Parliament expected to debate motion on conduct of Workers’ Party leaders: Analysts

Singapore University of Social Sciences law lecturer Ben Chester Cheong said a substantive motion allowing debate appears the likely approach, given the way the issue has been framed publicly thus far.

It would allow the House to consider the matter collectively and, if it wishes, to express a formal view, he said.

“A ministerial statement remains a possible way of setting out the government’s position or procedural context, but the language used so far suggests that some form of debated motion is the more natural vehicle,” said Mr Cheong.

It would also better reflect the government’s view that this is a matter for the House to address collectively, in the interests of parliamentary standards and integrity, he added.

PARLIAMENT’S PUNITIVE POWERS 

Experts also noted the separation between the judicial and legislative arms of the country, with parliament’s actions towards the WP leaders distinct from the process to determine criminal liability.

“Such a motion would likely be cast in institutional terms, focusing on privilege, accountability and the maintenance of public trust in parliament following the conclusion of court proceedings, rather than party politics,” said Mr Cheong.

Assoc Prof Tan said that police or court actions do not constrain parliament’s ability to deal with MPs and members of the public. This is the convention of the separation of powers at work, while the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act also recognises this, he said.

He noted that parliament’s “appropriate response” does not extend to the removal of Mr Singh and Ms Lim as MPs. That is an outcome which can only be triggered by the WP.

“Crucially, the WP can demand the trio resign from the party or even expel them from the party and, consequently, Pritam and Sylvia would automatically lose their MP seats.

“Parliament has no such power.”

Parliament cannot remove an MP, and the vacating of or disqualification from an MP seat is only provided for in the Constitution, he explained. An MP would have to resign or be expelled from his or her party, or incur a fine or jail term beyond the threshold limits, in order to lose a seat.

Mr Cheong explained that the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act sets out the House’s punitive powers in cases of dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. 

“These include directing that a Member be reprimanded or admonished, imposing a fine, or suspending a Member from the service of parliament for a defined period,” he said.

There also remains the question of his position as Leader of the Opposition, which is up to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to decide, said Assoc Prof Tan.

Mr Wong said on May 5 that Mr Singh would continue in the role, which he has held since after the 2020 general election.

In this role, Mr Singh receives confidential briefings by the government on select matters of national security and external relations, and in the event of a national crisis or emergency.

He also receives an extra allowance to hire up to three additional legislative assistants – on top of what MPs get for one legislative assistant and one secretarial assistant – and receives double the allowance of an elected MP, at about S$385,000 (US$298,000) annually.

As Leader of the Opposition, Mr Singh also has the right of first response among MPs and more time for his speeches, equivalent to that given to political office holders.

As for Mr Faisal, who is not an MP, parliament still has the ability to take action against him. The three-term Aljunied GRC MP was part of the WP’s Tampines GRC slate that lost in the May general election.

According to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, any contempt by a non-MP – or “stranger” to parliament –  may bring a prison term not extending beyond the current session of parliament, and impose a maximum fine of S$50,000.

Parliament can also exclude the individual from the premises and the precincts thereof for the remainder of the current session or any part of it, and direct them to be reprimanded or admonished at the Bar of the House by the Speaker.

Observers said that given the bipartisan nature of the 15th Parliament, there is a need to balance between maintaining proper procedure and not making this episode appear politically driven optics-wise.

The House has an “unenviable task” of ensuring the discipline, dignity and decorum of parliament is preserved in the face of egregious conduct, while also demonstrating that parliamentary breaches are dealt with “without fear or favour”, said Assoc Prof Tan.

“While focus has been very much on what parliament will do or whether it is flogging a dead horse, these concerns are misplaced. Parliament will be derelict in its duty if it did not follow-up on the resolutions it had passed in 2022,” he said.