SINGAPORE: When a Member of Parliament (MP) lies to parliament and its committees, it “goes beyond personal lapse or tactical misjudgment”, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah said on Wednesday (Jan 14).
“It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us, as well as the solemn duty we owe to the people we serve,” she said as she raised a motion calling on MPs to “express regret” at the conduct of Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh and that it “renders him unsuitable to continue” as Leader of the Opposition.
Wednesday’s motion came after the High Court dismissed Mr Singh’s appeal against his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee over the case of former MP Raeesah Khan.
Emphasising the seriousness of the matter, Ms Indranee, who is the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) MP for Pasir Ris-Changi GRC, said that Mr Singh’s misconduct “is not trivial”.
“It involves multiple lies to different persons at different times, guiding a junior MP to do the wrong thing and a failure of leadership,” she said.
At that time, Ms Khan was a first-term MP who had entered parliament as part of the WP’s four-member Sengkang GRC ticket – the second time an opposition party had won a GRC in Singapore.
Ms Indranee said that honesty and integrity are not abstract ideals nor optional virtues in Singapore’s parliamentary democracy, but are “the foundation of public trust”.
“The authority of this House does not rest on law alone. It rests on the confidence and trust that Singaporeans have in parliament – in its processes and its members. This confidence and trust can be lost,” she said.
“This is why parliament must insist that its members always speak truthfully and act with integrity, even when it is politically inconvenient to do so.”
The Leader of the House noted that while parliament’s rules do not allow MPs to reflect upon “the character and conduct” of another MP or making a charge of a personal character, there are exceptions.
This includes when it is about conduct in the capacity as an MP and if there is a substantive motion on the matter, such as the one she raised.
Apart from asking the House to express regret at Mr Singh’s conduct, the motion also asked MPs to agree if his continuation as Leader of the Opposition "would undermine the standing of parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system".
The motion also stated that the High Court’s judgment and Committee of Privileges (COP) findings have implications for WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap, which have to be considered separately.
Ms Indranee said her motion is not to ask parliament to impose any penalties or sanctions on Mr Singh, except to express its view at his conduct.
The motion is also not to remove Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition, a decision which lies with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, she added.
To this end, she laid out in her speech why it is “clear and beyond doubt” that Mr Singh’s conduct was “dishonourable and unbecoming” of an MP, and that he had fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of his position as Leader of the Opposition.
She urged MPs who agree 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.
In her speech, Ms Indranee said that the court findings had established “many disturbing facts about Mr Singh’s conduct”.
Mr Singh had essentially instructed Ms Khan to hide the lie, telling her to “take it to the grave”, and later guided her to continue with it, said Ms Indranee.
Ms Khan had given a speech in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, where she talked about accompanying a sexual assault survivor to the police station three years before, an anecdote which was later revealed to be untrue.
Mr Singh also failed to disclose to the WP Central Executive Committee (CEC) his own prior knowledge of Ms Khan’s lie and his own involvement, said Ms Indranee.
She added that he also lied to Singaporeans when he publicly rejected Ms Khan’s accounts of the matter, and also lied twice to the COP about his own involvement. Sticking to the untruths when giving evidence during his 2024 trial meant that he lied to the courts too, said Ms Indranee.
“In gist, this was not a single lapse. Mr Singh not only lied, but lied repeatedly – to the COP, to the public and to the courts, doubling down each time. He was also not upfront with his own party,” she said.
Ms Indranee noted that the “turning point” was only after the WP’s former secretary-general Low Thia Khiang got involved, after which Mr Singh and fellow party leaders decided to come clean.
Mr Singh and his party chair Sylvia Lim had consulted Mr Low on Oct 11, 2021, on what steps to take regarding the lie.
“It was Mr Low who impressed upon Mr Singh and Ms Lim that Ms Khan had to clarify the untruth and apologise to parliament, regardless of whether it might be discovered by the government,” said Ms Indranee.
The Leader of the House said that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and party vice chair Faisal Manap’s failure to declare to the party’s CEC and members that they had actually known about the lie for months, was most troubling about the episode.
“There are simply too many lies – they pile up, one on top of another, each to cover up a previous lie,” she said.
“And that is a problem as Mr Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition.”
In her speech, Ms Indranee also questioned the timeline on which the WP has indicated it would handle the issue.
The party announced on Jan 3 – a month after the High Court judgment – that it would form a disciplinary panel to determine if Mr Singh had contravened its constitution. The panel would conclude its work within three months, with a special cadre members’ conference held thereafter.
“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, referencing the case of former Aljunied MP Leon Perera who resigned from the party in 2023.
“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.”
She said that parliament’s view on the matter should not depend on the WP’s internal deliberations.
“Parliament cannot wait on the WP,” said Ms Indranee. “This House must decide on the matter without unnecessary delay, as it reflects on the standing and integrity of parliament.”
The Leader of the House noted 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 same standards have applied to MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) too.
She cited the examples of ex-PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang, who resigned in 1999 before pleading guilty in a cheating case; former Cabinet minister S Iswaran’s 2024 resignation after being charged with corruption, even before conviction; and former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin who resigned in 2023 on account of his personal conduct, even though there was no criminal offence.
“If a PAP MP or political office holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow. It would be untenable for them to continue as if nothing happened.
“In serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions,” said Ms Indranee.
Closing her speech, she said honesty and integrity are “non-negotiable” and form the foundation of Singapore’s political system and good governance.
“If parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root, and public confidence in our institutions will be eroded, inevitably and irreversibly,” said Ms Indranee. “The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from.”
