Mediacorp apologises and withdraws Pritam Singh interview after contempt notification

Mediacorp has removed a televised interview with Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh and issued a formal apology, following notification from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) that the broadcast was in contempt of court.

The episode, part of CNA’s The Assembly series, was aired on 5 November 2025, just one day after Singh’s appeal against his conviction was heard in the High Court. That appeal was subsequently dismissed on 4 December by Justice Steven Chong.

In a statement released on 13 December, Mediacorp acknowledged that the interview contained comments by Singh regarding his case and should not have been aired during ongoing judicial deliberations.

“We accept that the publication of the interview, which contained the statements by Mr Singh regarding the case relating to Ms Raeesah Khan, is in contempt of court,” said Mediacorp. “We wholly and unreservedly apologise to the court.”

The broadcaster confirmed that the interview has been taken down from all CNA platforms and pledged to avoid publishing content that may constitute contempt in the future.

Content and timing of the interview

The Assembly is a CNA programme featuring interviews conducted by a panel of neurodivergent individuals. Singh’s interview had been recorded in July but aired on 5 November.

In it, Singh was asked how he felt about being called a liar. He referred to the outcome of the May 2024 General Election and remarked,

“I believe the court of public opinion can be bigger than any court in the world.”

He also said:“Politics is about public standing. My political opponents will do whatever it takes to lower my esteem and the esteem of my party in the public eye.”

These remarks, made while his case was still pending judgment, were subsequently deemed by the AGC to be contemptuous.

Minister Edwin Tong’s public criticism

Following the broadcast, Minister for Law Edwin Tong issued a strong rebuke on 8 November, calling Singh’s comments “outrageous, plainly wrong and completely unacceptable”.

Tong said Singh’s remarks undermined public trust in the judiciary, warning,

“No one should dismiss or denigrate the court’s judgment or suggest that public opinion can somehow trump a court’s decision.”

He described Singh’s framing as “a very dangerous idea”, cautioning that it reflected the tactics of populist politicians who seek to discredit legal institutions when outcomes are unfavourable.

“Singapore is built on honesty and integrity,” said Tong. “This kind of irresponsible politics should have no place in Singapore.”

Singh responds via social media

On the same day as Tong’s comments, Singh issued a clarification via his Facebook page, defending the context and intent of his remarks.

“The judgment in my ongoing magistrate’s appeal was released in February 2025. The People’s Action Party called for elections two months later, in April 2025,” he wrote.

“The Workers' Party performed respectably in the general elections, despite the possible impact of the verdict of the magistrate’s court on voters. This was the important context that came before the remarks I made about the court of public opinion on the CNA programme The Assembly.”

Singh emphasised that his remarks were not an attack on the judiciary or its independence.

“My remarks were not directed at the judicial system, judges or their independence, nor did it denigrate any of these institutions. My case is currently under appeal with judgment reserved.”

At the time of his post, the High Court had yet to deliver its decision. That judgment was subsequently handed down on 4 December.

Grounds for dismissal of appeal

In dismissing the appeal, Justice Steven Chong upheld the District Court’s findings that Singh had given false evidence to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges in relation to how he handled a former MP’s falsehood in Parliament.

The judge reviewed two key statements that formed the basis of the original conviction and found that the evidence—including testimony, messages, and the timeline of events—supported the lower court’s conclusions.

Justice Chong noted Singh's failure to take any meaningful action over an extended period, despite recognising the seriousness of the situation. He also questioned Singh’s explanations for the delay and found that they were inconsistent with the available evidence.

The court concluded that the plan to correct the falsehood only began after Singh met senior party members weeks later, reinforcing the original finding that no corrective intention had existed earlier.

As a result, Singh’s appeal was rejected in full. He has since paid the S$14,000 fine imposed by the District Court.