Former WP Members Slammed Pritam Singh for His Comments During 2 Aug Parliament Sitting

Pritam Singh. Secretary-General of the Worker’s Party (WP). Leader of the opposition. And apparently…

A politician who has been “extremely insensitive.”

Comments During 2 August Parliament Sitting

But before we go into detail, we must first explore the context behind this whole saga.

So lest you’re unaware, the 2 August parliament sitting was pretty eventful, with context-heavy mention of topics that have “plagued” the nation of late. The high-profile extramarital affairs, for instance, were talked about, as did the infamous Minister S.Iswaran case. There were also several “heated” debates among the participants, with the war of words between Pritam Singh and Law Minister K Shanmugam being one particularly noteworthy issue.

Incidentally, this war of words had Mr Singh’s former party members turning against him.

So long story short, the Leader of the Opposition had challenged the ruling party, stating that the latter has been perpetuating a “pattern of delay, prevarication and obfuscation”, and that the PAP engages in “half-truths on matters of significant public interest.”

These observations were made in light of recent political scandals and past incidents, such as the TraceTogether incident, whereby the public was initially assured that the app’s accumulated information would only be used for contact tracing. It was later revealed that relevant information could be used for serious investigations.

Mr Singh also accused them of being selective about sensitive issues. PM Lee had explained his rationale behind the Tan Chuan-jin and Cheng Li Hui extramarital affair, stating that he had given them time in the hopes that they would have a “softer exit”, and that “their families” would not suffer as much pain and embarrassment.

Mr Singh contradicted this point and said that the PAP was being selective about such issues. He brought up the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing on former MP Raeesah Khan’s lies in Parliament and stated that the WP had to, too, be sensitive at the time because she had been raped. PAP had, however, not been understanding of this back then.

It was then that Mr Shanmugam intervened. What happened thereafter was a back-and-forth, best described as a rather stubborn political debate, during which neither party refused to concede.

War of Words

Mr Shanmugam stated that Mr Singh’s statements were “misleading”, and during the COP, the committee had been careful to be sensitive about what happened to Ms Khan.

Instead, he pointed out, Mr Singh was the one who had been insistent on using the word “rape”, despite the sensitive nature of the topic.

He also interjected that the issue with Ms Khan was not about sexual assault but about her lies in Parliament. According to her, Mr Singh had told her to “take it to a grave.”

In response, Mr Singh sought to address Mr Shanmugam’s point, which, in his own words, doesn’t “really add much to” the debate.

He reiterated that the issue was about the selective standards, and how PAP was allowed to be sensitive in such times, while other parties weren’t allowed to. He admitted that he should have responded earlier (regarding Ms Khan’s case), but because of the personal issue, he needed to consult her parents and look at other circumstances first.

To end, he stated that Mr Shanmugam had missed the point and that it wasn’t because of the word “rape” that it was insensitive, but the circumstances.

Mr Shanmugam then turned the tables, stating that Mr Singh was the one who had missed the point. He reiterated that Mr Singh had continued talking about rape when the committee didn’t feel the express need to. He added that Mr Singh had brought in Ms Khan’s mental condition, which did not have to be explicitly discussed in the given context.

Mr Singh then stated that the mention of illness was a “question of fact”, and that it may have been an “important point for the Committee of Privileges to consider.”

In the end, newly minted Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng had to intervene with a reminder, that the issue pertained to clarifications for PM Lee’s ministerial statement and not a “debate” between Parliament members.

For a summarisation of the COP hearing, you can watch the videos below:

Former WP Members Slammed Pritam Singh for His Comments

And that brings us to the topic headline.

On the same day as the Parliament session (2 August 2023), former WP members Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Peiying crafted a Facebook post, where they called Mr Singh out for his “insensitive” behaviour and subsequently expressed their disapproval of it.

The pair, who were with WP for around nine years, stated that they had watched Mr Singh’s Parliament statements with “regret”, and expressed how Raeesah Khan has had her wishes gone against.

“As far as we know,” they wrote, “Raeesah Khan constantly maintained to everyone involved that she preferred not to have the ‘r’ word mentioned and that she preferred her traumatic experiences to be described more generically as sexual assault.”

“The revelation by Pritam Singh to the public about what happened to her in detail, was without her consent, and against her repeated, explicit request for her privacy to be respected.”

The pair deemed it “extremely insensitive”, and detailed that they felt “horrified” while watching the statements occur.

Condemning the behaviour, the pair stated that Raeesah Khan deserves “basic human decency.”

“We strongly disapprove of this behaviour,” they wrote. “Raeesah Khan made a severe mistake.”

“Still, it does not mean that basic human decency should not be extended to her because of her error.”

Netizens Turn On Pritam Singh

Though it would be an exaggeration to say that the entire nation has turned on the Leader of the Opposition, it wouldn’t be one to say that several Netizens have, too, condemned Mr Singh for his actions.

And one even thoroughly analysed Mr Singh’s actions thus far.

Meanwhile, some empathised with Raeesah Khan.

And some pointed out that Mr Singh deserves one more chance.

One thing’s for sure, though;

There will be more political sagas in the future, and we have no idea what to expect.