Racist Aussie admits to throwing killer litter because he had anti-Muslim thoughts

Feb 26, 2022 | 🚀 Fathership
An Australian man admitted in a Singapore district court on Friday (Feb 25) that he had anti-Muslim thoughts when he flung a wine bottle from the seventh storey of a condominium in Spottiswoode Park Road in 2019.

Andrew Gosling, 49, a former SAP Consultant, committed the act as he was "angry and upset" about Islamist terrorist bombings that had killed 88 Australians in Bali in 2002 and Islamic State linked stabbings in Melbourne in 2018.

The bottle killed 73-year-old delivery driver Nasiari Sunee and injured his wife Manisah as they were about to sit down to dinner for a friend’s housewarming at the Spottiswoode apartment block in central Singapore.

What happened

The court heard that Gosling entered Singapore on July 15, 2019 to look for a job here and rented a unit on the seventh storey of the Spottiswoode 18 condominium the following month.

After consuming alcohol on Aug 18, 2019, he peered from his balcony and saw a group of Malay-Muslims having a gathering at a barbecue area two storeys below. Mr Nasiari and his wife were part of it.

The prosecutors said that during investigations, Gosling admitted that a thought crossed his mind that he “ought to use a weapon, such as a gun” to shoot the group comprising about 15 people.

But he later dismissed this thought as he felt that it would be a “heinous” act.

At around 8.30pm, Gosling left his home to throw some rubbish at a common chute at a lift lobby.

While he was there, he found an empty wine bottle, which weighed about 600g, and flung it towards the group to “startle” them.

After that, he ran back to his apartment while yelling religiously charged vulgarities about Muslims.

The bottle hit the couple, and two ambulances took them to the Singapore General Hospital.




Arrest

Following the incident, the police went door to door at the 35-storey condo to look for suspects.

Residents said officers had shown them a picture of an Italian wine bottle.

They were also asked if they had been drinking wine and whether they were willing to provide fingerprint samples.

On Aug 20, 2019, two officers interviewed Gosling and showed him the bottle. He lied, claiming he had never seen it before.

Three days later, Gosling was told to present himself at the Central Police Division to provide a statement.

He then realised that the bottle could be traced to him after he provided his DNA and fingerprints to the authorities. Gosling finally surrendered to the police on Aug 28, 2019.

Prosecution calls for maximum punishment

Gosling's lawyers, Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan, Mr S. Balamurugan, Ms Gloria James and Mr Kevin Liew. They asked him to be given two to three years' jail.

The lawyers said in their mitigation plea that Gosling’s actions during the incident did not reflect his true intentions and were unlikely to have been religiously motivated.

They told the court: “The words that the accused uttered did not carry the weight of any anti-Muslim tendencies – rather, they were a result of his negative obsessive thoughts that manifested while he was intoxicated.

“The thoughts that were verbalised were a product of his disinhibited and impaired mental state at the time and the fact that he was prone to negativity when he drank.”

Prosecutors, however, urged Principal District Judge Victor Yeo to sentence Gosling to seven years’ jail.

They added: “This was no random act of ‘killer litter’. The accused had noticed the gathering and recognised those at the gathering as Muslims.

He cowardly fled the scene after throwing the bottle to evade detection, shouting crude, religiously charged vulgarities about Muslims.”

Gosling is expected to be sentenced in April.

For causing a death by committing a rash act, an offender can be jailed for up to five years and fined.

For causing grievous hurt to another person by performing a rash act, an offender can be jailed for up to four years and fined up to $10,000.


➡️ Follow Fathership on Twitter
➡️ Get updates on Telegram

This commentator thinks MCI ad should not have featured poor Malays

May 12, 2022 | 🚀 Fathership
A Hari Raya advertisement by the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) was 'cancelled' by certain netizens online for depicting lower income Malays according to reality.

"Message for Syawal", a two-and-a-half-minute video published last month (Apr 30) captures moments in the life of a low-income Malay family living in a rental flat.

Storyline


Pictured: Screenshot from MCI video "Message for Syawal"

The video, which is peppered with Malay proverbs, shows the family moving out of their rental flat to a new home several years later where they celebrate Hari Raya.

The father of the family works as a mover while the mother is a housewife.

Their young son, Syawal, skips school to earn extra income for his family before a teacher flags his absence from school to his parents.

The mother in the video later decides to return to work to alleviate her family’s financial difficulties while the father gets a new job.


Pictured: Screenshot from MCI video "Message for Syawal"



Why some netizens are outraged

The video sparked backlash online, with some viewers saying that it contained stereotypes about the Malay community.

The stereotypes:
  • The father works as a mover - commonly perceived to be a low-income job
  • The mother is jobless
  • The son plays truant
  • The family lives in a rental flat for low-income earners

Commentator implied that poor Malays shouldn't be portrayed in public to prevent stereotypes


Pictured: Screenshot from Homeground Asia video

A video commentary by The Homeground Asia went further by criticizing how the video propagates the narrative that Malays are poor and lazy, and that the ministry should have created a video that is more relatable to both the less fortunate and the more affluent Malays.

Adi Rahman, one of the interviewees in the video went further by making sweeping assumptions that the ministry lacked cultural intelligence and did not consult the community on the narrative.

Ironically, in talking about inclusivity, Adi implied that the realities of poor Malays should not be shown in public.

For example, his rationale suggested that the video contained characters (the mover, jobless mother and the son who skips school) that contribute to the problem of other races seeing the Malays in a stereotypical and reductive light.

In other words, show the good stuff but not the reality.

Adi even accused the ministry for not consulting the Malays in the vetting of the video narrative.

His accusations were without merit, however, when the Ministry said in a statement (Apr 30) that Malay-Muslim viewers - presumably a focus group - had seen the video prior to its release, and perceived the story to be heart-warming, although some expressed reservations.


Pictured: Adi Rahman - one of the commentators in Homeground Asia video



Stereotyping or masking reality?

The ministry said last month (Apr 30) the video was meant to show "a family’s journey of resilience in facing challenging circumstances and how mutual support and encouragement could nurture the process”.

Other netizens felt it was an overreaction and that low-income families shouldn't be dehumanized in a way that they are removed from the conversation. They felt that the video was a call-to-action for those from the underprivileged to strive for a better life through hard work and seeking help that's already available.

The only missed opportunity in the MCI video was perhaps the suggestion that Malays in low income families living in a rental flat could not celebrate Hari Raya unless they get a flat on their own.

But of course, like Homeground Asia, that is also a sweeping assumption.