🔗 Share this article

In a significant court decision, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a conviction of lying to a parliamentary committee.

In February, Singh was fined S$14,000 for two offenses 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 declared that the evidence presented justified Singh's guilty verdict.

Leader's Response

Singh, who leads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the decision but acknowledged it "completely and unequivocally".

He settled his fines at the court complex after the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he remarked to the press.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his parliamentary seat and stated his commitment to continue serving Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

The Underlying Saga

The entire episode 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 fabricated, but stated during a official inquiry that party leaders, including Singh, had advised her to "continue with the narrative" despite knowing it was a lie.

Khan has since stepped down 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 protested his innocence during the entire proceedings, countered that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

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

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

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan own up in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to attend to.

The state's attorneys, however, maintained that Singh's inaction, alongside other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to tell the truth.

Wider Implications

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

Critics have in the past alleged Singapore's government of using the judiciary to target its political opponents—allegations that the government have consistently denied.

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