MFA rejects foreign embassies inciting domestic reactions; ICA reviews PR status of convicted sex criminals Ian Fang, Lev Panfilov: Singapore live news
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) made a firm statement on Wednesday (21 May), rejecting foreign embassies' involvement in stirring domestic opinions over global disputes. The comments followed a clash between the US and Chinese embassies in Singapore, centred on the South China Sea issue. MFA reiterated that diplomatic dialogue, not public social media posts, should handle such sensitive issues.
After being convicted of serious sexual offences, former Mediacorp actor Ian Fang and former Wah!Banana actor Lev Panfilov now face the possibility of losing their permanent residency (PR) status in Singapore. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has initiated a review, but no details have been released yet regarding the outcome.
Read more in our live blog below, including the latest local and international news and updates.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has firmly rejected foreign embassies' attempts to incite domestic reactions to international issues. The statement came after a heated exchange on social media between the United States and Chinese embassies in Singapore over the South China Sea dispute. The MFA highlighted that such complex matters should be addressed through proper diplomatic channels, not social media campaigns that could stir local sentiments.
China says it 'owns' nearly the entire South China Sea. International law says otherwise. In 2016, the Hague tribunal ruled Beijing's sweeping claims have no legal basis — yet construction, patrols, and coercion continue. From militarized reefs to 'gray zone' tactics, this… pic.twitter.com/uHbUFs66PE
— Chargé d'Affaires Casey Mace (@USAmbSG) May 20, 2025
The controversy began when the US Embassy posted a video on Tuesday (20 May), likening China's actions in the South China Sea to a neighbour improperly claiming shared spaces in Singapore's public housing areas. The US Embassy's message criticised China's territorial claims, referencing a 2016 international tribunal ruling that found China's claims to the South China Sea had no legal basis.
In response, the Chinese Embassy released a counter-video on Wednesday (21 May), accusing the U.S. of distorting facts and inciting regional instability. The Chinese Embassy further attacked US foreign policies, accusing Washington of undermining international law and stirring conflict. This exchange has intensified the longstanding diplomatic tensions surrounding the South China Sea.
MFA's remarks underscore Singapore's commitment to maintaining neutrality in geopolitical issues and ensuring that international disputes are resolved diplomatically. Singapore has consistently called for peace and stability in the South China Sea, while advocating for adherence to international law and upholding the principles of diplomacy.
Read on Singapore rejecting social media diplomacy here.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has confirmed it is reviewing the permanent residency (PR) statuses of Ian Fang and Lev Panfilov, following their respective criminal convictions. The two former entertainers were sentenced to lengthy jail terms for serious sexual offences. ICA, however, has declined to provide additional details, stating that the review is still ongoing.
Fang, 35, a former Mediacorp actor, was convicted for sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl and sentenced to 40 months in prison. His PR status, which has been under scrutiny since his conviction, could potentially be revoked as a result of his crimes. Panfilov, 29, a former Wah!Banana actor, was sentenced to 11 years and six months in jail, in addition to 12 strokes of the cane, for raping and assaulting a woman he met on Tinder.
The reviews come as part of Singapore's standard procedure for permanent residents who are convicted of serious crimes. According to ICA, convicted permanent residents may face the loss of their PR status, though decisions on such matters are handled on a case-by-case basis. The authority did not specify when or how the review will conclude.
Fang's sentencing has shocked many, given his prominent role in Singapore's entertainment scene. Panfilov's case, on the other hand, drew widespread attention after a LinkedIn post by former Law Society vice-president Chia Boon Teck, which was widely criticised as victim-blaming. This public backlash led to calls for stronger condemnation of such actions and support for the victim.
Both Fang and Panfilov are expected to face significant consequences beyond their jail sentences. Fang is set to begin his sentence in June, while Panfilov intends to appeal his conviction and sentence.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has firmly rejected foreign embassies' attempts to incite domestic reactions to international issues. The statement came after a heated exchange on social media between the United States and Chinese embassies in Singapore over the South China Sea dispute. The MFA highlighted that such complex matters should be addressed through proper diplomatic channels, not social media campaigns that could stir local sentiments.
