chat group messages did not name any particular schools.



Indranee: When you make allegations against teachers and just cast it out there, you must be able to substantiate it

Leong's response drew a rebuke from Leader of the House Indranee Rajah who admonished Leong for making unsubstantiated claims.

Indranee rose and said: "When you make allegations against teachers and just cast it out there, you must be able to substantiate it. And that is why Minister Chan (had) asked, ‘Please provide me with the details of which school and which teacher so that the Ministry of Education can follow up'.”

She described Leong’s explanation on Tuesday as an attempt to “grandstand” or make broad speeches that have no bearing on the details requested by the Education Minister.

Leong Mun Wai another Raeesah Khan?

In August last year, Raeesah shared an anecdote in Parliament about details of a rape case she alleged was mishandled by the police. She later admitted to lying about the anecdote.

In 2014, Workers' Party MP Faisal Manap also made an unsubstantiated claim alleging that when he was a counsellor, he came across a couple who were having housing issues and advised to file for a divorce by the Housing and Development Board — so that the wife would be eligible to buy a house under the Singles Scheme and she could subsequently remarry her husband.

He later apologised for not verifying the authenticity of his anecdote.