Malaysia's Islamic party distances itself from leaders' comments on Singapore election, but says reaction 'exaggerated'
SINGAPORE: Malaysia's Islamic party said on Monday (Apr 28) that the recent social media posts by two of its members who commented on Singapore's election are "personal views" and do not reflect the party's official stance.
However, it added that Singapore's reaction to the posts was "exaggerated".
The posts in question can no longer be viewed by Facebook users in Singapore after authorities here directed Meta to block access, saying there had been attempts by foreigners to influence the General Election.
The comments were posted by Parti Islam Se-Malaysia's (PAS) national treasurer Iskandar Abdul Samad, and PAS Selangor youth chief Mohamed Sukri Omar reposted Mr Zulfikar's post.
Two articles were also published in the PAS newsletter, one of which named several Malay opposition candidates running in GE2025, highlighting their educational and career backgrounds. The other criticised Singapore's housing policies, linking them to immigration.
In a media statement on Monday, PAS secretary general Takiyuddin Hassan said: "It must be emphasised that the posts in question represent their personal views and in no way reflect PAS' official policy or stance as a political party - whether regarding Singapore as a nation ot its ongoing processes.
"PAS believes that both individuals were merely expressing their personal opinions without any intention to interfere, let alone influence the outcome of the election scheduled for May 3, as alleged."
Mr Takiyuddin said that while PAS respects Singapore's concerns on the matter, it also believes that Singapore's reaction was "somewhat exaggerated and unilateral", given the party's good relations with the Singapore government.
PAS noted that the two party leaders have denied the allegations of foreign interference.
"PAS' policy of maintaining formal bilateral relations as the legitimate channel for conveying any views of discussing matters of mutual interest - including with the Singapore government - as practised thus far, clearly proved that these allegations were inaccurate or untrue," it added.
Besides the posts by the two PAS members, Singapore had also directed Meta to block a post by a user called 'Zai Nal', who has been identified as Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff.
Mr Zulfikar is an Australian citizen who renounced his Singapore citizenship in 2020. He had been detained in 2016 under the Internal Security Act for his 'promotion of terrorism' and glorification of the Islamic State group online, Singapore authorities said.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Elections Department (ELD) said in a statement on Apr 25 that Singapore is a secular state, warning against mixing religion and politics.
The development, which came in the middle of election campaigning, prompted political parties to speak out against foreign interference in Singapore politics.
On Monday, PAS said that in a borderless world marked by rapid access to information worldwide, "it is inevitable that developments in any one country or place may attract interest or reactions from individuals in other countries, especially regarding issues that they personally consider important."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
YouTube loosens rules guiding the moderation of videos
SAN FRANCISCO – For years, YouTube has removed videos with derogatory slurs, misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines and election falsehoods, saying the content violated the platform's rules. But since US President Donald Trump's return to the White House, YouTube has encouraged its content moderators to leave up videos with content that may break the platform's rules rather than remove them, as long as the videos are considered to be in the public interest. Those would include discussions of political, social and cultural issues. The policy shift, which hasn't been publicly disclosed, made YouTube the latest social media platform to back off efforts to police online speech in the wake of Republican pressure to stop moderating content. In January, Meta made a similar move, ending a fact-checking program on social media posts. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, followed in the footsteps of X, Elon Musk's social platform, and turned responsibility for policing content over to users. But unlike Meta and X, YouTube has not made public statements about relaxing its content moderation. The online video service introduced its new policy in mid-December in training material that was reviewed by The New York Times. For videos considered to be in the public interest, YouTube raised the threshold for the amount of offending content permitted to half a video, from a quarter of a video. The platform also encouraged moderators to leave up those videos, which would include City Council meetings, campaign rallies and political conversations. The policy distances the platform from some of its pandemic practices, such as when it removed videos of local council meetings and a discussion between Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and a panel of scientists, citing medical misinformation. The expanded exemptions could benefit political commentators whose lengthy videos blend news coverage with opinions and claims on a variety of topics, particularly as YouTube takes on a more prominent role as a leading distributor of podcasts. The policy also helps the video platform avoid attacks by politicians and activists frustrated by its treatment of content about the origins of Covid, the 2020 election and Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden's son. YouTube continuously updates its guidance for content moderators on topics surfacing in the public discourse, said Nicole Bell, a company spokesperson. It retires policies that no longer make sense, as it did in 2023 for some Covid misinformation, and strengthens policies when warranted, as it did this year to prohibit content directing people to gambling websites, according to Bell. In the first three months of this year, YouTube removed 192,586 videos because of hateful and abusive content, a 22 per cent increase from a year earlier. 