Parliament to discuss in Jan its response to Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying under oath: Indranee

SINGAPORE – Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee will be raised for discussion when the House meets in January, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.

In a statement on Dec 17, Ms Indranee said whatever course the Workers’ Party may take on its own, it is necessary for Parliament to take notice of Mr Singh’s actions and convictions, and deliberate on an appropriate response.

Ms Indranee added that

the courts’ findings and Mr Singh’s convictions

are a solemn reminder to all MPs that they have a sacred duty to uphold the rule of law and maintain honesty and integrity in their conduct.

“We cannot talk about having a First World Parliament or providing robust checks and balances unless MPs on both sides of the aisle hold themselves to high standards of conduct.”

This comes after Mr Singh’s appeal against his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee was on Dec 4 dismissed by the High Court.

Ms Indranee, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Finance, added that lying under oath is a serious matter.

“In some countries, leaders who have lied, cheated or flagrantly broken the law still escape any legal or political consequences. We cannot accept such standards in Singapore.”

She noted that Mr Singh was convicted of two charges of lying under oath on Feb 17 – a decision that was later upheld by the High Court on Dec 4 after an appeal. He was fined $14,000.

The facts of his case are “disturbing”, she said.

Ms Indranee noted that the Workers’ Party has its own processes to deal with members who are untruthful, referencing two cases of former WP MPs who had resigned after misconduct.

Former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan, who had lied repeatedly in Parliament, was put through a disciplinary panel where WP leadership eventually “voted overwhelmingly” to ask her to resign, she said.

Mr Singh had said that Ms Khan would have been expelled from the WP had she not resigned, she added.

In the case of former Aljunied GRC MP Leon Perera – who resigned from the party after a past extramarital affair – Ms Indranee said Mr Singh had said then: “The constitution of the Workers’ Party requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore… Leon’s conduct and not being truthful when asked by the party leadership about the allegations fell short of the standards expected of WP MPs.

“This is unacceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC (central executive committee) that he be expelled from the party.”

Ms Khan and Mr Perera were backbench MPs, while Mr Singh is the secretary-general of the WP and the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Indranee said.

She said: “The Workers’ Party has said that it will study the High Court’s judgment in Mr Singh’s case.

“It is up to the Workers’ Party to decide what it intends to do in light of the court judgment (that he had lied under oath), and Mr Singh’s acceptance of the judgment, fully and without reservation.”

She reiterated some findings from the court proceedings, including that the decision to come clean was made only when former WP chief Low Thia Khiang advised Mr Singh and WP chair Sylvia Lim on Oct 11, 2021, that the truth should be clarified in Parliament.

She also noted that when Mr Singh testified to the Committee of Privileges (COP), he falsely stated on oath that on both occasions when Ms Khan had lied in Parliament, he had wanted her to clarify the matter and tell the truth.

After Ms Khan confessed in the House to lying, Mr Singh formed a disciplinary committee comprising himself, Ms Lim and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap, to find out why Ms Khan had lied.

Ms Indranee said this was a travesty, given that the three of them already knew about the lie months earlier, and that it was Mr Singh who guided Ms Khan to continue with the lie.

“None of these facts were disclosed when the disciplinary panel was formed.”

The Straits Times has contacted the WP for comment.

Mr Singh’s court case began after the COP was convened to investigate Ms Khan’s lies in Parliament before her November 2021 resignation.

The COP had on conclusion in February 2022 released a report which said the “appropriate sanctions” for Mr Singh and other WP leaders – Ms Lim and Mr Manap – for their roles in Ms Khan’s untruths to the House and to the COP would be deferred until the end of investigations or criminal proceedings against him.

It also recommended that Ms Khan be fined and Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor. Ms Khan was eventually fined $35,000.

She had told and repeated a false anecdote to the House.

In subsequent court proceedings, judges ruled that Mr Singh had lied to the COP on two key issues: on whether he had told Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, and what he meant when he told Ms Khan that he would not judge her.

The courts found that Mr Singh, contrary to his own account, had told Ms Khan to take her lie “to the grave”.

They also found that when he told Ms Khan he would not judge her, he meant that he would not judge her for maintaining her lie. Mr Singh said that he meant instead that he would not judge her for taking ownership and responsibility for her untruth.

In his final appeal, Mr Singh’s lawyers contended that the trial judge “ignored crucial pieces of evidence” in finding him guilty. The defence also said Ms Khan’s testimony was the sole foundation of both charges, even though she had been evasive under cross-examination and had “fabricated completely fantastical evidence”.

Justice of the Court of Appeal Steven Chong said in his dismissal of the appeal that the trial judge had carefully evaluated an entire body of evidence in addition to Ms Khan’s testimony, and it was that which persuaded him to convict Mr Singh.

Read Full Article At Source