Committee of Privileges Hearing on 2 December 2021 - Ms Raeesah Khan: Transcript

Preamble:

What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I 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 9 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later (the transcripts and evidence given to the committee are supposed to be confidential but everything is on YouTube: go figure; that was a very short embargo period). 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:  0:00  
We'll call the meeting back to order again. So agenda dance, please invite the next witness to the witness table Miss Raisa con.

Thermoscan please take a seat. Thank you. For the record, please state I can take off your mask when you speak. Please state your name, occupation and the positions you hold.

Raeesah Khan  0:41  
My name is Dr. Lisa Hahn and I don't hold any positions currently.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:46  
Okay the evidence that you'll be giving today before the committee will be taken on oath. So if you so desire can also take an affirmation so Clerk, please administer the oath or affirmation.

Raeesah Khan  1:27  
I rise to hon. 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:  1:40  
Please be seated. The Committee of privileges is looking into the complaint made by the Leader of the House Miss Indrani Raja against former member of Sengkang GRC Miss Raisa con for breach of privilege. So thank you once again, for attending today's hearing to give evidence before the committee and to answer the questions which members here would like to put to you? You have taken a solemn obligation to answer questions truthfully. And you are under affirmation. And if you refuse to answer questions directly or attempt to mislead the committee, such behavior will be an offence and in contempt of this committee, which I'm sure you're aware. I would like now to call on Mr. Minister when talk to racist questions. Good afternoon,

Raeesah Khan  2:24  
sir. Good afternoon.

Edwin Tong  2:26  
Thank you very much for coming to assist the fact finding for the CRP. As Mr. Speaker and Chairman of the CRP has mentioned leaders put in a complaint I think you're aware of that visitor, two hits to it. One relates to an untruthful statement or statements. And the other relates to a failure to substantiate the basis on which those statements were made. This Corp has the task of understanding the circumstances, making some findings, and eventually also recommendations were appropriate of sanctions. So it is important that we understand the matter fully. And also understand the relative role and position that you played in the context of how these statements came to be made. On the various occasions. Do you understand that? Yes, I understand. Yes. So I will be asking you some questions, please answer them directly. And where appropriate, Please elaborate. And I'll invite you to do so where they are relevant. And if you think there are other people who might also be able to assist the CLP in fact finding process, please do raise those with us as well. Okay. In the course of this session, I will also be asking you if any documents, emails, messages, other hard copies and so on, which may exist in relation to or arising from the contents of the evidence, and I may, from time to time ask you to produce them. So I'd be grateful if you could make a small note, if you have a notebook or a piece of paper there, and just keep a record of it. Okay. Miss Kahn, a short while ago, there was a press conference by the Workers Party in relation to the decision that the discipline panel the DEP had taken. Are you aware of that press conference? Have you seen it?

Raeesah Khan  4:19  
I've seen it briefly because I had to make a call to my parents. But I didn't watch it or I didn't read any of the news articles.

Edwin Tong  4:28  
Alright. Let me I've got some articles and I will have also just seen them myself. Okay. I'm just going to put to you some facts that was stated at the press conference. And we're going to ask you for your position on them. Okay.

I will read them to you because I don't have copies given I just got them off the press conference earlier today. In fact, a while ago, there was a statement issued by the Workers Party see See, and it says this. On second November, the Workers Party, CZ agreed to form a DEP dispute panel to look into admissions made by Russia con in Parliament. By way of personal statement on first November 2021. It goes on to talk about the disciplinary panel, and how you subsequently resigned as a member of parliament on the 30th of November. And it goes on to say, and I quote, ssec had not received her resignation in writing by then by that meaning by 30th November, it proceeded to deliberate the recommendations of the disciplinary panel, the CC voted overwhelmingly that she would have been expected to resign on her own accord, failing which she'll be expelled from the party. So this is the position taken in relation to where we are now today. Now, in relation to this statements in question, and I'll just quickly give you a brief summary. And if at any point in time, you can't remember the statements you've made in Parliament, it is our memory test. So feel free to stop and I will show you copies of the transcripts. But on the basis that you do remember, I'll just I thought we can go faster. Okay, thank you. So on the third of August, there was a speech that you made in the context of empowering women. And in there you besides talking about your views on how women can be advanced, you recounted a personal anecdote. The anecdote concerns accompanying a 25 year old survivor to a police station. Subsequently, you have admitted that that anecdote was false. And it never happened. Correct? Correct. Now, in October, there was a further parliamentary sitting, and this is about two months after the speech was made. And in October, you had been asked various questions by Minister Shanmugam in relation to details such as the police station, which date, what location and some specifics of the occasion. And he also asked you to confirm that whatever you had said, had happened, in fact happened. And you did confirm that. And you subsequently also agreed with Miss Indrani. Raja, the leader of the House that those statements were also false, correct? Correct. All right. Now, I'd like you to just pause for a moment in October, and in that context, asks you to comment on what was said at the press, release a press conference earlier.

There's a press article, titled, from CNA title on WP leadership knew about Russia cons untruth a week after her original speech in August, and that's ascribed to Mr. Pritam Singh. It goes on to say, and I quote from the article, Miss Kahn also repeated the untruth in October, in parliament in October, despite being asked to clarify the matter, then sit Mr. Singh. Now pausing there for a moment. Can you remember the occasion at which you were asked to clarify the statement before the October sitting?

Raeesah Khan  8:12  
Before the October setting? I had a conversation with the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh. And the conversation was that if I were to retain the narrative, or if I were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgment.

Edwin Tong  8:31  
Can you tell us which date this took place?

Raeesah Khan  8:36  
Third of October? Where did this take place in my house?

Edwin Tong  8:49  
Was there anyone else present besides the two of you? No, there was not. Are there any email or message messages exchange as a result of this? No, there was not the discussion for you to retain the narrative, and there'll be no judgment. Can you give me your interpretation of that? What do you make of that statement?

Raeesah Khan  9:14  
My interpretation was that that there would be no consequences for me to continue the narrative that I had begun on the in in August.

Edwin Tong  9:32  
In other words, there will be no consequences on you if you continue to continue the lie. And keep up the contention that there was this occasion this anecdote that you had described, but a third of August despite it being a

Raeesah Khan  9:49  
lie. That was my interpretation. Yes. And

Edwin Tong  9:53  
there was therefore no. attempt by Mr. Singh to ask you to clarify the matter in favor of putting out the truth.

Raeesah Khan  10:03  
Not at that point in time. No,

Edwin Tong  10:05  
not on the third of October No. Right. This news article goes further. There was I think, a press statement made by Mr. Singh. And then followed, I think some press questions. And I'll just like to draw your attention to a part of the report, which is titled taking responsibility. Mr. Let me just read it to you verbatim. And I quote, when asked why the claim was allowed to remain uncorrected. And the Kamya refers to the anecdote, Mr. Singh said, and I quote, each Worker's 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. adequately, come and set the record. Right, yes, full stop. In response to questions over why Miss Kahn did not follow orders to clarify the matter in October, Mr. Singh added, and I quote, these are his words, why she didn't take heed of that instruction? Why did she ignore it? That's not a question I can answer. Can I invite you to comment on this in light of what you've just said earlier, about the discussion you had on a third of October?

Raeesah Khan  11:18  
I think regardless of the discussion that I had, I agree that it is my responsibility, it was my responsibility to come forth with the truth. And I take full responsibility of that. I think, despite advice, I should have taken the step to rectify my mistake, then

Edwin Tong  11:39  
this contention that there was an order for you to clarify the matter in October. Can you give us your view on this?

Raeesah Khan  11:50  
I mean, I'm hearing this for the first time. So I

Edwin Tong  12:00  
would you agree with the characterization that there was an order for you to clarify the matter in parliament in October?

Raeesah Khan  12:06  
I do not agree with that characterization.

Edwin Tong  12:10  
In fact, had there been such an order, we would have expected to see Mr. Singh, stand up on the fourth of October or shortly thereafter and confront you, either directly or through messages with a question as to why you didn't follow the order? Correct.

Raeesah Khan  12:29  
I cannot assume what he would have done. But that was not

Edwin Tong  12:35  
what didn't happen. Yes. At any point in time, shortly after the fourth of October, did Mr. Singh come to you and say, Why didn't you follow the order that we agreed on? Did he say that, you know?

Earlier on your secretary assistant, Miss lopi, came to give evidence. And she explained to us that sometime after the fourth of October, there was a meeting which took place at Mr. Singh's house at which she and Mr. One, Mr. Nothern, your district attended? You will be familiar with this meeting, right? Yes, I was aware of the meeting. And the meeting was triggered by an initial conversation between you and Miss Lowe, either on or shortly before the curve of October, correct. Correct. Can you give us, you know, in just what happened at that conversation between you and Miss Liu?

Raeesah Khan  13:33  
I can't recall exactly. But I think the conversations were around a statement that would be making in Parliament, what that statement might sound like, and the options that were that I had.

Edwin Tong  13:51  
By that time, had it been settled that you were at the next parliamentary sitting, come clean and admit that the statement was false. No, it had not yet. So by the 12th of October, it had not yet crystallized that you will be making a statement in parliament that will admit to the falsity of the earlier statement, correct.

Raeesah Khan  14:21  
Sorry, I think I have to rectify that. I think yes, by the time of the 12th of October, it was decided that I would make a statement in Perl you

Edwin Tong  14:29  
had decided, yes, you had decided. So, actually you had decided and that's why that triggered a chain of events in relation to what Miss Lowe then told us. She said she went with Mr. Nothern. To see Mr. Singh to manage the process. Yes, what you would say what impact it will have on your constituents, managing your social media. Those are some of what Miss Lowe told us. Yes. Would that be correct?

Raeesah Khan  14:55  
That would be correct. She was very concerned over the art over my well being so hence that's why she went to pretend

Edwin Tong  15:03  
that that is exactly what she told us. She was principally concerned with your well being now, just pausing for a moment from October. Miss Lowe also told us that a few days after the third of August, you had informed Mr. Singh, Miss limb and Mr. Faisal mana that the statements made on a third of August were false. Correct? Can you describe that with some detail in relation to setting out the time frame, who was present where these discussions took place? What was discussed, and whether there are any documentary evidence or papers, which corroborate or substantiate these discussions? So take your time, if you need to just compose yourself for a minute.

Raeesah Khan  15:51  
Thank you. So the first conversation I had that with any party leadership that, you know, I think that I the first time that I gave any sense that it was an untruth was on the seventh of August. And it was a short phone call, which then was followed by a meeting at return things house with the chair, Sylvia Lim and Vice Chair, Vice online.

Edwin Tong  16:32  
So seventh of August, there was a short phone call only with Pritam Singh. Yes. When was this meeting?

Raeesah Khan  16:40  
It was a few days after I'm sorry, but I really can't think of the date. But it was I think it was the following Wednesday or Thursday.

Edwin Tong  16:52  
So that would be what, three Four days later? Yes, roughly? Yes. And you said that whose house again? Pritam Singh's house. Okay. And at this occasion, Miss Lim and Mr. Manoj were present? Yes. And did you put it in clear terms to them as well that the statement you made was false? Yes. Could they have misunderstood? No, they could not? What was their reaction to this?

Raeesah Khan  17:19  
It was incredible disappointment. There was a lot of anger. But I think there was some compassion there as well. The reaction was that if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to to retain the narrative that I began on in August.

Edwin Tong  17:48  
Let me understand the last statement, you said if you are not going to be pressed, and then you retain the narrative that you started in August? Yes, it means if you can get away with it, we don't have to clarify the lie, correct?

Raeesah Khan  18:02  
I think in simple and the simplest terms, yes, you're correct.

Edwin Tong  18:06  
And so the Workers Party leadership was present there. Their initial initial reaction to being told that there was a lie or falsehood stood in Parliament, was to try and duck the issue if possible. And if it doesn't come up, then the truth may not be told eventually. Correct.

Raeesah Khan  18:26  
I have to say, though, that Pritam Singh's initial response was that I should go to the committee of privileges. But after discussions and in May me explaining the circumstances that led me to the information in the first place that changed.

Edwin Tong  18:48  
So the upshot of the meeting few days after the seventh of August, was that the Workers Party leadership decided that there'll be no need to clarify the position, they will keep the lie in place. Since if you're not pressed, there's no need to clarify the truth. Correct? Correct. Was there any exchange of emails or documents or WhatsApp chats, which would corroborate this meeting?

Raeesah Khan  19:14  
No, no would not be.

Edwin Tong  19:16  
Did you discuss this with Miss Lowe thereafter? Yes, I did. In those discussions, did you give an account what happened? Yes, I did. Would that be by messages?

Raeesah Khan  19:28  
Yes, there would be by messages and that those messages

Edwin Tong  19:31  
would capture the thrust of what you had discussed with Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Muslim. Yes. I see you making a note, so could you please get copies of those for us, please? Yes. Those messages would have been contemporaneous, meaning they would have been roughly around the same time as when you concluded the meeting with the three of them. Yes. Okay. What was disclosed reaction

Raeesah Khan  20:05  
I don't remember her reaction by message. But I think when we spoke about it afterwards, there was a sense that the best thing to do would be to tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  20:18  
There was this last position to tell the truth

Raeesah Khan  20:22  
thereafter, yes.

Edwin Tong  20:25  
Miss Lowe told us that she was principally concerned with your well being. Yes. And that she felt that in some ways you had complained and disclose it to the senior leadership and Workers Party. And she felt that they will then handle the matter and decide the appropriate costs, in a sense, leaving in the hands of the senior members of the party. In her words, she called Mr. Singh, a seasoned politician. Would that also have been your impression? Yes. That would have been the reason why you went to them, to tell them in the first place and to get counsel and guidance, correct. Correct. At this point in time, did you discuss it with anyone else?

Raeesah Khan  21:08  
Yes, I discussed it with my husband.

Edwin Tong  21:12  
Did you also discuss with Mr. Nothern?

Raeesah Khan  21:15  
Yes,

Edwin Tong  21:15  
yes. Could you please describe your relationship with Mr. Nothern? What does he do for you? How do you work with him in the context of the workers party's work on the ground? And what else? How else do you interact with Mr. Navin,

Raeesah Khan  21:28  
Mr. Nothern is a volunteer with the Workers Party. He has been I think with the party for a while. I met him shortly before I was announced as a candidate. And he we've become quite close. In that sense.

Edwin Tong  21:48  
You see someone that you would have discussed the speech with the consequences of the speech, how to handle the clarifications and so on in the in the weeks ahead? Yes. So he will be someone who would have quite intimate knowledge of what you went through. And you would have shared accounts of your discussions with Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, were Muslim with him, contemporaneously?

Raeesah Khan  22:13  
Yes, together with Miss Lowe. So, those discussions will happen at the same time.

Edwin Tong  22:18  
Okay. Miss Lowe has told us that you share threeway, Whatsapp group chat with them, that that will be one platform on which you discuss this. Yes, I assume, right. Yes. Miss Miss. Lowe also told us that there was at least one occasion when there was a Zoom meeting to discuss what to do and the impact of this. Can you describe that? Can you tell us about it?

Raeesah Khan  22:40  
So this was after the call that I had with Pritam Singh on the seventh of August. I wanted to also be truthful to them because of the support that they've given me so far. Thus far. Yes. And I wanted to explain how I got the information. And and why I included it the way I did.

Edwin Tong  23:08  
Okay. This call with Mr. Singh on the seventh of August, can you think carefully? Was it initiated by you or by him? It was initiated by me by you. So you call him? Yes. In the days that followed the speech bit in Parliament, which is on the fourth of August, were there any other discussions with Mr. Singh or with Mr. Mana or Muslim?

