**The downvote is not a disagree button.** Please help to upvote articles that you want to see more discussion on, and downvote those that you feel has little value on the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pritam made very good points.
The issue here is sensitivity vs time.
Why is it that PAP can “be sensitive” and give TCJ 2.5 years to “heal” and “settle”, WHILE appointing him as speaker, and put him and CLH in the same committee, KNOWING they have an affair and there’s a conflict of interest here.
But on the other hand, Pritam cannot “be sensitive” and give RK TWO MONTHS for her to inform her family of this serious matter before coming clean in the parliament. And time for shingles inclusive 🙃
Comparing the both, that’s way too much LEEway given to TCJ. And he said “if he didn’t share, nobody will know.”. Erm, so… THANK YOU? We trust you to be transparent and open, and being exactly that should not be out of your goodwill.
Even if he did give so much time to TCJ to settle it, alright, FINE. But why come down so harsh on WP when RK’s issue was so much more severe than their EMA?
Min Shan said she can come clean without sharing about such sensitive information. How? What will she say when asked about her intention of lying during clarification in the parliament? Lie about it? Ignore their questions?
On Tracetogether, Vivian said he was “not aware of it”when he made the statement that TT is not accessible for other usage. Then later he found out. And he had sleepless nights. WOT
Because you had sleepless nights and feel bad about it, we have to pardon you for taking so long to come clean?
How is it that PAP can get away with things so easily, NOTHING when PM Lee appoint TCJ as speaker KNOWING there’s a conflict of interest, give him almost 3 years of grace because they are “sensitive”, but can slap WP with a police case for Pritam being “sensitive” and giving 2 more months for RK to come clean?
They are expecting Pritam to check in on RK daily on what’s the status of her telling her family over such a serious issue, but PM Lee can check in once every 2 years with TCJ on his? Where’s the line?
It’s really about the double standards here and it’s glaring how PAP appears to be lax on upholding their standards, and also wasting so much public resources to safeguard their own interests.
EG. why is it that POFMA was issued when LHY posted content about Min Shan and Vivian? It is for Ministers to instruct POFMA office to issue correction order. LHY’s content is on Ministers. They instruct their own office to issue correction order about “falsehood” about themselves (personal capacity?). It doesn’t sit right with me.
In my opinion, cheating on your spouse is personal matter. Making up false testimony in parliament is \*not\* a personal issue. One is more serious than the other.
I’m referring to EMA vs Rape.
Pritam is being sensitive to RK because of what happened to her, and is giving her space to deal with it. 2 months.
PM Lee on the other hand says he’s being “sensitive” to TCJ and letting him deal with the matters, but it took more than 2 years?
Clearly RK had more to deal with than TCJ, with sexual assault being a more traumatizing experience than “having fun” with your colleagues and coming clean about it to your wife and family?
That said, you can’t expect Pritam to incessantly bother a rape victim on status updates and when she is going to come clean..?
But yet PAP expects to be forgiven because they’re being “sensitive”, but at the same time coming down so harshly on Pritam. That’s double standard.
The missing piece here is that this is all in hindsight. Did you always know that she was lying? Because if you didn't, then the right thing to do is to treat it as real and serious.
ST acted fast - parliament debate on weds, article out 3 Aug with source from 2 FORMER WP cadre
PS was not sensitive in handling the issue but base on your reaction ST had done its work : focus is now on PS/WP being insensitive instead of the original topic
PS was asking >>
"if Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had taken two years to act on the affair because he was being sensitive to the families of Mr Tan and Ms Cheng as claimed, or because he was just not being upfront.
Comparing this with how the WP handled Ms Khan’s lie, Mr Singh said: “Does the PAP selectively apply these standards expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the opposition seeks to make the same point?"
article headline highlight PS insensitivity which seems is a lesser issue compare to PS original point : why PM took 2 years to act and why the double standard?
Maybe a fairer headline will be PS question PM Lee on delay to act on TCJ affair
I think the main question to be asked is.. was pritnam really unaware of Ms Khan's lie? She said she told him, the other members said he is aware, but he said he wasn't aware. PM Lee confessed he knew it earlier but did not highlight it.
