Connect with us

Current Affairs

Internet mob wrongly lynched couple and UOB based on unfounded allegations by social media sites

Published

on

A viral video posted by Facebook user, Manny Quest on Saturday (22 April) showed a scene at a hawker centre where a rude male adult deliberately bumped a male elderly from the back before he along with his girlfriend confront the elderly over the use of the table.

According to an eye witness, the incident took place at the Toa Payoh Lorong 8 hawker centre, around 9pm on Friday night. Based on the video and what the eye witness shared, the couple spewed vulgarities at the elderly despite the elderly politely asking for a seat.
The reaction from the social media was spontaneous and largely condemning of the couple shown in the video The Local Society posted Manny Quest’s video on its Facebook page and have been viewed over 2 million times and shared by close to 40 thousand times.
Just yesterday, Facebook page, Kuanyewism posted a series of photos identifying Ms Cherry Tan and her boyfriend as the couple which knocked the elderly male from behind. Quoting from a FB user, Ang Tock Seng who posted a comment on Mothership.sg’s Facebook post that the female featured in the video is Cherry Tan and that the couple worked in United Overseas Bank (UOB)’s Toa Payoh Branch.



Once the couple had been “identified”, already angered netizens shared photos from the Facebook page asking for actions for the couple to be shamed and for the UOB bank to take action against their staff.

A number of social media sites joined in the lynch, by reposting what was said by the FB page on the identity of the couple without verifying the information.
As a result of the social media furor over the allegation, UOB released a statement on its Facebook page at 8pm stating that it is ascertaining the identities of the mentioned couple and determining if either or both parties in the video are members of its staff.

At 8.23pm, Kuanyewism posted a Facebook post stating that it has received many messages from Ms Tan’s friends informing the page that she is not the person at the video and requested that the page take down the photo.
In what seems to be a defiant statement to her friends, the page wrote, “We respect you. We respect Karma.. if both of them were really the ones then they better watch out cos the storm will be double”
At 9pm, Kuanyewism posted an image of what seems to be Ms Tan’s Facebook message to the fanpage, where Ms Tan states that she is not the lady in the video and that her boyfriend is located in Taiwan, making it impossible for her to be with him. She asked that the Facebook page to make a formal apology and clarification for the slander that the page has made.
Ms Tan also noted that she has made an official police report and will proceed to seek further action if the Fanpage does not make the clarification.

In that same post, Kuanyewism wrote a clarification and apology:

Dear everyone, we have verified with Ms Cherry and she has confirmed that SHE is NOT the PERSON in the video. Please kindly stop sending her message. We apologized to Ms Cherry Tan Sincerely and glad she was not the one in the video.
We also hope Ang Tock Seng can stop spread these rumours about her. Our sources came from him too.

FB user, Doolson Kool wrote in response to the FB page’s correction, “Please do your due diligence and verify facts before posting. Your blatant failure to do so in an shameless attempt to “rush” out news has resulted in the erroneous smearing & character assassination of innocent parties.”
There are other FB users who noted that Ang did not specify which Cherry Tan was he referring to and it was the Facebook page which assumed that the profile which was shared is the lady in question.
At 11pm, UOB issued an update on their investigation, stating that the couple shown in the video is not its UOB Toa Payoh branch staff.


Ang who Kuanyewism quoted as the source for the misinformation, apologised on the bank’s Facebook post. But despite UOB’s clarification and Kuanyewism’s retraction, many still think that the bank was trying to defend their staff.

 
At the end of this wild goose chase, netizens should probably reflect on their behaviour for jumping into conclusion of who the individuals were.
Many even defended the sites for “exposing” the couple despite being a false accusation. The allegation while being cleared by the accusation, might not be picked up by members of the public who have seen the post or even be believed. This can be shown by the unconvinced members of public who is questioning UOB’s statement about the couple not being its staff.
This should be a reminder to individuals why it is prudent not to forward or share everything you read before you think about the provided facts. This practice should apply to all form of news, regardless whether is it mainstream media, social media post or alternative sites like TOC.

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

on

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

on

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