Raeesah Khan  23:31  
The reason that the call was initiated, the reason that I called him was because he was pushing for me to validate the information and verify it. And when I realized that I couldn't, that's when I gave him a call and told him, I go, I couldn't and subsequently we met in person.

Edwin Tong  23:53  
But when you met in person, would that have been the first time you discussed it with him? Yes. And did you attempt to conceal the truth from him at that point in time? No, I did not. So you told him directly that it was false, and you had no way of substantiating Yes.

Now after this meeting, which took place at Mr. Singh's home a few days after the seventh of August, when you think we've sort of reached a conclusion on what happened thereafter. What was your next contact with senior party leadership in relation to this issue?

Raeesah Khan  24:45  
It was after the fourth of October.

Edwin Tong  24:50  
Let me track that timeline because it's about a six week window. Yes. So you left Mr. Singh's home, understanding If it doesn't come up, not pressed, leave it be so don't clarify. Right? Yes. And in the ensuing weeks nervous, no question, no query about the event. So I guess what you had agreed at Mr. Singh's home was carried out the only to productively do anything about it.

Raeesah Khan  25:20  
I also contracted shingles a week before the September setting. Yes. Therefore, I think that's why I did not come up as well.

Edwin Tong  25:28  
Well, I see you had shingles around September.

Raeesah Khan  25:34  
Yes. So I did not attend the setting.

Edwin Tong  25:43  
The next time that there was a sitting with it, that might have been October? Yes. And at the start of this afternoon session, you told us that on the third of October, you spoke with Mr. Singh. Was that the first occasion after this period in shortly after seven August that you've met with him on this issue? Yes. Just so that I understand the context and how it works. Do you see Mr. Singh regularly?

Raeesah Khan  26:10  
No, I do not. Outside of parliamentary work, I do not see him regularly.

Edwin Tong  26:15  
Right. Is there a group chat that you have with him where he's on on it? And are these issues in Parliament discussed? In conjunction with other MPs and other activists and volunteers?

Raeesah Khan  26:27  
We have a group chat with all the MPs. However, this was not discussed.

Edwin Tong  26:33  
Okay. So therefore, the next time this came about was on a third of October, or the third of October, can you describe how this meeting was initiated?

Raeesah Khan  26:45  
It was actually initiated because his wife needed to drop some stuff off of off my house for my little daughter. And he came and spoke to me about about this upcoming setting.

Edwin Tong  27:00  
So the meeting was at your home? On a third of October? Yes. Can you tell us that just so what he had told you?

Raeesah Khan  27:13  
I think I'll be repeating myself, but okay, I shall

Edwin Tong  27:17  
do this. If there's nothing else beyond what you had said earlier that that's fine. I asked it. Perhaps I should be clearer asked it in the context of I know what he said. But I like to know what triggered it. And I'm assuming it's because Parliament's it's the next day. Yes. And he is expecting that because this is the first occasion you'll be back physically in Parliament. That does therefore a risk that this will come up? Correct.

Raeesah Khan  27:45  
I assume that's why he brought it up. Yes.

Edwin Tong  27:48  
And therefore the assumption that you had left off with a few weeks ago that if not pressed, leave the lie alone might actually come to be tested on the fourth of October, correct? Correct. And so he was discussing with you how then one should respond if this came up,

Raeesah Khan  28:05  
correct. He was giving advice. Yes. Yes. And his

Edwin Tong  28:09  
advice, as you said earlier, was if you retain the narrative, there'll be no judgment on you. Yes. Okay. And we know what you took away from that? Yes. Was there any other discussion with him thereafter? I don't know. Third, on the fourth of October,

Raeesah Khan  28:24  
on the fourth of October, after the at the end of the, or I think shortly after the exchange, there was a short discussion on what we should do, what the next steps are. But there was no concrete decision made.

Edwin Tong  28:40  
Okay. On the fourth of October. And if you'd like to refresh yourself as to what the exchange was, I can show it to you. I can give you the transcript, let me know. There was an exchange between yourself and Mr. Shanmugam. There were some very specific questions relating to details. And eventually, if I can summarize your answers, the thrust of your position was because of confidentiality, you were not comfortable going to details? Correct? Correct. Was that an approach that you had contemplated? Or that was discussed or had arisen in the context of your discussions with Mr. Singh the day before?

Raeesah Khan  29:25  
It was a decision that I made, because at that point in time, I was still very afraid of revealing the circumstances of why I receive that information in the first place. And also what was going through my mind was that the truth would have a wide impact on survivors out there.

Edwin Tong  29:50  
Yes, I understand that part of your statement. My question was whether Mr. Singh was aware of the gist of what you would say If asked.

Raeesah Khan  30:02  
I'm not sure that that he would have been aware.

Edwin Tong  30:06  
Because if the purpose of the discussion having been initiated on a third of August, October was in contemplation or expectation of the fourth of October sitting and his expectation that the issue might arise. The key question is, what would be the response? If you're pressed? Right. So it would not have been unreasonable or unusual to have expected that he would have wanted to know what you wanted to say? If asked. So did that come up?

Raeesah Khan  30:39  
He actually did not ask me how I would respond. He just made that statement, that brief statement, and that was the end of the discussion.

Edwin Tong  30:46  
So retain the narrative. There'll be no judgment on you. Yes. And so on the fourth of October when you made that statement, at the time you made the statement in Parliament, at least Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Miss Lim would have known that the statement in Parliament was false. Correct. And, in fact, there were several statements on the fourth of October which were false. Correct.

Raeesah Khan  31:17  
Correct. And you mentioned which statements are those?

Edwin Tong  31:25  
Okay. Maybe we should look at the statements that were very clear about it. Okay. So can I invite you to? If you can assist Miss, can I like to look at the fourth October transcript Yeah, mobile handset sorry, handset. Just print it out. So let me ask you to please just cast your eye over what is that? What is it

mishaan, can I invite you to just cast your eye quickly over the passages? It's been about two months. So I'd like you to just refresh yourself. Have a quick look. Let me know when you're done.

Raeesah Khan  33:16  
Thank you, I'm done.

Edwin Tong  33:17  
Okay. Thank you. Now, if you look at page two of the transcript, Miss Minister Shanmugam was talking about this in the context of your anecdote. And in the middle paragraph. He says she went on to say that the incident happened three years ago, and she doesn't wish to read traumatize the survivor whom she had a company. So that's the context in which he put the point and asked you for some details. And if you go to page three, you then said, like I said, it did happen three years ago. So this line, that didn't happen, is false, right.

Raeesah Khan  34:00  
It's false that I accompanied this person to the police station. But as I heard that counted a woman support group, I do not believe that portion is false.

Edwin Tong  34:10  
So I'm focusing on the point you made in your speech, which says you were present. And you had accompanied her. I understand this is the part which minister Shambo was asking you for details for? If you had said you had heard it from a support group and from a survivor, there would have been no need for these questions, because the key thrust of it was the fact that you had accompanied her. So it is in that context that this statement is false, correct? Correct. And it goes on to say I would not I have not been successful in getting in touch with the person. This is also false because in fact, you would not have known who this person is you're not in a position to contact this person. Nor have you, I think tried to do so because it's not a person, your company, right? Correct. And so The words I accompany is also not correct. Now, you just cast your eye over the next few lines where you ask for some details. And finally over the page at page four, you ask around the middle. Can I ask through you, sir, for mishaan to confirm in this house that everything she has told us is accurate, that you did accompany such and such a person and such an incident that happened? And your answer was yes. That's false, right. Yes. So in the context of my other questions, these were the false statements that I was referring to. I understand now. And so and so my question to go back to it was that, as you were making these statements in Parliament, Mr. Singh, Mr. Manoj, and Miss Lim would have been aware, as you were making these statements in parliament that they were false. Correct. Thank you. Now, you mentioned that after these statements were made on the fourth of October, that there was a meeting, I don't know whether it's physically or through messaging. Can you elaborate meeting with, with your fellow MPs from the Workers Party in relation to what just happened in Parliament? On the fourth of October?

Raeesah Khan  36:28  
It was meeting in the ELO office with Smith, Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh.

Edwin Tong  36:36  
So just three of you, yes. Can you tell us what happened?

Raeesah Khan  36:43  
There was a discussion on what the next step should be. And that was it. That was the conclusion of the conversation. What

Edwin Tong  36:51  
do you mean by next steps should be what does that mean? Can you give me a little bit more clarity?

Raeesah Khan  36:59  
We had a discussion around the possible police investigation. The possibility of me standing, or me, being heard at the committee have privileges. And there was a discussion that I had and that was the main gist of the discussion.

Edwin Tong  37:23  
Early on, I referred you to the quote in the press statement today, where it was suggested that you were ordered to complain on the fourth of October. So just to be clear, at this meeting on the fourth of October itself, there was never any discussion about why you didn't comply with instructions or orders by Mr. Singh. Why no one else in a Workers Party to clarify the truth? Correct? Correct. In fact, it was not even clear. In the meeting between yourself Ms. Lim and Mr. Singh, that you would take the position that you eventually did on the first of November, to admit the truth, which is that the statements are false. Correct. So and I'm reading to you from from the Workers Party press statement from today. Then I quote, almost immediately after Parliament adjourned in October ratio agreed with the party leadership that she had, that she had to set the record. Right, forthwith. I shared with her that it was the correct thing to do. This didn't happen on a fourth of October, correct? No, it did not. In fact, it did not happen until sometime just before the 12th of October, correct? Correct. Because you recall, it was a call when you made a call to miss Lowe. Yes, yes. And then that set in motion a chain of events, which led to the first of November. Right. So just to be clear, in the context of this paragraph, it was not almost immediately, and it was certainly not at least for another week or so. Correct? Correct. Now, you remember that, in Parliament, Minister Shanmugam had said that the police would reach out to interview? Yes. And in fact, shortly after visiting, they did reach out to interview you. Yes, there was an email first on the seventh. And then on the 15th of October. And if you'd like a reference point that I can show you the police statement, if you can't recall the dates.

Raeesah Khan  39:24  
Yes, I think there was another one on the 18th as well.

Edwin Tong  39:27  
So by the time you had, or rather, in the midst of making up your mind, you had a request from the police to request at least three requests. You said yes. Did you bring this up to Mr. Singh or anyone else in a Workers Party? I did. Did you seek advice and counsel as to how to deal with this?

Raeesah Khan  39:56  
Yes, I did. But by that time, I think we decided or I decided as well that the best thing to do would be to make a statement in Parliament describing my actions and why I made that Miss judgment in the first place, hence why I didn't reply the police.

Edwin Tong  40:16  
When did you speak to Mr. Singh about the request police?

Raeesah Khan  40:27  
I think on the day that I received it,

Edwin Tong  40:30  
which is the seventh of October.

Raeesah Khan  40:33  
Yes, yes.

Edwin Tong  40:42  
As of the seventh of October, you will not have had decided that you will come to Parliament to make a statement, correct? Oh, yes. Correct. Yes. So, at a point in time, it was equivocal as to whether you could, you should see the police to clarify, or eventually, as you decided to come to Parliament to clarify. So it was not clear as of the seventh of October, right. Yes. So it couldn't have been that you decided that? Well, I've since I'm going to clarify and Parliament any way I can in order police, correct. Yes. So what made you decide? Or what made you discuss with Mr. Singh? And how did you all collectively decide not to reply to the police?

Raeesah Khan  41:26  
I think that decision was because there was no reason for me to have to go to the police station. I think it was a request. And that was what what what the decision was that since it was a request, I would not have to go.

Edwin Tong  41:47  
What to not even reply to the police. Was that something that Mr. Singh agreed with? That was to ignore the police and to not even reply to the police. That was the directive? Yes.

Who was the director from party leadership? Who would there be

Raeesah Khan  42:09  
Silvia them in Pritam? Singh?

Edwin Tong  42:11  
Not to reply to the police? Yes. Did he explain the reasons to you?

Raeesah Khan  42:15  
No, they did not. Yes, they did. But the reasons are very brief in that was that they could not come compel a Member of Parliament, or they could not force a Member of Parliament to visit the police.

Edwin Tong  42:33  
Well, you're not concerned that you were ignoring legitimate requests from the police arising from a statement that you made in Parliament.

Raeesah Khan  42:41  
I was concerned. But I'm I'm I was not sure what to do. When and I seeked a seek for I asked for advice. And that was advice that was given to me. And so

Edwin Tong  42:59  
you went along with the advice given by Muslim and Mr. Singh? Yes. Which was to ignore the police and not replied to them on the basis that they cannot compel you. Yes. And all of this was even before you decided that you would clarify the truth with parliament, correct? Correct. So it is not as if, in giving that directive, as you put it to you, to ignore the police, that the senior leadership of Workers Party already knew that you were going to come to Parliament to clarify the truth? Correct.

Raeesah Khan  43:33  
Sorry, can you say that again?

Edwin Tong  43:35  
Sure. As of seventh of October, when you received the first email, and you said, you saw Mr. Singh at that point in time, and you receive that directive, after discussing with him and with Miss limb, that you will not reply to the police, you will not proceed to the request for an interview. At that juncture, seventh of October, you had not yet decided that you would come to Parliament come clean, and clarify that the earlier statements were untrue. Correct? Correct. Correct. Which therefore means that at the time, Mr. Singh and Muslim, were giving you a directive to ignore the police. There is no reason for them to believe that the truth would come out in some other way. Correct.

Raeesah Khan  44:22  
I don't know what they assumed or why they came to that decision. Because I did not ask.

Edwin Tong  44:26  
Well just focus on two things. One. As of seven October, you told us that you had not yet decided that you would come and clarify the truth with parliament. Right. So that's still an uncertainty at best. There's a request by the police to come and give an interview in relation to the matters. You said in Parliament. You're not exceeding to it based on the directive from Workers Party. So I'm saying to you That at least as a result of these two factors, there would have been no basis to assume that the real facts would come out at some stage through some other forum. Correct? Correct. It is not as if I'm telling you to ignore the police, because I already knew you're going to clarify it Parliament subsequently. That's not something that Mr. Singh or Muslim could have said on the seventh of October,

Raeesah Khan  45:28  
right. They did not say to me, but they might have been thinking

Edwin Tong  45:32  
they might, they might have thought so but you had, you had not indicated that you will be making any clarifications in Parliament at a point in time, right. Yes. So, if indeed, Mr. Singh, had, in his words, given you an order to clarify, and he's now saying to the press, that he doesn't understand why you didn't comply with an order? Had it been an order that you are given to clarify the truth on the fourth of October? One other and you didn't do that on the fourth of October? One other way of letting the truth come out, would be to speak to the police. Right? Yes. Which he directed you? Not to do? Correct.

Now, can I ask you some questions relating to the circumstances that happened immediately after the first of November? So going back to the period of time, and I'd like you to just refresh yourself and look at the transcript on the first of November.

You see? Could you please assist me, son? I'm looking at Hands up for the first of November at around 2pm. Yeah.

So the first couple of paragraphs were your own personal explanation. And I think you'll be familiar with that. And subsequently, leader of the House asked you various questions. And I think we can just go briefly, you retracted your statement, your anecdote. Miss Indrani. Raja brought you through various parts of the statement, which were untrue. And I think it's a matter of record that you agree. in those respects, that is untrue. Now, up to this point in time, in your mind, the true state of affairs was known to the Workers Party senior leadership for something close to almost three months now. Right by first November. Correct. And you were told that there'll be no judgment on you.

