Links - 27th February 2022 (2 - Raeesah Khan)

WP leaders told Raeesah Khan to 'continue with the narrative' after she lied in Parliament: Committee of Privileges report - "  Besides Ms Khan, three other members of the WP gave evidence: Ms Loh Pei Ying, former secretarial assistant to Ms Khan and secretarial assistant to WP chief Pritam Singh from March 2013 to January 2016; Mr Lim Hang Ling, former legislative assistant to Ms Khan; and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, a volunteer...   Ms Loh said she was "not fully happy" with the WP statement on Nov 1 because it did not reveal Mr Singh's knowledge of the matter, said the summary.  "Ms Loh felt that the involvement of Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap had been intentionally omitted. The omission was quite stark," the summary added.  Ms Khan, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan told the committee they were "shocked" and "surprised" to learn that the party had formed a disciplinary panel on Nov 2 to look into her lies in Parliament... Ms Loh told the Committee of Privileges that she thought the composition of the WP disciplinary panel was "self-serving", and that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap were the "very people who had known that what Ms Khan had said was untrue, and they were the only members of the (disciplinary panel)", said the summary. She felt that the correct thing to do was to disclose in the WP statement that the panel had "intimate knowledge of the falsehood from an early stage"... "Ms Loh said that several parts of the statement made by Mr Pritam Singh, to the media, on Dec 2 were not true.""
With so much corroborating testimony, the hardcore anti PAP people will pivot to now only making false equivalences with Ivan Lim (who was just accused of not being a nice guy), Vivian about TraceTogether (we don't know that he was knowingly lying and anyway he corrected himself) and YOG overspending (???); they already were doing that, but now this will likely be their only strategy left since the rest can't be used anymore

Facebook - "Perhaps WP feared taking action earlier because it would be dismounting and scolding the woke tiger they chose to ride on. RK has major woke backing (to the extent I got twittermobbed for merely expressing misgivings about her as a candidate back in 2020) that won't hesitate to turn on anyone perceived to attack their darling."
Of course, right now the SJWs are deflecting and using irrelevant examples, making apples and oranges comparisons eg Ivan Lim, continue pretending she's a victim, lobbing accusations of racism and sexism, claiming she's a good person which is why she didn't last and claiming insulting someone sotto voce is the same as what RK did

Meme - "We shared these tweets during GE2020.... Raeesah Khan: "I also have social capital due to my families place in society, and am protected by the presence of my parents, both of whom hold a substantial amount of power."
What does 'boasting about protection due to influential families' tell you about the person?"
Better screencap on her talking about her powerful parents

Amos Rao - "Moments ago, an ex-WP cadre pointed to me the video recordings of Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s press conference held on Dec 2, 2021. At the 9.35 mark, Pritam commented that:
 ‘Yaw Shin Leong did not account himself to the party after the allegations were made. I think he did not address the media, did not address the party. The party was willing to give him some space to get himself organized, but this just went on and it went on, to a point where it was unreasonable conduct and this was not acceptable. And so, the party took the decision to fire him, to sack him.”
The above is not true. Even before the allegations have surfaced, I accounted the situation candidly to WP Secretary General LTK. When the allegations surfaced, I immediately accounted to both WP Secretary General LTK and Chairman Sylvia Lim. And I was advised to stay silent. I placed party first before self and to minimize the fallout, I kept silent and resigned from WP CEC. My intention was to give WP CEC a blank cheque to paint the narrative required. To facilitate the process, I travelled out of Singapore voluntarily. On 14th Feb 2012, I was expelled from WP for 'breaking the faith, trust & expectations of the party and people'. I am okay with this narrative, but I am not okay with what Pritam said, for I did account myself."
Of course, Yaw Shin Leong has an axe to grind - which is why he kept quiet at the time and hasn't said anything for over 9 years until now when his case is mentioned

WHEN THE WORKERS PARTY EATS THEIR YOUNG - "I was confused because I thought they would have waited for the COP to finish their findings before holding a press conference. Apparently, so were the COP, because they were actually still interviewing Raeesah at that very moment.  Turns out the WP wanted to get their story out before Raeesah, to the extent that they didn’t let her join in the press conference, didn’t let her speak or even release a statement through the party.  And, of course, now we know why. Raeesah was about to drop a massive revelation. The leaders knew about the lie much earlier and even coached her to continue “the narrative”. In her own words, Pritam Singh and the WP leadership have told her to take the lie to her grave? That’s what she said, and now the WP are eating their young.  It is really shocking to a neutral observer to see all of WP’s shadow supporters coming out to attack the credibility, not just of RK, but also of two long serving, cadre members, Loh Peh Yin and Yudhisthra Nathan.   The Facebook account Wake Up Singapore usually attacks the government. Instead, the shadowy people behind the account have been launching a vicious, non-stop barrage of attacks on Raeesah Khan and these young people, calling them all sorts of names, and character assasssinating them. This is the account that, barely a week ago, were lauding Raeesah for her accountability, and calling us all to move on.  At least some people are sticking to the old playbook. Sudhir Vandeketh is blaming the govt as usual. Even if it’s your fault, blame the govt. He says the COP didn’t give WP a chance to respond. But WP held a press conference, they did respond, by trying to get their side of the story out before the official report from the COP. And how pathetic is Yee Jenn Jong who tried to reintroduce AIM into the discourse to distract the public from his party’s biggest crisis since Low Thia Khiang left.  And anyway, it’s been 3 days since the bombshell revelations. An eternity if you have watched political crises long enough. Why haven’t Pritam, Sylvia, Manap, etc come out and respond? They’ve all been awfully quiet, hunkered down and not speaking to any media at all.  Instead, they’ve been pushing their so-called “independents” out to muddy the waters on their behalf. Remy Choo, who works in the same law firm as Sylvia Lim, put out a rather slipshod “analysis” that accused Raeesah of “shifting stories”, which in turn tries to discredit the testimony of the two WP activists Loh Peh Ying and Yudhisthra Nathan.  I thought these two young people comported themselves very well, and truthfully, in front of a committee of privileges that was also kind, supportive, and seems dedicated to getting to the truth of the matter, rather than playing politics.  But these young people have been thrown to the WP’s online dogs, and in a vicious, bloodthirsty manner too.   It is quite disgusting to see, and an example of political violence that one would previously have not expected from the Workers Party, especially towards these rank and file people who have devoted much of their youth to the tedious day-to-day work that keeps a political party going.  Ironically these are the good, decent people they should nurture for future leadership and governance."

Top leaders knew of Raeesah Khan’s lies but chose not to disclose to others in party: WP vice-chairman
He also refused to answer some questions despite being warned of sanctions
The diehard WP supporters who accused Raeesah of being a PAP mole once she started spilling the beans are going to call Faisal of being a decade-old mole too

No 10 faces Tory and public backlash over Christmas party video - "The health secretary, Sajid Javid, pulled out of Wednesday morning’s broadcast interviews after a video emerged showing No 10 aides laughing about a Christmas party during Covid restrictions. The government was facing a furious Tory and public backlash against its behaviour. No ministers were available to be interviewed on the BBC, Sky, ITV and other media, despite Javid having been due to appear for the first anniversary of the vaccination campaign. Other government figures – including the vaccines minister and justice secretary – also pulled out of planned broadcast interviews later in the day.  Conservative MPs expressed anger about the situation that No 10 had got into by holding a party, denying one had taken place, and then maintaining that denial despite the video obtained by ITV. Sir Roger Gale, a longstanding backbench Tory MP, told the BBC that Johnson must explain what happened properly at prime minister’s questions later on Wednesday and warned him that “to mislead the House of Commons deliberately would be a resignation matter”."
I find it interesting that the hardcore WP supporters are saying Khangate is not important and it's a distraction and we need to move on. Whenever the PAP screws up to a slightest degree they'll deny that we can or should move on. Meanwhile, in the UK people are very upset that last year 10 Downing Street had parties. And that's not even about lying in Parliament. Someone interviewed on the Today programme said if Boris Johnson went into Parliament and promised no covid rules were broken he'd believe him because it's very serious to lie in Parliament

Facebook - ""The power of the House to punish for contempt or breach of privilege has been aptly described as the “keystone of parliamentary privilege” and is considered necessary to enable the House to discharge its functions and safeguard its authority and privilege. Without such a power the House “would sink into utter contempt and inefficiency.” This power has been judicially upheld in a number of court cases." #ErskineMay #COP #india #loksabha"

Facebook - "PS said that when he told RK “it’s your call” he meant that she should take responsibility and confess.  But the established meaning of the phrase is that its is up to you not me to make a decision. In other words, PS did not instruct RK to tell the truth to parliament. That’s is how any one familiar with English language colloquialisms would understand the phrase: that the decision to tell the truth or not was up to RK not PS. Unless, of course, like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Caroll’s Alice in Wonderland, PS thinks words mean what he wants them to mean.  Indeed, there is a certain ‘Alice in Wonderland’ quality to the stories of top WP leaders."

Facebook - "Reading the COP's synopses already makes me depressed because:
a. Even Sylvia, whom I thought of as a hard-driving leader, left RK to Pritam to handle. RK is his protege or what? Pritam the only leader around????So they were all so concerned for RK's well-being that the "lie'' became a secondary issue so no one followed up on it? Makes me think everybody actually "forgot'' about it, given the silence right up to Oct 3, when Pritam alerted RK to the possibility that it might come up in Parl.
b. And what did Jamus mean by "material'' or "not material'' for the CEC or anyone else to know about the first Aug 8 revelation? So it depends on whether she lied about taking the lie to the grave or whether WP leaders told her to keep lying??? Because at the end of the day, she DID lie? And that's enough?... This sort of line of "material or not material''argument isnt good for WP. I cannot think of a situation when less information is better than more information in forming a judgment about a person/s.  Think about it - WP is supposed to be a check on the G. So if the G thinks it wasn't material to let the public know something that happened because in the end, it has no bearing on the outcome, what is WP going to say? In terms of transparency and disclosure, WP fell down."

Facebook - "Disassociation generally manifests as a "out of body" feeling that the mind involuntarily engages in to protect a person when subject to very traumatic stimuli. Gives a feeling of "happening to someone else". I have not come across disassociation manifesting in a way where the disassociated mind decides to 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙡𝙞𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨. The "lie" is usually 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, to convince himself that the bad things are happening to someone else.
Also, imposter syndrome is not a mental condition. It is merely a feeling that one is not capable enough or deserving of the role one is placed in. It is normal, and typically present in people with a normal level of confidence and self awareness.
My comment on the myriad "mental conditions" Pritam and Sylvia were suggesting to the COP and public on why Rhaeesah said what she did to her assistants in Aug. *Moon Knight: Random Bullshit Go!!!!*"

Facebook - "No it does not appear relevant whether RK's account was reliable or not... What is being checked now by the COP is why Pritam did not simply issue a 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙍𝙆 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙮, which does not require her to reveal her past... This question by the COP is relevant and not just a political attack, because if it can be established that Pritam was unclear or gave indecisive orders, these poor instructions and bad leadership can serve as a mitigating factor to reduce the punishment on RK, when COP decides on the sanction against her. Further to this, I also don't see why pointing out that RK is unreliable helps the WP at all. For it shows that Pritam didn't have command enough respect to control what is merely a newbie MP, the youngest ever, to simply 𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙚 𝙡𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙣. It meant he also didn't have the leadership ability to prioritise preserving the WP's reputation for integrity, over one person's mere feelings.  If he can't even command one newbie, or prioritise properly, how the heck is he going to be able to run a country as a potential PM? Unless you are telling me the woke are special: only out for their own interests and always turn on you eventually instead of working for you, to which I'll say, I damned well told you all back in 2020 that you were making a mistake to keep her as a candidate. By keeping her, you forced me and others to turn away from the WP, because we knew it was just too dangerous."

Facebook - "The method of cross-examination employed by committees of inquiry by legislatures all over the world, is a necessary aspect of fact-finding. Singapore isn’t the only one to have these. UK parliamentary inquiries follow the same method. Even in the US, we have watched congressional inquiries and hearings, where businesspeople are grilled by congress. (The difference in the US is that lawyers can sit with the witnesses, but cannot speak for them). The problem is that when lawyers lead the interviews and rely entirely on court-room techniques, the layperson is quickly lost or put off. Also, as these hearings are not in a courtroom, one does not have to play by the same rules nor adhere to the same decorum as in a courtroom, where a trained judge will quickly admonish you if you don’t. It is actually die rigueur for lawyers to ask witnesses to “assume”, “to consider if it is possible”, and be “put” certain hypothesis to consider.  This is part and parcel of putting evidence on the record, and to see if in totality it leads to a certain conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, outside of a courtroom, this does not work so well because a witness can refuse to play by any of these cross-examination rules... In fact, a confident and suave witness can make the interviewer look stupid by making such retorts. To the layperson, this is entirely reasonable, because they do not understand why such questions are necessary to put evidence on the record beyond reasonable doubt. This is the reaction I am now seeing on social media, especially amongst young people. But I ask people not to be confused by the marathon interviews. That’s just a process. There are only a few simple questions a layperson needs to ask and understand :
Was the police damaged by Raeesah Khan’s lie that was allowed to persist for months?
Was it reasonable for the WP leadership to allow her so much time to continue lying, even if her story of sexual assault is true?
Should the WP leadership not have clarified immediately when she lied again?
Was it reasonable for the WP to form a disciplinary panel consisting of members that knew of Ms. Khan’s lie early on?
And finally, would Raeesah Khan have had the guts to continue lying if she didn’t think she had the approval from her leaders, as she testified?"

WP: Move towards First World Parliament - "The processes in a First World Parliament can avoid, or minimise, such situations. A First World Parliament is neither a national feedback unit nor a rubber stamp. The hallmarks of good governance are transparency, accountability, inclusion and representation, rule of law and responsiveness. Singaporeans deserve good governance.  The Workers' Party needs your vote to make a First World Parliament the cornerstone of our Singapore way of life. A life which is holistic, not materialistic. A Singapore which is caring; where every Singaporean matters; and where every stranger is treated with consideration.  Vote Workers' Party, towards a First World Parliament."

