Unsurprisingly, Pritam Singh was convicted on both charges of lying to the Committee of Privileges about his actions in Raeesah Khan's lying scandal. Equally predictable were the excuses that now follow.
By many (most?) of his followers Pritam is still being portrayed as a victim of political maneuvering by the PAP and the ruthless system it has created, which supposedly extends to the judiciary (of course that depends on the verdict – if it's positive then justice won, if it's negative then it's the government's fault).
That said, those who think Pritam is, indeed, the victim of politics aren't really wrong. It's just his own politics that brought him down.
From the moment he learned of the lie until today, Pritam has acted on nothing else but political calculation.
Of course, he's a politician and he has to think of the consequences to the party. However, in a democracy it often leads people to focus on short not long term consequences. Nobody in recent history has learned this more painfully than Pritam is now.
Telling the truth would have cost him nothing but bruised ego
To understand how absurd his situation is you have to remember that he got himself in trouble as a witness.
He wasn't charged with any wrongdoing, he was just answering questions to the Committee of Privileges investigating his MP.
Yes, with COP being a trial by his parliamentary peers – and political opponents – he could have reasonably expected that anything he says would be used against him in one way or another.
But between lying and being found out, and telling the embarrassing truth, the latter should have always been considered preferable.
Pritam, however, decided to go all in and tried to twist the interpretation of his actions (or inaction) to make himself look good. This was the source of his downfall.
You see, he was so concerned about how he would be seen by the public watching COP hearings that he did not consider what the consequences would be if he strayed over the thin line between clever and criminal.
He should have just told the truth that he didn't instruct Raeesah to admit the lie and that later she may have misunderstood his intentions.
What would it really have cost him to concede that his instructions weren't clear enough and that he should have done more? Or if he simply said – she lied, so it was her problem to deal with. Her "call".
Heck, even the "take it to the grave" message could have been explained as mistaken but early consideration after Raeesah shocked everybody with both her admission and her confession that she herself was assaulted before.
How many people would really fault anybody for throwing around the idea during their first meeting? Most of us would at least consider it if put in the same situation ("Eh, do we have to admit any of this? How big of a deal is it?").
Yes, it would make him look dishonest and irresponsible, and his ego would receive a hit. But these things blow over after a while.
Instead he attempted to redefine the meaning of the English language to claim common phrases we use mean something else than they do. That he directed Raeesah to tell the truth and that everybody else somehow conspired against him, making up details of multiple meetings they had.
Really, that was the better option?
Why did he do it?
Pritam Singh is not only a politician but a lawyer with a degree in war studies. This combination should tell you that his mind is primed to never accept defeat.
You don't study war to learn about the losers, after all, but winners. You don't become a lawyer to lose cases and you don't become a politician to apologise for anything – least of all your own mistakes.
But sometimes victory is impossible and the best way forward is an organised retreat. The leader of the Workers' Party has clearly forgotten that.
Instead of swallowing the bitter pill in 2021, he chose to fight tooth and nail never to acknowledge his own errors.
And that is now turning out to be the biggest one of all.