And you then made your statement in Parliament on the first of November.

At any point in time, up to the first sort of member when you made the statement, was there any suggestion that there will be a disciplinary panel set up to look into your conduct?

Raeesah Khan  48:42  
No, there was not.

Edwin Tong  48:46  
Did you have any inkling any suggestion that you'll be disciplined in this way?

Raeesah Khan  48:50  
No, I did not.

Edwin Tong  48:53  
Now, let me ask you to if I think it's in the same file, look at the statement of the Workers Party. In fact, the Secretary General on the same day on the first of November

you haven't missed? Yes, yes. You probably have seen it previously. But could I ask you to just have a quick read to yourself? Yes. Can you give me your reaction to this statement when you first saw it? First, did it come as a surprise to you?

Raeesah Khan  49:46  
Yes, it did. Actually, this is the first time I'm reading it because I've been on a social media blackout.

Edwin Tong  49:54  
So I can understand so can you Can you tell me which parts surprise you from the statement? Let me

Raeesah Khan  50:16  
sorry. I would like to rectify, actually, it doesn't surprise me at all.

Edwin Tong  50:20  
It doesn't surprise you, then. Can you explain why it doesn't surprise you at all?

Raeesah Khan  50:30  
Because I think this is something a secretary general would say.

Edwin Tong  50:39  
Does it accord with your sense of the discussions that you've been having with Mr. Singh? Throughout the almost three months prior to the statement being released?

Raeesah Khan  50:53  
I think the gist of it. Yes, it does.

Edwin Tong  50:57  
And you could also remember that a day later, there was another statement that was issued, I think it's in the same file.

Not sure. You would have seen it. So given your answers earlier, so I'd like you to have a look at it.

The announcement of the formation of a display panel, a DP, you said earlier, surprised you? Can you describe your sense when you first found out about this?

Raeesah Khan  51:36  
I was shocked. And I think that was my first reaction to I was just shocked and surprised. Why were you shocked and surprised? Because they had not been discussed with me previously?

Edwin Tong  51:55  
Were you surprised that the panel will comprise Mr. Singh Muslim and Mr. Mana?

Raeesah Khan  52:02  
No, because the other leaders of the Workers Party?

Edwin Tong  52:06  
Did you ask yourself? And I mean, you can share your thoughts with us? What inquiry would take place by these three, when these three, but really will people you confided in much earlier? Did it cross your mind?

Raeesah Khan  52:27  
Yes, that crossed my mind. But I assumed that they would be doing an in depth investigation into how the other members of the Workers Party would feel.

Edwin Tong  52:41  
So can you describe the process you and to give you a sense of the time markers Miss Lowe told us that. When she saw this, she was also surprised, or words to that effect. But a few days later, she received an invitation by message to come as a she's a cabinet member to come and give her views to the DEP. And she said she had discussed your attendance as well. She came to your home on Deepavali which is the fourth of November. And she said that you had been asked to produce some evidence. So this is what we know from Mr. But I'd like to hear from you. From your perspective. Yes. When were you first approached by the DP to attend? What evidence were you asked to produce? And what did you do to go about collecting that evidence?

Raeesah Khan  53:33  
I was asked by email. And I was asked to produce evidence of me attending the woman support group and to explain why I made the Miss judgment in the first place.

Edwin Tong  53:53  
Did you collect the evidence? Yes, I did give it to the Workers Party DEP?

Raeesah Khan  53:58  
Yes, I did. You did.

Edwin Tong  54:00  
And did you provide a written explanation? Yes, I did. Was there oral hearing as well? Yes. So what can you tell us what happened in this oral hearing? First of all, starting with when it took place and where it where it took place as well.

Raeesah Khan  54:18  
It took place at the the Workers Party headquarters. And the meeting was specifically on my performance as a member of parliament. I think there was not much that they needed to ask about my experience my mis judgment and what happened in Parliament because they're in the new in the first place. So it was the meeting was centered around my my performance basically.

Edwin Tong  54:53  
Your performance generally or your performance in conjunction with in relation to the third of August speech.

Raeesah Khan  55:00  
My performance generally and then a little bit about what happened in Parliament as well,

Edwin Tong  55:05  
prior to this, had there been any hint that your performance as a member of parliament generally would be under scrutiny? No, there was not. There wasn't until this occasion, yes. But the purpose of this disciplinary pedal was very focused, it was looking only at the admission that you made in Parliament, that what you said on the third of August was untrue. So why was there an inquiry generally into your performance?

Raeesah Khan  55:35  
I cannot assume. And I did not ask this question.

Edwin Tong  55:39  
But from I mean, you were, if I may say at the center of this inquiry, you would have been entitled to ask, yes. What does this got to do with my performance? Generally?

Raeesah Khan  55:51  
I did ask a question to that effect. And the answer was that everything is under review.

Edwin Tong  56:00  
So, this occasion, do you remember the rough date of this meeting?

Raeesah Khan  56:06  
I can give you the exact details, because it's in my emails.

Edwin Tong  56:09  
Okay. I'll be grateful, you could please go back and look at it and produce all the emails which were relevant to this or arising from this DP, and any of the evidence that you've collected as well in relation to the request that was made in which you attended the DP?

Listen, I understand from Miss Lowe, that there were two meetings, at least, that you had with DEP, the second of which was on the 29th of November. Is that correct? Correct. So that would have been earlier this week on Monday? Yes. Can you tell us about it? First of all, how were you notified to attend on the 29th? And what time were

Raeesah Khan  57:01  
I requested for the meeting myself by email? And I was notified by email as well. It was held at the Workers Party HQ.

Edwin Tong  57:10  
What time was it?

Raeesah Khan  57:17  
1030 in the morning,

Edwin Tong  57:19  
and who was present at this meeting?

Raeesah Khan  57:22  
The disciplinary committee Pritam Singh, Silvia Lim and Faisal mana.

Edwin Tong  57:28  
Okay. And what was the purposes for which you had requested for this meeting?

Raeesah Khan  57:32  
I requested for the meeting, because I wanted to explain or action, or at least reply to the remarks made in the first meeting on my performance as a member of parliament.

Edwin Tong  57:46  
Okay, and did you prepare anything in writing to substantiate your position? Yes, I did. You did? And can you give us a gist of what was discussed at the meeting and how that concluded?

Raeesah Khan  57:59  
I outlined my successes and in even my challenges as a member of parliament, including my work on the ground and in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  58:15  
Was there any discussion on what I would have thought would have been the principal concern of the DP, which is in relation to the third of August speech?

Raeesah Khan  58:26  
There was, but the discussion was that I had made a mistake. And it had cost the party deeply.

Edwin Tong  58:35  
And what was your response to that?

Raeesah Khan  58:40  
I agree.

Edwin Tong  58:42  
And how was that resolved? was the conclusion to this? How was it left off?

Raeesah Khan  58:49  
There was no conclusion it was that was towards the end of the meeting.

Edwin Tong  58:55  
At the time, you left the meeting, what did you understand was the state of play concerning the progress of the DEP I mean, whether it had come to an end had a major finding had it drawn to a close, I did met all the witnesses if wanted to and so on. What was your sense of that occasion?

Raeesah Khan  59:15  
I sensed that a decision had not been made yet. But after I left that meeting, my personal decision was that I should resign.

Edwin Tong  59:26  
Miss Lowe told us that one or more of the senior members of the Workers Party leadership suggested to you to consider resigning from the party. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. The statement that was released by the focus party today said that you are given an option of either resigning or you will be expelled from the party. Was that put to you?

Raeesah Khan  59:48  
That was not put to me.

Edwin Tong  59:51  
So at what occasion was the suggestion for you to resign put to you

Raeesah Khan  59:57  
at this meeting on the 29th on the 20 90

Edwin Tong  1:00:02  
does play a big part in your decision ultimately,

Raeesah Khan  1:00:06  
ultimately, the decision I made was, because I felt that it was the best thing for the party. And to retain the integrity of what it means to be a member of parliament,

Edwin Tong  1:00:19  
did you feel that you had been let down by the party? And I'll explain why I asked this to give you a fuller picture. Okay. We heard from Miss Lowe, she was obviously aware that you had met with the party once. She told us that she and Mr. Madden asked to meet with a party DP on the 25th of November. And in the meeting, she came prepared with a list of reasons why it would be wrong for you to resign or to be expelled. She said that she stood up for you on a number of occasions on what you've done. And finally, also made the point. Just check my notes also made the point to the DEP, that they themselves should also come clean and disclose that they have been aware of what you told them since August, since about three months ago. And She then told us that ultimately, when you were told by the Workers Party senior leadership to consider resigning from the party, she felt very betrayed. And those are her words. So that's from her perspective. And now asking you the same series of questions from your perspective. You have gone through this made a speech admitted that was false as a mistake. But a few days after that you had approached the senior leadership and disclose it to them, in your words, for the purposes of seeking counsel and advice. And also, I think you shared the same approach with Miss law in that you've told the senior leadership, you leave it to them as what guidance they will give. You went through the process, you didn't expect that to be a DP. But there was you went through that process too. And at the end of that, on the 29th of November, in your words, you didn't think that he had reached a decision yet. But yet at the same time, on that same occasion, they raised the prospect of you considering resignation from the party. So in that context, my question is, did you feel let down did you feel were you taken aback?

Raeesah Khan  1:02:47  
My thought process after the meeting was that I had made this terrible mistake, and that only I can account for it. So at that point in time, I was not thinking about whether I had been betrayed or whether I was not being supported by the party. My main concern was that I had affected the integrity of what it means to be a member of the Workers Party and also a member of parliament.

Edwin Tong  1:03:24  
Right. I understand. Thank you. Would be fair to say misunder? You place some some stock in the guidance that senior members of the party will give you Mr. Singh Muslim, Mr. Monarch, correct. Correct. And I think that's the reason why you went to them in the first place. Correct? Correct. Can I ask you to consider this and tell me if you can answer. If they had told you on the fourth of October, that you should come clean and clarify. Would you have done so? I would have done so. Yes. If you had told you that you should take up the interview with the police and explain the position and come clean. Would you have done so? I would have done so. Yes. So you did neither? Because they had told you that? There'll be no judgment in the case of the first instance. And that you're under no compulsion in the case of the second instance, correct?

Raeesah Khan  1:04:19  
Correct.

Edwin Tong  1:04:24  
Now, Miss Han, just moving on to a slightly different angle now. Mr. Dango, I put up a post in the aftermath of what happened. And he said that speeches between Workers Party MPs were generally reviewed by each other before they were delivered, and use the words collective consensus on these speeches. Is that something that you are familiar with? Was it practice and in particular, was it practice in connection with what was delivered by you on a third of August? Yes. So the speeches were reviewed, prior to it being delivered On the fourth of August,

Raeesah Khan  1:05:02  
yes, but I made some mistakes in that regard as well. I submitted the speeches late.

Edwin Tong  1:05:09  
When is What do you mean by late? What juncture

Raeesah Khan  1:05:13  
two days before the set setting in August?

Edwin Tong  1:05:19  
What kind of timeframe Are you supposed to comply with?

Raeesah Khan  1:05:30  
I think it is a week.

Edwin Tong  1:05:33  
So the rule is that you must submit your speeches a week before the sitting. And this will be submitted to who?

Raeesah Khan  1:05:42  
We submit it through a portal. I'm sorry, we submit it through a portal through that everyone has access to.

Edwin Tong  1:05:49  
So who is the who are who are the people who have access to this portal?

Raeesah Khan  1:05:54  
All the sitting MPs? And

Edwin Tong  1:05:57  
generally, I'm not talking about a third of August in particular, generally, what's the process? What's the procedure? How do you vet How do you give comments? How do you give suggestions? What happens?

Raeesah Khan  1:06:07  
Basically, you can read any speech that's on the portal and you can give comments.

Edwin Tong  1:06:13  
And do members regularly do? Yes, quite actively.

Raeesah Khan  1:06:20  
I don't I wouldn't say actively because I know many MPs are busy.

Edwin Tong  1:06:27  
But that's the purposes for which you set up a portal and the rule is seven days before and you cross review each other's speeches. Yes. In this case, the third of August speech was filed to support a Motion moved jointly by miss her hurting rule and Mr. Leon Pereira. Did you discuss it with them beforehand? Given that it is a devotion?

Raeesah Khan  1:06:52  
All of us discuss this? The topics that we will be speaking about? No, we're in agreement with the topics we would be

Edwin Tong  1:06:58  
broad topics? Yes. Did you discuss with them your specific anecdote? No, I did not. By the time you submitted the speech in draft, albeit late, it was still two days before, which actually in many cases is not late. Did the paragraph on the anecdote already appear in the speech?

Raeesah Khan  1:07:21  
It was inserted, I think a day before

Edwin Tong  1:07:25  
the day before he was put into the portal? Yes. So by the time you have

Raeesah Khan  1:07:29  
Sorry, no. I mean, it was I uploaded the speech. And then I added the anecdote a day before.

Edwin Tong  1:07:37  
So it would have been available on the portal at least a day before it was delivered. Yes. Were there any comments or reviews to your speech?

Raeesah Khan  1:07:50  
Yes, there was one comment from Pritam Singh. And he asked and he circled the anecdote. And he put substantiate question, Mark.

Edwin Tong  1:08:00  
And what was your answer today?

Raeesah Khan  1:08:03  
At that point in time, I did not understand what that meant. But upon reflection, I understand now why he circled it and why he said what he said.

Edwin Tong  1:08:14  
So did you reply to the comment?

Raeesah Khan  1:08:16  
No, I did not read it.

Edwin Tong  1:08:20  
Did Mr. Singh raise this as an issue after the speech was delivered on the third of August? Yes, he did. What did he say?

Raeesah Khan  1:08:31  
His comment was that he expressed disappointment in the fact that I did not understand or I did not place importance in why he included the comment that he made.

Edwin Tong  1:08:46  
In the same speech you also made. You also took a position in relation to female genital mutilation. And also Muslim marriages, you recall? Yes, I recall. Were you given guidance on these topics? Or did you discuss them with any other member of the Workers Party?

Raeesah Khan  1:09:09  
We all discussed it. We all discuss our various topics with each other at a meeting at some point. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:09:16  
So prior to you drafting it and uploading it onto the portal, there would have been some sense of clarity between the members as to what topics each one was raising. Yes. Did you seek any specific advice or guidance on these topics given that they are fairly discreet and somewhat esoteric areas? Yes, I did. Who did you discuss that with?

Raeesah Khan  1:09:40  
I discussed it with fi Samana.

Edwin Tong  1:09:43  
Anyone else?

Raeesah Khan  1:09:45  
And Pritam Singh as well. On these topics? Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:09:49  
All right. Do you involve your legislative assistant, Mr. Lim, Lim might claim limb hung? Yeah, he's I was told he doesn't Like his Chinese name so much. So he prefers Mike. So let's call it, Mike. So did you discuss this with Mike?

Raeesah Khan  1:10:06  
No. So I think we function a little differently. Our legislative assistants work primarily on the ground. He has no involvement at all in any of my parliamentary work.

Edwin Tong  1:10:18  
What about Miss Lowe?

Raeesah Khan  1:10:20  
At this point in time, I did not discuss it with Miss Lowe.

Edwin Tong  1:10:24  
So the speech was uploaded to the portal without Miss loss input. Yes. Okay. On the third of August, after the speech was delivered, can you tell me if Mr. Singh approached you to ask you? I mean, given the context again, that there was a speech, he had given you a comment to substantiate the very paragraph in question which was dismantled and subsequently, minister and Ronnie spoke about. Did he pick up the point from you with you thereafter?

