Parliament deems Pritam Singh unsuitable to continue as Leader of the Opposition

[SINGAPORE] The House has expressed the view that Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh is unsuitable to stay on as the Leader of the Opposition (LO), following his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee.

Following a three-hour debate on Jan 14, the House approved a motion that said Singh’s conduct and conviction in relation to then-WP MP Raeesah Khan’s lie in Parliament in 2021 meant he had fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of an LO.

As such, Singh’s continuation as LO would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system, added the motion, which was raised by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.

All 11 WP MPs in the House stood up to record their disagreement, while Non-Constituency MP Eileen Chong was not present. The nine NMPs and the PAP MPs agreed with the motion.

As the position of LO is conferred by the prime minister, the decision on whether to retain Singh in the post rests with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. ST has approached the Prime Minister’s Office for comments.

Opening the debate, Indranee noted the High Court’s decision on Dec 4, 2025 to uphold Singh’s conviction on two counts of lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP).

In sum, Singh had guided Khan twice to maintain her lie to Parliament; he lied twice before the COP; and he lied before the court. Singh also lied to the public, and concealed material information from his own party, she added.

“There are simply too many lies – they pile up, one on top of another, each one to cover up a previous lie,” she said. “And that is a problem, as Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition.”

The court’s findings meant the matter had come full circle back to Parliament, she added.

Indranee said Parliament derives its authority from the law, but also the confidence and trust reposed by Singaporeans in its processes and MPs. An MP’s lies to Parliament or before its committees are, therefore, not just a personal lapse or a tactical misjudgment.

“It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us...it undermines the high standards of integrity and incorruptibility which make the Singaporean system work, and for which Singapore is known,” she said. “That is why I have brought this motion before Parliament.”

Indranee noted that the court had already fined Singh, which dealt with the criminal offences. On Feb 17, the district court fined Singh the maximum of S$7,000 for each of his two charges.

The House was not being asked to impose further penalties on Singh, said Indranee. But his conduct and conviction reflect directly on Parliament, and it must decide whether such conduct is acceptable for an MP, and in this case the LO.

The motion also asked the House to affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary system, she added.

“Members are entitled to, and I will argue have an obligation to, express a view on Mr Singh’s suitability to continue in the role (of Leader of the Opposition),” said Indranee. “It will then be for the Prime Minister to decide what to do after that.”

Speaking after Indranee, Singh said that while he accepted the court’s verdict fully and without reservation, he was disappointed with the judgment and did not agree with the findings.

“A criminal conviction does not negate one’s right to assert innocence...in my case, my conscience will always be clear insofar as my conviction on both charges is concerned,” he said.

The WP chief said that his lawyers had tendered evidence to the court that in their legal opinion “render(ed) a conviction on both charges unsafe”.

Singh said the Leader of the Opposition appointment was neither written into the Constitution nor written laws, and that he had never hankered for it.

“Whatever Parliament decides, and as long as I am a Member of Parliament, I will continue my work as an MP on the ground in Aljunied GRC,” he said.

WP MPs who joined the debate, including Aljunied GRC MPs Sylvia Lim and Gerald Giam, questioned whether the motion was an attempt to further punish Singh, who had already been sentenced by the court and had paid his fines.

“I believe this motion today does not serve Singaporeans, but is a party political exercise, and I can foresee that our Parliament will slip further down the rule of law rankings on the factor of being able to effectively check government power,” said Lim, who is WP chairwoman.

Three NMPs – Kuah Boon Theng, Mark Lee, and Neo Kok Beng – participated in the debate, and called on Singh to voluntarily relinquish the title of Leader of the Opposition.

Kuah, a senior counsel, noted that professions such as medicine and law have disciplinary tribunals that may take away the right of doctors and lawyers to practice when a member of their fraternity has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, or when a complaint of professional misconduct has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Rounding up the debate, Indranee said the motion went beyond any individual or party, and was about upholding the integrity and standing of Parliament and the standard of conduct of the Republic’s MPs.

“We cannot endorse dishonourable conduct or ignore the court’s judgment, and we cannot talk about a first-world Parliament and effective checks and balances if fundamental values of honesty, integrity and accountability are not upheld,” she said

“We have a solemn duty to make sure that politics in Singapore remains upright and honourable.” THE STRAITS TIMES