On November 4, 2025, the High Court witnessed a pivotal moment in Singapore’s political and legal history as Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh appealed his conviction for lying to Parliament. The case, presided over by Justice Steven Chong, represents far more than a single politician’s legal battle—it strikes at the heart of parliamentary integrity, opposition politics in Singapore, and the standards of accountability expected from elected leaders.
The Prosecution’s Strategic Architecture
The “Radio Silence” Argument
Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Goh’s prosecution strategy rests on a seemingly simple but powerful premise: silence speaks volumes. Between August 8 and October 3, 2021—a critical 56-day period—Singh allegedly never followed up with Raeesah Khan about her lie in Parliament. The prosecution frames this absence of communication as not merely negligent, but revealing.
“This radio silence speaks volumes,” DAG Goh declared, positioning the lack of follow-up as the centerpiece of their case. The argument’s elegance lies in its logic: if Singh had genuinely instructed Khan to come clean about her false statement in Parliament, wouldn’t he have checked in at least once during nearly two months? The prosecution contrasts this silence with Singh’s demonstrable ability to follow up on other matters—specifically, his advice to Khan on handling Muslim community reactions to her speech on female genital mutilation.
This comparative approach is strategically sound. It neutralizes the defense’s claim that Singh was too busy with other matters, including the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (Fica) and personal family issues. “Was he so busy with the Fica matters that he could not raise this important point, a politically important point, to Ms Khan?” DAG Goh challenged. The implication is clear: selective attention reveals true priorities.
The Five Pillars of Corroboration
The prosecution has constructed its case around two sets of five corroborative evidence points—one for each charge—creating what they argue is an interconnected web of proof.
For the first charge (relating to the August 8, 2021 meeting):
- The “grave” text message: Khan’s WhatsApp message stating Singh told her to “take the lie to the grave”
- Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan’s testimony: Corroborating accounts from WP cadre members
- Singh’s subsequent inaction: His failure to raise Khan’s false anecdote with Loh and Nathan after August 10, 2021, until October 5, 2021
- Low Thia Khiang’s unchallenged evidence: Former WP chief’s testimony about meetings with party leaders
- The consistency of accounts: The alignment of multiple witnesses’ versions of events
For the second charge (relating to the October 3, 2021 conversation):
- Sylvia Lim’s account of WP disciplinary panel proceedings on November 29, 2021
- Loh’s evidence on what Singh told her and Nathan on October 12, 2021
- Khan’s email to WP leaders on October 7, 2021
- Singh’s inaction on October 4 and 5, 2021, after Khan doubled down on the lie
- Low Thia Khiang’s unchallenged meeting evidence from October 11, 2021
The prosecution’s strategy of presenting evidence in structured sets of five is not merely organizational—it creates a psychological effect of comprehensiveness and mutual reinforcement. Each piece of evidence is positioned to support and validate the others, making it difficult to dismiss any single element without disturbing the entire structure.
The Credibility Attack
Perhaps the most aggressive element of the prosecution’s approach was presenting eight instances where the district judge found Singh’s trial testimony “incoherent and inconsistent.” This wholesale attack on Singh’s credibility represents a high-stakes gambit: if the court accepts that Singh’s testimony was fundamentally unreliable, the entire defense collapses.
DAG Goh argued that these inconsistencies “affect his general credibility,” suggesting a pattern of dishonesty rather than isolated lapses. The prosecution is essentially arguing that Singh is not merely mistaken but systematically untruthworthy.
Justice Chong’s Interventionist Approach
Skepticism as Judicial Philosophy
What makes this appeal hearing particularly noteworthy is Justice Chong’s active, even aggressive, questioning of the prosecution’s case. His interventions reveal a judicial mind uncomfortable with accepting arguments at face value and insistent on rigorous logical foundations.
His most significant challenges to the prosecution include:
1. The Relevance Question
When DAG Goh referenced the WP’s disciplinary panel proceedings, Justice Chong directly questioned their relevance to the charges, stating it was “difficult to understand how the proceedings are relevant.” More tellingly, when the prosecution suggested that omissions in the panel’s report implied something to hide, the judge offered an alternative interpretation: “They are a political party, so reputation is important.”
