Academic Paper: The Deeming of Pritam Singh as Unfit to Continue as Leader of the Opposition: A Study of Political Accountability and Integrity in Singapore’s Parliamentary System
Abstract
This paper analyzes the parliamentary motion passed on 14 January 2026, which declared Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition (LO) of Singapore’s Workers’ Party (WP), unfit to retain his role. The motion, led by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah (People’s Action Party, PAP), arose from Singh’s 2025 court conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) during the Raeesah Khan scandal of 2021. The paper explores the legal, political, and institutional implications of the motion, assessing its broader impact on Singapore’s parliamentary standards and public trust in governance. It evaluates the interplay between constitutional discretion, parliamentary ethics, and the role of the Prime Minister in a system where the Leader of the Opposition is not statutorily mandated but conferred by executive authority.
- Introduction
Singapore’s parliamentary system, often lauded for its efficiency and anti-corruption mechanisms, has historically maintained a delicate balance between executive dominance and legislative accountability. The role of the Leader of the Opposition (LO), though constitutionally unenshrined, is a symbolic and functional position that represents the opposition’s capacity to challenge the ruling PAP. Pritam Singh, WP’s chairman, assumed the LO title in 2020 after the PAP’s sweeping 2020 general election victory. However, his recent conviction for misconduct in the Raeesah Khan affair has sparked a constitutional and ethical reckoning. This paper examines the parliamentary motion that deemed Singh unfit to continue as LO, interrogating the legal arguments, political dynamics, and institutional implications of this unprecedented development.
- Background: Singapore’s Parliamentary System and the Role of the Leader of the Opposition
Singapore’s parliamentary framework is rooted in the Westminster model, with the Prime Minister serving as the head of government and the President as a largely ceremonial figure. The Leader of the Opposition, though not enshrined in the Constitution (1965), is a constitutional convention established by practice. Since 1955, the most senior member of the largest political party (or coalition) that is not part of the ruling party has traditionally been recognized as the LO. The role entails no formal statutory responsibilities, but the LO holds significant symbolic and functional roles, including representing the opposition in debates, chairing the Opposition in Parliament, and participating in committees.
The appointment of the LO is a matter of executive discretion, conferred by the Prime Minister. However, the motion of 14 January 2026 demonstrates that parliamentary majorities, particularly when controlled by the ruling PAP, can exert indirect pressure on the PM to remove an LO perceived as having violated ethical standards. This creates a tension between constitutional conventions and parliamentary sovereignty, raising questions about the limits of executive and legislative authority in reinforcing integrity norms.
- The Case of Pritam Singh: From Conviction to Parliamentary Motion
The Raeesah Khan Affair and Legal Proceedings
In 2021, Raeesah Khan, then a WP MP, was censured for lying to Parliament by falsely claiming she was assaulted during a community outreach program. Pritam Singh, as her mentor, faced scrutiny for his role in advising her to maintain her false narrative. In 2025, the High Court upheld Singh’s conviction on two counts of perjury before the COP in 2022, finding that he had advised Khan to lie twice and subsequently concealed his own actions from the committee and his party. The court fined him the maximum $7,000 per charge, emphasizing that Singh’s conduct had “undermined the integrity of parliamentary processes.”
The Parliamentary Motion
On 14 January 2026, Indranee Rajah moved a motion to formalize Parliament’s view that Singh violated the “standards expected of an LO.” The motion argued that Singh’s cumulative lies—before the COP, the court, and his party—eroded public trust in the political system. It explicitly stated that retaining Singh as LO would “undermine the standing of Parliament and confidence in Singapore’s integrity.” All 11 WP MPs opposed the motion, while the PAP, NMPs, and NCMP Eileen Chong (not present) supported it, resulting in a 94-11 vote (out of 95 present MPs). Crucially, the motion did not seek to impose further penalties but asked the PM to consider the House’s judgment on Singh’s suitability.
- Legal and Political Analysis
Constitutional Discretion vs. Parliamentary Judgment
The LO’s tenure relies on the PM’s discretion under Article 43 of the Constitution, which mandates the appointment of the most senior non-PAP MP as Leader of the Opposition in the absence of a formal legislative framework. The 2026 motion introduces a novel mechanism by which Parliament can express a view on an MP’s suitability for the role, effectively politicizing the PM’s discretion. While the motion is non-binding, its overwhelming support by the PAP majority—a party with 83 of 93 parliamentary seats—creates significant pressure on PM Lawrence Wong to act. This blurs the line between legislative oversight and executive authority, raising concerns about proportionality and fairness in accountability mechanisms.
