when i put my bed here i did not expect this, to some it a cons, but to me is a pros. below have a ikea mattress protector + bedsheet plus blanket   yes the sunlight help reduce humidity inside mattress (Lower risk of mould & mildew), Fewer dust mites

as usual... they create a lot of hu ha... den when final product launched... all go silent....

Better Investigate LEE nao!

In the parliamentary debate on 14 January 2026, prompted by Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges, MPs debated a motion on whether the Workers’ Party leader should remain as Leader of the Opposition. During the debate, WP MP Kenneth Tiong drew a stark comparison. He pointed to the case of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, whose prolonged extramarital affair with former PAP MP Cheng Li Hui was known at the highest levels of government but withheld from Parliament and the public for over three years. Tiong’s point was clear: if Singh is to be judged for his involvement in the Raeesah Khan affair, should Parliament not also scrutinise how the Tan Chuan-Jin affair was handled? Leader of the House Indranee Rajah responded that Tan had resigned and apologised, and that Singh was not being asked to resign—“at least not by us”. The procedural path that led to Singh’s conviction Indranee’s framing, however, overlooks a critical issue: Singh’s conviction did not stem from the original wrongdoing, but from the investigatory process triggered by a COP referral. Had similar steps been taken in Tan’s case, the consequences for senior leadership—potentially even Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong—could have mirrored Singh’s. Singh was not the originator of a falsehood in Parliament. That was Raeesah Khan, who on 3 August 2021 made a false claim about a sexual assault case. On 1 November 2021, Indranee referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges (COP). Singh appeared before the COP in December 2021 and was grilled for nine hours by Minister Edwin Tong. From those hours, two particular statements were later deemed to be false—forming the legal basis for Singh’s eventual perjury charges and conviction. The process was thorough and aggressive. Although Singh was not the originator of the lie, he became the focal point as party leader. During his trial, former WP member Yudhishthra Nathan testified that the COP—chaired by Tan Chuan-Jin—appeared especially focused on the conduct of party leadership. This raises a significant point: Singh was convicted because of the procedural lens applied—a process that extracted statements under pressure, interpreted them, and escalated them into legal action. Tan Chuan-Jin’s affair: a concealed crisis By contrast, the handling of Tan’s extramarital affair followed a markedly different trajectory. In August 2023, Lee who was then Prime Minister, delivered a ministerial statement explaining that he had first become aware of the affair in November 2020, shortly after the general election. Both Tan and Cheng were counselled and gave assurances that the affair would end. It did not. It was only after new information in mid-2023 indicated that the relationship had continued that Lee asked Tan to resign “immediately”. This sequence means that for over three years, the Speaker of Parliament—a position that demands utmost neutrality and integrity—remained in office while engaged in a hidden relationship with a fellow MP. Moreover, Lee’s knowledge of the affair and decision not to disclose it raises serious questions about transparency and accountability. Yet no COP was convened. No formal parliamentary inquiry was held. No witness testimonies were sought. And crucially, no opportunity existed for statements made by Lee to be scrutinised under the same standards to which Singh was subjected. If a COP had been convened… This is where the deeper issue lies. Had a COP been convened to investigate the handling of Tan’s affair, it is not inconceivable that Lee could have found himself in a situation similar to Singh’s. He had made decisions based on verbal assurances. He had chosen not to inform Parliament or the public. In a COP setting, he could have been questioned on timelines, intentions, knowledge, and follow-up. Under hours of questioning, contradictions could have emerged—just as they did for Singh. And had the COP concluded that Lee made misleading or incomplete statements, he too could have faced parliamentary censure or even legal consequences. Why such a COP was never called Under the Standing Orders of Parliament, a motion to refer any matter concerning a potential breach of privilege or the powers of Parliament to the Committee of Privileges may be moved by any Member, with or without notice. This means a COP could have been convened to scrutinise Lee’s withholding of information on Tan’s affair—particularly given its prolonged concealment and the public roles of those involved. However, the Workers’ Party was not in a position to successfully push such a motion. With the People’s Action Party holding a supermajority in Parliament, any such motion would have been unlikely to pass without support from the ruling party — support that was never realistically