Outcome of Matters Referred to the Public Prosecutor

I will now move to my next announcement. On 17 February 2022, the Clerk of Parliament had written to the Attorney-General informing him of the Resolution passed by Parliament on 15 February 2022. The Resolution reads as follows:

“That this Parliament:

(a) Notes that it appears from the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) that offences under Part 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may have been committed before the Committee of Privileges; and

(b) Resolves, under section 21(1)(c) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, to refer the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap before the Committee to the Public Prosecutor."

On 18 February 2025, I received a letter from the Public Prosecutor informing me of the outcome of the above two referred matters. Firstly, on the matter of Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Member for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), the Public Prosecutor, having reviewed the totality of the evidence, had decided not to prefer any charges against him for his refusal to answer relevant questions that had been put to him by the Committee of Privileges.

On 18 March 2024, the Public Prosecutor issued an advisory to Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap to advise him to familiarise himself with the conduct expected of Members of Parliament under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act and to refrain from any act that may be in breach of the Act. Mr Muhammad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap had acknowledged the advisory.

Secondly, two charges were preferred against Mr Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition and Member for Aljunied GRC, under section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, for wilfully making false answers to material questions put to him during examination by the Committee of Privileges.

On 17 February 2025, the District Court convicted Mr Pritam Singh of both charges and imposed the maximum fine of $7,000 under section 36(1)(b) of the Act for each of the charges.

Mr Pritam Singh has a right of appeal against his convictions and sentences.

I will now address the question of Mr Pritam Singh’s seat in Parliament. Members will note that Article 46(2)(e) of the Constitution states that the seat of a Member of Parliament shall become vacant if the Member becomes subject to any disqualifications specified in Article 45.

Article 45(1)(e) of the Constitution states that a person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament who has been convicted of an offence by a court of law 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 $10,000 and has not received a free pardon.

The advice of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) was sought on the criteria for disqualification in Article 45(1)(e). AGC has advised that the fine of $10,000 specified in Article 45(1)(e) is based on the sentence imposed for a single offence and not the cumulative sentences of two offences.

In the circumstances, Mr Pritam Singh retains his seat in Parliament.