🔗 Share this article

In a major court decision, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a conviction of providing false statements to a legislative panel.

In February, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two charges related to 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 ruled that the evidence presented upheld Singh's guilty verdict.

Reaction from the Accused

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

He settled his fines at the court complex following the hearing. "It's best to settle this now," he commented to the press.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh retains his seat in parliament and affirmed his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

The Underlying Saga

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

She later admitted her anecdote was fabricated, 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 resigned 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 "strongly indicative" that he did not want Khan to correct the falsehood.

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

Points Contested

During the November court session, Singh's lawyer argued that the initial court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its original ruling.

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 own up 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, argued that Singh's inaction, alongside other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to tell the truth.

Broader Context

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 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.