LiveParliament debates Pritam’s suitability to continue as Leader of the Opposition

Sylvia Lim asks if she and Faisal Manap will have the chance to speak in Parliament before it addresses their actions

Ms Lim moves on to speak about the section of the motion that implicates herself and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap.

She says that the motion is “very vague” and asks if she and Mr Faisal will be given the opportunity to address Parliament beforehand.

She reiterates what happened in the lead up to this, and how she and Mr Faisal have given evidence to the police and the COP.

As she and Mr Faisal were not called as witnesses during the court case, they had no opportunity to present their story to the court.

She adds that the court’s findings cannot be held against them, and states that she disagrees with the COP’s conclusions.

She wraps up by saying that she is grateful to Singaporeans and many have approached them to offer support.

“We in the Workers' Party are truly humbled by this outpouring of support from the public. We will continue our work and strive to do even better for them.”

Sylvia Lim says Indranee’s motion does not serve Singaporeans and is a ‘party political exercise’

WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim speaks next. She stresses that her views are her own, and independent of the party. “I wish to offer my personal views on some of the key resolutions, as I am an interested party in the matter.”

Mr Singh’s case is unlike other MPs who have resigned, she says, as unlike them, he has maintained his innocence.

She questioned if the motion is necessary or “a political exercise”.

She cites her speech when Parliament reopened in September 2025, where she pointed out that under the World Justice Project's rule of law rankings, the Singapore Parliament was not faring well in its fundamental task of being an effective check on the executive government's powers. She adds that she foresees Singapore sliding further down the index.

She adds that everyone in Parliament should see one another as fellow Singaporeans, “not enemies, but competitors”, with a common cause in serving people.

“I believe this motion today does not serve Singaporeans, but is a party political exercise,” she says.

“This is unhealthy and not in the national interest.”

PHOTO: MDDI

NMP Mark Lee says he supports the motion

NMP Mark Lee rises to speak and says he did not come to Parliament to speak on politics and party leadership, but on jobs and the economy.

Mr Lee, who is chief executive of Sing Lun Holdings, says he has respect for Mr Singh and believes that his heart is for Singapore. Mr Lee is in his second term as an NMP.

Differing views are not a weakness in a political system, he says, and two considerations weigh heavily on him in considering the motion, including Singapore’s reliance on trust in institutions as a country with no natural resources.

Parliament is “at the apex” of these institutions.

He adds that nations unravel when their core institutions fail to respond with honesty, when standards are bent, and when truth “becomes negotiable”.

Trust is a strategic asset for Singapore, and underpins its role as a business hub, he says.

It is because of this that he felt compelled to speak today, he says.

Mr Lee says if an NMP were to have lied and been convicted, the right thing to do would have been to “step aside”.

He says that considering the responsibility attached to a parliamentary leadership position, he supports the motion.

PHOTO: MDDI

Acting responsibly in Parliament means being responsible to Singaporeans, says Tin Pei Ling

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC) delivers her entire speech in Mandarin, saying that debates held in Parliament affect Singaporeans directly.

To act responsibly in Parliament also means being responsible to Singaporeans, she adds, stressing that there is a need for honesty and integrity to maintain the institution’s standing.

Bringing up former Workers' Party leader Low Thia Khiang, she cites him as an opposition politician that “deserves much respect”, in contrast to Mr Singh’s lying and guiding Ms Khan to perpetuate untruths, which is “quite regrettable”.

She adds that when Mr Low was leader of the WP, he always emphasised the importance of being honest and responsible in spite of political differences.

The motion today is regrettable, especially as lawmakers have more pressing issues to debate, such as those relating to people’s livelihoods, she says.

PHOTO: MDDI

NMP asks Pritam Singh to voluntarily agree to give up the LO position

Ms Kuah asks Mr Singh to “respond appropriately” by voluntarily agreeing to give up the position of Leader of the Opposition.

She invites Mr 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”.

Giving up the position would be “the clearest sign he could offer this House that he has indeed learnt the error of his ways”, and would reflect he acknowledges that the trust and respect that comes with the position of Leader of the Opposition is one he now has to work hard to earn.

Ms Kuah adds: “We are all human, and we all make mistakes. We may commit errors of judgment, maybe even serious ones.

"But the true test of character lies in how people respond and whether they are able to openly acknowledge wrongdoings, show genuine remorse and contrition, rather than seek to lay blame elsewhere."

