SINGAPORE: Parliament on Wednesday (Jan 14) passed a motion to express regret at Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh's conduct and deem him unfit as Leader of the Opposition after a debate lasting more than three hours.
Of those who were present, all People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MP) and Nominated MPs voted in support of the motion, while the WP MPs – 10 elected MPs and one Non-constituency MP – recorded their dissent.
The vote came after a debate on a motion raised by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah that saw several WP MPs cross swords with her and ultimately toed party lines, even though the WP had lifted its whip to allow its MPs to vote freely.
A total of 12 MPs rose to speak or sought clarifications on the motion during the debate. This includes four PAP MPs, five WP MPs and three NMPs.
At the start of the motion, Ms Indranee said in her opening speech that Mr Singh's actions involved multiple lies and his conduct showed that it was a failure of leadership.
Emphasising the seriousness of the matter, Ms Indranee said that Mr Singh’s misconduct “is not trivial” and involves "guiding a junior MP to do the wrong thing", referring to the former WP MP Raeesah Khan.
Responding, Mr Singh said he disagreed that his conduct was "dishonourable and unbecoming" of an MP, and that he disagreed with the guilty verdicts from the courts and the Committee of Privileges (COP), stating that "a criminal conviction does not negate one's right to assert innocence".
However, he said that he still takes full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct Ms Khan’s lie in her speech in parliament in August 2021.
At one point, Mr Singh sought to submit statements made to the police that were inadmissible in court, which had yet to be disclosed. But this was rejected by Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng so as not to "impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance" maintained between parliament and the judiciary.
With the vote passed, the decision on whether Mr Singh remains as the Leader of the Opposition still lies with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Singh was first designated as Leader of the Opposition after the 2020 general election by then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He was again redesignated by Mr Wong after the electoral contest in May last year.
In her speech rounding up the debate on the motion, Ms Indranee said the position taken by the WP MPs was “disappointing”.
“The sum total of their position today has really been that the rules don't apply to us. Let's make a little point here, let's have a little jab there, but let's not deal with the real issue, let's not engage with the real fundamental point that we are talking about, which is what kind of parliament ought we to be,” said Ms Indranee.
The Leader of the House noted that now “we have a scenario where Mr Singh says he respects and accepts the judgment, but doesn't agree with it”.
“We now have a much clearer idea of what the Workers' Party stands for, which is simply that the rules and the law apply to everyone else, but not to them,” she said.
Mr Singh said in response that “a judgment determines legal responsibility”, but does not “require a person to abandon their honest belief or their motivations and their values”.
He referenced President Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s 1994 criminal conviction, noting that Mr Tharman had said ahead of his 2023 presidential run that “they got the wrong man”.
In her response wrapping up the debate, Ms Indranee questioned Mr Singh's arguments and his lack of acceptance of the court's judgment.
“That is a really interesting point, because that means that everybody who goes to court and who basically puts up a defence and is found guilty, so long as they didn't admit, it means they’re not guilty,” she said. “What kind of rule of law is that? What kind of system is that?”
Ms Indranee also rejected the assertion by Ms Sylvia Lim (WP-Aljunied) and Mr Gerald Giam (WP-Aljunied) that Wednesday’s motion was “political punishment”, stating “that is not the case”.
In his speech, Mr Giam said he “strongly opposed" the motion and that it appears to be "imposing a further political penalty".
Responding, Ms Indranee said: “It's a very simple point. When you have a CEO of a company, and let's say he has been charged and convicted of a crime of dishonesty, how many companies actually say, ‘Yes, it's okay, Mr CEO, please continue’?”
“Probably not at all. Why? Because those companies value their reputation. They know that every time they go and do business, people look at them and wonder, ‘You're a company and your CEO has been convicted for lying or dishonesty. What sort of company are you?” And that is the issue that's being discussed here,” said Ms Indranee.
As for comparisons with the case of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, which was raised by Mr Kenneth Tiong (WP-Aljunied), Ms Indranee said it shows a lack of understanding of the issue at hand.
Mr Tiong had, at one point during the debate, said that Mr Tan had presided over the House for nearly three years, ruling on MPs' conduct and maintaining order while in an affair with another MP.
“Both Speaker and Leader of the Opposition are parliamentary leadership positions. Both situations raise questions about fitness for office,” said Mr Tiong.
“Yet, parliament was never asked to judge Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. No motion. Not in 2020, not in 2021, not in 2022, not before his resignation, not after nearly three years of silence and then a quiet exit.”
