[LIVE] Parliament debates Committee of Privileges' findings on Raeesah Khan

mr speaker both motions arise out of the report of the committee of privileges issued last week in respect of the complaint against misraiser khan for truth spoken for untruth spoken in parliament the first motion deals with the committee's findings and recommendations in respect of the conduct of former workers party mp miss raja khan which i had previously referred to the committee the second motion deals with the committee's findings and recommendations in respect of the conduct of the leader of the opposition mr pritam singh and workers party mps mr faisal manap and miss sylvia lim which arose in the course of the committee's inquiry given that both motions arise out of the same report and further given that the facts and matters pertaining to the motions are interlinked and the same set of evidence applies to both i wish to move that the two motions be considered together and debated concurrently a concurrent or simultaneous debate will allow members to address both motions in a single speech and enable the issues raised in the two motions to be considered holistically it will also allow for more efficient conduct of parliamentary business to be clear and for avoidance of doubt it is only the debate that is to be concurrent the motions remain as two separate motions and at the end of the debate the votes on the two motions will be taken separately mr speaker i beg to move the question is as moved by the leader of the house as many as of that opinion say aye to the country say no i think the eyes have it the eyes have it order the clock will not proceed to read the notices of motion item one a motion standing in the name of the leader of the house on the committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of miss raja khan leader mr speaker may i seek your permission to move both the motions standing in my name on today's order paper one after another and for my opening speech and reply at the end of the debate to arrange over both motions in view of the earlier decision of this house to have both motions taken together and a debate to proceed simultaneously on both motions i will allow the motions to be so moved leader please proceed mr speaker i beg to move the first motion standing in my name on today's order paper titled committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of miss reiser khan i also beg to move the second motion standing in my name on today's order paper titled committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of mr pritam singh mr faisal manap and miss silvia lim sir with your permission can i ask for the distribution of the copies of the two motions that i have referred to i thought that they might be more convenient for members to have copies so that they can refer to it as i'm speaking please do [Music] and sir may i proceed as the copies of the two motions are being distributed yes please mr speaker on the face of it the motions before us today require us to make certain decisions about the conduct of certain mps however the motions are of a far deeper and greater significance fundamentally the motions are about safeguarding the essence of democracy our democracy and preserving its most vital and essential characteristic which is trust they are about the need to ensure the integrity of our institutions and parliament in particular and about the confidence singaporeans can have in their elected representatives these things are not given established democracies like australia and the united kingdom have in recent months had to deal with allegations of senior parliamentarians being untruthful the consequences are the erosion of public trust now regrettably we have to deal with our own situation of parliamentarians being untruthful how we deal with this will reflect on our values and the standards of conduct to which we hold ourselves as mps how did we come to this point let me provide a quick recap on 3rd august 2021 ms khan spoke during the debate on the workers party motion titled empowering women she claimed that the police response to sexual assault survivors who lodged police reports were sometimes disheartening she alleged that three years ago she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a police report against a rape that was committed against the survivor she claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying the police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she had been drinking miss khan made that statement twice on 3rd august and repeated it during a later session on 4th october however on first november 2021 miss khan confessed in parliament that she had not in fact accompanied the survivor to the police station i refer to this as the untruth i raised the complaint understanding order 107 b against miss khan for breaches of privilege and the matter was referred to the committee of privileges the committee the committee was duly convened and began its inquiry on 29 november 2021. the committee completed its work and presented its report to parliament on 10th february 2022 making findings and recommendations in respect of miss khan's conduct however in the course of its inquiry the conduct of three senior members of the wp leadership also came into question this led the committee to also make certain findings and recommendations relating to them as well before i go into the report mr speaker let me say something about the privileges and immunities of parliament and the corresponding duty that arises one of the most powerful things about a parliamentary democracy is the ability to speak freely and candidly in parliament this is so that mps can raise matters of public importance safe in the knowledge that they have immunity from civil or criminal proceedings outside this house that is a great privilege in singapore this is enshrined in the parliament privileges immunities and powers act of 1962 the ppipa but because it is such an important privilege it must also be used responsibly and must not be abused this includes the need to be truthful on and to be able to substantiate matters said in parliament or any committee of parliament the other aspect of parliamentary democracy is that mps are expected to act honorably and to respect the processes of parliament as an institution and not to act in a manner that would undermine it or the work of its committees thus dishonorable conduct abuse of privilege and contempt of parliament including its committees are offenses under the ppi pa parliament is expected to keep its own house in order hence the act gives parliament power to deal with such offences ranging from a reprimand suspension of privileges from from parliament a fine or even committal to prison and expulsion from parliament in addition if the conduct constitutes an offence listed under part 5 of the ppipa parliament also has the power to refer the matter to the public prosecutor let me now deal with the findings and recommendations of the committee first in respect of ms raja khan for abuse or privilege in terms of liability the case against miss khan is clear and straightforward she has admitted that she lied in parliament twice on 3rd august 2021 and again on 4th october the committee has therefore found that she acted with disregard for the dignity and decorum of the house and recommended that parliament finds ms khan guilty of abuse of privilege on all three occasions and you will see that this is dealt with in para 2a of the first motion the next issue then is what penalty she should receive for these abuses of privilege here it's undisputed that when she lied on 3rd august she was the only one who knew that what she said was untrue and therefore acted entirely of her own accord hence she should bear the full and sole responsibility for those transgressions the committee has accordingly recommended that a fine of twenty five thousand dollars that's half the maximum penalty be imposed on miss khan for lying twice on third august and that is dealt with in paragraph 2b of the first motion i turn now to the penalty for the lie that was repeated on 4th october 2021 and this is the issue that occupied the bulk of the committee's inquiry because by this time she had disclosed the untruth to the leader of the opposition mr pritam singh and two and other two senior workers party leaders ms sylvia lim and mr faisal mannap who are the chairman and the vice chairman of the workers party respectively so the issue is this when ms khan repeated the lie in parliament on 4th october was she acting of her own accord or was she acting on the guidance of her senior party leaders if she was acting on her own then the penalty should be higher because it means that she and she alone was responsible for deliberately repeating the lie despite being told otherwise as claimed by mr singh showing a lack of remorse but if as a young and inexperienced mp she was acting on the instructions or guidance of her party leaders to whom she deferred and to whose views she gave weight then that would be a mitigating factor because then she is not the only one responsible in this case the penalty should be lower and here the accounts of miss khan and the three senior wp leaders are diametrically opposed so much so that in fact there can be no possibility of this being a case of deferring interpretations or of any misunderstanding it's a situation where either miss khan lied to the committee or else mr singh miss lim and mr faisal lied to the committee there's no in-between miss khan's evidence is that when she repeated the lie on 4th october it was her understanding based on what mr singh said to her on 3rd october that there would be no consequences if she continued with the untruth mr singh on the other hand says that miss khan did so on her own accord and contrary to instructions given ms lim and mr faisal say that they did not discuss the issue with her they left it to mr singh two meetings are key to this issue the meeting between miss khan and the three senior wp leaders on 8th of august the 8th august meeting and the meeting between mr singh and miss khan on 3rd october 2021 at her home that's the 3rd october meeting regarding the 8th august meeting miss khan's evidence was that the three senior wp leaders told her to continue with the untruth there was no need for her to clarify the truth in parliament and mr singh told her to take the information to the grave the three wp leaders on the other hand say that there was simply no discussion on the matter after ms khan confessed to them or indeed for nearly two months which passed thereafter instead the discussion moved on to other matters next the third october meeting this is of critical importance because it took place the evening before the parliament sitting of 4th october where ms khan said the lie for the third time this meeting involved just miss khan and mr singh no one else was present the issue with regards to the third october meeting was whether mr singh had made it clear to ms khan that she had to tell the truth or mr singh gave ms khan a choice as to whether to tell the truth or keep to the untruth and if he did give her such a choice whether he pointed her in the direction of how that choice should be exercised miss khan's evidence is that the conversation was that if she were to retain the narrative or if she were to continue the narrative there would be no judgment her understanding of this was that therefore there would be no consequences if she continued with the lie she was not instructed to tell the truth mr singh's evidence on the other hand was that he did not give miskahn a choice and that he made it crystal clear that she had to tell the truth presented with such conflicting evidence there is only one way to tell who is telling the truth and that is to test it against objective evidence which is what the committee did they assessed it against the contemporaneous evidence against written documents against the conduct of the parties both before and after the relevant events and they tested it against whether the evidence given to the committee made sense taking all these into account the government sorry the committee found that ms khan was telling the truth and that mr singh and to a lesser extent ms lim and mr faisal had lied to the committee immediately after the eighth august meeting ms khan sent a whatsapp message to her assistants stating dave meaning mr singh muslim and mr faisal they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave so there's written contemporaneous evidence immediately after the meeting her evidence was corroborated by ms lowe and mr nardin on the three wp's leaders own evidence between 8th august and 3rd october nothing was discussed about clarifying the lie but they all agreed that telling the untruth in parliament was a serious matter and should be corrected there was no correspondence or documents from them on the issue at all they did not speak with miss khan on the issue while mr singh claimed he was concerned with ensuring that ms khan's family was told about the sexual assault before clarifying the untruth not once did he or the others check if she had spoken with her parents no steps were taken for any clarification to be made in parliament ahead of the september october sittings the other wpcec members were kept in the dark mr singh established a disciplinary panel consisting of the very same people who knew that she lied himself muslim and mr faisal and they did not disclose this to the cec all of these are consistent with a situation in which she was told to maintain the lie as to the third october meeting the committee found that the evidence was quite clear that mr singh strongly pointed miss khan towards continuing with the untruth on 3rd october they found as follows on 3rd october mr singh visited miss khan at her home specifically to advise her on what to say at the 4th october parliamentary sitting because he had a feeling that the topic might come up he did not tell miss lim or mr faishal about the meeting at this meeting mr singh did not tell ms khan to proactively raise the matter or to tell the truth this is not disputed but this common position was only arrived at after inconsistencies in mr singh's evidence was pointed out and he had changed his evidence mr singh initially said miss khan had to proactively clarify the truth on 4th october even if the issue did not come up but when it was pointed out that no preparations had been made there was no draft statements for example then he said no preparatory steps were taken because it was uncertain if mishkan would have to clarify the truth at this point he realized his earlier evidence was untenable and he changed his position and admitted that he did not tell miss khan to come clean proactively on 4th october he then said she should tell the truth if raised but mrs singh's claim that he made clear on 3rd october that miss clarify the truth if raised is contradicted by the fact that no preparation whatsoever was made prior to 4th october to prepare for the truth to be told muslim admitted in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4th october to have ms lim clarify the truth the next day on 5th october that this was not possible because time was needed to carefully structure miss khan's clarification and to make the necessary preparations this is borne out by what happened after the decision was taken to come clean on 12 october when the whole workers party machinery swung into action there were discussions on what the draft statement should look like the drafts were personally vetted by mr singh and shown to their cec that activists and their social media teams were prepped etc on 4th october as minister shamogam was asking miss khan in this chamber to confirm if the incident had really occurred as she had described ms khan texted mr pitam singh she was sitting up there that time to ask what shall i do pritam if as he claimed he had been clear that if asked she should tell the truth there would have been no need for her to text him for guidance further if mr singh's evidence was true it would mean that when miss khan lied again on 4th october she would have flagrantly disobeyed his instruction of the previous day so you would expect that in such situation he would have immediately have demanded an explanation yet mr singh did not speak to miss khan for the rest of the day until close to midnight and even then there was no instruction to clarify the truth the following day on 5th october when parliament was still sitting mr singh thomas khan that he would not judge her this makes no sense if he had told ms khan to tell the truth as there would be nothing to judge however it makes a lot of sense if he had told or encouraged her to continue the lie ms lowe's and mr nardin's evidence contradict what mr singh said on 12 october mr singh told ms lowe and mr naden that he had met miss khan on 3rd october and told her i will not judge you both ms lowe and mr nardin understood this to mean that mr singh had given ms khan a choice as to whether or not to come clean and that if she chose to repeat the untruth she would not be judged mrs claimed that he did not give miskahn a choice as to whether to tell the truth but this is contradicted by ms lim's notes taken during the disciplinary panel in which she recorded mr singh as telling miss khan that i told you it was your call on 7th october miss khan had sent an email to mr singh ms lim and mr faishal seeking the advice on what to do because she had just received an email from the police requesting her assistance in her email she thanked the senior wp members for listening to me for caring for me and for guiding me throughout this without judgment the committee found that if mr singh had indeed told ms khan on 3rd october to tell the truth then after she lied again on 4th october which would have been a breach of that instruction she would not be thanking them for guiding her without judgment and here the operative word is guiding implicit in her email is that she followed their guidance until then the committee found that by telling ms khan on 3rd october that there would be no judgment mrs singh had left her with a view that if she were to continue with the untruth there would be no judgment on her the committee further found that taken together the events of the 8th august and 3rd october meetings would essentially point miss khan in one direction which is to keep to the untruth if the issue was raised with the assurance that mr singh would not judge her if she did so the committee therefore found ms khan's culpability in respect of her repetition of the untruth on 4th october was mitigated by the following the fact that she was a first-time mp who confessed to and sought guidance from her party leaders as to what to do regrettably the guidance they gave in which she followed was