🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal ruling, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a guilty verdict of providing false statements to a legislative panel.

In February, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses connected with his management of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had admitted to giving false testimony in parliament.

During a brief hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge stated that the evidence presented supported Singh's guilty verdict.

Leader's Response

Singh, who leads 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 after 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 keep working for Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

The Underlying Saga

The controversy originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had seen police misbehave towards a survivor.

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" despite knowing it was a lie.

Khan has since resigned from both the party and parliament. She was fined S$35,000 for perjury and abusing her parliamentary privilege.

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 maintained his innocence throughout the trial, countered that he had wanted to allow Khan space to handle what was a sensitive issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel argued that the lower 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 questioned why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" 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 state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's lack of action, alongside other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to come clean.

Wider Implications

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

Observers have previously accused Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to target its rivals—charges that the government have consistently denied.

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