LiveParliament debates Pritam’s suitability to continue as Leader of the Opposition

Pritam brings up Tharman’s conviction under the Official Secrets Act

Carrying on with his speech, Mr Singh says that some believe that whatever the courts decide, a convicted person is unable to retain their belief that they are innocent, insofar as a conviction is concerned.

Making reference to President Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s criminal conviction in 1994, he says that Mr Tharman had said “they got the wrong man.”

Just because he was convicted in court, he says it does not negate his right to assert his innocence.

He says he takes full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correcting Ms Khan’s initial lie to Parliament, and says this is not the first time he has done so.

He adds he had a much shorter timeline than three years to deal with “a sensitive matter” involving Ms Khan.

“I certainly did not expect my MP to double down on her lie.”

Shanmugam rises to ask Pritam on what basis he is using Loh Peiying’s statements

Coordinating Minister for National Security and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam asks Mr Singh if he had asked the Attorney-General’s Chambers and if it had said no, and whether there is a legal provision that governs the use of such documents.

Mr Singh says in response the material may be disclosed for the purposes of the criminal proceedings to any accused in the criminal proceedings.

Mr Shanmugam says it would appear that there are legislative provisions that such information can only be released within the framework set out by said legislation, and he has not come by a situation where Parliament can ignore the legal position.

The Speaker asks Mr Singh to continue with his speech while he studies whether or not to accept the statements from Ms Loh.

Pritam disagrees that his behaviour was dishonourable and unbecoming as an MP

Mr Singh says he agrees with resolution one of the motion.

As opposition MPs, Mr Singh says he and his colleagues play a role in upholding “organs of state”, which means there is no difficulty in agreeing with the first resolution - that the House "affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system".

However, on resolution two, Mr Singh says the findings by the parliamentary committee “went much further” than the charges levelled against him.

He adds that as the matter was referred to the police and public prosecutor, there would have been “no trouble” for the prosecutor to frame a charge to that effect if there was enough evidence, and hence, he rejects the second resolution.

He adds that he disagrees with resolution three, which states that his behaviour was “dishonourable and unbecoming” as an MP as he disagrees with the finding of guilt by the courts and the COP.

He says he will refer to statements taken by the police from Ms Raeesah Khan’s former aide Ms Loh Peiying, which he has brought to court and asked permission from the Speaker to distribute.

These statements were not admissible during the court case, and he has asked if the Speaker will allow him to refer to them to dispute resolution three - that the House "expresses regret at the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a MP".

PHOTO: MDDI

Pritam was ‘disappointed’ with court judgment, says his conscience remains clear

Mr Singh says he has accepted the verdict fully and without reservation, but he was disappointed with the judgment and does not agree with it.

This is a comment he had previously made publicly, he adds.

He adds that he does not intend to use his speech to review matters the court has deliberated and ruled upon.

He says he will explain why he is “disappointed” with court judgment.

Ms Khan was not told to take a lie to the grave on Aug 8, 2021, he says.

The courts have ruled that her SMS message from that day of having been told to take a lie to the grave was the anchoring piece of documentary evidence, and along with other circumstantial evidence, this led to the trial judge's conclusion that such a statement was made by him, he adds.

“My conscience remains clear, as it will forever, that this was not said by me to Khan at any point in time.”
 

Pritam Singh says he has raised the party whip

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh rises to respond and begins by saying that he has lifted the party whip for the WP, meaning that they can vote as they wish on the motion.

"They are free to vote as they consider fit."

PHOTO: MDDI

WP’s Kenneth Tiong says calling Pritam’s actions a ‘cover up’ is against Parliament’s Standing Orders

WP’s Kenneth Tiong (Aljunied GRC) raises another point of order.

He says Ms Indranee had characterised Mr Singh’s actions as a “cover up”, which contravenes one of Parliament’s Standing Orders. He says the court did not describe Mr Singh’s actions as such.

Ms Indranee responds, saying that the three WP leaders acted to conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her lie.

“If one looks in the general meaning of the dictionary, it usually means to cover up.”

Supporting the motion will show that this generation of MPs will continue to uphold and enforce rigorous standards

Wrapping up her motion, Ms Indranee says this matter goes beyond party politics.

Honesty and integrity are non-negotiable and form the foundation of Singapore’s political system and of good governance.

If Parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root and public confidence in institutions will be eroded, she says.

The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from, she adds.

Supporting this motion will show that this generation of MPs are determined never to allow that to happen, and will continue to uphold and enforce the rigorous standards that have served Singapore well, and will continue to do so for many years to come. 

Ms Indranee ends her speech as she asks all members to support the motion.
 

The same standards apply to PAP MPs, says Indranee

If a PAP MP or political office-holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow, says Ms Indranee. “Of course, the same standards also apply to PAP MPs.”

It would be “untenable” for them to continue as if nothing had happened, and in serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions.

She cites the case of PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang who in 1999 was charged with cheating, and resigned. She also raises the cases of former transport minister S. Iswaran who resigned after he was charged in relation to a corruption investigation, and former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin who resigned “on account of his personal conduct” after an extramarital affair with another PAP MP came to light.

In all these cases, the MPs resigned as a matter of party discipline and to express remorse and accountability, but most of all, to maintain the high standards expected of those in public office, Ms Indranee says.

“These standards underpin our system of government, and are crucial to providing Singaporeans with the quality of leaders and government that they deserve,” she adds. 

WP and Pritam have expressed strong views against lying: Indranee

Workers’ Party MPs have often made speeches about the importance of accountability, Ms Indranee adds, and have 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 says.

The WP and Mr Singh himself have expressed strong views against lying and dishonesty, Ms Indranee says.

After Ms Khan lied to Parliament, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP’s central executive committee (CEC) that she be expelled if she did not resign.

The CEC accepted this recommendation.

When Mr Leon Perera was discovered to have lied to the WP leadership about his extramarital affair, Mr Singh said the party’s Constitution requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore.

She quotes him saying then: “Leon’s conduct and not being truthful when asked by the party leadership about the allegation fell short of the standards expected of WP MPs. This is not acceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC that he be expelled from the party.”

Swift justice was meted out just for lying to the WP leadership, and Ms Khan and Mr Perera had not lied to a committee of Parliament or under oath, Ms Indranee says.

“I am sure the WP will agree with me that the same standards and rigour must apply, whether to backbenchers or party leaders.”
 

Pritam has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of the LO: Indranee

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 (LO), Ms Indranee says.

This conclusion is “clear and beyond doubt”.

If MPs agree with this judgment, they should vote in favour of the motion, she adds.

If they disagree and wish to vote against the motion, they should justify to the House and to Singaporeans why Singapore should accept “such lowered standards of honesty and integrity” from their political leaders, Ms Indranee says.

The role of the LO carries important duties and privileges, and whoever holds this designation must be respected and trusted as a competent representative of the people, she says.

When the office was first introduced, there were high hopes for the role and how it would enhance the functioning and standing of Parliament, she adds.

But now Mr Singh has been convicted in court.