🔗 Share this article

In a major legal ruling, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a guilty verdict of lying to a legislative panel.

In February, 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 short hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge declared that the evidence presented supported Singh's conviction.

Leader's Response

Singh, who leads the main opposition Workers' Party, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the ruling but acknowledged it "completely and unequivocally".

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

Despite the conviction, Singh retains his parliamentary seat and stated his intention to continue serving Singaporeans together with his party members.

The Underlying Saga

The entire episode originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan asserted in parliament that she had seen police act inappropriately towards a sexual assault victim.

She later confessed her anecdote was untrue, but stated during a official inquiry that party leaders, including 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 lying 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 protested his innocence throughout the trial, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space to deal with what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel contended that the initial court had "overlooked key proof" in its original ruling.

The defense also sought to cast doubt on the credibility of Khan and her aides, who served as witnesses.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" 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, demonstrated he never wanted Khan to come clean.

Wider Implications

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

Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to target its rivals—charges that authorities have always rejected.

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