Workers’ Party Leaders Caught in a Web of Lies
Apparently, the Committee of Privileges has taken a hard look at what’s been happening inside the Workers’ Party (WP) and has found that the leaders – spelled out – have been spinning a pretty tangled story about a complaint against former MP Raeesah Khan.
What the Committee Discovered
- Republican Righteousness? Nope. The former WP MP admitted to abusing parliamentary privilege by telling the House a false narrative on August 3, then repeating that same lie on October 4.
- After the first false claim, the MP didn’t go solo. She was reportedly acting on instructions from Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap starting from August 8.
- The report – released on Feb 10 – points fingers mainly at Pritam Singh, the party’s chief and Leader of the Opposition, describing him as the “biggest culprit.”
- In a move that was less “usual” and more “slightly scandalous,” the committee recommended that the Attorney‑General evaluate whether criminal proceedings should be launched against Singh and Faisal.
Key Takeaways from the Report
Here’s the low‑down, distilled into bullet points:
- WP leaders spun a tale about a complaint that never actually existed.
- One WP MP was caught lying to Parliament, time and again.
- Both the MP and senior MPs were allegedly following a “directive” from higher‑up party leaders.
- Pritam Singh is under the most serious suspicion, with the committee calling for a legal review.
- The Attorney‑General may need to step in and decide if this goes beyond political drama into the realm of criminal law.
All in all, it’s a classic case of political drama turning into legal intrigue. We’ll keep you updated as the story develops. Stay tuned!
3 WP leaders lied
Who’s Left Holding Penises in the Truth? A Behind‑the‑Scenes Political Drama
Our Committee of Oversight and Accountability (COP) just dropped a fierce verdict on a trio of wisenesses from the Workers’ Party—Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim, & Faisal Manap. According to the COP, these leaders have been spinning a conspiracy of lies across multiple fronts.
Bloody Confession and the “To‑the‑Grave” Directive
- On August 8, Winnie Khan admitted she’d velo‑falsified a statement in parliament.
- The three WP power‑players didn’t exactly welcome the confession:
- They told her to bury the lie, practically giving her a “graveyard” for her fib.
- Yet, Pritam Singh threw in the drama‑queen move and advised her to keep the deception alive.
Contrast Between Words and Actions
The COP slammed the leaders’ motives: “They told Khan to keep the lie alive, but they expected her to admit the truth—bizarrely opposite of what they actually did,”
read the report. The perpetrators were acting like a charade crew in the midst of a , truth-teller’s theater.
Pritam Singh: The “Operating Brain” Behind the Oct 4 Session
According to the committee, Pritam Singh was the mastermind who orchestrated Khan’s repeated deception during the parliamentary session on October 4. The man behind the curtain, the “operating brain”, masterminded the scheme, leading the whole fibs circus to be the star of the show.
Bottom line: The COP is calling out the role of each member as the “engineer of the lie & its return, admittedly due to some political agenda.” This election storm will no doubt spice up the vivid conflict in the political arena.
Seriousness of Singh’s actions
Inside the Political Drama: Singh’s Coaching, Khan’s Ripple Effect
Headline: Committee Reveals the Coaching Playbook Behind a Parliamentary Lie
- Singh’s Role: Acting more like a mentor than a mere advisor, Singh directed Khan to keep the cover story alive.
- Khan’s Decision: With the party’s spotlight glued on her, following Singh’s lead felt like the only logical button to push.
- The Outcome: A full‑blown misleading moment that shook public trust and left the committee scratching its head.
Picture it: a backstage call where “Respect the Parliamentary Privilege” transforms into a strategy for twisting facts. It’s almost like a reality show, but the stakes are a lot higher and the audience is the entire nation. The committee’s findings make it clear—Singh didn’t just say “Hey, stay honest!” He suggested, “Let’s keep the story going, and let’s do it subtly.”
In short, if you’re ever playing a game of parliamentary hide‑and‑seek, you’ll want a teammate who’s all about keeping the illusion alive. That’s exactly what Singh offered. And that’s what Khan, with her party’s tactical advantage, chose to follow.
