Corrections and Clarifications on falsehoods by Wake Up, Singapore regarding the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges

1. On 10 February 2022, Wake Up Singapore published posts on its Instagram and Facebook accounts (“the posts”) which contain a false statement of fact.

Falsehood

2. The posts falsely convey that the Committee of Privileges (“the Committee”) recommended that Mr Pritam Singh (“Mr Singh”) and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (“Mr Faisal”) be referred for criminal proceedings, even though there was no finding by the Committee that they lied.

3. This is false in various respects.

4. The Committee expressly found that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had lied in their evidence before the Committee.

5. The Committee’s recommendation that Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor was based on this finding which it made, that Mr Singh had lied on oath (which is a possible offence of perjury).

6. The Committee did not recommend referring Mr Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor for lying to the Committee. The Committee recommended referring Mr Faisal for repeatedly refusing to answer relevant questions put to him by the Committee.

Facts

7. In the report that the Committee presented to Parliament on 10 February 2022 (Parl. 13 of 2022) regarding the complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan (“Ms Khan”) for the Untruth spoken in Parliament (“the report”), the Committee had expressly found that Mr Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim (“Ms Lim”) and Mr Faisal had lied in their testimony before the Committee:
   
   “… in reaching our findings above, we are satisfied that Mr Singh (and to a lesser extent, Mr Faisal and Ms Lim), have been untruthful in their evidence, under oath, to this Committee. This may amount to perjury, a serious criminal offence, in respect of which, various consequences could follow. We elaborate on that below.”¹
   
   “Based on the evidence before this Committee, we are satisfied that Mr Singh had told untruths to this Committee.”²
   
   “We are satisfied, on the evidence, that Mr Singh lied on affirmation…”³
   
   “Based on the evidence available to us, we are likewise satisfied that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal have lied about the 8 Aug meeting.”⁴
   
   “They [Ms Lim and Mr Faisal] did not tell the truth to this Committee about that meeting.”⁵

8. The Committee found that Mr Singh (and to a lesser extent, Mr Faisal and Ms Lim) were untruthful in their evidence, under oath, to the Committee.

9. The Committee found that Mr Singh lied to the Committee on the key points, as to what had happened, and tried to conceal his involvement in Ms Khan’s Untruth.

10. The Committee found that Mr Singh lied in order to put the entire blame on Ms Khan – when, in fact, she had, from 8 August 2021, followed his advice and guidance. He said two other witnesses, Ms Loh Pei Ying (“Ms Loh”) and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan (“Mr Nathan”) (Workers’ Party cadre members), lied. He said this, in an attempt to save himself, and avoid responsibility for his own conduct. The Committee found that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were honest and credible witnesses, who spoke the truth.

11. The Committee found that contrary to his evidence, Mr Singh was the operating brain, the primary cause for: (1) why Ms Khan did not clarify the Untruth immediately after 8 August 2021, and (2) why Ms Khan repeated the Untruth in Parliament on 4 October 2021. This was consequent on its findings that:

    1. On 8 August 2021, when Ms Khan confessed the Untruth to Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, Mr Singh told Ms Khan to “take it to the grave”, i.e. take the Untruth to the grave. (The Committee also found that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal lied to the Committee about the 8 August 2021 meeting.)

    2. On 3 October 2021, Mr Singh guided Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth in Parliament, if the matter came up the next day. He told Ms Khan that if she were to retain or continue with the narrative (the Untruth), “there would be no judgment” on her.

    3. After Ms Khan confessed in Parliament, and when there was adverse public reaction, Mr Singh, as the Secretary-General of Workers’ Party (and Ms Lim and Mr Faisal) engineered a Disciplinary Panel (comprised only of themselves). He advised Ms Khan to lie, then held the Disciplinary Inquiry to ostensibly find out why she had lied. The Disciplinary Inquiry suppressed the fact that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had known and been involved in Ms Khan’s Untruth, for 3 months, and covered up Mr Singh’s role, in guiding Ms Khan to continue with the Untruth on 4 October 2021.

12. Parliament has the power to impose penalties on Mr Singh, based on the Committee’s findings that he lied on oath (which is an offence under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962).

13. The Committee however has recommended referring Mr Singh’s conduct to the Public Prosecutor, so that Mr Singh will have the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel, if criminal charges are brought, and so that a court can look at the matter afresh, and consider any further evidence that may emerge, and decide whether any charge(s) have been proved, or not proved, beyond reasonable doubt.

14. The Committee also found that Mr Faisal deliberately refused to answer a question put by the Committee. He refused eight times, even though he was told that such refusal to answer may be an offence. He has been referred to the Public Prosecutor for his conduct, in refusing to answer.

¹ Para 221(2)

² Para 231

³ Para 233(1)

⁴ Para 234

⁵ Para 226