Raeesah Khan  1:11:09  
Yes, he did. And I think I mentioned this earlier. This was why I made that phone call with him on the seventh of August, because he was pressing me to validate verify the information.

Edwin Tong  1:11:22  
Did he speak to you on the third of August itself?

Raeesah Khan  1:11:25  
Yes, he did. Okay.

Edwin Tong  1:11:48  
When you have the transcript with you, you'd like to refer to it when Minister Indrani took you through some questions on the first of November. Perhaps I'll refer you to the transcript itself, just so that you're all on the same page. If you look at the first of November transcript, there were a series of questions that were raised by Miss Indrani. Raja, I think I went through it with you a bit earlier. But there are two points I'd like to bring to your attention. The first relates to a suggestion by Miss Raja, to which you agree that the same points that you wanted to make in relation to the trauma that a survivor might face, and the sensitivity that a police officer ought to have could be made without any reference to the support group, and you agreed with it. Do you remember?

Raeesah Khan  1:12:48  
Yes, I remember.

Edwin Tong  1:12:50  
So there was a way of conveying the point without having to bring in your personal experience, which turned out to be untrue, correct? Correct. But you did so because you wanted to lend credibility to the story? Would that be fair? Correct. You didn't want someone to come and say it's not believable or untrue. It's hearsay. So you made up the point that you were there. Correct. Can I also ask you to look at the discussion you had with Miss Raja in relation to the question of confidentiality. And if you'd like to look at the transcript is on page five. You had said one of the principles of being in a woman support group is that the details should remain confidential. And Miss Rajan goes on to say, so because we're the member was asked for details in Parliament, she said that she didn't want to disclose because of confidentiality. But based on what the member has just said, actually, by that time, because the story had already been recounted, it means the member had already breached confidentiality to the survivor. Is that not correct? And your answers? That is correct. Yes. Yes. So would it be fair to say that confidentiality was actually not a reason behind? Why you needed to have made up that story in the first place?

Raeesah Khan  1:14:18  
No, it was not, but I think it was my own fear of exposing myself as a survivor and being a part of a woman support group.

Edwin Tong  1:14:29  
Yes. And I and on the latter point, I think we had agreed that you could have made the similar point in Parliament without any reference to whatsoever to yourself as a survivor, or in fact, even being in a support group. Correct.

And if it was not a reason that held up as in confidentiality was not the reason which held up on the first of November. It will also not have held up on the fourth of October when Mr. Shanmugam asked you those questions? Right? Correct. It was no basis to say confidentiality when all there was sought was some details about the location, where, what date and so on, if the occasion actually happened, correct.

Raeesah Khan  1:15:44  
I think when I mean confidentiality, it's not only about not revealing the identity of the survivor, but it is also ensuring that the survivor is not re traumatized.

Edwin Tong  1:15:57  
Yes. And I think earlier, you agreed with me that when min Ronnie asked you about this on the first of November? The point is that actually for these things, the convention is that once you mentioned it, even if there can't be an attribution to a specific individual, that's a breach of confidentiality. Right, correct. So my point is that if that's the case on the first of November, all the more so on the fourth of October, when details were just being sought on, from the police station, side details of the occasion, all the less would there be confidentiality breaches? Correct?

Raeesah Khan  1:16:36  
I don't agree, because I'm not sure that there would be no investigation if details of the police station and the police officers were given.

Edwin Tong  1:16:46  
But you will remember that Minister Sherman was very careful to say that the identity will be protected. He accepted your point that confidentiality was important. He accepted your point that re traumatizing the victim was something that we have to be very careful about. And that a police was very mindful and sensitive to. Right.

Raeesah Khan  1:17:06  
I think regardless if the police is sensitive or not, or the the investigative or in or how sensitive the investigation is, the victim would have been the survivor would have been be traumatized anyways. But just going through a process of being investigated, brings up trauma that I don't think anyone understands.

Edwin Tong  1:17:30  
All right. But all that is predicated on there being actually an identifiable victim that, you know, had attended with you to a police station. But in this case, there wasn't any, correct,

Raeesah Khan  1:17:41  
yes, but I understand that you're asking a hypothetical question. Yes,

Edwin Tong  1:17:46  
I wanted to understand the lay of the land. But now applying it to these facts here does, in fact, actually no such victim with whom you had gone to the police station? Correct. Right. On these facts? Yes. I asked this, because mishaan, I mean, I know our job, our task is to assess the degree of culpability and make an assessment. And I hope you understand where I'm coming from, if I'm going to this detail. And so to be very upfront with you, I'll tell you where I'm coming from, as a fourth of October, it would have been eight weeks since the first statement was made. And one of the issues that we have to consider is the extent to which you made a deliberate calculated decision to continue with the falsehood on the fourth of October. And along the way, the reasons that you profit would be relevant in assessing that. Or was this something that you did? After seeking guidance from senior leaders, whether that excuses your conduct is something else, but it goes to the degree of culpability? Do you understand what I mean? Understand, I'm trying to understand I'm trying to get the facts around it to understand that carefully from you. So because it strikes me that if you are on your own, determined to perpetrate the falsehood, eight weeks from the first one, and there was no guidance that you were given no advice that you were given by this, in this intervening period? I think that speaks to one state of mind. But if there is a motivation, and you understood something, and you felt that this was guidance from someone who should know what they're telling you, that also speaks to a different occasion. So in that context, these are my questions. Who did you consult with anyone? In coming up with what you sit on the fourth of October?

Raeesah Khan  1:19:56  
I did not. And I will not absolve myself of the responsibility. In, in

and I will not remove myself from from being from facing the consequences for that.

Edwin Tong  1:20:13  
I understand. Thank you for Canada. And secondly, did you at that point in time, whether rightly or wrongly, did you feel that you had the support of your senior party leaders in what you were doing?

Raeesah Khan  1:20:30  
At that point in time? Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:20:33  
And I think we covered this ground earlier, you had left the meeting on the third of October? I think we don't need to traverse that all ground. But that was your frame of mind. Correct. Okay. Did anyone I want to be very clear, because of the statements made by the Workers Party today? Did anyone at any point in time prior to the fourth of October, tell you that you should clarify the truth on the fourth of October?

Raeesah Khan  1:20:57  
No.

Edwin Tong  1:20:59  
Are you very sure?

Raeesah Khan  1:21:00  
I am very sure.

Edwin Tong  1:21:01  
No senior leader no activists? No, no one? No. All right. I said this because there are some very strong statements made in the press release today and in the press interview, and I wanted to be fair to you to be putting it to you and making sure that that's the case okay.

Just like get this correct. Can you remember how it was suggested to you that you should consider resigning from the party? Who said this to you? And what was the form of language that was used, if you can remember.

Raeesah Khan  1:22:39  
It was suggested to me by Pritam and Silvia and the language was that I did not have the support of my teammates. And that it was for my own well being that I should do so.

Edwin Tong  1:22:57  
Did I have the support of your teammates? Meaning your Syncom GRC? Teammates? Yes. Is that something do you accept?

Raeesah Khan  1:23:06  
That is something I accept?

Edwin Tong  1:23:10  
Was that lack of support something that was evident to you?

Raeesah Khan  1:23:16  
It was made evident to me at the meeting

Edwin Tong  1:23:19  
through the three individuals, but not through your teammates directly. Yes. Now, you mentioned that you discuss this with your family. I don't want to breach any confidentiality. And I don't want to go into anything that's personal. But I do need to know what was discussed with your family in relation to the statements that were made and the decision that you took. And again, to give you the context of your fair, what we heard from Miss Lowe was that your family came to hear of this around the middle of October. She wasn't very precise on the dates. And your family was very concerned with the way in which the statement was worded and had given suggestions. So that's the frame of mind that I that I have. And I'd like to now ask you for your perspective. Can you please set up for us when your family first knew what was discussed with them? What were their views on the statement? And were there parts of the statement that they were unhappy with or that they added in? Or that they disagreed with? Can you share that with us?

Raeesah Khan  1:24:23  
They were made aware towards the end of October, middle towards from middle to the end of October, end of October. I'm not quite sure about the date. And they will concern that I would be sharing a very personal story in a very public arena.

Edwin Tong  1:24:43  
What aspect were they concerned about?

Raeesah Khan  1:24:45  
They are concerned that I would be sharing that I myself am a survivor

Edwin Tong  1:24:51  
with a concern that you should complain and tell the truth. Yes. Was that advice to you? Yes. Did they give any input to the statement? The way in which it was drafted? The points that it contained? They did give some input. Yes. That was that taken on board?

Raeesah Khan  1:25:13  
Yes, I took some of them on board.

Edwin Tong  1:25:17  
Apart from your family and the various individuals and Workers Party that you mentioned, and of course, Mr. Nothern, and Miss Lowe? Did you get advice from anyone else, either directly or indirectly. I got to do about how to approach the police about what to do with clarify, clarifying the truth in Parliament and so on.

Raeesah Khan  1:25:40  
I got advice from a lawyer as well.

Edwin Tong  1:25:43  
Besides the lawyer, no one else, no one else? Did anyone else tell you that they have received advice and was conveying any advice to you? Anyone trying to help you in any way? No, no. I'm going to put a series of propositions for you in relation to what happened with the police. And you can tell me what your senses I will suggest to you that the reason you were advised not to respond to the police on the seventh of October and and thereafter on the various to other occasions, was because there was a concern by workers party, that the truth would come out through those police interviews. Would you agree or disagree?

Raeesah Khan  1:26:30  
I'm really not sure.

Edwin Tong  1:26:33  
And the concern is that if you went to the police, you would be there giving a statement without any privileges, as opposed to making a clarification in Parliament, where you would have privileges. Would that be a fair sense as to what was operative behind the decision?

Raeesah Khan  1:26:55  
That was my concern, actually.

Edwin Tong  1:27:00  
So there was one factor behind why you chose to ignore the police and decide to speak in Parliament instead? Yes. All right. Okay, thank you. Mr. Icahn. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. so graceful.

Grace Fu  1:27:23  
Thank you very much. Miss Kahn. Just like to clarify one point that you made earlier on. If I understand you correctly, basically, there was a change of your position between seventh October and 12. October. Am I right to perhaps infer from what you say that it was the police email that has made you change your mind about making that statement that you made on the first November eventually about correcting the narrative in Parliament.

Raeesah Khan  1:28:06  
It was not only that, but it was also after the fourth of October said sitting growl was questioned by ministers. And

Grace Fu  1:28:15  
but you continue while you're being questioned by Minister Shan, you continue to, you know, take that position.

Raeesah Khan  1:28:24  
Yes. So after that, sitting upon reflection, I realized that this was something that I really needed to rectify.

Grace Fu  1:28:32  
I see. Was that something that you discuss with your party leadership immediately after you're sitting?

You have told us that you have a meeting with Miss Sylvia Lim, Miss Pritam Singh at Al all of this on the fourth.

You didn't give me the impression earlier that you have decided to make a statement that you made on first November

Raeesah Khan  1:29:01  
Yes, I had not decided by then yet. Okay.

Grace Fu  1:29:05  
So, somewhere between that and 12 You will make the decision on the 12th Right. Yes. So, when did you actually make that decision? On the dates on the 12th and 12 itself? Yeah. And this was on your own volution that you will you contacted Miss Lowe that you will make the statement and that carried started the whole series of events thereafter.

Raeesah Khan  1:29:37  
It was also during a meeting with Sylvia lemon Pritam Singh. Did you decide at the meeting after the meeting before we decided at the meeting?

Grace Fu  1:29:48  
The meeting was called by you or Scott by Miss Lowe asking for meeting with Mr. Pritam Singh.

Raeesah Khan  1:29:56  
It was called by Mr. Pritam Singh. What time was that meeting? It was in the morning.

Grace Fu  1:30:12  
So you have the meeting with Mr. Pritam Singh and Mr. Lim. Yes. And that's when you decided and make that decision known to them?

Raeesah Khan  1:30:21  
Yes, that's what we discuss what? That that would be the decision. Thank you. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:30:31  
If I may just add on to what minister grace are. So at that meeting on the 12th, we where you said you, I guess that's when you pretty much decided that you should come clean and account for it. Can you just share again, how that transpired? Was it very much initiated by you? Or was it initiated by any of the others how that evolved during the course of that 12 meeting?

Raeesah Khan  1:30:55  
It was a discussion that we had together. And we came to the conclusion together.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:31:03  
You can amplify a little what were the considerations given as to why this clearly before 12, the position as advice to you was that you could carry on with the present narrative. No judgment will be made to you, therefore you didn't feel a need to do that. So what transpired and what were the considerations that you discuss on a 12 that led to this decision to that maybe we should at least admit and figure out hold them to account for what happened.

Raeesah Khan  1:31:37  
For me, personally, the consideration was that this was something that would weigh on me for the rest of my life. And because of that, it was something that I needed to clarify. I don't think I could have left with myself.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:31:54  
For the party leadership, principally for Mr. Pritam Singh and Masuda Lim, what were their thinking and considerations in the discussion with you on this matter?

Raeesah Khan  1:32:04  
I think their consideration was that the matter will not be dropped.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:32:10  
You could amplify further what else was discussed as to the thinking behind. So the fact was that the matter will not be dropped. And so there for and what were the other worries and concerns they had, and therefore the need to therefore come in account for it.

Raeesah Khan  1:32:25  
There. The other concern was, like I mentioned as well, my mental health, because I think it was obvious that this was really affecting me and that I needed to clarify it for my own conscience.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:32:40  
Without any other consideration, discuss as to No, they were not. So was that the conclusion reach collectively and that yourself with the two other senior party members that this is? This is the cause of action that y'all would embark on thereafter? Yes. In that meeting, was there any mention about your

Grace Fu  1:33:08  
at that meeting? Was there any mention about disciplinary consequences within the party?

Raeesah Khan  1:33:16  
I asked. And there were at the end, and the answer was no.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:33:26  
Zacky any questions?

Zaqy Mohamad  1:33:27  
Yes. Um, so why why do you think that they wouldn't go straight for disbelief committee, you know, DP before on that 12 October date? I don't know. Don't speculate and okay. What if, after your statement, you know, sec, Jen comes and say, you know, you could have gone the other way because you miss judges statement off, we wouldn't judge you. What would you say to that?

Raeesah Khan  1:34:03  
I say that I would say that. That's accurate as well. Why so? Because I guess it could be inferred as a vague judgment of fit a vague statement to make

Zaqy Mohamad  1:34:17  
you don't think it's a get out clause or meant for you to go either way or being non committal?

Raeesah Khan  1:34:24  
I don't know I don't want to assume Okay.

Zaqy Mohamad  1:34:26  
After August the third you mentioned that you came clean to member Pritam Singh member civil Limon for someone up between then and you know the time that you came clean first November on November. Who else knew who else do you think knew?

Raeesah Khan  1:34:48  
My secretarial assistant paying though and also the WP volunteer? Mr. Navin,

Zaqy Mohamad  1:34:56  
you don't think any other MP members are you In your Syncron GRC teammates knew no to never discuss never taken up to two CC. No. Okay, when nothing moved, did you ever consider going up to cc for consideration?

Raeesah Khan  1:35:14  
No, I did not consider that.

Zaqy Mohamad  1:35:17  
Given that the three of them were the only ones who knew? Do you find it a conflict that the three the same three set on the display panel without anyone outside the circle? Sitting on it?

