Singapore sacks its leader of the opposition for lying

Dear Editor,
As opposition MPs in Guyana prepare to elect a person who is under international sanctions, who has been indicted by America for serious criminal offences and who is presently desperately fighting in court to prevent extradition, in Singapore, MPs have voted to strip their opposition leader of his title for lying to Parliament. MPs in Singapore defended the integrity of their Parliament.
Singapore’s Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Pritam Singh, last Wednesday was stripped of his title following a vote by lawmakers. The move followed Singh’s conviction for lying under oath to a Parliamentary committee. He remains a member of Parliament and secretary-general of the largest opposition party, the Workers’ Party (WP).
In contrast, in Guyana, opposition MPs are about to elect a LOO who is a fugitive from the American justice system, fighting desperately to avoid answering the charges.
Speaker Manzoor Nadir announced recently that the meeting to appoint the leader of the opposition will take place at 10:00h on Monday, January 26, 2025. The election was always going to take place at the first business meeting following the inaugural meeting of the 13th Parliament, which occurred on November 3, 2025. With the announcement of the Budget 2026 presentation date for January 26, the Speaker has a reason to convene the first business meeting of Parliament.
With the inescapable possibility of Guyana having an international fugitive as its LOO, the Speaker of the Parliament, the person charged with responsibility to uphold the integrity of the Parliament, would have been reckless if he ignored this possibility. Since Azrudin Mohamed, the presumptive candidate for LOO, was in court contesting the American extradition request, should not the Speaker at least take his time to see what might play out in the court? There was no urgent business yet for the Speaker to convene the Parliament. Why then not wait until the Parliament had business to consider and then proceed with the constitutional requirement of convening a meeting to appoint the Speaker? By waiting at least for the first business meeting of Parliament to be convened, the Speaker did the right thing.
The Constitution does not stipulate a time for the Speaker to convene the meeting to elect the LOO, even if we assume that the constitution intended it to be “as soon as possible”. The Speaker has a moral obligation to see if the pending court matters would have been determined prior to the first business sitting of the House. Unfortunately, the court matters are still pending with the Parliament now convened for its first business meeting. With the first business meeting convened, the Speaker has also scheduled the election of the LOO in accordance with the constitution.
The argument made by Azruddin Mohamed and a small group of commentators that the Speaker violated the constitution by waiting is nonsense. Given the exceptional circumstances, circumstances the constitution did not cater for, the Speaker did the right thing to wait for the first business meeting of the 13th Parliament to see if the courts would have dispensed with the matter before them. The Speaker has an obligation to maintain the integrity of the Parliament without violating the constitution. As it turned out, the appointment of the LOO, expected to be completed on January 26, will occur before the first business day of the 13th Parliament. There has been no breach of the constitution.
Speaker Manzoor Nadir walked between the raindrops, not wanting to violate the constitution, while hoping that a man who has been sanctioned, charged and is evading the authorities in America and, therefore, is classified as an international fugitive, is not appointed as the LOO. That the court process has been prolonged and, therefore, Guyana will have an LOO who has been indicted with serious crimes and is a fugitive from the authorities who have charged him is a disgrace. But at least we can acknowledge that the Speaker tried his best to defend the integrity of the Parliament while not violating the constitution.
It is scandalous that opposition MPs in Guyana, with their eyes wide open, have decided that a man facing serious criminal charges by the American Government will soon be sworn in as Guyana’s LOO. All those who vote for Azrudin Mohamed to be the LOO themselves ought to be sanctioned.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Leslie Ramsammy