Preamble:
What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I mostly just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.
Though speech recognition technology has made leaps and bounds in recent years, it still isn't good enough for very accurate transcripts. So take the below as a free (for you, dear reader, at least) and rough transcript, with no warranty as to accuracy - for convenience instead of an accurate transcript. Nonetheless, I believe this will be helpful, especially for archival purposes.
If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 28 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).
The official transcripts may well come out publicly later. If they do, please use those instead. In the meantime, you may profit from the following; you can find links to all my COP transcripts at the index post.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 0:04
Are Jim SPCC. You can take off your mask. For the record, please state your name your occupation and positions your home.
Jamus Lim 0:14
My name is Jamus Jerome Lim. I am an economist. I am a an associate professor in the French Business School, a member of parliament representing Sengkang GRC a the deputy head of the policy research team for the Workers Party and the proud father of a two year old daughter
Tan Chuan-Jin: 0:36
The evidence you'll be giving today before the committee will be taken on oath. If you so desire you can also take an affirmation. Clerk, please administer the
Clerk 0:43
oath or affirmation? mid rise please. Thank you recite affirmation now.
Jamus Lim 1:04
I, Jamus Jerome Lim, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence which I shall give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 1:17
Please be seated. The Committee of Privileges is looking into the complaint made by the Leader of the House Miss Indranee Rajah against former member of Sengkang GRC Miss Raeesah Khan for breach of privilege. Thank you for attending today's hearing to give evidence before the committee and to answer the questions which members of the committee would like to put to you. You have taken a solemn obligation to answer questions truthfully, we refuse to answer questions directly or attempt to mislead the committee, such behavior will be an offence and in contempt of this committee at hand over to Mr. Desperately, Christians.
Desmond Lee 1:50
Good afternoon, Dr. Lim. Hi. Can you just maybe just give you some background this would be familiar that Leader of the House had referred former Sengkang GRC MP Miss Raeesah Khan to the Committee of Privileges after her personal statement on the first of November this year. You will recall the statement.
Jamus Lim
The statement?
Desmond Lee
Yes, she made in Parliament. Yes. And therefore the remit of this committee is to ascertain the following first. The facts whether this can did did not lie to Parliament, and those two occasions, third of August and the fourth of October this year. And the second responsibility of the COP is to determine the level of responsibility assuming that she did indeed state untruth to Parliament. And in determining the level of culpability, we need to understand the circumstances what, what happened. What was she motivated by? Did she speak to anyone? Did she get any advice? What were the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and then we'll be in a better position to make a recommendation to Parliament.
Jamus Lim
I understand
Desmond Lee
And so we'd welcome your assistance to the committee to help us understand what happened here to you. You were in Parliament when you heard the personal statement by Miss Khan November. And that related to the third of August and fourth Novem-, 4th October, statements she made regarding an anecdote about the police, and a sexual assault survivor that she had allegedly accompanied to a police station. And that turned out to be a false statement. You recall that?
Jamus Lim 3:38
I recall. Yes.
Desmond Lee 3:42
Prior to the first of November personal statement by Miss Khan, there was a CEC meeting by the Workers Party on the 29th of October.
Jamus Lim 3:52
I cannot remember the date, but it was that Friday, just before the statement. Yes.
Desmond Lee 3:57
And you were present. I was present. Yes. Was that usual CEC meeting day? Or was it? No, it was an extraordinary CEC meeting and who called for it? If you recall
Jamus Lim 4:07
I cannot recall. But my guess would generally be either the organizing secretary would be, will be Dennis, or it would have been Pritam or Sylvia. One of the two.
Desmond Lee 4:22
Thank you. And at that extraordinary meeting, the COP is given to understand that Miss Khan had read out the draft of a statement that she was going to make this on the first of November. That's right. And you heard her recite the draft. Correct. Orally? Yes. And do you recall if any member gave any feedback, suggestions?
Jamus Lim 4:46
So we discussed the what she would see. In particular, she had shared that and that was the first time that I had heard it, that she was a sexual assault survivor. And there was some discussion among us about that. And I cannot speak for the others. But for myself, I have felt that that was something that was important to state. I think since then others have shared online as well as elsewhere that it could sound like an excuse. I disagreed with that. I recommended that she share that background, that context. Because so I'm, I'm a professor of economics, I traffic in rationality. And for me, what she shared was a little bit irrational in terms of why she lied, not what she shared. What why she chose to speak on truth and Parliament to back up the background. And so I thought it was important that she shared with the house, her thinking s. I hesitate to use the word convoluted, but it conflated incidents. And so I felt it was important that she shared that that context.
Desmond Lee 6:25
Thank you. And so you saying that there were some suggestions that she not include a personal experience in a personal statement, but you like to the contrary, you felt it was necessary for her to stay in this? This was all on the 29th of this was
Jamus Lim 6:39
on the 29th? I wouldn't say that there was some suggestions, but there was discussion about this part, whether it was whether why she chose to share this, this aspect. And my view was that it was important that she shared.
Desmond Lee 6:56
And what you said was said on the 29th of October, on the meeting
Jamus Lim 7:02
on that meeting, I shared what I just shared with OBS,
Desmond Lee 7:05
prior to this CC extraordinary meeting on 29th. October. Were you aware when the meeting was called what the meeting would be about?
