Netizens question need for parliamentary deliberation on Pritam Singh case, urge focus on national issues

SINGAPORE: Netizens criticised Leader of the House Indranee Rajah’s remarks on Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh, with some arguing that Parliament should prioritise more pressing national issues rather than revisiting a matter they say has already been settled by the courts.

Indranee said Parliament must deliberate on an appropriate response to Singh’s actions and convictions following the conclusion of court proceedings earlier this month.

In a media statement issued on Tuesday (15 December), Indranee said lying under oath was a serious offence and stressed that Singapore could not tolerate standards where political leaders escape consequences after breaking the law.

She described the facts of the case as “disturbing” and said the court’s findings served as a solemn reminder that Members of Parliament have a duty to uphold the rule of law and maintain honesty and integrity.

Emphasising the need for high standards across the political aisle, Indranee said Singapore could not have a credible, first-world Parliament or provide robust checks and balances unless MPs held themselves to strict standards of conduct.

She added that regardless of the course of action the Workers’ Party may take, Parliament must take notice of Singh’s actions and convictions and deliberate on an appropriate response.

The matter will be tabled for discussion at the January 2026 parliamentary sitting.

Court findings and appeal outcome

Indranee’s remarks followed the Court of Appeal’s decision on 4 December 2025 to dismiss Singh’s appeal against his conviction for lying under oath to the Committee of Privileges (COP), which had investigated the conduct of former WP MP Raeesah Khan.

Singh was convicted in February 2024 on two charges of lying to the COP and fined S$14,000, with S$7,000 imposed for each charge. The fine fell below the constitutional threshold that would trigger disqualification from Parliament.

The court found that Singh had lied on two key points: whether he had told Khan to “take her lie to the grave”, and what he meant when he said he “would not judge her”.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Singh had instructed Khan to maintain her false account and that his statement about not judging her referred to allowing her to persist with the lie, rather than encouraging her to come clean, as he had claimed.

In his final appeal, Singh’s lawyers argued that the trial judge had overlooked critical evidence and placed excessive reliance on Khan’s testimony, which they described as unreliable.

However, Justice Steven Chong said the conviction was supported by the full body of evidence and not solely by Khan’s account. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Public response split over parliamentary action

Indranee’s statement drew more than 2,000 comments across CNA, Mothership, The Straits Times and The Online Citizen’s Facebook pages, with reactions sharply divided.

Some netizens supported the government’s stance, arguing that lying under oath strikes at the core of the justice system and that accountability should apply equally to all politicians, including opposition leaders.

Several said maintaining parliamentary standards was essential and that the courts’ findings should not be treated lightly simply because of political position.

Netizens question need for further deliberation

Many others, however, questioned why Parliament needed to deliberate further, noting that Singh had already been convicted, fined and accepted the court’s decision.

Some asked what additional action was being sought, suggesting that the matter should be considered closed.

“Frankly speaking, the case had been settled by the court, so there’s no point bringing up the issue. Let’s move forward to more important issues ahead of us,” one user commented.

Another wrote that Singh had already been found guilty after exhausting his appeal, and questioned why the matter was being revisited — suggesting it was an attempt by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to “fix” the opposition, with the Workers’ Party (WP) being the only opposition party in Parliament after the last general election.

“I think PAP members in Parliament have nothing to do except to keep pressing on petty matters,” one user said.

Some commenters suggested the continued focus on the case was part of a broader agenda to remove Singh from Parliament and weaken the WP’s standing.

“I thought the court had already decided on the verdict and fined PS. I guess the next step is to get rid of PS from Parliament and have no more Leader of the Opposition,” one user commented.

Calls to focus on national concerns

Many netizens also questioned the priorities of the parliamentary discussion, urging lawmakers to focus instead on unresolved national concerns affecting Singaporeans’ daily lives.

Some said Parliament should move on from the case and concentrate on broader issues such as employment, housing affordability, transport costs and ongoing social challenges.

“Still deliberating on this even after the court case is over and the defendant has accepted and paid the fine. Can move on and concentrate on national issues,” one user commented.

Parliament’s earlier position in 2022

The latest announcement continues a process initiated by Parliament in 2022, when the House debated the COP’s findings and voted to refer Singh’s conduct to the Public Prosecutor for possible offences under Part 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

During the 15 February 2022 sitting, Parliament also agreed that any further parliamentary action, including sanctions or other responses, would be deferred until the legal process had concluded.

At the time, Indranee said Parliament would consider any remaining issues only after the criminal justice process had run its course, describing the approach as fair to all parties and respectful of the courts’ role as independent arbiters.

With the Court of Appeal having dismissed Singh’s final appeal, Parliament is now expected to resume its consideration of the matter in the new year.

Singh has said he accepts the court’s verdict, expressing disappointment with the appeal outcome but stating that he respects the decision.

He also said he took responsibility for not responding sooner to Khan’s false account and reaffirmed his commitment to serving Singaporeans in Parliament.

In a statement on its official Facebook page, WP said it was studying the judgment and grounds of decision, adding that its commitment to serving Singaporeans remains unchanged.

Separately, the party said it had initiated its internal processes following the High Court judgment on 4 December and would provide further updates in due course.