A Singapore court barred Pritam Singh, the chief of the main opposition party, from practicing law following his criminal conviction for lying under oath to a parliamentary committee.

The Law Society of Singapore brought the case after Singh was convicted last year, months before a national election, on two charges of giving false answers to a parliamentary committee. Singh was fined S$14,000 ($10,940), and the High Court later dismissed his appeal.

The disciplinary proceedings are the latest fallout from a case that has dogged one of Singapore’s most prominent opposition politicians and raised questions over his leadership of the Workers’ Party, the main challenger to the long-ruling People’s Action Party.

Speaking during proceedings that lasted less than 30 minutes on Thursday, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said both the Law Society of Singapore and Singh agreed the threshold for avoiding disbarment had not been met, while the bar for an exception was high.

RELATED ARTICLES

• S'pore opposition party leader Singh found guilty of lying to parliament
• S'pore opposition leaders appeal for help to stave off bankruptcy
• 2 senior Singapore opp party members resign over affair

Singh’s lawyer, Chelva Rajah, said his client had always shown “a deep respect” for Singapore’s courts and did not dispute that dishonesty was an essential element of the offenses. “He always tries his best to act in good faith,” Rajah said, adding that Singh would continue to do so in whatever capacity remained open to him.

Singh, 50, retained his position as the party’s secretary-general after surviving a special vote by party cadres in June. The Workers’ Party formally reprimanded him in April after an internal disciplinary process concluded that his conviction was inconsistent with provisions of its constitution. Singh’s perjury case was related to a former Workers’ Party lawmaker who admitted to lying in parliament in 2021.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also removed Singh as Leader of the Opposition in January, saying his conviction made it untenable for him to continue in the role.

Singh is a non-practising lawyer, while the Law Society case concerns only his status as a solicitor, not his seat in Parliament.