SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh is set to appeal against his conviction and sentence for lying to a parliamentary committee on Nov 4.
The Workers' Party (WP) secretary-general was given a total fine of S$14,000 (US$10,800) in February this year for two charges stemming from how he dealt with a lie told by then-party member Raeesah Khan.
Key moments of the widely publicised trial included Ms Khan's turn on the stand to a brief appearance by WP stalwart Low Thia Khiang, to Singh's own testimony.
On Feb 17 this year, Singh was found guilty at the conclusion of the trial and received the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each of the two charges of lying to parliament over false testimonies he gave to a parliamentary privileges committee.
On the same day, he told reporters outside the State Courts that he will appeal the decision.
More than two years after the Committee of Privileges looking into Ms Khan's case said that Singh and then WP vice-chair Faisal Manap had been "untruthful in their evidence under oath", Singh was charged in March 2024. He pleaded not guilty.
The saga centred around Ms Khan, who lied in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station where the police allegedly made unsavoury remarks about the victim.
When questioned about it again in parliament by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, Ms Khan doubled down on her lie.
She eventually delivered a statement in parliament on Nov 1, 2021 confessing that her rape victim anecdote was false.
The committee was convened to look into what happened. Ms Khan, Singh and other WP party leaders testified at its hearing, which spanned several days.
In its final report in February 2022, the committee recommended that both Singh and Mr Faisal be referred to the public prosecutor for further investigations.
Mr Faisal was issued a police advisory but not charged.
Singh's trial opened at the State Courts on Oct 14, 2024. He was defended by lawyers Mr Andre Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Eng from a boutique law firm.
The prosecution brought in heavyweight Deputy-Attorney General Ang Cheng Hock, who later cross-examined Singh on the stand. Mr Ang was appointed a judge of the High Court in May 2025 and a justice of the Court of Appeal in October 2025.
Witnesses who testified for the prosecution included Ms Khan, her former assistants Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan and former WP chief Low Thia Khiang.
The prosecution argued that Singh had guided Ms Khan to maintain her lie, and Ms Khan testified on Oct 15, 2024 that she felt "very defeated and betrayed".
She said she felt the people she trusted the most had "turned around" and used a disciplinary panel comprising WP leaders Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal to criticise her.
When Singh's lawyer Mr Jumabhoy cross-examined Ms Khan on the stand, he called her a "liar" who tells lies "non-stop".
On Oct 17, 2024, when Ms Khan's former secretarial assistant Ms Loh took the stand, she talked about her unhappiness at how the issue was handled, as well as how Singh knew about the lies early on.
When grilled by Mr Jumabhoy, she admitted that she also had lied during the committee's probe by hiding a message from party member Mr Nathan. Mr Nathan has suggested that they should continue lying.
It was also during her cross-examination that Ms Loh admitted calling Ms Khan "naive" and like a "lao hong biscuit". The Hokkien term, that literally translates as "leak air" but can refer to something stale or gone soft, later went viral.
When it was Mr Nathan's turn on the stand, he shared about how he felt there was a "witch hunt" launched against Ms Khan to "kick her out" of the party, while Singh was getting off "scot-free".
On cross-examination by Mr Jumabhoy, Mr Nathan admitted to wanting Ms Raeesah Khan to lie more as the party did not have a “suitable plan” for coming clean.
On Oct 23, 2024, former WP chief's Mr Low Thia Khiang's took the stand as a prosecution witness for 20 minutes, where he testified how he had advised WP leaders that Khan should apologise in parliament.
He later told reporters outside the court that voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not, describing Singh as "a good politician" who is a "capable, competent leader with a heart for Singapore and Singaporeans".
Singh testified in his own defence, but called no further witnesses.
He testified that he had difficulty understanding why Ms Khan was crying after being asked to clarify her rape anecdote, and shared about how he first met her and how she came to be selected as a candidate for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency in the 2020 General Election.
He also refuted the claims made by Ms Khan that he had told her to take the issue to the grave and explained the context behind his words "I will not judge you" to Ms Khan.
Ms Khan had said that this meant he would not judge her if she retained her narrative, which she took to mean the lie. However, Singh said he meant that he would not judge her if she took ownership and responsibility of what she did.
In his testimony, Singh said he felt shocked when Ms Khan shared with him and the WP leaders that she was raped at a younger age, how he was "very unhappy" with Ms Khan when he first learnt that she had lied in Parliament, and "incredibly disappointed" when she repeated the lie.
He locked horns with then-Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock when Mr Ang cross-examined him, charging that Singh had guided Ms Khan to maintain the untruth.
In his oral judgement, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan found that the evidence showed that Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify the anecdote.
