Earlier this month on July 3, former political Internal Security Act detainee and lawyer, Teo Soh Lung posted a post on her Facebook account depicting her ordeal during the police investigation of her alleged violation of the Parliamentary Election Act during the recent Bukit Batok By-election, and how the police swarmed her home to take away her personal effects against her will.

The post was subsequently removed by Facebook for violating its Community Standards and Teo’s account was banned from posting for 24 hours.

TeoSohLung_removed

Following the removal and ban, some netizens, such as well-known journalist and blogger, Kirsten Han copied her original post and shared it on their personal Facebook accounts to see if their posts will be removed and have their accounts banned.

Just today (July 7), Kirsten Han had her posting of Teo’s text removed by Facebook removed for the same reasons and is being being banned from posting on her account for 24 hours.

kirstenhan_postremoved
According to website, whoishostingthis.com, Facebook moderates its social network of 1.4 billion users with about 800-1000 moderators across the globe.

Content that are moderated by Facebook are namely inappropriate sexuality (Pedophilia, Nudity and Necrophilia), Graphic content (Human bodies; Beheading, suicides and murders, Animal abuses), Illegal activities (Drugs, harassment and threats, domestic violence)

Below is a snippet of an infographic produced by the website.

reportingprocessFB

As one can read from the text of the post by Teo shown below the article, there does not seem to be any part in which the post violates the community standards of Facebook. Unless Facebook agrees with Singapore government that a ministry like MINDEF or in the case of Teo, the Ministry of Home Affairs can be harassed by ordinary citizen.

Other than Teo and Kirsten being banned for the said posting, individuals such as renowned social-political commenter, Andrew Loh was also banned for posting a post on his Facebook account. He had suggested Jason Chua, the administrator of Fabrication about PAP (FAP) should raise an issue about the difference of treatment between him and Straits Times by the Singapore Police. Jason Chua was also hauled up for investigation for allegedly violating the PEA after being reported against by several members of the public.

andrewlohbanned

Since last year prior to the General Election 2015, netizens have shared that their accounts were being reported to be using fake names and had to either close down their accounts or to change their names to have their accounts reinstated.

Most if not all such individuals who have their accounts reported are either pro-opposition or anti-People’s Action Party who often post comments that are critical of the Singapore government and its policies.

In earlier reports by TOC, we touched on the existence of a group of netizens that conducts astroturfing on Singapore’s social media, also known as the “Internet brigade” (IB). Activities by the IBs ranges from trying to give an false impression of public opinion on issues or outright lying to defame individuals that are against the ruling party.

Read – Fake facebook account slanders opposition parties and praised PAP

slander-by-face-acc

TOC also wrote to Minister of Information and Communications, Mr Yaacob Ibrahim on several occasions to ask if he is aware of any groups that may be engaged in astroturfing , no reply has been given so far.

It is unknown if there is indeed an coordinated effort by IBs to silence voices that are critical of the establishment in Singapore on social media by reporting in mass and if true, one has to wonder whether such efforts are by the works of fanatic supporters of the ruling party or paid hired guns funded by taxpayers’ monies.

Below is the text that was first published by Teo Soh Lung and we will see if Facebook removes the link to this article and have TOC’s fanpage banned for posting.

Police Terror by Teo Soh Lung

These days, my sister calls me every morning just to make sure that I have not been arrested by the police. And my friends call me occasionally to ensure that I am still “free”. My old classmate, Ivy Singh-Lim of Bollywood Veggies, a loyal and vocal Singaporean offered me a safe haven at her farm, assuring me that she would set her dogs on the police if they dare go there to arrest me.

Terror has once again struck Singapore. On 21 May 1987, 16 people disappeared at dawn and no one knew where they were till a few days later. You can watch the documentary film “1987: Untracing the Marxist Conspiracy by Jason Soo at the Projector. Today, this fear is again widespread.

