🔗 Share this article

In a notable court decision, 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 charges related to his management 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 guilty verdict.

Reaction from the Accused

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

He promptly paid his fines at the courthouse after the hearing. "It's best to settle this now," he commented to the press.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his parliamentary seat and stated his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his colleagues.

Background of the Case

The controversy began in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed police misbehave towards a survivor.

She later confessed her account was untrue, but stated during a official inquiry that party leaders, including Singh, had advised her to "stick to the story" despite knowing it was a lie.

Khan has since stepped down from both the party and parliament. She was fined S$35,000 for perjury and misusing her legislative immunity.

Court's Rationale

In February, the court ruled 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, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel contended that the initial court had "overlooked key proof" in its original ruling.

The defense also sought to cast doubt on the reliability of Khan and her assistants, who served as witnesses.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan confess in the weeks following his discovery of her lie, his lawyer stated that he had other pressing commitments to manage.

The prosecution, however, maintained that Singh's inaction, alongside other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to come clean.

Wider Implications

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

Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to target its rivals—allegations that authorities have consistently denied.

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