Jamus Lim 7:15
I vaguely knew it might be about rice. But I did not know the contents of that meeting. I didn't know what we were specifically going to discuss.
Desmond Lee 7:27
So by the 29th of October, you would have known that Miss Kahn had said the untruth and parliament in that very day itself or prior to that know that they sell. So prior to 29th. October, you are not aware I was not unfortunately not aware that she had made falsehoods to Parliament. Yes, I was not aware. So the first time we found out was when she read out her statement and you realize that she was in fact saying to you and the rest of the CC present that she had, she's actually confessing to ally on the third of August and fourth October. So
Jamus Lim 8:03
prior to that, I believe she had shared with parliament that she had lost contact with the person and that was public knowledge. And that was what I thought was the issue.
Desmond Lee 8:19
Thank you. When did you as a member of the CEC receive a request for the for approval to form a disciplinary panel? Was it on the first or second November if you can recall or was it much earlier? November
Jamus Lim 8:38
I I cannot recall. But I believe it occurred after that statement was made in Parliament.
Desmond Lee 8:50
Okay, maybe I just draw you to the document in front of you will be the assistant clerk can help page 152 This is a whatsapp exchange between Miss Reiser can miss low paying and Mr. You destroy nada. And I'm not sure if you are acquainted. I have this Yes. And they
Jamus Lim 9:10
were assuming that it's the same. I have not seen it quite yet.
Desmond Lee 9:13
If you look at page 152 Is that in before you? Yes. You see somewhere the second of November 11:35am. somewhere near the
Jamus Lim 9:26
middle? I see it Yes. TSCC
Desmond Lee 9:28
Miss rice icon Yeah, basically before that she's basically telling Miss low paying please don't share this message with anyone. And so it's DRC CIC urgent approval to set up a disciplinary panel to look into the admissions made by MP rice icon in Parliament. The panel will comprise of chair should be Miss Sylvia Lim, myself representatives Mr. Pritam Singh and vice chair for urgent consideration and approval whatever you received.
Jamus Lim 9:54
So I'm a little confused because I guess that was probably a forwarded message because going forward Yeah, so it looks. Of course, I cannot recall precisely the precise wording, but it looks very similar to it would have been consistent with what I thought I received. Yes. So you
Desmond Lee 10:13
received a message of roughly of this form and you reply to approve the CC.
Jamus Lim 10:22
I believe that I would have replied to approve,
Desmond Lee 10:24
yes. And when you re approved, you would know that the DEP would comprise Mr. Pritam. Singh, Mr. Leeman, Mr. Pfizer manner.
Jamus Lim 10:36
Well, it says so there Yes.
Desmond Lee 10:38
Yeah. And Vice Chair. Yes. Can I draw your attention to an email from Miss silverland Theresa can forming the disciplinary panel? This would be in the submission by Miss Kahn dated second December. And there's a G Gmail. Yeah, you have it in front of you. I see it normal letter transmitted via email dated second November 6:35pm. By Mr. Lim to miss can copy to Mr. Pritam Singh and Mr. Faisal manner. Okay. Yeah. And if you look at the text, as you're aware CCR Workers Party is constituted DP, comprising the following persons to inquire into your recent conduct as the WP Member of Parliament. The specific episode to be inquired into is that you had conveyed untruths in the cause of your parliamentary speech on the third of August, and then it sets out the anecdote about the police and the sexual assault survivor. And you repeated this claim on fourth of October when again asked in Parliament on the matter. However, it's not true and went on to set it out. You told the House on first November that you had in state relate was shared by a survivor and a woman support group in 2018. So basically, this letter telling Miss Kahn that the two episodes are in relation to the third of August and fourth October and and the next paragraph, the DP is tasked to investigate this episode, and recommend to the CEC whether there are grounds to take action against you for violation of article 20. So so so you would agree that this DEP was set up to look into the facts involving those two episodes, and and to make recommendations on appropriate action?
Jamus Lim 12:23
Yeah. So today, I did not receive this particular email. So I'm reading the text for the first time, but it does seem consistent with the text we received, yes, the CC to form the disappearing panel.
Desmond Lee 12:40
So would that mean that the DP would then recommend we'll make findings and tell the CC facts as to why Miss Kahn lied, you know, what were the surrounding circumstances? What would be aggravating or mitigating circumstances and then put to the CC some recommendation on appropriate next steps?
Jamus Lim 13:00
To be quite honest, I don't I'm, as you all know, I am a political rookie. So I don't know what a disciplinary committee is meant to do. But my sense was that it would gather the facts as you described, and it would make a recommendation to the CZ So in
Desmond Lee 13:18
essence, find out whether she did lie or not. And then what is the level of culpability, whether it's a serious matter, or is it mitigated by some circumstances?
Jamus Lim 13:30
It was to investigate episode I SSE, I don't know, whether we're specifically in your words, I would rather go with the words here, which is it was that they are tasked to investigate the episode and recommend to the CEC subsequent actions.
Desmond Lee 13:47
And as a member of the CC, appointing disciplinary panel, you would assume that the panel looking to this matter will be this interested from the episode and the surrounding circumstances? That means no, no, no personal interest, no involvement in the fact that for which they're supposed to investigate, would that be a fair assumption as a not a rookie members called I
Jamus Lim 14:12
understand. I think that if there was anything material, I trust that the leadership would have shared that with us. Okay.
