On a Tuesday afternoon at a coffee shop in Ang Mo Kio, Mr Glenn Poh returns to his waiting mother with two drinks: one hot and one iced. She picks the iced lemon tea.
“All my life she never used to drink cold drinks but now, she always wants something iced. It’s like she’s a small kid again,” he says of his 74-year-old mother, Madam Tan Sow Meng, who has Alzheimer’s disease.
“Whatever needs to be done needs to be done. It’s because I was raised like this,” he says. Having seen how his mother cared for his late father after a stroke, he knew he wanted to do the same for her.
In Singapore, with its rapidly ageing population and cultural norms of filial piety, many adult children find themselves thrust into the role of caregivers.
Life can be put on hold when mum or dad falls ill, and those without siblings or other home help can find themselves shouldering the whole load.
Data shows there were at least 128,800 only children with mothers above the age of 50 in 2023, more than triple the 39,800 in 2003.
In a population of 5.92 million, 1.36 million people have mothers above the age of 50. While the number of only children is just a fraction of that total, researchers and social workers warn that unlike in larger families where the caregiving load can be spread out, only children face immense stress. Among other health challenges, they are more likely to experience burnout.
A stout man with a buzz cut dressed casually in a polo shirt, shorts and sliders, Mr Poh, 44, is unfailingly polite. He says “thank you” or “pai seh” (Hokkien for “sorry to bother”) to anyone he interacts with, and thanks The Straits Times team profusely at each of our three interviews.
He talks about his days in a methodical way, ticking off each activity as if going down a list. He says drawing up lists and “standard operating procedures” helps him find structure amid the uncertainty and constantly evolving nature of his mother’s condition.
But ask him about challenging moments, and his upper lip quivers.
The week before, rather than take her shower at the usual time, his mother fussed around with throwing away rubbish and lighting the oil lamp at the family altar.
“I shouted at her, and I asked her to go and take a bath, which she did. By the time she came out of the bathroom, I apologised but she didn’t remember. I regret it when I lose my temper with her because she cannot remember,” he says, tearing up.
“So it’s not a good feeling. Because you did something wrong, but you’re not able to make up for it.”
He admits this often happened in the initial stages, especially when he had unrealistic expectations about his mother’s condition, and became frustrated that he could not do more to help her.
A 20-something Gen Zer who laughs with colleagues, meets friends for drinks and sees family for dinner every weekend may seem to have a rich network of interpersonal connections.
In reality, he may be lonelier than his widowed grandmother alone at home with only a domestic helper except when relatives visit on some Sundays.
Though they are similar, loneliness and social isolation are not always related. Loneliness is a subject sense of distress that occurs when a person perceives that their need for meaningful connections is unmet, even if they are surrounded by people.
While social isolation – and loneliness – has been building up for decades as family and community structures change, governments are increasingly recognising it now as a crisis.
The surgeon-general said that far more than a bad feeling, loneliness and social isolation are detrimental to individual and societal health. They increase the risk of premature death by 26 per cent and 29 per cent respectively, he said.
Dr Murthy warned: “The mortality impact of being socially disconnected is similar to that caused by smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day, and even greater than that associated with obesity and physical inactivity.”
Singapore, too, is concerned about the health impact of social isolation, particularly among elderly people.
Researchers in Singapore say that seniors who live with their children and grandchildren can feel as lonely as someone living alone, if they are ignored by their loved ones going about their own busy lives.
Data collected from the Singapore Chinese Health Study, which recruited participants between April 1993 and December 1998, found almost four in five elderly people who are socially isolated lived with their families, compared with the three in 20 living on their own.
Young people feel lonely even with social media connections
While the stereotype is that an older person with dwindling social connections is at the greatest risk of loneliness, multiple studies show that it is in fact younger people who are more likely to feel socially isolated.
According to a Gallup poll of more than 140,000 people in 2023, 27 per cent of young adults aged 19 to 29 reported feeling very or fairly lonely, compared with 17 per cent of older adults aged 65 and older.
The 2023 Gallup poll of 142 countries also found that nearly one in four people in the world feels fairly or very lonely, and that rates are about even between men and women.
