Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of The Opposition

3.19 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. Before we commence the debate on the Motion, I wish to draw hon Members' attention to certain provisions in our Standing Orders.

First of all, Standing Order No 50(1) states that the Member shall confine his observations to the subject under discussion and may not introduce matters irrelevant thereto.

The main subject matters under discussion are the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and his suitability to continue as the Leader of the Opposition. Hon Members are reminded that they should confine their observations to the subject matter of the Motion and not to shift the debate to other unrelated incidents or political issues.

Furthermore, as this Motion is about the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and other persons named in the Motion, and only to such extent, Members should refrain from raising and discussing the conduct of other Members as it is not directly relevant to the Motion. If any Member wishes to widen the debate to discuss general political matters or party issues or the conduct of another Member, he can and he should do so by filing a separate Motion for debate by the House.

Secondly, Parliament is not re-litigating the case. While reference can be made to the judgment of the Court to set the context for the debate on today's Motion, the intent of this Motion is not to reopen the case, to dispute the findings of the Court or to question its decisions or to discuss the conduct of the trial.

Hon Members are to abide by the rules and other provisions of the Standing Orders. I will disallow any remarks which infringe the rules. Members are urged to exercise judgement in their speeches and clarifications and to be prepared to substantiate any factual point that they make.

Deputy Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

3.22 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I wish to move the Motion standing in my name in today's Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, we are here today because a lie was told in this Chamber four and a half years ago. That lie led to another, and another, and yet another, and then to an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges (COP) where more lies were told – this time, under oath. This resulted in a referral to the Public Prosecutor (PP) and eventually to charges in Court for offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA).

Last month, on 4 December 2025, the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh's conviction by the District Court on two counts of lying before the COP. The District Court also found that Mr Singh had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to maintain her lie to Parliament, confirming the COP's findings.

Now, the matter has come full circle back to Parliament.

Mr Speaker, this is a serious matter. The misconduct in question is not trivial. It involves multiple lies to different persons at different times, guiding a junior Member of Parliament (MP) to do the wrong thing and a failure of leadership.

In Singapore's Parliamentary democracy, honesty and integrity are not abstract ideals. They are not optional virtues. They are the foundation of public trust.

The authority of this House does not rest on law alone. It rests on the confidence and trust that Singaporeans have in Parliament – in its processes and its Members. This confidence and trust can be lost. This is why Parliament must insist that its Members always speak truthfully and act with integrity, even when it is politically inconvenient to do so.

When an MP lies to Parliament or before its committees, it is not just a personal lapse or a tactical misjudgement. It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us as well as the solemn duty we owe to the people we serve. It undermines the high standards of integrity and incorruptibility which make the Singaporean system work and for which Singapore is known.

That is why I have brought this Motion before Parliament today.

The Motion asks the House to:

1. Affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's parliamentary and political system;

2. Note the findings of the High Court and the COP;

3. Express regret at Mr Singh's conduct, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament;

4. Consider that such conduct renders him unsuitable to continue to hold the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position with 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. Note that the High Court's judgment and COP findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap which have to be considered separately; and

6. Call on all Members of Parliament to uphold our solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in us by Singaporeans.

So, to be clear, and for avoidance of doubt, in the third limb of the Motion, the one that asks us to express regret, the House is not being asked to impose any penalties or sanctions on Mr Pritam Singh under the PPIPA. What is being asked is for this House to express a view of his conduct and, if the House agrees that such conduct is not acceptable, to express its regret at such conduct.

Also, the fourth limb of the Motion does not operate to remove the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is designated by the Prime Minister and the decision whether Mr Singh should continue with that designation rests with the Prime Minister, not Parliament. However, Members are entitled to and, I would argue, have an obligation to express a view on Mr Singh's suitability to continue in that role. It will then be for the Prime Minister to decide what to do after that.

The fifth limb asks the House to note that the Court judgments have implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, as I will explain in my speech. However, as the extent and degree of their conduct differ from Mr Singh's, the fifth limb proposes that their matters be considered separately on another occasion.

Mr Speaker, let me briefly set out the facts.

On 3 August 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan, then a Workers' Party (WP) MP, spoke during the WP Motion titled "Empowering Women". She alleged that three years earlier, she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a police report on a rape committed against the survivor. She claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying and alleged that the police officer commented about the survivor's dressing and the fact that she had been drinking.

Ms Khan repeated this allegation at a later Sitting of Parliament on 4 October 2021. However, on 1 November 2021, she admitted to Parliament that she had lied and had not in fact accompanied a survivor to the police station. I will refer to this lie as the "Untruth" as the Court did.

Following Ms Khan's admission, I raised a complaint against her under Standing Order 100(7)(b) for breach of privilege. The complaint was referred to the COP, which was convened and began its inquiry on 29 November 2021. Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – then the three senior-most leaders in the WP – gave evidence before the COP to assist in its investigations into the circumstances that led to Ms Khan's Untruth.

Ms Khan told the inquiry that the three WP leaders had advised her to continue with the Untruth after she first uttered it in Parliament on 3 August 2021. However, the three WP leaders denied this before the COP. The COP found each of the three to have lied under oath.

On 15 February 2022, Parliament debated and adopted the COP's Report. This House fined Ms Khan and resolved to refer Mr Singh to the PP to be investigated for lying to the COP. Mr Singh was later charged in Court on 19 March 2024 for lying to a Parliamentary committee, which is an offence under the PPIPA. Mr Faisal was referred to the PP for refusing to answer the COP's questions. For this, he was subsequently issued a Police Advisory.

Parliament postponed making a decision on: Mr Singh's, Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's involvement in guiding Ms Khan to continue with the Untruth; and Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's lying to the COP; pending the outcome of Mr Singh's case. Mr Singh's court case has recently concluded. Parliament now has to decide what to do in the light of the Courts' findings. And that is the reason for the Motion today.

Mr Speaker, before I go into the Courts' findings, I should mention that normally under the Standing Orders, they do not allow reflecting upon the character and conduct of an MP or making a charge of a personal character, but there are exceptions. This is when it pertains to his conduct in his capacity as an MP and if there is a substantive Motion on the matter. In this case, we do have a substantive Motion, the terms of which require us to consider the character and conduct of Mr Singh, and at times Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, in light of the High Court judgment and the COP Report, and to make certain decisions after doing so. It is therefore necessary for us not to skirt around the conduct with euphemisms but to name it squarely, so that everyone understands the issues clearly and can debate them properly.

Let me now deal with the Court judgments. In February 2025, the District Court convicted Mr Singh for lying before the COP. He appealed his conviction. Last month, the High Court dismissed Mr Singh's appeal and upheld the findings of guilt on his charges. Mr Singh has stated that he accepts the High Court's judgment "fully and without reservation".

The Court findings established many disturbing facts about Mr Singh's conduct.

First, in relation to Ms Khan's Untruth, Mr Singh told her to "take it to the grave", essentially instructing her to hide the Untruth.

Second, he later guided her to continue with the Untruth.

Third, he recommended to the WP Central Executive Committee (CEC) that Ms Khan be expelled from WP if she did not resign, but crucially failed to disclose to the CEC his own prior knowledge of Ms Khan's Untruth and his own involvement guiding her to continue with the Untruth.

Fourth, he lied to Singaporeans when he publicly rejected Ms Khan's accounts of the matter, and accused her of lying.

Fifth, he lied twice to the COP about his own involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. Once when he denied telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave, and again, when he claimed that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth.

And sixth, Mr Singh stuck to these untruths when giving evidence at trial. The Court disbelieved and rejected his evidence. That means he lied to the Courts too.

In gist, this was not a single lapse. Mr Singh not only lied, but lied repeatedly – to the COP, to the public and to the Courts, doubling down each time. He was also not upfront with his own party.

Mr Speaker, allow me to set out salient facts from the Court judgments which substantiate these points.

The 8 August 2021 meeting. Taking the Untruth to the grave. On 7 August 2021, a few days after Ms Khan told the Untruth in Parliament, she confessed this to Mr Singh over the phone. The next day, she met him, along with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Ms Khan told them about the Untruth as well.

At this meeting, Mr Singh told Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave. This was the Courts' finding. There is contemporaneous evidence showing this. In particular, Ms Khan sent a WhatsApp message to two of her close WP colleagues immediately after the meeting. The message recorded that the three WP leaders had "agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave". That is a quote.

The Courts also found that at this 8 August meeting, Ms Lim had said that "probably the issue won't come up again", and Mr Singh did not contradict her view. However, before the COP, Mr Singh vehemently denied Ms Khan's account that she had been asked to take the Untruth to the grave. He said, and I quote, "[This] would be highly inaccurate. It is a complete lie." The other two WP leaders denied it before the COP too.

All three claimed instead that they did not discuss with Ms Khan what should be done about the Untruth at this 8 August meeting. Mr Singh said that she had to speak to her parents first. Mr Singh continued to say this during his Court trial.

With the benefit of the Court judgments, we now know that it was in fact Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders who had lied about what was said at this meeting. The Court found that their attitude had been clear and simple: they believed that there was no need to tell the truth because they did not think that the matter would surface again – they thought it would be buried forever.

For the next two months until October 2021, Mr Singh did not discuss the Untruth with Ms Khan, nor do anything to get her to correct it. This was despite him actively monitoring her other Parliamentary work during this time.

The 3 October 2021 meeting. On 3 October 2021, one day before Parliament sat on 4 October 2021, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home. He told Ms Khan he had a feeling that the issue of the Untruth might be raised the next day. He wanted to discuss what should be done if the topic came up.

The District Court found that during this meeting, Mr Singh guided Ms Khan to continue her Untruth in Parliament. This is consistent with the finding of the COP. So, when Mr Singh denied this before the COP and the Court, he was again lying.

The next day, when Minister Shanmugam asked Ms Khan for further details of her anecdote in Parliament, Ms Khan doubled down on the Untruth. Both Mr Singh and Ms Lim were present in the House. When Ms Khan reiterated the Untruth, they did nothing to correct her. They allowed Parliament to be misled again. Mr Faisal also learnt about the exchange in Parliament later that day.

The 11 October 2021 meeting with Mr Low Thia Khiang. The Police emailed Ms Khan on 7 October 2021, requesting to interview her to obtain more details for the investigation. She forwarded this email to Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders.

On 11 October 2021, Mr Singh and Ms Lim consulted Mr Low Thia Khiang, the WP's former Secretary-General, on what steps to take in relation to the Untruth. Even as they sought Mr Low's advice, they were not honest with him. Critically, they did not reveal that they had known about Ms Khan's Untruth since 8 August 2021. Mr Low said he only learned this two years later, in 2023.

At that point, Mr Singh and Ms Lim were also still hopeful that the Government might not discover the Untruth. Ms Lim told Mr Low that discovering the Untruth was not easy because "there are so many Police stations in Singapore". Again, Mr Singh did not disagree with her. It was Mr Low who impressed upon Mr Singh and Ms Lim that Ms Khan had to clarify the Untruth and apologise to Parliament, regardless of whether it might be discovered by the Government.

This was the turning point in the WP's response to the Untruth. Following this meeting with Mr Low, arrangements were finally made for Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth. She eventually did so via a personal statement in Parliament on 1 November 2021. In short, Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders hid the truth for months. They only decided to come clean after Mr Low, their former Secretary-General, advised them to do so.

The Disciplinary Panel (DP) proceedings and the press conference. What happened next was not edifying. The day after Ms Khan clarified the Untruth, the WP announced that it had formed a DP to look into her admissions in Parliament.

The DP comprised Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – the very persons to whom she had confessed her Untruth in August 2021, from whom she had sought advice, who had agreed to guide her to take the truth to the grave, and – in the case of Mr Singh – who had said he would not judge her.

Well, he did proceed to sit in judgement upon her, personally.

In the course of the DP proceedings, when Ms Khan requested a second interview with the DP, Mr Singh replied: "Dear Raeesah – I hope you can see that it is precisely your character and behaviour that is under review here, in view of your actions in Parliament and your decision to stick to the untruthful anecdote when asked again in October".

