Is academic freedom dead in Singapore?

On 22 March 2026, Malaysian activist Dr Fadiah Nadwah Fakir crossed the Malaysia-Singapore border. The trip would be mostly business: she was to deliver a guest lecture at the university where she had recently received her doctorate. To her surprise, Dr Fadiah was refused entry to Singapore and turned back to Malaysia at the Woodlands Checkpoint. She was an undesirable visitor, according to the receipts she posted on her social media accounts. In her own words, the ordeal was "extremely outrageous and distressing". Given that her candidature at the National University of Singapore was uneventful, if not model, Dr Nadiah alleged her "deportation" signals the state's disapproval of her research interests in postcolonial theory.

Safe and nonpolitical medieval students and scholars drinking and gambling,
from the Carmina Burana manuscript

Prof Khoo Ying Hooi, an international relations expert regularly consulted by Singapore's The Straits Times for regional and Malaysian political analysis, has opined that this incident is proof that Singapore actively polices the boundaries of academics to restrict their legitimate activities within education, and away from political activism and advocacy. Such a pity, the prof sniffs, as this overlap is the "common" mode of academic expression in the region.

Dr Fadiah's online theatrics and performative outrage may play to her social media audience,  but Prof Khoo's quiet piece presents a challenge that Home Affairs minister K Shanmugam cannot swat away easily: Was Singapore's action not just heavyhanded, but detrimental to academic freedom? Did striking Dr Fadiah also inadvertently hurt academic freedom and academic independence or autonomy, on which any functional democracy depends?

Analects 4:5

Confucius said: Men aspire to wealth and status; when these cannot be attained along the path of righteousness, the gentleman forsakes them. Men shun poverty and lowliness; when these cannot be evaded along the path of righteousness, the gentleman welcomes and suffers them.

Should a gentleman depart from righteousness, can he still shine a light on his name? A gentleman never swerves from the path of righteousness even in the sitting of a meal; it leads him in pressing moments and in times of tribulation.

- Analects 4:5, my translation

Did the Workers Party respond correctly to PM Wong's challenge?

It's been a long road, getting there to here. In 2021, Raeesah Khan (WP-Sengkang) attempted to besmirch the reputation of the Singapore Police Force in a speech to parliament. She falsely claimed she witnessed the police traumatise a victim of sexual assault. As it turned out, her party leader Pritam Singh found out it was a lie, allowed her to continue the lie for 3 months until she recanted it, then himself lied to the Committee of Privileges when it investigated her conduct, and was found out and referred to the criminal courts.

Pritam Singh was found guilty of lying and convicted in court, and his conviction conclusively upheld after appeal. And now the chickens are beginning to come to roost: Mr Singh was censured in a parliamentary motion of dishonorouable conduct unbecoming of a Member of Parliament and unsuitable to be the Leader of the Opposition.

Singapore prime minister Lawrence Wong quickly withdrew the privileges afforded to Mr Singh as the Leader of the opposition and invited the Workers Party to nominate someone else to the position. WP leadership mulled on the decision for nearly a week before rejecting the proposal entirely. Did it make the right decision?

King John surrendering his crown to the Pope's representative

Did PM Lawrence Wong poke the dragon?

On 19 November 2025 at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum gala dinner in Singapore, Lawrence Wong was asked to analyse, from the view of Asia, the contentious and intense China-US rivalry and its spillovers in the region, with "this spat going on between Japan and China". Singapore's prime minister called for stability and de-escalation. Mr Wong even called for a normalisation of ties between Japan and China. His subtext: China's policy of nurturing historical grievances to fuel jingoist nationalism must seem bewildering and abnormal to the peoples living in Southeast Asian nations, which experienced a long Cold War in succession to WW2. (Or indeed, anyone living in the European Union.)

Right on cue, outraged online mobs in China were whipped into a frenzy by one Peking loyalist and online influencer Yu Pun-hoi in Hongkong and his ultra-nationalist collaborators in Shanghai. And then, panic and concern from various segments of Singaporeans who now feel Wong should not have poked the dragon and sparked off a bonfire.

Was Lawrence Wong unnecessarily provocative? How much of this controversy is his fault? Or was the online mob just the latest chapter in a long-running but increasingly ineffective Chinese influence campaign to decouple Singapore from the American security apparatus in the Asia Pacific? Or is this a sign that Singapore has a vocal homegrown faction that stands for realignment and Sincization?