A 2020 report by insurance giant Cigna based on a questionnaire answered by more than 10,400 people found that 79 per cent of Gen Zers (born between the late 1990s and early 2010s) and 71 per cent of millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) considered themselves lonely, compared with 50 per cent of baby boomers, who are now aged 60 to their late 70s.
The straw poll, carried out between November and December 2023, surveyed 2,356 Singaporeans and permanent residents aged 21 to 64. It found that people between the ages of 21 and 34 had the highest mean score for loneliness.
In contrast, people between 51 and 64 had the lowest mean score for loneliness.
It is not surprising that young people should experience feelings of abandonment and lack of support, said psychologists. Young adults are at a transitional stage of their lives, navigating uncertainties in finding partners, establishing their careers and carving out an existence for themselves apart from their parents.
Social media too often provides connections that are only fleeting and superficial.
More opportunities will be provided for Singaporeans to chart their own paths and pursue their own definitions of success, said Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
More ways for people to shape the character and tone of society will also be created, PM Wong told about 900 students from the universities, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) during a dialogue on July 2, where he urged Singaporeans to contribute to the common good.
PM Wong outlined these plans as part of three strategies by which Singapore and its young can adapt and adjust to a more fragmented world on the cusp of another technological revolution.
Besides providing more opportunities and having Singaporeans play their part in shaping a better society, the Government is taking active steps to refresh Singapore’s social compact, he said.
Attitudes and mindsets are shifting, and more types of jobs are now respected. More people are opting to start their own business or take on less conventional careers, he said.
“The bottom line is that there are many more opportunities and possibilities for you to explore... We all have our own abilities and strengths. There is no need to compare with others, to squeeze into boxes we are not meant to fit,” PM Wong said at the event at Singapore Management University (SMU).
Even then, one may face rejections and setbacks, and must be prepared for dry spells. By staying focused on working hard and striving for excellence, one’s skills improve and, eventually, other doors will open, he told students at the event organised by SMU, the Institute of Policy Studies and student organisation Varsity Voices.
“I encourage all of you to embrace this attitude of learning and excelling at whatever you do. Not just when you are in school now, not just after you graduate, but throughout your lives,” he said.
“That is why we are investing significantly in SkillsFuture... As you get older, and even when you are in your 40s or when you are around my age in your 50s, you will be able to get a fresh injection of skills.”
In February, PM Wong – who is also Finance Minister – announced at Budget 2024 that all Singaporeans aged 40 and above would get a $4,000 top-up of SkillsFuture credits to encourage mid-career workers to refresh their skills and progress in their careers.
PM Wong cited some ways in which Singapore has changed since he was a student 30 years ago.
Then, about 55 per cent of each cohort went on to post-secondary education. Today, almost everyone progresses to university, polytechnic or ITE, while starting salaries have grown from $3,000 to about $5,000, he noted.
He acknowledged that powerful forces which Singapore does not have much control over, such as competition between major powers, are shaping the country’s operating environment. The dawn of artificial intelligence is also likely to have a bigger impact than the advent of the internet.
But Singapore has adapted and found a way to thrive across its 60 years of nation building, and must continue to do so, said PM Wong.
He reiterated the Government’s commitment as part of Singapore’s refreshed social compact to give greater assurance to Singaporeans at every stage of life, such as through stronger safety nets that will help them bounce back from setbacks.
Singaporeans must also do their part, such as to embrace skills upgrading and be prepared to pay more for services delivered by fellow citizens, said PM Wong.
He noted that many Singaporeans had said during the Forward Singapore exercise that they do not want a society where everyone is out for themselves, but one where benefits are shared by all.
That is why the authorities started the Singapore Government Partnerships Office, to make it easier for those who want to step forward to work with other citizens, community groups and businesses to tackle issues of the day.
Four youth panels have also been set up so far to deliberate over issues of concern to young people, such as financial security and sustainability. PM Wong said the young people involved in them are putting in their time and effort, and will present their recommendations at an inaugural Youth Policy Forum in August.
“You may not have had the chance to participate in this round of youth panels, but there will be subsequent editions, and we welcome more of you to join in,” he said.