This represents a crucial judicial recognition of political reality—that political parties have legitimate reputational concerns that don’t necessarily indicate criminality or cover-up. It suggests a judge who understands that political behavior must be interpreted within its proper context.
2. The Realism Test
Justice Chong applied what might be called a “realism test” to the prosecution’s arguments. When DAG Goh suggested Singh’s failure to immediately stand up and clarify on October 4, 2021, when Khan doubled down on her lie, was significant, the judge responded: “It is not realistic to expect him to immediately react to say what she said was a lie.”
He added that “this can cut both ways,” noting that Singh’s inaction could be interpreted as shock, political calculation, or respect for parliamentary procedure—not necessarily as evidence of prior instruction to maintain the lie. The judge explicitly stated that just because Singh didn’t stand up doesn’t mean “doubling down is something he had told her to do.”
3. The Methodological Objection
Perhaps most significantly, Justice Chong rejected the prosecution’s approach of extensively citing trial transcripts, stating: “I am not a trial judge.” This seemingly simple statement carries profound implications. He was signaling that an appellate court’s role is not to retry the case or make fresh findings of fact, but to determine whether the district judge’s findings were supported by the evidence and whether any legal errors were made.
When the prosecution presented their eight-point credibility attack, Justice Chong was even more pointed: the general submission attacking Singh’s credibility “in a vacuum” was “not particularly appealing,” and he went so far as to say he did not “find it useful.” He instructed the prosecution to “reframe their submission, instead of saying he lied on eight occasions so everything he said is a lie.”
This represents a fundamental rejection of guilt-by-accumulation reasoning. The judge is insisting on specificity and logical connection rather than accepting a broad-brush portrait of dishonesty.
4. The Evidence Weight Problem
Justice Chong also raised doubts about the weight that could be placed on Loh and Nathan’s testimony, noting “it might be unsafe to attach weight” to their words, “especially given their own submission that their recollection was fuzzy.”
This skepticism about witness reliability is crucial. The prosecution’s case relies heavily on corroboration from these witnesses, but if their memories were admittedly unclear, how much can their testimony really prove?
The Implications for Singapore
Parliamentary Privilege and Accountability
At its core, this case tests the boundaries of parliamentary accountability in Singapore. Parliament’s authority depends on the truthfulness of testimony before it. If Members of Parliament can lie under oath without consequence, parliamentary committees become theatrical rather than investigative.
However, the case also raises questions about the appropriate response to such lies. The maximum fine of $14,000 that Singh received is relatively modest—equivalent to roughly two months of an MP’s allowance. Some observers have questioned whether this penalty is sufficient deterrent for such serious charges, while others argue that criminal prosecution of opposition leaders for parliamentary testimony creates a chilling effect on political speech.
The Opposition’s Precarious Position
For Singapore’s opposition parties, this case represents an existential challenge. The Workers’ Party is the only opposition party with significant parliamentary representation, holding 10 of 104 elected seats. Singh, as Leader of the Opposition, holds a constitutionally recognized position with specific responsibilities for parliamentary oversight.
If Singh’s conviction is upheld, the implications cascade:
Political Consequences: Singh could face disqualification from Parliament if he fails to pay the fine within the stipulated period or faces additional legal consequences. This would deprive the WP of its most prominent leader and potentially trigger a by-election in Aljunied GRC.
Organizational Impact: The WP would need to reorganize its leadership structure at a critical time, potentially affecting its preparation for the next general election (due by 2025).
Public Perception: The conviction reinforces narratives about opposition incompetence or dishonesty, potentially affecting voter confidence. Conversely, some supporters may view it as political persecution, potentially galvanizing opposition support.
Talent Recruitment: Potential opposition candidates may be deterred from entering politics if they perceive the risks as too high or the scrutiny as disproportionate.
Standards of Political Leadership
The case establishes important precedents about what Singapore expects from its political leaders. The charges against Singh involve not his own lies, but his alleged instruction to a junior MP to maintain her false statement and his subsequent dishonesty about those instructions.
This raises the bar for political leadership—leaders are responsible not only for their own conduct but for how they guide others. The case suggests that Singapore’s legal system takes seriously the mentorship and guidance responsibilities that come with political leadership positions.
