# data[].attributes.body
Check out this post on Lemon8!  https://s.lemon8-app.com/al/GgFpjQpwrb

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S’pore man, 77, allegedly cuts Toa Payoh crow trap, letting them escape

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: Singapore's Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli on Thursday (Oct 23) apologised and acknowledged that agencies involved in the case of four-year-old Megan Khung's fatal abuse could have done more when handling the matter.

"As the lead for the national child protection system, I would like to say that we are sorry for the outcome," he said. "We cannot eradicate every risk of a child loss. But our resolve is absolute. We will do everything possible to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies.

"We will make sure that every link in our child protection ecosystem; every professional and agency; does its very best and more, to protect our vulnerable children," he added.

Megan died in February 2020. She was abused for months by her mother Foo Li Ping and her then-boyfriend Brian Wong, before the latter inflicted a fatal punch on the girl.

Foo was sentenced to 19 years' jail for abusing her daughter and helping to burn her corpse. Wong was jailed for 30 years and given 17 strokes of the cane for his role in Megan's death, along with other drug crimes.

Mr Masagos' comments came after a review panel released its findings on how Megan's case was handled by agencies involved in the case.

The agencies were the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF) child protective service (CPS); the Singapore Police Force (SPF); Beyond Social Services; Healthy Start Child Development Centre; the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and the HEART@Fei Yue child protection specialist centre.

The panel found that while agencies took appropriate actions in some instances, there were also gaps and examples of a lack of clear understanding and communication among them.

ACTION TAKEN AGAINST OFFICERS

All the agencies that interacted with Megan's case have accepted the review panel's findings in full.

Two SPF officers have been disciplined internally after it was found that they failed to follow established processes when Megan's grandmother first lodged a police report in January 2020, a month before her death.

At the time, the investigation officer assessed the matter to be a case of child discipline with low safety concern, and told the officer-in-charge of the duty team that she would follow up with contacting and tracing Megan's mother.

The officer-in-charge hence did not raise the report for discussion in regular case review sessions with supervisors the following day.

The investigation officer then attempted unsuccessfully to locate Foo and Megan for about two weeks, before she was deployed for COVID-19 related duties.

These lapses "prevented timely and appropriate action on the first report", the review panel said.

MSF has also started a disciplinary investigation into the actions of a child protective service officer, following the panel's findings.

"Depending on the findings, the officer involved could face actions ranging from counselling to financial penalty," MSF said in response to queries from CNA. "The officer could also have adjustments made to performance assessments, which carry financial consequence."

The officer is still with MSF and is being provided with the necessary emotional support, MSF added.

The panel determined that this officer could have been more sensitive to information provided by Beyond Social Services relating to Megan's injuries; Foo and Wong's involvement with drugs; and concern expressed by a community worker from Beyond Social Services.

The officer also did not register a call from Beyond Social Services, contrary to established processes in CPS at that time, the panel noted. "As a result, the call was not discussed further with the supervisor on duty, as was the standard treatment for all calls to CPS."

Other shortcomings in the way Beyond Social Services and HEART@Fei Yue handled Megan's case were also laid out in the panel's report.

In response to queries from CNA, Beyond Social Services said that the decisions made by their staff at the time were "based on professional judgement, exercised within the protocols that existed then".

But while there was no finding of misconduct of breach of procedure, "this does not take away from our responsibility to do better", said Beyond Social Services.

The agency said that since the incident, it has retrained staff, strengthened supervision and introduced new safeguards to ensure that "every child we walk alongside is better protected".

HEART@Fei Yue said that it will not be taking disciplinary action against the officer concerned as the issue relates to procedures rather than individual conduct.

Based on the recommendation by the panel to take the case as a referral rather than a referral for triage, HEART@Fei Yue recognises the need for tighter protocols and has since strengthened its processes, the organisation added in its response.

RESPONSES FROM AGENCIES

The agencies involved also addressed the media on Thursday, acknowledging the panel's findings and how they could have done better, while outlining improvements they have made in recent years.

Ms Carmelia Nathan, director of protective services at MSF, said the agency will continue to improve and strengthen safe practices, inter-agency coordination and collaboration, and capability building in partners and staff.

"CPS has since ensured that all incoming calls to (the) national anti-violence and sexual harassment helpline (NAVH) are automatically recorded, transcribed and logged as a case record in the case management system," she said. "This ensures accountability and allows us to periodically review and strengthen frontline services, staff training and ultimately, provide more consistent support to children at risk."

SPF's deputy commissioner of investigation and intelligence Zhang Weihan said processes and systems are in place to ensure police reports receive the "right level of attention" based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and are then followed up promptly.

In a written statement, ECDA said it will continue to improve training and workflows for preschools, so that suspected child abuse cases are identified and reported in a timely manner.

Mr Alvin Yapp, president of Beyond Social Services, said the organisation wants to learn from this incident to ensure it "cannot ever happen again". "Our incident report should be more timely and complete, and for this, we are deeply sorry."

Since 2020, the agency has introduced measures like team-based escalation led by child protection specialists; tightened reporting and record-keeping; and formalised handovers to agencies leading such cases, especially when risk is elevated or a child cannot be sighted.

"We remain accountable," said Mr Yapp. "We will continue working as one network, and we will keep strengthening our practices so that every child's safety always comes first."

In another response to CNA, Beyond Social Services said the tragedy has had a "profound emotional impact" on its staff.

"They continue to carry the weight of what happened deeply. Our focus is on supporting them as they continue their work, while ensuring that the lessons learned are translated into stronger protection and care for every child we serve," said Beyond Social Services.

HEART@Fei Yue said that as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen community-based child protection work, the organisation engages the NAVH and consults with protective service when information is insufficient or when there are challenges in conducting a comprehensive risk assessment.

In circumstances where parents block access to the child and child protection concerns are identified, the organisation will activate established protocols to lodge a police report within 24 hours, with a concurrent alert to protective service.

"Child protection is a complex and demanding area of work that calls for continuous learning, strong systems and collaboration among partners," said Mr Arthur Ling, chief executive officer of Fei Yue Community Services. "We take the panel's recommendations seriously and will continue to strengthen our practice and work closely with families and partners to better support those we serve."

Improvements in child protection since 2020

The review panel's report highlighted 12 improvements that agencies have made to protocols and processes since Megan's death in 2020.

1. MSF has ramped up public education efforts on detection of abuse, and made it easier for anyone to report abuse.

2. ECDA established clear standard operating procedures and a format for preschools' reporting of child abuse cases.

3. Beyond Social Services put in place enhancements to better detect and manage suspected child abuse.

4. MSF and ECDA established protocols to ensure prompt reporting of missing children to the police.

5. MSF and ECDA expanded competency building efforts in the sector to better detect abuse, manage disclosures and ensure safe practice.

6. MSF enhanced screening capabilities to facilitate better assessment and sense-making by case workers.

7. MSF amended the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) to make clearer when information sharing on a child is allowed, and extended legal powers to child protection specialist centres, family service centres and NAVH.

8. HEART@Fei Yue enhanced its protocols and processes to strengthen its work in the child protection ecosystem.

9. MSF tightened protocols for assessing children in person and through video calls.

10. SPF makes continuous efforts to enhance oversight of cases reported, including family violence.

11. SPF has been enhancing training for officers dealing with family violence cases.

12. SPF continuously leverages technology to strengthen investigation officers' efficiency and supervisory capabilities.

LEARNING FROM THE PAST

Mr Masagos noted that the review panel had acknowledged "concerted efforts" since 2020 to strengthen the child protection ecosystem.

"We have drawn on lessons from past cases, including Megan's case, to improve coordination capability and vigilance across the sector," he added.

The panel also provided seven recommendations to ensure greater role clarity among professionals within the child protection ecosystem; build a more robust ecosystem with a strong culture of learning; and provide more structured support for the well-being of protection practitioners.

Speaking about the work of social service professionals in relation to child abuse cases, Mr Masagos said it was not easy and that these individuals have to persevere in navigating the "complex" relationships and behaviours of clients.

"I hope that as a society, we recognise and appreciate our protection officers for their successful interventions in many cases. They stand at the frontline doing good work on our behalf," he said.

"And if and when they do not succeed, as in Megan's case, I hope that even as we want the system to do better, we all continue to support our professionals - just as they support the children and families under their care."

Mr Masagos concluded by saying that MSF will continue to engage and work in close partnership with professionals, social service agencies and preschools to further strengthen the child protection ecosystem.

"With Singapore's support, we will strengthen our internal systems. We will work together to improve how agencies communicate with each other," he said. "We will learn from this incident and do better."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ministry of social and family development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'We are sorry for the outcome': Masagos acknowledges agencies could have done more in Megan Khung case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two police officers have been disciplined, and a child protective service officer from the Ministry of Social and Family Development is being investigated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SCDF officer accused of leaving NSF firefighter alone in fatal Henderson Road blaze to plead guilty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Muhammad Kamil Mohamed Yasin, who was charged with causing grievous hurt to NSF sergeant Edward H Go, will plead guilty in January.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SCDF rescues woman, 36, from Sembawang block 17th floor parapet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The woman was apprehended under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/mW9VDgEk8WXHpEYm/?mibextid=oFDknk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A man made headlines recently for the unusual act of eating a cigarette.

