Law Society commences disciplinary proceedings against Pritam Singh

[Balls2U]

https://theonlinecitizen.com/2026/0...disciplinary-proceedings-against-pritam-singh

 

[shiokalingam]

FB: Tan Kin Lian ,


As of March 2026, the Law Society of Singapore has officially initiated disciplinary proceedings against Pritam Singh.

These proceedings follow his criminal conviction in 2025 for lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP). Because Mr. Singh is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, he falls under the Law Society's jurisdiction regarding professional conduct.

Key Developments
* Case Management Conference: A conference was held at the Supreme Court on March 12, 2026, before an Assistant Registrar.

* Court of Three Judges: The case is expected to be heard by the Court of Three Judges. This is the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession in Singapore, and it has the power to oversee serious misconduct cases involving lawyers.

* Possible Sanctions: The Law Society is represented by the firm Drew & Napier. If the court finds that his criminal conviction constitutes "grossly improper conduct" or involves a lack of integrity, the possible outcomes include:

* Suspension from practicing law for a specific period.

* Being struck off the roll (disbarment), meaning he would no longer be allowed to practice law in Singapore.

* A monetary penalty or a formal reprimand.
Context of the Action

The Law Society’s move comes after a series of legal and political consequences for Mr. Singh:

* December 2025: The High Court dismissed his appeal, upholding his conviction on two counts of lying under oath. He paid a total fine of $14,000.

* January 2026: Parliament passed a motion deeming him unfit to serve as the Leader of the Opposition (LO). Prime Minister Lawrence Wong subsequently removed him from the LO position, though he remains a Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC.

* Internal WP Action: The Workers’ Party also formed its own disciplinary panel in early 2026 to determine if his conduct breached the party's constitution.

 

[shiokalingam]

https://www.facebook.com/share/1DEtZc1Scv/

 

[Dongyi]

I believe the targeted sanction is disbarment rather than a mere suspension. A suspension would have little practical effect, as he is a lawyer in name only and has simply parked his practising certificate at a law firm. In reality, he has not been actively practising law. ​

 

[shiokalingam]

Hear say his Father , Amarjit Singh,
is also doing his ultmost best to help .

 

[shiokalingam]

I believe the targeted sanction is disbarment rather than a mere suspension. A suspension would have little practical effect, as he is a lawyer in name only and has simply parked his practising certificate at a law firm. In reality, he has not been actively practising law. ​

FB : Tan Kin Lian ,

1 hr ago


Deepseek said.

Your view raises an important issue about how the case developed and whether it was fair. To understand it clearly, it helps to separate three different stages of events involving Raeesah Khan and Pritam Singh.

1. The original issue: Raeesah Khan’s statement in Parliament

In August 2021, Raeesah Khan told a story in the Parliament of Singapore about accompanying a sexual-assault victim to a police station and allegedly hearing insensitive remarks by officers.

Later it emerged that the story was not true. She eventually admitted that she had fabricated the anecdote.

This triggered a parliamentary investigation.

2. Parliamentary Committee investigation

The case was examined by the Committee of Privileges, which investigates possible breaches of parliamentary privilege such as lying in Parliament.

The committee’s main task was to determine:

Why Raeesah Khan made the false statement

Whether she knowingly lied to Parliament

Whether anyone else encouraged or helped conceal the lie

During this process, several members of the Workers' Party leadership, including Pritam Singh, were called to testify.

3. How Pritam Singh became involved

During the hearings, questions arose about what the Workers’ Party leadership told Raeesah Khan to do after they learned the story was untrue.

The prosecution later alleged that Pritam Singh:

Told Raeesah Khan to continue the narrative in Parliament

Gave misleading testimony to the Committee of Privileges about what he had told her

Because the Committee of Privileges is a parliamentary proceeding, giving false testimony there can be treated as lying under oath.

This is how the matter moved from:

the original lie by Raeesah Khan,
to

allegations about whether Pritam Singh misled the parliamentary committee.

Why some people view it as unfair

Supporters of Pritam Singh argue several points:

The original wrongdoing was Raeesah Khan’s lie, not Singh’s actions.

Singh was testifying about internal party discussions, which can be complex and open to interpretation.

The case effectively shifted the focus from the initial issue to a secondary one.

They believe prosecuting him may appear politically motivated.

Why others say the charge is justified

Others argue:

The integrity of Parliament depends on truthful testimony to investigations.

If a witness misleads a parliamentary committee, that is a serious offence regardless of the original issue.

The legal case focused narrowly on whether Singh’s statements were truthful, not on party politics.

 

[batman1]

Not again,pap like to over-punish opposition.

 

[Dongyi]

FB : Tan Kin Lian ,

1 hr ago


Deepseek said.

Your view raises an important issue about how the case developed and whether it was fair. To understand it clearly, it helps to separate three different stages of events involving Raeesah Khan and Pritam Singh.

1. The original issue: Raeesah Khan’s statement in Parliament

In August 2021, Raeesah Khan told a story in the Parliament of Singapore about accompanying a sexual-assault victim to a police station and allegedly hearing insensitive remarks by officers.

Later it emerged that the story was not true. She eventually admitted that she had fabricated the anecdote.

This triggered a parliamentary investigation.

2. Parliamentary Committee investigation

The case was examined by the Committee of Privileges, which investigates possible breaches of parliamentary privilege such as lying in Parliament.

The committee’s main task was to determine:

Why Raeesah Khan made the false statement

Whether she knowingly lied to Parliament

Whether anyone else encouraged or helped conceal the lie

During this process, several members of the Workers' Party leadership, including Pritam Singh, were called to testify.

3. How Pritam Singh became involved

During the hearings, questions arose about what the Workers’ Party leadership told Raeesah Khan to do after they learned the story was untrue.

The prosecution later alleged that Pritam Singh:

Told Raeesah Khan to continue the narrative in Parliament

Gave misleading testimony to the Committee of Privileges about what he had told her

Because the Committee of Privileges is a parliamentary proceeding, giving false testimony there can be treated as lying under oath.

This is how the matter moved from:

the original lie by Raeesah Khan,
to

allegations about whether Pritam Singh misled the parliamentary committee.

Why some people view it as unfair

Supporters of Pritam Singh argue several points:

The original wrongdoing was Raeesah Khan’s lie, not Singh’s actions.

Singh was testifying about internal party discussions, which can be complex and open to interpretation.

The case effectively shifted the focus from the initial issue to a secondary one.

They believe prosecuting him may appear politically motivated.

Why others say the charge is justified

Others argue:

The integrity of Parliament depends on truthful testimony to investigations.

If a witness misleads a parliamentary committee, that is a serious offence regardless of the original issue.

The legal case focused narrowly on whether Singh’s statements were truthful, not on party politics.

That PS lied is neither an admission from PS himself nor proven by science. It's just the opinion of a judge, and the judge's opinion is NOT a universal truth because on another day before another judge, the outcome may be different.​

 

[shiokalingam]

That PS lied is neither an admission from PS himself nor proven by science. It's just the opinion of a judge, and the judge's opinion is NOT a universal truth because on another day before another judge, the outcome may be different.​

kamsia , Thats means LawSoc 's Counsels from Drew & Napier llc has a tough case ahead.

btw , will SC Cavinder Bull and team bill market rates for this case ? Bill size ?

why Father Amarjit Singh not representing Son Pritam ?

 

[batman1]

Raeesah khan lied and she was duely punished .Period.

 

[nabeifuckpap]

Fuck PAP and 65%