Raeesah Khan  1:35:31  
I'm sorry, I don't have enough experience in, in how discipline her panels are formed. So I couldn't make any assumptions in that regard. Okay.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:35:44  
Thanks, Jim. Dennis questions.

Dennis Tan  1:35:47  
My son. Just one question for you. After your, the material speeching question and augers did you have? When did you first considered bringing up this matter to your family?

Raeesah Khan  1:36:12  
I brought it up to my husband. And he was the first person to know.

Dennis Tan  1:36:17  
Yes, you didn't mention that. What about your parents and the rest of your family?

Raeesah Khan  1:36:23  
I did not want to put them through the emotional turmoil that it would bring.

Dennis Tan  1:36:32  
Was this in itself a reason for not making the decision not to bring in parliament before November?

Raeesah Khan  1:36:43  
It was definitely one of my considerations. Yes.

Dennis Tan  1:36:52  
Just now you also mentioned that the when you were submitting this speech on the portal, do you remember that? Okay, can I just ask you? Do you remember that your Do you usually submit your speech? Early?

Raeesah Khan  1:37:16  
I usually do not.

Dennis Tan  1:37:19  
So in this part of speech in August, do you remember that? How late were you? In your submission?

Raeesah Khan  1:37:27  
Yes, I was two days. I submitted the speech two days before.

Dennis Tan  1:37:33  
Did you make any amendments after your submission of the speech?

Raeesah Khan  1:37:37  
Yes, like I mentioned, I added the anecdote on the day before before the sitting.

Dennis Tan  1:37:47  
So, after the you mentioned that Mr. Pritam Singh had made a comment, as did you remember why you did not respond to him?

Raeesah Khan  1:38:01  
At that point in time, I did not take it I upon reflection I know that I should have understood what he meant. But at that point in time, I did not understand the gravity of what he what so substantiate meant.

Dennis Tan  1:38:20  
Can you remember how late it was the day before that you submit this? Did you make this amendment on the portal?

Raeesah Khan  1:38:31  
I don't remember.

Dennis Tan  1:38:46  
No more questions to speaker.

Desmond Lee  1:38:53  
Afternoon, Miss Kahn, just want to seek some clarification from you if I may. If you recall on the second of November, or sorry, the first of November when you made your clarification in Parliament, leader of the House is Indrani. Raja and asked you some questions to clarify your statement. And she said she asked you whether you could have made your case. Your sense that the police could should cheat survivors of sexual assault better that you couldn't have made that case or made that argument in August without mentioning the false suits that you were there with her at the police station and you said yes. Correct. And that In clarifying on the first of November that you had not been physically there could also have been made without necessarily, strictly speaking, disclosing that you are a member of survivor support group as well, or that you had personally suffered the horrific act of sexual assault yourself. That actually, you could have clarified without explaining what had happened to you personally as well.

Raeesah Khan  1:40:35  
I did think about that. But I think I owed it to survivors, and as well to the public, a full explanation on why I made the MIS judgment that I did, and full explanation on how I got the information in the first place. So I wanted to be completely truthful at that point in time.

Desmond Lee  1:40:55  
So that was more the context rather than the facts that related to that fact that false? Correct. So would it be right that on the fourth of October, when Minister of Home Affairs asked you repeatedly about what you said, on the third of August, that you could have clarified without necessarily disclosing that you were yourself a survivor? Or that you had heard it from a survivor support group and that you actually heard it from an individual but you were not physically at the police station?

Raeesah Khan  1:41:32  
Yes, I could have. But again, that would mean that I would not be telling the whole truth. And I, I wanted to make sure that when I did make this clarification on the first of November, there was in the that was the entire truth. And that was truthful, to the public, into parliament,

Desmond Lee  1:41:53  
on the 12th of October, when you resolved, together with the party leadership, that you will make a statement in Parliament to clarify what actually happened, that you then immediately broke the news to your parents, about your own traumatic experience.

Raeesah Khan  1:42:11  
It was not immediate, it was a few weeks after that,

Desmond Lee  1:42:15  
after October, yes. You know, on in October, there was a two day sitting, if I recall, fourth and fifth October, and that the clarification sought by the Home Affairs Minister was, if I recall, right at the start of the sitting at around shortly after 12:30pm, the sitting ended late in the evening. Just to confirm that neither on the fourth or the fifth, did you resolve or were you directed to speak up and asked to make a clarification then? Correct. Thank you no further questions.

Grace Fu  1:43:02  
If may allow me to ask the question about your intention of making the first statement.

The very statement that's in question now about police treatment of survivors. When you make those words,

surely your intention was for the police to improve treatment of survivors? I mean, you went on to explain that, you know, there has been training rolled out for judges and so on, therefore, we should you call on MHA to provide more officers with straining. So would you not thought about, you know, really follow up question about your acquisition that we would want details of the police officers in question was not an a sort of a natural conclusion that we would have when we bring up matters in the parliament.

Raeesah Khan  1:44:06  
I understand why you're concerned. Firstly, I you know, I would like to say thank you for, for using the word survivor. I think that's I mean, it's it's for me, I think it's it's an incredible first step. I do not use the anecdote to make any accusations against the police. I use the anecdote to share that, you know, this happens, and that we we should take it seriously. And if we want some more survivors to come forth and make reports, then there needs to be structured institutional changes. I don't personally think the solution is punishment. I think it's training and and that's why I feel that that's why I felt from the beginning that it's never been An accusation?

Grace Fu  1:45:03  
Yes. But for any MP to bring it up, and for any MP who wants their speeches in Parliament to be taken seriously by the ministry,

wouldn't you expect the ministry to actually rectify what's going wrong? I mean, if, indeed,

as what you have claimed that the police officer is making very uncalled for remarks in the investigation, wouldn't you as an MP who's very passionate about this topic, expect the Minister to follow up? And to correct what's wrong.

Raeesah Khan  1:45:45  
That was my missed Miss judgment, I did not realize that it would be taken as an accusation, I thought that it would be taken as an example that we could improve upon. Thank you. Thank you.

Rahayu Mahzam  1:46:06  
Thank you, for your question. answers. I know this can be easy for you rehashing this over and over again. But there are some questions I like to get some answers to to fully appreciate the motivations. So again, going back to the statement you made, because you said in my line of work, I've accompanied people to the police stations. I just don't understand. This is true. You have been doing volunteer work or formal work on this. When you talk about line of work. Is that something that you have been doing?

Raeesah Khan  1:46:39  
Yes, it is something that I've been doing, but I have not ever accompanied someone inside the police station. I've provided support after and and even in my line of work in different countries. I I have accompanied them into the police station before.

Rahayu Mahzam  1:46:56  
Sorry. So you have accompany people in police stations elsewhere? Not in Singapore. Yes. Okay. But this anecdote that you shared? Is it something you heard from attending an actual survivor? Group meeting?

Raeesah Khan  1:47:15  
It's a it's an anecdote that I heard from an A woman support group.

Rahayu Mahzam  1:47:20  
So you, you actually heard it from the person who experienced it herself?

Raeesah Khan  1:47:24  
Yes, the person who made went to make a report.

Rahayu Mahzam  1:47:29  
So what is not true is the fact that you did not accompany her. And you did not go to the police station with her? Correct. Okay. I wanted to also just appreciate your thinking, when you realize what happened on the third of August, you explained that Leader of the House subsequently, you know, notch to further to provide the details and all that. And pursuant to that you reached out to him and spoke to him. So on the seventh of August, you met him?

Raeesah Khan  1:48:00  
No, sorry. Leah. Sorry, on the seventh of August, we had a phone call and

Rahayu Mahzam  1:48:06  
call. Okay. Yes. And at that phone call, you had told him that what you had told about the the statement that you've made, but accompanying someone to the police station was not true? Yes. I said that it was not true. At that juncture, when you were saying, Did you in your mind, contemplate that you would then have to actually tell the truth? Is that something that you were contemplating to actually figure out whether you should then now come clean and actually tell the truth?

Raeesah Khan  1:48:35  
Yes, it was it did go through my mind. So

Rahayu Mahzam  1:48:39  
you were at that stage and throughout this whole process, you were seeking out for guidance as to what decision to make? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:48:52  
Miss Kahn, if I few questions, as you know, we are here to ascertain the facts behind I guess, an evolution of your thoughts. Why you did what you did. Clearly, as you had mentioned a few times you do not want to absorb your own personal responsibility and we respect that. But as as we have discussed, you were also seeking guidance from the leadership from those more experienced and knew as to what would be the right thing to do. It would appear from what you have shared that if you had been guided, which eventually you did, which is to come clean and to admit, if you have been guided earlier than that would be the approach you take you would have been prepared to have taken that approach much earlier. Would that be correct? Yes. And you did reach out for guidance. But you were not provided that specific guidance until as you mentioned on 12 August 1212. October, then the decision was taken to take this final approach.

Raeesah Khan  1:49:59  
Yes

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:50:01  
And just to make clear that the approach until that stage was that if you could keep on to the narrative that would be something permissible. You will not be judged on that. And I guess, as of 12, October, the sense was that it was no longer viable to maintain that narrative. Would that be correct?

Raeesah Khan  1:50:31  
I think the exact words were there would be no judgment,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:50:33  
there'd be no judgment, meaning that if you had chosen to continue maintaining that narrative, they would not judge you. And they would respect your decision to go that path. But at no time, there was an encouragement for you to clarify and to say that, let's take this approach to tell the truth and so on. Until 12, October, when there was a collective decision,

Raeesah Khan  1:51:00  
no conclusion to that, to that regard had been reached until the 12th of October. Okay.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:51:05  
I think it's important for us to understand that because some clearly, guidance was sought. As a new member of parliament, you're seeking advice from the seniors as to how best to approach it. And I guess, understanding that backdrop was important for us, and I think we appreciate your sharing that of that. Any other questions from other members? We would require. We have mentioned a number of different personalities, any other persons, you feel that it would be useful to come before the committee of privilege for us to speak to to have a better understanding of what transpired.

Raeesah Khan  1:51:47  
And not that I can think So presently,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:51:49  
your I guess Mr. Nothern, would be useful he was he had Jenny review, in a sense, in terms of how the issues evolved. Beyond that, I guess the other party's directly involved would be separate. I'm seeing Miss Sylvia Lim, Mr. Pfizer, man up and beyond that would be your family members that you share them share issues with. So what we will require from you would be documents based on what has been shared today, whether on WhatsApp email, or whatever form Telegram, etc. printed documents or otherwise, or even hardcopy documents. And if you can compile them, and even on issues that were not necessarily discussed today, but are relevant to the issues at hand, that would help us in a committee to have a better and fuller understanding of the circumstances, I think that would be needed from you. And if you could, I guess, expeditiously work on them and our staff from Parliament will guide you on that, to compile the documents to present it to us so that we can verify and I think cross reference based on what is said. Beyond that, anything else we need to highlight at this point. Okay, so if there are no further questions for now, again, we'd like to thank you for coming before the committee, a transcript of the proceedings will be shared with you for verification. So please go through it. And if you have any minor amendments, etc, do make the changes and send the transcripts back to us again, a parliament staff will guide you on that. Do note that the transcripts and any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone not to be published, kept strictly confidential until the committee has presented its report to parliament which means that not to discuss this with anyone else, no suggest including a family as well. So you may withdraw for now, but do we won't be calling you we don't we don't You don't need to remain in Poland for now. Except to like settle some of the administrative stuff with the parliament and stuff. If there's a need to call you back on later date. We will do so and we'll let you know. Otherwise sitting our staff will accompanying you will accompany you to the waiting room. So once again, thank you very much. Thank you. Such an advance please accompany the witness. Thank you

Committee of Privileges Hearing on 2 December 2021 - Mr Lim Hang Ling: Transcript

Preamble:

What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I 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 9 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later (the transcripts and evidence given to the committee are supposed to be confidential but everything is on YouTube: go figure; that was a very short embargo period). 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:  0:00  
Okay let us resume the meeting call to order again such an advance please invite the next witness to the witness table release the first one is Mr Garcia Thank you Mr. Lim for the record please state your name occupation and positions your your home

Lim Hang Ling  0:42  
okay my name is Lim hanging and self employed and I'm director of my own company

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:50  
the evidence you will be giving today before the committee will be taken on oath if you so desire can also take an affirmation clock please administer. Estimation

Lim Hang Ling  1:16  
Okay, I am humbling those from the 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:  1:31  
Please be seated thank you can take off your mask. The Committee of privilege is looking to the complaint made by the Leader of the House Miss Indrani Raja against former member of Sengkang GRC Miss Raisa Khan, for the breach of privilege. So thank you again for attending today's hearing to give evidence before the committee and to answer the questions which members of the committee may like to put to you, you have taken a solemn obligation to answer questions truthfully. And you are under oath and or affirmation. If you refuse to answer questions directly or attempt to mislead the committee. Such behavior will be an offence and in contempt of this committee. I would like to call on Mr. Manley to proceed with questions.

Desmond Lee  2:13  
Evening, Mr. Lim, thank you for attending and addressing our questions. You are the legislative assistant to the former MP for Sengkang. Miss rice. When did you start in that capacity?

Lim Hang Ling  2:28  
Last year November?

Desmond Lee  2:31  
And I remember the Workers Party or your card member volunteers a member of the workers or your card member card member? Yes. And prior to being the legislative assistant for Miss rice, I can Did you hold any other such role with the secretarial assistant legislative assistant or any other member of parliament? No. So it's your first time seeing an early understanding of the role of a legislative assistant as set out in the terms of reference when Parliament Secretariat makes that available to all MPs. Is that the legislative assistant helps the member of parliament with the matters that the MP deals with in Parliament such as looking at bills, preparing speeches, preparing P cues and so on and motions. Could you share with this committee what your specific role was in relation to miss rice cans? role as MP

Lim Hang Ling  3:31  
Okay, for my call duty as a in commerce fail is actually not so much on doing the parliamentary work, rather is more on the grassroot activities, festive events and arranging for house visits and estate walks. So it's not it's not it's a bit different from perhaps the the actual legislative assistant call duty but in a different way serving the community as well.

Desmond Lee  4:01  
As in that regard. Did you participate in any way in my Miss rice? I can't work as a legislator as a as a parliamentarian. For example, draft questions for PQ draft speeches sub event, do you play any part in that?

Lim Hang Ling  4:15  
No, I don't do that. Okay. Yeah.

Desmond Lee  4:18  
So when when Miss Raisa can you know? Right? So prepare the speech. You're not involved in any way?

Lim Hang Ling  4:25  
No, I am not involved.

Desmond Lee  4:27  
You would know that on the third of August, or would you know on the third of August, Miss ricerca made a speech in Parliament during a motion led by members, Miss hurting rule and Mr. Leon Pereira about women empowerment?

Lim Hang Ling  4:43  
I only learned about it through the media.

Desmond Lee  4:46  
And when did you find out about that speech was on the day itself a few days later,

Lim Hang Ling  4:50  
a few days later. Well, I don't I don't usually follow the proceedings. Yeah. So usually it's after perhaps reports or maybe sometimes it's snippets from from from CNN stuff like this.

Desmond Lee  5:05  
And in relation to that speech on the third of August in Parliament pursuant to that motion on women empowerment. Miss Kahn had said that in relation to the police that she accompanied a sexual assault victim 25 years old, some three years ago to the police station to make the report and that the survivor had come out the police station crying and saying that the police had passed some statements about her drinking and about her attire. You, you aware of that?

Lim Hang Ling  5:41  
Also, to the media, to the media. Yes.