available under the party whip. Further complicating matters, the resignation of then-WP MP Leon Perera over a concealed extramarital affair occurred around the same time. This development muddied the political waters and weakened WP’s ability to raise the issue without appearing compromised—despite the significant differences in how each party handled its respective scandal. The role of process, not just wrongdoing This editorial does not argue that Lee is guilty of perjury—particularly since he was never subjected to a COP hearing. It argues something more fundamental: the outcome of Singh’s case is the product of process. Singh was only convicted because a COP was convened, and the inquiry aggressively focused on party leadership. The prosecution followed from that. In contrast, Tan’s affair was handled privately, without institutional investigation, shielding others from comparable exposure. In short, Singh’s downfall is not solely about personal guilt—it is about how Parliament chose to act. The true danger: selective activation of institutional mechanisms The PAP might point to the resignation of Perera as evidence that both parties take internal misconduct seriously. However, the circumstances of Perera’s case differ in crucial ways from the prolonged concealment of Tan’s affair, which was known to the Prime Minister for years. In late 2020 or early 2021, Perera’s driver informed WP leaders, including Pritam Singh, that he had witnessed meetings and intimate behaviour between Perera and fellow party member Nicole Seah. Singh confronted Perera, who denied the affair and claimed he was in a dispute with the driver. With no corroborating evidence at the time, the matter did not proceed. In July 2023, however, a video surfaced showing Perera and Seah in close contact, effectively confirming the affair. The video was released via a dummy account just hours before the public announcement of Tan’s resignation. In response, both Perera and Seah resigned from the WP, and Perera stepped down as an MP the following day. The distinction lies not just in the sequence, but in how accountability was handled. WP acted once evidence became undeniable. In contrast, the PAP leadership—including Lee—had known of Tan’s affair since November 2020. Despite assurances that the relationship had ended, it was allowed to continue, concealed from Parliament and the public for over three years, while Tan remained in the Speaker’s chair. It must also be noted that having an extramarital affair has never been a constitutional or statutory condition for resigning from Parliament. The practice of doing so was shaped by political precedent—not legal obligation. This expectation traces back to the case of former WP MP Yaw Shin Leong, who was expelled by his party in 2012 for failing to address rumours of an alleged affair, ultimately vacating the Hougang seat. The PAP, having exploited that episode to cast doubt on WP’s integrity, found itself pressured to maintain the same standard when its own MPs—Michael Palmer in 2012 and David Ong in 2016—were revealed to have been involved in affairs. Both resigned as MPs. In that sense, PAP’s current posture—treating Tan’s resignation as a moral resolution—glosses over the fact that it was precedent-bound, not principle-driven. And unlike in the past, this affair was concealed for years, not disclosed promptly. Furthermore, no institutional mechanisms such as a COP were triggered in Tan’s case. Parliament was never informed, and there was no opportunity to examine how the situation had been handled internally. By contrast, Singh was subjected to hours of testimony, cross-examination, and eventual prosecution—not for originating a lie, but for statements made during a process that was initiated and shaped by Parliament’s political will. Meanwhile, Lee’s decision to withhold knowledge of Tan Chuan-Jin’s affair—despite it spanning more than two years—was never subjected to the same institutional scrutiny. Like Singh, Lee later explained his delay as motivated by concern for personal circumstances. Singh said he chose not to immediately expose Khan’s lie in Parliament after she disclosed her past sexual trauma, wanting to give her space to come clean with her family before the matter was addressed publicly. Lee, in turn, said he had hoped to “save them and their families the pain and embarrassment.” Yet only one was brought before a Committee of Privileges. If Parliament applies its full weight of inquiry only to opposition figures, regardless of context or intent, then oversight becomes less an exercise in democratic principle and more a matter of political discretion. This is about more than Singh This moment is not just about whether Pritam Singh should remain as Leader of the Opposition. It is about whether Parliament is willing to confront how its own decisions—on whom it investigates, when, and to what end—determine political outcomes. Had the same mechanisms been applied to the Tan’s affair, Lee might very well be standing in Singh’s place.     https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2026/01/15/the-path-to-pritam-singhs-conviction-could-just-as-easily-have-led-to-lee-hsien-loong/