He said that Singh's lack of guidance to Ms Khan on how to clarify the lie was consistent with his lack of desire for him to do so.
He found it difficult to accept that Singh expected Ms Khan to know, without discussing with her, the whole host of things she needed to do to clarify the lie.
Judge Tan disagreed with the defence that Singh's inaction was a "totally human response that anyone would have when they are told by another that they had been sexually assaulted", and that it was more important to show Ms Khan empathy and compassion.
"Not only was there nothing to show that (Singh's) inaction was motivated by such concerns or that there was a need to give her additional time to 'recover' or 'get over her assault' (something which happened many years before and for which she was already seeing a therapist), the fact was that Ms Khan never sought or asked for time to speak to her parents, which is something that she surely would have done had she such a need or concern," said Judge Tan.
While there was nothing to preclude Singh from following up with Ms Khan to check on her well-being on her progress or situation, the fact is that Singh "did nothing", the judge said.
While the defence sought to undermine the credibility of both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the judge also noted that he saw nothing to suggest they had lied in court, adding that they instead "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth" in this trial.
In his verdict, the judge also rapped the defence on their "backdoor attempt" to admit accounts of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal despite choosing not to call either of them as a witness for the trial.
"This backdoor attempt is clearly impermissible, as their out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence for this trial," said the judge.
He added that if the defence had wanted either of the then-WP leaders' accounts to be used to corroborate Singh's account, then they should have called them to testify under oath in the same process the prosecution witnesses were subjected to.
All of them were called to testify and the defence had the opportunity to challenge their accounts and "pose sometimes difficult and even embarrassing questions to them", noted the judge.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge, while Mr Jumabhoy asked for S$4,000 per charge.
The judge went with the prosecution's suggested sentence, agreeing that a jail term was not warranted since "no appreciable harm" was caused to Ms Khan.
Singh told the media outside the State Courts after the hearing that the verdict was "disappointing" but that he would appeal both the conviction and sentence.
Asked about the possibility that he might be forced to consider stepping down, Mr Singh replied that the need was for him "to step up, not step down".
In the May 2025 elections, WP maintained its wins over Aljunied GRC, Sengkang GRC and Hougang SMC.
Singh was successfully re-elected as a Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, with a vote share of 59.71 per cent.
The penalties for the charges of wilfully making false answers to questions material to the subject of inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
Continue reading...
The Workers' Party (WP) secretary-general was given a total fine of S$14,000 (US$10,800) in February this year for two charges stemming from how he dealt with a lie told by then-party member Raeesah Khan.
Key moments of the widely publicised trial included Ms Khan's turn on the stand to a brief appearance by WP stalwart Low Thia Khiang, to Singh's own testimony.
On Feb 17 this year, Singh was found guilty at the conclusion of the trial and received the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each of the two charges of lying to parliament over false testimonies he gave to a parliamentary privileges committee.
On the same day, he told reporters outside the State Courts that he will appeal the decision.
HOW THE TRIAL UNFOLDED
More than two years after the Committee of Privileges looking into Ms Khan's case said that Singh and then WP vice-chair Faisal Manap had been "untruthful in their evidence under oath", Singh was charged in March 2024. He pleaded not guilty.
The saga centred around Ms Khan, who lied in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station where the police allegedly made unsavoury remarks about the victim.
When questioned about it again in parliament by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, Ms Khan doubled down on her lie.
She eventually delivered a statement in parliament on Nov 1, 2021 confessing that her rape victim anecdote was false.
The committee was convened to look into what happened. Ms Khan, Singh and other WP party leaders testified at its hearing, which spanned several days.
In its final report in February 2022, the committee recommended that both Singh and Mr Faisal be referred to the public prosecutor for further investigations.
Mr Faisal was issued a police advisory but not charged.
Singh's trial opened at the State Courts on Oct 14, 2024. He was defended by lawyers Mr Andre Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Eng from a boutique law firm.
The prosecution brought in heavyweight Deputy-Attorney General Ang Cheng Hock, who later cross-examined Singh on the stand. Mr Ang was appointed a judge of the High Court in May 2025 and a justice of the Court of Appeal in October 2025.
Witnesses who testified for the prosecution included Ms Khan, her former assistants Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan and former WP chief Low Thia Khiang.
The prosecution argued that Singh had guided Ms Khan to maintain her lie, and Ms Khan testified on Oct 15, 2024 that she felt "very defeated and betrayed".
She said she felt the people she trusted the most had "turned around" and used a disciplinary panel comprising WP leaders Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal to criticise her.
When Singh's lawyer Mr Jumabhoy cross-examined Ms Khan on the stand, he called her a "liar" who tells lies "non-stop".