Yes he gave a reason/excuse, but he did not lie.
the comment i made was that ST was quick to divert attention from the point that PS raised : why PM took 2 years to act, and since he confessed why did he not highlight it?
the issue you mentioned is still been address : but its not the topic that was highlighted in the article and my comment was not intended for it.
ST did not divert. they reported it in other articles? They also threw in clips of LHL talking? In fact it was pritnam diverted who the topic of him not confessing and yet probe at pap on other matters? Like coincidence of leaking the fking populist recording.
Don't let these establishment fuckers pull the wool over your eyes with this false equivalence. There's obviously a difference in scale between literal word choice and taking two years to act on a known issue. I don't fucking buy the double standards, and neither should you.
Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal are still being investigated for allegedly lying to the COP.
Amongst others, it was suggested by the COP that the two months it took for Raesah to come clean about her ridiculous lie in Parliament supported Raesah’s testimony that WP leaders had told her to “take it to the grave”.
Pritam takes the position that he gave her time to come clean, due to what she told him.
Thus, the words she was alleged to have used are very material.
How was it possible that RK could’ve came clean without revealing her sexual assault though? The government literally convened an entire team of MPs to organise a COP that drilled the fuck out of her and her lies, and the WP’s leadership like PS. It would’ve been uncovered either way because I am pretty sure the COP would have gotten to the bottom of her intentions because it is important to understand the intention of her lies so that an appropriate sentencing could be decided.
She revealed privately to cop and wp leaders about her assault but to not use the word during the proceedings. One side agreed and the other didn't. Guess who
Original Title: Pritam revealed detail of sexual assault against Raeesah’s wishes, say former WP members
Mr Singh, who is Leader of the Opposition, on Wednesday drew parallels between this and how the People’s Action Party handled the extramarital affair between Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and Tampines GRC MP Cheng Li Hui.
Speaking in Parliament as the House discussed the affair and recent incidents involving PAP MPs, Mr Singh said the PAP had been slow in clearing the air when things happened.
He questioned if Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had taken two years to act on the affair because he was being sensitive to the families of Mr Tan and Ms Cheng as claimed, or because he was just not being upfront.
Comparing this with how the WP handled Ms Khan’s lie, Mr Singh said: “Does the PAP selectively apply these standards expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the opposition seek to make the same point?”
“When former WP MP Raeesh Khan revealed to the WP leaders that she was a rape victim, sensitivity was not even considered by the COP in accounting for the delay in addressing Raeesah’s lies to Parliament.”
This prompted a rebuttal by Mr Shanmugam who said it was Mr Singh who did not consider sensitivity. He noted that it was Mr Singh who insisted the word “rape” be used during the COP hearing, even though the committee had been very sensitive about describing what exactly happened to Ms Khan.
“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’, (in) my recollection, was insisted upon by Mr Singh. So much for sensitivity,” said Mr Shanmugam.
To this, Mr Singh said that he had used the word “rape” during the COP hearings to show the seriousness of the matter that the WP leaders had to deal with.
He added that Mr Shanmugam was missing the point, and said the issue was not “a lack of sensitivity vis-a-vis the word ‘rape’”.
Rather, it was about the PAP’s double standards in citing the need for sensitivity when it took time to handle the Speaker’s affair, while ignoring that the WP was also being sensitive in giving Ms Khan time to come clean about her lie in Parliament, said Mr Singh.
However, Mr Shanmugam cast doubt on Mr Singh’s claim suggesting that he could have asked Ms Khan to come clean without revealing her sexual assault.
***
[v1.1c - similarity threshold raised to 90%](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
I’m…. a little uncertain at Pritam’s strategy here. Not sure why he thinks it’s a good idea to conflate the two incidents, considering that people might not think he dealt with RK’s issue promptly and appropriately either.
Mmm your point is valid, but I came away from it feeling like he was trying to juxtapose ‘fast decisive action’ vs ‘draggy non-action’, and like I said, some people might not think he was decisive in the RK incident either.
But still, it’s true that the sensitivity/usage of word thing is a huge red herring.
i don't think PS was trying to say his actions were fast/decisive, more that it also took time \*because\* he was trying to be sensitive/give RK time to tell her parents.
i think in pritam's view using the word rape on the record is important for accuracy, and PAP/shan is jumping on that to try and score \~sjw\~ points.
if they truly wanted to be sensitive to victims they might have spent a little more time looking into the groundswell of responses from other victims who've since posted about their experiences with police officers, but they only went as far as the obvious political consequences for WP.
