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

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 the 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 had been mishandled by the police.

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

On March 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.

“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 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 detracts 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. 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.

“(Singh) has always had a deep respect for the 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.” 

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

He 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 $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.”

Singh is the third lawyer to be struck off the rolls in 2026.

Apply to reinstate

Under the Legal Profession Act, the Court of Three Judges can order a lawyer to be struck off the rolls, suspended for up to five years, pay a penalty of up to $100,000, or be censured.

Disbarred lawyers can apply to be reinstated.

The court would consider the amount of time lapsed before the reinstatement application; whether the applicant has been fully rehabilitated; and the protection of the public interest and reputation of the legal profession.

The Act does not prescribe the minimum period of time that should elapse before an applicant can seek to be reinstated as a lawyer, but it is a well-established rule that “a significantly longer period than five years” should have passed.

This is because for suspensions, the maximum period is five years.

Can Pritam apply to practise law after disbarment?: askST

A disbarred lawyer can make a comeback if the Court of Three Judges considers them fit to practise law again.

The issue has come into focus after 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.

The striking-off was handed down by the court, which is the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession. It has the power to suspend lawyers or strike them off the rolls for professional misconduct.

Here is a look at how lawyers can lose their right to practise law, what happens after they are struck off, and what it takes to get their names back on the rolls.

Q: When can lawyers be struck off the rolls?

Lawyers in Singapore can be hauled up to face the Court of Three Judges to be sanctioned in serious cases of professional misconduct.

Under the Legal Profession Act, the court can order the lawyer to be struck off the rolls, suspended for up to five years, pay a penalty of up to $100,000, or be censured.

The court has ruled in past cases that a lawyer who has been shown to be dishonest will “almost invariably” be struck off.

In a 2018 judgment, the court said: “In such cases, striking off will be the presumptive penalty unless there are truly exceptional facts to show that a striking off would be disproportionate.”

Singh is the third lawyer to be disbarred in 2026.

In July, Steven John Lam Kuet Keng was struck off the rolls for lying to police about a 2024 drink-driving crash.

He falsely claimed someone else had been driving and later pleaded guilty to four charges, including giving false information to a public servant, drink driving and careless driving.

Both Singh and Lam, who were represented by Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah, did not object to being struck off.

In November 2025, Charles Yeo, who fled Singapore in 2022 while on bail for criminal charges, was struck off the rolls.

The Law Society brought five sets of disciplinary proceedings against him for mismanagement of clients’ funds, failures in handling migrant workers’ settlement money and misrepresentations to the court.

The court found that he was “thoroughly unfit” to remain a member of the legal profession.

Q: What options do lawyers have after they are struck off the rolls?

Lawyers who have been disbarred cannot represent clients. However, they can take on law-related roles that do not require them to be called to the Bar.

After he was struck off in 2010 following a criminal conviction for burglary in Hong Kong, Choy Chee Yean continued working in the legal sector.

He took on various roles, as an author, a paralegal, an in-house counsel, and a consultant and trainer, until he was reinstated as a lawyer in 2019.

Glenn Knight, who was the first director of the police’s Commercial Affairs Department, worked in various jobs after he was struck off in 1994. Among other things, he was engaged as a consultant for a hotel in Batam and assisted the owner of High Street Centre in various matters relating to winding-up proceedings.

Q: Can disbarred lawyers make a comeback?

A disbarred lawyer can apply to the court for reinstatement.

In deciding whether the applicant should be reinstated, the court considers whether an adequate period of time has lapsed between disbarment and the reinstatement application; whether the applicant has been fully rehabilitated; and the protection of the public interest and reputation of the legal profession.

The Legal Profession Act does not prescribe the minimum period of time that should elapse before an applicant can seek to be reinstated as a lawyer.

However, it is a well-established rule that “a significantly longer period than five years” should have passed before an individual considers making such an application.

The reason is that five years is the maximum period for which a lawyer could be suspended, and a striking off should normally be more serious than a suspension.

In allowing Choy to practise law nine years after his disbarment, the court said it was satisfied that he had been fully rehabilitated and that a sufficient length of time had elapsed between his disbarment and reinstatement application.

Before he was disbarred in 2010, Choy stopped practising for two years.

His reinstatement came with several conditions – sought by the Law Society and the Attorney-General’s Chambers – to prevent any potential lapses.

He was not allowed to hold clients’ money, or to hold the position of a partner, director or sole proprietor of a law firm, for a year. Measures were also in place to ensure his mental health.

Choy is currently managing director of a firm he founded.

Knight, who was disbarred in 1994 following his conviction in a high-profile corruption case, was reinstated in 2007, more than 12 years later.

Represented by Senior Counsel Rajah, he submitted testimonials from employers, former colleagues, friends and senior lawyers who vouched for his character, integrity and trustworthiness.

The court accepted their evidence and found him fit to have his name restored on the rolls. The Attorney-General and Law Society also did not object to his reinstatement.

He joined a law firm after his reinstatement, before setting up his own practice in 2010, where he remained until he died in February 2025, aged 80.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Laws must serve Singapore’s long-term interests, fit ground realities