LiveIndranee raises motion to debate Pritam’s suitability as Leader of the Opposition

Supporting the motion will show that this generation of MPs will continue to uphold and enforce rigorous standards

Wrapping up her motion, Ms Indranee says this matter goes beyond party politics.

Honesty and integrity are non-negotiable and form the foundation of Singapore’s political system and of good governance.

If Parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root and public confidence in institutions will be eroded, she says.

The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from, she adds.

Supporting this motion will show that this generation of MPs are determined never to allow that to happen, and 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. 

Ms Indranee ends her speech as she asks all members to support the motion.
 

The same standards apply to PAP MPs, says Indranee

If a PAP MP or political office-holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow, says Ms Indranee. “Of course, the same standards also apply to PAP MPs.”

It would be “untenable” for them to continue as if nothing had happened, and in serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions.

She cites the case of PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang who in 1999 was charged with cheating, and resigned. She also raises the cases of former transport minister S. Iswaran who resigned after he was charged in relation to a corruption investigation, and former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin who resigned “on account of his personal conduct” after an extramarital affair with another PAP MP came to light.

In all these cases, the MPs resigned as a 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, Ms Indranee says.

“These standards underpin our system of government, and are crucial to providing Singaporeans with the quality of leaders and government that they deserve,” she adds. 

WP and Pritam have expressed strong views against lying: Indranee

Workers’ Party MPs have often made speeches about the importance of accountability, Ms Indranee adds, and 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, she says.

The WP and Mr Singh himself have expressed strong views against lying and dishonesty, Ms Indranee says.

After Ms Khan lied to Parliament, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP’s central executive committee (CEC) that she be expelled if she did not resign.

The CEC accepted this recommendation.

When Mr Leon Perera was discovered to have lied to the WP leadership about his extramarital affair, Mr Singh said the party’s Constitution requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore.

She quotes him saying then: “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 not acceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC that he be expelled from the party.”

Swift justice was meted out just for lying to the WP leadership, and Ms Khan and Mr Perera had not lied to a committee of Parliament or under oath, Ms Indranee says.

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

Pritam has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of the LO: Indranee

Mr Singh’s conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and he has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of a Leader of the Opposition (LO), Ms Indranee says.

This conclusion is “clear and beyond doubt”.

If MPs agree with this judgment, they should vote in favour of the motion, she adds.

If they disagree and wish to vote against the motion, they should justify to the House and to Singaporeans why Singapore should accept “such lowered standards of honesty and integrity” from their political leaders, Ms Indranee says.

The role of the LO carries important duties and privileges, and whoever holds this designation must be respected and trusted as a competent representative of the people, she says.

When the office was first introduced, there were high hopes for the role and how it would enhance the functioning and standing of Parliament, she adds.

But now Mr Singh has been convicted in court.
 

LO office was established to enable political system to evolve, comes with considerable privileges

Ms Indranee reiterates that she has moved for Parliament to consider that Mr Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as Leader of the Opposition (LO).

He was first designated LO by then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after GE2020 and again by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong after the May 2025 General Election.

The office was formally established in 2020 to recognise Singaporeans’ strong desire for a greater diversity of views in politics and to enable Singapore’s political system to evolve in a way that maintains its sense of national purpose.

“That objective remains valid,” Ms Indranee says.

The LO is not an ordinary MP and has greater responsibilities and privileges than other backbenchers, she adds.

She recaps some of his duties and privileges, including presenting alternative views in parliamentary debates, scrutinising the Government’s positions and actions, as well as attending official state functions as a representative of Parliament.

He also receives confidential briefings from the Government on important issues such as security and gets the right of first response and more time for his speeches, as well as an office and additional staff support, and double the allowance of an elected MP.
 

Strange that WP acted so decisively in cases of Ms Khan and Mr Perera

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, said Ms Indranee before the points of order were raised.

“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.”

Ms Indranee reiterates the sequence of events following the High Court’s upholding of Mr Singh’s conviction on Dec 4, 2025.

The WP had said then that it was studying the verdict, and Ms Indranee later issued two statements saying that the matter would be raised in Parliament in January 2026.

Later in December, the WP confirmed that some of its members had requested a special conference among its inner circle, and in January, the WP announced that a disciplinary committee would be formed to determine if Mr Singh had contravened the party’s Constitution.

This will conclude within three months, and the special conference will be convened only after that. 
 

WP’s Sylvia Lim and Kenneth Tiong raise points of order, midway through Indranee’s motion

WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) stops Ms Indranee to raise a point of order, asking Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng what the relevance of Ms Indranee’s statements on WP’s own actions to follow up on the court judgment are.

In response, Ms Indranee says she is getting to her point, which is that Parliament cannot wait for the WP to make its decision.

WP’s Mr Kenneth Tiong (Aljunied GRC) also raises a point of order, asking Ms Indranee to confine her remarks to what the court actually found, as she said Mr Singh had lied to the courts and Singaporeans, but the court conviction had to do with lying to the parliamentary committee.

In response, Ms Indranee says she will explain to him “step by step”, that if a statement is made to the court, and it is found to be untrue or rejected, then logically speaking, what was told to the court is a lie.

PHOTO: MDDI

WP has not expressed its view; slow response contrasts with previous cases

The WP has not expressed its view on the matter, and its “dilatory response” contrasts sharply with its “swift actions” in previous cases, Ms Indranee says.

She cites Ms Khan’s case, where the WP formed a disciplinary committee within 24 hours of her admitting her lies to Parliament in November 2021.

Recommendations were made and accepted by the WP’s central executive committee (CEC) – its highest decision-making body – within the month.

Ms Indranee also raises the case of another former WP MP, Mr Leon Perera. After video evidence of his extramarital affair emerged on July 17, 2023, Mr Singh met him on that afternoon.

The WP’s CEC met that same evening, and two days later, Mr Perera resigned. It was made known then that if he had not done so, he would have been expelled, Ms Indranee says. 

Parliament must act even though the court has dealt with Pritam’s criminal case

Some may ask why Parliament must act even though the court has already fined Mr Singh, Ms Indranee says.

Mr Singh was fined a total of $14,000 for two convictions, a sum which he has paid.

The answer is that while the court has dealt with the criminal offences, the matters in the court judgment and outstanding matters in the COP report still affect Parliament, she says.

Parliament must take a view, she adds.

The lies which gave rise to Mr Singh’s offence occurred in Parliament, and his lies were told to a committee of Parliament. His conduct and conviction reflect directly on the House, she says.

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

ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Pritam also failed to take responsibility: Indranee

Mr Singh did not admit to his complicity when the truth came to light about Ms Raeesah Khan’s lies, Ms Indranee says.

Instead, he disowned her actions and later sat in judgment of her conduct, while concealing his own role, she adds.

After Ms Khan lied, she knew she was in trouble and asked Mr Singh for advice as her party leader and a mentor.

Mr Singh told her to hide the untruth and guided her to continue with it, Ms Indranee says.

“There was a failure to take responsibility,” she adds.

He also refused to acknowledge the impact of the original lie on the police, Ms Indranee says.

She adds that he dismissed the work they had done and the diversion of public resources, and that the police had to comb through more than 1,400 sexual assault and related cases to investigate Ms Khan’s false claims.