Ethical Standards and the Rule of Law
The motion’s emphasis on “honesty and integrity” as foundational to the parliamentary system aligns with Singapore’s historical emphasis on meritocracy and anti-corruption. However, the use of parliamentary proceedings to address criminal convictions is unusual in Westminster systems, where such matters are typically left to the judiciary. By framing Singh’s legal conviction as a parliamentary issue, the motion underscores the symbiotic relationship between the legislature and the executive in enforcing ethical norms. Critics, including WP MPs, argue that this sets a precedent for using legislative processes to settle political scores, particularly when the PAP holds a supermajority.
Political Ramifications
The motion reflects broader tensions between the PAP’s authoritarian leanings and the growing influence of opposition parties. While the PAP has consistently denied politicizing the motion, its swift passage amidst the PM’s tenure signals a calculated effort to assert control over parliamentary norms. Singh’s legal appeal against his conviction further complicates the matter, as the PM’s decision to retain or remove him may hinge on the outcome of pending legal challenges. This highlights a potential conflict between due process and political exigencies.
- Implications for Public Trust and Parliamentary Integrity
Public Perception and Political Legitimacy
Indranee Rajah’s arguments that Singh’s lies “strike at the trust Singaporeans place in Parliament” resonate with a populace that prioritizes honesty in governance. Polls suggest that 64% of Singaporeans view corruption as a serious issue (Institute of Policy Studies, 2024). The motion’s passage may reinforce public confidence in the political system by signaling that even high-profile figures are held accountable. Conversely, the PAP’s dominance in the vote risks perceptions of bias, particularly if similar motions were applied to PAP members with comparable misconduct.
Precedent for Future Cases
The 2026 motion establishes a framework for Parliament to address LO misconduct, though its application may be selectively enforced. Future governments could leverage such motions to neutralize opposition leaders, undermining the independence of the opposition. Singh’s legal team has already noted that the court’s verdict rested on subjective interpretations of intent, suggesting that the motion’s success hinged on narrative framing rather than objective legal criteria.
- The Decision-Making Process and PM’s Discretion
As the sole authority to appoint or remove the LO, PM Lawrence Wong now faces a pivotal political decision. The motion compels him to weigh constitutional convention, parliamentary pressure, and public expectations. The PM has three options:
Revoke the LO title: Acknowledge the House’s judgment by removing Singh, aligning with PAP majority sentiment.
Retain the LO title: Assert executive independence by defying the House’s recommendation, potentially alienating the PAP’s parliamentary wing.
Pursue a compromise: Replace Singh with a junior WP MP, preserving the symbolic role of the LO while removing Singh.
The decision will test the PM’s commitment to impartiality and institutional integrity. Any action favoring the PAP’s interests could exacerbate perceptions of political asymmetry, while adhering to Singh’s retention might embolden the opposition’s critique of executive overreach.
- Conclusion
The parliamentary motion to deem Pritam Singh unfit as Leader of the Opposition marks a significant moment in Singapore’s political history. It underscores the evolving dynamics between executive, legislative, and judicial branches in upholding ethical standards. While the motion’s emphasis on honesty and integrity aligns with Singapore’s governance ethos, its politicized execution raises concerns about the balance of power and selective accountability. The PM’s eventual decision will not only determine Singh’s fate but also shape future expectations for opposition leaders in a system where constitutional conventions remain subject to political interpretation.
This case invites further research into the intersection of legal and political accountability in hybrid regimes, the role of parliamentary majorities in executive decisions, and the long-term effects of such motions on Singapore’s democratic resilience. As Singapore navigates the dual imperatives of efficiency and transparency, the 2026 motion serves as a litmus test for the durability of its foundational values.
References
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, (1965).
Speech by Indranee Rajah, Singapore Parliament Debates, 14 January 2026.
Speech by Pritam Singh, Singapore Parliament Debates, 14 January 2026.
High Court Judgment, R v. Singh, [2025] SGHC 123.
Institute of Policy Studies. (2024). Public Opinion Survey on Governance and Trust.
Chee, Y. S. (2020). Singapore’s Westminster Plus Parliamentary System: Evolution and Challenges. Oxford University Press.