Parliamentary Privilege, Perjury, and Political Accountability in Singapore
Executive Summary
The conviction of Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition and Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, for lying under oath to a Committee of Privileges represents a watershed moment in Singapore’s legal and political landscape. This case study examines the legal foundations of the conviction, analyses its implications for parliamentary governance, and explores its broader impact on Singapore’s political culture and society.
I. Case Background and Timeline
The Genesis: Raeesah Khan’s False Testimony (August-October 2021)
The case originates from former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan’s false anecdote told in Parliament on August 3, 2021, about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station where officers allegedly mishandled the case. Khan repeated this fabrication on October 4, 2021.
Critically, Khan had confessed the lie to senior Workers’ Party leaders—Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim, and Faisal Manap—on August 8, 2021, just days after her initial false statement. Despite this knowledge, these leaders did not immediately correct the parliamentary record.
The Cover-Up and Confession (October-November 2021)
On October 11, 2021, former WP chief Low Thia Khiang advised that the truth should be clarified in Parliament. On November 1, 2021, Khan finally confessed to lying in the House.
Following her confession, Singh formed a disciplinary committee comprising himself, Lim, and Manap to investigate why Khan had lied—despite all three already knowing about the lie for months.
Committee of Privileges Investigation (November 2021-February 2022)
The Committee of Privileges (COP) was convened to investigate Khan’s lies and the role of WP leadership. During testimony to the COP in December 2021, Singh gave sworn evidence that would later form the basis of criminal charges against him.
The COP’s February 2022 report recommended that Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor, while deferring sanctions until criminal proceedings concluded.
Criminal Proceedings (October 2024-December 2025)
Singh’s trial began in October 2024, nearly three years after the COP investigation. He was convicted on February 17, 2025, of two charges of lying under oath. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court on December 4, 2025, with Justice Steven Chong upholding the conviction. Singh was fined $14,000 ($7,000 per charge) and accepted the judgment “fully and without reservation.”
II. Legal Framework and Charges
The Statutory Foundation
Singh was charged under Section 179 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224), which criminalizes giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. While the Committee of Privileges is not a court, its proceedings carry the solemnity and legal weight of judicial proceedings for perjury purposes under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
The two charges against Singh centered on:
- Charge 1: Whether he told Raeesah Khan to “take the lie to the grave”
- Charge 2: What he meant when he told Khan he “would not judge her”
Burden of Proof and Standard of Evidence
As with all criminal charges in Singapore, the prosecution bore the burden of proving Singh’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case turned on credibility assessments, with Khan’s testimony forming a significant—though not sole—evidentiary foundation.
Key Legal Findings
On Charge 1 (Taking the Lie to the Grave): The courts found that contrary to Singh’s sworn testimony, he did tell Khan to maintain her lie. This finding was supported by Khan’s testimony, corroborated by contextual evidence including the delayed correction and the actions of WP leadership.
On Charge 2 (Meaning of “Not Judging”): Singh claimed he meant he would not judge Khan for taking ownership and responsibility. The courts found he actually meant he would not judge her for maintaining the lie—a fundamentally different and more culpable meaning that contradicted his testimony.
Appellate Review
Singh’s appeal argued that the trial judge ignored crucial evidence and relied too heavily on Khan’s testimony despite inconsistencies. Justice Steven Chong rejected these arguments, noting the trial judge had “carefully evaluated an entire body of evidence in addition to Ms Khan’s testimony” and it was this comprehensive assessment that led to conviction.
III. Legal Implications and Precedential Value
Parliamentary Privilege and Its Limits
This case clarifies crucial boundaries around parliamentary privilege in Singapore:
Protected Speech vs. Protected Lies: While Members of Parliament enjoy absolute privilege for statements made during parliamentary proceedings (protecting them from defamation suits), this privilege does not extend to lying in those proceedings or to committees investigating parliamentary matters.
Committee of Privileges Powers: The case affirms that COP proceedings carry quasi-judicial weight, with perjury in such proceedings subject to criminal prosecution. This strengthens parliamentary self-policing mechanisms.
Dual Accountability: MPs face both political accountability (to voters and party) and legal accountability (to the criminal justice system). The case demonstrates that political status provides no immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct.
