🔗 Share this article

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

Earlier this year, 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 brief hearing before a packed public gallery on Friday, the judge stated that the evidence presented justified Singh's conviction.

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who heads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the ruling but acknowledged it "fully and without reservation".

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

Despite the conviction, Singh retains his parliamentary seat and affirmed his intention to keep working for Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

The Underlying Saga

The controversy began in 2021 when Raeesah Khan asserted in parliament that she had witnessed police misbehave towards a sexual assault victim.

She later admitted her account was untrue, but testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, including Singh, had advised 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 perjury and misusing her legislative immunity.

Judicial Reasoning

In February, the court determined that Singh's actions were "highly suggestive" that he did not want Khan to clarify her lie.

Singh, who protested his innocence during the entire proceedings, countered 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 "overlooked key proof" in its initial judgment.

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

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 explained that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to attend to.

The state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's inaction, coupled with other evidence, demonstrated he never wanted Khan to tell the truth.

Broader Context

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

Critics have in the past alleged 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 current parliament, where it occupies 12 out of 99 seats.