COP issues summons to WP leaders for not producing documents - "The Committee of Privileges (COP) tasked with investigating a complaint about former Sengkang Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan’s lies in Parliament on Wednesday (15 December) issued summons to three top Workers’ Party (WP) leaders over their failure to produce internal documents as requested by the COP.  In its fifth special report released on Wednesday, the COP said it had previously asked WP’s chief Pritam Singh, chair Sylvia Lim and vice chair Faisal Manap to produce documents, including internal correspondence between senior leadership concerning issues raised by the COP.  The requests were raised on various occasions from last Friday to Tuesday.  “However, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap have failed and/or refused to provide them. As such, a summons was each issued to Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap on 15 December 2021”"
Clear proof that they have nothing to hide at all. Of course, some apologists claim that they need time to redact sensitive material. Odd that they're so incompetent that they are incapable of telling the committee that

Meme - "TAI CHI MASTERS
"Raeesah is responsible for her own actions" - Pritam Singh
"Pritam is the WP leader, he should handle it" - Sylvia Lim, Manap"

Facebook - "Article 30 of The Workers’ Party constitution reads: “The Party may nominate members as candidates for election to public office, and each nominee shall be required to take a solemn oath or affirmation to support the three-fold principle of the Party, and to comply with Party discipline in major decisions of policy, and to be honest and frank in all his dealings with the Party and the people of Singapore.” To be honest and frank in all your dealings with the Party and the people of Singapore https://www.wp.sg/our-constitution-and-manifesto/ #notjustwords #notirrelevant"

Facebook - "They are claiming COP is a witch hunt?
Seriously?
1) it was WP's pick, RK who decided to geh kiang put in the anecdote in Aug
2) it was WP's pick, RK who decided to double down on lying on 4 Oct
3) it was Pritam, Sylvia and Faizal (the 3)'s decision to sit on their butts and do nothing substantial before 4 Oct
4) it was the 3's decision to sit on their butts again after 4 Oct instead of clarifying immediately on 5 Oct
5) it was the 3's decision to not come clean about what they knew to the public until COP's first sitting had to force them into it (lol you actually believe the WP's 2 Dec press conference was a coincidence ah?)
Whole thing from start to finish was caused by them or their candidates. Then now claim being witch hunted. Probably took on RK's professional victimhood ideology. Seriously.
* and irony is the only 2 women being tossed into the river / thrown under bus here, Loh and RK are being tossed in by Pritam."

Facebook - "The 5 TLDR takeaways of 2nd special report
1) Faizal said Pritam, Sylvia and himself didn't tell Rhaeesah to lie after she admitted in Aug (duh, of course he will say this. To say otherwise is instant KO)
2) (1st screenshot) The 3 deliberately kept RK's admission in Aug secret from the WP CEC. When CEC decided on 30 Nov, they were under false impression RK lied all the way to her admission in Nov. They really wanted her to stay under the bus.
3) (2nd screenshot) Faizal refused to share what the 3 came together to sync up on before the COP.
4) (3rd screenshot) Jamus as RK's teammate might know something. He is being called up.
5) (4th screenshot) Dennis, the only WP member in COP voted to keep all points above from the public."

Meme - Umbrage Singapore Group post by Eugene Ng: "Anyone thinks Raeesah Khan could have been bought over by pap to destroy wp's credibility?"
Ahh the cope

Facebook - "I’m not sure Raeesah Khan’s (RK) loudest supporters understand the gravity of the issues here.
1. She breached the confidentiality of a sexual assault survivors support group and shared - without consent - another survivor’s story.
2. She lied - in parliament - about accompanying the survivor to the police station.
Point 1 is already unethical. And potentially caused considerable harm to the survivor whose story was appropriated... The whole point of a safe space is to prevent such triggers! A blatant disregard for consent and safety. Not to mention that support groups operate wholly on trust. There is no way to enforce confidentiality...
Point 2 feels so ludicrous in hindsight. When pressed for details in parliament, RK later seemed to make a call but said couldn’t reach the survivor cos it was a few years already. But now we know she was not present. Why insert yourself into another survivor’s story to start with then persist in that fiction? This leaves a particularly bad taste for me...
Now, there are broadly two groups of supporters of RK which overlap but are distinct: opposition/WP supporters and woke-styled liberals.  To the former, who have long felt - with good reason - that the political scene is heavily stacked against them, this feels like another attack and that Singaporeans are unsympathetic to political underdogs and are unduly harsh… I beg to differ. It’s a case of expecting political leaders to have a baseline of integrity and care. Singaporean support does not necessitate agreement always. That’s sycophancy... As to the latter group of supporters, the woke-styles liberals… some of the most woke would have harangued, maybe even cancelled, anyone else over point 1.  Somehow they conveniently overlook this in their purported aim to keep to the issues. Implying it is an attack on RK, a political distraction."
It's quite funny how fast most of her supporters turned on her. Though I did see one SJW say there was no problem because the incident did happen so Khan was right to talk about it

Facebook - "I see so many people weighing in on the RK issue; some temperate and some not. Some bringing other examples to talk about double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the PAP. I don’t think, however, that there has been a case of deliberate lying in Parliament that has been found out. This is not a place where you can spout all sorts of nonsense. People will take you at your word... If the person had been reading the news reports and could identify herself in them, I wonder how she feels about being made a subject of the news. If I were the person, you can bet that I would be telling RK off for bringing up the issue without my consent, and worse, lying about accompanying me to the police station as if we were BFFs. RK says that she felt embarrassed to say that this surfaced at a rape support group, so she changed her story. She did not want people to know that she is a ‘survivor’ of an assault abroad when she was a student. That’s wierd because I thought it was a ‘housemate’ abroad who was a victim, as she said in an FB post... What RK has done is to destroy this ‘benefit of the doubt’ we give to victims. That’s the great disservice she has done for the cause of women. Not to mention degrading the standing of MPs by blatant lying."

Critical Spectator - Posts | Facebook - "I think the most entertaining element in the Khan saga is just how much damage WP is enduring has been self-inflicted. In this latest chapter:
1️⃣ Pritam Singh suggested Raeesah Khan may have been afflicted with a mental condition (that she mentioned) and suggested that COP seek psychiatric evaluation.
2️⃣ COP and Raeesah agree, psychiatrist says she's fine and what she may have mentioned as a layman does not mean she suffers from an actual illness.
3️⃣ Raeesah then doubles down on her version of the story.
Which means the moment to retract, correct or soften some of it is gone and that someone is lying. 🔴 At this stage it's clear that Raeesah has gained an advantage over Workers' Party leaders, that will be difficult for them to erode, unless new evidence is introduced.
First and foremost - she possesses the only piece of written evidence in the affair: the WhatsApp message sent immediately after Aug. 8 meeting... what possible reason would Raeesah have telling her assistants something else, just as the meeting concluded? There was also no need for her to make up what she was told at that time and place - it was still very far from becoming a national affair and she was speaking with her aides, whom she knew would meet Pritam independently in the next few days. If, like Pritam et al suggest, no recommendation was made because they were so overwhelmed by Raeesah's admission that they told her it would be dealt with later - then why wasn't it? Nothing happened throughout August or September, before the next parliamentary sitting. Pritam's explanation that he expected Raeesah to come to him is rather weak considering she has the WhatsApp message in hand and he only has his own word.  And he's suggesting that as a party leader he was not concerned enough to take action about it? I mean, come on...
2️⃣ As far as testimonies in front of COP go, WP leaders haven't produced much substance. Faisal and Sylvia pointed their fingers at Pritam. It was also quite clear that Faisal must have been prepared by the other two on how to respond and what to say - hence the notes he brought with him and the wavering in his responses, as if he was unsure if what to say (ultimately refusing to confirm whether he even knew what SL and PS had in their notes during the meetings they had together in the preceding days). Pritam himself has entered a drawn out rhetorical duel with Edwin Tong, during which he consistently dodged questions and refused to give direct answers as to what he said, when he said or what he meant. And while his supporters may have seen this as some sort of a PR triumph and evidence that PAP is using COP to bully WP, it surely does not look very good if a party leader can't give a straight answer, now does it? Particularly as Raeesah has now reiterated her version of events...
Two of the three leaders point to the Secretary General as the person in charge, while he has failed to provide clear, direct answers and spent hours distancing himself from any responsibility, trying to convince everyone that he expected Raeesah to handle it all on her own. This isn't a particularly strong line of defense..."
Damn PAP "fixing"! Contemporaneous WhatsApp and video evidence is meaningless! Someone actually seriously claimed that Khan could've been looking at TikTok videos in Parliament instead of that suggesting that she was waiting for directions from Pritam on lying in Parliament

Facebook - "I see comments about why the WP leaders have been cross examined at length, yet Raeesah Khan seems to be ‘getting off easy”.  That these long interviews are overkill and that the COP is biased.  Let’s consider the following :
Raeesah Khan’s narrative is straightforward.  She admitted she lied. She says her leaders told her to continue the narrative and “take it to the grave”.  Whether you believe her is another matter.
On the other hand, the WP leadership’s narrative is confusing and makes no sense.  On the one hand they said they told Raeesah to take ownership  and responsibility.  On the other hand they said it was her call and they won’t judge her.  On the one hand they said they wanted to give her time out of compassion. On the other hand they said they wanted her to tell the truth as soon as possible. Which in October was the very next day , not the next month.  So obviously it is going to take a lot more time to get to the truth ! Every time I read their narrative, I get a headache. I get a bigger headache from the way their supporters are trying to spin it on social media.  The whole thing makes zero sense.  Even if the WP leadership weren’t lying, they are hugely incompetent at giving clear instructions.  I have many times said I hope Singapore can have a strong, competent Opposition. The Worker’s Party with a charismatic, moderate leader stood a very good chance.  I am now as disappointed as WP supporters.  But let’s not let our bias blind us to the fact that this is a huge cluster fark by the WP. Unnecessary own goal.  Say what you will about the PAP, they have been whiter than white for most of their time in power.  The last time one of their ministers was investigated for a major integrity issue, he committed suicide.  Enough said."

Facebook
Comment: "Note that nobody is now complaining that Dennis asked leading questions of the expert witness. I thought they said was wrong to ask leading questions in a COP cos it is trying to force people to answer in a way that fits your narrative""
All those who claimed Edwin Tong was scum to keep asking leading questions are silent about Dennis Tan. Anyway those who blame Edwin Tong for Pritam being hostile ignore the fact that there're professional ways to rebuff leading questions

Facebook - "One fascinating observation: Netizens are now claiming that since Raeesah didn't have dissociation as claimed, then she was lying and even more guilty, therefore absolving the WP. Instead of the correct point that if she didn't have dissociation, and dissociation doesn't cause people to lie, then her whatsapp message sent back in Aug (stating that Pritam, Sylvia and Faizal told her to "take it to the grave") is more likely to be true."
She also testified she didn't say she had dissociation

Facebook - "Who caused this fiasco? The Workers’ Party. Could they have stopped this from the onset, as early as August? Yes, but they did not. Should they be more cooperative with the Committee of Privileges? The onus was on them to do so, but instead, they have tried to twist and turn and wasted hours. The Senior Leaders of WP – Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap – refused to submit the documentary evidence until being compelled by the committee to do so. Should the Workers’ Party apologise? Evidently, yes, but they did not throughout this entire episode. This is the Workers’ Party way of distracting the public from their failings, playing the victim, and engaging in showmanship.  Case in point – Edwin Tong had to painstakingly repeat the question, using different methods and techniques, to get Pritam’s agreement on how an ordinary person would take “your call” and how Raeesah could have misconstrued what he expected her to do. Which could have easily been avoided if he had just told her, “Tell the truth”.  And yet, all those hours of painful — though necessary — questioning has been shoved aside in favour of meaningless distraction. Mic-drop, quick comebacks from Pritam that played to the gallery, which WP stans and simps have amplified on social media. In which you don’t hear one plausible comeback as to why the WP leadership had not reined the situation in as soon as she had told them that she had lied (and worse, why they felt it was not on them to do so). A cloud of smoke and mirror — performative in nature, without belying any substance/argument.  There would not have been a Taiwanese drama if Raeesah Khan had not casually inserted a lie in a speech to Parliament, whose purpose is still not clear to date.  There would be no plot to speak of if Pritam Singh had just made it crystal to her that she had to correct her lie regardless of whether she would be questioned about it (instead of doubling down on the lie).  It would not be 30 hours long if, from the get-go, the Workers’ Party conducted itself with enough integrity.  Edwin Tong and his colleagues would not have to spend hours trying to get their story straight.  This is one Taiwanese drama perpetuated by the Workers’ Party.  Why?  To distract and confuse the public and gain political mileage from this very mess they have created.
This is the new Workers’ Party.
-- None with a working conscience.
-- None with a sense of responsibility.
-- None a leader."

Facebook
Comment: "Note that nobody is now complaining that Dennis asked leading questions of the expert witness. I thought they said was wrong to ask leading questions in a COP cos it is trying to force people to answer in a way that fits your narrative 😂"
All those who claimed Edwin Tong was scum to keep asking leading questions are silent about Dennis Tan. Anyway those who blame Edwin Tong for Pritam being hostile ignore the fact that there're professional ways to rebuff leading questions, as exemplified by Dr Christopher Cheok

Facebook - "When did you know it was a lie?
Aug
Did you tell her to disclose in Aug?
I did not
Did you know it was a lie in Sep?
Yes
Did you tell her to disclose in Sep?
No
Did you know it was a lie in Oct?
Yes
Did you tell her to disclose?
No
So in summary, you knew she told a lie 3 times?
Yes
You did not ask her to correct the lie 3 times?
Yes
How many times in your judgment would she have to lie before you would tell her to correct the lie?
…
Thank you Leader of the Opposition."

Facebook - "LEADERSHIP AND THE WP
The Workers’ Party has a very strange attitude towards leadership. At the COP, their leaders seemed to take the position that their Members of Parliament needed to take responsibility for themselves, and it should not be up to the leaders to tell them what to do, even if they committed a grave wrong. In the COP findings, MP Dennis Tan seemed to also take the same stance.
The COP lowered Raeesah Khan’s fine for the subsequent lies because they believed that her leader’s (mis) guidance was a mitigating factor. Mr. Tan objected. The first grounds of objection was fair enough, that he disputed there was such mis (guidance). But he then went on to say that whether there was such guidance was irrelevant. That EVEN IF there was such (mis) guidance, Raeesah Khan should have ignored it and told the truth anyway.
I don’t know which school of leadership these people went to. Leaders have a responsibility to tell their subordinates to do the right thing. In clear terms. Especially if they KNOW a wrong was committed. One cannot leave it to their subordinates and say ‘it’s your call’. If this is the sort of leadership we have to look forward to form an alternative government, may the heavens help us all."

