🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal ruling, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a conviction of lying to a parliamentary committee.

Earlier this year, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses connected with his handling 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 supported Singh's conviction.

Leader's Response

Singh, who leads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the ruling 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 remarked to reporters.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his seat in parliament and stated his commitment to continue serving Singaporeans alongside 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 survivor.

She later admitted her anecdote was untrue, but testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, including 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 perjury and abusing her parliamentary privilege.

Judicial Reasoning

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 give Khan time to handle what was a sensitive issue.

The Appeal Arguments

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

The defense also attempted to question the reliability of Khan and her assistants, who provided testimony.

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

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

Broader Context

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

Observers have previously accused Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to target its political opponents—allegations that the government have always rejected.

The Workers' Party is the only opposition party in Singapore's current parliament, where it occupies 12 out of 99 seats.