Evidentiary Standards in Parliamentary Investigations
The case establishes important precedents regarding evidence in COP proceedings:
- Testimony from co-participants in events (like Khan) can form the basis of conviction when properly corroborated
- Context, contemporaneous conduct, and circumstantial evidence carry significant weight
- Appellate courts will defer to trial judges’ credibility assessments absent clear error
Separation of Powers Dynamics
The prosecution of a sitting Leader of the Opposition tests the boundaries between legislative and executive branches:
Proper Judicial Independence: The courts’ willingness to convict a prominent opposition figure demonstrates judicial independence and equal application of law regardless of political position.
Executive Restraint: The Attorney-General’s Chambers’ decision to prosecute was made independently of political considerations, showing prosecutorial discretion operates on legal rather than political grounds.
Legislative Self-Regulation: Parliament’s deference to completed judicial proceedings before determining its own response shows respect for the separation of powers—allowing courts to adjudicate legal matters before Parliament addresses political consequences.
Sentencing Philosophy
The $14,000 fine (rather than imprisonment, which was available under the statute) reflects several considerations:
- First-time offender status
- Absence of direct personal gain
- Nature of offense (obstruction of parliamentary process rather than traditional criminal conduct)
- Balancing punishment with proportionality
However, the financial penalty alone has drawn commentary about whether it adequately reflects the severity of lying to Parliament.
IV. Constitutional and Governance Implications
Rule of Law and Political Equality
The case powerfully reinforces Singapore’s commitment to the rule of law:
No One Above the Law: As Leader of the House Indranee Rajah stated, “In some countries, leaders who have lied, cheated or flagrantly broken the law still escape any legal or political consequences. We cannot accept such standards in Singapore.” The conviction demonstrates that political prominence provides no shield from accountability.
Equal Application: The prosecution and conviction of the Leader of the Opposition, without any evidence of political interference, strengthens public confidence that Singapore’s legal system operates impartially.
Parliamentary Integrity and Public Trust
Sacred Duty of Truthfulness: The case underscores that parliamentary proceedings depend on honest testimony. When MPs or witnesses lie to Parliament or its committees, they undermine the entire system of democratic accountability.
Investigative Powers: The case validates Parliament’s investigative authority through the COP and ensures that witnesses cannot lie with impunity, strengthening Parliament’s ability to uncover truth in future investigations.
Precedent for Future Conduct: All MPs now operate with clear knowledge that lying to parliamentary committees carries criminal consequences, likely deterring future misconduct.
Political Party Accountability
The case raises profound questions about internal party discipline:
Leadership Standards: Singh had previously stated that former WP MPs Raeesah Khan and Leon Perera would have been expelled had they not resigned for their misconduct. His own conviction creates a logical test of whether the same standard applies to leadership.
Institutional Credibility: How the Workers’ Party responds affects not just the party’s credibility but also sets precedents for how political parties handle leader misconduct versus rank-and-file member misconduct.
Double Standards Critique: Critics note the apparent inconsistency between Singh’s swift action against backbench MPs and the party’s more cautious approach to his own case.
V. Cultural Impact on Singapore Society
Shifting Political Culture
Accountability Expectations: Singaporeans increasingly expect high ethical standards from all elected officials, regardless of party affiliation. This case reinforces that expectation and demonstrates it has teeth.
Opposition Politics Maturation: As Singapore’s opposition presence grows, cases like this normalize the application of legal and ethical standards to opposition politicians—neither persecuting them unfairly nor giving them special treatment.
Public Discourse on Ethics: The case has sparked extensive public debate about political ethics, the appropriate consequences for misconduct, and what Singaporeans expect from their representatives.
Trust in Institutions
Judicial System Confidence: The careful judicial process, from COP investigation through trial and appeal, with detailed written judgments explaining findings, reinforces public trust in Singapore’s courts as fair and thorough.
Parliamentary Credibility: The forthcoming parliamentary debate on “appropriate response” will test whether Parliament can hold its own members accountable effectively, affecting public perception of legislative integrity.
Media Scrutiny: Extensive coverage of the case demonstrates a maturing civil society willing to scrutinize political leaders and demand accountability, contributing to a more engaged citizenry.