China says it 'owns' nearly the entire South China Sea. International law says otherwise. In 2016, the Hague tribunal ruled Beijing's sweeping claims have no legal basis — yet construction, patrols, and coercion continue. From militarized reefs to 'gray zone' tactics, this… pic.twitter.com/uHbUFs66PE
— Chargé d'Affaires Casey Mace (@USAmbSG) May 20, 2025
The controversy began when the US Embassy posted a video on Tuesday (20 May), likening China's actions in the South China Sea to a neighbour improperly claiming shared spaces in Singapore's public housing areas. The US Embassy's message criticised China's territorial claims, referencing a 2016 international tribunal ruling that found China's claims to the South China Sea had no legal basis.
In response, the Chinese Embassy released a counter-video on Wednesday (21 May), accusing the U.S. of distorting facts and inciting regional instability. The Chinese Embassy further attacked US foreign policies, accusing Washington of undermining international law and stirring conflict. This exchange has intensified the longstanding diplomatic tensions surrounding the South China Sea.
MFA's remarks underscore Singapore's commitment to maintaining neutrality in geopolitical issues and ensuring that international disputes are resolved diplomatically. Singapore has consistently called for peace and stability in the South China Sea, while advocating for adherence to international law and upholding the principles of diplomacy.
Read on Singapore rejecting social media diplomacy here.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has confirmed it is reviewing the permanent residency (PR) statuses of Ian Fang and Lev Panfilov, following their respective criminal convictions. The two former entertainers were sentenced to lengthy jail terms for serious sexual offences. ICA, however, has declined to provide additional details, stating that the review is still ongoing.
Fang, 35, a former Mediacorp actor, was convicted for sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl and sentenced to 40 months in prison. His PR status, which has been under scrutiny since his conviction, could potentially be revoked as a result of his crimes. Panfilov, 29, a former Wah!Banana actor, was sentenced to 11 years and six months in jail, in addition to 12 strokes of the cane, for raping and assaulting a woman he met on Tinder.
The reviews come as part of Singapore's standard procedure for permanent residents who are convicted of serious crimes. According to ICA, convicted permanent residents may face the loss of their PR status, though decisions on such matters are handled on a case-by-case basis. The authority did not specify when or how the review will conclude.
Fang's sentencing has shocked many, given his prominent role in Singapore's entertainment scene. Panfilov's case, on the other hand, drew widespread attention after a LinkedIn post by former Law Society vice-president Chia Boon Teck, which was widely criticised as victim-blaming. This public backlash led to calls for stronger condemnation of such actions and support for the victim.
Both Fang and Panfilov are expected to face significant consequences beyond their jail sentences. Fang is set to begin his sentence in June, while Panfilov intends to appeal his conviction and sentence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: Trump's expanded tariffs mean putting out home fires could be more expensive
Tariff-related ruction appears to be settling down, but U.S. President Donald Trump is still reshaping global trade and industry — and everyday life. After the Trump administration hinted it could be open to Nvidia exporting more powerful chips to China after their revenue-sharing agreement, the semiconductor darling was reported to be developing a new chip for Beijing. And Intel's bounty from the CHIPS Act, formalized by the previous administration under Joe Biden, might come with a price tag of giving the current U.S. government a stake in the company. Other companies that have received funding from the same act — such as Micron and Samsung — may be subject to the same exchange, Reuters reported. Meanwhile, the effects of tariffs continue to creep into the home. The costs incurred by fires in the U.S. — think of the tragic Los Angeles wildfires in January or the one near the Grand Canyon just last month — are already growing, not just in terms of the physical damage but also the price of insurance premiums. And now that Trump has added fire extinguishers to a list of steel products that will face a 50% import tariff, even the price of relatively more benign and contained fires, such as those you start to burn photographs of your ex-partner, will be more expensive to put out. That's a truly protest-worthy tariff. Trump expands reach of steel and aluminum tariffs. The duties, which impose a 50% charge on imports, will include more than 400 additional product categories, such as fire extinguishers, machinery and construction materials. Japan exports sank 2.6% in July from a year ago. That figure is worse than expected, and the steepest decline for the country since February 2021. Falling shipments to the U.S. and China, Japan's two biggest export markets, contributed to the plunge. Pop Mart shares spike after it announced profit surge. Shares of the Labubu-maker were up 12.6% at 1:40 p.m. local time (1:40 a.m. ET) Wednesday as investors cheered the firm's announcement on Tuesday of a nearly 400% year-on-year jump in profit. Technology stocks weigh down U.S. markets. The Nasdaq Composite fell 1.46% on Tuesday as shares of Palantir sank more than 9%. Asia-Pacific markets retreated Wednesday, as the region's tech stocks tracked declines on Wall Street. [PRO] UBS raises its forecast for gold — again. Despite the rally for gold stalling since the middle of the year, the Swiss banking giant hiked its 2025 and 2026 target for gold prices. The price is REIT: UK-quoted property sector is consolidating rapidly Episodes in which the mighty KKR receives a bloody nose are collector's items — but we had one in the U.K. last week. The private equity giant was thwarted in an attempt to buy Assura, a property company that owns more than 600 doctor's surgeries and medical centers. That speaks to a bigger story — which is that U.K. stock market investors have concluded valuations in the country's REIT (real estate investment trust) sector had become ridiculously low.