WP leaders told Raeesah Khan to 'continue with the narrative' after she lied in Parliament: Committee of Privileges report - " Besides Ms Khan, three other members of the WP gave evidence: Ms Loh Pei Ying, former secretarial assistant to Ms Khan and secretarial assistant to WP chief Pritam Singh from March 2013 to January 2016; Mr Lim Hang Ling, former legislative assistant to Ms Khan; and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer... Ms Loh said she was "not fully happy" with the WP statement on Nov 1 because it did not reveal Mr Singh's knowledge of the matter, said the summary. "Ms Loh felt that the involvement of Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap had been intentionally omitted. The omission was quite stark," the summary added. Ms Khan, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan told the committee they were "shocked" and "surprised" to learn that the party had formed a disciplinary panel on Nov 2 to look into her lies in Parliament... Ms Loh told the Committee of Privileges that she thought the composition of the WP disciplinary panel was "self-serving", and that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap were the "very people who had known that what Ms Khan had said was untrue, and they were the only members of the (disciplinary panel)", said the summary. She felt that the correct thing to do was to disclose in the WP statement that the panel had "intimate knowledge of the falsehood from an early stage"... "Ms Loh said that several parts of the statement made by Mr Pritam Singh, to the media, on Dec 2 were not true.""
With so much corroborating testimony, the hardcore anti PAP people will pivot to now only making false equivalences with Ivan Lim (who was just accused of not being a nice guy), Vivian about TraceTogether (we don't know that he was knowingly lying and anyway he corrected himself) and YOG overspending (???); they already were doing that, but now this will likely be their only strategy left since the rest can't be used anymore
Facebook - "Perhaps WP feared taking action earlier because it would be dismounting and scolding the woke tiger they chose to ride on. RK has major woke backing (to the extent I got twittermobbed for merely expressing misgivings about her as a candidate back in 2020) that won't hesitate to turn on anyone perceived to attack their darling."
Of course, right now the SJWs are deflecting and using irrelevant examples, making apples and oranges comparisons eg Ivan Lim, continue pretending she's a victim, lobbing accusations of racism and sexism, claiming she's a good person which is why she didn't last and claiming insulting someone sotto voce is the same as what RK did
Meme - "We shared these tweets during GE2020....
Raeesah Khan: "I also have social capital due to my families place in society, and am protected by the presence of my parents, both of whom hold a substantial amount of power."
What does 'boasting about protection due to influential families' tell you about the person?"
Better screencap on her talking about her powerful parents
Amos Rao - "Moments ago, an ex-WP cadre pointed to me the video recordings of Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s press conference held on Dec 2, 2021. At the 9.35 mark, Pritam commented that:
‘Yaw Shin Leong did not account himself to the party after the allegations were made. I think he did not address the media, did not address the party. The party was willing to give him some space to get himself organized, but this just went on and it went on, to a point where it was unreasonable conduct and this was not acceptable. And so, the party took the decision to fire him, to sack him.”
The above is not true. Even before the allegations have surfaced, I accounted the situation candidly to WP Secretary General LTK. When the allegations surfaced, I immediately accounted to both WP Secretary General LTK and Chairman Sylvia Lim. And I was advised to stay silent. I placed party first before self and to minimize the fallout, I kept silent and resigned from WP CEC. My intention was to give WP CEC a blank cheque to paint the narrative required. To facilitate the process, I travelled out of Singapore voluntarily. On 14th Feb 2012, I was expelled from WP for 'breaking the faith, trust & expectations of the party and people'. I am okay with this narrative, but I am not okay with what Pritam said, for I did account myself."