Mob with pitchforks and torches, from Young Frankenstein.
"A riot is an ugly thing. And I think it's just about time that we had one!"

Should Singapore still mourn the loss of The Projector?

It has been exactly a month since the sudden closure of indie and second-run cinema operator The Projector. The closure may have provoked widespread despair and outrage online, however performative or overwrought, but for the sake of public education this discussion must now move beyond narratives marked by self-regarding romanticism, naive sentimentality, and uninformed anti-capitalism.

What different things can we learn if, for example, we took a production of culture perspective? What if we treat watching an indie or foreign film in a shabby chic cinema as an end result of the interplay between organisational structure, industry culture, market forces, audience preferences, and contractual agreements and unwritten norms within the wider movie industry? That is: What does it really take to screen a movie in a cinema? And if a cinema operator like The Projector fails, whose fault is it really?

Woud've been appropriate and poetic, but
The Projector didn't end its run with a screening of Goodbye, Dragon Inn

Modelling the 2025 General Election: Was it right to apply Dunleavy to Singapore?

Almost a full month before Nomination Day, we at Illusio used Dunleavy’s dominant party system framework to drive our predictions for the outcome of the general election. We made 3 predictions, only of which  was correct: that the People’s Action Party (PAP) would maintain its dominance due to its perceived competence. No reasonable person would've gotten this wrong, with or without a model. The others landed somewhat off the mark. Yes, WP picked up ZERO new wards but they did not lose a GRC. To quote the Black Knight: Let's call this a draw.  No, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) did not pick up a GRC in the west. That one was a total dud.

Do the outcomes mean Dunleavy's framework has finally broken down and is not applicable to Singapore? Or do the outcomes mean there's something else going on, which complictes but doesn't invalidate Dunleavy?

Will PJ Thum present the first and only poll of the election?

Cancel your appointments for the night of 24 April 2025. If you have decided to attend an election rally, you need to reconsider your life priorities. Sure, you can spend 3 hours in a field or stadium experiencing attempts by politicians and their plants in the crowd to whip the crowd into a frenzy. We at Illusio have found a far more important, more exciting, more elusive event in Singapore's political history, one that is literally singular and may never be repeated again.

A political rally, from Wikimedia

This is why you should attend Dr PJ Thum and New Naratif's The Citizen Agenda at 7pm, at The Projector at Golden Mile (yes, it's a free event).

Was Pritam Singh crying wolf? Modelling the 2025 Singapore General Election

It must've been an annus horribilis for the Wokers' Party for its leader Pritam Singh to muse publicly that his party could face a wipeout in the imminent 2025 general election. Was it the crushing defeat of the government-appointed Leader of the Opposition in the State Court, on charges of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee and a stinging rebuke by the judge? Or its second ever sex scandal? But then, what would we make of the completely opposite forecast by foreign observers who say this is the most competitive general election of Singapore's history, where the opposition is poised for game-changing victories that will surely transform the political landscape?

Only one of these two predictions can be true, but which? Is Pritam Singh voicing a rare warning to his partisans, or is this an attempt to rally his troops by reusing the boogeyman from the previous election?

Pritam Singh prefers to play a game of electronic football with Death!

Did the Straits Times just paint a bullseye on Wang Quancheng?

Can you smell it in the air? This year in Singapore, the Hungry Ghost month begins on 4 August. For a entire lunar month, practitioners of Chinese folk religion or Shenism will burn gigantic sticks of incense, joss paper, and offerings to the dead, sparking the perenial complaints of air pollution by the public and admonitions for multiculturalist tolerance by political leaders. As for more pleasant sights and sounds, visitors to Singapore can look forward to pentatonic Chinese wayangs and racuous charity auctions in the heartlands, organised by temples, clan associations, and neighbourhood business associations.

No wonder then that the Qixi festival has been recently revived by state fiat? And hence, the Straits Times report on Singapore's revival of the Qixi festival, with the newspaper's usual nation-building focus. But wait, there's something wrong in the ST story: a lengthly digression featuring a president of a Chinese association that isn't even an organiser or partner of this year's festival, but is a mere participant, among a field of scores of clan associations? It's as if the Straits Times is dog whistling to readers who have been trained over decades to read between the lines of SPH journalese: Pay attention to Wang Quancheng of the Hua Yuan Association! Don't you want to find out more about him?

