SINGAPORE – Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh is unlikely to lose his parliamentary seat due to the outcome of his criminal case, though there will likely be an impact at the ballot box, said legal experts and political watchers.

The Workers’ Party chief was charged in court on March 19 with two counts of lying to a parliamentary committee, sparking speculation about his political future.

The offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act each carry a maximum fine of $7,000 and a jail term of up to three years, or both.

As the Constitution states that an MP convicted of “an offence... and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $10,000” faces disqualification from Parliament, some have wondered if a conviction would mean that Singh will lose his Aljunied seat.

But legal experts who spoke to The Straits Times said it was very unlikely that Singh would be disqualified, which would also preclude him from standing in the next general election, due by November 2025.

This is partly because Singh is unlikely to be looking at jail time, they noted.

Read Also

singapore

'I plead not guilty': WP chief Pritam charged with lying to Parliament over former MP Raeesah Khan's case

Shortly after charges were tendered, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said the prosecution will not be seeking a custodial sentence, but a fine for both charges if Singh is convicted.

This is “based on the evidence presently available and considering the totality of the circumstances”.

It will be for the court to decide whether Singh is guilty of the charges, and if so what the appropriate punishment should be, the AGC stressed.

Constitutional law expert Kevin Tan, an adjunct professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS) School of Law, said Article 45(1)(e)(i) of the Constitution refers to a single offence, and not separate offences.

This means that even if Singh was sentenced to the maximum fine of $7,000 for each of the two offences he was charged with, he would not meet the threshold to be disqualified.

The point of the $10,000 threshold is to indicate the seriousness of an offence for a person to be deemed unfit as an MP, and thus, it would not make sense if cumulative offences with lower fines can trigger disqualification, he said.

Singapore Management University (SMU) Associate Professor of Law Eugene Tan agreed, noting: “It would be a very strained reading to interpret the Constitution as suggesting that you can stack up the fines for different offences.”

He added: “No one should go away thinking that (Singh) will be disqualified as an MP, or disqualified from running in an election. I am not saying it is a guarantee, but he is not under any real risk.”

However, SMU Assistant Professor of Law Benjamin Joshua Ong said Singh could still face jail time if the courts decide that is appropriate, as they are not bound by the prosecution’s arguments and can decide on a higher or lower sentence.

Given that the charges deal with lying, Singh and the WP could take a reputational hit, said SMU’s Prof Tan.

Depending on the findings, the case could “remove any bragging rights or moral claim to being a party of integrity and honesty”, and hamper the WP’s campaign or arguments in Parliament, he added.

As he is WP’s leader, any possible fallout for Singh is also something that the party will have to shoulder as it goes into electoral battle, he noted.

But senior research fellow Gillian Koh of NUS’ Institute of Policy Studies said the case may not necessarily lead to a drop in support for the WP.

She noted that the opposition party went into the general elections in 2015 and 2020 with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) case against it, and arguably prevailed.

“The party has faced such adverse conditions going into the polls before, and we know that it prevailed in Aljunied GRC,” said Dr Koh, alluding to the WP’s continued appeal there years after its historic capture of a group representation constituency in the 2011 General Election.

While the case could energise WP’s supporters to rally around the political underdog, Dr Koh said it could cause further doubt among voters in constituencies WP might be trying to expand into.

This includes whether the party can manage its affairs well, and whether its leaders and electoral candidates will be reliable as national leaders, she said.

The case is also likely to test the WP’s party discipline and coherence, said Dr Koh.

She noted how the Raeesah Khan controversy had split a segment of the WP – which included a party leader and Ms Khan’s supporters – who felt the former Sengkang GRC MP had not been treated fairly, especially if she had been acting on the advice of Singh and other senior WP leaders.

Singh’s charges relate to his testimony before Parliament’s Committee of Privileges, convened in Nov 2021 to investigate Ms Khan’s lies in the House on Aug 3 and Oct 4, 2021.

At issue is his claim that he had asked and expected Ms Khan to clarify to Parliament that she had lied. She said he had told her to keep to her lie and to “take the information to the grave”.

Dr Koh said that in court, Singh “will have to find a way to ensure that his party members can continue to stand by him even if he casts doubt again on what Ms Khan said was that advice”.

ALSO READ: Pritam Singh rejects COP's findings, says Raeesah Khan was disenchanted with WP

This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.