News

How The COP Came Out With the $35,000 Fine for Raeesah Khan Based on Past Cases

2022-02-11 , 11:06 am

Huh, WP saga over already meh?

Well, kinda.

While the Committee of Privileges (COP)’s recommendations still have to be reviewed and voted on by Parliament, here’s what you need to know about the committee’s recommendations.

The committee recommends:

A $35,000 fine for Ms Raessah Khan due to three counts of abuse of privilege
For Mr Pritam Singh to “be referred to the Public Prosecutor” for further investigations (so basically, be charged)
For Mr Faisal Manap to “be referred to the Public Prosecutor” for further investigations as well, but not for lying to Parliament
For Ms Sylvia Lim’s case to be “deferred” until the outcome of Mr Singh’s case has been revealed. Basically, because she did provide some important evidence voluntarily.

And if you’re wondering why Mr Faisal is on the chopping block as well, it’s for…

Refusing to answer questions that the COP asked during their hearing.

Yup.

I’ll leave you to be the judge of that, but let’s zoom in on one specific detail: How did the COP decide to fine Raessah Khan $35,000 in total?

I mean, there has to be some sort of benchmark even though this is the first time something like this has felt longer than my grandmother’s favourite Taiwanese dramas, right?

The good news? There is.

The bad news? It’s sandwiched right in the middle of a 319-page report.

But if you don’t have time to waste on the entire report, buckle up, ’cause we’re going to take you through it in record time.

Past Case: Dr Chee Soon Juan

Some of you might remember the infamous case involving the secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, Dr Chee Soon Juan, in 1996.

For those who don’t, he was fined $25,000 in December 1996 for “fabricating data, falsifying documents, committing perjury, prevaricating and giving false answers to mislead the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and
Public Hospitals”.

TL;DR: He lied too, both in verbal and written form.

His SDP colleagues also received fines, though they were of a lower amount since they were not the ones who personally wrote those documents that were used to lie to Parliament.

Dr Chee did not accept responsibility, nor did he admit that he was guilty throughout the process.

But here’s the important part: Dr Chee and his fellow SDP members were not Members of Parliament (MPs) at that time, but rather, seen as “members of the public”. This then made their case as one where they lied to Parliament, instead of them abusing Parliamentary Privilege.

Er, and when you take inflation since 1996 into account as well, I guess using it to benchmark Raeesah Khan’s case kinda makes sense, eh?

Past Case: Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam

Another case that the COP mentioned in their report was former Opposition MP, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam’s case that was concluded in 1987.

No, this isn’t an indicator of how old you are. But if you remember this case like it was yesterday, I hate to break it to you but you’re… not that young anymore.

Anyway, Mr Jeyaretnam “had abused Parliamentary privilege by persistently making
unsubstantiated allegations in Parliament and during the Committee of Supply hearing” on multiple occasions.

Seven, to be exact.

Additionally, by the time the COP had concluded their investigations, Mr Jeyaretnam was actually no longer an MP.

Well, I guess the COP slow burn has been a recurring theme since the 20th century, huh?

Parliament then decided to impose the maximum fine at the time of the offence, which was $1,000.

Most Appropriate Case to Compare Raeesah Khan’s To

For the aforementioned case, two out of seven of the occasions involved Mr Jeyaretnam falsely claiming that some guy called Mr Lim Poh Huat was “wrongfully arrested and detained by the police”, and Mr Jeyaratnam did not offer any evidence to assist with investigations.

When he was asked a second time to provide evidence, he did not do so again but instead said that he had lodged a police report about the incident.

Investigations later revealed that the arrest did not exist in the first place, and neither did the police report that Mr Jeyaretnam had claimed to file.

In relation to Raessah Khan’s case, the COP mentioned in their report that they “found the precedent involving allegations about Mr Lim Poh Huat most apposite to [their] current deliberations”.

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or download the Goody Feed app here: https://goodyfeed.com/app/

The Future of the WP Saga

With the recommendations by the COP set to be reviewed by Parliament, a vote will take place after a debate between the MPs.

For now, here are some things to keep in mind about Raeesah Khan’s case:

She is currently facing a $25,000 fine for the two lies she told in Parliament on 3 August last year as recommended by the COP, and the COP has highlighted that “she must therefore take full and sole responsibility” since she was the only one who was aware of the lie at the time.

(Well, they’re technically not two separate lies lah, just that she repeated the same lie twice when asked to clarify her point.)

As for her lie on 4 October, the COP recommends a fine of $10,000 for the one lie she took.

The relatively smaller fine is due to the fact that she had ” acted in accordance with the guidance of the 3 Senior WP leaders” from 8 August onwards, and that she relied on them to a certain degree through the process.

(This is also the incident that’s getting the 3 WP leaders into trouble, if you can’t tell already.)

Although a larger fine is often imposed for recidivism, the COP took the WP leaders’ influence on Raessah Khan into consideration, therefore proposing a smaller fine for the charge from 4 October.

But for now, all we can do is wait.