Parliament Drama: Pritam Singh’s Sudden Exit Leaves Everyone Confused
The Moment That Got Everyone Talking
Parliament was at it again on Tuesday, November 29, when Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh turned the ordinary day into something that would soon become a viral sensation. The way he did it? A dramatic thump on his armrest, followed by a hasty exit straight from the chamber.
What Triggered the Rush?
It wasn’t the usual business. Pritam’s departure happened just after He Ting Ru finished her passionate speech on the repeal of section 377A. The timing felt oddly timed to many watching from the back of the house.
The Reactions Inside the Chamber
- Vikram Nair and Jessica Tan, both sat next to Pritam, looked up in a mix of surprise and curiosity.
- Speaker Tan Chuan‑Jin paused like a drummer hitting a beat before calling on NMP Tan Yia Swam to speak.
How the Internet Reacted
Once word got out, social media blew up. Hardware Zone, Reddit, and TikTok were instantly filled with countless videos and comments. The internet threw out all kinds of wild theories.
- One angle: maybe Pritam was outraged by He Ting Ru’s words.
- Another: The armrest thump is a cheeky sign of approval—but why did it look so “buey song” (a harsh Hokkien verdict of annoyance) to observers?
- Some folks started joke‑theories about secret negotiations, invisible monkeys, or a sudden urge to chase a train.
A Quick Glimpse of the Viral Buzz
Imagine dozens of MPs filming the scene, watching the armrest thump as the decisive moment, and scrubbing memories of paperwork to remember how they felt that day: stunned, amused, or just plain baffled.
Conclusion
What started as an ordinary procedural session turned into a story that spread faster than a meme. Whether Pritam Singh’s exit was a protest, a prank, or just a sudden sense of “I need to go now,” the Parliament floor witnessed a moment that even fired up the politics‑dedicated fans worldwide.
Man’s Quick‑Time Bathroom Break Gets Social‑Media Spin
When the crowd was buzzing, a surprising detour hit the stage— a rapid toilet break, followed by a clumsy apology to an MLA.
What Happened?
On a DJ‑lit evening, the speaker (Pritam) filmed a brief pause in the event’s final act:
- “Toilet break!”—a candid, on‑stage confession.
- He added a humorous twist: “After thumping on my arm rest loudly in approval of MP He Ting Ru’s speech…”
- And did the classic polite move—apologizing to MP Jessica Tan for startling her.
Why It’s a Meme‑Ready Moment
Picture this: the audience in awe, the speaker bows for a quick flush, the lights flash, the crowd waits—
- “Argh, that’s the “mandatory pause” everyone goes for before the encore.”
- “Too good to be true? No, because there’s even a formal apology!”
His Facebook comment turned an ordinary bathroom trip into a full‑blown public storyline.
Who’s Really Playing the Whip Game?
Pritam Singh, the spirited voice of the Workers’ Party, took the floor on Tuesday and didn’t mince words. He told Parliament that his party would lift the parliamentary whip for any debates or votes on Section 377A. The goal? Let every WP MP cast a free‑floating vote and stand up for Singaporeans who see this issue through a lens of deep religious belief and conscience.
The “Free‑Vote” Gist
- “If we keep the whip tight, WP MPs that oppose a repeal will be stuck half‑frozen, unable to vote as they truly wish,” Pritam said.
- “And we’d be denying them—and the folks who care about 377A—an honest chance to make their voices heard.”
The sentiment was clear: Freedom to flex and express differing stances, no matter how divinely driven.
Shanmugam’s Counter‑Punch
Enter K. Shanmugam, the flamboyant Minister for Law, who threw a polite but firm rebuttal. He called Pritam’s claim “factually untrue” and said the real deal was that the WP simply didn’t want to commit to a party position—neither championing nor banning Section 377A.
- “The point is, we’re flipping the script by going against a bon‑fide stand, not by being opinionated ourselves.”
- “We’ve shielded the party from picking a side—so you’ll see no whipped‑up division.”
It’s a subtle tug‑of‑war between wanting a democratic vote and staying neutral, all wrapped in a friendly parliamentary debate.
Why This Matters
In Singapore’s tight‑knit social fabric, the stance on Section 377A is more than a legal question; it’s about how believers align with law, how the progressive-minded view moral authority, and how MPs balance personal conscience with representation.
In short, the ongoing chatter signals that this issue will keep throbbing in the public’s heads—and in Parliament’s halls—for a while.
