Cadres will decide Pritam Singh’s WP future: Analysts

Noting this, Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) senior research fellow Gillian Koh said given Mr Singh’s years in the CEC, there is likely to be a “high degree of loyalty” to him.

Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a senior international affairs analyst at Solaris Strategies Singapore, said Mr Singh is likely to continue leading the party “until and unless… someone (with) the requisite support” steps up to challenge him for the role.

Under the WP’s leadership election rules, the roles of secretary-general and chairman are contested separately from the rest of the leadership team. Mr Singh has not been challenged in his seven-year tenure as party chief.

Looking further ahead, the WP’s decision to keep Mr Singh on as chief suggests the Leader of the Opposition (LO) role is likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future and for the rest of this parliamentary term, said Ms Ngiow. This is especially after the WP’s public commitment that the leader of the largest opposition party is by definition the leader of the opposition.

The party has declined an invitation from Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to nominate another MP to the role of LO. PM Wong had removed Mr Singh as LO after the High Court in December 2025 upheld his convictions on two counts of lying to a parliamentary committee. It was these convictions that also triggered the WP’s own disciplinary proceedings against him in January.

While Mr Singh remains qualified to stand for the internal election, the question remains if his standing with the public will take a hard knock, said IPS Social Lab adjunct principal research fellow and academic adviser Tan Ern Ser.

Ms Ngiow said public reaction is likely to split along existing political lines, with supporters viewing the reprimand as proportionate and critics seeing it as insufficient, given that Mr Singh’s criminal conviction was upheld on appeal.

Dr Mustafa said some may see Mr Singh as having displayed “remarkable tenaciousness to rise above” it and see him as a stronger leader.

Analysts said some may also draw comparisons between the WP’s punishment of Mr Singh and past disciplinary cases.

Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan noted how previous members had been more severely punished. He called the party’s decision to merely reprimand Mr Singh “a slap on the wrist” and said it could be seen as practising double standards.

Referring to how the party had made a distinction between Mr Singh’s conduct and his intentions, he said: “Arguably, neither Raeesah Khan, Leon Perera, nor Nicole Seah had any intention to act against the party’s welfare. But they had to resign all the same because they were not frank and honest. An exception was carved out for Mr Singh.”

Ms Khan and Mr Perera, former WP MPs, as well as Ms Seah, a former WP youth wing leader and election candidate, had all resigned from the WP after they were found to have been untruthful to its leadership.

In November 2021, the party had convened a disciplinary panel to look into Ms Khan’s conduct after she admitted to lying in Parliament about the details of a sexual assault case. The panel, which comprised Mr Singh, party chairwoman Sylvia Lim and party vice-chairman Faisal Manap, eventually recommended to the CEC that Ms Khan be expelled if she did not resign.

Meanwhile, in July 2023, Mr Singh had said that the party would have recommended the expulsion of Mr Perera if he had not offered to resign, adding that he had fallen short of the standards expected of WP MPs.

Still, the WP’s position as Singapore’s only opposition party in Parliament could mean the public will be more forgiving towards this episode, said IPS’ Dr Koh.

She cited how the WP came back stronger in the 2025 General Election in the constituencies where they were incumbents despite Mr Singh having received his conviction in February 2025 – prior to the hustings.

“There is no other group and therefore no other opposition leader to provide the important check and balance against the PAP,” she said, although voters may penalise Mr Singh for not being wiser despite having been party chief since 2018.

The PAP is known to be harsh on the Opposition and would scrutinise its every move, she noted. “The expectation is that WP should know better than to provide the PAP with the ammunition it needs to diminish it.”

But SMU’s Prof Tan said that while the public may give the WP and Mr Singh the benefit of the doubt, the party “cannot take the public for another ride”.

Dr Koh said the WP will have to continue to tighten up its party discipline and socialise its MPs and members to certain standards of governance and conduct. It will also have to drive “far greater engagement and thinking on the policy end”.

Ms Ngiow said Mr Singh’s path forward also depends on whether he can re-establish himself as a substantive parliamentary voice in terms of moving the public conversation more towards policy.

He will also have to ensure that the party’s conduct is spotless so that the WP can convince swing voters that they are a credible alternative to the ruling party.