Indranee sets out why Parliament must act ‘without unnecessary delay’ on Pritam Singh’s conduct
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh's conduct and conviction reflect directly on the standing and integrity of Parliament, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.
PHOTO: MDDI
Follow topic:
SINGAPORE - Parliament must decide “without unnecessary delay” on whether Mr Pritam Singh is suitable to continue as Leader of the Opposition as his conduct and conviction for lying reflect directly on the House, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.
The House cannot wait on the Workers’ Party to make a decision on whether Mr Singh contravened the party’s Constitution following his conviction in court
Parliament subsequently agreed to the motion after about three hours of debate, with all 11 WP MPs present recording their dissent.
Mr Singh had been convicted in a district court of lying under oath when giving testimony to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges (COP) – a judgment that was upheld by the High Court.
He was also found by the committee to have guided his party’s former MP Raeesah Khan to keep up a lie she told in Parliament
Ms Indranee stressed that when an MP lies to Parliament or before its committees, it is not just a personal lapse or a tactical misjudgment.
“It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us, as well as the solemn duty we owe to the people we serve. It undermines the high standards of integrity and incorruptibility which make the Singapore system work, and for which Singapore is known,” she added.
The decision on whether Mr Singh continues with the Leader of the Opposition designation rests with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, and not Parliament, she noted.
“However, Members are entitled to, and I will argue have an obligation to, express a view on Mr Singh’s suitability to continue in the role,” she said.
“It will then be for the Prime Minister to decide what to do after that.”
She said the Leader of the Opposition is “not an ordinary MP”, and has greater responsibilities and privileges than other backbenchers.
Summarising the court’s findings on Mr Singh’s case in Parliament, Ms Indranee said the conclusion “is clear and beyond doubt”.
“Mr Singh’s conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and he has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of a Leader of the Opposition,” she said.
She urged Members who agreed with this conclusion to vote in favour of the motion.
“If they disagree and wish to vote against, they should justify to this House and to Singaporeans why Singapore should accept such lowered standards of honesty and integrity from their political leaders,” she said.
Ms Indranee noted that Mr Singh has not “shown any remorse, accountability, or acceptance of responsibility” following the High Court decision, nor has the WP given its view on the matter.
She then contrasted the WP’s “dilatory response” in the handling of Mr Singh’s case with how swiftly it dealt with lapses involving its former MPs Raeesah Khan and Leon Perera.
The WP had said on Jan 3 that it will form a disciplinary panel to assess if its party chief, Mr Singh, contravened its Constitution, following his conviction in court. The party’s top leadership body said the process should be concluded within three months.
Citing Ms Khan’s case, Ms Indranee said the WP formed a disciplinary panel within 24 hours confessed in Parliament on Nov 1, 2021
Within a month, recommendations were made to the WP’s central executive committee (CEC) that Ms Khan be expelled from the party if she did not resign, which were accepted.
Similarly, after video evidence of an extramarital affair involving former WP MP Leon Perera
Mr Perera resigned two days later
“It is strange that the WP could act so decisively in the cases of Ms Khan and Mr Perera, where there were no court findings on their conduct,” she said.
“Yet now, in a far graver case of dishonesty and lying, it needs four months to figure out the import of the court’s clear judgment of Mr Singh.”
Ms Indranee also noted that Mr Singh’s conviction has implications for WP’s Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap as well. The COP had found that both Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had lied under oath by denying that they had told Ms Khan to hide her untruth
But as the extent and degree of their conduct differ from Mr Singh’s, the motion proposes that their matters be considered separately, she said.
Ms Indranee made the point that WP MPs have often made speeches in Parliament about the importance of accountability, and declared it their mission to hold the Government to account.
“The question is whether they believe that their own members, including their leader, should also be held to account for doing something wrong, especially after the court has convicted them of a crime,” she said.
She noted that the WP and Mr Singh himself have expressed strong views against lying and dishonesty, and that swift justice was meted out to Ms Khan and Mr Perera just for lying to the WP leadership.
The same standards and rigour must apply whether to backbenchers or party leaders, she added.