The Broader Question of Political Space
Some observers see this case within a broader pattern of legal action against opposition politicians in Singapore. Critics argue that such prosecutions, regardless of legal merit, have a chilling effect on political opposition and discourse. They point to the rarity of similar prosecutions against ruling party politicians despite occasional controversies.
Supporters of the prosecution counter that no one should be above the law and that opposition politicians cannot expect different standards of accountability. They argue that the case demonstrates Singapore’s commitment to rule of law regardless of political affiliation.
Media and Public Discourse
The extensive live coverage of the appeal hearing, including minute-by-minute updates from The Straits Times, reflects significant public interest in the case. This level of transparency is itself noteworthy—Singaporeans can follow the judicial reasoning in real-time, understanding not just the outcome but the logic behind it.
The public nature of Justice Chong’s skeptical questioning may also serve an important function in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary’s independence, showing that even high-profile prosecutions face rigorous judicial scrutiny.
The Legal Technicalities That Matter
The Standard of Proof
Criminal cases in Singapore require proof “beyond reasonable doubt.” This is a high standard, deliberately so, reflecting the principle that it is better for guilty persons to go free than for innocent persons to be convicted. The prosecution must eliminate reasonable doubt, not all possible doubt.
Justice Chong’s questioning suggests he may be concerned whether the prosecution has met this exacting standard. His challenges to witness credibility, relevance of evidence, and logical inferences all point toward scrutiny of whether the prosecution’s case is genuinely beyond reasonable doubt or merely more likely than not.
The Conspiracy Theory Problem
The prosecution noted that the defense’s case implies “a conspiracy among Ms Khan, Mr Nathan and Ms Loh, in that there was a plot to bury the lie.” They questioned why this wasn’t raised during trial.
This is a significant point. If the defense is arguing that three witnesses fabricated or coordinated their testimony, this is a serious allegation that requires substantial proof. The prosecution is essentially challenging the defense to explain why these three individuals would risk perjury charges to falsely implicate Singh.
However, the defense need not prove a conspiracy—they need only create reasonable doubt about whether the prosecution’s version of events is the only plausible explanation for the evidence.
The Appeal Standard
Importantly, appeals are not retrials. Justice Chong’s reminder that “I am not a trial judge” reflects the different standard on appeal. Generally, appellate courts give deference to trial judges’ findings of fact, particularly regarding witness credibility, since trial judges see and hear witnesses directly.
An appeal typically succeeds only if:
- The trial judge made a legal error
- The trial judge’s findings were not supported by the evidence
- The trial judge’s decision was unreasonable given the evidence
Justice Chong’s active questioning suggests he may be examining whether the district judge’s findings were adequately supported by the evidence or whether alternative interpretations were insufficiently considered.
What Happens Next
Following the closing remarks and any final replies, Justice Chong will either deliver his decision immediately or reserve judgment for a later date. Given the complexity of the case and the judge’s evident desire for thoroughness, a reserved judgment seems more likely.
If the conviction is upheld, Singh could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, Singapore’s highest court. If the conviction is overturned, the prosecution could similarly seek to appeal.
The case’s resolution will likely come at a politically sensitive time, with Singapore approaching the next general election. The timing could significantly impact both the WP’s electoral prospects and broader public discourse about opposition politics in Singapore.
Conclusion: A Test of Systems
The Pritam Singh appeal is simultaneously a legal case, a political drama, and a test of Singapore’s institutional systems. It examines whether Singapore’s legal system can fairly adjudicate politically sensitive cases, whether its parliament can maintain integrity while allowing robust opposition, and whether its political culture can sustain genuine multi-party democracy.
Justice Chong’s skeptical questioning offers hope that the judicial system can provide independent scrutiny even in high-profile political cases. His insistence on logical rigor, evidential sufficiency, and realistic interpretation of political behavior suggests a judge determined to decide the case on its merits rather than its implications.
For Singapore’s opposition, the case represents both crisis and opportunity. If Singh’s conviction is upheld, the Workers’ Party faces a leadership vacuum at a critical moment. If overturned, it could provide vindication and momentum heading into future elections.
For Singapore’s democracy, the case poses fundamental questions about accountability, political space, and the balance between maintaining parliamentary integrity and enabling robust opposition politics. The answers will shape Singapore’s political landscape for years to come.