On 30 November 2021, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that for lying to Parliament, Ms Khan should be expelled from the party within 24 hours if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted their recommendation. Ms Khan resigned from the WP that same day.

What is most troubling about this episode is that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal failed to declare to the WP CEC or their own party members, let alone the public, that all three of them had actually known about the Untruth since August 2021, and all three had been involved in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. One does not need to be a lawyer or a Parliamentarian to know that this is improper and wrong, legally and morally.

As the District Court observed: "there would have been a real concern that the three WP leaders may not be seen to be able to act fairly or impartially when enquiring into Ms Khan's behaviour, as their own conduct in the affair would also come under scrutiny", and they had in fact acted "to conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021".

Mr Singh claimed that this information was not provided because it was "irrelevant". Yet, on 2 December 2021, hours before the COP hearing was due to begin, Mr Singh held a press conference and admitted, for the very first time, that the three WP leaders had known of Ms Khan's Untruth shortly after she had said it on 3 August 2021.

Mr Singh described this timing as a pure, complete coincidence. This was unbelievable. And here is what the District Court found, and I quote:

"497. Notably, [Mr Singh] only publicly disclosed his own prior knowledge of the Untruth when holding a press conference on 2 December 2021, the very day that the COP was to hear evidence from Ms Loh [Pei Ying] and Ms Khan. Before this, even the WP CEC was kept in the dark.

498. [Mr Singh] only made his public disclosure after Ms Loh had told Mr Mike Lim to let [Mr Singh] know that no matter what happened [Ms Loh] would be going into the COP to tell the truth or what [she] knew of it and [she] wanted to give [Mr Singh] an opportunity to clarify or make a plan where he could put out the party's position or his position first.

499. In [the Court's] view, [Mr Singh's] action in holding the press conference on 2 December 2021 clearly suggested that he was trying to do damage control by pre-emptively disclosing his knowledge and involvement before it was publicly revealed by [Ms] Loh or Ms Khan."

When Mr Singh appeared before the COP, he continued to lie and to distance himself from Ms Khan's conduct. He denied making the statement about taking the Untruth to the grave – that was a lie. He said that he had wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth in October 2021 – that was another lie.

These were even graver than other lies, because he was giving them in evidence before a Parliament committee and he was speaking under oath. For wilfully giving these false answers, Mr Singh was charged and eventually convicted by the District Court. His appeal was dismissed.

Mr Speaker, I have set out the brief facts of the case. They are findings of the Courts and Mr Singh has said he accepts the Court's judgment fully and without reservation.

So, as we can see: Mr Singh guided Ms Khan, twice, to maintain her Untruth to Parliament; he then lied twice before the COP; he lied before the Court; he lied to the public; and he concealed material information from his own party.

Mr Speaker, there are simply too many lies – they pile up, one on top of another, each to cover up a previous lie. And that, is a problem as Mr Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition.

This case shows a failure of leadership on the part of Mr Singh.

First, if Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to come clean when she first confessed her Untruth to him in August 2021, the entire matter would have taken a very different course. Yes, it would have been inconvenient and uncomfortable to disclose the truth then. The WP had just won their second group representation constituency (GRC) in Sengkang in the 2020 General Election and Ms Khan was a member of WP's Sengkang team.

But the consequences would have been nowhere as grave as what followed Mr Singh's telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth "to the grave". It is precisely at such moments where leaders are tested, and where leadership matters. And we have seen the contrast between Mr Singh's approach and Mr Low Thia Khiang's leadership.

Second, there was a failure to take responsibility. After Ms Khan told the Untruth, she knew she was in trouble. She asked Mr Singh for advice, as her party leader and because she regarded him as her mentor. Mr Singh told her to hide the Untruth. He guided her to continue with the Untruth. Yet when the truth came to light, he did not admit his complicity. Instead, he disowned her actions and later sat in judgment of her conduct – while concealing his own role.

Third, Mr Singh refused to acknowledge the impact of the original Untruth on the Police. He said no wrong had been done to the Police by reason of the false claim and questioned the amount of work the Police had done to investigate the false claim. He dismissed the work the Police had to put in and the diversion of public resources with the comment that the Police is not a "broken-back organisation".

The Police had to comb through more than 1,400 sexual assault and related cases from 2018 to 2021 to investigate the false claims. This led to delays in handling other matters and cases. Mr Singh could easily have prevented all this by urging Ms Khan to tell the truth the moment she confessed to him.

Mr Speaker, some may ask: the Court has already imposed a fine. Is that not the end of the matter? Why must Parliament act?

Sir, the answer is that the Court has dealt with the criminal offences. We are not asking to impose further penalties for those offences or his other misconduct under PPIPA. But the matters in the Court judgment and the outstanding matters in the COP Report still affect Parliament and Parliament must take a view.

The Untruth, which gave rise to the offence, occurred in Parliament. The lies were told to a Committee of Parliament. The conduct and conviction of Mr Singh reflect directly on Parliament.

Parliament must decide whether such conduct is acceptable for an MP – and in this case the Leader of the Opposition.

Following the High Court decision, Mr Singh has not shown any remorse, accountability or acceptance of responsibility. Nor has the WP expressed its view on the matter. It has announced some proceedings that are still in progress, but its dilatory response contrasts sharply with its swift actions in previous cases.

In the case of Ms Khan, after she confessed her Untruth to Parliament on 1 November 2021, a DP was formed within 24 hours to look into her admission. Recommendations were made and accepted by the CEC within the month. In the case of Mr Leon Perera, after video evidence of his extra-marital affair emerged on 17 July 2023, Mr Singh met with him that same afternoon and the WP’s CEC met that same evening to discuss the matter. Two days later, on 19 July 2023, Mr Perera resigned. It was made known that had he not done so, he would have been expelled.

In contrast, in Mr Singh's own case, the High Court issued its decision on 4 December 2025. The WP responded that it was studying the verdict and grounds of decision.

I then issued two statements, on 17 and 22 December, saying that this matter would be raised in Parliament in January.

On 28 December 2025, the WP confirmed that some of its members had requested for a Special Cadre Members' Conference (CMC). On 3 January 2026, one whole month after the High Court judgment, the WP announced that a DP would be formed to determine if Mr Singh had contravened the party constitution. The DP would conclude within three months and the Special CMC would only be convened after the DP completed its work.

It is strange that the WP could act so decisively in the cases of Ms Khan and Mr Perera – where there were no Court findings on their conduct. Yet now, in a far graver case of dishonesty and lying, it needs four months to figure out the import of the Court's clear judgment of Mr Singh.

3.52 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, do you want to raise a Point of Order?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes. Earlier, you had advised all Members to stick to the matters involved in the resolutions. I wonder, what the Leader has been saying, what has it got to do with the resolutions?

Mr Speaker: First, I want to say that indeed, I had made those remarks. And I had said that we are not questioning the decisions of the Court, but with respect to setting out the context, those can be cited.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, my point is that the Leader is now touching on what the WP is doing to follow up on the judgment. So, I wonder what has that got to do with the resolutions?

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Ms Lim for her clarification. My point is timing. And the point is what I was getting to, which is that, while I understand that this is what the WP is doing, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations —

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Point of Order.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Mr Speaker, I rise on the Point of Order under Standing Order 50(6).

The Leader has stated that Mr Singh has lied to the Courts and lied to Singaporeans. The Court conviction was specifically for lying to the COP under oath, no perjury charge was brought. These characterisations impute improper motives beyond the Court's actual findings. I ask that the Leader confine her remarks to what the Court actually found.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tiong for his clarification. Maybe I should explain to him step by step.

If a statement is made to the Court and the Court finds that that is not true or rejects it, it must follow, as a matter of logic, that what was told to the Court, is not the truth. The Court can decide whether or not it wishes to proceed with perjury, but the Court does not have to do so.

The point I am making is that: what was told to the Court, if untrue, it must follow that it is a lie. It is just a matter of logic.

If I may be permitted to continue, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations, or on whether Mr Singh's actions contravene the WP constitution. This House must decide on the matter without unnecessary delay, as it reflects on the standing and integrity of Parliament.

Sir, I have also moved that Parliament considers that Mr Singh's conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Singh was first designated the Leader of the Opposition by then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after the 2020 General Election. After the 2025 General Election, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong again designated Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition.

The office of the Leader of the Opposition was formally established in 2020 to recognise Singaporeans' strong desire for a greater diversity of views in our politics and to enable our political system to evolve in a way that maintains our sense of national purpose. That objective remains valid.

Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not an ordinary MP. He has greater responsibilities and privileges than other backbenchers. To recap, the duties of the Leader of the Opposition include leading the Opposition in presenting alternative views in Parliamentary debates on policies, Bills and Motions; scrutinising the Government's positions and actions in Parliament; and nominating opposition Members for appointment to Select Committees.

In addition, the Leader of the Opposition may be asked to take on other duties, such as attending official state functions, and taking part in visits and meetings alongside members of the Government and the Public Service. When he does so, he goes as a representative of Parliament.

The Leader of the Opposition also receives specific privileges. He will, from time to time, receive confidential briefings by the Government on important national issues, such as security and external relations, especially during a national crisis or emergency. In debates, he gets the right of first response and more time for his speeches, equal to a Minister's speech time. He is provided an office in Parliament; additional staff support and resources and double the allowance of an elected MP.

Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition position carries important duties and privileges. Whoever holds this designation must be respected and trusted as a competent representative of the people. When the Office of the Leader of the Opposition was first introduced, there were high hopes for the role and how it would enhance the functioning and standing of Parliament. But now Mr Singh has done all the things that I have set out and been convicted in Court for lying to a Committee of Parliament.

Under these circumstances, the conclusion is clear and beyond doubt: Mr Singh's conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP; and he has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of the Leader of the Opposition.

If Members agree with this conclusion, they should vote in favour of the Motion. If they disagree and wish to vote against, they should justify to this House and to Singaporeans why Singapore should accept such lowered standards of honesty and integrity from their political leaders.

The WP MPs have often made speeches in this House about the importance of accountability. They have declared it their mission to hold the Government to account. The question is whether they believe that their own members – including their leader – should also be held to account for doing something wrong, especially after the Court has convicted them of a crime.

The WP and Mr Singh himself have expressed strong views against lying and dishonesty. After Ms Khan lied to Parliament and after the cover-up failed, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that she be expelled from the party if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted the recommendation.

When Mr Leon Perera was discovered to have lied to the WP leadership about his extramarital affair, Mr Singh said, "The Constitution of the Workers' Party requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore… Leon's conduct and not being truthful when asked by the party leadership about the allegation fell short of the standards expected of WP MPs. This is unacceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC that he be expelled from the party."

Notably, swift justice was meted out just for lying to the WP leadership. Ms Khan and Mr Perera had not lied to a Committee of Parliament or under oath; and Mr Perera had not been charged for a crime, let alone found guilty by the Court.

I am sure the WP will agree with me that the same standards and rigour must apply, whether to backbenchers or party leaders.

Of course, the same standards apply also to People's Action Party (PAP) MPs. If a PAP MP or Political Office Holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow. It would be untenable for them to continue as if nothing happened. In serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions.

Members may recall that in 1999, PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang was charged for cheating. He resigned before pleading guilty. In 2024, Mr S Iswaran resigned as soon as he was charged, even before conviction. Mr Tan Chuan-Jin resigned on account of his personal conduct, even though there was no criminal offence.

In all of these cases, the MPs resigned their seats as matter of party discipline, and to express remorse and accountability, but most of all to maintain the high standards expected of those in public office. These standards underpin our system of Government and are crucial to providing Singaporeans with the quality of leaders and Government that they deserve.

Mr Speaker, this matter goes beyond party politics. Honesty and integrity are non-negotiable. They form the foundation of our political system and of good governance in Singapore. If Parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root, and the public confidence in our institutions will be eroded, inevitably and irreversibly. The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from.

By supporting this Motion, Members will show that this generation of MPs are determined never to allow that to happen and that we will continue to uphold and enforce the rigorous standards that have served Singapore well and will continue to do so for many years to come.

