🔗 Share this article

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

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

During a brief hearing before a packed 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 political opposition, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the decision but accepted it "completely and unequivocally".

He settled his fines at the courthouse following the hearing. "It's best to settle this now," he commented to reporters.

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

Background of the Case

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

She later confessed her anecdote was fabricated, 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 stepped down 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 ruled that Singh's actions were "strongly indicative" that he did not want Khan to clarify her lie.

Singh, who maintained his innocence during the entire proceedings, countered that he had wanted to allow Khan space to handle what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the November court session, Singh's legal counsel contended that the lower court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its original ruling.

The defense also sought to cast doubt on the credibility of Khan and her aides, who provided testimony.

When asked 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 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.

Wider Implications

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 pursue its rivals—allegations that the government have consistently denied.

The Workers' Party is the sole rival group in Singapore's current parliament, where it holds 12 out of 99 seats.