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What's next for Ukraine-Russia peace talks? 5 questions to ask heading into a potential trilateral
President Donald Trump has spent the past several days on a diplomatic sprint, setting the groundwork for a potential trilateral meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss pathways to end the yearslong war. But despite the back-to-back meetings with delegations from both countries, along with a contingent of European leaders, daylight still remains between Putin's long-standing demands and the conditions outlined by Zelenskyy and his European allies. Nevertheless, after official talks with Zelenskyy and the European leaders came to a close Monday — but while the heads of state were all still gathered for dinner at the White House — Trump declared on social media that he was arranging a bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, to be followed by a trilateral conference that Trump would attend. While trilateral talks could mean the start of serious negotiations to end the yearslong war, something Trump has vowed to do since entering office in January, he still has several steps ahead of him to successfully orchestrate such a conference — starting with getting both leaders to the negotiating table. Here are five questions we're asking as the White House prepares for a possible trilateral: Will Putin actually agree to meet Zelenskyy? Trump's big plan for a direct meeting between the warring leaders hinges on Putin's willingness to meet his Ukrainian counterpart face-to-face. It's not a likelihood to count on. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday told Russian state media that any meeting would have to take place "step by step, gradually, starting from the expert level and then going through all the necessary stages" — a similar line the Kremlin has used to stall during previous attempts to get the two leaders in the same room. But Lavrov didn't rule out a meeting altogether, saying Putin wouldn't necessarily decline attending either a bilateral or trilateral summit. It's not the first time the Kremlin has dangled the possibility of a Putin-Zelenskyy conference to delay serious peace talks while Russia continues attacking Ukraine. Despite suggesting a meeting with Zelenskyy in May, Putin sent a delegation rather than attending the summit himself after Zelenskyy demanded a ceasefire as a precursor for negotiations. What's the breakdown of the security commitments between Europe and U.S.? According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the key 'breakthrough' coming out of Monday's summit was Trump's willingness to commit to security guarantees for Ukraine, for which Putin expressed openness during Friday's Alaska summit. But it's unclear what exactly the U.S.'s participation could look like. During a call with 'Fox and Friends' Tuesday, Trump said European allies would 'front load' security commitments, and gave his 'assurance' that the U.S. wouldn't put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Instead, Trump said, 'a couple countries,' namely France, Germany and the United Kingdom, were likely to provide troops. But the U.S. could still contribute in other ways — including air support, which Trump also floated to Fox on Tuesday. A senior official told POLITICO this week that 'I don't think there's a red line' for the U.S.'s potential role in long-term peace-keeping efforts. Where would the potential meeting take place? The White House is in the process of selecting a location for the potential trilateral — should it come to fruition. The list of possibilities isn't long. Due to the International Criminal Court's active warrant for Putin's arrest over his alleged role in abducting children in Ukraine during the war, the Russian leader is limited in the number of countries he's able to visit without facing possible apprehension. Switzerland would grant Putin 'immunity' if he were to visit the country for peace talks, the Swiss foreign minister said Tuesday. But while French President Emmanuel Macron suggested Geneva as a possible gathering place — and Putin pushed to host in Moscow — another location has emerged atop the White House's list of preferences. The U.S. Secret Service is making plans for the meeting to take place in Budapest, Hungary, POLITICO reported on Tuesday, though plans are yet to be finalized. A Budapest summit would make Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a Trump ally, the host for the pivotal gathering. It would also set up a potentially painful historical echo for Ukraine. After allies promised to protect the country's territorial integrity in exchange for Kyiv relinquishing its nuclear weapons with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, their commitment proved meaningless when Ukraine's partners failed to provide military support