Desmond Lee  5:44  
And when you read the media, would you also have noticed that the MP whom you serve had been asked by the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Desmond tun. Asking Miss Kahn for substantiation information about this case so that the police could investigate and put things right. Read that in the media.

Lim Hang Ling  6:09  
Okay, I didn't I didn't actually go to everything. So I briefly knew that there was this exchange going on, but I'm actually the details. Magic quite vague on it.

Desmond Lee  6:19  
Yes. By brought broadly aware that there was some question by Home Affairs, about allegations about the police and that she'd been asked in Parliament, Ronnie knew that

Lim Hang Ling  6:30  
sort of I know, there was some exchanges, or other exchanges going on. But the details, I didn't actually read into the article and finish the whole article, but I knew that there was this thing going on, and there was some exchanges. And I think that's

Desmond Lee  6:45  
it. Did you speak to Miss Kahn about those exchanges?

Lim Hang Ling  6:49  
And no, actually, I did not ask her IE, I don't have a practice to actually check back on on the MPs on speeches or stuff that actually happened in Parliament.

Desmond Lee  7:02  
Okay, you see a role more as a kind of a estate issues, residents issues. But since third August till now, for instance, you know, since you operate on the ground, I'm sure in the branch, you know, in the middle residents, anyone, Did anyone ask you, you know, with regards to this matter, that hey, you know, our MP had made some allegations by the police and it was in the media, the animal speak to you about that?

Lim Hang Ling  7:30  
Yes. Not say speak to me, but then, um, they did us bought this thing up. And then of course, our our director, the answering part two, Miss can to actually address them.

Desmond Lee  7:45  
Okay. And they she addressed them directly to the resident or the address them through, you know, to the resident, she will go direct to the resident. Yes. Which means to say that you would refer the resident the details, contact number and the question they raised to her, and she'll go back to them,

Lim Hang Ling  8:00  
when usually happens when we go on our state walks? Yes,

Desmond Lee  8:05  
I'm talking specifically about the third of August and the allegation against the police. No residents raise it to you. They only raised municipal issues. Not that have come. No other volunteers asked you about it.

Lim Hang Ling  8:18  
Volunteers. No, no.

Desmond Lee  8:28  
Subsequently, on the fourth of October, Miss Kahn, again, was in Parliament. And it was widely reported in the media and in social media, that the Home Affairs Minister Minister Shama GM had asked her again, about allegation against the police made on the third of August asking her for information about which police station what year what month, who were the police officers involved? Did you read that in the media as well? Or did you hear it from Miss Kahn or any other volunteers or Carter's or members?

Lim Hang Ling  9:05  
Okay, I do know that this thing took place again, because it was quite, it was quite a thing on the on the on the news, but it's like, I thought it was a follow up on on on previous exchanges. So I didn't really read into it and really go into the details.

Desmond Lee  9:26  
Subsequently, on the 20th of October, you probably have read in the newspapers that the police had said that they had approached Miss Reiser Khan to ask her to meet them to help them with their checks on

Lim Hang Ling  9:45  
Social Security on the 20th

Desmond Lee  9:46  
of October 22. Okay, okay. You would probably have read in the media and you can confirm whether you were aware that the police had reached out to miss Kahn to ask for a meeting and She had not replied them. Were you aware of the media?

Lim Hang Ling  10:04  
No. i This part I don't think I actually read that thing. I'm not you're

Desmond Lee  10:09  
not up to today you will not. You didn't know that the police put out a statement about Miss Carnes inviting Miss Kahn to meet them on the allegations. No, I

Lim Hang Ling  10:21  
don't recall. You know, if

Desmond Lee  10:24  
you didn't read it or you know, okay, you might read it and you don't recall I don't

Lim Hang Ling  10:29  
I don't follow everything to the media. So yeah, because mostly my work is to handle the constituency work and then to get the to do mostly grassroots. So I'm in the parliamentary exchanges actually, to be honest, I don't really follow don't follow. Yeah, unless there's a big news or something that small, something big that's happening and like, that may require certain attention then perhaps my look into it more in details.

Desmond Lee  11:01  
Are you aware of one miss low paying and one miss you destroy naarden? Are you familiar with them?

Lim Hang Ling  11:07  
Are you Miss Lowe is Miss Kansa? Sa Yes, I know

Desmond Lee  11:14  
her and Mr. UD strand naarden.

Lim Hang Ling  11:17  
Mr. yudishe. I know him but I'm not very well.

Desmond Lee  11:21  
Okay, young yet, at any point in time between the third of August and today. Did you speak to any one of them about the issue? That is the subject matter of today's hearing? The statements made in Parliament? Yes, I second. I did

Lim Hang Ling  11:37  
I did check with paying on like, what's actually going on? Because I'm actually not very, not very in tune with the happenings and stuff like this. So because since I've been asked to come here, so I really need to check like, so what actually do I need to prepare? Or perhaps read up on and stuff like this? Oh, so

Desmond Lee  12:02  
you talked about this matter to them? Only recently, and not much earlier? Now. Would you be aware of the first of November 2021, parliamentary sitting where Mr. Eisah Khan made a statement a personal explanation in Parliament, saying that on both the third of August, as well as on the fourth of October, she had said things in parliament that were untrue, and that she was now clarifying the truth. Were you aware of that media elements and the social media about it?

Lim Hang Ling  12:35  
On the first of November that I that I actually followed on it? Yeah. Okay.

Desmond Lee  12:42  
And you watched it live in the news? You watched it on Reddit, on social media ready on Article, news article? online article? Yes. What was your reaction?

Lim Hang Ling  12:54  
I was like, it. Good that? I mean, she cheated the courage to stand up and actually share that no, there are there there are certain misrepresentation. And actually I personally, I applaud her for it. No, I mean, if we all make mistakes, so if a mistake has been made, it's always good to come back, come come back up. And, you know, admitted and try to correct whatever is wrong, and move on from there.

Desmond Lee  13:27  
Yeah. So on the first of November, you do with a focus your mind that Miss Kahn had not once but on two separate occasions made false statements to Parliament will set your understanding on first November because there was what she said in Parliament.

Lim Hang Ling  13:44  
Sorry, I don't really actually recall the accurate accurate words. But my my attention was actually on the apology, right. That she actually made an apology for for four for misrepresentation. And yeah, that was that was that was what I remember reading.

Desmond Lee  14:01  
So at no point in time, prior to first November, did you discuss this matter with Miss Kahn, or paying or Mr. Nothern, or any other person?

Lim Hang Ling  14:10  
No, no, I was not involved in the discussion.

Desmond Lee  14:14  
Yet. You would, of course, by now be aware that this kind of resigned as a member of parliament and a member of the Workers Party? Yes. Did she discuss that with you or say anything to you about that?

Lim Hang Ling  14:27  
She actually briefly caught me by I can't remember but I think it was like, in the afternoon on the day that she actually intended to resign and just sort of, you know, saw me out and let me know that this is happening and yep, it most probably will happen.

Desmond Lee  14:51  
It will take you to the Secretary General the Workers Party statement dated first November 2021, which is before you and The clerk will just show it to you. And given that you've you know, you're not you're LA but not privy to all the discussions that have been going on. Maybe just share your immediate reaction would you make of such a statement

Lim Hang Ling  15:27  
so when was known was this this

Desmond Lee  15:30  
is dated first November media statement? Yes. The secretary general statement is Raisa Khan should not have shared an account that contain untruths in the house

Lim Hang Ling  15:45  
or should both have this maybe read the

Desmond Lee  15:47  
first one it's very short the second one is dated second November which is the Workers Party media statement forming a disciplinary panel. What's your immediate reaction to the first statement I presume you're not ready before to this your first time reading it?

Lim Hang Ling  16:20  
I don't remember seeing this

Desmond Lee  16:27  
so you're reading it for the first time Yeah. To the party coddle and as the legislative assistant or miscount no doubt you to municipal issues, but you are her right hand, man. Yes. Reading this statement from your secretary general as a card. What is your immediate reaction of this?

Lim Hang Ling  16:52  
I think I think that the SG agility, right. And it is right for him to actually produce demand.

Desmond Lee  17:04  
And reading this as a Carter your video impression be that the lead party leadership was unaware of Miss Khan's falsehoods to Parliament until this time?

Lim Hang Ling  17:19  
This I cannot be sure because it doesn't say anything. Yeah, I am not privy to it.

Desmond Lee  17:25  
Okay. Yes. But as a cabinet member, just looking at it, you know, your impression be that the leadership is only recently finding out about this.

Lim Hang Ling  17:34  
All sorts of preferred auto spectrometers.

Desmond Lee  17:37  
Thanks. And the other statement on the disciplinary panel. You will see in the second paragraph that the panel comprises three of your leaders, Secretary General chairman and vice chairman, and they will form a panel disciplinary panel to hear and inquire into miss rice cans. Conduct. Yes. Again, any any immediate reaction to that as a party card?

Lim Hang Ling  18:08  
Again, I will say that it's a it's a it's a right move, because of course, is accountability. And we I believe that this is something that has to be done. And yeah, I believe it has already been done

Desmond Lee  18:23  
and in as the card party Carter, you would reading this be confident that the members of the panel will have nothing to do with the falsehoods that will mean that they will be impartial and fair to miss Kahn. Would that be your assumption or what I will be using so yes. Okay. Thank you. No further questions, Jen. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Mr. Griese?

Grace Fu  18:48  
Thank you, Mr. Lin. Mr. Lim, I believe you're role as the legislative assistant put you in very close contact to miss Kahn. And I'm sure her well being is also something that you are concerned with. Miss Kahn told us earlier that actually she has been very troubled by the various exchanges in the parliament. Do you see that in her being very troubled by what she has said and then the kind of question that she has received from the public?

Lim Hang Ling  19:27  
Okay, I'm going by going by the stance, yes, she is definitely affected. And to some extent, I think it's actually she doesn't really show it a lot when this in public and things like this, but definitely, when I speak to her and you can hear from Mutanda she is affected by

Grace Fu  19:51  
earlier on a thing. Mr. Lim Desmond Lim has talked about several instances. The first one was a speech She made in the parliament. The second one was actually a on the same day she was asked to clarify. She didn't. And then there was a subsequent speech where she was asked again, by Minister of Home Affairs Shanmugam about, you know, details and she didn't give. Did you find that she had shown some concerns in the second round? Or? She her responses are the same?

Lim Hang Ling  20:30  
I'm sorry, but I did I do not take notice. And yeah, I do not take notice. I

Grace Fu  20:36  
really there wasn't any difference on the ground, there weren't any residents coming forward to ask a bit more about why didn't she respond? Or what the initial reply was? Was there? Do you feel any change in?

Lim Hang Ling  20:47  
No, there wasn't really much any much changes to it.

Grace Fu  20:51  
So later on, she also told us that at a certain date, she was given an email by the police to basically give details, did you find that she has any tissue display any outward signs of concerns over that?

Lim Hang Ling  21:12  
Not that I'm aware of.

Grace Fu  21:13  
You're not aware of NASA. Okay. So eventually, she decided to make the statement on the first November admitting that, you know, she has told a lie. Does she share with you that she intends to do so before that?

Lim Hang Ling  21:28  
I'm on the one day before she actually supposed to? I'm not sure whether is it to Father Father Father statement or something. But she did share with me a draft on it. That she's going to she's going to say this in Parliament?

Grace Fu  21:49  
Oh, she said, a draft of a sheet with you. Yes. And how do you assess that? What she? You know, very? What's a mental state? Are she very serious? Was she very worried? When she very anxious?

Lim Hang Ling  22:08  
anxious, I believe? Yes. But the beyond beyond the anxious part, perhaps some the languages or some of the wordings inside there is? I just make some suggestions to her and yeah, but I mean, in a general sense, I do not. Actually. How shall I don't interfere? Yeah.

Grace Fu  22:38  
When you make those suggestions to her, do you find that she was able to take in your suggestions, or you find that she's basically made up her mind about that speech?

Lim Hang Ling  22:52  
I believe more or less, she was framing up on my own it? Yes.

Grace Fu  22:57  
Did she tell you that? This is a speech that she has discussed with leadership of the party or this is just her draft?

Lim Hang Ling  23:07  
I did not ask and I'm not aware of further is it? Is it been discussed with other party leaders? Or any of those?

Grace Fu  23:16  
Are you surprised that the next day the what Mr. Mr. Desmond Lim has shown you about the statement from the party? And also the formation of the disciplinary panel?

Lim Hang Ling  23:30  
Formation disciplinary panel? No, I'm not surprised. Actually, in fact, I was looking forward to see hoping that the party will actually set a disciplinary banner.

Grace Fu  23:44  
Yeah. Why were you happy to see that all you're hoping by? Do you hope to see that?

Lim Hang Ling  23:51  
No, because I it's not about happy, alright. It's more about to be able to do an investigation our own and find out what actually go went on and perhaps get a closure from it?

Grace Fu  24:07  
Did you ask yourself and find out for yourself since you're so close to her?

Lim Hang Ling  24:12  
No, this I actually prove, I do not. As I say I do not interfere. So that in any case, my judgment or anything will not be will not be affected.

Grace Fu  24:25  
So in your when you say that you hope to see a disciplinary panel being formed? Were you hoping that he will clear her name or you were hoping that you will, they will find her guilty of what she has done?

Lim Hang Ling  24:40  
I'm neither of those but I just hope to to meet the whole of the panel being formed to get the truth out whichever it is.

Grace Fu  24:50  
So if we tell you now that panel that's formed by the same three persons that has described her speeches with her, do you find it as an appropriate? Because Is this about truth that the panel should find should come up with? Do you find that the appropriate?

Lim Hang Ling  25:12  
Um, I will not, I will not say appropriate, inappropriate, but I believe the impartiality of the party leaders and it is their duty our duty to be impartial.

Grace Fu  25:24  
So, if the person has if the party leaders have been involved in advising misconduct throughout, should they be the same people that is in the disciplinary panel?

Lim Hang Ling  25:39  
Okay, um, I cannot I cannot speculate, because I'm actually I'm not sure what actually transpired. But as I as I said earlier, okay, so this thing, I believe the party leaders will have to be impartial even if they have discussed this thing beforehand. They have to, yes.

Grace Fu  26:02  
So do you now that Miss Kahn has to resign? Do you talk to her about whether this is something that a decision that she made on her own, or she has been advised or you think it's a fair outcome for her?

Lim Hang Ling  26:19  
Whether is a fair outcome, I believe I'm not in a position to say, but I'm quite sure that this is her decision. Because before that, she actually caught me up and told me that it's gonna happen, and the most probably will happen

Grace Fu  26:37  
is you have to ask her why she has to resign.

Lim Hang Ling  26:42  
I did not go into the details, because I can hear from her voice that she is actually disappointed and said, so I just took it at face value. And that's it.

Grace Fu  26:55  
She's a person that you have worked with very closely, you have been trying very hard to me, you work very hard to your it's your role to try to connect her with the ground, and to have her resigned in to try to ask her why

Lim Hang Ling  27:14  
we actually thought of this thing before she actually before the resignation thing actually came on. So on and off, we actually have some conversation on this thing and discussion on this, like, what are the probabilities? And what if it come to pass and stuff like this? So I mean, I shared my view with her quite many times beforehand. So I believe it was, it will be her. It will be her decision. And I leave it up to her, if she finds that this is the best course of action are supported. Yes.

