Pritam Singh accepts High Court ruling upholding conviction, vows to continue serving Singaporeans

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s High Court dismissed the appeal of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on 4 December 2025, affirming his conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges earlier in February.

The High Court upheld the trial judge’s findings and confirmed the existing sentence of two fines totalling S$14,000 (approximately US$10,700), which arose from his handling of a false account delivered by then-Workers’ Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan.

Singh, aged 49, was initially convicted on 17 February 2025.

Speaking to media outside court, Singh, the Workers' Party chief, said he was disappointed by the verdict but accepted the judgment fully and without reservation.

He reaffirmed that the Supreme Court is a vital pillar of Singapore’s constitutional framework and emphasised his longstanding respect for judicial independence and professionalism.

Comments on responsibility

“Some of you would have followed this matter for some time. I certainly took too long to respond to Raeesah’s lie in Parliament. I take responsibility for that,” he told reporters.

“This has been a long journey. Throughout it all, I have done my best to act with sincerity and fulfil my responsibilities to Parliament, and to Singaporeans. "

"My commitment in that regard remains unchanged. My focus now is to continue serving Singaporeans and to speak up for them, alongside my Workers' Party colleagues that important work must continue,” he added.

He thanked Singaporeans who had followed the matter closely, expressing gratitude for what he described as their goodwill, kindness, and support.

Addressing ‘court of public opinion’

When asked about his earlier comment on the “court of public opinion”, Singh said he had to be careful and reiterated that the High Court had delivered its verdict, which should be respected.

The question referenced remarks from a CNA programme, The Assembly, aired on 5 November, where Singh said he believed the “court of public opinion can be bigger than any court in the world”.

During the same programme, Singh said political opponents would act to lower the standing of him and the Workers’ Party but noted that a clear conscience gave him confidence despite criticism.

He also referenced the Workers’ Party’s performance in the May 2025 General Election, which he interpreted as public vindication of his conduct.

Respect for institutions

Responding to a question from The Straits Times on 4 December 2025, Singh clarified that while he might have political differences with opponents, such differences did not extend to questioning the integrity of the courts or civil servants.

He said that this should not be how opposition politics is conducted in Singapore and reiterated his acceptance of the decision.

Sentence of S$14,000 in fines upheld

Justice Steven Chong upheld the lower court’s decision to convict Singh on both charges, stating that the ruling was sound and supported by the evidence, even though he differed from the trial judge on certain peripheral assessments.

He found that Singh had no intention for Raeesah Khan to clarify her false statement for at least two months after learning of it.

Justice Chong also concluded that Singh did not take the position that Khan should correct the untruth until a meeting on 11 October 2021, when Workers’ Party veteran Low Thia Khiang said the statement should be addressed in Parliament.

He noted that Singh’s own case, taken at its highest, was that he expected Khan to clarify the untruth only if it resurfaced in Parliament.

Justice Chong added that if the matter had not been raised again, Singh’s approach appeared to be “to let sleeping dogs lie”, meaning there was no perceived need to revisit an issue that seemed “buried”.

“That was not to be,” he said, observing that Singh was confronted with “an inconvenient truth” when a sitting MP from his party had delivered what he described as an unsolicited lie.

Justice Chong said the Workers’ Party leadership had essentially been engaged in “an exercise of risk management and damage control”.

He further stated that Singh had hoped not to confront the untruth, which explained why party leaders were considering whether the matter would re-emerge in Parliament and whether the government could uncover it.

After the hearing concluded, Singh paid the S$14,000 fine in full.

Background: the Raeesah Khan incident

The case stems from events on 3 August 2021, when Khan falsely told Parliament she had accompanied a rape victim to a police station where officers behaved insensitively.

When questioned again by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, she repeated the claim.

Khan later admitted on 1 November 2021 that her account was fabricated.

A Committee of Privileges inquiry recommended referring Singh and fellow WP MP Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor.

Faisal received a police advisory, while Singh faced two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which permits up to three years’ imprisonment or fines of up to S$7,000 per charge.

Judge questions defence over key statements during last month hearing

During last month’s hearing, Jumabhoy urged the High Court to overturn the conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapplied legal principles.

He further said the judge had accepted “impossibilities” in Khan’s account as proof.

The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and did not seek heavier penalties.

Justice Chong directed the defence to address two key statements central to the original verdict: Khan’s claim that Singh told her they should “take the untruth to the grave”, and his remark, “I will not judge you”.

The defence said Khan’s recollections of the first statement had varied three times.

Justice Chong replied that inconsistent wording alone did not prove the phrase had never been said.

He then questioned Singh’s lack of follow-up during the eight-week period between 8 August and 3 October 2021.

He noted that Singh called the matter “serious” and “grave”, yet no concrete steps were taken.

The judge said it would be expected that some clarification plan would have been formed if responsibility had indeed been assigned on 8 August.

Jumabhoy responded that Singh was sensitive to Khan’s experience as a sexual assault survivor and believed avoiding pressure was appropriate.

Justice Chong acknowledged the sensitivity but noted the absence of any discussion among WP leaders over that period.

Jumabhoy added that Singh had other urgent matters to handle and that Khan was on medical leave due to shingles.

The judge replied that being busy was to be expected but questioned whether the issue could reasonably have been left untouched.

He further stated that other WP leaders were available and that Khan’s condition did not prevent communication.

Court examines timing of party’s shift in position

Justice Chong also examined the shift in the party’s position after Singh met Mr Low Thia Khiang on 11 October 2021, noting that preparations for clarification began only after this meeting.

He found that this supported the inference that no earlier plan to correct the falsehood had existed.

The judge also challenged the defence’s explanation that Singh’s intention from 8 August was contingent on Khan first speaking to her parents, pointing out Singh did not verify whether she had done so before her eventual confession.

Justice Chong questioned Singh’s statement to Khan that “I will not judge you”, indicating it more likely conveyed tolerance of inaction rather than encouragement to correct the record.

The prosecution followed by presenting inconsistencies in Singh’s evidence, disputes over recollections of party discussions, and the absence of documentation supporting the defence’s account.

It argued that the decision to clarify the lie was only formed after 11 October, a view Justice Chong said aligned with the evidence.