Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah, on Mr Pritam Singh and his Suitability to Continue as the Leader of the Opposition (Jan 2026)

Introduction

Mr Speaker, I wish to move the Motion standing in my name on 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 (“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 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 a Member of Parliament (“MP”) lies to Parliament or before its committees, it is not just a personal lapse or a tactical misjudgment. It strikes at the trust that 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 Singapore 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:

a. Affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary system;

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

c. Express regret at Mr Singh’s conduct which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament;

d. Consider that such conduct renders him unsuitable to continue to hold the office of 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;

e. 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

f. Call on all MPs 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:

a. 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 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.

b. Also, the fourth limb of the Motion does not operate to remove the LO. The LO 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 will 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.

c. And, 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 the degree of their conduct differ from Mr Singh’s, the fifth limb proposes that their matters be considered separately on another occasion.

Background

Mr Speaker, let me briefly set out the facts.

On 3 August 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan, then a Workers’ Party (“WP”) MP, spoke during WP’s Motion titled “Empowering Women”.

a. 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.

b. 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 COP¹. The COP found each of the three to have lied under oath².

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:

a. Mr Singh’s, Ms Lim’s and Mr Faisal’s involvement in guiding Ms Khan to continue with the Untruth; and

b. 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 this Motion today.

Mr Speaker, before I go into the Courts’ findings, I should mention that normally under the Standing Orders³, 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 the 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.

Court Findings

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 establish many disturbing facts about Mr Singh’s conduct.

a. 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;

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

c. Third, he recommended to the WP Central Executive Committee (“CEC”) that Ms Khan be expelled from the 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;

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

e. 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

f. Sixth, Mr Singh stuck to these untruths when giving evidence at trial. The Courts 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.

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 phone⁴. The next day, she met him, along with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal⁵. Ms Khan told them about the Untruth as well⁶.

At this meeting, Mr Singh told Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave⁷. This was the Courts’ finding. There is contemporaneous evidence showing this⁸. 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”⁹.

The Courts also found that at this 8 August meeting, Ms Lim had said that “probably the issue won’t come up again”¹⁰, and Mr Singh did not contradict her view¹¹.

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, “[This] would be highly inaccurate. It is a complete lie.”¹²

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 on 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 trial¹³.

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 the matter would surface again – they thought it would be buried forever¹⁴.

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 time¹⁵.

3 October 2021 Meeting

On 3 October 2021, one day before Parliament sat on 4 October 2021, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home¹⁶. He told Ms Khan he had a feeling that the issue of the Untruth might be raised the next day¹⁷. 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 Untruth¹⁸. 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 day¹⁹.

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 Untruth²⁰.

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 that he only learned this two years later, in 2023²¹.

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 her²².

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 Government²³.

This was the turning point in WP’s response to the Untruth. Following this meeting with Mr Low, arrangements were finally made for Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth²⁴. She eventually did so via a personal statement in Parliament on 1 November 2021²⁵.

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.

Disciplinary Panel Proceedings and Press Conference

What happened next was not edifying.

The day after Ms Khan clarified the Untruth, the WP announced that it had formed a Disciplinary Panel (“DP”) to look into her admissions in Parliament²⁶.

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 judgment 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 Oct…”

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 Untruth²⁷.

One does not need to be a lawyer or a Parliamentarian to know that this is improper and wrong, both 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”,²⁸ and they had in fact acted “to conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021”²⁹.

Mr Singh claimed that this information was not provided because it was “irrelevant”³⁰.

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 2021³¹.

Mr Singh described this timing as a pure, complete coincidence³².

This was unbelievable.

And here is what the District Court found:

“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 oath³³.

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.

Summary of Dishonesties

So, as we can see:

a. Mr Singh guided Ms Khan, twice, to maintain her Untruth to Parliament;

b. He then lied twice before the COP;

c. He lied before the Court;

d. He lied to the public; and

e. 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 one to cover up a previous lie.

And that is a problem as Mr Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition.

