🔗 Share this article

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

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 short hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge declared that the evidence presented supported Singh's guilty verdict.

Reaction from the Accused

Singh, who leads the main opposition Workers' Party, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the ruling but accepted it "fully and without reservation".

He promptly paid his fines at the court complex after the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he remarked to the press.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his parliamentary seat and stated his intention to keep working for Singaporeans together with his colleagues.

The Underlying Saga

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

She later confessed her anecdote was fabricated, but testified during a official inquiry that party leaders, including Singh, had advised her to "stick to the story" even though they were aware it was a lie.

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

Court's Rationale

In February, the court ruled that Singh's actions were "highly suggestive" that he did not want Khan to clarify her lie.

Singh, who maintained his innocence during the entire proceedings, argued that he had wanted to give Khan time to handle what was a sensitive issue.

Points Contested

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

The defense also sought to cast doubt on the credibility of Khan and her assistants, who provided testimony.

When questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan confess in the weeks following his discovery of her lie, his lawyer explained that he had other pressing commitments to attend to.

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 current opposition parliamentarian.

Critics have in the past alleged Singapore's government of using the judiciary to target its rivals—allegations that authorities have always rejected.

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