'Recognising that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today,' Bell said in a statement. She added: 'Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm.' Critics say the changes by social media platforms have contributed to the rapid spread of false assertions and have the potential to increase digital hate speech. Last year on X, a post inaccurately said 'Welfare offices in 49 states are handing out voter registration applications to illegal aliens', according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which studies misinformation and hate speech. The post, which would have been removed before recent policy changes, was seen 74.8 million times. For years, Meta has removed about 277 million pieces of content annually, but under the new policies, much of that content could stay up, including comments like 'Black people are more violent than whites', said Imran Ahmed, the centre's CEO. 'What we're seeing is a rapid race to the bottom,' he said. The changes benefit the companies by reducing the costs of content moderation, while keeping more content online for user engagement, he added. 'This is not about free speech. It's about advertising, amplification and ultimately profits.' YouTube has in the past put a priority on policing content to keep the platform safe for advertisers. It has long forbidden nudity, graphic violence and hate speech. But the company has always given itself latitude for interpreting the rules. The policies allow videos that violate YouTube's rules, generally a small set, to remain on the platform if there is sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic merit. The new policies, which were outlined in the training materials, are an expansion of YouTube's exceptions. They build on changes made before the 2024 election, when the company began permitting clips of electoral candidates on the platform even if the candidates violated its policies, the training material said. Previously, YouTube removed a so-called public interest video if a quarter of the content broke the platform's rules. As of Dec 18, YouTube's trust and safety officials told content moderators that half a video could break YouTube's rules and stay online. Other content that mentions political, social and cultural issues has also been exempted from YouTube's usual content guidelines. The platform determined that videos are in the public interest if creators discuss or debate elections, ideologies, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, censorship and other issues. Megan A Brown, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan who researches the online information ecosystem, said YouTube's looser policies were a reversal from a time when it and other platforms 'decided people could share political speech but they would maintain some decorum'. She fears that YouTube's new policy 'is not a way to achieve that'. During training on the new policy, the trust and safety team said content moderators should err against restricting content when 'freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk'. If employees had doubts about a video's suitability, they were encouraged to take it to their superiors rather than remove it. YouTube employees were presented with real examples of how the new policies had already been applied. The platform gave a pass to a user-created video titled RFK Jr. Delivers SLEDGEHAMMER Blows to Gene-Altering JABS which violated YouTube's policy against medical misinformation by incorrectly claiming that COVID vaccines alter people's genes. The company's trust and safety team decided the video shouldn't be removed because public interest in the video 'outweighs the harm risk', the training material said. The video was deemed newsworthy because it presented contemporary news coverage of recent actions on Covid vaccines by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr. The video also mentioned political figures such as Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk and Megyn Kelly, boosting its 'newsworthiness'. The video's creator also discussed a university medical study and presented news headlines about people experiencing adverse effects from Covid vaccines, 'signaling this is a highly debated topic (and a sensitive political topic)', according to the materials. Because the creator didn't explicitly recommend against vaccination, YouTube decided that the video had a low risk of harm. Currently, the video is no longer available on YouTube. It is unclear why. Another video shared with the staff contained a slur about a transgender person. YouTube's trust and safety team said the 43-minute video, which discussed hearings for Trump administration Cabinet appointees, should stay online because the description had only a single violation of the platform's harassment rule forbidding a 'malicious expression against an identifiable individual'. A video from South Korea featured two commentators talking about the country's former President Yoon Suk Yeol. About halfway through the more-than-three-hour video, one of the commentators said he imagined seeing Yoon turned upside down in a guillotine so that the politician 'can see the knife is going down'. The video was approved because most of it discussed Yoon's impeachment and arrest. In its training material, YouTube said it had also considered the risk for harm low because 'the wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible'. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
7 hours ago
- Straits Times
Luxury for pets? Shallow pool at South Korean presidential residence raises questions
The pool is estimated to be 5m long and 2m wide, with a shallow end about 50cm deep. PHOTO: PARK HONG-KEUN/FACEBOOK A liberal lawmaker's revelation of a shallow pool inside the presidential residence in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, has raised speculation that disgraced former President Yoon Suk Yeol may have constructed a swimming pool for the first couple's pets when he moved in. This aligns with ongoing suspicion by the liberal Democratic Party of Korea, which became the country's ruling party with President Lee Jae-myung's election win, about the excessive water use inside the official residence. Representative Kim Byoung-joo said in the party's supreme council meeting June 9 that the speculation that the pool was used for pets, not humans, is gaining ground. 'I've looked around the space inside the official residence of the president, and a pool grabbed my attention,' said Mr Kim, who was one of the ruling party lawmakers invited to visit the official residence on June 7. 