Goh Meng Seng urges WP cadres to remove Pritam Singh ahead of 28 June conference, drawing sharp public pushback

People's Power Party (PPP) chief Goh Meng Seng has published a lengthy post urging Workers' Party (WP) cadres to vote against secretary-general Pritam Singh at the party's special cadres conference on 28 June 2026, arguing that Singh's criminal conviction represents an integrity problem that will determine whether the WP can win middle ground voters.

In the post, published on social media ahead of the conference, Goh argued that the question before cadres was not whether Singh was guilty — describing that as a "foregone conclusion" — but whether the WP would demonstrate the integrity standards necessary to be considered a credible alternative to the People's Action Party (PAP) as a ruling party.

"When it comes to government, Singaporeans expect clean and corruption free government and ruling party, nothing less," Goh wrote. "If WP or any aspiring opposition party is to be worthy of replacing PAP as ruling party, the first uncompromising criteria is high standards of integrity."

Goh, 55, described Singh throughout the post as a "Convicted Liar" and said that "whether we like it or not, Pritam has been condemned as a convicted liar and this label will stick on him forever."

He also argued that the WP's own internal disciplinary panel had found Singh guilty of contravening the party's constitution, framing this as corroboration of the court's verdict. He added that the vote on 28 June was no longer about Singh as an individual but about the future potential of the WP as a serious contender for power.

"Ironically, they are there to be judged by Singaporeans at large, on how they manage such integrity crisis and whether WP is worthy to become the replacement of the current ruling party, PAP," Goh wrote.

Goh also said he had "spoken to a few WP cadres recently" and described the cadres conference as a "final showdown," adding that "most of the veterans are against the Convicted Liar but some are supportive of him."

Background on Singh's conviction

Singh's appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the High Court on 4 December 2025. Justice Steven Chong upheld the original sentence of two fines totalling S$14,000, arising from his handling of false statements made in Parliament by former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan. Singh paid the fine and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation.

Speaking to reporters outside the court, Singh said he was disappointed with the verdict but respected and accepted it. "I certainly took too long to respond to Raeesah's lie in Parliament. I take responsibility for that," he said. "My focus now is to continue serving Singaporeans and to speak up for them, alongside my Workers' Party colleagues."

In January 2026, Parliament passed a motion finding Singh unsuitable to continue as Leader of the Opposition, with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong subsequently formally removing him from the role. The WP declined Wong's invitation to nominate a replacement, framing the refusal as a matter of democratic principle. The position has remained vacant since.

The WP's special cadres conference is scheduled for 28 June 2026. Under the three-part agenda, Singh will first be required to account to cadres for his conviction. Cadres will then call on him to step down. Should he decline, a secret vote will determine whether he remains as secretary-general.

The party's biennial ordinary cadres conference, at which a new secretary-general and Central Executive Committee will be elected, is scheduled to follow at 3pm the same day.

PPP's electoral record at Tampines

PPP, founded by Goh in 2015 after he resigned as NSP secretary-general following GE2011, contested Tampines GRC at GE2025 as part of a four-cornered fight, fielding a five-member team led by Goh against the PAP, the WP, and NSP — the party he had previously led.

PPP received 0.43 per cent of the valid votes cast, or 596 votes. NSP received 0.18 per cent. Both parties fell far short of the 12.5 per cent threshold required to avoid forfeiting their election deposits under the Parliamentary Elections Act, with each five-member team forfeiting S$67,500.

WP received 47.37 per cent in the same constituency. The PAP received 52.02 per cent.

Public reaction

Public reaction to Goh's post was swift and overwhelmingly critical, with hundreds of comments posted within hours.

One commenter noted the electoral contrast directly: "Yeah but the middle ground voters didn't vote for you either and you got 0% of the vote."

Another wrote: "Good morning, yes agree with ur view, why don GMS analyse what happened to his deposit instead of caring about WP leadership."

A third was more pointed: "If you keep posting hate post instead of alternative solution for real world problem, your next election will get less than 1% vote. WP, SDP and even the independent party recognised this pattern from Singaporeans but you still haven't after so many years in politics."

