🔗 Share this article

In a major legal ruling, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a guilty verdict of providing false statements to a parliamentary committee.

Earlier this year, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses 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 declared that the evidence presented supported Singh's guilty verdict.

Leader's Response

Singh, who heads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the decision but acknowledged it "completely and unequivocally".

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

Despite the conviction, Singh retains his seat in parliament and stated his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

The entire episode began in 2021 when Raeesah Khan asserted in parliament that she had seen police act inappropriately towards a survivor.

She later confessed her anecdote was fabricated, but stated during a official inquiry that party leaders, including Singh, had advised her to "stick to the story" even though they were aware it was a lie.

Khan has since stepped down from both the party and parliament. She was penalized S$35,000 for lying and misusing her legislative immunity.

Judicial Reasoning

In February, the court ruled that Singh's actions were "highly suggestive" that he did not want Khan to clarify her lie.

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

The Appeal Arguments

During the November court session, Singh's legal counsel contended that the lower court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its original ruling.

The defense also attempted to question the reliability of Khan and her aides, who served as witnesses.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan confess in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other pressing commitments to attend to.

The state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, demonstrated he never intended for Khan to tell the truth.

Wider Implications

Singh's case is significant as one of the very few criminal convictions against a sitting opposition lawmaker.

Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to pursue its rivals—charges that authorities have consistently denied.

The Workers' Party is the sole rival group in Singapore's current parliament, where it holds 12 out of 99 seats.