View defence submissions, judgments, parliamentary speeches and more.
1. Raeesah Begum Bte Farid Khan (“Raeesah Khan”, “Ms Khan” or “PW1”) lies. She lied in Parliament on two occasions. She lied to her friends Ms Loh Pei Ying (“PW2”) and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan (“PW3”). She lied about the lie told in Parliament to the Secretary General of the Workers’ Party, Mr Pritam Singh (“Mr Singh”). These are facts.
2. Raeesah Khan lies when she is spoken to directly. She lied to PW3 following his questions raised about her speech in Parliament by Minister of State (“MOS”) Desmond Tan on 3 August 2021. She lied directly to Mr. Singh when he questioned her about it. These are facts.
3. Raeesah Khan lies in text messages. She lied to both PW2 and PW3 about the truth of her anecdote. She lied for days on end in messages to Mr. Singh about the truth of her anecdote. These are facts.
4. We don’t need to determine whether Raeesah Khan lies because that has already been conclusively established. Not only has she admitted to lying, but we also had a national spectacle in the form of the Committee of Privileges (“COP”) to establish the fact that she lies.
5. But in a curious turn of event, it is not Raeesah Khan that is in the dock for lying, but Mr Singh. Of the four individuals, Raeesah Khan, PW2, PW3 and Mr. Singh, brought before the police investigation in respect of Ms Khan’s lie told in Parliament, only Mr. Singh is charged with an offence. Raeesah Khan, who lies continuously and indiscriminately, is not charged with any offence. PW2 and PW3, both of whom, at the very least, conspired to hide from Parliament evidence of how they persuaded Ms Khan to continue lying in Parliament, which was made clear to the police during their investigations, are not charged with any offence.
6. It is Mr Singh that is charged with the offences. The same Mr. Singh, who from the moment he had sight of the anecdote that Ms Khan intended to deliver in Parliament on 3 August, called on her to substantiate the anecdote; the same Mr Singh who, even after the sitting of Parliament on 3 August had ended, and in the days that followed, pressed Ms Khan to provide the necessary details to substantiate her anecdote. The same Mr Singh who, after Ms Khan recovered from shingles in September, and before the next sitting of Parliament on 4 October, sent an email impressing the importance of being able to back up and defend what an MP says in Parliament; and the same Mr. Singh who, on 3 October, went to Ms Khan’s house to warn her that the government may bring up the issue again. Throughout all this Mr Singh has been consistently clear in his position. Initially, he was prepared to give her time to speak to her parents and collect herself before admitting the fact that she lied to Parliament, but he was not prepared to let that go on indefinitely. It was Mr Singh who emphatically rejected the pleas from Ms Khan’s friends, PW2 and PW3, to cover up the lie with another one. He has never hidden the fact that it was Ms Khan’s duty to take responsibility and ownership of the issue, and that it was her decision to continue to lie, a fact that he made clear to Ms Khan, and from which she did not demur. He did not seek to control how she responded to questions following her admission to Parliament that she lied because he had nothing to hide. He did not get together with Ms Khan, PW2 and PW3, before the COP in any attempt to align his account, because there was nothing to align. He did not give in to threats before the hearing from PW2 because there was nothing that could threaten him. Rather, his advice to anyone who asked was to tell the truth. And he did not seek to delete his messages to the COP because there was nothing for him to hide about his conduct. Yet, it is Mr. Singh, who has maintained the account he gave in the COP surrounding Ms Khan’s lie, that is charged.
7. The charges against Mr Singh are as follows:
a. 1st Charge (MCN-900426-2024) – that as at the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan, Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap on 8 August 2021, Mr Singh wanted Ms Khan to, at some point, clarify in Parliament that what she told Parliament on 3 August 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station was untrue.
b. 2nd Charge (MCN-900427-2024) – that when Mr, Singh spoke to Ms Khan on 3 October 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that she had to clarify that what she told Parliament on 3 August 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station was untrue if this issue came up in Parliament on 4 October 2021.
8. As this trial has established, the charges are based, not on answers to questions that he actually gave, but the purported “thrust” of what he said.
9. To add further insult to injury, the Prosecution’s case is essentially that the word of a proven liar and her two friends desperate to cover up their own role should be believed over that of Mr. Singh. If there is one thing that this trial has demonstrated, the “truth” seems to escape these three individuals, Ms Khan, PW2 and PW3, each time they take an oath to tell it. Worse still, this trial has revealed the lies they told to the COP and to this Court, the conspiracies they hatched behind closed doors, and the extent they would go to ensure that the truth never sees the light of day.
