Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

Dennis Tan, Workers' Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP) for Hougang, had a number of objections to make about the Committee of Privileges report that was released on Feb. 10.

As part of the eight-member committee, Tan was the only one from the WP, and voted against the final version of the report, which included the breakdown of discussions by the committee members on the findings.

Mitigating factor?

On the question of the penalty meted out to Raeesah Khan for lying, Tan had several objections to the report's mention of a mitigating factor.

Here's what the report said about mitigation:

"Thus, if the three Senior WP leaders had advised her on Aug. 8, to continue with the Untruth; and if Mr Singh had advised her on Oct. 3, to repeat the Untruth in Parliament again on Oct. 4; that is very relevant, in deciding what Penalty ought to be imposed on Ms Khan.

It would be an important factor, because, whilst it does not absolve her from responsibility, Ms Khan can, naturally, be expected to defer to her senior Party leaders and listen to them. It will be a factor to be taken into consideration, as mitigation, in deciding on the penalty to be imposed on Ms Khan."

However, Tan said that mitigation should not apply here, as a future MP could claim mitigation for lying as long as they told their party leader, and can blame the leader for a lack of a response or a slow response.

Every MP should know not to lie in Parliament

He elaborated that it was not relevant for mitigation purposes whether or not Raeesah was instructed by her party leaders to lie.

"He felt that it was a “dangerous line” which would encourage young MPs to “run to a leader” to get advice in future in order to absolve them of their own responsibility because every MP should be responsible for his or her own action."

Tan added that every MP should know not to lie in Parliament, and did not need direction from their party leader on this. Therefore, he felt that there should be no consideration of the party leaders' role in telling Raeesah to lie, as mitigation.

Tan also made the point that even if her party leaders told her to lie, the onus was on Raeesah to defy that instruction and insist on telling the truth in Parliament.

The report noted. "Mr Dennis Tan said that he preferred an approach where if an MP was untruthful to Parliament, it was “one strike and you are out” as far as personal responsibility is concerned, with “absolutely no exception”."

WP leaders' evidence as compared to Raeesah Khan's

The committee also discussed the "tenor" of the evidence offered by the WP leaders and Raeesah.

Tan said he preferred their evidence over Raeesah's because he could not believe Singh could have come up with a plan to "bring the statement to the grave".

It was also inconceivable that the WP leaders could have planned for the lie to be kept quiet as they would know the police could verify the lie, including Sylvia Lim, who previously worked as a police officer.

Tan also felt that Raeesah was "incredibly naive" to think that she could have gotten away with a lie given that a police station would have CCTV footage.

Tan also raised Raeesah's other instances of being untruthful:

"Mr Tan also took into account that Ms Khan had lied on several occasions: to Mr Singh prior to Aug. 7, when she admitted these earlier untruths to him, to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan on the anecdote, lied twice in Parliament on Aug. 3, and on Oct. 4."

Evidence given by psychiatrist

Tan said that the evidence given by psychiatrist Christopher Cheok convinced him that Raeesah had no defence and could not cite mental health as a reason for lying in Parliament.

Tan also said that he found Raeesah's "tirade" before the committee, about how Singh and Lim had used mental illness to discredit her, inconsistent, as she had voluntarily gone to see a therapist and informed the WP leaders that she had started treatment.

Tan made another point: According to Lim's evidence, Raeesah had told the WP leaders that she was "dissociated" when she inserted the anecdote into her speech, and then went for therapy.

"Mr Tan opined that this was worrying, because what Ms Khan was basically saying, was that she was doing things without thinking about what she was doing...Mr Tan added that if Ms Khan’s mental state indeed has no bearing, why did she bring up the issue of trauma or therapy to the three Senior WP leaders."

Tan said that if the committee accepted Cheok's evidence, the only "logical conclusion" was that she had earlier lied about her mental condition to the party leaders.

WP's response to Raeesah's lie

Tan agreed with Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin that this was a serious matter, but felt that if Singh should be faulted at all, he should have insisted on a shorter time for Raeesah to come clean in Parliament.

Tan felt that Singh had not deliberately intended to prevent the lie from being disclosed, and he had not intended to take the matter to the grave.

He further added that this was an "imperfect" situation of people making mistakes, and while Singh could have been clearer in his communications, Tan felt that this does not mean he was lying.

WP could have done things differently

Grace Fu suggested that if Singh was serious about coming clean, he should have directly asked Raeesah if she was going to do it. Tan said, "it should have been clearer. Should be clearer".

Fu also asked why there was seemingly no conversation between the WP leaders after the Aug. 8 meeting on the matter. Similarly, Edwin Tong raised the point that there should have been some communication between them.

To this, Tan said, "I cannot explain that for them."

Tan ultimately was the sole vote against the final version of the report that was released.

Related stories:

Top image from Govsg YouTube.

Follow and listen to our podcast here