🔗 Share this article

In a major legal ruling, 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 admitted to giving false testimony in parliament.

During a short hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge stated that the evidence presented justified Singh's conviction.

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who heads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the ruling but accepted it "completely and unequivocally".

He promptly paid his fines at the courthouse following the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he remarked to reporters.

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

Background of the Case

The entire episode originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan asserted in parliament that she had witnessed police act inappropriately towards a survivor.

She later confessed her account was untrue, but stated during a official inquiry that party leaders, such as Singh, had instructed 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.

Judicial Reasoning

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

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

Points Contested

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel argued that the lower court had "overlooked key proof" in its original ruling.

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

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan own up in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer stated that he had other pressing commitments to attend to.

The prosecution, however, maintained that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, demonstrated 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 rivals—charges 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.