Singapore Court Affirms Guilty Verdict for Political Rival Pritam Singh

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

In February, Singh was ordered to pay S$14,000 for two charges connected with his management of former lawmaker Raeesah Khan, who had confessed to lying in parliament.

During a short hearing before a full public gallery on Friday, the presiding judge ruled that the evidence presented supported Singh's conviction.

Leader's Response

Singh, who heads the main opposition Workers' Party, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the decision but acknowledged 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 reporters.

Despite the conviction, Singh retains his seat in parliament and affirmed his intention to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his party members.

Background of the Case

The entire episode originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had seen police act inappropriately towards a survivor.

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

Khan has since resigned from both the party and parliament. She was fined S$35,000 for lying 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, argued that he had wanted to allow Khan space to deal with what was a delicate issue.

The Appeal Arguments

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

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

When asked why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" 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 state's attorneys, however, argued that Singh's lack of action, coupled with other evidence, proved 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 pursue 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.