"William Tell and The Apple-shoot woodcut", from the printed edition Of Jakob Ruff's version Of The Canton Of Uri folk play "Von Dem Frommen Und Ersten Eydgnossen Wilhelm Thellen",

acted by the townspeople Of Zurich, Switzerland, on New Year's Day, 1545.

What will happen when Lawrence Wong becomes Singapore's next prime minister?

Pencil in the date on your calendar (or calendar app)! Barring any unforeseen circumstances like a natural disaster, foreign invasion, or catastrohpic illness, Lee Hsien Loong will finally step down and make way for a capable, able-bodied, and willing successor. Lawrence Wong will indeed become Singapore's 4th prime minister on 15 May 2024.

Yet the emerging details of the handover are of concern and raise questions about the governing capacity of the Lawrence Wong premiership. When Mr Wong takes over, he does so under the mentorship of Lee, and without any immediate change in policy or a major reshuffle of the cabinet.

Wong's sound and reassuring reasoning that Singapore's "system works on the basis of continuity and progressive change" still begs the question: Why should the nation wait till after the next general election to find out his personal vision and roadmap for the country, his policy direction, and the leadership renewal that will accompany these changes in the cabinet? Even the alleged "seatwarmer" Goh Chok Tong promised a kinder, gentler, more consultative Singapore before his maiden election, clearly communicating a clear difference in style, vision, and mode of governance.

Choose your own president

It is the morning of 1 September 2023. Having learned your lesson in the pandemic general election, you wake up early today to beat the queues at the polling station. Because voting is compulsory, you cast your vote, then head back to laze the rest of the public holiday away.

Even though voting is secret, what you overhear in public, what you read online, and what you and your friends discuss over the course of the day jump out at you: you have chosen the same candidate as a majority of the electorate.

Put this way, it is a statistically unremarkable event. But what if instead, there was a secret in the voting booth that aligned the majority of voters to your choice?

Is Singapore's Elected Presidency too broken to be fixed?

How broken is Singapore's Elected Presidency?

Once upon a time, Singapore had a president who was its ceremonial head of state.  Like all Commonwealth heads of states, this president presided at annual military parades, gave the President's Speech to open each parliament session, gave assent to legislative bills, approved the national budget, pardoned prisoners, and signed off on the appointment of key positions in the civil service - all on the advice of the government.

Then in 1991 after 5 years of debate in parliament, Singapore had an "elected president". Is he a "check on a rogue government" and "guardian of the reserves"? Depending on who you asked and when you asked, the purview and powers of this president has dramatically waned over the years. The image below is an attempt to summarise the public communications of Singapore's leaders on the elected president over the years, and the growing public disquiet they have engendered.

Did the New Naratif Civil War destroy New Naratif?

In April 2022, New Naratif raised the alarm. For the very first time, despite several years of releasing "accountability reports" to his subscribers and the public at large, Dr PJ Thum, the managing director of the website and director of its holding company Observatory Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, admitted to a crippling financial shortfall. Subscriber numbers have been misreported, subscription fees not collected, leading to a corrected revenue shortfall of USD 40,000. Not soon after, he appears to have let go almost all his editorial staff. Even now, New Naratif's restructuring is still in progress as it pivots to a different business model, publishing angle, and reason for existence.

This is par for the course for any financially distressed enterprise—until the staff laid off by Dr Thum chose to fight it out in the public. They allege that Thum misled both his readers and staff. Thum accused the staff of attempting to subvert his management, and furthermore accused them of waging a disinformation campaign. The staff stand by what they said, noting that documented evidence (presumably in the reports and subscriber emails) supports their narrative, not Thum's.

English Civil War woodcut in pamphlet, c.1643

In a fit of madness, Thum and his former employees have fired off the equivalent of ICBMs in a mutually-destructive civil war. Both sides may refuse to issue further responses but the damage is done.

Was it wise for Singapore to impose sanctions on Russia?

As war wages on in Ukraine, American president Joe Biden leans on reluctant NATO allies in Europe, long dependent on Russian gas, to stand with the Ukrainians against the invasion. Russia must be punished, yet not hard enough that it could spark another World War. Biden instigates his European allies to propose and vote to condemn the war in the United Nations, while many others refrain from taking a stand. Like most of the world outside NATO, in fact.

Mykhailo Khmelko depicts the Treaty of Pereyaslav in a 1951 painting.

