Debated in Parliament on 14 Jan 2026.
Debate resumed.
Are there any clarifications for the Leader? Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I took some notes as the Leader was speaking. If I got some of her representations wrong, please let me know. I will correct them.
The Leader said that the WP's position seems to be that the rules do not apply to us. I do not believe this was the position anyone made. The rules certainly apply to us.
But in the course of her speech, she also mentioned somebody has to decide. There is a judge. The judge makes a decision. I fully accept the authority and the finality of the Court's decision. I disagree with the findings. A judgment determines legal responsibility. It does not require a person to abandon their honest belief about their motivations and their values.
I have not disappeared and avoided scrutiny.
It has been one month since the judgment. I have done my work. I have continued to do my work. And I will continue to do my work faithfully, as I have done for the last 15 years.
On the point that the Leader made, I think towards the end of her round up speech, where she gave us advice on what is good for the WP and good for the Opposition. I think we can be the judge of that, with due respect. We continue to serve faithfully. We have always championed the importance of a rational, responsible, respectable Opposition in the House and will continue to do so.
In terms of this point, the Opposition exists not because it is infallible, but because democratic systems, particularly one-party dominant systems, require challenge, require balance and genuine alternative voices.
And as long as this role is performed lawfully, respectfully, it remains legitimate and important. And the WP will continue serving in this role.
That is all I have to say, Mr Speaker, with regard to clarifications.
I had a clarification for the Leader, which she has not replied, about the number of briefings that were given to me, the number of trips I went to, which was a point she made. So, I think she should close the loop on that.
With respect to the last point, I do not have the number of briefings, but it was not a matter of quantity. The point about the Leader of the Opposition role is that it gets certain specific privileges, and that was one of them. And that was the point I was making. Not about the quantity of them.
Then, the other point that Mr Singh had made about the WP being a judge of their own cause. I think that is exactly what we have seen today. He has been a judge in his own cause. And the other point that he made was that the Opposition was not infallible. That I understand —
Point of Order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Singh.
I did not say I was a judge in my own cause. As I mentioned, the respected President who opened this House takes a view about a criminal conviction. His view, his honest, sincere view. I take my view as well. But that does not mean I disrespect the Courts.
Leader.
Thank you, Sir. The President who opened this House was not convicted of any offence of dishonesty. With respect to him, it was a matter of negligence.
And the point really is, that in this case, you have a Court judgment. Mr Singh has said that he disagrees with it. He may do so, but that does not mean that the Court findings should not be noted. That does not mean that the conduct that was found in the Court judgments should not be regarded as dishonourable or unbecoming. And it does not mean that we cannot express a view on his suitability. And when you have a conviction for lying, before a COP and guiding a junior MP to lie, or to maintain an Untruth – that brings into question suitability for the position of a Leader of the Opposition.
And Mr Singh is right. We are not infallible. All of us are not infallible. And the PAP is certainly not infallible.
But the question is when something goes wrong, what do you do? And at that crossroads of doing right and wrong, if you take one direction, it goes a certain path, and if you take another direction, it goes another path. And as I mentioned earlier, in the case of Ms Khan, she was led along a certain path, with the consequences that we see today.
And the other point he made was that what is important is that we perform our role lawfully. And that is the point, is it not? Because lying before the COP cannot be said to be performing that role lawfully.
Ms Lim.
Thank you, Speaker. I would like to make two clarifications arising from the Leader's round-up speech. The first is that she mentioned more than once that the WP was somehow being inconsistent, in the sense that in Ms Raeesah Khan's case and also Mr Leon Perera's case, we seem to have acted very swiftly. Whereas in Mr Singh's case, we seem to be acting "politically", or some words to that effect.
So, actually, in my speech I had attempted to address this by saying that the difference there is that, in Ms Raeesah's case and as well as Mr Leon Perera's case, they admitted their wrongdoings. But in this case, Mr Singh has contested the charges and still maintains his innocence today.
So, WP is acting on the judgment, as she noted, we have formed a DP to look into whether Mr Singh has contravened the constitution. And although she says that she cannot wait for us – that is fine. But the fact is that we have our processes and the processes will take their course.
The other clarification which I wish to make was in relation to Resolution 5. She mentioned that the Court has found that certain statements were made in the August 2021 meeting, and that is a fact. But as I had said earlier, neither Mr Faisal nor myself were involved in the trial, we did not give evidence. So, in that sense, of course, the Court made its finding based on the evidence before it. But the fact is that we did not have the opportunity to give our recollection to the Court. So, I am still going to maintain that those findings cannot be held against me, and perhaps, at the next phase, or whenever it is, I will take this up again.
Leader, do you wish to respond?
I thank Ms Lim for her clarifications. It is correct that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal did not appear in the Court proceedings. But Ms Lim and Mr Faisal did appear and give evidence before the COP, and they gave evidence under oath. And the COP found that, in respect of the making of the Grave Statement, in other words, the telling of Ms Khan "to take it to the grave", the COP found that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had lied about what had happened there.
