In an ongoing trial involving Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh, Rahayu Mahzam, a Singapore Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the Committee of Privileges (COP) overseeing the matter of Raeesah Khan’s conduct in Parliament in November 2021, has been named in connection with a controversial redaction of a key message.

As a COP member, Rahayu was responsible for reviewing evidence related to Khan’s parliamentary lie, which ultimately led to Khan’s resignation and a S$35,000 fine.

Rahayu’s involvement in the review process was disclosed during the cross-examination of Loh Pei Ying, a former WP cadre member and assistant to ex-WP MP Raeesah Khan.

Loh, testifying for the prosecution, was questioned about her role in editing messages from a group chat involving herself, Khan, and Yudhishthra Nathan, a WP cadre member.

A message from Nathan, dated 12 October 2021, suggested withholding details about Khan’s fabricated rape anecdote, which she had shared in Parliament. The message read: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts abt her age accurate.”

Under cross-examination by Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, Loh admitted to deliberately redacting this message before submitting the document to the COP.

She initially claimed the redaction was because the message related to another MP, but when pressed by Jumabhoy, she conceded that this was a “bare-faced lie.”

In response to Jumabhoy’s line of questioning about whether the redaction was intended to “hide information” or preserve the integrity of Nathan, herself, or Khan, Loh responded, “I wouldn’t say that,” but later admitted to hiding the comment, saying, “I hid this comment, yes,” and confirming that Nathan’s suggestion was to “just lie about it some more.”

Loh also revealed during the trial that Rahayu had been involved in the redaction process.

When Jumabhoy accused Loh of dishonesty for arbitrarily redacting messages and providing false reasons for the redactions, she requested to explain the process to the court.

According to Loh, she had worked closely with Rahayu and a senior parliamentary staff member for three hours, reviewing WhatsApp messages that were intended for submission to the COP.

Loh testified, “The entire conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff and Rahayu Mahzam, who sat beside me and verified every message before it was redacted on my phone. They agreed it should be redacted.”

Although Loh acknowledged that the final decision to redact the message was hers, she believed Rahayu was fully aware of the content of the message and the rationale for its redaction.

Loh explained that her primary reason for redacting the message was to prevent Nathan from facing public backlash, saying, “I didn’t want him to be attacked for his comment.”

Jumabhoy, during cross-examination, suggested that Loh had redacted the message to preserve the group’s credibility, asserting that the redaction was “to preserve Yudhishthra Nathan’s integrity” and that the message gave a “bad impression.”

Loh agreed that the message “doesn’t look good on him,” but clarified that her intention was to protect Nathan from scrutiny, not to interfere with the COP investigation.

Another critical point discussed in court was an exchange between Loh and Khan on 7 October 2021, in which Loh suggested that Khan gather stories from other sexual assault survivors to support her point in Parliament.

The defence suggested this was an attempt to cover Khan’s lie with other stories. Loh explained, “It was a grey area between not lying anymore but still supporting police investigations,” adding that this would allow Khan to “avoid lying again but still address her original point in Parliament.”

When questioned by the judge, she confirmed that the idea was not to obstruct the investigation into Khan’s anecdote, but rather to support broader investigations into how sexual assault victims are treated.

The trial has also explored Loh’s memory of an August 10 meeting with Singh. She initially testified that Singh had nodded during their conversation about whether the issue of Khan’s lie would arise again in Parliament.

However, she later clarified that Singh had actually shaken his head. “My memory is fuzzy,” she explained, and added that they “avoided talking about it explicitly” during their brief exchange.

Another important moment in the trial was the discussion of a message from Khan on 8 August 2021, in which she said she had been told to “take the information to the grave.”

Loh testified that she first saw the message at the time, but it only “fully registered” with her on 29 November, when she was preparing for the COP inquiry. She admitted that she had been distracted when the message first came through, focusing instead on a subsequent message from Khan.

Singh is currently contesting charges that he misled the COP about his actions after learning that Khan had lied in Parliament.

SINGAPORE: Netizens are suggesting harsher punishments for bullying perpetrators, emphasizing that rehabilitation alone is insufficient considering the lasting trauma victims often endure.