to maintain the lie her conduct and evidence showed that she would have come clean if she had been advised to do so from 8th august the committee also took into account that ms khan's mental health had been unfairly and publicly attacked in particular by mr singh and that miss khan had resigned as a member of parliament the committee had therefore recommended a lower fine of ten thousand dollars in respect of the repetition of the untruth on 4th october 2021 and this is dealt with in paragraph 2c of the first motion mr speaker sir i turn now to the recommendations read mr pritam singh mr faisal and ms sylvia lim based on the objective evidence before the committee the committee made these findings that all three senior wp leaders would have lied to the committee as to what was discussed at the eighth august meeting and that they guided ms khan to maintain the untruth she had told that mr singh lied about what had happened at the 3rd october meeting and essentially gave ms khan to understand that it would be all right to maintain the untruth if the matter came up in parliament the next day in addition mr faisal refused to answer a question from the committee at least eight times despite being reminded that he had been called before the committee to assist with its investigations and that his refusal would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of parliament the committee considered that mr singh and mr faisal's conduct could constitute a contempt of parliament and offences under part five of the ppipa and the committee was convened to look into the comp as the committee was convened to look into the complaint against miss khan the committee noted that it was beyond its purview to recommend any penalty in respect of the three senior wp leaders for their conduct which arose in the course of the inquiry parliament however has the power to consider what should be done and to take the appropriate action and to assist parliament in this task the committee has made the following recommendations for our consideration that while parliament has the option to refer the three senior wp leaders to another committee of privileges it is unlikely that another committee would make much progress in terms of uncovering more evidence and that a distinction a distinction should be drawn between the conduct of mr singh on the one hand and muslim and mr faisal on the other given their different roles and conduct the committee notes miss lims and mr faisal's roles were relatively subsidiary while mr singh appeared to have played the key and leading role in guiding miss khan in respect of the untruth the committee has therefore recommended that parliament refer mr singh's conduct to the public prosecutor with a view to considering whether to institute criminal proceedings this is addressed in paragraph two of the second motion now mr speaker some may wonder why mr singh and mr faisal should be referred to the public prosecutor and why this cannot be dealt with in-house by parliament others may also wonder why it is the case why it is the case that for miss khan who lied to parliament a fine is proposed whereas in the case of mr singh who also lied but to a committee of parliament he should be referred to the public prosecutor instead of just being fined like miss khan these are important questions and i want to address them so let me just explain a little bit about the ppi pa and how it works under the ppi pa there are what i would term and this is my term general offenses the offences of dishonorable conduct abuse of privilege and contempt these parliament can and often would deal with it themselves but there's also a certain category of offenses which could be this rumble conduct you could classify them as as content but they're very specific under part 5 of the ppipa these include lying to a committee in parliament and refusing to answer questions as well as refusing to produce documents these there are other offenses listed under part 5. but this special category what is common about all of them and why they are also regarded as serious is that they essentially pervert or obstruct or prevent the processes of parliament now for the part five offenses parliament has the power to refer these to the pp the ppipa does not provide for other offenses to be referred to the pp it has to be under part five and you could have an offense which is a part five offense but which parliament may choose not to refer if it doesn't think it is that serious so in this case the committee found that all three lied but it's only recommending to refer mr singh to the pp not muslim nor mr faisal mana because their roles were subsidiary and their lives were not as egregious then you may ask okay so what is the difference between what mr singh's lie and miskant the seriousness of the conduct on the part of mr singh is this ms khan lied to parliament and that's bad enough but mr singh on the other hand if what the committee found is correct not only lied but lied under oath and not only that but this was in proceedings before a select committee of parliament conducting a formal inquiry and tasked with finding out the truth and there's also the question of the consequences of a lie in this context because it would if believed have had a bearing on the punishment to be meted out to miss khan the lies would have determined the fate of another mp who was being looked at before the committee of privileges and that is a different order of seriousness altogether that is a part five offense under the ppipa and that is the reason why the committee had recommended referring mr singh to the public prosecutor the other thing is that it would mean that miss khan was following his guidance when she lied on 4th of october and that is also very serious so given the seriousness of the matter it would be the fairest course of action to all concerned to refer it to the pp the pp will have the opportunity to consider all evidence afresh including new evidence in deciding whether or not to prefer criminal charges against mr singh it would also give mr singh the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself with legal counsel if criminal charges are brought and fourth the matter would be adjudicated by the courts which are independent in the case of mr faisal his refusal to produce documents or answer questions can also amount to an offence under the ppipa and that is a part five offense so the committee has recommended that he also be referred to the public prosecutor and this is addressed in paragraph two of the second motion apart from the offences to be referred to the public prosecutor they remain the following potential offences under the ppipa that need to be dealt with by parliament this honorable conduct and contempt of parliament on the part of mr singh for lying to the committee and for his role in guiding miss khan to lie to parliament the committee has recommended that parliament defer any action on this until the criminal proceedings if any are completed and this is dealt with in paragraph 3 1 of the second motion then there's dishonorable conduct in contempt of parliament on the part of ms lim and mr faisal for lying about the 8th august meeting and for the initial concurrence in the guidance to maintain the lie by agreeing that it should be taken to the grave likewise the committee has recommended that any decision on this be deferred until the outcome of the referral of mr singh's conduct to the public prosecutor and this is dealt with in paragraphs three one and three two of the second motion so in conclusion the conduct of mrs singh and mr faisal will be considered by the public prosecutor under the criminal justice process parliament will only consider the remaining issues if any after the criminal justice process has taken its course by which time we will have the benefit of what emerges from that process it is the fairest way forward for all mr speaker the recommendations made by the committee are sound and balanced given the circumstances i would ask members to accept them and to support the motions as i do to as to uphold public trust in parliament and in our democracy mr speaker i beg to move the first question is as moved by leader of the house on the motion title committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of ms ray sakhan the second question is as moved by leader of the house and the motion titled committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of mr pritam singh is a faisal man up and missile limb in accordance with the earlier decision of this house to have a simultaneous debate on both motions i will now call on members to make their speeches members are allowed to consider both motions in a single speech at the end of the debate i'll put the questions on both motions separately so that the house can express its vote on each motion in addition i will also disallow any amendment to either motion that has the effect of negativing or nullifying the other motion any member who wishes to vote against either motion can do so directly without such amendments leader of the opposition thank you mr speaker it has been about 25 years since a committee of privileges or cop report has been tabled in this house when seen as a whole the cops processes and the report before parliament leave many questions gaps and omissions and by extension suggests political patent partisanship a key question is this who did this house commit to the cop risa khan or the workers party leadership the cop did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why miskhah lied in parliament nor why she had a propensity to lie with respect to her anecdote both in and out of this house the fact that she had concocted a lie to bolster her anecdote in parliament was not balanced against her evidence to the cop what took center stage instead was her uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to take a lie to the grave by the workers party leadership a fabrication which never came out from any witness at the cop except miss risa khan herself i reject this finding completely at no time did i instruct miss khan to hide the truth at the meeting on august the 8th none of the three workers party leaders told miss khan to take a lie to the grave i will speak on two main areas before concluding with a section on candidate selection in the workers party first i will reflect on my judgment with respect to miss khan's reasons for lying in parliament arising from my meeting with her on the 8th of august second i will raise some broad points about the selective nature of how the cop report dealt with the evidence before it however as i intend to clear my name and cooperate with the public prosecutor my comments on the cop report will be limited in scope the most difficult aspect of this episode for me personally and most certainly something that i have reflected on is the approach to take when a fellow mp tells you first she is a rape victim and second how this episode caused an untruth to be told in parliament from the moment i learned after the august sitting that miss khan had lied in parliament there was no doubt in my mind that she would have to confess in parliament that she had lied and that she would have to apologize for it in this house i have shared publicly that the matter of the lie was something for miss khan to explain in parliament my firm belief is that a member of parliament must be accountable in parliament for what they say in parliament in addition i considered that whenever she confessed miss khan would have to explain her reason for telling her lie i did not want miss khan's parents or loved ones to be caught by surprise before she had the chance to speak with them looking back though i gave miss khan too much time to settle herself before closing the issue with her between the 8th of august and the 30th of september i should have been proactive and checked where she was in addressing the matter with her family that omission is mine alone i acknowledge the same to the cop in my evidence however i will continue to be as sympathetic to anyone who shares such deeply personal details with me my instinct even today would be to keep the information of the sexual assault to myself or to a very small group of trusted individuals given its highly personal and sensitive nature i would allow such a person space to deal with the matter i still believe that it was right that the clarification was made in parliament rather than out of it that said i will discuss with my party colleagues how as an organization and political party we can handle such matters better while taking into account how delicate they are so on to my brief comments on the cop report for today the principal point i will make is the disregard of evidence i submitted to the committee 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 i can only assume they were not considered despite my colleagues and i being served with a summons to produce 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 in my mind is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation for miss khan i had somehow weaponized her condition the following points need to be considered as to why i mentioned the psychiatric evaluation first the notes of the workers party disciplinary panel or dp which were submitted to the cop show that ms khan tendered on her own accord documents which revealed that she was the patient of a psychotherapist who had referred her to a psychiatrist second on the 29th of november miss khan voluntarily shared with the dp that she suffered from dissociation once again the relevant dp notes were forwarded to the cop and third i was asked an open question by the cop as to why ms khan would make certain statements i attempted to give a fair answer in line with what ms khan herself had revealed if the cop was indeed a fact-finding body should i not have raised the matter of miss khan possibly laboring under a condition to the cop in my evidence to the cop i registered the point that the matter was raised because it covered issues of proportionality and culpability i believe that khan should not be excessively punished for a condition she could be laboring under and the cop ought to see it as a mitigatory point in her favor this evidence of mind supported by the cop's minutes of evidence on culpability and proportionality is ignored by the cop so i reject this assertion that in raising the matter of ms khan's mental health to a fact-finding body with a view to consider an appropriate punishment i had somehow smeared her or worse somehow cast aspersions on those with mental health conditions another point i strongly disagree with the cop on is how my evidence was characterized with regard to mr miss law and mr nadan's representations in antagonistic terms i shared my view with the cop that in my opinion loyalty to ms khan was an operative consideration on the minds of miss lowe and mr nadan ms khan in her own whatsapp text to me on the 22nd of november at nxc29 states that she would respect any decision the disciplinary panel makes even if it is to resign in my dp notes of the 25th of november covering the meeting with miss lowe and mr nadan which again was submitted to the cop mislow made it clear that miss khan's resignation should not be on the cards because in her view what she did in parliament was not serious and it was not as if miss khan had and i quote laundered money unquote i believe many would take a different view that telling untruths in parliament is serious such documentary evidence placed before the cop would show that i had good reasons for concluding that a loyalty to miss khan was a consideration for her closest allies ms lowe's perspective of the gravity of what ms khan did is one of those good reasons once again such evidence does not appear to have been considered by the cop i can only speculate why could it be to strategically drive a wedge and disunite the workers party and show that its leaders recklessly cast as persians on their own members and in making the point the cop report carefully omits the only character references i made in reference about miss lowe and mr nadan and what did i say i quote that they are decent good people and have done a lot for the party i still hold that view finally mr speaker the cop's case at its highest relies on one pillar it believes miss khan's evidence that she had been told to take a lie to the grave this belief rests on an uncorroborated piece of evidence a whatsapp text originating from miss 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 the 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 for example at para93 of the report it makes the case that miss law was surprised the disciplinary panel was set up and it advances mr nardin's view that the dp was self-serving however what were missed miss lowe and mr nadan's contemplative views on the dp when it was set up i submitted my whatsapp text with both of them to the cop once again this evidence is left out from the cop report for the record ms lowe's contemporaneous reply upon receiving my message was and i quote i see is there something you need me to do unquote mr nadan's reply was clearer and i quote hi pritam noted on this i know it's difficult but i think party members and supporters will be comforted by it unquote these contemporaneous whatsapp messages directly contradict the cop's findings at para93 this leaves me to consider ms khan's behavior after her resignation and her motivations for making her uncorroborated claim at the cop that she was told to take her lie to the grave i would offer that the more natural explanation as to why she would do so that is in line is that it was in line with human behavior logic and common sense to use the words of the cop her post-resignation behavior was natural in the arena of political participation when our first prime minister executed the transfer of power from the 1g to 2g leadership according to five-time pap mp for wampo mr augustin tan there was a lot of strain tension and resentment when older mps and ministers were told to step aside for the 2 gpap in response one outgoing minister even spoke against the candidature of pm lee at the 1984 elections such was the level of disenchantment the comparison with ms khan's behavior and testimony at the cop is apt because not everyone reacts with loyalty to their party or their party leaders when they realize that the curtain is coming down on them or their political careers how did tonchai former deputy prime minister and chairman of the pap react when he was pushed to the back bench he became a vocal critic of pap policies and famously said how can i remain a dumb cow as to the handover of power he said and i quote for all party members who had been loyal it was a painful process you don't repay their loyalty by throwing them out we had the responsibility to help them find jobs on goat