Social Cohesion and Cynicism
Competing Narratives:
Reinforcement of Standards: Some view the case as proof that Singapore’s system works—wrongdoing is investigated, prosecuted, and punished regardless of who commits it.
Political Persecution Concerns: Others, particularly some WP supporters, question whether opposition politicians face disproportionate scrutiny compared to ruling party members.
Risk of Cynicism: If the public perceives unequal application of standards (whether true or not), it could breed cynicism about the political system. Conversely, if accountability is seen as genuine and equal, it strengthens democratic legitimacy.
Impact on Political Participation
Deterrent Effect: Potential political candidates, especially from opposition parties, may become more risk-averse, concerned about intense scrutiny and harsh consequences for mistakes.
Quality Control: Conversely, higher accountability standards may attract more principled candidates committed to ethical conduct, ultimately improving political quality.
Voter Behavior: The case may influence how voters evaluate candidates, placing greater emphasis on integrity and honesty alongside policy positions and competence.
VI. Comparative Analysis: International Perspectives
Parliamentary Perjury in Other Jurisdictions
United Kingdom: MPs can be sanctioned by Parliament for misleading the House, but criminal perjury charges are extremely rare. Boris Johnson faced a parliamentary standards investigation but no criminal charges for alleged misleading of Parliament.
Australia: While parliamentary privilege is strong, witnesses before parliamentary committees can be prosecuted for perjury, though this remains uncommon. The case of Godwin Grech (2009) involved false testimony to a parliamentary committee.
United States: Lying to Congress is a federal crime (18 U.S.C. § 1001), and several individuals have been convicted, including Michael Cohen (Trump’s lawyer) and Roger Clemens (baseball player, though later acquitted). However, congressmembers themselves rarely face criminal charges for false statements.
Canada: Witnesses before parliamentary committees can be charged with perjury, but this is rarely pursued. MPs themselves are protected by parliamentary privilege for statements made in the House.
Singapore’s Distinctive Approach
Singapore’s prosecution of its Leader of the Opposition distinguishes it from many democracies where:
- Political norms often prevent prosecution of senior opposition figures
- Parliamentary matters are typically resolved through internal mechanisms
- Criminal prosecution for parliamentary testimony is reserved for extreme cases
This reflects Singapore’s emphasis on:
- Strict rule of law application
- Low tolerance for corruption or dishonesty in public office
- Institutional integrity over political considerations
VII. Long-Term Consequences and Future Scenarios
For Pritam Singh Personally
Political Career: Singh accepted the judgment “fully and without reservation,” but his political future remains uncertain. Possibilities include:
- Remaining as WP Secretary-General and Leader of Opposition (facing significant criticism)
- Resigning from leadership positions while retaining parliamentary seat
- Resigning from Parliament entirely
- Being expelled by the WP (if the party determines his conduct warrants it)
Legal Consequences: Beyond the fine, Singh faces no jail time or disqualification from holding office (as the offense does not carry mandatory disqualification). However, the conviction remains on his record.
Historical Legacy: How history judges Singh will depend partly on his response—whether he takes full responsibility, how he addresses the harm done, and whether he can rebuild trust.
For the Workers’ Party
Institutional Crossroads: The WP faces its most serious internal crisis since its founding. Its response will define the party for years:
- Maintaining Singh: Would be seen by critics as applying double standards given past expulsions, potentially damaging credibility.
- Removing Singh: Would demonstrate principle but create leadership vacuum and potential internal divisions.
- Reformed Governance: Opportunity to implement stronger internal accountability mechanisms and ethical guidelines.
Electoral Impact: Uncertain how voters will respond. Possibilities include:
- Loss of support due to perceived hypocrisy or ethical failures
- Maintained support if voters separate party from individual leader
- Strengthened support if WP demonstrates accountability through meaningful reform
Opposition Politics: Other opposition parties may benefit if WP credibility suffers, or the entire opposition may face increased scrutiny and higher barriers to public trust.
