SINGAPORE — In what a legal expert called a “precedent setting” case, Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh was on Tuesday (March 19) handed two charges of giving false answers to a parliamentary committee.

This comes more than two years after an incident in Parliament involving a then-WP Member of Parliament (MP) misleading the House, which set in motion events that culminated in Singh being charged.

Singh, who is also Leader of the Opposition, on Tuesday has pleaded not guilty and is contesting the charges.

TODAY spoke to legal experts who explained why it took so long for the case to reach the courts, what happens next and what would happen to Singh's seat in Parliament if he is convicted.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

The saga began in 2021 when then-WP MP Raeesah Khan claimed in Parliament that she accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively. This was later revealed to be untrue. 

A Committee of Privileges was convened in 2021 to probe Ms Khan’s conduct, and called upon a few witnesses including Singh and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap who testified while under oath.

Following the hearings, the committee found that Singh and "to a lesser extent" Mr Faisal were untruthful in their evidence while under oath. It also found that Mr Faisal had refused to answer the committee’s questions, which the committee said may amount to contempt of Parliament.

In February 2022, Parliament voted for Singh and Mr Faisal to be referred to the Attorney-General, who later referred the conduct of Singh and Mr Faisal to the police in April 2022. 

On Tuesday, Singh was handed two charges under Section 31(Q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act alleging he wilfully gave false answers to questions put to him during the committee’s probe.

WHY DID THE INVESTIGATIONS TAKE SO LONG?

Law professor Walter Woon said that the two years that elapsed from when Singh’s matter was referred to the Attorney-General and the police until he was charged on Tuesday “does seem a long time”.

“The allegedly false statements were recorded, so there is no need for forensic accounting or sifting through tons of evidence,” said the Lee Kong Chian Visiting Professor at the Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University (SMU), who is also a former Attorney-General.

Still, other legal experts said that the police would also have to have done their own investigation “from scratch”. Hence, it was “not unusual” that the case took this long to reach the courts, they opined.

Associate Professor Ferlin Jayatissa from the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) said the process would have involved calling in multiple witnesses to take their statements which “may corroborate or rebut the position taken by Singh”, among other matters.

The prosecution would then have had to scrutinise the findings “to ensure that there is sufficient evidence which is beyond reasonable doubt before indicting any party”, said the law professor.

Meanwhile, SMU Associate Professor of Law Eugene Tan said that the “political nature of this case cannot be denied nor underestimated”. 

“The AGC would have also taken as much time as they needed to properly evaluate the investigation papers and to determine whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute both MPs,” he said.

Another factor that could add to the time taken to bring cases to court is the "novelty of the legal issues", said Mr Benjamin Joshua Ong, an assistant professor of law from SMU.

“I can imagine that it might have taken the prosecutors longer to study the relevant law (which is rarely invoked – in fact, this may be the first time!) compared to a run-of-the-mill offence like theft,” said Asst Prof Joshua Ong in a written reply to TODAY.

Assoc Prof Tan concurred that Singh’s case is probably the first to go to court under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act since Singapore’s independence.

“So, it would be precedent setting,” he said.

WHY WAS MR FAISAL NOT CHARGED?

After Tuesday’s hearing, the police and Attorney-General's Chambers in a joint statement said that the prosecution will not be proceeding to press any charges against Mr Faisal.

No further reason was given aside from the fact that the decision was made after “having considered the totality of the evidence”.

The WP vice-chair was instead issued with an advisory on Monday advising him to “familiarise himself” with the conduct expected of an MP under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act and to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it.

Assoc Prof Jayatissa said that first and foremost, the decision to press charges or otherwise lies in the hands of the public prosecutor, as stated in the Constitution. The public prosecutor is the Attorney-General.

He also noted that there was a distinction to be made between the allegations against Singh and Mr Faisal, based on the joint statement by AGC and the police.

While Singh was accused of “being untruthful”, Mr Faisal had “allegedly refus(ed) to answer relevant questions” by the committee of privileges, according to the joint statement.

“(The latter) is more a contempt of Parliament,” said Assoc Prof Jayatissa.

“Also, one is an action, one is an inaction,” he added.

WILL PRITAM SINGH CONTINUE HIS DUTIES?

In a statement after he was charged, Singh said it will be business as usual for him when it comes to his parliamentary and MP duties until the legal process comes to “a complete close”.

For its part, the governing People’s Action Party (PAP) said it will not seek Singh’s suspension as an MP while legal proceedings over his charges are ongoing.

PAP organising secretary Grace Fu said this in a statement in response to queries about whether the party will, through its MPs, be seeking to suspend Singh given that he has been charged.

“This is in line with Parliament’s resolution to defer any sanctions in respect of Mr Singh’s, Ms Sylvia Lim’s, and Mr Faisal’s respective roles in the matter of former MP Raeesah Khan’s untruth, until after the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings (if any) against Mr Singh,” she said.

“This is also consistent with PAP’s position to a motion filed by Non-Constituency MP and secretary-general of the Progress Singapore Party, Ms Hazel Poa, in September 2023.”

IF CONVICTED, WOULD SINGH BE DISQUALIFIED AS AN MP?

If convicted, Singh could be jailed for up to three years, or fined up to S$7,000 or both, for each charge.

The prosecution said that it was seeking a fine against Singh if he is convicted, according to an AGC spokesperson after the hearing on Tuesday. It is rare, though not unheard of, for courts to impose a more severe penalty than that sought by the prosecution.

This raises the question of whether Singh would be disqualified as an MP if found guilty, as Article 45 of the Constitution spells out several situations where a person “shall not be qualified” to be an MP.

Among them, a person would be disqualified as an MP if he or she has “been convicted of an offence by a court in Singapore or elsewhere and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than S$10,000 (or its equivalent in a foreign currency when sentenced)”.

In a theoretical instance where, for example, multiple fines exceed S$10,000 in total, but are less than that figure taken individually, the legal experts suggested that this would not have the effect of disqualifying an MP.

“There does not appear to be any provision for consolidating several sentences into an aggregate sentence arising from several convictions in a single joint trial,” said Assoc Prof Jayatissa of SUSS.

Prof Woon of SMU added that based on parliamentary debates in May 2022, the threshold was raised to S$10,000 from the original S$2,000 “to account for inflation, not to broaden the disqualification to include more than one offence”.

Agreeing, Assoc Prof Eugene Tan said that a "plain and purposive" reading of the Constitution indicated the penalties could not be "stacked up" for the purposes of assessing whether an MP would be disqualified.

He added: “In my view, Singh is not under any real threat of being disqualified as an MP”.