No need to come clean if not questioned
Unmasking the Truth: The Khan Saga
1. The Committee’s Verdict
The findings were crystal clear: the WP leaders were in a bit of a pickle. They didn’t want Khan to lay it out on the record and, quite frankly, didn’t help her straighten out the story in the next rounds of Parliament.
- No direct call to clarify.
- No support to mend the narrative.
- All hands were on deck…except the ones that mattered.
2. The October 4 Scrutiny
On Oct 4, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam put the ball in Khan’s court, demanding details about a supposed police mishandling of a sexual assault case. The pressure? Extreme. The response? A repeat of the falsehood.
- “Give us details!”—a plea to unwrap the truth.
- Khan delivered the same old lie, leaving the room quiet.
- No follow‑up question about why it was repeated.
- No intervention to flip the narrative.
3. The October 12 Turning Point
Fast forward to Oct 12—the group decided it was time for Khan to own up, but only after the police launched an investigation into her allegations. It’s like putting the issue in the middle of a hurricane.
- Decision: “Time for the truth.”
- Condition: Police investigation underway.
4. The November 1 Admission
Come Nov 1, in a dramatic parliamentary debate, Khan finally dropped the curtain and admitted: she wasn’t truthful during the Aug 3 discussion.
- Truth declared: “I lied.”
- Political chuckle: 29‑year‑old in the spotlight.
5. The Final Exit
Fast‑forward to Nov 30, after the big “Admit the Lie” moment, Khan chose to step away from the WP and her role as MP—perhaps the neatest exit you can imagine.
- Resignation from the Workers’ Party.
- Stepping down as MP.
- Leaving the stage for a quieter life.
Ownself check ownself
Inside the “Super‑Secret” Disciplinary Squad
Picture this: a trio of party elites—Singh, Lim and Faisal—form a disciplinary panel on November 2. Their sole task? To dig up the juicy details behind Khan’s questionable behaviour.
Why the Panel Was a Big No‑No
- Pre‑Existing Knowledge: Until the day before the scandal broke—on October 29—these three already knew the truth: Khan had lied in Parliament.
- Smoking‑Gun Evidence: The COP (Chief Office Person) slammed the panel, saying a “hand‑shake” session knowing the lie from the start made the whole thing look like pre‑meditated sabotage.
- Zero Transparency: They never mentioned the deception to the party’s central executive committee, nor did they inform leaders inside the group. The big reveal? A press conference on December 2 broadcasted the hell‑out‑of‑hand truth to the public.
A Quick Recap of the Timeline
- October 29 – All three had the inside scoop.
- November 2 – Panel set up; disposal of the allegation info kept hush‑hush.
- December 2 – Press conference needed the public to hear that the lie was all that had happened inside the party.
Bottom line: The COP’s complaint doesn’t just come from scrutiny—it’s about how the panel was built on an unshaken pre‑known “lie,” making the whole operation feel less like a diligent fact‑check and more like a covert plot. What that means is…the party’s reputation needs a quick reset and a fair review to clear up all the nonsense.
Ambiguity of ‘I will not judge you’
html
The Committee Takes a Stand
During the recent review, the committee scrapped a piece of verbal art that Singh had tossed to Khan. The gist? The language was so vague that it could read like a cryptic crossword clue.
Singh’s “Ethically Ambiguous” Phrase
Singh died in a game of “Choose Your Own Adventure” with two supposedly friendly tropes:
- “I will not judge you” — a statement that could be read either as a shield or a covert threat.
- “It’s your call” — which flips the responsibility to the other person, but also conveniently leaves the doors to many doors in the room.
Interpreting the Message
In the COP hearings, Singh tried to shed light on his intentions. He claimed that he wanted Khan to:
- Take full ownership and responsibility over the matter.
- Deliver the truth with no sugar‑coating.
