wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Singapore wants to know why the Indian government banned Garena Free Fire

Tencent’s investment could be one of the reasons for the ban, but that still leaves room for explanation.

Source: Google Play Store App Images

Singapore has raised concerns with the Indian government over the ban on popular battle royale game Garena Free Fire, which is owned by Singapore-based Sea Limited, Reuters reported on February 24.

Earlier this month, the Indian government issued an order banning an additional 54 apps linked to China stating that they pose a threat to the privacy and security of Indians. The list of banned apps was not made public by the government, but Google confirmed to Sea that Free Fire was banned based on a government order under Section 69A. The day following the ban, Sea’s shares plunged 18% in New York, wiping off more than $16 billion from the company’s market value.

While China has raised concerns about India’s app bans multiple times in the past, this is Singapore’s first diplomatic intervention. India’s boiler-plate response that the ban was instituted for security reasons might not sell this time because Singapore is not China.

Both, the Singaporean and Indian governments did not respond to Reuters for comments. MediaNama has filed an RTI with the IT Ministry asking for a copy of any correspondence received from Singapore on this matter.

What are Singapore’s concerns?

According to Reuters, the Singaporean government has raised the following concerns with India’s Ministry of External Affairs, which has routed the same to the IT Ministry:

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
  1. Why was Free Fire banned even though Sea is based out of Singapore? 
  2. Was the app banned unintentionally?

Sea is not a Chinese company, but China’s Tencent owns an 18.7 % stake in the company, which could be one of the reasons behind Free Fire’s inclusion in the list. But Sea responded to the ban saying that it does not transfer to or store any data of Indian users in China.

Why Free Fire ban is strange

Despite the Chinese connection through, Free Fire’s ban is strange for the following reasons:

  1. Sea-owned Shopee not banned: Sea also owns the popular e-commerce app Shopee, which is currently available for download in app stores in India. If the concern was that Sea is partly owned by Tencent, then Shopee should have also been banned, a demand that the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) made a day after the Free Fire ban.
  2. Free Fire MAX still available: The premium version of the game, Garena Free Fire MAX, which has better graphics, is still available on Google Play Store, and is now the most downloaded game in India.
  3. List predominately includes clones of already banned Chinese apps: The list of banned apps circulating in the media includes apps like Beauty Camera: Sweet Selfie HD, Music Plus – MP3 Player, Live Weather & Radar – Alerts, Tencent Xriver, most of which are clones of apps banned by India in 2020. Secondly, most apps have a clear Chinese connection, unlike Free Fire. Lastly, none of the other apps is as popular as Free Fire which has over 40 million users in India.

Chinese government wants India to be non-discriminatory

China expressed serious concerns regarding the ban and said that India should treat all foreign investors, including Chinese firms, in a transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory manner, Reuters reported.

Gao Feng, a spokesperson in the Chinese commerce ministry was quoted as saying:

“We hope India can take concrete measures to maintain the sound development momentum of bilateral economic and trade cooperation.”

Also Read:

Have something to add? Post your comment and gift someone a MediaNama subscription.

Written By

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