New NMP Kuah Boon Theng speaks next

Lawyer Kuah Boon Theng, a new Nominated MP, is the next to speak on the motion.

She prefaces her speech by stating that she does not know Mr Singh personally and that she is speaking as a “non-partisan member of this House”.

She says that in her profession, practitioners are held to high ethical standards, including “to act with integrity and honesty... and to preserve the public’s trust”.

A senior counsel, she sits on the disciplinary tribunal for the Law Society of Singapore. She says the tribunal must first be satisfied that charges of professional misconduct are proven beyond reasonable doubt before referring the lawyer to the Court of Three Judges for consideration of disparate action.

She draws parallels with the medical profession that is held to high standards of ethical conduct, which she also advises.

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, she says. “One is accountable to the law in a criminal court, but must also be accountable to one's own profession.”

Her point, she says, is that lawyers, like herself and Mr Singh, are called by their profession to act with honour and integrity.

“What more if one is an MP in service to 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?” she asks.

“Surely the standards of conduct for the profession of parliamentarians cannot be lower than what is expected from the legal or medical professions.”

PHOTO: MDDI

Pritam says he will press on as an MP no matter what Parliament decides

Mr Singh says that whatever Parliament decides, and as long as he is an MP, he will continue his work in the role on the ground in Aljunied GRC.

“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 Workers’ Party.

“And to my fellow Singaporeans, we press on, and we continue working for Singapore.”

The sixth resolution calls on MPs to uphold their duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times, and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans. 

Mr Singh says this is "unobjectionable", adding: "The future we envisage for Singapore does not call for the destruction of the stable and sensible politics Singaporeans seek to uphold in Singapore."

He also quotes former WP chief Low Thia Khiang, who told the media after giving evidence at Mr Singh’s trial that voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not a good politician, and that he believes Mr Singh is a good politician.

Mr Singh adds that he is grateful for the support of Singapore and Singaporeans.

No action should be taken against Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap: Pritam

Mr Singh also rejects the fourth resolution, which states that his continuation in the role of Leader of the Opposition (LO) will undermine public confidence in Singapore’s political system.

He says he has never operated on the assumption that the appointment is a given, and that he has not hankered for it.

Instead, he has done his best to work with his colleagues to be a responsible opposition, he says.

In her earlier speech, Ms Indranee had listed the LO's duties and privileges. Among other things, she had said the LO will receive "confidential briefings" on important national issues from time to time, and take part in visits and meetings alongside members of the Government and public service.

“Perhaps (she) can share how many of such briefings were extended to me, and how many trips I went with the Government to various places," he says.

He adds that he disagrees with the fifth resolution, saying that no action should be taken against Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap as he does not agree with the judgment and the findings of the Committee of Privileges. 

Pritam brings up Tharman’s conviction under the Official Secrets Act

Carrying on with his speech, Mr Singh says some believe that whatever the courts decide, a convicted person is unable to retain their belief that they are innocent, insofar as a conviction is concerned.

Making reference to President Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s criminal conviction in 1994, he says Mr Tharman had said “they got the wrong man”.

Mr Tharman had brought a secret report from the Monetary Authority of Singapore into a meeting. It carried the flash estimate of second-quarter 1992 economic growth.

Someone at the meeting saw the figure, which was later published in the Business Times. He was convicted of negligence and was fined $1,500 for breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Mr Singh says his conviction in court does not negate his right to assert his innocence.

He says he takes full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct Ms Khan’s initial lie to Parliament, and says this is not the first time he has done so.

He adds he had a much shorter timeline than three years to deal with “a sensitive matter” involving Ms Khan.

“I certainly did not expect my MP to double down on her lie.”

Shanmugam rises to ask Pritam on what basis he is using Loh Peiying’s statements

Coordinating Minister for National Security and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam asks Mr Singh if he had asked the Attorney-General’s Chambers and if it had said no, and whether there is a legal provision that governs the use of such documents.

Mr Singh says in response that the material may be disclosed for the purposes of the criminal proceedings to any accused in the criminal proceedings.

Mr Shanmugam says it would appear that there are legislative provisions that such information can only be released within the framework set out by said legislation, and he has not come by a situation where Parliament can ignore the legal position.

The Speaker asks Mr Singh to continue with his speech while he studies whether or not to accept the statements from Ms Loh.

PHOTO: MDDI