Will Singapore Soon Become “Indiapore”?

Will Singapore Soon Become “Indiapore”?

Translated by ChatGPT 

For subscribers only

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/views/story20260616-9214799?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

Lianhe Zaobao

2026-06-16

Author: Goh Choon Kang (Former journalist, former Member of Parliament)

=====

Since last month, the new Chinese term “Indiapore” suddenly emerged in overseas Chinese-language online information circles and has been heavily hyped by certain self-media personalities. Some have even created the false impression that Singapore is already in turmoil, gripped by public anxiety, and has somehow “lost its defenses.”

The so-called “Indiapore” refers to the notion that the number of Indians in Singapore is increasing dramatically, that even Chinatown is now filled with Indians, and that Singapore, originally a Chinese-majority country, will soon become a Singapore of Indians (“Indiapore”). The phrase “losing its defenses” refers to the claim that Singapore’s painstakingly cultivated multicultural society is on the verge of collapse.

For Singaporeans who were born and raised here, such a narrative sounds like a fairy tale. Nevertheless, it may serve as a warning bell, reminding us that outsiders, for various reasons and motives, may exploit certain social fault lines in our country to sow discord. Besides remaining vigilant, we must continue strengthening our internal cohesion and prevent any social tensions from escalating.

On June 6, the Singapore Police Force issued a statement revealing that the authorities had invoked the Protection from Online Criminal Harms Act (POCHA) and issued 14 blocking directions to social media platforms YouTube, Facebook, and X, requiring them to take all reasonable measures to block the relevant content from Singapore users.

The narratives found in these inflammatory posts and short videos included claims that Singapore’s multiracial policy exists merely to cater to Western values; that Singapore’s stability comes from its Chinese-majority population rather than its multiracial policies; that there are increasingly more Indian politicians who would be inclined to favor immigrants from India; and that Singapore’s culture is fundamentally Chinese culture, while the government’s efforts to “decouple” from China ignore the threat posed by the growing Indian community, inevitably leading to troubling consequences.

Investigations by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the police indicate that these posts and videos maliciously incited hostility toward Singapore’s Indian community. They are believed to have originated from a Chinese platform before being reposted by other platforms and websites and subsequently circulated within online spaces targeting Singaporean audiences. In response to media inquiries, Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Edwin Tong stated that there is currently no evidence that the posts were part of any coordinated government action.

In any case, these inflammatory remarks on racial issues touch the most sensitive nerve in Singapore’s society and politics, and therefore cannot be taken lightly. The motives behind the Chinese platform’s publication of these posts and videos are also worth pondering. After all, Singapore and China are friendly nations with close economic ties, extensive government-to-government cooperation, and active people-to-people exchanges. Why, then, would anyone choose to fabricate and sensationalize such a racial issue?

This method of sensationalism is actually similar to the vivid narratives about the Uyghurs in Xinjiang often promoted in Western countries, something many Chinese people deeply resent. Yet now some individuals are using the same approach to attack Singapore. Such behavior undoubtedly harms a friendly nation. Naturally, ordinary Singaporeans would find this objectionable, and it also undermines the goodwill and mutual affection that have long existed between the peoples of the two countries.

For Singaporeans, maintaining racial harmony is one of the fundamental pillars of nation-building. Everyone understands that undermining racial harmony is an absolute red line that cannot be crossed. Nor would Singaporeans allow outsiders to sow discord, interfere in our domestic affairs and politics, or disrupt the social harmony and political stability that we work hard to preserve.

Those behind these attacks have clearly done some homework. They dug up the issue of the Singapore–India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), which was vigorously debated in Parliament in 2021. That debate clarified many previous misunderstandings and misconceptions surrounding the agreement. Yet the attackers apparently found it useful material, casually pairing it with street photographs of Singapore Indians celebrating Thaipusam and sensational headlines about Singapore “losing its defenses” to attract attention and generate traffic. Such tactics may deceive audiences unfamiliar with Singapore, but Singapore is an open society where people are generally well-informed and not so easily misled or manipulated.

