🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal ruling, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a conviction of providing false statements to a parliamentary committee.

Earlier this year, Singh was fined S$14,000 for two charges related to his management 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 presiding judge stated that the evidence presented supported Singh's conviction.

Reaction from the Accused

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

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

Despite the conviction, Singh keeps his parliamentary seat and stated his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

Background of the Case

The entire episode began in 2021 when Raeesah Khan asserted in parliament that she had witnessed police misbehave towards a sexual assault victim.

She later admitted her anecdote was fabricated, but testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, such as Singh, had instructed 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 misusing her legislative immunity.

Court's Rationale

In February, the court determined 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 allow Khan space to handle what was a delicate issue.

Points Contested

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

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

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

The state's attorneys, however, maintained that Singh's inaction, alongside other evidence, demonstrated he never wanted Khan to tell the truth.

Wider Implications

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

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

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