Parliament to discuss response to Pritam Singh’s conviction; facts of case ‘disturbing’: Indranee

SINGAPORE – Parliament will discuss an “appropriate response” to Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s

conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee

when the House meets in January, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.

In a statement on Dec 17, Ms Indranee said whatever course the WP may take on its own, it is necessary for Parliament to take notice of the Leader of the Opposition’s actions and convictions for lying under oath.

She added that lying under oath is a serious matter.

“In some countries, leaders who have lied, cheated or flagrantly broken the law still escape any legal or political consequences. We cannot accept such standards in Singapore.”

She noted that Mr Singh was convicted of two charges of lying under oath on Feb 17 – a decision that was

upheld by the High Court on Dec 4

after an appeal. He was fined $14,000.

The facts of his case are “disturbing”, said Ms Indranee, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Finance.

She added that the courts’ findings and Mr Singh’s convictions are a solemn reminder to all MPs that they have a sacred duty to uphold the rule of law and maintain honesty and integrity in their conduct.

“We cannot talk about having a First World Parliament or providing robust checks and balances unless MPs on both sides of the aisle hold themselves to high standards of conduct.”

In a statement posted to Facebook later on Dec 17, the WP confirmed it has started the party’s “internal processes” in the light of the Dec 4 High Court judgment.

It added that it will give further updates on the matter in due course.

In her statement, Ms Indranee said the WP has its own processes to deal with members who are untruthful, referencing two cases of former WP MPs who had resigned after misconduct.

She noted that in both instances, Mr Singh had said the former MPs would have been expelled from the party had they not resigned.

Former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan, who had lied repeatedly in Parliament, was put through a disciplinary panel where WP leadership eventually “voted overwhelmingly” to ask her to resign, Ms Indranee said.

Mr Singh had said that Ms Khan would have been expelled from the WP had she not resigned, she added.

In the case of former Aljunied GRC MP Leon Perera – who

resigned from the party after a past extramarital affair

– Ms Indranee cited how Mr Singh had said: “The constitution of the Workers’ Party requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore… Leon’s conduct and not being truthful when asked by the party leadership about the allegations fell short of the standards expected of WP MPs.

“This is unacceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC (central executive committee) that he be expelled from the party.”

Ms Khan and Mr Perera were backbench MPs, while Mr Singh is the secretary-general of the WP and the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Indranee said.

She noted that the WP has said it will study the High Cout’s judgment in Mr Singh’s case.

“It is up to the Workers’ Party to decide what it intends to do in light of the court judgment (that he had lied under oath), and Mr Singh’s

acceptance of the judgment, fully and without reservation

.”

She reiterated some findings from the court proceedings, including that the decision to come clean was made only when former WP chief Low Thia Khiang advised Mr Singh and WP chair Sylvia Lim on Oct 11, 2021, that the truth should be clarified in Parliament.

She also noted that when Mr Singh testified to the Committee of Privileges (COP), he falsely stated on oath that on both occasions when Ms Khan had lied in Parliament, he

had wanted her to clarify the matter and tell the truth

.

After Ms Khan confessed in the House to lying, Mr Singh

formed a disciplinary committee

comprising himself, Ms Lim and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap, to find out why Ms Khan had lied.

“This was a travesty, given that the three of them already knew about the lie months earlier, and it was in fact Mr Singh who guided Ms Khan to continue with the lie,” Ms Indranee said.

None of these facts were disclosed when the disciplinary panel was formed, she added.

Mr Singh’s trial

began in October 2024

, nearly three years after the COP was convened to investigate Ms Khan’s lies in Parliament before her November 2021 resignation.

The COP had in February 2022

released a report

which said the “appropriate sanctions” for Mr Singh and other WP leaders – Ms Lim and Mr Manap – for their roles in Ms Khan’s untruths to the House and to the COP would be deferred until the end of investigations or criminal proceedings against him.

It also recommended that Ms Khan be fined and Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor. Ms Khan was eventually fined $35,000.

She had told and repeated a false anecdote to the House.

In subsequent court proceedings, judges ruled that Mr Singh had lied to the COP on two key issues: on whether he had told Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, and what he meant when he told Ms Khan that he would not judge her.

The courts found that Mr Singh, contrary to his own account, had told Ms Khan to

take her lie “to the grave”

. They also found that when he told Ms Khan he would not judge her, he meant that he would not judge her for maintaining her lie. Mr Singh said that he meant instead that he would not judge her for taking ownership and responsibility for her untruth.

In his final appeal, Mr Singh’s lawyers contended that the trial judge “ignored crucial pieces of evidence” in finding him guilty. The defence also said Ms Khan’s testimony was the sole foundation of both charges, even though she had been evasive under cross-examination and had “fabricated completely fantastical evidence”.

Justice of the Court of Appeal Steven Chong said in his dismissal of the appeal that the trial judge had carefully evaluated an entire body of evidence in addition to Ms Khan’s testimony, and it was that which persuaded him to convict Mr Singh.