🔗 Share this article

In a significant court decision, Singapore's opposition leader 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 offenses connected with his management of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had confessed to lying in parliament.

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

Reaction from the Accused

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

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

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

Background of the Case

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

She later confessed her account was fabricated, but testified during a official inquiry 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 misusing her legislative immunity.

Judicial Reasoning

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

Singh, who protested 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 initial court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its initial judgment.

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

When asked why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan own up 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 lack of action, alongside other evidence, proved he never wanted Khan to come clean.

Broader Context

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 leveraging the courts to target its political opponents—allegations that the government have always rejected.

The Workers' Party is the only opposition party in Singapore's current parliament, where it occupies 12 out of 99 seats.