Of course, Yaw Shin Leong has an axe to grind - which is why he kept quiet at the time and hasn't said anything for over 9 years until now when his case is mentioned
WHEN THE WORKERS PARTY EATS THEIR YOUNG - "I was confused because I thought they would have waited for the COP to finish their findings before holding a press conference. Apparently, so were the COP, because they were actually still interviewing Raeesah at that very moment. Turns out the WP wanted to get their story out before Raeesah, to the extent that they didn’t let her join in the press conference, didn’t let her speak or even release a statement through the party. And, of course, now we know why. Raeesah was about to drop a massive revelation. The leaders knew about the lie much earlier and even coached her to continue “the narrative”. In her own words, Pritam Singh and the WP leadership have told her to take the lie to her grave? That’s what she said, and now the WP are eating their young. It is really shocking to a neutral observer to see all of WP’s shadow supporters coming out to attack the credibility, not just of RK, but also of two long serving, cadre members, Loh Peh Yin and Yudhisthra Nathan. The Facebook account Wake Up Singapore usually attacks the government. Instead, the shadowy people behind the account have been launching a vicious, non-stop barrage of attacks on Raeesah Khan and these young people, calling them all sorts of names, and character assasssinating them. This is the account that, barely a week ago, were lauding Raeesah for her accountability, and calling us all to move on. At least some people are sticking to the old playbook. Sudhir Vandeketh is blaming the govt as usual. Even if it’s your fault, blame the govt. He says the COP didn’t give WP a chance to respond. But WP held a press conference, they did respond, by trying to get their side of the story out before the official report from the COP. And how pathetic is Yee Jenn Jong who tried to reintroduce AIM into the discourse to distract the public from his party’s biggest crisis since Low Thia Khiang left. And anyway, it’s been 3 days since the bombshell revelations. An eternity if you have watched political crises long enough. Why haven’t Pritam, Sylvia, Manap, etc come out and respond? They’ve all been awfully quiet, hunkered down and not speaking to any media at all. Instead, they’ve been pushing their so-called “independents” out to muddy the waters on their behalf. Remy Choo, who works in the same law firm as Sylvia Lim, put out a rather slipshod “analysis” that accused Raeesah of “shifting stories”, which in turn tries to discredit the testimony of the two WP activists Loh Peh Ying and Yudhisthra Nathan. I thought these two young people comported themselves very well, and truthfully, in front of a committee of privileges that was also kind, supportive, and seems dedicated to getting to the truth of the matter, rather than playing politics. But these young people have been thrown to the WP’s online dogs, and in a vicious, bloodthirsty manner too. It is quite disgusting to see, and an example of political violence that one would previously have not expected from the Workers Party, especially towards these rank and file people who have devoted much of their youth to the tedious day-to-day work that keeps a political party going. Ironically these are the good, decent people they should nurture for future leadership and governance."
Top leaders knew of Raeesah Khan’s lies but chose not to disclose to others in party: WP vice-chairman
He also refused to answer some questions despite being warned of sanctions
The diehard WP supporters who accused Raeesah of being a PAP mole once she started spilling the beans are going to call Faisal of being a decade-old mole too
No 10 faces Tory and public backlash over Christmas party video - "The health secretary, Sajid Javid, pulled out of Wednesday morning’s broadcast interviews after a video emerged showing No 10 aides laughing about a Christmas party during Covid restrictions. The government was facing a furious Tory and public backlash against its behaviour. No ministers were available to be interviewed on the BBC, Sky, ITV and other media, despite Javid having been due to appear for the first anniversary of the vaccination campaign. Other government figures – including the vaccines minister and justice secretary – also pulled out of planned broadcast interviews later in the day. Conservative MPs expressed anger about the situation that No 10 had got into by holding a party, denying one had taken place, and then maintaining that denial despite the video obtained by ITV. Sir Roger Gale, a longstanding backbench Tory MP, told the BBC that Johnson must explain what happened properly at prime minister’s questions later on Wednesday and warned him that “to mislead the House of Commons deliberately would be a resignation matter”."
I find it interesting that the hardcore WP supporters are saying Khangate is not important and it's a distraction and we need to move on. Whenever the PAP screws up to a slightest degree they'll deny that we can or should move on. Meanwhile, in the UK people are very upset that last year 10 Downing Street had parties. And that's not even about lying in Parliament. Someone interviewed on the Today programme said if Boris Johnson went into Parliament and promised no covid rules were broken he'd believe him because it's very serious to lie in Parliament
Facebook - ""The power of the House to punish for contempt or breach of privilege has been aptly described as the “keystone of parliamentary privilege” and is considered necessary to enable the House to discharge its functions and safeguard its authority and privilege. Without such a power the House “would sink into utter contempt and inefficiency.” This power has been judicially upheld in a number of court cases." #ErskineMay #COP #india #loksabha"
Facebook - "PS said that when he told RK “it’s your call” he meant that she should take responsibility and confess. But the established meaning of the phrase is that its is up to you not me to make a decision. In other words, PS did not instruct RK to tell the truth to parliament. That’s is how any one familiar with English language colloquialisms would understand the phrase: that the decision to tell the truth or not was up to RK not PS. Unless, of course, like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Caroll’s Alice in Wonderland, PS thinks words mean what he wants them to mean. Indeed, there is a certain ‘Alice in Wonderland’ quality to the stories of top WP leaders."
