Current Affairs
A public poster and a serious oversight: More questions than answers in Amir Hamza’s entry
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/22173738/k-shan-poster-d2CevT.png)
The recent explanation by Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam regarding how Bangladeshi preacher Amir Hamza entered Singapore undetected raises more questions than it answers.
The minister pointed to a valid passport with a different name as the reason Amir Hamza “slipped through.” However, this explanation seems to overlook a glaring issue that becomes evident when examining a publicly circulated poster for an event featuring Amir Hamza.
This poster, written in Bengali and posted on Amir Hamza’s own Facebook page on 8 August 2024, clearly advertised an event scheduled for 9 August in Singapore.
The event, to be held at Tech Park Crescent in Tuas, Singapore, was not just any ordinary gathering.
Amir Hamza was explicitly listed as the featured speaker, identified by name and photograph, with the poster providing clear details about the timing of the event—after the Maghrib prayer.
![](https://i0.wp.com/theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/23164516/google-translate-poster-1005x1024.png?resize=740%2C754&ssl=1)
Translation of poster according to Google Translate
Additionally, the poster mentioned another performer, Naim Uddin Nijami, who would deliver an Islamic music performance. The event was framed as a celebration of “Singapore Independence Day,” a detail that should have caught the attention of anyone monitoring public gatherings in Singapore.
The poster wasn’t hidden; it was publicly accessible on the Facebook page of a known extremist figure.
It’s akin to a person listed as a security threat openly announcing on social media that they are coming to your country to speak at a specific location and time. Yet, the authorities failed to prevent his entry or stop the event.
The question then arises: If this poster was publicly available, why wasn’t it flagged by anyone in the relevant security agencies? Why weren’t the organizers immediately informed of the need for a police permit, as is routinely done with local activists planning much less contentious events?
Singaporean activists and opposition politicians are all too familiar with receiving calls from the police notifying them that their events require permits.
Often, these calls come even before the event details have been fully publicized. Yet in this case, despite the public visibility of the event and the known background of Amir Hamza, the authorities failed to intervene.
This begs the question: Are police resources disproportionately focused on monitoring local activists and opposition politicians while questionable figures like Amir Hamza slip through the cracks?
Moreover, it is essential to highlight that Amir Hamza, assuming he entered Singapore on a Bangladeshi passport, would have required a visa to enter the country.
The fact that he obtained a visa, combined with the authorities’ failure to detect his presence—unless Amir Hamza submitted a fake photo for his visa application or was in disguise while crossing the border—suggests that this lapse was not merely an isolated incident but a significant oversight in the immigration and security screening processes.
Minister Shanmugam has stated that Changi Airport must balance security with a friendly visitor experience, and it is impossible to interview every individual entering the country.
“On the face of it, he was no different from any other person who’s coming into Singapore. So we cannot work backwards in this, but we have to see what has happened,” he said.
“We will look at it, but bearing in mind that we need to make sure that we balance the security needs with the needs of the economy too.”
While this may be true, the incident with Amir Hamza suggests that there are serious flaws in how certain individuals are prioritized for scrutiny. The fact that this event occurred, despite all the safeguards supposedly in place, indicates a need for a thorough review of the processes that allowed it to happen.
The publicized poster, posted by Amir Hamza himself, is a stark reminder that the warning signs were there for anyone who was looking. The authorities’ failure to act on these signs suggests a deeper issue with how potential threats are identified and managed.
The poster had all the relevant information—the date, time, location, and the name of the speaker who should have raised red flags—and yet it seems that no one in the security agencies picked up on it.
Instead, they only became aware after a police report was filed days — likely spurred by a Reddit post on 12 August — after the event had taken place. This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of current monitoring and intelligence practices.
Singapore prides itself on being a safe and secure nation, but this incident has exposed vulnerabilities that must be addressed.
The public deserves more answers and assurance that such a lapse will not happen again. The focus must be on improving our systems, not justifying oversights with vague explanations.
The post A public poster and a serious oversight: More questions than answers in Amir Hamza’s entry appeared first on Gutzy Asia.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Current Affairs
Reforming Singapore’s defamation laws: Preventing legal weapons against free speech
Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong, linked to the financial stress from a defamation lawsuit, raises a critical issue: Singapore’s defamation laws need reform. These laws must not be weaponized to silence individuals.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/27020206/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg)
by Alexandar Chia
This week, we hear the tragic story of the suicide of Geno Ong, with Ong citing the financial stress from the defamation lawsuit against her by Raymond Ng and Iris Koh.
Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, this Koh/Ng vs Ong affair raises a wider question at play – the issue of Singapore’s defamation laws and how it needs to be tightened.
Why is this needed? This is because defamation suits cannot be weaponised the way they have been in Singapore law. It cannot be used to threaten people into “shutting up”.
Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution may permit laws to be passed to restrict free speech in the area of defamation, but it does not remove the fact that Article 14(1)(a) is still law, and it permits freedom of speech.
As such, although Article 14(2)(a) allows restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech with regard to the issue of defamation, it must not be to the extent where Article 14(1)(a)’s rights and liberties are not curtailed completely or heavily infringed on.
Sadly, that is the case with regard to precedence in defamation suits.
Let’s have a look at the defamation suit then-PM Goh Chok Tong filed against Dr Chee Soon Juan after GE 2001 for questions Dr Chee asked publicly about a $17 billion loan made to Suharto.
If we look at point 12 of the above link, in the “lawyer’s letter” sent to Dr Chee, Goh’s case of himself being defamed centred on lines Dr Chee used in his question, such as “you can run but you can’t hide”, and “did he not tell you about the $17 billion loan”?
In the West, such lines of questioning are easily understood at worse as hyperbolically figurative expressions with the gist of the meaning behind such questioning on why the loan to Suharto was made.
Unfortunately, Singapore’s defamation laws saw Dr Chee’s actions of imputing ill motives on Goh, when in the West, it is expected of incumbents to take the kind of questions Dr Chee asked, and such questions asked of incumbent office holders are not uncommon.
And the law permits pretty flimsy reasons such as “withdrawal of allegations” to be used as a deciding factor if a statement is defamatory or not – this is as per points 66-69 of the judgement.
This is not to imply or impute ill intent on Singapore courts. Rather, it shows how defamation laws in Singapore needs to be tightened, to ensure that a possible future scenario where it is weaponised as a “shut-up tool”, occurs.
These are how I suggest it is to be done –
- The law has to make mandatory, that for a case to go into a full lawsuit, there has to be a 3-round exchange of talking points and two attempts at legal mediation.
- Summary judgment should be banned from defamation suits, unless if one party fails to adduce evidence or a defence.
- A statement is to be proven false, hence, defamatory, if there is strictly material along with circumstantial evidence showing that the statement is false. Apologies and related should not be used as main determinants, given how many of these statements are made in the heat of the moment, from the natural feelings of threat and intimidation from a defamation suit.
- A question should only be considered defamatory if it has been repeated, after material facts of evidence are produced showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the message behind the question, is “not so”, and if there is a directly mentioned subject in the question. For example, if an Opposition MP, Mr A, was found to be poisoned with a banned substance, and I ask openly on how Mr A got access to that substance, given that its banned, I can’t be found to have “defamed the government” with the question as 1) the government was not mentioned directly and 2) if the government has not produced material evidence that they indeed had no role in the poisoning affair, if they were directly mentioned.
- Damages should be tiered, with these tiers coded into the Defamation Act – the highest quantum of damages (i.e. those of a six-figured nature) is only to be reserved if the subject of defamation lost any form of office, revenue or position, or directly quantifiable public standing, or was subjected to criminal action, because of the act of defamation. If none of such occur, the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff in a defamation can claim is a 4-figure amount capped at $2000. This will prevent rich and powerful figures from using defamation suits and 6-figure damages to intimidate their questioners and detractors.
- All defendants of defamation suit should be allowed full access to legal aid schemes.
Again, this piece does not suggest bad-faith malpractice by the courts in Singapore. Rather, it is to suggest how to tighten up defamation laws to avoid it being used as the silencing hatchet.
Current Affairs
Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun
A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/03132151/PHONE3.jpg)
SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.
The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.
The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.
Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.
The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.
The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.
They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.
The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.
The investigation is ongoing.
Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.
Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.
The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.
Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.
However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.
The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.
-
Singapore5 days ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Diplomacy1 week ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion1 week ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament2 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Singapore13 hours ago
Minister K Shanmugam transfers Astrid Hill GCB to UBS Trustees for S$88 Million following Ridout Road controversy
-
Parliament3 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Politics7 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Food1 week ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal