Committee disregarded evidence submitted in probe: Pritam

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh said yesterday a parliamentary committee had disregarded evidence he had submitted during a probe into lies told by former Workers' Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan in the House last year, in particular with regard to her state of mental health.

The WP chief also took issue with the Committee of Privileges (COP) characterising his evidence in what he saw as "antagonistic" terms when it came to two WP members who were close to Ms Khan.

"I can only speculate why," said Mr Singh. "Could it be to strategically drive a wedge and disunite the Workers' Party - and to show that its leaders recklessly cast aspersions on their own members?"

He was speaking during a parliamentary debate on two motions relating to the committee's findings and recommendations pertaining to Ms Khan and WP leaders.

In a report released last Thursday, the committee, which comprised seven People's Action Party (PAP) MPs and one WP MP, had called for a $35,000 penalty for Ms Khan for lying in August and October last year; and for Mr Singh and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap to be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations, with a view to considering criminal proceedings.

On top of concluding that Ms Khan was acting under the guidance of party leaders when she repeated her lie, the panel determined that Mr Singh had lied while giving evidence under oath and that this could amount to perjury, and that Mr Faisal's refusal to answer questions could amount to contempt of Parliament.

Yesterday, Mr Singh said evidence he submitted to the committee had either not been noted or not been included in its report, and that the committee had also ignored some contemporaneous evidence given by party members which would contradict some findings.

He said the committee had "disregarded" evidence that would cast doubt on eventual findings in its report, including the "unparliamentary language used at various places which is not supported by evidence".

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

He said he had mentioned the evaluation because Ms Khan had herself told a WP disciplinary panel that she was seeing a psychotherapist who had referred her to a psychiatrist.

Ms Khan had also voluntarily shared with the panel looking into her conduct, including Mr Singh, that she suffered from dissociation. Both these pieces of evidence had been forwarded to the committee, the WP chief said.

He added that when asked by the committee as to why Ms Khan would make certain statements, he attempted to give a fair answer in line with what Ms Khan had herself revealed.

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

"I believed… the COP ought to see it as a mitigatory point in her favour."

He rejected what he saw as the committee's assertion that "in raising the matter of Ms Khan's mental health to a fact-finding body with a view to considering an appropriate punishment on her, (he) had somehow smeared her, or worse, somehow cast aspersions on those with mental health conditions".

Mr Singh also said he strongly disagreed with how the committee had characterised his evidence in "antagonistic" terms when it came to WP cadre members Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan.

Ms Loh was Ms Khan's secretarial assistant and Mr Nathan was also aiding her.

He said he had given evidence to show that their loyalty to Ms Khan was a factor. For instance, said Mr Singh, Ms Loh had made clear to the WP disciplinary panel that resignation "should not be on the cards" because in Ms Loh's view, what Ms Khan did "was not serious as it was not as if Ms Khan had… laundered money".

"Such evidence does not appear to have been considered by the COP," said Mr Singh.

He added that the committee's final report had also omitted character references he made in evidence about Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, calling them "decent, good people (who) have done a lot for the party".

"I still hold that view," said Mr Singh.