🔗 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 connected with his handling of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had admitted to giving false testimony in parliament.

During a short hearing before a packed public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge stated that the evidence presented upheld Singh's guilty verdict.

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who leads the main opposition Workers' Party, expressed that he was "disheartened" 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 commented to reporters.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh retains his parliamentary seat and affirmed his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

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

She later confessed her anecdote was fabricated, but stated during a official inquiry that party leaders, including 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.

Judicial Reasoning

In February, the court determined that Singh's actions were "highly suggestive" 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 handle what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

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

The defense also sought to cast doubt on the credibility of Khan and her assistants, who served as witnesses.

When asked why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan confess in the weeks following his discovery of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other urgent professional and personal matters 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 significant as one of the rare criminal convictions against a sitting opposition lawmaker.

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

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