SINGAPORE: Complaints are arising online that the pro-establishment “internet brigade” (IB) is going overboard as the 2025 general election approaches.
Some Singaporeans are lamenting that the IB is in overdrive in the comments sections of Facebook posts made by mainstream news channels like The Straits Times, CNA and TODAY, in what some deem is a “desperate attempt to shift the silent majority” as the ruling party heads into its first election under the leadership of Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
The IB is believed to be an organised, coordinated effort to promote pro-government narratives, counter criticism, and shape public opinion in comment sections, forums, and social media spaces. Accounts suspected of being part of the “internet brigade” have been accused of denigrating opposition politicians, discrediting alternative media outlets, reporting dissenting content and flooding online discussions with pro-establishment talking points.
While some ruling party supporters believe the IB is a myth cultivated by the opposition, the roots of this supposed brigade can be traced back almost 20 years. Back in 2007, The Straits Times reported that there was a “mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics. It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously”.
According to the national broadsheet, this initiative is driven by a ‘new media’ committee that was set up after the 2006 General Election and led by prominent ruling party politicians like Ng Eng Hen, Zaqy Mohamad, Baey Yam Keng and Josephine Teo.
Mr Baey, at the time, declined to comment on the group’s activities but told ST that it was important for the ruling party to have an online voice to provide balance and clarity in a space perceived to be heavily anti-establishment. While this positioning appeared innocuous enough, the fact that the New Media Committee members’ efforts were conducted under the radar—and often without disclosing party affiliation—sparked discomfort among many Singaporeans.
Back in 2007, Mr Baey said that the committee’s aim to propagate pro-establishment views and balance skewed comments can only work if activists are not “too obvious” about it — otherwise it comes across as “propaganda.” He said, ‘The identity is not important. It is the message that is important.”
One activist involved in the committee at the time told the paper that he does not identify himself as an establishment member when posting comments online. With technology having advanced rapidly in the past two decades, today some pro-establishment comments have raised suspicion because they are posted by locked or visible-to-friends-only accounts.
Some individuals even use software to hide their identity before making comments that seem like they are coming from an ordinary citizen. This practice is called astroturfing, where one person uses multiple online personas to give the impression of widespread support for the agenda of the entity they support.
It has become much easier to hide party affiliations since the New Media Committee began, five election cycles ago. Critics argue that declining to disclose one’s party affiliation and posing as regular citizens to give the illusion of widespread support deepens public distrust and blurs the line between genuine support and strategic manipulation.
Aside from the transparency issues, the aggressive tactics of IB members have also drawn widespread criticism. Critics argue that these online defenders don’t just engage in debate—they undermine and attack, sometimes resorting to character assassinations or misinformation to shut down dissent. This creates a chilling effect, especially among independent voices who fear being targeted or harassed for expressing alternative viewpoints.
Opposition parties and activists have often found themselves on the receiving end of sudden waves of online hostility, especially during election periods, leading to suspicions of coordinated campaigns. Indeed, a quick look at the comments sections of social media posts covering opposition figures in recent weeks shows that the comments are riddled with words like “loser,” “going to lose deposit,” or “don’t waste time.”
But look at the posts covering ruling party politicians and you’ll notice a deluge of comments singing the praises of these politicians, with words like “humble,” “inspiring,” or “the best MP”—sometimes repeated across posts and platforms almost word-for-word. The uniformity of this praise suggests coordination, not organic support.
Critics have called out these tactics as a strategic attempt to shape perception by flooding the online space with emotionally charged, repetitive messaging designed to influence undecided voters, also known as the “silent majority.” This group typically doesn’t comment, share, or post publicly about politics, but they are watching. And during election season, they’re paying even closer attention.
Singaporeans online have raised concerns that amplifying the ruling party’s positives while hammering the opposition with negativity can give the false illusion of consensus and sway the silent majority’s perception of electability or credibility.
If one is undecided and all they see online is one candidate getting trashed while another is being lauded across the board, it subtly shifts their internal narrative. This voter might even associate one with failure and chaos, and the other with competence and trust even if they have never seen either of them in action.
The power of this strategy is that it doesn’t rely on facts or policy arguments. It’s about repetition, tone, and emotional cues. And during elections, when undecided voters are forming quick judgments based on limited exposure, this kind of narrative manipulation can have a profound impact on voter sentiment.
Ultimately, the controversy around the PA Internet Brigade is not just about who is behind the keyboard, but what it means for online discourse in Singapore. In an era where social media plays a central role in shaping public opinion, the use of anonymous or coordinated digital actors—whether formally organised or not—raises significant concerns about transparency, fairness, and the health of civil debate.