All images by Zheng Yi Yap for RICE Media unless stated otherwise.
Pritam Singh’s guilty verdict doesn’t really matter. As someone who spent the majority of yesterday waiting outside the State Courts for Pritam Singh, I realise the irony here. But hear me out.
This case matters. The verdict? Not so much.
Let me catch you up. On August 3rd, 2021, Raeesah Khan told a little lie in Parliament. On February 17th, some three-and-a-half years later, Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition and the Workers’ Party’s secretary general, was convicted for supposedly “wilfully” lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) about his handling of the matter.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan found Singh guilty of two charges of lying to the COP, sentencing Singh to the maximum fine of $7,000 per charge. He will, however, be filing a notice of appeal, he told media after the sentencing.
On the bright side, though, it looks like Singh will be able to contest in the upcoming General Elections and will not have to forfeit his MP seat even if said appeal falls through (touch wood).
Yesterday, Singh lost in the court of law. But where does he stand in the court of public opinion?
#StepUp
A scan of online comments reveals detractors, naturally, but also a swell of support. Also notable are the people who are over this rigamarole and want to talk about more important things like train breakdowns. Honestly, valid.
An informal poll on RICE’s Telegram confirms the same thing—Singh still enjoys strong support among our readers, if that’s any indication of anything.
And we’re not sure if it was a spur of the moment or planned, but Singh’s quip about stepping up in response to a reporter asking him if he would step down has become a rallying cry. Activist Gilbert Goh and Wake Up Singapore are among those who’ve posted in support of Singh using the #stepup tagline.
Here’s the reality: most of us had already made up our minds on the case long before yesterday. The verdict doesn’t matter.
Was any supporter of Singh really swayed when the judge said that he lied for the sake of political capital? And that former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan “displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth in this trial”?
Most of us who’ve been keeping up with the case would have already formed our own opinion of what unfolded (and if this whole thing really matters). A mere ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ isn’t going to change our minds.
The Making of an Underdog
Ultimately, whether Singh lied or not, there’s still something to be said about the disproportionate scrutiny he has been under (as opposed to Raeesah Khan, the person who told the original lie).
Singh, who was interviewed by the COP for nine hours, noted in a 2022 Parliamentary speech: “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 Khan first lied in Parliament nor why she had a propensity to lie, he said. Instead, it was her claim that she was instructed to take her lie “to the grave” by the WP leadership that took centre stage.
While it was ultimately the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) that decided to charge Singh, it was the COP—comprising seven People’s Action Party MPs and one WP MP—that recommended Parliament consider referring Singh to the Public Prosecutor for investigations. And it was Parliament that voted to do so.
The ruling party might bristle hard at any suggestion that this was politically motivated, and maybe it wasn’t. Still, this matter was allowed to escalate. What began as a misguided move by a political greenhorn ended in the Leader of the Opposition being convicted in court right before a General Election.
The real kicker? After all the time and resources poured into dragging this saga out, it may have done the unthinkable: turning Singh into the ultimate underdog.
Consider the optics: the highest-ranking opposition politician in Singapore, convicted and fined for a crime with no “appreciable harm”—and in an election year, no less.
It’s a gift-wrapped rallying cry for opposition supporters across the board, a chance to turn a man into a martyr and push back against the establishment. We’re seeing it already, with the Progress Singapore Party’s Hazel Poa wishing WP “all the best” for the upcoming election.
For the most part, Singh isn’t looking to rock the boat post-verdict. He knows better than to jinx whatever momentum might be in his favour. And he’s acutely aware that it is the voters that hold the true power.
At a media doorstop following his sentencing, Singh was a picture of calm and confidence. On the topic of how the case will affect the upcoming General Election, he said: “Well, that is really for the public to determine and decide.”
He added in response to another question from the media: “I leave it to the public again to determine how they want to exercise their vote in what we in the Workers’ Party believe is the need of the hour in Singapore, which is the evolution towards a more balanced political system.”
What Really Matters
At this point, the Raeesah Khan saga deserves to be laid to rest. Instead of flogging a dead horse, shouldn’t we be asking ourselves if there are more pressing matters at hand—ones that actually impact Singaporeans?
“In today’s environment, [electors] are likely to be more concerned about cost of living, housing, and inequality issues, as well as how the ongoing global uncertainty would affect Singapore and its economy,” NUS’ associate professor of political science Chong Ja Ian remarked to CNA.
Yes, some doubt will inevitably creep in about the Workers’ Party’s leadership. After all, the judge found him guilty of lying under oath. There are also legitimate concerns about how the party handled its transparency to Parliament after discovering Raeesah’s lie.
But in a landscape where scepticism toward any politician is the norm, is that really a game-changer?
Because at the end of the day, Singh’s verdict changes nothing for the average citizen. What does matter is the staggering amount of time, public resources, and manpower poured into keeping this saga alive for years.
The election campaign playbook writes itself: Singh’s conviction will be wielded as a weapon to undermine his party’s credibility—and, by extension, the opposition as a whole. Same script, different election year.
Taking political opponents to court used to be an old trick in the politician’s handbook. In the 1997 General Election, for example, then-PM Goh Chok Tong sued WP’s Tang Liang Hong for making a police report against him. The late Lee Kuan Yew was no stranger to bringing defamation suits against political rivals.
In this day and age, though, it seems as if court cases no longer hold the same power. After all, the Aljunied Hougang Town Council saga, and how WP has emerged (relatively) unscathed is evidence enough that a base of solid supporters is enough to weather a legal storm.
It’s no longer about how many opponents you can take down. As Singh puts it, it’s about stepping up for the people.