Several commenters drew on Goh's own published political commentary to respond to his post. One quoted at length from a previous piece Goh had written about Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan, in which Goh had argued that Chee was "tainted beyond hope" and "unelectable" after repeatedly failing to cross a 40 per cent vote share threshold. The commenter applied the same framework to Goh's own result, adding: "I guess this assessment of Chee from you can be quite rightly used on you now? (40% change to 1% please)."

Another commenter turned Goh's own opening claim back on him: "I can also say I have spoken to many cadres in PPP and all find GMS unsuitable to lead the party."

Several commenters addressed the substance of Singh's conviction directly, questioning the weight placed on his role relative to Khan's admitted lies.

"What was the lie though? The only lie of import was from Khan. Did PS simply inherit Khan's lie?" one wrote.

"How does the he-say-she-say episode affect any Singaporean in any way? Ever heard of wrong conviction?" wrote another.

A commenter who argued for Singh's continued value to the opposition put it plainly: "Who doesn't tell lies in life. He the pulling factor for the party. Without him ruling party will benefit from a weak opposition."

One commenter noted that in their reading the outcome of the conference was already effectively signalled: "It is a foregone conclusion since WP did not take the bait to appoint a Leader of the Opposition."

The structural constraints facing any opposition party were raised by another commenter, who argued that the question of whether WP could replace the PAP as a ruling party was itself premised on an unrealistic reading of Singapore's electoral system. "I think you know that even if opposition party win election votes by 51% there will not be enough seats won in parliament to make any difference to policy making. It will still be controlled by the PAP," the commenter wrote.

Opposition figure urges Goh to stop

Among the most substantive responses was one from Mohamed Jufrie bin Mahmood, a former WP member who subsequently joined the SDP and described himself as having been with the WP "decades before Pritam or the majority of its current members."

Jufrie said he did not blame Singh for the circumstances that led to his conviction and described his handling of the Khan affair as a mistake rather than a deliberate act of dishonesty.

"Apart from this mistake of his — YES I CALL IT A MISTAKE — which somehow has an effect on his reputation, he shouldn't be judged solely by this particular mistake. Overall I find that he is an honest person. Only PAP leaders are making it look worse," Jufrie wrote.

He directed his sharpest remarks at Goh's decision to publish the post publicly.

"As members of the opposition we don't do things like what GMS is now doing, because it only benefits the PAP. So I hope GMS will stop publicly airing his frustrations. As members of parties alternative to the PAP we should not do what GMS is doing," he wrote.

The Keppel comparison

Several commenters raised the case of Keppel Corporation's bribery scandal in Brazil as a counter-example of how accountability is applied in Singapore, questioning whether senior figures at the top of large corporations face the same scrutiny as opposition politicians.

"What about the Seatrium case in Brazil that got Keppel fined and nothing in the greater echelon of accountability at the very top was cleverly dismissed. Should the people also consider that before analysing the WP vote," one commenter wrote.

Keppel Corporation was fined in 2017 as part of a global settlement over bribery offences relating to contracts in Brazil. No individual criminal prosecutions of senior Keppel executives followed in Singapore.

Other public responses

The broader tone of the public response was captured across dozens of additional comments.

"Envy and vengeful is a really ugly look on you. Just stop it already lah," one wrote.

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," said another.

"GMS it's better you retire from politics. Your presence in politics could only be seen as a form of weakening oppo politics. Your presence is a political gift to this PAP govt," read one comment.

"This issue has been raised and raised for how long already. Mr Pritam Singh has already pay the price for his actions. I believed he did not gain anything from the lies. Even drug addicts get to be pardon and given another chance to change. So let it rest GMS," a commenter added.

A commenter drew a historical parallel to an early Singapore opposition figure whose intra-opposition conflicts are remembered as having weakened the opposition cause at a critical period, writing: "Maybe he's jealous lor. Reminded me of Harbans Singh in 1970s United People Front."