Raeesah Khan
Singapore
“Thank you. Like I mentioned before, I think there were two things that were going through my mind. The first was that I really wanted to protect the identity of the survivor and the survivors in the women's support group. And secondly, a lot of people did not know about this assault until very recently including my family.”
“Thank you for those clarifications. I have been really reflecting on this episode and why I told the anecdote the way it was, and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that I did not have my own courage to report my own assault.”
“Yes, that was untrue. That was not the truth. Firstly, I want to say that when I was questioned subsequently, what was going through my mind was that I wanted to protect the survivor and the people who were in the group.”
“Yes, one of the principles of being in a women's support group is that the details should remain confidential. And that is something that I shared in my speech that I feel this failure deeply. Because I, myself, am a survivor, so, I understand what it feels like to have information out there that that I did not consent to.”
“Thank you. Yes, I do because I am here today and I am accountable for my actions. I have apologised to the House. I have retracted the anecdote that I made and I have also apologised to the Singapore Police Force. I recognise that there was a lapse of judgement, but I am here today to apologise for it.”
“Thank you. I do not know any of the details. All I knew was what I shared in my speech on 3 August and that was an account from the survivor. I understand that it is not going to be able to be verified and hence, I have withdrawn my anecdote and apologised to the Singapore Police Force as well.”
The complete record
Every one of 62 lines we hold for Raeesah Khan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Preventive work needs to be done alongside destigmatisation efforts. And that includes learning the appropriate language to use when speaking to a family member or a friend who has a mental health condition and what actions to take when they are in severe distress. An effort to improve mental health is not only good for the self but good for our country. Psychological defence is an underlying key pillar of our Total Defence and it will serve Singapore well when any Singaporean, even at their most mentally vulnerable, can trust that society at large will also have their back. I hope the authorities will take this opportunity to reset the conversations on mental health for the betterment of society.”
“Firstly, I propose forming a Mental Health Committee with various stakeholders involved, stakeholders such as Government reps, mental health practitioners, VWOs and social workers, and also people who have experienced issues pertaining to mental health. It is important that we bank on the expertise and experiences of our fellow citizens who can help shape and lead the change that we need. Secondly, improve the quantity and quality of information on mental health resources. Finding suitable treatment requires time and effort from an individual. Therefore, improving the quantity and quality of information about mental health resources may encourage more people to seek help. Cognitively, many may be unable to find the appropriate mental health service as it can seem like an overwhelming experience. Having helpful guides for people to navigate the many options may be more helpful to those who wish to take that first step. Thirdly, ensuring that mental health remains affordable especially for youths, especially as mental health prevalence has been largely on young people. However, they may hesitate to resolve their issues as mental health treatments are long term in nature and the cost of treatments can stack up quickly, especially for those who need weekly treatments. Can there be reviews on treatments and coverage? For instance, MediSave withdrawal limits for inpatient psychiatric treatment is subject to a withdrawal limit of $150 per day but physical treatment is subject to the to the withdrawal limit of $450 per day. If we truly want to take mental health in this country seriously, we should not draw distinctions between psychiatric and physical treatment. Lastly, consider adding social, emotional learning to our education curriculum and mental health campaigns.”
“An IPSO online survey done during the circuit breaker indicated that one in four respondents were not in good mental health. The vulnerability to stress exists across a population regardless of their work situation. To be clear, this is not unique to Singapore. A recent WHO survey has noted that COVID-19 is disrupting mental health services in most countries. As this pandemic continues, we must guard against the long tail effect on mental health, as experts are predicting. An editorial on the Lancet Infectious Diseases publication noted that "to minimise the impact of the pandemic, we must also address the substantial unmet mental health needs of whole societies with a focus on the most vulnerable". A High Court judge in a recent sentencing also drew attention to mental health access. She said, and I quote, "As a society, it is critical to continue with efforts to improve and enhance access to mental health services". I could no agree more with the sentiments expressed. But there has been innovation in this time of crisis. Singapore saw the establishment of a National Care Hotline in April, now manned by 900 odd volunteers, which also has served over 28,000 calls by this August. On World Mental Health Day, Prime Minister Lee has announced the establishment of an inter-agency taskforce to look at the psycho-social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the population. I welcome these developments but I believe we can go further to make a huge step in destigmatising mental health issues, and improving and expanding on current services. In fact, this period may be a good launching pad for Singapore to make a society-wide effort to destigmatise mental health issues. Mr Speaker, I would now like to make some suggestions.”
“Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the stress fractures of many societies in the world today that are traditionally not discussed as much. The area that I am keen to speak on today is mental health. I would first like to disclose my involvement as a founder of an organisation that works on social issues including mental health. Mental health is increasingly an issue that Singaporeans face. The Singapore Mental Health study in 2016 noted that millennials between ages 18 and 34 were more likely to report experiencing a mental health issue compared to other age groups. However, mental health issues continue to be stigmatised, as respondents in this survey cited. The study found that 11 years is a median time between when they first experience symptoms and when they sought help for obsessive compulsive disorder; four years for bipolar disorder and alcohol abuse; two years for generalised anxiety disorder and one year for major depressive disorder. Many residents have approached me to seek advice for how they can receive help to improve their mental health. They have also shared their experiences accessing mental health services. One resident shared on the long waiting times to access psychotherapy at IMH. The earliest appointment she could get was in February of next year. As Minister for Health Gan Kim Yong noted, stigma and the lack of mental health literacy may be contributory factors to the delay. Even as we are more aware, there are some misconceptions of mental health. This stigmatisation might only have hurt us as we deal with the mental damage that the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought. I remember reading the concerns of mental health practitioners during the initial circuit breaker measures which categorise them as non-essential.”
“A resident by the name of Mr Tan, a senior citizen who I met recently on a house visit in Compassvale, shared that he and his neighbours take turns to clean their common corridor on a weekly basis. We can also look at people who organise beach clean-ups at places like East Coast Park and Changi Beach, or those who organise ground-up initiatives to help those who are unable to spring-clean their homes. We even count the World Toilet Man himself, Jack Sim, as a fellow citizen who has been a crusader of upholding good personal hygiene. To encourage citizens to take ownership of their surrounds, we need to encourage civic-mindedness in youths by exposing them to more community-based programmes and weaving the themes of community building into our schools. We need to make students responsible for the cleanliness of their schools and we need to encourage people to recycle. The state should seek to improve recycling facilities in residential areas. We can build on the reputation of a clean and green city. As we aim to improve sanitation standards in Singapore by way of legislation, let us bring cleanliness and civic-mindedness back as our common values, and move from being a being merely a cleaned city to a clean city. 5.13 pm”
“Firstly, sub-section 2(b) in the new section 62A empowers NEA to designate certain non-publicly-accessible premises as specified premises under the Act, in particular clause B5 implies that NEA may do so for any premises or class of premises for which an environmental sanitation programme is assessed to be necessary to minimise, or alleviate the risk of, or to prevent or manage, an outbreak or spread of any infectious disease. To this end, I would like to seek a clarification on how these assessments will be carried out. What are the parameters and principles underlying such assessments? Mr Deputy Speaker, while we seek to improve public health standards via this Bill, I wish to stress the need to consider the broader landscape in which our system of public hygiene and sanitation operates. The question of who will take ownership for a good quality of public health comes to mind. During the pandemic, we saw how dependent we are on foreign labour as a country to keep Singapore clean. Is this model sustainable? What happens if there is another situation that arises, or we do not have access to them. We need to ensure that Singaporeans are empowered with a sense of ownership and civic-mindedness towards our country. I worry that with more guidelines, and thus potentially, the hiring of more cleaners, we start relinquishing our responsibility in caring for the environment and the people we share our surroundings with. We can make comparisons with countries such as Japan and Korea – countries that are known to have a strong sense of civic-mindedness and for being clean, but I think we can draw inspiration from fellow citizens too.