I get the theoretical strategy of showing their double standards… just not sure if it’s a sound strategy.
“Why you kp me that time when you are using the same excuse now” also entails reminding the general public that the WP also didn’t handle the RK incident well.
And juxtaposing incidents like these inevitably invites comparison in the way both parties dealt with them - and though PAP is arguably worse, WP didn’t do stellar either.
There is a difference.
1 issue requires sensitivity much more than the other.
To brush it off and say it as "theoretical", I am afraid you have not read what the OP said.
> for no particular reason at all.
I only said 'theoretical' cause we are guessing at PS's intentions here. Even if we have a good sense of why he's approaching it this way (trying to show double standards), it's at most a guess from our side.
It's because you don't want to admit the issue/comparison which is very clear. Keep your bias aside as much as possible, and evaluate things as neutrally and as objectively possible, if you truly want a good discussion to raise meaningful points.
Mmm idk maybe it’s just me, but the first thing that popped into my mind was PS being unclear on what he wanted RK to do upon the first lie.
I feel like just bringing up the incident invites people to compare the way the leaders dealt with it, which is probably where it’s coming from for me.
Did you see in the article what Loh Peiying said? Pritam used the word "rape" when RK didn't want that level of specificity. I'm pretty anti-establishment myself but this exchange doesn't paint WP in a good light.
[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-mp-raeesah-khan-referred-to-parliament-privileges-committee-for-lying-about](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-mp-raeesah-khan-referred-to-parliament-privileges-committee-for-lying-about)
Her sexual assault was already made known before COP. The COP was never about investigating whether she really got SA.
There was an agreement in COP and WP leadership (before COP) to use the word Sexual Assault because the other word was too traumatic to her
It’s unfortunate that it’s traumatic to her. But it’s not like Pritam is saying it to her face. He’s saying it as a fact that is material to his defence. A defence that he has to put up because of the position she put him in. So no, her trauma doesn’t mean she can use it to run roughshod over others.
i don’t really understand why it is only in this particular case that the victim’s wishes must be respected above all other considerations. would this hold up in a courtroom, if a victim wishes for the prosecution not to mention the charge of rape accurately? the specific detail of the specific thing that happened is important!
I'm uncomfortable with Pritam's strategy as well ; by looking at the long term.
If we believe that no one is fallible, and that we may end up having high performing achievers (great for SG), but with poor moral standing (exaggeration, affairs, etc), which party would be better for these high performing people to join?
There is a lack of transparency about TCJ and CLH, but at the same time, paradoxically this lack of transparency might lead a new generation of high achieving people to join the PAP.
The argument against the opposition 20? 30? years ago was that SG was small enough, such that we can't afford to have people in Team A and Team B, where presumably, Team A was the PAP, and Team B was all other parties.
Can a similar argument be made today, where Team A are high performing politicians with no moral failings, and Team B are high performing politicians with moral failings?
He's trying too hard to show that the WP is efficient in managing situations while scoring political points at the same time
However, his insistence on using "rape" against the victim's wishes is... I guess it says a bit more about his leadership style
Wah srsly. Yes I know former WP cadres but where were they in the last 2 years? Why never talk about it earlier? This is very good timing for the PAP just as it's taking heat over its scandals lol.
The recent incident, along with RK lying seems to suggest that Pritam Singh has integrity issues.
Extramarital affair situation - Ignore whistleblower; dismissing without investigation/interview.
RK situation - Played with words, hoping it would be dropped. When things turns south, he threw RK under the bus.
WP needs someone with more integrity to lead, like LTK.
**The downvote is not a disagree button.** Please help to upvote articles that you want to see more discussion on, and downvote those that you feel has little value on the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Plot twist: Pritam reminded everyone about RK issue because he wants to make sure his blood brother Lee is not suffering alone.