Assisted dying is a sensitive subject but, with its population ageing, Singapore may need to discuss what we think about it
By Salma Khalik, Senior Health Correspondent, The Straits Times, 29 Jul 2023
As more Singaporeans age, urgent discussions are taking place on how we approach end-of-life issues.
The roles of nursing homes, hospices and home palliative care are part of ongoing discussions on easing and widening different approaches towards how we age, and ultimately pass on.
There is, however, one issue that has gained traction elsewhere but which hardly ever figures in our end-of-life discussions here: assisted dying.
Assisted dying can either take the form of assisted suicide, where the final act is undertaken by the person involved, often with the aid of a medical practitioner; or euthanasia, where another person, again often a doctor, performs the act of terminating life.
But given that our population continues to age rapidly, and more older people will increasingly find themselves in continuous pain that even palliative care can do little to help, this is not an issue we should entirely ignore. What could be at stake is the dignity and personal choice of a segment of our population.
Several countries are well ahead of Singapore on this count, both in terms of having mainstream discussions, as well as in having legal frameworks on assisted dying.
Most countries that have legalised assisted dying allow both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Some, like Switzerland, which was the pioneer in allowing assisted suicide in 1942, allow the former but keep euthanasia illegal.
Should one or both options be legalised here, to give those desperate to end their lives a way of doing so with grace?
Singapore Government releases White Paper on Healthier SG on 21 September 2022
By Joyce Teo, Senior Health Correspondent, The Straits Times, 21 Sep 2022
Singapore's ambitious plan to have one family physician and one health plan for each and every one of its residents will start with those aged 60 and above in the second half of 2023.
The Healthier SG Programme will also offer cheaper drugs for chronic diseases at general practitioner (GP) clinics, among other benefits. With it, MOH aims to shift its focus from "sick care" to preventive care so as to eventually help every resident stay on the path to better health.
Eligible residents will be invited to enrol in the programme with a primary care clinic of their choice via SMS. Those in the 40 to 59 age group will be invited to enrol in the following two years, the Ministry of Health (MOH) said in a White Paper that was submitted to Parliament on Wednesday. The White Paper will be debated in Parliament in October.
Under the Healthier SG Programme, residents will develop a relationship with a primary care doctor who will holistically manage their health.
At the first visit, which will be free, the doctor will work out a health plan that can include diet adjustments, an exercise regimen and regular health screenings and vaccinations.
Health Minister Ong Ye Kung told the media at the MOH headquarters in College Road on Wednesday that the plan has social prescriptions like "how you eat, how you sleep, how you cut down on salt and sugar, quit smoking, exercise, so on and so forth".
Community partners will be roped in to help manage residents' health, as the idea is to move healthcare away from acute hospitals to the community to help keep people healthy. Residents will be able to join free programmes to keep fit, for instance.
A key change that MOH will introduce to get residents on the programme is to make drug prices at participating GP clinics more comparable with those at polyclinics through a combination of enhanced drug subsidies and drug price limits. This will be done for drugs used to manage common chronic diseases.
With this, people will no longer have to end their relationship with their long-time GPs when they develop diabetes or hypertension just because the drugs for these conditions are cheaper at polyclinics.
MOH will announce the details for this at a later date.
The ministry also said that it will fully subsidise nationally recommended screenings and vaccinations for Singapore citizens, and waive the need for residents to co-pay 15 per cent of their bills in cash when using MediSave for the treatment of common chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme.
"We are shifting away from co-payment for this basic preventive care to fully support residents (in) preventive care," said Mr Ong.
There will be a health points reward system to get people to take action, such as to enrol and complete their first consultation, and engage in health activities.
However, to get Healthier SG off the ground, MOH will first have to mobilise family doctors in private practice.
MOH will offer GPs an annual service fee for each enrolled resident, which will vary according to the risk profile, scope of care and the progress made, as well as a tech support grant.
These doctors will need to join a so-called Primary Care Network, partner a healthcare cluster, and be digitally enabled. The Primary Care Networks, which hire nurses and coordinators for chronic disease management and other shared tasks, will support the GPs in their work. There are currently 23 polyclinics and about 1,800 GP clinics, of which 670 clinics have formed such networks.