Failure of the Leadership

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.

a. Yes, it would have been inconvenient and uncomfortable to disclose the truth then. The WP had just won their second GRC in Sengkang in the 2020 General Election, and Ms Khan was a member of the WP’s Sengkang team.

b. 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”.

c. It is precisely at such moments where leaders are tested, and where leadership matters.

d. 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.

a. 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.

b. Mr Singh told her to hide the Untruth. He guided her to continue with the Untruth.

c. 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.

a. 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 claim³⁴.

b. He dismissed the work the Police had put in and the diversion of public resources with the comment that the Police is not a “broken-back organisation”³⁵.

c. 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.

Gravity of the Matter

Mr Speaker, some may ask: the Court has already imposed a fine. Isn’t that 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 the 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.

a. The WP responded that it was studying the verdict and grounds of decision.

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

c. On 28 December 2025, the WP confirmed that some of its members had requested for a Special Cadre Members’ Conference (“CMC”).

d. 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.

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 the integrity of Parliament.

Unsuitability of Mr Singh to Serve as the Leader of Opposition

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 (“LO”).

Mr Singh was first designated LO 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 LO.

The office of the LO 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 LO is not an ordinary MP. He has greater responsibilities and privileges than other backbenchers.

To recap, the duties of the LO include leading the opposition in:³⁶ 

a. presenting alternative views in parliamentary debates on policies, bills, and motions;

b. scrutinising the Government’s positions and actions in Parliament; and

c. nominating opposition members for appointment to Select Committees.

In addition, the LO 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 LO 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 LO 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 LO 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 these 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:

a. Mr Singh’s conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP; and

b. He has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of an LO.

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.

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.

a. 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.

b. 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 a 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 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.

Conclusion

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.

[1] Report of the Committee of Privileges (“COP Report”) at [10]-[11], [120(2)].

[2] COP Report at [221(2)].

[3] See Standing Orders (SOs) of the Parliament of Singapore, SOs 21(1)(l), 21(1)(m), and 50(10).

[4] See Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 242 (“HC Judgment”) at [11]; Public Prosecutor v Pritam Singh [2025] SGDC 90 (“DC Judgment”) at [15].

[5] See HC Judgment at [13]; DC Judgment at [16].

[6] See HC Judgment at [15].

[7] See HC Judgment at [15(a)]; DC Judgment at [70], [291]

[8] See HC Judgment at [73], [107]; DC Judgment at [293].

[9] See HC Judgment at [16], [81]-[91]; DC Judgment at [317]-[319].

[10] See HC Judgment at [75]; DC Judgment at [299], [303(3)].

[11] See HC Judgment at [77]; DC Judgment at [299], [303(3)].

[12] COP Report, Minutes of Evidence, Volume 2 at [10206].

[13] DC Judgment at [213].

[14] See HC Judgment at [73]; [79]; DC Judgment at [314]-[315].

[15] See HC Judgment at [35]; DC Judgment at [313].

[16] See HC Judgment at [19]; DC Judgment at [20].

[17] See HC Judgment at [112]; DC Judgment [225].

[18] See HC Judgment at [20]; DC Judgment at [22].

[19] COP Report, Minutes of Evidence, Volume 1 at [4133]-[4198].

[20] See HC Judgment at [24]; DC Judgment at [27].

[21] See DC Judgment at [602(2)].

[22] See HC Judgment at [78]; DC Judgment at [306]-[307].

[23] See HC Judgment at [141]; DC Judgment at [306], [443], [455].

[24] See HC Judgment at [25]-[26]; DC Judgment at [468]-[474].

[25] See HC Judgment at [27]; DC Judgment at [35].

[26] See HC Judgment at [28]; DC Judgment at [39].

[27] See DC Judgment at [489]-[490].

[28] See DC Judgment at [484].

[29] See DC Judgment at [489].

[30] COP Report, Minutes of Evidence, Volume 2 at [11551]-[11552].

[31] See DC Judgment at [270], [497].

[32] COP Report, Minutes of Evidence, Volume 2 at [11508]-[11511].

[33] See DC Judgment at [47]; Subject of Mr Singh’s first charge – see HC Judgment at [30(a)]; DC Judgment at [6(1)].

[34] COP report, Minutes of Evidence Vol 2, [7003]-[7014]

[35] COP report, Minutes of Evidence Vol 2, [6967]-[7014]

[36] “Ministerial Statement by Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah, on Duties and Privileges of the Leader of the Opposition”, 31 August 2020.