Facebook - "Reading the COP's synopses already makes me depressed because:
a. Even Sylvia, whom I thought of as a hard-driving leader, left RK to Pritam to handle. RK is his protege or what? Pritam the only leader around????So they were all so concerned for RK's well-being that the "lie'' became a secondary issue so no one followed up on it? Makes me think everybody actually "forgot'' about it, given the silence right up to Oct 3, when Pritam alerted RK to the possibility that it might come up in Parl.
b. And what did Jamus mean by "material'' or "not material'' for the CEC or anyone else to know about the first Aug 8 revelation? So it depends on whether she lied about taking the lie to the grave or whether WP leaders told her to keep lying??? Because at the end of the day, she DID lie? And that's enough?... This sort of line of "material or not material''argument isnt good for WP. I cannot think of a situation when less information is better than more information in forming a judgment about a person/s. Think about it - WP is supposed to be a check on the G. So if the G thinks it wasn't material to let the public know something that happened because in the end, it has no bearing on the outcome, what is WP going to say? In terms of transparency and disclosure, WP fell down."
Facebook - "Disassociation generally manifests as a "out of body" feeling that the mind involuntarily engages in to protect a person when subject to very traumatic stimuli. Gives a feeling of "happening to someone else". I have not come across disassociation manifesting in a way where the disassociated mind decides to ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐จ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐จ๐ก๐ฎ ๐ก๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ค๐ฉ๐๐๐ง๐จ. The "lie" is usually ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐จ๐ค๐ฃ ๐๐๐ข๐จ๐๐ก๐, to convince himself that the bad things are happening to someone else.
Also, imposter syndrome is not a mental condition. It is merely a feeling that one is not capable enough or deserving of the role one is placed in. It is normal, and typically present in people with a normal level of confidence and self awareness.
My comment on the myriad "mental conditions" Pritam and Sylvia were suggesting to the COP and public on why Rhaeesah said what she did to her assistants in Aug. *Moon Knight: Random Bullshit Go!!!!*"
Facebook - "No it does not appear relevant whether RK's account was reliable or not... What is being checked now by the COP is why Pritam did not simply issue a ๐๐ก๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐๐๐ฎ, which does not require her to reveal her past... This question by the COP is relevant and not just a political attack, because if it can be established that Pritam was unclear or gave indecisive orders, these poor instructions and bad leadership can serve as a mitigating factor to reduce the punishment on RK, when COP decides on the sanction against her. Further to this, I also don't see why pointing out that RK is unreliable helps the WP at all. For it shows that Pritam didn't have command enough respect to control what is merely a newbie MP, the youngest ever, to simply ๐ค๐ง๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ง ๐ฃ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ช๐ ๐ก๐ฎ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ค๐ข๐ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ฃ. It meant he also didn't have the leadership ability to prioritise preserving the WP's reputation for integrity, over one person's mere feelings. If he can't even command one newbie, or prioritise properly, how the heck is he going to be able to run a country as a potential PM? Unless you are telling me the woke are special: only out for their own interests and always turn on you eventually instead of working for you, to which I'll say, I damned well told you all back in 2020 that you were making a mistake to keep her as a candidate. By keeping her, you forced me and others to turn away from the WP, because we knew it was just too dangerous."
