Facebook - "Netizen questions Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan's knowledge on Muslim Affairs: "She disrespected religious scholars despite their advise. She addressed religious matters without religious credentials""
Raeesah Khan getting pushback from Muslims, I assume because she wants to ban Muslim polygyny and female genital cutting. Serves her right. When you play identity politics and it backfires on you, you can't complain. Especially when you do it in the same speech (literally in the next section on the hijab)
Calvin Cheng - Posts - "When Raeesah Khan spoke of her perceived police aggression towards minorities, of the alleged judicial bias towards some religions, it is straight out of the American/Western political playbook.Only this group of Americanised/Westernised Singaporeans call Singaporeans ‘Brown’.When Americans talk about blackface, they start talking about brownface here.When Americans started talking about White privilege, they started parroting it by talking about ‘Chinese privilege’.The WP said this is in Raeesah’s past - but just in May, she was accusing police of being more lenient towards ‘rich Chinese people’.After nomination day, she said she was happy more ‘brown women’ were running.The lack of original thought aside, Singapore does not need to import American culture wars.We categorically reject Western ‘woke’ and ‘cancel’ culture.More importantly, the average Singaporean heartlander not only does not identify with these foreign concepts, they find it distasteful"
Xiaxue - Posts - "It appears that she is saying her political views can be summed up by
- Angela Davis’ political views
- Intersectional feminism
Many of you may not know about Angela Davis, but she is a far-left activist, who spent her life sympathising with some of the most oppressive communism regimes around. She literally calls herself a communist, and was a member of the Communism Party in USA. I think there is no need to explain how horrible communism is. And of course in order to make any non-communist country a communist state, it would involve total revolution, many lives, and replacing it with a totalitarian regime in charge of redistributing wealth back to its citizens.She is also a prison abolitionist, campaigning for prisons to completely be eradicated. Where to put the murderers, I can’t seem to find a good answer, because it seems she also is against the death penalty.Angela Davis was a member of the Black Panthers, a brutal communist, anti-semite organization. In 1970, Angela Davis bought the weapons that were used for a shootout during a trial of 3 black inmates accused of killing a white prison guard. All the black men and judge who was held hostage perished in the gunfight, and Davis fled the state. She was eventually caught.Even though she conspired to commit murder, the jury found her not guilty... This tweet of Raeesah Khan’s talking about Angela Davis was posted only a few weeks ago, but surprisingly enough, nobody is talking about it.Anyone who knows who Angela Davis is should be horror-filled that a candidate running for parliament is a fan of hers, and claims that the reading of her books represents her political views.Previously I mentioned Raeesah appears to be one of those radical leftists who seem hell bent on bringing the toxic, cancerous identity politics that America is so notorious for into Singapore.There are racial issues that minorities face in Singapore, of course there is. It is tough to be a minority in any country.But instead of discussing calmly and logically what new politics can be introduced to solve these problems or what laws need to change, proponents of Identity politics instead try to make a single race the enemy. When there are enemies, people unite. Political parties using this method will see themselves get votes if they manage to market themselves as the empathetic ones, even if the politics they impose do more evil than good in the long run.Society is then split into a them vs us, while tribalistic infighting ensue. If you disagree with this method of classifying victims by their skin colour (when in fact so many things determine a person’s privilege, such as looks, height, family wealth, health, both parents around etc etc), you are automatically seen as racist and the bad guy.Because nobody wants to seem morally corrupt or unsympathetic, they prop up this system.Instill this sentiment into citizens long enough and resentment builds. The ones constantly told they are being oppressed will start seeing oppression everywhere. They won’t even try to succeed in life, because they are told they are so oppressed they can never make it. They believe their oppressors owe them.Meanwhile, the majority race starts feeling angry at constantly being called oppressors. Or maybe they are poor and unhappy themselves, but see that resources for help are only made available for minorities but not them. If they were indeed racist before, this makes them even more racist.What eventually happens is civil war...
Does she still believe our courts are corrupt as she so insinuated? Does she still believe law enforcement unfairly target minorities? If not, what made her change her mind? Her statement does not address any of this.Worker’s Party claim they did not see those posts of Raeesah’s. Fair enough. But I do not believe they have done such terrible vetting that they have not seen her tweet about Angela Davis which was so recent."
Is WP's Raeesah Khan the most disliked politician on social media in Singapore? - "Raeesah was not just the most discussed politician, but also drew the most negative sentiment (even more than this election season’s chief provocateur Lim Tean)."