Move aside PAP, here comes the Workers' Party Internet Brigade - "According to Fathership's investigation, the WP IB is a youth-led committee that mounts counter-insurgency narratives against online critics.  The committee itself seeks counsel from a local creative agency and public relations professionals that are tasked on a retainer basis to plan and coordinate the messaging.  The online narratives itself are guided by a preset "brand" tone of voice and suggested template responses to opposing comments in social media."

Links - 25th February 2022 (1 - Raeesah Khan)

Facebook - "Netizen questions Sengkang MP Raeesah Khan's knowledge on Muslim Affairs: "She disrespected religious scholars despite their advise. She addressed religious matters without religious credentials""
Raeesah Khan getting pushback from Muslims, I assume because she wants to ban Muslim polygyny and female genital cutting. Serves her right. When you play identity politics and it backfires on you, you can't complain. Especially when you do it in the same speech (literally in the next section on the hijab)

Calvin Cheng - Posts - "When Raeesah Khan spoke of her perceived police aggression towards minorities, of the alleged judicial bias towards some religions, it is straight out of the American/Western political playbook.Only this group of Americanised/Westernised Singaporeans call Singaporeans ‘Brown’.When Americans talk about blackface, they start talking about brownface here.When Americans started talking about White privilege, they started parroting it by talking about ‘Chinese privilege’.The WP said this is in Raeesah’s past - but just in May, she was accusing police of being more lenient towards ‘rich Chinese people’.After nomination day, she said she was happy more ‘brown women’ were running.The lack of original thought aside, Singapore does not need to import American culture wars.We categorically reject Western ‘woke’ and ‘cancel’ culture.More importantly, the average Singaporean heartlander not only does not identify with these foreign concepts, they find it distasteful"

Xiaxue - Posts - "It appears that she is saying her political views can be summed up by
- Angela Davis’ political views
- Intersectional feminism
Many of you may not know about Angela Davis, but she is a far-left activist, who spent her life sympathising with some of the most oppressive communism regimes around. She literally calls herself a communist, and was a member of the Communism Party in USA. I think there is no need to explain how horrible communism is.  And of course in order to make any non-communist country a communist state, it would involve total revolution, many lives, and replacing it with a totalitarian regime in charge of redistributing wealth back to its citizens.She is also a prison abolitionist, campaigning for prisons to completely be eradicated. Where to put the murderers, I can’t seem to find a good answer, because it seems she also is against the death penalty.Angela Davis was a member of the Black Panthers, a brutal communist, anti-semite organization. In 1970, Angela Davis bought the weapons that were used for a shootout during a trial of 3 black inmates accused of killing a white prison guard. All the black men and judge who was held hostage perished in the gunfight, and Davis fled the state. She was eventually caught.Even though she conspired to commit murder, the jury found her not guilty...  This tweet of Raeesah Khan’s talking about Angela Davis was posted only a few weeks ago, but surprisingly enough, nobody is talking about it.Anyone who knows who Angela Davis is should be horror-filled that a candidate running for parliament is a fan of hers, and claims that the reading of her books represents her political views.Previously I mentioned Raeesah appears to be one of those radical leftists who seem hell bent on bringing the toxic, cancerous identity politics that America is so notorious for into Singapore.There are racial issues that minorities face in Singapore, of course there is. It is tough to be a minority in any country.But instead of discussing calmly and logically what new politics can be introduced to solve these problems or what laws need to change, proponents of Identity politics instead try to make a single race the enemy.  When there are enemies, people unite. Political parties using this method will see themselves get votes if they manage to market themselves as the empathetic ones, even if the politics they impose do more evil than good in the long run.Society is then split into a them vs us, while tribalistic infighting ensue. If you disagree with this method of classifying victims by their skin colour (when in fact so many things determine a person’s privilege, such as looks, height, family wealth, health, both parents around etc etc), you are automatically seen as racist and the bad guy.Because nobody wants to seem morally corrupt or unsympathetic, they prop up this system.Instill this sentiment into citizens long enough and resentment builds. The ones constantly told they are being oppressed will start seeing oppression everywhere. They won’t even try to succeed in life, because they are told they are so oppressed they can never make it. They believe their oppressors owe them.Meanwhile, the majority race starts feeling angry at constantly being called oppressors. Or maybe they are poor and unhappy themselves, but see that resources for help are only made available for minorities but not them. If they were indeed racist before, this makes them even more racist.What eventually happens is civil war...
 Does she still believe our courts are corrupt as she so insinuated? Does she still believe law enforcement unfairly target minorities? If not, what made her change her mind? Her statement does not address any of this.Worker’s Party claim they did not see those posts of Raeesah’s. Fair enough. But I do not believe they have done such terrible vetting that they have not seen her tweet about Angela Davis which was so recent."

Is WP's Raeesah Khan the most disliked politician on social media in Singapore? - "Raeesah was not just the most discussed politician, but also drew the most negative sentiment (even more than this election season’s chief provocateur Lim Tean)."

Facebook - "Let's now talk about the fact that right before the 2020 General Elections, Worker's Party and Opposition candidate Raeesah Khan has been subject to police investigation for stating that discrimination in law enforcement and the justice system exists in Singapore, that rich Chinese and white people are treated better, and that mosques and minorities are treated worse than corrupt church leaders.To anyone who has even the slightest understanding of race in Singapore, Raeesah Khan's statements are but an obvious statement of fact. To anyone outside of this depressingly small number, it is the wildest thing they've ever heard. And this, this is the very embodiment of chinese fragility and privilege itself. To not only be so insulated from anything to do with race that you are so shocked at these statements, but also to be immune yourself to being accountable for your racist statements and actions, particularly if you are a corporation or occupy a position of political power in this country, is the very epitome of what chinese privilege and fragility look like... This is precisely why we need people like Raeesah in the politial circuit, if an outright reformatting of our entire society is not available to us. But the state will never give us Raeesah, because she is not palatable enough to them. All, ALL of us, especially Chinese Singaporeans who have so much more immunity to speak, have to be responsible for creating the tide that cannot be stopped. We NEED honest conversations about race that become a real and sustained force for more than just electing a candidate. The legacy of "race riots" in Singapore must become remembered as one where solidarity triumphed over power, because power is still using the police to fuck over brown people when chinese people's egos are hurt. #IStandWithRaeesah"
Comment (elsewhere): "Her comments on race and religion are seditious. Also she is claiming the City Harvest people got away with their crimes, which is untrue, and also implied they gained that freedom by corruption. People outside of the intersectionality echo chamber are going to take a dim view of such allegations."

Squeaky Hammer - Posts | Facebook - "NS is a prime example of toxic masculintiy at its peak, often the precursor to violence, torture, murder, and ultimately showing us that it affects society as a whole."
Whatever your view of Singapore's national religion of NS, this shows that Raeesah's posts are not one offs, and she well and truly spouts liberal boilerplate

COMMENT: WP, Raeesah Khan need to be more upfront over ‘insensitive' remarks saga - "Raeesah Khan, 26, of the Workers’ Party (WP). She has been accused of – and has apologised for – remarks on her social media account which can be read as attempts to sow racial enmity and to cast aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary.  Last night, she described her remarks as “insensitive’’ and was sorry if they had hurt the feelings of any group. She said she had only intended to raise awareness of minority concerns. 6 July 2020·6-min read In this article:  Two police reports were lodged against Raeesah Khan, 26, the Workers’ Party (WP) Sengkang GRC candidate for the 2020 General Election, in relation to comments she allegedly made on social media. (SCREENCAP: Workers' Party/Facebook) Two police reports were lodged against Raeesah Khan, 26, the Workers’ Party (WP) Sengkang GRC candidate for the 2020 General Election, in relation to comments she allegedly made on social media. (SCREENCAP: Workers' Party/Facebook)  by Bertha Henson  Politicians know that social media is a minefield, whether you use it yourself or not.  People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Ivan Lim said nothing on social media, but many others did, especially his former army comrades, leading to his eventual withdrawal from the hustings.  PAP’s Murali Pillai decided to weigh in on social media first, on Nomination Day, to say that his family’s problems had nothing to do with his fitness for the job. He spoke of attempts on social media to smear him by referring to his son’s travails – this is even though no one has found sight or sound of the offences his son was said to have committed and what he has been a victim of. I call this a very successful pre-emptive strike.  Then, you have Raeesah Khan, 26, of the Workers’ Party (WP). She has been accused of – and has apologised for – remarks on her social media account which can be read as attempts to sow racial enmity and to cast aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary.  Last night, she described her remarks as “insensitive’’ and was sorry if they had hurt the feelings of any group. She said she had only intended to raise awareness of minority concerns.  I don’t think that is good enough. Not for someone who is vying to get into Parliament. I really could care less whether the PAP does or does not investigate allegations made about Lim’s character or demeanour, as PAP chief Lee Hsien Loong said, they would be done after the elections. PM Lee talked about this in the context of clearing Lim’s name and presumably, to show that the PAP’s selection process is irreproachable. After all, Lim is no longer in the running, unless the PAP is thinking of fielding him in the next general election.  But I think the WP should scrutinise Raeesah’s views on racial discrimination more rigorously... Raeesah said that Singapore “jails minorities mercilessly, harasses mosque leaders but lets corrupt church leaders who stole $50 million walk free’’. She asked, “Who did they pay?’’  This was in the aftermath of the sentencing of the City Harvest Church leaders, which had led to a lot of hand-wringing among Singaporeans. Not many understood that the Attorney-General’s Chambers wrung its hands too, as its attempts to seek a higher sentence was stymied by a gap in the law on whether the church leaders are “professional agents’’ entrusted with money. Parliament addressed this lacuna last year as part of amendments to the Penal Code.  I can understand the emotional outbursts that the sentencing evoked, outbursts that might step on contempt of court legislation forbidding charges of partiality on the part of judges. But Raeesah went beyond that, to suggest that minorities and mosque leaders have been given a different sort of treatment under the law. The word was “mercilessly’’... I would be less harsh if not for the fact that she allegedly repeated this view on minority discrimination in a post in May, just over two months ago. She asked if the law treated “rich Chinese and white people’’ differently. This was after news broke of a group of Caucasian expatriates who were breaking circuit breaker rules at Robertson Quay.  By then, I would have thought that Raeesah would have realised that she would be a public personality soon, and would be more mature and temperate in her remarks. After all, she was revealed as a candidate for WP on 26 June.  Instead, she was saying that the law treats minorities more harshly than the majority Chinese, and that Caucasian expatriates and Chinese nationals get better treatment than migrant workers. It is an allegation infused with “colour’’.  Now, the trouble with social media is that people seldom make an attempt to update past posts. On 24 June, those expatriates had their work passes revoked.  Some people have pointed out that the alleged whistle-blower who filed police reports against her is himself noted for his anti-Chinese views and question his motivations. That may be the case, but the facts remained that she did publish posts that are now under investigation... Pritam said he had not known about the posts beforehand, which makes me wonder about the WP’s screening process. Raeesah’s posts were recent; she didn’t post them while she was a teenager... Does Raeesah believe that the law treats minorities differently and why? If so, what will she do to correct this if she is elected into Parliament?  This is not a case in which people can say, “Let’s move on’’. It is about a potential MP’s views on something fundamental to Singapore’s body politic: Equality before the eyes of the law."
It was not her first rodeo

Meme - "NS is a prime example of toxic masculinity at its peak, often the precursor to violence, torture, murder, and ultimately showing us that it affects society as a whole."
Facebook - "On WP vetting of candidates: (This news report appeared back in 2018, before Raeesah was even a candidate. Not my screenshot, but now circulating in comment threads.) Like seriously, so other than being complicit in staying silent, and choosing to back someone who has a proven anti-police  history of offences, now add really lousy vetting to the list. WP leadership is having a really bad day, but the trashing is well-deserved. They essentially put up an anti-NS activist as a lawmaker! This is a far cry from the party I cheered on to an Aljunied victory years ago."
Being anti-NS is one thing (if you don't subscribe to the national religion that isn't a sin). Being anti-NS for shit reasons is another

Facebook - "Amos Yee was prosecuted for making vicious statements about Christians and Muslim. Claiming trial, he served four weeks... Now, we have Ms Raeesah Khan, 26, WP candidate for Sengkang GRC. She too apologised.  “My remarks were insensitive, and I regret making them. I feel really passionate about minority issues regardless of race, and in my passion I made improper remarks, and I have to be accountable for them. I will fully cooperate in any police investigation.” What did she do or write?  Well, in Feb 2018, she wrote this in her FB: “Singapore jails minorities mercilessly, harasses mosque leaders but lets corrupt church leaders who stole $50 million walk free. Who did they pay?” That is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, religion and the administration of justice. Well, that was two years ago. She was 24. She was not a WP candidate. She was young, unthinking, immature, right? But there is another incident, more up to date. In another post on May 17 this year, she commented about 7 foreigners who were “caught on camera ignoring safe distancing rules during circuit breaker period.” This was her post: “Do you see police officers here? Imagine if this was a neighbourhood hawker centre. There would be policemen swarming the area and enforcing the law within minutes.” She added: “Why is the law different for these people? Is it because they’re rich Chinese or white people? Do you think expats will be treated with the same disdain as migrant workers who broke the law?” Similarly, that is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, discrimination by socioeconomic status and the administration of justice... To me, Pritam’s stand/defence was rather curious. At first, he said he had not known about the FB posts beforehand. Not even her May FB post. He then said this in her defence: - “And for me, I would be actually a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are. And in the event there are certain posts or certain comments that they may have made which are untoward, then I would expect them to explain themselves.” Mm...”sanitise their past”? Be upfront and authentic to the public? I think this is a case that goes beyond sanitisation. She was caught in the open when two police reports lodged yesterday, and she was called to explain herself, and she did.  However, it should be noted that her posts were apparently put out there to rile readers up. And mind you, her most recent post was only less than 2 months ago. What was she thinking? Is this who she was or, god forbid, is or has always been?  The issue here is that Raeesah was not being “not authentic”. She was in fact quite upfront or authentic about how she felt about certain status quo in our country, including race, religion and justice administration, at the time of the posts.  So, the question is, did she really feel that way when she wrote those posts at that time, or was it just to garner some attention, “Likes” and followers?  Mind you, the former is about authenticity (which is problematic) and the other is about being disingenuous about it, unthinking, immature (which is understandable to some extent).  In other words, it is not her pretenses, if any, that concern me. It is her authenticity or forthrightness (without filter) that gives me cause for pause.  And another related question is whether she is a rebel with a cause or one without a cause. I can sympathise with the MLK kind, but not the Amos Yee kind (and I put on record that I am not comparing her to Yee, just stretching examples for illustration)."
Of course SJWs still claim she was and is persecuted

Sexuality education for pre-schoolers among proposals by WP's Raeesah Khan to address abuse, harassment
Nowadays, sex education is really sex instruction, so

Raeesah Khan on Twitter - "In relation to the Expansion of Search and Seizure powers I had some concerns and suggestions for MHA. One concern is that it could lead to the profiling of minorities. I suggested that the statistics on those searched be made public so that law enforcement remain accountable."
Clearly everyone needs to have the same probabilty of being searched regardless of behavior, or that's racist

Police investigating 'false & baseless' posts about racial bias in Orchard Towers murder sentencing: AGC - "The AGC said that it was aware of social media posts alleging preferential treatment of the accused persons involved in the Orchard Towers murder on July 2, 2019.  The deceased was 31-year-old Satheesh Noel s/o Gobidass... Many alleged or insinuated that it was due to preferential treatment due to his race, with some calling it "Chinese privilege"."
Comment: "What happens downstream when reckless allegations of racial bias by persons who have since become elected MPs are let off with mere stern warnings."