Ramamoorthy Reddiar Jayaraman was convicted and fined S$1,000 after he pleaded guilty to a charge of obstructing an authorised officer from exercising their power under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act 1992.

In mitigation, the 53-year-old told the judge: "To be honest Sir, eating a cigarette... I didn't know (it) is an offence in Singapore."

The judge pithily replied, "You want to eat all number of cigarettes, that's entirely up to you, the court has no issue with that.

"You are here for the offence of obstructing the exercise of an NEA (National Environment Agency) officer's power."

The judge's dry wit succinctly frames the real issue here: it is not just the nature of one's actions that matters, but also the context in which those actions take place.

There is nothing legally wrong with eating a cigarette in and of itself, but eating a cigarette in order to destroy evidence of an offence is unlawful.

In this case, Ramamoorthy ate the cigarette as he was trying to keep it away from NEA enforcement officers who had spotted a teenager smoking in a prohibited place.

His actions had prevented the officers from taking possession of evidence linked to an offence.

Trying to prevent law enforcement officers from carrying out their lawful functions is known generally as "obstruction of justice".

LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL ACTS

Generally, in Singapore, it is lawful to do anything that is not unlawful: it means that you can do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law.

You do not need specific laws to tell you that, for example, it is lawful to kiss someone. On the other hand, it is unlawful to kiss someone without their consent and there is a specific law, outrage of modesty under section 354 of the Penal Code 1871, that says so.

This brings us back to the earlier point: context matters. In general, there is no law against eating cigarettes, or against eating any kind of inedible substance. Indeed, there are no laws against making bad decisions in general.

It is only when those bad decisions have serious consequences for society that the law tends to intervene.

For example, there is no law against overconsuming junk food. However, there are laws against consumption of drugs, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, because drug consumption and addiction have serious negative consequences for society as a whole.

Ramamoorthy's conviction is not about the eating of the cigarette, it is about the harm he has caused to society by interfering with the enforcement of its laws. If he had thrown the cigarette away, or disposed of it in some less dramatic fashion, he would still have been guilty.

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE

Ramamoorthy was lucky to be charged under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act 1992. This is a relatively less serious form of obstruction of justice, carrying lower penalties.

In general, obstruction of justice is dealt with by a variety of offences in the Penal Code.

For example, Ramamoorthy reportedly ate the cigarette to help the unidentified teenager who was smoking it avoid conviction.

This could be seen as causing evidence of an offence to disappear, which itself is an offence under section 201 of the Penal Code.

The main law relating to obstruction of justice is section 204A of the Penal Code.

This covers a broad range of conduct that goes beyond just destroying evidence, including any act that has a "tendency to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice".

For example, in July 2022, 22 men were charged with obstructing the course of justice for sending messages in certain WhatsApp groups which contained information relating to ongoing law enforcement operations.

They did so knowing that other members in those groups would likely take steps to avoid detection by those law enforcement operations.

Another, more serious, example of obstruction of justice is tampering with evidence.

One notable series of cases in 2018 involved three Central Narcotic Bureau officers, who switched out a suspect's urine sample to ensure that it would test negative.

One officer pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months' jail. The other two claimed trial and were eventually convicted and sentenced to 24 and 22 months' jail respectively.

SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS

The justice system attempts to be, as far as possible, fair to all parties. This includes an accused person.

Accused persons are not expected or required to admit to their guilt. The presumption of innocence is fundamental to our justice system, meaning that unless and until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be treated as if he were innocent.

That is why there is also a right of silence in Singapore law - the accused need not say anything that could incriminate him.

However, while the accused may lawfully remain silent, he is not entitled to actively interfere or mislead the legal proceedings. An accused person may not, for example, lie to investigators as that would constitute giving false evidence. Likewise, evidence should not be tampered with or destroyed.

If indeed Ramamoorthy's objective really was to be merciful to the teenager and to help him avoid a criminal record, this was not the right way to go about it. The criminal justice system has safeguards in place to ensure fairness to the accused, especially a young offender.

For example, the teenager may have been given a warning by the prosecution instead of being charged in court. Alternatively, even if charged, the teenager may have simply been given probation.

The point is that interfering with the justice system simply opens one up to criminal charges, and may often make things worse rather than better.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Alexander Woon is the Provost's Chair at Singapore University of Social Sciences' School of Law and also practises law at RHTLaw Asia. He was formerly a deputy public prosecutor at the Attorney-General's Chambers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explainer: How eating a cigarette landed a man in trouble with the law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A man made headlines recently for the unusual act of eating a cigarette.

# data[].attributes.body
Case Law on Chain of custody

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher's duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

Dzulkarnain bin Khamis

Public Prosecutor and anor appeal and anor matter

Court of Appeal - Criminal Appeals Nos 30 and 32 of 2020 and Criminal Motion No 23 of 2022
Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA and Steven Chong JCA
19 January 2023

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

1 The present appeals and criminal motion arose out of the prosecution and subsequent conviction of the appellants, Mr Dzulkarnain bin Khamis ("Dzulkarnain") and Mr Sanjay Krishnan ("Sanjay") (collectively, the "appellants"), in respect of charges involving their possession of not less than 2375.1g of cannabis (the "Drugs"). Dzulkarnain claimed trial to a capital charge under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (the "MDA") for delivering the Drugs to Sanjay, while Sanjay claimed trial to a capital charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA for having the Drugs in his possession for the purpose of trafficking.

4 CA/CCA 30/2020 ("CCA 30") and CA/CCA 32 ("CCA 32") were Dzulkarnain's and Sanjay's respective appeals against the Judge's decision in respect of both conviction and sentence. On appeal, Dzulkarnain contended that the Judge erred in finding that a box containing the Drugs, which Sanjay had collected from a certain location prior to his arrest, was the same box that Dzulkarnain had left at that location. As for Sanjay, he raised three main grounds of appeal. The first two were procedural in nature. First, he contended the Judge erroneously relied on statements that were not admissible when she made her findings. Second, he maintained that the Prosecution's case did not present a unified case theory but consisted of inconsistent and incompatible parts and that this prejudiced his Defence. Third, he argued that the Judge erred in finding that he had failed to rebut the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA, and therefore that he knew the nature of the drugs (the "s 18(2) presumption").

5 Sanjay also filed CA/CM 23/2022 ("CM 23") seeking leave to adduce fresh evidence that was available to and/or readily obtainable by him at trial, but that he did not then adduce. That evidence was Sanjay's own account of the location of a duffel bag containing the drug exhibits that had been seized from him. Sanjay argued that his evidence would contradict the testimony of a Central Narcotics Bureau ("CNB") officer concerning his custody over that duffel bag and that this was material to whether the chain of custody of the drug exhibits had been satisfactorily established. Sanjay sought an order that the matter be remitted to the Judge to take further evidence on this point and to set out her findings on remittal.

6 Following the hearing of these appeals and the criminal motion, we dismissed Sanjay's application in CM 23 and the appellants' appeals in CCA 30 and CCA 32, and upheld the Judge's decision to convict the appellants on the charges that were brought against them. Accordingly, we upheld the sentences imposed by the Judge on the appellants. We now give the detailed grounds for our decisions.

The events leading up to the arrest of the appellants

7 We begin by setting out the facts. On the afternoon of 23 February 2015, Dzulkarnain drove a van to a bus stop near Tuas Checkpoint (the "Tuas Bus Stop"), where he collected a brown box (the "Brown Box"). Later that same day, at around 4.00pm, Dzulkarnain drove the van to Lorong 21 Geylang ("Lorong 21"), and thereafter to Lorong 37 Geylang, Singapore ("Lorong 37").

8 Dzulkarnain's van was initially tailed by a team of CNB officers in an unmarked CNB operations vehicle. The officers were Senior Staff Sergeant Eng Chien Loon Eugene ("SSSgt Eng") and Sergeant Muhammad Hidayat bin Jasni ("Sgt Hidayat"). However, SSSgt Eng and Sgt Hidayat lost sight of Dzulkarnain's van at some point along the way. Another team of CNB officers, comprising Inspector Muhammad Faizal bin Baharin ("Insp Faizal"), Staff Sergeant Ace Ignatius Siao Chen Wee and Staff Sergeant Azman bin Mohd Saleh, tailed Dzulkarnain's van as it was driven to Lorong 21 and then to Lorong 37.

9 At Lorong 37, Insp Faizal and his team saw Dzulkarnain place the Brown Box behind a green dustbin which had the number "14" marked in white on it (the "Green Bin"), before driving off in the van. The Green Bin was located next to No 14, Lorong 37 Geylang, Singapore ("14 Lorong 37" or the "drop-off point"). Insp Faizal and his team continued to tail the van.

10 About five minutes after Dzulkarnain left Lorong 37, Sanjay drove to Lorong 37 in his car. SSSgt Eng and Sgt Hidayat saw Sanjay's car turning into Lorong 37 and followed him. Sanjay stopped beside the Green Bin, alighted from his car and retrieved a brown box from behind the Green Bin at the drop-off point (the "SKP Box"). He then returned to his car and drove off.

11 Sanjay was subsequently apprehended by a team of CNB officers at around 4.35pm near Lorong 36 Geylang. At around 4.40pm, Dzulkarnain too was arrested by Insp Faizal and his team at an Esso petrol kiosk.

12 Following his arrest, Sanjay was led by Senior Staff Sergeant Wong Kah Hung (Alwin) ("SSSgt Alwin") and Sgt Hidayat to the rear passenger seat of his car. Sergeant Dadly bin Osman ("Sgt Dadly") then drove Sanjay's car to a multi-storey carpark at Block 56A Cassia Crescent (the "MSCP").

(a) the SKP Box containing five bundles of vegetable matter which, following analysis by the Health Sciences Authority ("HSA"), were found to contain not less than 2375.1g of cannabis and 2329.1g of cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol;

(b) four handphones, later marked by the CNB as "SK-HP2", "SK-HP3", "SK-HP4" and "SK-HP5";

(c) a blue notebook (the "Blue Notebook") and a black notebook (the "Black Notebook"), which contained handwritten entries relating to various drug transactions and prices; and

(d) two samurai swords and a 30-cm knife.

14 Before the SKP Box was opened, Sanjay was asked by SI Tay about its contents. Sanjay purportedly shrugged and did not verbalise his answer. His reaction was recorded by SSSgt Alwin in the CNB operation field book (Sanjay's "oral statement" and the "CNB field book" respectively). SI Tay then tore away the masking tape sealing the SKP Box and removed five bundles of vegetable matter from within. He then handed each bundle to Sgt Hidayat, who packed and sealed each of the bundles into separate polymer bags, and placed the seized drug exhibits into a green duffel bag (the "drug exhibits" and the "duffel bag"), before handing the duffel bag to SI Tay. From around 7.45pm until about 8.30pm, SI Tay recorded a contemporaneous statement from Sanjay under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ("CPC") (Sanjay's "contemporaneous statement"). In Sanjay's contemporaneous statement, he informed SI Tay that he did not know what the SKP Box contained.

15 Apart from Sanjay's contemporaneous statement, eight other statements were recorded from him during the course of the investigations. In Sanjay's cautioned statement recorded on 24 February 2015 by the Investigation Officer, Senior Staff Sergeant Ranjeet Ram Behari (Sanjay's "cautioned statement" and "IO Ranjeet" respectively), Sanjay informed IO Ranjeet that he believed the SKP Box contained "illegal cigarettes" based on what he had been told by someone he referred to as "Malaysia Boy". Sanjay did not sign his cautioned statement, though the Judge was satisfied that it was an accurate record of what Sanjay had said to IO Ranjeet (GD at [30] and [84]). In any case, this point was not taken on appeal.

17 Following Dzulkarnain's arrest, the CNB officers escorted him to a multi-storey carpark at Block 54 Cassia Road. Upon their arrival, the CNB officers conducted a search of Dzulkarnain and his van. Amongst other things, a handphone was seized and later marked by the CNB as "DBK-HP1".

18 At around 5.15pm, Dzulkarnain was served the Mandatory Death Penalty Notice by Staff Sergeant Muhammad Fardlie bin Ramlie ("SSgt Fardlie"), whereupon Dzulkarnain furnished his statement in response, which was recorded by SSgt Fardlie at about 5.25pm (the "MDP Statement"). In the MDP Statement, Dzulkarnain said that he did not know what the Brown Box contained, that he believed it likely contained cigarettes, and that he was paid $250 to collect and deliver the Brown Box. From about 5.30pm to 6.00pm, SSgt Fardlie recorded a contemporaneous statement from Dzulkarnain under s 22 of the CPC, in which Dzulkarnain maintained his position that he did not know the contents of the Brown Box.

19 Apart from the MDP Statement and his contemporaneous statement, a cautioned statement and four long statements were recorded from Dzulkarnain during the course of the investigations. In these other statements, Dzulkarnain admitted that he knew he was supposed to deliver drugs to Sanjay, and also explained the circumstances surrounding his involvement in the collection and delivery of drugs to Sanjay. To summarise, one "Bala Luk Kor", who was Dzulkarnain's friend and a member of a gang known as "369", knew that Dzulkarnain was in financial difficulty and offered to pay him $500 for delivering drugs. On 22 February 2015, Bala Luk Kor informed Dzulkarnain that Sanjay had a drug delivery for him to carry out, and that Sanjay would contact him directly in this connection. In the early morning of 23 February 2015, Sanjay met Dzulkarnain at People's Park Complex in Chinatown and informed him that he would be paid $250 initially, and another $250 upon completion of the job. Later that afternoon, Sanjay called Dzulkarnain and instructed him to collect the Brown Box from the Tuas Bus Stop. Dzulkarnain did as he was told, and eventually delivered the Brown Box to the drop-off point at Lorong 37.

The events following the appellants' arrest

20 A team of CNB officers comprising SI Tay, SSSgt Alwin and Sgt Dadly ("Sanjay's Arrest Group"), then accompanied Sanjay to his unit at 9H Yuan Ching Road to conduct a search. On the way there, the duffel bag containing the drug exhibits was placed in the boot of the CNB vehicle. When they arrived at Yuan Ching Road at about 9.30pm, Sanjay's Arrest Groupproceeded to search Sanjay's unit in his presence. Throughout this time, it appears from the evidence that SI Tay was holding the duffel bag.

21 The search concluded at 9.45pm, and they all then returned to the vehicle. SI Tay placed the duffel bag in the boot of the CNB vehicle, and they then proceeded to Tuas Checkpoint to carry out some checks on Sanjay's car. At Tuas Checkpoint, the duffel bag remained in the boot of the CNB vehicle.

22 Following these checks, they departed for Alexandra Hospital , and arrived there at about 10.50pm. At about 11.10pm, a relief team of CNB officers comprising SSSgt Eng, Staff Sergeant Goh Jun Xian, Sgt Hidayat and SSgt Au Yong Hong Mian arrived in another vehicle. Both vehicles were parked side by side at the open-air car park at Alexandra Hospital. Sanjay's Arrest Group handed over custody of Sanjay and the duffel bag to SSSgt Eng's team. SSSgt Eng's team then departed for the CNB headquarters ("CNB HQ") with Sanjay, and it was SSSgt Eng's evidence that the duffel bag was in his possession at all times throughout the journey to the CNB HQ. At the CNB HQ, SSSgt Eng retained possession of the duffel bag until he handed it to IO Ranjeet at 3.24am on the following morning, 24 February 2015, so that the exhibits could be photographed.

23 At about 6.47am on the same day, after photographing, swabbing and weighing the drug exhibits in the presence of Sanjay and Dzulkarnain, IO Ranjeet placed the drug exhibits in a locked safe in his office, before later transferring them to the CNB store. On 2 March 2015 at around 5.20pm, IO Ranjeet delivered the drug exhibits to the HSA for analysis.

24 The trial was conducted in several tranches between June 2017 and July 2019. Sanjay gave evidence in his own defence, and also called one Billy Chu Jun Kuan, one Shankiri d/o Danakodi ("Shankiri") (who was Sanjay's girlfriend), and one Graceson Ang as factual witnesses. Dzulkarnain did not call any factual witness in support of his defence and elected to remain silent at the trial. This meant that, in respect of Dzulkarnain's case, the Judge only had Dzulkarnain's statements and the cross-examination conducted and the submissions made by his counsel at trial, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam ("Mr Thuraisingam"), to assist her.

26 The Prosecution relied on the s 18(2) presumption to prove that Dzulkarnain knew the nature of the Drugs. And to establish their case that Dzulkarnain was trafficking in the Drugs, the Prosecution relied on the fact that Dzulkarnain had delivered the Brown Box to Sanjay. The Prosecution's case on the latter point rested on proving that the Brown Box was the SKP Box (that contained the Drugs).

28 The Prosecution's case against Sanjay was that he was in possession of the SKP Box and therefore of its contents. The Prosecution relied on the s 18(2) presumption to prove Sanjay's knowledge that he was in possession of the Drugs. As to whether such possession was for the purpose of trafficking, the Prosecution submitted that this was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by Sanjay's own evidence that he intended to deliver the Brown Box (which contained the Drugs) to a third party.

29 There were two aspects to Dzulkarnain's defence at trial. First, he contended that the SKP Box which contained the Drugs may not have been the Brown Box which he had picked up from the Tuas Bus Stop and delivered at the drop-off point. It was not disputed that there was a gap between the time Dzulkarnain left the Brown Box at 14 Lorong 37 and the time the SKP Box was collected by Sanjay from the same location, and during this gap, the Brown Box was not monitored by any CNB officers (GD at [12]). Dzulkarnain submitted that this constituted a break in the chain of custody of the Drugs. Dzulkarnain further submitted that on this basis, the Prosecution had not established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Brown Box contained the Drugs.

30 Second, Dzulkarnain contended that he had rebutted the s 18(2) presumption, relying on the account he gave in the MDP Statement to the effect that he did not know what the contents of the Brown Box were, and that it was Sanjay who had instructed him to collect the Brown Box. At trial, Dzulkarnain's counsel suggested that Dzulkarnain thought he was delivering cigarettes (GD at [43]), but this was dropped in Dzulkarnain's closing submissions (GD at [44]).

31 As for Sanjay, he disputed all three elements of the offence. First, in respect of the element of knowing possession, Sanjay argued that it was not sufficient for the Prosecution to show that he knew the SKP Box contained something. Rather, the Prosecution had to establish that he knew there were "5 wrapped-up packages" inside the SKP Box. Since he honestly believed the SKP Box contained hunting knives and possibly contraband cigarettes, he contended that the element of possession was not made out.