10. As the court sits to weigh the evidence in this matter the question that must sit heavy on its shoulders is this: is it really possible to believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, the words of proven, self confessed liars over those of Mr Singh? Whether or not Mr Singh could, with the benefit of hindsight, done or said something else to make his position clear is neither here nor there. The crux of the matter is this: can the court take the word of liars – including those that have seen fit to lie before this court in the course of these proceedings – as proof that Mr Singh lied? The answer must be a resounding no.
1. By the end of the Committee of Privileges (“COP”) hearings, we already knew that Ms Khan had given contradictory accounts of her meeting with Mr Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim (“Ms Lim”), and Mr Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap (“Mr Faisal”) on 8 August. She had gone from alleging that she was told to continue the narrative if not pressed, to taking the lie to the grave.
2. What we were not aware of was the extent to which she, and her co-conspirators, Ms Loh Pei Ying (“PW2”) and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan (“PW3”), went to conceal their dealings from the COP. These new facts present a vastly different conclusion on their credibility. We referred to them in our closing submissions at [1] – [6] and restate some significant ones below:
a. Ms Khan’s admission of her conversation with PW2 and PW3 on 7 August 2021 revealed an understanding between all three to “bury” the truth.
b. The three of them met on 29 November to align their evidence before appearing before the COP. At that meeting, PW2 convinced Ms Khan to adopt a version of her truth.
c. At that meeting, PW2 sent a message to Mr Singh through Mike Lim to pressure Mr Singh to change the decision to sack Ms Khan from the Workers’ Party or she would tell “her truth” to the COP. Mr Singh, unmoved by such threats, simply responded that they should tell the truth.
d. The trial, through Exhibit D2-1 to D2-5, exposed the fact that PW2 and PW3 encouraged Ms Khan to maintain the lie. It is also showed that Ms Khan was quite prepared to back her lie without any “guidance” from Mr Singh after she had been confronted by the Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam (“Mr. Shanmugam”) on 4 October.
e. Unlike Mr Singh, Ms Khan, PW2 and PW3 deleted chats from their mobile devices before and after their appearances before the COP.
f. PW2 disobeyed a direct instruction from the COP not to discuss her evidence with PW3 when she called him to give him a “heads up”.
g. Both PW2 and PW3, despite the instructions not to discuss the evidence, managed to redact the same message telling Ms Khan not to admit to the truth.
3. Their actions stand in marked contrast to Mr Singh. There is no contradictory account of his meetings with Ms Khan on 8 August or 3 October. There were no deleted messages by Mr Singh, who submitted his device to the police with no messages removed from the scrutiny of the COP or police either before or after the COP proceedings.
4. The Prosecution’s submissions do not adequately address the new evidence above at [2] that emerged at the trial. By the very fact that Exhibits D2-1 to D2-5 were disclosed by the Prosecution pursuant to their Kadar1 obligations, it is incontrovertible that the messages contained in those exhibits, which were never placed before the COP, are credible and relevant to Mr Singh’s innocence.2 Yet, save for some fleeting remarks on Exhibit D2-4,3 the Prosecution do not discuss these exhibits at all. At its lowest, this evidence supports the Defence’s case while simultaneously undermining the Prosecution’s.
5. In the test of who is telling the truth, actions speak louder than words. On the one hand, you have Ms Khan, who showed no hesitation in staring down Mr. Shanmugam and lying directly to his face, but who now wants to portray herself as some sort of naïve “27-28 year old rookie MP”.4 You also have her co-conspirators, engaging in Machiavellian subterfuge. Their attempt to cover up the evidence raises significant concern: what exactly was in those messages that they felt compelled to delete immediately after the sitting on 4 October? What other messages did they delete before, during and after the COP hearing? What were they trying to hide? Whose interests were they protecting? In all of this, and despite the many opportunities presented to them, none of them accused Mr Singh of telling Ms Khan to lie until they got to the COP. These are the same people the Prosecution rely on to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. On the other hand, you have Mr Singh, who holds himself in a diametrically opposite fashion. Despite having much more to lose than Ms Khan, there is no attempt to coach her on her statement on 1 November; there is no giving in to the threats of PW2, except to say tell the truth; there are no frantic calls to witnesses before they give evidence; and there is no deleting or hiding of text messages. There is none of this because he had nothing to hide.