Regardless of the outcome, the case has already established that Singapore’s opposition leaders face intense scrutiny of their conduct, that parliamentary lying has serious consequences, and that the courts will examine such cases with significant rigor. These are lessons that will influence political behavior long after this specific case is resolved.
The question is not just whether Pritam Singh lied to Parliament, but what kind of political system Singapore wants to be—and whether that system can hold leaders accountable while preserving the space for genuine political opposition to flourish.
The Stakes: More Than One Man’s Reputation
When Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh walked into the Supreme Court on November 4, 2025, he carried with him not just his own political future, but the fragile trust Singapore’s opposition has spent decades building. His appeal against February’s conviction for lying to Parliament represents one of the most consequential legal battles in Singapore’s modern political history—a case where the interpretation of two sentences could determine whether the nation’s most successful opposition leader remains in politics or exits in disgrace.
The courtroom drama centers on a deceptively simple question: What did Singh really mean when he spoke to his former party colleague, Raeesah Khan? But beneath this lies a more profound inquiry into leadership, accountability, and the nature of truth in Singapore’s carefully calibrated political ecosystem.
The Two Sentences That Changed Everything
“Take it to the grave”
The first disputed statement cuts to the heart of the prosecution’s case. Did Singh tell Khan to “take it to the grave”—essentially instructing her to maintain her lie about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station? Or is this phrase, as Singh maintains, something he never uttered?
This isn’t mere semantics. If Singh said these words, they would constitute direct instruction to perpetuate a falsehood in Parliament—one of the gravest political sins in Singapore’s governance framework. The phrase itself carries cinematic weight, the kind of dramatic language that suggests deliberate conspiracy rather than confused communication.
Singh’s defense team, led by Andre Jumabhoy, argues that the previous judge “ignored crucial pieces of evidence” that would exonerate their client on this point. The implication is clear: without solid evidence that Singh uttered these specific words, the entire prosecution case becomes significantly weaker. It transforms from a story of deliberate cover-up to one of potential misunderstanding or, at worst, poor judgment.
The evidential battle here likely revolves around whose account is more credible—Khan’s testimony about what Singh told her, or Singh’s denial. This becomes particularly complex given that Singh’s lawyers attempted to paint Khan as a “habitual liar” during cross-examination. If Khan’s credibility is successfully undermined, the foundation of the prosecution’s case begins to crumble.
“I will not judge you”
The second statement presents an even more nuanced interpretive challenge. Both sides agree Singh said these words—but what did he mean?
The prosecution’s reading is damning: Singh was signaling to Khan that he wouldn’t judge her for continuing with the lie. In this interpretation, the statement represents tacit approval, a green light disguised as neutrality. It’s the kind of plausibly deniable language that leaders might use when they want to encourage behavior without explicit endorsement—maintaining just enough distance to claim innocence if things go wrong.
The defense offers a radically different interpretation: Singh meant he wouldn’t judge Khan if she took ownership and responsibility for her lie. In this reading, far from encouraging deception, Singh was actually opening the door for Khan to come clean, assuring her that he would support her if she chose the path of honesty.
This interpretive divide exemplifies how language can be weaponized in legal proceedings. The same four words, spoken in a private conversation, can be twisted to support diametrically opposed narratives. Context becomes everything—Singh’s tone, the surrounding conversation, his previous and subsequent actions, and the relationship dynamics between a party leader and a subordinate MP.
The Legal Chess Game
Justice Steven Chong now faces the unenviable task of determining which interpretation aligns with reality. Unlike the original trial judge, he must evaluate whether there was sufficient evidence to convict “beyond reasonable doubt”—the highest standard in criminal law.
The defense strategy appears to hinge on creating reasonable doubt about both statements. They don’t necessarily need to prove Singh’s innocence definitively; they merely need to demonstrate that the prosecution’s interpretation isn’t the only plausible one, or that crucial evidence was overlooked.
This is where the “ignored evidence” argument becomes critical. What evidence did the original judge fail to properly consider? Could there be contemporaneous records, witness testimonies, or documentary evidence that contradicts the prosecution’s timeline or interpretation? The defense’s confidence in highlighting this suggests they believe they have substantive grounds for overturning the conviction.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan, must defend not only their original case but also the thoroughness of the previous judicial analysis. They need to show that even considering all evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Singh deliberately lied to the Committee of Privileges.