32 Second, Sanjay sought to rebut the s 18(2) presumption with this same claim that he believed he was delivering collectors' hunting knives and possibly some contraband cigarettes. Essentially, Sanjay claimed that Boy Lai (see [16] above) had asked him to collect some hunting knives and possibly some contraband cigarettes that he had ordered from Malaysia Boy. Sanjay was to collect these items from Dzulkarnain, before delivering them to Boy Lai at Hotel La Mode at Lorong 10 Geylang ("Lorong 10"). Sanjay agreed to assist Boy Lai because he, like Boy Lai, was a knife collector and because Boy Lai had promised him a payment of $300. Sanjay maintained that he did not know that the SKP Box in fact contained five bundles of cannabis.

33 Third, Sanjay argued that even assuming he was in possession of the Drugs, he had been tasked to deliver them to Boy Lai, and since Boy Lai had arranged the delivery and collection of the said Drugs, his act of delivering the Drugs to Boy Lai did not fall within the scope of the offence of trafficking.

34 Sanjay also disputed the accuracy of the recording of his oral statement and his cautioned statement by the CNB officers. Amongst other things, Sanjay contended that he had told SI Tay and SSSgt Alwin at the MSCP and prior to SI Tay opening the SKP Box, that it contained "knives and cigarettes" (GD at [29(a)]). He further claimed that this was inaccurately recorded by SSSgt Alwin in the CNB field book, when he instead recorded Sanjay as having shrugged without giving a verbal response (see [14] above). This was a point that Sanjay raised on appeal, and one which his appeal counsel, Mr Andre Jumabhoy ("Mr Jumabhoy"), vigorously canvassed before us as the central plank of Sanjay's case in rebutting the s 18(2) presumption.

35 Following the conclusion of the main tranche of the trial on 15 February 2019, Sanjay raised a challenge in respect of the chain of custody of the drug exhibits following their seizure by SI Tay. An application was made by Mr Peter Keith Fernando ("Mr Fernando"), Sanjay's counsel at trial, to convene a further hearing to explore an issue pertaining to the chain of custody of the exhibits. The Judge granted Mr Fernando's application, and the further hearing took place on 16 July 2019 (the "further hearing"). In the course of the further hearing, Mr Fernando raised two contentions on Sanjay's behalf in respect of the chain of custody issue.

36 The first, which was the main purpose for which the further hearing was convened, was Sanjay's contention that there was an inconsistency between the evidence of the various CNB officers regarding who had handed over the duffel bag to SSSgt Eng at Alexandra Hospital. While SSSgt Eng and SI Tay both said in their conditioned statements that it was SI Tay who handed the seized exhibits to SSSgt Eng, Sgt Dadly stated in his conditioned statement that he had handed the seized exhibits to SSSgt Eng (GD at [70]).

37 The second contention was not initially raised by Sanjay in his application for a further hearing, but it was nevertheless pursued by Mr Fernando at the further hearing. This related to SSSgt Eng's account of the movements and location of the duffel bag from when he took custody of it until he handed it over to IO Ranjeet at the CNB HQ. In particular, SSSgt Eng did not, in his conditioned statement, explicitly identify the location of the duffel bag during this period. Mr Fernando therefore contended that there was a break in the chain of custody (GD at [73]).

39 The Judge rejected Dzulkarnain's allegation that the Brown Box was not the SKP Box (GD at [59]). The Judge did not think this concerned the integrity of the chain of custody at all, though she noted that it remained the Prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Brown Box was the SKP Box (GD at [46]-[47]).

40 In particular, the Judge noted that there was a coincidence of time, place and subject matter in the delivery and collection of the Brown Box and the SKP Box and concluded that Sanjay could not possibly have picked up a different box at the drop-off point (GD at [51]). As for Dzulkarnain's theory that the Brown Box may have been switched with the SKP Box, the Judge thought this was implausible and against the weight of the evidence. The incredibility of Dzulkarnain's theory was further compounded by the fact that the Drugs contained in the SKP Box were valuable with an estimated street value of between $9,000 and $14,000 (GD at [55]-[57]). Finally, the Judge found that the absence of Dzulkarnain's DNA on the SKP Box was a neutral factor because it was possible for Dzulkarnain to carry the box without leaving traces of DNA that could be identified as his (GD at [58]).

41 The Judge was also satisfied that Dzulkarnain had not rebutted the s 18(2) presumption (GD at [61]). Having considered all the investigative statements furnished by Dzulkarnain, the Judge preferred Dzulkarnain's admissions in his cautioned statement and long statements that he knew the Brown Box contained drugs (GD at [44]). She therefore convicted Dzulkarnain of the charge.

42 On sentencing, t he parties agreed that Dzulkarnain was a courier within the meaning of s 33B(2)( a )( i) of the MDA. Further, the Prosecution had issued Dzulkarnain a CSA under s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA. The Judge , having considered all the circumstances, exercised her discretion to impose the alternative sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to s 33B(1)( a ) of the MDA. As Dzulkarnain was above 50 years of age, he was not liable for caning (GD at [119]).

43 In relation to Sanjay, the Judge was also satisfied that the elements of the charge against him had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt (GD at [ 114]).

44 As to the first element, the Judge found that Sanjay was in possession of the Drugs because he was in possession of the SKP Box which he knew contained something, which later turned out to be a controlled drug (GD at [80]). Beyond this, it was not necessary for the Prosecution to prove that Sanjay knew the SKP Box contained the five wrapped-up packages. What he did or did not know about the essence or nature of the contents of the SKP Box would be an issue when considering the question of his knowledge of the nature of the drugs.

45 Turning to the second element, namely knowledge, the Judge found that Sanjay had failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption. We summarise the Judge's decision in this regard at [124] below, but, for the moment, it may be noted that the Judge, having considered the evidence, disbelieved Sanjay's claim that he thought he was delivering collectors' hunting knives and possibly contraband cigarettes.

46 Next, the Judge found that Sanjay did possess the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking. By collecting the SKP Box containing the Drugs from Dzulkarnain with the intention of delivering it to Boy Lai, Sanjay in fact intended to deliver the Drugs to a third party and this satisfied the purpose element (GD at [113]).

48 The Judge accordingly convicted Sanjay. While the Judge found that Sanjay's role was that of a courier as provided for in s 33B(2)( a )( i) of the MDA, the Prosecution did not issue him a CSA. Accordingly, the Judge found that the alternative sentencing regime under s 33B(1)( a ) of the MDA was not available, and imposed the mandatory death sentence on Sanjay (GD at [124]).

49 Before dealing with the merits of the two appeals, we address the motion filed by Sanjay in CM 23 seeking leave to adduce evidence that had been readily available at trial but was not adduced. The evidence in question was Sanjay's own affidavit ("Sanjay's Affidavit") in which he sought to contradict the testimony of SSSgt Eng that the duffel bag containing the drug exhibits was placed on his lap while he drove the CNB vehicle from Alexandra Hospital to the CNB HQ (the "further evidence"). Sanjay sought an order that the matter be remitted to the Judge to take Sanjay's further evidence and to set out her findings on remittal.

50 We should mention that CM 23 was not the first criminal motion Sanjay had filed seeking leave to adduce further evidence to aid his appeal. By an earlier application made in CA/CM 26/2021 ("CM 26"), Sanjay sought leave to adduce some other evidence that he admitted was available to him at trial but which had not been adduced, and which he contended was material and might bear on the soundness of his conviction. We heard and dismissed CM 26 on 2 March 2022: Sanjay Krishnan v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 21. In CM 26, Sanjay did not attempt to also adduce the further evidence that is now before us. This suggested that Sanjay was seeking to develop his case in a piecemeal fashion.

51 The further evidence in Sanjay's Affidavit pertained to what he contended had occurred after the duffel bag was handed over by Sanjay's Arrest Group to SSSgt Eng's team at Alexandra Hospital. This issue arose during the further hearing before the Judge on 16 July 2019 (see [36] above). SSSgt Eng testified then that after the duffel bag was handed to him, he placed it on his lap while he was driving to the CNB HQ. SSSgt Eng also testified that the duffel bag was "more than a metre" in length, "2 feet" wide and "1 1/2 feet" tall.

53 The admission of further evidence on appeal is governed by the well-established cumulative requirements laid down in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 ("Ladd v Marshall"), namely that the evidence: (a) could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use in the lower court (the "non-availability" condition); (b) would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive (the "materiality condition"); and (c) must be apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible.

54 In Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan [2018] 1 SLR 544 ("Ariffan"), we held that where the application is made in a criminal matter by the Defence, the "non-availability" condition should be applied in an attenuated way (Ariffan at [43]-[49]). We clarified in Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 1169 ("Miya Manik") that our statement in Ariffan did not mean that the "non-availability" condition would be displaced as a relevant consideration whenever the court is faced with such an application brought by the Defence. The "non-availability" condition remained relevant, though it would be applied in an attenuated way in favour of the Defence, and this meant it would be necessary to consider the non-availability condition holistically in the light of the other conditions of materiality and reliability (Miya Manik at [32]).