7. The burden of proving the charges remains on the Prosecution throughout. It is their burden to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt. There is no burden on Mr Singh to prove his innocence, particularly when what he is being asked to do is to prove a negative. We say that, in the final analysis, when the credibility of the Prosecution witnesses’ is assessed, the only just verdict is that the Prosecution’s case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
1 Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 791; Defence Bundle of Authorities (Reply) (“DBOA 2”) at TAB 1.
2 Notes of Evidence (“NE”) (21 October 2024) at p 135 line 23 – p 136 line 5.
3 Prosecution closing submissions dated 13 January 2025 (“Prosecution Submissions”) at [155] – [159].
4 NE (14 October 2024) at p 26 line 16
1. The Appellant, Mr Pritam Singh (“Mr Singh”), was convicted after trial of two charges of wilfully making a false answer to a question material to the subject of inquiry put during examination before the Committee of Privileges (“COP”), pursuant to Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (“PPIPA”): see Public Prosecutor v Pritam Singh [2025] SGDC 90 (“the GD”).1
2. This case arises from a lie told by Raeesah Khan during a parliamentary sitting on 3 August 2021. On 4 October 2021, she repeated the lie. On 1 November 2021 Ms Khan gave her Personal Explanation admitting to the lie. When she did so, she was questioned by the Leader of the House on the reasons why she chose to repeat the untruth in Parliament on 4 October 2021, and she had this to say:
“Ms Indranee Rajah: … So, I said that on 3 August. Two months later, when the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs about this incident, which is two months’ time to reflect, why did the Member then repeat the untruth?
Ms Raeesah Khan: Thank you. Like I mentioned before, I think there were two things that were going through my mind. The first was that I really wanted to protect the identity of the survivor and the survivors in the women’s support group. And secondly, a lot of people did not know about this assault until very recently including my family. So, I was not ready at that point to come forward with this information. But after being able to have discussions with my family, with my friends and also informing the relevant people, it was it was clear that I wanted to make this apology; I wanted to make this personal explanation like I have done so today.”
3. A month later, the Committee of Privileges (“COP”) was set up to investigate Ms Khan’s actions. By then she had been ejected from the Workers’ Party. At the COP she changed her tune and sought to blame Mr Singh for maintaining the untruth.
4. Ms Khan’s attempts to shift the blame at the COP are not so unusual. Many a time those who have done wrong seek to deflect attention from themselves and onto others, particularly where doing so will lessen their own culpability. Ms Khan’s actions call to mind the events that Arthur Miller wrote about in the Crucible; perhaps it is salutary to heed the word of the protagonist John Proctor, when he called out the false accusations:2
“… Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers? I’ll tell you what’s walking Salem – vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!”
5. At the heart of the case lies a single question: did Mr Singh wilfully give false answers to the Committee of Privileges? The Prosecution said “yes” – yet failed to point to a single specific question or a single specific answer. Instead, the charges rested on a patchwork of words, loosely stitched together, retrofitted into a narrative that Mr Singh himself never gave. On this patchwork, the Principal District Judge Luke Tan (“the DJ”) convicted Mr Singh and imposed a fine of $7,000 for each of the two charges: see the GD at [5] and [653].3 To compound matters, the DJ convicted Mr Singh on the shifting stories of, frankly, incredible witnesses, filled evidential gaps with speculation, and imposed criminal liability based on assumptions.
Click on the buttons to view the judgments of the Magistrate's Court and High Court
10 April 2025
4 December 2025
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been about 25 years since a Committee of Privileges (COP) Report has been tabled in this House. When seen as a whole, the COP's processes and the Report before Parliament leave many questions, gaps and omissions and, by extension, suggest political partisanship.
A key question is: who did this House commit to the COP? Raeesah Khan or the Workers’ Party leadership? The COP did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why Ms Khan lied in Parliament nor why she had a propensity to lie with respect to her anecdote, both in and out of this House. The fact that she had concocted a lie to bolster her anecdote in Parliament was not balanced against her evidence to the COP. What took centre stage instead was her uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to take her lie to the grave by the Workers' Party leadership, a fabrication which never came out from any witness at the COP except Ms Raeesah Khan herself.
I reject this finding completely. At no time did I instruct Ms Khan to hide the truth. At the meeting on August 8, none of the three Workers' Party leaders told Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave.
