WP chief Pritam Singh seen at walkabout week after disciplinary panel says probe complete
Tham Yuen-C
The Straits Times
April 13, 2026
In the first weekend walkabout since the Workers’ Party announced the completion of its disciplinary probe into party chief Pritam Singh, WP MPs and members greeted residents at Fengshan Centre with Mr Singh on the morning of April 12.
Dressed in party blues, the group of about 40 fanned out across the busy hawker centre and market in East Coast GRC, shaking hands with those having their breakfast and doing their shopping.
Speculation has been mounting about Mr Singh’s fate since the party said on April 4 that a disciplinary panel looking into whether he had contravened WP’s Constitution after he was convicted for lying to a parliamentary committee had completed its work.
The panel, comprising WP Sengkang GRC MPs He Ting Ru and Jamus Lim, as well as former Hougang MP Png Eng Huat, has to present its final report and recommendations to the party’s central executive committee (CEC) in April. All three were not present on April 12.
When approached by The Straits Times at the walkabout, Mr Singh declined to comment on the disciplinary process.
WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim said the party would provide updates when they were available. She declined to comment further on the party’s next steps.
Also present were WP MPs Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Dennis Tan, Fadli Fawzi, Gerald Giam and Kenneth Tiong, as well as Non-Constituency MP Eileen Chong.
The outcome of the findings could have a bearing on Mr Singh’s political future.
The findings and recommendations are likely to be put to the party’s CEC – its top decision-making body – for a vote, if past disciplinary proceedings are any indication.
In 2021, after then Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament about an anecdote on how the police had treated a sexual assault victim, the CEC voted for her expulsion if she did not resign.
In 2012, the CEC had voted to dismiss its then Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong after he did not respond to the party’s questions about alleged personal indiscretions.
The disciplinary panel looking into Mr Singh was set up by the CEC in January and came a month after the High Court upheld Mr Singh’s conviction for lying to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges.
The court found that Mr Singh had guided Ms Khan to maintain the lie she told in Parliament, and that he lied to the Committee of Privileges about asking her to come clean.
When the formation of the disciplinary panel was announced on Jan 3, WP said the CEC had set a timeline that the disciplinary process be concluded within three months, to prevent undue delay.
As part of the probe, the party invited its members to give their views on the matter. While the party did not disclose the terms of reference for the disciplinary panel, party members who attended feedback sessions said the panel had asked about whether Mr Singh had contravened Article 30 of the party Constitution.
The article states that party members nominated as candidates for election must “comply with party discipline in major decisions of policy, and to be honest and frank in all his dealings with the party and the people of Singapore”.
Singapore Management University associate professor of law Eugene Tan said that if the panel concludes Mr Singh had contravened the party’s Constitution, “then the natural implication is that there must be some disciplinary measure imposed on (him)”.
“The question then is whether the CEC will impose merely a slap on the wrist, or will they pursue the option of demanding Singh’s resignation as a member,” he added.
On the other hand, if the panel finds that Mr Singh is not in contravention of the Constitution, then he is likely to remain a WP MP and even as party leader, said Institute of Policy Studies Social Lab adjunct principal research fellow and academic adviser Tan Ern Ser.
Citing how the WP MPs had voted against a parliamentary motion in January to deem Mr Singh unsuitable as Leader of the Opposition, Dr Tan said: “(That) suggests to me that the party leaders may deem his conviction and sentence by the court is ‘punishment’ enough, and any further punitive action would seem like a case of ‘double jeopardy’.”
But he added that the issue is not whether he is punished repeatedly for the same offence, but whether the offence “reflects a character flaw inconsistent with that expected of an elected official, even if not legally disqualifying to serve as an MP”.
Mr Singh was removed as Leader of the Opposition by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong a day after Parliament backed the motion.
Other than the CEC vote, Mr Singh will have to contend with a special members’ conference called by a group of about 20 long-time cadres who planned to move a vote of no-confidence against him.
The cadres wrote to the CEC in December 2025. The party said the meeting will be convened two weeks after the panel’s findings are presented to the CEC.
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
Explore more on these topics
