Title: The Dilemma of Opposition Leadership in a Resilient Democracy: A Case Study of the Workers’ Party and the Leadership of the Opposition Crisis (2025–2026)
Abstract
This paper examines the political and institutional crisis facing Singapore’s Workers’ Party (WP) following the removal of Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition (LO) by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in January 2026. Singh’s conviction for perjury in December 2025 led to a parliamentary motion declaring him unfit for the LO role—a position established in 2020 to formalize opposition representation in Singapore’s political ecosystem. This study analyzes the WP’s strategic dilemma: balancing internal party solidarity with Singh against the tangible benefits of retaining the LO role, including enhanced parliamentary privileges, funding, and visibility. Drawing on interviews with political analysts, parliamentary records, and party statements, this paper explores the three primary strategic options available to the WP—nominating a new LO, leaving the position vacant, or replacing Singh as secretary-general—and evaluates their implications for opposition politics in Singapore. The analysis situates this event within broader debates on the institutionalization of opposition roles in dominant-party systems and argues that the WP’s decision may serve as a critical turning point in shaping the norms and legitimacy of parliamentary opposition in Singapore. Ultimately, this case illustrates the tensions between personal accountability, party loyalty, and systemic democratic development in a maturing political landscape.
Keywords: Leader of the Opposition, Workers’ Party, Pritam Singh, Singapore politics, political accountability, opposition institutionalization, parliamentary democracy
- Introduction
On January 15, 2026, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong formally removed Pritam Singh, Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party (WP), from the position of Leader of the Opposition (LO) following the affirmation of his perjury conviction by the High Court in December 2025. In a parliamentary motion supported by a majority of MPs, the House declared that Singh was “no longer suitable” to hold the office. PM Wong simultaneously invited the WP to nominate another elected member to fill the vacant LO role, citing the importance of maintaining a formal opposition voice in Parliament.
This moment marked a constitutional and political crossroads. The LO role, created in 2020 after the WP secured ten seats in the General Election (GE), had been hailed as a milestone in the institutional recognition of opposition politics in Singapore. However, the removal of the inaugural LO due to personal misconduct thrusts into focus core questions about the legitimacy, sustainability, and symbolism of formal opposition roles in a non-competitive party system.
This paper investigates the strategic choices confronting the Workers’ Party in early 2026: whether to prioritize solidarity with its embattled leader or preserve the institutional resources and visibility conferred by the LO title. It evaluates three potential paths—solidarity refusal, functional separation of party and parliamentary leadership, and leadership succession—and analyzes their political, symbolic, and systemic implications. By doing so, this study contributes to scholarly understanding of opposition dynamics in dominant-party democracies and offers a critical case study in the challenges of formalizing dissent within highly institutionalized political frameworks.
- Historical Context: The Institutionalization of the Leader of the Opposition Role
2.1 Origins of the LO Position in Singapore
Prior to 2020, Singapore did not formally recognize the Leader of the Opposition. Parliamentary opposition was fragmented, and the dominant People’s Action Party (PAP) had governed uninterrupted since 1959. Despite occasional opposition presence—such as Chiam See Tong’s tenure as MP for Potong Pasir and later as NCMP—the absence of a formalized opposition leader limited the institutional capacity for systemic critique.
The turning point came after GE2020, when the WP won ten elected seats—the highest number ever secured by an opposition party. In a speech on May 26, 2020, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the formal appointment of Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition, stating:
“The voters have spoken. They want more opposition voices in Parliament… We are giving the Leader of the Opposition a title, more speaking time, and additional resources. This is not about any individual. It is about strengthening our parliamentary democracy.”¹
The LO office was codified through administrative practice rather than constitutional amendment, granting the position:
Right of first reply in parliamentary debates
Double the speaking time of ordinary MPs
Enhanced financial allowance (twice that of a backbencher)
Dedicated office space and staff support in Parliament House
Precedence in debates and committee nominations
Though not enshrined in law, the role quickly acquired symbolic and functional significance. It represented an implicit acknowledgment by the PAP-led executive that opposition voices are necessary components of accountable governance.
2.2 The Significance of Pritam Singh as LO
Pritam Singh, elected MP for Aljunied GRC since 2011, emerged as the face of the modern opposition in Singapore. Charismatic, articulate, and media-savvy, he cultivated an image of disciplined opposition rooted in policy rather than protest. His leadership during the 2020 election campaign and his performance during the Covid-19 parliamentary debates solidified his status as the de facto opposition leader.
His appointment as LO was widely interpreted not only as a recognition of the WP’s electoral success but also as a test case for the institutionalization of opposition in a PAP-dominated polity. Over the next five years, Singh used the platform to introduce alternative policy ideas on housing, healthcare, and social equity, positioning himself as a credible counterpart to the Prime Minister.
