S’pore opposition leader spared jail term, fined S$14,000 in lying case

Workers’ Party secretary-general Pritam Singh is however not disqualified from running in the general election this year.

Singapore’s opposition leader, Pritam Singh, has asked his lawyers to file an appeal. (EPA Images pic)

PETALING JAYA: Singapore’s opposition leader, Pritam Singh, has been slapped with a S$14,000 fine after being convicted of two counts of lying to parliament to help a former party colleague cover up a false witness account.

However, the Workers’ Party secretary-general is not disqualified from running in Singapore’s general election this year. Singapore’s elections department said that “sentences for separate offences cannot be added together”.

Under Singapore’s constitution, a person fined at least S$10,000 or jailed a minimum of one year per charge is disqualified from running for election or holding a parliamentary seat for five years.

District court judge Luke Tan said he agreed that a jail sentence was not necessary as no actual harm was caused by Raeesah Khan’s lie in parliament.

Pritam’s fine was the maximum allowed, with each charge punishable by up to S$7,000. The offence is also punishable with a maximum three-year jail term.

Pritam has said he would ask his lawyers to file an appeal.

Raeesah, who resigned as MP following the scandal, had confessed to making up a story in parliament in 2021 about insensitive comments made by a police officer when accompanying a rape victim to lodge a police report.

Pritam was earlier found guilty of two counts of lying to a parliamentary committee which was investigating Raeesah.

The judge ruled that Pritam did not do enough to get Raeesah to admit to her lie in parliament and that his motive in covering up the lie was to protect himself and his “political capital”.

Tan also said the Workers’ Party leader had “nudged” Raeesah to maintain her lie. The former MP had testified before the court that Pritam had told her to “take the lie to the grave” during a meeting.

“He is also a lawyer who should know or would know the implications of lying under affirmation,” said the judge.