I will speak on two main areas before concluding with a section on candidate selection in the Workers' Party. First, I will reflect on my judgment with respect to Ms Khan's reasons for lying in Parliament, arising from my meeting with her on 8 August. Second, I will raise some broad points about the selective nature of how the COP Report dealt with the evidence before it. However, as I intend to clear my name and cooperate with the Public Prosecutor, my comments on the COP Report will be limited in scope.
The most difficult aspect of this episode for me personally, and most certainly something that I have reflected on, is the approach to take when a fellow MP tells you, first, she is a rape victim; and second, how this episode caused an untruth to be told in Parliament.
From the moment I learned after the August Sitting that Ms Khan had lied in Parliament, there was no doubt in my mind that she would have to confess in Parliament that she had lied and that she would have to apologise for it in this House. I have shared publicly that the matter of the lie was something for Ms Khan to explain in Parliament.
My firm belief is that a Member of Parliament must be accountable in Parliament for what they say in Parliament. In addition, I considered that whenever she confessed, Ms Khan would have to explain her reason for telling her lie. I did not want Ms Khan's parents or loved ones to be caught by surprise before she had a chance to speak with them.
Looking back though, I gave Ms Khan too much time to settle herself before closing this issue with her. Between 8 August and 30 September, I should have been proactive and checked where she was in addressing the matter with her family. That omission is mine alone. I acknowledged the same to the COP in my evidence.
However, I will continue to be as sympathetic to anyone who shares such deeply personal details with me. My instinct, even today, would be to keep the information of the sexual assault to myself, or to a very small group of trusted individuals, given its highly personal and sensitive nature. I would allow such a person space to deal with the matter. I still believe that it was right that the clarification was made in Parliament rather than out of it.
That said, I will discuss with my party colleagues how, as an organisation and political party, we can handle such matters better while taking into account how delicate they are.
Sir, on to my brief comments on the COP Report.
For today, the principal point I will make is the disregard of evidence I submitted to the Committee. At minimum, I would have expected a listing of all the documents my fellow Workers' Party colleagues and I submitted to the Committee to be included in the COP Report, to indicate that they were actively considered in deliberations. I can only assume they were not considered, despite my colleagues and I being served with a summons to produce.
There are objective documents that I submitted to the Committee which raised serious doubts about the eventual findings reached in the Report, including the unparliamentary language used at various places, which is not supported by evidence.
The most egregious, in my mind, is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation from Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition. The following points need to be considered as to why I mentioned the psychiatric evaluation.
First, the notes of the Workers' Party Disciplinary Panel, or DP, which was submitted to the COP show that Ms Khan tendered on her own accord, documents which revealed that she was the patient of a psychotherapist who had referred her to a psychiatrist.
Second, on 29 November, Ms Khan voluntarily shared with the DP that she suffered from dissociation. Once again, the relevant DP notes were forwarded to the COP.
And third, I was asked an open question by the COP as to why Ms Khan would make certain statements. I attempted to give a fair answer in line with what Ms Khan herself had revealed.
If the COP was indeed a fact-finding body, should I not have raised the matter of Ms Khan possibly labouring under a condition to the COP?
In my evidence to the COP, I registered the point that the matter was raised because it covered issues of proportionality and culpability. I believe that Ms Khan should not be excessively punished for a condition she could be labouring under and the COP ought to see it as a mitigatory point in her favour.
This evidence of mine, supported by the COP's Minutes of Evidence on culpability and proportionality, is ignored by the COP. So, I reject this assertion that in raising the matter of Ms Khan's mental health to a fact-finding body with a view to consider an appropriate punishment, I had somehow smeared her, or worse, somehow cast aspersions on those with mental health conditions.
Another point I strongly disagree with the COP is how my evidence was characterised with regard to Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan's representations in antagonistic terms. I shared my view with the COP that in my opinion, loyalty to Ms Khan was an operative consideration on the minds of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
Ms Khan, in her own WhatsApp text to me on 22 November at Annex C-29, states that she would respect any decision the Disciplinary Panel (DP) makes, even if it is to resign. In my DP notes of 25 November covering the meeting with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan which, again, was submitted to the COP, Ms Loh made it clear that Ms Khan's resignation should not be on the cards because, in her view, what she did in Parliament was not serious and it was not as if Ms Khan had "laundered money". I believe many would take a different view that telling untruths in Parliament is serious.
