CNA Explains: What are Pritam Singh's charges, and could he be ...

SINGAPORE: Singapore's Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh was charged on Tuesday (Mar 19) with lying to a parliamentary committee, in relation to a case involving his Workers' Party's (WP) former member Raeesah Khan.

Singh, who is WP chief and a Member of Parliament (MP) for Aljunied GRC, has pleaded not guilty. 

Singh, 47, faces two charges under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. 

This section states it's an offence to lie when answering a question material to a subject of inquiry, during examination before parliament or a committee. 

Singh is said to have lied on Dec 10, 2021 about a meeting he had with Ms Khan, WP chair Sylvia Lim and party leader Faisal Manap on Aug 8 that year.

He's also accused of lying on both Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, about what he said to Ms Khan on Oct 3 that year.

If convicted, Singh faces up to three years' jail, a fine of up to S$7,000 (US$5,200) or both, for each charge.

It's a law essentially setting out rules that govern parliament. 

Assistant Professor Benjamin Joshua Ong from the Singapore Management University's (SMU) Yong Pung How School of Law said the Act focuses on matters that enable parliament to perform its functions effectively.

"For example, it empowers parliament to summon witnesses to give evidence before it, and makes it an offence to, among other things: Disrupt parliament’s proceedings, to deliberately lie to parliament or a committee of parliament, to use 'force' to compel an MP to vote in a certain way, and even to challenge (an MP) to a fight on account of his conduct in parliament."

Law lecturer Ben Chester Cheong described the Act as regulating the powers and privileges of parliament and its members, and detailing what kind of immunities - or exemptions - they are given. 

The Act also governs the conduct of individuals in relation to parliamentary proceedings, he added.

The specific section that Singh was charged under "aims to ensure that individuals providing testimony or evidence to parliament do so truthfully", said Mr Cheong, who's from the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS).

"It is designed to protect the integrity of parliamentary proceedings and to maintain public trust in the institution."

Experts said Singh appears to be the first MP to be charged under Section 31(q) of the Act.

Others have previously been taken to task for contempt of parliament, which is under Section 20.

In 2019 and ahead of a general election, the opposition Singapore Democratic Party's John Tan - who was not an MP - was fined S$5,000 for contempt of court. 

At the time, under the Constitution, anyone fined at least S$2,000 or jailed a year or more for an offence would have been disqualified from running for election as an MP; while a sitting MP would have lost their seat.

The threshold has since been raised to S$10,000. 

Singh's fate depends on the reading of the Constitution, experts said.

As mentioned earlier, the maximum fine for each of his two charges is S$7,000. If both charges are taken together to be an offence, then the cumulative fine of S$14,000 could disqualify him as an MP and from standing in the next election. The disqualification lasts five years. 

But law don Eugene Tan was of the view that each charge should be taken as a single offence.

He referred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers' statement on Tuesday that it would be seeking a fine for each of Singh's charges, if convicted.

"Unless there are very compelling reasons, the courts will likely go along with what the prosecution seeks as appropriate," added the former Nominated MP, who teaches constitutional law at the Singapore Management University. 

And according to the associate professor, "there is no basis to read the Constitution as indicating that you can add the different fines together".

"Mr Pritam Singh will not lose his parliamentary seat ....  I think there is no real risk," he said. "And likewise ... he would be eligible to contest in the next parliamentary election."

SUSS' Mr Cheong concurred, but also said the Constitution was not "absolutely clear" on this. 

"To me if the court eventually fines him S$14,000, I think it could be open to challenge that this would have exceeded the S$10,000 threshold," said Mr Cheong. 

"If the court fines an individual S$14,000, it is problematic because when one asks what sentence the person eventually received, it would be the (total) sentence."

In the 1970s, former MP Wee Toon Boon faced five charges for corruption and was eventually sentenced to six months' jail for each of four charges.

Then-Leader of the House E.W. Barker had pointed out in parliament that under the law at the time, an MP would be disqualified for being jailed at least a year or fined at least S$2,000.

"Mr Wee would not, by virtue of his convictions and sentences, be disqualified from remaining as a Member of Parliament," said Mr Barker in a 1976 ministerial statement.

"Mr Wee accordingly remains a Member of this House."

Singh on Tuesday said he would engage a lawyer and update the court at his next mention.

According to SUSS senior law lecturer Melvin Loh, Singh's lawyer will likely assess the charges and make representations to the prosecution. 

These representations can be to seek clarification on the charges, evidence and the sentencing position sought. 

The process may span several weeks, with the matter remaining at the further mentions stage.

The prosecution may offer Singh a plead guilty offer during this time.

Should Mr Singh claim trial, the matter will then be sent for a pre-trial conference, where both the prosecution and defence will be issued timelines for their respective cases to be filed.

Until the trial concludes, Mr Singh will be able to enter a plea of guilt should he choose to.

Lawyer Adrian Wee from Lighthouse Law LLC said that depending on the complexity of the issues and the witnesses involved, a trial may not take place for another four to six months. 

The trial itself can then range from days to weeks, Mr Cheong said. 

In a statement posted on Facebook, Singh said he would "press on" with his parliamentary duties and town council responsibilities until the legal process concluded.

The ruling People’s Action Party also said it will not be seeking Singh’s suspension as an MP, while legal proceedings are pending.

Assoc Prof Tan from SMU said a conviction could damage Singh's reputation, undermine his standing and also be "very, very damaging" to the WP's credibility.

But staunch supporters would still stand by the party, the academic suggested, though he said question marks would remain over "unallied" voters or those not supporting any particular party.

Assoc Prof Tan said the WP would meanwhile likely endeavour to maintain "business as usual" by closing ranks and continuing to back Singh as their leader.

"They would want to impress (voters) that they would take this setback for now in their stride, and (that) it doesn't waver their commitment to their role as the leading opposition party and to hold the government accountable."