Reserving any judgment on this specific action, I just note that it's all consistent with how Singapore has treated this in the past. From Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography:
> My early experiences in Singapore and Malaya shaped my views about the claim of the press to be the defender of truth and freedom of speech. The freedom of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and class interests.
(There follow a few examples of rich individuals forming their own newspapers, to push their preferred politics.)
> In the 1980s, Western-owned English-language publications became a significant presence in Singapore. [...] We have always banned communist publications; no Western media or media organization has ever protested against this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they frequently refused us the right of reply when they misrepresented us. We decided in 1986 to enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications that had engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. One of our tests for "engaging in the politics of Singapore" was whether, after they had misreported or slanted stories on Singapore, they refused to publish our reply. We did not ban them, only restricted the number of copies they sold. [...] This would reduce their advertising revenue but did not stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us of being afraid to have their reports read.
> Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. [...] We cannot allow [American journalists] to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America. [...] Indeed, America's Federal Communications Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences opinion in America.
> Advanced in information technology, satellite broadcasting, and the Internet will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so that the Singapore government's point of view is not smothered by the foreign media.
The memoir is incredibly prescient. Many of the policy debates held in Singapore in the 1980s mirror those held in America over the last three years, as we start to face a tiny fraction of the threats they dealt with daily. I wouldn't be surprised if the very same people who flaunt moral superiority over places like Singapore end up being the ones who take us in the exact same direction.