I therefore ask all Members to support the Motion. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.02 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Point of Order.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: The Leader of the House characterised it as a cover-up. That was not found in the Court filings. So, under Standing Order 50(6), I do not believe that is permissible.

Mr Speaker: Could you repeat what you just said?

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: The Leader of the House characterised it as a cover-up, which was not found in the legal judgment. So, I do not believe this is permissible under Standing Order 50(6), which involves imputing improper motives.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: One moment, Mr Speaker, so that I can be very clear. Mr Tiong has just raised a Point of Order. He says that the Court did not use the word or did not find there was a cover-up.

The District Court judgment at paragraph 489 stated that the three WP leaders had acted to "conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021". "Conceal", if one looks in the general meaning of the dictionary usually means cover-up.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

4.05 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I wish to state that when it comes to the vote on this Motion, I have communicated with the WP MPs that the party whip is lifted. They are free to vote as they consider fit.

On my submissions and response to what the Leader has said, including going through aspects of the judgment, my submissions to the Court and my defence are found online. I have posted all my defence submissions online. They can be read.

Sir, after any Magistrate Court has given its judgment, the decision can only be appealed to the High Court and no further. There is no further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. One has to accept the verdict fully and without reservation.

I will explain why I was disappointed with the judgment, a public comment which I did not hear from the Leader's opening. I will explain why I was disappointed with the judgment and therefore do not agree with it. To this end, I will make some general points first and address all the resolutions of the Motion in the course of my speech. I will use the word "resolutions" in my speech. Leader used the word "limbs".

The defence's position, amongst other things, was straightforward. Raeesah Khan was not told to take her lie to the grave on 8 August 2021. The Courts have ruled that her SMS message of 8 August of having been told to take her lie to the grave was the anchoring piece of documentary evidence and, along with other circumstantial evidence, led to the trial judge's conclusion that such a statement was made by myself. My conscience remains clear, as it will forever, that this was not said by me to Khan at any point in time.

As for the other circumstantial evidence used to sustain my conviction, the legal opinion of the defence at trial was that enough evidence was canvassed to Court to render a conviction on both charges, unsafe in law, with reasonable doubt, duly established. This explains why the defence's considered view was that there was no necessity for me to call Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap up as witnesses.

This is all I will say on this point, in concert with Speaker's earlier ruling, as I do not intend to use my speech to review matters the Court has deliberated and ruled upon. To that end, the law has run its course – and I accept and respect that.

On Resolution 1 of the Motion, as an Opposition MP, my colleagues and I play a role in upholding our Organs of State. This disposition explains why I have no difficulty agreeing with Resolution 1 of the Motion.

On Resolution 2, it is worthwhile to recall that the COP's findings went much further than the charges that were preferred against me. It is a fact that the subject of guiding Khan to continue to lie, which is found in the Leader of the House's Motion, was not framed as a charge that was preferred against me.

Parliament would recall that it had referred my matter to the Police and the PP to review all evidence afresh. It follows that the PP would have no trouble framing a charge to this effect if indeed there was sufficient evidence that I had guided Khan to lie. My position is Khan was not told to lie, let alone guided to lie. I reject Resolution 2.

To this end, Sir, let me refer to some reports that were published in The Straits Times as the appeal was heard: "3.40 pm, 4 November last year – Justice Chong says the Prosecution's point that Mr Singh did not stand up to clarify on 4 October 2021 when Ms Khan doubled down on her lie in Parliament is not remarkable. It is not realistic to expect him to immediately react to what she said was a lie, he says. This can cut both ways as events subsequently demonstrate, he adds.

The Judge notes that it is unrealistic to say that just because Singh did not stand up that day to clarify, it does not mean that doubling down is something he told her to do."

I also refer to the notes of evidence of 4 November on appeal. This is at page 51.

Court to my lawyer: "But you are pitching your case to say that Mr Singh never told her to lie, but that might be right."

My lawyer: "I am not pitching it. I mean, factually, as Your Honour has recognised, that is right. Nobody is saying that."

Court: "Correct."

On Resolution 2, I disagree that my conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, as I disagree with the finding of guilt by the Courts and the COP.

Owing to relatively recent developments to the criminal law, the prosecution today must hand over witness statements in its possession that are favourable to my case before the trial begins. This is a legal obligation under what I refer to as the Kadar disclosure rules.

As per law, I was given portions of Loh Pei Ying's statements that she made to the Police. However, such statements are inadmissible in court, subject to the criteria in section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and subject to the usual rules of evidence. In addition, under section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code, permission must be given by the PP to use the undisclosed statements outside trial proceedings.

I wrote to the PP seeking permission to refer to these undisclosed statements for the purposes of today's Parliamentary Motion. However, my request was rejected by the PP.

Nonetheless, Parliament is sovereign, which means it is supreme above all other Government institutions, including the executive and judicial bodies. And for Parliamentary purposes, Police statements under oath must be official documents and the reply to one question goes to the heart of my position in rejecting Resolution 3 of the Motion.

Members would remember that these Police statements arose out of Parliament's referral of Mr Faisal and myself to the PP. As Parliament is sovereign, I would like to pass up a copy to Speaker for his consideration before permission is given to me to read out one question and its corresponding answer.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you may hand the document over to the Clerk. [A copy of the document was handed to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: Leader, you have a Point of Order?

4.13 pm

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I just wish to enquire. The statements that Mr Singh is referring to, is he referring to statements that the PP had provided him for purposes of the trial?

Mr Pritam Singh: Correct.

Ms Indranee Rajah: And Mr Singh's answer was, "That is correct". And Mr Singh's position was that he had asked — So, that was provided during the trial?

Mr Pritam Singh: Before the trial.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Before the trial. So, Mr Singh is now asking, or he says that he had asked the PP for permission to use them for today's Motion. Is that correct?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, that is correct.

Ms Indranee Rajah: And the PP had said no?

Mr Pritam Singh: That is correct.

Ms Indranee Rajah: And Mr Singh is asking Mr Speaker to rule to allow the Prosecution's statement for this Motion?

Mr Pritam Singh: Not the Prosecution's statement. The Police statement.

Ms Indranee Rajah: The Police statement.

Mr Pritam Singh: That is correct.

Ms Indranee Rajah: So, basically, PP had said no.

Mr Pritam Singh: That is right.

Ms Indranee Rajah: And Mr Singh is asking the Speaker to rule —

Mr Pritam Singh: For the reason that Parliament is sovereign.

4.14 pm

Mr Speaker: As I stated from the onset, Parliament today, we are not re-litigating the case. What you have provided to me, Mr Singh, is something which you had stated the PP or rather the Police have refused to release to you. Is that correct?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am not re-litigating the case. I want to stress that.

The statement that I have handed over to Speaker was not admissible in Court. But it remains a Police statement made under oath and my application, if I can call it that, is to allow me to recite the question and answer to that statement, because it is of relevance to Resolution 3 in the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Minister, you have a Point of Order? Yes.

4.16 pm

The Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): I have a clarification. I have not looked at the provisions myself, but perhaps Mr Singh can clarify.

He has asked the Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC), and AGC has said no. Is there a legal provision that governs the use of such documents and does that give AGC the power to say yes or no?

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: The relevant provision is section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code and I have a copy of it here. So, perhaps I can read out from that. And the answer would be in the affirmative.

But because I have the provision, let me just read it out.

"Restrictions on use of materials disclosed by the prosecution, section 225A.

(1) Where the prosecution discloses (whether before, on or after 17 September 2018) any material to the accused or the accused’s advocate (if any) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings —

(a) that material may be disclosed, for the purposes of those criminal proceedings, to any co‑accused in those criminal proceedings, or to the advocate (if any) of any such co‑accused, by any of the following persons:

(i) the accused;

(ii) the accused’s advocate (if any);

(iii) any other co‑accused or advocate to whom that material was disclosed under this paragraph.

(b) on and after 17 September 2018, each of the following persons is deemed to give an undertaking to the court not to use that material for any purpose (other than the purposes of those criminal proceedings) without the permission of the Public Prosecutor".

So, to answer the Minister's question, these are the relevant provisions. And the PP has to be informed, or permission has to be granted from him to use those statements outside of criminal proceedings.

Mr K Shanmugam: So, it is as I thought, Sir, I have not read it recently, but as a point of clarification, and I am sure Speaker can get advice, but it would appear that it is set out in a legislative provision that such information can only be released within the framework set out in that legislation. And maybe, I am not sure that I have ever come across a situation where Parliament can ignore the legal position set out in law. But it is a matter of clarification.

Mr Speaker: I will make a ruling on this later. Indeed, it is true that the Judiciary is one organ of state and likewise, the Parliament is another organ of state. So, Mr Singh, if I may request you to continue with your speech, I will study this further and I will make a ruling on your request at a later stage.

4.19 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will continue.

There are those who believe that whatever our Courts decide, a convicted person is unable to retain their belief that they are innocent insofar as a conviction is concerned.

In 1994, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam was convicted for a different criminal offence. The President, who opened this very session of Parliament only some months back, was asked about this in an interview with the online news channel, Mothership, just prior to his election victory in the 2023 Presidential Elections. He said in response to his conviction that, I quote, "They got the wrong man."

A criminal conviction does not negate one's right to assert innocence. A finding of guilt by the Courts did not undermine the President's personal view of his conviction.

In my case, my conscience will always be clear insofar as my conviction on both charges is concerned. However, as I iterated in my public remarks after the judgment was given, I take full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct Khan's lie in her speech on women's empowerment in Parliament on 3 August 2021.

In fact, this was not the first time that I had taken responsibility to this effect. I had done so in similar terms publicly three times before: first at the COP itself, next at the debate on the COP Report and finally, at the trial Court. I did not have close to three years to deal with a sensitive matter involving one of my MPs. My timeframe was far shorter and I tried to do what I deemed was best for the MP in question and for Parliament, with a view to work towards an outcome where the MP took ownership and responsibility for her actions.

I certainly did not expect the MP to double down on her lie when asked about it, so I reject Resolution 3 of the Motion. That said, I reiterate, I should have done better in balancing the need to be sensitive to Khan for the reason she gave for lying to Parliament on the one hand and resolving the matter of a lie in Parliament as soon as possible.

Resolution 4 asserts that my continuation in the Leader of the Opposition role would undermine public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system, amongst other things. To this, I make one point. On the matter of the Leader of the Opposition appointment, I refer to a question that was asked of me by Daryl Lim, a Lianhe Zaobao reporter, on 4 May 2025, one day after Polling Day.

He asked, "In the next Parliament, it looks like the PAP and the Workers' Party. As Leader of the Opposition, what does it look like for the future of the opposition in Singapore?" I answered, "I don't know whether I'm going to be Leader of the Opposition. This is something the government of the day has to decide. So, let's see what happens there."

In Singapore, the Leader of the Opposition appointment is not a constitutional or statutory one. I have never operated on the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition appointment is a given, nor have I hankered for it. I have done my best to work with my colleagues to advance the interests of Singaporeans with the WP as a responsible Opposition through the office. I reject Resolution 4, which flows from Resolutions 2 and 3.

On Resolution 5, I take the view that no action should be taken against my colleagues, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap, as I do not agree with the judgement and the findings of the COP.

In the course of her speech, Leader of the House made a tangential point about the other duties of the Leader of the Opposition, including following Government on overseas trips and receiving classified briefings. Perhaps, for good order, the Leader can share how many of such briefings were extended to me and how many trips I went with the Government to various places for.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, my colleagues and I see a better future for Singapore and Singaporeans, with a more balanced Parliament and a democratic society based on justice and equality. The future we envisage for Singapore does not call for the destruction of the stable and sensible politics Singaporeans seek to uphold in Singapore. And that makes Resolution 6 of the Motion unobjectionable.

In fact, my predecessor, Mr Low Thia Khiang, after giving evidence at my trial, said to the media, I quote: "The voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not a good politician, and I believe Pritam Singh is a good politician. He is a capable, competent leader with a heart for Singapore and Singaporeans."