in fact so serious was the concern of the unhappiness among some members of the pap old guard about political renewal the then prime minister lee kuan yew as secretary general of the pap suggested to his assistant secretary general gochuk tong to pack new cada members into the people's action party in case the question of succession and renewal came to the fore at the next pap party conference so for the record there are no jobs for the boys or girls for ex workers party mps when your departure is precipitated by an overwhelming loss of support from your party members and colleagues except for your closest allies from a human behavior standpoint i can understand why a person would turn against one's party leaders my final point mr speaker is on the legitimate questions raised by singaporeans about candidate selection in the workers party as this house knows and as the government has also previously shared for example when the chief of the singapore civil defense force was convicted in court no selection process is foolproof and people can change even pap mps have been found guilty of criminal conduct or forced by their party to vacate their seats for other reasons potential pap general election candidates have also been substituted at the 11th hour the point is that even people who exhibit politically attractive character traits can turn out to be unsuitable the workers party also has had its fair share of the same experience it can be very difficult if not impossible to test a person's judgment in all circumstances prior to fielding them as political candidates this is so even for the pap with its massive resources and far greater ease in finding willing candidates compared to opposition parties however the workers party does not use these realities as an excuse in the main our candidate selection processes can always be better in spite of the extraordinary circumstances and the political culture of a one-party dominant state i will confer with my colleagues with a view to fine-tune the processes in the workers party as best we can taking into account the structural challenges we in the opposition face this would include the absolutely legitimate demands of singaporeans that the workers party feels individuals who do not lower the esteem of parliament or who do not meet the standards expected of members of parliament of course i will endeavor to the best of my abilities to ensure that our candidates are rational responsible and respectable and if any candidate selection decisions are wrong i as secretary general of the party take full responsibility in conclusion with reference to the leader of the house's first motion at 2c the workers party disagrees with the reasons behind the lower quantum of fine form is khan because it is predicated on alleged guidance given to her by myself mr mislim and mr faisal a case which the three of us reject on the second motion i am unable to accept the cop's finding findings that offenses 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 offenses 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 in view of this i have kept my comments on the cop report for today's purposes very narrow and limited thank you dr janil with the cherry mr speaker mr singh says that the recommendations by the committee of privileges rests on only only one fact only one pillar the reality is that in examining the evidence provided by him and his workers party colleagues memphis carter members that's and the back and forth the the committee came to conclusions on the basis of questions that they had gaps in the logic omissions in the submissions and the documents the questions gaps and omissions that he began his statement with are still present and there are questions gaps and admissions about what happened within the workers party what was the truth of the matter between him his colleagues and misray sakhan he talks about political partisanship and unfortunately the conclusion of the proceedings of the committee privileges lead a reasonable reader to come to the conclusion that it is him and his colleagues who engaged in political partisanship by choosing to obfuscate the matter and to deal with misrais khan in the way that they did he asks why was this committee of privileges not interested in getting to the bottom of why miss racer khan lied but actually the reality is they did and she herself gave a clear explanation he and his colleagues doubt that explanation and he has tried to justify why i understand he asserts his innocence but he has not yet filled in the gaps and the emissions nor has he answered the questions these questions on the facts do go to the very heart of the matter as to whether or not mr singh has been honest in his dealings including with ms khan yeah on the 8th of august ms khan went to mr singh mr faisal a muslim confessed to speaking untruth in parliament and on their own evidence not a word was spoken about how and when miss khan would tell the truth in fact mr faisal says zero discussions were had no question no comment despite an extensive discussion about a completely separate matter mr singh has not explained how this is possible or even half credible why is it that they were able to discuss the clarificatory statement on fgc and polygamy but felt unable to make a single comment on a far bigger issue a lie told in parliament is this credible but this could have happened and as to their concern about her mental state why was there not a single word spoken between them not a single contemporaneous exchange of email messages what did they discuss amongst themselves what did they decide to do or not to do more importantly why was there not a single step taken to prepare miss khan to tell the truth it's by their own admission that in the almost two months that followed the meeting on the eighth of august there was no discussion no one spoke to each other neither mr faisal nor muslim asked mr singh what he was doing to ensure that the truth will come out did mr singh check with miss khan or her parents as to whether they had become aware of the sexual assault as this thing is explained he had perhaps given a bit too much time but he stated it as a precondition his foremost concern but he did not once ask about this and the workers party cece was also not aware neither were the party members or cardis in short not a single step taken all the way from august until the third of october remotely could be construed as preparing ms khan to come clean and tell the truth why we still don't know that's an omission i gap the question but looking at all the rest of the statements the evidence that's produced isn't it consistent with ms khan's account which is that if the matter didn't come up she would not help to tell the truth then the truth could remain buried mr singh should explain clearly why no steps were taken if indeed it was important and it remains important for workers party mps to come clean to tell the truth to clarify an untruth told in parliament as he claims on the 3rd of october mr singh went to see ms khan he didn't tell mr faizal or muslim about this meeting and he says that he made it clear that miss khan should tell the truth but he also admits at the same time that he did not say to her that she should tell the truth only four words were necessary five words raisa tell the truth please five words why didn't he say that why not instead say another five words i will not judge you not judging someone is only relevant if miss khan was to continue the lie there was nothing to judge if she was going to be truthful and if she had been if he had been so clear with miss khan why is it then on the 4th of october when mr shanmugam raised the matter miss khan texted mr singh what should i do so she continued with what she was told to do continue with the narrative continue with a lie but mr singh's conduct tells us something as well if he had been clear with miss khan to clarify the lie why did he not respond to ms khan on that day and say it had already been made clear tell the truth there's no two ways about it why not insist that she stand up correct the untruth that she had just repeated why not do this when she had just repeated the lie in front of him and the entire parliament and later when they met what did she say miss khan mr singh himself said that the first words to him were perhaps that's another way that is to tell the truth which to a reasonable person sounds very clear that mr miss khan was suggesting to mr singh a different path away from telling a lie and then again why not at that point make it clear that she needed to come back to parliament now and clarify one untruth is a problem the second time worse and why not at that point ensure that the second lie in parliament the one which he miss lim and mrs feinstein was were aware of to be alive be clarified immediately the workers party stands for honesty integrity accountability where was all of that when mr singh was privy to a lie being told again in parliament and for all the excuses given about making sure that her father was aware that mr singh asked miss khan whether her father was aware already he he says no but why not he it was so important but he he he it was so important it was the only reason he offers for ms khan not having to come clean earlier yet at the critical moment he doesn't bother to ask he doesn't get the details on top of this the committee of privileges heard from miss low paying and mr northern they both spoke to mr singh independently on the 12th of october when he gave an account of what he had discussed with miss khan on the 3rd of october both came away with a clear consensus that he had given miss khan an option a choice it was for her to decide completely contrary to what mr singh had said the committee of privileges this is further supported by muslims own contemporaneous written notes of the 29th of november disciplinary panel meeting with miss khan mr singh himself had described what he had said to miss khan on the 3rd of october as it was your call and mr singh accepts that she mr lim was accurate in her recording this makes it quite clear mr singh was recounting his own conversation with miss khan on the 3rd of october and said it was your call again an omission a question left unanswered which runs up against mr singh's self-professed understanding that miss khan was left with no doubt on the 3rd of october that she would have to come and tell the truth the next day 7th of october the police sent an email to ask ms khan for an interview miss khan ignored it after counseling with mr singh mislim and mr faisal why not advise her to come clean if that was so important to them if it had been the intention all along for miss khan to come clean explain herself clarify the lie and then why not cooperate with the police when they ask what is there to hide if you're interested in integrity honesty and accountability and further ms khan then writes to mr singh and the others and says thank you for guiding me through this without judgment and according to the various testimonies as of the 7th of october exactly what guidance had been given the only guidance that we are clear on her testimony was for her to continue with the narrative and not judge her she had repeated the lie three days earlier and it underscores the idea that mr singh meant on 3rd october when he assured her he would not judge her follow the guidance continue with the lie there will be no judgment it was mr singh's own evidence that on the 12th of october was the first time that miss khan had was told that she should come to parliament and tell the truth that is the first time that this was expressed for miss khan to come and tell the truth here in this house to parliament and at no time prior to this did mr singh tell ms khan that she should go and tell the truth including when he had heard her double down on the lie on the 4th of october why members will also remember that mr singh changed his evidence before the cop on this key point several times he first said that miss khan was to come clean and raise it on her own accord regardless of whether it was brought up or not if that is the case then he must have known on the 3rd of october that it will come up one way or another on the 4th of october which means some preparation would have to be done prior to the 4th of october but when it was pointed out to him that not a single step in preparation was done he then changed his evidence he then said she would bring it up and clarify only if she was asked what is the truth there is still a gap an omission and a question that mr singh has not provided an answer to the reality is that none of these questions which go to the heart of the issue have been addressed these are important because they tell us whether mr singh has been honest or not in his evidence to the committee of privileges these also tell us what kind of conduct that these also tell us the kind of conduct that mr singh is prepared to engage in in order to keep allah the light to be clarified for months why is there nothing between him miss slim and mr pfizer why is there no contemporaneous communication between them between me and my colleagues just to settle what time we should meet in order to go through our parliamentary questions we would exchange various pages of emails but this for most important matter nothing deafening silence if it is so it is hard to believe what about the disciplinary panel which was set up to look into miss khan's conduct why not disclose to the workers party cec their own members and their own carders that in fact miss khan had already admitted come clean to three of the senior workers party leaders that they had discussed it with her given her guidance and also disclosed that mr singh met with ms khan on the 3rd of october if indeed he had told her to tell the truth would that not be relevant to the proceedings of the disciplinary panel would that not mean that ms khan had gone against and disobeyed mr singh's advice and instructions you look at it as a reasonable person one conclusion that mr singh's account of the facts did not happen which is why mr singh was eager to suppress this highly relevant and critical bit of information the involvement of all three disciplinary panel members and their knowledge from august about the lie still a gap an omission and a question unexplained not explaining questions not answering questions was something that mr faizal also did he refused to answer questions put to him by the select committee he asked for this to be recorded quite extraordinary i was quite struck by how extraordinary this behavior was when i was watching it he must have understood the severe consequences watching the video reading the transcripts the conclusion i came to at the time is that he knew that saying anything at all would be damaging to mr singh and muslim he could have lied to protect them but he chose to remain silent understanding the consequences because because lying under oath or affirmation lying to a select committee it's a serious matter needs to be dealt with properly people have spoken to about the cop my residents have not always followed the intricate details of the allegations and the testimony but when i asked them the question did mr pratam singh lie the response is usually one of maybe possibly probably or i don't know most reasonable people admit a serious possibility that he might have lied and the cop the committee of privileges has come to the conclusion that he did indeed lie a serious transgression that ordinarily would require an investigation leading either to exoneration or prosecution ordinarily because that's the standard of the law that should apply to all of us mr singh and the members of the wp have made many speeches rhetorical flourishes about accountability and transparency they put across the idea that these are high principles that they believe in but a key test of one's principles is whether you apply them to yourself for a greater good because action speaks volumes much more than high soaring rhetoric and there's no sign of that action in the details that the committee of privileges has recorded about what happened within the wp away from the public spotlight their communications the conduct of the disciplinary panel the statements by mr singh their actions and their inactions what now is the right thing to do given that the cop found mr singh to have lied what now is the right thing to do if you are not convinced by the cop report but you accept that mr singh may have lied mr speaker in both cases i believe the right thing to do is to support the motion for three reasons first we cannot normalize lying by politicians or even worse rewarded this sorry saga has already eroded trust in our institution and only a clear and unambiguous resolution will restore trust in the political process second we must consider the impact on the future of our parliamentary democracy we would not accept such behavior among our own mps or anyone else we did not let the matter rest when there was a suspicion that miss khan lied to the house we must hold mr singh to the same standard in future there will be mistakes there will be transgressions we must be able to deal with them and mps must not think that they can get away with lying deceiving parliament and the public they must come clean apologize and face the consequences as a house we must maintain our standards and our moral imperative to do the right thing now and for the future and thirdly mr singh thirdly mr speaker the allegation that mr singh planned and executed what sounds like a ruthless deception of his party the public and parliament under oath to the select committee and then possibly through his own party card is under the bus when they exposed him it cannot be left to fester unresolved weakening trust in politics politicians and this institution it must be dealt with unambiguously and if necessary by the courts with neither fear nor favor for the sake of our democratic institutions mr speaker what we do now will set the tone and standards for our future it will indeed impact upon our democracy and the strengthening of our institutions but in the opposite way that many members in the media have described to oppose the emotions before us is to say that one values who a person is more than what they do the very opposite of our ideals of meritocracy to oppose the motion is to say that a politically useful outcome is more important than upholding values to accept the weakening of norms as an acceptable price to pay for political success and i find this all unacceptable to support the motion is to fight for a singapore that is special where politicians can be trusted and are expected to be honest capable and upright to support the motion is to fight for a singapore where politicians do the right thing not the politically convenient thing to support the motion