Facebook - "Let's now talk about the fact that right before the 2020 General Elections, Worker's Party and Opposition candidate Raeesah Khan has been subject to police investigation for stating that discrimination in law enforcement and the justice system exists in Singapore, that rich Chinese and white people are treated better, and that mosques and minorities are treated worse than corrupt church leaders.To anyone who has even the slightest understanding of race in Singapore, Raeesah Khan's statements are but an obvious statement of fact. To anyone outside of this depressingly small number, it is the wildest thing they've ever heard. And this, this is the very embodiment of chinese fragility and privilege itself. To not only be so insulated from anything to do with race that you are so shocked at these statements, but also to be immune yourself to being accountable for your racist statements and actions, particularly if you are a corporation or occupy a position of political power in this country, is the very epitome of what chinese privilege and fragility look like... This is precisely why we need people like Raeesah in the politial circuit, if an outright reformatting of our entire society is not available to us. But the state will never give us Raeesah, because she is not palatable enough to them. All, ALL of us, especially Chinese Singaporeans who have so much more immunity to speak, have to be responsible for creating the tide that cannot be stopped. We NEED honest conversations about race that become a real and sustained force for more than just electing a candidate. The legacy of "race riots" in Singapore must become remembered as one where solidarity triumphed over power, because power is still using the police to fuck over brown people when chinese people's egos are hurt. #IStandWithRaeesah"
Comment (elsewhere): "Her comments on race and religion are seditious. Also she is claiming the City Harvest people got away with their crimes, which is untrue, and also implied they gained that freedom by corruption. People outside of the intersectionality echo chamber are going to take a dim view of such allegations."
Squeaky Hammer - Posts | Facebook - "NS is a prime example of toxic masculintiy at its peak, often the precursor to violence, torture, murder, and ultimately showing us that it affects society as a whole."
Whatever your view of Singapore's national religion of NS, this shows that Raeesah's posts are not one offs, and she well and truly spouts liberal boilerplate
COMMENT: WP, Raeesah Khan need to be more upfront over ‘insensitive' remarks saga - "Raeesah Khan, 26, of the Workers’ Party (WP). She has been accused of – and has apologised for – remarks on her social media account which can be read as attempts to sow racial enmity and to cast aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary. Last night, she described her remarks as “insensitive’’ and was sorry if they had hurt the feelings of any group. She said she had only intended to raise awareness of minority concerns. 6 July 2020·6-min read In this article: Two police reports were lodged against Raeesah Khan, 26, the Workers’ Party (WP) Sengkang GRC candidate for the 2020 General Election, in relation to comments she allegedly made on social media. (SCREENCAP: Workers' Party/Facebook) Two police reports were lodged against Raeesah Khan, 26, the Workers’ Party (WP) Sengkang GRC candidate for the 2020 General Election, in relation to comments she allegedly made on social media. (SCREENCAP: Workers' Party/Facebook) by Bertha Henson Politicians know that social media is a minefield, whether you use it yourself or not. People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Ivan Lim said nothing on social media, but many others did, especially his former army comrades, leading to his eventual withdrawal from the hustings. PAP’s Murali Pillai decided to weigh in on social media first, on Nomination Day, to say that his family’s problems had nothing to do with his fitness for the job. He spoke of attempts on social media to smear him by referring to his son’s travails – this is even though no one has found sight or sound of the offences his son was said to have committed and what he has been a victim of. I call this a very successful pre-emptive strike. Then, you have Raeesah Khan, 26, of the Workers’ Party (WP). She has been accused of – and has apologised for – remarks on her social media account which can be read as attempts to sow racial enmity and to cast aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary. Last night, she described her remarks as “insensitive’’ and was sorry if they had hurt the feelings of any group. She said she had only intended to raise awareness of minority concerns. I don’t think that is good enough. Not for someone who is vying to get into Parliament. I really could care less whether the PAP does or does not investigate allegations made about Lim’s character or demeanour, as PAP chief Lee Hsien Loong said, they would be done after the elections. PM Lee talked about this in the context of clearing Lim’s name and presumably, to show that the PAP’s selection process is irreproachable. After all, Lim is no longer in the running, unless the PAP is thinking of fielding him in the next general election. But I think the WP should scrutinise Raeesah’s views on racial discrimination more rigorously... Raeesah said that Singapore “jails minorities mercilessly, harasses mosque leaders but lets corrupt church leaders who stole $50 million walk free’’. She asked, “Who did they pay?’’ This was in the aftermath of the sentencing of the City Harvest Church leaders, which had led to a lot of hand-wringing among Singaporeans. Not many understood that the Attorney-General’s Chambers wrung its hands too, as its attempts to seek a higher sentence was stymied by a gap in the law on whether the church leaders are “professional agents’’ entrusted with money. Parliament addressed this lacuna last year as part of amendments to the Penal Code. I can understand the emotional outbursts that the sentencing evoked, outbursts that might step on contempt of court legislation forbidding charges of partiality on the part of judges. But Raeesah went beyond that, to suggest that minorities and mosque leaders have been given a different sort of treatment under the law. The word was “mercilessly’’... I would be less harsh if not for the fact that she allegedly repeated this view on minority discrimination in a post in May, just over two months ago. She asked if the law treated “rich Chinese and white people’’ differently. This was after news broke of a group of Caucasian expatriates who were breaking circuit breaker rules at Robertson Quay. By then, I would have thought that Raeesah would have realised that she would be a public personality soon, and would be more mature and temperate in her remarks. After all, she was revealed as a candidate for WP on 26 June. Instead, she was saying that the law treats minorities more harshly than the majority Chinese, and that Caucasian expatriates and Chinese nationals get better treatment than migrant workers. It is an allegation infused with “colour’’. Now, the trouble with social media is that people seldom make an attempt to update past posts. On 24 June, those expatriates had their work passes revoked. Some people have pointed out that the alleged whistle-blower who filed police reports against her is himself noted for his anti-Chinese views and question his motivations. That may be the case, but the facts remained that she did publish posts that are now under investigation... Pritam said he had not known about the posts beforehand, which makes me wonder about the WP’s screening process. Raeesah’s posts were recent; she didn’t post them while she was a teenager... Does Raeesah believe that the law treats minorities differently and why? If so, what will she do to correct this if she is elected into Parliament? This is not a case in which people can say, “Let’s move on’’. It is about a potential MP’s views on something fundamental to Singapore’s body politic: Equality before the eyes of the law."
It was not her first rodeo
Meme - "NS is a prime example of toxic masculinity at its peak, often the precursor to violence, torture, murder, and ultimately showing us that it affects society as a whole."
Facebook - "On WP vetting of candidates: (This news report appeared back in 2018, before Raeesah was even a candidate. Not my screenshot, but now circulating in comment threads.) Like seriously, so other than being complicit in staying silent, and choosing to back someone who has a proven anti-police history of offences, now add really lousy vetting to the list. WP leadership is having a really bad day, but the trashing is well-deserved. They essentially put up an anti-NS activist as a lawmaker! This is a far cry from the party I cheered on to an Aljunied victory years ago."
Being anti-NS is one thing (if you don't subscribe to the national religion that isn't a sin). Being anti-NS for shit reasons is another
Facebook - "Amos Yee was prosecuted for making vicious statements about Christians and Muslim. Claiming trial, he served four weeks... Now, we have Ms Raeesah Khan, 26, WP candidate for Sengkang GRC. She too apologised. “My remarks were insensitive, and I regret making them. I feel really passionate about minority issues regardless of race, and in my passion I made improper remarks, and I have to be accountable for them. I will fully cooperate in any police investigation.” What did she do or write? Well, in Feb 2018, she wrote this in her FB: “Singapore jails minorities mercilessly, harasses mosque leaders but lets corrupt church leaders who stole $50 million walk free. Who did they pay?” That is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, religion and the administration of justice. Well, that was two years ago. She was 24. She was not a WP candidate. She was young, unthinking, immature, right? But there is another incident, more up to date. In another post on May 17 this year, she commented about 7 foreigners who were “caught on camera ignoring safe distancing rules during circuit breaker period.” This was her post: “Do you see police officers here? Imagine if this was a neighbourhood hawker centre. There would be policemen swarming the area and enforcing the law within minutes.” She added: “Why is the law different for these people? Is it because they’re rich Chinese or white people? Do you think expats will be treated with the same disdain as migrant workers who broke the law?” Similarly, that is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, discrimination by socioeconomic status and the administration of justice... To me, Pritam’s stand/defence was rather curious. At first, he said he had not known about the FB posts beforehand. Not even her May FB post. He then said this in her defence: - “And for me, I would be actually a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are. And in the event there are certain posts or certain comments that they may have made which are untoward, then I would expect them to explain themselves.” Mm...”sanitise their past”? Be upfront and authentic to the public? I think this is a case that goes beyond sanitisation. She was caught in the open when two police reports lodged yesterday, and she was called to explain herself, and she did. However, it should be noted that her posts were apparently put out there to rile readers up. And mind you, her most recent post was only less than 2 months ago. What was she thinking? Is this who she was or, god forbid, is or has always been? The issue here is that Raeesah was not being “not authentic”. She was in fact quite upfront or authentic about how she felt about certain status quo in our country, including race, religion and justice administration, at the time of the posts. So, the question is, did she really feel that way when she wrote those posts at that time, or was it just to garner some attention, “Likes” and followers? Mind you, the former is about authenticity (which is problematic) and the other is about being disingenuous about it, unthinking, immature (which is understandable to some extent). In other words, it is not her pretenses, if any, that concern me. It is her authenticity or forthrightness (without filter) that gives me cause for pause. And another related question is whether she is a rebel with a cause or one without a cause. I can sympathise with the MLK kind, but not the Amos Yee kind (and I put on record that I am not comparing her to Yee, just stretching examples for illustration)."
