🔗 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 parliamentary committee.

Earlier this year, Singh was fined S$14,000 for two offenses related to his management of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had confessed to lying in parliament.

During a brief hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the 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 "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 the press.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his parliamentary seat and affirmed his commitment to continue serving Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

Background of the Case

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

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

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

Judicial Reasoning

In February, the court determined that Singh's actions were "strongly indicative" that he did not want Khan to correct the falsehood.

Singh, who maintained his innocence throughout the trial, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

The Appeal Arguments

During the appeal hearing, Singh's legal counsel 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 questioned 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 prosecution, however, maintained that Singh's inaction, alongside other evidence, demonstrated he never wanted Khan to tell the truth.

Wider Implications

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

Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to pursue its rivals—charges that the government have always rejected.

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