🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal ruling, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a guilty verdict of lying to a legislative panel.

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

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

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who leads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the ruling but acknowledged it "fully and without reservation".

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

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh retains his seat in parliament and stated his intention to continue serving Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

The Underlying Saga

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

She later confessed her account was untrue, but stated during a official inquiry that party leaders, such as Singh, had instructed her to "stick to the story" despite knowing it was a lie.

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

Court's Rationale

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

Singh, who maintained his innocence during the entire proceedings, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space to handle 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 original ruling.

The defense also attempted to question the reliability 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 stated that he had other pressing commitments to manage.

The state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to tell the truth.

Broader Context

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

Critics have in the past alleged Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to target its rivals—allegations that the government have consistently denied.

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