Parliament passes motion saying Pritam Singh unsuitable as Leader of the Opposition amid WP dissent

Singapore’s Parliament passed a motion on 14 January 2026, agreeing that Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh should not continue as Leader of the Opposition following his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee.

The motion was approved after nearly four hours of debate. All 11 Workers’ Party MPs present in the House stood to register their dissent, while People’s Action Party MPs and several Nominated MPs supported the motion.

The sole absentee from the Workers’ Party was Non-Constituency MP Eileen Chong.

Leader of the House Indranee Rajah opened the debate, tabling a motion expressing regret over Pritam Singh’s conduct.

She cited a High Court judgment that upheld his conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges.

According to the motion, the court found that Singh had guided former WP MP Raeesah Khan to maintain a falsehood in Parliament. The motion argued that such conduct rendered him unsuitable to continue as Leader of the Opposition.

Ms Indranee said allowing Singh to remain in the role would undermine Parliament’s standing and erode public confidence. The motion also noted related implications for WP chair Sylvia Lim and party member Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap.

Pritam Singh backs integrity pledge; rejects Indranee's motion against him

Speaking during the debate, Singh stood his ground.

He told MPs that his conscience remained clear, even as he accepted the court’s judgment and rejected characterisations of his conduct as dishonourable.

During her wrap-up speech, Ms Indranee thanked MPs from both sides of the House who participated in the debate. She described the discussion as fundamental to Parliament’s integrity and standing.

“This is an important debate because it is about matters that affect the standing and the integrity of our parliament,” she said.

Ms Indranee said MPs supporting the motion had correctly framed it as one about principles and values.

She then addressed the Workers’ Party’s position, noting that WP MPs repeatedly thanked their supporters and constituents.

“It is good that the opposition in Singapore has such support,” she said.

“But the flip side is also true. If people give you such unstinting, warm support, you should not let them down.”

She added that Singaporeans deserved an opposition that upheld integrity, respected the rule of law and honoured the country’s institutions.

Ms Indranee described the WP’s position as disappointing, arguing that its members had failed to engage with the core issue of what kind of Parliament Singapore should have.

“The sum total of their position today has really been that the rules don’t apply to us,” she said, adding that WP MPs had avoided addressing the fundamental question of standards and accountability.

Although the party whip had been lifted, Ms Indranee said the WP’s positions were “aligned across the board”.

She noted that WP MPs agreed with parts of the motion affirming honesty and integrity as core parliamentary values.

However, she questioned why they could not agree to note the High Court judgment upholding Singh’s conviction. She also said it was puzzling that WP MPs could not accept that lying to the Committee of Privileges was dishonourable conduct.

Ms Indranee argued that there was a credibility gap in the WP’s stance, particularly in accepting legal authority while rejecting the court’s findings.

She also addressed Singh’s remarks about accepting the judgment but disagreeing with it. Ms Indranee said accepting a judgment should mean accepting the verdict, not merely acknowledging the existence of the courts.

“Words matter,” she said, adding that Singh had previously disputed the Committee of Privileges report and was now disputing the court’s findings as well.

Turning to points raised by Ms Lim, Ms Indranee said that although Ms Lim had not been charged in court, the High Court’s findings were consistent with the Committee of Privileges report and therefore had implications for her and Mr Faisal.

Indranee rejects Tan Chuan-Jin reference

She also rejected comparisons raised by WP MP Kenneth Tiong between Singh’s case and that of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. Ms Indranee said Mr Tan and Ms Cheng Li Hui had resigned from their posts and taken responsibility.

By contrast, she said Singh was not being asked to resign as an MP, but only questioned over his suitability to continue as Leader of the Opposition.

Responding to suggestions that Singh was being punished twice, Ms Indranee said the motion was not an additional penalty.

She likened it to corporate governance, where convicted executives would rarely be allowed to remain in senior roles.

Singh later rose to make clarifications. He rejected the assertion that the WP believed rules did not apply to them, saying the party accepted the authority and finality of the court’s decision.

However, he said accepting a judgment did not require abandoning one’s honest beliefs about motivations and values. He said he had continued his parliamentary duties and would do so faithfully.

Singh added that the opposition existed to provide balance and alternative voices in a democratic system. He said the Workers’ Party would continue to serve lawfully and responsibly.

Other WP MPs echoed concerns about fairness and consistency.

Ms Lim and Mr Gerald Giam warned that removing Singh would undermine the opposition’s role and amount to a further political penalty.

Mr Giam said honesty and integrity were fundamental, but questioned why findings against Singh should extend to other WP MPs not involved in the trial.

He noted that the Leader of the Opposition was appointed at the Prime Minister’s prerogative.

An exchange between Ms Lim and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun Alhabsyi over integrity was allowed briefly by Speaker Seah Kian Peng, before he reminded MPs not to cast aspersions on one another.