Inside the Workers’ Party Drama: How Raeesah Khan’s “Truth” Tripped Up the Opposition
In a tangle of accusations, whispers, and a dash of political maneuvering, the Workers’ Party (WP) found itself at the centre of a messy rift when Raeesah Khan claimed she’d aided a rape victim in August but then told the House on 3 Aug that she’d taken the victim to a police station. The story spiralled, the WP leaders leaned on her, and the allegations of a “lying MP” ended up in parliament’s Committee of Privileges.
What the Committee Uncovered
- August 8 meeting – The WP chiefs, Pritam Singh (Opposition Leader), Sylvia Lim (Chair) and Faisal Manap (Vice‑Chair), allegedly told Khan that she didn’t need to clarify her story or to set the record straight.
- After that, Khan texted her assistant: “I just met Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal… they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave.”
- Her former assistant Loh Pei Ying and a WP volunteer Yudhishthra Nathan also testified, confirming the WP’s stance.
- In the committee’s report, a key line said: “If Ms Khan and the WP could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. If the matter was brought up again, there would also be no need for her to clarify and there was no need for the truth to be told.”
The Timeline of Lies and Lies‑Trutheriness
August 3 – Parliament: Khan claimed she’d brought a 25‑year‑old rape victim to a police station, only to later admit she never did.
August 8 – WP Meeting: Senior MPs allegedly ruled out any truth‑seeking, encouraging her to keep the false narrative.
October 4 – PM’s Ministry: Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam asked Khan for more details; she insisted on confidentiality and said she couldn’t locate the victim.
October 12 – Another WP Meeting: The three leaders concluded that the matter wouldn’t go away and urged her to “come clean.” Yet the official verdict was “no disciplinary action” if she stayed silent.
November 1 – Parliament: Khan finally acknowledged lying on 3 Aug and 4 Oct, but only after being prompted by the WP’s escalating pressure.
November 8 & 29 – Discipline Panels: She faced the committee twice, still steering clear of full transparency because the WP had given her “the green light” to stay closed‑mouth.
Why the Party Deploys a “Red Flag” Instead of a “Red Ink”?
According to the committee, when Singh called a press conference on 2 Dec, he clarified that the WP had decided to give Khan time to sort things out in light of her alleged sexual‑assault claim. He hinted that a resignation could be a “good move” for her well‑being, but never told Khan outright to quit or to admit the truth.
The WP, in 1950s‑style “co-operative” politics, seemed to favour a quiet exit over a loud confession:
- Singh told the committee “I was hearing this for the first time” about his earlier call on 3 Oct.
- He also insisted that “no judgment” awaited Khan if she stayed with the pre‑existing story.
- He nurtured the idea that she could simply ignore police inquiries, a stance that left her in an ethical limbo.
What This Means for Singapore’s MP Landscape
The saga illustrates how parties sometimes prefer to keep drama out of the public square, instead opting for “shadow debates” behind closed doors. With Khan having resigned recently, it’s a reminder that a politician’s own narrative can be the toughest opponent to face – especially when the inside scoop comes from the top brass.
Trend‑setter or Troubled? WP’s Take on “Truth” and Limits to Parliamentary Integrity
Going forward, any political organisation wanting to maintain the public’s trust will need to re‑evaluate how it copes with conflicts of interest and internal pressures, even in the most “transparent” Singapore democracy. For now, the story hangs out on Parliament’s website, with vivid video footage of the hearings, and a cheeky sense that the only thing honest that’s left to do is… well, keep not telling the truth.
This rewritten piece is for informational purposes only and is not an official copy of the original article.
