SINGAPORE — Sharp exchanges broke out between Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh and two People's Action Party (PAP) ministers in Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 2). This was after the Workers' Party (WP) chief brought up the recent political scandals as well as past incidents where he felt the ruling party was perpetuating a "pattern of delay, prevarication and obfuscation". 

Then, in response to Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Member of Parliament (MP) for Bishan-Toa Payoh Group Representation Constituency, who had also asked about the Government's disclosure of information over the scandals, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that people were "reading a lot into very little".

In a ministerial statement, Mr Lee addressed the graft probe into Transport Minister S Iswaran, as well as the resignations of former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and former MP Cheng Li Hui following the pair's extramarital affair. 

Mr Lee said that in dealing with the affair, he had given the matter "some time, I had hoped to give them a softer exit, and save them and their families the pain and embarrassment that they are suffering now".

Responding to this, Mr Singh claimed that the PAP "selectively applies these standards".

For instance, during its Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing on former MP Raeesah Khan's lies in Parliament, Mr Singh said that the PAP had not considered that the WP had to take a sensitive approach in delaying the revelation of Ms Raeesah's lies, due to the consideration that she had been raped.

Mr Singh also said that other than how the recent scandals were handled, there were other instances that "reveal a pattern of behaviour over a period of time of the PAP engaging in half-truths on matters of significant public interest". 

For instance, he brought up the case of the Government's Covid-19 contract-tracing initiative, TraceTogether, and how Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, then Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation Initiative,  had initially assured the public in June 2020 that the app would only be used for contact tracing. 

It was then revealed early in 2021 that data under the application was not exempt from the Criminal Procedure Code for criminal investigations. This means that data from the application can be used by the authorities to investigate serious crimes.

These statements on Wednesday led to Law Minister K Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan crossing swords with Mr Singh.

Here are some excerpts of the exchanges, which have been edited for clarity. 

ON THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

MR SHANMUGAM: I'm sure he doesn't mean it, but (Mr Singh's) statements are misleading. On Ms Raeesah Khan, my recollection was that the facts are as follows... There was a Committee of Privileges, Mr Singh gave evidence.

My recollection, and he will correct me if I'm wrong... was that the committee was very sensitive about not describing what exactly happened to Ms Khan.

But it was Mr Singh, who insisted that the word "rape" ought to be mentioned. I hope he can clarify and confirm that, otherwise we can check the record.

So when someone stands up here and says we want to be sensitive, I think we need to look back at what each one did.

The word "rape", my recollection, was insisted upon by Mr Singh, so, so much for sensitivity.

Second, what was the point in relation to Ms Khan... This is not about rape. This is not about sexual assault. This is about her lying in Parliament.

She said Mr Singh told her to take it to a grave. It was a serious matter, lying in Parliament, serious enough for her to be out of Parliament.

She repeated the line in front of Mr Singh, and no correction. That was the issue... But I think we should be very careful about putting out the facts. I believe when the prime minister said and he will speak for himself, about sensitivity, it's about how it affects everyone.

And I think if we had applied the same degree of sensitivity, no one would have insisted on record that Ms Khan was raped.

MR SINGH: Let me address the Minister of Law's point, which, frankly, don't really add much to this debate.

But what I would say and this is what I said in my first comment to the prime minister was, it is about the selective standard that is applied, it is normal for the PAP to say, look, be sensitive when a matter of this nature comes up.

My point was, and in referencing the word "rape", my point was, this was how serious the matter was for us as leaders to think about.

And I believe I was asked at the Committee of Privileges, why didn't you respond earlier? Why didn't you react earlier? And I said, I should have reacted earlier.

But because I had an MP who had made such a serious point about something of a personal nature, I also needed to make sure that she had addressed the matter with her parents because in the words of the prime minister, you have to look at the circumstances, spouses and the family's conditions.

So I think the minister of law is missing the point here. It wasn't an insistence because of a lack of sensitivity vis a vis the word "rape"... It was the circumstances we were in to make a decision in double quick time on what to do going forward. 

MR SHANMUGAM: I think the leader has missed the point. I believe that committee suggested that we don't need to expressly talk about rape, and Mr Singh insisted on talking about rape.

Not only that, he insisted on bringing in her mental condition.

I think most observers felt a considerable degree of disquiet at this, that attacking a young lady on the basis of a mental condition and also putting on record that she had been raped. I think everyone could see why that was done.

The second point was this: The serious issue was lying in Parliament and then lying again. And that had nothing to do with her sexual assault.

She could have come up and said, 'I didn't tell the truth', and her seniors in the party could have advised her. That's a matter Committee of Privileges has gone into extensively. 

MR SINGH: I have stated the difference of opinion I have with the minister of law with regard to the use of the word ("rape") and the reason why the word was important in the context of what the Committee of Privileges were investigating.

On the second point about mental illness, this is a question of fact. This was communicated to us, we recorded it in our notes when she shared her condition and I felt it was an important point for the Committee of Privileges to consider.

It wasn't a case of putting someone with such an issue out to dry as the minister is very enthusiastic to portray.

The second clarification about lying in Parliament, I think I dealt with this; it was really (about) why I didn't stand up when she repeated the lie. I had no confirmation as to whether she had dealt with the matter of her rape with her parents.

And I wasn't going to stand up and call her out and say, "No, these are the reasons why that lie had to be said", and I think I made that apparent to the Committee of Privileges.

ON TRACETOGETHER

DR BALAKRISHNAN: I just wanted to address Mr Pritam Singh's suggestion that we had been somehow tardy or reticent with information with respect to TraceTogether... I hope, Mr Singh, you will realise that I have never deliberately engaged any obfuscation, prevarication or delay.

I've at all times acted in good faith. I have tried to make sure that in design, in execution and in coordination of a complex matter in an emergency, I have been transparent and forthright with the people and I object to your characterisation and use of an old debate, which was settled in Parliament, to suggest that there is a pattern of delay, prevarication and obfuscation.

I object to that characterisation.

MR SINGH: Let me just share some details about what happened in January and February (2021) in this House in the course of that debate, (Non-Constituency) MP Leong Mun Wai had asked the minister, when did you discover that your statement was going to be affected by the CPC (Criminal Procedure Code)?

Minister did not answer that question. This was in January (2021) and the point here is, there were ministers who were in this House who knew that actually they were already in receipt of knowledge in October 2020 about the fact that TraceTogether applied to the CPC, the minister admitted that...

There is a significant delay in time before questions are asked of the Government.

DR BALAKRISHNAN: Is there really a delay? Look at the timeline... first of all, I take responsibility, I'm in charge of the programme.

I was asked the question by a member of public not even in this House at the end of October (2020, on the potential for the police to use Trace Together data for investigations).

I spent November double-checking the facts, coordinating, examining the policy options, discussing with my colleagues.

I also told my staff we will clear all this, whichever way it falls.

A (parliamentary) question was asked by Mr Christopher de Souza in December.

Unfortunately, we didn't sit in December. Early January (2021), we answered it. I've added further clarifications.

In February (2021), we had this debate. I don't think I delayed, or obfuscated, and at all times, I've always been upfront and clean... that's why I'm objecting to your insinuation that there's any undue delay or any attempted obfuscation or lack of transparency.

That's not the way we do it.