THE “SUBSTANTIATE” COMMENT
“So I read the speech in the morning, as I would for all the speeches, if there were speeches I hadn’t read yet, and I saw the reference she made (of accompanying a 25-year-old survivor to make a police report),” said Singh.
“I saw that as something that would have to be substantiated, I can expect someone to stand up in parliament and say – look, when did this happen … those inquiries, I expected could have come up, so I circled the anecdote and put the word ‘substantiate’.”
He said there were “other things to be done” so he printed out a copy of the speech in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, circled the anecdote and added the word “substantiate” and informed an assistant to pass it to Ms Khan.
He did not discuss the anecdote with Ms Khan before she delivered the speech in parliament.
“When you wrote substantiate, what did you mean?” asked Mr Jumabhoy.
“I meant that she would have to explain further the details she was highlighting from that anecdote,” said Singh. “The details here are scanty, and she would have to justify, or she could expect to be asked to justify this particular anecdote.”
Singh said he was in the parliament chamber on Aug 3, 2021, when Ms Khan delivered her speech. After this, Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan sought clarifications from Ms Khan about the alleged mishandling of the case involving a sexual victim, saying “we take this very seriously”.
Minutes after, Singh sent Ms Khan a message telling her: “I had a feeling this would happen. I highlighted this part in your draft speech. We should write in formally to the police with clarifications to address this matter.”
Asked to explain his message, Singh said he was suggesting for Ms Khan to write in to the police with the clarifications Minister Tan was asking for.
“I did not feel they would be difficult for her to provide and she would just have to give them to the minister,” he said.
Ms Khan replied almost immediately, saying she thought she had edited it enough to “remove this possibility”. But Singh said there had not been any edits, to the best of his recollection.
After the exchange Ms Khan had with Minister Tan, Singh said he met Ms Khan in his office that same day.
“I was informed by one of my legislative assistants that she was in the LO (leader of the opposition) office, and she was crying there,” said Singh.
“I didn’t quite understand what that was about, so I leave the chamber, go to my office, and essentially instruct Raeesah to just clarify, give the Minister of State the details he’s requesting, but she said she couldn’t contact that person, and she wasn’t sure whether she could contact that person.”
In a series of messages Singh exchanged with Ms Khan, Ms Khan said it was three years ago in the early part of the year and that she had met the victim at a bus stop near Bedok police station, but the victim’s number she was given did not work anymore.
Ms Khan also provided a nickname of this so-called victim.
Ms Khan then sent Singh a message containing a draft clarification note that her assistant Yudhishthra Nathan had prepared for her.
Singh responded to say the details “are too scanty” and that the assumption would be that “the episode was made up”.
Mr Jumabhoy asked him why the details were “too scanty”.
“Because the draft clarification Yudhish provides doesn’t really deal with the fact that she followed someone to the police station,” said Singh.
The draft merely stated that this person’s experience was anecdotal, and added that “we should respect victims’ agency in terms of whether they wish to furnish more details to the government or police”, he said.
