Debate erupts after Redditor questions whether Critical Spectator post is foreign interference

 SINGAPORE: A Reddit user has questioned whether a recent post by political commentary platform Critical Spectator should be considered foreign interference, sparking debate on the boundaries of acceptable foreign involvement in Singapore’s political discourse.

In a Reddit post on 21 November, the original poster (OP) asked: “Is this not a clear example of foreign interference?”

The OP included a screenshot of a Facebook post by Critical Spectator stating that “opposition supporters have no right to talk about Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes”.

Critical Spectator is run by Polish national Michael Petraeus, which prompted the OP to raise concerns about perceived inconsistencies in how foreign political commentary is regulated.

“How is this still allowed to run freely? Why the double standards?” the OP questioned.

The OP added that if the situation were reversed — if a foreigner were producing pro-opposition content — authorities might have acted more swiftly.

The OP further argued that it appeared Singaporeans’ “stake in Singapore” was increasingly being framed by “who they vote for”.

Netizens Share Mixed Responses

Under the Reddit post, users expressed mixed perspectives, with many questioning the logic and tone of Petraeus’s comments.

“Bro called himself Critical Spectator and proceeded to give the most uncritical comment in our 60 years of independence,” one user wrote.

Another argued that the post should be reported for being offensive and divisive towards Singaporeans.

Several users noted that disagreement with Lee Kuan Yew’s views is not the same as disrespect.

“Do they not realise people can disagree politically with LKY but still want his personal wishes for his property to be granted? These are two separate topics,” one user commented.

Others stressed that criticising the Government is not equivalent to undermining the country.

“Singapore =/= PAP/LKY,” a user said. “One can be an opposition supporter and love Singapore at the same time.”

Another user wrote that wanting “the best for Singapore” is not inherently tied to the ruling party, adding that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has benefited from “generational popularity and some gerrymandering because of LKY’s legacy”.

One user pointed to perceived inconsistencies in the Government’s stance on what type of foreign commentary is tolerated.

The user asked why foreign ideological commentary seemed acceptable while religious discourse from foreign sources was not, saying greater clarity would “give assurance and legitimacy” to Government actions.

Counter-Arguments: Not Every Foreign Comment Is Foreign Interference

Other Reddit users disagreed with the OP, arguing that Petraeus’s post does not meet the legal threshold for foreign interference.

“If you want the legalistic explanation, the answer would be no. He didn’t explicitly tell people to vote a certain way,” one commenter said.

Another argued that treating such commentary as interference would mean Singaporeans could no longer access foreign media or international political blogs. The user added that many democracies accept political analysis and opinion pieces written by foreigners.

One user pointed to Section 6 of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021, which defines foreign interference as actions undertaken on behalf of a foreign principal, resembling covert influence or espionage.

“Just because the author of Critical Spectator is a foreigner does not make him a foreign agent,” the user noted.

In response, the OP accused others of “cherry-picking” the law, noting that the definition of “foreign principal” under the same Act includes foreigners in general.

The OP highlighted provisions covering attempts to “incite ill-will”, influence public opinion on controversial matters, or promote or oppose political views in Singapore.

The OP argued that foreign actors spreading misinformation, portraying opposition voters as “sub-humans”, or undermining social cohesion could fall within the scope of foreign interference.

Shanmugam Declines to Reject Partisan Foreign Social Media Posts After WP MP’s Challenge

In a parliamentary exchange on 14 October 2025, Workers’ Party (WP) MP Kenneth Tiong questioned whether the People’s Action Party (PAP) applies its standards consistently when addressing foreign interference.

Tiong’s challenge followed a ministerial statement by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam, who had warned against identity politics and foreign involvement in Singapore’s elections.

Shanmugam criticised Islamic preacher Noor Deros for urging Malay-Muslim voters to support WP’s Faisal Manap over PAP’s Masagos Zulkifli, calling on all political parties to reject such identity-based appeals “immediately, clearly and unequivocally”.

During the debate, Tiong asked whether the PAP would similarly “categorically reject and disavow” support from foreign individuals who publish racially charged or politically biased content favouring the ruling party.

He cited Petraeus’s article titled “WP abandons Muslim voters, turns to the Chinese”.

“Will the PAP categorically reject and disavow his support today, just as the minister demanded the Workers’ Party do so within 24 hours?” Tiong asked.

Shanmugam rejected the comparison, arguing that foreign commentary does not automatically amount to unlawful interference.

“There are a variety of people who have commentaries running on Singapore,” he said, citing publications such as The Economist, The New York Times and the South China Morning Post.

“Michael Petraeus is not the only foreigner who runs commentaries — sometimes for the Government, sometimes against.”

He added that censoring all foreign political opinion would be neither legal nor practical.

Shanmugam said he would welcome evidence if Critical Spectator had published material that constituted election interference.

When Tiong responded that the PAP would not be rejecting Petraeus’s actions, the Minister replied: “Do not put words in my mouth.”

He then questioned whether the WP would support blanket censorship of all foreign political commentary, saying the Government would consider it if the opposition backed such an approach.