Desmond Lee 14:26
We have been sitting for a number of days, hearing evidence from the senior leadership of the Workers Party as well as Miss Karna self perform of Parliament, as well as some workers party card members who also came to testify before the committee. And we've gathered some facts and claims from from all the different witnesses and we are asked to consider the evidence when you gave your approval for the formation of this DP as a member of the CC Did you No at that point in time that Miss Kahn had already confessed that she lied on the third of August to Mr. Pritam Singh on the seventh of August. Now. Did you know At the point in time that Miss Kahn had not only on the seventh of August confessed to Mr. Singh by on the eighth of August confessed to Mr. Singh, Mr. Lim and Mr. FISA man up about her, her untruth on the fourth on the third of August. Now, if you recall, on the fourth of October, the Home Affairs Minister had in a ministerial statement, I asked Miss Kahn to verify whether anecdote was true or false. And she said that she repeated that it was true. You recall that?
Jamus Lim 15:46
This was Mr. Shanmugam, I believe I believe I recall something something of that again, I I cannot recall the specificities
Desmond Lee 15:54
and the uncontested evidence by all the witnesses was that on the fourth of October, when Miss Kahn repeated that falsehood in Parliament, there were three other people in Parliament who were aware that it was a repeated line, Mr. Pritam Singh, Mr. Lim, and Mr. Faisal manually set in Parliament or they later came into parliament on that day, found out about or heard much it said, knew that it was untrue. Were you aware when you approved the CC forming the DEP that these facts were with existing?
Jamus Lim 16:39
No, I did not. And of course, contemporaneously. I did not know that. That this was the case.
Desmond Lee 16:45
Thank you. Can I bring to your attention this WhatsApp exchange between Mr. Pritam Singh and Miss loopy and this is from the bundle submitted by Mr. Pritam Singh. It says WhatsApp messages between peeing and Pritam. Thanks, it's few pages of WhatsApp message report. Would
Jamus Lim 17:30
you like me to read through?
Desmond Lee 17:32
I take you through and as I go through, you know, stop me if I'm going too quickly. The first page is from Miss low paying whom you you're familiar with? Yes, I know, you know, you know, and she says, you know, hi, Pritam I've tried to reserve my comments on the DEP so far. I saw the message that was sent out to everyone I stopped you there you see the first paragraph
Jamus Lim 17:54
the very first paragraph this was the copied picture or the this
Desmond Lee 17:57
one here is this the one that oh, sorry, the limb has
Jamus Lim 18:03
the I not get the right page
my starts with a snapshot followed by hyping how you feel
Desmond Lee 18:18
sorry, I should have realized I jumped to quite a few pages.
Jamus Lim 18:21
Okay. So which page?
Desmond Lee 18:26
Fourth page.
Jamus Lim 18:30
It begins with will
Desmond Lee 18:31
Yudish and I know Hi, preterm. I've tried to reserve my comments Wednesday. Oh, yes.
Jamus Lim 18:37
I met the page. Yeah. You have seen 33 Yes.
Desmond Lee 18:40
1633. Yes, correct. See the first pair, but I just saw the message that was sent out to everyone. And there was a message that the DEP sent out to all workers party members, I presume you would also receive that message blast asking for Workers Party members give their views about the incident involving Miss rice cans personal statement and confession. Yes. You recall that message. I recall the message message was just a plain message is asking for for input. There were no facts. No,
Jamus Lim 19:15
no, it was it was just
Desmond Lee 19:18
Yeah. Okay. And if you just read down continue reading. I feel it's plain as the people involved in apologies will backpedaling. Then the third paragraph is about not she thinks it's not fair at all 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 when really considered. If it is not a more exercise, then they will likely all ask Reiser to resign when they do not have the full facts. Yes, we turn off the page and have the limb and she goes on to tell the Secretary General I welcome the DP to be transparent and share their involvement In this, the findings barring personal information, so that the party can actually make an accurate decision. Yeah. Then Mr. Singh replies, I hear you P VI, which is paying but I think we need to give party members a platform to have their say and so on. And then she replies I get that, but the DEP hasn't exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement. Okay. And there may be some differences of opinion but in essence, yes, there's got to do with I understand what Mr. Pritam Singh, Miss Silva limb and it's a FISA mana, new process prior to the first of November about what Miss Kahn had done, essentially. Yeah. So you see that exchange? I see a charter and the member of the DEP Yes.
Can I now take you to the DP report submitted to the CEC and I believe you would have seen that on the 30th of November.
This is the report of the disciplinary panel. Yes, and Mr. FISA man up and I believe Mr. Singh and also told this committee that a report was submitted. And it was also flashed on the screen in front of CC. And the panel members brought y'all through, I record this documentary called documents. And if you see this document the first page is not the rules the public constitution, the Singapore constitution. Look at the second page, it sets out chronology chronology of work milestones and then at the bottom, you see that total turnout members consultation 24 members turned up 10 emails to receive so 34 representations right opinions leave the Workers Party differences remote of departure I presume that means you know that 26 representations were for Miss can to leave. But how she should leave these this is a matter of difference. Okay? Stay as mp3 non committal five. Okay. And just over the next page, you see the DP's assessment. Nature of misconduct, they telling the CEC that she had knowingly asserted and untruth on three occasions and down to the number of occasion they counted, set out the constitution of the Workers Party, about their responsibilities to be to be honest and frank with the party and Singapore. And goes on to say she has admitted that she told the untruth. Viz., that she did not accompany the victim to police station so on so forth.