To ensure the level of care is consistent across GPs, MOH is developing a set of care protocols with primary care leaders to guide family doctors on how to manage key chronic conditions.
Healthier SG will start with the care protocols of three of the most common chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension and lipid disorders. In the future, the protocols will expand to cover more conditions and areas such as mental health.
"Everyone involved, including healthcare providers, the Government and residents, will need to do things differently," MOH said in the White Paper.
"Healthier SG is probably the most significant change to the health system since Independence. We have had six decades where we emphasised reactive sick care rather than health promotion," said Associate Professor Jeremy Lim, director of the Leadership Institute for Global Health Transformation at the National University of Singapore's Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health.
The incentives under Healthier SG are created to promote health, rather than healthcare and, for the residents, inertia will be the biggest enemy, he said.
It will take years for such a major transformation of the healthcare system to take off and experts said the start will inevitably be challenging before the results show.
"Healthcare expenditure may rise initially and even more rapidly as we discover more people who have medical problems," said Dr Wong Chiang Yin, a public health specialist in the private sector.
"We must have the tenacity to stomach this and stay the course before the benefits of Healthier SG kick in at a later stage," he added.
If you were part of the evening rush hour on the MRT earlier this month, you might have seen an excited 1.9m-tall man humming and swaying. You might have stared at him glancing around non-stop and wondered whether he was a "suspicious-looking person" because of his visibly different behaviour.
That was likely to be my autistic cousin Zack (not his real name), who ran off without his mother after his daily training programme at Enabling Village in Bukit Merah.
Zack, 22, loves travelling on the bus and MRT but he is not allowed to go home alone because he gets distracted by his surroundings.
That day, my cousin and his peers were let go 15 minutes before the usual dismissal time at 5pm, so Zack went off on his own before his mum picked him up. What ensued was a nerve-wracking ordeal for his family. While my aunt told him to alight at certain stations over a call, he went from Redhill to Pasir Ris, then back to Joo Koon before changing to the North-South line, which is the line near his home.
At the same time, my aunt informed the MRT staff of the situation and they alerted all control stations to look out for a young man wearing an orange T-shirt. Some 90 minutes later, my cousin's phone went dead because the battery ran out.
Three hours after boarding the train, Zack was finally spotted wandering around a bus interchange near his home by his younger sister. He was wearing his orange top but it was covered by a blue jacket that he uses during training.
That is just a snapshot of the daily struggle of caring for those with special needs.
Although it might be exhausting for family members to look after them, there are many sides to them that make them lovable. For one, Zack is the most responsible citizen I know because he scans the SafeEntry QR code of every shop and station. Inadvertently, this leads to some embarrassing situations when he enters shops like salons, which are only for women.
He also never forgets the birthdays of all 19 (living) members of our extended family. Before a long day at work, it brightens my day to receive texts from him asking what I am doing.
While he can perform basic tasks like brushing his teeth, showering and mopping the floor with supervision, there are certain things that he will never be able to understand.
He sees the world literally.
Heaven is in Mandai Crematorium because this is where his loved ones - my grandfather and my 10-year-old cousin - went when they died.
Zack also cannot understand social cues. This means he can get uncomfortably close to you and will not understand why you inch away.
After receiving numerous stares from strangers gawking at Zack's behaviour whenever we go on family outings, I learnt early on that he would need a lot of care and patience for the rest of his life.
The struggles of parents with children born with special needs are many and will only pile on as they get older: the high costs for support and the onset of burnout, with the greatest concern being who will take care of their children after they are gone.
The Committee of Privileges said Ms Khan should be fined a total of $35,000 over lies she told the House in August and October last year.
It also said the Public Prosecutor should further investigate Mr Singh’s conduct before the committee, “with a view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted”.
The committee said it was satisfied that Mr Singh was untruthful in giving evidence under oath, and that this may amount to perjury, a serious criminal offence.
The committee’s recommendations are expected to be debated when Parliament sits next week, with Leader of the House Indranee Rajah set to move a motion for MPs to vote on.
The panel is chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and comprises six other People's Action Party lawmakers and Hougang MP Dennis Tan from the WP.
