SINGAPORE — A growing network of suspicious think-tank and consultancy websites is raising fresh concerns about attempts to exploit Singapore’s reputation for diplomacy, policy expertise and national-security research.
The latest case involves Great Vision, a supposedly Singapore-based consulting firm that claimed one of its senior figures was a former Singapore diplomat. Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), however, told CNA that the woman identified as “Dr Jade Chan” had never worked at the ministry.
The website also advertised positions seeking people with experience in Singapore’s government, international institutions and think-tanks — including the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).
CNA reported that the Great Vision website listed a senior consultant position in political and geopolitical risk and said applicants with previous roles at Singapore’s MFA, the ASEAN Secretariat, European Union institutions or leading international think-tanks were preferred.
A separate listing for an intelligence and research analyst specifically said experience at Singapore-based think-tanks such as RSIS was “highly desirable”, with applicants asked to submit relevant work samples.
A carefully constructed Singapore connection
The Great Vision case is part of a wider investigation by CNA into suspicious websites presenting themselves as think-tanks or consultancies.
In recent weeks, CNA examined nine such websites. Several attempted to manufacture connections with Singapore institutions, including claims of government support, academic partnerships or affiliations with researchers.
One particularly striking example was Global Asia Think Tank, which claimed to be supported by Singapore’s MFA and to work with the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and RSIS.
Those claims were rejected.
MFA told CNA that it does not and has not supported Global Asia and described the references to Singapore institutions as misrepresentations. The ministry said it had contacted the websites seeking removal of the false references.
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy also said it had no relationship with Global Asia and had not authorised the use of its name.
RSIS likewise told CNA it had no knowledge of Global Asia.
The website went further, claiming it had held an in-person seminar at LKYSPP on June 18. Checks of the school’s calendar found no such event.
CNA also reported that an image presented as evidence of the supposed event appeared to have been generated using an OpenAI image-generation model — and was created eight days after the event was allegedly held.
Fake experts, real institutions
The problem extends beyond fabricated institutional affiliations.
CNA found that several suspicious websites appeared to use AI-generated or altered photographs and biographies to create the impression of having internationally recognised experts.
One website, Afforesight, listed Dr Zhao Litao, a real senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s East Asian Institute, as one of its experts.
Dr Zhao said he had never heard of the organisation and had not authorised it to use his name, photograph or biography.
The East Asian Institute confirmed that it had no affiliation with Afforesight and had not authorised the use of Dr Zhao’s profile.
CNA also found apparent discrepancies involving other purported experts and a Singapore address listed by Afforesight. A visit to the stated location found a research facility operated by a pharmaceutical company, with no indication that Afforesight operated there.
Why recruit former diplomats?
That is where the story becomes more significant.
Muhammad Faizal Bin Abdul Rahman, a research fellow at RSIS, said fabricated personas such as the supposed “Dr Chan” could help create an appearance of credibility and competence, potentially making candidates more willing to engage with a recruitment effort.
Professor Simon Chesterman of the NUS AI Institute said the focus on former MFA personnel could indicate an interest in people who may possess privileged knowledge, networks or an understanding of how government works.
But the experts stressed an important distinction: the recruitment activity does not establish who is behind the websites or what their ultimate intentions are.
CNA has also found no evidence proving that all of the suspicious websites are operated by a single organisation.
Faizal said, however, that the possibility of connected actors could not be ruled out because of similarities in their methods.
The bigger threat may be trust itself
The potential danger may extend beyond obtaining information from a particular individual.
Professor Chesterman warned that such operations could exploit the reputation of established Singapore institutions while weakening public confidence in legitimate organisations.
That could have a broader consequence: researchers, officials and former government employees may become more suspicious of genuine professional approaches because they have encountered increasingly convincing fake ones.
Generative artificial intelligence is making that problem harder to contain. Experts say AI can reduce the cost and effort required to create convincing websites, fabricated biographies, images and other forms of information operation at scale.
Why Singapore — and why now?
Faizal said foreign powers could potentially use seemingly innocuous approaches to gather strategic information about Singapore’s foreign-policy thinking and identify possible leverage points.
He also pointed to Singapore’s upcoming role as ASEAN chair in 2027, saying foreign powers may want to anticipate how Singapore intends to shape regional cooperation and advance ASEAN interests.
That does not mean the suspicious websites have been proven to be operated by a foreign government or intelligence service.
But the combination of fabricated credentials, false institutional affiliations and targeted recruitment is enough to warrant scrutiny.
CNA reported that researchers and analysts have identified at least 16 Singapore-linked entities carrying false or misleading claims since the middle of 2025.
The emerging lesson is increasingly clear: in the age of AI-generated identities and convincing institutional impersonation, a polished website and an impressive résumé are no longer proof of who is behind the screen.
And for Singapore, the most valuable target may not be a secret document at all.
It may be trust.
Leave a Reply