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Singaporeans see the importance of personal hygiene now more than ever. We see our fellow citizens taking ownership of the health of themselves and their families. It was inspiring to see how quickly people reacted to the pandemic, abiding by regulations to wear masks, putting sanitisers in lifts and donating masks to those in need. This Bill to amend the Environmental Public Health Act arises from the necessity of expanding this to our public spaces. Singapore has run campaigns to encourage citizens to create a clean and green Singapore. From 1961 to 1989, the number of cleaners working in Singapore had declined from more than 7,000 to 2,100. However, this changed as our country got wealthier and had access to cheap labour. Today, Singapore currently has an army of 58,000 workers in the cleaning industry. Mr Liak Teng Lit, former Chairman of the NEA, reportedly once expressed that Singapore is not a clean City. It is a cleaned City. Mr Edward de Silva Chairman of the Public Hygiene Council in an article published by today noted that the reliance on cleaners is now entrenched in Singapore's mentality, and thus, it is worthwhile to consider that the overall cleanliness we have in Singapore may not be truly reflective of a collective civic-mindedness on the part of individuals to keep Singapore clean. Where businesses and the state are concerned, the Bill goes some way to keep these stakeholders accountable for their role in maintaining public health. At this juncture, I wish to raise a clarification about the specifics of the Bill.”
“These young people are more than willing to start the conversation and contribute their ideas. We see it in young people who organise rallies and beach clean-ups, who want to see Singapore do its part to tackle climate change. We see it in young people, who time and time again, have stood up to speak out against sexual harassment. We see in young people who have been using Instagram, Twitter and even TikTok to convey, convince and correspond on issues that matter to them. And young people whose activism also extend beyond the bounds of social media and in the offline world too. For starters, we should consider lowering the voting age to 18 to give more young people a say in Singapore's future, propel them to follow politics and legislation more closely and include their voices in the process. I believe that this is what young people envision for a country. We envision a country that is able to have open and frank conversations about the direction we would like to see our home move towards. We may be young in age and less experienced in life but it does not mean we do not understand the important issues that the country faces. Young people worry about their future just as much as any of our country's leaders do. We worry about our parents' retirement, job opportunities and living a life that is fulfilling. We too have anxieties about starting and providing for a family. Young women today, many of whom I have met, continue to be torn between the decision of growing the family or pursuing a fulfilling career. I hope that Parliament will listen closer to the hopes and the worries of young Singaporeans and have them inspired as in making the changes we need for a better future, a better Singapore.”
“Put simply, how can we maximise the opportunities available for young Singaporean students and workers. We need a bolder, long-term approach to creating jobs for young Singaporeans. Let us look for these opportunities everywhere we can. Let us give young creatives more opportunities by setting up an independent body for the arts to oversee licensing and funding, and by reforming our media landscape which has far too long has suffered from a lack of competition. Let us make a concerted effort to support the creation of green jobs in industries from manufacturing and retail to finance and hospitality, by recognising the reality that economic growth is contingent upon social and environmental needs. And let us not forget to educate Singaporean students to re-imagine the possibilities which lay ahead. Thirdly, Mr Speaker, putting aside the issue of the accessibility of opportunities, we must also ask whether there are Singaporeans for whom that availability of opportunities in the first place is not as real as you may imagine it to be. Job discrimination is a real problem that has real consequences for Singaporeans. Workers looking to make an honest living to support their families should not have to face employment discrimination in the job market because of their age, gender or race, and certainly should not be discriminated because they wear a hijab. We must legislate to this end not only because fostering an inclusive job market for Singaporean workers makes economic sense but also simply because this is the right thing to do. Many young Singaporeans of all backgrounds I have spoken to have echoed these views. Mr Speaker, if we want young Singaporeans to thrive in our next phase of development, we need to enable them to have a seat at the table.”
