The Tamesis
January 15, 2026
Singapore – The House of Representatives says Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh, who was convicted of lying to a parliamentary committee, is unfit to continue as leader of the opposition.
After three hours of debate on January 14, the House approved a motion saying Mr Singh’s conduct and conviction of then-Workers Party MP Raeesah Khan for lying in Parliament in 2021 meant he failed to meet the requirements and standards of the LO.
The motion, tabled by Leader of the House Indranee Raja, added that Singh’s continuation as a member of the House of Commons would therefore undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system.
All 11 workers’ party members of the House of Representatives stood up to express their dissent, but non-constituency member Zhang Aileen did not attend. Nominating MPs and PAP MPs agreed to the motion.
As the position of LO is awarded by the Prime Minister, it is up to the Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to decide whether to retain Mr Singh’s position. The Straits Times has contacted the Prime Minister’s Office for comment.
Ms Indranee opened the argument by pointing out the High Court’s decision on December 4, 2025, to uphold Mr Singh’s conviction on two counts of lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP).
In summary, she said, Mr Singh twice directed Ms Khan to maintain her lies to parliament; he lied twice at the COP; and he lied in court. She added that Singh also lied to the public and withheld important information from his own party.
“There were so many lies — they piled up, one after the other, and each lie covered up the one before it,” she said. “This is a problem because Mr Singh is also the leader of the opposition.”
She added that the court’s findings meant the matter returned to Parliament.
Ms Indranee said Parliament’s authority comes not only from the law but also from Singaporeans’ confidence and trust in its processes and MPs. Lies told by MPs to Parliament or its committees are therefore more than just personal errors or tactical misjudgments.
“This is a blow to the trust Singaporeans have in us… It undermines the high standards of integrity and probity on which the Singaporean system operates and for which Singapore is known,” she said. “That’s why I tabled this motion in Parliament.”
Ms Indraney pointed out that the court had already fined Mr Singh for handling criminal offences. On 17 February 2025, the District Court imposed a fine of up to $7,000 on each of Mr Singh’s two charges.
Ms Indraney said the House had not been asked to impose further penalties on Mr Singh. But his actions and beliefs reflect directly on Parliament, which must decide whether such behavior is acceptable to members, in this case members of the House of Representatives.
The motion also asks the House to affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary system, she added.
“Members have the right, and I think they have the obligation, to express their views on Mr Singh’s suitability to continue in the role (of opposition leader),” Ms Indraney said. “It will then be up to the prime minister to decide what to do after that.”
Mr Singh, speaking after Ms Indraney, said that while he fully and unreservedly accepted the court’s decision, he was disappointed with the verdict and disagreed with the findings.
“A criminal conviction does not negate a person’s right to assert innocence…As far as I am concerned, as far as my conviction on these two charges is concerned, my conscience will always be clear,” he said.
The Workers’ Party leader said his lawyers had submitted evidence to the court and in their legal opinion “conviction on both charges was unsafe”.
Singh said the appointment of the leader of the opposition was neither enshrined in the constitution nor written law and he had never aspired to it.
“No matter what decision is made by Parliament, as long as I am an MP, I will continue my work as the MP for Aljunied GRC,” he said.
Workers’ Party MPs participating in the debate, including Aljunied GRC MPs Sylvia Lim and Gerald Giam, questioned whether the motion was an attempt to further punish Singh, who has already been sentenced by the court and paid a fine.
“I believe today’s motion does not serve Singaporeans but is a political exercise by a party and I can foresee that our parliament will fall further in the rule of law rankings in terms of its ability to effectively check and balance government power,” said Workers’ Party chairwoman Ms Lim.
Three national MPs – Ms Kewan Teng, Mr Mark Lee and Dr Leung Kwok-ming – took part in the debate and called on Mr Singh to voluntarily give up the title of Leader of the Opposition.
Senior lawyer Ms Quah noted that professions such as medicine and law have disciplinary tribunals that can deprive doctors and lawyers of their right to practice when members of their fraternities are found guilty of serious criminal offences, or when complaints of professional misconduct have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Concluding the debate, Ms Indraney said the motion transcended the scope of any one person or political party and was about upholding the integrity and standing of Parliament and the standards of conduct for MPs in the Republic.
“We cannot support dishonorable behavior or ignore court decisions, and we cannot talk about first-world parliaments and effective checks and balances without upholding the fundamental values of honesty, integrity and accountability,” she said.
“We have a solemn responsibility to ensure that politics in Singapore remains upright and honorable.”
