Singapore Opposition Leader Pritam Singh Fined for Lying Under Oath, Vows to Appeal

In a landmark case that has sent ripples through Singapore’s tightly controlled political landscape, Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has been fined S$14,000 for lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. The verdict, delivered on 17 February by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan, marks the first conviction of a sitting opposition MP under Singapore’s Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act in nearly four decades. Singh, found guilty on two counts of providing false testimony to the Committee of Privileges (COP), has vowed to appeal the decision while affirming his intention to contest the upcoming general election.

If the man that wants to run the country lies under oath, then why can’t everybody?

A successful and functioning society needs many morals but none more than integrity.

The case centres on Singh’s handling of a lie told by former WP MP Raeesah Khan in Parliament in August 2021, concerning a fabricated story about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station. Judge Tan ruled that Singh “wilfully” misled the COP about his role in advising Khan to maintain her untruth, a decision the court deemed was motivated by a desire to protect his “political capital.” The maximum fine of S$7,000 per charge was imposed to underscore the gravity of giving false information under oath, particularly by a lawyer and party leader who, as the judge noted, should have understood the legal and ethical implications of his actions.

A Damning Verdict with Political Implications

The courtroom was packed as Judge Tan delivered his judgment over more than two hours, detailing how Singh had failed to encourage Khan to correct her lie during meetings in August and October 2021. Instead, evidence—including a text message from Khan to confidants stating that Singh and other WP leaders advised her to “take the information to the grave”—suggested that Singh actively discouraged clarification. The judge accepted Khan’s account of a meeting on 8 August 2021, during which Singh allegedly instructed her to maintain the falsehood, a stance he reportedly reiterated before her second false statement in Parliament on 4 October.

Judge Tan further found that Singh only directed Khan to clarify her lie after external pressures mounted, notably following a police request to interview her on 7 October and advice from former WP chief Low Thia Khiang on 11 October. Testimonies from Low and other WP cadres contradicted Singh’s claims to the COP that he had intended all along for Khan to come clean, leading the judge to describe Singh’s court account as “inconsistent with the facts” and “simply unbelievable.”

The prosecution argued that Singh’s deception was not only a breach of trust but also an attempt to deflect blame onto Khan and other party members, potentially exposing her to harsher penalties. Khan herself was fined S$35,000 for lying to Parliament in a separate ruling. “The fact that Singh lied under oath to the COP to protect his own political capital by throwing Ms Khan and his long-serving WP cadres under the bus is undoubtedly serious and dishonourable,” the prosecution stated, pushing for the maximum fine.

Singh, dressed in WP colours and appearing composed during the verdict, took notes as the judgment was read. He was supported in court by fellow WP MPs Jamus Lim, Gerald Giam, and Dennis Tan, as well as his father, Amarjit Singh, a former district judge assisting his legal team. After the hearing, Singh addressed reporters, reiterating his resolve: “I will be running for the general election.” The Elections Department confirmed that the fine does not meet the constitutional threshold of S$10,000 for a single offence required to disqualify him as an MP or bar him from standing in future elections.

Legal and Historical Context

Singh’s conviction under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which carries a potential fine of up to S$7,000 and a jail term of up to three years per offence, is unprecedented in post-independence Singapore for this specific charge. It also marks the first criminal conviction of a sitting opposition MP since the late J.B. Jeyaretnam, a former WP leader, was jailed and fined in 1986 for false declarations in party accounts—an amount sufficient at the time to disqualify him from Parliament. A 2022 constitutional amendment raised the disqualification fine threshold from S$2,000 to S$10,000 to reflect inflation and contemporary sentencing norms, a change that has allowed Singh to retain his eligibility despite the substantial penalty.

Represented by lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, Singh faced a prosecution team led by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, a former High Court judge. The defence had sought a reduced fine of S$4,000 per charge, arguing that Singh did not originate Khan’s lie. However, the court dismissed this, focusing on Singh’s deliberate falsehoods to the COP as the core issue.

The COP was convened in November 2021 to investigate the controversy surrounding Khan’s false statements, with Singh’s testimony in December of that year forming the basis of the charges against him. Judge Tan also noted that the WP initiated disciplinary proceedings against Khan in November 2021, interpreting this as an attempt by Singh to distance himself from his role in perpetuating her untruth.

Political Fallout and Speculative Impacts

Singh’s conviction comes at a critical juncture for the WP, which has positioned itself as the primary opposition force in Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP)-dominated political sphere. The party has gained traction in recent years, notably winning the Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the 2020 general election, where Khan served as an MP before her resignation amid the scandal. Singh, as Leader of the Opposition, has been a vocal critic of the ruling party, advocating for greater transparency and accountability—ironic themes given the nature of his conviction.

Analysts suggest that the verdict could dent the WP’s credibility, particularly among voters who value integrity in opposition politics. If the appeal fails, public perception of Singh’s leadership may suffer, potentially impacting the party’s performance in the next election, which must be held by November 2025. However, it remains speculative whether this will translate into significant electoral losses, as Singaporean voters often prioritise policy substance over personal controversies, especially in a political culture where opposition figures are frequently scrutinised. There is no confirmed evidence yet of a measurable shift in voter sentiment, and the WP’s grassroots support base may rally behind Singh as a symbol of resilience against perceived state overreach.

On the other hand, if Singh’s appeal succeeds or if he frames the conviction as politically motivated, he could galvanise opposition supporters. Some observers note that legal actions against opposition leaders in Singapore have historically been viewed by critics as tools to suppress dissent, though such claims lack definitive proof in this specific case. The government and judiciary have consistently maintained that legal proceedings are impartial and based on evidence, a stance reiterated by the prosecution’s focus on Singh’s actions rather than his political affiliation.

Broader Implications for Singapore’s Democracy

This case raises broader questions about the constraints on opposition politics in Singapore, where the ruling PAP has maintained near-total dominance since independence in 1965. The use of parliamentary committees and legal mechanisms to hold MPs accountable, while essential for governance, can be perceived as disproportionately targeting opposition figures—a perception that may intensify if Singh’s appeal garners public sympathy. However, without concrete evidence of bias, such views remain speculative and must be treated with caution.

The conviction also highlights the high standards expected of public officials in Singapore, a nation known for its stringent anti-corruption and accountability measures. Judge Tan’s emphasis on the importance of truthfulness under oath serves as a reminder that even opposition leaders are not above the law, a principle that underpins the city-state’s reputation for governance. Yet, for a global audience, the case may underscore the challenges faced by opposition parties in navigating a political system where missteps can lead to severe legal consequences.

Singh’s status as a lawyer and party leader was a significant factor in the court’s decision to impose the maximum fine, reflecting an expectation of exemplary conduct. This precedent could influence how future parliamentary inquiries are approached by MPs, potentially fostering greater caution in testimonies but also raising concerns about self-censorship among opposition voices.

Looking Ahead

As Singh prepares his appeal, the political landscape in Singapore remains charged with uncertainty. His determination to contest the general election signals a refusal to be sidelined, but the outcome of his legal battle will likely shape both his personal trajectory and the WP’s future. For now, the opposition leader faces a delicate balancing act: maintaining public trust while challenging a verdict that has cast a shadow over his integrity.

For Singaporeans and international observers alike, this case is a stark illustration of the intersection between law and politics in a tightly regulated democracy. Whether it will serve as a cautionary tale or a rallying cry for reform remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly marks a pivotal moment in the nation’s political history. As the appeal process unfolds, all eyes will be on Pritam Singh and the Workers’ Party, watching how they navigate this unprecedented challenge in their quest to offer an alternative vision for Singapore’s future.