Of course SJWs still claim she was and is persecuted
Sexuality education for pre-schoolers among proposals by WP's Raeesah Khan to address abuse, harassment
Nowadays, sex education is really sex instruction, so
Raeesah Khan on Twitter - "In relation to the Expansion of Search and Seizure powers I had some concerns and suggestions for MHA. One concern is that it could lead to the profiling of minorities. I suggested that the statistics on those searched be made public so that law enforcement remain accountable."
Clearly everyone needs to have the same probabilty of being searched regardless of behavior, or that's racist
Police investigating 'false & baseless' posts about racial bias in Orchard Towers murder sentencing: AGC - "The AGC said that it was aware of social media posts alleging preferential treatment of the accused persons involved in the Orchard Towers murder on July 2, 2019. The deceased was 31-year-old Satheesh Noel s/o Gobidass... Many alleged or insinuated that it was due to preferential treatment due to his race, with some calling it "Chinese privilege"."
Comment: "What happens downstream when reckless allegations of racial bias by persons who have since become elected MPs are let off with mere stern warnings."
WP MP's allegations of police mishandling sexual assault case are serious, says Desmond Tan - "Workers' Party MP Raeesah Khan's allegations that the police mishandled a sexual assault case are serious and need to be investigated, said Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan. He was responding in Parliament on Tuesday (Aug 3) to Ms Raeesah (Sengkang GRC), who said she had accompanied a rape survivor to make a police report three years ago. But the 25-year-old woman came out of the police station crying... Mr Tan said Ms Raeesah needed to provide more details so that the authorities can investigate the matter. He said: "We take any form of questions raised about how the police have handled or mishandled this case very seriously, and it should be investigated." Ms Raeesah said she did not want to bring the issue up again. "Like I mentioned, it was three years ago and I do not wish to retraumatise the person that I accompanied. But I have to say that these anecdotes are not isolated," she added... Ms Raeesah added that she has been unsuccessful in contacting the woman since the incident three years ago... "I believe that given the topic at hand, consent is imperative, not least to avoid revictimisation"... Leader of the House Indranee Rajah then rose to remind all MPs to exercise their parliamentary privilege responsibly. She said: "I just wanted to remind members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, members must be prepared to substantiate them." She added that this is especially important when an assertion is made against an agency that is not in a position to defend itself."
Evidence is not as important as badfeelz and empty allegations of sexism aimed at causing trouble that must be unconditionally believed
If she couldn't contact her, how did she get her consent to mention her case in Parliament? So much for consent. If not for double standards, feminists wouldn't have any
Parliament: Raeesah Khan confesses on alleged rape account - "Sengkang Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan admitted in Parliament that she did not accompany an alleged rape victim to the police station as previously stated in the House and made a tearful apology on Monday (1 November). Raeesah also told fellow MPs that the anecdote of the survivor's experience was shared by the latter in a support group for women, which the Workers' Party (WP) MP was a part of. She revealed that she herself was a victim of sexual assault when she was 18 studying abroad... Raeesah said that she had disregarded the principle of consent in discussions on survivors consent and sexual assault. “I should not have shared the survivor's anecdote without her consent, nor should I have said that I accompanied her to the police station when I had not. It was wrong of me to do so. To survivors of sexual violence, I hope that this does not deter you from reporting your assaults." During an August parliamentary debate on empowering women, Raeesah had said that she accompanied a 25-year-old woman to make a police report three years ago. However, the woman came out of the police station crying and alleged that officers had made comments about her dressing, and the fact that she was drinking, according to Raeesah.... Shanmugam said that police would interview Raeesah. The police later said Raeesah had yet to turn up for an interview despite two requests by the agency to provide case details."
