SINGAPORE: Political analysts expect a debate in January on a parliamentary motion regarding the conduct of Workers’ Party (WP) leaders, which could then open the door to a range of punitive actions.
The penalties include a fine, a jail term or suspension as Members of Parliament (MP) if a motion is passed criticising the leaders in their handling of ex-member Raeesah Khan’s lies in the House, according to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
Last week, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah said that parliament must deliberate on an “appropriate response” to WP chief Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. On Monday, she added that the conduct of party chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap in the matter will also be raised for discussion at the next sitting.
Experts told CNA it is likely that parliament will debate and vote on a motion.
A motion is “a proposal for the House to do something, to order something to be done or to express an opinion on a matter”, according to parliament’s website.
Parliament is also empowered to enact sanctions on MPs who are found to be in contempt of parliament, have abused their parliamentary privilege, or for any dishonourable conduct.
These sanctions include a fine not exceeding S$50,000, suspension from parliament, or a jail term not extending beyond the current session of parliament.
POSSIBLE MOTION ON PRITAM SINGH
Speaking to CNA, Singapore Management University associate professor of law Eugene Tan said a debate is the “logical conclusion” to the report by a previous parliamentary committee looking into ex-MP Raeesah Khan’s lies in 2021.
At the time, parliament held off on imposing sanctions on Mr Singh and the other WP leaders involved in the handling of Ms Raeesah’s case until the conclusion of investigations and criminal proceedings against Mr Singh.
Parliament will have to follow up on uncompleted matters, specifically arising from the resolutions the 14th Parliament had passed on Feb 15, 2022, said Assoc Prof Tan.
That pertains to the roles the three leaders played in connection with the untruth spoken by Ms Khan at two sittings of parliament in 2021, and Ms Lim and Mr Faisal’s untruths to the Committee of Privileges (COP).
“With the COP’s findings having been corroborated by the two court judgements, we can expect parliament to use its punitive powers on the trio. This matter of a conspiracy to lie to parliament is unprecedented,” said Assoc Prof Tan.
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.
