“When I first entered politics some years ago now, I was under no illusion as to the challenges that lay ahead in building a more balanced and democratic political system in Singapore,” he said, adding that it had been a “privilege and honour to be part of a Workers’ Party team that advances this cause”.
The Committee of Privileges recommended that Singh be referred to the public prosecutor after investigating Khan for lying in parliament in 2021, when she admonished police for being insensitive towards a rape survivor.
Khan had told parliament she accompanied a 25-year-old rape survivor to a police station several years ago, and the woman “came out crying” after the officer handling her complaint allegedly commented on the victim’s attire and alcohol consumption.
She later admitted she had not accompanied the victim to the police station and had misled the legislature. In her confession, she said she had taken the anecdote she used in parliament from a women’s support group she had attended, and did not have the victim’s consent to share the account publicly.
Khan was subsequently referred to the committee for breach of parliamentary privilege.
Singh had been called in as a witness, but was later found by the committee to have been untruthful during the hearings while under oath.
Singapore opposition chief rejects perjury claim as PM slams ‘lack of shame’
Singapore opposition chief rejects perjury claim as PM slams ‘lack of shame’
Following Khan’s November 2021 confession, the Singapore parliament, dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), resolved to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Khan quit the Workers’ Party and her MP seat before the start of the proceedings.
The activist had been part of a four-member team that ousted a PAP group comprising experienced political office-holders from the Sengkang constituency, home to many young families.
After more than 30 hours of hearings over the course of several weeks, she was found guilty of abuse of privilege. The committee recommended that she be fined a total of S$35,000 (US$26,000).
In its report, the committee suggested that Singh and other Workers’ Party leaders had a hand in Khan’s lie.
“Mr Singh appears to have played the key and leading role in guiding Ms Khan in respect of the Untruth. He was, by all accounts, the key orchestrator of the circumstances which led to the 4 Oct Untruth,” it said.
Singaporeans weigh morality in politics as adultery, corruption sagas ‘blow up’
Singaporeans weigh morality in politics as adultery, corruption sagas ‘blow up’
The committee also recommended that Faisal Manap, vice-chair of the Workers’ Party, be referred to the public prosecutor for refusing to answer what it said were relevant questions during the hearings.
Singh has consistently denied the allegations, though he acknowledged he had given Khan too much time to address the lie.
He previously rejected the findings of the committee and called out “gaps and omissions” in its report.
“The committee’s processes and the report before Parliament leaves many questions, gaps and omissions, and by extension suggest political partisanship,” he said in February 2022.
If found guilty, Singh could be jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$7,000, or both, on each charge.
The prosecution will be asking the court to impose a fine for each of the charges, the Attorney General’s Chambers said in response to media queries.
According to article 45 of the Constitution, MPs may be disqualified if they have been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than one year, receive a fine of more than S$10,000.
Do Singapore’s ‘generous’ cost-of-living handouts signal an election is near?
Do Singapore’s ‘generous’ cost-of-living handouts signal an election is near?
It is rare for Singapore lawmakers in recent times to be referred to prosecutors for their conduct in the legislature.
In 1986, another firebrand opposition leader, JB Jeyaretnam, was fined S$1,000 for accusing the government of tampering with the judiciary several times, and the police for abusing their powers of detention.
Before stepping down as MP in 1987, he was fined S$25,000 for contempt of parliament, after he published distorted reports of the committee’s proceedings in newsletters to residents of his constituency.