To be clear, I do not undertake my political work for such testimonies. I am grateful for the support of Singapore and Singaporeans, and like my colleagues and leaders before me, all of us endeavour to do our best for Singapore. In my case, whatever Parliament decides and as long as I am an MP, I will continue my work as a MP on the ground in Aljunied GRC, and I will continue to advocate for Singaporeans in Parliament to the best of my abilities, as I have for the last 15 years.

For the WP and to my fellow Singaporeans, we press on and we continue working for Singapore. Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak on this Motion? Ms Kuah Boon Theng.

4.25 pm

Ms Kuah Boon Theng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Motion as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) and a non-partisan Member of this House. I do not personally know the Leader of the Opposition. This being only my third day in Parliament, I have so far not had the opportunity to meet Mr Pritam Singh and make his acquaintance. Indeed, I have not had the chance to meet with most of my Parliamentary colleagues, so with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to briefly explain my own background.

I am an advocate and solicitor who has been in practice for over 30 years. My profession – the legal profession – is an honourable one, and its members are held to high ethical standards to act with integrity and honesty, to uphold justice and to preserve the public's trust.

I am one of the Senior Counsel who sit on the Panel of Disciplinary Tribunal Presidents on the Law Society of Singapore disciplinary cases. This means that when a complaint is made against a practising lawyer alleging professional misconduct and the matter is deemed serious enough to warrant investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal, I have from time to time been appointed to preside over such cases.

In considering these cases, the Disciplinary Tribunal must first be satisfied that the charges of professional misconduct are proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal must then consider if due cause has been shown that would warrant referring the lawyer to the Court of Three Judges, for consideration of disciplinary action.

Just to explain to Members that findings that would justify such a referral for disciplinary action include cases where the advocate and solicitor: one, has been convicted of a criminal offence, implying a defect of character which makes him or her unfit for the profession; two, has been found guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his or her professional duty, or guilty of certain breaches that amount to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor; and three, has been guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession.

That list is not intended to be exhaustive.

I should also mention that as legal counsel, I advise the medical profession, which is another profession that is held to high standards of ethical conduct. Doctors, dentists, nurses and allied health professionals are also subjected to self-regulation in the form of a complaints and disciplinary process. If allegations of professional misconduct are proven and due cause is shown, a doctor's privileges to practice could be suspended or revoked. And like lawyers, doctors can be disciplined by their own professional body, even if the doctor has already been separately held accountable in a Court of law and convicted for a criminal offence. One is accountable to the law, in a criminal Court, but must also be accountable to one's own profession.

Indeed, the professions of law and medicine have much in common. In July 2017, the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon delivered the 23rd Gordon Arthur Ransome Oration entitled, “Law and Medicine: Professions of Honour, Service and Excellence”, in which he referenced lawyers and doctors as the “sibling professions of law and medicine”, who serve critical functions in contemporary society. He called on members of both professions to, among other things, “appreciate and commit to their shared calling to public service”, and “to serve with excellence in ethics as well as competence, so as not to betray the trust of the laypersons who rely on professionals to safeguard their interests and welfare”.

In another important speech he would go on to deliver in March 2018 entitled, “Medicine and Law: Comparative Perspectives on Professional Conduct and Discipline”, our Chief Justice will go on to say, and again, I quote, "It is for the sake of the protection of the public, therefore, that the professions have always sought to regulate themselves and to punish those of their number who are guilty of misconduct. In this regard, formal disciplinary proceedings provide not only a means for a profession to enforce its standards, but also an avenue for it to communicate to the public, as well as to underscore to its members, the values and ethos which undergird its work."

The point I wish to make is this – anyone who has taken the Hippocratic Oath and been conferred the privileges of medical practice, and anyone who has been brought up in the best traditions of the bar, and that includes the Leader of the Opposition, will know very well that we are called by our profession to act with honour and integrity. The special privileges that we receive as lawyers and doctors can be taken away, if we do not live up to the standards of honesty and probity that is expected from us.

So, I ask this. What more, if one is an MP in service of the public? What more, if one is the Leader of the Opposition, who has been specially conferred with the privileges and respect that comes with that special position? Surely, the standards of conduct for the profession of Parliamentarians cannot be lower than that which is expected from the legal or medical professional.

And what the Chief Justice has alluded to about professional bodies always seeking to regulate themselves and having processes to enforce standards is, to me, what this Motion is all about. It is not enough for any profession to simply claim to have standards of conduct and declare itself an honourable profession. To retain the trust and confidence of the public, we must be prepared to call out behaviour and conduct that has fallen short of those standards, hold people to account and consider appropriate sanction or measures that must be taken.

In considering this Motion, we look to the decision of Justice of the Court of Appeal, Steven Chong, who dismissed the appeal lodged by the Leader of the Opposition and upheld the conviction on two charges of wilfully giving false answers to a Parliamentary Committee of Privileges. Upholding the rule of law means we must accept the finality and authority of our Court judgments. The District Judge rendered his decision only after weighing all the evidence, hearing the parties’ submissions and applying the law without fear or favour. His decision was in turn scrutinised closely by a very senior appellate judge, who was satisfied that the conviction must be upheld. Whether we like the outcome or find it disappointing, the integrity of our legal system depends on our commitment to honour the result.

And I am glad that following the unsuccessful appeal, Mr Pritam Singh had publicly stated that he accepts the Court’s judgment fully and without reservation, although it now seems that he has clarified he accepts the Court’s decision only because there is no other avenue of appeal, not because he actually agrees that the decision was correct.

To wilfully give false answers must mean that the conduct leading to conviction involved dishonesty. The first paragraph of the Motion asks that we affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system. To this, I say that there should be no question in the minds of any reasonable right-thinking person, that that must be the case. If the public that we serve are to have trust and confidence in our systems, they have every right to demand that honesty and integrity be the fundamental pillars by which we conduct ourselves and Parliament’s business, and there should be no hesitation on our part to support paragraph 1 of the Motion, as well as paragraph 6 of the Motion, which calls upon all MPs 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.

I would go so far as to say that if we were to vote on each paragraph of the Motion separately, if anyone were to vote “no” to paragraph 1 and paragraph 6, that would automatically raise serious questions about their fitness to serve.

The other paragraphs of the Motion that relate to Mr Pritam Singh’s conduct calls on each of us to indicate if we agree with the characterisation of that conduct as dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and whether Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition, on grounds that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system.

As I have explained, the need to characterise misconduct and consider if it is serious enough to potentially warrant the curtailment or stripping away of certain special privileges is certainly not a decision that is new to me, when I preside over a Disciplinary Tribunal. What I can say is this – when we make our deliberations and vote on the Motion, it must never be based on personal factors but purely on the objective standards of conduct that we are called to uphold and in circumstances where an authoritative finding of guilt has already been made. I trust that all of us will approach the Motion in the same way and make our judgment based on these unassailable principles and sound objective considerations.

Finally, I want to say this. We are all human and we all make mistakes. We may commit errors of judgement, maybe even serious ones. The true test of our character lies not in our failings or what we may have done on our worst day. It is in how we respond, whether we are able to openly acknowledge our wrongdoings, show genuine remorse and contrition, not seeking to lay blame elsewhere.

In this Motion, Members are asked if we agree that Mr Pritam Singh’s conduct was indeed dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and that his continuation as Leader of the Opposition will undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of our political system.

I invite Mr Pritam Singh to reflect on his own conduct and indicate if he would be the first to agree that he has, indeed, fallen below the standards that should rightly be expected of him, and whether he would respond appropriately by voluntarily agreeing to give up the position of Leader of the Opposition. It would be the clearest sign he could offer this House that he has indeed learned the error of his ways, and he acknowledges that the trust and respect that comes with the position of Leader of the Opposition is one that he now has to work hard to earn back. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I otherwise support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

4.39 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): In Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, as the saying goes, "To err is human." But there is also an adage that states, "To recognise one's mistakes and to correct them is a great virtue." Indeed, everyone makes mistakes in life. Learning from those mistakes is part of growth. Therefore, making mistakes is not to be feared; what truly matters is how we respond to and handle those mistakes.

Today's Motion, unfortunately, arose because of MPs who repeatedly mishandled their error in Parliament.

Parliament is a sacred hall. MPs carry the trust and mandate of the people. Here, we debate and legislate on international issues, governance policies and issues affecting the livelihoods of citizens. This is not only about the future of our nation, it directly impacts the lives of our people.

Moreover, the quality of our Parliament not only reflects our democracy and governance capabilities but also embodies the values and aspirations of Singaporeans. When the international community observes our Parliament, they do not only focus on the legislative process and policy formulation; they are also assessing Singapore's performance as a modern nation in terms of our integrity and transparency. This responsibility falls not just on the Cabinet but also on all MPs. Therefore, a high-quality Parliament can enhance Singapore's image on the global stage, strengthening the trust and willingness of other countries to cooperate with us. MPs being responsible in Parliament is therefore also being responsible to Singaporeans and Singapore.

We are now in the 15th Parliament. Under the leadership of several generations of leaders and through the collective efforts of our people, Singapore has overcome numerous challenges, rising from a third world country to a first world nation today. As Singapore develops, the needs of our people have become increasingly diverse, and the challenges we face have grown more complex. In this context, we must ensure that our Parliament is inclusive and adaptive. While diverse voices and opinions are welcomed, there must be a shared consensus: our Parliament must uphold and demonstrate the principles of honesty, integrity, and accountability, thereby maintaining its credibility and ensuring its effective operation. This is how we defend democracy.

Many of you may be familiar with the Chinese proverb, "Three men make a tiger," which originated from the "Strategies of the Warring States." In ancient times, before Pang Gong was sent to country Zhao, he told the King of Wei, "If someone in the market says there is a tiger, you won't believe it; if two people say it, you will begin to doubt; if three people say it, you will believe it." Thus, a lie that is repeated three times will become indistinguishable from the truth. Therefore, when the first lie is discovered, it must be stopped to prevent a second or even a third from occurring. Otherwise, this illusion of truth can mislead the public, which is extremely dangerous. Once a crack is formed, the hole will only grow larger. We may hold differing opinions and debate them, but this must be based on facts.

Given that Parliament is the pillar of our democratic system and the significant role of the Leader of the Opposition, we now face a situation that is deeply disappointing and saddening. The Court has ruled twice that the Leader of the Opposition lied before the Committee of Privileges and guided a junior MP to continue lying in Parliament, resulting in today's Motion for debate.

Our Parliament has witnessed several outstanding, responsible and respected Opposition leaders. From our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, before the PAP formed the government, to Mr Chiam See Tong of Singapore People's Party and Mr Low Thia Kiang of WP, our Parliament has never lacked in respectable opposition figures. Therefore, after the 2020 General Election, a formal role for the Leader of the Opposition was established, since held by WP's Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Low championed honesty, transparency and accountability in his leadership of the WP, something that many have witnessed. Despite our political differences and party affiliations, Mr Low is indeed a respected political leader. Therefore, witnessing the current situation where the Leader of the Opposition has been ruled by the Court as dishonest towards Parliament and having guided his junior party member Raeesah Khan to continue covering lies in Parliament is disheartening.

Today's Motion carries great significance. We must reach a conclusion and move forward as soon as possible. There are still issues regarding the livelihoods of the people and of national imperative that we must address, so we need to redirect the attention and energy of Parliament back to these crucial matters. However, to achieve this goal, ensuring that Parliament maintains a high level of credibility is paramount. Thus, as we consider the Motion before us, it is necessary for all MPs to take a stand. I hereby support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

4.46 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise with some hesitation. I did not come into Parliament to speak on matters of political conduct or party leadership. My instinct and my focus, as an NMP, has always been on the practical challenges facing our economy – on business competitiveness, jobs, costs and how Singapore continues to thrive in an increasingly uncertain world.

I want to state clearly at the outset: I have respect for the Leader of the Opposition. From my study of his speeches and my limited personal interactions, I believe that his heart, like that of many Members in this House, is for Singapore. Differing views, even strong disagreement, are not a weakness in a political system. They are often a source of renewal, correction and long-term resilience.

