\n<\/p>\n
During Dr Tan’s testimony in the afternoon, the manpower minister stated from the outset that he was not a lawyer and this was his first time being cross-examined.<\/p>\n
Mr Sreenivasan described him as a “very well-known and successful person in the field of medicine and healthcare”, telling him he did not need to be modest.<\/p>\n
Asked if it was correct to say that it was common knowledge that Dr Tan had reached the “top of the very top” of his career before he entered into politics, Dr Tan paused.<\/p>\n
“I cannot say that. If you know our motto, for medicine. From my medical school that I graduated from, we’ve always been taught – not the pride of knowledge but the humility of wisdom. So I cannot say that,” said Dr Tan.<\/p>\n
Dr Tan later said he read the Bloomberg article the day it was published, possibly because his press team flagged it to him.<\/p>\n
“I was quite disturbed by the article after reading it when it came out,” he said. “I read it over and over again because I’m not a lawyer, I just felt that the way the article was drafted, put me in not a very good light.”<\/p>\n
He said he quickly consulted his lawyer, Mr Singh, and then decided to commence legal proceedings.<\/p>\n
He recalled Mr Low sending an email to his press secretary in October 2023, saying he planned to report “a broader story” on the “off the radar” GCB transactions, and said Dr Tan was involved in non-caveated purchase in Brizay Park.<\/p>\n
Dr Tan said his press secretary asked him if he wanted to comment.<\/p>\n
“I didn’t think too much about what is there to comment,” he said, adding that the reporter already had all the facts about his purchase including the price, location and date of purchase.<\/p>\n
Dr Tan also said he did not understand why the transaction was described as “off the radar” by the Bloomberg reporter, since it would appear in public records eventually. The difference between a caveated and a non-caveated deal was that it took some weeks before it showed up in public records, he said.<\/p>\n
When asked by Mr Sreenivasan if it was a “sensitive issue” for locals that Singapore had granted citizenship to wealthy migrants who are paying large sums for private properties – a point raised in the article, Dr Tan said it had to be taken “in context”.<\/p>\n
Dr Tan said: “Well, I think that when you talk about sensitive issues for locals, it’s really too all-encompassing a word … for instance, if I may refer to myself – I grew up in a HDB setting, I would say, for the first half of my life.\u00a0<\/p>\n
“I really wasn’t bothered about wealthy migrants paying large sums for private properties such as GCBs because they were out of my reach to begin with. I was more concerned with getting the next BTO (Build-To-Order) flat.”<\/p>\n
However, he agreed that the issue of Singapore granting citizenship to wealthy migrants who pay large sums for private properties is a sensitive one for locals.<\/p>\n
At one point, lawyers sparred over a line of questioning from Mr Sreenivasan, who said the claimants were “putting sinister twists to innocently published articles”.<\/p>\n
Mr Singh also tried to object when Mr Sreenivasan asked for the hearing to continue the next day, saying he thought the latter would have come prepared.<\/p>\n
“Let’s just be reasonable,” said Justice Audrey Lim in response. “The same rules apply to you, when you are cross-examining the two witnesses for the defendants.”<\/p>\n
The trial continues on Friday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n