WP leaders did not address key findings from COP during debate: Indranee

Workers' Party (WP) leaders have not addressed key findings from Parliament's Committee of Privileges on why lies were told repeatedly in the House, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah said yesterday.

Wrapping up the debate on two motions she filed related to the report on an untruth spoken in the House by former WP MP Raeesah Khan, Ms Indranee said speeches by Leader of the Opposition and WP chief Pritam Singh, as well as those by party chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap, did not address the committee's key findings.

"I can understand tactically and strategically why you do that, because you have got this big report that says these really strong statements," she said.

"So, it is probably 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."

One such finding that the WP leaders did not address was why it took so long to have the truth told to Parliament regarding Ms Khan's lie, said Ms Indranee.

Ms Khan had on Aug 3 claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where officers allegedly handled the matter insensitively and drove the victim to tears.

On Aug 8, she had confessed to all three senior WP leaders. However, she repeated the untruth on Oct 4, before coming clean in Parliament on Nov 1.

"Why did it take so long to have the truth told to Parliament? 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'," said Ms Indranee.

"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."

She was referring to police asking Ms Khan for an interview about the case she cited.

Another "puzzling" issue that WP leaders did not address was why there was no direct instruction for the truth to be told, said Ms Indranee.

She said that despite all the evidence given by the opposition members, there was no clear instruction from them to Ms Khan to come clean.

"Instead, there was this passing of words… I mean, how difficult is it to just say, 'Raeesah, tell the truth'. How difficult is it to do that? Not very. Anybody should know how you can do that."

There is also the matter of whether or not Ms Khan's parents had been told about her lie, and about the fact that she was a sexual assault victim.

The WP leaders had told the committee during its hearings that they did not press Ms Khan to set the record straight when they learnt on Aug 8 that she had lied because they wanted to give her time to speak to her parents.

"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 cleared that so that you could come back to Parliament and tell the truth?" said Ms Indranee.

These are pertinent questions that have not been answered, she added in rounding up the debate.

Earlier, when she spoke at the start of the debate, Ms Indranee underscored that the ability to speak freely in Parliament is one of the most powerful privileges in a parliamentary democracy such as Singapore, but this must be done responsibly and not be abused.

By being allowed to give their views candidly, MPs can raise matters of public importance, safe in the knowledge that they are immune from civil or criminal proceedings. "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 and to be able to substantiate matters said in Parliament, or any committee of Parliament," she said.

"The other aspect of parliamentary democracy is that MPs are expected to act honourably 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."

She noted that established democracies like Australia and Britain 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 situations 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," she said.

The two motions she moved, added Ms Indranee, are about safeguarding the essence of democracy in Singapore and preserving its most vital and essential characteristics. She said: "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 a given."

The first motion called on the House to agree with the committee's finding that Ms Khan was guilty of abusing parliamentary privilege by lying, and its recommendation that she be fined $35,000. The second motion called on Parliament to agree to refer Mr Singh as well as Mr Faisal to the Public Prosecutor.

It also sought to defer any parliamentary sanctions on the duo and Ms Lim with regard to Ms Khan's lie until the conclusion of any investigations and possible criminal proceedings against Mr Singh.

The two motions were passed, with Mr Singh and the WP MPs supporting part of the first motion, and voting against the second motion.