Facebook - "The method of cross-examination employed by committees of inquiry by legislatures all over the world, is a necessary aspect of fact-finding. Singapore isn’t the only one to have these. UK parliamentary inquiries follow the same method. Even in the US, we have watched congressional inquiries and hearings, where businesspeople are grilled by congress. (The difference in the US is that lawyers can sit with the witnesses, but cannot speak for them). The problem is that when lawyers lead the interviews and rely entirely on court-room techniques, the layperson is quickly lost or put off. Also, as these hearings are not in a courtroom, one does not have to play by the same rules nor adhere to the same decorum as in a courtroom, where a trained judge will quickly admonish you if you don’t. It is actually die rigueur for lawyers to ask witnesses to “assume”, “to consider if it is possible”, and be “put” certain hypothesis to consider. This is part and parcel of putting evidence on the record, and to see if in totality it leads to a certain conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, outside of a courtroom, this does not work so well because a witness can refuse to play by any of these cross-examination rules... In fact, a confident and suave witness can make the interviewer look stupid by making such retorts. To the layperson, this is entirely reasonable, because they do not understand why such questions are necessary to put evidence on the record beyond reasonable doubt. This is the reaction I am now seeing on social media, especially amongst young people. But I ask people not to be confused by the marathon interviews. That’s just a process. There are only a few simple questions a layperson needs to ask and understand :
Was the police damaged by Raeesah Khan’s lie that was allowed to persist for months?
Was it reasonable for the WP leadership to allow her so much time to continue lying, even if her story of sexual assault is true?
Should the WP leadership not have clarified immediately when she lied again?
Was it reasonable for the WP to form a disciplinary panel consisting of members that knew of Ms. Khan’s lie early on?
And finally, would Raeesah Khan have had the guts to continue lying if she didn’t think she had the approval from her leaders, as she testified?"
WP: Move towards First World Parliament - "The processes in a First World Parliament can avoid, or minimise, such situations. A First World Parliament is neither a national feedback unit nor a rubber stamp. The hallmarks of good governance are transparency, accountability, inclusion and representation, rule of law and responsiveness. Singaporeans deserve good governance. The Workers' Party needs your vote to make a First World Parliament the cornerstone of our Singapore way of life. A life which is holistic, not materialistic. A Singapore which is caring; where every Singaporean matters; and where every stranger is treated with consideration. Vote Workers' Party, towards a First World Parliament."
COP issues summons to WP leaders for not producing documents - "The Committee of Privileges (COP) tasked with investigating a complaint about former Sengkang Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan’s lies in Parliament on Wednesday (15 December) issued summons to three top Workers’ Party (WP) leaders over their failure to produce internal documents as requested by the COP. In its fifth special report released on Wednesday, the COP said it had previously asked WP’s chief Pritam Singh, chair Sylvia Lim and vice chair Faisal Manap to produce documents, including internal correspondence between senior leadership concerning issues raised by the COP. The requests were raised on various occasions from last Friday to Tuesday. “However, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap have failed and/or refused to provide them. As such, a summons was each issued to Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap on 15 December 2021”"
Clear proof that they have nothing to hide at all. Of course, some apologists claim that they need time to redact sensitive material. Odd that they're so incompetent that they are incapable of telling the committee that
Meme - "TAI CHI MASTERS
"Raeesah is responsible for her own actions" - Pritam Singh
"Pritam is the WP leader, he should handle it" - Sylvia Lim, Manap"
Facebook - "Article 30 of The Workers’ Party constitution reads: “The Party may nominate members as candidates for election to public office, and each nominee shall be required to take a solemn oath or affirmation to support the three-fold principle of the Party, and to comply with Party discipline in major decisions of policy, and to be honest and frank in all his dealings with the Party and the people of Singapore.” To be honest and frank in all your dealings with the Party and the people of Singapore https://www.wp.sg/our-constitution-and-manifesto/ #notjustwords #notirrelevant"
Facebook - "They are claiming COP is a witch hunt?
Seriously?
1) it was WP's pick, RK who decided to geh kiang put in the anecdote in Aug
2) it was WP's pick, RK who decided to double down on lying on 4 Oct
3) it was Pritam, Sylvia and Faizal (the 3)'s decision to sit on their butts and do nothing substantial before 4 Oct
4) it was the 3's decision to sit on their butts again after 4 Oct instead of clarifying immediately on 5 Oct
5) it was the 3's decision to not come clean about what they knew to the public until COP's first sitting had to force them into it (lol you actually believe the WP's 2 Dec press conference was a coincidence ah?)
Whole thing from start to finish was caused by them or their candidates. Then now claim being witch hunted. Probably took on RK's professional victimhood ideology. Seriously.
* and irony is the only 2 women being tossed into the river / thrown under bus here, Loh and RK are being tossed in by Pritam."
