A low-budget film that earned more than 1.75 billion yuan (about 397 billion won) in China is unexpectedly spiraling into a diplomatic and identity debate. While the film has been praised in China as a moving story about family love, in Singapore it sparked controversy over China's expanding influence, eventually widening into a war of nerves that drew in media in both countries, internet users, and even state-run outlets.
The film at the center of the controversy is Letter to My Grandma, which recently became a box-office sensation in China. It portrays the history and family bonds of Southeast Asian migrants from the Chaoshan region of Guangdong province in southern China. Despite being a low-budget film performed in the Chaoshan dialect by unknown actors, it has been lauded as a fine work and became a major hit in China. In particular, it has been praised for its realistic depiction of the lives of Southeast Asian migrants and for awakening their cultural roots.
The film also opened on the 18th in Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, and Malaysia. In Singapore in particular, tickets for screenings in the original Chaoshan dialect, rather than in standard Chinese dubbing, sold out instantly, reportedly making waves in the ethnic Chinese (Chinese nationals overseas) community.
◇ In Singapore, criticism that it "over-injects a Chinese identity into ethnic Chinese"
The debate erupted after a commentary offering a very different view ran in Singapore's Chinese-language outlet Lianhe Zaobao. In a column titled "The united front implications of Letter to My Grandma," Lianhe Zaobao warned that the film carries China's "united front" intent. The united front is a strategy by the Chinese Communist Party to work with domestic and foreign forces to achieve political and diplomatic goals. In the West and in some Asian countries, it is often seen not as simple exchange or cooperation but as a political strategy to expand China's influence.
The column said, "The highest realm of the united front is to stir the softest of human emotions," arguing, "Seen with some distance from emotion, this film is a highly successful united front work." It said that regardless of the director's intent, the film could end up instilling cultural and emotional affinity with China among overseas Chinese communities.
The column said China's growing national power and the expansion of united front work could pose new challenges to overseas ethnic Chinese communities and the countries they belong to. It stressed that while most of Singapore's population is ethnic Chinese, their identity lies with Singapore, not China.
◇ Even China's state media weigh in: "Overinterpretation by those lacking cultural confidence"
The column drew immediate backlash on Chinese social media. Chinese internet users argued, "They are interpreting a family film politically," and called it "excessive victim mentality." Some criticized Singapore, saying it is deliberately distancing itself from Chinese culture.
The controversy did not stop there. Lianhe Zaobao later published a separate contribution criticizing that "within 48 hours after the column ran, posts attacking Lianhe Zaobao and Singapore surged on Chinese social media." The paper said there were signs that some posts were produced and spread in an organized way using artificial intelligence (AI), claiming, "There are traces of overseas influence operations."
China's state-run Global Times also joined in. In an editorial on the 16th, the Global Times called the united front controversy "an overinterpretation by a particular Singaporean outlet," saying it stemmed from viewing the expanding influence of Chinese culture through an overly political lens. Referring to Singapore, the editorial said, "People with cultural confidence feel warmth and empathy (when watching the film), but those with political calculations see only threat and conspiracy." It went on to raise suspicions of forces behind the piece, saying, "Some are wondering whether powerful forces were involved in writing the column."
◇ Identity debate among Singapore's ethnic Chinese lies behind the rift
Hong Kong's Ming Pao analyzed the situation, saying, "On the surface, it looks like a dispute over how to interpret a film, but in reality, an identity issue that has long existed between Singapore and China underlies it."
About 75% of Singapore's population is ethnic Chinese, but since independence in 1965, the country has consistently emphasized an identity as a multiethnic nation, not a Chinese state. As a result, ethnic Chinese in Singapore are Chinese by blood and culture, but strongly perceive their political and national identity as Singaporean. In particular, the first generation that migrated from southern China in the early to mid-20th century tends to feel China is their homeland, but the later generations born in Singapore and educated in English increasingly see China not as a homeland but as a key economic partner and one part of their cultural roots.
Meanwhile, in recent years China has emphasized a "Chinese national community" and the "revival of Chinese culture," pushing to strengthen cultural ties with overseas Chinese communities. Thus, while some viewers took the film—focused on migrant history, family love, and nostalgia for home—as a universal family story, others read it as a "demand on identity," fueling backlash.
Ming Pao said, "This controversy is seen as revealing the complicated psychology felt by some ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, especially in Singapore, amid China's rise," adding, "Conversely, some internet users in mainland China are also being criticized for holding unrealistic expectations that Singapore is a 'Chinese state.'"