is to believe in our values and our integrity therefore mr speaker i support the motion thank you mr desmond lee mm-hmm mr speaker clarification for the leader of the opposition as a member of the committee on privileges i heard mr singh say earlier very specifically that i quote i had somehow weaponized her condition unquote referring i presume to the committee of privileges findings on what he had said about miss khan's purported mental health conditions weaponized her condition perhaps can ask the leader of the opposition when the report he sees us use that term uh mr speaker let me have a look at the reports in my yesterday prime minister to speak i think prime minister can go ahead with his speech i'll try and get the necessary information as soon as possible but i think generally speaking the uh the nature of the way my decision to bring up uh ms khan's condition was expressed in my speech in three particular for three reasons i brought up those three reasons and i think it's incontrovertible that cop used very uncharitable i would even say unparliamentary words to describe what i did so my speech sort of explained why i felt i was legitimate in raising the matter of mishkan's condition mr speaker just to clarify mr singh is saying that he saw the word weaponized in the report and he referenced it in his speech earlier yeah speaker i just said i'll i'll have to check that let me have a look at it i think it's a fair question if indeed that word was not used and it was not right for me to use it i'm happy to to withdraw it but let me just at least look at the report as a speaker i ask because weaponize the condition was a very specific term which was used in a draft of the committee of the report's findings but which was subsequently taken out when the committee discussed this in secrecy and so it does not appear anywhere in the report so we'd like to ask the leader of the opposition who told him about the use of the term weaponized with respect to ms khan's mental health condition mr speaker i looked at how the cop report had put together that particular paragraph of miss khan's mental health condition and this was the word that occurred to me as to what the cop was trying to do prime minister [Music] [Music] mr speaker sir according to the order paper we are debating what actions parliament should take having received the report of the committee of privileges but as the leader of the house told us just now the broader issue before us is how democracy should work in singapore what are the institutions the norms the values that are essential for our democratic system to function properly how do we apply these general principles to specific cases like the one before us now so as to protect these institutions norms and values and how can we secure our democracy for the future so that it can long deliver happiness prosperity and progress for our nation these are the three more fundamental questions that i wish to discuss today the quality of a country's democracy hinges on its people's values what they judge to be right or wrong what they deem important the causes they espouse the ideals they embrace whichever example you look at at whatever point in history you will find that good and functioning democracies have strong norms and these norms are upheld both by the governed and those who govern them or those who aspire to govern them one day and that is how healthy democratic systems can elect good incorruptable people with the right values and drive a virtuous cycle where good democracy begets good governance and good governance begets good politics this cycle must be underpinned and sustained by strong institutions parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy it's where the most important matters of state are discussed laws are enacted supplies of money are voted with the government setting the direction and proposing policies while answering to the public through parliament and the opposition holding the government to account while also being a government in waiting should the ruling party lose the support of the people to fulfill its vital role parliament must be respected and its members processes and proceedings must be trusted clear norms and incorruptible values are essential to protect the dignity and standing of parliament the system cannot work if the standing of parliament is called into question and this is why we need to set the right norms of conduct among parliamentarians and guard them carefully tell the truth always and do the right thing by singapore even when it is hard or awkward in fact especially when it's hard or awkward and if something goes wrong or something wrong has been done own up and take responsibility do not hide dodge or spin further lies to obfuscate and cover up the original fib the right norms can only be upheld by people with the right values because norms are not merely social conventions that people comply with for appearance is safe they have to be expressions of internal values that people believe in and hold dear mps must be people with integrity at their core who speak and act in an upright manner always putting duty before self and country before party and our highest duty our ultimate loyalty is not to our party but to singapore that is why when taking office mps swear to bear truth faith and allegiance to the republic of singapore in fact this applies to everyone engaged in singapore politics mp or not as workers party cada ms lupeng who was mr pritam singh's former assistant told the committee it pains me greatly but to me beyond anything else it's important to be truthful to my country i believe every member of this house will agree with her our democratic system also depends on the people of singapore voters endorsing insisting on and backing the same norms and values so that they can discern for themselves as ms lowe did when something is wrong and hold accountable those in power or aspiring to power when their actions fall short of these high standards that is how a democracy can function properly inculcating voters and their leaders with the right values is the work of decades it takes unremitting effort and passion and it doesn't always succeed most countries are founded and start off on the basis of high ideals and noble values but more often than not beyond the founding leaders and the pioneer generation over decades and generations gradually things change things start off with passionate intensity the leaders who fought for and won independence are often exceptional individuals of great courage immense culture and outstanding ability they came through the crucible of fire and emerged as leaders of men and nations there are the david ben-gurions the jawaharlal neros and we have our own two imbued with enormous personal prestige they strive to meet the high expectations of their peoples to build a brave new world and shape a new future for them peoples and for their countries but beyond that initial further generations often find it hard to sustain this momentum and drive they start out as healthy democracies with idealism and zeal but over time the tone of the society changes all too easily a slip here a blind eye there a fudge a trim and gradually things go downhill the texture of politics changes respect for politicians declines after a while the electorate comes to think this is the norm and you cannot expect better and so standards get debased trust is eroded and the country declines further many political systems today would be quite unrecognizable to their founding leaders ben-gurion's israel has morphed into one which can barely form a government despite four general elections in two years meanwhile a stream of senior politicians and officials in israel face a litany of criminal charges some have gone to jail while neru's india has become one where according to media reports almost half the mps in the lok sabha have criminal charges pending against them including charges of rape and murder though it is also said that many of these allegations are politically motivated what is to prevent singapore from going down the same road nothing we are not intrinsically smarter or more virtuous than other countries modern singapore does not come born with a fail-safe mechanism our founding fathers did their best to build strong foundations and institutions even after the bharathan socialist which was then the main opposition party decided to vacate its seats in parliament in 1966 and left the field entirely to the pap our founding fathers maintained our parliamentary democracy and multi-party system as mr lee kuan yew once explained at that time with the pap completely dominant he could have changed the constitution and made this a one-party state but he deliberately chose not to because he knew that without the need to contest and win elections the governing party would over time become complacent and flabby and that would be disastrous for singapore so the founding fathers took the more robust way they kept politics contestable they built up institutions parliament the judiciary the civil service the police and armed forces and later the elected president and the council of presidential advisors to enable singapore to operate on a more resilient basis not dependent on a few key people pulling all the levers pushing all the buttons making everything work still to operate these institut institutions you need good people and they needed to recruit train and deploy ministers mps judges civil servants experts in many fields people of ability and commitment with a sense of public service and above all with honesty and integrity whom singaporeans could rely upon to do their duty put singapore first and make this country succeed and that is how the system we have today came to be it is incumbent on all of us each succeeding generation to protect and build upon this system that we have inherited and this requires us to uphold integrity enforce rules and standards apply the same rules equally to everyone make sure nobody is above the law if we can do that consistently persistently unflinchingly then we have a shot at making things work people can trust our leaders our systems and our institutions our democracy can mature deepen and grow more resilient as both the governed and the governing embrace and express the right norms and values singapore can continue to flourish but if we allow ourselves to slacken loosen standards here just a bit overlook a lie there just this time the virtual cycle will stutter and start to fail what is the key factor that keeps this virtuous cycle going keep singapore on the up and not on the down it is trust on his 100th birthday mr george schultz the former u.s secretary of state reflected on this this was two a year and a bit ago december 2020 he wrote an op-ed upon reaching 100 years old and he said it was one of the most important lessons in his long life that trust is the coin of the realm when trust was in the room he wrote good things happened when trust was not in the room good things did not happen everything else is details we saw how this worked in the kovit pandemic trust was a key factor why some countries did better than others i have been saying this for two years but recently there was a study published in the lancet a british medical journal which confirmed this studied multiple countries and found that countries with high levels of trust and together with that low corruption saw lower infection rates and higher vaccine coverage because the people's trust in government and their trust in each other made much more difference to the outcome even than the resources spent on healthcare and on and even whether they had a universal health care system or not what mattered most was did they trust each other did they trust their leaders singapore is fortunate to be one of these high trust societies we have tried to build upon it during the pandemic but it is something that we have today because we have nurtured it for decades and built it up patiently assiduously step by step never allowing it to be eroded and therefore having this with us when we go into battle an enormous asset the opposite happened in other countries for example in the u s and u k in the u s trust in the political system has all but broken down three-quarters of republican voters have been made to believe that the last presidential election in 2020 was stolen that mr biden is not a legitimate president and mr trump should be the president today how do you uphold a system when a large segment of the population is convinced that the elected government is illegitimate every issue is politicized government becomes gridlocked the country suffers and that's a key reason why many americans refuse to be vaccinated or to wear masks why they revolt against measures to keep themselves safe and why they have suffered so many covet 19 deaths or look at the ongoing uproar in britain about the partygate scandal in westminster the mother of parliaments no less the scandal has been attributed to failures of leadership and judgment in an official government report by ignoring its own rules the current uk government has caused a severe breakdown of trust and lost credibility in its covet 19 controls singapore may be a high trust society today but nothing guarantees that we will always remain one it's essential that we steadfastly maintain our high standards ensure that we have leaders who embody the right values call out wrongs when wrongs are done meet out punishment when punishment is due preserve the sanctity of our institutions never take the public trust for granted and never allow lies half truths and falsehoods to become the accepted norm in politics that is what is at stake as we deliberate parliament's response to the cop report to the committee of privileges report miss ryza khan lied in parliament twice on august the third last year and a third time when questioned two months later on october the 4th subsequently she admitted to lying to parliament to deal with this breach of parliamentary privilege we convened the committee of privileges miss khan was called up as were other witnesses the committee deliberated extensively before reaching a reasoned conclusion that miss khan was guilty and should be fine for each occasion she lied i hope all members can agree with these findings and the penalty to be imposed on miss khan but in the process of the committee's deliberations two other significant issues arose the committee has drawn them to parliament's attention and suggested to parliament how to deal with them first whether the three workers party leaders mr pritam singh mr faisal mana and ms sylvia lim had instructed miss khan to continue with her lie in parliament if they did this is surely as serious or more serious a misconduct as miss khan speaking an untruth in parliament parliament will need to deal with this but only after we've cleared the second even graver matter and this graver matter is as the leader explained whether after having taken solemn oaths to tell the truth the three workers party leaders told untruths to the committee of privileges in order to cover up their instructions to miss khan to continue lying it became clear to the cop that there were striking contradictions between what the three mps claimed to the committee where their honorable intentions and the hard evidence of what they actually did or very often failed to do and there were serious inconsistencies even between the accounts of the workers party leaders being untruthful under oath is no small matter it means lying despite solemnly affirming that he will tell the truth in this case not once not twice but repeatedly over many hours of extensive questioning and on several days the committee's assessment is that these untruths were not accidental or incidental errors but deliberate premeditated acts done with a definite intent to mislead and to deceive they are not just breaches of parliamentary privilege but if proven in court they amount to perjury lying under oath and perjury is a serious criminal offence so there are two distinct problems one whether the three mps instructed miss khan to lie and two whether the three mps themselves lied under oath both if established reflect very badly on the workers party leaders and in particular on the leader of the opposition both issues if not dealt with properly will dishonour parliament and bring this august institution into disrepute some ask wasn't miss raisa khan the one who lied why are the workers party leaders being treated more harshly as the leader of the house noted just now if the committee is right and mis then mr singh and his fellow workers party leaders themselves lied and presented untruths to the committee they lied under oath to protect themselves to cover up their role and to push the blame solely onto ms khan claiming that she and other witnesses like miss law had lied to the committee this is is indeed more serious than what ms khan did if it is so by lying under oath they sought to frustrate the committee process they displayed the same kind of misconduct that the committee was set up to address they betrayed the trust reposed in them as mps and not least mr pritam singh the leader of the opposition and this i hope members appreciate if true is a very grave matter so members must decide what parliament will now do about this can we pretend nothing happened or if that's too much to stomach given the strong evidence laid out by the committee perhaps we lower our standards just a little note that untruths were told but argue that it was after all not so serious a lie and no harm was done if we do either of these things we too would become complicit in dishonoring and demeaning parliament we must take the transgression seriously and act on it and i'm glad that's a conclusion the committee has come to and recommended to the house what alternative choices did the committee have it could have recommended to parliament to administer a token slap on the wrist but that would show that we were taking a very serious matter rather lightly worse by lowering out norms we would be telling singaporeans that is really not so bad for elected leaders to lie alternatively the committee could have recommended that parliament itself meets out an appropriately heavy penalty this is something that parliament has the power to do but had the committee recommended that and parliament decided on the penalty itself the opposition would surely have cried foul and accused the pap of using its majority to persecute the opposition in fact they are already insinuating this as a smoke screen to obscure the real issue that the workers party had lied while under solemn oath i believe therefore that what the committee recommends is the best way forward since the criminal offence appears to have been committed let parliament refer the matter to the public prosecutor let the public prosecutor