PSP criticises removal of Pritam Singh, says Leader of the Opposition should not be PM-appointed
The Progress Singapore Party criticised Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s decision to remove Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition, saying the role should be chosen by opposition MPs and institutionalised by Parliament, not decided at the Prime Minister’s discretion.
- Progress Singapore Party said the Leader of the Opposition should not be appointed at the Prime Minister’s pleasure.
- The party argued the role is not institutionalised and instead reinforces Singapore’s one-party dominant system.
- PSP thanked Pritam Singh for his service and support to its NCMPs in the 14th Parliament.
SINGAPORE: The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) said the Leader of the Opposition role in Parliament should not be appointed at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
The party argued that the position, in its current form, does not normalise the presence of political opposition within Singapore’s political system, but instead reinforces a one-party dominant structure.
In a statement issued on 16 January 2026, PSP responded to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s decision to remove Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition, one day after Parliament concluded that he was no longer suitable for the role.
PSP noted that the Office of the Leader of the Opposition has not been institutionalised in the Standing Orders of Parliament or the Constitution.
The party said this was regrettable and inconsistent with established conventions in other Westminster-style parliaments.
PSP said the Leader of the Opposition should be chosen by opposition Members of Parliament, rather than appointed at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.
It added that the Prime Minister should not have the authority to unilaterally determine eligibility criteria for the role, which should instead be decided by Parliament.
Nevertheless, PSP expressed gratitude to Mr Singh for his service as Leader of the Opposition and for his support of PSP’s Non-Constituency Members of Parliament in the 14th Parliament.
UK framework entrenches Leader of the Opposition as an independent parliamentary office
In established Westminster systems such as the United Kingdom, the Leader of the Opposition is a constitutionally and conventionally recognised office, not an executive appointment.
Under the UK constitutional framework, the role automatically accrues to the leader of the largest opposition party in the House of Commons, with its status, functions, and remuneration provided for in law and parliamentary convention.
The Prime Minister has no discretion to appoint, remove, or set eligibility criteria for the office, which exists to ensure structured scrutiny of the government rather than to serve at the pleasure of the executive.
This institutional separation is intended to normalise opposition as an integral component of parliamentary democracy, rather than a role contingent on executive goodwill.
Pritam Singh removed as Leader of the Opposition following motion passed in Parliament
In a statement issued yesterday, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said Singh’s removal was necessary to uphold the rule of law and preserve the dignity and integrity of Parliament.
Prime Minister Wong said Singh’s conviction by the District Court—later upheld on appeal—confirmed the COP’s findings.
“This legal outcome is final and conclusive – it must be respected, and given full effect in determining his suitability to continue as the Leader of the Opposition,” he said.
He also noted that Singh had expressed his disagreement with the court’s findings but accepted the outcome. “Mr Singh is entitled to his personal views on the matter. But questions of guilt or innocence are determined through the impartial court process,” Wong added.
The parliamentary motion that precipitated Singh’s removal was debated on 14 January. It was tabled by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah and called on MPs to express regret over Singh’s conduct, which was described as "dishonourable and unbecoming" of a Member of Parliament.
Indranee cited the High Court's findings that Singh had guided former WP MP Raeesah Khan in maintaining a lie to Parliament. She argued that allowing Singh to continue in the role would erode public confidence and undermine parliamentary integrity.
The motion passed after nearly four hours of debate, supported by People’s Action Party MPs and Nominated MPs who were present. All 11 Workers’ Party MPs present opposed it.
Responding during the debate, Singh stood by his conduct and stated that his conscience remained clear. He reiterated that while he accepted the court’s ruling, he disagreed with its characterisation of his actions as dishonourable.
Other WP MPs, including Sylvia Lim and Gerald Giam, warned that removing Singh from the post would undermine the role of the opposition and amount to an additional political penalty. Giam questioned the fairness of the decision, particularly in relation to WP members who were not involved in the trial.
Despite the lifting of the party whip, WP MPs were aligned in rejecting the motion’s broader implications.
Singh clarified that the party accepted the court’s authority but maintained that legal acceptance did not require the abandonment of one’s convictions.
Workers’ Party says it will review letter internally before responding
Following the vote, Prime Minister Wong invited the WP to nominate another elected Member of Parliament to assume the role of Leader of the Opposition.
He said the nominee “should not have been implicated in the earlier findings of the Committee of Privileges” and must meet the high standards of the office.
WP, in a media statement, noted that it has received the letter and that it will deliberate on its contents carefully through its internal processes and respond in due course.
Singh was appointed to the role in 2020 by then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, following the General Election in which the WP secured Aljunied and Sengkang Group Representation Constituencies, and Hougang Single Member Constituency.
The Leader of the Opposition is granted enhanced parliamentary privileges, including additional speaking time, confidential briefings on national issues, staff support, and double the allowance of an elected MP.
After the 2025 General Election in May, Prime Minister Wong confirmed that Singh would remain in the role. That confirmation preceded the dismissal of Singh’s appeal by the High Court.
2 Comments