PAP questions Pritam’s interview with Malaysian podcast, WP says PAP opposing for the sake of opposing

SINGAPORE – The PAP has raised questions about Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s decision to share his views on Singapore politics with a Malaysian podcast.

Politics should stop at the water’s edge, with domestic affairs debated on and decided by Singaporeans in Singapore, said the ruling party in a statement on July 3.

In response, the Workers’ Party said Mr Singh is not a member of the executive – which comprises Cabinet ministers and political office-holders – and there is “no legal convention that has been communicated to him which fetters his freedom of speech, locally or overseas”.

“Should there be such a guideline, it should be made known,” said the party in a Facebook post. It added that the PAP was “opposing for the sake of opposing”.

Mr Singh, who leads the WP, had made his first podcast appearance on Keluar Sekejap, a popular political podcast hosted by former Malaysian health minister Khairy Jamaluddin and former Umno information chief Shahril Hamdan.

The almost two-hour-long session, filmed while Mr Singh was on a family holiday in Malaysia, was uploaded to YouTube on June 24.

The podcast covered topics such as the WP’s strategy during

the May 3 General Election

and the party’s role in Singapore’s political landscape. Mr Singh had reiterated his view of WP’s role as a check and balance to the ruling party, given the appetite of Singapore voters today.

The PAP said in its statement that Mr Singh had “strikingly” chosen a non-local media outlet to “share his views on our domestic political landscape”, in what was his most extensive post-election interview.

“It raises serious questions about why the secretary-general of the Workers’ Party would choose to speak about Singapore’s politics on foreign soil, to a foreign audience,” it said.

“This is not merely a matter of platform preference. It touches on a fundamental principle – that Singapore’s domestic affairs should be debated and decided by Singaporeans, within Singapore.”

The PAP’s statement comes days after it put up a similar post on its Petir.sg website. In that post, it also questioned the WP chief’s decision to go on the Malaysian podcast and underscored that Singapore’s affairs are for Singaporeans to decide.

The PAP said on July 3 that the importance of this principle is not new. It cited former opposition politician Chiam See Tong, who said that Singapore’s opposition must be “truthful... good patriotic Singaporeans... and not go around the world denouncing Singapore”. Mr Chiam was MP for Potong Pasir from 1984 to 2011 and is one of Singapore’s longest-serving opposition politicians.

The WP said in its statement that public reception in Singapore to the podcast has been positive.

It exemplified how a non-government Singaporean politician can speak fairly and frankly about Singapore and its government, without denouncing either, it added.

“This particular point continues to be well received by many Singaporeans,” said the WP.

It added that PAP leaders routinely give interviews and share their views on domestic matters with foreign media outlets.

“In fact, some of these interviews have gone viral and are well received by an international audience, embellishing the PAP. In these circumstances, no right-thinking individual would accuse the PAP of ‘foreign involvement’ to benefit the party,” said the WP.

The party said that PAP members had posed for pictures with Mr Khairy when he was in Singapore over the weekend. It claimed that one PAP member, after viewing the podcast, remarked that “Pritam did well”.

“These actions would lead any Singaporean to an irresistible conclusion: that the Leader of the Opposition’s appearance on the podcast had no detrimental impact whatsoever on Singapore’s national interests,” said the WP.

In a late-night response sent to the media, the PAP said that while ministers do engage with foreign media, they discuss a wide range of topics. These include international and regional affairs as well as domestic matters. 

“What is unusual here is that the Leader of the Opposition gave his first in-depth interview on GE2025 to Malaysian podcasters – and the discussion focused almost entirely on Singapore’s internal politics,” said the party. It claimed that Mr Singh had declined invitations from Singaporean podcasters.

The PAP’s earlier statement also said concerns had been raised about the WP’s past interactions with Mr Noor Deros. The Singaporean self-styled religious teacher based in Malaysia is “known for views that are at odds with Singapore’s commitment to multiracialism and religious harmony”, it said. 

On the third day of the hustings for the recent general election, the authorities had issued a warning that foreigners must not influence Singapore’s elections in any way, and

blocked Facebook posts from three individuals

on these grounds.

One of the individuals had shared posts by Mr Noor. Mr Noor, in a series of Facebook posts,

claimed he had spoken to all the Malay candidates from the WP

, and that the party had agreed to take up concerns regarding the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong then called a press conference and

asked political parties to make clear their position on religion and politics

. Mr Singh was among the party leaders who agreed that religion and politics should not mix.

On the podcast, Mr Singh was asked about multiracialism and multiculturalism in Singapore. Among other things, he said race should not be something to score political points on.

The PAP’s July 3 statement said that despite the public interest, the WP had not explained what transpired in the meeting with Mr Noor, or why the preacher subsequently expressed public support for WP candidates during the general election.

The PAP also made reference to statements from the WP’s Punggol candidate Harpreet Singh about the PAP’s stance on a minority prime minister, calling it a worrying “pattern of misrepresentation”. Mr Harpreet Singh claimed the PAP had said that then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam would not be put up as prime minister as some Singaporeans were not ready for a non-Chinese prime minister, and “you would never, ever hear that from the WP”.

The ruling party also noted that politicians from Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) – an Islamist opposition party in Malaysia – had endorsed WP candidates on social media during the election.

“Mr (Pritam) Singh remained silent until the Singapore Government called out these acts of blatant foreign interference. Even then, his response left many critical questions unanswered,” said the PAP.

The WP said it had “decisively dealt” with the issues concerning Mr Noor and the PAS politicians during the general election, and referred to a statement issued on April 26 during the hustings.

In the statement, the party said it was firmly committed to Singapore’s secular, multiracial and multi-religious society, and to protecting the integrity of the nation’s electoral process.

The WP chief had said during the campaign

that his party could not be successful if it plays “the race and religion card”

, and that it had not made promises to anyone in exchange for political support. He also said Mr Noor had turned up unannounced at a meeting that the WP had with Malay/Muslim religious leaders.

The PAP said Singaporeans are therefore “entitled to ask” if Mr Singh truly stands by the principles he has stated, or if they are invoked only when convenient.

“Does he believe foreign involvement is acceptable when it benefits his party?” it said.

In its response to the WP’s statement, the party said these questions are “not trivial matters”. 

“The questions we asked... go to the heart of maintaining a clear boundary against foreign involvement in our domestic affairs,” it said. It added that the WP continues to brush aside “serious concerns” about its engagement with Mr Noor and the endorsement by the PAS politicians.

In its first July 3 statement, the PAP said Singapore and Malaysia share close historical ties, “but we also respect each other’s sovereignty”.

“In the wake of the painful racial unrest of the 1960s, both sides have observed a careful boundary: We refrain from commenting on each other’s politics, and from using each other’s media to influence public opinion,” it said.

“This is a longstanding understanding that has served both nations well. Maintaining it requires political leaders of integrity who place national interest above partisan gain.”