Desmond Lee 22:55
While she has stood up to correct the error or conduct this prima facie discipline honorable as it is a breach of the party constitution. In an official national capacity, you see that? I see that. And it goes down with the range of punishments that the CC can decide on. So they're setting out what the CCS powers are. And then it goes down. I just draw attention to two paragraphs that are significant. One would be mitigating factors. And they were presented to you that they think that there was no malice or sinister motive. And they said they that she made a public admission on first November to correct the record and that she bracket likely close bracket believe the service survivors account. So that's mitigating the feel that Tino shed light, yes, but there's some mitigating factors, yes, that ameliorate her level of culpability. Then it goes on to say aggravating factors, what are the matters that may aggravate her level of responsibility? First, it was a deliberate act knowing it was false. Second, he was a belated insertion into a final version of a speech. Third, she had ignored or did not appreciate SGS advice to her on the need to substantiate that particular paragraph. I see this statement the draft was prepared. Yep. You see that? See, the DEP had the place before the CEC for its consideration, what are the factors that mitigate or aggravate a level of culpability? And then they make a final recommendation and observation that as such right doesn't appear to be stable conduct shows signs, lack of due diligence party will take a big gamble on his reputation if she were to continue in Parliament. And lastly, the DEP recommends that she be asked to resign failing which she would be expelled. Right. So that is after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which they've laid in, presume you believe it was a full disclosure of all the factors and then made a recommendation to either to ask the CC to consider asking Miss Kahn to either resign feeling which the CC should actually spell her from the party and in essence caused her to step down as a member of this Parliament,
Jamus Lim 25:05
I see the recommendations as listed. Yes, yeah. And so
Desmond Lee 25:20
can I just next draw you to an exchange between Muskaan? And your good self? Yes, it'd be presented to you
should give this to the CLP on the eighth of December. WhatsApp messages with Mr. G Muslim? Yes. Okay. And this is on the 13th of November. I see you recall this conversation, I do message. She wants to speak to all the Sengkang MPs to get the advice on what to do moving forward. And you reply, on the same day, shortly after message that that you are an I quote, I'm for second chances. Moreover, I believe that being an MP was a decision by the electorate. And hence removal is not a decision that should be taken by the party. All that said, the feedback I've received I've received, both from within the party and without has been overwhelmingly about 90%. Although feedback providers are always more polarized and the majority,
Jamus Lim 26:25
that's an academic qualification for you. Yes.
Desmond Lee 26:29
Negative insofar as continuing in the role is concerned. So the bottom line is that you need to reflect on not just what the implications of continuing would be for not just yourself and the people think tank, it seems to be mixed, but also the impact on the party, especially in terms of morale among volunteers, and the overall reputation of the party. Yes, in an ideal world, I would like to like that we adopt a different, more compassionate approach to areas thus far. However, we seem to be living in a society that isn't such. Can I draw attention to the point you made about the feedback that you received from within the party and outside? And you say it's been overwhelmingly negative? Yes. So the public, or the people gave you feedback, as well as the people who gave feedback to the DEP, the number of people who made representations. In fact, I do not know who spoke with a DP basically, those people would like you not be apprised of the fact that she had confessed to lying in Parliament, to senior leadership. Few days after her first lie, they were they and you will not be aware,
Jamus Lim 27:41
we will not have been aware. But as I shared I, I had trusted the party leadership that if that was relevant, if there was material, they would have shared that with us. So
Desmond Lee 27:53
when the DEP report was presented on the 30th of November to you and the rest of the CC by the DEP. Barring what was given to you in this report, you would not be in command of any other facts. Am I right?
Jamus Lim 28:10
No, that's not correct. I mean, of course, as I, as I share here, may I elaborate? Yes. So as I shared here, when I spoke, so I'm, of course a member of the GRC team. So it is important that I understand, in my role, the sentiments of our volunteers, the various professional staff that work for us, my sense of ground feedback from the voters. And so when the DEP report was presented, it was part of an evidence base that I had independently been building myself, as I shared here, when I said, the feedback I've received, and I cannot recall, but I would be pretty sure that this predates the disciplinary committee. 13 November. Yeah. So this predates the CEC meeting with the participants. So and that's why I was able to say that I have received broader feedback than just what was presented during the CEC meeting.
Desmond Lee 29:23
Thank you. So but on 30th of November, you said you said on the first or second November when DEP was formed and you gave your approval a cc member to form the, the DP, you are not aware number one, that misconduct confess to Mr. Singh on the seventh of August that should lie and number two that she had confessed to Chairman vice chairman and sanction on the eighth of August that shit, right. And then on the fourth of October when she had repeated a untruth that the three senior workers party leaders in Parliament knew that She had lied. And you were not aware of that. No, I cannot remember. And you are not aware of that on the 30th of November
Jamus Lim 30:09
30 i,
Desmond Lee 30:11
which is the DEP report to the CDC. So when when you were receiving that report? Yes, he presented to you, you were not aware of those set of facts.
