The events surrounding Raeesah Khan and the Workers’ Party (WP) represent a complex narrative of misinformation, internal party dynamics, and significant legal repercussions. The saga began on August 3, 2021, when Raeesah Khan, then a Member of Parliament, made a shocking claim during a parliamentary session. She recounted a fabricated story about accompanying a sexual assault survivor to the police, asserting that the authorities had mishandled the victim’s report. This dramatic revelation drew immediate attention and sparked outrage, emphasizing the sensitive nature of sexual violence in society.
Afterward, when confronted about the truthfulness of her claims, Raeesah confessed to senior party leaders, including Pritam Singh, the party leader, and Sylvia Lim. Instead of advising her to retract the statement, they allegedly urged her to maintain the false narrative to protect the party’s image. This decision not only raised ethical questions about accountability and transparency but also showcased the internal dynamics within the WP as they navigated the fallout.
As public scrutiny intensified and further questions about the incident emerged, Singh and Lim came to realize that the party’s integrity was at stake. On November 1, 2021, Raeesah publicly admitted that her statement was false, prompting the party to take urgent action. The situation escalated further when a disciplinary panel was convened to investigate the circumstances surrounding her initial statement. In light of the findings and the immense pressure from both the public and within the party, Raeesah announced her resignation from both the Workers’ Party and her parliamentary seat on November 30.
The repercussions of this incident continued to unfold, with the Committee of Privileges imposing a $35,000 fine on Raeesah on February 10, 2022. They also recommended that legal actions be taken against Pritam Singh for his role in the events, while no charges were brought against fellow party member Faisal Manap. As Singh’s trial proceedings commenced, legal attempts to escalate his case to a higher court were denied, reaffirming the commitment to accountability within the political landscape.
This sequence of events—from a falsehood articulated in Parliament to the far-reaching repercussions that ensued—serves as a poignant reminder of the complex interplay of misinformation, the decisions made by leadership, and the legal framework that governs political conduct in Singapore. It raises critical questions about ethical responsibilities in political discourse, the nature of accountability, and the imperative of transparency in governance. As the WP grapples with the fallout from this incident, it highlights the broader implications for trust in political institutions and the need for genuine integrity among those in power.
3 August 2021
Raeesah Khan recounts a false anecdote in Parliament, falsely claiming to have accompanied a survivor of sexual assault to the police station to make a report and witnessing her distressed state thereafter.
Minister of State for Home Affairs, Desmond Tan, sought details from Raeesah Khan so that the Government can investigate the issue. Raeesah Khan declines to provide the details, claiming that the incident happened “three years ago and [she] [did] not wish to re-traumatise the person that [she] had accompanied.
8 August 2021
Raeesah Khan meets with Worker’s Party’s senior leaders, Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap. Raeesah Khan confesses that she had lied in Parliament.
Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap tell Raeesah Khan to “retain the narrative”. Pritam Singh tells Raeesah Khan “to take the information to the grave”.
Raeesah Khan recounts Pritam Singh’s direction to her in a message she sends to Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying, former Worker’s Party cadre members.
3 October 2021
Pritam Singh visits Raeesah Khan in the evening. Pritam Singh tells Raeesah Khan that he will not judge her if she continues the untrue narrative.
Sylvia Lim’s handwritten notes record Pritam Singh telling Raeesah Khan that “it was [her] call”.
4 October 2021
Parliament sits. Minister K Shanmugam seeks details pertaining to the untrue anecdote from Raeesah Khan in Parliament. Minister Shanmugam explains his firmness in wanting to address the matter because “[t]he Government is very serious about making sure that the Police do the right thing”.
Raeesah Khan declines to reveal any information, falsely asserting the need for confidentiality. Pritam Singh, who is in Parliament, says and does nothing to correct Raeesah Khan’s falsehood.
Raeesah Khan meets Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim in Pritam Singh’s office at night. Pritam Singh asks Raeesah Khan what she intends to do. Raeesah Khan suggests that “Perhaps there is another way. That is, to tell the truth”. Pritam Singh replies with words to the effect of “Haven’t you chosen your path by what you said today?”
12 October 2021
Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim concludes that Government will not drop the matter. They meet with Raeesah Khan and tell her that she had to clarify the matter.
1 November 2021
Raeesah Khan delivers her personal explanation in Parliament admitting that the anecdote was not true and confirming that she had lied to Parliament three times.
The Leader of the House, Ms. Indranee Rajah raises a complaint, under section 100(7)(b) of the Standing Orders, for breach of privilege by Raeesah Khan.
Worker’s Party’s Central Executive Committee announced the formation of a Disciplinary Panel, comprising of Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap to inquire into Raeesah Khan’s false anecdote.
25 November 2021
Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying appears before Disciplinary Panel. They jointly urge the Disciplinary Panel to tell the public the true events, as failure to do so would be highly unfair to Raeesah Khan.
Loh Pei Ying urges Pritam Singh to tell the truth or at least relay a timeline of events, because it shows his involvement. Pritam Singh rejects Loh Pei Ying’s pleas, claiming that it was not relevant for Party members, the Worker’s Party’s CEC, and the public, to know these facts.
30 November 2021
Worker’s Party CEC votes overwhelmingly that Raeesah Khan should resign on her own accord, failing which, she would be expelled from the party.
Raeesah Khan resigns from the Worker’s Party and as Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC.
2 December 2021
Committee of Privileges begins to hear oral evidence from witnesses. Loh Pei Ying testifies before the Committee of Privileges.