Facebook - "The 5 TLDR takeaways of 2nd special report
1) Faizal said Pritam, Sylvia and himself didn't tell Rhaeesah to lie after she admitted in Aug (duh, of course he will say this. To say otherwise is instant KO)
2) (1st screenshot) The 3 deliberately kept RK's admission in Aug secret from the WP CEC. When CEC decided on 30 Nov, they were under false impression RK lied all the way to her admission in Nov. They really wanted her to stay under the bus.
3) (2nd screenshot) Faizal refused to share what the 3 came together to sync up on before the COP.
4) (3rd screenshot) Jamus as RK's teammate might know something. He is being called up.
5) (4th screenshot) Dennis, the only WP member in COP voted to keep all points above from the public."
Meme - Umbrage Singapore Group post by Eugene Ng: "Anyone thinks Raeesah Khan could have been bought over by pap to destroy wp's credibility?"
Ahh the cope
Facebook - "I’m not sure Raeesah Khan’s (RK) loudest supporters understand the gravity of the issues here.
1. She breached the confidentiality of a sexual assault survivors support group and shared - without consent - another survivor’s story.
2. She lied - in parliament - about accompanying the survivor to the police station.
Point 1 is already unethical. And potentially caused considerable harm to the survivor whose story was appropriated... The whole point of a safe space is to prevent such triggers! A blatant disregard for consent and safety. Not to mention that support groups operate wholly on trust. There is no way to enforce confidentiality...
Point 2 feels so ludicrous in hindsight. When pressed for details in parliament, RK later seemed to make a call but said couldn’t reach the survivor cos it was a few years already. But now we know she was not present. Why insert yourself into another survivor’s story to start with then persist in that fiction? This leaves a particularly bad taste for me...
Now, there are broadly two groups of supporters of RK which overlap but are distinct: opposition/WP supporters and woke-styled liberals. To the former, who have long felt - with good reason - that the political scene is heavily stacked against them, this feels like another attack and that Singaporeans are unsympathetic to political underdogs and are unduly harsh… I beg to differ. It’s a case of expecting political leaders to have a baseline of integrity and care. Singaporean support does not necessitate agreement always. That’s sycophancy... As to the latter group of supporters, the woke-styles liberals… some of the most woke would have harangued, maybe even cancelled, anyone else over point 1. Somehow they conveniently overlook this in their purported aim to keep to the issues. Implying it is an attack on RK, a political distraction."
It's quite funny how fast most of her supporters turned on her. Though I did see one SJW say there was no problem because the incident did happen so Khan was right to talk about it
Facebook - "I see so many people weighing in on the RK issue; some temperate and some not. Some bringing other examples to talk about double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the PAP. I don’t think, however, that there has been a case of deliberate lying in Parliament that has been found out. This is not a place where you can spout all sorts of nonsense. People will take you at your word... If the person had been reading the news reports and could identify herself in them, I wonder how she feels about being made a subject of the news. If I were the person, you can bet that I would be telling RK off for bringing up the issue without my consent, and worse, lying about accompanying me to the police station as if we were BFFs. RK says that she felt embarrassed to say that this surfaced at a rape support group, so she changed her story. She did not want people to know that she is a ‘survivor’ of an assault abroad when she was a student. That’s wierd because I thought it was a ‘housemate’ abroad who was a victim, as she said in an FB post... What RK has done is to destroy this ‘benefit of the doubt’ we give to victims. That’s the great disservice she has done for the cause of women. Not to mention degrading the standing of MPs by blatant lying."
Critical Spectator - Posts | Facebook - "I think the most entertaining element in the Khan saga is just how much damage WP is enduring has been self-inflicted. In this latest chapter:
1️⃣ Pritam Singh suggested Raeesah Khan may have been afflicted with a mental condition (that she mentioned) and suggested that COP seek psychiatric evaluation.
2️⃣ COP and Raeesah agree, psychiatrist says she's fine and what she may have mentioned as a layman does not mean she suffers from an actual illness.
3️⃣ Raeesah then doubles down on her version of the story.
Which means the moment to retract, correct or soften some of it is gone and that someone is lying. ๐ด At this stage it's clear that Raeesah has gained an advantage over Workers' Party leaders, that will be difficult for them to erode, unless new evidence is introduced.
