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.
“Populism” became a focus of last week’s parliamentary debate on the government’s policy guidelines, and in a rare move, on the final day of the debate, opposition leader Pritam Khaira Singh agreed with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong that everyone should say no to populism. Clearly, no politician will admit to pursuing a populist path, so we can only listen to their words and observe their actions.
But what is populism? In the context of parliamentary debates, populism is obviously bad and detrimental to the healthy development of democracy, and therefore unanimously rejected. Tracing its roots, it has various definitions. As used in the general news media today, populism refers to politicians who exploit certain issues to incite public sentiment, oppose those in power (the establishment), and the elite class, in order to gain votes. Therefore, former US President Trump and former Brazilian President Bolsonaro, for example, are populist politicians.
What is populism in the context of Singapore’s recent parliamentary debate? In the past, our understanding of the term was straightforward, referring to politicians who propose various voter-pleasing and sensational ideas, such as free education and healthcare, to win votes. This time, Lawrence Wong provided his own clear definition. He said, “Populism is politics that suppresses, conceals, and falls into post-truth, and twists facts for political gain. It falsely claims that complex issues have simple solutions when that is not the case. If populism takes root in Singapore, parties implementing populist policies may gain some short-term benefits, but in the long run, it will cause great harm to Singapore and Singaporeans.”
He went on to say, “As far as the government is concerned, our position is very clear. We reject all forms of populism and uphold honesty and integrity when formulating policies. If the government does not meet these standards, we expect the opposition to point it out. Please do so. You must do so. We expect you to do so. Conversely, if the opposition proposes ideas and policies that we consider populist, we will also point out and emphasize our concerns, as we should. I hope this is our consensus on how to advance Singapore’s political and democratic development.” Pritam Khaira Singh immediately expressed agreement. This is an important reference point for “observing their actions.”
In fact, Lawrence Wong expressed this expectation on the first day of the debate. He hoped that during this debate and for the remainder of the current government’s term, the opposition would propose realistic alternative policy options, rather than opportunistic or populist ideas that slowly erode public trust in the government, and should instead present rigorous alternative guidelines as a potential alternative government.
The so-called gradual erosion of public trust in the government, or “salami slicing” in popular terms, is a powerful political tactic, as it operates in the gray area. It is not easy to label it as populist. For example, if you say that the government should only use half of the net investment income contribution from reserves, and someone else asks why not use 60%, it may be debatable whether this is populist, but it is definitely “salami slicing” and can easily win voters’ hearts. Similarly, if you insist on raising the consumption tax, others may argue for raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations instead, which could also win over some voters.
The most deadly aspect is the amplification effect of social media, which makes “salami slicing” tactics even more potent. Because one person can form a cyber army, stirring up noise for various opposing voices. However, Pritam Khaira Singh did not take the bait to Lawrence Wong’s direct attack but adopted a temporary avoidance strategy, admitting that the Workers’ Party is not yet able to form an
alternative government and expressed the desire to continue learning and growing. He also emphasized that the Workers’ Party’s goal is to provide constructive feedback and to ensure that the government is held accountable.
In this debate, both the government and the opposition agreed to reject populism, emphasizing the need for responsible and honest policy-making. This consensus is crucial for Singapore’s political and democratic development. As citizens, we must not only listen to politicians’ words, but also observe their actions, to ensure that they are adhering to the principles they claim to uphold.
Going forward, it is crucial to maintain a healthy political environment in Singapore, where parties and politicians focus on substantive policy discussions and strive to provide pragmatic solutions to the challenges faced by the nation. In this way, Singapore’s political landscape can continue to mature and evolve, ensuring that the country remains resilient in the face of a rapidly changing global environment.
Video of these youngsters throwing bicycle into water make many people angry on social media leh. Their actions not only spoil public resources but also can harm the fish. Now young ppl need to think about their behavior, learn to respect and cherish public property. A civilized society needs everyone to put in effort, together we say no to this kind of bad behavior!
Local actor Edwin Goh and influencer/actress Rachel Wan have confirmed that they are in a relationship. The couple, who played Liu Guanghui and Mina in the recent Channel 8 drama series, Strike Gold, shared sweet photos of themselves on social media, expressing their love for each other.
Goh, 28, wrote on Instagram: “The universe brought us together in a way no one could expect… You’re my person.” Meanwhile, Wan, 27, shared her own post: “This feeling’s like no other, I want you to know that I’ve never had someone who knows me like you do. I finally found what I’ve been looking for.”
Fans have expressed their support and congratulations to the couple. We wish them all the happiness in their relationship and look forward to seeing more of their on-screen chemistry in future projects.
