The Law Society of Singapore is seeking to have Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.
The request was disclosed in a High Court notice issued on 31 July 2026, ahead of disciplinary proceedings scheduled for 13 August.
However, this does not mean that Singh has already been struck off.
The final decision will be made by the Court of Three Judges, Singapore’s highest disciplinary body for lawyers.
What the Law Society Is Asking For
The hearing will take place at the Supreme Court at 10am on 13 August.
The case will be heard by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Kannan Ramesh and Justice See Kee Oon.
Being struck off is the most serious professional sanction that can be imposed on a lawyer. It means the person’s name is removed from Singapore’s roll of advocates and solicitors, preventing the person from practising as a lawyer.
Singh is currently a non-practising lawyer, according to The Straits Times. Therefore, a strike-off would primarily affect his professional standing and ability to practise law in the future.
As of 1 August 2026, the judges have not ruled on the Law Society’s application.
Why Disciplinary Proceedings Were Started
The case follows Singh’s conviction on two charges of wilfully giving false answers to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges.
The committee had been investigating former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false claim in Parliament that she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station.
Singh was found guilty on both charges on 17 February 2025 and fined S$7,000 for each charge, resulting in a total fine of S$14,000.
He appealed against his convictions, but the High Court dismissed his appeal on 4 December 2025. He subsequently paid the fine.
The Law Society said in March 2026 that the Attorney-General’s Chambers had informed it that Singh’s offences involved “fraud or dishonesty” within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act.
This does not mean Singh was convicted of a separate fraud charge. His criminal convictions were for wilfully making false answers to the parliamentary committee.
However, under Section 94A of the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society must apply to the court for disciplinary action when a regulated legal practitioner is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.
The Law Society therefore began the proceedings on 4 March 2026.
Striking Off Is Not the Only Possible Outcome
Although the Law Society is asking for Singh to be struck off, the judges are not required to grant its request.
Under the Legal Profession Act, the Court of Three Judges can impose several possible sanctions.
These include striking the lawyer off the roll, suspending the lawyer from practice for up to five years, censuring the lawyer or imposing a financial penalty of up to S$100,000. The court may also impose a combination of sanctions.
The Straits Times noted that Singapore courts have previously treated striking off as the presumptive sanction for misconduct involving dishonesty, unless exceptional circumstances justify a different outcome.
However, the judges will still have to consider the facts and arguments in Singh’s case before deciding whether any sanction should be imposed.
The Hearing Is Separate From His Political Positions
The 13 August proceedings concern Singh’s professional status as a lawyer.
They are not court proceedings to determine whether he should remain an MP for Aljunied GRC or the secretary-general of the Workers’ Party.
The WP conducted its own disciplinary process earlier in 2026. Its central executive committee issued Singh a formal letter of reprimand on 30 April after accepting that he had contravened two provisions of the party’s constitution.
On 28 June, WP cadres voted by a “supermajority” to retain him as secretary-general.
The legal profession’s disciplinary process is separate from those party proceedings, and its outcome now rests with the Court of Three Judges.