First and foremost - she possesses the only piece of written evidence in the affair: the WhatsApp message sent immediately after Aug. 8 meeting... what possible reason would Raeesah have telling her assistants something else, just as the meeting concluded? There was also no need for her to make up what she was told at that time and place - it was still very far from becoming a national affair and she was speaking with her aides, whom she knew would meet Pritam independently in the next few days. If, like Pritam et al suggest, no recommendation was made because they were so overwhelmed by Raeesah's admission that they told her it would be dealt with later - then why wasn't it? Nothing happened throughout August or September, before the next parliamentary sitting. Pritam's explanation that he expected Raeesah to come to him is rather weak considering she has the WhatsApp message in hand and he only has his own word. And he's suggesting that as a party leader he was not concerned enough to take action about it? I mean, come on...
2️⃣ As far as testimonies in front of COP go, WP leaders haven't produced much substance. Faisal and Sylvia pointed their fingers at Pritam. It was also quite clear that Faisal must have been prepared by the other two on how to respond and what to say - hence the notes he brought with him and the wavering in his responses, as if he was unsure if what to say (ultimately refusing to confirm whether he even knew what SL and PS had in their notes during the meetings they had together in the preceding days). Pritam himself has entered a drawn out rhetorical duel with Edwin Tong, during which he consistently dodged questions and refused to give direct answers as to what he said, when he said or what he meant. And while his supporters may have seen this as some sort of a PR triumph and evidence that PAP is using COP to bully WP, it surely does not look very good if a party leader can't give a straight answer, now does it? Particularly as Raeesah has now reiterated her version of events...
Two of the three leaders point to the Secretary General as the person in charge, while he has failed to provide clear, direct answers and spent hours distancing himself from any responsibility, trying to convince everyone that he expected Raeesah to handle it all on her own. This isn't a particularly strong line of defense..."
Damn PAP "fixing"! Contemporaneous WhatsApp and video evidence is meaningless! Someone actually seriously claimed that Khan could've been looking at TikTok videos in Parliament instead of that suggesting that she was waiting for directions from Pritam on lying in Parliament
Facebook - "I see comments about why the WP leaders have been cross examined at length, yet Raeesah Khan seems to be ‘getting off easy”. That these long interviews are overkill and that the COP is biased. Let’s consider the following :
Raeesah Khan’s narrative is straightforward. She admitted she lied. She says her leaders told her to continue the narrative and “take it to the grave”. Whether you believe her is another matter.
On the other hand, the WP leadership’s narrative is confusing and makes no sense. On the one hand they said they told Raeesah to take ownership and responsibility. On the other hand they said it was her call and they won’t judge her. On the one hand they said they wanted to give her time out of compassion. On the other hand they said they wanted her to tell the truth as soon as possible. Which in October was the very next day , not the next month. So obviously it is going to take a lot more time to get to the truth ! Every time I read their narrative, I get a headache. I get a bigger headache from the way their supporters are trying to spin it on social media. The whole thing makes zero sense. Even if the WP leadership weren’t lying, they are hugely incompetent at giving clear instructions. I have many times said I hope Singapore can have a strong, competent Opposition. The Worker’s Party with a charismatic, moderate leader stood a very good chance. I am now as disappointed as WP supporters. But let’s not let our bias blind us to the fact that this is a huge cluster fark by the WP. Unnecessary own goal. Say what you will about the PAP, they have been whiter than white for most of their time in power. The last time one of their ministers was investigated for a major integrity issue, he committed suicide. Enough said."
Facebook
Comment: "Note that nobody is now complaining that Dennis asked leading questions of the expert witness. I thought they said was wrong to ask leading questions in a COP cos it is trying to force people to answer in a way that fits your narrative""
All those who claimed Edwin Tong was scum to keep asking leading questions are silent about Dennis Tan. Anyway those who blame Edwin Tong for Pritam being hostile ignore the fact that there're professional ways to rebuff leading questions
Facebook - "One fascinating observation: Netizens are now claiming that since Raeesah didn't have dissociation as claimed, then she was lying and even more guilty, therefore absolving the WP. Instead of the correct point that if she didn't have dissociation, and dissociation doesn't cause people to lie, then her whatsapp message sent back in Aug (stating that Pritam, Sylvia and Faizal told her to "take it to the grave") is more likely to be true."