consider the evidence afresh let the system work if the charges are filed mr pritam singh and also mr faisal mana can defend themselves in court the court will have to be satisfied that their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt and if they are innocent they have nothing to fear i commend this course of action to the house and if i were mr singh i would vote in favor of both motions find ms khan because she's guilty beyond doubt in fact mr singh's own party member mr denis stan who was on the committee thinks she should be fined more heavily for the second offense and if mr singh maintains that he and his fellow workers party leaders have done nothing wrong he should also vote in favor of referring his own case and that of mr faisalman up to the public prosecutor indeed he should demand a court trial in order to have the full opportunity to defend himself vindicate his reputation and clear his name that is what i would do if i were missing regret it regrettably pro workers party voices on the social media have taken quite a different take before the matter can be conclusively determined if necessary in court they are doing their best to confuse the issues and allow sympathy they are asking the public to clear the names of the three mps suggesting that referring the case to the public prosecutor is political persecution what they're really saying is this don't look too carefully at what mr singh did just remember who he is he is the opposition that you voted for he's the leader of the opposition by the earth by virtue of his position he should not be referred to the public prosecutor and any action against him must by definition be politically motivated because who he is is more important than what he has done even if he may have committed a crime some people may be taken in and sympathize with this story they say why not just let the matter rest can't we find a compromised solution after all it would be easier for the government not to have to pursue this matter against the three mps we have a full enough agenda but mr speaker as long as the pap is the government we will not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to uphold the right norms in this house and to imbue singaporeans and their leaders with the values critical to sustain trust in the system and critical to our success mr singh succeeded mr lautyagyang as secretary general of the workers party mr lowe served for a very long time 30 years as an mp 17 years as party leader he sat opposite me where mr singh now sits mr lowe was a formidable political opponent but he was a patriotic singaporean he set a different tone for the workers party he said he hoped the workers party could help to build a first world parliament in singapore he must be saddened that instead this is what his successor has done because what has happened is a betrayal of what the workers party claimed that it stood for but judging by mr lowe's public comments he is confident the party can write this out and it need not be a setback for our democracy either provided we hold mr singh and his colleagues accountable for dishonoring the standards of this house and also for possibly breaking the law mr speaker we are all engaged in the same project to build up singapore's democracy and create a political system that will serve singaporeans well for many years to come and to do that we must uphold the right norms and reinforce the right values i know singaporeans want to see more political contestation and i accept that i expect that this is the way singapore will go in the longer term that's how every parliamentary democracy evolves and it was precisely because i recognized this that on election night in 2020 after the workers party won a second grc in senka i offered to make mr singh the leader of the opposition and equip him with the resources and support to play this role that is the way our responsible government can help a credible responsible opposition to emerge and contribute to the maturing of our political system but the office of the leader of the opposition carries certain responsibilities setting the tone for opposition mps enforcing standards of conduct on his own party and above all maintaining his own integrity and keeping himself beyond reproach the leader of the opposition does not have a blank check mr speaker integrity is the lynch pin of democracy the stakes of today's debate might have been lower if the opposition were a negligible presence as they were from 1966 until the 1980s the pap was overwhelmingly dominant the public generally had low expectations of opposition parties and politicians the tone of the country and its governance was set by the pap and the high standards that the pap imposed on itself but with singapore heading towards a more contested landscape the competence and honesty of the opposition is no longer an inconsequential matter the question is the question of what are the right values and how should we uphold them becomes a fundamental importance for both the opposition and the governing party every election henceforth will be about who wins the mandate to run this country if the system is working properly the governing party will be re-elected so long as it remains honest competent and trusted if the governing party falls short and singaporeans come to deem an opposition party more honest and incorruptible more competent and more trustworthy then the governing party should be voted out and that opposition party should be voted in to form the next government we cannot assume that the pap will always continue in government nor can we assume that the workers party or some other opposition party or any other opposition party will always stay in the opposition i do not know when or how there will be a change of governing party in singapore one day my job as party leader is to make sure the pap governs well to the best of its ability so that it retains the mandate of the people for as many elections as possible but my duty as the leader of the country is also to maximize the chances that whichever party wins future elections it will uphold and be held to the same high standards of proper conduct and honesty as the pap so that our democratic system can continue to operate properly whichever party is in charge and won't go down the drain because a small island city-state like singapore the only one in the world like this needs a strong effective and good government whoever leads it with our lives and future at stake everyone participating in the system must be held to the same standards there can be no excuses no double standards and no pardoning of inexcusable behavior just because the offending party portrays itself as the underdog mr john major the former british prime minister recently made a speech triggered by party gate i'm sure lamenting the state of british politics today it was a creed occur a cry from the heart let me read you a few excerpts there has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time we are told that politicians are all the same and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life but politicians are not all the same and lies are just not acceptable to imply otherwise is to cheapen public life and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead but some do and their behavior is corrosive this tarnishes both politics and the reputation of parliament it is a dangerous trend if lies become commonplace truth ceases to exist what and who then can we believe the risk is nothing and no one and where are we then if trust in the word of our leaders in parliament is lost then trust in government will be lost too john mages is a western view but in eastern society too norms and values are crucial in fact even more than in western philosophy because western philosophy says checks and balances but eastern philosophy says your virtue your moral standing that's what gives you the right to govern in confucian thought there are four social guidelines there's the way that hold the state together rituals righteousness probity and shame li probity or desisting from corruption is about upright behavior it is a norm that can be enforced using laws but shame a reaction to wrongdoing is a moral disposition it's about one's own sense of right and wrong whether we know we have done the right thing or we know we have fallen short even when nobody said so that has to come from within ourselves from our own values our own consciences absent that sense of shame people may comply with laws for fear of punishment but they will lack the moral compass to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do and to take responsibility when they're fallen short of the standards expected of them what i personally find most disappointing in the workers party narrative and in their response including in this house today is the complete absence of any admission that the three mps have done anything wrong there is no contrition whether from the western or the eastern view if lack of shame becomes a public norm our political system will break down progressively and irreversibly order leader mr speaker may i seek your consent in the general ascent of members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion exempted from the provisions of standing order number 48 to remove the time limit in respect of the prime minister's speech give my consent does the leader of the house have the general assent of honourable members present to so move leader please proceed mr speaker i beg to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of standing order number 48 in respect of the prime minister's speech the question is that's moved by the leader of the house as many as philippines ai to the country say no i think the eyes have it yeah i said prime minister mr speaker sir whether you take a western or an eastern view if lack of shame becomes the public norm our political system will break down progressively and reversibly the public will mistrust not only individual leaders or particular political parties but the whole political system and this has happened too often elsewhere if that happens what do you do what can you do how can democracy function when there's no one we can trust to put in charge how do you put humpty dumpty together again how do you restart from zero press reset a democracy not founded on integrity stands on shaky ground and will soon or later totter if instead of trust being the coin of the realm as george schultz put it lives become the accepted currency of public life as john major said all the sound and fury of contestation and debate will signify nothing good for the country as singapore politics grows more competitive we must make sure that the competition is honest impartial and above board where the system runs properly and our institutions remain sacred and respected by all where good people work together constructively to serve singaporeans wherever they stand on the political spectrum and most basic of all where singaporeans can trust those who represent them to conduct themselves honestly and honorably and act on behalf of the public and of singapore mr speaker the committee report is long and detailed but the core issues are few and stark we have scrutinized ms khan's actions and its rights and wrongs she has admitted her wrongdoings and will be punished appropriately for them we thought the matter could be closed off straightforwardly but that turned out to be a much larger problem online people call this raisa gate after watergate and just like in the original watergate affair while investigating miss raisa's transgressions the committee unexpectedly stumbled upon a cover-up by workers party leaders even more serious than the original offense the committee didn't expect this but now with the findings before us it is our responsibility parliament's responsibility for the mps to take the necessary and appropriate course of action mr speaker sir trust is crucial for democracy to work well being truthful is fundamental to establishing trust honesty is non-negotiable if you tell lies how can the public trust you if someone in a position of responsibility tells lies and visibly gets away with it how can the public trust the system and if parliament condones lying among its own members how can singaporeans trust the institution of parliament if we let flagrant egregious transgressions pass it will erode trust in our leaders respect for parliament and support for our whole political system and singapore will be heading for trouble as the longest serving member of this house i feel a greater responsibility for this than most when i first entered this house 37 years ago mr lee kuan yew mr rajaratnam dr chinchai mr mr e w barker and mr jake young tong were still members six of the ten who signed the separation agreement on the ninth of august in 1965. i have witnessed firsthand how the founding generation built up this place handed it to us in good shape for me this is a sacred trust and it should be a sacred trust tool for every mp we must all never fail to serve singaporeans the best of our ability responsibly and honestly and uphold this institution of parliament as the foundation of a robust and healthy democracy i call on all members in this house old and new government and opposition elected and nominated to weigh the facts vote with their conscience and join me to do your duty to singapore mr speaker sir i support the motions mr preetham sing okay uh just a few uh very brief points in response to the prime minister uh i agree with the prime minister uh in the mean with regard to the sort of political system we want in our country values of trust honesty i don't disagree with the prime minister [Music] my second point is with regard to his request to the house to vote in favor of both motions as i explained in my speech the reasons why we are objecting particularly to motion number one is with regard to limb c and the understanding behind limb c 2c is that there is something for which miss raisa khan's fine has been the quantum of the fine is what it is because the assumption is uh the cop has accepted that there's a mitigatory point to be made we disagree with that because that's a uh basically saying that we we admit that we had done we had uh told the lie to the committee and we disagree certainly and that's for the same reason we have to disagree with motion number two but as i made it clear in my speech i am prepared to clear my name and as a result i will not be objecting to this house resolving to refer this matter to the public prosecutor and i'll take them i have taken i've made the point that i will strive to clear my name not once but i believe twice which first was in the introduction of my speech and secondly in the conclusion and this is what i said should parliament resolve to adopt the motion i intend to clear my name and will fully cooperate with the public prosecutor thank you mr desmond lee mr speaker i like to return back to the earlier clarification that i sought and the leader of the house mentioned that after the pm's speech he would let us know where he saw in the report the reference to that specific term weaponized i asked because it is a very specific word it's a very specific way of characterization and this is important for the integrity of the cop process the initial draft read as follows mr singh essentially weaponized unsubstantiated allegations that ms khan was unstable and unreliable and that she was prone to lying because of a mental health and this was connected to her being a sexual assault victim unquote but in the report before this house which is the only public report put out at page 58 pera 176 subpara 4 it says i quote mr singh then alleged that miss khan had mental health problems and suggested that she was predisposed to lying so on and so forth unquote so that phrase was debated in part in committee and you decided to remove it and this is what you see so mr singh would not have reference to this specific term unless somehow earlier droughts were shared with him so can he confirm or deny that people told him about the drafts so that's my first clarification i have a clarification to make after this let's sing mr speaker indeed the word is not in the committee report and i mentioned earlier that the word weaponized was my characterization of what i saw was that particular paragraph indeed the word is also used publicly i think there's a rice media i cannot remember whether i read this specifically but rice media has a uh an article which says now that the claims on ryzen khan's mental health have been refuted how do you feel about weaponizing an individual's mental health in an investigation so so generally i that was my characterization of what i saw the cop report was doing and hence the choice of my you my choice of my usage of the word are weaponized i did not refer in my speech to saying that the report specifically used the word weaponized i said the most egregious is membrane is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation for misconduct i had somehow weaponized her condition i hope that clarifies just to confirm before this house mr singh was not referring to any drafts or reference to earlier drafts no thank you sir can i just take the second clarification that in his speech mr singh had said that the committee of privileges report somehow was incomplete or inaccurate because it didn't reflect all the evidence that was submitted there was voluminous material submitted to the committee and transcripts running to the thousands of pages which we took time and care to go through he in particular said that the report didn't reflect or didn't capture or didn't include or didn't annex miss low payings and mr yudhistra nadine's contemporaneous views about the formation of the dp as one example of his sense that the cop wasn't complete in its findings and mr singh had cited a few lines from what miss lopeying and mr yudhistranadan had sent him via whatsapp and we had members had heard the exchange earlier their responses to him when he spoke messaged them about the dp hearing so what mr singh omitted to mention what two points first that miss low paying had messaged him to express grave reservations about the dp as well as mrs singh's suppression of material facts concerning his involvement to the dp and i like to read two members because the report annexes all of this on the 10th of november i quote paying tells mr singh hi pratam i've tried to reserve my comment on the disciplinary panel so far but i just saw the message that was sent out to everyone i feel that it's plain as day to me and people involved in her apology that this is a little backwards paddling clearly the party didn't anticipate the backlash despite warnings and it's trying to do something to quell people's anger well i agree with it i can empathize with it i don't think it is at all fair to let party