Singapore's opposition leader Pritam Singh has lost his appeal against a guilty verdict of lying to a parliamentary committee.
In February, Singh was fined S$14,000 ($10,800; £8,100) for two charges related to his handling of Raeesah Khan, a former lawmaker from his party who confessed to lying to parliament.
In a short hearing to a packed court public gallery on Friday, the judge said Singh's conviction was supported by the evidence provided.
Singh, who leads the main opposition Workers' Party, said that he was disappointed with the decision but accepted it fully and without reservation.
He paid his fines at the courthouse after the hearing on Friday. Might as well get it done, he told reporters.
Singh retains his seat in parliament despite the conviction, and has expressed his ongoing commitment to serving Singaporeans alongside his political colleagues.
The Workers' Party remains the only opposition party in Singapore's current parliament, holding 12 out of 99 seats.
The saga began in 2021, when Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed police misbehaving towards a sexual assault victim. She later admitted that her anecdote was fabricated, and during a parliamentary committee investigation, claimed that Singh and other party leaders encouraged her to continue with the narrative despite knowing it was false.
Khan has since resigned and was fined S$35,000 for lying and abusing her parliamentary privilege. In February, the court stated that Singh's actions were strongly indicative of his intention to not have Khan clarify her lie. However, Singh maintained his innocence, stating he was attempting to allow Khan to address what was a sensitive issue.
During Singh's appeal hearing in November, his lawyer contended that the court had ignored key evidence pertinent to Singh's defense. They also questioned the credibility of Khan and her aides, who served as witnesses in the case.
In a notable exchange, the judge queried why Singh appeared to be inactive in urging Khan to admit her lie in the aftermath of the incident, to which Singh's defense posited that he was preoccupied with other critical personal and professional matters.
Nevertheless, the prosecution emphasized Singh's inaction and other corroborative evidence as proof that he had no intention of encouraging Khan to come forward. This case marks one of the rare instances of a criminal conviction against an active opposition lawmaker in Singapore, raising pertinent questions about the independence of the judiciary and the political climate in the nation.
Critics have accused Singapore's government of leveraging the judiciary against their political adversaries—a charge that officials deny vehemently.
