A Singaporean couple allegedly received a six-month ban from entering Malaysia after raising objections to the way an immigration officer stamped their passports. Abdul Qayyuum Rahim detailed this strenuous ordeal in a Facebook post.
Mr. Rahim recounted the unpleasant experience he and his wife underwent while entering Johor Bahru, Malaysia, through the Tuas Checkpoint. They had to endure about an hour-long wait at customs, leading to an understandably sour mood. The situation was further worsened when an immigration officer allegedly demanded in an impolite tone that they remove their passport covers before stamping.
What they found absolutely unacceptable was that the officer had left a blank page on his passport, and on his wife’s passport, the stamp was scratched off with a pen post-stamping. They expressed their dissatisfaction and attempted to lodge a complaint against the officer responsible. However, they were met with indifference and mockery from another officer.
Eventually, they were escorted to an office on the second level, where a female officer of Assistant Superintendent rank allegedly issued them a “Notice of Refusal Of Entry,” declaring them as “prohibited immigrants” and banning them from entering West Malaysia for the next six months.
The incident sparked widespread attention on social media. However, public opinion on Mr. Rahim’s experience is divided. Some questioned the necessity to take issue with the stamping procedure, stating that being granted entry into a country should be enough. Others shared similar experiences but expressed their lack of received sympathy.
Moreover, a comment from a purported eyewitness added more complexity to the incident. This witness claimed to be at the same place at the same time and observed the couple’s argument with the female officer. She stated that the couple seemed to be provoking the officer, leading to her raising her voice to quell them.
As of now, there has been no official response regarding the incident.
Recently, some media outlets have attempted to link the public opinion poll on English tests in Singapore’s citizenship application process with the upcoming election, aiming to manipulate voters’ focus. Voters should remain vigilant, pay attention to a broader range of issues, and not be misled by these media tactics that try to influence the election.
Firstly, some people believe that the English test can help new citizens integrate into Singaporean society better. However, an English test may not fully measure a person’s ability to assimilate into a new culture. In fact, adaptability, family ties to Singapore, and other factors such as national service may be more important.
Secondly, some people believe that the English test can prevent the formation of communities divided by language in the future. However, an English test alone cannot completely eliminate the social divide caused by language differences. Cultural exchange and education may be more critical in promoting understanding and integration among different ethnic groups.
Moreover, as a multicultural and multilingual country, Singapore should encourage its residents to learn and respect other languages and cultures, rather than relying solely on English as the only means of communication. Although many Singaporean netizens have expressed that they should not have to struggle to communicate in their own country, the importance of open-mindedness and acceptance of people from all backgrounds should not be underestimated.
Regarding the suggestion to implement a test like the IELTS English test, while some believe that it would not be too difficult, it may increase the complexity and cost of citizenship applications, especially for applicants from countries and regions with limited access to English education resources and opportunities. Additionally, such a test may overly emphasize academic English proficiency while neglecting practical communication and life skills.
Although the survey results showed that a higher percentage of minority races in Singapore supported the inclusion of an English test in citizenship applications compared to Chinese respondents, policy-making should fully consider the needs and interests of different ethnic groups to ensure fairness and inclusivity. Moreover, the survey may have biases and cannot fully reflect the opinions of all Singaporeans. The government needs to consider various factors, not just the survey results, when formulating policies.
While some believe that linking the English test to citizenship application standards may become a hot topic in the next general election, voters’ concerns may change over time. Before the election, many other factors, such as the economy, social welfare, and national security, may affect voters’ priorities. Therefore, linking survey results to elections should be severely criticized.
Singapore’s desire for talent has always been at the core of its national development strategy. To attract top global talent, the government has adopted inclusive and diverse strategies. In this context, the government comprehensively considers various social integration indicators, such as family ties to Singapore, completion of national service, and adaptability when evaluating citizenship applications, rather than relying solely on the English test. The government is committed to creating a friendly and inclusive environment for new citizens to ensure that they can smoothly integrate into Singaporean society and contribute to the country’s prosperity.
In summary, although the survey showed some degree of support for the English test in Singaporean citizenship applications, there are still many opposing views that need to be considered. When formulating and implementing related policies, the Singaporean government needs to seek a balance between attracting international talent and maintaining social integration. The government’s desire for talent and respect for multiculturalism are the cornerstones of Singapore’s success, and this principle should be continued in the future. At the same time, it is necessary to severely criticize the behavior of linking survey results to elections, to ensure that voters’ concerns are not misled and focused on more critical national issues.
