Law Society of Singapore strikes Pritam Singh off the rolls

The Law Society of Singapore has removed Pritam Singh, the leader of the main opposition party, from the rolls of licensed lawyers following his criminal conviction for lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. The Society took action after Singh was found guilty last year, just months before a national election, on two counts of providing false answers to a parliamentary committee.

He was fined S$14,000 (US$10,940), and his appeal was subsequently dismissed by the High Court. This disciplinary action is the latest consequence of a case that has troubled one of Singapore's most prominent opposition politicians and sparked questions about his leadership of the Workers' Party, the main rival to the long-standing People's Action Party.

The Chief Justice, Sundaresh Menon, stated during the brief hearing that both the Law Society of Singapore and Singh agreed that the conditions necessary to avoid disbarment were not met, while the requirement for an exception was high. Singh's legal representative, Chelva Rajah, commented that his client had always demonstrated "a deep respect" for Singapore's courts and did not deny that dishonesty was a key component of the offenses.

He further stated that Singh consistently strives to act in good faith and intends to maintain this approach in any remaining capacities. Despite being stripped of his lawyer status, Singh retains his position as secretary general of the Workers' Party, which he was retained in June through a special vote by party members. The Workers' Party formally censured him in April following an internal disciplinary process that found his conviction inconsistent with the party's constitution.

The perjury case stemmed from an incident involving a former Workers' Party lawmaker who confessed to lying in parliament in 2021. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also removed Singh as Leader of the Opposition in January, citing his conviction as making it untenable for him to continue in that role. Singh is currently a non-practicing lawyer, and the Law Society's case pertains solely to his legal status, not his parliamentary position.