Parliament to debate Pritam’s suitability as Leader of the Opposition after conviction for lying

Parliament is set to debate if Mr Pritam Singh is suitable to continue as Leader of the Opposition following his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee.

Leader of the House Indranee Rajah has tabled a motion for the upcoming session of Parliament, which is scheduled to sit on Jan 12. The motion will be raised on Jan 13 or later in the week, said the Office of the Leader of the House in a statement on Jan 9.

It calls on the House to consider that Mr Singh’s “conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition” and to express regret at his conduct, which was “dishonourable and unbecoming” of an MP.

The motion notes that Mr Singh, the Workers’ Party chief, had been convicted in a court of law of lying under oath when giving testimony to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges – a judgment that was upheld by the High Court. He was also found by the committee to have guided his party’s former MP Raeesah Khan to keep up a lie she told in Parliament.

The motion states that the Leader of the Opposition is a “parliamentary leadership position carrying important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system”.

There are six points in the motion, which notes that the High Court judgment and the Committee of Privileges’ findings have implications for WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap, which have to be considered separately.

It also calls upon all MPs to affirm “that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system” and to “uphold their solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times, and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans”.

A WP spokesman said the party “will address the matter during the parliamentary sitting, where the motion will be debated”.

“We do not have further comments to make at this time,” he said.

The motion comes after Ms Indranee had said in December 2025 that Parliament would have to discuss an “appropriate response” to Mr Singh’s conviction on two charges of lying under oath under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

He was convicted on Feb 17, 2025, and fined the maximum of $7,000 for each of the charges.

 The verdict was upheld by the High Court on Dec 4 on appeal.

The case, which opened in court in 2024, arose over Mr Singh’s handling of Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament in 2021.

Ms Indranee had said that it was necessary for Parliament to take notice of the actions and convictions of the Leader of the Opposition.

She said: “In some countries, leaders who have lied, cheated or flagrantly broken the law still escape any legal or political consequences. We cannot accept such standards in Singapore.”

She added that it was up to the WP to decide what it intended to do in the light of the court judgment, and Mr Singh’s acceptance of the judgment, fully and without reservation.

On Jan 3, the WP announced that a disciplinary panel would be formed to assess if Mr Singh had contravened the party’s Constitution.

First formal Leader of the Opposition

Mr Singh was appointed as the Leader of the Opposition by then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after the 2020 General Election, in which the WP won 10 out of 93 seats.

After the 2025 General Election, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said Mr Singh would continue in the role.

As Leader of the Opposition, Mr Singh is accorded some parliamentary privileges, which are decided on by the Government.

These include an annual allowance of $385,000, double that of an elected MP, and an additional allowance to hire up to three additional legislative assistants. This is on top of the allowance that all MPs receive to hire one legislative assistant and one secretarial assistant.

He is also provided with an office in Parliament and a secretary to support him administratively with parliamentary business, among other things.

During Parliament sittings, he is generally given the right of first response among MPs and gets more time for his speeches.

In addition to these privileges, Mr Singh has other duties as Leader of the Opposition. These include leading the opposition in presenting alternative views and scrutinising the Government’s positions during parliamentary debates, being consulted on the appointment of opposition MPs to select committees, and being called upon to attend official state functions.

To enable him to carry out his duties, he receives confidential government briefings on select matters of national security and external relations, and will be briefed in the event of a national crisis or emergency.

Before Mr Singh was appointed to the role, Singapore had never had a formal Leader of the Opposition. This was the case even in the 1950s and 1960s, when there were larger numbers of opposition legislative assemblymen.

The position is not provided for in the Constitution or the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Thus, there is no parliamentary procedure for the removal of the Leader of the Opposition, said Singapore Management University associate law professor Eugene Tan.

Prof Tan, who specialises in constitutional law and is a former Nominated MP, said it is the prime minister who has the ability to revoke the appointment, given that he was the one to designate him.

He added that Mr Singh can also resign from the role.

“It remains to be seen whether PM Wong deems it untenable for Mr Singh to continue as Leader of the Opposition,” said Prof Tan.

“If it is deemed untenable, then the question is whether PM Wong will give Mr Singh the option of resigning, or will Mr Singh resign of his own accord.”

Adjunct principal research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies’ Social Lab Tan Ern Ser said that “as a public figure, elected official and Leader of the Opposition, no less, he is held to a higher standard, given that trust in our political institutions is critical to the legitimacy and functioning of our political system”.

Given this significance, it would be appropriate for Parliament to discuss if Mr Singh should remain in the role, added Dr Tan.

SMU’s Prof Tan said Mr Singh, as well as Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, can also be subject to Parliament’s punitive powers under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which lists penalties such as a jail term, fine of up to $50,000, suspension from Parliament and also a reprimand or admonishment by the Speaker of Parliament.

But whatever penalties Parliament may impose in the end will not result in Mr Singh or Ms Lim losing their MP seats, or Mr Faisal, who is no longer an MP, being disqualified from running for a parliamentary seat in future, Prof Tan added.

Singapore’s Parliament does not have powers to expel an MP, unlike the Westminster parliamentary system it is based on, he said.

“In other words, WP’s disciplinary process involving Mr Singh is most consequential as he could lose his MP seat if he is forced to resign or is expelled as a WP member,” said Prof Tan.

Besides the disciplinary panel set up by the WP to look into Mr Singh’s conviction, some cadres of the opposition party have called for a special cadre members’ conference to discuss if Mr Singh should stay as party chief.

The party has said that the conference will be held after the disciplinary panel has completed its work in three months.

Both Prof Tan and Dr Tan said it was important for Parliament to call out inappropriate conduct of MPs, and Parliament doing so should not be framed as partisan.

Dr Tan said next week’s Parliament proceedings would be “based on the facts and the law” and “therefore could not be construed as an attempt on the part of the ruling party to weaken the opposition in Singapore”.

Meanwhile, Prof Tan said: “The right of Parliament to discipline offenders, including MPs, is vital in ensuring that Parliament’s standing and prerogatives and the ability to go about its constitutional duties is not hampered by dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt of MPs and members of the public alike.”

This long-drawn saga began in August 2021 when Ms Khan lied in Parliament about witnessing the shabby treatment of a sexual assault victim by the police. After confessing to Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal that she had made up the anecdote, she repeated the untruth in Parliament in October 2021. She eventually admitted in Parliament to the fabrication in November 2021 and stepped down as an MP.

In investigating her conduct, the Committee of Privileges found that Mr Singh had played a part in Ms Khan’s deception.

He was referred by Parliament to the public prosecutor for further investigation and was eventually charged in 2024 and convicted.

Mr Faisal had also been referred to the public prosecutor over his refusal to answer questions during the Committee of Privileges process. He was not charged, but was issued an advisory by the police.

In finding Mr Singh guilty, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan had ruled that Mr Singh had asked Ms Khan to take the lie “to the grave”, contrary to his assertion that he had asked her to come clean. The judge also found that Mr Singh had meant for Ms Khan to maintain her lie when he told her he would not judge her for her choice. Mr Singh had claimed that he had meant he would not judge her if she took ownership and owned up.

Court of Appeal judge Steven Chong, in upholding the conviction later, said Mr Singh’s actions showed he would have “let sleeping dogs lie” if the matter was already buried.

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

Man bought 12 insurance policies, then fell to his death overseas in bizarre case E-commerce platforms such as Shopee expand into insurance, drawing closer regulatory scrutiny