Jamus Lim 30:22
I was not, as I explained earlier on, when I sought feedback, I sought it, not on the basis of weather. Of course, I wouldn't have known that, as I said, that the leadership was aware of this set of circumstances. But I sought feedback on the basis of what had occurred in the first instance, including the additional instances, but especially the first instance, which was when she had first taught that untruth to Parliament. And the feedback I received was that there was overwhelmingly no way that they would be comfortable with working with someone that had lied. And I do not, of course, I did not ask them whether the fact that she repeated it mattered. I think it was. And I think this is for any layman, it would be something along the lines of this, the fact that she is willing to lie on the record, even once in Parliament, was sufficient to disqualify her as an honest representative. And the negative feedback I received was on that basis, that they did not believe that they could work with someone that had made false representations.
Desmond Lee 31:59
So they looked just purely at the instances of lying in parliament on those two dates.
Jamus Lim 32:06
Again, I don't I didn't ask them, whether it's the first time or the second time or the fact that they repeated it. But it was that they felt that she was not trustworthy.
Desmond Lee 32:18
So in your mind as a member of the CEC what you knew were as follows right that Miss Kahn had told an untruth in parliament on third August. And she had told her data and truth on the fourth of October. And it took her almost a month, first November before she came to Parliament to come clean. So those would be the about the only facts that you had to work
Jamus Lim 32:44
on, which is more or less what the public knew, I suppose I didn't know a few days before her statement in parliament that she was going to make it but beyond that, I learned of various facts as they were presented only when it became public.
Desmond Lee 33:02
So the very fact that the DEP sought to set out aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and while you say you're new to the CC new to the party, but looking at how they approach things, they tried to tell the CC these are the factors that mitigate her responsibility. And these are the factors that make it seem a bit worse, make it worse, higher, higher level of culpability. And let's weigh what the right decision should be like. Again,
Jamus Lim 33:31
I cannot speak for the rest of this easy, but for myself, what was listed here as mitigating and aggravating factors. Were part of the entire body of evidence, including what I described, when I spoke to other people with which I made my final decision.
Desmond Lee 33:49
Okay. So let me now set out what appears to be to set sets of factual assertions that have been made by different witnesses before this panel before this committee and abruptly summarize them as Miss Khan's evidence and broadly as Mr. Singh's evidence both have a common position, and both say that Miss Kahn had confessed to a sing on the seventh of August. That should lie. And then again on the eighth of August, to the three senior leaders of the party, Miss Singh, Miss lemon and Mr. FISA Manor shared again, repeated and came clean and confess that she had lied and gave more reasons. So that is undisputed. And then here's where the evidence diverges. Miscanthus evidence says that on the eighth of August when she confessed that she lied on policy in Parliament. Her takeaway from the meeting with the senior leaders was that she was told to take this lie to the grave And that's what she's told this committee and that a day before the fourth October sitting, Mr. Singh had visited her and told her she could continue the lie of narrative if not pressed, he would not judge. That is that is what she's telling the committee, right? But Mr. Singh's evidence before the committee's is as such. And as I really summarize, and I don't do justice by summarizing, I
Jamus Lim 35:26
have some familiarity, so so that's fine. Yeah. So Mr.
Desmond Lee 35:30
Singh told this committee that on the eighth of August, he had told Miss Kahn that we will deal with the issue, but go tell your parents, please inform your parents. And that is in either focus on the third of October, a day before the parliament sitting on the fourth, he felt that this issue may arise the next day in Parliament. And he told her to take responsibility and ownership of the issue. He will not juncture. Right. And in his view, that meant that she had to come clean on the fourth of October, right with with what she said in August. And so that's where the narratives term narratives diverge quite significantly, are in stark contrast with each other. Now, so So let's just take Mr. Singh's applicants, misconception aside for the time being that Miss Kahn had lied on the third of August, but had confessed to senior leaders on both the seventh and the eighth of August a few days later. Yes. As compared to what you had known, at the 30th, November CC meeting, and before, which is basically she lied, she lied, and then she confessed, right? Yeah, August, October, November. There's this evidence by Mr. Singh that actually, she had Miss Kahn had confessed on seventh and eighth of August come clean. Would that be a relevant fact? In this episode, relevant, relevant fact, I'm not talking about aggravating, mitigating, is it relevant that you like but you confess a few days later,
Jamus Lim 37:11
as I explained earlier on? What is material, of course, is potentially subject to some degree of independent interpretation. But I think without additional information on context, it is not possible to assert whether it is material or not definitively,
Desmond Lee 37:39
I'm not talking about material to read, it's relevant. Okay, I
Jamus Lim 37:42
guess I use the terms interchangeably, interchangeably, but let me explain, perhaps, if, if you're willing. So for instance, if and this is purely hypothetical, but if she had shared with the leadership, and the leadership said, we hear you, we would like you to nevertheless, subsequently tell the truth, but we'll give you some time. In my view, the fact that they knew would not have the material would not have been relevant. This would be consistent with as you said, the narrative that Rita Mr. Singh had shared instead, it is consistent with the narrative that race I have shared, that they had
Desmond Lee 38:43
told her to,
Jamus Lim 38:45
in her words, take it to the grave, then that would be relevant and material. So, for me, whether it would have been relevant or material would have depended on the context. And I have trusted at the time, and still do that. They kept the that whatever material, if it was material, they would have shared that with me. So given that they did not, I trusted that it was not material,
Desmond Lee 39:19
you know, from the constitution of the party, that is the CC that decides on the final cause of action to take in regards to Mishcon. So the DEP recommends, but the CC is, of course, has to take that act, to expel her maker resigned keeper and so on, so forth. So you are the CC is a decision maker.
