The posts were accompanied by videos of self-exiled Chinese businessman and Communist Party of China (CPC) critic Guo Wengui speaking in Mandarin or occasionally using automated English voiceovers. - Photo: Screengrab from Facebook
SINGAPORE: In the videos, self-exiled Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui is speaking in Mandarin, but his voice in some clips is drowned out by a computer-generated voiceover in American-accented English.
His message: The Communist Party of China (CPC) is determined to control Singapore after Lee Hsien Loong steps down as prime minister, and Singapore will stand no chance of fighting back.
The videos were put up by a network of 95 social media accounts, all linked to Guo, which the Home Affairs Ministry (MHA) has since invoked the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (Fica) to block.
There is no evidence that any accounts were operated by Singaporeans.
Many posts did not appear to have gained much traction, at least in terms of likes, comments and shares.
Singapore may have had a close shave. But the incident drives home its vulnerability to such coordinated campaigns and the importance of having a healthy scepticism about information found online.
The law can only go so far, especially since the Republic is likely to be caught in the crossfire as geopolitical tensions grow and foreign actors use hostile information campaigns to influence public sentiment and achieve their goals.
Singapore has dealt with such campaigns before. During a period of tensions with a country between 2016 and 2017, the Republic was the target of a coordinated campaign aimed at undermining its foreign policy position.
Online commentaries and videos, which aimed to shape Singaporeans’ feelings on the topic at hand, were uploaded by social media accounts that had been dormant for years.
In 2018, when facing issues with another country, Singapore again saw an abnormal spike in social media comments made by anonymous accounts.
They sought to create an artificial impression that there was robust opposition to Singapore’s position.
At times, foreign actors sought to appeal to segments of the population they believed might share their sentiments.
On July 19, MHA said it had grounds to believe that the network of accounts linked to Guo, a fervent CPC critic based in the US, could and might be used to mount similar campaigns targeting Singapore.
Such campaigns risk undermining social cohesion and trust in public institutions, among other things, it said.
The first posts went online on April 17, two days after it was announced that Lawrence Wong would take over as prime minister on May 15.
Between then and May 10, some 120 such posts were put online, often by social media accounts that put up a variety of anti-CPC posts a day.
All the signs pointed to a deliberate, coordinated effort, said the authorities.
The challenge of tackling such campaigns is that one is often playing catch-up.
The 95 problematic accounts may be blocked, but similar networks can easily set up many more such accounts to make their point.
Posts by such networks are often also made anonymously or by “sock puppet” accounts masquerading as actual humans.
It is difficult to trace them to their source and – as in Guo’s case – hold them accountable if they are located outside Singapore.
Even so, Fica, which is designed to prevent, detect and disrupt foreign interference in domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns and the use of local proxies, remains a powerful tool.
For one thing, the law guards against such interference by bringing public attention to persons or issues that might otherwise fly under the radar.
In February 2024, Hong Kong-born businessman Philip Chan was designated a politically significant person under the law.
The naturalised citizen, who was active in grassroots organisations, was assessed to be susceptible to being influenced by foreign actors and willing to advance their interests.
Fica also makes clear to foreign actors that Singapore will not take such meddling lightly, and the country remains watchful for such threats.
On July 11, it was announced that the National Trades Union Congress, with its symbiotic relationship with the ruling People’s Action Party, would be designated as a politically significant person.
This was a pre-emptive move to mitigate the organisation’s risk of being a future target.
Singapore’s battle against foreign interference shares similarities with its ongoing effort to fight scams.
The solution to both problems requires that the law be complemented by public education and a good dose of critical thinking.
Such public education campaigns would ideally sensitise people to foreign interference and its many guises.
For instance, the strident claims made by the Guo-linked social media accounts, including statements such as “Singapore is in the CPC’s back pocket”, would have been recognised by many to be blatantly false.
But just because these did not appear to gain traction does not mean they are harmless.
Such tactics do not always aim to change minds right away, but do so through incremental “slow-drip” methods that shape views over time.
People should also be encouraged to consume a varied information diet, which contributes to a well-rounded view of the world.
Social media algorithms tend to serve up more of whatever the user shows an interest in.
This is designed to make people spend more time on the platform, but may also send them down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme content.
These algorithms cannot be changed, but being aware of this tendency can help limit their effects.
In addition, it is important to be aware that foreign actors often actively seek to exploit domestic fault lines for their own purposes.
Exercising a certain scepticism about online content is prudent, including about comments made by seemingly-authentic accounts, especially if they appear coordinated and promote a point of view that is in line with a foreign actor’s interests.
It also means fact-checking against credible sources when you get a viral WhatsApp message of unknown provenance making fantastical claims, rather than forwarding it to a friend.
When it comes down to it, Singapore’s interests should matter most to those who call this country home.
In seeing content that plays on fears, stokes emotion or validates biases, it is therefore worth thinking twice. - The Straits Times/ANN
