PAP urged to clarify what specific harm Pritam Singh's Malaysian podcast interview caused Singapore

Online Citizen​

08-07-2025

Associate Professor Ian Chong from the National University of Singapore's political science department has questioned the People's Action Party (PAP)'s criticism of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh's appearance on a Malaysian podcast.
In a Facebook post dated 5 July 2025, Chong expressed confusion over what exactly the PAP found objectionable in Singh's interview with Keluar Sekejap.
The podcast was hosted by former Malaysian health minister Khairy Jamaluddin and Shahril Hamdan, a former United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) leader.
Chong noted that the PAP, through its affiliated publication Petir, appeared upset about the Workers' Party (WP) chief's discussion on Singapore politics with foreign hosts but had yet to clarify the nature of the alleged harm.
'It is unclear to me what exactly they are upset about or how Singapore's interests have been harmed,' wrote Chong.
'Petir and the PAP have not spelt out the damage to Singapore… I hope they can be specific—even if their point is that Singapore is so brittle the Leader of the Opposition doing a podcast will break it.'
PAP attacks Singh for Malaysian podcast interview, says 'politics should stop at water's edge'
In an 30 June article, Petir criticised Singh for giving his first in-depth interview on GE2025 to Malaysian podcasters.
The article described the move as 'strange' and questioned why Singh had rejected invitations from local podcasts, choosing instead to discuss Singapore's domestic politics on a foreign platform.
Petir implied that this choice undermined the long-standing principle that national political discourse should be kept within Singapore's borders.
It also highlighted previous controversies, including an alleged meeting between WP members led by Faisal Manap and Malaysian-based Singaporean Islamic preacher Noor Deros.
Petir claimed the WP had never fully disclosed what transpired in that meeting and questioned why Deros subsequently endorsed WP candidates during the 2025 general election.
On 3 July 2025, the PAP followed up with an official statement titled 'Politics should stop at the water's edge'.
It questioned Singh's judgment and stressed that Singapore's domestic political matters should be debated by Singaporeans, within Singapore.
Citing the historical sensitivities between Singapore and Malaysia—including the racial unrest of the 1960s—it warned against allowing foreign platforms to influence Singapore's political narrative.
The statement also underscored the need to protect national interests and sovereignty.
WP hits back at PAP over podcast criticisms, accuses it of 'opposing for the sake of opposing'
In response, the WP rejected the PAP's criticisms, accusing the ruling party of 'opposing for the sake of opposing.'
It highlighted that Singh, as Leader of the Opposition, is not bound by diplomatic protocols and that there are no laws barring him from speaking to foreign media.
The WP further accused the PAP of double standards, pointing out that its own ministers frequently engage with international media without similar pushback—and often with favourable outcomes.
Notably, the WP revealed that a PAP member had privately praised Singh's performance on the podcast. Photos also surfaced showing PAP members posing with Khairy, one of the podcast hosts during a visit to Singapore.
Addressing the controversy over Noor Deros, the WP reaffirmed that it had thoroughly addressed this issue during the general election and had issued a public statement clarifying that no promises were made to Deros.
Furthermore, Deros himself had clarified on 26 April 2025 that his comments had been misinterpreted and that no agreements were made.
Despite this, Petir continued its offensive on 5 July, accusing the WP of deflecting from valid concerns over its ties with Noor Deros and unsolicited endorsements from Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), warning that these issues go to the heart of safeguarding Singapore's political sovereignty.
While noting that PAP ministers do speak to foreign media, Petir claimed they cover broader topics, unlike Singh's interview, which focused mainly on domestic politics.
Petir argued that the questions it posed, alongside the PAP media statement, were 'not trivial matters' and reflected fundamental concerns about maintaining boundaries between domestic politics and foreign influence.
Questions arise over PAP's selective concerns about foreign influence
Chong challenged the PAP's portrayal of foreign interference, particularly with regard to Noor Deros.
He pointed out that Deros is a Singaporean citizen working in Malaysia and should not be classified as a foreign entity.
'Unless Singaporeans based outside Singapore are now considered foreign, it is unclear how Deros's actions are foreign interference,' Chong said.
He further argued that the WP had not sought endorsements from PAS members and had taken steps to distance itself from them.
Chong also highlighted what he saw as an inconsistency in the PAP's stance, noting that PAP leaders have frequently appeared on foreign platforms to discuss local issues.
'If the point is about Pritam giving an interview to talk about domestic Singapore politics, that is something PAP leaders do as well.'
He added that such interviews with regional media could improve cross-border understanding and spark more substantial discourse than typical domestic outlets.
'Learning more about neighbours can only be a good thing,' he wrote.
Don't conflate PAP's stance with national interest, says Chong
Chong warned against conflating the PAP's views with Singapore's national interests.
'There is a difference between national interest and what particular political parties like or dislike,' he wrote.
'Singapore should not aspire to be a state where the interests of a political party and the nation are fused.'
He urged the ruling party to stick to substantive policy debates and avoid portraying opposition engagement as inherently harmful.
'Debates are normal. Including in politics,' he concluded.
Lawyer Yeoh calls PAP's reaction 'silly' and 'unnecessarily polarising'
Legal practitioner Yeoh Lian Chuan also took to Petir's Facebook page to voice concerns over the PAP's handling of the matter.
Describing the party's response as 'silly' and 'unnecessarily polarising', Yeoh called for greater clarity and consistency.
He criticised what he viewed as a double standard, asking why the PAP had not applied the same scrutiny to foreigners like Polish blogger Michael Petraeus, also known as Critical Spectator, who has been seen as an ardent PAP supporter and critic of local dissenters.
'This makes the PAP's protestations on this issue reek of hypocrisy, with respect,' Yeoh stated.
Yeoh acknowledged that WP had met Noor Deros and others but argued that no policy concessions were exchanged.
He urged the PAP to produce concrete evidence if they suspected any wrongdoing.
Yeoh also reaffirmed the importance of keeping race and religion separate from politics, echoing WP's stated stance.
'On the question of the debate in Parliament between Minister Shanmugam and Mr Faisal (then-WP MP Faisal Manap), I agree with Mr Faisal that while an MP should not use religion for political benefit, it is impossible to completely separate one's values (including religious values) from whom one is. '
While he disagreed with Deros' past call for Muslims to vote based solely on religion, he noted that WP had clearly rejected that position.
Contrasting advocacy and government response
Yeoh also pointed to WP's progressive positions on key social issues.
He noted that most WP MPs supported the repeal of Section 377A, and criticised the PAP for delaying that legislative change.
Additionally, he supported the decision to lift the tudung ban for nurses, crediting Faisal Manap's long-term advocacy on the issue.
He contrasted this with what he described as the PAP's previous weak justifications for maintaining the ban.
Concluding his commentary, Yeoh opined that WP had adequately explained its engagements and positions.
He challenged the PAP to specify what more it expects from the opposition in terms of disclosure or distancing.
'The PAP would probably like the WP to say that they disassociate themselves from all views of Mr Noor Deros – but imho with respect that is over-simplistic. '
'The PAP should make clear exactly what they want to WP to do which it hasn't already done.'