What Pritam Singh’s Removal Says About Democracy, Integrity and Standards

Singapore has taken an unusual but consequential step: Prime Minister Lawrence Wong removed Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh from his role as Leader of the Opposition after the judiciary independently found him guilty of lying to a parliamentary committee. For a position designed to uphold scrutiny and accountability, that breach was ultimately deemed incompatible with the role.

Pritam Singh leaving the courts after his trial for lying under oath

The parliamentary debate that followed was less about political rivalry than about principle. MPs focused on whether institutional credibility could be preserved if clear standards of conduct were set aside. The conclusion was that democracy requires rules — and those rules must apply even when enforcement is uncomfortable.

An effective opposition is essential to good governance, but effectiveness depends on trust. Pluralism loses meaning if ethical lapses are excused in the name of representation. Codes of conduct are not obstacles to democracy; they are safeguards that allow disagreement to remain credible and constructive.

The opposition’s challenge now extends beyond defending one individual. Party solidarity has its place, but it must be weighed against what best serves Singaporeans and the integrity of Parliament itself. Singh remains an MP and party leader, and the Workers’ Party retains meaningful avenues to contribute through policy debate, legislative scrutiny and constituency work.

The broader message is clear: democracy is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Without integrity, accountability becomes performative and public confidence erodes. Holding all political actors — government and opposition alike — to higher standards is not a constraint on democracy. It is its foundation.

Pritam Singh delivering a speech during the Workers Party Rally in GE2025

Have a story? No story is too small. Chat with us at sgtelltale@outlook.com