Â鶹

SINGAPORE: The verdict for Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh's for lying to a parliamentary privileges committee has been fixed for Dec 4.

This is exactly a month after his appeal was heard by a High Court judge.

The hearing has been listed on the public hearing list before Justice Steven Chong, and Singh's defence team confirmed with Â鶹 on Friday (Nov 28) that it was fixed for the appeal verdict.

Singh, 49, initially indicated he would be appealing against his sentence of a S$14,000 (US$10,700) fine, along with his conviction.

However, at the actual appeal, he dropped the appeal against the sentence and focused on the conviction, which stemmed from how he dealt with a lie told by former Workers' Party member Raeesah Khan.

Ms Khan had lied in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where the police allegedly made unsavoury remarks about the victim.

When questioned about it again in parliament by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, Ms Khan doubled down on her lie.

She later confessed that her anecdote was false in a statement in parliament on Nov 1, 2021, and Singh was later charged in relation to his testimonies before the committee of privileges on what happened.

Singh had contested the two charges but was convicted in February, receiving the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each of the charges over false testimonies he gave to a parliamentary privileges committee.

During the appeal on Nov 4, Justice Steven Chong questioned both the prosecution - led by Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan - and the lead defence lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, on their respective submissions.

In his written submissions, Mr Jumabhoy said the case had been "wrongly decided" by the trial judge, that the law was "misapplied" and the facts "misjudged".

He said the trial judge accepted "impossibilities" in Ms Khan's account as "proof" and "conjecture as fact", ignoring the "plain reality" that Singh "consistently acted with caution, integrity and empathy".

"He never told Ms Khan to lie. He never encouraged her to maintain the untruth. He gave her time, reminded her of the seriousness of speaking in parliament, and ultimately required her to come clean - in her own words and by her own hand," wrote Mr Jumabhoy.

The prosecution urged the court to dismiss the appeal, saying Singh was seeking a "retrial" instead and that the conviction was "legally and factually sound".

They also urged the court to uphold the trial judge's finding that Singh was not a credible witness, saying Singh was contesting the trial judge's conclusion that "his own testimony was unreliable and unworthy of belief".

The penalties for the charges of wilfully making false answers to questions material to the subject of inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge.