š Share this article Judicial Body Upholds Conviction for Political Rival Pritam Singh Pritam Singh attended a hearing in November to appeal against his guilty verdict. In a significant legal ruling, Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a conviction of lying to a parliamentary committee. Earlier this year, Singh was fined S$14,000 for two charges related to his management 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 declared that the evidence presented justified Singh's guilty verdict. Leader's Response Singh, who heads the main political opposition, expressed that he was "disappointed" with the ruling but acknowledged it "fully and without reservation". He settled his fines at the courthouse following the hearing. "Might as well get it done," he remarked to reporters. Notwithstanding the verdict, Singh keeps his seat in parliament and affirmed his commitment to keep working for Singaporeans alongside his party members. The Underlying Saga The entire episode originated in 2021 when Raeesah Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed police act inappropriately towards a survivor. She later admitted her account 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 resigned from both the party and parliament. She was fined S$35,000 for lying and misusing her legislative immunity. Judicial Reasoning In February, the court ruled 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 give Khan time to deal with what was a sensitive issue. Points Contested During the November court session, Singh's legal counsel contended that the initial 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 questioned why Singh appeared to be "doing nothing" to have Khan own up in the weeks after learning of her lie, his lawyer stated that he had other pressing commitments to manage. 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 notable as one of the very few criminal convictions against a current opposition parliamentarian. Critics have previously accused Singapore's government of using the judiciary to pursue its political opponentsācharges that the government have consistently denied. The Workers' Party is the sole rival group in Singapore's current parliament, where it holds 12 out of 99 seats.