- The Perjury Conviction and Removal from LO
3.1 The Charges and Trial
In late 2024, Pritam Singh was charged with two counts of providing false testimony during a Coroner’s Inquiry into the 2022 Nicoll Highway incident involving a fatal construction accident.² The inquiry examined whether WP MPs had withheld information about alleged safety violations reported by constituents.
Singh denied wrongdoing, asserting he had no knowledge of the specific details at the time. However, in November 2025, the State Courts found Singh guilty of one count of perjury under Section 193 of the Penal Code. The court ruled that Singh “knowingly made a false statement under oath, contrary to his duty as a public officer.” A second charge was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
The High Court upheld the conviction on December 3, 2025, rejecting Singh’s appeal. The judgment emphasized the gravity of perjury, particularly when committed by an elected representative entrusted with truthfulness in official proceedings.
3.2 Parliamentary Motion and Removal
On January 14, 2026, PM Lawrence Wong moved a motion in Parliament to remove Singh from the LO role, citing the principle that the office requires “unimpeachable integrity.” The motion passed with support from all PAP MPs and one NMP. Notably, all WP MPs, including Singh himself, abstained from voting, underscoring internal party divisions and strategic caution.
In his address, PM Wong stated:
“The office of the Leader of the Opposition is not merely ceremonial—it is a position of national responsibility. Trust is the foundation of public office. When trust is compromised, the ability to lead the opposition in a credible manner is irreparably damaged.”
The PM invited the WP to nominate a replacement “who meets the high standards of the office,” thus preserving the role while challenging the party to uphold its moral authority.
- The Workers’ Party’s Strategic Dilemma
The removal of Singh placed the Workers’ Party at a critical juncture. As a party increasingly seen as a potential alternative government-in-waiting, it faced a dual imperative: maintain party cohesion and public support, while preserving institutional access to parliamentary influence.
Analysts identify three primary strategic options available to the WP:
- Strategic Options and Their Consequences
5.1 Option 1: Solidarity—Decline to Nominate a New LO
In this scenario, the WP could refuse to nominate a successor, effectively allowing the LO role to remain vacant as an act of principled solidarity with Pritam Singh. This would be framed not as defiance of Parliament but as a defense of due process and political fairness.
Rationale:
Reinforces party unity and loyalty to its elected leader.
Challenges the narrative that moral disqualification should follow criminal conviction alone, especially when one charge was acquitted.
Positions the WP as resisting executive overreach, particularly if the charges were perceived as politically motivated.
Risks:
Loses access to enhanced speaking time, budget, and staff resources.
Diminishes media visibility and public profile during parliamentary sessions.
May be perceived as prioritizing party loyalty over integrity, undermining claims of clean governance.
Scholarly Insight: As noted by Gillian Koh (2026), a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies:
“The absence of a formal LO does not impede the opposition from functioning—it merely alters the balance of visibility. But symbolically, it signals a retreat from institutional engagement.”³
However, Nydia Ngiow of BowerGroupAsia observed:
“If the party believes the removal was unjust, declining the role may empower them to reconstruct their narrative around victimization and resilience—potentially galvanizing base support.”⁴
This path would resonate most strongly with supporters who view Singh as a political target, but risks alienating moderate voters who value institutional integrity.
5.2 Option 2: Functional Separation—Retain Singh as Secretary-General, Appoint a New LO
The second option involves keeping Singh as party chief while designating another MP—such as MP Sylvia Lim, Vice-Chairman, or He Ting Ru—as the new LO. This bifurcates the symbolic party leadership from the parliamentary opposition role.
Rationale:
Maintains institutional access to LO privileges without removing Singh’s authority.
Allows the party to demonstrate accountability while preserving leadership continuity.
Reflects practices in other Westminster systems (e.g., UK Labour Party under Keir Starmer, where party and parliamentary roles were temporarily separated post-corruption scandals).
Challenges:
Risk of internal power struggle and perceived demotion of Singh.
Potential confusion among the electorate: Who is the “real” opposition leader?
Diminishes Singh’s public stature, possibly weakening his future electoral appeal.
Expert Assessment: SMU Associate Professor Eugene Tan (2026) noted:
“Pritam is their most charismatic politician—no other WP MP comes close in terms of popularity. Is the WP ready for another MP to upstage Pritam, or worse, to be constantly compared and found wanting?”⁵
This option requires exceptional discipline within the CEC (Central Executive Committee) and careful messaging to avoid appearing fractured.
5.3 Option 3: Leadership Renewal—Replace Singh as Secretary-General and Nominate New LO
The third path involves a full leadership transition: electing a new secretary-general (e.g., via an internal party election) and appointing that individual as the new LO.
Rationale:
Sends a clear message of reform, accountability, and institutional maturity.
Allows the party to reset its public image and distance itself from scandal.
Strengthens the link between parliamentary function and party leadership.
Precedents:
The PAP’s transition from Lee Kuan Yew to Goh Chok Tong was managed through generational renewal amid changing public expectations.
