🔗 Share this article

In a major legal ruling, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a guilty verdict of providing false statements to a parliamentary committee.

In February, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two charges connected with his management of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had confessed to lying in parliament.

During a short hearing before a packed public gallery on Friday, the judge stated that the evidence presented upheld Singh's guilty verdict.

Leader's Response

Singh, who leads the main opposition Workers' Party, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the ruling but accepted it "fully and without reservation".

He promptly paid his fines at the courthouse following the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he commented to reporters.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh retains his seat in parliament and stated his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

Background of the Case

The controversy originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan asserted in parliament that she had witnessed police act inappropriately towards a survivor.

She later confessed her anecdote was untrue, but testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, such as Singh, had advised her to "continue with the narrative" even though they were aware it was a lie.

Khan has since stepped down from both the party and parliament. She was fined S$35,000 for perjury and abusing her parliamentary privilege.

Judicial Reasoning

In February, the court determined that Singh's actions were "strongly indicative" that he did not want Khan to correct the falsehood.

Singh, who maintained his innocence throughout the trial, countered that he had wanted to allow Khan space to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

Points Contested

During the appeal hearing, Singh's lawyer contended that the initial court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its original ruling.

The defense also attempted to question the credibility of Khan and her aides, who provided testimony.

When asked why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan confess in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer stated that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to attend to.

The state's attorneys, however, maintained that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to come clean.

Broader Context

Singh's case is notable as one of the rare criminal convictions against a current opposition parliamentarian.

Observers have previously accused Singapore's government of using the judiciary to target its political opponents—charges that the government have consistently denied.

The Workers' Party is the only opposition party in Singapore's present legislature, where it holds 12 out of 99 seats.