The Straits Times on Sat afternoon (28 Mar) took down an article on certain travellers’ accounts regarding having purportedly received unclear and incorrect information from airport officers on the commencement of their 14-day Stay-Home Notice (SHN) period.

The article focused on “at least three travellers arriving at Changi Airport” who “complained about getting erroneous information” regarding when their SHN begins, upon their arrival in Singapore.

South China Morning Post senior correspondent Bhavan Jaipragas yesterday tweeted: “#Singapore’s @STcom appears to have taken down this #Covid19 story published an hour ago”.

https://twitter.com/jbhavan/status/1243805024553074688?s=20

Among the statements published in the article were that of a healthcare worker who had arrived from Sydney at 9pm last Thu (26 Mar), who said that she was told that her SHN began the next day.

“It is worrying because many passengers from the flight were young people, probably students, who might not verify the information and just take it as it is,” she told ST.

The second part of her statement, however, was omitted from the new version of the article, published at 6.42 pm yesterday.

It was stated in the original version that the healthcare worker — referred to as Ms Lee — told ST that most people would not read the SHN carefully, and added that “when a uniformed officer tells you that it only starts the next day, who are you going to believe?”.

She had also reportedly told ST that there were “long queues” as a result of having to fill physical forms upon arrival and “a lack of social distancing measures” at the immigration arrival checkpoints. The statement, however, was not included in the new ST article.

Ms Lee also said that had she not read news reports about a security personnel who went out of his house on the same day he returned to Singapore, she might have gone out instead of starting her SHN at home straight away.

“I can totally understand why the man went to eat bak kut teh, because I was told the same thing,” Ms Lee told ST.

Alan Tham received flak from netizens on social media — and even from Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament — for posting photographs of a bak kut teh meal he had whilst on a SHN.

He told ST on Wed (25 Mar) that he had decided to do so — on top of shopping for groceries — on the day he returned from a holiday in Myanmar, as he was told by an airport official that his SHN would only begin the day after his arrival at Changi Airport.

The original report noted that he “will likely be charged in court after allegedly breaching his SHN conditions” — this was not included in the new version of the report.

William Leong, who had arrived in Singapore from Thailand on 21 Mar, also told ST that according to an airport officer, his SHN would begin the next day.

“I asked him what I should do today and he said I was free to do whatever I wanted until it kicked in the next day,” he said.

However, Mr Leong said he had later rang the Ministry of Manpower’s hotline to confirm the information given by the airport officer after his wife expressed scepticism.

The mushroom farmer, in the original version of the ST report published yesterday, was also quoted as saying: “It did not make sense that if I did have COVID-19, that I could go out for a whole day to infect people. Then the 14-day stay-home notice would be meaningless.”

Mr Leong also reportedly told ST that while he understands that the “officers are doing their best to adapt” with the new regulations, he hopes that “with the new rules such misinformation will not be an issue anymore”. This was, however, also omitted from the revised version of the article.

User @Distant_Witness, in response to Mr Jaipragas’ tweet on the ST article, noted that the ST article “is back up with the relevant quotes from travellers claiming that officials told them that the stay home notices didn’t start immediately”.

“Maybe something really was a bit off but it can’t be proven now,” said the user.

https://twitter.com/Distant_Witness/status/1243907937346531328?s=20

User @PhilipLeong19 opined that the reason why a Day 0 is stipulated in the SHN is that if Day 1 is counted as the day of arrival in Singapore, “you are technically committing an offence already since its day 1 of your SHN and you are at the airport and not at home”.

User @CafeSpecific, however, highlighted that the SHN does not state the exact time a person served the notice is allowed to leave their designated place.

“Should it be 14 x 24 hours after time of arrival? Or midnight 2 weeks later?” the user questioned.

Users on the HardwareZone forum have also questioned the reasoning behind the authorities’ decision to include a Day 0 instead of starting at Day 1, as including a Day 0 would mean that the SHN period is actually 15 days instead of the 14 stated.

“The average Joe will start counting the day you land as day 1,” said one user.

The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) told ST on Sat that it is “clearly stated” in the SHN form that the period the notice has to be served begins on the day of one’s return to Singapore.

“Persons issued with an stay-home notice (SHN) are required to acknowledge the SHN, including the requirements set out within, and the SHN is operative with immediate effect,” added the Authority.

ICA also stressed that it has reminded its officers to improve the communication of the SHN requirements to travellers, and has put in place measures alongside Changi Airport Group such as marking queue spots in immigration halls and closing alternate automated immigration lanes.

New regulations, which took effect since Friday, require all travellers to submit electronic health declaration forms prior to immigration clearance, following which they will be served the SHN in advance.

Travellers arriving from the UK and the US in particular — where cases have spiked exponentially recently and make up the largest number of imported cases into Singapore to date — have been sent to designated hotels straight from the airport to serve their SHN in rooms.

Mr Jaipragas, who is currently serving his fourth day of the SHN after returning to Singapore from Washington DC, in a string of tweets today (29 Mar) said that he is currently serving the notice in his parents’ residence.

He added that he was given the option of doing so in one of the designated hotels but had “turned it down”.

Touching on his return to Singapore instead of flying to Hong Kong where he is permanently based, Mr Jaipragas said that he did so “out of anticipation that an election could be called soon”.

“If I had gone back to HK I would have been locked at home for four weeks; 2 weeks serving a quarantine in HK and then a further 2 weeks in SG. Not ideal,” he said.

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

四年后建屋局才发现 24人同挤四房式单位

一间四房式公共组屋单位,被发现分隔成六间房,24人一起住,这是建屋局所允许的人数顶限的四倍。 按目前规定,四个房间的组屋单位最多只能容纳六个住户,平均每个房间可容纳两人。 日前《新明日报》报导,班丹花园第403座组屋的一间四房式单位,被发现每间房间有三个双层床。2间卧室里住了12人,其中一间卧室里住着8人,客厅还被非法分隔成两个房间,租给两对夫妇,共计24人。 房间的床和天花板四处可见衣服,几乎没有走动空间。 房客不知屋主是谁 一位房客告诉记者,为避免被逮捕,房东设定了严格的规定,禁止房客应门、在组屋内做饭,把衣服挂在外面晾干。他说,“我们必须始终紧紧关闭窗户……晚上我们尽量不开灯” 。 据说,屋主主要透过工作代理人介绍租户,非法转租已经持续了大约四年。 另一名房客表示,他不知道谁是屋主。包括租金在内的所有事项,都由一名住在同一单位的租户处理。 也有房客指出,单位原本只有十余人,但是二房东在农历新年期间,希望赚取更多收入,就开放给更多人入住。他表示,太多人挤在一间房间内,多数人睡眠时间不同,导致睡眠受到影响,直接影响工作表现。 他指出,一般类似租房的床位租价介于230到250新元。 认真看待违规转租案件…

拉美斯道歉不久后 公寓保安公司被撤换?

此前,为了10元停车费和保安阿叔起争执的Eight Riversuites公寓住户拉美斯,才在本周三(10月30日)向保安阿叔道歉,孰不知负责公寓的保安公司已被撤换。 据《海峡时报》报导,该报记者前往有关公寓,发现公寓保安穿着不同制服,据了解新保安公司为Alpine Security,疑似此前的K H Security Agency已被撤换;而公寓管理单位在受询时不愿置评。 疑不满私宅来客需为了停车位缴付10元,公寓居民拉美斯(Ramesh Erramalli),和保安阿叔史蒂文(Steven Heng Woo Wee)起争执,他甚至不忿地呛到,“我花了150万元买下这个单位”。…