in the face of Russia's 2014 attack. Are territorial concessions still on the table for Trump? Perhaps the biggest obstacle in the way of a potential trilateral: Putin's demands for territorial concessions from Ukraine. Trump has indicated openness for what he has termed 'land swapping' — which would involve Russia relinquishing some of the Ukrainian territory it has occupied during its war, but retaining other swaths of land, including parts of the Donbas region that Russia doesn't currently hold. Putin has made clear that he won't even consider ending his war on Ukraine without a successful territorial grab. But Zelenskyy has no intention of trading land for a peace deal. According to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who joined Monday's White House summit, the subject of territory didn't come up in the day's talks, essentially postponing discussions until Zelenskyy and Putin meet face-to-face. But any condition of territorial concession heading into a hypothetical trilateral would likely quash a guarantee of Zelenskyy's participation. Will Trump alternate his allegiance again? Trump's Monday visit with Zelenskyy and a coterie of European leaders seemed to place the U.S. president back in Ukraine's corner. But there's no guarantee he'll stay there. Trump spent the better part of his administration thus far lauding Putin, publicly berating Zelenskyy, and stopping and restarting weapons shipments to the war-torn country — before finally tiring of his Russian counterpart's lack of serious engagement in peace talks and expressing distrust in his intentions. But the U.S. president was swayed by Putin again after their meeting on Friday — for which he rolled out the red carpet — echoing Putin's demands to do away with talk of a ceasefire agreement in favor of longer-term peace negotiations, as well as the Kremlin's long-standing condition that Ukraine must never join NATO. While Trump's support for Ukraine appeared to be back on after Monday's summit, Putin could pull Trump back into the Kremlin's orbit once again, potentially leaving Europe and Ukraine out in the cold. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Has Trump really ended ‘seven' wars?
While sitting beside Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, Donald Trump once again boasted of ending 'six wars' in as many months – without negotiating a single ceasefire. 'If you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn't do any ceasefires,' Trump said before turning to Zelensky, adding: 'I don't think you need a ceasefire.' Since his trip to Scotland last month, Trump has repeated multiple times a version of his claim that he's ended wars 'at about one a month,' according to PolitiFact. Earlier Monday, the president posted on Truth Social that in one case, he had averted a 'possible unclear disaster.' By Tuesday morning, Trump told Fox & Friends that his administration had 'solved seven wars,' though the president did not elaborate on which conflict he was now including in his list. The White House told The Independent that Trump was citing conflicts from both his first and second terms. The White House previously lauded Trump as the 'peacemaker-in-chief,' and the president has styled himself as the 'president of peace.' Meanwhile, the commander-in-chief has openly signalled his ambitions of winning a Nobel Peace Prize despite campaigning on a largely non-interventionist platform. Are Trump's claims of halting hostilities credible or an embellishment of the truth? The Independent takes a closer look at the president's peacemaking record. Israel and Iran Approximately three days after launching Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump told NATO leaders that his administration 'just ended a war in 12 days that was simmering for 30 years.' On June 23, the major Iranian uranium enrichment sites, Fordow and Natanz, and the research base of Isfahan faced a wave of U.S. bunker buster bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles, which Trump claimed left the facilities 'obliterated.' The U.S. intervened in the conflict on June 21 after Israel launched a surprise attack eight days earlier on Iranian nuclear facilities, missile strikes, and military infrastructure. Iran responded with a wave of missile and drone strikes at Israeli army bases and cities. On June 23, Trump declared on Truth Social that Israel and Iran had reached a 'Complete and Total CEASEFIRE,' which was mediated by the U.S. While Trump's actions against Iran's nuclear program may have curtailed immediate strikes, it is not possible to claim to have secured lasting peace, with tensions in the region remaining high. India and Pakistan The brief but deadly military exchange between India and Pakistan that began on May 7 reignited long-standing tensions over the disputed region of Kashmir. It drew a surprise offer of mediation from Trump, who said he could help find a 'solution' to the Himalayan region that is claimed by both nations. 'We also appreciate President Trump's expressed willingness to support efforts aimed at the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute,' said the Pakistani government. By contrast, India remained publicly silent while reinforcing its view that Kashmir is an internal matter. Major General Rameshwar Roy, a retired Indian Army officer, dismissed Trump's offer outright, calling it irrelevant and intrusive and telling The Independent in May that it was a 'bilateral agreement' reached without U.S. involvement. