🔗 Share this article

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

Earlier this year, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two charges connected with his handling of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had admitted to giving false testimony in parliament.

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

Leader's Response

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

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

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

The Underlying Saga

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

She later confessed her account was fabricated, but stated during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, such as Singh, had instructed her to "continue with the narrative" despite knowing it was a lie.

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

Court's Rationale

In February, the court ruled 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 handle what was a sensitive issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's lawyer contended that the initial court had "overlooked key proof" in its initial judgment.

The defense also sought to cast doubt on the credibility of Khan and her aides, who provided testimony.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan confess in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to manage.

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

Wider Implications

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

Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of using the judiciary to pursue its political opponents—charges 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.