In November, Ms Khan confessed in Parliament that she had in fact heard this anecdote in a support group she was part of, and had shared it without the victim's consent.
Appropriate sanctions for the WP leaders should be deferred until after the conclusion of investigations or criminal proceedings, if any, against Mr Singh, said the committee.
Laying out its considerations behind the sanctions in a report numbering over 1,000 pages that it presented to Parliament on Thursday, the committee said Ms Khan must “take full and sole responsibility” for the untruth on Aug 3, which she had uttered twice while making a clarification on the same day.
For repeating the lie on Oct 4, the committee said it was recommending a smaller fine of $10,000 – compared to $25,000 for the August act.
The committee noted that while ordinarily, repeating an untruth should carry a higher penalty, there were “mitigating circumstances” - including that Ms Khan had confessed internally to WP leaders on Aug 8; that she had been acting thereafter on the guidance and advice of WP leaders to “bury” or continue the untruth; and that she ultimately resigned from Parliament.
Mr Singh was singled out by the committee for being the “key orchestrator” and “operating brain” behind the circumstances leading to Ms Khan’s repeated untruth on Oct 4.
The committee suggested that Parliament refer Mr Singh to the Public Prosecutor, citing – among other things – its belief that Mr Singh had lied to them on affirmation; and that the “seriousness of the matter” would be best served through a trial process where a court could look at the matter afresh and Mr Singh could defend himself with legal counsel.
Posting on Facebook shortly after the release of the report, Mr Singh, who is WP chief and an MP for Aljunied GRC, said he and Mr Faisal would continue their work as per normal till the matter is resolved.
He noted that there remain a number of unknowns, assuming Parliament adopts the committee’s recommendations.
“These include the eventual decision of the Public Prosecutor to prosecute, the intervening time before the matter goes to trial, the eventual verdict and any sentence meted out, and the prospect of both Faisal and I losing our parliamentary seats and stepping down as Members of Parliament if either of us is fined $2,000 or more,” Mr Singh added.
While he assessed her to be of sound mind, many misperceptions and stereotypes were put forth to him over the session.
As co-founder of the Total Wellness Initiative Singapore, and a mental health researcher, I feel it would be pertinent to expand upon some of the issues that surfaced.
First, dissociation is not a mental illness. It is a symptom that may be an indicator of a mental illness.
In the case of Ms Khan, Dr Cheok said she did not have post-traumatic stress disorder and did not suffer from dissociation between Aug 3 and Dec 3.
These suggestions do a genuine disservice to individuals who experience dissociation and who may suffer from its effects.
It further stigmatises and casts unfair aspersions on them as individuals.
Second, symptoms of a mental illness do not equate to having a mental illness. To preface this statement, it should not matter if you have a mental illness, but symptoms alone are not sufficient for a diagnosis of one.
When psychological or psychiatric assessments are conducted, function is often a critical variable considered in deriving a specific diagnostic outcome. Dr Cheok put it best when he said "many people living in our urban society would undergo different stressors from work, family life and society in general, but just because you have certain stress and emotional symptoms doesn't mean you have a psychiatric disorder".
Lastly, high-profile cases such as this - in which the entire nation and perhaps even people outside of Singapore are watching - tend to influence the existing narrative regarding mental health and illness disproportionately.
I hope that people who write about such issues, talk about them or even consider using them in such situations, will do so responsibly.
We should be careful of colouring other people who experience mental health conditions in a particular light for the sake of furthering our agendas.
People consuming related media should also be critical and make their own decisions only after they have gone through the source.
Mental illnesses do not discriminate or stigmatise, and neither should we.
Workers' Party leaders, Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap told Raeesah Khan to Stick to the LIE she had told Parliament: Committee of Privileges
Raeesah Khan insists Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh had told her to keep up her lie and 'Take it to the GRAVE'
By Lim Yan Liang, Assistant News Editor, The Straits Times, 3 Dec 2021
Three senior Workers' Party (WP) MPs had told their party colleague Raeesah Khan to stick to the lie she had told in Parliament on Aug 3, the Committee of Privileges heard this week.