Grace Fu  27:50  
What are your views that you shared with her because Earlier you told us that you didn't talk go into details, you leave it to her, but now you tell us that you shared your views many times with her. So what have you

Lim Hang Ling  28:03  
during the during the so called after this, the disciplinary panel has been set up. And also because of certain things that we understand, like, what is happening from from from public, we read the Facebook posts and stuff like this, and we also see what's happening on the social medias. So sometimes they start we our just share with her like, you know, perhaps we might have a bigger problem and and there might there might come a point that you either have to resign or you know, there might be some drastic action that you have to take. And yeah, we do discuss when when when all the all the news and social media stuff when it comes in.

Grace Fu  28:51  
So you find that she you find that her decision to resign has been there or you find that there's been a change in her decision

Lim Hang Ling  29:03  
that I cannot speak for her because she has never told me her actual view or what she's actually intending to do.

Grace Fu  29:12  
You have just said that you discuss the option of

Lim Hang Ling  29:15  
vaccination No, no, not the option of resignation, but to just share that perhaps there might be a probability that this might go to this particular direction

Grace Fu  29:25  
and what was my response to that

Lim Hang Ling  29:27  
response was to look at the situation and what we whatever is available as what I get from her. Thank you. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  29:43  
A question, Mr. Donnelly.

Don Wee  29:46  
Hi, Mr. Lim. To the best of your knowledge when does Workers Party have a very strict protocols for their MPs to follow, or procedures to follow in the event? Their MPs face challenging situations. So let me repeat, does Workers Party have a strict set of protocols or procedures for their MPs to follow? In the event? They face difficult situations?

Lim Hang Ling  30:17  
facing difficult situation in the in the sense that is in this doing constituency walk about or is it was the

Don Wee  30:27  
any or in this context? tooting, do you think your party leadership? Leadership is well aware?

Lim Hang Ling  30:36  
I actually don't have the I don't have the details. Okay. On on the party leadership, but on the ground, we do have some response to with on the on the division, yes.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  31:02  
Keep there no further questions for now. We'd like to thank you for coming before the committee transcript the proceedings will be shared with you for verification, so do go through it. If any amendments please do make changes and send the transcripts back to us. Do note that 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 his report to parliament meaning that you also not to discuss what transpired here with others as well. So with that, our staff can accompany you to the waiting room. So once again, thank you very much such an adult's please accompany the witness. Thank you

The art of the holding reply - the Workers' Party's response to allegations

Lawyer friend:

"One of the first lessons I learnt as a young lawyer was to draft holding replies.

1. If you have good grounds to rebut the allegations, include in your letter words along the lines of, "We reject these baseless allegations". What's missing is frequently as important as what's written.

2. If you are less sure or need more time to investigate, it's best to send out the holding response quickly.

3. If you delay, but don't refute allegations, the inevitable conclusion will be that you investigated but found you had no way to rebut the allegations. You are simply buying time hoping for a miracle.

4. A frequently included phrase is that you will "respond only at the appropriate time and forum".

This is ok, unless you already did the thing you are now saying you wouldn't do (as an excuse to avoid responding).

Eg. I won't give a press conference while court proceedings are ongoing. (But bro, few days back you just gave a press conf, and court proceedings were already ongoing then...)"

 

For reference:

 

The Workers' Party

"MEDIA STATEMENT

We note the release of the interim report by the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges without having taken the evidence of Workers’ Party leaders against whom serious allegations have been made. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, had made it clear on 2 December, that he is prepared to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges.

Some members of the public have asked why Workers’ Party leaders have not responded thus far to the interim report released by the Committee of Privileges. We understand that the Committee’s work remains in progress. It is thus prudent for a response to be given at the appropriate forum and juncture.

We thank all who have conveyed messages of encouragement to the Party, including residents of Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC and Sengkang GRC, Party members, volunteers, as well as members of the public.

The Workers’ Party"

Links - 5th December 2021 (2 - Covid-19)

CNN spread distrust of Trump's COVID vaccine—now they are scolding others for 'vaccine misinformation' | The Post Millennial - "CNN declared the vaccine's creation and manufacture to be a political move that was sped up under Trumps' threats. Now CNN is reporting that social media companies must prepare for an onslaught of "COVID-19 vaccine misinformation," and find ways to guard against it... New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo also said that he would not trust a vaccine made from the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, and would not allow its distribution in New York... Interviewing Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sept. 3, CNN consistently inquired as to the likelihood that the shortened timeline for COVID vaccine development was politically motivated, and not for public health concerns... On Sept. 5, CNN discredited the coming vaccine, saying that "Trump has pressured administration health officials to accelerate the vaccine's development in an effort to convince voters of an impending end to the pandemic threatening his reelection."  On Sept. 14, CNN declared that most Americans "believe political pressure will cause [the] FDA to rush a coronavirus vaccine." They wrote that "If a Covid-19 vaccine was ready and available for free before the upcoming election, just over half of respondents, 54%, said they would not get one, while 42% said they would."  On Oct. 6, a CNN story on the vaccine said that "experts worry what Trump's undivided attention means for the fate of the vaccine. With so much obvious political pressure coming to bear, people may fear that the vaccines aren't safe for widespread use. Beyond that, they may lose trust in federal regulators and, possibly, in research science.""

Time for Singapore to firm up Covid-19 exit strategy: Experts - "Professor Ooi Eng Eong, who does viral research at Duke-NUS Medical School, suggested Singapore set a date on when it plans to ease restrictions as "a firm decision on when measures will change or be relaxed will provide a clear signal for all to act accordingly, as many who procrastinate or are undecided will be mobilised by deadlines".  He said the principle is to ensure that the benefits of disease control outweigh its cost to society. He said: "As the cases that truly need hospitalised management are now well within the limits of our healthcare resources, the cost of the current measures to the rest of society in Singapore, who are now mostly vaccinated, has inflated sizeably."... Now, people who have been vaccinated, whose livelihoods have been affected, whose plans for weddings and other social activities have been put on hold, are just waiting for the laggards to get vaccinated...   Prof Ooi is all for an early date to ease curbs since "cases have not abated despite the phase two (heightened alert) measures".  Pointing to the low impact of the lockdown in Sydney, Prof Ooi said such measures are less effective against the Delta variant than they were against the original wild strain... Prof Fisher agreed that easing of restrictions is important "because of the economic impact on small and large businesses and the country". He said: "There is also a huge social impact on weddings, funerals and family get-togethers."  Professor Teo Yik Ying, dean of the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, said easing of measures can start now if done in a calibrated and phased manner.   Prof Teo suggested some differentiation to protect the unvaccinated.  "For example, dining in for vaccinated people can be permitted, perhaps in even larger group sizes of up to five. For unvaccinated people, dining in should still be restricted, maybe to one person or at most two."  The same principle should apply to social and fitness activities, he said, adding that "the differentiation is to protect the unvaccinated people, rather than to discriminate against them"... Prof Fisher said: "We have to let our hawkers and restaurateurs get back to work."... He also thinks contract tracing should be reduced or even stopped. "If this continues as restrictions ease, we will simply be putting more people in quarantine. Currently, there are 18,000 who cannot go to work or go to school. A halfway measure could be to identify only close contacts and therefore quarantine fewer."... Prof Tambyah added: "I think that we will be able to accept around 100 to 200 deaths a year which would be an improvement from the more than 500 deaths a year we used to see with influenza."  From May 2020 till June this year, Singapore has not had a single case of laboratory-confirmed influenza. There was one case last month.  A Ministry of Health (MOH) study published in 2006 found that close to 600 people died of influenza-associated deaths here each year, with the elderly facing more than 11 times the risk of death.  There has been little panic over flu deaths, although these can be prevented through vaccines too. Covid-19, however, has become a rather emotional issue for many... children here have made huge sacrifices over the past year, such as having their schooling disrupted, to protect the elderly from infection.  "It should be a matter of urgency to reduce the burden on children of pandemic-control measures, whose beneficiaries are the elderly who have been eligible for vaccination for half a year already.""
Covid hystericists mock those who ignore experts, but they themselves are contemptuous of experts who disagree with them. It's great that Prof Teo recognises that restrictions are not to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, as covid hystericsts think

Heavy use of hand sanitizer boosts antimicrobial resistance
Hygiene theatre is not just useless but actively harmful (beyond diverting resources for no reason)

Scientific Evidence Doesn’t Back Booster Covid Shots, Researchers Warn — Even For The Delta Variant - "The push to roll out Covid-19 booster shots is not being driven by sound scientific evidence, according to a group of international researchers writing in the the Lancet medical journal Monday, who said available evidence shows vaccines to be highly effective against the delta coronavirus variant and that unwarranted messaging about booster doses undermines overall confidence in vaccines...
The researchers, who included experts from the Food and Drug Administration and World Health Organization, warned that unnecessary calls for booster shots have “implications for vaccine acceptance that go beyond Covid-19 vaccines,” undermining vaccine confidence and public health messaging on the value of getting vaccinated, particularly if boosters are only used for one type of vaccine.
There is also the potential for “significant adverse reactions” if boosters are administered too soon or used too frequently—the researchers noted the small risk of myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine—the researchers said, which could further undermine confidence in vaccines.
As well as not being backed up by available scientific evidence, the researchers said the limited supply of vaccines would be able to save more lives if used in people who had not received a vaccine yet, noting that “even if some gain can ultimately be gained from boosting, it will not outweigh the benefits” of protecting the unvaccinated."
This won't stop covid hystericists demanding them. So much for following the "science". Though maybe this is a feature, not a bug - by undermining confidence in the vaccines, vaxholes ensure that they will always have a group to demonise, hate and oppress

Michael Levitt on Twitter - "My keynote uninvited from https://t.co/KhepqykXW8 “... too many calls by other speakers threatening to quit if you were there. They all complained about your COVID claims”. Computational biology & biodesign are based on my work. Time to cancel them & me. New Dark Age Cometh."
Of course this has nothing to do with why all the "experts" agree with the narrative
So much for winning a Nobel Prize

Meme - Christine "Go Donate Blood" Rou... @crousselle: "We :) still :) aren't :) allowed :) to :) have :) a :) funeral :) this :) size :) for :) my :) dad :) indoors :) or :) outdoors :)"
"Hundreds gather to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Portland vigil"

Meme - "Power doesn't come from imposing draconian rules. REAL power comes from handing out exceptions to those rules. This funeral, like the left-wing riots and mobs of protesters crowding the streets without coronavirus criticism, was a demonstration of raw power."
"I get it. My dad wasn't important. So it's ok to limit his funeral to 10 people tomorrow. *John Lewis funeral*"

Heidi🍁 on Twitter - "Doug Ford lifts Covid-19 restrictions for tonight's vigil being held at the London Muslim Mosque"
"This just proves that there is no logical reason to limit funerals. Are they trying to break our spirits? Because this sure as shit feels like a slap to the face to me & anyone else who has been unable to properly say goodbye to loved ones.
This is making me tear up, because I can’t understand why politicians get to decide who’s deaths are worth mourning. Why do the rules only apply to some? Why have I been unable to attend a funeral over a year after my uncles were murdered?   I’m tired of this shit."
The woke virus strikes again!

Meme - "14 days home to flatten the curve
Stay home until hospitals aren't overwhelmed
Wait until there is a vaccine
Wait until everyone can get the vaccine
Wait until everyone has had the vaccine
Just maybe, normalcy won't come from compliance."

Meme - Don Winslow: "I've been saying this shit for months. No surprise here. If you take Donald Trump's rushed "vaccine" you're an idiot."
Don Winslow: "We have to come together. We have to stop the lies and misinformation. More than 600,000 people are dead from #COVID in just the United States It's time that we all #UniteAgainstCovid"

Robert Reich on Twitter - "Please, for the love of god, do not rush an unsafe vaccine for political purposes. #Debates2020"
Robert Reich on Twitter - "Every company in America should require all workers to be vaccinated, period."

Meme - "Karen 54. Three times divorced, two times vaccinated, and one proud vote for our savior, Joseph Biden. If you expect anything physical, you must be wearing a mask until there is updated CDC sexual contact advice"

Chris Selley: Enough with the COVID moral panic over foreign travellers - "Guarded quarantine of people coming to Canada, citizens or otherwise, only makes sense as a part of a genuine “COVID zero” strategy, such as New Zealand and Australia have successfully deployed."
As with most covid measures, it was all political theatre. And it worked, given how many people bitched about flights

Malaysia in danger of perpetual MCOs, says expert
Of course, the alternative of ending covid hysteria is not considered

How Many SARS-CoV-2-Infected People Require Hospitalization? Using Random Sample Testing to Better Inform Preparedness Efforts - "The overall IHR was 2.1% and varied more by age than by race or sex. Infection-hospitalization ratio estimates ranged from 0.4% for those younger than 40 years to 9.2% for those older than 60 years. Hospitalization rates based on case counts overestimated the IHR by a factor of 10, but this overestimation differed by demographic groups, especially age."
One covid hystericist proclaimed that you don't know how many people have been infected, so you need to look at CFR instead of IFR. Apparently it is good to use misleading data (and this ignores the fact that even CFR isn't that accurate since you also have false negatives and positives)

Exclusive: Over half of Covid hospitalisations tested positive after admission - "More than half of Covid hospitalisations are patients who only tested positive after admission, leaked data reveal.  The figures suggest vast numbers are being classed as hospitalised by Covid when they were admitted with other ailments, with the virus picked up by routine testing.  Experts said it meant the national statistics, published daily on the government website and frequently referred to by ministers, may far overstate the levels of pressures on the NHS...   The majority of cases were not detected until patients underwent standard Covid tests, carried out on everyone admitted to hospital for any reason.   Overall, 56 per cent of Covid hospitalisations fell into this category, the data, seen by The Telegraph, show.   Crucially, this group does not distinguish between those admitted because of severe illness, later found to be caused by the virus, and those in hospital for different reasons who might otherwise never have known that they had picked it up.   Last month, health officials instructed NHS trusts to provide "a breakdown of the current stock of Covid patients", splitting it into those who were in hospital primarily because of the virus and those there for other reasons. So far, NHS England has failed to publish this data"

Whether it’s cock-up or conspiracy, officials are still feeding the public misleading statistics - "Dr Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, took the public through slides showing that there were currently 7,891 people in hospital with Covid in the UK.  What she failed to mention is that this figure does not only include people admitted with Covid, but also those who test positive for coronavirus while in hospital for another condition. Hospitals were instructed to distinguish between the two groups earlier this year, but so far it has not filtered down into the official figures...  many experts seized on 223 reported deaths to argue that Britain should enact Plan B restrictions.   But the reported death data does tend to jump around depending on the day of the week and reflects deaths over several days. Look at the figures by “date of death”, and it is clear to see the situation is largely plateauing...   A quick look at the figures from the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) show a marked increase in cases reported to the regulator over the past year."

