🔗 Share this article

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

In February, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses related to his handling 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 stated that the evidence presented supported Singh's conviction.

Leader's Response

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

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

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh retains his seat in parliament and stated his commitment to continue serving Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

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

She later confessed her anecdote was fabricated, but testified during a official inquiry that party leaders, such as Singh, had advised her to "continue with the narrative" despite knowing it was a lie.

Khan has since resigned from both the party and parliament. She was fined S$35,000 for lying and abusing her parliamentary privilege.

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 throughout the trial, argued that he had wanted to give Khan time to handle what was a sensitive issue.

Points Contested

During the appeal hearing, Singh's lawyer argued that the initial court had "overlooked key proof" in its initial judgment.

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

When asked why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan own up in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer stated that he had other pressing commitments to manage.

The state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's lack of action, alongside other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to tell the truth.

Broader Context

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

Observers have previously accused Singapore's government of using the judiciary 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 occupies 12 out of 99 seats.