Ms Khan and two other party members said she was told by WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, WP chairman Sylvia Lim and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap at an Aug 8 meeting that there was no need for her to clarify herself or for the truth to be told.
Ms Khan and her former assistant Loh Pei Ying gave evidence to the committee on Thursday and Friday, while the volunteer, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, did so on Friday. Ms Khan’s former legislative assistant Lim Hang Ling testified on Thursday.
Ms Khan, who resigned from the party and as an MP for Sengkang GRC on Tuesday, told the committee chaired by Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin that the WP leaders had told her to keep to the lie.
"My interpretation (of the meeting with WP leaders on Oct 3) was that that there would be no consequences for me to continue the narrative that I had begun in (Parliament) in August," she said in the recorded footage.
The committee said in its report: "If Ms Khan and the WP could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. If the matter was brought up again, there would also be no need for her to clarify and there was no need for the truth to be told."
The report comes a day after Mr Singh told a press conference that the party leaders had decided to give Ms Khan time to deal with the matter, as she had also told them she had been a sexual assault victim herself, and had not told her family about it.
In her Aug 3 speech, Ms Khan said she had accompanied a 25-year-old rape victim to a police station to make a report, and that the officer who interviewed the victim had made inappropriate comments about the victim's dressing and the fact that she had been drinking. But Ms Khan never accompanied the victim to a police station.
She later admitted that the victim had shared the account in a support group for women, which Ms Khan herself was in, and said she did not have the victim's consent to share the story.
In her evidence to the committee, Ms Khan also disputed statements made by Mr Singh at his press conference on Thursday (Dec 2), where, among other things, he told reporters that he had directed Ms Khan to take responsibility and admit to her lie in Parliament, and that she had contradicted this order.
No one from WP advised her to tell the truth, Ms Khan told the committee. There was also no order for her to clarify the matter.
When the committee put to her on Thursday that Mr Singh said he had ordered her to clarify the matter in Parliament in October, Ms Khan replied: "I'm hearing this for the first time."
She said that on Oct 3, a day before the Oct 4 Parliament sitting, Mr Singh had visited her at her home and said that if she kept to her narrative on the untruths which she had said on Aug 3, there would be no judgment by him.
"Ms Khan understood... that Mr Pritam Singh was advising her to continue to lie, should the matter come up the next day during the parliamentary session.
"Mr Pritam Singh did not ask Ms Khan to clarify and state the truth in Parliament," said the committee.
"To the contrary, Ms Khan was advised that she can continue to lie."
On Oct 4, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam had asked Ms Khan to provide more details about the alleged incident, saying the police had since checked their records and found no cases that fit her description.
In reply, Ms Khan maintained that her account was true but repeatedly declined to reveal any further details – including the police station they went to – citing confidentiality. She added that she had not been successful in contacting the victim.
On the same day, Ms Khan met Mr Singh and Ms Lim at the Leader of the Opposition’s office in Parliament, where the three discussed the matter.
“Neither Mr Pritam Singh nor Ms Sylvia Lim asked Ms Khan why she had lied again earlier, in answering questions asked by the Minister for Home Affairs,” said the report. “Nor did they suggest that Ms Khan clarify the truth in Parliament.”
Ms Khan was also directed by Mr Singh and Ms Lim to ignore requests by the police for information, after the authorities sent her an e-mail on Oct 7 asking her to assist with investigations into the case she had raised.
The two WP leaders told Ms Khan that the police could not compel her to speak to them.
When asked whether she was concerned that she was ignoring a legitimate request from the police, Ms Khan told the committee that she was, but that she had been unsure about what to do.
"I was concerned, but I was not sure what to do. When I asked for advice, that was the advice that was given to me (by Mr Singh and Ms Lim)," said Ms Khan.
On Oct 12, Ms Khan attended a meeting called by Mr Singh. At the meeting, which Ms Lim also attended, the three discussed the matter and came to the view that the matter would not be dropped and was not going away. As such, Ms Khan should come clean and tell the truth.
“At this meeting, Ms Khan asked if disciplinary action will be taken against her and the answer given to her was no,” said the report.
Ms Khan then made a statement in Parliament on Nov 1, clarifying that she had lied on Aug 3 and on Oct 4.
