In a few decades, as people look back on the Raeesah Khan saga, they may forget most of the issues in dispute or the nuances in the arguments. Take for example how a golden tap is the first thing that comes to mind when we think about TT Durai’s trial, or how we all remember the glove but don’t know the name of the victim in OJ Simpson’s trial.
Some facts recede, while others remained etched in our collective memories. When we look back on Raeesah, most people will probably remember one of two extraordinary things – they will either remember how a 28-year-old MP said she did not know what substantiate means, or they will remember how she almost single-handedly undid decades of progress made by the opposition.
We say almost as we are confident that the cause will remain undeterred. In fact, we will go as far as to say that the cause may even grow in strength as more people feel repulsed by how events have panned out. Many swing voters, who aren’t naturally sympathetic towards the opposition, are expressing disquiet.
Actually this COP is very good for Pritam and WP. The entire Singapore had the opportunity to see how sharp, competent, and composed the Leader of the Opposition was. He performed brilliantly even under immense stress and pressure. Now, that's all that people will remember.
— Wake Up Singapore (@wakeupsg) December 14, 2021
They will, of course, remember Pritam’s stellar performance too. However, we’ll keep the focus on Raeesah here. With all the headlines floating around, it might be easy to forget the fact that the COP was convened to investigate Raeesah.
Substantiate? What’s that?
Turning back to the first remarkable fact – about how an MP who is no babe in the woods claimed to not know what it means when the leader of the opposition circles a portion of her speech and asks her to substantiate it – we first provide a brief re-cap.
Raeesah’s original sin stemmed from an assertion that she made in Parliament in August 2021. In a speech, amongst other things, she spoke about how she accompanied a victim to a police station where the victim was asked inappropriate questions.
It was later revealed that Raeesah’s role in this tale was but a figment of her imagination. Before she came clean, she advanced the theory that the she wanted to “respect the victim’s request for confidentiality”. Even in the face of repeated cross-examination in parliament, she clung on to the narrative.
Her bluff, which was almost as convoluted as the proceedings that it would eventually set in motion, was called out. She did not exactly come clean voluntarily, as she only did so after she was asked point blank.
However, despite having confessed to lying at least twice in Parliament, it appeared that majority of her evidence has been accepted by the COP.
The Whatsapp Messages between Raeesah and Pritam immediately after the lie
Along with the COP’s recommendations, a 319-page report was also made public. The report makes for a decent bedtime story, but the real gems lie in the annexures. These annexures largely consist of material that had been tendered by witnesses or referred to by the COP. These are the documents, including Whatsapp chats, that the COP and witnesses had been referring to throughout the course of proceedings. Now we have a chance to trawl through it.
Amongst all the annexures, what stood out was a Whatsapp exchange between Raeesah and Pritam dated 3 August 2021. This exchange was a emotionally charged one and occurred immediately after she first lied. This is also the most contemporaneous piece of evidence in respect of the original lie, that deserves close scrutiny.
Put simply, this exchange may disclose the true character of the people involved. For example, when faced with a potentially damaging situation, is Pritam’s first instinct to take responsibility? Or does he, as Raeesah would have us believe, go into damage control mode and, to borrow a phrase from the local vernacular, “act blur live longer“.
By that same vein, this may also show how Raeesah reacted. Remember, at that point of time, she was the only one who knew it was a lie. How does she react when she is confronted? Does she try and make things right, or is her first instinct to spin a further web of lies?
Read the following exchange and decide.
Pritam was referring to the fact that he asked Raeesah to substantiate the anecdote prior to her speech.
Evidently, Raeesah still has the presence of mind to come up with more lies relating to where and when she met this victim.
Pause for a minute and read the above message again.
Now, on Raeesah’s own account, the victim cannot be contacted. She told Pritam, in no uncertain terms, that she does not know if she can contact the victim. However, shortly after, she gets Yudish to craft a statement which says the victim does not wish to furnish more information to the police.
Eh? I thought cannot contact? How come now so fast change story to say she don’t want to furnish details?
At this point, Yudish himself did not know Raeesah was lying.
Get more details from where? The same place where you remembered the bus stop at Bedok Police Station?
Pritam’s instincts were spot on, as he astutely noted that the natural inclination at the receiving end of this tale would be to believe that it was made up. He also sounded a cautionary note to Raeesah about the importance of having a factual basis for assertions. For most MPs, or adults for that matter, that probably goes without saying.
It is heartening that Pritam’s first advice is to ask Raeesah to do what a responsible MP would do.
Of course you don’t.
As you can see, Pritam heavily edited the speech drafted by Yudish. While the earlier draft continued to make allegations about the police, albeit in a broad sense, this iteration refrained from doing so.
Also, unless you’re Leong Mun Wai, it is probably a good idea to raise your hand first.
Raeesah made some further edits to Pritam’s draft. Amongst other things, she added the word “re-victimisation“. Where have we seen that word before? Ah yes, Parti Liyani’s trial!
One question we have is whether the evidence above was tendered by both Pritam and Raeesah, or only the former. According to the marking on the annexures, it seems that it was only tendered by Pritam. Why was this evidence not tendered by Raeesah?
We were hoodwinked.
Now, we will be the first to admit that our gut instincts aren’t as sharp as Pritam’s. More often than not, we tend to give people like Raeesah the benefit of the doubt. Think about it – here you have someone who everyone fought tooth and nail to get elected, and she told a lie that was absolutely unnecessary.
Remember how Pritam stood firmly behind her during the press conference? Photo from ST/CHONG JUN LIANG
There was literally no need for the lie. There was no need for Raeesah to insert herself into the story. If it is an anecdote, say so. Why is there even a need for you to be part of the tale?
Up until she came clean, we genuinely believed her, and her “excuse” about respecting the victim’s desire for privacy. It is honestly troubling that such lies are hidden behind social justice gobbledygook. This, coupled with her willingness to conjure details almost at will (as seen above), makes for a Machiavellian nightmare.
If anything, we can only fault the WP leaders for being too kind. Perhaps they gave Raeesah too much face? Read the following exchanges between Pritam and Raeesah that speaks volumes of his character.
Well, in the cutthroat world of politics, a little empathy and compassion may not be such a bad thing. That being said, sometimes incidents like these serve as a stark reminder of why there is little, if any, margin for error in opposition politics.
We’ll end this with a quote from Pritam himself.
We too hope that this shall pass, Pritam. However, instead of a golden sky, we would much prefer a light blue one.