WP MP's allegations of police mishandling sexual assault case are serious, says Desmond Tan - "Workers' Party MP Raeesah Khan's allegations that the police mishandled a sexual assault case are serious and need to be investigated, said Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan.  He was responding in Parliament on Tuesday (Aug 3) to Ms Raeesah (Sengkang GRC), who said she had accompanied a rape survivor to make a police report three years ago.  But the 25-year-old woman came out of the police station crying... Mr Tan said Ms Raeesah needed to provide more details so that the authorities can investigate the matter.  He said: "We take any form of questions raised about how the police have handled or mishandled this case very seriously, and it should be investigated."  Ms Raeesah said she did not want to bring the issue up again. "Like I mentioned, it was three years ago and I do not wish to retraumatise the person that I accompanied. But I have to say that these anecdotes are not isolated," she added... Ms Raeesah added that she has been unsuccessful in contacting the woman since the incident three years ago...   "I believe that given the topic at hand, consent is imperative, not least to avoid revictimisation"...   Leader of the House Indranee Rajah then rose to remind all MPs to exercise their parliamentary privilege responsibly.  She said: "I just wanted to remind members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, members must be prepared to substantiate them."  She added that this is especially important when an assertion is made against an agency that is not in a position to defend itself."
Evidence is not as important as badfeelz and empty allegations of sexism aimed at causing trouble that must be unconditionally believed
If she couldn't contact her, how did she get her consent to mention her case in Parliament? So much for consent. If not for double standards, feminists wouldn't have any

Parliament: Raeesah Khan confesses on alleged rape account - "Sengkang Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan admitted in Parliament that she did not accompany an alleged rape victim to the police station as previously stated in the House and made a tearful apology on Monday (1 November).  Raeesah also told fellow MPs that the anecdote of the survivor's experience was shared by the latter in a support group for women, which the Workers' Party (WP) MP was a part of. She revealed that she herself was a victim of sexual assault when she was 18 studying abroad... Raeesah said that she had disregarded the principle of consent in discussions on survivors consent and sexual assault.  “I should not have shared the survivor's anecdote without her consent, nor should I have said that I accompanied her to the police station when I had not. It was wrong of me to do so. To survivors of sexual violence, I hope that this does not deter you from reporting your assaults." During an August parliamentary debate on empowering women, Raeesah had said that she accompanied a 25-year-old woman to make a police report three years ago. However, the woman came out of the police station crying and alleged that officers had made comments about her dressing, and the fact that she was drinking, according to Raeesah.... Shanmugam said that police would interview Raeesah.  The police later said Raeesah had yet to turn up for an interview despite two requests by the agency to provide case details."
Naturally many woke people seize on her questionable claims of being a victim (long ago and abroad - so the allegation can't be investigated like her lies about the Singapore Police Force) to slam those criticising her as evil

House Leader Indranee Rajah explains why 'no choice' but to raise complaint against WP's Raeesah Khan - "Indranee: "I understand. I want to understand from the Member why it was necessary, actually, to say those untruths, because the Member could easily have related the anecdote by saying that she heard from someone who had this experience.  That's all that would have been necessary to do. The Member would not have had to refer to the support group or even disclose its existence. And there would certainly have been no need to reveal that she was part of the support group.  So I would like to ask the Member this, does the Member agree that it would have been possible to tell the story without reference to the support group, or telling the untruth?... I can understand the mistake, the spur of the moment, but the only thing is that on the third of August, I had specifically stood up in this House to remind Members of the need to substantiate allegations made. And I had said this:
'I just wanted to remind members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, Members must be prepared to substantiate them. This is just a reminder to Members so that in future they will understand.'
So I said that on the third of August. Two months later, when the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs about this incident — just two months' time to reflect — why did the Member then repeat the untruth?"...  
I think the Member ended by saying that she promised the residents of Sengkang that she would work even harder for them. About a year ago, the Member made this promise, also to the residents of Sengkang — I think this was what was reported in a [Straits Times] report dated the 17th of September, 2020... the Member has, in the motion on women's empowerment, had the platform to speak here about women's issues. The Member had the power to use her position as an MP to advocate.  Can I ask the member that having regard to the fact that the Member has not been truthful to Parliament and not able to substantiate the allegations because the Member had no details, would the Member regard that promise last year to the residents of Sengkang to have been kept?"... Khan is also a Member of Parliament and thus subject to duties and responsibilities, including that she should neither breach Parliamentary privilege nor abuse it...
    "Based on, firstly, the disclosure by the Member that she has not been truthful — well, has lied to Parliament — not once, not twice, but three times, and also because she has been unable to substantiate an allegation that has been made.      These are matters which prima facie affect the privilege of Parliament, and I therefore reluctantly have to ask the matter, Mr Speaker, to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.""
One SJW claimed that the anecdote was true (apparently a proven and self-admitted liar's words are reliable) so there was nothing wrong with her lying. Of course he didn't mention her previous lies

What data analysis shows about Raeesah Khan’s “apology” for lying about rape story - "Analysis of the text and audio of her apology reveals:
Raeesah spent over a third of her speech (35%) talking about herself.
Admitting wrongdoing accounted for only about half (18%) of the time she spent talking about herself.
Apologizing to the police she accused of misconduct, and the rape victim whose story she used without prior consent, was only about 7.5% of her overall speech.
A 27-year old multi-millionaire’s daughter, and social justice warrior turned politician was recently called out for lying about a rape story"
"Women don't lie about rape". A "myth" is anything a liberal doesn't like

Facebook - "Raeesah Khan consciously lied and maligned honest policemen for the purpose of scoring political points in Parliament. For that, a sincere and succinct apology would have sufficed so everyone could move on. Instead, she apologised, then included an extended afterword of her own experience with sexual assault in an attempt to distract the public from the central issue (her apology) so as to rescue what little moral ground she had left with voters. Obviously, sexual assault is no joke and we should sympathise fully with victims. But if you had to pull that card as a red herring during your apology, then it's just about as sincere as that kid on Instagram who had to "apologise" for slandering a public figure after being thoroughly exposed by Xiaxue. Try again, liar."

Facebook - "This week’s Raeesah Khan debacle has affected me badly. It has shaken my trust in the party, to which I gave almost ten good years to help build up, and to which I still belong as a cadre member. I can’t believe that a WP MP blatantly lied multiple times in Parliament.  It is not simply an account with untruths. It is far more serious and damaging, not just for the credibility of the party, but to the evolution of our political system for the good of Singapore and to the very issue of the motion she spoke in support of: the empowerment of women... The leadership must take some responsibility for allowing this transgression to happen and persist over several months. The statement was not made on impulse. In my experience, speeches were shared and reviewed among MPs and we might disagree and debate, but we would make corrections or drop things entirely according to the collective consensus. If a mistake was made, we would immediately move to rectify it. I hope the disciplinary panel made up of the top three leaders will recognise their responsibility IN this matter and accountability to the public ON this matter."
I saw some rabid anti-PAP people slamming Daniel for this, claiming he was a PAP plant

Facebook - "One possibility that has struck me is that Ms Raeesah Khan will be thrown under the bus by the Workers’ Party, and will be asked to resign after their internal disciplinary review.  The WP and their supporters may hope that Ms Khan’s resignation draws a line under the matter, and allow the WP to move on with moral authority. Many would draw parallels between this incident and previous ones where PAP and WP MP’s were asked to resign. If that is the thinking, then  it would be wrong. The reasons are as follows:
- Ms Khan admitted lying THREE TIMES in parliament
- If she lied once, the WP leadership could claim ignorance, and discipline her.
- However we now know that in August, when asked for evidence, Ms Khan would not, and could not give any. That itself is a breach of Parliamentary privilege.
- Thus, after the August session, it would be incomprehensible that the WP leadership did not do their own checks, and ask Ms Khan.
- There are two possibilities at that point a) She told them the truth - that she had lied in Parliament . And thereafter the WP went along with the attempt to cover up ; b) She also lied to the WP and the WP chose not to ask obvious questions. This would mean that they were strangely incompetent.
- By early October 2021, the pressure was mounting for Ms Khan to come clean. Min Shanmugam asked Ms Khan about her allegations. Ms Khan again lied.
- With evidence mounting that she was lying, did the WP leadership not ask Ms Khan for more details? Was she not able to provide any, also telling them she wished to keep the info confidential? At that point, did that not raise obvious red flags?
- If they ignored the red flags, then that would suggest that they did not want to know, or were at best, incompetent.
- But worse, is it possible that the WP leadership knew Ms Khan was lying, but thought that by claiming confidentiality, Ms Khan could make the matter go away?...
As former WP MP Daniel Goh said, WP MPs’ speeches are vetted by the party when he was in Parliament. Perhaps this has changed. If it hasn’t, Ms Khan’s original speech in August must have been vetted. So was her October reply, where she lied a third time. That means, that the WP either chose to believe Ms Khan’s flimsy story THREE TIMES regardless of red flags, or knew she was lying, and collaborated with her. If so, we must ask if their internal disciplinary Panel is simply an attempt to quell public anger and a way to distance the WP from Ms Khan, despite them knowing the facts earlier."

Facebook - "One of the counterclaims being made now is that even though Rhaeesah Khan lied about accompanying the (fictional) survivor, the allegation of police officer mistreatment (i.e. comments about dressing / drinking) remains true... around end of 2017, or assuming delay, 2018, selected (mostly female) police officers would have been trained by AWARE. Now I am against AWARE for its policy stances, but it *does* have solid experience handling victims, and has indeed done a lot of good. Their training would likely be quite comprehensive, and will likely be as complete as training of their actual volunteers at AWARE. This is confirmed by AWARE...
Raeesah made her claim on 3 Aug 2021, which if her later confession is true, places the time when she overheard the story from that anonymous victims group around 2018.
So either:
1) the allegation of police officer mistreatment (i.e. comments about dressing / drinking) happened *after* the AWARE training, which means that training (of these specially selected and largely female officers who have no reason to doubt largely female victims) is ineffective;
2) the allegation of mistreatment happened *before* the training, and thus is a problem already solved when it was raised in 2021 to support RK's continued vendetta against law enforcement agencies (recall her past 2 offences were allegations made against law enforcement agencies too); or
3) the mistreatment never happened at all (recall the number of times RK lied)
Which has the highest probability?"

Facebook - "So Raeesah resigned. *checks watch* 17 months.  17 months since I first noticed the signs that this progressive ideology was going to be a problem, (and got cancel attacked for it).  It marked my turning away from being a WP voter. Knew that the WP was making the bad choice to ride a dangerous tiger, and wanted no part of it."

Facebook - "Raeesah Khan (RK) had already been treated well by the WP right from the middle of the GE2020 campaign when her social media postings of two years earlier became a focus of controversy. The party stood by her. Subsequently, she had been let off with a warning by the SPF over those posts. However, it appears she learnt nothing and remained impervious about the consequences of what she said and did... The decision by RK to resign is a good one for both her and the WP. The areas she had focused on and, inadvertently, typecast her as heavily ideological – an SJW – have tended to spawn unnecessary side issues for the WP, distracting the party from its key efforts in assisting the greatest number of Singaporeans in their economic challenges... An anecdote from mid-2019 illustrates the point cogently. This related to the visit to South Africa by Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) immediate family to attend a marriage by one of LHY’s sons to a long-time partner. (South Africa had been chosen because it had some years earlier legalised same-sex marriages.) Shortly after this visit, I met a WP parliamentarian to discuss the party’s plans for the then up-coming GE. LHY was mentioned, in terms of whether he would contest as an election candidate. My interlocutor said to me (in a fairly hushed voice), and here I paraphrase: Hey, you know, when I went around my visits to homes of our ardent WP supporters, that South African trip was brought up time and time again by our staunch supporters. Most were asking, “What is that?” Online media might have cheered the South African marriage, but the reality on the ground, even among ardent WP supporters, was quite the reverse.  (This anecdote is just one of many others that constitute vignettes and pen-portraits of events and people – never before seen – reinforcing the analysis in the book Breakthrough 2.0. They provide texture and proper context to political reality, not some of the popular – and entirely fictionalised – accounts that have emerged since GE2020.) That the online, virtual, world is, at times, almost 180 degrees adrift from the offline, real, world, is an existential reality. RK no longer hanging around in any formal capacity with the WP would be useful for the party. She would no longer be a lightning rod spawning unnecessary side issues for the WP. Among party sources, there had already been some mutterings since GE2020 about whether she had the energy levels – stamina – for hard constituency work. And, since her parliamentary indiscretions, party leaders would have consulted widely with stakeholders, especially the key group of party volunteers – the people who do the heavy-lifting for the party – and they would have long arrived at the conclusion that support for RK was in short supply. At a human level, RK will return to a well-to-do-family. She will be fine. This is unlike Yaw Shin Leong who, in 2012, felt that he and his wife needed to rebuild their lives elsewhere."
Comment: "A year later, Raessah still did not fully admit that her social media posts were categorically wrong. In the video you mentioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spSymX-Tz1s), when asked about the GE2020 incident, Raessah said it was a tough time but she's glad it "brought conversations about race and inequality to the forefront". She further said that after the election, some residents directly told her that she shouldn't have done it. Instead of stopping there, she went on to tell the podcast's host that she is “a person who is unfazed by tough conversations” and added that she used that moment to start a rational, civil discussion about race even though those residents didn't see eye-to-eye with her at the end. Instead of strengthening the WP’s foothold in her ward of Compassvale, was she too busy debating residents and trying to educate them about SJW ideologies? Was that what she was elected to do? She mentioned that at the end, she was not able to get the residents to see eye-to-eye. So why start a pointless discussion about a controversial issue when she could have just apologized and talked about what she has learned and done for the constituency since then. She should have focused on unifying topics such as addressing income inequality, job-skills mismatch and other bread and butter issues that the average Singaporean can relate to. It is not the job of an MP to go around starting tough conversations with residents. An activist focuses on “starting tough conversations”. A politician focuses on achieving real-world results that benefit the community, even if those are just incremental changes that won’t create a utopia immediately. A politician knows when to push pet issues and when not to. If that was the kind of constituency work she did, then the WP’s chances will be better now that she is no longer around to debate residents. A less divisive person would probably improve the quality of engagement and garner support for them."

