Pritam Singh struck off rolls over conviction for lying to parliamentary committee

[SINGAPORE] Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh, a non-practising lawyer, was struck off the rolls on Aug 13 over his criminal conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee.

Singh did not contest the application brought by Law Society of Singapore for him to be struck off.

Both the Law Society and Singh agreed that dishonesty was an integral element of his offences, and that the high threshold to avoid a striking-off was not met.

The striking-off was handed down by the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession, which has the power to suspend errant lawyers or strike them off the rolls.

The panel comprised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Kannan Ramesh and Justice See Kee Oon.

Menon said the court was satisfied that the Law Society’s position was correct, and that Singh’s concession was “well-advised”.

Singh, who is an MP for Aljunied GRC, was convicted by a district judge in February 2025 on two counts of lying under oath to the Committee of Privileges (COP).

This was related to former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s lie in Parliament in 2021 about details of a sexual assault case that she alleged was mishandled by the police in Singapore.

In December 2025, Singh lost his appeal to the High Court against his conviction and paid his $14,000 fine.

SEE ALSO

Pritam Singh re-elected, cementing his position as WP party chief

Law Society initiated disciplinary proceedings against Pritam Singh ‘as required’ because of his conviction

On Mar 4, 2026, the society started disciplinary proceedings against Singh in compliance with the Legal Profession Act.

This was based on information received from the Attorney-General’s Chambers that Singh had been convicted of offences involving “fraud or dishonesty”, a Law Society spokesperson had earlier told The Straits Times.

Under the Act, when a regulated legal practitioner has been convicted of an offence involving fraud and dishonesty, the Law Society is required to apply to the court for disciplinary action to be taken.

In a packed courtroom on Aug 13, the society, represented by Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull, said that based on precedent, Singh should be struck off.

On Aug 13, the society, represented by Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull, said that based on precedent, Singh should be struck off.

“There is no doubt... that these are offences which involve dishonesty,” he said.

Bull noted that the Law Society is required by law to apply for disciplinary sanctions to be imposed against Singh and has no discretion in the matter.

He said that the law is also clear that misconduct involving dishonesty will almost inevitably lead to an order for striking off, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances.

In the present case, there are no exceptional circumstances that militate against a striking off, he said.

Bull said Singh’s public service as an MP did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

He said Singh’s prominence in the public sphere aggravates, rather than detract from, the negative impact of his conduct.

Bull added: “(Singh) is a lawyer, a Member of Parliament. He was at the time Leader of the Opposition. For him to lie to the COP, which was looking into the question of whether lies were told in parliament, is a serious matter.”

“He should be treated the same as others” said Bull. “The usual order for striking off should be made.”

Singh’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah, said: We’re disappointed with the outcome of both the trial and appeal.

“He has always had a deep respect for independence and professionalism of the Singapore Courts, and unreservedly accepts the outcome at trial and appeal, and their consequences.

“It is one of those consequences that brings us before this court today.”

He conceded that dishonesty is an essential element of the offences Singh was convicted of.

Rajah added: “(Singh) also appreciates that in such cases, the legal threshold to avoid striking off is a high one, and it is not met here.”

After he was struck off, Singh was ordered to pay costs and disbursements totalling S$5,808 to the Law Society.

He was composed as he left the Supreme Court building shortly after the hearing, flanked by his lawyers.

Asked how he felt about the disbarment and whether he would reapply to be reinstated as a lawyer, he said: “I have no comments to make to the media.” THE STRAITS TIMES