🔗 Share this article

In a significant court decision, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a conviction of lying 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 admitted to giving false testimony in parliament.

During a short hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the judge declared that the evidence presented upheld Singh's conviction.

Leader's Response

Singh, who leads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the decision but accepted it "completely and unequivocally".

He settled his fines at the courthouse following the hearing. "It's best to settle this now," he remarked to the press.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his seat in parliament and stated his intention to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

The entire episode began in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed police misbehave towards a survivor.

She later admitted her anecdote was untrue, but stated during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, such as Singh, had instructed her to "stick to the story" despite knowing it was a lie.

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

Court's Rationale

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

Singh, who protested his innocence throughout the trial, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space 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 sought to cast doubt on the reliability of Khan and her assistants, who served as witnesses.

When questioned 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 urgent professional and personal matters to attend to.

The state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's inaction, coupled with other evidence, proved he never wanted Khan to tell the truth.

Wider Implications

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

Observers have in the past alleged Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to target its political opponents—allegations that authorities have consistently denied.

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