Pritam Singh rejects motion against him, says his ‘conscience remains clear’
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh disagreed that his conduct was "dishonourable and unbecoming", and addressed the six points of the motion.
PHOTO: MDDI
Follow topic:
SINGAPORE - Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh rejected a motion on Jan 14
In a speech that lasted nearly 20 minutes, the WP chief disagreed that his conduct was “dishonourable and unbecoming”, and addressed the six points of the motion moved by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee said that while the court had already fined Mr Singh, the lies that gave rise to his offence occurred in Parliament, and were told to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges. His conduct and conviction reflect on the standing and integrity of the House, she added.
Rising to respond, Mr Singh (Aljunied GRC) said he had lifted the party whip, meaning WP MPs could vote “as they consider fit” on the motion.
He noted that he could not take his case beyond the High Court, which dismissed his appeal
Mr Singh said he agreed with the first and sixth resolution of the motion, which called on MPs to affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system; and to uphold their duty to respect and abide by the law.
“The future (WP MPs) envisage for Singapore does not call for the destruction of the stable and sensible politics Singaporeans seek to uphold in Singapore,” he said.
He rejected the other resolutions, including the second one, which called on the House to note the findings of the High Court and Committee of Privileges. The committee had found that Mr Singh had guided former WP MP Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament
The findings by the committee “went much further” than the charges levelled against him, Mr Singh said.
“Raeesah Khan was not told to take a lie to the grave on Aug 8, 2021,” he said, noting that this was the anchoring piece of documentary evidence that, along with other “circumstantial evidence”, led to the trial judge’s conclusion that this statement was made by himself.
“My conscience remains clear, as it will forever, that this was not said by me to Khan at any point in time,” he added.
He also rejected the third resolution, which stated his behaviour was “dishonourable and unbecoming” as an MP.
“There are those who believe that whatever our courts decide, a convicted person is unable to retain their belief that they are innocent insofar as a conviction is concerned,” he said, as he referenced now-President Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
Mr Tharman was convicted in 1994 under the Official Secrets Act for negligence in the handling of a document containing classified government information.
Noting that Mr Tharman said in a 2023 media interview that “they got the wrong man”, Mr Singh added: “A criminal conviction does not negate one’s right to assert innocence. A finding of guilt by the courts did not undermine the President’s personal view of his conviction.
“In my case, my conscience will always be clear, insofar as my conviction on both charges is concerned.”
Mr Singh moved on to reject the fourth resolution, which called on MPs to consider that his conduct renders him unsuitable to remain as Leader of the Opposition, and that his continuation in the role would undermine public confidence in Singapore’s political system.
He noted that the appointment is not a constitutional or statutory one.
Following the 2020 General Election, then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong designated Mr Singh as the formal Leader of the Opposition
“I have never operated on the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition appointment is a given, nor have I hankered for it,” said Mr Singh.
“I have done my best to work with my colleagues to advance the interests of Singaporeans with the Workers’ Party as a responsible opposition through the office.”
He also rejected resolution five, which called on the House to consider the implications of the case on WP MP Sylvia Lim and former MP Faisal Manap separately.
Mr Singh said no action should be taken against Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, as he did not agree with the judgment and the findings of the Committee of Privileges.
The committee 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
Concluding, he thanked Singapore and Singaporeans for their support.
He added: “In my case, whatever Parliament decides, and as long as I am a Member of Parliament, I will continue my work as an MP on the ground in Aljunied GRC, and I will continue to advocate for Singaporeans in Parliament to the best of my abilities, as I have for the last 15 years.”
WP MPs disagree with motion
Ms Lim (Aljunied GRC), who is WP’s chairwoman, said there were differences between Mr Singh’s case and other cases where WP MPs have resigned over their misconduct.
Ms Indranee had contrasted the WP’s “swift actions” against its former MPs Raeesah Khan and Leon Perera with its handling of Mr Singh’s case.
In her speech, Ms Lim said that while the other MPs had admitted their wrongdoings, Mr Singh has maintained his innocence, contested the charges and appealed against his conviction.
Given the different circumstances, she asked whether Parliament should subject Mr Singh to a further punishment beyond the fines meted out by the courts, by “initiating a removal of him from his position as Leader of the Opposition”.
“Is this necessary, or is this a political exercise?” she asked.
Ms Lim also responded to Ms Indranee’s point that Parliament could not wait for WP to act on the court ruling. WP said on Jan 3 that a disciplinary panel would be formed
“Although (Ms Indranee) says that she cannot wait for us, that’s fine. But the fact is that we have our processes, and the processes will take their course,” Ms Lim said.
She also referred to the resolution in the motion which called on MPs to note that the High Court’s judgment and COP findings have implications for herself and Mr Faisal, and for the matter to be considered separately.
She asked Ms Indranee to elaborate on what it meant and how long she and Mr Faisal would need to wait for this to be addressed.
Ms Lim noted that there were several references to her in Mr Singh’s appeal judgment, but said these were based on the prosecution’s evidence and that she and Mr Faisal were not called as witnesses.
“We had no opportunity to present our side of the story to the court. The court’s findings cannot be held against us,” she said.
Mr Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC) said that by seeking to remove Mr Singh as Leader of the Opposition, the motion appeared to be imposing a further political penalty on top of the fines he has paid after the High Court dismissed his appeal.
Noting that the position of the Leader of the Opposition was a role constituted at the Prime Minister’s prerogative, Mr Giam asked if the Prime Minister was seeking the views of Parliament to make his executive decision.
He added that WP was vastly outnumbered in Parliament, with 12 MPs compared with the PAP’s 87.
“The outcome of this motion may be a foregone conclusion due to the mathematical reality of this House, but the moral weight of the decision rests on every member,” he said.
All 11 WP MPs present in the House subsequently voted against the motion, which Parliament agreed to
All 11 WP MPs present in the House (standing) voted against the motion.
PHOTO: MDDI
Correction note: This article has been updated to reflect that President Tharman Shanmugaratnam, then Director of the Economics Department of MAS, was convicted in 1994 under the OSA for negligence in the handling of a document containing classified government information.