Mr Speaker, as I thought through this Motion, two considerations weighed most heavily on me. Let me address them in turn.

Singapore has no natural resources. What we have and what we have always relied upon is trust. Trust in our institutions. Trust in the rule of law. Trust that truth matters, especially when it is uncomfortable.

At the apex of these institutions stands Parliament. History is unambiguous on this point. The historian Arnold Toynbee, in his extensive study of civilisations, observed that civilisations rarely collapse because of external attack; they collapse because of internal failure. As he put it succinctly, "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder."

This lesson is sobering. Nations unravel not when they face challenges, but when their core institutions fail to respond with honesty, discipline and moral clarity. When standards are bent, when truth becomes negotiable, truth erodes quietly at first, and then decisively.

As former NMP Ms Janet Ang, once observed in this House, institutional credibility is hard won but easily lost, and once lost, extremely difficult to restore. In a small, open economy like Singapore, trust is not just a moral value – it is a strategic asset.

From the perspective of business and investment, this is not theoretical. Investors assess not only tax regimes or incentives, but whether a country's institutions are reliable, predictable and principled. Trust lowers risk. Distrust raises it. Where trust falls, political risks rise. Investors and businesses price in uncertainty and growth slows.

This reinforces a simple reality: trust is not an abstract ideal. It is a foundational economic asset. Singapore's attractiveness as an investment hub, and as a hub for trade and innovation, rests on the confidence that our institutions are fair, reliable and accountable. It is because of this centrality of trust that I feel compelled to speak today, even though this matter lies outside my usual substantive terrain.

At the same time, Mr Speaker, I approach this Motion with care. This debate arises from a matter that has been tested through due process and adjudicated by the Courts. The conviction and the findings of the COP now form part of the public and legal record, and they must be respected. The question before this House is therefore not to revisit the facts, but to reflect on what these findings mean for a Parliamentary leadership position that carries distinct responsibilities and expectations.

I affirm, without reservation, the principle that no Member of this House stands above the law and that honesty before Parliament and its Committees is non-negotiable. As my fellow former NMP, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, has observed in past debates, truthfulness is not a mere procedural requirement; it is what gives legitimacy to our laws and moral authority to our decisions.

At this point, Mr Speaker, I reflected on a simple litmus test – not as a lawyer, but drawing on leadership experience, institutional stewardship and my role as an NMP.

NMPs are appointed, not elected. We serve without party affiliation and without an electoral mandate. Our legitimacy rests entirely on the trust and confidence of those who appointed us, and of this House. If an NMP were to lie to Parliament, be tried in a Court of law, and be convicted, the first question he or she must confront is not a legal one, but an institutional one: do I still hold the trust and confidence of those who appointed me?

I believe the answer, in such circumstances, would almost invariably be "no". The proper course would be to step aside from any position of responsibility within this House – not as a matter of punishment, but as a matter of integrity. That duty is amplified when the offence itself is dishonesty directed at the very institution one serves. Trust cannot be compartmentalised; it is either present, or it is not.

Applying that same standard consistently, I find it difficult to argue that lesser expectations should apply where the office in question is a Parliamentarian leadership position, carrying defined responsibilities, duties and privileges. This is, of course, a matter of judgement. And I state my judgement unreservedly as an NMP, exercising the responsibility entrusted to me by this House – to bring an independent, non-partisan perspective grounded in the national interest.

For that reason, Mr Speaker, having considered both the principle at stake and the responsibilities attached to Parliamentary leadership, I support the Motion. It reflects fidelity to the role I was appointed to play and to the responsibility this House bears – to uphold the integrity and standing of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, when I was sworn in just three days ago, my son was watching from the gallery above. That moment reminded me that what we do in this House must stand not only for today, but for the next generation of Singaporeans who will inherit these institutions. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

4.53 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Speaker, in mid-December, media reports quoted the Leader of the House announcing that Parliament would be discussing what should follow after the High Court judgment in Mr Pritam Singh's case.

I was waiting to see what resolutions the Leader would ask Parliament to pass. After three weeks of anticipation, the Motion we are debating today is entitled "Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of his Suitability to Continue as Leader of the Opposition."

Sir, I wish to offer my personal views on some of the key resolutions. As I am an interested party in the matter, I stress that these views are my own and I am not speaking for the WP in this regard.

First, on Resolutions 2 to 4, touching on Mr Pritam Singh. Parliament had, in 2022, referred Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP, who proceeded to prosecute Mr Singh. After a trial, Mr Singh was convicted and his appeal was dismissed. He has paid the fine of $14,000.

It bears highlighting the differences between the present case involving Mr Singh and previous instances, when MPs have misconduct themselves and had resigned. Mr Singh's case is unlike the other instances where the MPs themselves admitted their wrongdoings. Mr Singh has maintained his innocence, contested the charges and appealed against his conviction. The Court has, however, found him guilty and his conviction has been upheld on appeal.

Sir, the Motion proposed by the Leader of the House does not just ask this House to express its disapproval, but also seeks to initiate a removal of Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition.

Given the different circumstances of Mr Singh, the question that arises is whether Parliament should subject Mr Singh to a further punishment, by initiating a removal of him from his position as the Leader of the Opposition.

Is this necessary? Or is this a political exercise?

Sir, earlier some Members spoke about how Parliament will be judged. Indeed, when Parliament reopened last September, I spoke about the importance of Parliament as an institution. I pointed out that under the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index rankings, the Singapore Parliament was not faring well in its fundamental task of being an effective check on the Executive Government's powers. I urged that all of us in this House see each other as fellow Singaporeans who are not enemies, but competitors who had common cause in serving fellow citizens through this House. I emphasised our duty to ensure that this House served the interests of citizens outside the House.

Sir, I believe this Motion today does not serve Singaporeans, but it is a party-political exercise, and I can foresee that our Parliament will slip further down the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index rankings, on the factor of being able to effectively check government power. This is unhealthy and not in the national interest.

Sir, next, I move on to Resolution 5 of the Motion, which mentions me specifically. Resolution five states that the High Court judgment and the COP's findings have implications on Mr Faisal Manap and myself, which have to be considered separately. I must disagree with a linkage between the High Court judgment and my position.

Earlier in statements to the media, the Leader of the House had stated that the COP had found that Mr Singh, Mr Faisal and I had lied to the Committee by denying that we had told Ms Raeesah Khan to hide her Untruth in an August 2021 meeting.

The Leader then asserted that, and I quote, "the COP's findings have been borne out by the Court's judgments."

Sir, Mr Singh was prosecuted and convicted. On appeal, the Court upheld Mr Singh's conviction. Neither Mr Faisal nor I participated in the trial. I was interviewed by the Police several times in late 2022 and so was Mr Faisal. My impression was that I might be called as a prosecution witness. Following my interviews with the Police and the submission of my written statement to them, I was not called as a witness by the Prosecution.

The COP in its conclusions had noted that I had voluntarily tended evidence that was damaging to Mr Singh. I had spoken about this matter in Parliament on 15 February 2022, when I had explained that the COP had omitted to refer to parts of my evidence given at the COP. I had said that my evidence, if considered as a whole, would not support the COP's conclusions. That was roughly eight months before I was interviewed by the Police.

Sir, having read the appeal judgment, I note that there are several references to me, but these are based on the evidence that was placed before the Court by the Prosecution. As the Prosecution was solely against Mr Singh, and Mr Faisal and I were not called as witnesses by either party, we had no opportunity to present our side of the story to the Court.

The Court's findings cannot be held against us. The Leader, a Senior Counsel with decades of litigation experience, will no doubt be aware of what I had just said.

Sir, now I move on to the next steps. Parliament had already decided to refer Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the PP. The matter was, no doubt, fully and thoroughly investigated. Mr Singh was prosecuted and eventually convicted, while the Prosecution decided not to charge Mr Faisal, but to issue him with an Advisory.

The advisory was to advise Mr Faisal to familiarise himself with the conduct expected of MPs under PPIPA and advising him to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it. Thus, the referral to the PP had reached its conclusion.

For the reasons that I have just explained, if there are any further steps that Parliament wishes to take against me, it must be based solely on the COP's conclusions and in accordance with PPIPA. I state once again that I disagree with the COP's conclusions.

Resolution 5 states that the matters regarding Mr Faisal and myself have to be considered separately.

I must say that this is very vague. Would the Leader be so kind as to elaborate on what is meant and how long we will need to wait for this to be addressed? If Parliament wishes to take any further steps against me and Mr Faisal, would we be given an opportunity to address Parliament before it proceeds to do so?

Sir, before I end, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Singaporeans for the support that they have given to the WP, especially in the past few weeks. We have received emails and letters of encouragement. Many Singaporeans have also approached us individually in hawker centres and malls to voice their concerns over this debate. They have advised us to take good care of ourselves and at the same time, emphasised how important it was for us to continue our work.

Sir, we in the WP are truly humbled by this outpouring of support from the public. We will continue our work and strive to do even better for them. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

5.01 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this is the first major Motion brought before this House in 2026. It comes at a time when many Singaporeans are highlighting pressing issues that have a direct impact on their daily lives. They are also navigating the most challenging geopolitical landscape in recent memory.

Be that as it may, the Motion is before us and it is our duty as Parliamentarians to treat it with the utmost seriousness.

The Leader of the Opposition and WP's Whip, Mr Pritam Singh, has lifted the whip on this debate, allowing each WP MP to speak and vote freely, according to their own conscience and their assessment of the facts before them. It is in this spirit that I wish to state my considered position on the Motion.

I do not disagree with the principles in paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Motion. Honesty and integrity are indeed the fundamental pillars of our Parliamentary and political system. Every MP has a solemn duty to respect the law and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans. There is no dispute on these principles.

Regarding paragraph 5 on Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, it is difficult for me to see how the findings in a judgment against the Leader of the Opposition can be held against Ms Lim or Mr Faisal, considering neither of them participated in the trial, nor presented their own evidence in Court.

Regardless of the differing views in this House on Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, it is important that Parliament does not allow this to drag on for too long. The Leader has said that Parliament will separately consider the matter on another occasion. I trust that it is not the intention of the Government to let this matter persist over the next few years as having the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads would be unfair to them.

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 pertain to Mr Pritam Singh.

As Mr Pritam Singh has stated today, he maintains that he disagrees with the judgment of the Court and the findings of the COP. I note that in 2022, Parliament chose to refer Mr Singh to the PP. After a lengthy investigation, a trial and an appeal, the legal process has concluded. Mr Singh has been sentenced and has paid his fines.

By seeking to remove his position as the Leader of the Opposition, this Motion appears to be imposing a further political penalty on top of a legal one. We must also remember that the position of the Leader of the Opposition remains a role constituted at the Prime Minister's prerogative. If the Prime Minister now deems the appointment untenable, he has the authority to rescind it. The Leader said MPs are entitled to express their view on Mr Singh's suitability for that role. Is the Prime Minister seeking the views of Parliament to make his executive decision?

The WP is vastly outnumbered in this House. There are 12 WP MPs in this Parliament, compared to 87 PAP MPs. The outcome of this Motion may be a foregone conclusion due to the mathematical reality of this House, but the moral weight of the decision rests on every Member.

Regardless of Parliament's decision, the WP will continue our work on the ground. We will let our commitment and our service to our constituents speak for themselves. Ultimately, it is for the voters to decide on the representatives they want serving them.

In recent weeks, I have been heartened by the many residents I have met during house visits and at neighbourhood coffee shops. Many have offered words of encouragement and concern and have reaffirmed their support for us through this episode. They have urged us to stay focused on the issues that matter to their families and their livelihoods. I express my heartfelt thanks to our residents and supporters. Their trust is a reminder of why we are here and why we must press on with our responsibilities to our residents and the nation.

Once this Motion is settled, I hope this House can move on to the crucial matters that affect the lives of all Singaporeans. Sir, I strongly oppose the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.

5.06 pm

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk on this Motion.