Facebook - "Timing is everything. Why resign now one month after the parliamentary apology and just hours before the CEC meeting when the disciplinary committee findings were to be discussed and a decision taken? Did RK know the outcome already? How? What motivated her to resign only now? Did anyone of importance asked her to resign and why? All too convenient when so many inconvenient questions for the WP leadership remained unanswered. In politics, these can become a sticky ugly scent eroding trust.  My mind keeps conjuring up that memory of more than a year ago when Pritam stood with an apologising RK and the WP Sengkang team behind them in the full glare of media cameras, the message being we know and we support her. How quickly things change. I suppose a year is many lifetimes in politics."
It's telling that Daniel Goh got attacked for asking these pertinent questions

WP to look into cadre member Daniel Goh's public questioning of party leaders' handling of Raeesah Khan case - "The Workers’ Party (WP) will look into the actions of its cadre member Daniel Goh, who has been publicly vocal about the party’s handling of former Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan’s admission of lying in Parliament...   When asked to respond to Mr Singh’s comments, Assoc Prof Goh told TODAY: “On matters of public concern, I have every right as a citizen to speak my views. There was no special communication to members that made me more informed than an ordinary citizen. This is in line with party values.   “If the party sees fit to censure or sack me for asking pertinent questions that makes for a leadership accountable to the public, then so be it. It is a reflection on the leadership. By the way, I am not resigning.”... Assoc Prof Goh also urged the party’s disciplinary panel — which was tasked to look into Ms Raeesah’s admission of lying — not to “throw her under the bus”.   Instead, he said that the party’s leadership should take some responsibility for “allowing this transgression to happen and persist over several months”... Mr Singh disclosed that party leaders knew that Ms Raeesah lied in her parliamentary speech a week after she delivered it and nearly three months before she set the record straight in the House. However, the party did not act on it earlier because he wanted to give her time to talk to her family about the matter, and because she had to be the one to correct the untruth in Parliament."
Covering up for a liar (and continuing to lie) while going after the one who promotes integrity. Telling.

Facebook - "questions must be asked about the WP itself.  What did they know about the lies ? When did they know this? And what did they do with this knowledge ? It’s incomprehensible that nobody else knew anything before Raeesah Khan made the admission in Parliament."

WP leadership knew about Raeesah Khan's 'untruth' a week after her original speech in August: Pritam Singh - "when questioned by the Minister for Home Affairs in Parliament on Oct 4, Ms Khan “repeated an untruth on the parliamentary record, which was wholly inconsistent with the revelations she had shared with the party leadership after Aug 3”, said Mr Singh.   “Almost immediately after Parliament adjourned in October, Raeesah agreed with the party leadership that she had to set the record right forthwith. I shared with her that it was the correct thing to do.  "The next earliest opportunity to do so in Parliament was on Nov 1, when the member made the personal explanation under the Standing Order 25." He added that Ms Khan then sent her resignation letter to him on Nov 30.  Mr Singh also said that before the WP’s central executive committee received Ms Khan’s resignation on Tuesday, members had “voted overwhelmingly” that she would be expected to resign on her own accord - failing which she should be expelled from the party. When asked why the claim was allowed to remain uncorrected, Mr Singh said: “Each Workers’ Party MP is a leader in his or her own right. And if you have done something wrong, it is your responsibility to set the record right.""
When you cover up for a liar and tell lies too, that can become bigger than the original lie

WP leaders told Raeesah Khan to stick to the lie she had told Parliament: Committee of Privileges - "Three senior Workers' Party (WP) MPs had told their party colleague Raeesah Khan to stick to the lie she had told in Parliament on Aug 3, the Committee of Privileges heard...   Following that meeting, she texted her secretarial assistant and a WP volunteer: “I just met Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal... they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave.”...   Ms Khan and her former assistant Loh Pei Ying gave evidence to the committee on Thursday and Friday, while the volunteer, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, did so on Friday. Ms Khan’s former legislative assistant Lim Hang Ling testified on Thursday. .  Ms Khan, who resigned from the party and as an MP for Sengkang GRC on Tuesday, told the committee chaired by Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin that the WP leaders had told her to keep to the lie. "My interpretation (of the meeting with WP leaders on Oct 3) was that that there would be no consequences for me to continue the narrative that I had begun in (Parliament) in August," she said in the recorded footage.  The committee said in its report: "If Ms Khan and the WP could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. If the matter was brought up again, there would also be no need for her to clarify and there was no need for the truth to be told."...   In her evidence to the committee, Ms Khan also disputed statements made by Mr Singh at his press conference on Thursday (Dec 2), where, among other things, he told reporters that he had directed Ms Khan to take responsibility and admit to her lie in Parliament, and that she had contradicted this order.  No one from WP advised her to tell the truth, Ms Khan told the committee. There was also no order for her to clarify the facts. When the committee put to her on Thursday that Mr Singh said he had ordered her to clarify the matter in Parliament in October, Ms Khan replied: "I'm hearing this for the first time."... On Oct 12, Ms Khan attended a meeting called by Mr Singh. At the meeting, which Ms Lim was also at, the three discussed the matter and came to the view that the matter would not be dropped and was not going away. As such, Ms Khan should come clean and tell the truth.  “At this meeting, Ms Khan asked if disciplinary action will be taken against her and the answer given to her was no,” said the report... Ms Khan said she was “shocked and surprised” to learn that the WP had formed a disciplinary panel the next day to look into her lies to Parliament...   The committee also asked Ms Khan about Mr Singh’s statement at the WP press conference that she would be expelled from the party if she did not resign of her own accord.   Ms Khan said this was not said to her. The WP leaders had suggested she resign for her well-being and because she had lost the support of her fellow Sengkang GRC MPs, she added."
According to the progressive stack, we must believe RK over PS when RK says PS is lying. Because PS has more power as party leader and RK is only an ex-MP. Plus PS is male and RK is female, and RK is Muslim
"Turns out Daniel Goh's concerns about the leadership's intergity in this affair are right. Contrary to what Pitram said in the press conference, he told her to keep on lying (substantiated by text messages), so that explains why she lied again in Oct and he did nothing. She was just doing what he told her to do. And when the game was up he acted to cut her off and throw her under the bus, giving a press conference to make it look like everything she did following her admission was "inexplicable".One does not need to like RK to see that this is rotten leadership."

Committee of Privileges Hearing on 22 December 2021 - Dr Christopher Cheok: Transcript

Preamble:

What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I mostly just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.  

Though speech recognition technology has made leaps and bounds in recent years, it still isn't good enough for very accurate transcripts. So take the below as a free (for you, dear reader, at least) and rough transcript, with no warranty as to accuracy - for convenience instead of an accurate transcript. Nonetheless, I believe this will be helpful, especially for archival purposes.

If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 31.5 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later. If they do, please use those instead. In the meantime, you may profit from the following; you can find links to all my COP transcripts at the index post.

 Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:00  
And I'll call the meeting to order. So Genograms please invite Dr. Christopher chalk to the witness table

Hi, my name Chris Sigasi may remove your mask. For the record, please state your name, your occupation and the positions you hold.

Dr Christopher Cheok  0:38  
Morning Chairman and members of the committee of privileges. My name is Dr. Christopher Chuck Chang soon. I'm a psychiatrist by training my positions I hold. It's that time the Acting Chief of the Department of forensic psychiatry and I'm a senior consultant at the Institute of Mental Health.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:00  
Thank you. The evidence will be given today before the committee will be taken on all for you so desire you can also take an affirmation plugged please administer though.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:19  
The Bible on your left hand raise your right. Eye crisper chop chain soon swear that the evidence that I shall give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me God.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:36  
Thank you. Please be seated. The Committee of privileges is looking into the complaint made by the Leader of the House Miss Indrani. Raja against former member for St. John GRC mysteries con for breach of privilege. Thank you very much for attending to today's hearing, and for your expert evidence before the committee and to answer the questions which members of the committee would like to put to you. You have taken a solemn obligation to answer questions truthfully, if you refuse to answer questions directly, or attempt to mislead the committee such behavior will be an offence and in contempt. This committee also wanted to place it on record that this issue of a review from the psychiatrist was raised by Mr. Pritam Singh as Mr. Lim, and they also had requested for such an examination to be made, or Mishcon. But we appreciate your spending time to evaluate the situation. or Now perhaps hand over to Mr. Desperately for some questions, or perhaps before the questions would you like to perhaps take us through some of your evaluations and then perhaps you take questions from that point on.

Dr Christopher Cheok  2:45  
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I have assessed Miss Klein on two occasions. On Friday, 17 December, and Monday 20th December, I receive a formal letter of request from the Parliament on the morning of Friday 17th of December, and I have also received a bundle of documents from the parliament. Together with this request. I have also interviewed her husband as as required, which by all standard procedures, and this is to obtain corroborative history from the next of kin. I've also watched the recordings of the parliamentary sessions where Miss Kahn spoke on August 3, October the fourth as well as the first of November 2021. And I also watch the recordings of the Committee of privileges when Miss Kahn was testifying on second and third of December 2021. And I will read the reports from this committee that's published on the parliamentary website.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  3:59  
Would you like to take us through your assessment?

Dr Christopher Cheok  4:03  
My assessment, based on the brief that has been provided to me was that during the times that Miss Kahn spoke in parliament on third August, October the fourth as well as first of November 2021, as well as when she spoke at this committee of privileges on the second and third of December 2021. She did not suffer from any significant or material dissociation during these times. I also like to say that during this period from August to November 2021 She did not suffer from any significant psychiatric disorder that would have impact her ability to testify or speak at such sessions as required for me to assess

Tan Chuan-Jin:  5:00  
understand any other further observations you'd like to share with us?

Dr Christopher Cheok  5:05  
I'll be happy to answer any questions, because there are many observations. But if I may also like to state that as far as possible in your questioning, I will try my utmost best to protect the privacy of Miss Khan. And unless really required by this committee, I will endeavor to protect her privacy.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  5:27  
We appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Desmond.

Desmond Lee  5:36  
Thank you very much, Dr. Cheok, for your your assessment that you've just provided, I thought it's important to set out the context, I think the parliament secretary would have given you some background and hence, you went through all the material that was available in the public domain. But as Mr. chairman has said, at the start of this hearing, this committee of privileges has been set up to inquire into the conduct of former Sengkang MP Miss Teresa can when she said some things in Parliament on the third of August and the fourth of October, which allegedly untruthful She's admitted to those untruths. And then the second thing we've been asked to do, of course, is to then assess her level of culpability. And in that regard, the factual circumstances, as well as any potential medical circumstances surrounding what she said in Parliament, would be relevant for determination to then weigh how serious actions were. And in that regard, through the course of the CLP, we've heard conflicting evidence for following the media reports, you'll probably be familiar with what the conflicting evidence pertains to, and the ingest pertain to different accounts of what happened, provided by Miss Kahn and some witnesses, as opposed to Mr. Pritam Singh and some other witnesses. These turns upon whether if and whether she was told to tell the truth in Parliament, or told to, in quoting her WhatsApp message to take the lie to the grave, so whether she was told by her superiors to confess and tell the truth and Parliament and make a clean confession of it, or to maintain the narrative, which is false and continue to lie. And in the context of that, there was a request by one of the witnesses, which is Mr. Pritam Singh, leader of the opposition to ask the committee to assess mental health or mental wellness. And that context, some terms were brought to our attention, such as dissociation or disassociation, and post traumatic stress disorder, because these pertain to what she said about a sexual assault victim. So that is just a broad background. To give you a sense of what this hearing is about, I thought he could help us by giving us a sense of the brief that you were asked to, to carry out in terms of examination. You've just told us your assessment, and then maybe give us a sense of the basis for your assessment. So that no as lay persons on this panel, we have a better understanding. Thank you.

Dr Christopher Cheok  9:07  
So I received this formal request from Parliament on the morning of Friday 17 December, and in this letter, they have actually given me the background as to why they have requested this assessment. And they have also provided some information I do not know whether you have a copy of this brief that was given to me. If not, I'll give it to the club. After this what they have said here was that misconduct disclosed that on data report data third November was provided by her psychotherapist Miss Joanna tan, and she works at Adelphi site medical clinic and that she miss can also disclose some information during the Workers Party. Disciplinary Panel on fourth of November. And they wanted us to stay to hear that. Dr. John Bosco Lee had referred Miss Khan to miss Chu anytime for therapeutic support. And these sessions commenced on the 12th. of October. They provided a memo from Mr. Anton that's stated that Miss Kahn suffered from symptoms and I stress again the word symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. And from my interpretation of what's on the memo, Miss Joanna tan did not state that Miss Kahn had post traumatic stress disorder, only symptoms of and in the email between the I presume the parliament and Miss Kahn, who had requested a memo from Dr. John Bosco Lee. Miss Kahn had replied that when she approached Dr. Lee for memo, she had mentioned that as Miss Joanna Tang was the primary therapist, it was more appropriate for Miss Joanna tan to provide this report. So in this whole assessment, I have not had any sight of any reports by Dr. John Bosco Lee. And in Singapore contexts, any psychiatric diagnosis is typically made by a psychiatrist. So in the brief that was given to me, it was required for me to assess whether Miss Khan was currently suffering from any significant or material dissociation, whether she was of sound mind and rational mind to provide evidence to the committee. And whether she was able to recount rationally and understand the events that transpired on in parliament on third August 4 October, as well as before the committee have privileges on second and third December. And whether this can happen at any stage between August and November 2021 suffered from any significant or material dissociation that would have had an impact on her on her actions during this period. That was what was asked of me.