Naturally many woke people seize on her questionable claims of being a victim (long ago and abroad - so the allegation can't be investigated like her lies about the Singapore Police Force) to slam those criticising her as evil
House Leader Indranee Rajah explains why 'no choice' but to raise complaint against WP's Raeesah Khan - "Indranee: "I understand. I want to understand from the Member why it was necessary, actually, to say those untruths, because the Member could easily have related the anecdote by saying that she heard from someone who had this experience. That's all that would have been necessary to do. The Member would not have had to refer to the support group or even disclose its existence. And there would certainly have been no need to reveal that she was part of the support group. So I would like to ask the Member this, does the Member agree that it would have been possible to tell the story without reference to the support group, or telling the untruth?... I can understand the mistake, the spur of the moment, but the only thing is that on the third of August, I had specifically stood up in this House to remind Members of the need to substantiate allegations made. And I had said this:
'I just wanted to remind members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, Members must be prepared to substantiate them. This is just a reminder to Members so that in future they will understand.'
So I said that on the third of August. Two months later, when the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs about this incident — just two months' time to reflect — why did the Member then repeat the untruth?"...
I think the Member ended by saying that she promised the residents of Sengkang that she would work even harder for them. About a year ago, the Member made this promise, also to the residents of Sengkang — I think this was what was reported in a [Straits Times] report dated the 17th of September, 2020... the Member has, in the motion on women's empowerment, had the platform to speak here about women's issues. The Member had the power to use her position as an MP to advocate. Can I ask the member that having regard to the fact that the Member has not been truthful to Parliament and not able to substantiate the allegations because the Member had no details, would the Member regard that promise last year to the residents of Sengkang to have been kept?"...
Khan is also a Member of Parliament and thus subject to duties and responsibilities, including that she should neither breach Parliamentary privilege nor abuse it...
"Based on, firstly, the disclosure by the Member that she has not been truthful — well, has lied to Parliament — not once, not twice, but three times, and also because she has been unable to substantiate an allegation that has been made. These are matters which prima facie affect the privilege of Parliament, and I therefore reluctantly have to ask the matter, Mr Speaker, to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.""
One SJW claimed that the anecdote was true (apparently a proven and self-admitted liar's words are reliable) so there was nothing wrong with her lying. Of course he didn't mention her previous lies
What data analysis shows about Raeesah Khan’s “apology” for lying about rape story - "Analysis of the text and audio of her apology reveals:
Raeesah spent over a third of her speech (35%) talking about herself.
Admitting wrongdoing accounted for only about half (18%) of the time she spent talking about herself.
Apologizing to the police she accused of misconduct, and the rape victim whose story she used without prior consent, was only about 7.5% of her overall speech.
A 27-year old multi-millionaire’s daughter, and social justice warrior turned politician was recently called out for lying about a rape story"
"Women don't lie about rape". A "myth" is anything a liberal doesn't like
Facebook - "Raeesah Khan consciously lied and maligned honest policemen for the purpose of scoring political points in Parliament. For that, a sincere and succinct apology would have sufficed so everyone could move on. Instead, she apologised, then included an extended afterword of her own experience with sexual assault in an attempt to distract the public from the central issue (her apology) so as to rescue what little moral ground she had left with voters. Obviously, sexual assault is no joke and we should sympathise fully with victims. But if you had to pull that card as a red herring during your apology, then it's just about as sincere as that kid on Instagram who had to "apologise" for slandering a public figure after being thoroughly exposed by Xiaxue. Try again, liar."
Facebook - "This week’s Raeesah Khan debacle has affected me badly. It has shaken my trust in the party, to which I gave almost ten good years to help build up, and to which I still belong as a cadre member. I can’t believe that a WP MP blatantly lied multiple times in Parliament. It is not simply an account with untruths. It is far more serious and damaging, not just for the credibility of the party, but to the evolution of our political system for the good of Singapore and to the very issue of the motion she spoke in support of: the empowerment of women... The leadership must take some responsibility for allowing this transgression to happen and persist over several months. The statement was not made on impulse. In my experience, speeches were shared and reviewed among MPs and we might disagree and debate, but we would make corrections or drop things entirely according to the collective consensus. If a mistake was made, we would immediately move to rectify it. I hope the disciplinary panel made up of the top three leaders will recognise their responsibility IN this matter and accountability to the public ON this matter."