Jamus Lim 39:39
Oh, yes, I'm aware of that.
Desmond Lee 39:41
And so as you just taking from what you've said just now, whether or not her confession to party leadership, was an aggravating or mitigating circumstance, whether it was material would depend on context would depend on circumstances as I explained it as it unfolded
Jamus Lim 40:02
It will have depended on the truth of the matter,
Desmond Lee 40:05
correct? Correct the truth of the matter which the CC will have to determine, based on the recommendations, disclosures that the DEP makes to the CC, because you are the ultimate decision maker. So.
Jamus Lim 40:16
So I agreed that I will just point out, at least again, I cannot speak for the rest of this easy. But for myself, my decision was not based solely on what was presented by the disciplinary committee. My decision took the entire body of evidence into consideration as I shared with Razer,
Desmond Lee 40:42
yes. But at that point in time, when you made a decision, you were not aware of those facts that I put to you earlier, that mechanic come clean on the seventh eighth of August. And just taking Mr. Singh's evidence. As for now, that, you know, that was what he heard on the seventh and eighth of August. And then secondly, on the third of October, what he tells us up is that he told her to take responsibility and ownership, and he will not judge you. And in his mind, what he meant was that you must come clean on the fourth of October, if the matters raised of the matter is not raised, you must come clean. He had two different versions of evidence. And then on the fourth of October, he was unhappy that she had in his mind gone against his instructions, okay. Would, from his perspective that, you know, was breaching what he had told her to do, or what he thought he had told her to do. Would that fact not also the irrelevant as a potential aggravating circumstances party leader told you, and you you breached, it would not be something that the CC ought to be aware of in deciding on the final outcome.
Jamus Lim 42:03
Again, I cannot speak for the rest of the CC as I expressed, I, what was in this document firstly was in any case, I viewed as an incomplete set of recommended set of factors in any case. So that's the start. And secondly, I believe that if there was any material information that would have been presented to us,
Desmond Lee 42:30
so you trusted the DP comprising senior leaders to to lay before the CC all matters that you felt the CC ought to have sight of, and to consider. The CC makes the final decision and there are many people, so you're not able to speak for other members. But all the more so right, you have to serve everything.
Jamus Lim 42:48
So I you're correct in saying that I trusted the disciplinary panel to lay out what was what was material and necessary. But it would have been irresponsible for me to have made a decision of this gravity without also reflecting independently on what I could gather, as I explained, as well as and, and something that I shared with razor as well, what the philosophy and principles behind what that decision would entail. So I did spend an extended amount of time deliberating within myself. Personally, again, almost to an extent where the few points that were made by the disciplinary panel during that CEC meeting, were essentially secondary for my decision, so you
Desmond Lee 43:51
say that you supplemented the DPS findings and recommendations with your own discovery means you end up is my own discovery. Yes, legal term. But that discovery did not lead you to the information that I shared with you that Miss Kahn, no, of course, unfair, it would not
Jamus Lim 44:08
it would not have found that was, I guess, extremely confidential information known to only a few people who will so at that point, I there was no way I would by my discovery process is not unlike many of you lawyers have very different in, in nature. I think about the propriety of it. I think, as I shared as you can see, I thought about what it meant to continue to have rice as a member of the Sengkang team, what it meant for us to be able for the volunteers and party members to continue to work with her. So they they went significantly beyond just what was listed there.
Desmond Lee 44:55
But to you as a cc member, would it not be relevant to consider whether or not miss Khan had confessed when she did so, or whether she had followed instructions, as in the case of what Mr. Singh is telling us that he had given her some instructions, she disobeyed. Would all these facts be relevant or irrelevant to you, as a cc member determining the fate that is to befall one of your teammates?
Jamus Lim 45:28
I think I've explained are early on, it just depends on the context if they had instructed her to keep this information, this untruth to the grief, yes, that would have been material. But if they felt that they wanted to give us space, as Mr. Singh had shared, and what was important at that time, and at the time of deliberation, was the rest of the facts of the case. Then, for me, that would not have been material,
Desmond Lee 46:02
though, what's important is that it has to be laid before you and then you will make up your mind whether it's relevant or not.
Jamus Lim 46:09
I wouldn't know. I don't think I would say that. I would say that, ultimately, in a sense, it depends on the truth of the matter, which would then determine the context.
Desmond Lee 46:21
Thank you. On the second of December, there was a press conference by the Workers Party, and I saw that you were present on the panel. Yes, I was. Yeah. Do you recall what was said? Jenna put it before you.
Jamus Lim 46:36
I recall, what was it? I was I? Well, I was at the press conference, but I only I, I only participated on stage in the second half of the press conference, when the Sengkang team had to present where the thinking team made a statement. The first half I sat at the back of the room, but I was aware of the proceedings.
Desmond Lee 47:00
Maybe I put the transcript interview, yes, just so that you can refresh your memory is a transcript of a Singh's prepared statement, then followed by q&a. And if you have any queries about the transcript, we can play the recording back for you to recap to listen. Statement by Mr. Pritam Singh, you look at the first second third, the fourth paragraph from the top.
