Pritam Singh, Mediacorp apologise after comments on CNA show which AGC said are in contempt of court

He had also said that his political opponents will “do whatever it takes to lower my esteem and the esteem of my party in the public eye.”

MinLaw in its Dec 13 statement said Mr Singh’s comments suggested that the prosecution against him by the AGC and, by extension, his conviction by the Magistrate’s Court, were politically motivated – impugning the integrity of the court and legal system.

It added that he had suggested that the court of public opinion, demonstrated by results at the May general election, was more important than the court’s judgment.

It reiterated Minister for Law Edwin Tong’s previous statement that these comments denigrate the court’s judgment and undermine public trust in the legal system and judiciary, which is “completely unacceptable”.

It said that the AGC on Nov 28 had notified Mr Singh that his statements are in contempt of court, and invited him to apologise.

The ministry added that it welcomes Mr Singh’s comments made after the dismissal of his appeal that it is unacceptable for politicians to question or impugn the integrity of the courts.

“The judiciary is a key pillar of Singapore’s success, and it is critical that public trust in our justice system is maintained.”

Mediacorp, in a separate statement, said it accepts that the publication of the interview is in contempt of court.

“We wholly and unreservedly apologise to the court. We have taken down the interview from our platforms and channels and will avoid publishing matters that are in contempt of court in future.”

CNA, in a report on Dec 13, said Mediacorp had been notified by the AGC that the interview was in contempt of court.

It was recorded on July 26, 2025.

Three days after it aired, Mr Tong on Nov 8 criticised Mr Singh’s statements, and said that his comment on the court of public opinion was outrageous, plainly wrong and completely unacceptable.

Mr Tong said then: “Mr Singh was investigated, and then he was charged. He went through a full and open trial and was convicted by the court for lying to a parliamentary select committee.

“The judge gave detailed grounds setting out the basis for the conviction. I think it ran into almost 150 pages. This judgment is, today, valid and binding.”

Mr Tong added: “No one should dismiss or denigrate the court’s judgment or suggest that public opinion can somehow trump a court’s decision.”

On Dec 4, speaking to reporters after

Mr Singh was asked how he thought he would fare in the court of public opinion.

Mr Singh said: “I want to be careful with that. The court, in the matter of my magistrate’s appeal, has delivered its verdict and I think we should respect it.”

He also said that he respected and accepted the judgment “fully and without reservation”.

He told the media: “First and foremost, the Supreme Court is a vital pillar of our constitutional framework.

“I have always had deep respect for the independence, rigour and professionalism of the courts.”

He was also asked about other comments he made on The Assembly about how his political opponents would “do whatever it takes” to lower his and his party’s esteem.

He said that as an opposition MP, he will have political differences with his opponents.

“But those differences do not extend to tearing the system down, and questioning or impugning the integrity of the courts or even civil servants, for example. That cannot be how we conduct opposition politics in Singapore.”