The "non-availability" condition was not satisfied in this case

55 At the start of the further hearing, the Judge specifically asked whether Sanjay wished to give evidence, and was told that Sanjay did not wish to do so. The Judge, in the event, accepted the evidence of the CNB officers that as far as SI Tay and SSSgt Eng were concerned, when they said in their conditioned statements that the drug exhibits were handed by one of them to the other, they were referring to the handover from one team lead by SI Tay to the other team led by SSSgt Eng, and that this was not inconsistent with the fact that the particular individual who did this was Sgt Dadly, acting on the instructions of SI Tay.

56 In the course of being cross-examined on his evidence, SSSgt Eng was asked where the duffel bag was when Sanjay was being driven to the CNB HQ. He replied that he had placed it on his lap. This evidently surprised Mr Fernando who then specifically cross-examined him on this issue:

Q: You had the duffel bag with you?

Q: Where did you keep it or put it when you reached your CNB vehicle?

A: Your Honour, upon boarding the vehicle, I put it on my lap.

Q: Where did you sit in the vehicle?

A: The front passenger seat, Your Honour.

A: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, I made a mistake. I was the driver of the car ...

Q: So you couldn't have had the duffel bag on your lap. Do you agree with me?

Q: You drove with the duffel bag on your lap from Alexandra to CNB Headquarters?

Q: A duffel bag which is a metre long which is in the description you gave, more than 1 ½ feet wide and about 1½ feet in height, you drove with this duffel bag on your lap to CNB Headquarters?

Q: Is there anything in the [CNB field book] or diary that states that you had the duffel bag with you when you left Alexandra Hospital?

57 Sanjay accepted that any challenge to the evidence of SSSgt Eng in respect of the location of the duffel bag when returning to the CNB HQ could have been made at the further hearing. Indeed, Sanjay himself was more than capable of giving the evidence, and there would have been no difficulty with his doing so. Mr Jumabhoy, accepted that the "non-availability" condition was not met in relation to the further evidence. In our view, this concession was rightly made. It was abundantly clear that the issue of where the duffel bag was during the drive to the CNB HQ, although not the issue that the further hearing had been convened to examine, was not simply a throwaway issue that was left by the side. On the contrary, not only was it picked up in cross-examination by Mr Fernando, but it also occupied the Judge who specifically considered the issue and made her findings on this at [73] of the GD. The question of the integrity of the chain of custody of the drug exhibits, including SSSgt Eng's custody of the duffel bag containing the said exhibits, was thus squarely raised at the further hearing.

58 The first difficulty with Sanjay's case in CM 23 was that he took no steps to engage that issue then and there, when SSSgt Eng was giving evidence. There was no suggestion that Sanjay did not hear the evidence, or that he was unaware of what was being said. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on Sanjay to explain why the evidence was not produced when it could and should have been. In this connection, we emphasise the following passage from Ariffan (at [68]):

... As a matter of law, however, we consider that when the court determines whether the requirement of non-availability has been satisfied, it should also turn its mind to the issue of whether the evidence sought to be admitted on appeal was reasonably not thought to be necessary at trial. If a party ought reasonably to have been aware, either prior to or in the course of trial, that the evidence would have a bearing on its case, and that party fails to make a sufficient attempt to adduce the evidence at trial, this should militate against permitting the party to subsequently have that evidence admitted on appeal. But where it was reasonably not apprehended that the evidence would or could have a bearing on the case at hand, a different result should ensue. Counsel cannot be expected to consider things that, objectively and reasonably, would not have been thought to be relevant to the case. The determination of whether a party would reasonably not have thought the evidence to be necessary at trial naturally requires consideration of the issues that the party would reasonably have become aware of either before or during the course of trial.

Accordingly, where a party becomes aware of an issue that is raised in the course of the trial, and is in possession of evidence which he claims to be relevant to the determination of that issue, it is incumbent on that party to seek to adduce the relevant evidence at trial. A failure to do so would weigh against it being raised at a later stage of the proceedings.

59 In the present case, there was nothing preventing Sanjay from testifying on this aspect of the chain of custody. Indeed, Mr Jumabhoy seemed to agree that the opportunity was simply not taken. However, he sought to overcome this by emphasising that the hearing was concerned with a different aspect of the chain, namely the seeming discrepancy in the handover from SI Tay to SSSgt Eng. Further, the issue of the precise location of the duffel bag after it had been handed over to SSSgt Eng was not set out in SSSgt Eng's conditioned statements, nor in any of the CNB officers' statements. In these circumstances, Mr Jumabhoy submitted that it was not reasonable to expect Sanjay to have appreciated that SSSgt Eng's evidence raised a further, distinct issue as regards the chain of custody.

60 We did not agree with this. In our judgment, Sanjay could have and did in fact appreciate the point. We make three points. First, and broadly speaking, the central issue in the further hearing was the integrity of the chain of custody. Sanjay knew and appreciated that this was the focus of that hearing since he had discussed this with Mr Fernando before the hearing. This much was undisputed. He also knew, at least, that this entailed accounting for the whereabouts of the duffel bag throughout the material time, since this was why the question of who had delivered the duffel bag to SSSgt Eng was being investigated at the further hearing.

61 Second, and relatedly, as is evident from Mr Fernando's cross-examination of SSSgt Eng, the issue pertaining to the location of the duffel bag when SSSgt Eng was driving the CNB vehicle was not referred to fleetingly. It occupied Mr Fernando who pressed the point. And as we have noted, it even featured in the GD at [73]. Upon hearing this aspect of SSSgt Eng's evidence and the ensuing line of questioning by Mr Fernando, the contradiction between SSSgt Eng's evidence and Sanjay's own evidence, assuming for the moment that it is true, would have been glaringly obvious. It concerned a matter entirely within Sanjay's personal knowledge. It must therefore have struck Sanjay that SSSgt Eng's evidence that he had placed the duffel bag on his lap was untrue based on Sanjay's own recollection of what had transpired. Yet, he did not raise the issue, which undermined the credibility of his present claim.

62 Third, the nub of the evidence in Sanjay's Affidavit was that Sanjay was aware that this was a significant point. He claimed he raised it with his then-counsel, Mr Ramesh Tiwary ("Mr Tiwary"), just after Mr Tiwary filed CM 26 but before that was heard. This undermined Mr Jumabhoy's submission that Sanjay could not be expected to have appreciated the significance of the point.

63 Mr Jumabhoy described the fact that Sanjay had raised it with Mr Tiwary as a double-edged sword; but in our view it cut against Sanjay's case on both sides. First, it was Sanjay who appreciated the point and yet, apparently, did not raise it with Mr Fernando, either earlier at the further hearing or at any time before the Judge issued the GD. Second, at no time up to the filing of CM 26 by Mr Tiwary did Sanjay seek to include the further evidence in that application. It was only after the filing of CM 26 when Mr Tiwary asked Sanjay for the second time whether he had any further matter to discuss, that Sanjay raised the evidence that he sought to admit in CM 23. Yet, inexplicably, even after the filing of CM 26 up to the time that application was heard and disposed of in March 2022, he never pursued the point. Ultimately, as we put to Mr Jumabhoy, this was not a complex point of law. It was simply a factual issue that was within Sanjay's ability to canvass at trial.

64 Once we disbelieved Sanjay's explanation as to why the issue regarding SSSgt Eng's evidence had not been raised earlier, it was clear to us that CM 23 was doomed to fail because no other explanation had been put forward to justify why he could not have adduced the further evidence with reasonable diligence.

The "materiality" condition was not satisfied

65 In any event, we also found that the "materiality" condition was not satisfied for the purposes of admitting the fresh evidence.

66 As mentioned above, Mr Fernando had suggested to SSSgt Eng during cross-examination that the duffel bag was not on his lap. Mr Fernando's line of questioning plainly brought to the Judge's attention a possible issue regarding the veracity of SSSgt Eng's account, which was whether the duffel bag was in fact on SSSgt Eng's lap at the relevant time. It was not suggested that anything more could have been put to SSSgt Eng based on what Sanjay might have testified. The Judge was therefore alive to the point, and she made her findings as noted in the GD.

67 Sanjay's evidence was in substance a bare denial of SSSgt Eng's account. Coupled with the Judge's eventual finding that Sanjay was not a credible witness given his lies and his evasive behaviour at trial (GD at [92]), it was difficult to see the impact that his further evidence could have had on the Judge's analysis. Accordingly, we did not think the "materiality" condition was met.

CM 23 was an abuse of process

68 Aside from the substantive requirements set out in Ladd v Marshall, we also considered that the procedural history leading up to Sanjay's application in CM 23 and his approach to adducing the further evidence constituted an abuse of the court's process.

69 In Miya Manik, we recognised (at [64]) that the doctrine of abuse of process is applicable in criminal proceedings. The rationale, as we noted, is premised on the court's power to prevent abuses of its processes arising from its inherent jurisdiction, such jurisdiction being vested in the court so that it may "uphold, protect and fulfil the judicial function of administering justice according to law in a regular, orderly and effective manner" (see Miya Manik at [66], citing Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 at [30]). An application to adduce further evidence may be dismissed on the ground that it amounts to an abuse of process (see BLV v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 726).

70 The circumstances of the present case led us to conclude that Sanjay was drip-feeding procedural applications, which was an impermissible abuse of the process of the court. At the outset, the chronology of the events leading up to the filing and hearing of CM 23 should be noted:

(a) The main evidentiary potion of the trial concluded on 15 February 2019.

