🔗 Share this article

In a major court decision, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a guilty verdict of lying to a legislative panel.

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

During a short hearing before a packed public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge declared that the evidence presented upheld Singh's guilty verdict.

Leader's Response

Singh, who heads the main opposition Workers' Party, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the ruling but accepted it "fully and without reservation".

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

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

The Underlying Saga

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

She later admitted her account was untrue, but stated during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, including Singh, had advised her to "stick to the story" despite knowing 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.

Court's Rationale

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

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.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel contended that the lower court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its initial judgment.

The defense also attempted to question the reliability of Khan and her aides, who served as witnesses.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan confess in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to attend to.

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

Wider Implications

Singh's case is significant as one of the very few criminal convictions against a current opposition parliamentarian.

Observers have in the past alleged Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to pursue its political opponents—allegations that authorities have always rejected.

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