Replying to the WP MP, Ms Indranee said that back in 2023, Mr Tan was asked to step down as a matter of party discipline and told to resign his seat. She said Mr Tan took responsibility and also apologised to Singaporeans, something which has not happened in Mr Singh’s case.
“Mr Singh has not even been asked to resign his seat – at least not by us – and he doesn't seem to think that there is a problem with continuing as the Leader of the Opposition,” said Ms Indranee, adding that there is no equivalence between the two examples.
Apart from Ms Indranee, three PAP MPs rose to speak or sought clarifications on the motion during the debate. They are Ms Tin Pei Ling (PAP-Marine Parade–Braddell Heights), Ms Cassandra Lee (PAP-West Coast-Jurong West) and Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (PAP-Nee Soon).
Ms Tin said Singapore’s parliament is a reflection of the country’s democracy and the wishes of its citizens.
“When international observers look at our parliament, they are not just looking at the legislative procedures but also how Singapore, as a modern country, maintains transparency,” she said in Mandarin.
This is not limited to Cabinet ministers but also members of parliament, she added.
“So (a) high-quality parliament will raise Singapore’s standing internationally," she said, adding that acting responsibly in parliament meant being responsible to Singaporeans.
Referring to a section in the Legal Profession Act on striking off advocates and solicitors, Ms Lee asked how this would operate when a member of the legal profession is convicted of an offence arising from parliamentary proceedings.
In response, Ms Indranee said while the law provides that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, it is a matter not for parliament but for the Law Society, Attorney-General's Chambers and the courts.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (PAP-Nee Soon), who also supported the motion, said Mr Singh's actions were unacceptable. This warranted parliament to record its regret to "draw a line in the sand" that this cannot be allowed within the walls of its chambers.
To this, Ms Lim rose to make a point about Dr Syed Harun's speech about integrity, questioning the former NMP's own values after he resigned from the NMP spot prior to the completion of the term in 2025 in order to participate in the general elections that year under the PAP banner.
In response, Dr Syed Harun maintained that the issue has been on public record, adding that he disagreed "unequivocally" with regards to any questions of his integrity about what happened in the past.
Mr Seah, the Speaker of Parliament, said the matter was not relevant to the motion and invited Ms Lim to file a separate motion to discuss it.
Continue reading...
Of those who were present, all People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MP) and Nominated MPs voted in support of the motion, while the WP MPs – 10 elected MPs and one Non-constituency MP – recorded their dissent.
The vote came after a debate on a motion raised by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah that saw several WP MPs cross swords with her and ultimately toed party lines, even though the WP had lifted its whip to allow its MPs to vote freely.
A total of 12 MPs rose to speak or sought clarifications on the motion during the debate. This includes four PAP MPs, five WP MPs and three NMPs.
At the start of the motion, Ms Indranee said in her opening speech that Mr Singh's actions involved multiple lies and his conduct showed that it was a failure of leadership.
Emphasising the seriousness of the matter, Ms Indranee said that Mr Singh’s misconduct “is not trivial” and involves "guiding a junior MP to do the wrong thing", referring to the former WP MP Raeesah Khan.
Responding, Mr Singh said he disagreed that his conduct was "dishonourable and unbecoming" of an MP, and that he disagreed with the guilty verdicts from the courts and the Committee of Privileges (COP), stating that "a criminal conviction does not negate one's right to assert innocence".
However, he said that he still takes full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct Ms Khan’s lie in her speech in parliament in August 2021.
At one point, Mr Singh sought to submit statements made to the police that were inadmissible in court, which had yet to be disclosed. But this was rejected by Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng so as not to "impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance" maintained between parliament and the judiciary.
With the vote passed, the decision on whether Mr Singh remains as the Leader of the Opposition still lies with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Singh was first designated as Leader of the Opposition after the 2020 general election by then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He was again redesignated by Mr Wong after the electoral contest in May last year.
WORKERS' PARTY'S POSITION 'DISAPPOINTING': INDRANEE
In her speech rounding up the debate on the motion, Ms Indranee said the position taken by the WP MPs was “disappointing”.
“The sum total of their position today has really been that the rules don't apply to us. Let's make a little point here, let's have a little jab there, but let's not deal with the real issue, let's not engage with the real fundamental point that we are talking about, which is what kind of parliament ought we to be,” said Ms Indranee.
The Leader of the House noted that now “we have a scenario where Mr Singh says he respects and accepts the judgment, but doesn't agree with it”.
“We now have a much clearer idea of what the Workers' Party stands for, which is simply that the rules and the law apply to everyone else, but not to them,” she said.
