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

NMP asks Pritam Singh to voluntarily agree to give up the LO position

Ms Kuah asks Mr Singh to “respond appropriately” by voluntarily agreeing to give up the position of Leader of the Opposition.

She invites Mr Singh to reflect on his own conduct and indicate if he would be the first to agree that he has “indeed fallen below the standards that should rightly be expected of him”.

Giving up the position would be “the clearest sign he could offer this House that he has indeed learnt the error of his ways”, and would reflect he acknowledges that the trust and respect that comes with the position of Leader of the Opposition is one he now has to work hard to earn.

Ms Kuah adds: “We are all human, and we all make mistakes. We may commit errors of judgment, maybe even serious ones.

"But the true test of character lies in how people respond and whether they are able to openly acknowledge wrongdoings, show genuine remorse and contrition, rather than seek to lay blame elsewhere."

New NMP Kuah Boon Theng speaks next

Lawyer Kuah Boon Theng, a new Nominated MP, is the next to speak on the motion.

She prefaces her speech by stating that she does not know Mr Singh personally and that she is speaking as a “non-partisan member of this House”.

She says that in her profession, practitioners are held to high ethical standards, including “to act with integrity and honesty... and to preserve the public’s trust”.

A senior counsel, she sits on the disciplinary tribunal for the Law Society of Singapore. She says the tribunal must first be satisfied that charges of professional misconduct are proven beyond reasonable doubt before referring the lawyer to the Court of Three Judges for consideration of disparate action.

She draws parallels with the medical profession that is held to high standards of ethical conduct, which she also advises.

Doctors can be disciplined by their own professional body, even if the doctor has already been separately held accountable in a court of law and convicted for a criminal offence, she says. “One is accountable to the law in a criminal court, but must also be accountable to one's own profession.”

Her point, she says, is that lawyers, like herself and Mr Singh, are called by their profession to act with honour and integrity.

“What more if one is an MP in service to the public? What more if one is the Leader of the Opposition who has been specially conferred with the privileges and respect that comes with that special position?” she asks.

“Surely the standards of conduct for the profession of parliamentarians cannot be lower than what is expected from the legal or medical professions.”

PHOTO: MDDI

Pritam says he will press on as an MP no matter what Parliament decides

Mr Singh says that whatever Parliament decides, and as long as he is an MP, he will continue his work in the role on the ground in Aljunied GRC.

“I will continue to advocate for Singaporeans in Parliament to the best of my abilities, as I have for the last 15 years, for the Workers’ Party.

“And to my fellow Singaporeans, we press on, and we continue working for Singapore.”

He also quotes former WP chief Low Thia Khiang, who told the media after giving evidence at Mr Singh’s trial that voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not a good politician, and that he believes Mr Singh is a good politician.

Mr Singh adds that he is grateful for the support of Singapore and Singaporeans.

No action should be taken against Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap: Pritam

Mr Singh moves on to reject resolution four which states his continuation in the role of Leader of the Opposition (LO) will undermine public confidence in Singapore’s political system.

He says he has never operated on the assumption that the appointment is a given, and that he has done his best to work with his colleagues to be a responsible opposition.

Mr Singh adds that he has never assumed that his appointment as LO is a given, adding that while Ms Indranee had elaborated on the role’s duties, “perhaps (she) can share how many of such briefings were extended to me, and how many trips I went with the Government to various places”.

He adds that he disagrees with resolution five and says that no action should be taken against Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap as he does not agree with the judgment and the findings of the Committee of Privileges. 

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

Carrying on with his speech, Mr Singh says 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 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 that 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.

PHOTO: MDDI

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

Mr Singh says he agrees with the first resolution of the motion, which calls on the House to affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's parliamentary and political system.

As opposition MPs, he says he and his colleagues play a role in upholding “organs of state”.

However, he rejects the second resolution. This resolution notes the court's decision to uphold Mr Singh's conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP), as well as the findings of the COP. 

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.

He also disagrees with the third resolution, which states that his behaviour was “dishonourable and unbecoming” as an MP. This is because 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.

Citing the Standing Order of Parliament, Mr Tiong says Ms Indranee's speech was in contravention of Standing Order 50(6) which states that "no member shall impute improper motives to any other member" in the content of speeches.

He says Ms Indranee has characterised Mr Singh’s actions as a “cover-up”,  though the court did not describe Mr Singh’s actions as such.

Ms Indranee responds, saying that the Court had said in its judgement that the three WP leaders acted to "conceal" their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her lie.

Referring in particular to the word "conceal", she says: “If one looks in the general meaning of the dictionary, it usually means to cover up.”