The few Asian nations to impose sanctions on Russia are America's closest allies: South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. And then, there is Singapore. This move has international observers scratching their heads. It is unexpected, uncharacteristic, and unprecedented. Singapore does not live in the shadow of Russia nor is it a NATO member. Nor would most people describe it as a close ally of America. Singapore's brand of diplomacy has been quiet and low key; it rarely sticks out, if ever, from the ASEAN consensus position.

There are those who argue that Singapore should have stayed on the sidelines like its neighbours. That it should play the role of a neutral peacemaker. That Singapore's pro-Ukraine positioning is too extreme, and going further to impose sanctions against Russia is a mistake.

When will it be safe to support the Workers' Party again?

On 10 February 2022, the Committee of Privileges presented its official report on Ms Raeesah's Khan's lies to the Singapore Parliament.

Here are some of the salient points from the report.

For all intents and purposes, the fat lady has sung

Will the PAP pay a political price for the committee of privileges?

Politics is a funny business. Both sides of the political divide in Singapore can agree on several immutable facts: Worker’s Party MP Raeesah Khan told several lies in Parliament for months, eventually admitted, apologised, and resigned for lying, a complaint for breach of parliamentary privilege was filed, and a committee of privileges convened to investigate the matter.

According to certain online commentators, given the same facts, it is the People’s Action Party that must pay a political price because the committee of privileges allowed Khan to implicate the leaders of WP (notably Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh and Opposition Whip Sylvia Lim) for their possible role in abetting her lies, and then to investigate these allegations. When did they know of the lie? What did they say to Khan over the course of 3 months? Why did they keep silent for 3 months? Why, the PAP will pay for the committee going in this direction, not the WP!

Should Singaporeans trust the parliamentary Committee of Privileges?

Every night for the past two weeks, Singaporeans watched as the Committee of Privileges investigated Raeesah Khan, formerly MP for Sengkang GRC and leading members of her former political party, for lying in Parliament.

Is the Committee of Privileges politically motivated? Is this investigation a witch hunt and a prelude to "fix the opposition"?

Illustration of the Newcastle witch hunt of 1650 from Ralph Gardiner's account in 1655

Who should we blame for Singapore's second Covid lockdown?

Ship of fools, woodcut, 1494 Basel

Singapore returned to a state of lockdown on 8 May 2021. With all indoor sports, indoor dining, mandatory work from home, and social gathering severely restricted (and with all schools switching to home-based learning), this is a mere quarter-turn of the screw away from the complete lockdown ("Circuit Breaker") from April 2020.

Much has been made about the quality of decision-making of Singapore's Interministerial Covid Task Force in this matter.  Once again like the initial dithering and delays that led to travellers from Wuhan colonising Singapore with the Covid virus, our leaders dithered for a month while India reported its worst Covid spikes in a year. Just like in the Wuhan case, Singapore's leaders sat on their hands long after India announced the lockdown of its capital. Singapore's leaders allowed travellers from India into the country, in increasing numbers, even after the Indian government blamed the outbreak not on the record crowds at the Kumbh Mela river festival but on the "India variant" of the Covid virus.

It was only when the UK declared its travel restrictions on India that Singapore followed suit, on the same day. Yet why do Singapore's leaders blame Singaporeans for its own India variant Covid clusters and the subsequent lockdown?

Can we live together with TraceTogether?

Why is trust in TraceTogether at an all-time low?

Singaporeans should be celebrating. After nearly a year of lockdown, Singapore has entered the elusive "Phase 3" despite the inter-ministerial covid task force tripping itself over and over again with poor communication skills and crisis management and a tendency to allow PR agendas to trump medical-scientific expertise and set policy. By refusing to hold daily televised coronavirus briefings during the initial darkest months, this team failed to reassure, educate, guide, and rally the public and to shore up the government credibility and authority during the pandemic. Yes, it's time to talk about TraceTogether fiasco, where this credibility and authority is finally found wanting by the public.

You chose Tan Kin Lian!

 

In polling booths across Singapore, Tan Kin Lian is chosen by a slim margin as Singapore's 5th Elected President. Few suspect it, but hardcore opposition supporters do not form the largest portion of Tan's winning coalition. Tan wins the day not on his own merit. Instead, enough voters across Singapore's political spectrum have grown weary of the endless machinations of the PAP to redefine the elected presidency. After 30 years of PAP's tomfoolery, enough voters realised that the presidency has become a clown show and the appropriate way to reward the PAP is to elect the biggest clown they can find on the ballot sheet.