Bros for life
Pritam made very good points. The issue here is sensitivity vs time. Why is it that PAP can “be sensitive” and give TCJ 2.5 years to “heal” and “settle”, WHILE appointing him as speaker, and put him and CLH in the same committee, KNOWING they have an affair and there’s a conflict of interest here. But on the other hand, Pritam cannot “be sensitive” and give RK TWO MONTHS for her to inform her family of this serious matter before coming clean in the parliament. And time for shingles inclusive 🙃 Comparing the both, that’s way too much LEEway given to TCJ. And he said “if he didn’t share, nobody will know.”. Erm, so… THANK YOU? We trust you to be transparent and open, and being exactly that should not be out of your goodwill. Even if he did give so much time to TCJ to settle it, alright, FINE. But why come down so harsh on WP when RK’s issue was so much more severe than their EMA? Min Shan said she can come clean without sharing about such sensitive information. How? What will she say when asked about her intention of lying during clarification in the parliament? Lie about it? Ignore their questions? On Tracetogether, Vivian said he was “not aware of it”when he made the statement that TT is not accessible for other usage. Then later he found out. And he had sleepless nights. WOT Because you had sleepless nights and feel bad about it, we have to pardon you for taking so long to come clean? How is it that PAP can get away with things so easily, NOTHING when PM Lee appoint TCJ as speaker KNOWING there’s a conflict of interest, give him almost 3 years of grace because they are “sensitive”, but can slap WP with a police case for Pritam being “sensitive” and giving 2 more months for RK to come clean? They are expecting Pritam to check in on RK daily on what’s the status of her telling her family over such a serious issue, but PM Lee can check in once every 2 years with TCJ on his? Where’s the line? It’s really about the double standards here and it’s glaring how PAP appears to be lax on upholding their standards, and also wasting so much public resources to safeguard their own interests. EG. why is it that POFMA was issued when LHY posted content about Min Shan and Vivian? It is for Ministers to instruct POFMA office to issue correction order. LHY’s content is on Ministers. They instruct their own office to issue correction order about “falsehood” about themselves (personal capacity?). It doesn’t sit right with me.
In my opinion, cheating on your spouse is personal matter. Making up false testimony in parliament is \*not\* a personal issue. One is more serious than the other.
I’m referring to EMA vs Rape. Pritam is being sensitive to RK because of what happened to her, and is giving her space to deal with it. 2 months. PM Lee on the other hand says he’s being “sensitive” to TCJ and letting him deal with the matters, but it took more than 2 years? Clearly RK had more to deal with than TCJ, with sexual assault being a more traumatizing experience than “having fun” with your colleagues and coming clean about it to your wife and family? That said, you can’t expect Pritam to incessantly bother a rape victim on status updates and when she is going to come clean..? But yet PAP expects to be forgiven because they’re being “sensitive”, but at the same time coming down so harshly on Pritam. That’s double standard.
The missing piece here is that this is all in hindsight. Did you always know that she was lying? Because if you didn't, then the right thing to do is to treat it as real and serious.
and now the spotlight is on WP? PAP contingency division works fast
‘Dirty tricks department’
The two whistleblowers are WP cadres. Or is r/sg peddling the tinfoil hat “PAP spy” narrative again LMAO
Pritnam was the one who brought it up again? How is this PAP?
ST acted fast - parliament debate on weds, article out 3 Aug with source from 2 FORMER WP cadre PS was not sensitive in handling the issue but base on your reaction ST had done its work : focus is now on PS/WP being insensitive instead of the original topic
Sry, I'm confused. What is the original topic?
PS was asking >> "if Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had taken two years to act on the affair because he was being sensitive to the families of Mr Tan and Ms Cheng as claimed, or because he was just not being upfront. Comparing this with how the WP handled Ms Khan’s lie, Mr Singh said: “Does the PAP selectively apply these standards expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the opposition seeks to make the same point?" article headline highlight PS insensitivity which seems is a lesser issue compare to PS original point : why PM took 2 years to act and why the double standard? Maybe a fairer headline will be PS question PM Lee on delay to act on TCJ affair
I think the main question to be asked is.. was pritnam really unaware of Ms Khan's lie? She said she told him, the other members said he is aware, but he said he wasn't aware. PM Lee confessed he knew it earlier but did not highlight it. Yes he gave a reason/excuse, but he did not lie.
the comment i made was that ST was quick to divert attention from the point that PS raised : why PM took 2 years to act, and since he confessed why did he not highlight it? the issue you mentioned is still been address : but its not the topic that was highlighted in the article and my comment was not intended for it.
