🔗 Share this article

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

In February, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses related to his handling 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 judge ruled that the evidence presented justified Singh's guilty verdict.

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who heads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the decision 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 remarked to the press.

Despite the conviction, Singh retains his seat in parliament and stated his intention to continue serving Singaporeans together with his party members.

Background of the Case

The entire episode originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed police misbehave towards a survivor.

She later confessed her anecdote was untrue, but testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, such as 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 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 clarify her lie.

Singh, who maintained his innocence throughout the trial, countered that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's lawyer argued that the initial court had "ignored crucial pieces of evidence" in its initial judgment.

The defense also attempted to question the reliability of Khan and her assistants, who provided testimony.

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 stated that he had other pressing commitments to manage.

The state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's inaction, alongside other evidence, demonstrated he never intended for Khan to tell the truth.

Wider Implications

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 using the judiciary to pursue its rivals—allegations that the government have always rejected.

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