COVID Hospitalization Numbers Can Be Misleading - The Atlantic - "From the start, COVID hospitalizations have served as a vital metric for tracking the risks posed by the disease... there are many COVID patients in the hospital with fairly mild symptoms, too, who have been admitted for further observation on account of their comorbidities, or because they reported feeling short of breath. Another portion of the patients in this tally are in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID, and discovered that they were infected only because they were tested upon admission. How many patients fall into each category has been a topic of much speculation. In August, researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System decided to find out. Researchers have tried to get at similar questions before. For two separate studies published in May, doctors in California read through several hundred charts of pediatric patients, one by one, to figure out why, exactly, each COVID-positive child had been admitted to the hospital. Did they need treatment for COVID, or was there some other reason for admission, like cancer treatment or a psychiatric episode, and the COVID diagnosis was merely incidental? According to the researchers, 40 to 45 percent of the hospitalizations that they examined were for patients in the latter group. The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country. Then they checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent. (The latter criterion is based on the National Institutes of Health definition of “severe COVID.”) If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic. The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease. This increase was even bigger for vaccinated hospital patients, of whom 57 percent had mild or asymptomatic disease. But unvaccinated patients have also been showing up with less severe symptoms, on average, than earlier in the pandemic: The study found that 45 percent of their cases were mild or asymptomatic since January 21. According to Shira Doron, an infectious-disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, and one of the study’s co-authors, the latter finding may be explained by the fact that unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.... [According to Shira Doron, an infectious-disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston] “As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country,” Doron told me, referring to decisions about school closures, business restrictions, mask requirements, and so on, “we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.”"
Of course, only a conspiracy theorist would seek to distinguish the numbers of people who die with covid from those who die of covid
Covid hystericists like to claim that studies they don't like are outdated, but the nature of scientific research means that papers can never use real-time data. Of course it's convenient for them since they can fear-monger all they want

COVID pandemic corroded Canadians' trust in politicians — even their neighbours, poll finds
Of course, it is notable that divide and conquer is a long-established tactic for control

Taylor C. Noakes: Dismissing anti-lockdown protesters as racists is just virtue signalling - "What concerns me is a broader trend amongst politicians — of all stripes — that reinforces an “us vs. them” mentality when unity is in short supply. Further dividing the population for the sake of scoring political points is anathema to our collective interest in conquering these inter-related crises. The pandemic has provided an opportunity for far-right nationalist groups to infect the general population. Though we tend to focus on the death toll, for the majority of Canadians the pandemic has been an economic disaster first and foremost, and It’s the second such disaster in less than fifteen years. For too many Canadians, the once prosperous middle class country they grew up in no longer exists. Even if the country starts getting back to some semblance of normality this year, for those who have lost their livelihoods, the recovery is going to take much longer."
Just like having concerns about one vaccine - or even opposing mandatory vaccination - means you're an "anti-vaxxer" now

Free tap water in Toronto restaurants

There is an urban legend circulating that restaurants in Toronto must serve free tap water (e.g. BoomerCKA who claims it's a Toronto Public Health Ordinance, and that it's an Ontario liquor licence stipulation).

I know that in New Zealand, places that serve alcohol must give out free tap water but I was unable to find any official sources about this being a requirement in Toronto / Ontario. Indeed, the fact that articles about free tap water in Canadian restaurants don't mention any such requirement is telling.

So I decided to get an official response. Here is what Toronto DineSafe (under Public Health) said:

Toronto Public Health enforces the Health Protection and Promotion act and the associated Food Premises Regulations. I am including a link to both:

HPPA - https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h07
Food Premises Regulations - https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/R17493

There is no provision in either which requires them to provide water, and we are not aware of any municipal bylaw regarding this practice.

For good measure, I also asked York Region Public Health, who told me:

At this time, no such bylaw exists for York Region.

Links - 5th December 2021 (1 - Trump)

California Declares Independence From Trump's Coronavirus Plans - Bloomberg - "Governor Gavin Newsom said that he would use the bulk purchasing power of California “as a nation-state” to acquire the hospital supplies that the federal government has failed to provide. If all goes according to plan, Newsom said, California might even “export some of those supplies to states in need.”"
Meanwhile, Liberals denounce the Confederacy as traitors. Secession is good when it serves Liberal causes

Meme - "Dems: You MAGats are a bunch of Trump cultists
Also Dems: *12 women dressed as Ruth Bader Ginsburg running*"

Kyle Morris's tweet - "Last September, CNN averaged 950,000 total day viewers. This September, the network averaged just 557,000, a 41% drop"

Charlie Kirk on Twitter - "Have you ever heard the name “Marquise Asomani?” He is accused of shooting at a gathering of Trump supporters in August and will go before a grand jury this week in North Carolina It’s strange—I wonder why this was never a bigger story? 🤔"
"Love Trumps hate"

Woman assaults 12-year-old boy in Boulder over Trump yard sign, police say

drefanzor on Twitter - "Kathy Griffin has lung cancer. Here she is in October 2020 when President Trump was hospitalized for COVID-19:"
"Is he dead yet? I have shit to do. Thx."

Palmer Report on Twitter - "If you spent four years yelling “Fuck Trump” it means you’re a patriot, because Trump is a traitor. If you’re now yelling “Fuck Biden” is means you’re a traitor, because Biden is a patriot. It’s that simple."
You can prove anything when you beg the question

Russian analyst, primary source for Steele dossier charged with repeatedly lying to FBI - "Russian analyst Igor Danchenko misled the FBI about his contacts with Russian government officials and a Democrat-connected public relations executive, falsehoods that materially affected the FBI's investigation and its representations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get warrants targeting Trump's campaign and one of its advisers."

Meme - "I had a vision that Trump kissed me. When he pulled away, my lips tasted of blood. I touched them and saw my finger painted burgundy. I asked him what had happened and he said that he shared some of his pain. He said not to worry because he was offering his blood to restore me and others in the country. But for every drop given, he was closer to dying for the country. asked him to not die and to stay. Let's walk in harmony, I begged. Let's feed the poor, the disenfranchised, the marginalized. He smiled that smile of his and said he had been doing that his entire life and wouldn't stop even after death. He said he was a man of God. He told me he came out with the HIV cure - a huge donor for research - but kept it anonymous because he didn't want the glory. God gave me this vision for this blackout specifically. WhatsApp and Facebook will kneel before God. They should have read the Bible. Facebook will have to answer for his sins. Parler and Rumble will stand beside God with their wings. God Bless You Wanda"

Gad Saad on Twitter - "“Osama bin Laden is far less reprehensible personally to me than Trump.” - @SamHarrisOrg"
"Adolf Hitler is far less dangerous to me than Trump. At least Hitler had sartorial style. Trump is just so gross."

Gad Saad on Twitter - Sam Harris: "Biden achieves near-Trumpian negligence here. But unlike Trump, whose reputation among his fans was magically shielded from earthly damage, Biden can't get away with being a callous moron in an emergency—and he shouldn't. This is all just sickening."
"I was alerted about this tweet. Everything in this guy’s mind is linked to Trump. I’ve never witnessed such disordered hysteria from a person who built a career on being a reasoned meditative guy. Wishing him the best."

Facebook - "You heard of Long Covid? Some people have Long TDS. He’s no longer in office or on social media. Quit letting him live rent-free in your head."

Democrats Call For Labels Warning Consumers If A Company's CEO Voted For Trump | The Babylon Bee - "Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democratic representatives proposed a new law today that would help consumers make better-informed decisions when it comes to really political purchases like beans."

Meme - "President Trump Said, "Good Morning."
Here's How Twelve News Outlets Covered The Story
FOX NEWS - Trump Unveils Plan To Make Mornings Great Again
HUFFPOST - Mornings Are Sexist, Here's How
CNN - Can You Believe What Fox News Said About This?
OAN - Glorious Leader Trump Causes Sun To Rise In East Once Again
SALON - Mornings Are Racist, Here's How
SNOPES - Fact-Check: False
MSNBC - Do You Know Who Else Has Mornings? Russia.
DAILY WIRE - Trump DESTROYS Libs With These Two Little Words
Washington Post - Family Of The Late General Soleimani Are Unable To Have A Good Morning Thanks To Trump
The New York Times - Mornings Are Better In Communist China
VICE - I Combined 12 Prescription Drugs And Slept With A Hooker To Experience Why Mornings Are Transphobic
Babylon Bee - AOC Doesn't Even Know How To Spell Good Morning, What An Idiot!"

NPR - Posts | Facebook - "German prosecutors have filed charges against a 95-year-old woman they say was complicit in the murder of more than 10,000 people at the Stutthof concentration camp during World War II."
On the German typist and secretary being tried just like camp guards
Of course many of the commentators went on about Trump. I'm sure they don't think Godwin's Law is meant to be critical of the left.

Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts | Facebook - "I’ve never seen Godwin’s Law so gracefully woven into an essay before. The author is facing an existential crisis — the author hated Donald Trump and, by extension, her Trump-supporting neighbors as well. So now she is facing the cognitive dissonance of her neighbors being kind and generous.  These are the circumstances that tribalism produce. The author has a view of Trump that is evil incarnate and those who support Trump must support evil. That’s generally not the case. The other tribes view their leaders as virtuous and they support those virtues, just as the author supports the virtues of her team’s leader. Of course each have likely wallowed in their respective echo chambers — the author repeatedly told of Trump’s evilness while the neighbor repeatedly heard how Trump was saving the country.  If each side could step away from their tribalism they would likely find much in common, including a love for their country and concern for others."
On "What can you do about the Trumpites next door?"

Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts | Facebook - "Lost in the drama of America’s streets, Rod Rosenstein testified before the Senate.
Unfortunately, this investigation has become a partisan flash point. The issues being raised are serious enough that both parties should be concerned.
——-
“When questioned by Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, Rosenstein agreed that when he appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel in summer 2017, there was no basis for the appointment and that the FBI already knew it. In retrospect, he says, he appointed a Special Counsel because the FBI hid crucial fact facts from him.”...
“Rosenstein oversaw them. He supervised the FBI probes, recommended the firing of Director James Comey and the appointment of his successor, Christopher Wray, decided to appoint a Special Counsel, and chose former FBI director Robert Mueller for the job. The FBI and Mueller’s team conducted the actual investigations, but Rosenstein was their ultimate supervisor, the guarantor of their probity.”...
• Knowing what he knows now, Rosenstein says would not have signed the FISA application to spy on Carter Page
• Rosenstein cannot explain the basis for Mueller’s investigation of Trump-Russia collusion since, by the time Mueller was appointed in summer 2017, the FBI had already cleared the key people named as possible collaborators
• Rosenstein set out very broad terms for the Mueller investigation. His ‘scope memos’ were widened, not narrowed, after no Trump-Russian collaboration was found
• Although Rosenstein was responsible for supervising the Special Counsel, he testified that he exercised little hands-on oversight. He made no effort to rein in excesses
• Rosenstein flatly denies he tried to remove President Trump, using the 25th Amendment, or wear a wire into the White House to record his conversations with the President
• Though Rosenstein acknowledges serious mistakes, he blames them on the FBI’s ‘lack of candor’. His testimony portends a serious clash between DoJ and FBI officials. This blame game will soon include the CIA, State Department, and Obama White House”"

"Where is Trump?" Former president notably absent from 9/11 events | Salon.com
Former President Donald Trump Visits NYPD, FDNY On 9/11
Naturally lots of people with TDS happily chewed up the fake news. Of course, this is not surprising - these are the same people who have contempt for the common man

Supreme Court throws out lawsuit alleging Trump profited illegally from presidency | The Post Millennial - "Democrats and members of the mainstream media have long promoted the idea that Trump was illegally profiting from his job as president. Many, but not all of these theories were somehow connected to Russia."

Ignore the self-righteous Left wingers: British politicians were right to show Trump courtesy - "Politics – or at least, governmental politics – isn’t about doing business with people you like, it’s about doing business. Grandstanding is all very well and certainly makes you feel good when all those ReTweets and Likes come pouring in for your latest pearl of wisdom. But in government, it’s about the national interest"

America's national healing depends on Donald Trump facing real punishment | Salon.com - "Many of us are at high risk for the development of trauma, stress-related and anxiety-related symptoms (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD). We have been subjected to physical and psychological abuse by the now-departed president. The sickness and death associated with the coronavirus pandemic has been catastrophic. Our crippled economy has created widespread depression and anxiety. Trump's racism, xenophobia, misogyny, nativism, white supremacy, violence and incitement of insurrection have all been traumatic forces as well. Post-traumatic stress symptoms are increasingly evident among us: distressing and intrusive thoughts, anxiety, worry, fear, flashbacks, nightmares, hyper-vigilance, disturbed sleep and more. These symptoms occur most notably in those with close proximity to the horrific nature of the deadly disease, such as first responders, medical providers and friends and families of victims. All are due to the impact of a cruel and corrupt leader who harmed us after swearing to be our protector. Much like a domestic abuser, Trump deceived, betrayed and mistreated us... in a very real way, prosecution of Donald Trump is necessary for individual Americans to heal from their psychological distress and trauma and to feel liberated and positive going forward."
These are the people who go on about "white fragility"

Meme - "Fascism is when you start fewer wars & kill fewer innocent civilians than any president in like 100 years but you make dual citizens & upper middle class white women upset with your tweets"

Meme - Mark Knoller @markknoller: "Awaiting Pres Trump, reporters in the hot sun. He'll be in the shade."
"Move the sun, Trump! What a bigot. I bet Biden would move the sun."

Meme - 2016: **Trump wins* "He's gonna destroy America!"
2018: *Economic boom, Border Wall, ISIS defeated* "He's gonna destroy America!"
2020: *Impeachment failed* "He's gonna destroy America!"
Today: "F*** it! I will do it myself! *lockdown, riots*"

Cancel All Student/Medical Debt on Twitter - "My rent is late, I lost my job, lost my healthcare coverage, and I'm hungry.
DEMS: No problem, vote blue and we'll help immediately.
Done. Now what?
DEMS: Wait for it.
Ok. I've been waiting. What's the plan?
DEMS: Wait longer.
I'm homeless now.
DEMS: Trump was worse."

Facebook - "The merger of corporate & state power is a prime indicator of fascism. So why do I observe “progressives” overwhelmingly becoming defenders of Big Media, Big Tech, Big Pharma & Big State. These lay the very basis of Big Brother itself. Ask yourself: where are your red lines?"
Liberals love fascism when it benefits them

This is why Trump's post-presidential popularity could rise - "“Nearly all presidents, especially those defeated for re-election, eventually enjoy some revisionist second looks,” said Steven Hayward of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. “It will likely happen for Trump, too, as the intense passions surrounding him recede.”... Trump notched an approval rating of 34 percent in Gallup’s final poll of his presidency — just like George W. Bush in 2009 and Jimmy Carter in 1981, and two points better than the 32 percent scored by Harry Truman as he left office in 1953. But Trump never came close to Richard Nixon’s dismal 24 percent approval rating in the final week of his presidency, just before he resigned in 1974 to dodge impeachment over the Watergate scandal... In 1981, less than a decade after his resignation, the Washington Post — Nixon’s onetime nemesis — began praising his “redemption” and lauding him as a “peacemaker.”That was nine months into the first term of a new, more right-wing Republican president, Ronald Reagan.By the end of Reagan’s presidency, Nixon’s transformation in the public mind was complete, sociologist Sherri Cavan declared in 1989.“Gradually, people came to forget why he was infamous,” Cavan wrote in a research paper that year. “And he became famous again.”The pattern recurred for George W. Bush, denounced by the left as a war criminal and worse during his presidency — then flattered with “Miss Me Yet?” memes and showers of press affection once Trump took the White House. Since 1940, said conservative columnist Ed Driscoll, each GOP presidential candidate has been vilified in extreme terms before being “magically rehabilitated as thoughtful elder statesmen to contrast against the next Hitlerian Republican.”“I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see former President Trump given strange new respect four years from now,” Driscoll said — “to bash whoever is the front-runner in the GOP.”"

Pew Research Center on Twitter - "NEW: Despite a burst of pardons and commutations in his last hours in office, Donald Trump used his executive clemency power less frequently than nearly every other president since the turn of the 20th century."
It was only okay when Obama pardoned a terrorist