I saw some rabid anti-PAP people slamming Daniel for this, claiming he was a PAP plant
Facebook - "One possibility that has struck me is that Ms Raeesah Khan will be thrown under the bus by the Workers’ Party, and will be asked to resign after their internal disciplinary review. The WP and their supporters may hope that Ms Khan’s resignation draws a line under the matter, and allow the WP to move on with moral authority. Many would draw parallels between this incident and previous ones where PAP and WP MP’s were asked to resign. If that is the thinking, then it would be wrong. The reasons are as follows:
- Ms Khan admitted lying THREE TIMES in parliament
- If she lied once, the WP leadership could claim ignorance, and discipline her.
- However we now know that in August, when asked for evidence, Ms Khan would not, and could not give any. That itself is a breach of Parliamentary privilege.
- Thus, after the August session, it would be incomprehensible that the WP leadership did not do their own checks, and ask Ms Khan.
- There are two possibilities at that point a) She told them the truth - that she had lied in Parliament . And thereafter the WP went along with the attempt to cover up ; b) She also lied to the WP and the WP chose not to ask obvious questions. This would mean that they were strangely incompetent.
- By early October 2021, the pressure was mounting for Ms Khan to come clean. Min Shanmugam asked Ms Khan about her allegations. Ms Khan again lied.
- With evidence mounting that she was lying, did the WP leadership not ask Ms Khan for more details? Was she not able to provide any, also telling them she wished to keep the info confidential? At that point, did that not raise obvious red flags?
- If they ignored the red flags, then that would suggest that they did not want to know, or were at best, incompetent.
- But worse, is it possible that the WP leadership knew Ms Khan was lying, but thought that by claiming confidentiality, Ms Khan could make the matter go away?...
As former WP MP Daniel Goh said, WP MPs’ speeches are vetted by the party when he was in Parliament. Perhaps this has changed. If it hasn’t, Ms Khan’s original speech in August must have been vetted. So was her October reply, where she lied a third time. That means, that the WP either chose to believe Ms Khan’s flimsy story THREE TIMES regardless of red flags, or knew she was lying, and collaborated with her. If so, we must ask if their internal disciplinary Panel is simply an attempt to quell public anger and a way to distance the WP from Ms Khan, despite them knowing the facts earlier."
Facebook - "One of the counterclaims being made now is that even though Rhaeesah Khan lied about accompanying the (fictional) survivor, the allegation of police officer mistreatment (i.e. comments about dressing / drinking) remains true... around end of 2017, or assuming delay, 2018, selected (mostly female) police officers would have been trained by AWARE. Now I am against AWARE for its policy stances, but it *does* have solid experience handling victims, and has indeed done a lot of good. Their training would likely be quite comprehensive, and will likely be as complete as training of their actual volunteers at AWARE. This is confirmed by AWARE...
Raeesah made her claim on 3 Aug 2021, which if her later confession is true, places the time when she overheard the story from that anonymous victims group around 2018.
So either:
1) the allegation of police officer mistreatment (i.e. comments about dressing / drinking) happened *after* the AWARE training, which means that training (of these specially selected and largely female officers who have no reason to doubt largely female victims) is ineffective;
2) the allegation of mistreatment happened *before* the training, and thus is a problem already solved when it was raised in 2021 to support RK's continued vendetta against law enforcement agencies (recall her past 2 offences were allegations made against law enforcement agencies too); or
3) the mistreatment never happened at all (recall the number of times RK lied)
Which has the highest probability?"
Facebook - "So Raeesah resigned. *checks watch* 17 months. 17 months since I first noticed the signs that this progressive ideology was going to be a problem, (and got cancel attacked for it). It marked my turning away from being a WP voter. Knew that the WP was making the bad choice to ride a dangerous tiger, and wanted no part of it."
