🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal ruling, Singapore's main political rival Pritam Singh has failed in his challenge against a conviction of providing false statements to a parliamentary committee.

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

During a brief hearing before a packed public gallery on Friday, the judge declared 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 ruling but acknowledged it "completely and unequivocally".

He promptly paid 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 keeps his seat in parliament and stated his intention to continue serving Singaporeans alongside his party members.

The Underlying Saga

The entire episode began in 2021 when Raeesah Khan asserted in parliament that she had witnessed police act inappropriately towards a sexual assault victim.

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

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 deal with what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's lawyer contended that the lower court had "overlooked key proof" in its initial judgment.

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

When asked 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 pressing commitments to manage.

The state's attorneys, however, maintained that Singh's inaction, coupled with other evidence, proved he never intended for Khan to come clean.

Broader Context

Singh's case is significant as one of the rare criminal convictions against a current opposition parliamentarian.

Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of using the judiciary to target its rivals—charges that authorities have always rejected.

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