The Political Earthquake’s Aftershocks
A Leader Still Standing—For Now
The most remarkable aspect of this saga is that Singh not only survived politically but thrived. His Aljunied GRC team secured nearly 60% of votes in the May 2025 general election, a resounding endorsement that exceeded their previous performance. This creates a peculiar situation: a convicted politician who remains immensely popular with his constituents.
This popularity reveals something profound about Singapore’s evolving political culture. Traditionally, any whiff of impropriety would be fatal to a political career. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has built its dominance partly on an unblemished reputation for integrity. Yet here we have an opposition leader, convicted of lying to Parliament, who not only kept his seat but increased his majority.
Several factors explain this apparent paradox:
1. The “Persecution Narrative”: Many WP supporters view Singh’s prosecution as politically motivated—an attempt by the establishment to neutralize an increasingly effective opposition. Whether or not this perception is fair, it has rallied the party’s base and attracted sympathy votes.
2. Relative Severity: While lying to Parliament is serious, Singh’s actions (as characterized by the prosecution) involved trying to protect a subordinate, not personal corruption or abuse of power. Some voters may view this as misguided loyalty rather than venality.
3. Opposition Scarcity: Singapore’s opposition bench is thin. Voters in Aljunied may have calculated that losing Singh would be more damaging to democratic competition than keeping a flawed but experienced leader.
4. Trust in the Appeal Process: The decision to retain Singh may also reflect confidence that the appeal will succeed, with voters effectively saying “let’s wait for the final verdict.”
Parliamentary Privileges and Democratic Functioning
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s decision to maintain Singh’s status as Leader of the Opposition, with its attendant privileges and resources, demonstrates pragmatic governance. Stripping these privileges would have been legally permissible but politically inflammatory, potentially appearing vindictive and undermining parliamentary democracy.
This decision ensures that the opposition can function effectively even as its leader fights legal battles—a necessary condition for healthy democratic competition. It also places the government on the moral high ground, appearing fair-minded rather than punitive.
However, this situation creates awkwardness. Singapore’s Parliament operates on conventions of honor and integrity. Having a Leader of the Opposition with a conviction for lying to Parliament—even while appealing—tests these conventions. If the conviction is ultimately upheld, it would set a troubling precedent about acceptable standards for parliamentary leaders.
Broader Implications for Singapore’s Democracy
The Precedent Problem
This case will establish important precedents regardless of outcome:
If the conviction is upheld: It sends a strong signal that parliamentary privilege is sacred and that lying to parliamentary committees carries serious consequences. It would reinforce Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach to political dishonesty. However, it would also raise questions about whether the standard is applied evenly across the political spectrum.
If Singh is acquitted: It would suggest that the original case was overreached, potentially emboldening other politicians to take more aggressive stances when questioned. It might also validate concerns about whether political prosecutions can be too aggressive. Most significantly, it would resurrect Singh’s political career completely, potentially making him stronger than before.
The Opposition’s Dilemma
The Workers’ Party finds itself in a bind. It has stood firmly behind Singh, as loyalty demands. But this loyalty is not without cost. The party’s brand has been tarnished by association with dishonesty—first Khan’s lie, then allegations against Singh.
For a party trying to position itself as a credible alternative government, ethical questions are existential threats. The WP has worked for decades to shed the image of opposition parties as mere protestors and establish themselves as competent potential governors. Scandals undermine this carefully constructed image.
If Singh loses his appeal, the WP faces a devastating choice: stand by their leader and risk further reputational damage, or force him out and appear disloyal while losing their most electorally successful politician. If he wins, the vindication could actually strengthen the party’s narrative of fighting against establishment persecution.
Trust in Institutions
This case also tests public trust in Singapore’s judicial and political institutions. The prosecution has faced scrutiny over whether it was politically motivated. The courts must demonstrate that they can adjudicate fairly in highly politicized cases. Parliament must show that its privileges and procedures serve democracy rather than partisan interests.
Singapore’s reputation for clean, effective governance depends on maintaining high standards while also ensuring fairness and proportionality. This case walks a tightrope between these imperatives.
