Pritam Singh case verdict: What is in store for Singapore’s Leader of Opposition?

At 9.30am today, a hearing begins in the case of Singapore Public Prosecutor versus Pritam Singh, the 48-year-old Secretary General of the Worker’s Party and Leader of the Opposition in Singapore Parliament. A verdict is expected in the case, in which Singh has been on trial for his alleged lies told to the parliamentary Committee of Privileges.

The verdict to expected to be delivered by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan today, following the end of the trial on November 8, 2024.

Singh’s case is Singapore’s first prosecution under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Conviction would mean another wait for the sentence meted out to Singh by the court; and a time period of 14 days for Singh to file an appeal.

Acquittal would mean that Singh cannot be prosecuted for the same alleged offence, based on the same facts; but prosecution can appeal against the acquittal within 14 days.

Also read: Could Pritam Singh get jail time over alleged lies told before Singapore Parliament committee?

This verdict comes at a crucial time, as general elections are set to be held in Singapore by the second half of 2025, and a conviction could see the Leader of the Opposition barred from contesting the elections.

Singapore Constitution prevents a person convicted and fined SGD 10,000 (or more) or jailed for 1 year (or more) from contesting elections or holding a parliamentary seat for 5 years.

In case of a conviction, Singh’s political career could suffer a serious setback, as he faces a maximum sentence of 3 years in jail and a fine of SGD 7,000 on each of the two charges of lying against him. These two prison terms may run concurrently or consecutively, depending on the judge’s decision.

The allegations are centred around whether or not Singh asked his party colleague and former MP Raeesah Khan to continue lying to Parliament about an episode where she supposedly accompanied a rape survivor to file a police report.

Khan had claimed — falsely, as it turned out later — that she had accompanied the rape survivor and that a police officer had made inappropriate comments about the victim’s attire and alcohol consumption.