members think they have a say in this process if this is done as a mock consultation exercise then party members will be unhappy their opinions weren't really considered if it is not a mock exercise then they will likely ask raisa to resign when they do not have the full facts i welcome the dp to be transparent and share the involvement in this their findings barring personal information so the party can make an accurate decision mr pritam singh replies i hear you py but i do think we need to give party members a platform to have their say on this important matter rather than commiserate privately or between each other and believe that the party leadership decides things without considering their views paying replies i get that but the dp hasn't exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement mr pritam singh replies despite that it will be good to hear people out paying replies but their opinions are not accurate because they don't have the facts everyone is of the view that we can cut her loose and distance the party from her mistake but if she's out of the party she's still subjected to the committee of privileges and there's not much we can do to what she says and shares when it gets there so that is one set of whatsapp messages that adds more complexion to what mr singh had read out earlier and which was also raised to mr singh in fact it's in the transcripts if mr singh may remember at paragraph 10 813 10 814 as well as 10 815 16 and 17 where that extract was read out to him and he gave his views so there's a lot of these material that's annexed in the report another response i have is that in fact on the on the same day that dp was formed on the 2nd of november this is what miss low paying said to mr yudhistra nadan via whatsapp also contemporaneous also in evidence and i i read it out to members in case you've not read it it's in i think nx cc something i'll give you the numbers later it's very small but it says at the bottom in relation to his to to their discussion with mr singh immediately they contemporaneously exchange messages with each other and miss lopeying says he sent the same message pritam told me himself about the disciplinary committee he didn't say much more yudhisthra nadan said he sent me the same message too paying replies i wonder why he's informing the both of us though pain says i asked him if we would be questioned he said no omg lol that didn't cross my mind i think he wanted to tell us just so that we heard it from him before the party pg which is nice i guess but i do feel he and sylvia underestimated the backlash funny he made the special effort to tell the both of us but not rice ray i think it's also being too reactionary i would have let it simmer for another two days and so on and so forth at the bottom it says here it comes he is also being dragged so i don't trust pritam to put himself above things l-o-l like when it affects him personally i'm worried he will cut the cord so so these and other messages are in the rep are in the anaxes some of it is in the evidence and some of the messages were placed in front of mr singh and some of the other witnesses and they are in the in the transcripts so in a sense all the evidence all the exhibits will be placed before the pp and i welcome mr singh's support that all this will be placed before the pp to be considered and so that he can clear his name and put his explanation up thank you mr singh bika it still doesn't answer the point that i brought up in my speech about contemporaneous evidence the fact of the matter is the cop relies on content premiums evidence and puts a high probative value on it in certain cases but mr lee just read out a narration of text messages between miss lowe and mr nathan which is on the record and my point is i have submitted documents to the cop which are not on the record and there's an important difference there if the committee committee was minded to send us summons to produce we produce documents i've also raised other examples in my speech i'm not going in my speech i didn't go into it to the detail that i would have wanted because there is a recommendation to refer the matter to the pp we are always told that it's important you know before the matter is under investigation let's not comment too much uh i think i should be given that uh right as well but uh prime minister has gone one step further and said you know go to trial i mean that's certainly prime minister's view i certainly expect a fair hearing but my point still comes back to the point i made in my speech and i do not believe mr lee's clarification deals with it what i would request is for the committee to return all those documents to me i made a request to speaker on friday that all those all that evidence which i submitted including the cover letter is returned to me i don't believe i mentioned cover letter but i mentioned documents but the cover letter is part of it and i hope this will be done because that's not in the committee of privileges this report i would just say in response to that mr speaker that the committee did not rely purely on contemporaneous messages it looked at the whole suite of action or inaction that is quite plain from the the report be that as it may all the evidence submitted by all witnesses was placed before the committee was referred to we assessed the evidence we came to our conclusions and we placed it in the report but all material including material that the relevant business witnesses including from the workers party leadership had submitted would be placed before the pp for consideration order proposed to take a break now leader opposition speaker can i confirm whether that those documents would be returned to me order proposed to take a break now my suspend is sitting and we'll take the chair at 6 15 pm order order mr speaker order resumption of debate on the motion standing in the name of the leader of the house on the committee of privileges report mr pfizer manna stood here perhaps you would like to deliver a speech mr singh will mr fisa manna be speaking yes mr speaker but i think he's doing his prayers now okay mr dong if you can just proceed mr william isn't in chamber either okay mr speaker i would like to start by acknowledging the members of the committee of privileges and all who were involved in the investigation for the many days and nights they have put into the cop hearings and deliberations with many of them probably having to abandon their december vtl travel plans thank you for all thank you all for doing the work on behalf of the rest of us it must have been a very painful and difficult journey for all involved i have listened to as many of the key recordings and read as many of the key transcripts as i could and i am satisfied with the process and the effort that was put in by the committee to establish the truth of the situation fortunately i did not binge watch i actually watch one at a time now honesty integrity and trust is the batch of honor which has put singapore on the world map that's how we have earned the reputation of high trust and business in diplomacy in government and in society we hold each other to high standards and almost always we are not prepared to bend the rules or close a blind eye we strive to be cleaner than clean it's not easy to hold up to high standards but that we must as individuals every day we have the freedom to discern and choose to do what is right and shun the temptation to take the easier road which could be to choose to do nothing to do the popular thing or to do what will result in less criticism and less trouble for ourselves it is a daily test in every encounter with every situation and person i meet to make the choice to do the right thing pray help me god but of course we are humans and in spite of best efforts we are not saints we do make wrong judgments and sometimes there may be good reasons that led us to that bad call notwithstanding a bad call is a bad call and we have to deal with it own up to it seek for forgiveness and make amendments now with respect to the cop findings i thought long and hard if there are other options that the cop could have taken pm had earlier on also alluded to if you and i were in the cop what would we or could we have recommended differently well for me suffice to say to ignore the evidence is not an option hence the recommendation made by the cop to refer the new case to the public prosecutor is the right and best option in that way the parties who were not the original subjects of the um of the cop have a chance to defend themselves and clear their names trust is difficult to earn but easily broken so to do the right thing takes courage but i hope we can also do the right thing with compassion honourable speaker i support the recommendations and the motion as set out by the committee or privileges thank you mr villain is not here so if you can proceed mr speaker in my speech i wish to make a critical clarification on a specific finding by the cop i will touch on the referral or intended referral of mr faisal and mr singh to the public prosecutor and i will also argue why some reforms to the cop and his processes are much needed sir during the cop deliberations a matter has risen about the handwritten notes tended voluntarily by me to the committee these notes were used as evidence against mr pritam singh to support the finding that he had given ms reiser khan a free choice to continue the lie she had told in august it is necessary for me to correct misconceptions that have arisen from the cop's findings here at paragraph 237 of the main report the cop finds that my handwritten notes were useful to the committee in its deliberations the cop further notes among other things the following pera237 sub3 ms lim a lawyer and chair of the workers party would have appreciated the effect of such evidence it would be and was extremely damaging to the testimony given by mr singh it directly contradicted mr singh's evidence that he did not give miss khan a choice 237 sub 4 muslim was clear in the testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to the wp mps an obvious point that was also directly contrary to what mr singh had done and mislim recognized that unquote speaker i take a different view if read in the proper context my evidence is not inconsistent and not damaging to mr singh in fact it is consistent with his evidence that he was telling her she had to tell the truth let me explain why i had testified that the extracts from my notes had to be seen in totality to understand it first let me quote the extract from my handwritten notes which was recorded in the form of question and answer question by ps before october session i met you and told you it was your call did need to tell the truth in paul occurred to you are okay yes but consumed with guilt and own experience thought it wouldn't come up ps can't lie right rk yes sir just looking at this extract we see that when mr singh says to her can't lie right miss khan does not contradict him she says yes which is an acceptance that she cannot lie does this not mean that she understood what he meant all along that she had to tell the truth when he put to her that she could not lie she did not say that she was given a choice secondly sir i'm baffled by the cop's conclusion that i had somehow recognized that mr singh had acted contrary to an mp's duty to tell the truth as i was puzzled as to why the cop stated that i examined the footnotes used by the cop for this conclusion i submit that the evidence i gave does not support this finding for this please allow me to refer to the transcripts of evidence the cop cites footnote 421 as the basis for saying that i was clear in my testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to wpmps but if one looks at footnote 421 it refers to a particular paragraph of my evidence which is as follows paragraph one two five five four where i say you see it never crossed my mind and i cannot fathom this possibility that pritam would have given her the option to choose between telling the truth or continuing the lie that never crossed my mind and i do not believe it to be true unquote so the cop does not quote this paragraph accurately when it states that i was clear that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to mps i had also stated at the same time that i could not imagine mr singh giving ms khan a choice and i do not believe it that puts a totally different complexion to the paragraph cited by the cop later in my testimony i was asked by the chairman about the notes i recorded i was questioned repeatedly about whether i agreed that the phrase it is your call could be interpreted as giving her a free choice to decide whether to tell the truth or not when i refer back to the evidence that the cop relies on i find that four vital paragraphs that immediately followed were not included which are critical to properly understand my evidence the cop finds that i recognized that mr singh had acted contrary to an mp's duty to tell the truth for this it codes my evidence from transcripts at paragraphs 12936 to 12945 please let me spend a little time on this here are the paragraphs that the cop relies on 12936 chairman says in that last page you mentioned about the conversation on 3rd october at the top of the page where mr pritam singh said before the october session i met you and told you it was your call so meaning that it was really up to her to decide what to do and my answer was i don't know the context but he phrased it in this way then the chairman asked from this it would seem to be that it's really for her to decide which is i guess and i say she has to decide yes and the chairman says i guess if you follow from this when he said that i will not judge you is that you decide what you want to do i will not judge you for that would that be a fair interpretation as you see it i know you were not there and i say i wasn't there then the chairman continues i'm saying that as from what he has recounted here as recorded and what we know now of what would have been said specifically this would be a reasonable interpretation of it that line came from mr pritam singh himself who said quote to take ownership and responsibility i will not judge you uncode so i'm just asking there's a chairman asking me based on what mr pritam singh has shared and given what he said now here would that be a reasonable interpretation that it was really left for her to decide and my answer well i mean i don't know what he said because i've put myself on a news block for the last few days but in any case it is recorded as as it is recorded yes the cop then cuts off its reference abruptly here now up to this point i was at best telling the cop that i was not there at the meeting on third october where was there any recognition by me that mr singh had done something contrary to an mp's duty to tell the truth crucially the cop ignored the next four paragraphs which showed that the chairman was still continuing his clarifications with me which i shall now read out para12946 chairman just to remind you the specific line he said was to take ownership and responsibility and i will not judge you so these few lines came up across clearly as what he conveyed and i say okay and the chairman says and i'm just asking you that based on what you've recounted here it would suggest that the option was left to miss khan to decide what to do and my response is i think it also has to be looked at in the whole context because what we recorded here was that i told you it was your call that the need to tell the truth in parliament occur to you then she says yes but i was consumed with guilt in my own experience and i thought it wouldn't come up of course she's not saying here you gave me a choice so i made that choice she says i was consumed with guilt in my own experience and i thought it wouldn't come up and he says but you can't lie right and she says yes so it has to be taken i think in totality to understand it like i said i wasn't there but this is what i recorded uncode so mr speaker these last four paragraphs were curiously excluded from the cop's footnote 422 even though it was part and parcel of the chairman's clarifications on the same topic if included and properly understood i submit that my evidence does not support the cop's conclusions next i will touch briefly on the referral to the pp or the intended referral to the pp of mr singh and mr faisal so if parliament so resolves to refer both of them to the pp it is only right to expect that the public prosecutor law enforcement and the courts will handle this matter impartially how they approach this matter has serious ramifications a court conviction may prematurely terminate the service of a member of parliament who has been duly elected by the people it is provided in article 45 of the constitution that convictions in a court of law can disqualify an elected mp from parliament if the fine is two thousand dollars or more contrast this with fines meted out by parliament itself under the parliamentary privileges immunities and powers act which can go up to fifty thousand dollars but will not disqualify an mp from continuing to serve in this house so before i end i would like to make some observations about the cop composition and processes so the cop has disciplinary functions and recommends punishments for mps there has been public discussion about the composition of the cop as it is overwhelmingly dominated by ruling party members i find the state of affairs unsatisfactory as well as it currently stands the committee only has one out of its eight members from the opposition workers party this does not bode well for fair hearing in parliament where the ruling party has a super majority of 90 there is public interest to ensure that elected mps are subject to fair parliamentary hearings one way towards this is to have a more balanced composition my suggestion is that parliament consider amending the standing orders on the composition of the committee of privileges if the committee's total strength is to remain at eight members in all then three members should be from opposition parties this is likely to result in a less one-sided hearing and fuller consideration of relevant evidence i now move on to some observations of the cop process first on representation before the cop i would like to ask how the committee decided on conducting the questioning of witnesses by itself in a past cop in 1986 parliament resolved to have questioning conducted by a law officer of the legal service it was further resolved then that lawyers be allowed to represent the mp and other persons as well it seems to me that such a process is better it would enable the committee to sit back and concentrate on evaluating the evidence dispassionately rather than have committee members actively positing a certain case theory and trying to break