11 hours ago
Singapore's PAP questions Pritam Singh's appearance on ‘Keluar Sekejap', Workers' Party defends move as free speech
SINGAPORE, July 4 — A political clash has erupted between the People's Action Party (PAP) and the Workers' Party (WP) over WP chief Pritam Singh's appearance on a Malaysian podcast, with the ruling party questioning his decision to speak about Singapore politics on a foreign platform.
In a statement yesterday, PAP said Singh, who is the Leader of the Opposition, had 'strikingly' chosen a non-local outlet to give his most extensive post-election interview, referring to his guest appearance on Keluar Sekejap, a podcast hosted by Khairy Jamaluddin and Shahril Hamdan.
'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,' the PAP 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 episode, filmed during Singh's family holiday in Malaysia and uploaded on June 24, covered topics such as the WP's strategy for the next general election (GE2025), Singapore's multiracial model, and the party's role as a check and balance to the government.
In response, the WP defended Singh's appearance, noting that he is not a member of the executive and 'no legal convention... fetters his freedom of speech, locally or overseas'.
'Should there be such a guideline, it should be made known,' the party said in a Facebook post. It also accused the PAP of 'opposing for the sake of opposing'.
The WP added that public reception in Singapore to the interview had been positive.
'It exemplified how a non-government Singaporean politician can speak fairly and frankly about Singapore and its government, without denouncing either,' it said.
In defending its leader's media choice, the WP also pointed out that PAP ministers regularly give interviews to international media on both foreign and domestic matters.
'In fact, some of these interviews have gone viral and are well received by an international audience, embellishing the PAP,' the party said.
'In these circumstances, no right-thinking individual would accuse the PAP of 'foreign involvement' to benefit the party.'
The WP also noted that several PAP members had posed for photos with Khairy during his recent visit to Singapore and claimed one had commented after watching the podcast 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,' the party said.
But in a late-night follow-up, the PAP stood by its position, noting that while ministers do speak to foreign media, they typically cover a broad range of topics.
What made Singh's appearance unusual, it said, was that it was focused 'almost entirely on Singapore's internal politics', and came after he had reportedly turned down invitations from Singaporean podcasters.
The statement also revived past concerns over the WP's previous interactions with Malaysian-based Singaporean preacher Noor Deros and online endorsements by politicians from PAS.
'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,' it said.
On the podcast, Singh was asked about multiracialism and multiculturalism in Singapore. He said race should not be something to score political points on.
The PAP, however, pressed further: 'Does he believe foreign involvement is acceptable when it benefits his party?' it asked.
'The questions we asked... go to the heart of maintaining a clear boundary against foreign involvement in our domestic affairs.'
While acknowledging the shared history between Singapore and Malaysia, the PAP stressed that both countries had long upheld the principle of non-interference.
'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.'
