Who’s the Straight Shooter? The Curious Case of Ms. Raeesah Khan
Picture this: the Singapore Parliament is buzzing, a whistle‑blower is on the stand, and the ex‑chief of the Workers’ Party steps forward with a claim that’s so absurd it almost feels like a comedy sketch. The star of the show? Ms. Raeesah Khan, a Wolong‑back‑frame MP who’s been accused of spinning a yarn in a WhatsApp message to her aides. The story? It’s riddled with mental‑health jargon, legal jargon, and a hint of theatrical drama.
Behind the Curtain: The “Dissociation” Drama
Pritam Singh, the party’s fearless leader, fired a shot straight at Ms. Khan claiming she may be suffering from dissociation – a fancy term for mentally disconnecting from what’s going on. He says it could be the reason she “lied” in the chat that told her assistants to “take the information to the grave.” Obviously, a strange way to word it.
- First‑hand confession? Ms. Khan allegedly told the party’s disciplinary panel on 29 Nov that she was dealing with this “mental health” hiccup.
- Pritam’s test? He asked her what dissociation meant. Her reply: “It’s when I talk without thinking.” He was quick to warn her that an MP “in a state of talking without thinking” could be dangerous.
- In the end, he suggested a psychiatric evaluation – because nothing screams “puzzle solved” like a doctor’s note.
Whispers from the Chiefs: “I told You!”
It turns out the story goes back even further. In August, Ms. Khan was told (by seniors in the Workers’ Party) to keep the lie alive after admitting she’d assisted a sexual‑assault victim at a police station. This smack‑down is why Pritam argues that Ms. Khan’s confession of dissociation might be a whole new layer of the plot.
Faces in the Corner: The Committee of Privileges
- Culture Minister Edwin Tong was all over the place, asking Pritam why the MP would deceive her most trusted aides.
- On 10 Dec, after a whirlwind of evidence, the committee released their third special report, but the drama keeps brewing.
- WP’s own Ms. Loh Pei Ying and Mr. Nathan Yudhishthra Nathan – both assistants – claimed that Pritam had told them he didn’t judge Ms. Khan. They understood that was a green light for her to keep lying.
The Pritam Perspective: “A Problem, In Lifetime”
Despite the defenders’ zeal, Pritam kept his stance: “She’s a liar. She may have a problem.” The conversation with Mr. Tong’s questions about the ease of lying to close friends only fueled a sense that the MP’s narrative was a flat‑out fabrication.
Wrap‑up and Takeaway
So, what’s going on? We have a SP that’s looking sideways at a chain of allegations, a group of MPs who’re wrestling with mental‑health claims, and a whole party feeling the pressure. For the uninitiated, imagine a reality‑TV drama – but in full parliamentary suits, minus the commercial breaks.
Below is the full report from the Committee of Privileges, for those who want the full play-by-play. (Note: it’s no longer a video‑dense paragraph – we’ve cut the embedded clips for a text‑friendly read.)