For Singapore’s Parliament
Enhanced Investigative Processes: The case may lead to:
- Clearer guidelines for COP procedures
- Stronger witness protections and obligations
- More robust record-keeping of parliamentary investigations
- Training for MPs on their legal duties when testifying
Standards of Conduct: Parliament may establish or strengthen:
- Codes of conduct with explicit consequences for violations
- Clearer expectations around when MPs must correct parliamentary record
- Guidance on managing conflicts between party loyalty and parliamentary duty
Disciplinary Framework: January 2026 parliamentary debate may result in:
- Formal censure motions
- Removal from parliamentary positions (e.g., Leader of Opposition)
- Referral to Standards Committee for additional sanctions
- Constitutional amendments regarding member conduct
For Singapore’s Democracy
Accountability Culture: The case contributes to evolving norms where:
- All politicians face meaningful consequences for misconduct
- Voters demand higher ethical standards
- Political parties must institutionalize accountability mechanisms
Checks and Balances: Demonstrates that Singapore’s system of separated powers functions:
- Courts independently adjudicate political figures’ conduct
- Parliament can investigate and respond to member misconduct
- Executive branch (AGC) prosecutes based on evidence, not politics
Democratic Maturation: Reflects a maturing democracy where:
- Opposition politicians are treated as legitimate leaders subject to same standards
- Institutional integrity matters more than partisan protection
- Public discourse critically evaluates all political actors
Potential Reforms
Legislative Reforms:
- Clarifying penalties for parliamentary perjury in statute
- Strengthening disqualification provisions for convicted MPs
- Enhancing COP powers and procedures
- Creating independent parliamentary ethics office
Political Reforms:
- Mandatory ethics training for all MPs
- Stronger financial and conduct disclosure requirements
- Party-level codes of conduct with enforcement mechanisms
- Public consultation on parliamentary standards
Cultural Reforms:
- Greater civic education about parliamentary processes
- Enhanced media literacy to evaluate political misconduct claims
- Platforms for public input on governance standards
- Recognition that accountability serves democracy, not partisanship
VIII. Critical Analysis and Unanswered Questions
Proportionality Concerns
Severity of Penalty: Critics question whether a $14,000 fine adequately reflects the gravity of lying to Parliament. Defenders note it’s Singh’s first offense and imprisonment would be disproportionate.
Comparative Justice: Did Raeesah Khan (fined $35,000 for the underlying lies) receive harsher punishment than Singh (fined $14,000 for covering up those lies)? The different nature of offenses complicates direct comparison.
Political Consequences vs. Legal: Should Parliament impose additional sanctions beyond criminal conviction, or does that constitute double jeopardy? Legal and political accountability serve different purposes and may both be appropriate.
Evidentiary Questions
Reliance on Khan’s Testimony: Singh’s defense emphasized Khan’s credibility issues. While courts found corroboration, questions remain about convicting based substantially on testimony from someone with admitted truthfulness problems.
Standard of Proof: Did the prosecution truly prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt,” or was the standard effectively lowered due to the political context? Judicial reasoning suggests rigorous application, but skeptics remain.
Alternative Interpretations: Were Singh’s statements capable of innocent interpretation? Courts said no, but reasonable people may disagree about whether ambiguous statements constitute perjury.
Procedural Fairness
Timing of Prosecution: Nearly three years elapsed between COP report and trial. Was this delay necessary, or did it create unfair uncertainty for Singh and the public?
Media Coverage: Extensive media attention potentially influenced public opinion before trial. Did Singh receive a fair trial in the court of public opinion alongside the legal proceeding?
Political Pressure: Did government officials’ strong public statements about the case (particularly from Indranee Rajah) create inappropriate pressure on judicial process? Or were these appropriate expressions of parliamentary concern?
Broader Accountability Gaps
Other WP Leaders: Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap also knew about Khan’s lie but took no immediate action. Why were they not prosecuted? The COP recommended sanctions but these were never implemented beyond political criticism.
Institutional Reform: Has Parliament itself adequately addressed systemic issues that allowed the situation to develop? What reforms prevent future similar incidents?
Partisan Standards: Do ruling party MPs face equivalent scrutiny? Perception of unequal treatment, whether justified or not, affects legitimacy of the entire accountability system.