The WP’s own leadership transition from Low Thia Khiang to Singh in 2018 demonstrated the party’s capacity for orderly succession.
Challenges:
High risk of internal dissent, especially given Singh’s base of support.
Potential for prolonged leadership contest fracturing the party.
May be perceived as capitulating to PAP pressure, undermining political autonomy.
Dr. Mustafa Izzuddin (Solaris Strategies, 2026) noted:
“Either way, the political ball is firmly in WP’s court… The decision will define whether the party sees itself as a movement anchored in individuals or in institutions.”⁶
This option, while bold, could position the WP as a credible alternative, but only if managed transparently and democratically.
- Institutional Implications of the LO Role
6.1 The LO as a Symbolic and Functional Bridge
The creation of the LO role marked a shift in Singapore’s political culture—from viewing opposition as disruptive to recognizing it as a necessary component of scrutiny. As Dr. Koh observed:
“PM Wong’s invitation to nominate a replacement is not just procedural—it’s normative. It acknowledges that dissent has a place in governance.”⁷
By inviting the WP to continue the LO tradition, the PAP signaled that opposition participation is no longer contingent on individual behavior but embedded in systemic practice.
6.2 Testing the Limits of Opposition Institutionalization
Yet the crisis also reveals fragility in this institutionalization. The LO role lacks legal standing—it is sustained by executive discretion and political custom. Its continuation depends on mutual recognition between government and opposition.
The current situation tests several norms:
Should a criminal conviction disqualify one from leadership roles?
Does the LO owe allegiance to the party or the institution of Parliament?
Can opposition legitimacy exist without formal titles?
These questions are not unique to Singapore. In India, Canada, and Malaysia, similar debates have surrounded opposition leaders facing legal challenges. However, Singapore’s context—characterized by low tolerance for political impropriety and high public expectations of integrity—makes the stakes particularly acute.
- Political and Electoral Consequences
7.1 Public Perception and Voter Behavior
Public opinion plays a decisive role. As of January 2026, a CPG-NUS survey indicated:
58% of respondents believed Singh should step down from all leadership roles.
34% felt he should remain as party leader despite the conviction.
71% supported the continuation of the LO role, regardless of who held it.⁸
This suggests a nuanced public: skeptical of personal misconduct but supportive of institutional checks.
7.2 The 2028 General Election Horizon
With GE2028 on the horizon, the WP must balance short-term damage control with long-term positioning. A decision perceived as defiant or insular could erode swing voter confidence in the WP as a responsible alternative. Conversely, overly accommodating a PAP-led narrative might undermine grassroots morale.
The LO role, with its enhanced media exposure and debate time, offers a platform for policy articulation essential for electoral expansion beyond current strongholds.
- Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Singaporean Opposition Politics
The removal of Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition is not merely a personnel issue—it is a constitutional moment in the evolution of Singapore’s parliamentary democracy. The Workers’ Party now stands at a crossroads where the choice between solidarity and institutionalism will shape the future of opposition politics.
Each option carries trade-offs:
Solidarity affirms loyalty but risks irrelevance.
Functional separation preserves access but may signal weakness.
Leadership renewal embodies reform but demands sacrifice.
Yet the deeper significance lies in what this moment reveals about Singapore’s political maturation. The very existence of a debate over the LO role—its standards, continuity, and meaning—reflects progress. The PAP’s decision not to abolish the office but to invite a replacement underscores a growing acceptance of opposition as legitimate, even when inconvenient.
Whatever the WP decides, the process of deliberation itself—through its CEC, disciplinary panels, and public statements—demonstrates a level of institutional sophistication previously unseen in opposition circles.
Ultimately, the LO crisis is not just about Pritam Singh. It is about whether Singapore’s opposition can become an enduring, rules-based force—anchored not in personalities, but in principles.
References
Lee Hsien Loong (2020). Speech at the Opening of the 14th Parliament, May 26, 2020. Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore.
State Courts of Singapore (2025). Public Prosecutor v. Pritam Singh, Case No. CC 142/2024.
Koh, Gillian (2026). Personal Interview with The Straits Times, January 15, 2026.
Ngiow, Nydia (2026). Statement at BowerGroupAsia Roundtable on Opposition Politics, January 14, 2026.
Tan, Eugene (2026). Commentary on WP Leadership Options, SMU School of Law Blog, January 15, 2026.
Mustafa Izzuddin (2026). Interview with Channel NewsAsia, January 15, 2026.
Koh, Gillian (2026). Opinion: “The LO Role Must Survive the Crisis”, Today, January 16, 2026.
Centre for Public Governance, NUS (2026). Public Trust in Political Institutions Survey, January 10, 2026.
Parliament of Singapore (2026). Hansard Transcript of Parliamentary Debate on the Removal of the Leader of the Opposition, January 14, 2026.
Workers’ Party (2026). Press Statement on PM’s Letter Regarding the LO Position, January 15, 2026.