Singapore Police Force (SPF)

Response To False Allegations Against The Police Concerning An Incident At Yishun Avenue 5 In 2021

In response to media queries, the Police said that they are aware of the posts by Terry Xu (“Xu”) on (i) Facebook and (ii) The Online Citizen Asia (“TOCA”) on 30 April 2023 and 2 May 2023 respectively, making false allegations against the Police concerning an incident at Yishun Avenue 5 in 2021.

To recap, in May 2021, The Online Citizen (“TOC”) (now defunct) made publications falsely accusing Police officers of reprimanding and taunting an elderly woman for not wearing a mask. The truth was that the Police had received a call for assistance from a member of the public, and were rendering assistance to the elderly woman and trying to help her find her way home. The Police issued two clarification statements on 19 May 2021 and 25 May 2021 (see Annex).

TOC was issued a Correction Direction on 21 May 2021 under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (“POFMA”) for publishing the falsehoods. TOC appealed to set aside the Correction Direction, but the appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 2022. The High Court found that TOC had indeed published a false statement of fact, and that the Police officers had in fact expressed concern for the elderly woman, with the aim of rendering assistance to her. The Court observed that the original publisher of the article could not, in good faith, have concluded that there was reprimanding or taunting by the Police.

Despite the Government’s clarifications and the High Court’s clear findings on the matter, Xu has persisted in making false allegations pertaining to the case. These allegations are wholly unfounded.

First, Xu alleged that the Police knew that the elderly woman was not lost but wanted to send her home nevertheless. This is untrue. The Police believed that the elderly woman was lost and was there to render assistance to her. A call for assistance was made by a member of the public on 17 May 2021 at 6.43pm, reporting that an elderly woman, who was not wearing a mask, looked lost. When Police officers located the elderly woman, she repeatedly said she knew where she stayed, but was unable to provide her address. Her address was only later established with the help of a member of the public, who recognised the elderly woman and recalled that she lived in a nearby block. The High Court has in fact found that the Police officers believed that the elderly woman was lost.

Second, Xu falsely claimed that the main reason the Police officers approached the elderly woman was that she was not wearing a face mask. This is untrue as the Police’s primary concern was to help the elderly woman find her way home. They were attempting to contact her next-of-kin (NOK), so they could escort her home safely. At the same time, because of the severe COVID-19 situation at that time, and COVID-19 regulations requiring the wearing of face masks in public, the officers advised her to wear a mask, also for her own safety. The fact that they had asked her to put on a mask does not detract from the fact that they were trying to get her home safely.

Third, Xu alleged that the Police misrepresented and lied to the elderly woman’s NOK that the elderly woman was lost, and that this resulted in the NOK filing a Police report on the issue. This is a blatant fabrication. The NOK had lodged a Police report against TOC and not the Police, over the falsehoods TOC had spread about the Police officers’ interactions with the elderly woman, and for interviewing the elderly woman without the family’s permission.

Police resources are better used to deter and solve crimes, and to assist members of the public, especially vulnerable members like the elderly woman, rather than to address such baseless allegations over and over again.

ANNEX

PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE
07 May 2023 @ 9:12 PM