The Human Element
Lost sometimes in the legal and political analysis is the human story. Singh, who has served as an MP for 14 years, has built his career on being accessible and principled. His supporters describe him as someone who genuinely cares about constituents and fights for the underdog.
The prosecution’s case paints him as someone who prioritized political expediency over truth—protecting Khan and his party’s reputation rather than immediately correcting the parliamentary record. Even if one believes Singh made serious errors, there’s a difference between malicious corruption and misguided loyalty to a struggling younger colleague.
Khan herself has disappeared from public life after her resignation, her promising political career destroyed by her original lie. Singh’s legal team’s strategy of attacking her credibility, while legally sound, adds another layer of tragedy to her story.
What Happens Next?
Justice Chong will deliberate before delivering his judgment. Unlike the original trial, this is an appeal based on points of law and evidentiary interpretation rather than a retrial of facts. His decision will likely take weeks or months.
If acquitted: Singh would likely see a surge in political capital. The narrative of surviving politically-motivated prosecution would be powerful. He could position himself as tested and vindicated, potentially making him an even more formidable opposition leader going into future elections.
If conviction upheld: Singh would need to decide whether to pursue further appeals or accept his fate. His political career wouldn’t necessarily end immediately—he can technically continue as an MP—but his moral authority would be severely compromised. The WP would face an agonizing decision about his leadership.
Partial outcomes: The court could also uphold one charge but acquit on another, or reduce the sentence. Such nuanced outcomes would leave everyone in ambiguous territory.
The Larger Question: What Kind of Politics Does Singapore Want?
Ultimately, this case asks Singaporeans to reflect on what standards they expect from their political leaders and how those standards should be enforced.
Singapore has long prided itself on having unusually high standards for political conduct—a source of national pride that distinguishes it from more corrupt neighbors. The Pritam Singh case tests whether these standards apply equally to all parties and whether they leave room for human error versus deliberate wrongdoing.
The case also highlights tensions inherent in Singapore’s political system: a dominant party that has governed for six decades, a opposition still finding its footing, and a population increasingly demanding both accountability from the government and viability from the opposition.
As Justice Chong deliberates, he holds in his hands not just one man’s fate, but a piece of Singapore’s democratic future. His interpretation of two contested sentences will ripple through the nation’s politics for years to come, influencing how future politicians behave, how voters judge their leaders, and how Singapore balances its commitment to integrity with its need for robust democratic competition.
The words “take it to the grave” and “I will not judge you” have become more than phrases in a private conversation—they are now central texts in an ongoing debate about truth, power, and accountability in Singapore’s maturing democracy.
As this appeal continues, one thing is certain: regardless of the legal outcome, the political landscape has already been altered. The only question is whether the change will be temporary turbulence or a fundamental reshaping of Singapore’s opposition politics.
The Gravity of Words
Part One: The Meeting
The rain drummed against the windows of the hawker center, creating a curtain of sound that made private conversation possible even in this most public of spaces. Pritam stirred his kopi, watching the milk swirl into darkness, thinking about how quickly clarity could dissolve into murkiness.
Across from him, Raeesah looked smaller than usual, hunched over her untouched teh tarik. Her phone lay face-down on the scratched melamine table between them, as if she couldn’t bear to see the messages still flooding in.
“I don’t know what to do,” she said, her voice barely audible above the rain and the clatter of dishes. “It’s gotten so big. The story—it’s everywhere now.”
Pritam had known this conversation was coming since the moment her words in Parliament had gone viral. The story about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, the dismissive treatment by officers—it had resonated, sparked outrage, been shared thousands of times. It had also, he now knew, never happened.
“Tell me again,” he said quietly. “From the beginning.”
She did. The embellishment that had grown from a story she’d heard second-hand. The heat of the parliamentary moment. The way the lie had felt necessary to make her point land with impact. And then, the terrible realization afterward that she’d crossed a line she couldn’t uncross.
“I wanted to help,” she whispered. “The issue is real, even if my story wasn’t. Women do face these problems. I just… I thought one story wouldn’t matter if it helped change things.”
Pritam closed his eyes briefly. He’d been in politics long enough to understand the temptation she’d described—the desire to make the abstract concrete, to give bureaucratic failures a human face. But he also understood something else: that in Singapore’s political ecosystem, such fabrications weren’t just wrong, they were existential threats. The opposition lived or died by its credibility.