I do not know who is in charge of our police. And I do not know who instructed them to terrorise me. All I know is that I have not committed any crime and that the police have no right to seize my properties even though the seizure of computers and mobile phones are their SOP or standard operating procedures. Seizure of electronic equipment has happened to many people, several of them activists. We have Lynn Lee, the filmmaker, Leslie Chew, the cartoonist, Amos Yee, the attention seeking kid who badmouth both friends and foes, Ravi, Kumaran, Roy Ngerng, Jason Chua, the famous PAP IB, Bryan Lim, the hot-head and probably countless others who have not been reported in the press.

BEWARE law abiding people. You may not have committed any crime. But if the police are after your computers and mobile phones, they may one day go to your house or call you up for an innocuous interview at the police station. And when you are there, they can grab you to their police vehicle, drive you home and order you to open your door for them to enter and ransack your house. I am not kidding you. It happened to me and Roy Ngerng. And it can happen to you.

I went to the police station on 31 May, having received a notice to answer the baseless complaints of the Election Department. This department is exceedingly powerful for it is controlled by our prime minister. I am not sure the complaints were lodged at his command but whoever did that must, I assume, must have informed him. The manner in which the notice was delivered to me was to say the least, purposefully intimidating. The police came to my flat at about 9.55 pm on Saturday, 28 May. They left the notice half in and half out of my door. The notice required me to attend an “interview” at 9.30am on Monday. They came to check if I took in the letter two hours later. They loitered in my estate till well past midnight, perhaps to make sure that I did not leave my house.

The police came to intimidate me again at 9.30 am the next day, a Sunday. They rang my door bell but I did not open the door because I was afraid that they would arrest me. I asked what they wanted and a male voice said they wanted to deliver a letter. It was the same letter that I received and I told him so. He wanted to make sure that I attend the “interview” and was helpful in giving me another telephone number.

Dutifully, I turned up at the police station on 31 May. I gave my statement regarding the four postings which the Election Department complained about. I admitted that I was the one responsible for the postings. I denied that I had committed any offence and told them it was my constitutional right to express my opinion on Cooling Off Day. What more do the police want?

Charge me in court if they think I have committed an offence. But they did not do that, at least until now. Instead of allowing me to go home, they threatened to seize my mobile phone and then my computer. When I refused to give them my mobile phone, 4 or 5 police officers entered the room and threatened to handcuff me and arrest me while several others patrolled the corridor. I could see them because the wall partition was glass.

I am amazed and ashamed at the kind of police force we have today. Why threaten me, a pioneer citizen, 5 feet tall at most and weighing about 40 kg? Why so many police officers? But then, I should not have been shocked. The coroner’s inquiry of the cause of death of 14 year old Benjamin Lim who committed suicide is ongoing. Four police officers went to his school to arrest him, a 14 year old boy.

Eight police officers, 4 of whom were from the forensic department, came to my house. Why do they need 8 police officers to seize my computers and mobile phone? I did not commit a murder or possess guns. If this is not intimidation by sheer numbers, then what is? Fortunately, my friends were earlier than the police and they could enter my house at the same time as the police. And best of all, they could witness the police seizing my properties.

The police have robbed me of my properties and gravely inconvenienced me. They have mined my data. They have seen and read all my private documents and know who are my friends. They have invaded my privacy. They have committed a crime. I am angry. But where is my recourse? We do not have a national human rights institution which our so called less developed neighbours have – Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Myanmar.

Where do I complain about my grievances? To the prime minister at his “Meet the People” session? At the 2nd hearing of Singapore’s human rights record at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review, the Singapore government said I could do that. But what is the point of complaining to the prime minister about something that he authorised?

