🔗 Share this article

In a major legal ruling, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a guilty verdict of providing false statements to a parliamentary committee.

In February, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses connected with his management of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had confessed to lying in parliament.

During a brief hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge ruled that the evidence presented justified Singh's guilty verdict.

Leader's Response

Singh, who heads 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. "It's best to settle this now," he remarked to reporters.

Despite the conviction, Singh retains his seat in parliament and stated his intention to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

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

She later confessed her account was fabricated, but testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, such as Singh, had instructed her to "stick to the story" even though they were aware it was a lie.

Khan has since resigned 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 determined that Singh's actions were "strongly indicative" that he did not want Khan to clarify her lie.

Singh, who maintained his innocence throughout the trial, argued that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

Points Contested

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel contended 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 aides, who served as witnesses.

When asked why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan confess in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer stated that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to attend to.

The state's attorneys, however, maintained that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, demonstrated he never wanted 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 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 sole rival group in Singapore's present legislature, where it holds 12 out of 99 seats.