Pritam Singh Set to Face Court Over Alleged Lies to Parliamentary Committee

SINGAPORE – In a significant legal development, a district court will rule on February 17 whether Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh lied to a parliamentary committee. As Leader of the Opposition, Singh is contesting two charges related to his alleged misleading statements to the Committee of Privileges (COP).

Background of the Controversy

The COP convened in November 2021 to investigate the lying controversy involving former WP MP Raeesah Khan. Khan had originally told a lie in Parliament on August 3, 2021, about her accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively.

The prosecution’s case against Singh claims he instructed Khan to maintain her lie during meetings on August 8 and October 3, 2021. However, Singh maintains he asked Khan to clarify her untruth to the House, not to keep lying.

Potential Consequences

If found guilty, Singh faces a maximum fine of $7,000, a jail term of up to three years, or both for each charge. The constitutional implications are significant. Article 42(3) of the Constitution disqualifies a person as an MP if he is jailed for one year or fined $10,000, raising questions about Singh’s political future.

However, legal experts suggest it is unlikely Singh will be disqualified and barred from the upcoming general election, as the Attorney-General’s Chambers has indicated they would seek only fines if he is convicted.

The Trial

The trial, which spanned 13 days in October and November 2024, was a high-profile affair. The prosecution called four witnesses, including Khan and former WP chief Low Thia Khiang, to present their case.

Khan’s messages to close confidants following the August 8 meeting, stating Singh and other WP leaders told her to take her lie “to the grave,” were key evidence. Her testimony, along with that of two former WP cadres, Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, implicated Singh.

Singh’s Defense

Singh denied ever asking Khan to continue her lie, maintaining he wanted her to clarify her untruth in Parliament but gave her time to handle the personal matter. The defense argued Khan was a habitual liar and sought to impeach her credibility.

The defense also challenged the testimony of Loh and Yudhishthra Nathan, suggesting they had collaborated on their evidence before the COP hearings.

Precedential Nature of the Case

This case is groundbreaking as it marks the first prosecution under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which criminalizes lying to Parliament or its committees.

Constitutional law expert Kevin Tan notes the seriousness of offenses leading to disqualification, emphasizing that cumulative fines below the $10,000 threshold do not disqualify an MP.

Implications for Singapore’s Political Landscape

The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for Singapore’s political environment. It sets a precedent for accountability in Parliament and the responsibilities of political leaders.

As the ruling approaches, all eyes will be on the district court to see how Singh’s case will be resolved and what it means for his political career.