What is worth examining is why the relevant platforms chose to raise this issue at this particular moment. Once the topic emerged, a crowd quickly gathered around it, eager to join the attack—including self-media bloggers, television political commentators, so-called experts, and academics who are frequently invited onto current affairs programs. Their motivations are relatively easy to understand: they are essentially chasing traffic and attention, especially those who depend on self-media for a living. Many Chinese-language self-media creators now earn their livelihoods through platforms such as YouTube. But what were the intentions of those who initiated the issue in the first place?

As the saying goes, “When others have intentions, we try to infer them.” From a Singaporean perspective, the instinctive conclusion is that certain individuals are deliberately trying to cause trouble for us or send us a warning because something Singapore has said or done displeased them. However, they seem to underestimate the serious consequences such actions could bring. For Singapore, inciting racial politics is a red line that cannot be crossed. The concept of a “red line” should not be unfamiliar to China.

One reasonable inference is that this latest wave of attacks is a continuation of the uproar triggered by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks concerning Taiwan. Since then, attacks on Singapore have continued unabated. During this period, Lianhe Zaobao’s Beijing correspondent Shen Zewei wrote an article titled “The United Front Lessons from ‘A Letter to Grandma’.” Although many Singaporeans may not necessarily agree with its discussion of united front work, the timing unfortunately provided fresh fuel for the attackers. As a result, not only the Singapore government but also Lianhe Zaobao itself became targets of criticism. More recently, some commentators on Chinese-language television current affairs programs in Taiwan and elsewhere have intensified their criticism of the Singapore government and even launched personal attacks against Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.

The malicious attacks on Singapore by overseas Chinese-language media and online platforms can also be viewed within the broader context of the strategic rivalry between China and the United States. That rivalry has now entered a new phase. U.S. President Donald Trump, facing difficulties both domestically and internationally—including overseas conflicts, low approval ratings, and approaching midterm elections—has decided to visit China. While this appears to be a temporary truce with Beijing on the surface, the strategic competition between the two countries continues to intensify behind the scenes.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s sudden visit to North Korea signals Beijing’s efforts to strengthen its strategic positioning in Northeast Asia. Washington, meanwhile, has pushed Japan and the Philippines further toward the front line. The commander of U.S. Forces Korea has described South Korea as a “dagger pointed at China,” indicating that the United States has no intention of abandoning the First Island Chain strategy. In addition, the Australia–United Kingdom–United States security partnership (AUKUS) and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) involving the United States, India, Japan, and Australia remain active. At the same time, relations between China and Europe are also experiencing growing undercurrents of tension, with numerous trade disputes complicating bilateral ties.

In this geopolitical contest, Singapore remains firmly committed to not taking sides. However, like other small and medium-sized countries seeking neutrality and strategic autonomy, it must contend with information warfare and cognitive warfare from both major camps, whether conducted by governments or non-government actors. Compared with many other countries, Singapore occupies a particularly unique position. In the eyes of many Chinese or pro-China netizens, Singapore is essentially a Chinese country and therefore ought to identify with China, align itself with China, and oppose the United States and Japan. Yet Singapore does not do so. Consequently, in their view, this “ungrateful” small country deserves criticism, punishment, disparagement, humiliation, and pessimistic predictions.

What this reveals is both a lack of understanding of Singapore’s geopolitical environment and foreign policy, and a lack of respect for the autonomy of small states. In any case, when a small number of people from a major power arbitrarily attack a weaker neighboring country without justification, it inevitably chills the hearts of other small nations and certainly does nothing to enhance China’s diplomacy. When people from a friendly nation attempt to stir up racial politics in Singapore and trespass into our most sensitive political taboo, it causes profound hurt to Singaporeans.

The author is a former journalist and former Member of Parliament.