Did the Workers Party respond correctly to PM Wong's challenge?

It's been a long road, getting there to here. In 2021, Raeesah Khan (WP-Sengkang) attempted to besmirch the reputation of the Singapore Police Force in a speech to parliament. She falsely claimed she witnessed the police traumatise a victim of sexual assault. As it turned out, her party leader Pritam Singh found out it was a lie, allowed her to continue the lie for 3 months until she recanted it, then himself lied to the Committee of Privileges when it investigated her conduct, and was found out and referred to the criminal courts.

Pritam Singh was found guilty of lying and convicted in court, and his conviction conclusively upheld after appeal. And now the chickens are beginning to come to roost: Mr Singh was censured in a parliamentary motion of dishonorouable conduct unbecoming of a Member of Parliament and unsuitable to be the Leader of the Opposition.

Singapore prime minister Lawrence Wong quickly withdrew the privileges afforded to Mr Singh as the Leader of the opposition and invited the Workers Party to nominate someone else to the position. WP leadership mulled on the decision for nearly a week before rejecting the proposal entirely. Did it make the right decision?

King John surrendering his crown to the Pope's representative

Was PM's invitation a reasonable request or a poisoned pill?

Unless you are a die-hard WP supporter or cultist for whom the party and its leaders can do no wrong, it is clear that Pritam Singh had fallen far short in his conduct. He did not behave as a reasonable, reputable, and responsible legislator or party leader. Parliament's censure motion is but the first of the hosts of measures it is now entitled to take. But is the prime minister entitled to demand the opposition appoint a new Leader?

Note that WP's pithy reply to the prime minister:

In Singapore, the position of LO is a discretionary appointment that the Prime Minister makes... We hold that the only tenable candidate for the LO position would be a Member of Parliament who is the leader of the largest opposition party in Parliament.

WP agrees that the prime minister of Singapore has the right to appoint and dismiss the "leader of the opposition", but insists on basic parliamentary convention.

Mr Singh will continue as party leader while he gives up on the privileges afforded to him - double MP pay, a larger stable of legislative assistants, first right of reply to the PM and Leader of the House, longer speeches in parliament, some consultation rights with ministries. WP has avoided the prime minister's trap of having an actual party leader while having an official Leader of the Opposition in parliament. Trapdoor avoided, problem solved, right?

What if all options are bad options? Did WP chose the least worst option?

Never go in against a Sicilian unless...

To be sure, WP is correct to grumble that in Singapore the prime minister can appoint a leader of the opposition at his discretion - but surely it eagerly accepted the appointment only because with about 10% of the seats in parliament (i.e. nowhere near depriving the ruling party of a supermajority!), the resulting perception of competence and its crowning as a Government-in-waiting was premature and undeserved?

It is in fact plausible that WP has actually chosen the worst option possible. Our analysis of several previous general elections in Singapore suggest that the following;

• Singapore politics follows the Dunleavian model, with a 1.5 party system
• The Peope's Action Party is the Dominant Ruling Party with perceived hypercompetence
• Workers' Party is the PAP's chosen junior party or tolerated opposition, with perceived competence compared to all other opposition parties

The third point became increasingly clear in the 2025 election when a tacit electoral truce existed between the PAP and WP. With both parties refraining from a mutually assured destruction of competence perception (MADCAP) campaign, preserving an aura of mutual credibility despite humiliating scandals in both parties.

What is the effect on perceived competence of WP when its current leader is now a convicted criminal and intransigent who states in parliament his outright refusal to apologise or admit wrongdoing, has his recognition as Leader of the Opposition stripped by the prime minister, and his party content to perform without the PAP MP conferring it the highest formal level of recognition and honour in Singapore's parliamentary system? How does the mainstream voter (quite a different animal from die-hard supporters and cultists) weigh the party when it no longer has a halo effect from the endorsement of the dominant ruling party?

This is the beginning of the end, either for Mr Singh himself or for his party if he hangs on to the party leadership with his fingernails in February's disciplinary hearing and special party conference.