However, Khan was not so blind to the double‑edged sword. She felt that the lines were leading her to a maze where:
- “Tell the truth” was one corner; and
- “Stick with the lie” sat right next to it, waiting for a moral high ground.
So, in the end, the committee wrapped up saying: “These words don’t play the ball straight – they’re a game of misdirection.” This leaves Singh on the sidelines, wishing he’d said something a tad less cryptic.
Singh changed position on Khan clarifying in Oct sitting
Why Singh’s Stance Took a Wild Turn at the COP Hearings
The Big Shift
During the session, the committee pointed out that Singh’s position was not set in stone—it evolved on the fly, much like a dramatic plot twist in a TV series.
- Initially, he pushed “Khan, spit the truth!” – demanding Khan admit the lie that had crashed Parliament.
- Later on, his tone turned “Let’s just clarify the facts, if they come up.” – a softer, almost diplomatic approach.
It’s like asking a friend to spill the beans one moment, then hovering on the sidelines, waiting for the topic to surface before offering a clarification.
That shift, according to the committee, created a lot of buzz—making everyone wonder if Singh had a hidden play book or simply adjusted his strategy in response to the unfolding conversation.
Khan guilty of abuse of parliamentary privilege
Kim Khan’s Parliamentary Show‑down
Picture this: a committee rips through the record, calling out a blatant misuse of parliamentary privilege. The verdict? Fine‑time for Kim Khan. Nobody’s talking about a light slap on the wrist, either. The committee is looking at a $25,000 hit for spilling false information during the Aug 3 session, and then a $10,000 price tag for making the same mistake again on Oct 4. Talk about a double whammy!
What’s Behind the Numbers
- Abusing Parliamentary Privilege – The committee found that Kim Khan deliberately lied under oath, turning Parliament into a courtroom drama.
- Repeat Offense – Five months later, the same affair was relayed, earning her a second hefty fine.
- Resignation Twist – Despite the charges, Kim had already hung up her MP badge, so the committee had to weigh that in the fine calculation.
The Human Side of the Gavel
A complicating layer is the back‑story. Kim had faced unfair accusations from WP leaders during the COP hearings. Critics insisted she was a “wrongful character” while her mental health was put under an unwanted spotlight by Singh, who publicly rattled her spirits.
It’s a tug‑of‑war between “justice” and “humanity.” While the committee handed over the numbers, they also acknowledged that Kim had walked away from Parliament, her mental well‑being in the crosshairs, and that the whole ordeal had left her feeling battered.
What’s Next?
Will the fines actually serve as a deterrent, or will they become another rag‑tag chapter in Kim Khan’s saga? Only time and Parliament’s drama club will tell. In the meantime, a polite note of “Keep it real, folks!” remains our takeaway.
From Parliament to courts
When the Numbers Tell a Story: A Committee’s Unexpected Twist
In a shake‑up that’s spiced with drama, the committee decided that the party chief and Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh, should be named the top offender among the trio of Workers’ Party (WP) leaders. No one expected this, especially after the drama—there’s a whole lot of smoke and a little fire going on.
Unusual Request for Legal Clarity
What followed was a genuinely rare maneuver: the committee called on the Attorney‑General to weigh whether criminal charges should be brought against Singh and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. The move signals a willingness to go beyond routine parliamentary debates and cross into deeper legal scrutiny.
Going Beyond the Word Wall
- “We’ve got the main suspect on the list,” the committee said. It highlighted Singh as the most culpable of the trio.
- The request to the Attorney‑General is a moment that’s hardly seen in everyday proceedings.
- The committee wants a pain‑free decision—no-magic-wand, i.e., no immediate answers, just a direction for next steps.
When Commons Merge with the Capitol
Hash out the story with a straightforward, human touch: the drama isn’t just about the wording but the conflict behind it. The world of Singapore parliament has been intrigued and $l$ entertained by the turn of events. There’s a lot of image certainty—when the MPs finally shake elbows over the matter, it doesn’t feel like a committee but a juncture of thought.
