🔗 Share this article

In a major court decision, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a conviction of lying to a legislative panel.

In February, Singh was fined S$14,000 for two offenses related to his management 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 judge ruled that the evidence presented upheld Singh's guilty verdict.

Reaction from the Accused

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

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

Despite the conviction, Singh keeps his parliamentary seat and stated his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

The entire episode originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed 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" 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 lying 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 during the entire proceedings, countered that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the November court session, 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 aides, who served as witnesses.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan confess in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to manage.

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

Broader Context

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

Critics have in the past alleged 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 current parliament, where it holds 12 out of 99 seats.