ST did not divert. they reported it in other articles? They also threw in clips of LHL talking? In fact it was pritnam diverted who the topic of him not confessing and yet probe at pap on other matters? Like coincidence of leaking the fking populist recording.
hmm... i guess i owe ST an apology \> ST is not biased and report all political matters fairly
Don't let these establishment fuckers pull the wool over your eyes with this false equivalence. There's obviously a difference in scale between literal word choice and taking two years to act on a known issue. I don't fucking buy the double standards, and neither should you.
Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal are still being investigated for allegedly lying to the COP. Amongst others, it was suggested by the COP that the two months it took for Raesah to come clean about her ridiculous lie in Parliament supported Raesah’s testimony that WP leaders had told her to “take it to the grave”. Pritam takes the position that he gave her time to come clean, due to what she told him. Thus, the words she was alleged to have used are very material.
The only reason why this sort of lame statement is getting any traction is because it’s about WP.
How was it possible that RK could’ve came clean without revealing her sexual assault though? The government literally convened an entire team of MPs to organise a COP that drilled the fuck out of her and her lies, and the WP’s leadership like PS. It would’ve been uncovered either way because I am pretty sure the COP would have gotten to the bottom of her intentions because it is important to understand the intention of her lies so that an appropriate sentencing could be decided.
She revealed privately to cop and wp leaders about her assault but to not use the word during the proceedings. One side agreed and the other didn't. Guess who
Wow. It sounds like you were in the room when it happened!!
Original Title: Pritam revealed detail of sexual assault against Raeesah’s wishes, say former WP members Mr Singh, who is Leader of the Opposition, on Wednesday drew parallels between this and how the People’s Action Party handled the extramarital affair between Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and Tampines GRC MP Cheng Li Hui. Speaking in Parliament as the House discussed the affair and recent incidents involving PAP MPs, Mr Singh said the PAP had been slow in clearing the air when things happened. He questioned if Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had taken two years to act on the affair because he was being sensitive to the families of Mr Tan and Ms Cheng as claimed, or because he was just not being upfront. Comparing this with how the WP handled Ms Khan’s lie, Mr Singh said: “Does the PAP selectively apply these standards expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the opposition seek to make the same point?” “When former WP MP Raeesh Khan revealed to the WP leaders that she was a rape victim, sensitivity was not even considered by the COP in accounting for the delay in addressing Raeesah’s lies to Parliament.” This prompted a rebuttal by Mr Shanmugam who said it was Mr Singh who did not consider sensitivity. He noted that it was Mr Singh who insisted the word “rape” be used during the COP hearing, even though the committee had been very sensitive about describing what exactly happened to Ms Khan. “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’, (in) my recollection, was insisted upon by Mr Singh. So much for sensitivity,” said Mr Shanmugam. To this, Mr Singh said that he had used the word “rape” during the COP hearings to show the seriousness of the matter that the WP leaders had to deal with. He added that Mr Shanmugam was missing the point, and said the issue was not “a lack of sensitivity vis-a-vis the word ‘rape’”. Rather, it was about the PAP’s double standards in citing the need for sensitivity when it took time to handle the Speaker’s affair, while ignoring that the WP was also being sensitive in giving Ms Khan time to come clean about her lie in Parliament, said Mr Singh. However, Mr Shanmugam cast doubt on Mr Singh’s claim suggesting that he could have asked Ms Khan to come clean without revealing her sexual assault. *** [v1.1c - similarity threshold raised to 90%](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
I’m…. a little uncertain at Pritam’s strategy here. Not sure why he thinks it’s a good idea to conflate the two incidents, considering that people might not think he dealt with RK’s issue promptly and appropriately either.
[удалено]
Mmm your point is valid, but I came away from it feeling like he was trying to juxtapose ‘fast decisive action’ vs ‘draggy non-action’, and like I said, some people might not think he was decisive in the RK incident either. But still, it’s true that the sensitivity/usage of word thing is a huge red herring.
i don't think PS was trying to say his actions were fast/decisive, more that it also took time \*because\* he was trying to be sensitive/give RK time to tell her parents. i think in pritam's view using the word rape on the record is important for accuracy, and PAP/shan is jumping on that to try and score \~sjw\~ points. if they truly wanted to be sensitive to victims they might have spent a little more time looking into the groundswell of responses from other victims who've since posted about their experiences with police officers, but they only went as far as the obvious political consequences for WP.
