🔗 Share this article

In a notable court decision, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a guilty verdict of providing false statements to a legislative panel.

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

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

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who leads the main opposition Workers' Party, 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. "It's best to settle this now," he commented to reporters.

Despite the conviction, Singh keeps his seat in parliament and stated his intention to continue serving Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

Background of the Case

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

She later confessed her account was fabricated, but testified during a official inquiry that party leaders, including 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 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 give Khan time to deal with what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the November court session, Singh's legal counsel argued 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 aides, who provided testimony.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" 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 inaction, coupled with other evidence, proved he never wanted Khan to tell the truth.

Broader Context

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

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

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