While Loh Pei Ying testifies, Worker’s Party holds a press conference and reveals, for the first time, that its leadership knew of Raeesah Khan’s falsehoods in August 2021.
10 December 2021
Pritam Singh discloses the nature of the sexual assault suffered by Raeesah Khan. The exact nature of the sexual assault was not public knowledge until he disclosed it.
Pritam Singh tries to justify his disclosure by saying that “this was the word Ms Raeesah Khan used when she described herself”. When the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges told Pritam Singh that he could use a generic term, Pritam Singh doubled down and reminded the Committee “to remember that, on record, that’s what Ms Khan told us, that she was [sexually assaulted] when she was 18”.
Pritam Singh also suggests that Raeesah Khan might be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Dissociation. He claims that Raeesah Khan “may have a problem” and that she could be predisposed to lying because she had mental health issues. Pritam Singh also asks the Committee of Privileges to consider asking Raeesah Khan to go for a psychological assessment.
22 December 2021
Raeesah Khan states that it was “extremely out of line” for the Worker’s Party leadership to have used mental illness to discredit her. Raeesah Khan calls out Pritam Singh for trying to paint this picture of her as emotionally or mentally unstable, which is untrue.
10 February 2022
Committee of Privileges presents its report to Parliament.
Raeesah Khan
The Committee finds Raeesah Khan guilty of abuse of privilege and recommends that she be fined $35,000 for three instances of lying.
Pritam Singh
The Committee finds that Pritam Singh had told untruths to the Committee. It notes that Parliament is empowered to summarily decide on the matter, and on the appropriate sanctions. However, the Committee recommends that Parliament refers Pritam Singh’s conduct to the Public Prosecutor, with a view to consider the institution of criminal proceedings. This is because:
- the Public Prosecutor will have the opportunity to consider all the evidence afresh, and also consider any evidence that this Committee may not have considered, (for example, if such evidence has not been presented to this Committee, but emerges subsequently) before deciding whether criminal charges should be brought against Pritam Singh;
- Pritam Singh will have the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel, if criminal charges are brought; and
- a court can look at the matter afresh, and consider any further evidence that may emerge, and decide whether any charge(s) have been proven, or not proven, beyond reasonable doubt.
Sylvia Lim
The Committee notes that Sylvia Lim produced her handwritten notes voluntarily and pointed the Committee to the part of the notes which showed Pritam Singh saying, on 29 Nov 2021 to Raeesah Khan, that on 3 Oct 2021 he gave her a choice whether to tell the truth.
The Committee took the view that the fact that Sylvia Lim was prepared to voluntarily tender this evidence, damaging to the Leader of her Party, would be relevant and should be taken into account by Parliament, in assessing Sylvia Lim’s position.
Faisal Manap
The Committee recommends Faisal Manap be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations into his refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee and consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.
Faisal Manap refused to answer a question concerning the meetings he had with Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim on 7 and 8 December 2021, two days prior to him giving evidence to the Committee.The Committee warned him that his refusal would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of Parliament. Notwithstanding the warning, Faisal Manap still refused to answer the question.
15 February 2022
Parliament made four resolutions on the recommendations of the report of the Committee of Privileges. In particular, Parliament resolves:
- that Raessah Khan is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament and a fine of $35,000 be imposed on her for lying on three separate occasions; and
- to refer the conduct of Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap before the Committee to the Public Prosecutor.
19 March 2024
Police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers announces that Police investigations into the conduct of Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap have concluded.
Pritam Singh is charged in State Courts. The Prosecution decides to prefer two charges against him under section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Cap 217, 2000 Rev Ed) (the “PPIPA”) for wilfully making false answers to material questions put to him during examination by the Committee of Privileges.
The Prosecution decides not to prefer any charges against Faisal Manap. The Police, in consultation with the Prosecution, issued an advisory to him on 18 March 2024 to advise him to familiarise himself with the conduct expected of Members of Parliament under the PPIPA and to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it. Faisal Manap acknowledges the advisory.
31 May 2024
16 days in October and November 2024 set aside for Pritam Singh’s case to be tried before Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan.
26 August 2024
Pritam Singh makes application before High Court to his case transferred to the High Court, claiming that it was “expedient for the ends of justice”.
He also claims that High Court judges with security of tenure are better placed to hear his case “without being swayed by the political atmospherics that surround his matter”.
9 September 2024
High Court Judge Hoo Sheau Peng dismissed Pritam Singh’s application. Justice Hoo makes the following determinations:
- all accused persons (including political office holders and former political office holders) are to be treated equally. In this case, there is no reason to depart from the ordinary course of justice, which is for the trial to be heard in the State Courts.
- the charges against Pritam Singh raise factual issues (i.e., whether wilfully gave false answers before the Committee of Privileges). There are no issues of law of unusual difficulty, no wider implications for the public generally, and no strong public interest considerations that warrant a transfer.
- There is no expediency in having the matter heard in the High Court with a single tier of appeal to the Court of Appeal, as the ordinary course of justice for PPIPA offences is also for there to be a single tier of appeal from the State Courts to the High Court. An accused person cannot earn an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal through a transfer of his case to the High Court.
- any allegation of bias against the judiciary should not be made lightly, let alone without basis. Spurious and unwarranted allegations are irresponsible and intemperate and bear the risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. Any unsubstantiated suggestion that the State Courts would not be fair and impartial in dealing with a matter must be roundly rejected.