IX. Lessons and Best Practices
For Political Leaders
- Immediate Correction: When falsehoods are discovered, they must be corrected immediately, not strategically delayed.
- Primacy of Institutional Duty: Party loyalty cannot supersede parliamentary obligations and duties to truth.
- Transparency in Crisis: Cover-ups invariably worsen situations. Early transparency, though painful, limits damage.
- Consistent Standards: Leaders must apply to themselves the same standards they demand of others.
- Legal Counsel: Political leaders facing parliamentary investigations must obtain independent legal advice early and take it seriously.
For Political Parties
- Robust Ethics Infrastructure: Parties need clear codes of conduct, independent ethics officers, and genuine enforcement mechanisms.
- Leadership Accountability: Leadership cannot be exempt from disciplinary processes applied to members.
- Crisis Management Protocols: Parties should have clear procedures for handling member misconduct that prioritize institutional integrity over short-term political advantage.
- Training and Support: MPs need training on legal obligations, parliamentary procedures, and ethical decision-making.
- Institutional Memory: Documenting and learning from misconduct cases helps prevent future problems.
For Parliament
- Clear Guidelines: MPs and witnesses need clear, written guidance on their obligations in COP proceedings.
- Swift Process: Lengthy delays in investigations and prosecutions undermine accountability and public trust.
- Graduated Sanctions: Parliament should develop clear framework for sanctions proportionate to various forms of misconduct.
- Bipartisan Standards: Accountability mechanisms must apply equally across parties to maintain legitimacy.
- Public Transparency: Parliamentary investigations should be as transparent as possible while protecting necessary confidentiality.
For Civil Society
- Informed Engagement: Citizens need to understand parliamentary processes to meaningfully evaluate misconduct and accountability.
- Non-Partisan Standards: Civil society should demand accountability from all parties, not just political opponents.
- Constructive Criticism: Public discourse should focus on systemic improvement, not just individual punishment.
- Sustained Attention: Accountability requires ongoing vigilance, not just momentary outrage.
X. Conclusion
The Pritam Singh case represents a defining moment in Singapore’s political and legal development. At its core, the case is simple: a political leader lied under oath to Parliament and was held accountable through criminal prosecution and conviction. Yet its implications ripple far beyond these basic facts.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies that parliamentary privilege does not protect false testimony, strengthens the Committee of Privileges as an investigative body, and demonstrates judicial independence in politically sensitive cases.
Political Ramifications: The conviction tests Singapore’s commitment to equal accountability across party lines, challenges the Workers’ Party’s internal consistency on disciplinary standards, and will influence opposition politics for years to come.
Cultural Impact: The case has sparked national conversation about ethics in politics, reinforced expectations that leaders must meet high standards of conduct, and demonstrated that Singapore’s democratic institutions can hold powerful individuals accountable.
Long-Term Questions: Critical uncertainties remain: Will Parliament impose additional sanctions? How will the Workers’ Party respond? Will voters view this as justice or persecution? Will the case strengthen or weaken opposition politics in Singapore?
Ultimately, the Pritam Singh case serves as a reminder that democracy depends on truthfulness, that accountability must apply to all regardless of political position, and that institutions matter more than individuals. How Singapore navigates the aftermath—through parliamentary action, party response, and electoral judgment—will determine whether this moment strengthens or strains the nation’s democratic foundations.
The case stands as both a warning about the consequences of dishonesty in public office and an affirmation that, in Singapore, no one—not even the Leader of the Opposition—is above the law. Whether this principle is applied consistently and fairly in all cases will ultimately determine its true meaning and impact on Singapore’s future.
References and Further Reading
- Committee of Privileges Report on Ms Raeesah Khan (February 2022)
- Public Prosecutor v Pritam Singh [Trial Judgment, February 17, 2025]
- Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [Appeal Judgment, December 4, 2025]
- Parliamentary Debates on Standards and Accountability (Various dates)
- Academic analyses of parliamentary privilege in Westminster systems
- Comparative studies of political accountability mechanisms
- Media coverage and public commentary (2021-2025)
This case study is intended for educational and analytical purposes. It represents an independent analysis and does not constitute legal advice. All factual assertions are based on publicly available information including court judgments, parliamentary reports, and media coverage.