Facebook - "Raeesah Khan (RK) had already been treated well by the WP right from the middle of the GE2020 campaign when her social media postings of two years earlier became a focus of controversy. The party stood by her. Subsequently, she had been let off with a warning by the SPF over those posts. However, it appears she learnt nothing and remained impervious about the consequences of what she said and did... The decision by RK to resign is a good one for both her and the WP. The areas she had focused on and, inadvertently, typecast her as heavily ideological – an SJW – have tended to spawn unnecessary side issues for the WP, distracting the party from its key efforts in assisting the greatest number of Singaporeans in their economic challenges... An anecdote from mid-2019 illustrates the point cogently. This related to the visit to South Africa by Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) immediate family to attend a marriage by one of LHY’s sons to a long-time partner. (South Africa had been chosen because it had some years earlier legalised same-sex marriages.) Shortly after this visit, I met a WP parliamentarian to discuss the party’s plans for the then up-coming GE. LHY was mentioned, in terms of whether he would contest as an election candidate. My interlocutor said to me (in a fairly hushed voice), and here I paraphrase: Hey, you know, when I went around my visits to homes of our ardent WP supporters, that South African trip was brought up time and time again by our staunch supporters. Most were asking, “What is that?” Online media might have cheered the South African marriage, but the reality on the ground, even among ardent WP supporters, was quite the reverse. (This anecdote is just one of many others that constitute vignettes and pen-portraits of events and people – never before seen – reinforcing the analysis in the book Breakthrough 2.0. They provide texture and proper context to political reality, not some of the popular – and entirely fictionalised – accounts that have emerged since GE2020.) That the online, virtual, world is, at times, almost 180 degrees adrift from the offline, real, world, is an existential reality. RK no longer hanging around in any formal capacity with the WP would be useful for the party. She would no longer be a lightning rod spawning unnecessary side issues for the WP. Among party sources, there had already been some mutterings since GE2020 about whether she had the energy levels – stamina – for hard constituency work. And, since her parliamentary indiscretions, party leaders would have consulted widely with stakeholders, especially the key group of party volunteers – the people who do the heavy-lifting for the party – and they would have long arrived at the conclusion that support for RK was in short supply. At a human level, RK will return to a well-to-do-family. She will be fine. This is unlike Yaw Shin Leong who, in 2012, felt that he and his wife needed to rebuild their lives elsewhere."
Comment: "A year later, Raessah still did not fully admit that her social media posts were categorically wrong. In the video you mentioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spSymX-Tz1s), when asked about the GE2020 incident, Raessah said it was a tough time but she's glad it "brought conversations about race and inequality to the forefront". She further said that after the election, some residents directly told her that she shouldn't have done it. Instead of stopping there, she went on to tell the podcast's host that she is “a person who is unfazed by tough conversations” and added that she used that moment to start a rational, civil discussion about race even though those residents didn't see eye-to-eye with her at the end. Instead of strengthening the WP’s foothold in her ward of Compassvale, was she too busy debating residents and trying to educate them about SJW ideologies? Was that what she was elected to do? She mentioned that at the end, she was not able to get the residents to see eye-to-eye. So why start a pointless discussion about a controversial issue when she could have just apologized and talked about what she has learned and done for the constituency since then. She should have focused on unifying topics such as addressing income inequality, job-skills mismatch and other bread and butter issues that the average Singaporean can relate to. It is not the job of an MP to go around starting tough conversations with residents. An activist focuses on “starting tough conversations”. A politician focuses on achieving real-world results that benefit the community, even if those are just incremental changes that won’t create a utopia immediately. A politician knows when to push pet issues and when not to. If that was the kind of constituency work she did, then the WP’s chances will be better now that she is no longer around to debate residents. A less divisive person would probably improve the quality of engagement and garner support for them."
Facebook - "Timing is everything. Why resign now one month after the parliamentary apology and just hours before the CEC meeting when the disciplinary committee findings were to be discussed and a decision taken? Did RK know the outcome already? How? What motivated her to resign only now? Did anyone of importance asked her to resign and why? All too convenient when so many inconvenient questions for the WP leadership remained unanswered. In politics, these can become a sticky ugly scent eroding trust. My mind keeps conjuring up that memory of more than a year ago when Pritam stood with an apologising RK and the WP Sengkang team behind them in the full glare of media cameras, the message being we know and we support her. How quickly things change. I suppose a year is many lifetimes in politics."
It's telling that Daniel Goh got attacked for asking these pertinent questions
WP to look into cadre member Daniel Goh's public questioning of party leaders' handling of Raeesah Khan case - "The Workers’ Party (WP) will look into the actions of its cadre member Daniel Goh, who has been publicly vocal about the party’s handling of former Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan’s admission of lying in Parliament... When asked to respond to Mr Singh’s comments, Assoc Prof Goh told TODAY: “On matters of public concern, I have every right as a citizen to speak my views. There was no special communication to members that made me more informed than an ordinary citizen. This is in line with party values. “If the party sees fit to censure or sack me for asking pertinent questions that makes for a leadership accountable to the public, then so be it. It is a reflection on the leadership. By the way, I am not resigning.”... Assoc Prof Goh also urged the party’s disciplinary panel — which was tasked to look into Ms Raeesah’s admission of lying — not to “throw her under the bus”. Instead, he said that the party’s leadership should take some responsibility for “allowing this transgression to happen and persist over several months”... Mr Singh disclosed that party leaders knew that Ms Raeesah lied in her parliamentary speech a week after she delivered it and nearly three months before she set the record straight in the House. However, the party did not act on it earlier because he wanted to give her time to talk to her family about the matter, and because she had to be the one to correct the untruth in Parliament."