(b) A few months thereafter, the chain of custody issue was raised by Mr Fernando. An application was made, and subsequently granted by the Judge, to convene a separate hearing to deal with this matter. That hearing was convened on 16 July 2019.

(c) More than two years later, CM 26 was filed by Mr Tiwary on 2 September 2021. That application was heard on 2 March 2022, and we issued our brief oral grounds dismissing that application on the same day.

(d) It was not until slightly more than half a year later that CM 23 was filed on 7 October 2022.

71 As we pointed out to Mr Jumabhoy, the manner in which CM 23 came to be placed before the court clearly illustrated the wholly unacceptable manner in which the issue had been raised. Sanjay's treatment of the further evidence was simply at odds with his assertion in CM 23 as to the importance of that evidence.

72 Our criticism as to how CM 23 was brought is not directed at Mr Jumabhoy, who was only instructed by Sanjay sometime after the conclusion of CM 26. In this regard, Mr Jumabhoy was bound to raise any points he thought he could or should. But in the same vein, Mr Jumabhoy also conceded, rightly in our view, that the purpose of CM 23 was to ask for the entirety of the trial involving the chain of custody issue to be reopened. The Defence simply could not be permitted to abuse the process in this way.

73 For these reasons, we dismissed CM 23. The evidence contained in Sanjay's Affidavit was readily available at trial, and there was no reason why it should not have been adduced then. We were also not persuaded as to its materiality. And putting that aside, we were satisfied that CM 23 should be dismissed on the basis that it amounted to an abuse of process.

74 We turn to the substantive appeals, beginning with Dzulkarnain's appeal in CCA 30.

75 The crux of Dzulkarnain's appeal was directed against the Judge's finding that the Brown Box which Dzulkarnain dropped off at the Green Bin was the same as the SKP Box that Sanjay picked up. It was undisputed that, for a short period of around five minutes or so between the time Dzulkarnain dropped the Brown Box off at the Green Bin and the time Sanjay picked up the SKP Box, there was no CNB officer monitoring the drop-off point. On this premise, Dzulkarnain raised two contentions.

76  The first was that because there was no CNB officer observing the Brown Box at the Green Dustbin after it was delivered by Dzulkarnain, there was a break in the chain of custody of the drug exhibits. Dzulkarnain's first contention was thus framed as an issue relating to the chain of custody of the drug exhibits.

(a) The first related to the inconsistency in the CNB officers' description of the placement of the Green Bin relative to the roadside kerb in their evidence. Insp Faizal had described the Green Bin as being placed "a bit further away from the kerb". On the other hand, SSSgt Eng's evidence was that the Green Bin was "on the double yellow line and just beside the kerb". And Sgt Hidayat's evidence was that the Green Bin at the drop-off point was "in front of the kerb". Dzulkarnain thus suggested that the Green Bin appeared to have been moved during the time-gap.

(b) The second was the difference between Insp Faizal's and Sanjay's evidence regarding the position of the Brown Box and the SKP Box. Insp Faizal said he was able to see a brown box when he was driving past the Green Bin to follow Dzulkarnain's van. Sanjay, on the other hand, said that he could not see the box from his car when he had parked beside the Green Bin.

79 On this basis, Dzulkarnain suggested that the Brown Box could have been removed by some unknown person who placed the SKP Box at that location instead. He also pointed to the fact that 14 Lorong 37 was accessible to the public. Given the absence of any CNB officer monitoring the drop-off point during those minutes, he suggested that had this happened, it would not have been detected.

80 Finally, he also relied on the fact that his DNA was not identified anywhere on the SKP Box or its contents.

81 The Prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the Judge had correctly concluded that there could be no question of a break in the chain of custody of the drug exhibits prior to the SKP Box being taken into custody by the CNB officers. The Prosecution also relied on the Judge's finding, reached after a careful and detailed analysis of the evidence, that the Brown Box was the SKP Box.

The issues raised in CCA 30

82 The issues in CCA 30 were as follows:

(a) Was the Judge correct that the applicable principles relating to the chain of custody only apply from the time the CNB officers take the drug exhibits into custody?

(b) Was the Judge correct that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the SKP Box containing the Drugs was the Brown Box that Dzulkarnain had delivered?

The principles relating to the chain of custody only apply from the time drug exhibits are seized by the police

83 In our judgment, the question of whether the Brown Box was the same as the SKP Box was not an issue relating to the chain of custody. As the Judge correctly noted, the latter inquiry pertains to the handling of exhibits from the point they are taken into custody by the police (GD at [47]). This much is clear from our holding in Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 440 (at [39]):

[original emphasis in italics; our emphasis in bold]

84 The Judge also correctly recognised that as far as the applicable burden and standard of proof was concerned, the "heavy onus remained for the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the brown box [delivered by Dzulkarnain] was the 'SKP' box [picked up by Sanjay]" (GD at [47]). The charge against Dzulkarnain was that he had delivered the Drugs to Sanjay. It was therefore incumbent on the Prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Drugs seized from Sanjay in the SKP Box were the contents of the Brown Box that Dzulkarnain had delivered because the two boxes were one and the same. The Prosecution did not dispute that it bore this burden. We therefore dismissed this aspect of Dzulkarnain's appeal.

The Judge was correct to find that the SKP Box was the Brown Box

85 As against the Judge's finding that the Brown Box left behind by Dzulkarnain at the Green Bin was the SKP Box that was found in Sanjay's possession upon his arrest, Dzulkarnain's decision not to take the stand or give evidence in the main evidentiary portion of the trial below limited the lines he could pursue in his appeal. In the event, the Judge only had Dzulkarnain's statements and Mr Thuraisingam's submissions and cross-examination of the Prosecution's witnesses to assist her in evaluating the merits of Dzulkarnain's defence. It was plainly an uphill task for Dzulkarnain to show that the Judge erred in her finding that the Brown Box was the SKP Box.

86 The Judge was fully cognisant of the fact that, for a short period of around five minutes or so, the location of the drop-off point was not monitored by the CNB. Despite this, she found it highly improbable, indeed fanciful, for Dzulkarnain to have suggested that the Brown Box was not the SKP Box. In coming to this conclusion, the Judge weighed the absence of any surveillance by the CNB officers at the drop-off point during that short period against the following facts:

(a) Dzulkarnain described the Brown Box as a "box which was sealed with tape" that felt like it weighed 5kg. As the Judge observed, this matched the description of the SKP Box, which when it was first retrieved was sealed with masking tape, and weighed 4,993.68g (GD at [48]).

(b) Dzulkarnain mentioned in his police statements that he knew the Brown Box contained drugs, and this was consistent with the contents of the SKP Box seized by the CNB officers, which was found to contain the Drugs (GD at [48]).

(c) The location was identical in terms of where the Brown Box was to be dropped off and the SKP Box was to be collected, and where they were in fact dropped off and collected, namely behind the Green Bin at 14 Lorong 37. The Judge further found that this was a pre-arranged location which Sanjay and Dzulkarnain had agreed on (GD at [49]).

(d) The CNB officers tailing Dzulkarnain into Lorong 37 saw him leave the Brown Box at the Green Bin, though they could not positively identify it as the SKP Box. Other CNB officers then saw Sanjay drive into the same street, about five minutes later and collect the SKP Box (GD at [50]-[51]).

(e) The Judge accepted Insp Faizal's evidence that there was no other brown box at the Green Bin (GD at [52]).

(f) There was a specific arrangement between Dzulkarnain and Sanjay for the delivery and collection, and there was a coincidence of time, place and subject matter of the delivery (GD at [51]).

87 As against all this, Dzulkarnain argued that the Judge failed to accord due weight to two points. The first was that Dzulkarnain was not asked by the police at the time his statement was being recorded whether the SKP Box was the box that he delivered to the drop-off point, or to estimate the dimensions of the Brown Box. Dzulkarnain pointed to his statement to Dr Goh regarding the said dimensions, which were different from the actual dimensions of the SKP Box (see [77] above). The second was that there were minor discrepancies in the CNB officers' description of the precise location of the Green Bin relative to the kerb, and between Insp Faizal's and Sanjay's evidence regarding the location of the Brown Box relative to the Green Bin.

88 As to the first point, this was immaterial. The fact was that Dzulkarnain was able to describe the appearance, weight, colour and expected contents of the Brown Box in terms that matched those of the SKP Box without having been told any of this in respect of the latter. In any event, there was no need for the CNB officers to have asked Dzulkarnain to describe the Brown Box in light of Dzulkarnain's admission in his cautioned statement and his long statements that he had delivered the Drugs in the Brown Box. Finally, the fact that Dzulkarnain provided a different description of the Brown Box to Dr Goh was a neutral point. It could equally have been a self-serving attempt to distance himself from the SKP Box or the result of his inability to correctly estimate dimensions.