Such documentary evidence placed before the COP would show that I had good reasons for concluding that loyalty to Ms Khan was a consideration for her closest allies. Ms Loh's perspective of the gravity of what Ms Khan did is one of those good reasons. Once again, such evidence does not appear to have been considered by the COP.
I can only speculate why. Could it be to strategically drive a wedge and disunite the Workers' Party and show that its leaders recklessly cast aspersions on their own members? And in making the point, the COP Report carefully omits the only character references I made in reference to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
And what did I say? I quote, that "they are decent, good people and have done a lot for the party". I still hold that view.
Finally, Mr Speaker, the COP's case at its highest relies on one pillar – it believes Ms Khan's evidence that she had been told to take her lie to the grave. This belief rests on an uncorroborated piece of evidence, a WhatsApp text originating from Ms Khan herself.
The COP deems the fact of its contemporaneousness to be critical in coming to its conclusion. The COP does not question Ms Khan's credibility even though she was the one who lied in this House, by her own admission, and even though she also lied when she first communicated with me about this matter.
So, if contemporaneous evidence is indeed central, one would expect the COP Report to exhibit a fidelity to such evidence. But it does not.
For example, at paragraph 93 of the Report, it makes the case that Ms Loh was surprised the DP was set up and that it advances Mr Nathan's view that the DP was self-serving.
However, what were Ms Loh's and Mr Nathan's contemporaneous views on the DP when it was set up? I submitted my WhatsApp texts with both of them to the COP. Once again, this evidence is left out from the COP Report.
For the record, Ms Loh's contemporaneous reply upon receiving my message was: "I see. Is there something you need me to do?"
Mr Nathan's reply was clearer: "Hi, Pritam: Noted on this. I know it's difficult, but I think party members and supporters will be comforted by it."
These contemporaneous WhatsApp messages directly contradict the COP's findings at paragraph 93.
This leaves me to consider Ms Khan's behaviour after her resignation and her motivations for making her uncorroborated claim at the COP that she was told to take her lie to the grave. I would offer that the more natural explanation as to why she would do so is that it was in line with human behaviour, logic and common sense, to use the words of the COP. Her post-resignation behaviour was natural in the arena of political participation.
When our first Prime Minister executed the transfer of power from the 1G to 2G leadership, according to five-time PAP MP for Whampoa, Dr Augustine Tan, there was a lot of strain, tension and resentment when older Members and Ministers were told to step aside for the 2G PAP. In response, one outgoing Minister even spoke against the candidature of Prime Minister Lee at the 1984 elections. Such was the level of disenchantment.
The comparison with Ms Khan's behaviour and testimony at the COP is apt because not everyone reacts with loyalty to their party or their party leaders when they realise that the curtain is coming down on them or their political careers.
How did Toh Chin Chye, former Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the PAP, react when he was pushed to the backbench? He became a vocal critic of PAP policies and famously said, "How can I remain a dumb cow?" As to the handover of power, he said, "For old party members who had been loyal, it was a painful process. You don't repay their loyalty by throwing them out. We had the responsibility to help them find jobs."
In fact, so serious was the concern of the unhappiness amongst some members of the PAP old guard about political renewal that the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, as Secretary-General of the PAP, suggested to his Assistant Secretary-General Goh Chok Tong to pack new cadre members into the People's Action Party, in case the question of succession and renewal came to the fore at the next PAP party conference.
Sir, for the record, there are no "jobs for the boys or girls" for ex-Workers' Party MPs. When your departure is precipitated by an overwhelming loss of support from your party members and colleagues, except for your closest allies, from a human behaviour standpoint, I can understand why a person would turn against one's party leaders.
My final point, Mr Speaker, is on the legitimate questions raised by Singaporeans about candidate selection in the Workers' Party.
As this House knows, and as the Government has also previously shared, for example, when the chief of the Singapore Civil Defence Force was convicted in Court, no selection process is fool-proof, and people can change. Even PAP MPs have been found guilty of criminal conduct or forced by their party to vacate their seats for other reasons. Potential PAP general election candidates have also been substituted at the eleventh hour.
The point is that even people who exhibit politically attractive character traits can turn out to be unsuitable. The Workers' Party also has had its fair share of the same experience.
It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to test a person's judgment in all circumstances prior to fielding them as political candidates. This is so even for the PAP, with its massive resources and far greater ease in finding willing candidates, compared to opposition parties.
