🔗 Share this article

In a major legal ruling, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a guilty verdict of providing false statements to a legislative panel.

Earlier this year, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses connected with his handling of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had admitted to giving false testimony in parliament.

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

Reaction from the Accused

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

He promptly paid his fines at the courthouse after the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he remarked 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 controversy began 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 testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, such as 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.

Judicial Reasoning

In February, the court determined that Singh's actions were "strongly indicative" that he did not want Khan to correct the falsehood.

Singh, who maintained his innocence throughout the trial, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space to deal with what was a delicate issue.

Points Contested

During the November court session, Singh's lawyer contended that the initial court had "overlooked key proof" in its original ruling.

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 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 intended for 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 previously accused 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 present legislature, where it holds 12 out of 99 seats.