89 On the second point, the Judge had applied her mind to consider the apparent inconsistencies in the evidence before her and did take them into account in weighing them against the other evidence, as was evident from her analysis in the GD. Having done this, the Judge concluded that these discrepancies were insufficient to affect, and hence could not and did not displace, her conclusion that the Brown Box was the SKP Box (GD at [54]-[56]). We agreed with the Judge's analysis. As we pointed out to Dzulkarnain's counsel, Mr Suang Wijaya ("Mr Wijaya"), most of the seeming discrepancies raised in respect of the relative positioning of the Green Bin and the Brown Box or the SKP Box turned very much on the location and perspectives of the viewers, and it was common ground that those who testified on these matters had viewed the drop-off point from different places and with different fields of vision.

90 Mr Wijaya then submitted that it remained a possibility that someone else might have replaced the Brown Box in the same spot during the intervening gap of five minutes. He suggested that there could have been other drug syndicates operating in Lorong 37 on that day, or that someone could have taken the Brown Box and walked away with it given the accessibility of Lorong 37 to the general public, and the presence of others there on that day. As the Judge noted, the real question was whether this was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt or whether it was just a fanciful possibility. In the end, she considered it incredible that a complete stranger might have happened to pass by during that small gap of five minutes, noticed the Brown Box without having had any reason to think it was there, replaced it with the SKP Box in the very location that had been arranged between Dzulkarnain and Sanjay, and that this new box too just happened to have drugs with a high street value (GD at [57]). We agreed with her.

91 The simple point was that Mr Wijaya's hypothesis rested on a very shaky tower of coincidences stacked one upon another. The incredibility of this hypothesis was exacerbated by the fact that the drop-off location was a random location which was chosen on the spur of the moment. Dzulkarnain explained that after he had picked up the Brown Box from the Tuas Bus Stop, Sanjay called and directed him to go to Lorong 21. When Dzulkarnain arrived there, Sanjay told him to place the Brown Box at a lorry which was parked nearby, but Dzulkarnain resisted this "because there was [a] Mitsubishi car with one person inside nearby the lorry ... [and he] felt that it was not safe ... [and he] did not want the guy in the Mitsubishi car to see [him] putting the [Brown Box] there as [Dzulkarnain] did not know who he was". Sanjay then directed Dzulkarnain to go to Lorong 37, and told him to place the Brown Box at the Green Bin. In this connection, we emphasise Mr Wijaya's concession that there was an admitted arrangement between Dzulkarnain and Sanjay for the Brown Box to be dropped off and to be picked up, and that what Dzulkarnain expected the Brown Box to contain matched what was found in the SKP Box. For all these reasons, we agreed with the Judge that the hypothesis put forward by Dzulkarnain was fanciful.

94 We therefore dismissed Dzulkarnain's appeal in CCA 30. We turn to Sanjay's appeal in CCA 32.

95 Sanjay raised three main arguments on appeal. The first was that Dzulkarnain's statements, which were inadmissible against him as a matter of law, had been relied upon extensively by the Prosecution in cross-examining Sanjay and allegedly by the Judge in her analysis of the case against Sanjay. Sanjay said he had been prejudiced by this because he did not have the opportunity to test Dzulkarnain's evidence at trial since the latter elected not to testify.

96 The second was that the Prosecution had shifted its case regarding Boy Lai's existence. This ostensibly raised the issue of procedural fairness because it deprived Sanjay of the opportunity to know with certainty what case he had to meet.

97 Finally, Sanjay submitted that the Judge erred in finding that he had failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption. In particular, the Judge erred in rejecting Sanjay's claim that the CNB officers had wrongly recorded his response when he was asked about the contents of the SKP Box. Had the Judge accepted this, the Judge would likely have accepted Sanjay's claim that he believed the SKP Box contained collectors' hunting knives and possibly contraband cigarettes.

The issues raised in CCA 32

98 Three key issues were raised in respect of Sanjay's appeal in CCA 32:

(a) First, did the Prosecution impermissibly rely on Dzulkarnain's statements in cross-examining Sanjay during the trial? And relatedly, did the Judge impermissibly rely on Dzulkarnain's statements in coming to her findings against Sanjay on the element of possession of the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking?

(b) Second, did the Prosecution advance alternative and inconsistent cases regarding the existence of Boy Lai during the trial?

(c) Third, did the Judge err in her finding that Sanjay failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption?

The Judge and the Prosecution did not rely on Dzulkarnain's statements

99 Sanjay suggested that Dzulkarnain's evidence contained in his police statements, which he argued was in the nature of a confession, had been impermissibly relied on by the Prosecution in cross-examining Sanjay. That evidence, he argued, was then impermissibly relied upon by the Judge in coming to her findings. Sanjay submitted that he had been prejudiced by this because he had no opportunity to challenge Dzulkarnain's evidence contained in his statements because Dzulkarnain had elected not to take the stand.

100 In support of his argument that Dzulkarnain's confession contained in his statements had been impermissibly admitted against Sanjay for the purposes of cross-examination, Mr Jumabhoy referred us to s 258(5) of the CPC, which reads:

Admissibility of accused's statements

(5) When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration the confession as against the other person as well as against the person who makes the confession.

101 Mr Jumabhoy sought to rely on our decision in Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 1003 ("Ramesh a/l Perumal") to ground his submission that a co-accused person's confession cannot be relied upon against another co-accused person under s 258(5) of the CPC for the purposes of cross-examination, where the two were not facing charges for the identical offence.

102 We did not accept Mr Jumabhoy's submission in the context of this case. We make three points.

103 First, s 258(5) of the CPC is a statutory provision that regulates the admissibility of a confession made by a co-accused person who has been charged with the same offence into evidence in the context of a joint trial (see The Criminal Procedure Code of Singapore - Annotations and Commentary (Jennifer Marie & Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir gen eds) (Academy Publishing, 2012) at para 14.012 and 14.036). The section applies where: (a) the co-accused person is being "jointly tried for the same offence"; and (b) the statement that the Prosecution seeks to rely on can properly be characterised as a "confession". We pause to observe that, following the passing of the Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018 (No. 9 of 2018) by Parliament on 19 March 2018, s 258(5) of the CPC was amended to provide for three situations in which a court hearing a joint trial may take into consideration the confession of a co-accused person against the other accused person. Accordingly, the post-amended s 258(5) in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) is not confined in its application only to where the co-accused person is being jointly tried for the same offence. Our statement above on the requirements for invoking s 258(5) of the CPC therefore applies in respect of the pre-amended version of that provision.

105 We also note that nothing in the EA imposes such a restriction on the use of a co-accused person's statement to cross-examine an accused person in a joint trial. The starting point is s 140(2) of the EA, which states:

Order of examinations and direction of re-examination

106 Accordingly, save that any question asked must relate to relevant facts, the Prosecution's cross-examination of an accused person may include, in the context of a criminal trial, other facts that were uncovered following police investigations, including a statement given by a co-accused person to the police.

108 We therefore rejected Mr Jumabhoy's submission that the Prosecution had impermissibly relied on Dzulkarnain's statements when it cross-examined Sanjay.

109 Second, and more importantly, it became apparent during the course of the appeal that Mr Jumabhoy's real objection was that the proceedings should not have been conducted as a joint trial, because Sanjay had allegedly suffered "a whole deluge of prejudice" arising from his inability to refute certain statements made by Dzulkarnain in his long statements which the Prosecution relied on in its line of questioning at trial. We disagreed with Mr Jumabhoy as we were satisfied that this objection is misconceived - the issue is not one of prejudice as Dzulkarnain's statements were simply not used as evidence, either by the Prosecution or the Judge.

110 The Prosecution had only relied on Dzulkarnain's statements to ask questions of Sanjay during cross-examination (see [112] below). And as we observed during the hearing, any objection against the Prosecution's line of questioning should have been taken at trial; yet none was taken, which was unsurprising in our view given, as we have explained above, that there was no conceivable procedural basis upon which such an objection could be sustained. In any event, the Prosecution did not put forward any specific statements made by Dzulkarnain to make out its case against Sanjay. On the contrary, the Prosecution's case in respect of the elements of knowing possession and possession for the purposes of trafficking was based on Sanjay's undisputed admission in his police statements that he was in possession of the SKP Box, and that he intended to deliver the SKP Box to Boy Lai. Indeed, the Prosecution explicitly stated in its written submissions that it "[would] not be relying on Dzulkarnain's statements given that Dzulkarnain and Sanjay [were] charged with different offences". Accordingly, there was no basis for the suggestion that the Prosecution's case was "evidently reliant" on Dzulkarnain's purported confession to begin with.

112 Finally, and in any event, we considered that Mr Jumabhoy's objection, which was framed in terms that Dzulkarnain's statements were confessions and could not be used at all by virtue of s 258(5) of the CPC because this was a joint trial where both accused persons were facing different charges, to be misconceived. This is because the portions of Dzulkarnain's statements that the Prosecution relied upon in cross-examining Sanjay were not in the nature of a confession, such that s 258(5) of the CPC had no application at all. Mr Jumabhoy referred us to an example of what he claimed was the Prosecution seeking to rely on a purported confession made by Dzulkarnain in his long statement when it was cross-examining Sanjay:

Q: I apologise. The information given by Mr Dzulkarnain to---when he describe to CNB officers how this transaction came about is because you are all in the same gang, you, Bala Luk Kor and him under 369 gang. According to your evidence, that is not true?

[Sanjay]: Not true, Your Honour.

