PAP’s attack on Pritam Singh draws criticism from netizens over lack of political maturity

The People’s Action Party (PAP) has come under fire from netizens following its criticisms of Pritam Singh’s appearance on a Malaysian podcast.

The episode, aired on 24 June 2025, saw Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, sharing his views on Singapore politics on "Keluar Sekejap."

Despite the PAP's reaction, many online observers viewed Singh’s appearance positively, describing him as composed, respectful, and thoughtful. They noted that he offered measured reflections on opposition politics and leadership.

Netizens questioned the necessity of the PAP’s reaction, with some suggesting the ruling party’s criticism seemed more politically motivated than grounded in principle. Several urged for greater political maturity and engagement on substantive issues.

Criticism began with Petir’s article on 20 June

The backlash began with PAP-linked publication Petir, which published an article on 30 June criticising Singh’s decision to appear on a foreign podcast.

The article described the move as “strange” and implied it was a deliberate attempt to air local political issues outside Singapore.

Petir questioned why Singh had declined invitations from local podcasts but agreed to speak extensively on a foreign platform.

It further suggested this contradicted principles of national debate being kept within Singapore’s borders.

Singh outlines WP's mission during Keluar Sekejap appearance

During the podcast, Singh clarified that he had no ambition to become Prime Minister.

Instead, he aimed to “normalise the idea of an opposition in Singapore” by building a credible alternative. He compared the opposition to an “insurance” policy for the country’s future.

Singh dismissed claims that the Workers’ Party lacked ambition and explained the commitment and engagement required to contest in Singapore’s political landscape.

He cautioned against slogans or portraying oneself as a Prime Minister-in-waiting without public support, calling it a risky “gamble”.

Petir revisits old controversies involving WP members

Beyond Singh’s podcast appearance, Petir’s article revisited previous incidents involving WP members.

It cited a 2025 meeting between WP's Faisal Manap and Malaysian religious figure Noor Deros, questioning its purpose and transparency.

It also criticised WP candidate Harpreet Singh for allegedly misrepresenting the PAP’s stance on a minority Prime Minister, and accused the WP of staying silent on race-based endorsements from Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) figures during the last election.

PAP escalates with formal statement on 3 July

On 3 July 2025, the PAP issued an official statement titled “Politics should stop at the water’s edge”.

It questioned Singh’s judgment and asserted that local political issues should be discussed domestically, by Singaporeans.

The statement referenced the sensitive history between Singapore and Malaysia, including the racial unrest of the 1960s, warning against foreign platforms being used to shape Singapore’s political discourse.

It also underscored the need to protect national interests and sovereignty.

Netizens push back: Singh was fair and articulate

In online discussions on platforms such as CNA, The Straits Times Facebook page, and Reddit, many netizens dismissed the PAP’s criticisms.

They said Singh presented himself well and did not say anything controversial or critical of Singapore.

      

One comment observed that Singh’s points were already familiar to Singaporeans and did not constitute “airing dirty laundry”.

Another Reddit user pointed out the irony of Singapore promoting global openness while objecting to a podcast appearance abroad.

Several users praised Singh for being open, articulate, and calm under scrutiny.

They noted he addressed questions about local politics and the ruling party with respect, without inviting foreign interference or damaging national interests.

WP hits back at PAP over podcast criticisms, accuses it of “opposing for the sake of opposing”

In a sharp rebuttal issued on the same day as the PAP’s statement, the Workers’ Party defended Singh’s appearance and criticised the PAP for political opportunism.

The WP stated that public response had been overwhelmingly positive, and Singh had not denigrated Singapore in any way.

The party pointed out that Singh, not being a government official, was not subject to diplomatic protocols. It emphasised that no legal or formal guidelines restricted him from appearing on foreign media.

The WP highlighted the double standard, noting that PAP leaders had frequently engaged with foreign media without facing similar rebuke. Some of these interviews had even boosted the PAP’s international image.

Interestingly, the WP revealed that a PAP member had privately praised Singh’s performance in the podcast, stating he “did well”.

Photos also surfaced of PAP members posing with one of the Keluar Sekejap hosts during a recent visit to Singapore.

The WP argued that such actions indicated there was no genuine concern over national security or sovereignty, suggesting the criticisms were politically calculated.

Revisiting the Deros issue and Harpreet Singh’s remarks

Responding to allegations regarding Noor Deros, the WP maintained that it had addressed the matter thoroughly during the GE2025 campaign period.

Deros himself had clarified on 26 April 2025 that his statements had been misinterpreted and no deals were made.

On Harpreet Singh’s comments, the WP explained that he was referring to public perception, not making an accusation against the PAP.

It urged the public to assess his full remarks to appreciate the context and intent.

Rejection of foreign influence and race-based politics

The WP reiterated its strong opposition to foreign interference and the use of race and religion in political campaigning.

It stressed that it had issued timely clarifications when endorsements emerged during the election and had not exploited these endorsements for political gain.

The party called on the PAP to avoid resurrecting old controversies and instead focus on open, constructive political dialogue.

It reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, fair engagement, and strengthening Singapore’s democracy—both locally and on the international stage.

Calls for mature political discourse gain traction

The controversy has reignited broader calls for political maturity in Singapore. Netizens and observers continue to urge politicians to focus on substance rather than optics.

One legal practitioner, Yeoh Lian Chuan, publicly criticised the PAP’s response.

He described the party’s stance as disappointing and hypocritical, especially after Petir’s earlier commentary.

He said, “It was bad enough Petir published such a piece, but for the party to follow up with a formal statement is polarising.”

He added that the criticisms appeared less about safeguarding sovereignty and more about targeting Singh for political reasons.