witnesses down if legal representation is allowed there may be less need for parliament to make referrals of cases to the public prosecutor may i ask on what basis did the committee decide to do the questioning itself and not allow lawyers in secondly i believe guidelines are needed to safeguard the dignity of such parliamentary hearings members of the public have noted the strenuous questioning of mr faisal and mr singh mr faisal was questioned for about six hours in a single day in mr singh's case the questioning was done for nine hours in a single day which including waiting time took 12 hours while my own questioning was less than three hours i waited for two days in a guarded room and was denied the use of any communication devices when i needed to visit the bathroom i was accompanied by security when i requested to use the disabled toilet to have more space permission was sought doesn't all this border on oppressive our courts of law do not subject witnesses to such treatment so to summarize i've explained i've clarified the effect of my handwritten notes in detail i've also commented briefly on the referral to the pp that parliament intends or will be voting on and i've also made my own observations about cop processes and why i think reform is needed thank you so far [Music] so [Music] it's just because [Music] foreign foreign me [Music] mom mr speaker on behalf of the leader i beg to move that the proceedings on the business sat down on the order paper for today be exempted today sitting from the provisions of standing order number two the question is the motion moved by the deputy leader as many as of the opinions ai to the country say no i think the eyes have it i have it sizkanin mr speaker sir uh it is with a tinge of sadness and regret that i am standing here before the house speaking on this motion i'm sad because one of the mps has admitted to lying before this house and the people of singapore i'm sad because this whole incident has been protracted as the allegations and lies were left uncorrected for many months before the truth was finally revealed i regret the manner in which the young activists who boldly came forward to give evidence at the cop proceedings have now been alleged by their own party leader that they may have lied out of loyalty to the former member disregarding the many years of service and activism now this is not the way young people who only came forward to serve the nation not just the party should be treated i regret the manner in which the former mp has been characterized both by her own party's leadership and some members of the public the same ones who had lifted her and backed her to the hilt before as persons were cast about her mental health and the nature of the trauma that she suffered now this is not the way that survivors of sexual violence and people suffering from mental health issues should be treated in discussing this incident whether during the cop proceedings this motion or elsewhere let us all have some regard and consideration for common decency let us all also have regard to the feelings of survivors of sexual violence people who suffer from mental health issues and young people who are watching us today in malay please democracy and the respect to be called leaders mr speaker sir on the motions firstly against the former member given her own admissions and the reasons stated in the cop report i concur with the penalties recommended against the former member secondly on the motion on adopting the cop's recommendation to refer the two party leaders and members for further investigation by the public prosecutor i think that this is the fairest outcome as i'm personally uncomfortable in judging my own peers and parliamentary colleagues let an independent body like the public prosecutor investigate as this would allow both members to present their fullest case and provide their own explanations with sadness and regret mr speaker sir i support the motions mr joshua rodge thomas sir i support the motions as regards the first motion the conclusions of the cop and the recommendations flowing from these conclusions are obvious as ms khan had admitted to making the untruth i will elaborate on my support of the second motion that is the motion to refer the conduct of mrs singh and mr faisal to the public prosecutor the facts underlying the second motion arose in the course of the cop's inquiry into the untruth in order for the cop to have come to its conclusions it must have inadvertently formed its mind on the testimony given by the persons who had appeared before it as regards mr singh's testimony the cop has said that it has disbelieved several parts of it thus giving rise to the possibility that a serious criminal offence of perjury had been committed as regards mr faisal's testimony he had declined to answer several questions that the cop had posed to him which may amount to contempt of parliament as set out by the cop and as mentioned by the honourable leader earlier by the honourable leader of the house earlier parliament is perfectly equipped and empowered by law to deal with these two matters itself however the conclusions and recommendations of a fresh set of cop procedures of a fresh set of cop procedures considering these two matters are highly unlikely to depart from the conclusions already reached in the present proceedings furthermore the potential punishment that may flow from a finding of guilt may have political consequences in particular affecting the makeup of parliament and would inevitably suffer from the mayan of being politically motivated this was also mentioned by the prime minister the gravity of the offences if made out would then be lost in such circumstance in this regard my view is that it is the correct thing to do as record as recommended by the cop to refer these two matters to the public prosecutor and if the public prosecutor deems necessary for these matters to go to the court then for them to go to the court in fact sir i would be extremely uncomfortable if the cop's recommendations were the opposite that is for parliament itself to take action against mr singh and mr faisal based on the facts that arose from the cop's inquiry in fact referring the matter to the public prosecutor affords mr singh and mr fisa what may be seen as a second even third bite of the cherry because both the public prosecutor and the courts if it proceeds to the courts would consider all the facts anew if the matter goes to court mr singh and mr faisal would also be able to avail themselves of the adversarial process in criminal proceedings with all the protections of the criminal procedure code and the application of the higher evidentiary threshold of beyond reasonable doubt for criminal matters in this regard i am glad that mr singh has said that he intends to cooperate fully with the public prosecutor and the points that he and mr faisal in fact that muslim made earlier as well are relevant and can be raised in these proceedings and this should be a position sir that sits well with all parties in this house both the government and the opposition have expressed in this house and recognize that the courts should be the impartial arbiters of truth it matters where there may be political consequences or overtones an example is the debate on pofma and in fact this was precisely one of the positions taken by the workers party as regards fika last year the courts are also alive to this role as an independent arbiter in matters that may have a political hue in a decision in 2020 in which the court of appeal considered a matter where the convicted party sought to vary his sentence from a fine of 5000 to a jail term so that he would not be disqualified from running in the next elections the court of appeal held and i quote it would bring the judiciary and the administration of justice into this repute if he were to impose sentences with an eye towards the political process after all a court that chooses to impose an inappropriate sentence in order to avoid disqualifying a candidate from standing for election as a member of parliament could just as easily do the same thing to achieve the opposite end in truth both outcomes are equally abhorrent and impermissible and the court of appeal added that the only guide for sentencing court is that it must strive to impose a condition sentence condition of course meaning appropriate so i have seen some online chatter that is a foregone conclusion that mr singh and mr faisal will be convicted and lose their seats i do not think sir that it is a foregone conclusion there have been instances in which the courts have decided against the government even in favor or in favor of an opposition political party members may recall that in an october 2021 decision the court of appeal allowed an appeal in part by the singapore democratic party challenging a correction direction by the ministry of manpower in its grounds of decision the court of appeals set out its reasons in extent as to why it allowed the appeal we can expect that the court will undercut undertake a similarly rigorous examination of the facts and the law in these matters as it does on all matters and i am heartened that mr singh had also said earlier that he expected that he would get a fair hearing if it went to that in this regard i trust that all parties will allow the legal process to run its course from the public prosecutor's consideration of whether an offence is disclosed to if it turns out there's such the deliberation and ultimate decision by the court parties whether represented in this house or otherwise should not cast aspersions on the office of the public prosecutor and on the courts especially if the ultimate outcome is not one they expected or had hoped for while this matter involves members of political parties sir i do not see the recommendations as political machinations as is evident the cop or the government could not possibly have been aware of the facts underlying the second motion until they were disclosed in the cop proceedings i see these motions and any court proceedings that may follow as an exercise to protect the public interests and the integrity and standing of this house and as a reminder that parliament and parliamentarians must deal in the currency of truth and that the failure to do so must have consequences but equally where there is no wrongdoing an accused person must have a fair chance to vindicate himself and not only must it be a fair chance but it must also be seen to be a fair chance politics is politics sir but the facts are the facts and the law is the law in the circumstances my view is at the best forum to determine the facts in these matters and to apply it to the law is the courts thank you mr speaker sir it's a messy man so mr speaker in mandarin please so foreign me on our corn leader to make a reply on both motions [Music] so [Music] thank you mr speaker mr speaker i had listened to the speeches of mr singh and miss lim mr salman and they've raised a number of points but the points don't really address the core of this matter they don't address the the key findings of the committee of privileges so i can understand tactically and strategically why you do that because you've got this big uncomfortable report that says these really strong statements so it's probably as a strategy a good idea not to deal with those head-on but to pick small little things here and there and to hope that other people will look at that um but but since that is how it has been presented to this house let me address all those small little points first before i come back to the key issue i think the first thing mr singh had said is that the [Music] but well he he did say that it's been something like 25 years since we've had to have proceedings before the committee of privileges yes indeed and it is a very shameful thing that we have to have a committee of privileges for something like this for so many years we were able to do without it but now after we have the office of the leader of the opposition we have workers party coming in um and then we have to deal with this so yeah it is it has been some time but i suppose when these things happen they give they serve as a good reminder to all of us about the values that we uphold and the things that we need to do and in some ways this process has been educational the second thing mr singh said was that the cop did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why miss khan lied in parliament actually there are hundreds of pages in the cop report that are all directed to why did she lie on the third on the fourth of october the first part we know was of her own back it's undisputed that was something she did of her own accord she admits it it's not in dispute the big question was why it was done on the 4th of october and reams and reams of paper have been directed at precisely that question so i don't think one can say that the committee of privileges did not want to get to the bottom of why she lied the next thing mr singh said was the fact that she had concocted the lie was not balanced against her her evidence to the cop what that allegation really is is this the allegation is that she's like before she must be lying again in courts the court to deal with this is it's known as the similar fact evidence rule just because somebody has done something once doesn't necessarily mean that they are guilty of the same thing again if you want to get to the bottom of something if you want to get to the truth of something you always have to look at each instance by itself and weigh it objectively and that is exactly what the committee of privileges did [Music] the next thing mr singh said was that what took center stage was the uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to lie i spent a great deal of time in my opening speech listing out that what what exactly the factors were that the committee privileges took into account in terms of cooperative testimony contemporaneous documents written contemporaneous evidence written documents the evidence of other witnesses and whether or not something made sense so i don't think that that is a fair accusation to level against the committee of privileges the next thing he mentioned was that there was selective nature of the cop report he didn't mention certain documents he said but then as as we can see when he made reference to certain whatsapp messages minister desmond lee read out other whatsapp messages i mean there was so much evidence you can't possibly be referring to every single piece but what is clear is that the committee took into account and considered all relevant documents so the essence of the allegation by mr singh is that the committee had cherry-picked the evidence well mr singh's a lawyer i'm a lawyer he knows that evidence that is given is considered by a tribunal relevant evidence is referred to not all evidence that is put in is relevant and when you write your final report you refer to relevant evidence tribunals and in this case the cop doesn't necessarily have to put in everything that's submitted but they did include a lot of documents and it the report does include many documents submitted by mr singh ms lim and mr faisal and if he feels that something is relevant and was not taken into account he will have the opportunity to refer to it if this matter goes to court but then what's important is at this point of time you shouldn't try to give the impression that the cop purposefully purposely left out certain things or cherry-picked evidence i come now to ms lim's speech just now i think she made reference to the the note the notes that she took during the disciplinary panel proceedings and obviously because that that piece of paper those notes were very damaging to mr singh and so she sought to to explain it to put her interpretation on it and to suggest that this wasn't really taken into account by the cop that's not actually accurate [Music] i think at paragraph 51 of the report the report expressly quoted her as saying that the note should be that her notes had to be taken in totality to understand it it said that miss lim said she did not know the context in which mr singh used phrase and essentially the the committee noted her position so it's not as though the committee did not consider the things that muslim said just now the other thing is muslim said much about the fact that the the the notes didn't just refer to the words it was your call the notes also had the phrase that the need to tell the truth occur to you can't lie right and she suggested that that would that those notes were really in favor of mr singh that was dealt with at paragraph 55 of the report let me see if i can have get this document [Music] the way the committee dealt with it was they said that those questions were quite telling if mrs singh had been very clear on the 3rd of october then mr singh would be saying i told you to tell the truth and you did not you went against my instructions in telling the truth to parliament that was some that was a serious breach of party discipline he would not be saying as he did i have told you that it was your call why didn't it occur to you to tell the truth and can't lie right so in short the points that ms lim talked about just now was something that the committee considered and it's in the report then the the next sort of strategy is really to cast some aspersions on the cop itself and to suggest that somehow there's something wrong with the composition of the cop the composition of the cop is dealt with in the standing orders of parliament in section 107. let me just pull that up and it says it's it's standing order 107 subparagraph a1 there shall be a committee to be known as the committee of privileges to consist of the speaker as chairman and seven members to be nominated by the committee of selection as soon as may be after its appointment in such manner to ensure that so far as is possible the balance between the government ventures and the opposition ventures in parliament is reflected in the committee so in other words the support the standing orders seek to do is to make sure that the select committee which is a standing select committee has the same it reflects the same balance that there is here in parliament and mr singh has spoken many times about why don't we have more select committees and about the supremacy of parliament so all of this this these are in the rules which have been there for a long time and these rules if i recall correctly they have been revised from time to time and if i recall correctly i believe mr lothar kyung was on the committee for the revision of the rules at one stage they've always had an opposition member and nobody has complained about the composition of the committee and in fact when we had to determine who would be the opposition representative on the committee of privileges mr dennis tan was