“What do you want me to tell you?” he asked.
“Tell me what to do.”
“I can’t tell you what to do, Raeesah. This is your decision.”
Her eyes filled with tears. “Everyone’s going to hate me.”
“Maybe,” he said. “But they’ll hate you more if the truth comes out another way. And it will come out. It always does.”
She nodded, not meeting his eyes. “If I come clean now… the party will suffer. You’ll suffer. After everything you’ve built in Aljunied—”
“Let me worry about the party,” he interrupted. “You worry about doing the right thing.”
“Which is what? Exactly?”
He leaned back, the plastic chair creaking under him. Through the rain-streaked window, he could see the HDB blocks rising into the grey sky, thousands of homes stacked upon each other, millions of lives intersecting in this small island nation where everyone knew everyone, where secrets had a half-life measured in hours.
“I will not judge you,” he said finally. “Whatever you decide to do. If you want to take responsibility, own up to what happened—I’ll support you through that. If you need time to think, take it. But this is your truth to tell or not tell. Not mine.”
“But you’re my leader—”
“And as your leader, I’m telling you that I can’t make this choice for you. Nobody can.”
She wiped her eyes with the back of her hand, smearing her mascara. “What would you do?”
“That’s not a fair question.”
“Please.”
He was quiet for a long moment, watching a family at the next table—parents and two children, laughing at something on someone’s phone, completely absorbed in their small world of joy. When had he last laughed like that?
“I would tell the truth,” he said. “Because I’ve learned that lies have weight. They seem light when you first pick them up, but they grow heavier every day you carry them. Eventually, they become so heavy they crush everything around them.”
She nodded slowly. Then: “Can I think about it? Just… can I have some time?”
“Of course.” He stood, leaving money for both their drinks. “Raeesah—whatever happens, you’re not alone in this. The party will support you. I’ll support you. But you have to be the one to decide.”
As he walked away, umbrella blooming open against the rain, he didn’t know that these words—meant as comfort, as leadership, as compassion—would be dissected, analyzed, weaponized. He didn’t know that “I will not judge you” would become four of the most contested words in Singapore’s recent political history.
He didn’t know that three months later, when Raeesah finally told her truth to Parliament, when the storm really broke, someone would claim he had said something else entirely: “Take it to the grave.”
He didn’t know because he hadn’t said it. But in the strange alchemy of memory and motivation, of pressure and perception, those words would be attributed to him anyway.
Part Two: The Committee
December 2021. The Committee of Privileges hearing room felt deliberately austere, designed to intimidate. Pritam sat in the witness chair, aware of every camera angle, every recorder, every note being taken.
“Mr. Singh,” the chairperson said, “what exactly did you tell Ms. Khan when she confessed her lie to you?”
He’d prepared for this. He’d known it was coming. But the gap between preparation and performance was a chasm.
“I told her that she needed to take responsibility for what she’d said,” he replied carefully. “That this was her decision to make about how to move forward.”
“Did you tell her to maintain the lie?”
“No.”
“Did you discourage her from coming clean?”
“No. I told her I would support her whatever she decided.”
“Support her in continuing to lie to Parliament?”
“Support her in taking responsibility—”
“Yes or no, Mr. Singh. Did you tell her you would not judge her if she continued with the falsehood?”
And here it was. The question that would define everything.
“I said I would not judge her,” he answered. “But I meant—”
“Yes or no suffices, Mr. Singh.”
“Context matters—”
“Did you or did you not say ‘I will not judge you’?”
“I did, but—”
“Thank you. And did you or did you not tell Ms. Khan to ‘take it to the grave’?”
“No. I never said that.”
“Ms. Khan testified that you did.”
“Then Ms. Khan is mistaken or lying.”
The words hung in the air, heavy with implication. He had just called his former colleague a liar under oath. There was no walking this back.
Part Three: The Verdict
February 2025. The trial had been exhausting—thirteen days of testimony, cross-examination, legal arguments. Pritam had watched his life dissected, his words analyzed, his character questioned.
The judge’s verdict was clinical in its precision: guilty on two counts of lying to the Committee of Privileges. The interpretation was stark—”I will not judge you” meant he had given permission for the lie to continue. His denial of “take it to the grave” was not believed.
