- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 14,514
- Points
- 113
On 22 May, lawyer Yeoh Lian Chuan questioned whether PM Lawrence Wong and the PAP would repudiate racially charged remarks by Polish blogger Michael Petraeus. His post, liked by Ho Ching, reignited debates on foreign influence. During GE2020, complaints against Petraeus were filed, but no official action was announced.
Singapore law practitioner Yeoh Lian Chuan has publicly urged Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to take a definitive stand against controversial remarks made by Polish blogger Michael Petraeus, also known as ‘Critical Spectator’.
In a Facebook post published on 22 May 2025, Yeoh questioned whether Wong and his People’s Action Party (PAP) Government would repudiate Petraeus’s statements, which have been widely criticised as racially and religiously insensitive.
Petraeus, a foreign commentator with a significant online following in Singapore, published a post commenting on the Workers’ Party’s (WP) recent Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) appointments.
He alleged that WP had “abandoned” Muslim voters in favour of appealing to Mandarin-speaking constituents.
The blogger pointed specifically to the appointment of Eileen Chong, a new party member who joined WP in December 2024, as an NCMP following the 2025 General Election.
Petraeus claimed that this strategic shift was influenced by Terry Xu of The Online Citizen (TOC), who had previously advocated for greater outreach to older Chinese-speaking voters and new citizens from China.
In his op-ed, Xu argued that the WP would benefit more from appointing Chong as an NCMP, given the current lack of a strong Mandarin speaker among the party’s parliamentary representatives and the opportunity to further its efforts toward gender diversity.
Adding to the controversy, Petraeus’s post attracted a “like” from Ho Ching, spouse of former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, further amplifying its reach and raising eyebrows.
“Will the PAP Government stand for this?” he asked, referring to the apparent use of race and religion in Petraeus’s analysis.
Yeoh expressed dissatisfaction with Wong’s earlier remarks on the matter, made during a press conference on 26 April.
Wong had emphasised the importance of rejecting identity politics and keeping race and religion out of Singapore’s political discourse.
He added that while foreigners are allowed to write about elections, taking sides on local issues—particularly those involving race and religion—crosses a line.
“Our rules are clear. The principle is that the outcome of elections are for Singaporeans only to decide… We have laws to uphold this principle,” Wong stated.
“When foreigners take a position on an issue or a candidate—especially when it is about race and religion—that crosses the line,” he added.
Despite these statements, Yeoh argued that Wong’s response lacked clarity and conviction.
He also revealed that his comment on Wong’s Facebook page, asking for a clearer stance, was hidden.
Furthering his case, Yeoh said he had written to his Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament, Minister of State Alvin Tan, urging the Government to adopt a “principled and consistent stance.”
“I have written to an MP in my GRC, MOS Alvin Tan, as a resident of the GRC, to invite the PAP Government to take a principled and consistent stance and to make clear that political comments clearly aimed at Singaporeans by CS, and favouring or disfavouring one political party, are not welcome,” Yeoh wrote.
One Facebook user tagged the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Law, and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, calling attention to Petraeus’s remarks and signalling a call for governmental oversight.
While some defended the WP’s decision, arguing that political representation should not be reduced to ethnic tokens, others accused Petraeus of using the “race card” irresponsibly.
Netizens also pointed to the broader issue of identity politics, noting that the GRC system itself necessitates considerations of race in electoral strategy.
One user wrote: “WP can represent Muslims as a party, not just Faisal. It’s a move for the future.”
Others defended WP’s choice, arguing that Chong’s bilingualism and Mandarin fluency filled a strategic gap.
Petraeus, for his part, doubled down on his position, stating that the WP had effectively removed a seasoned Malay leader from Parliament in favour of less experienced candidates.
He described the newly appointed Malay MPs as “token” representatives, lacking significant party standing or track records.
Petraeus argued that instead of elevating a prominent Muslim leader, WP had chosen “a girl who joined the party six months ago and her main asset is Mandarin fluency.”
Ang described him as “imported propaganda,” accusing him of posing as a neutral observer while consistently defending the ruling PAP and mocking Singaporeans.
Ang alleged that Petraeus invalidates the lived struggles of local citizens—particularly regarding the cost of living—through the use of insensitive and racially charged rhetoric.
He further claimed that despite having no genuine stake in Singapore, Petraeus is amplified by influential figures such as Ho Ching and shielded from the scrutiny typically faced by local activists.
Ang also questioned why Petraeus is regarded as “foreign talent,” arguing that he offers no meaningful contribution to the lives of ordinary Singaporeans.
Ang denounced him as a mouthpiece for the powerful, unworthy of the platform he continues to occupy.
Xu argued that Petraeus, as a foreigner, should not be permitted to influence Singapore’s political discourse—particularly by publishing content that praised the ruling PAP while attacking opposition parties.
He cited Section 83(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which states: “No person who is not a citizen of Singapore shall take part in any election activity.”
Xu also referenced an Elections Department (ELD) advisory issued on 20 April 2020, which instructed political parties to “lodge a police report immediately” and inform the ELD if they detected any signs of foreign interference in the election.
Separately, a Singaporean named Ng raised similar concerns to the ELD, questioning whether Petraeus’ activities breached election rules.
While the ELD acknowledged that foreigners are prohibited from engaging in election activities and stated that it would look into the matter, no public action was subsequently taken in response to the complaints against Petraeus.
Singapore law practitioner Yeoh Lian Chuan has publicly urged Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to take a definitive stand against controversial remarks made by Polish blogger Michael Petraeus, also known as ‘Critical Spectator’.
