🔗 Share this article

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

Earlier this year, 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 brief hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the judge ruled that the evidence presented supported Singh's guilty verdict.

Reaction from the Accused

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

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

Despite the conviction, Singh keeps his seat in parliament and stated his commitment to continue serving Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

The entire episode originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed police act inappropriately towards a survivor.

She later admitted her anecdote was untrue, but testified during a official inquiry that party leaders, such as Singh, had advised 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 penalized S$35,000 for lying and abusing her parliamentary privilege.

Judicial Reasoning

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.

The Appeal Arguments

During the November court session, Singh's lawyer argued that the lower court had "overlooked key proof" in its original ruling.

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

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan confess in the weeks following his discovery of her lie, his lawyer stated 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, proved he never intended for Khan to come clean.

Wider Implications

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

Critics have in the past alleged Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to pursue its rivals—charges that the government have always rejected.

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