AGC warns against contempt of court following Pritam Singh’s conviction

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has issued a statement cautioning the public against making baseless allegations regarding the Judiciary and Prosecution following the court’s judgment in Public Prosecutor v Pritam Singh.

The statement highlighted that unfounded accusations and suggestions of partiality may constitute contempt of court under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.

The AGC acknowledged the public’s right to comment on court decisions but urged responsible discussion that respects the legal process.

It noted that Singapore has a history of prosecuting political figures, including a recent case involving a former minister— S Iswran, who is currently serving his home detention—reinforcing that legal action is taken regardless of an individual’s status.

The AGC reiterated its commitment to upholding the rule of law and urged the public to engage in constructive discourse while respecting the principles of justice.

The AGC’s statement follows online commentary surrounding the recent sentencing of Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament (MP) Pritam Singh.

Singh was fined the maximum amount of S$14,000 after being found guilty of two charges of providing false testimony to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in December 2021 under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

COP was hearing into the circumstance of Raeesah Khan’s false statement in Parliament on 3 August 2021, where she claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault survivor to the police station and witnessed insensitive handling of the case by officers.

She later admitted in November 2021 that the anecdote was untrue.

The COP subsequently investigated the matter and found that Singh had provided false testimony regarding his communications with Khan. The committee’s findings led to criminal charges being filed against Singh.

Court’s verdict and sentencing

Judge Tan referenced the precedent set in Koh Yong Chia and considered Section 182 of the Penal Code, which deals with providing false information to a public officer.

He noted several aggravating factors in Singh’s case, including his failure to correct his false statements and the public resources expended due to his testimony.

As a result, the maximum fine permissible under the law was imposed. In the event of non-payment, Singh faces a default sentence of one month’s imprisonment.

The court determined that Singh’s statements were untrue and that he did not intend to rectify the falsehoods.

Judge Tan also cited inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony, particularly his lack of follow-up after an 8 August 2021 meeting, which played a significant role in his conviction.

During sentencing, the prosecution sought a fine of S$7,000 per charge, while Singh’s defence team requested a lower fine of S$4,000 per charge.

The court ruled in favour of the prosecution’s request, reinforcing the seriousness of Singh’s actions.

Rejection of the defence’s arguments

Judge Tan dismissed the defence’s efforts to discredit Khan’s testimony, noting that despite variations in her statements about the 8 August 2021 meeting, all versions consistently indicated that WP leaders did not instruct her to clarify her falsehood in Parliament.

The defence also argued that Singh’s alleged remark to Khan—"take it to the grave"—was ambiguous. However, Judge Tan ruled that, given the context in which it was made—immediately after Khan admitted to lying—this statement could only have referred to her false statement in Parliament.

Additionally, the judge rejected Singh’s claim that he privately advised Khan to consult her parents while walking her to the gate of his house. He deemed it implausible that Singh would issue such advice privately when the meeting’s stated purpose was to discuss the matter with senior WP leaders.

Singh’s response and appeal plans

Following the verdict, Singh announced on Facebook his intention to appeal the conviction and sentence. He also published his legal defence submissions on the Leader of the Opposition’s website, arguing that the public should be able to examine his position.

In his statement, Singh criticised the COP’s evidence-gathering process, particularly regarding testimonies provided by Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishtra Nathan, both former WP members and associates of former WP MP Raeesah Khan.

The Elections Department has also stated that Singh remains eligible to contest the next General Election, as his penalties do not meet the threshold for disqualification. According to the ELD, disqualification as a Member of Parliament (MP) applies only if an individual is sentenced to at least one year of imprisonment or fined at least S$10,000 for a single offence.