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri doubled down in June that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Trump there was 'no U.S. mediation between India and Pakistan.' Thailand and Cambodia On July 26, Trump said he was calling the leaders of Thailand and Cambodia to urge a ceasefire after three days of intense border fighting. A truce between the nations, brokered by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, was reached on 28 July after Trump said he had spoken to the leaders. Trump leveraged his most powerful economic weapon: tariffs. He said he threatened to derail existing trade deals that had been brokered with the two countries if the fighting persisted. Just days later, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, lauding his 'extraordinary statesmanship' in halting the border conflict with its neighbor. However, foreign policy experts caution that there is no evidence that the president personally negotiated or directly brokered a ceasefire between the two countries. Reports indicate that the fragile truce has been violated multiple times, with both sides accusing each other of breaches. Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo On June 27, foreign ministers of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo flew to Washington, D.C., to sign a controversial peace deal brokered by the U.S. to end fighting in eastern DRC. The agreement also allows for U.S. investment in eastern DRC's critical mineral reserves, including gold, copper, and lithium. Flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and delegates from both nations in the Oval Office, Trump called the peace treaty 'a glorious triumph.' Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi, however, claimed the 'diplomatic success' as his own. Foreign policy experts said the agreement is significant but part of a broader picture of broken contracts between the countries. A week earlier, Trump teed up the treaty he said he and Rubio arranged in a bid to put an end to the decades-long war between the two nations. 'This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World! I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this,' he wrote on Truth Social on June 20. In his meandering post, Trump also noted that he wouldn't be awarded the prize for 'stopping' wars between India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, Egypt and Ethiopia, and for 'doing' the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!,' he said. Armenia and Azerbaijan On August 8, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a U.S.-brokered peace agreement during a meeting with Trump in the White House, bringing an end to decades of conflict. If it holds, the deal between the South Caucasus rivals would reopen key transportation routes while allowing the U.S. to seize on Russia's declining influence in the region. A major transit corridor linking Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan is set to open, with the U.S. owning the development rights to the corridor. It was to be named the 'Trump Route,' the White House said, which the president called a 'great honor.' 'It's a long time – 35 years – they fought and now they're friends, and they're going to be friends for a long time,' Trump said, besides the leaders of the two nations at the signing ceremony. Egypt and Ethiopia After 12 years, Egypt's Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said on June 29 that talks with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the River Nile had ground to a halt. Days later, Ethiopia said its GERD was complete. While a full-scale conflict did not erupt, Egyptians remained wary that the mega dam could restrict the flow of the Nile, which provides 90 percent of the country's total water supply. In a White House meeting on July 14, Trump appeared to side with Egypt, claiming that it would be 'pretty incredible' if its water source were to be taken away. He said that the U.S is 'going to have that solved very quickly.' President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a Trump ally, said in a social media statement that the country appreciates Trump's 'keenness on reaching a just agreement' and supports the president's global 'vision of establishing just peace, security, and stability.' Ethiopian officials and experts warned that Trump's remarks risked aggravating the situation and undermining Ethiopia's right to utilize its natural resources. And any progress, they argued, is mainly attributable to ongoing multilateral negotiations, not Trump's intervention. Trump reportedly expressed hope for a quick resolution as Egypt and Ethiopia reached an agreement in 2018 during his first administration over how to share the waters of the Nile. Serbia and Kosovo At an Oval Office press conference on June 27, Trump declared that Serbia and Kosovo were on the brink of war – until, he said, his administration was 'able to stop it' by again threatening trade sanctions. Trump said he had a 'friend in Serbia' who alerted him that 'we're going to go to war again' with Kosovo, without providing further details. Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani said on July 10 that Trump prevented a potential escalation 'from Serbia.' Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić denied the claims of warmongering and said on July 12 that a conflict with Kosovo 'does not even occur to us.' After the breakup of Yugoslavia, tensions between the two nations peaked between 1998 and 1999 when the countries were at war, which ended with NATO intervention. Friction has persisted since Kosovo declared independence in 2008. In 2020, during Trump's first term, the U.S. brokered a pact between the two Balkan nations to normalize economic relations.