On Oct 17, 2024, when Ms Khan's former secretarial assistant Ms Loh took the stand, she talked about her unhappiness at how the issue was handled, as well as how Singh knew about the lies early on.
When grilled by Mr Jumabhoy, she admitted that she also had lied during the committee's probe by hiding a message from party member Mr Nathan. Mr Nathan has suggested that they should continue lying.
It was also during her cross-examination that Ms Loh admitted calling Ms Khan "naive" and like a "lao hong biscuit". The Hokkien term, that literally translates as "leak air" but can refer to something stale or gone soft, later went viral.
When it was Mr Nathan's turn on the stand, he shared about how he felt there was a "witch hunt" launched against Ms Khan to "kick her out" of the party, while Singh was getting off "scot-free".
On cross-examination by Mr Jumabhoy, Mr Nathan admitted to wanting Ms Raeesah Khan to lie more as the party did not have a “suitable plan” for coming clean.
On Oct 23, 2024, former WP chief's Mr Low Thia Khiang's took the stand as a prosecution witness for 20 minutes, where he testified how he had advised WP leaders that Khan should apologise in parliament.
He later told reporters outside the court that voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not, describing Singh as "a good politician" who is a "capable, competent leader with a heart for Singapore and Singaporeans".
Singh testified in his own defence, but called no further witnesses.
He testified that he had difficulty understanding why Ms Khan was crying after being asked to clarify her rape anecdote, and shared about how he first met her and how she came to be selected as a candidate for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency in the 2020 General Election.
He also refuted the claims made by Ms Khan that he had told her to take the issue to the grave and explained the context behind his words "I will not judge you" to Ms Khan.
Ms Khan had said that this meant he would not judge her if she retained her narrative, which she took to mean the lie. However, Singh said he meant that he would not judge her if she took ownership and responsibility of what she did.
In his testimony, Singh said he felt shocked when Ms Khan shared with him and the WP leaders that she was raped at a younger age, how he was "very unhappy" with Ms Khan when he first learnt that she had lied in Parliament, and "incredibly disappointed" when she repeated the lie.
He locked horns with then-Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock when Mr Ang cross-examined him, charging that Singh had guided Ms Khan to maintain the untruth.
THE VERDICT
In his oral judgement, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan found that the evidence showed that Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify the anecdote.
He said that Singh's lack of guidance to Ms Khan on how to clarify the lie was consistent with his lack of desire for him to do so.
He found it difficult to accept that Singh expected Ms Khan to know, without discussing with her, the whole host of things she needed to do to clarify the lie.
Judge Tan disagreed with the defence that Singh's inaction was a "totally human response that anyone would have when they are told by another that they had been sexually assaulted", and that it was more important to show Ms Khan empathy and compassion.
"Not only was there nothing to show that (Singh's) inaction was motivated by such concerns or that there was a need to give her additional time to 'recover' or 'get over her assault' (something which happened many years before and for which she was already seeing a therapist), the fact was that Ms Khan never sought or asked for time to speak to her parents, which is something that she surely would have done had she such a need or concern," said Judge Tan.
While there was nothing to preclude Singh from following up with Ms Khan to check on her well-being on her progress or situation, the fact is that Singh "did nothing", the judge said.
While the defence sought to undermine the credibility of both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the judge also noted that he saw nothing to suggest they had lied in court, adding that they instead "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth" in this trial.
In his verdict, the judge also rapped the defence on their "backdoor attempt" to admit accounts of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal despite choosing not to call either of them as a witness for the trial.
"This backdoor attempt is clearly impermissible, as their out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence for this trial," said the judge.
He added that if the defence had wanted either of the then-WP leaders' accounts to be used to corroborate Singh's account, then they should have called them to testify under oath in the same process the prosecution witnesses were subjected to.
All of them were called to testify and the defence had the opportunity to challenge their accounts and "pose sometimes difficult and even embarrassing questions to them", noted the judge.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge, while Mr Jumabhoy asked for S$4,000 per charge.
The judge went with the prosecution's suggested sentence, agreeing that a jail term was not warranted since "no appreciable harm" was caused to Ms Khan.
Singh told the media outside the State Courts after the hearing that the verdict was "disappointing" but that he would appeal both the conviction and sentence.
Asked about the possibility that he might be forced to consider stepping down, Mr Singh replied that the need was for him "to step up, not step down".
In the May 2025 elections, WP maintained its wins over Aljunied GRC, Sengkang GRC and Hougang SMC.
Singh was successfully re-elected as a Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, with a vote share of 59.71 per cent.
The penalties for the charges of wilfully making false answers to questions material to the subject of inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
Continue reading...