Jamus Lim 47:27
When they begin to there have been some from members
Desmond Lee 47:30
of the public about the knowledge the party had about the original speech, Raisa, delivered on the third of August. And what action was taken thereafter, I will address these directly and take 1234 paragraphs down from that one. And it says Raisa shared, that her personal trauma and sexual assault explained why she was not truthful about accompanying the victim to the police station, as she asserted in a speech on the third of August. She admitted to this to the party leadership about a week after she had delivered her speech. Would this be possible possibly the first time you you've learned that Miss Kahn had admitted her falsehood party leadership after the speech?
Jamus Lim 48:17
Yes, I believe so. That was when I first saw.
Desmond Lee 48:21
So here we have a situation where a DP was formed by the only three members of the CCI, the senior leadership who were aware of missings Miss Miss Khan's untruths before Parliament in August and then repeated again in October. So they asked the CC to let them become the DEP. And in their presentations to the CDC. They do not place before the CDC any of the facts pertaining to her in volve their involvement more than knowledge. I respect that you say that, you know, all of it really depends on context. And therefore the CC has to be in command of the facts in order to make up their mind as to whether it's relevant material, aggravating, mitigating. But would you agree that all the facts pertaining to the seventh and eighth of August of the third of October and so on ought to be in place before the CDC for y'all to consider?
Jamus Lim 49:32
I think all the material facts should have been in place. Yes.
Desmond Lee 49:35
Thank you. Thanks for the questions.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 49:39
On the question. Mr. Desmond asked, which I don't think you actually answered. Okay,
Jamus Lim 49:45
I apologize. I
Tan Chuan-Jin: 49:46
mentioned about things that are material. Mr. Desmond mentioned that. As conveyed by Mr. Pritam Singh. He had told Miss Raisa con on third October to take ownership and responsibility, and also the fact that he can judge. And in his mind, as he shared with us, His intent was for her to come clean and to tell the truth on fourth of October, should the issue arise? Would that not be an aggravating factor? You didn't quite answer this question in terms of her culpability, because she has been tortured, like once on third August, and then again on fourth October, especially if indeed is true, expressly told by her leader that she should tell the truth within that be material. In your assessment of level of responsibility in terms of disciplinary action, it would be within
Jamus Lim 50:47
I'm trying to process what you mean by whether that information, you said
Tan Chuan-Jin: 50:57
that it would be relevant only with material. So I'm asking you the fact that if she was told to tell the truth, if, if indeed, that's true, on the fourth, and she didn't, would that not be material for the CDC, to evaluate? As to her level, responsibility, culpability, disciplinary action?
Jamus Lim 51:23
Well, if she had been told to tell the truth. And she planned to ultimately tell the truth. I do not think that that would necessarily be material.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 51:36
So basically, in your mind, nothing is material, the fact that the fact that the three of them knew. So there's actually no circumstances in which it will be material, except if indeed the total to suppress the true or otherwise, any other scenario wouldn't be material, would that be correct?
Jamus Lim 51:54
Well, I have not thought through all the possible hypothetical scenarios for which something would be material or not. What I have thought through most of what I shared with you, based on the two competing narratives, as shared with this panel, so So you're if you're asking me to think about additional hypothetical questions, basically,
Tan Chuan-Jin: 52:21
you're not really asking about hypnotic, hypothetical scenarios, because basically, the fact of the matter is, that means Miss Raisa con, and this is under no dispute and confess to the leader and the rest on seventh and eighth. And they knew that she had lied. And this, no one else knew. We would seem so until pretty much second of December when this was revealed. And during the course of that period, I mean, there is an allegation by mascara that she was taught to maintain that lie. There was an alternative view, as proposed by Mr. Pritam Singh, that he was quite clear and told her on third to make sure to keep clean. But the fact of the matter is that the new and this was not shipped to members of the CEC, you went on great pains to explain how you get feedback from members, all of which didn't know that she actually had confessed this a couple of days earlier. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that she lied. And clearly, it's a serious mistake. But it came she admitted it a couple of days later. One could imagine whether it is so that might she might be seeking advice from the leadership, as we have tried to determine is whether was she given definitive direction as to what to do, as we have gathered from the eighth didn't seem compelling. What exactly what said, there are different versions as to what the directions are given on the third corroborated by two other Kardon members who heard this from Mr. Pritam Singh on the 12th of October, as he narrated to them, they didn't walk away with that same conclusion either that he was definitive in wanting to complete. So there are different versions. So but the fact of the matter is everyone you've spoken to had no idea that actually this was shared to the three senior party leaders as of seven and eight
Jamus Lim 54:18
of I think we established that nobody knew, though, indeed.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 54:23
And in your mind, this is in no way material. There's no need for anyone. And even if you were not, I mean that if you even if we were to determine that this was immaterial, at least should this fact have been put forward to see, again, email us before they get feedback?
Jamus Lim 54:38
So let me be clear. I think that there are in fact circumstances in which it would have been material.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 54:45
I'm not asking you in what circumstances I'm saying in this particular case. Are you echoing the same view that actually it is irrelevant for this fact to be shared to the CFO? I will I will and whether this fact should be shared to the rest so that members for them to then decide for themselves that whether it is relevant or not,
Jamus Lim 55:04
so I explained to you, I don't know how many times I, I would need to repeat myself if, for instance, she had planned to subsequently come clean with that information. If there was a plan to subsequently confess, then I think that the fact that they knew that she had confessed to them in advance would not have been material. But if that was not the case, if instead, they had told her to lie, then that suppression of the effect
Tan Chuan-Jin: 55:44
matters who determines is true?