Continue reading...
“It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us, as well as the solemn duty we owe to the people we serve,” she said as she raised a motion calling on MPs to “express regret” at the conduct of Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh and that it “renders him unsuitable to continue” as Leader of the Opposition.
Wednesday’s motion came after the High Court dismissed Mr Singh’s appeal against his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee over the case of former MP Raeesah Khan.
Emphasising the seriousness of the matter, Ms Indranee, who is the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) MP for Pasir Ris-Changi GRC, said that Mr Singh’s misconduct “is not trivial”.
“It involves multiple lies to different persons at different times, guiding a junior MP to do the wrong thing and a failure of leadership,” she said.
At that time, Ms Khan was a first-term MP who had entered parliament as part of the WP’s four-member Sengkang GRC ticket – the second time an opposition party had won a GRC in Singapore.
Ms Indranee said that honesty and integrity are not abstract ideals nor optional virtues in Singapore’s parliamentary democracy, but are “the foundation of public trust”.
“The authority of this House does not rest on law alone. It rests on the confidence and trust that Singaporeans have in parliament – in its processes and its members. This confidence and trust can be lost,” she said.
“This is why parliament must insist that its members always speak truthfully and act with integrity, even when it is politically inconvenient to do so.”
The Leader of the House noted that while parliament’s rules do not allow MPs to reflect upon “the character and conduct” of another MP or making a charge of a personal character, there are exceptions.
This includes when it is about conduct in the capacity as an MP and if there is a substantive motion on the matter, such as the one she raised.
Apart from asking the House to express regret at Mr Singh’s conduct, the motion also asked MPs to agree if his continuation as Leader of the Opposition "would undermine the standing of parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system".
The motion also stated that the High Court’s judgment and Committee of Privileges (COP) findings have implications for WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap, which have to be considered separately.
Ms Indranee said her motion is not to ask parliament to impose any penalties or sanctions on Mr Singh, except to express its view at his conduct.
The motion is also not to remove Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition, a decision which lies with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, she added.
To this end, she laid out in her speech why it is “clear and beyond doubt” that Mr Singh’s conduct was “dishonourable and unbecoming” of an MP, and that he had fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of his position as Leader of the Opposition.
She urged MPs who agree 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.
NOT A SINGLE LAPSE
In her speech, Ms Indranee said that the court findings had established “many disturbing facts about Mr Singh’s conduct”.
Mr Singh had essentially instructed Ms Khan to hide the lie, telling her to “take it to the grave”, and later guided her to continue with it, said Ms Indranee.
Ms Khan had given a speech in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, where she talked about accompanying a sexual assault survivor to the police station three years before, an anecdote which was later revealed to be untrue.
Mr Singh also failed to disclose to the WP Central Executive Committee (CEC) his own prior knowledge of Ms Khan’s lie and his own involvement, said Ms Indranee.
She added that he also lied to Singaporeans when he publicly rejected Ms Khan’s accounts of the matter, and also lied twice to the COP about his own involvement. Sticking to the untruths when giving evidence during his 2024 trial meant that he lied to the courts too, said Ms Indranee.
“In gist, this was not a single lapse. Mr Singh not only lied, but lied repeatedly – to the COP, to the public and to the courts, doubling down each time. He was also not upfront with his own party,” she said.
Ms Indranee noted that the “turning point” was only after the WP’s former secretary-general Low Thia Khiang got involved, after which Mr Singh and fellow party leaders decided to come clean.
Mr Singh and his party chair Sylvia Lim had consulted Mr Low on Oct 11, 2021, on what steps to take regarding the lie.
“It was Mr Low who impressed upon Mr Singh and Ms Lim that Ms Khan had to clarify the untruth and apologise to parliament, regardless of whether it might be discovered by the government,” said Ms Indranee.
Related:
The Leader of the House said that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and party vice chair Faisal Manap’s failure to declare to the party’s CEC and members that they had actually known about the lie for months, was most troubling about the episode.
“There are simply too many lies – they pile up, one on top of another, each to cover up a previous lie,” she said.
“And that is a problem as Mr Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition.”
PARLIAMENT CANNOT WAIT ON WP
In her speech, Ms Indranee also questioned the timeline on which the WP has indicated it would handle the issue.
The party announced on Jan 3 – a month after the High Court judgment – that it would form a disciplinary panel to determine if Mr Singh had contravened its constitution. The panel would conclude its work within three months, with a special cadre members’ conference held thereafter.
“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, referencing the case of former Aljunied MP Leon Perera who resigned from the party in 2023.
“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.”
She said that parliament’s view on the matter should not depend on the WP’s internal deliberations.
“Parliament cannot wait on the WP,” said Ms Indranee. “This House must decide on the matter without unnecessary delay, as it reflects on the standing and integrity of parliament.”
The Leader of the House noted 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 same standards have applied to MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) too.
She cited the examples of ex-PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang, who resigned in 1999 before pleading guilty in a cheating case; former Cabinet minister S Iswaran’s 2024 resignation after being charged with corruption, even before conviction; and former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin who resigned in 2023 on account of his personal conduct, even though there was no criminal offence.
“If a PAP MP or political office holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow. It would be untenable for them to continue as if nothing happened.
“In serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions,” said Ms Indranee.
Closing her speech, she said honesty and integrity are “non-negotiable” and form the foundation of Singapore’s political system and good governance.
“If parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root, and public confidence in our institutions will be eroded, inevitably and irreversibly,” said Ms Indranee. “The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from.”
Continue reading...