She also testified she didn't say she had dissociation
Facebook - "Who caused this fiasco? The Workers’ Party. Could they have stopped this from the onset, as early as August? Yes, but they did not. Should they be more cooperative with the Committee of Privileges? The onus was on them to do so, but instead, they have tried to twist and turn and wasted hours. The Senior Leaders of WP – Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap – refused to submit the documentary evidence until being compelled by the committee to do so. Should the Workers’ Party apologise? Evidently, yes, but they did not throughout this entire episode. This is the Workers’ Party way of distracting the public from their failings, playing the victim, and engaging in showmanship. Case in point – Edwin Tong had to painstakingly repeat the question, using different methods and techniques, to get Pritam’s agreement on how an ordinary person would take “your call” and how Raeesah could have misconstrued what he expected her to do. Which could have easily been avoided if he had just told her, “Tell the truth”. And yet, all those hours of painful — though necessary — questioning has been shoved aside in favour of meaningless distraction. Mic-drop, quick comebacks from Pritam that played to the gallery, which WP stans and simps have amplified on social media. In which you don’t hear one plausible comeback as to why the WP leadership had not reined the situation in as soon as she had told them that she had lied (and worse, why they felt it was not on them to do so). A cloud of smoke and mirror — performative in nature, without belying any substance/argument. There would not have been a Taiwanese drama if Raeesah Khan had not casually inserted a lie in a speech to Parliament, whose purpose is still not clear to date. There would be no plot to speak of if Pritam Singh had just made it crystal to her that she had to correct her lie regardless of whether she would be questioned about it (instead of doubling down on the lie). It would not be 30 hours long if, from the get-go, the Workers’ Party conducted itself with enough integrity. Edwin Tong and his colleagues would not have to spend hours trying to get their story straight. This is one Taiwanese drama perpetuated by the Workers’ Party. Why? To distract and confuse the public and gain political mileage from this very mess they have created.
This is the new Workers’ Party.
-- None with a working conscience.
-- None with a sense of responsibility.
-- None a leader."
Facebook
Comment: "Note that nobody is now complaining that Dennis asked leading questions of the expert witness. I thought they said was wrong to ask leading questions in a COP cos it is trying to force people to answer in a way that fits your narrative ๐"
All those who claimed Edwin Tong was scum to keep asking leading questions are silent about Dennis Tan. Anyway those who blame Edwin Tong for Pritam being hostile ignore the fact that there're professional ways to rebuff leading questions, as exemplified by Dr Christopher Cheok
Facebook - "When did you know it was a lie?
Aug
Did you tell her to disclose in Aug?
I did not
Did you know it was a lie in Sep?
Yes
Did you tell her to disclose in Sep?
No
Did you know it was a lie in Oct?
Yes
Did you tell her to disclose?
No
So in summary, you knew she told a lie 3 times?
Yes
You did not ask her to correct the lie 3 times?
Yes
How many times in your judgment would she have to lie before you would tell her to correct the lie?
…
Thank you Leader of the Opposition."
Facebook - "LEADERSHIP AND THE WP
The Workers’ Party has a very strange attitude towards leadership. At the COP, their leaders seemed to take the position that their Members of Parliament needed to take responsibility for themselves, and it should not be up to the leaders to tell them what to do, even if they committed a grave wrong. In the COP findings, MP Dennis Tan seemed to also take the same stance.
The COP lowered Raeesah Khan’s fine for the subsequent lies because they believed that her leader’s (mis) guidance was a mitigating factor. Mr. Tan objected. The first grounds of objection was fair enough, that he disputed there was such mis (guidance). But he then went on to say that whether there was such guidance was irrelevant. That EVEN IF there was such (mis) guidance, Raeesah Khan should have ignored it and told the truth anyway.
I don’t know which school of leadership these people went to. Leaders have a responsibility to tell their subordinates to do the right thing. In clear terms. Especially if they KNOW a wrong was committed. One cannot leave it to their subordinates and say ‘it’s your call’. If this is the sort of leadership we have to look forward to form an alternative government, may the heavens help us all."
Move aside PAP, here comes the Workers' Party Internet Brigade - "According to Fathership's investigation, the WP IB is a youth-led committee that mounts counter-insurgency narratives against online critics. The committee itself seeks counsel from a local creative agency and public relations professionals that are tasked on a retainer basis to plan and coordinate the messaging. The online narratives itself are guided by a preset "brand" tone of voice and suggested template responses to opposing comments in social media."
