the week: liar liar
The week starts with Raeesah Khan admitting to Parliament that she had lied about the details of a rape case that she alleged was mishandled by the police. In her original statement on the 3rd of August this year, Raeesah recounted a story about a sexual assault survivor:-
"three years ago, I accompanied a twenty-five year old survivor to make a police report against a rape that was committed against her. She came out crying. The police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she was drinking."
On the 4th of October, Raeesah was asked by Minister Shanmugam to confirm that "everything she had told [the house] was accurate, that she did accompany such a person, and such an incident did happen." She responded with a single word: "Yes".
When pressed for further information both times, Raeesah responded that she did not wish to re-traumatise the survivor and therefore had to maintain confidentiality. Which begs the question why she would bring it up in the first place. Her speech was made in Parliament in a publicly recorded session, and clips were played on the internet and reported in the news. Was she banking on the fact that the survivor would never chance upon her bringing up her story in Parliament? Would the survivor not be reminded of the incident on hearing it aired so publicly? Is the factual matrix of the case so common that the survivor struggle to identify it were them? According to Raeesah Khan, yes. She proceeded to say that "these anecdotes are not isolated". Which was brought to question when Minister Shanmugam said after an internal inquiry, the police could not find such a case. Surely if this were a common occurrence the police would be able to find several cases that matched this fact pattern? I am in favour of equipping the police with better skills to handle sexual assault cases. Nobody is saying that the police are perfect. But if you want to accuse the police of gross misconduct then you must have the evidence to show it, instead of crying that the system is broken.
On the 1st of November, Raeesah Khan admits that she lied about accompanying the survivor to the police station. She now admits that not only had she had not accompanied the survivor to the police station, she had heard this from a support group which she was part of, which she had then shared without the permission of the survivor. And her reason for lying about this was because she "did not have the courage to publicly admit" that she was part of this support group. Her defence is now two-fold: 1) she did not want to breach the confidentiality; and 2) she lied about accompanying the survivor because she was not ready to reveal that she was part of the women's support group in which she heard the anecdote.
On the first point, I've discussed above why the argument did not make sense. In fact, Leader Indranee Rajah also reached the same conclusion, and got Raeesah Khan to admit as much after some questioning. The moment Raeesah Khan brought up the anecdote in Parliament, or in fact in any public setting outside of the support group, the confidence had been breached, so any argument about withholding additional details is a moot point.
On the second point, I fail to see how this had any bearing on her decision to present her point that way. As Leader Indranee Rajah points out, Raeesah could have made the point without saying that she had accompanied the survivor to the police station. She could also not have brought up that anecdote at all. There was no need to. Did Raeesah think that anecdote made her argument stronger? If anything, it severely weakened her position, given that she could not substantiate the point, or point to the actual officers who allegedly committed the offence.
This is perhaps the greatest irony of all: in trying to spread awareness and help sexual assault survivors, Raeesah Khan has single handedly done the most damage to the cause, more than anyone in recent memory. She had breached the most fundamental concept of relationships, and the thing that separates a healthy relationship from an abusive one: consent. In fact, she seems to understand consent, or least pretend to understand it. When pressed by Minister Desmond Tan to substantiate her claims, she included this line in her response: "I believe, that given the topic at hand, consent is imperative, not least to avoid re-victimisation." The great irony then is that she had shared the anecdote without the survivor's consent. In lying about her experience, she has destroyed the credibility of survivors where many already struggle to get others to believe them. She has done grave damage to the cause, and has undone many years of progress with her actions.
This is what people hate most about Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) like Raeesah Khan. They preach about morals and values but do not adhere to them. You cannot ride a high horse if you choose to roll in the mud every so often. It smells of hypocrisy and the stench will drive people away from the cause. Raeesah thought that it would be alright to lie so long as it furthered her woke cause. They damage the causes they purport to support, and drive divisions within society.
Prime HDBs
The Housing Development Board (HDB) has introduced a new type of housing: Prime HDBs. These new HDBs also come with new rules:
10 year minimum occupation period, up from 5 years;
Additional subsidies;
Renting out whole flat not allowed;
Not available to singles; and
Resale criteria will be tighter
The changes are definitely a step in the right direction, but more can be done. The increase in minimum occupation period is welcome, as is not allowing the whole flats to be rented out. For decades now HDB has struggled with the purpose of public housing: is it to provide home ownership for the population, or is it so citizens can use these properties as stepping stones to greater individual wealth? Both of these positions are contradictory, and cannot exist together. I would like to see HDB extend the whole flat rental ban and minimum occupancy period to all HDB flats, regardless of prime status.
Further to that, tightening the resale criteria was a good step in the right direction in limiting HDB resale prices from climbing too high, but it does not go far enough. Goh Chok Tong's administration had unleashed the floodgates by removing the cap on resale prices, and ever since then prices have gone unchecked. In a country as land scarce as Singapore, public housing should not be viewed as an investment vehicle. I believe the Government should either reinstate the cap on the resale price, or make it so HDB flats can only be sold back to the HDB and then resold to the public.
Singles again draw the short straw, and are ineligible for these new Prime HDB flats. If at this point the Government does not understand that tying housing to Total Fertility Rate (TFR) policy does not work, then they are truly lost. Decades of this policy has done nothing to raise the TFR. These policies are not supported by data, there are no statistics anywhere in the world to support this. In fact studies do show that financial incentives have little to no impact on TFR. The surest way to increase TFR will be to create a country that people want to live in, not just work in.
Overall, I do think that these rules are a step in the right direction. I'm just hoping it's not too small a step.