Reception
Unlike in some other Westminster-derived parliaments, where the Leader of the Opposition is conventionally the leader of the largest non-government party, the Singapore arrangement differs in both form and basis. In the United Kingdom, the Leader of the Opposition leads the opposition in the House of Commons; in Australia, the officeholder leads the opposition in the Australian House of Representatives. In these systems, the position arises from electoral outcomes and party leadership, rather than executive designation.
By contrast, the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore is formally designated by the Prime Minister. This marks a departure from the earlier de facto practice in Singapore, which had followed Westminster convention without formal appointment, and means that the office does not automatically accrue to the leader of the largest opposition party. Observers have noted that this represents a departure from traditional Westminster practice, giving the head of government a formal role in determining who leads the opposition within Parliament. [12]
Opposition parties have publicly criticised this arrangement. In a media statement issued in January 2026, the Workers' Party stated that, in Westminster systems, the Leader of the Opposition is conventionally extended to the leader of the largest opposition party or determined by the opposition itself. It further argued that the position arises from electoral success at the ballot box, and that in other Westminster systems the office is established by law rather than being the prerogative of the government of the day, expressing what it described as the authority and sanctity of the people’s vote. [13]
Similar concerns were raised by the Progress Singapore Party. The party stated that the office of the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore remains a position in the gift of the Prime Minister, and that it has not been institutionalised within the Standing Orders of Parliament or the Constitution. The PSP argued that this was inconsistent with conventions in other Westminster parliaments, and that the Leader of the Opposition should instead be chosen by opposition Members of Parliament, with eligibility conditions determined by Parliament rather than the executive. [14] [15]
Commentators have suggested that, in a Parliament dominated by a single supermajority, the discretionary nature of the appointment opens the office to political manoeuvring. In January 2026, following the removal of Pritam Singh from the position by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong of the governing People's Action Party, political analyst Felix Tan observed that the WP could choose to leave the office vacant, characterising such a move as signalling that the party continued to value both the role and Singh, while framing the removal as “a clear demonstration of partisan politics”. WP chairperson Sylvia Lim similarly described the episode as a “party political exercise”. [12]
After deliberation, the Workers’ Party rejected the invitation to nominate a replacement, stating that the leader of the largest opposition party in Parliament was, by convention, the leader of the opposition. [5] The Prime Minister’s Office subsequently announced that the position would remain vacant until the party was prepared to nominate a candidate, reinforcing debate over whether the current structure entrenches executive discretion or normalises political opposition within Singapore’s parliamentary system. [16]
Singaporeportal 
