Pritam Singh Apologises for Court Contempt Comments on CNA

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has issued a formal apology regarding comments made during an interview on CNA’s programme, The Assembly. He acknowledged that his remarks could be interpreted as contempt of court and could undermine the integrity of the legal system. In a Facebook post on December 13, 2023, Singh stated, “I accept that my statements may be construed to be in contempt of court, including to impugn the integrity, propriety or impartiality of the court.”

The controversial statements were made during an interview that aired on November 5, 2023, shortly after the High Court dismissed Singh’s appeal against his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee. The episode was recorded in July, and Singh had previously discussed the interview on social media on November 6 and November 8.

Details of the Controversy

During the interview, Singh responded to a question about being labelled a liar, suggesting that the prosecution led by the Attorney-General’s Chambers was politically motivated. The Ministry of Law described his comments as suggesting that public opinion held greater importance than judicial decisions, which raised concerns about the integrity of the court system.

Minister for Law Edwin Tong condemned Singh’s remarks on November 8, stating that they “denigrate the court’s judgment and undermine public trust in our legal system and the judiciary,” highlighting that such comments are “completely unacceptable.”

The Attorney-General’s Chambers formally notified Singh on November 28 that his comments constituted contempt of court and urged him to apologise. Following the dismissal of his appeal on December 4, Singh confirmed his acceptance of the court’s judgment and expressed that it is unacceptable for politicians to question the integrity of the courts.

Reactions and Implications

The Ministry of Law welcomed Singh’s acknowledgment, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as a fundamental pillar of Singapore’s success. They reiterated the importance of maintaining public trust in the justice system.

Singh’s apology marks a significant moment in his political career, reflecting the delicate balance politicians must strike when discussing the judiciary. His statements and subsequent retraction underscore the ongoing discussions about the relationship between political discourse and legal proceedings in Singapore.

As this story continues to develop, the implications of Singh’s comments and the subsequent apology will likely resonate throughout the political landscape, raising questions about the responsibilities of public figures in their communications regarding the legal system.