Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan’s recent move to speak about the worrying manner in which survivors of sexual assault have been treated by the police from a systemic standpoint was unfortunately met with rebuke by two ministers in Parliament.
In raising those concerns, Ms Khan relayed her experience of accompanying a survivor in her interview with the police whereby the police officer, in that case, made comments about the survivor’s attire and drinking.
More police officers, thus, need to be trained to handle such cases more sensitively, she said. She added that counsellors should also be deployed at police stations, which will boost the authorities’ capacity to handle such cases and give survivors more confidence to file reports.
Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Desmond Tan sought clarification from Ms Raeesah later regarding the specific incident.
“We take any form of questions raised about how the police have handled or mishandled this case very seriously, and it should be investigated,” he said.
Ms Raeesah clarified that her reference had no intention to cast aspersions on the police.
“The police is part of the solution, not the problem. I raised the example because it was my experience with the survivor,” she remarked, adding that she does not want to bring up the specific case again as she does not want to retraumatise the survivor.
The reason behind raising the issue, Ms Khan said, is to note that such cases are not isolated and that it is an issue that needs to be addressed on an institutional level.
Mr Tan then said that Ms Khan should file a parliamentary question on the specific issue if she wishes to discuss it.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Indranee Rajah then interjected to remind Members of the House to use their parliamentary privilege in a responsible manner.
“I just wanted to remind members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, members must be prepared to substantiate them,” said Ms Indranee in her capacity as Leader of the House.
This is particularly crucial when a claim is made against a body that is not in a position to defend itself, she said.
Four years ago, however, then-Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang, in a debate on ministerial statements on 38 Oxley Road, asked if it was against the Parliament Standing Order for Ms Indranee to have imputed some character or motive to Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s actions with regards to the Oxley Road dispute.
In refuting allegations made by Mr LHY regarding Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s role as well as that of the Government’s in the dispute, Ms Indranee on 3 July 2017 questioned Mr LHY’s stance on what is to be done with the land should the Oxley Road property be demolished.
“Initially, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, he had “not thought beyond demolition”. If that is true, he could not have ruled out re-development. Then, he later said that before the Ministerial Committee was formed, he had offered a memorial garden. So, it appears that he had thought beyond demolition, earlier. He did not make it clear if a garden is still his position now.
“After I pointed out the four possible options for the property, including the fact that demolition clears the way to appeal for re-development, Mr Lee Hsien Yang now says that he has no “inclination” to develop the house for profit. “Inclination” is a word that leaves a lot of room for change of mind.
“Why is he being so careful? If he changes his mind, then the land is potentially worth a lot. Why does Mr Lee Hsien Yang not just rule it out categorically?” said Ms Indranee.
She also said that the concerns of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling with the Ministerial Committee and all the allegations they made “appear to have been triggered by questions on the will”.
“Why are they so concerned? We know from the facts disclosed that issues have been raised with regard to the will, and who drafted it.
“If it was drafted by Mrs Lee Suet Fern, then an issue arises because she is the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his share of the estate was increased under the last will,” said Ms Indranee.
She added: “Under our law, the lawyer drafting the will is required to be independent. As our Court of Appeal has said, “the preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities which solicitors must uncompromisingly observe and discharge”.
“So, if the lawyer has an interest in the will, the lawyer must make sure that the person making the will gets independent advice,” said Ms Indranee.
Mr Low, upon asking if Ms Indranee’s claims are against the Standing Order, said: “She seems to be attacking Lee Hsien Yang and imputing some character or motive. He is not here in the House to answer.”
Ms Indranee replied: “Mr Low must be mistaken. All I did was point out that there were certain allegations against the Government. I stated our position on that, and there is nothing at all that prevents Mr Lee Hsien Yang from responding if he wishes to publicly. All I am doing is stating the Government’s position on various issues.”
Mr Low, as well as WP chair Ms Sylvia Lim and a few other Members of Parliament raised their hands to pose follow-up questions to the Senior Minister of State.
However, no follow-up questions were taken after Ms Indranee gave her reply to Mr Low, as the Government Whip, Minister Chan Chun Sing proceeded to adjourn the session for the day.