I am new here. I am an engineer, so, I will be very short and sharp. I am also a fellow and a former vice president of the Institution of Engineers. We are trained to analyse systematically and logically. Interestingly, I am also a layperson of the investigation and disciplinary panel of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants. We take our roles very seriously as they have impact on a person's reputation and also his livelihood. We rely on objective evidence and less on emotions or personal opinions.

I am going to ask three questions to myself in order to resolve or understand how I react to this Motion: principle, facts and action.

So, what are the principles? This Motion is all about honesty and integrity so that we have built trust in this august Chamber.

What are the facts? We have to rely on evidence of factual things that are indisputable. In my work, whether it is professional opinion or judgement, we rely more on the Court's findings. So, these are factual stuff and not disputable.

What is the action then? We address Members in this Chamber as hon Members. The public does expect us and, in particular, office holders, to have the highest integrity and honesty.

It is, thus, not really tenable for the Leader of the Opposition to carry on in this role as it is.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret that we have to face this issue, but I believe Singaporeans hold us and Members in this Chamber to the highest standards of honesty and integrity. I rise to support this Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.

5.09 pm

Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek a point of clarification from the Leader of the House.

First of all, I thank NMP and Senior Counsel Ms Kuah Boon Theng for sharing her experience sitting on disciplinary tribunals pursuant to the Legal Profession Act (LPA). She elaborated on the requirements for a disciplinary tribunal to find cause for disciplinary actions set out in section 83 of the LPA.

Arising from Nominated MP Ms Kuah's speech, I have a point of clarification to the Leader of the House. Would the Leader please clarify, in general terms, how would sections 83 and/or 98 of the LPA operate where a member of the legal profession has been convicted of an offence arising from proceedings in Parliament?

Mr Speaker: Leader, you can do this in your rounding up speech. Mr Kenneth Tiong.

5.10 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you, Speaker. Mr Speaker, a question for the Leader of the House since she has brought up the matter of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin.

In July 2023, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin resigned as Speaker over an affair with a sitting MP. The Prime Minister had known since late 2020 – nearly three years. For nearly three years, the Speaker presided over this House, ruling on Members' conduct, maintaining order, while in an affair with a Member they presided over.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong, as I recounted earlier, we can discuss about others, but you should do it with a separate Motion on another day.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: It will be relevant, Speaker, if I can just finish.

Mr Speaker: Okay. Alright.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Both Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition are Parliamentary leadership positions. Both situations raise questions about fitness for office. Arguably, the Speaker is more important than the Leader of Opposition since the Speaker is in the line of succession for President.

Yet, Parliament was never asked to judge Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. No Motion. Not in 2020, not in 2021, not in 2022, not before his resignation, not after. Nearly three years of silence and then a quiet exit, but not before calling my hon colleague an "f–ing populist".

Mr Pritam Singh faced the Courts. He was convicted. He paid his fine. The legal process is complete. Now, Parliament wants its turn.

Mr Tan faced nothing. No Court, no conviction, no fine, and certainly, no Motion. So, the Member who faced nothing gets a quiet exit and the Member who already faced the Courts must now face Parliament as well.

So, if this Motion represents the proper standard for addressing misconduct by Parliamentary leaders, why was Parliament never asked in those three years to judge Mr Tan Chuan-Jin? Which is the higher standard of accountability? What justifies a Motion for Mr Pritam Singh of the WP, but not Mr Tan Chuan-Jin of the PAP?

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, just a clarification because Mr Tiong said "no fine". Is it Mr Tiong's position that you should have fines for extramarital affairs? That those are criminal offences?

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: The question is about fitness for Parliamentary office and that is what this Motion is about. So, I believe in – let me just read the Motion again – in the third limb, you express regret that "the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament". So, what conditions of this situation do not obtain for Mr Tan Chuan-Jin?

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you wanted to raise a point of clarification.

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Mr Speaker, but not pertaining to what my colleague Mr Kenneth Tiong was saying. Prior to this, I understand you said the Leader would be rounding up. I just wanted to know whether there is a ruling on my —

Mr Speaker: I will come to that shortly. I wanted to hear the rest of the speeches. I will come to my ruling very soon.

Mr Pritam Singh: Much obliged.

Mr Speaker: I saw a hand. Yes, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun Alhabsyi.

5.14 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for National Development (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi): Mr Speaker, I enter this debate with a consternation and dismay over how events concerning the Leader of the Opposition have unfolded. It is regrettable that we have come to this, that the House has to discuss a Motion to express its regret at his conduct and reconsider his suitability as Leader of the Opposition.

I offer three points for Members' consideration.

First, let there be no doubt that the responsibility and duty of the Leader of the Opposition sit at a high bar and rightly so. With the privileges accorded to the office, we consider him as the foremost representative of the Opposition.

He sits directly opposite the Prime Minister in this House, symbolising his role as a principal counterbalance to the Government of the day. He is accorded the right of first response in Parliament, allowing him to pose lead questions to Ministers and to speak at greater length than any other MP. He is also given an office in Parliament, additional staff support and resources and an allowance beyond other parliamentarians, Opposition or otherwise.

Mr Speaker, these are not mere ceremonial honours. These are privileges to enable the Leader of the Opposition to effectively lend his scrutiny to Government policy to present alternative viewpoints and to contribute meaningfully to parliamentary debate. And at times of crises or national emergencies, as mentioned earlier, he may also receive confidential briefings by the Government.

I think both sides of the House would agree that the office of the Leader of the Opposition comes with great responsibility, which arises out of a position of trust, trust that he would be truthful at all times, trust that he will act honourably and with integrity, and trust that when tested the strength of his character will hold firm. From the office of the Leader of the Opposition, Singaporeans rightly demand the highest standards to lead by example and to define the tone and tenor of how the opposition conducts itself in Parliament.

How the Leader of the Opposition conducts himself also directly influences public's perception of our entire Parliamentary system. Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is imperative that the Leader of the Opposition conducts himself with honour and integrity and adheres to the highest ethical standards, not only for himself, but also for the office he holds, for the Parliament he is a part of and for the people this Parliament serves.

Some may argue that this is an inordinately high bar, but it is a necessary one. Necessary to preserve the sanctity of the proceedings in this House – Singapore's Parliament. As far as honesty and integrity are concerned, we must continue to be resolutely firm that there, that there is no inch at all to give and let slip in our Parliamentary and political system, regardless of which side of the House we represent.

Second, Mr Speaker, the matter before us is no longer one of doubt or conjecture. Mr Singh has been given ample opportunity to clear the air and to defend the charges against him through due process. This House has devoted significant time and attention to this matter, which has been examined thoroughly over two terms of Parliament. The matter has been ventilated fully before the Courts and it has been conclusively determined. The honourable High Court judge said that, "From the time he, Mr Singh, learnt about the Untruth on 7 August 2021, till the time when it was decided that Ms Khan should clarify the Untruth on 11 October 2021, the appellant was hoping that he would not have to deal with it."

The judgment also noted that the WP leaders were trying to manage risks of admitting to the Untruth, considering whether the Untruth would be raised again, and would the Government be able to discover the Untruth. It also concluded that Mr Pritam Singh did not intend, and I quote: "did not intend that Ms Khan should clarify the Untruth, and that he had given false testimony to the COP by claiming that he did."

Though he maintains his assertion of innocence, Mr Singh has said previously he accepted the Court judgment fully and without reservation. The facts have been determined and these are not matters of minor or technical significance. An MP had lied in this Chamber when that falsehood became known. The Leader of the Opposition and party leader to the said MP engaged in an exercise of risk assessment or damage control, rather than opting to come clean at the first opportunity.

Mr Speaker, in the Chamber, we, the MPs, make decisions that inform, that affect and that impact the lives of our Singaporeans very directly. We have a solemn duty to respect and abide by all laws of our land, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust that Singaporeans have placed in us. To lie, to protect or conceal untruth, to even consider weighing whether an untruth would be found out fundamentally breaches the trust Singaporeans expect of us. Such conduct, Sir, I submit respectfully, is unbecoming and brings disrepute to this House.

Third, Mr Speaker, I am deeply concerned about what this episode means for the integrity of our institutions and the example we set for future generations. Younger parliamentarians and, indeed, younger Singaporeans, look to and observe the conduct of our leaders. They look to leaders for ethical guidance and council, for standards of accountability and for direction on how integrity is upheld. We all falter from time to time as humans inevitably do, but leadership demands prompt and honest accountability when mistakes occur.

In this case, Mr Singh's actions fell short. First in failing to guide his young Parliamentary colleague to do the right thing when she first erred; second, in not taking responsibility for his own actions; and third, in not respecting the institution of Parliament and the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It therefore falls to this House to record its regret and dismay over Mr Pritam's actions, to draw a line in the sand that this is unacceptable and unbecoming, and that this cannot be what we allow within the walls of our Chamber. Let future generations remember that this Parliament did not look away from such dishonourable conduct. Instead, we address this matter squarely and decisively, and that we did so without hesitation. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I wish to place on record regret at the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which has been found to be severely wanting when measured against the standards of integrity and honesty demanded of all Members of Parliament, and particularly given his position as Leader of the Opposition. Allow me to offer three points for Parliament's consideration.

First, the Leader of the Opposition is a role that carries significant responsibilities and duties and represents a trust that is held in high regard. The office is the foremost representative of the opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition is given privileges in our parliamentary system, in terms of priority in responding to Ministers, extended time limits for his speeches, and is provided with staff support, resources and additional allowances to fulfil these responsibilities. The Leader of the Opposition sits directly opposite the Prime Minister in this House, symbolising the role of Leader of the Opposition as the principal counterbalance to the Government.

Indeed, the position of Leader of the Opposition arises out of a position of high trust specifically vested in him, including trust that he will be truthful at all times, trust that he will always act with complete honesty and integrity, and trust that in any situation, even when tested, his moral convictions, principles and personal integrity remain firm.

In terms of honesty and integrity, we must be clear that there is absolutely no room for compromise in our parliamentary and political system, regardless of which side we represent. Therefore, for anyone holding the position of Leader of the Opposition, Singaporeans rightly demand the highest standards of integrity and conduct to lead by example and define the tone and tenor that should be mirrored by the other opposition Members in Parliament.

Every action and the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition also directly influence public perception of our entire parliamentary system. Therefore, it is imperative that the Leader of the Opposition conduct himself with absolute honour, not only for himself, but also to respond to the call for the integrity of the office he holds, to respect his membership in Parliament and to uphold the profound trust given by fellow citizens.

While we may disagree in articulating policies and ideas, this must surely be based firstly on integrity and honesty. This is necessary in order to protect this Chamber from all falsehoods and tainted words, thereby ensuring that the sanctity and dignity of our parliamentary and political processes are preserved in the eyes of the people.

Second, there is now no longer any doubt or uncertainty that Mr Pritam Singh has given false testimony, even though at that time he was under oath when appearing before the Committee of Privileges.

Following the court process, including the unsuccessful appeal at the High Court, Mr Pritam Singh has been given ample opportunity to clear the air and defend himself against the charges about his conduct. However, the High Court has ruled that Mr Pritam Singh did not tell the truth to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Speaker, this is regretful, because this is not a matter of minor significance. A Member of Parliament was initially found to have lied in this Chamber, and with this knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition and party leader of the said Member of Parliament opted not to come clean expeditiously and immediately after the first untruth. Instead, he was found to have jeopardised integrity and honour through hesitation, and at that time engaged in an exercise of risk assessment or damage control on whether or not to reveal that untruth.

Mr Speaker, in this Chamber, we as the Members of Parliament, make key decisions that inform, that influence, that affect and that impact the lives of Singaporeans directly.

We have the duty, Mr Speaker, to abide by all laws of our land, to act with integrity and honesty at all times and to honour the trust that Singaporeans have placed in us. To lie, to delay or conceal untruth, to even consider weighing whether an untruth would be found out or not, fundamentally breaches the trust that Singaporeans expect of us. Such conduct and actions bring disrepute to the dignity, integrity and honour of this Chamber.

