Han is mostly known for her criticism of the
People's Action Party, the current governing party of Singapore, and its policies. She has advocated against
capital punishment and co-founded We Believe in Second Chances, an anti-death penalty organisation in Southeast Asia, in 2010; in March 2018, she wrote an
op-ed in
The New York Times titled "What Trump Is Learning From Singapore — and Vice Versa", in which she claimed that Singapore was "an authoritarian paradise" and that "(b)oth the
Trump administration and the Singapore government have little time for human rights". Writing for the American magazine
Foreign Policy in May 2020 as the
COVID-19 pandemic was in its earnest, Han criticised the government's alleged "utilitarian, dehumanising approach" to the
COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore, such as mandatory mask wearing and strict
contact tracing. In October 2021, while defending the proposed
Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA),
Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam accused Han of "actively trying to put out misinformation" and cited her 2018 meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad, during which he claimed that she is engaging in foreign interference having "(urged) him to bring democracy to Singapore". Han was later served with a correction order under the
Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), asking her to correct false statements and misquoting Shanmugam. In May 2022, Han published a post of Facebook stating that costs orders made against lawyers representing persons on death row were "acts of intimidation that deter other lawyers", and will create a "more brittle system in which it will become even more likely that wrongful executions and miscarriages of justice will occur. In October 2022, Han was issued a warning stating that the Attorney-General's Chambers found that Han's post amounted to contempt of court. Han applied to the Singapore courts to quash the warning issued to her. In May 2023, the High Court of Singapore dismissed her application and found that the warning had no legal effect and was not susceptible to judicial review. ==Personal life==