🔗 Share this article

In a notable court decision, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a guilty verdict of providing false statements to a parliamentary committee.

Earlier this year, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two offenses connected with 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 presiding judge ruled that the evidence presented supported Singh's guilty verdict.

Leader's Response

Singh, who leads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disheartened" with the decision but acknowledged it "fully and without reservation".

He settled his fines at the court complex following the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he commented to reporters.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his parliamentary seat and stated his commitment to continue serving Singaporeans together with his party members.

The Underlying Saga

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

She later admitted her anecdote was fabricated, but testified during a parliamentary committee investigation that party leaders, including Singh, had advised her to "stick to the story" despite knowing it was a lie.

Khan has since stepped down from both the party and parliament. She was penalized S$35,000 for perjury and misusing her legislative immunity.

Judicial Reasoning

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

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

The Appeal Arguments

During the November court session, Singh's lawyer contended that the lower court had "overlooked key proof" in its original ruling.

The defense also attempted to question the credibility of Khan and her aides, who served as witnesses.

When asked why Singh appeared to be "taking no action" to have Khan confess in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer stated that he had other urgent professional and personal matters to attend to.

The prosecution, however, argued that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, demonstrated he never wanted Khan to come clean.

Broader Context

Singh's case is notable as one of the very few criminal convictions against a sitting opposition lawmaker.

Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of leveraging the courts to target its rivals—charges that authorities have consistently denied.

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