This is my Singapore. This is your Singapore. We are a police state. For the slightest irritation, Singaporeans run to the police. But when the police commit a wrong, where do we run to?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

不法之徒自称哥哥诱骗民众,陈佩玲发文澄清吁民众勿上当

麦波申区议员陈佩玲周六(20日)于脸书发文表示,有人自称是她的哥哥,诱骗民众加入一项中国投资方案。 陈佩玲于文内澄清,自己是独生女,并没有任何兄弟姐妹。她同时澄清,自己并没有参与任何一项投资方案,提醒民众不要因此上当。 陈佩玲接受《新明日报》时称,有网友与朋友前来询问投资计划,并告诉她有人自称是陈佩玲的哥哥,似乎想透过她来吸引民众投资,故他需要立即发文澄清,避免民众受骗,但目前并没有更多相关资料,无法得知他们的行动与地点。 至于是否会报警,陈佩玲说目前持观望态度,待掌握更多信息后才决定下一步怎么做。 利用部长或议员名义骗取民众信任 不法之徒的新招层出不穷,甚至利用部长或议员的名义,试图骗取民众的信任。近日来,许多部长如副总理王瑞杰与人力部张杨莉明。 今年5月网上流传关于副总理王瑞杰以600万元投资新公司的不实报道,王瑞杰随后亦脸书发文驳斥并提醒民众勿提供个人和信用卡号码和密码等财务资料;同样于今年5月,诈骗网站冒用人力部长杨莉明照片,误导用户并索取信用卡与银行信息,杨莉明亦在得知消息后脸书发文澄清。 除了利用我国政府的名义,骗徒近年来亦会冒充中国官员或公安的名义威胁民众。 根据警方日前所公布的数据显示,自1月至4月期间,已接获65类似的诈骗案件,大部分与冒称中国官方机关的身份进行诈骗,涉及了至少480万新元的损失,其中有4万8000新元的损失与比特币自动柜员机有关。 大部分受害者是华人。

强奸案嫌犯庭上排便:自称失忆,要求延后审被拒

日前在法庭内大小便露下体的强奸嫌犯伊沙姆,昨日在上庭时自称自己失忆并且记忆刚恢复,恳请法官给他多一点时间聘请律师。 49岁的被告伊沙姆(Isham Kayubi)于2017年先后强奸了两名女子恐吓受害者若不就范,就会叫上兄弟来轮奸他们,还以手机拍下整个过程威胁她们。在被控上法庭后,频频“出招”,露下体、在庭上大小解,最后还得接受精神鉴定评估,最后显示,他并未有任何精神疾病,而是在装疯卖傻。 昨日在庭上,被告又开始上演“失忆又恢复记忆”的戏码,经一名监狱医生与精神科医师表示,伊沙姆没有任何失忆的表象或记录。其典狱长也供称,他与其他囚犯或狱警互动时,并没有显示异常,因此法官不同意他“失忆又恢复记忆”的说法。 伊沙姆如今面对四项强奸罪以及两项性侵罪,目前所有控方要求的证人已作供完毕,而待控辩双方呈上所有证词后,即将在本周四(22日)做出裁决。 早前伊沙姆在刑事法律援助计划下获得律师替他辩护,但于去年1月自行解除职责,而他本人在被多次要求后,仍不肯说明是否会呈上证据。 法官随后也提醒伊沙姆,若他持续保持沉默,可能会引发一些对他不利的推断,最终会影响判决。 当时伊沙姆仅不断重复,他想找个律师替他辩护。 要求请律师 他透过马来翻译官表示,“我并不是不想合作,而是我需要一个律师替我辩护,这应该是公开公平的审判,对于谋杀和贩毒案件,他们都可以拥有(律师),那为什么我就无法(律师),法官阁下,我想要一个为我辩护的律师。” 对此,法官则明确向他解释,由于早前无偿律师退出后,他已有机会聘请律师,但他自己选择不那么做,因此拒绝他延后再审的请求。 此外,针对伊沙姆于本月16日于庭上大解的行为,法官询及监狱医生,是否是因为使用过多药物而造成他在庭上的情况。…

DJ Glenn Ong’s deeply hurtful comments

Update: Glenn Ong in commenting on his Facebook to this article requested…

$26.9 million penalty imposed upon fresh chicken distributors for price-fixing and non-compete agreements

The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS)  has issued an Infringement…