So, you have a COP Report where that finding is there. What today's Motion does is it refers to the Court finding, because you see, the point is simply this: did the meeting happen and were the words said? The COP found that meeting happened. Those words were said, found all three of them were present. The COP Report is a report which, according to Mr Singh, should be a supreme document. This is Parliament.
Point of Order.
Let me just clarify. Mr Singh did not say that the document is supreme. He said Parliament is supreme, and I am talking —
Parliament is sovereign.
Parliament is sovereign. And this sovereign Parliament has a Select Committee that has made a report from a Committee of Privileges, finding that Mr Singh had made the statement, that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were there, and that they had lied to the COP.
The question on everybody's minds is: "Well, Mr Singh's case is going to Court. Let the Court make its findings, then we have the benefit of that. And we find that the Court findings are pretty much the same as the COP's findings —
Point of Order.
On the point of that meeting occurred and the statement having been made.
So, that being the case, it has implications because we could have proceeded back when the original Report was made, we could have proceeded at the time. We did not need the Court findings. But what you have is where the Court findings have confirmed that the meeting took place and the statement was made. That is why it has implications. That is all. That is all that this Motion does: to note that it has implications.
But Ms Lim may want to take that up the next time when the next Motion comes.
And with respect to the point about the difference between Ms Khan's and Mr Perera's case, Ms Lim said that the difference was that, in their case, they admitted their wrongdoing. That is a really interesting point, because that means that everybody who goes to Court and who basically, puts up a defence and is found guilty, so long as they did not admit, it means that they are not guilty.
But what kind of rule of law is that? And what kind of system is that? You cannot go simply on the basis of, "Has the person admitted or not?" Here you have a system, where you have a society, you have a Court system. The Court makes an adjudication, and as Parliament, we have to take note of that and act accordingly.
Mr Singh, you wanted to clarify something?
No, Mr Speaker. I raised my hand for Point of Order and the Leader corrected herself.
Alright, thank you. Ms Lim, did you raise your hand?
Yes, I did, Speaker. Just to follow up on the Leader's point that as I mentioned in my clarification, the WP is looking into whether Mr Singh has contravened the constitution.
Mr Andre Low.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a point of clarification for the Leader of the House. In her round-up speech, she made the assertion, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the voting patterns of the WP's MPs will, in some way indicate that we find ourselves above the rule of law, that we do not agree with the rule of law, or we find ourselves above the law.
I respectfully disagree with this assertion. The rule of law implies that we respect the independence of the Courts and their role as an independent arbiter in disputes. And once an adjudication is made and a ruling is passed, we respect it and we abide by it. This is in the interest of order; and if not, we will have anarchy.
That does not preclude us from disagreeing with their verdicts and that does not mean that if we disagree, we are above the rule of law. This is clarification that I have.
I have noted Mr Low's statements. I just wondered how he was able to disagree with it, when he was not a witness or a party to the Court proceedings.
Mr Low.
I did not make the point that I personally disagree with the ruling. We have not formed an opinion. As Ms Lim mentioned, the WP has our own processes. It is in progress.
My point is that the Leader has made the assertion that, based on the way we are going to vote on this Motion, that that would imply that the WP sees themselves as above the law.
Perhaps Mr Low could just clarify what his position is on all six limbs of the Motion?
Mr Low.
My position on all six limbs of the Motion is: I will I agree with limbs one and six of the Motion; and I do not agree with limbs two to five.
Mr Speaker, that pretty much speaks for itself.
Any other clarifications for the Leader of the House?
The question is, "That this Parliament —
Affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system;
Notes the judgment in Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 242 where the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges, and the findings of the Committee of Privileges that he had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament;
Expresses regret at the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament;
Considers that Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position carrying important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system;
Notes that the High Court judgment and the Committee’s findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, which have to be considered separately; and
Calls upon all Members of Parliament to uphold their solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times, and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans."
Those who agree, say "Aye".
Hon Members say "Aye".
Those — Mr Singh.
Can I request that whichever WP MP wishes, they may have their dissent recorded?
To record their dissent?
Yes.
Okay. Those who disagree say "No".
Some hon Members say "No".
Can I request that those who would like their dissent to be recorded, to kindly stand?
Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat stood at their seats for their dissent to be recorded.
We will have it recorded. Thank you. You may sit down.
I think the "Ayes" have it, the "Ayes" have it.
Resolved,
"That this Parliament –
1. Affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system;
2. Notes the judgment in Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 242 where the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges, and the findings of the Committee of Privileges that he had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament;
3. Expresses regret at the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament;
4. Considers that Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position carrying important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system;
5. Notes that the High Court judgment and the Committee’s findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, which have to be considered separately; and
6. Calls upon all Members of Parliament to uphold their solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times, and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans."
PAPERCUTS