Singapore — In Parliament on Monday (Nov 1), Workers Party Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan (Sengkang GRC) admitted that she lied in an Aug 3 speech about a rape victim to whom the police allegedly made inappropriate remarks about her clothing and the fact that she had been drinking.
Secretary-General of The Workers’ Party (WP) weighed in on the matter that day, saying that “MP Raeesah Khan should not have shared an account that contained untruths in the House”.
In his statement, published on Facebook on Monday (Nov 1) Mr Singh said: “The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act gives an MP significant freedom of speech, to the extent that what is said in Parliament cannot be impeached or questioned outside Parliament. However, this freedom of speech does not extend to communicating untruthful accounts, even if an MP’s motives are not malicious”.
Mr Singh added that Ms Khan apologised to the Singapore Police Force, victims of sexual assault, her constituents, the Workers’ Party members and volunteers, and her parents in order to set the record straight in Parliament.
Ms Khan said that she herself had been a victim of sexual abuse when she was studying overseas at the age of 18 and that she had heard the victim’s story in a group of sexual abuse survivors.
“Unlike the survivor whose anecdote I shared in this house, I did not have the courage to report my own assault. Yet as a survivor I wanted so deeply to speak up and also share the account I had heard when speaking on the motion, without revealing my own private experience.
Ms Khan had told the House during a debate on empowering women on Aug 3 that she accompanied a 25-year-old rape victim to a police station to make a police report three years ago. She said that during the interview, the police officer had allegedly made inappropriate comments about the victim’s dressing and the fact that she was drinking.
In Parliament on Oct 4, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on Oct 4 repeatedly called on Ms Khan to provide further details following her allegations. Ms Khan declined to furnish such information, citing the need for confidentiality.
When Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan then asked for more details about the incident for an investigation, Ms Khan replied that the incident had taken place three years ago, and she did not wish to re-traumatise the victim. She later pointed out that she had been unsuccessful in contacting the woman since the incident three years ago.
“Ms Khan has said that she didn’t want the victim to be re-traumatised or re-victimised. I understand and empathise with that. And we will bear that in mind as we seek to investigate what happened, especially since a member has raised this here in Parliament, to make sure that we know what happened, and if necessary, discipline the police officers involved,” said Mr Shanmugam.
Mr Shanmugam also said that the police were not able to identify any case where Ms Khan was present with the victim. “It is entirely possible that they didn’t note down Ms Khan’s name, but it is most important that the matter is not left hanging with doubt over what may or may not have happened,” he said.
“Like I said, it did happen three years ago and I haven’t been successful getting in touch with the person that I accompanied. And, you know, with regards to confidentiality, I would prefer for it to remain that way,” she said.
Mr Shanmugam then reiterated his request for details of the police station, the month the visit took place and the identities of the officers to be provided, should Ms Khan know them.
In response, Ms Khan said she did not know the identity of the police officers.
When asked again for details such as the police station and date of the incident, she again cited confidentiality as a reason for not wanting to reveal further information.
Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin said that Mr Shanmugam’s was a “fair question” and asked Ms Khan if she would like to respond or continue to hold the same position.
Ms Khan stated, for a fourth time, her stance on confidentiality: “I still like for it to remain confidential.” /TISG