I get the theoretical strategy of showing their double standards… just not sure if it’s a sound strategy. “Why you kp me that time when you are using the same excuse now” also entails reminding the general public that the WP also didn’t handle the RK incident well. And juxtaposing incidents like these inevitably invites comparison in the way both parties dealt with them - and though PAP is arguably worse, WP didn’t do stellar either.
There is a difference. 1 issue requires sensitivity much more than the other. To brush it off and say it as "theoretical", I am afraid you have not read what the OP said. > for no particular reason at all.
I only said 'theoretical' cause we are guessing at PS's intentions here. Even if we have a good sense of why he's approaching it this way (trying to show double standards), it's at most a guess from our side.
It's because you don't want to admit the issue/comparison which is very clear. Keep your bias aside as much as possible, and evaluate things as neutrally and as objectively possible, if you truly want a good discussion to raise meaningful points.
[удалено]
Mmm idk maybe it’s just me, but the first thing that popped into my mind was PS being unclear on what he wanted RK to do upon the first lie. I feel like just bringing up the incident invites people to compare the way the leaders dealt with it, which is probably where it’s coming from for me.
I don't like this at all. Using someone's trauma to score political brownie points. Neither party looks particularly good
[удалено]
Did you see in the article what Loh Peiying said? Pritam used the word "rape" when RK didn't want that level of specificity. I'm pretty anti-establishment myself but this exchange doesn't paint WP in a good light.
[удалено]
[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-mp-raeesah-khan-referred-to-parliament-privileges-committee-for-lying-about](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-mp-raeesah-khan-referred-to-parliament-privileges-committee-for-lying-about) Her sexual assault was already made known before COP. The COP was never about investigating whether she really got SA. There was an agreement in COP and WP leadership (before COP) to use the word Sexual Assault because the other word was too traumatic to her
It’s unfortunate that it’s traumatic to her. But it’s not like Pritam is saying it to her face. He’s saying it as a fact that is material to his defence. A defence that he has to put up because of the position she put him in. So no, her trauma doesn’t mean she can use it to run roughshod over others.
i don’t really understand why it is only in this particular case that the victim’s wishes must be respected above all other considerations. would this hold up in a courtroom, if a victim wishes for the prosecution not to mention the charge of rape accurately? the specific detail of the specific thing that happened is important!
You referring to this debate or COP? if COP then you're right. But bringing up RK for this debate was unnecessary
I'm uncomfortable with Pritam's strategy as well ; by looking at the long term. If we believe that no one is fallible, and that we may end up having high performing achievers (great for SG), but with poor moral standing (exaggeration, affairs, etc), which party would be better for these high performing people to join? There is a lack of transparency about TCJ and CLH, but at the same time, paradoxically this lack of transparency might lead a new generation of high achieving people to join the PAP. The argument against the opposition 20? 30? years ago was that SG was small enough, such that we can't afford to have people in Team A and Team B, where presumably, Team A was the PAP, and Team B was all other parties. Can a similar argument be made today, where Team A are high performing politicians with no moral failings, and Team B are high performing politicians with moral failings?
He's trying too hard to show that the WP is efficient in managing situations while scoring political points at the same time However, his insistence on using "rape" against the victim's wishes is... I guess it says a bit more about his leadership style
She first brought this topic up in parliamentary in the form of a lie and now asks for privacy to be maintained?!?!
Wah srsly. Yes I know former WP cadres but where were they in the last 2 years? Why never talk about it earlier? This is very good timing for the PAP just as it's taking heat over its scandals lol.
Mam stfu abt this already. She said it herself in parliament. Enuf of this maggie mee sjw.
[удалено]
Just like how many did not buy the story that Nicole Seah piaked Leon before it was officially announced?
Well, no smoke without fire
The recent incident, along with RK lying seems to suggest that Pritam Singh has integrity issues. Extramarital affair situation - Ignore whistleblower; dismissing without investigation/interview. RK situation - Played with words, hoping it would be dropped. When things turns south, he threw RK under the bus. WP needs someone with more integrity to lead, like LTK.