Third, Mr Speaker, I express concern about how this episode could affect the dignity of our institutions and the example we set for the younger generation. Younger Members of Parliament, and indeed, youth in general, closely observe and take cues from the conduct of our leaders. They look to our leaders for ethical guidance, decisions of integrity as well as counsel, and see them as beacons in fostering a culture that underscores the importance of honesty and honour.

Although leaders may falter as humans inevitably do, it is incumbent upon leaders to take responsibility for all their actions, shortcomings and mistakes. In this case, Mr Pritam's actions fall short.

First, in guiding a young Member of Parliament to do the right thing when that Member of Parliament first erred. Second, in accepting responsibility for his actions honestly, and third, in not respecting the institution of Parliament and the office of Leader of the Opposition.

It falls to Parliament to voice its strong regret over Mr Pritam's actions and conduct, to draw a line in the sand that this is unacceptable and has crossed that line, and that it does not reflect the conduct and character that is fundamentally demanded of Members of Parliament. Let us be remembered by future generations as a Parliament that did not look away, and did not shirk from our responsibility to correct misconduct and dishonesty. Instead, we chose to address it squarely, decisively, without any hesitation.

If we allow transgressions against the fundamental values of society and the pillars of our institutions, such as honesty, integrity, and honour, there is worry that over time, this will erode, taint and even destroy everything we have built together as one people in our parliamentary and political system.

We must address this together so that elements that go against the identity and sacred values of Singaporeans are not allowed to even take root. There is a worry that a pot of milk could spoil because of a drop of indigo (Malay idiom that carries meaning similar to "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch").

(In English): Mr Speaker, I conclude by drawing Members' attention to the fourth limb of the Motion, relating to the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system.

I urge Members to reflect and consider carefully on the weight of this Motion, not only on the integrity of this House as an institution, but also on the signal that we send about where we as a Parliament and as a society stand on honesty and truth telling by our MPs and by all who hold positions of leadership.

That this Motion must come before the House today is regrettable. But integrity is not something we can compromise on nor waver upon even in the slightest. With that, Mr Speaker, I lend my full support for the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have some clarifications?

5.30 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Mr Speaker, I like to ask a clarification of the Member who just spoke, Dr Syed Harun.

So, for the last few minutes he has been pontificating about integrity and institutions in English and Malay, in flowery language. I would like to respectfully ask him how he sees his own position. If I recall correctly, in 2023, you know, he came in as an NMP and that was on the basis that he was a non-partisan person and supposed to fulfil his term as such, but he resigned prematurely and now it turns out that he was in preparation for the General Election to run as a party candidate.

So, I mean, does he see any issue with that in terms of integrity and institutions?

Mr Speaker: I will allow for this. But going forward, we should not be discussing this. This matter is not relevant actually. But Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun, you may choose to reply.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, I note that it has been decided that there is no relevance with regard to this particular Motion. And I would also mention that it is a matter of public record in terms of the circumstances of what happened, with reference to what Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, you are free to table a separation Motion to discuss this if you wish, but not at this time.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, it is not my intention. It is just in response to his lecture on integrity.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, I continue to maintain that the issue has been on public record. And I disagree unequivocally with regard to any questions on my integrity about what has happened in the past. At the time when I was an NMP, very clearly, I was non-partisan. And at this point of time, I am quite clear in terms of my thoughts about integrity and I stand by what I have just said.

Mr Speaker: Let me remind Members we should not be casting aspersions on any fellow MP.

Mr Singh, I refer to your earlier request. I have given it careful consideration. I would just like to inform you of my considerations in reaching my decision.

I note that under section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code, you are deemed to have given an undertaking to the Court not to use that material for any purpose other than the purpose of the criminal proceedings without the permission of the PP. You had earlier informed the House that the PP has not given you permission to do so.

Although Members enjoy certain Parliamentary privileges, we should not impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance maintained between this House and the Judiciary. This convention has been repeatedly upheld by this House, by me and my predecessors. If I were to allow for this request, it would impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance between our two institutions. We will respect the undertaking you are deemed to have given to the Court, and therefore I will not allow that document to be used.

Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am disappointed with that ruling, but I can accept and respect it.

Mr Speaker: Order. We have been in this House for over five hours. I certainly need a break. So, I propose to take a break. I suspend the Sitting and will assume the Chair at 5.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.35 pm until 5.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.55 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

EXPRESSION OF REGRET AT THE CONDUCT OF MR PRITAM SINGH AND CONSIDERATION OF HIS SUITABILITY TO CONTINUE AS THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Debate Resumed.

Mr Speaker: Order. Are there any other Members who wish to speak on the Motion? None. Okay. Leader.

5.56 pm

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank all MPs who have spoken on the Motion on both sides of the House.

This is an important debate because it is about matters that affect the standing and the integrity of our Parliament.

I thank the MPs who have spoken and supported the Motion. They have correctly pointed out that this Motion is about principles and values that we uphold. As Dr Syed Harun and Ms Kuah Boon Theng said, the public rightfully holds high expectations of trust in our Parliament and this is even more so for the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms Tin Pei Ling also highlighted that the quality of our Parliament embodies the values and aspirations of Singaporeans and this in turn affects how we are regarded on the global stage. And as Mr Mark Lee pointed out, trust in our Parliament is a foundational asset for Singapore underpinning the confidence in our institutions.

Let me turn to the WP's position and I note that all Members of the WP who spoke on the substantive speeches made it a point to thank their supporters and their constituents and all the people who have faith in you, who have shown you support and who have basically cheered you on.

It is good that the Opposition in Singapore has such support. But the flip side is also true.

If people give you such unstinting warm support, you should not let them down. You should when in Parliament uphold principles of integrity and values because Singaporeans deserve a good opposition. Singaporeans deserve an opposition who will uphold the rule of law, who will observe due process and who will respect the integrity of our institutions.

But have the WP served their supporters well in the positions that you have taken today? I, very respectfully, say the answer is no.

The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the WP Members who have spoken is disappointing. The sum total of their position today has really been that, you know, the rules do not apply to us and let us make a little point here. Let us have a little jab there. But let us not deal with the real issue. Let us not engage with the real fundamental point that we are talking about – which is, what kind of Parliament ought we to be.

And here let me come to the Motion. By and large, although the Leader of the Opposition has said that he has lifted the whip, actually, the positions do appear to be aligned across the board. I do not think there is any real difference in the position that the WP Members have taken.

So, they are able to agree to paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Motion. Paragraph 1 affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's Parliamentary and political system. So, they accept that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of our Parliamentary and political system. And they agree with paragraph 6, which means that they agree to call on all Members to uphold our solemn duty to respect and abide by the law and act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in us by Singaporeans.

At the same time, however, they seem to have difficulty with the other limbs. So, the first thing is paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 calls on us to note the judgment where the High Court upheld Mr Singh's conviction for lying to the COP. I do not understand the difficulty in noting the High Court judgment, which basically means that we have taken due note of what the Court has found. What is the difficulty with noting that?

Secondly, the findings of the COP – that he had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament. Today, they have all had a problem noting the findings of the COP. But I think they may have forgotten that when the COP Report was actually presented to Parliament several years ago, Parliament actually did resolve to note the COP Report. So, this does not do anything more than call on Parliament to do something it has already done.

But then, apart from that, having agreed that honesty and integrity are fundamental, having agreed that we must act with integrity at all times and respect and abide by the law, they are somehow unable to agree that lying to the COP and guiding an MP to continue with her Untruth to Parliament is dishonourable conduct and unbecoming of an MP or to express any regret about it. That is really very puzzling.

They are also unable to consider, or they find themselves unable to consider, that an MP who has been convicted by the Court for lying and for misconducting himself in the manner described is unsuitable for the role of the Leader of the Opposition. It is troubling that WP cannot see what must surely be apparent to everyone, the inherent contradictions in their position and how much of a credibility gap there is. You cannot, on the one hand, say "I uphold the highest standards", then, on the other hand, say that "I have a problem saying that conduct like this is dishonourable."

It is just inconsistent.

But anyway, let us examine the reasons that the WP Members have put forward for their position, and I will go through them one by one.

So, the first point is Mr Singh basically is saying that he disagrees with the High Court decision over the Court decisions. We know that the Courts have found Mr Singh guilty on two counts of lying to the COP and they made other findings, which I referred to in my earlier speech. After the High Court decision, Mr Singh said, "I respect and accept the judgment fully and without reservation".

On the face of it, accepting the judgment should mean that he accepts the verdict but, of course, Mr Singh now tells us that that is not the case. In fact, he had an issue because he said that I did not highlight what he said earlier about the judgment also, because at that same interview, he had said that the verdict was disappointing.

That is true. I looked very carefully at the media statement. He said it was disappointing, and then he went on to say – let me just look at that. He went on to say that, "I have always had deep respect for the independence, rigour and professionalism of the Courts."

He said that while he was disappointed with the verdict, he respected and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation. Actually, at that time, he never said that he disagreed with the verdict. He just said it was disappointing and there is a big difference between saying that something is disappointing and saying that you disagree with it. But on record, he had said it was disappointing. Then he went on to say that he respected and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation.

But today, he comes to Parliament to say that, actually, what he really means is that he just accepts that the Courts are there, but he does not agree that they are correct.

And earlier, of course, you will notice when Mr Speaker made his ruling, Mr Singh also said that it was disappointing, but he accepted it fully and without reservation.

So, I think we all know today that when Mr Singh tells you that he accepts what you say fully and without reservation, he means you are wrong. Words matter.

Mr Pritam Singh: Indeed they do.

Ms Indranee Rajah: They do.

And when Mr Singh says something, the question is, what are we to understand of it? And we have seen what the Courts understood of it, and we have seen what the Courts ruled that Ms Khan understood of it. We have also seen what the COP understood of it. So, fundamentally, despite the fact that he has had the full opportunity to canvass his case, he is basically saying that he does not accept the Court judgment.

And this is really strange. Do you know why? It is strange because when the COP Report was brought to Parliament, Mr Singh vehemently disputed it at that time – and do not forget that this is a COP that has sat on it – and Mr Singh has come to this Parliament, today, to say, as he has said many times, Parliament is supreme. When you have a Select Committee of Parliament that makes a finding, it should be supreme. But no. If the finding affects Mr Singh, it is not supreme. It is wrong.

And at that time, we agreed to refer it to the PP, basically to allow him the benefit of canvassing his case in full, and so that we would have the benefit of a full finding so that it could not be said that this Parliament somehow, unilaterally made a decision based purely on the findings of the COP.

And Mr Singh had the opportunity to – well, firstly, the PP looked at it, took an independent view and found that on the face of it, charges were made out. It went to the District Court. The District Court had the benefit of seeing witnesses, hearing evidence, Mr Singh had the benefit of counsel. He had the right and the ability to cross-examine the witnesses, to show whether their evidence was really right or wrong. And the Courts listened to that, and the District Court could not accept what he said and found that he had lied to the COP.

Mr Singh was dissatisfied with that. He went to the High Court. The High Court heard, again, the points which he wished to canvass, and he had the fullest opportunity to argue his case before the Courts; and the High Court, too, reached the same conclusion. Basically, what Mr Singh is saying today is that "Despite all of this, despite the fact that I had the fullest opportunity, every opportunity, to contest this and bring evidence, they are wrong."

I accept that Mr Singh may not agree with it, but the point is this. In every society, there will be disputes. And when there are disputes, somebody has to decide, because if one person says A and another person says B, who do you believe? And that is the reason why you have Courts. That is the reason why you have Courts as a neutral and independent arbiter, with the opportunity for parties to bring the evidence and set out their case, and then the Court decides.

And so, here we are today, with a Court judgment basically having found Mr Singh guilty of lying and we are being asked to note this. And in the light of this, how do we say that such conduct is acceptable? So, when each of us go internationally and we are asked, "Oh, your Leader of the Opposition, he has been convicted for lying twice. How come? Is that okay?" And our answer should be, "Oh yes, it is okay, because he says he is right. A Court judgment does not matter."