Standing outside the State Courts, facing cameras and questions, Pritam felt the weight of those words—the ones he’d said and the ones he hadn’t—pressing down on him like physical objects.
“I will appeal,” he said simply.
His phone buzzed constantly. Messages of support from constituents. Strategy discussions from party leaders. Media requests. And one message that stood out, from an unknown number:
“I’m sorry. I was scared. I didn’t mean for it to go this far. —R”
He deleted it without responding.
Part Four: The Campaign
May 2025. Walking through the Aljunied markets during the campaign, Pritam was surprised by the warmth of the reception. He’d expected anger, disappointment, maybe pity. Instead, he found something more complex: solidarity mixed with skepticism, support tinged with doubt, loyalty qualified by concern.
“Mr. Singh! Mr. Singh!” An elderly woman grabbed his arm. “You’re a good man. They’re trying to bring you down because you’re strong.”
A younger voter was more circumspect: “I still believe in you, but I need to know—what really happened?”
A hawker making char kway teow looked up from his wok: “Politics is dirty business lah. PAP or WP, all also the same. But at least you fight for us.”
Standing on stage at a rally, looking out at thousands of faces, Pritam felt the paradox of his position. He was a convicted liar who people trusted. A disgraced politician with a sixty percent approval rating. A leader whose words had been twisted but whose actions—fourteen years of service, of advocacy, of showing up—spoke louder.
“I made mistakes,” he told the crowd. “I could have handled things better. But I never told anyone to lie. I never chose politics over truth. And I will continue to fight for you, to serve you, whether or not I wear this conviction like a scarlet letter.”
The cheers were deafening.
Part Five: The Appeal
November 2025. Back in the courtroom, this time the Supreme Court, Pritam watched his lawyer make the arguments he’d refined over months.
“Your Honor, this case hinges on the interpretation of ambiguous statements. ‘I will not judge you’—what does this phrase actually mean? The prosecution claims it’s permission to lie. But consider the context: a leader speaking to a distressed subordinate, encouraging her to take ownership of her actions. Isn’t it more plausible that he meant ‘I won’t judge you for coming clean’?”
Justice Chong listened impassively, occasionally making notes.
“And the phrase ‘take it to the grave’—this dramatic statement appears nowhere in Mr. Singh’s character or history. The only source is Ms. Khan, whose credibility is, to put it charitably, questionable. She lied to Parliament. She lied about the circumstances. Why would we believe her about this?”
During recess, Pritam stood in the hallway, watching lawyers and clerks hurry past, each absorbed in their own dramas. He thought about how we’re all unreliable narrators of our own lives, how memory bends under pressure, how truth becomes slippery when filtered through fear and ambition.
Had he been naive in his conversation with Raeesah? Absolutely. Had he been too indirect, too gentle, when clarity and firmness were needed? Probably. Had he failed as a leader? Maybe.
But had he told her to lie? Had he conspired to deceive Parliament?
No.
He held onto that certainty like a lifeline.
Part Six: The Weight
That evening, Pritam stood on the balcony of his flat, looking out over Aljunied. Lights in thousands of windows, each representing a life, a family, a story. These were the people who had trusted him with their votes even after his conviction. These were the people whose housing issues he’d helped with, whose complaints he’d brought to Parliament, whose children he’d watched grow up at Meet-the-People sessions.
His phone rang. His wife.
“How was it?” she asked.
“Hard to tell. Chong’s a poker face.”
“How are you?”
He considered the question. How was he? Exhausted. Vindicated and vilified in equal measure. Certain of his innocence yet aware of his failures. Hopeful yet prepared for disappointment.
“I’m alright,” he said.
“Liar,” she said gently, with love.
He laughed, the irony not lost on him. “Yeah. I’m a terrible liar. Which is why I’m in this mess.”
After he hung up, he thought about words again—how they could heal or wound, clarify or confuse, build or destroy. He thought about how “take it to the grave” and “I will not judge you” had become hieroglyphics in Singapore’s political archaeology, ancient texts subject to endless interpretation.
He thought about Raeesah, wherever she was now, living with her own words, her own choices.
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritising individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialised mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritised every step of the way.