Red Dot United secretary-general shares personal account of Pritam Singh's integrity

Red Dot United (RDU) secretary-general Ravi Philemon published a personal account on Facebook on 7 June 2026 describing Workers' Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh as a man of integrity — days after People's Power Party (PPP) chief Goh Meng Seng published a post on 5 June urging WP cadres to vote against Singh at the party's special cadres conference on 28 June 2026.

Goh's post, which described Singh throughout as a "Convicted Liar" and claimed he had spoken to WP cadres who shared their views with him, drew widespread public criticism. Philemon's post offered a direct contrast — a personal account grounded in more than fifteen years of direct interaction with Singh rather than secondhand accounts from unnamed cadres.

The post comes days before the WP's special cadres conference on 28 June 2026, at which Singh faces a secret vote on his continued leadership following his criminal conviction for giving false evidence to Parliament's Committee of Privileges (COP). 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. Singh paid the fine and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation.

Philemon, who has known Singh since around 2009 or 2010, said he first met him at a roundtable for political discussion organised by WP Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Gerald Giam. He later interacted more closely with Singh during his time as co-chief editor of The Online Citizen, where Singh wrote several articles before he was elected as a Member of Parliament (MP).

A test of character

The central incident Philemon described took place when the WP was raising funds through crowdfunding for the legal costs of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) case — the lawsuits filed in July 2017 in which Singh was among eight named defendants alongside Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, and others, alleging S$33.7 million in misused funds and breaches of fiduciary duty.

In October 2018, Low, Lim, and Singh launched a public appeal after disclosing they had already paid S$600,000 in legal fees from their own savings and personal contributions, which had depleted their personal resources. They emphasised they had not used any Workers' Party funds. The public responded by donating S$1,008,802 in under three days from at least 5,000 donors. The moment the amount raised substantially covered the legal fees required, the three leaders closed the appeal immediately and stopped accepting further donations.

It was during this period that Philemon and some friends raised a sum toward the cause and arranged to meet Singh at Peninsula Plaza to hand over a cheque.

'He did not accept it,' Philemon wrote. 'He told me that the Party had set a fundraising target and that they had already reached that target. Since the amount needed had been raised, he said he should not accept any further donations.'

The financial discipline that Philemon observed did not end with the fundraising appeal. In October 2025, after the cases concluded through mediation on a drop-hands basis, Singh, Lim, and Low donated the remaining balance of S$57,727.03 from court-ordered costs back to AHTC and SKTC in full — funds that could have partially reimbursed the S$1.4 million they had personally paid toward their legal costs over seven years. A further remaining balance of S$5,826.14 in their joint fundraising bank account was donated in full to the WP Community Fund, a registered charity supporting families in need.

"The easy thing would have been to take the cheque. Nobody would have known. Nobody would have questioned it. After all, it was being freely offered. But there is a difference between what is permissible and what is right. Once the objective had been met, there was no reason to take more money from well-wishers," he wrote.

"Politics is ultimately about trust. People contribute their time, money, and energy because they believe in a cause. When leaders take only what is needed, and no more, it tells you something about their character," he added.

Philemon described his subsequent interactions with Singh over the years as principled but friendly, and said he appreciated that consistency.

On the pressures facing opposition figures

Philemon also made a broader observation about the pressures faced by those affiliated with Singapore's opposition cause — one that sits in direct contrast to Goh's framing of Singh's conviction as a straightforward integrity failure.

"It is never easy for people who are affiliated with the opposition cause. From personal experience, I know that there are always people trying to fix you. I imagine that this is even more so for the leader of the biggest opposition party in Singapore," he wrote.

He concluded by wishing Singh and the WP well in the days ahead.

Public response

The post drew a supportive response from commenters, several of whom addressed the broader political context of Singh's conviction directly.

One commenter wrote: "I believe Pritam Singh is just a victim of dirty politicking. This is a common play, use litigation on some minor technicality, then thereafter keep blasting it all over MSM and social media using IB that so-and-so is a 'convict' to brainwash the public."

Another wrote: "Pritam Singh... We all know that you are a good and upright man. Relax. Because you are too good of a politician, you pose a threat to you know who. Therefore they created a lousy reason to nail you."

A third commenter noted the contrast with the broader accountability question: "If the ruling party can set own salary, assess own self to raise own salary... why can't WP just fine PS a certain amount let's say $100,000 as only first offence... but donate the amount to the needy... back to the people."

One commenter drew attention to the implicit response to Goh's post: "Hi Ravi... GMS thinks otherwise."

Another offered a more measured reflection on the significance of Philemon's account: "Speaks highly of you too. Thank you."

Background

RDU contested four constituencies at GE2025 — Nee Soon GRC, Jurong East-Bukit Batok GRC, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, and Jurong Central SMC — with its best result of 26.19 per cent at Nee Soon GRC. The party did not win any seats.

Editor's note: Ravi Philemon served as co-chief editor of The Online Citizen during a period when Pritam Singh contributed articles to the publication. TOC notes this prior connection in the interest of transparency.