Mr Singh said in response that “a judgment determines legal responsibility”, but does not “require a person to abandon their honest belief or their motivations and their values”.
He referenced President Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s 1994 criminal conviction, noting that Mr Tharman had said ahead of his 2023 presidential run that “they got the wrong man”.
In her response wrapping up the debate, Ms Indranee questioned Mr Singh's arguments and his lack of acceptance of the court's judgment.
“That is a really interesting point, because that means that everybody who goes to court and who basically puts up a defence and is found guilty, so long as they didn't admit, it means they’re not guilty,” she said. “What kind of rule of law is that? What kind of system is that?”
MOTION WAS NOT POLITICAL PUNISHMENT
Ms Indranee also rejected the assertion by Ms Sylvia Lim (WP-Aljunied) and Mr Gerald Giam (WP-Aljunied) that Wednesday’s motion was “political punishment”, stating “that is not the case”.
In his speech, Mr Giam said he “strongly opposed" the motion and that it appears to be "imposing a further political penalty".
Responding, Ms Indranee said: “It's a very simple point. When you have a CEO of a company, and let's say he has been charged and convicted of a crime of dishonesty, how many companies actually say, ‘Yes, it's okay, Mr CEO, please continue’?”
“Probably not at all. Why? Because those companies value their reputation. They know that every time they go and do business, people look at them and wonder, ‘You're a company and your CEO has been convicted for lying or dishonesty. What sort of company are you?” And that is the issue that's being discussed here,” said Ms Indranee.
As for comparisons with the case of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, which was raised by Mr Kenneth Tiong (WP-Aljunied), Ms Indranee said it shows a lack of understanding of the issue at hand.
Mr Tiong had, at one point during the debate, said that Mr Tan had presided over the House for nearly three years, ruling on MPs' conduct and maintaining order while in an affair with another MP.
“Both Speaker and Leader of the Opposition are parliamentary leadership positions. Both situations raise questions about fitness for office,” said Mr Tiong.
“Yet, parliament was never asked to judge Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. No motion. Not in 2020, not in 2021, not in 2022, not before his resignation, not after nearly three years of silence and then a quiet exit.”
Replying to the WP MP, Ms Indranee said that back in 2023, Mr Tan was asked to step down as a matter of party discipline and told to resign his seat. She said Mr Tan took responsibility and also apologised to Singaporeans, something which has not happened in Mr Singh’s case.
“Mr Singh has not even been asked to resign his seat – at least not by us – and he doesn't seem to think that there is a problem with continuing as the Leader of the Opposition,” said Ms Indranee, adding that there is no equivalence between the two examples.
Related:
PRITAM SINGH'S ACTIONS
Apart from Ms Indranee, three PAP MPs rose to speak or sought clarifications on the motion during the debate. They are Ms Tin Pei Ling (PAP-Marine Parade–Braddell Heights), Ms Cassandra Lee (PAP-West Coast-Jurong West) and Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (PAP-Nee Soon).
Ms Tin said Singapore’s parliament is a reflection of the country’s democracy and the wishes of its citizens.
“When international observers look at our parliament, they are not just looking at the legislative procedures but also how Singapore, as a modern country, maintains transparency,” she said in Mandarin.
This is not limited to Cabinet ministers but also members of parliament, she added.
“So (a) high-quality parliament will raise Singapore’s standing internationally," she said, adding that acting responsibly in parliament meant being responsible to Singaporeans.
Referring to a section in the Legal Profession Act on striking off advocates and solicitors, Ms Lee asked how this would operate when a member of the legal profession is convicted of an offence arising from parliamentary proceedings.
In response, Ms Indranee said while the law provides that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, it is a matter not for parliament but for the Law Society, Attorney-General's Chambers and the courts.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (PAP-Nee Soon), who also supported the motion, said Mr Singh's actions were unacceptable. This warranted parliament to record its regret to "draw a line in the sand" that this cannot be allowed within the walls of its chambers.
To this, Ms Lim rose to make a point about Dr Syed Harun's speech about integrity, questioning the former NMP's own values after he resigned from the NMP spot prior to the completion of the term in 2025 in order to participate in the general elections that year under the PAP banner.
In response, Dr Syed Harun maintained that the issue has been on public record, adding that he disagreed "unequivocally" with regards to any questions of his integrity about what happened in the past.
Mr Seah, the Speaker of Parliament, said the matter was not relevant to the motion and invited Ms Lim to file a separate motion to discuss it.
Continue reading...