In a Facebook post published on 22 May 2025, Yeoh questioned whether Wong and his People’s Action Party (PAP) Government would repudiate Petraeus’s statements, which have been widely criticised as racially and religiously insensitive.
Petraeus, a foreign commentator with a significant online following in Singapore, published a post commenting on the Workers’ Party’s (WP) recent Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) appointments.
He alleged that WP had “abandoned” Muslim voters in favour of appealing to Mandarin-speaking constituents.
The blogger pointed specifically to the appointment of Eileen Chong, a new party member who joined WP in December 2024, as an NCMP following the 2025 General Election.
Petraeus claimed that this strategic shift was influenced by Terry Xu of The Online Citizen (TOC), who had previously advocated for greater outreach to older Chinese-speaking voters and new citizens from China.
In his op-ed, Xu argued that the WP would benefit more from appointing Chong as an NCMP, given the current lack of a strong Mandarin speaker among the party’s parliamentary representatives and the opportunity to further its efforts toward gender diversity.
Adding to the controversy, Petraeus’s post attracted a “like” from Ho Ching, spouse of former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, further amplifying its reach and raising eyebrows.
Yeoh challenges Government’s silence on foreign interference
Yeoh, in his own Facebook post, directly challenged the Government’s position.“Will the PAP Government stand for this?” he asked, referring to the apparent use of race and religion in Petraeus’s analysis.
Yeoh expressed dissatisfaction with Wong’s earlier remarks on the matter, made during a press conference on 26 April.
Wong had emphasised the importance of rejecting identity politics and keeping race and religion out of Singapore’s political discourse.
He added that while foreigners are allowed to write about elections, taking sides on local issues—particularly those involving race and religion—crosses a line.
“Our rules are clear. The principle is that the outcome of elections are for Singaporeans only to decide… We have laws to uphold this principle,” Wong stated.
“When foreigners take a position on an issue or a candidate—especially when it is about race and religion—that crosses the line,” he added.
Despite these statements, Yeoh argued that Wong’s response lacked clarity and conviction.
He also revealed that his comment on Wong’s Facebook page, asking for a clearer stance, was hidden.
Furthering his case, Yeoh said he had written to his Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament, Minister of State Alvin Tan, urging the Government to adopt a “principled and consistent stance.”
“I have written to an MP in my GRC, MOS Alvin Tan, as a resident of the GRC, to invite the PAP Government to take a principled and consistent stance and to make clear that political comments clearly aimed at Singaporeans by CS, and favouring or disfavouring one political party, are not welcome,” Yeoh wrote.
Online backlash over racially charged claims
Petraeus’s comments have also sparked criticism online. On Critical Spectator’s Facebook post, several netizens criticised the article for sowing division along racial lines and undermining social cohesion.One Facebook user tagged the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Law, and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, calling attention to Petraeus’s remarks and signalling a call for governmental oversight.
While some defended the WP’s decision, arguing that political representation should not be reduced to ethnic tokens, others accused Petraeus of using the “race card” irresponsibly.
Netizens also pointed to the broader issue of identity politics, noting that the GRC system itself necessitates considerations of race in electoral strategy.
One user wrote: “WP can represent Muslims as a party, not just Faisal. It’s a move for the future.”
Others defended WP’s choice, arguing that Chong’s bilingualism and Mandarin fluency filled a strategic gap.
Petraeus, for his part, doubled down on his position, stating that the WP had effectively removed a seasoned Malay leader from Parliament in favour of less experienced candidates.
He described the newly appointed Malay MPs as “token” representatives, lacking significant party standing or track records.
Petraeus argued that instead of elevating a prominent Muslim leader, WP had chosen “a girl who joined the party six months ago and her main asset is Mandarin fluency.”
Singaporean commentator denounces Petraeus as ‘imported propaganda’
Notably, an earlier Facebook post by Singaporean commentator Adrian Ang, which was widely shared online, sharply criticised Petraeus.Ang described him as “imported propaganda,” accusing him of posing as a neutral observer while consistently defending the ruling PAP and mocking Singaporeans.
Ang alleged that Petraeus invalidates the lived struggles of local citizens—particularly regarding the cost of living—through the use of insensitive and racially charged rhetoric.
He further claimed that despite having no genuine stake in Singapore, Petraeus is amplified by influential figures such as Ho Ching and shielded from the scrutiny typically faced by local activists.
Ang also questioned why Petraeus is regarded as “foreign talent,” arguing that he offers no meaningful contribution to the lives of ordinary Singaporeans.
Ang denounced him as a mouthpiece for the powerful, unworthy of the platform he continues to occupy.
No action taken after reports of alleged foreign interference by Petraeus during GE2020
In July 2020, TOC editor Terry Xu filed a police report against Critical Spectator over posts allegedly constituting foreign interference during the 2020 General Election.Xu argued that Petraeus, as a foreigner, should not be permitted to influence Singapore’s political discourse—particularly by publishing content that praised the ruling PAP while attacking opposition parties.
He cited Section 83(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which states: “No person who is not a citizen of Singapore shall take part in any election activity.”
Xu also referenced an Elections Department (ELD) advisory issued on 20 April 2020, which instructed political parties to “lodge a police report immediately” and inform the ELD if they detected any signs of foreign interference in the election.
Separately, a Singaporean named Ng raised similar concerns to the ELD, questioning whether Petraeus’ activities breached election rules.
While the ELD acknowledged that foreigners are prohibited from engaging in election activities and stated that it would look into the matter, no public action was subsequently taken in response to the complaints against Petraeus.
