SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party (WP) MP Kenneth Tiong challenged the People’s Action Party (PAP) during a parliamentary exchange on 14 October 2025, questioning whether the ruling party would apply the same standards it demanded of others when addressing foreign interference in Singapore’s elections.
His remarks came after Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam, who is also the Coordinating Minister for National Security, delivered a ministerial statement warning against the dangers of identity politics and foreign involvement in local political affairs.
Shanmugam focused in particular on the actions of Islamic preacher Noor Deros, who had urged Malay-Muslim voters to support WP’s Faisal Manap over PAP’s Masagos Zulkifli in Tampines GRC.
The Minister criticised WP’s response as delayed and ambiguous, arguing that it failed to clearly reject calls for voting along religious and racial lines.
He said such appeals could damage Singapore’s social fabric and create communal divisions if not addressed decisively.
Shanmugam urged political parties to reject identity-based mobilisation “immediately, clearly and unequivocally,” warning that anything less could mislead voters and open the door to dangerous political dynamics.
He also called for a principled and consistent approach to rejecting foreign interference and identity politics, regardless of which party is involved.
Tiong Questions PAP on Foreign Support Linked to Racially Charged Content
During the debate, Tiong, the Aljunied GRC MP, asked whether the PAP would “categorically reject and disavow” support from foreign individuals who post racially charged or politically biased content in favour of the ruling party.
He cited Polish national Michael Petraeus, founder of the online platform Critical Spectator, known for his pro-PAP commentaries.
One article, titled “WP abandons Muslim voters, turns to the Chinese”, was specifically mentioned by Tiong as an example of racially divisive foreign content.
“His platform was previously taken down from Facebook for policy violations. He continues to try to influence our politics from his foreign perch, this time favouring the PAP,” said Tiong.
“Will the PAP categorically reject and disavow his support today, just as the minister demanded that the Workers’ Party do so within 24 hours?”
Shanmugam: ‘Two Cases Not Equivalent’
In response, Shanmugam rejected the comparison, saying the two cases were not equivalent.
He explained that while foreign commentary could be provocative, it does not automatically amount to unlawful interference in Singapore’s political process.
“There are a variety of people who have commentaries running on Singapore. The Economist comments on politics in Singapore. The New York Times runs articles. The South China Morning Post runs articles,” said Shanmugam.
“Michael Petraeus is not the only foreigner who runs commentaries — sometimes for the government, sometimes against, sometimes favouring the Workers’ Party.”
He added that the government does not censor every foreign opinion about Singapore, noting that such an approach would be neither legal nor practical.
“But if there is a specific attempt to interfere in the elections, and if Critical Spectator has put out any such post, I would welcome Mr Tiong to send it to us,” he said.
Following Shanmugam’s clarification, Tiong remarked, “I thank the Minister for clarifying that the PAP will not be categorically rejecting Michael Petraeus’s actions.”
Shanmugam immediately pushed back, saying, “Do not put words in my mouth.”
He then turned the question back on the WP, asking whether the opposition party would support blanket censorship of all foreign political commentary and whether it would back legislation to that effect.
“If the Workers’ Party would support it, then we will talk about it,” said Shanmugam.
Netizens’ Mixed Reaction
Netizens on social media platforms such as Reddit, CNA, and Mothership’s Facebook page expressed mixed reactions to Shanmugam’s response to Tiong’s question, with the majority being critical.
Some users applauded Tiong for raising the issue, with one commenting, “He’s a new MP but he has the balls to stand head to head against one of the sharpest minds in the PAP.”
However, some commenters also criticised what they called weak questioning by Tiong. One comment by the same account, found on both CNA and Mothership, criticised Tiong’s question for missing the point, with commentators rebutting the points raised.
Criticism of Evasive Response
Many netizens criticised Shanmugam for avoiding a direct answer, with some saying he was “talking round and round instead of answering the question.”
One user noted, “The minister ignored Tiong’s point about how Petraeus’s post was racially charged. If WP should have clearly condemned Noor Deros’s posts, then why does the PAP get to be ambiguous on this one by Petraeus?”
Others suggested that the PAP conveniently ignores Critical Spectator and its racially charged commentary because it aligns with their side.
One user commented that Shanmugam was trying to muddy the waters, saying the problem is not foreign institutions commenting on Singapore.
The issue is that Shanmugam raised foreign actors using the race card to influence Singapore politics.
The user added that outlets like The Economist or NYT have never claimed a political party is “abandoning” a racial group, calling it a “bait and switch” to avoid criticising pro-PAP foreign race agitators.
One user commented that Shanmugam failed to answer the question outright, noting that foreign news outlets usually avoid racially charged claims or assertions due to regulations like POFMA.
The user noted that the Critical Spectator accusation that a party is “abandoning” a racial group is far beyond normal foreign commentary.
“For how long they’ve controlled the narrative, I really didn’t think the PAP would respond so incompetently to a basic challenge,” the user added.
The post Netizens criticise Shanmugam for evasive response to MP Kenneth Tiong on racially charged foreign commentary appeared first on The Online Citizen.