nominated by mrs singh and he certainly did not complain at that time or say that he should have more opposition members so it just really rather does sound as though if you don't like the outcome of the committee of privileges then you complain about how it is composed when it was never an issue before then i think miss lim talked about that the length of the proceedings why was it necessary to question as the thing for so long the the answer is that the length of time that it takes to to do an inquiry or to question somebody really depends on the answers that they give i have done cross-examination and caught myself the the witnesses who give you the answers in a straightforward and straight manner actually go off very quickly the ones who don't give a straight answer the ones who you really have to extract the information from those take a long time in this case miss lim's evidence herself was her evidence was relatively short because the answers that she gave were to the point then i should also say that she questioned how come you there there was the no legal representation on the committee of privileges for the for the people who appeared before it well the default position is that for committee of privileges generally speaking they do the questioning but by special application where it's necessary if there's good reason for it witnesses can apply to bring outside counsel i think the more important point to remember here is that mr singh's a lawyer and so is muslim i don't think they really needed external counsel to be able to answer the questions that were put to them which were not particularly difficult well within the ability to understand and respond to so now i come to the point about what the speeches did not address the speeches did not address the core findings of the committee of privileges which was why did it take so long to have the truth told to parliament i mean you would you would think that from the time that is disclosed to them the first reaction should be oh no this is terrible we better go back and clarify but no this matter dragged on for one month two months three months and it only came about after the police had already put in their request for an interview and it became clear that this issue was not going to go away the other is this very puzzling thing about why there was no direct instruction to tell the truth because after all this evidence and this is not disputed there is no clear instruction from mr singh or anybody else to say risa please go back to parliament and tell them the truth instead there's this passing of words this take ownership take responsibility i will not judge you i mean how difficult is it to just say writer tell the truth how difficult is it to do that not very anybody should know how you can do that so this business of asking miss khan being worried about you know her her telling her parents or have their parents found out if that was so how come nobody asked her whether she had told her parents why was no effort made to find out if she had cleared that so that you could come back to parliament and tell the truth and why wasn't that why wasn't their own party told about it how do you have a disciplinary panel that's set up to sit in judgement upon somebody to judge her for something where in fact she has already told you you know what she has done from months back but you're sitting there in judgment on her i mean these are questions that have not been answered and these are pertinent questions so that leaves us with a situation where we have to decide what to do and as i wrap let me just start a rap where mr singh began when he said who did this house appoint to who did this house commit to the committee of privileges risa khan or the wp leadership now that's um that's somewhat misleading you see under the the standing orders and the way the procedure goes when a complaint arises and it comes to parliament's attention parliament has to deal with it somehow you can't ignore it right so in this case once ms khan came to parliament and admitted that she had lied it had to be looked into i referred it to the committee of privileges the commits the committee of privileges was inquiring into the complaint about her but in the course of that these things came up and it became clear to the committee of privileges that there is a problem because they think that their three senior wp leaders were lying and had guided her to not tell the truth in parliament until there was no other choice now what what what is the committee privileges supposed to do pretend it didn't happen ignore it it can't do that it had it was not set up to look into the three wp leaders that part is correct but if you are then seized with information or it comes to your attention that the three wp leaders have done something wrong you have a duty the committee of privileges had to do has a duty to come back to parliament and tell us which they have done in the report and we here in this chamber now have a duty to consider it and to do something about it and there are only three things we can do one we can just say i'm not going to look at it i don't discuss it i don't want to deal with it and that would be wrong it would be wrong for all the reasons that the prime minister has said it would be wrong because it would be an abdication of our responsibility and it would be wrong because it's a rejection of our values the second thing we can do is to say okay let's you know punish them straight away but then mr singh is saying that he denies this but he's saying that they didn't do these things so he's actually objecting and so you could write rough shot you could steamroll but that's not the right thing to do either because just like miss ryzer khan was inquired into somebody has to inquire into this and there are only two ways one is you set up another committee of privileges and the cop has said they don't think it's going to get very far because you're they've pretty much heard what there is to hear and if you go back you're going to have the same thing and not only that there's probably going to be as persians cast on the new committee of privileges so for the more egregious serious transgressions in this case the findings that mr singh had lied and that mr faisal manat have prevaricated refused to give documents refused to produce to answer questions the recommendation is that those be referred to the public prosecutor and the other things for example that muslim lied that mr man up lied those we hold back until the public prosecutor has decided what to do so so whatever it is we cannot run away from the fact that we have before us a report the report has highlighted things that we cannot ignore and we have to make a decision and referring mr singh and mrs to the public prosecutor is the fairest thing to do because if they maintain their innocence they will have a chance to vindicate themselves they will be entitled to legal counsel legal representation and it will go before the courts who are independent and they need not fear that there is any political interference so i think mr speaker i have dealt with the various things that have been raised the only thing i wanted to check with mr singh was was this because i had understood when he spoke just now that there's some things that the workers party or he agrees to one is the fine well the finding against isakan for abuse of privilege i think that is not disputed the second thing is that the fine in respect of the untruths told on the 3rd of august twice that i think is not disputed and they agree with that what they don't agree with is the fine for the third time that she liked the ten thousand dollars because implicit in that was that she was acting on their guidance so they don't agree with that and then they don't want to vote in that so i i suppose what i'm asking mr singh is if he can clarify that they would be prepared to vote in favor of the first two parts of the first motion but not in favor of the the last part which imposes the ten thousand dollar fine and then in respect of the second motion because i had heard him say that he wishes to clear his name and that he will go before you know cooperate with the prosecutor i'm asking is mr singh prepared to agree to be to the the part of the motion which says that he and mr faisal might not be referred to the public prosecutor i can understand that they want they they don't want to vote the other parts of the motion so perhaps if mr singh could clarify that part and then we can think about how we can deal with the votes on the two motions mr singh um mr speaker just to confirm uh what leader of the house is suggesting indeed for motion number one with regard to two alpha and two bravo uh we will be voting in favor and then for two charlie indeed as uh i believe the uh leader said that implicit in that we are going to vote no and she is right because implicit in that is a is an acknowledgement that our actions somehow uh mitigate the quantum now uh for the very same reason leader of the house is right mr faisal marab and myself have no objection to being referred to the public prosecutor but and this is a big but we will still vote no to motion number two because in the same way it is implicit in motion number one two c it is also implicit in the second para that the basis of the referral to the pp arises from evidence uncovered at the cop and we reject those findings so i hope that's clear i thank the leader of the opposition for his clarifications and so just just to be sure that i i have this correct so for the second motion uh the leader of the opposition and wp will be voting against it in its entirety is that correct that is correct but uh important caveat is as what i mentioned about mr faisal and myself being we are prepared to be referred to the public prosecutor i understand for the first one um they would be prepared to vote in favor of the first paragraph that's the taking note of the special reports that's all right leader could you put that question again um if you look at the first motion objection to paragraph 2a that is the resolution that resolves that mrisakhan is guilty of abuse of privileges of parliament that is correct two alpha no objection okay and you have no objection to paragraph two b the one that covers the fine of twenty-five people yes no objection okay so it's really only um in respect of the ten thousand dollar fine uh mr speaker in rather than standing up and saying may i be allowed to just stand at the rostrum please do leader please uh no so i'm just confirming that uh paragraphs 2a and 2b you agree with and paragraph two c uh you don't agree with that is correct okay um if that is the case and not normally normally uh i'm i'm not gonna ask you anything else so you may sit down normally for a motion when you vote for motion you vote for the motion in its entirety so if there are three things in the motion and you agree with two but not one normally you would vote against the entire thing right but we can there is a way to allow us to vote for 2a and 2b and and remove 2c which is voted on separately if we lift the standing orders and what i will do with the speaker's permission would be to ask to lift the standing orders in respect to the first motion to allow the votes for 2 a and 2b to be taken and then for 2c to be taken separately which will then record that the first two was unanimously passed and the third one was rejected by the wp please proceed i would have to ask for the procedure would the clerks have a copy of the procedural note for this or if not um just give me a moment mr speaker [Music] mr speaker may i seek your consent [Music] mr speaker may i seek your consent and the general assent of members present to move that the question on the first motion in respect of the committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of misraiser khan be put and voted in two parts that the first question to be put upon paras 1 and 2a b of the motion and that the second question to be put upon para 2c of the motion leader please proceed mr speaker i beg to move that notwithstanding the standing orders the question on the first motion in respect of the committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of mri sir khan be put and voted in two parts that the first question be put upon paris 1 and para a to b of the motion and that the second question be put upon parallel to c of the motion the question is as moved by the leader of the house is many assaulted opinions say hi to the country say no i think the eyes have it the eyes have it thank you mr speaker [Music] thank you mr speaker i would not be seeking to lift the sending orders in respect to the second motion since mr singh has said that they would be not agreeing to any any part of it with the important caveat that they have put on record that he and mr faisal are prepared to be referred to the public prosecutor to clear his name okay dr daniel mr speaker may i propose that we proceed with the original amendments to the process that leader had articulated to split the second vote because there are other members in the house and they may have different views on the clauses as as we've described i would propose that we do split the second motion into two votes so as moved by the leader of house shall we proceed sir i think uh what mr what what mr janel puducherry is asking me to do is to also move to allow the second motion to have split votes the reason being that there may be other members in the house who may wish to who may not wish to vote it in its entirety so if you um will permit i will then uh move a motion now to seek that the second motion be allowed to be voted in understand as well please do let me just make sure that i understand mr putscheri correctly mr speaker may i seek your consent and the general assent of members present to move that the question on the second motion in respect of the committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of mr pratam singh mr faisal mana and ms silvia lim be put and voted in two parts that the first question be put upon paragraphs one and two of the motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph three of the motion leader please proceed mr speaker i beg to move that notwithstanding the standing orders the question on the second motion in respect of the committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of mr pritam singh mr faisal mana and ms silvia lim be put and voted in two parts that the first question be put upon paris one and two of the motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph three of the motion the question is as moved by the leader of the house as many as of that opinion say aye aye to the country say no i think the eyes have it the i7 we have now come to the conclusion of the debate i shall put the necessary questions to the house for decision we will first deal with the motion on the committee of privileges report recommendations in respect of miss ray sir khan question is regards to the amended first motion that this parliament takes note of the special reports of the committee of privileges contained in a paper 5 or 2021 paper pile 6 of 2021 paper pile 7 of 2021 paper pile 8 of 2021 paper pile 9 of 2021 paper pile 10 of 2021 paper pile 11 of 2021 and agrees with the recommendation of the committee of privileges relating to miss racer khan as stated in the committee's report contained in paper pile 13 of 2022 and resolves that miss rasa khan is guilty of abuse of the privileged privileges of parliament for an untruth the untruth spoken in parliament on 3rd august 2021 twice and repeat it on 4th october 2021 that a fine of 25 000 being posed on her for stating the untruth twice in parliament on third august 2021. as many as opinions say aye to the country say no i think the eyes have it the eyes have it the second question is that this parliament agrees with the recommendation of the committee of privileges relating to miss reser khan states under committee's report contained in paper power 13 of 2022 and resolves that a fine of ten thousand dollars be imposed on her for repeating the untruth on 4th october 2021. as many as of the opinion say aye to the country say no leader of opposition mr speaker can i request that the descent of the we record the mps be recorded yes sir those who are dissenting please stand in place so that we can record your descent so so thank you let me see that's it i think the eyes have it the eyes have it we will now deal with the next question that this parliament notes that it appears from the report of the committee of privileges paper power 13 of 2022 the report that offenses under part 5 for the parliament privileges immunities and powers act may have been committed before the committee of privileges resource under section 21 1 c of the parliament privileges immunities and powers act to refer to the conduct of mr pritam singh and mr muhammad faisal bin abdulmanab before the committee to the public prosecutor as many as of the opinion say aye to the country say no leader of opposition mr speaker for the same reason i mentioned with regard to the original motion number one parrot to see while mr faisal and myself are prepared to be referred to the public prosecutor we don't agree with this particular paragraph because the basis of the referral to the public prosecutor is from the findings of the committee of privileges and we reject the allegation that we told untruths noted so let me repeat again as many as the opinions ai to the country say no would you like to record a dysent those recording a dissent please stand yes thank you you miss it that brings us to the last question that this parliament resolves that findings in the report regarding one mr singh's new silver limbs and or mr faizal's respective roles as set out in the report in relation to the untruth spoken by ms ray sakhan in parliament on 3rd august 2021 twice and repeats on the 4th of october 2021 and secondly mislim mr faisal's statement stating of untruths to the committee on oath affirmation and appropriate sanctions in respect thereof be deferred until after the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings if any against mr singh as many as of the of the opinion say aye to the country say no would you like to recall your descent yes mr speaker we may just stand in your place thank you please be seated i think the eyes have it the eyes have it leader a gentleman of parliament to speak on behalf of leader i beg to move that it's rising today parliament do stand a journey the question is that it's rising today parliament do stand adjourn to friday 18 february 2022 as many as of their opinions ai to the country say no i think the eyes have it the eyes have it

Channel: CNA

Views: 147,669

Keywords: CNA, Channel NewsAsia

Id: Z2-sxiQeuMo

Length: 247min 57sec (14877 seconds)

Published: Tue Feb 15 2022