In recent weeks attacks on me have intensified, likely as the defeated opposition crowd needs to find a place to vent and blame for the underwhelming showing of their idols on May 3.
I have caught flak for writing about domestic politics ahead of the GE (even though I kept my posts private during the campaign period), about the war in Gaza and even about People's Republic of China, in a widely circulated post that likened Xi Jinping to a mobster – a comparison which I stand by, but which has clearly riled some people in Singapore, who do not want to hear the uncomfortable truth about the communist regime in Beijing (or, perhaps, are simply agents of actual foreign interference on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party).
You can hear screams from all corners of the opposition camp about the leniency with which a Polish blogger is treated, despite his obvious foreign interference in local politics!
So, let me remind you of two things – the remarkable silence and resulting hypocrisy of the very same people, when real acts of political interference from abroad took place in recent years.
Richard Branson calls for abolition of death penalty
Remember the British billionaire's criticism of Singapore's legal system that sentenced yet another drug trafficker to death back in 2022? (and many more since)
Let's get this straight – a foreigner tried to use his international position to exert pressure on a sovereign nation he neither inhabits nor has any interest in, to abolish death penalty and stay pending executions, because he personally disagrees with the methods.
When the government rightly rebuffed him, did the local activists support Singapore's right to determine its own laws in a democratic fashion or did they take the side of the foreign billionaire?
77.4% of Singaporeans support the use of death penalty for most serious crimes. 68.7% agree that it's an appropriate punishment for trafficking a significant amount of drugs.
Only 13.3% disagree.
In other words, an external actor has attempted to force the nation into doing something the vast majority of it disagrees with. Against the laws of the country and against the democratically elected government.
How many of those who are attacking me today for merely commenting on the behaviour of various parties within Singapore, expressed their outrage at Branson at the time?
New Naratif takes foreign money, TOC employs Malaysians
How many, I wonder, attacked the founders of New Naratif, Kirsten Han and PJ Thum, for taking tens of thousands of dollars from foreign organisations supporting their sociopolitical agenda in the country?
How many protested when said PJ went to Malaysia to mock Singapore's democracy in a photo-op with none other than Mahathir?

How many protested when he called Singapore's economic model broken, and advocated future reunification with Malaysia as a solution?
How many turned away from Terry Xu when it was revealed he employed Malaysian writers, obscuring their true identities with fake names, to publish almost entirely negative coverage of Singapore affairs?
The Economist’s Dominic Ziegler endorses Jom, attacks Singapore
What about the foreign correspondent of the Economist, Dominic Ziegler, who endorsed the distinctly pro-opposition outlet Jom two years ago?
And it's not his endorsement of the site or the people that was the problem, but the fact that he couldn't help himself but to frame Singapore – the very country he is a guest to – as an "illiberal state" with "captive media" that only an independent publication can pierce through to offer a better future:

It's one thing to say you've worked with and like a particular group of people, and that you vouch for them. It's something else entirely to crap over the democratic status quo in the country while you do it.
On a side note, suggestions that Jom desires "kinder" future is quite laughable, considering that its founder, Sudhir Vadaketh, once demanded that a local student shouldn't be allowed to voice critical opinions of transgender ideology on public media, as it was somehow tantamount to discrimination.
Jom's attempts to rewrite Singapore's history or publishing hatchet jobs targeting the government ministers (which landed them with a POFMA which they lost a High Court appeal over as well), do not suggest good will.
But I digress.
The point here is that a foreign journalist not only provided support for local writers (that's fine, we all have friends) but that he portrayed them as saviours of the nation gripped by oppressive, illiberal government – despite the fact that he is a journalist here.
Was he lambasted by the people who are now trying to bury me?
Human rights? Wrong.
Last but not least, Singapore has faced concerted attacks from all sorts of international organisations pretending to be defenders of human rights around the world, when what they are usually trying to do is import and impose foreign ideology against public will.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Reporters Without Borders – and others – have demanded abolition of death penalty, leniency to drug traffickers, permission of open protests and more freedom of the media: though nobody knows what it actually means (other than peddling rubbish they want to sell here).
Singapore's reputation keeps being tarnished every year by ridiculous ratings of media freedom by RSF (Reporters Without Borders), which placed the city-state in 123rd in its 2025 ranking.
This is below countries like Equatorial Guinea (an authoritarian dictatorship under rule of one man pillaging the country's resources for 40 years), the fallen state of Haiti run by gangsters, Chad, South Sudan, Burkina Faso (even after the coup d'etat in 2022) or Central African Republic where journalists investigating the Wagner Group's dealings there were actually murdered.
It's clear that the list doesn't reflect the reality but is a tool of influence on nations around the world (not only Singapore), to shame their governments into submission to the unelected foreign and local activists.
None of this, however, prompted the same kind of outrage from people who are looking to permanently silence me simply because they can't stand criticism.
Turns out that the only freedom they demand is freedom for themselves.
But if you dare to vocally support the government on the internet – even if you're a local – you're an instant target for both mockery and harassment (sometimes following you into your offline life as well).
Who is really interfering?
People may not like what I write and my political sympathies in Singapore are well known, but nobody can reasonably accuse me of not providing evidence for my opinions.
If I attack or criticise someone, I don't just call them "illiberal" or wrong, stupid, incompetent, crooked. I explain WHY I criticise them.
Whenever I lay into the Workers' Party, it's always in response to a particular idea or behaviour (or an outright lie).
When they tried using identity politics to their advantage, I argued repeatedly that importing foreign conflicts into domestic affairs, fielding candidates whose motivation is Palestine not Singapore, or adding recognition of Palestine to your political manifesto have all been reckless and dangerous.
This, I believe, is objectively true no matter the country.
And all of these things have been facts. I'm not making up what the Workers' Party did during this electoral campaign. If you want to blame someone blame them, not me.
Whenever Jamus Lim, or Pritam Sing, or Louis Chua say something obviously false (and often dumb), I explain why it is so. Fact by fact, number by number.
When they're lying about "turbocharged inflation" – I provide figures and charts to disprove this. When they're lying about "expensive public housing" – I clarify that with stats again. When they're arguing for introduction of net wealth tax in Singapore – I show evidence from other countries where it failed and backfired.
I don't hate the opposition in Singapore for being opposition – I hate lies, manipulation and incompetence, which can be exposed with facts & data. I am merely a messenger.
There's a clear difference between trying to promote from abroad what a particular country should be and simply analysing and commenting on what the locals themselves do.
I'm not telling Singaporeans how to live, how their country should be run, or even who to vote for. The only thing I am "interfering" with is duplicitous attempts by both foreigners and locals to manipulate the public.
I might be a foreigner but I have never hidden my identity. I was interviewed by CNA in person, in Singapore, early into my blogging career here and explained numerous times why I write about the country. Nobody sponsors me, nobody pays me for it – both in and out of Singapore. I have never even spoken to anybody from the PAP.
If you want to attack me then there's a whole list of names you should focus on first. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.
But we all know it's not a battle over truth or quelling foreign influences in Singapore. It's about an uncomfortable narrative exposing those who want to take advantage of misinformation and are upset that somebody is calling them out about it.