SINGAPORE: Home Affairs and Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam reaffirmed Singapore’s firm stance against illegal protests, citing the need to protect the country from social instability and foreign interference.
Speaking at the Asia Future Summit on 9 October 2025, Shanmugam warned that foreign influence operations have become “increasingly sophisticated” and that Singapore’s preventive measures were designed to avoid crises seen elsewhere in the region.
He emphasised that Singapore’s “no illegal protest” policy is central to maintaining public order and national unity, particularly in an era where misinformation and online manipulation can rapidly mobilise unrest.
Article 14 of Constitution guarantees every citizen of Singapore the right to freedom of assembly, subject to public order considerations.
The Public Order Act in Singapore requires a permit for any public assembly. A person convicted of organising an unauthorised public assembly may be fined up to S$5,000.
‘Foreign interference is real and growing,’ says Shanmugam
Responding to a question from audience about the evolution of foreign interference threats, Shanmugam described the problem as “huge”, highlighting the ability of state and non-state actors to exploit the internet to influence elections and destabilise governments.
“There are countries which can put thousands of people, directly or through private sectors, to attack, mislead and intervene,” he said.
“We’ve seen that happen in Europe and the US. We haven’t seen much in Asia, but we have seen some.”
Citing intelligence reports from several Western nations, he said such interference was “real” and well documented.
While Singapore had not yet been a major target, he stressed that the government’s approach was to act ahead of threats, not react to them.
FICA powers as preventive tools
Shanmugam pointed to Singapore’s Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) as a crucial tool to pre-empt such threats.
He revealed that the government had intervened twice in 2024, shutting down ten websites that were “multiplying specific viewpoints” believed to be foreign in origin.
“One advantage of such legislation,” he said, “is that when people know we can act, they are more careful. The problem is managed even before it becomes a problem.”
However, he cautioned that legislation alone was insufficient.
The reach of global internet platforms and the prevalence of misinformation meant that foreign narratives could still enter the public space under the banner of free speech.
“The public square needs to be protected,” he said.
“Free speech doesn’t mean falsehoods are industrialised. There isn’t much scope for falsehoods because they mislead, and you cannot have an honest debate when your facts are different from mine.”
Shanmugam blames Western actors in Hong Kong unrest while ignoring China’s crackdown on democracy
In his remarks, Shanmugam drew parallels between unrest in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Hong Kong, alleging that elements within these movements were driven by foreign involvement and external funding.
Citing the 2022 protests in Sri Lanka, he noted that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa—who had been democratically elected—was forced out amid violent demonstrations.
“They seemed very organised, with lists of houses to be torched,” he said, adding that “Western media classified them as democracy protesters, while ambassadors tweeted in support.”
He also contrasted the international media’s treatment of the Capitol Hill riot in Washington with its portrayal of the Hong Kong protests, calling it “hypocrisy at the highest levels”.
“In Hong Kong, those who rammed glass doors, defaced portraits and smashed furniture were called democracy activists. When similar violence happened in Washington, it was condemned,” he said.
According to Shanmugam, Western media and NGOs often operate as extensions of foreign policy, using funding and narrative influence to shape outcomes.
However, he made no mention of the actual demands of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement.
Activists and opposition lawmakers had campaigned for universal suffrage—specifically, the right to elect the Chief Executive without Beijing screening the candidates.
Major protests, including the 2014 Umbrella Movement and the 2019 anti-extradition bill demonstrations, drew millions who opposed what they saw as increasing interference from the Chinese central government.
Beijing responded with escalating force, including police crackdowns, mass arrests and the imposition of the sweeping 2020 national security law, which criminalised dissent under broad terms such as “subversion” and “collusion with foreign forces”.
Since then, most independent media outlets and opposition figures have been silenced or jailed, effectively shutting down Hong Kong’s political space and entrenching Beijing’s control over the city.
Shanmugam: Singapore will expel diplomats who try to influence its forces
Turning to Bangladesh, he claimed that the country’s recent unrest followed a familiar pattern of mobilisation through students, NGOs and external financing.
“Western governments then add one more weapon nowadays,” he said.
“They contact military commanders directly, telling them not to intervene, and threaten sanctions on them or their children studying abroad.”
He warned that Singapore would not tolerate such actions.
“If any foreign ambassador dared to meet our officers and say that, we would turf them out. They take instructions from the government, not from you.”
Shanmugam emphasises early action and firm laws
Shanmugam outlined several lessons that underpin Singapore’s approach:
Prevent illegal protests – large, unregulated gatherings can be exploited by provocateurs, he said.
Maintain strong intelligence – early detection allows authorities to move before unrest escalates.
Regulate foreign funding – under FICA, organisations receiving overseas funds must be monitored.
Act decisively against interference – foreign diplomats attempting to influence domestic affairs should face expulsion.
He reiterated that Singapore’s Public Order Act provides a simple framework: protests must be held only in designated spaces such as Hong Lim Park, ensuring that public activities remain lawful and contained.
Addressing criticisms that Singapore’s strict laws restrict human rights, Shanmugam said the balance lies in protecting the wider community.
“If you want to run around Orchard Road with 300 people, causing disamenity for others, that’s not acceptable,” he stated.
“If people are truly interested in your message, they will come to Hong Lim Park.”
On issues of race and religion, he cited the Penal Code, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and Racial Harmony Act as key safeguards.
“If anybody says anything about another group on the basis of race or religion, the ISD will visit them. Do it again, and you’ll be arrested,” he warned.
He added that religious desecration, such as burning sacred texts, would lead to imprisonment.
“You can praise your own race or religion, but you cannot run down someone else’s,” he said.
POFMA and FICA framed as safeguards for ‘real speech’, not restrictions
On misinformation, Shanmugam highlighted the success of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), saying that about 80 per cent of Singaporeans trust official corrections over online claims.
“This isn’t an argument about restricting free speech,” he said, “but about keeping the public square free from falsehoods so that real speech can flourish.”
He explained that the combination of POFMA, FICA, and existing laws allows Singapore to maintain trust and prevent disinformation from undermining governance.
Shanmugam contrasts Singapore’s controlled model with unrest abroad
Shanmugam credited Singapore’s peace and stability to what he described as “active governance”, contrasting it with ideologically driven approaches elsewhere.
“The results speak for themselves,” he said. “No riots, no racial attacks, no lawlessness. Compare this side by side with the UK, and you see the difference.”
He added that this system builds upon the philosophy established by founding leaders, including late Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee, who prioritised order and stability as preconditions for progress.
“Our task has been to upgrade and maintain these principles for today’s context,” he said. “We don’t let ideology stand in the way of what works.”
Shanmugam positioned Singapore’s model as one of prevention and pragmatism, contrasting it with the reactive chaos seen in other states.
“Once 5,000 or 10,000 people gather, it becomes very difficult to deal with,” he said.
“The starting point is you don’t allow illegal protest. You move in early, you act decisively, and you maintain order.”
He argued that this approach ensures continued public trust in institutions, enabling economic and social progress.
The post Shanmugam defends Singapore’s no “illegal protest” policy, warns of rising foreign interference risks appeared first on The Online Citizen.
