You might have seen it pop up on your feed. Then disappear. Then come back as screenshots, hot takes, and kopi-tiam debates.
Yes, we’re talking about that Pritam Singh interview that CNA quietly took down. The reason? Possible contempt of court. Sounds very chim, right? Relax. Let’s break it down slowly, clearly, and without law school trauma. Even a five-year-old could roughly get it. Probably.
So before your feed fully rots into dance trends and unskippable ads, here’s what actually happened.
What Happened, Very Quickly (But Not Too Quickly)
CNA has this solid show called The Assembly. The concept is simple but powerful. A group of neurodivergent individuals interview a well-known Singaporean. No filters. No fluff. Just honest questions.
I’ve watched every episode. They’re good. Very good.
But let’s be real for a second.
The best CNA shows? Anything with Steven Chia. Absolute legend. End of discussion. I still want to be like him when I grow up. I’m 76 this year, by the way. Long story.
Anyway.
On 5 November 2025, CNA aired an episode featuring Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition. Overall, it was a solid episode. Interesting questions. Thoughtful answers. All very civilised.
However, one sentence jumped out and refused to sit quietly.
“At the end of the day, the court of public opinion can be a bigger court than any court in the world.”
That line? That’s where things got spicy.
Why That One Sentence Became a Big Deal
Here’s the important context.
Earlier in the year, Pritam Singh had been convicted of lying to a parliamentary select committee. He appealed against that conviction.
Now here’s the key timeline detail, so don’t blink.
- 4 November 2025: His appeal hearing took place.
No judgement yet. The judge said, “I’ll decide later.” - 5 November 2025: The interview aired.
Yes, the interview was recorded earlier, back in July.
But airing date still matters.
So the court was still deciding. The case was not over.
Then that sentence about “court of public opinion” went public.
Law Minister Edwin Tong responded strongly. He called the statement outrageous, plainly wrong, and completely unacceptable.
Cue the hoo-ha.
Later on:
- 4 December: The appeal was dismissed.
- 13 December: Mediacorp apologised and took down the interview after being told by the Attorney-General’s Chambers that it could be contempt of court.
- Pritam Singh also apologised for the statement.
By now, most people were asking the same thing:
“What exactly is contempt of court, and why so serious one?”
Good question. Let’s go there.
So… What Is Contempt of Court?
Don’t worry. No Latin. No wigs. Very simple version only.
In general, contempt of court falls into two main types.
1. Disobeying the Court
This one is very straightforward.
Imagine this.
I sue Gong Bee Lan because she keeps sneaking into my kitchen to eat my ngoh hiang. I win the case. Justice is served. Literally.
The judge issues a court order saying:
“Gong Bee Lan cannot enter this kitchen.”
But Gong Bee Lan says, “Aiya, order only what,” and still comes in to eat my ngoh hiang anyway.
That’s contempt of court.
Why? Because she knowingly disobeyed a court order. Simple.
2. Influencing a Court Case
This one is trickier and more relevant here.
Let’s say the ngoh hiang case is still ongoing. No judgement yet.
Suddenly, my wife goes on social media and posts:
“I’ve eaten that ngoh hiang before. Taste like paper wrapped in sand. Obviously Gong Bee Lan didn’t steal it to eat. She probably fed it to dogs. Dogs are evil.”
Now pause.
That kind of statement could influence public opinion. It might even affect how the case is seen.
If she has evidence, she should say it in court, under oath. Not just drop hot takes online.
Doing that outside court? That can be contempt of court, because it interferes with the legal process.
“So Can We Talk About Court Cases or Not?”
Relax. You won’t get arrested for gossiping at the coffeeshop.
But there’s a concept called sub judice contempt.
Basically, when a case is still ongoing, public statements that could influence the outcome are a problem. Especially if they come from people with influence.
There’s also another category.
Scandalising the Court (Yes, That’s a Real Thing)
This one sounds dramatic because it is.
It refers to actions or statements that make people think the courts are biased, useless, or unfair. In other words, anything that undermines public confidence in the justice system.
Think statements that suggest:
- The courts don’t matter
- Judges cannot be trusted
- Public opinion is more important than legal judgement
Now hold that thought.
How This Connects to the Pritam Singh Interview
At the time the interview aired, the appeal judgement was not out yet.
So discussing the issue publicly was already sensitive.
Then the statement about the “court of public opinion” came across, to some, as suggesting that public opinion matters more than the actual courts.
That’s where the concern comes in.
It could be seen as:
- Influencing an ongoing case
- Or undermining the authority and integrity of the courts
Does it automatically mean it was contempt of court? Not for us to decide.
But it was serious enough for the Attorney-General’s Chambers to step in, and for CNA to take the interview down and apologise.
That alone tells you how carefully Singapore treats this issue.
My Take
Here’s my personal view.
Wah lau eh… It’s a harmless interview between special needs boys and girls and Pritam…. I feel that they can relax a bit.
At the same time, media today moves fast. Interviews are recorded months earlier. Context gets lost. One sentence can go viral while the nuance disappears.
This whole episode feels like a reminder. Words matter. Timing matters. Platforms matter.
Especially when legal proceedings are still ongoing.
You can debate, disagree, and even criticise. But when the courts are involved, there’s a line. Cross it, and things escalate very quickly.
Contempt of court isn’t about silencing people. It’s about protecting fairness while justice is still being decided.
So next time you see a headline disappear, don’t just assume conspiracy. Sometimes, it’s just the law doing what it’s supposed to do.
And no, please don’t get legal advice from random cats on the internet. Very cute, but not recommended.