Covering up for a liar (and continuing to lie) while going after the one who promotes integrity. Telling.
Facebook - "questions must be asked about the WP itself. What did they know about the lies ? When did they know this? And what did they do with this knowledge ? It’s incomprehensible that nobody else knew anything before Raeesah Khan made the admission in Parliament."
WP leadership knew about Raeesah Khan's 'untruth' a week after her original speech in August: Pritam Singh - "when questioned by the Minister for Home Affairs in Parliament on Oct 4, Ms Khan “repeated an untruth on the parliamentary record, which was wholly inconsistent with the revelations she had shared with the party leadership after Aug 3”, said Mr Singh. “Almost immediately after Parliament adjourned in October, Raeesah agreed with the party leadership that she had to set the record right forthwith. I shared with her that it was the correct thing to do. "The next earliest opportunity to do so in Parliament was on Nov 1, when the member made the personal explanation under the Standing Order 25." He added that Ms Khan then sent her resignation letter to him on Nov 30. Mr Singh also said that before the WP’s central executive committee received Ms Khan’s resignation on Tuesday, members had “voted overwhelmingly” that she would be expected to resign on her own accord - failing which she should be expelled from the party. When asked why the claim was allowed to remain uncorrected, Mr Singh said: “Each Workers’ Party MP is a leader in his or her own right. And if you have done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record right.""
When you cover up for a liar and tell lies too, that can become bigger than the original lie
WP leaders told Raeesah Khan to stick to the lie she had told Parliament: Committee of Privileges - "Three senior Workers' Party (WP) MPs had told their party colleague Raeesah Khan to stick to the lie she had told in Parliament on Aug 3, the Committee of Privileges heard... Following that meeting, she texted her secretarial assistant and a WP volunteer: “I just met Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal... they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave.”... Ms Khan and her former assistant Loh Pei Ying gave evidence to the committee on Thursday and Friday, while the volunteer, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, did so on Friday. Ms Khan’s former legislative assistant Lim Hang Ling testified on Thursday. . Ms Khan, who resigned from the party and as an MP for Sengkang GRC on Tuesday, told the committee chaired by Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin that the WP leaders had told her to keep to the lie. "My interpretation (of the meeting with WP leaders on Oct 3) was that that there would be no consequences for me to continue the narrative that I had begun in (Parliament) in August," she said in the recorded footage. The committee said in its report: "If Ms Khan and the WP could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. If the matter was brought up again, there would also be no need for her to clarify and there was no need for the truth to be told."... In her evidence to the committee, Ms Khan also disputed statements made by Mr Singh at his press conference on Thursday (Dec 2), where, among other things, he told reporters that he had directed Ms Khan to take responsibility and admit to her lie in Parliament, and that she had contradicted this order. No one from WP advised her to tell the truth, Ms Khan told the committee. There was also no order for her to clarify the facts. When the committee put to her on Thursday that Mr Singh said he had ordered her to clarify the matter in Parliament in October, Ms Khan replied: "I'm hearing this for the first time."... On Oct 12, Ms Khan attended a meeting called by Mr Singh. At the meeting, which Ms Lim was also at, the three discussed the matter and came to the view that the matter would not be dropped and was not going away. As such, Ms Khan should come clean and tell the truth. “At this meeting, Ms Khan asked if disciplinary action will be taken against her and the answer given to her was no,” said the report... Ms Khan said she was “shocked and surprised” to learn that the WP had formed a disciplinary panel the next day to look into her lies to Parliament... The committee also asked Ms Khan about Mr Singh’s statement at the WP press conference that she would be expelled from the party if she did not resign of her own accord. Ms Khan said this was not said to her. The WP leaders had suggested she resign for her well-being and because she had lost the support of her fellow Sengkang GRC MPs, she added."
According to the progressive stack, we must believe RK over PS when RK says PS is lying. Because PS has more power as party leader and RK is only an ex-MP. Plus PS is male and RK is female, and RK is Muslim
"Turns out Daniel Goh's concerns about the leadership's intergity in this affair are right. Contrary to what Pitram said in the press conference, he told her to keep on lying (substantiated by text messages), so that explains why she lied again in Oct and he did nothing. She was just doing what he told her to do. And when the game was up he acted to cut her off and throw her under the bus, giving a press conference to make it look like everything she did following her admission was "inexplicable".One does not need to like RK to see that this is rotten leadership."