Desmond Lee  12:25  
And so maybe just to tell you that with what TF just told us, at the start of this hearing, you were asked whether she was suffering from any significant or material dissociation, perhaps you share with us what dissociation is for for the benefit of all of us as laymen. And then if you could then repeat your assessment and tell us the basis for that. Thank you.

Dr Christopher Cheok  12:54  
So, dissociation is the loss of the integrative function of the human mind. So, in a normal setting, the human mind is able to integrate many sensations, thoughts, processes, ideas, memory, muscle movement, so that the person can function in a coordinated way. However, when a person dissociates, the person may lose one or more of these functions. And in the state of dissociation, this phenomenon is is not caused by a medically diagnosed problem. That is to say, someone dissociates and loses half the power in this body is not due to a stroke that has caused this impairment is actually a psychological reaction that impairs the person's brain function in a particular area of functioning. There are many types of dissociation, some forms of dissociation, can be a person may feel that he doesn't have a sense of himself, he feels like he's outside his body. Sometimes they may feel that when they are looking at something it looks as if they're, they are in a movie, like watching something like in a movie two dimensional and not like three dimensional, other forms of dissociates to say dissociation include a temporary loss of memory, or a temporary loss of particular power in their body. And typically, after minutes or hours, these functions return to that person. Yeah, dissociation can be caused by many reasons. In normal people without any illness, any pathology. Dissociation can happen when a person is in deep prayer, when they're meditating or when they're in a state of hypnosis. When a person consumes illegal drugs, or when they are taking legal anesthetic agents, they also can go into a state of dissociation. When there's a psychiatric illness, such as post traumatic stress disorder, or what we call dissociative disorders, the phenomenon or dissociation can also occur. So what I'm trying to emphasize here is that dissociation is just a symptom. It is not a medical diagnosis. It can occur in normal people. It can be induced by drugs, or it can occur in the context of a psychiatric disorder. Thank you. So

Desmond Lee  15:39
What you're telling us is that dissociation is not a medical diagnosis. It's a symptom that can result from a range of causes, both clinical as well as external due to drug use and, and other forms of action. Yes. So we're trying to focus on what happened on ABC start with third of August when she told the first untruth in Parliament about having a company a sexual assault survivor. Based on your assessment of Miss Kahn, and looking at all the relevant material that you've looked at, what is your assessment again, and what's the basis for that assessment?

Dr Christopher Cheok  16:24  
I had viewed the recordings of her speech in parliament that day, and I've also asked her about it. During my interview with her, she said that she, she was present, fully present mentally, when she was giving that speech in Parliament. And when I viewed the videos, there was no sign that she dissociated while she delivered that speech in Parliament.

Desmond Lee  16:52  
Okay. Then on you mentioned he looked also at the fourth of Tober, which is the second time she came to Parliament. She was asked some questions by the Home Affairs Minister about third of August anecdote about a sexual assault survivor. And she responded to his questions and in essence, repeated the untruth. What is your assessment of Miss Carnes state of mind or physiology at that point in time

Dr Christopher Cheok  17:24  
I open that she actually was really of sound mind she did not dissociate, okay. And whatever she said, she was fit, mentally fit to say what she has said, and he was out of her own will. And she knew what she was doing.

Desmond Lee  17:43  
Thank you. Then we come to the first of November, which is third parliamentary speech in respect of this matter, which is the false anecdote about the sexual assault survivor in that. On that occasion, she made a personal statement, explaining or saying that she had told untruths on the third of August and the fourth of October. And she then explained from her perspective, why she had told those untruths. Again, could you share your assessment of men men mental health state at the point in time

Dr Christopher Cheok  18:27 
When she delivered that speech on the first of November in Parliament, she did not dissociate during the time that she was giving that speech. I think that during that period of time, from October, from after the fourth of October to the time, she gave that speech, I believe there was some anxiety and you know, some concerns that certain actions that she take will lead to certain consequences. And she had sought treatment with Dr. John Bosco Lee and also with Miss Joanna tan. But on a day specifically on first of November while delivering the speech, she was of sound mind she did not dissociate. And it was very clear from the video recordings that she was present mentally during the time of the speech.

Desmond Lee  19:21  
So based on your assessment from the period of August, the third all the way to first of November that is your period of assessment is it or more than

Dr Christopher Cheok  19:33  
yesterday appeared as not a way to actually third of December when

Desmond Lee  19:37  
you Okay, when she appeared before the committee of privileges let's let's go to the two days in which she was giving evidence before us here and we want to have a sense of whether her evidence before the CRP is has in any way been impacted by dissociation or any other possible mental disorder. or clinical condition. When she appeared on the second and third of December in your assessment, was she suffering from any impairment from mental health conditions?

Dr Christopher Cheok  20:13  
And no, she wasn't. She wasn't. Maybe at this point, I just like to emphasize the standard to which we, we use. So competency to testify in a committee or procedures or in court. Typically, from our standard, we say that the person must be able to understand the question, able to recollect the information and able to communicate to the committee or to to the court. And in the Singapore Mental Capacity Act, it is said that a person has mental capacity, when he is able to understand the information relevant to the decision to retain that information, to use our way that information in the decision making process and to communicate that decision. This is our Singapore mental capacity by using this standard, I say our pin that she was fit to testify before this committee on the second and third of December.

Desmond Lee  21:19  
Would any form, so in your view, from August all the way to December, which is the period of your assessment. Your view is that she's not suffering from any significant or material or mental health condition. Am I right? That's what I hear from you me?

Dr Christopher Cheok  21:38  
Yes, I agree that she does, from the period of August all the way to December the third, she did not suffer from a psychiatric disorder so significant, that it would have impaired her ability to give evidence or to make her speeches.

Desmond Lee  21:56  
When when asked by this panel, as to, you know, because, one of the witnesses, Mr. Singh, said that Miss Khan was lying before the COP. And when asked why he thought she could have been lying, based on his assertion, he raised the possibility of dissociation or other mental health conditions that may cause you to lie or predispose you to lie. As a clinician, having examined the the subject Miss Khan and looked at the material, is it possible, is it, I mean, could she be suffering from any mental disorder that predisposes her to telling untruths?

Dr Christopher Cheok  22:44  
Erm. She did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder that will predispose her to saying untruths ah. In fact, in I have been in practice for more than 25 years and I found that actually many people with ment-, psychiatric disorders do not tell untruths more than any normal human being. The only time that's perhaps that they have to say untruth is that during finding a job or in social settings, they may have to hide their mental illness because of social stigma. But other than that, they do not say untruths more frequently than any other human being.

Desmond Lee  23:29  
So when she was giving evidence before the COP on the second, third December, what you're saying is that testimony was, she was of sound mind, she was able to decide for herself what she wanted to say, or didn't want to say, and not laboring under any mental disorder that would render her testimony. And truthful or not of our own freewill.

Dr Christopher Cheok  23:55  
agree with what you said?

Desmond Lee  23:58  
Is there anything else you'd like to share with this panel to inform us,

Dr Christopher Cheok  24:03  
and I'm happy to take questions.

Don Wee  24:11  
Hi, Molly. Dr. John, good morning. So I understand that suspects who commit serious crimes crimes could be put under surveillance while they're undergoing investigation, so that they can feign their mental illness and use it as a mitigating factor. So I would like to see your guidance as to how do you ensure that your interview with Miss Khan is robust enough and able to conclude that she's not suffering from this association? In case she can in case she corroborated the replies in front of you, so as to suit a particular agenda.

Dr Christopher Cheok  24:46  
So in our assessment, we follow best practice in our profession, and so the best practice is to interview the person on multiple occasions and in this case, I have seen In her two times on the 17th and 20th, of December, and we also independently interviewed the next of kin. And usually we get someone who knows her well, or has lived with her so that we can ask the person about her behavior outside the clinical setting. In this particular case, it was fortunate that we had video recordings of what, how she behaved in Parliament, the things that she said, and also the COP. Interviews, were also available for me to view. And because all these recordings are contemporaneous their life, it was very, it can easily corroborate my opinion that she did not dissociate at the times that I was required to assess. Thank you. Morning.

Dennis Tan  26:14  
In your interview with Miss Khan, did you ask her directly for medical history of any symptoms of dissociation? Or post traumatic stress syndrome? Yes, I did. What was her answer?

Dr Christopher Cheok  26:37  
Can I give my summary opinion? rationally?

Dennis Tan  26:41  
I'm asking what was her answer to when you answer directly did use, for example, her medical history or what she suffered, whether when she suffered from dissociation or PTSD, what was a direct answer to you

Dr Christopher Cheok  26:55  
She had some symptoms of psychological trauma. She had many, there are many times when she felt that she had been traumatized psychologically. And the first time was after the sexual assault. And there were times after the election, as well as of course, after election and because there was certain police investigations at a time she felt psychologically traumatized, but being psychologically traumatized doesn't equate to having post traumatic stress disorder. So she does has symptoms, but it didn't reach the severity that a psychiatrist would diagnose PTSD.

Dennis Tan  27:59  
Did you find out from I think you have read from the notes from the proceedings, the transcripts in our data, which were provided, I think you confirm that you read through the evidence they've been given. And you are aware that she had a sexual assault experience. I think it's in 2008. Did you ask her what were the dishes share with you? What were the traumatic effects that that that episode had on her over the past 10 over years? Yes, she did. Could you share with the committee? How would these acts? What were these experience? What what is traumatic experience?

Dr Christopher Cheok  28:47  
With due respect, Mr. Tong, I think I would like to protect the privacy of Miss Khan, I would be happy to share with you my opinion about my findings. But I respectfully ask that I don't have to disclose what she has told me.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  29:13  
You can just provide your own assessment and opinion that we'll do

Dr Christopher Cheok  29:16  
my overall assess opinion is that while she did have transient symptoms of some of some symptoms of PTSD, it was not enduring. It was not persistent. And over the course of 10 years, as you have asked, she did not have symptoms that persisted. And it did not impair her ability to function as a wife, as a mother, and as No, as a member of parliament.

Dennis Tan  29:52  
So are you saying that she would have recovered from the trauma of being sexually assaulted?

Dr Christopher Cheok  30:01  
depends on what degree you're asking for, I think when any normal human being is has gone undergone a trauma, the memories would never be erased. Certainly, some of these memories can trigger some feelings of anxiety, or disappointment or sadness when we recall it. But it doesn't reach that degree, or that severity that impairs the person. So when you say when you ask about recovery, I would like to be specifically said that she was psychologically traumatized by the incident. However, she did not reach the threshold that one would diagnose post traumatic stress disorder. And she continued as a survivor, she continues to be able to function in her daily life in many multiple dimensions. When we assess we would assess the her ability to function at home, as a parent, as a wife, and also in her occupation.

Dennis Tan  31:13  
In your assessment, do you think this trauma that she went through as a result of the sexual assault would still have some effect on her when, whenever she the incident has been raised when she think about the incident, such that she would, it would affect her decision making on the incident, for example, when she decided to lie to the parliament on third of August, that she accompany a sexual assault survivor to the police station when she did not, in fact, do so.

Dr Christopher Cheok  31:59  
I think that when a person undergoes a traumatic experience, it would be naive to think that it has left absolutely no mark on the person. However, on the speech on third August, I've, I've been made to believe that this this was a prepared speech. It wasn't something the anecdote that she has mentioned was not set on, you know, impulsively in Parliament, the speech had been prepared and ready. And she had known that that was an untruth. So I in my opinion, she did not dissociate, or there was no psychiatric disorder that would have influence, you know, her judge honor her, her ability and her soundness of mind to write that speech and to deliver that speech.

Dennis Tan  32:58  
Are you able to then offer any reason as to why she would suddenly make up a lie like this?

Dr Christopher Cheok  33:06  
I don't think it's within the remit, my remit to make such an opinion. And I do not think that this is a, the role of a psychiatrist. Thank you. Okay,

Dennis Tan  33:21  
I'm not finished. I'm sorry. I'm not finished yet. Jeremy.

Did you even ask her why she decided to share in parliament on third August about her anecdote of accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station? Yes, I did. What was her answer?

Dr Christopher Cheok  33:47  
She said she was trying to advance the cause of what she believed passionately about, which was women's issues.

Dennis Tan  33:59  
So you think her own experience had no part to play in the line?

Dr Christopher Cheok  34:08  
What I can say is that she did not dissociate. She was of sound mind. She wrote the speech, she delivered the speech as she had written as to her motivations, and as to why she decided to lie. I don't think it's within my opinion.

Dennis Tan  34:31  
And you may recall from the evidence that she actually put in the, the relevant paragraphs on this lie. At a very late stage in her speech, she has already prepared a speech and she put it in at a very early stage. Do you think that there's any reason why she would do so and has this to do with it The fact of experience

Dr Christopher Cheok  35:05  
please correct me if I'm wrong. I have been I have tried to as much as possible to watch all the proceedings and, and all that. I'd like to qualify first that the statements that I made in the next few minutes may not necessarily come from a psychiatric opinion, is what I have seen. What I made to believe through the videos was that she had prepared the speech and Mr. Singh had asked her to substitute substantiate it. And perhaps she had written that anecdote in to try to substantiate his her speech.

Dennis Tan  35:48  
Yeah, yes, you're right. He was she was asked by Mr. Singh, to substantiate to be prepared to substantiate Yeah, but my question relates to just before the means the fact that she had only squeezing the antidote, very late in time. Right. Do you think that that has anything to do with the trauma that she went through as a victim herself?

Dr Christopher Cheok  36:12  
I think she feels passionately about this, cause because of her experience, it the passion probably is communicated in the speech and the topic she's chose to speak on. Yeah, I do not think that her experience of trauma would have directly caused her to want to write that particular anecdote as it was written.

Dennis Tan  36:51  
There will be many organized my questions. I have a few more questions.

What tests are typically perform to diagnose dissociation or dissociative identity disorder.

Dr Christopher Cheok  37:15  
Okay, Mr. Tang. So, I like to clarify that you you are asking two separate questions. One is to one, A and B. Yes, yes. What test is for dissociation? And the other one is dissociative identity disorder. Okay. Now, for dissociation. Typically, there are no tests, no tests, such as brain imaging that is required. It is about the observations of the witnesses, as well as the description by witnesses as well as the the patient themselves. This is sufficient if it fits the description of this dissociation for us to diagnose the symptom of dissociation. Dissociative Identity Disorder is an extremely rare disorder. Okay? The common name for dissociative identity disorder is multiple personality. Okay. And in my career, I have, I can't recall any seeing any patient that fits dissociative identity disorder, it is that rare. They may exist in Singapore, but certainly I've not come across one in my own practice, dissociative identity disorder, or the Les mentum, multiple personalities comes from typically seen in a person that has gone through repeated childhood trauma, and the person will switch from one identity to another identity and even speaking in different voices, depending on the identity that the person assumes. So, this is a very rare condition, and certainly, Miss Khan does not fit this description.