“Our task moving forward is similar. There are few questions relevant to our local context. We must confront every one to give young Singaporeans a better deal. Firstly, we must ask whether we have mistaken the availability of opportunities for the accessibility of opportunities. There is a deep sense prevailing in this country that even in 2020, one's socio-economic background is still too tightly linked to the accessibility of opportunities one enjoys. Reforms have been made and will be made to our education system where grading and testing are concerned. We will need to take steps to better support students from young. We need to train teachers to be adapt in not just providing academic guidance but also holistic support to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We need to be prepared to have open, honest conversations about whether recent reforms in grading, streaming and testing are working. And we need to be prepared to go beyond these reforms. And also reforming teaching and learning in a careful but ambitious manner to support learners with different skillsets. But we should not just stop there. We need to assess and track the accessibility of opportunities at every phase of education and in the workforce too. Make jobs in the Public Service and Civil Service more accessible to candidates from a wider academic backgrounds which would help improve the diversity of skills, perspectives and talents our administration can draw from. More broadly, introducing schemes like a national Minimum Wage and redundancy insurance improve workers' accessibility to opportunities. Secondly, we must ask whether the opportunities available to young Singaporeans are complementary to the ways in which they most productively to find their success and vice versa.”
“Should she have received the aid she was looking for, she could have been just starting her first year at university by now. We must, as a society, ensure that we have equal opportunities in this country. I believe that the meritocracy our past leaders have placed so much importance on, has achieved a great deal for generations of Singaporeans. But in the midst of this pursuit, we have inevitably left many behind, short-changed, and sadly, made to believe that they deserve their stations because they were simply not good enough. The Primary school student who feels discouraged from even trying to score in exams anymore while watching kids in other classes go for expensive tuition classes outside of school. The teenager who stops dreaming of what the future could look like. The pre-university student who can sense the condescension from relatives upon telling them he or she will not be going NUS or NTU. The eager young graduate from a private university who keeps applying to the Public Service for a job but never gets a call back. And even, the NUS graduate who suffers from imposter syndrome because he or she is simply not good enough to apply for jobs their peers seem to have in the bag. It is time that we shift our perception of what being a good Singaporean means. A good Singaporean to me is someone who is able to define successes in their own way. It is often argued that under our meritocractic system, Singaporeans enjoy equal access to opportunities, and that this access drives social mobility. This to me, is a simplistic argument. From Prof Syed Hussein Alatas in the 1970s to Assoc Prof Teo You Yenn today, academics in Singapore have long painted detailed pictures of inequality on this island within the framing context of local reality.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this House. At the outset, I wish to express my gratitude to the voters of Sengkang for sending our team to this House to represent their voices in what is an immensely challenging time for our country because of prevailing systematic problems, tough economic times and the pandemic we find ourselves in the midst of today. Singaporeans know that times are tough. But Singaporeans are also tough people whose resilience runs deep. When I think about resilience, I think about my Apa, my father, who was an exceptional student but had to drop out of school at 14 after the death of his father. He dropped out out of necessity to support his mother and siblings. His first job was a labourer at a factory and at night, he would wash the petrol station. Though this story of his rise to success is inspirational, it does not negate the fact that he suffered immensely for it. Not only was he subjected to labour-intensive work at such a young age, but he was also unable to continue his education. He often speaks about how he could have been a surgeon if not for his family's circumstances. This was in the 1960s. But my Apa's story is not unique. Two weeks into my role as a Member of Parliament-elect, I received a plea from my resident, a father, for help. He wrote to us and his first line was that he was the sole breadwinner in the house, living with his lovely wife and is a proud father of four daughters. He went on to share that his second daughter, a graduate from a local Polytechnic, wanted to pursue further studies at university. She found a place at one of the private universities last year but has been unable to secure a loan or financial aid.”