Jamus Lim 55:48
I don't know about who determines the truth, the truth is, in fact, out there is what we are trying to do the question
Tan Chuan-Jin: 55:55
and not answer the question, and basically, is this there is a fact that this was shared to the three of them. And then the CC was asked to form a discipline panel without knowing the full facts. The members were asked for their feedback. And I think one of the observations surface was that she lost the support of her teammates, who, at that stage didn't know the full picture. Now, whether so the question I have for you, quite straightforward. Is that should this be something that should have been surfaced, so that the CEC members or so that other party members can decide for themselves? Whether it is relevant or irrelevant? And then make the decisions accordingly? So should it be relevant? Or in your view, actually is irrelevant?
Jamus Lim 56:47
Let me once again, let me let me try with a slightly different example, if I may. Perhaps one way to rephrase this is to say that,
Tan Chuan-Jin: 56:59
so in order to make ethical scenarios, how would you know, because you wouldn't know these different situations scenarios, right? Because it's not examined the case? Correct. And that's why we expect as a reasonable course of action, to at least be told that look, this was what happened, and then you decide and evaluate whether it was relevant or not. Would that not be a reasonable way of approaching or you feel that? No, we can let the leaders decide if they feel is relevant, then therefore, it's irrelevant.
Jamus Lim 57:28
As I explained at the beginning, I trust that the leadership will have put all the material facts on the table.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 57:35
So in your view, the fact that they did not surface this to the CC, nor surface it to anyone else when seeking their feedback on Mishcon and of which some of the feedback and adverse feedback and or lack of support will then also have some bearing on the final actions taken against her. You feel that, because they made a call not to let all of you know about the fact that she had vouchers on the seventh and eighth. Therefore, it is irrelevant for everyone else to know,
Jamus Lim 58:09
I already correct as I would that be correct. You said a lot of things. So which part is correct, as I explained to
Tan Chuan-Jin: 58:17
you that the part that they had already assessed that this was irrelevant, and you trusted your leaders, and therefore they deemed it irrelevant, then there's no need for the rest of you to actually know those details. Because whatever hypothetical scenarios you have painted, is actually it's not obvious to anyone because you don't know of those scenarios. But because they are determined that, therefore that's good enough for you. They don't need to know even now, in hindsight, knowing what you do know, you feel that it's perfectly fine,
Jamus Lim 58:45
in fact, that what you just said, now, in hindsight, ex post facto, even now, when we sit here, I think, whether it was material or not, we would have difficulty establishing that, unless we knew the actual truth, if the truth was that the total to suppress actly
Tan Chuan-Jin: 59:06
So, we are not here. So, we are trying to determine what the truth is, or you have already stated that actually, you trust the leadership and that it is irrelevant.
Jamus Lim 59:17
I stated that I trusted the leadership while we are asking
Tan Chuan-Jin: 59:19
you is is it reasonable to expect that these should be shared? Because even at this stage, in hindsight, there are different versions of what would seem to be the truth
Jamus Lim 59:29
and regulated determines it is only reasonable subject to the context, which is if it was material, then and I even gave you like a very precise exam,
Tan Chuan-Jin: 59:40
when he was asking you for straightforward answer to understand how a particular member receives he views this as whether the fact that this is something that should have been shared with the CEC and the rest of the members as they will ask for feedback.
Jamus Lim 59:55
Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to be evasive. I am trying to get I knew when the answer you based on the way that I perceive the nature of your question. And the way I perceived the nature of your question is what you're asking me whether I think it was relevant for me to for that information to share. My honestly felt heartfelt response is that it will only be relevant if it was in should we should only have been shared. If it was indeed, material, you can think and I even tried to concretize that. So who decides
Tan Chuan-Jin: 1:00:37
whether it's material?
Jamus Lim 1:00:41
In this particular case, the materiality of it would depend on what actually transpired.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 1:00:52
So who decides on what's material? I'm asking you for decision. A perspective, you say depends on this. It depends on that. So I'm asking you, therefore on whether it's materials, I'm asking you, who decides what this material if she will not bear certain responsibility to make a decision decision if
Jamus Lim 1:01:11
I knew that? What I, if I were the leadership, and I told her that she will ultimately need to share this information, child information the that she had, that she had spoken untruth in Parliament. And that if, again, I is a hypothetical, but if I had told her that she had to come clean, ultimately, but I was now giving her space, then I would I not be done. But I would think that it would not be material to share the information.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 1:01:48
So there's no need to share the information to see see, there's no need to share the information with the rest of the WP members as we assume not
Jamus Lim 1:01:57
in that particular narrative of events. It not if that were in fact true.
Tan Chuan-Jin: 1:02:01
Noted. Thank you. Any other questions from members? Dennis, any questions? Okay, if there are no further questions for now, we'd like to thank you for coming before the committee a transcript of the proceedings will be shared with you for verification. So do go through it. If you have any other minor amendments do make changes and send transcripts back to us. The transcripts and any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone or published and must be kept strictly confidential until the committee has presented the relevant report to parliament so that they no other matters. Our staff will company out waiting. Thank you very much. Thank you for testogen Dance, please become a witness. Thank you