🔗 Share this article

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

In February, Singh was fined S$14,000 for two charges related to his handling of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had admitted to giving false testimony in parliament.

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

Reaction from the Accused

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

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

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 asserted in parliament that she had witnessed police act inappropriately towards a survivor.

She later admitted her anecdote was untrue, but stated during a parliamentary committee investigation 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 resigned from both the party and parliament. She was fined S$35,000 for perjury and misusing her legislative immunity.

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 protested his innocence throughout the trial, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space to deal with what was a delicate issue.

Points Contested

During the November court session, Singh's lawyer contended that the initial court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its initial judgment.

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

When asked why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan own up in the weeks following his discovery of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to manage.

The prosecution, however, maintained that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, demonstrated he never intended for Khan to come clean.

Broader Context

Singh's case is notable 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 rivals—charges that the government have always rejected.

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