This sentiment follows a recent parliamentary session on Monday (14 Oct) during which Education Minister Chan Chun Sing addressed concerns raised by Members of Parliament regarding a school bullying case that has sparked public outrage.

During the session, Mr Chan reported that, on average, there are approximately two incidents of bullying per 1,000 primary school students and six incidents per 1,000 secondary school students each year.

He noted that incidents involving technology account for fewer than one per 1,000 secondary students, and even less at the primary school level.

A specific case highlighted involved a video that circulated online last month, allegedly showing students from Bukit View Secondary School bullying a peer, although the incident actually occurred in October of the previous year.

In response to the ongoing issues, Mr Chan reassured MPs that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is committed to equipping students with pro-social skills through the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum.

This program includes lessons on kindness, conflict resolution, and appropriate behaviour.

He explained that teachers are trained to foster a supportive classroom environment and proactively address bullying.

When determining disciplinary actions, the MOE considers the severity of each incident as well as the profiles of the students involved.

Disciplinary measures can range from detention and suspension to caning for boys as a last resort, with police reports filed in serious cases.

However, Mr Chan also stressed the importance of balancing punishment with rehabilitation.

He warned that “circulating such materials, trying to dox the student perpetrators, or calling for them to be ostracized could isolate them even more, drive them to extremes, and make it harder for them to mend their ways.”

“We want to steer clear of actions that might hinder or deny a perpetrator’s chance for rehabilitation, such as counterproductive social media behaviours,” he added.

Public voice discontent over minister’s response to school bullying

Many netizens took to the Channel News Asia and Mothership Facebook pages to express their disagreement with Mr Chan’s proposed solution regarding a recent school bullying case.

Several users commented that if the video of the bullying had not been circulated, it is unlikely any action would have been taken.

One user pointed out that if no one had recorded the incident, it might not have gained the attention needed for action.

Another user shared a similar sentiment, stating, “If these videos hadn’t been circulated, I don’t think actions would have been swift.”

They added that, in many cases, the videos are often recorded by the perpetrators themselves or their circle, and are posted to showcase their arrogance and supposed “bravery.”

Several users expressed concern that it seemed as though the minister was siding with the perpetrators rather than the victims in the school bullying case.

One user questioned, “Where is justice for the vulnerable bullied victims?”

They criticized the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) approach of emphasizing rehabilitation for bullies, warning that such individuals could potentially become members of secret societies, abusers, or even criminals in the future.

They argued that punishment for bullying should be harsher, suggesting public caning and imprisonment as effective deterrents to prevent further incidents.

Another user voiced concern that focusing primarily on helping the perpetrators would not improve the bullying situation.

They pointed out that conflicts are a normal part of life and can serve as opportunities for children to learn how to manage their behaviour.

However, if bullies face no real consequences because of their age, they miss out on valuable learning opportunities.

The user argued that this lack of accountability could make bullying more widespread, as bullies may see it as a “no-loss” situation where they gain attention and help without facing punishment while victims are left to endure their pain in silence.

Another user raised the question of who would help the victims if the focus was solely on rehabilitating the perpetrators.

They emphasized that victims often suffer lasting trauma and asked who would be held accountable if they do not recover.

The user stressed that perpetrators need to understand the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them.

One user argued that leaving a long-lasting digital footprint for perpetrators could be a strong deterrent, as it would serve as a constant reminder of the consequences of their unlawful behaviour.

They criticized the protection of bullies’ identities through doxxing laws, suggesting that it may indirectly encourage such behavior by minimizing the consequences simply because the offenders are not yet adults.

Calls for stronger anti-bullying measures in schools

Several users highlighted the broader dynamics involved in school bullying, emphasizing that it extends beyond just the bullies and victims to include bystanders.

One user pointed out that bystanders can either perpetuate or help mitigate the problem, but, unfortunately, some schools tend to downplay bullying incidents.

They observed that schools often focus only on counseling the victim while giving verbal warnings to the bully and their accomplices.

Another user emphasized that true justice requires schools to adopt a more effective framework for tackling all forms of bullying, including not just physical bullying, but also social and cyberbullying, which can be even more harmful.

They suggested that there are often telltale signs of bullying that are overlooked.