However, the Workers' Party does not use these realities as an excuse. In the main, our candidate selection processes can always be better in spite of the extraordinary circumstances and the political culture of a one-party dominant state.
I will confer with my colleagues with a view to finetune the processes in the Workers' Party as best as we can, taking into account the structural challenges we in the Opposition face. This would include the absolutely legitimate demands of Singaporeans that the Workers' Party field individuals who do not lower the esteem of Parliament, or who do not meet the standards expected of Members of Parliament. Of course, I will endeavour to the best of my abilities to ensure that our candidates are rational, responsible and respectable. And if any candidate selection decisions are wrong, I, as Secretary General of the party, take full responsibility.
In conclusion, with reference to the Leader of the House's First Motion at 2(c), the Workers' Party disagrees with the reasons behind the lower quantum of fine for Ms Khan, because it is predicated on alleged guidance given to her by myself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, a case which the three of us reject.
On the Second Motion, I am unable to accept the COP's findings that offences have been committed under the Parliament Act by me or any other Workers' Party MPs. Therefore, I will object to the Second Motion as the basis for the recommendations is that offences may have been committed by us.
Nevertheless, should Parliament resolve to adopt the Motion, I intend to clear my name and will cooperate fully with the Public Prosecutor. In view of this, I have kept my comments on the COP Report for today's purposes very narrow and limited.
Introduction
Mr Speaker, before I begin, I wish to state that when it comes to the vote on this motion, I have communicated with the WP MPs that the party whip is lifted. They are free to vote as they consider fit. Separately, my submissions to the Court at trial and on appeal, are available online.
After any Magistrate Court has given its judgment, the decision can only be appealed to the High Court and no further. There is no further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. One has to accept the verdict fully and without reservation. I will explain why I was disappointed with the judgment (a point the Leader of the House did not mention), and therefore do not agree with it. To this end, I will make some general points first and address all the resolutions of motion in the course of my speech.
The Anchoring Evidence – The 8 Aug 2021 statement
The defence’s position, amongst other things was straightforward – Raeesah Khan was not told to take a lie to the grave on 8 August 2021. The courts have ruled that her SMS message of 8 August – of having been told to take “the lie to the grave” was the “anchoring” piece of documentary evidence; and along with other circumstantial evidence, led to the trial judge’s conclusion that such a statement was made by myself.
My conscience remains clear as it will forever, that this was not said by me to Khan at any point. As for the other circumstantial evidence used to sustain my conviction, the legal opinion of the Defence at trial was that enough evidence was canvassed to the Court to render a conviction on both charges unsafe in law, with reasonable doubt duly established.
This explains why it was the Defence’s considered view that there was no necessity for me to call Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap as witnesses. This is all I will say on this point as I do not intend to use my speech to review matters the court has deliberated and ruled upon. To that end, the law has run its course, and I accept and respect that.
Resolution 1
On resolution 1 of the motion, as an opposition MP, my colleagues and I play a role in upholding our organs of state. This disposition explains why I have no difficulty with agreeing with resolution 1 of the motion.
Resolution 2
On resolution 2, it is worthwhile to recall that the COP findings went much further than the charges that were preferred against me.
It is a fact that the subject of guiding Khan to continue to lie, which is found in the Leader of the House’s motion, was not framed as a charge that was preferred against me.
Parliament would recall that it had referred my matter to the police and PP to review all the evidence afresh. It also follows that the Public Prosecutor would have had no trouble framing a charge to this effect, if indeed there was sufficient evidence that I had guided Khan to lie. My position is Khan was not told to lie, let alone guided to lie. I reject resolution 2.
Resolution 3
On resolution 3, I disagree that my conduct was dishonorable and unbecoming of an MP as I disagree with the finding of guilt by the Courts and the COP.
Owing to relatively recent developments to the criminal law, the Prosecution today must hand over witness statements in its possession that are favorable to the Defence’s case before the trial begins. This is a legal obligation under what are referred to as the Kadar disclosure rules. As per the law, I was given portions of Loh Pei Ying’s statements she made to the police. However, such statements are inadmissible in Court, subject to criterion in s 259 of CPC, and subject to the usual rules of evidence.
In addition, under s 225A of the CPC, permission must be given by the PP to use the undisclosed statements outside trial proceedings. I wrote to the PP seeking permission to refer to these undisclosed statements for the purposes of today’s Parliamentary motion. However, my request was rejected by the Public Prosecutor.