Dennis Tan  39:21  
Would you say that? Can dissociation be triggered by any traumatic event?

Dr Christopher Cheok  39:30  
I, if you ask me this in general, yes. A traumatic event can precipitate dissociation. Many times during a sexual assault. I say this in general. Many times during sexual assault the victim the survivor may dissociate because the stress is so great that this is a coping mechanism for the survivor to go through that experience. So yes, trauma traumatic experiences can precipitate dissociation.

Dennis Tan  40:04  
So for someone with trauma induced dissociation or dissociated disorder, is it possible for a person to exhibit symptoms whenever the subject or trauma is brought up?

Dr Christopher Cheok  40:18  
Certainly in general, yes. To work with these symptoms depends on the person to person. As I mentioned earlier to the, to this committee, there are many forms of dissociation, some people lose their memory, some people lose their mouth, muscle power, some people feel as if they are viewing their world like a movie, others have out of body, they feel that they are not within their bodies, but they're slightly outside their body. So it really depends on the individual.

Dennis Tan  40:50  
So would something like false memory creation be a symptom?

Dr Christopher Cheok  40:56  
false memory creation can possibly be a one form of dissociation? Yes.

Dennis Tan  41:05  
false identity creation,

Dr Christopher Cheok  41:08  
alternate identity alternating is part it is possible memory lapses? Certainly.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  41:14  
These are general in general in general, right. So I think it's important to note that,

Dennis Tan  41:22  
but otherwise, this person can still be high functioning in general, even when the traumatic event is when the traumatic event is not mentioned.

Dr Christopher Cheok  41:32  
Certainly an even even a traumatic event is mentioned not everyone dissociates. Yes. I mean, in the literature, in the literature, following a traumatic event, roughly about 1/3 of people go on to have PTSD. It's not that everyone will go on to a post traumatic stress disorder. We as human beings have our own protective mechanisms, through the support of family, friends and us in the people around us. Many people can recover from their psychiatric disorders. So it's not to say that trauma equates to having dissociation equates to having PTSD.

Dennis Tan  42:17  
So let me put it another way, can a person with trauma induced dissociation or even PTSD, be high functioning in general, but for prone to memory lapses or false memory creation? When the subject of the trauma kicks in? Is that possible? Okay.

Dr Christopher Cheok  42:35  
First, I'd like to refer you and I can provide this to the committee after this inquire after my testimony. And this is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of fifth version of psychiatry illness, okay. Basically, this manual is the criteria that we use to diagnose mental illness and is published by the American Psychiatric Association. One of the diagnostic criteria that we are very concerned about is what we call criterion CI and I write even g g g. Okay, and it states here, the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational and other areas of functioning, okay. So, if a person is high functioning, okay, then they would not have satisfied criterion G such that they will not be diagnosed with PTS D disorder, I acknowledged that persons undergoing trauma can persist to have some symptoms of psychological trauma, but they will reach the treshold that it will become a psychiatric disorder.

Dennis Tan  44:14  
So, you're saying In other words, that in your view, okay, let me put it in another way. So do you agree or disagree that when I say Can a person when I asked Can a person with trauma induced dissociation or PTSD be high functioning in general, but may still fall prone to memory lapses or false memory creation? When when the subject of their trauma is brought up or kicks in?

Dr Christopher Cheok  44:42  
I say in general, there is a possibility but we must always contextualize to the person that we are. Speaking about.

Dennis Tan  44:54  
I don't know whether you recall in the evidence, I can refer to you if you need to. There was a message that Miss Khan sent to her two assistants. After the outcome of her first meeting on eight August with Mr. Singh, Ms. Lim and Mr. Faisal, where she relates let me go to the document please bear with me.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  45:59  
That's what Mr. Dennis Stan is looking for the particular points of a race. Perhaps I could build on. I'll just build on this is related to some of the points made earlier. Mr. Denson was asking questions in general about some possible responses. But clearly from what you shared, there's really a range of responses from individuals who may suffer from this conditions or symptoms of this conditions. And would it be fair to say that one would actually really need to look at a specific subject and specific contexts to be able to provide a more accurate description of how an individual might or might not respond?

Dr Christopher Cheok  46:43  
Yes, we really need to contextualize to the individual and how the person responded because really, there is a range of responses following trauma as a range of dissociative experience. And we cannot generalize this whole topic and just speak in general really need to really come down to the details for a particular patient. And thank you, Dennis.

Dennis Tan  47:11  
Thank you, Chairman. Okay, let me rephrase my question. Just now, I asked you and I think you you agree generally, that a person with trauma induced dissociation can be high functioning, but fall prone to memory lapses or false memory creation. So, let me let me let me go into a bit of detail about this false memory creation. Would it be possible that when the trauma kicks in a person can be prone to making in a cause of a conversation be prone to having a false memory creation that means basically, somehow certain part of her speech contains certain falsehood, and this is caused by that trauma. So not the entire part of the speech is entirely untruth. But in the in a conversation, she may relate a particular untruth amidst other facts which are not in dispute.

Dr Christopher Cheok  48:21  
It is one of the many possibilities for why a person will make such a statement. There are many reasons other reasons why the statement could have been made in that way.

Dennis Tan  48:33  
Okay. So can I can I refer you to to the document tap in tap L. Pitch tool. This is the documents are under Miss low paintings. But it's actually a WhatsApp message from Miss can to miss low and Mr. naarden as at page two in the towards the bottom, and is dated eight August? Are we on the same page? And it says, Hey, guys, I just met with Pritam, Sylvia and Pfizer and we spoke about the Muslim issues and the police accusation. I told him what I told you guys, then they have agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave. They also suggest or write a statement and send out this evening. All right. I think the issue at hand is that it is not in dispute that my son met with Pritam Sylveon FISA. That's the first sentence. Second sentence. They discuss about the Muslim issues and the police accusation that this is not in dispute. And then she goes on to say I told them what I told you guys, and they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to grave so this statement, as you may be aware is in dispute. Mr. Lim sorry, Mr. Pritam. Miss lemon, Miss Faisal, do not agree that they had toe they had agreed with her that the the information that she should take the information to the gray. And then she finished message by saying they also suggest that write statements and this evening. And you may recall this as a statement about where she put on Facebook about the Muslims related issues of her speech, which is not related to the sexual antidote sexual assault and sexual accompanying the sexual the victim of a sexual assault to the police station. And would you agree that this could be an example whereby a person suffering from a certain trauma, right, while still generally high functioning, he could send out a message, but would selectively put in a lie in her statement in her message.

Dr Christopher Cheok  51:01  
So now you're speaking specifics or not in general. In this specific instance, in the context of Miss Kahn, and what I've assessed, I disagree with your statement.

Dennis Tan  51:12  
But you will agree that in general, a person who suffer trauma would be able to speak generally would be would be high functioning, high functioning. So when he's putting out a statement talking to someone giving a message, that conversation or that particular message can be can contain some falsity myths or the truth within the statement. Generally, it is possible

Dr Christopher Cheok  51:46  
in general as possible, but there are also many other explanations why the person may want to give a falsehood.

Dennis Tan  51:54  
Thank you. Can I also move on to ask you about other aspects of a when a trauma is mentioned? Is it the case that when trauma is mentioned and a person suffering from PTSD or dissociation it can create a certain distress to this person? Symptoms right, this could be a symptom,

Dr Christopher Cheok  52:35  
okay. So, so in specific niskanen does not suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But in general, what you have said is, is that if you're talking about causing distress when talking about the trauma, I think it is quite understandable in our human experience, that once we have undergone a traumatic experience, we cannot erase that memory. So because it's such a traumatic memory, it's not No, it's not strange that a person will be distressed is someone brought up this bad experience. Now, someone mentions a bad experience people should certainly feel negative about the traumatic experience that's only normal in human beings.

Dennis Tan  53:29  
In the evidence that has been given so far. I believe Miss limb and Miss Lim is the Pfizer Mr. Singh has mentioned that in the various meetings they had with her, she had always been emotional whenever the issue of the sexual assault comes up. So for example, I can just relate some of these incidents to you. So she burst into tears so she can emotional every time the incident and was mentioned the sexual assault incident mentioned. On the eighth of August the meeting in August, all three of them mentioned it, I think the the meeting on the 12th of October between with Sylvia and Pritam the end during the two disciplinary panel interviews, and I believe in the CC meeting on the 29th October 30 November How would you reconcile the fact that she's constantly emotional wherever whenever this incident is mentioned during those occasion? How would you reconcile this with your earlier findings that she is not affected by any post traumatic trauma or dissociation.

Dr Christopher Cheok  55:08  
I'd like to clarify that my testimony is that she does not have post traumatic stress disorder. I did not say that she did not have some some symptoms of being psychologically traumatized. What I'm saying is that it does not reach the threshold of a psychiatric disorder. Based on the way you have framed your question. I, my opinion is that if she were to be emotional, when ever the topic of sexual assault was mentioned, this is a very understandable, very normal reaction from a survivor of a sexual assault, a sexual assault is one of the most traumatic experience that someone has gone through is a violation of their person. I would be very surprised if anyone can speak about their sexual assault, plainly, carelessly. Without emotion, I think that's even more normal than being emotional when talking about their sexual assault.

Dennis Tan  56:25  
So would you say that she while I note that you say that she is not suffering from PTSD, perhaps anymore, but that she would you agree that she is still suffering, and they are still symptoms of her symptoms rather than the condition is that is that your distinction, some symptoms, some symptoms, so she continued to suffer from some symptoms of this post traumatic post on post trauma, post traumatic symptoms, whichever way you call it. So you agreed with that,

Dr Christopher Cheok  57:07  
if I may just give an analogy, if I can use the analogy, when a person goes for major exam, a person net anxiety, so they have the symptom of anxiety, you know, it doesn't mean they have generalized anxiety disorder, or panic disorder, which is a psychiatric illness. Yeah. And each time they go, they go for a high stakes exam, they may still continue the anxiety. So in the psychiatric profession, we always put in this criteria that the symptoms, when present must be able to reach that intensity, and that persistence that impairs the person's functioning. So many people who have gone through traumatic experience via sexual assault, a road traffic accident, or physical assault, domestic violence, they will continue to have some anxiety when they speak about a topic or even they watch a news story about another person's trauma. This is these are all normal reactions. But it doesn't mean they are mentally incapacitated by their symptoms.

Dennis Tan  58:19  
Thank you. So you're saying that some, some of the survivors have big traumatic events like sexual assault or serious accidents, they may always suffer symptoms whenever the memory of the trauma is invoked, and he can go on for many years. And they may not be exactly suffering from a PTSD disorder. So so to speak, that that is your evidence.

Dr Christopher Cheok  58:48  
My evidence is that they may suffer the symptoms, but they may not impair them. I will say that it will be very unusual for person to undergo a traumatic experience, and just erase it and sit if the person told me that they went through a traumatic experience, and then went on to say I focused it all totally, I'll say that it's highly abnormal. It's just a defense mechanism, trying to perhaps compartmentalize or suppress that memory. But if a person talks about their traumatic experience, they're able to talk about it rationally in a measured way, you know, displaying some emotion about it, but of course, not too emotional. I think these are very normal. I mean, it's it's normal human behavior to act in this way. So specifically, I think for MS can even though you know, some of these upsetting memories. She may feel upset by some of these things. It doesn't reach that threshold that would have impact her judgment, impact her decision making capacity, or her reality testing even she She was of sound mind.

Dennis Tan  1:00:02  
Would it still be possible that when the trauma is brought up, it would have affected her judgment in such a way that she is capable of false memory creation telling a lie.

In specific,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:00:24  
this specific position

Dennis Tan  1:00:26  
is a specific question to applying to Ms Khan.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:00:32  
First of all, she doesn't suffer from dissociation. She may have said so, but I think she used the term in a layperson's capacity ah, not from a professional definition of what dissociation is, ah. Okay. So, my, my testimony is that she does not suffer from dissociation or traumatic dissociation for for for that matter. Okay. I do not think that even when she speaks of the topic of her sexual assault was mentioned. It affected her so severely that she lost her mental capacity.

Dennis Tan  1:01:14  
Perhaps not losing mental capacity, but lapses of judgment. Telling a lie, for example. Could you exclude that? Indefi-, definitively?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:01:28  
Okay. So in the handbook of the Mental Capacity Act, ah, it is said, it is said that people have can make bad judgments ah, and making bad judgments ah, doesn't mean it is due to mental illness ah. It could, any normal human being can make bad judgments ah

Dennis Tan  1:01:45  
But it could be due to the trauma. The bad judgment could be due to the trauma

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:01:50  
In specific, for this particular instance, I do not think so.

Dennis Tan  1:02:02  
Did you ask her how did she arrive at her own admission that she suffers from dissociation?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:02:12  
She if I recall correctly, she said that her psychotherapist told her that she had dissociation. I had asked her what does she mean by dissociation? Okay. And her reply made me believe that she didn't fully understand what dissociation was and when she used that term, she did not have a deep understanding of what the term meant.

Dennis Tan  1:02:51  
Can I just ask you a few more questions about dissociation? How many categories of dissociation are they?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:03:02  
I think there are no real Heisei internationally agreed way of categorizing the different types of dissociation but certainly broadly speaking, there could be psychological manifestations of dissociation such for example, loss of memory, change of identity of feeling that things are not real, a feeling that a person is not within their physical body. So, these are the psychological manifestations of dissociation. There are physical manifestations as well technically we call them a conversion is I mean this is technicalities. And this is when people lose me sometimes half their body sensation half their body power. Yeah. So these are the physical manifestations

Dennis Tan  1:04:09  
Would you would you be able to share your understanding about dissociation being possibly conscious or unconscious?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:04:21  
I don't understand that question. Okay.

