🔗 Share this article

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

In February, Singh was fined S$14,000 for two offenses related to his handling of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had confessed to lying in parliament.

During a brief hearing before a packed public gallery on Friday, the judge declared that the evidence presented justified Singh's conviction.

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who heads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the ruling but acknowledged it "fully and without reservation".

He settled his fines at the court complex following the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he commented to the press.

Despite the conviction, Singh keeps his seat in parliament and affirmed his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans together with his party members.

Background of the Case

The controversy originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed police misbehave towards a sexual assault victim.

She later admitted her anecdote was fabricated, but testified during a official inquiry that party leaders, such as Singh, had instructed 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 fined S$35,000 for lying 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, argued that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel contended that the initial court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its initial judgment.

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

When asked why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan confess in the weeks following his discovery of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other pressing commitments to manage.

The state's attorneys, however, maintained that Singh's inaction, alongside other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to come clean.

Wider Implications

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

Observers have in the past alleged Singapore's government of using the judiciary to pursue its rivals—allegations that the government have always rejected.

The Workers' Party is the sole rival group in Singapore's present legislature, where it occupies 12 out of 99 seats.