Connect with us

Current Affairs

Chief of Army: Stopover at Xiamen, a purely commercial decision taken by APL

Published

8 years ago

on

Chief of Army Major-General (MG) Melvyn Ong stated at a media briefing at Choa Chu Kang Camp on Tuesday (29 November) that there was nothing unusual about the nine Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles (ICVs) transiting in Hong Kong and it was a purely commercial decision for the ship carrying the vehicles to have stopped in Xiamen before going to Hong Kong before they were seized by China.

This is the first press conference held after nine ICVs from Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), were on their way home from an overseas training exercise in Taiwan before they were seized by Hong Kong customs last Wednesday.

MG Ong said, “Hong Kong is a common international port of call for many foreign militaries and many companies also. There have been no issues in the past, so this is a first.”

However, Hong Kong-based investigative news agency, FactWire reported that the ship had also visited Xiamen before it arrived at Hong Kong. In fact, according to FactWire’s sources, the Hong Kong authorities were tipped off that there were undeclared military vehicles on board the ship when it departed Xiamen and knew what they were looking for when they carried out the “routine” investigation.

When asked about the detour to Xiamen before Hong Kong, MG Ong said, “We don’t specify the route. It’s a purely commercial decision taken by APL. But we don’t stop at certain ports with security implications for cargo… For the items on board this particular cargo, there was no need.”

According to MG Ong, the APL ship with the ICVs onboard was carrying over 4000 containers. “Ours was a small footprint; a small volume of cargo in shipping so it makes sense for it to tag on to a large shipment,” he said.

Commercial shipping of military equipment a norm

MG Ong said that commercial shipping of military equipment is somewhat a “norm” for many countries, saying, “It’s a commonly adopted means. Many militaries use it consistently… during peacetime training. It’s the most cost-effective and efficient means of transporting large amounts of equipment.”

He also said, “We have a system in place to ensure how this is done properly. We have an established system for engaging commercial companies. All are required to comply with stringent requirements to protect against tampering and theft – for example, we lock; double lock some containers to ensure the security of goods on board.”

The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) stated that Singapore authorities have provided relevant assistance to the Hong Kong Customs on 24 November when SAF team, along with personnel from shipping contractor APL, were en route to Hong Kong to address the security of the equipment and expect the shipment to return to Singapore expeditiously.

MG Ong said, “We’re still waiting for further confirmation on the ground, to find out exactly what was the reason for the detainment. It will be clearer in a day or two.”

MG Ong said that MINDEF has been working with APL since 1990s. Although there are some other companies contracted to ship its equipment.

“We’ve never had an incident before. But we will take a look… Let’s see how it goes.”

China’s response after armoured vehicles were seized

Just yesterday, China announced that it has lodged a protest with Singapore after nine armoured infantry carrier vehicles (IFVs) from Singapore along with other equipment were seized by Hong Kong customs.

“China has already made representations over this to the Singapore side,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing on Monday.

Earlier on 25 November, when asked about the seized cargo, the China spokesman had reiterated that the Chinese government is firmly opposed to any forms of official interaction between Taiwan and countries that have diplomatic relations with China, military exchanges and cooperation included.

He said, “We call on Singapore to act in accordance with the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in handling the matter,” Geng said. “We oppose any nations that have diplomatic ties with China to have contacts with Taiwan, including military relations,” and added, “We call on Singapore to abide by the one China principle.”

Many citizens voiced their displeasure and disbelief on the incident. Here are what some of the wrote :

  • Johnson Lum wrote, “Years back , it was undertaken by the Navy which is safe and doesn’t not breach the Security. Unfortunately, the bunch of White Monkeys wanted to save a couple of dollars and put the contract under the hand of the commercial and we got screwed big time from China.
    Coming out to justify the use of Commercial shipping is right , what a Joke , Paper General.”
  • Tony Sim wrote, “Its nothing usual or wrong IF you buy out the full capacity of the ship. Then the ship will have no reason to dock at unassigned ports for commerical loading/unloading. Instead, it will follow the assigned routes back home.”
  • Wei Foo wrote, “SAF’s policy of outsourcing “non-core” functions like meal preparation, equipment maintenance and logistics is their biggest archilles heel. You just need disruption in one of them and the dominoes will start falling. Unfortunately, paper generals still can’t see the threat. This one is calling it nothing unusual.
    In reality though, it may not be so easy doing it everything themselves due to the manpower shortage. And for that, you can blame you-know-who for stubbornly refusing to tackle the low birth rate.”
  • Adrian Han wrote, “Military equipment should only use commercial if its hiring out the full boat or have army personnel guarding it . So what’s the point of classified equipment if commercial company is allowed to ship it ? This is really a joke . Just to save a few bucks.”
  • Chin Hua Yak wrote, “”They must also apply for all necessary permits (and) all regulatory requirements while travelling and at ports of call. The contractor has to be responsible for this.” Then why don’t apply? lol.”
  • Chan CL wrote, “No other country ship large military equipment via commercial shipping. What kind of security mindset do you guys have? Unbelievable, especially dealing with a big bully like China.”
  • Calvin Koh wrote, “Guys, again you know something? Always an excuse and reasons from someone. Shipment by own navy more secured or shipment by third party more secured? Always some kind of logic. Maybe No one in the army will question a major general or army chief, but it doesn’t mean they are always right. Is it so difficult to understand Logic?”
  • David Wong wrote, “When you are buddy with gangster’s US inevitably u end up behaving like them. Such comments “nothing unusual’ manifests a culture of impunity. Simple.”
  • Wee Ming wrote, “Lai Liao ! Same pattern of answering and reasoning by our elite scholar! It’s normal mah , our toy car are secure with pad locks and checklist. Power la! China already copy and the next batch of made in china toy car is coming out in no time!“
  • Vincent Tan wrote, “The reason why last time China closed one eye while Singapore conduct training in Taiwan was partly due Ma Ying Jiu was president. However ever president Tsai became president and it is well known that she is pro-independence! And Singapore still openly send these equipment in taiwan for training!”
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

3 days ago

on

12 October 2024

By

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

1 week ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending