So a private company has to do business in Singapore - and isn't allowed to complain if the Singaporean government restricts the rights of its own employees? They're just supposed to shut up and take whatever insane dictat exists in whatever jurisdiction they do business with? Why? If they're powerful enough to move the needle by threatening to withdraw from the country, then good for them! It's not that "whatever I like" is right, it's that there are universal human rights, and guess what, if enough stakeholders in these companies believe that no one should be doing business in countries or states that don't respect those rights, that's a good thing for the world.
Who should influence the affairs of a country? Take Russia now as an example. Should western countries stop Russia? Do you think western companies who pulled out of Russia are morally reprehensible because they were attempting to influence with business?
Yeah, the people who draw equivalence between US companies pulling out of Russia and Russia attempting to influence US elections are morally bankrupt and can't see that one of these things is trying to stop a war of aggression, or at least punish the murder of civilians. To even pretend not to be able to make that distinction is repugnant.
"If Gay patients are uncomfortable with Bigoted doctors, these patients deserve Compassionate doctors" is, I believe, a better summary of their comment.
What I'm saying is that it is illegitimate for private companies to use their vast wealth to influence the affairs of a comparatively poorer country.
Western countries colonized entire continents with force and violence. Now we're doing it again, ideologically, with business and geopolitics.