In her evidence to the committee, Ms Khan said she was “shocked and surprised” to learn that the WP had formed a disciplinary panel the next day to look into her lies to Parliament.
She went before this disciplinary panel on Nov 8 and on Nov 29.
Ms Khan told the Committee of Privileges that she would have come clean to Parliament in October and assisted police in their inquiries and told them the truth if the WP leadership had told her to do so.
“She had done neither because they had told Ms Khan that there would be no judgment if she did not clarify the truth in Parliament,” said the report.
“She took that to mean that she should continue to lie.”
The committee also asked Ms Khan about Mr Singh’s statement at the WP press conference that she would be expelled from the party if she did not resign of her own accord.
Ms Khan said this was not said to her. The WP leaders had suggested she resign for her well-being and because she had lost the support of her fellow Sengkang GRC MPs, she added.
Aide, volunteer say Workers' Party leaders were not upfront about being told Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament
By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 4 Dec 2021
Unlike what the Workers' Party leaders have claimed, former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan was not the sole actor in allowing her lie in Parliament to go uncorrected, two party members told a Parliament committee looking into the matter.
In fact, the leaders had asked her to "take the information to the grave", and by not being transparent about their own role, they have been highly unfair to the erstwhile MP, Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan added.
Ms Loh, who was Ms Khan's secretarial assistant, and Mr Yudhishthra, a WP member assisting Ms Khan, were testifying before Parliament's Committee of Privileges.
The committee on Friday (Dec 3) night released a special report on its investigation into Ms Khan's conduct, including video testimonies of Ms Khan, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan recorded over two days of hearings on Thursday and Friday.
Ms Loh has been a party member for 10 years and was WP chief Pritam Singh's secretarial assistant. Mr Nathan has been a volunteer since 2013, became a member in 2016 and had been in the council of the WP youth wing.
They corroborated Ms Khan's testimony to the committee that WP leaders had asked her not to confess about having lied. Both knew by Aug 7 that what Ms Khan said in Parliament on Aug 3 was not truthful after she confessed to them.
Ms Loh said she was assuaged that the party's leaders knew that Ms Khan had lied in Parliament. However, she soon realised they wanted Ms Khan to batten down and keep to her untruthful story, instead of coming clean to the House, she said.
When Ms Khan again repeated her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, Ms Loh said she was shocked and was scared for her. It turned out that Mr Singh had met Ms Khan a day earlier to talk about it, and indicated that he would leave it to her to decide if she wanted to tell the truth in Parliament. He also told Ms Khan that he would not judge her. This was related to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan by Mr Singh, during a meeting on Oct 12.
Asked about the matter by the committee, Ms Loh said she was disappointed with what Mr Singh had said to Ms Khan. Mr Nathan said he felt Mr Singh had been rather indecisive.
When the party set up a disciplinary panel to look into Ms Khan's conduct on Nov 2, both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were shocked, given the role the leadership had played.
Ms Loh said she felt the panel composition - Mr Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap - was self-serving, as they were the very people who had advised Ms Khan on what to do and played a part in allowing the matter to drag on.
Mr Nathan felt any inquiry should have been done earlier, since the panel's members already knew of Ms Khan's lies since Aug 8.
He added the panel had contributed to an uninformed, biased and jaundiced view of the incident, because it had invited WP members and volunteers to give their views on the incident without revealing that Ms Khan had acted with the guidance of the senior WP leaders now making up the panel.
Eventually, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan met the panel on Nov 25, and told the three WP leaders they should give the public a full account of what had happened. They said not disclosing the full events would be highly unfair to Ms Khan.
Ms Loh told the Parliament Committee what Mr Singh had said on Thursday was not completely true.
"Ms Khan's mistake and the extent of her mistake is lying in Parliament on three occasions. But beyond that she is not a sole actor in how things transpired, and when she could, when she felt the need to come clean, she had informed leadership of the matter," she said.
Tearing up, she added: "I'm very aware of the ramifications of what I've shared... it pains me greatly. But to me, beyond anything else, it's important to be truthful to my country. I'm genuinely very afraid of what will happen after."