How would people regard Singapore in that situation? This is not about Mr Singh per se. It is about the fact that his conduct has been adjudicated on by the Courts. The Courts have made a finding, and we are now left with a situation where, as a Parliament, we have a Leader of the Opposition who has been found guilty of two counts of lying on oath. There is the District Court finding that he had guided Ms Khan to lie, and we have the COP Report – do not forget, Parliament is supreme – which has found that he had lied. So, what are we to do in those circumstances?

So, I have to say that the first point that Mr Singh has made is not really persuasive, and it does not answer the Motion.

I come now to the second part of what he said. Mr Singh said that what he does accept is that he was guilty of taking too long to respond to Ms Khan's lie in Parliament. That, he takes responsibility for. He had mentioned that in his media interview. He repeated it again today.

But that actually is not the crux of the Court finding because the Court did not find that he was liable because he took too long. In fact, the reasons that he gave for taking too long, in other words, allowing Ms Khan to go and speak to her parents and so on, the Court actually did not accept. And let me read what the Court had said.

The High Court essentially did not accept Mr Singh's account of that. He said, "A person's reaction or inaction to significant events is usually revealing of his or her understanding of the events. In this case, I find that the appellant's complete failure to follow up with Ms Khan or the other WP leaders on the Untruth for around two months after the 8 August meeting up unitl the 3 October Meeting is probative of the making of the Grave Statement during the 8 August Meeting and the appellant's prevailing understanding that there was no need to proactively clarify the Untruth in Parliament.

If indeed, if it was the appellant's view that Ms Khan should, at some point, clarify the untruth, one would expect that steps would have been taken to decide what, when and how such clarification should be made. The telling of the Untruth was a significant event for the WP, given the potentially serious political fallout if it were not properly managed.

Yet, it is common ground that between the 8 August meeting and the 3 October Meeting, nothing was said between the appellant and Ms Khan or among the WP leaders about making preparations for a clarification of the Untruth. The complete absence of any discussion during this period is entirely consistent with Ms Khan's evidence, that at the 8 August Meeting, the appellant had told her to take the Untruth to the grave, where the upshot of the Grave Statement was that nothing further needed to be done about the Untruth.

The appellant's complete inaction between the 8 August Meeting and the 3 October Meeting stands in stark contrast with the appellant's involvement in drafting Ms Khan's personal statement between 15 and 30 October 2021, following the meeting with Mr Low on 11 October", and so on.

So, the point is this. The Court did not say that it was a matter of just "delay". The Court found that the explanation for "delay" was not believable and rejected it. That was what led the Court to believe, amongst other things, that the statement had, in fact, been made.

Then, I come to Ms Lim's point, where Ms Lim argues that basically she has not been charged in Court; this does not really affect her and is not relevant to her.

I go back to the terms of the Motion. All I am asking here is to ask the House to note that the High Court judgment and the Committee's findings have implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, which have to be considered separately.

I had actually in my earlier speech explained the linkage. It would have been clear from my reading of the Court judgment but let me just connect the dots for everyone.

When the COP Report came out, there were two things in relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.

Let me deal with Ms Lim first. One was that she had lied to the COP that the statement to "take it to the grave" was never said, that that did not happen. So, one count was for lying to the COP. The other was for her involvement in guiding Ms Raeesah Khan to hide the Untruth. Because if you tell somebody or if you agree with "taking it to the grave", you are basically guiding somebody to keep it quiet.

For those two points, Parliament said, we would defer a decision on that until the outcome of Mr Singh's case. In other words, there are two outstanding things. Of course, Ms Lim had disputed the COP findings.

Ms Lim is correct. She was not a witness, she was not a party to the Court proceedings. But the point is that the Court had found that the statement was made and that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were present when it was made. Therefore, it must follow from there that the Court findings are actually consistent with the COP Report. That is why it has implications. Because what is before Parliament – which had been deferred – is the COP Report, which found that she lied and had been involved in guiding Ms Khan. And we said, wait until the outcome of the case. Then, you look at the case and the Court has looked at it. The Court says, yes, the meeting took place, they were both there, that Statement was made.

So, it must follow, logically. That is why the Court judgment has implications.

As to what we should do with regard to Ms Lim, that is something that should be dealt with separately. The Speaker has already indicated that if you are making assertions or if you are dealing with a particular Member, that should be the subject matter of a separate Motion. But I just wanted to make sure that in this Motion, that we note that and we will come back. We will not take too long. Mr Giam had asked whether this would take a very long time. It should not take a long time. But today, we wanted to deal with a specific topic.

I hope that addresses the issues with regard to the limb. Because it has implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.

With respect to Mr Faisal, there was a bit of an attempt to muddy the waters here, because it was said that the Police have already issued an Advisory to Mr Faisal and therefore, the matter should be considered close.

But Mr Faisal was referred to the PP for a different matter. With Mr Faisal, there were three things.

One, when he was before the COP, he had flat out refused to answer some of their queries. That is actually an offence. For that, he was referred to the PP.

Then, there were two other remaining outstanding issues with respect to Mr Faisal. These are similar to the ones for Ms Lim: one, for lying to the COP that the statement "take it to the grave" was not made; and secondly, for his involvement in guiding Ms Khan to hide the Untruth.

The first one, that is dealt with. That is not the subject matter here. But the second two we agreed to defer, pending the outcome of Mr Singh's case. And for the same reasons as for Ms Lim, it has implications, because Mr Faisal was present at that meeting too. In the COP hearing, he had denied that such a statement was made.

So, that deals with that.

Ms Lim and I think Mr Giam have attempted to suggest that this is political punishment, that Mr Singh is being punished twice.

Actually, that is not the case. It is a very simple point. When you have a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a company and, let us say, he has been charged and convicted of a matter of a crime of dishonesty, how many companies actually say, "Yes, it is okay, Mr CEO, please continue"? How many? Not very many. Why? In fact, probably not at all.

Why? Because those companies value their reputation. They know that every time they go out and do business, people look at them and wonder, "You are a company and your CEO has been convicted for lying and dishonesty, what sort of company are you?"

That is the issue that is being discussed here. We have a Parliament where you have the Leader of the Opposition, which is a significant position and role, who has been convicted of two counts of lying before a Committee of Parliament. How does that look to other people outside? How can we then say that for someone to whom this has happened, is suitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition?

For the PAP side of the House, we say it is very difficult. But somehow, the WP does not seem to have a difficulty with this, which tells us something about the WP's values.

Then, Mr Kenneth Tiong raised the question of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin and asked, oh, nothing happened there; why is that the case that it was alright there and not here?

I am frankly very disappointed in that stance. But it also shows that Mr Tiong does not quite understand the issue.

In Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's case, he was asked to step down. As a matter of party discipline, he was told to resign his seat. Initially, if you read the Hansard carefully, then Prime Minister has said it was clear in his mind he would have had to step down as Speaker. He wanted to give him some time to settle constituency matters, settle family matters, but it was clear that as Speaker, he would have had to step down. Whether they should resign their seats, initially, that was something to be thought about. But when it became clear that the conduct had not stopped, then Prime Minister said, you must step down, and Ms Cheng had to step down too. So, they resigned their seats. Mr Tan took responsibility. I believe he had apologised to Singaporeans that it had happened.

Here, Mr Singh is not even being asked to resign his seat – at least, not by us. And he does not seem to think that there is a problem with continuing as the Leader of the Opposition.

There is no equivalence at all in those examples.

I think Ms Cassandra Lee had a question about the Legal Profession Act. I think the short answer to that is that under the Legal Profession Act, section 94 does provide that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, but that is a matter not for us but for the Law Society, for the AGC and for the Courts. So, that is with respect to section 94 of the Legal Profession Act. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Correction By Written Statement section.]

That brings me back to today's Motion. We have to ask ourselves about the reasons that have been put forward by the WP. And having examined them, they do not hold water.

We really do have to look at how the WP had dealt with Ms Raeesah Khan before and Mr Leon Perera. In the case of Ms Khan, she was told she had to resign within 24 hours, otherwise she would be expelled. Or rather, she would be expelled within 24 hours if she did not resign. Somehow, in Ms Khan's case, lying was suddenly a very serious offence for the WP. In Mr Leon Perera's case, he also had to step down because he had lied to the WP leadership, so it was very serious there.

But somehow, for the WP, when you have a case of their leader lying to the COP – and under oath at that – they seem to regard it differently. And that is very odd.

The only possible conclusion when you compare this and the previous cases with Ms Khan and Mr Perera is that in those cases, the WP has made a political calculation as to whether those Members should be kept or not. Ms Khan was a liability. Mr Perera was dropped like a hot potato. But they have made or appear to have made a political calculation with respect to Mr Singh and then, hope maybe over time, people will forget – instead of taking a principled stance on their party leaders' conduct, which could be politically costly.

So, Ms Khan and Mr Perera were expendable. Mr Singh, it would appear, not.

That is why in today's Motion, we have been hearing the equivocating and the temporising and the avoiding, of doing what they must know in their heart of hearts is the right thing to do. But that is not leadership, nor is it responsibility. That is not what Singaporeans expect of political leaders and parties. That is not the way to build a First World Parliament or even a two-party system. That is not the way to build a party that aspires to offer an alternative government to Singaporeans one day.

The WP MPs must surely know this, but they are all going along with the party line. It is not good for the WP. It is not good for the Opposition cause. And it is not good for Singapore.

At the end of the day, we have a scenario where Mr Singh says he respects and accepts the judgment, but does not agree with it. The WP talks about the rule of law, but they set themselves above it. The WP calls for accountability, but they will not call their own member to account.

I hope the WP will remember that every time they stand up in Parliament, from this day onwards and speak about accountability, they will be reminded of their standard of accountability. And every time they stand in Parliament and tell us about the rule of law and how we must abide by it, we will remind them how they have abided by the rule of law today.

We now have a much clearer idea of what the WP stands for, which is simply that the rules and the law apply to everyone else but not to them. But Mr Speaker, this cannot be the standard that we set for our Parliament. We have a duty to Singaporeans and to Singapore to ensure that the high standards are maintained. We cannot endorse dishonourable conduct or ignore the Court judgment. And we cannot talk about a First World Parliament and effective checks and balances when fundamental values of honesty, integrity and accountability are not upheld. As MPs, we have a solemn duty to make sure that politics in Singapore remains upright and honourable.

This Motion goes beyond an individual or party or their actions. This Motion is about upholding the integrity and standing of Parliament, upholding the standard of conduct of our MPs and how it reflects on our Parliament, and upholding our responsibilities as elected Members of this House to honour the trust of our people and always do the right thing by them, even if it is politically inconvenient to do so.

If Members care about this, then I urge Members to support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.

Debate resumed.

6.29 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Leader? Mr Pritam Singh.

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.

Ms Indranee Rajah: 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 —

6.33 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Point of Order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam 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.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: 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.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.

6.35 pm

Ms Sylvia 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.

Mr Speaker: Leader, do you wish to respond?

Ms Indranee Rajah: 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.

Mr Pritam Singh: Point of Order.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Let me just clarify. Mr Singh did not say that the document is supreme. He said Parliament is supreme, and I am talking —

Mr Pritam Singh: Parliament is sovereign.

Ms Indranee Rajah: 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 —

Mr Pritam Singh: Point of Order.

Ms Indranee Rajah: 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 Speaker: Mr Singh, you wanted to clarify something?

Mr Pritam Singh: No, Mr Speaker. I raised my hand for Point of Order and the Leader corrected herself.

Mr Speaker: Alright, thank you. Ms Lim, did you raise your hand?

Ms Sylvia Lim: 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 Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

6.41 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): 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.

Ms Indranee Rajah: 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 Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: 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.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Perhaps Mr Low could just clarify what his position is on all six limbs of the Motion?

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: 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.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, that pretty much speaks for itself.

6.43 pm

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for the Leader of the House?

The question is, "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."

Those who agree, say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Speaker: Those — Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Can I request that whichever WP MP wishes, they may have their dissent recorded?

Mr Speaker: To record their dissent?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Okay. Those who disagree say "No".

Some hon Members say "No".

Mr Speaker: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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."