Dennis Tan  1:04:25  
Are you are you aware that No, let me let me rephrase this. Sorry about is there a difference between conscious and unconscious dissociation? Are you aware of this?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:04:45  
Okay. I don't understand the context in which you're coming from but Auckland, let me answer you. What I understand from your question. Some people can voluntarily tried to put himself into dissociated state this can be done through Do prayer meditation, hypnosis, even through trance in religious ceremonies, when people undergo a trance state, as we see in some of our temples, the Chinese temple sometimes what they call Cal Tang, okay? These these trance states are all dissociative states as well. So if you talk about consciousness, yes, they consciously enter into that state. Yes, some people can also unconsciously go into a dissociative state when there's extreme stress at the need to protect their mind from the stress. So I don't I don't really

Dennis Tan  1:05:37  
understand. Thanks. Thank you for an explanation. Let me let me put it in a certain context. Let me go back to how dissociation will affect manifests in the form of line telling an untruth? Where how would you apply the terms of unconscious and conscious dissociation to the fact that a person who suffers from it is lying?

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:06:06  
Again, this is a general question Yes. Or no? Yeah.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:06:13  
This is a very broad question, because there's so many manifestations, okay. Say for example, a person has say, dissociative identity disorder, and hear about the person the person assumes another identity. So identity, a person may call themself Peter, and identity B, he may call themselves James. Yeah. So, so who is lying? I know, because they have assumed a different identity. Peter may say that he has gone to this particular school X. And James may say he has gone to this particular school why? You know, so, I mean, these are the illustrative examples that I can provide. But I do not think

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:07:03  
we are here. Perhaps we have no questions. Let me finish. I think the point here is you're trying to evaluate, and I think the doctor is here to evaluate Miscanthus condition, I understand where you're going with the general questions. But as I explained it to many, many variables, and many circumstances, if it leads to where you would like to go, I mean, that'd be useful. But I thought, perhaps if we could be a bit more specific, who, who I think was to assess her level responsibility, I think, which is what the issue at hand today because I think when you go into the realms of general questioning, there's so many possibilities, and really depends on context. So perhaps, if you could narrow down and be useful, thank you.

Dennis Tan  1:07:45  
When I yeah, thank you, Chairman for that. Yeah, I'm sorry, by deeming myself here. Let me try to make it a bit more helpful to you to understand when when the person you were raising a person, as an example, person having an identity, right, so let's say whether it's he's assuming a false identity consciously or unconsciously. There's a difference, right? Is there a difference?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:08:15  
It really depends, you know, on status,

Dennis Tan  1:08:16  
assuming false. He's assuming a false identity or telling a lie, or he's not even aware. No wonder is there a distinction? As such,

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:08:30  
in a case when a person dissociates in a case of dissociative identity disorder, they truly believe that they are that alternate personality?

Dennis Tan  1:08:40  
Could it also be possible that when they are suffering from some symptom of dissociation, they knew about dissociation and they make use of this knowledge? As an excuse?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:09:02  
Can I clarify is whether if a person knows that this phenomenon of dissociation exists, then he uses it to the person's advantage? Yes. Oh, that would be malingering isn't

Dennis Tan  1:09:12  
matter. It's possible it's possible for this dissociation sufferer or somebody who thinks that he is suffering from dissociation to make use of that effect to his or her advantage.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:09:31  
I mean, if you say in general then of course, it is possible, but that would be malingering.

Dennis Tan  1:09:39  
But these cases do exist. Of course, people do take advantage of that.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:09:43  
Certainly.

Dennis Tan  1:09:48  
So you but you do not agree that our Ms. Khan suffers from an uncommon conscious or conscious unconscious form of dissociation? Now?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:10:04  
I disagree. Yes, she does not suffer from significant dissociation during the periods from August to December the turn

Dennis Tan  1:10:15  
the fact that she has been telling people that she suffers from dissociation including yourself, Could it be possible that she's made use of this fact too as an excuse for herself? When she makes a lie,

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:10:34  
I think that's beyond my remit. What I can say is that when I asked her what she understood and by the meaning of the word dissociation, it did not fit the medical definition of what dissociation is.

Dennis Tan  1:11:35  
Did you ask her about the EMDR therapy that she has undergone? And no, I did not. Did you ask her about any treatment or therapy she has undergone recently?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:11:47  
And I asked her why she had seen her therapist says

Dennis Tan  1:11:53  
did you could you? Did you ask her about her treatments that she has undergone?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:12:00  
She told me she was taking some medications and undergoing psychotherapy.

Dennis Tan  1:12:06  
Have you analyzed the treatments of prescription that she has been given?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:12:11  
She informed me that she didn't know the name of the tablets that she had been prescribed.

Dennis Tan  1:12:18  
Have you sought to make contact with the medical practitioners that have been assisting her? And no, I have not. So you have not seen the medic, her medical records from the past?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:12:33  
I think under the the Personal Data Protection Act, I have no access to her medical records. She has stated in the email to Parliament, the email to the Parliament representative that she has attempted to get a memo from Dr. John Bosco Lee and he has from her interpretation has said that is better for Miss joiner time to provide that level. So I have not had any site of any medical report from her psychiatrist.

Dennis Tan  1:13:09  
Did you answer whether she undergone any previous psychiatry or psychological treatment prior to August 2021?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:13:18  
Yes, I did.

Dennis Tan  1:13:20  
Are you able to share with the committee whether she has been undergoing treatment?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:13:24  
I respectfully declined to answer that question in respect to respect her privacy I understand.

Dennis Tan  1:13:53  
Err, in your professional opinion, um, does Miss Khan harbor feelings of resentment towards Mr. Singh, or Miss Lim as a result of the events of, sorry not Miss Lim, Mr. Singh as a result of the events of third August to first November

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:14:15  
Erm. That's beyond my remit.

Dennis Tan  1:14:20  
I'm really just asking whether in your opinion, does she harbor any feelings of resentment from your interview and could these feelings have had a bearing on her testimony and Committee of Privilege hearings?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:14:36  
That's beyond my remit.

Dennis Tan  1:14:37
Thank you. In the evidence they've been given I will just try to summarize as best as I can. From the perspective of Mr. Singh, Miss Lim and Mr. Faisal certainly

she first let me just set up some facts and then in the context, I'm going to ask you the question. So the facts are a little bit long. But but basically just to remind you that you know, she first admitted to the lie to Mr. Singh on I think seven a bogus when Mr. Singh press T.

There is a dispute in Division event, basically Mr. Singh's Mr. Singh's position to her says that she's got to do with it, she's got to take ownership. Basically, Mr. Singh's position is she's got to be prepared to go to the parliament to admit to the lie, okay. Miss Kahn has a different view of this. But assuming Mr. Singh's position is correct. Okay. So we go down to fourth of October and the second sitting, she then added another lie. She continued to lie. And, and after that she then when she met Mr. Singh and Miss limb that evening, I don't know why remember this? She said to him that, but the Senate path honesty, okay. Yet on 12, October, according to the evidence of Mr. Singh and Miss Lim, when they were meeting at Mr. Singh's request, to prepare or to, to prepare to make an admission in Parliament. She was initially, she initially refused to admit she, she tried to wriggle out of it. And but she was then told that she had to do it, and she agreed to do it. Do you agree that her conduct has been confusing, ie her conduct in not wanting to even coming up to admit her lie for these number of months from August to October? Do you find it confusing? Why would she want to delay this? Coming to terms with this issue and making a decision? What to do about it? Do you find it confusing?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:17:48  
Because I don't really know what's the established facts. But I would find it difficult to comment on your question. All I can see is that she was not laboring under a significant dissociation and not laboring under significant psychiatric disorder.

Dennis Tan  1:18:15  
Can I just ask you after you have assessed her, right? Yes, you you have you have shared with the committee about your findings. I'm bearing in mind what you said about she is not suffering from PTSD or dissociation. But I think it is not in dispute that I mean, from what you have shared, that she may still be suffering from symptoms, especially when the incident of the trauma of sexual assault is raised each time what would you advise to her as possible treatments are possible measures that she can adopt to minimize any risks to minimize such incidents.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:19:08  
I can speak in general about some strategies to cope with some of these things, but I'm not her treating doctor so it's not my place to answer in specific for her because I think this is best suited to be advice from a treating doctor. I'm just the assessor

Dennis Tan  1:19:30  
OKAY. Chairman, I have no more question. Exactly.

Zaqy Mohamad  1:19:58  
Thank you so much for sharing some of your insights and assessments. In your opinion, I'm just going to move to the period where you know, she delayed a decision to come clean or didn't come clean. So in your opinion, would trauma mental state or her symptoms have affected, you know, her decision making process to hold back for three months being August, October, you know, whether any of these would have been a challenge or barrier to her to come clean?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:20:30  
I don't think specifically, trauma in itself would have played such a big role in her decision making to to delay or not to delay. I think there may have been other, you know, priorities or other reasons why she chose to take the actions that she has taken.

Zaqy Mohamad  1:20:52  
So Dr. What you're saying is that actually, she has perfectly sound judgments on mine to make that call? She had.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:20:59  
Okay, so to be clear, I think she had the capacity to make decisions, whether she made a good decision, bad decision, whether she chose to say a truth or untruth or she was aware that she was taking such a cause of action.

Zaqy Mohamad  1:21:15  
Okay, good. Now, just trying to see whether something clouded a judgment innocence. So in your opinion, when, if you were if you were made, if it was made clear to her that she had to come clean early, say in August or September period early, early on, she would have been of sound mind and she could have made perfect judgment to make that call if needed. If it was made clear to her.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:21:36  
She could she had the capacity to make the decision of as to what she wanted to do? She wanted to do? Yeah, whether the decision was right, wrong. Good. Not. So ideal. That's a separate issue altogether. Understand?

Zaqy Mohamad  1:21:52  
So. So basically, I think, you know, when, if you're suggested to her, that is your cause. So she had perfect judgment in the sense to decide what she wants to do. So it's not impaired by just to confirm not impaired by any of these.

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:22:08  
I wouldn't use the word perfect. I mean, she had adequate capacity to make those decisions.

Zaqy Mohamad  1:22:15  
Okay. So whether she was asked to lie to delay or to make a call, just to confirm, again, that she would not have been confused, she will not be in a confused state

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:22:29  
medical definition confused, she would not have been a in a medically defined confused state that we have impaired has significantly that she didn't have the capacity to make the decisions.

Zaqy Mohamad  1:22:43  
Okay. Thank you, doctor, no further questions.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:22:52  
Mmm, I'll make some observations. I think, for me to build on what Mr. Dennis Tan was asking, he presented a set of, err, facts. I mean, actually, what we're really trying here to do is to determine what the facts are. Essentially, there are two versions, essentially, could probably boil it down to that. And that's really a dispute. And that's where the COP is trying to determine whether she had in fact been telling the truth, her recount of the instructions and directions given to her. That's one version. The other version is, as Mr. Dennis Tan alluded to, was suggested by Mr. Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim, and Mr. Faisal Manap who disagreed with her version. So that's another version. We are in the process of trying to determine which, is accurate, which is true. And I guess that's where the question has arisen as to her judgment, her medical, err, condition, mental state, and whether she's been able to make rational decisions. As you've shared, general questions, general responses really vary in the many reasons why people do different things. All of us do many things, as well. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a mental impairment of any sorts. But in your judgment, and what you've shared, and if I were to understand correctly, is that in your assessment, talking to her, talking to her husband, and also going through the footages that have been available during a set period, looking at transcripts, what has been discussed, in your opinion, medically, she doesn't suffer from some of the conditions that, that have been put forward to you. Basically, she is of sound mind, she's able, she's conscious, she's able to make the decisions. Whether they're right or wrong decisions, that's a different matter, all of us make right or wrong decisions all the time. But in your professional opinion, she was aware and conscious of what she was doing. Would that be correct? 

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:25:02
Yes.

Tan Chuan-Jin: 
So I think that really behooves the COP to determine, I guess, in our effort to determine which version seem to make sense. And that's, that's within our remit. But I think we do thank you for your assessment, and I do understand the sensitivity. And I think you have done that, to refrain from going into details where it may not be necessary. I will just want to place it on record. I mean, as someone who for me personally, who supports a lot of work in the mental health front, concerns about mental health, stigmatization about how, perhaps, we could sometimes overmedicalize things, which doesn't help those who actually do have the conditions. Would there be any general observations and comments that you'd like to share with us for our own understanding, and perhaps also for the public understanding as to how we should approach issues like this, because there is always the temptation to, I guess, attribute mental health conditions to individuals for various reasons. But would there be any general sort of comment you'd like to share with us, given the context of what we've been trying to approach and try to address today?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:26:13  
I think that many people living in our urban society would undergo different stresses from work family life, and society in general. But just because you have certain stress and emotional symptoms, doesn't mean you have a psychiatric disorder. However, a good proportion of Singaporeans to suffer from some form of psychiatric disorder. And I think if anyone does have a psychiatric disorder, I think it would be very useful for them to seek help. Seeking help doesn't mean going to a psychiatrist, you can also go to a mental health professional in the community. There are agencies out there that there are counseling services in the neighborhood available to them. So I think, most important is seeking help. And I think there is no shame to admit that one is suffering from a psychiatric disorder, or even stress from the normal stresses of of life. But most important is that we are able to support each other and a good number, in fact, the vast majority of people with mental health conditions to recover. And it's important that we didn't support so that they can make a full recovery and get on with their lives.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:27:42  
Would you be also correct to say that we should be careful not to, I guess, over medicalize, and I guess over analyze, and attribute conditions to folks, because we all do feel stress and concerns? And would that be something that we should bear in mind because it does also stigmatize those who may actually suffer from such conditions?

Dr Christopher Cheok  1:27:59  
Yes, I think we shouldn't use these psychiatric terms loosely. And if EViews were to use the terms, I think we should have a reasonable understanding of what they mean. And not just us use it casually. Because I think a person who truly suffers from a significant psychiatric disorder would feel that the other person doesn't truly understand the experience. And many of these people have told me that when they suffer from a major mental illness, the number one thing that they feel sad about is that they feel lonely, because they feel that no one else can understand the experience and they find it difficult to find someone to relate to

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:28:43  
understand. Okay, so with that, there being no other questions, thank you very much for the assessment and showing us your evaluation on Mishcon and, and the terms which we have put forward to you to imH transcript of proceedings will be shared with you for verification do go through it. If any amendments do make changes and Senate transcripts back to us, you have written up any short report, they will make it available to us as well. If there are any. Do note that the transcripts and any evidence given to committee are not to be disclosed to anyone and or publish and must be kept strictly confidential until the committee has presented his report to parliament. There have been other questions. Once again, thank you very much for assistance, you may withdraw and like to ask the sergeant arms to accompany a witness. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you Thanks so much