'We should closely examine whether the Yoons installed facilities for personal use with taxpayers' money after moving into the official residence, where no one can monitor how the money is being spent,' the two-term lawmaker Mr Kim also said, adding that Yoon and his wife are suspected of having installed a cat tower worth 5 million won (S$4,750). Before President Lee and his wife, Kim Hye-kyung, took over the space as their official residence, Yoon and his wife, Kim Keon Hee, were the first South Korean presidential couple to have chosen to use a building in the Seoul neighborhood of Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, formerly a residence for the foreign minister, as the presidential residence. The Yoon couple kept six dogs and five cats there until a week after Yoon was removed from office by the Constitutional Court in April amid the political crisis caused by his attempted self-coup. The pool — estimated to be 5m long and 2m wide, with a shallow end about 50cm deep — recently grabbed media attention as four-term Democratic Party lawmaker Rep Park Hong-keun revealed a photo of it inside the residence. Citing water bills it had obtained, local newspaper Hankyoreh revealed in late May that water usage at the residence began to skyrocket from the summer of 2023, rising from 972 tonnes during the April-May period to 1,741 tonnes during the June-July period. Water consumption peaked at 1860 tonnes during the August-September period in 2024. According to Rep Kim Young-hwan of the Democratic Party, the Yoon couple's water use amounted to 206 tonnes in the week between Yoon's removal from office and his departure from the home. A representative of former president Yoon was quoted by Yonhap on June 9 as saying that the speculation is not true and that the pool was built as part of landscaping done a few months before United Arab Emirates President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan visited Seoul in October 2023. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
a day ago
- Straits Times
Malaysian political cartoonist's travel ban stirs anger, but police call it a mistake
– The Malaysian government faced accusations of stifling dissent after a June 7 Facebook post by popular local political cartoonist Fahmi Reza Mohd Zarin, saying he had been banned from leaving the country. Backbench MPs, analysts and the public said the ban was unwarranted. But on June 8, the police claimed it was a mistake, caused by 'procedural confusion' in placing him on an observation list. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim ordered the police to provide an explanation, stating that the government 'respects personal freedom, provided it does not compromise national security or violate any existing laws'. In his Facebook post, Mr Fahmi said he was stopped at immigration at Kuala Lumpur International Airport while on his way to Singapore to see his favourite punk rock band. He claimed an immigration officer told him that Bukit Aman – the Malaysian police headquarters – had prohibited him from travelling abroad. 'I asked, 'Why?'' Mr Fahmi wrote on Facebook. 'The immigration officer replied, 'You need to ask Bukit Aman'. 'What's my offence? 'Only the Bukit Aman police and the Malaysian government can answer'.' His post garnered more than 19,000 reactions, 6,400 comments and 3,300 shares on June 8. Malaysia's police chief Razarudin Husain said Mr Fahmi was not subject to a travel ban, but he is under surveillance as part of an ongoing investigation. No details on the investigation were given. 'There was a confusion during the checkpoint verification process on June 7, which led to the erroneous issuance of a travel ban. The situation is currently under review and appropriate measures will be taken to update the relevant procedures,' Tan Sri Razarudin said in a statement . Mr Fahmi was dissatisfied with the police statement and said he will initiate legal action against the government. 'I did not see any officials dare to be responsible for their error to block my personal freedom of movement... Now it's time for the people to drag the authority into the court,' the activist said. In 2016, Mr Fahmi rose to prominence after caricaturing then Prime Minister Najib Razak as a 'sinister clown' in connection with the multi-billion-dollar 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal. He was charged with the improper use of network facilities with the intent to offend and annoy others. In July 2019, he was fined RM10,000 (S$3,030). In December 2024, Mr Fahmi was arrested and probed for ridiculing incoming Sabah governor Musa Aman as ' No 1 Corrupter' in a n artwork that depicted him with a RM100 note in place of his tongue. Tun Musa was accused of being involved in a US$63 million (S$81 million) timber kickback scheme during his tenure as Sabah chief minister from 2003 to 2018. But the charges against him were withdrawn in June 2020, causing widespread criticism. On May 29, 2025, the Sabah state government, which has the immigration autonomy , denied Mr Fahmi entry into the state – without giving an explanation. On Mr Fahmi's Facebook post about being denied freedom of travel, Asian Studies professor James Chin of Tasmania University described the Malaysian government's move as authoritarian. 'Silencing dissent and cracking down on political satire is not a national security matter – it's an excuse. Blocking someone from travelling over criticism is authoritarian, plain and simple. 'People are starting to see no real difference between Madani and Barisan Nasional (BN), and it's becoming clearer by the day,' Dr Chin penned in a Facebook post on June 7. Madani refers to Datuk Seri Anwar's slogan for civilised society under his administration. Before coming to federal power in May 2018, the Anwar-led Pakatan Harapan criticised the then-BN government for imposing travel bans on dissidents – most notably political cartoonist Zulkifli Anwar Ulhaque, who goes by the pen name Zunar; then-MP Tony Pua and Miss Maria Chin Abdullah, then chairwoman of the Bersih electoral reform group. Democratic Action Party (DAP) MP Syahredzan Johan stated that a travel ban cannot be imposed without strong justification. Mr Syahredzan, a lawyer who represented Mr Fahmi in the Najib caricature case, noted that the cartoonist had been allowed to travel abroad during the legal proceedings and had always cooperated with the authorities when required. 'If the travel ban is due to an ongoing investigation, such action is unnecessary, as Mr Fahmi is not a flight risk,' the DAP national vice-chairman said in a statement on June 8. Lu Wei Hoong is Malaysia correspondent at The Straits Times, specialising in transport and politics. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