Nonetheless, Parliament is sovereign which means it is supreme over all other government institutions including the executive and judicial bodies. And for Parliamentary purposes, police statements under oath are official documents and the reply to one question goes to heart of my position in rejecting resolution 3 of the motion. Members would remember that these police statements arose out of Parliament’s referral of Mr Faisal and myself to the Public Prosecutor. As Parliament is sovereign, I would like to pass up a copy to Speaker for his consideration before permission is given for me to read out one question and its corresponding answer.
[Speaker rejects application]
The President’s 1994 conviction
There are those who believe that whatever our Courts decide, a convicted person is unable to retain their belief that they are innocent insofar as a conviction is concerned. In 1994, our President Tharman Shanmugaratnam was convicted for a different criminal offence. The President who opened this very session of Parliament only some months back, was asked about this in an interview with the online news channel Mothership just prior to his election victory in the 2023 Presidential Elections. He said in response to his conviction, that I quote, “they got the wrong man” unquote. A criminal conviction does not negate one’s right to assert innocence.
A finding of guilt by the courts did not undermine the President’s personal view of his conviction. In my case, my conscience will always be clear insofar as my conviction on both charges is concerned.
However, as I iterated in my public remarks after the judgment was given - I take full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct Khan’s lie in her speech on Women’s Empowerment in Parliament. In fact, that was not the first time I had taken responsibility to this effect. I had also done the same publicly three times before, in very similar terms. First, at the COP itself, next at the debate on the COP report in this House, and finally, at the trial court.
I did not have close to three years to deal with a sensitive matter involving one of on my MPs. My time-frame was far shorter and I tried to do what I deemed was best for the MP in question and for Parliament, with a view to work towards an outcome where the MP took ownership and responsibility for her actions. I certainly did not expect the MP to double-down on her lie when asked about it. So, I reject resolution 3 of the motion. That said, I should have done better in balancing the need to be sensitive to Khan for the reason she gave for lying to Parliament on the one hand and resolving the matter of her lie in Parliament as a soon as possible.
Resolution 4
Resolution 4 asserts that my continuation in the LO role would undermine public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system, amongst other things. To this, I make one point.
On the matter of the Leader of the Opposition appointment, I refer to a question asked of me by Daryl Lim, a Lianhe Zaobao reporter on 4 May last year, one day after polling day. He asked, “In the next Parliament it looks like the PAP and WP. As Leader of the Opposition, what does it look like for the future of the opposition in Singapore? I answered, “I don’t know whether I am going to be the Leader of the Opposition. This is something the government of the day has to decide. So, let’s see what happens there.”
In Singapore, the Leader of the Opposition appointment is not a constitutional or statutory one. I have never operated on the assumption that the LO appointment is a given, nor have I hankered for it. I have done my best to work with my colleagues to advance the interests of Singaporeans with the Workers’ Party as a responsible opposition through the office. I reject resolution 4 which flows from resolutions 2 and 3.
On resolution 5, I take the view that no action should be taken against my colleagues Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap as I do not agree with the judgment and the findings of the COP.
Conclusion
To conclude Mr Speaker, my colleagues and I see a better future for Singapore and Singaporeans with a more balanced Parliament and a democratic society based on justice and equality. This future we envisage for Singapore does not call for destruction of the stable and sensible politics Singaporeans seek to uphold in Singapore, and that makes resolution 6 of the motion unobjectionable.
In fact, my predecessor Mr Low Thia Khiang, after giving evidence at my trial said to media and I quote, “The voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not a good politician. And I believe Pritam Singh is a good politician. He is a capable, competent leader with a heart for Singapore and Singaporeans.”
To be clear, I do not undertake my political work for such testimonies. I am grateful for the support of Singaporeans. Like my colleagues and leaders before me, all of us endeavour to do our best for Singapore. In my case, whatever Parliament decides and as long as I am a Member of Parliament, I will continue my work as an MP on the ground in Aljunied GRC, and I will continue to advocate for Singaporeans in Parliament to the best of my abilities as I have for the last 15 years. For the Workers’ Party and to my fellow Singaporeans – we press on, and we continue working for Singapore.
Read the Prime Minister's letter to the WP CEC and the WP CEC's response.
15 January 2026
21 January 2026