113 The Prosecution's question to Dzulkarnain was premised on the following statement made by Dzulkarnain in his first long statement dated 3 March 2023:

I had known 'Bala Luk Kor' for about ten years. I knew him from prison. 'Bala Luk Kor' is also a secret society member of '369'. ... I told 'Bala Luk Kor' that I was willing to do any legal or illegal job to earn fast money because I was desperate. ...

114 We cannot see how this portion of Dzulkarnain's long statement can be said to be a confession on his part. A confession is statutorily defined in s 17(2) of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) ("EA"):

Admission and confession defined

(2) A confession is an admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence, stating or suggesting the inference that the person committed that offence.

... is an objective one, whether to the mind of a reasonable person reading the statement at the time and in the circumstance in which it was made it can be said to amount to a statement that the accused committed the offence or which suggested the inference that he committed the offence. The statement must be looked at as a whole and it must be considered on its own terms without reference to extrinsic facts ... The appropriate test in deciding whether a particular statement is a confession is whether the words of admission in the context expressly or substantially admit guilt or do they taken together in the context inferentially admit guilt?

116 The portion of Dzulkarnain's statement that the Prosecution relied upon in cross-examining Sanjay was plainly not in the nature of a confession, simply because it was not possible to infer from a plain reading of the relevant portion of the statement that Dzulkarnain had admitted to trafficking the Drugs. Rather, it merely related to background information that Dzulkarnain provided to the police explaining how he came to be involved in the delivery of the Brown Box which was later found to contain the Drugs, a point which Mr Jumabhoy appeared to have accepted at the hearing. We therefore did not agree with Mr Jumabhoy that s 258(5) of the CPC had any relevance in the present case.

117 We thus concluded that there was no merit in this aspect of Sanjay's appeal.

The Prosecution did not advance inconsistent cases

118 The second point that Sanjay raised was one of procedural fairness. Sanjay asserted that the Prosecution had changed its position on the question of Boy Lai's existence. It was suggested that in establishing its case that Sanjay could not rebut the s 18(2) presumption, the Prosecution had allegedly taken the position that Boy Lai was a fictional character created by Sanjay to support his defence. Yet in making out its case that Sanjay possessed the Drugs for the purposes of trafficking, the Prosecution argued that Boy Lai did in fact exist and was the intended recipient of the SKP Box. This, Sanjay submitted, made it extremely difficult for him to know with certainty, and hence be in a position to meet, the Prosecution's case regarding the existence of Boy Lai.

119 In our judgment, there was nothing in this point. Even if we assumed in favour of Sanjay that the Prosecution did in fact change its position on the issue of Boy Lai's existence, that was simply immaterial to the two central issues that the Judge was required to consider, and which Sanjay's case had to respond to. The first related to Sanjay's ability to discharge his burden in rebutting the s 18(2) presumption. This required the Judge to consider whether she should accept Sanjay's evidence that he honestly thought that the SKP Box contained collectors' hunting knives and possibly contraband cigarettes and did not know that it in fact contained the Drugs. The second related to the element of possession for the purposes of trafficking. This turned on whether Sanjay intended the SKP Box to be delivered to a third party.

120 As to the first issue, the Judge took Sanjay's defence at face value and analysed the merits of that defence, based on the evidence he had put forward. The Judge ultimately concluded that Sanjay's defence could not be believed. In reaching this conclusion, the Judge did not make any finding as to Boy Lai's existence. It was simply not relevant or necessary for her to come to a decision on Boy Lai's existence, since this would neither add to nor detract from the credibility of Sanjay's account that he believed that the SKP Box contained collectors' hunting knives and cigarettes.

121 As to the second issue, it was never part of Sanjay's defence that the contents of the SKP Box were meant for him. Rather, his case was that he was asked by Boy Lai to collect and deliver the SKP Box (which was later discovered to contain the Drugs) to him. The identity of the ultimate recipient was irrelevant in analysing Sanjay's defence on this point. This was noted by the Judge, and her analysis set out in the GD showed that there simply was no attention directed to the identity of the recipient of the Drugs, because it was always Sanjay's case that he was delivering the items to a third party (GD at [113]). Accordingly, there was no merit in Sanjay's contention that he was prejudiced as a result of the Prosecution's running of inconsistent cases regarding the existence of Boy Lai.

122 In any event, as we explained to Mr Jumabhoy in the course of the appeal, once we affirmed the Judge's finding that Sanjay knew the SKP Box contained the Drugs, there was no room to dispute the conclusion that his possession of the Drugs was for the purposes of trafficking. The logical and inexorable conclusion that flowed from accepting the Judge's finding that Sanjay knew the SKP Box contained the Drugs, coupled with the fact that Sanjay never suggested that the Drugs were meant for his own consumption, was that the Drugs must have been intended for a third party, and this was what Sanjay had maintained at all times.

The Judge did not err in finding that Sanjay failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption

123 We turn finally to consider whether the Judge erred in her analysis that Sanjay failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption.

124 The Judge rejected Sanjay's claim that he believed he was delivering collectors' hunting knives and possibly contraband cigarettes. It is helpful for us first to set out how the Judge came to this finding. In summary, she arrived at this finding based on a multitude of factors:

(a) The Judge first noted the evolving versions of what Sanjay said about the contents of the SKP Box. In particular, she noted that Sanjay's account that he believed the SKP Box contained collectors' knives and possibly contraband cigarettes emerged for the first time only in his fifth long statement given on 8 March 2015. Sanjay's earlier claim, that he believed the SKP Box contained cigarettes, had by then receded into a possibility (GD at [83]). She found this to be troubling since it was the centrepiece of Sanjay's defence at trial (GD at [85]).

(b) The Judge also was troubled by the fact that Sanjay's account of Boy Lai's involvement in asking him to collect the hunting knives which, as a fellow knife collector, he agreed to do, emerged quite some time later in the long statement he furnished on 8 March 2015. By then, four long statements had already been recorded by the police. Sanjay had mentioned Boy Lai in various other contexts in the earlier statements but he never tied Boy Lai to the knife story (GD at [86]-[88]). The Judge found this aspect of Sanjay's account did not have the ring of truth (GD at [90]).

(c) Significantly, the Judge found that Sanjay's entire narrative of the facts and events detailing the arrangement between him and Boy Lai was inconsistent and did not make sense (GD at [90]). It did not make sense because, amongst other reasons, Sanjay had allegedly offered to assist Boy Lai on account of Boy Lai having purportedly claimed that he would be busy at the time and so could not collect the knives himself. Yet, according to Sanjay, both Boy Lai and Sanjay were driving around for some hours until the time came for collecting the hunting knives, at which point Boy Lai asked to be dropped off at Lorong 10, a short distance away from the location of the delivery. It was also noteworthy that Sanjay was supposed to be paid a rather substantial sum of $300 for what appeared to be a simple task of collecting an innocuous package from just a short distance away (GD at [89]).

(d) The Judge also noted the unusual nature of the delivery, which involved a separate leg performed by Dzulkarnain. The Judge was further of the view that Sanjay had no reason to believe any assurance he might have been given by Boy Lai that the delivery was just of collectors' hunting knives and possibly contraband cigarettes. Sanjay had been introduced to Boy Lai just about three months before his arrest, and had described Boy Lai as a "hi-bye" friend and a mere acquaintance in trial (GD at [91]).

(e) Finally, the Judge found that Sanjay's credibility was diminished in light of his lies and evasive responses on three matters:

(i) The first was Sanjay's account of how he came to be in possession of the three handphones marked SK-HP1, SK-HP2 and SK-HP3. Sanjay claimed these belonged to Boy Lai. The Judge disbelieved Sanjay and found it incredible that Boy Lai would leave three such devices with Sanjay ostensibly because he thought they might need to communicate with each other, when all they had to do was to exchange numbers. The Judge also accepted IO Ranjeet's evidence that Sanjay had admitted that SK-HP1 belonged to him when the photographs were being taken at the CNB HQ. The Judge also noted that in Dzulkarnain's phone (DBK-HP1), the numbers of SK-HP2 and SK-HP3 were saved under the names "Bro Sanjay" and "Sanjay 2" respectively, while Shankiri's number was saved in SK-HP3. In respect of the latter, it made no sense at all that Boy Lai would have saved Shankiri's number given her evidence that she did not know Boy Lai (GD at [93]-[100]).

(ii) The second was Sanjay's denial of any connection with the Blue Notebook and the Black Notebook. The Judge disbelieved Sanjay's evidence that the Black Notebook and Blue Notebook, which contained various references to drugs and drug transactions, belonged respectively to Boy Lai and to some other person who had allegedly rented his car previously. She noted that it would suggest that by pure chance Sanjay had rented the car to an unknown person who, like Boy Lai, was allegedly involved in drugs. The notebooks contained various entries of places that were frequented by Sanjay and included a reference to Geylang Lorong 37, which was the site of the drop. More importantly, there was a handwritten entry in the Black Notebook which described a payment to settle an accident allegedly involving Sanjay's brother. Since Sanjay's brother had been away at the time of the accident, the Judge thought this entry was most likely an attempt by Sanjay to settle an accident that he had been involved in when driving without a licence (GD at [101]-[106]).

(iii) The third was Sanjay's involvement in the transfers of money to the bank account of one Ms Nur Ratnawati, who was Dzulkarnain's wife. Sanjay claimed that he had nothing to do with the payment of money to Dzulkarnain (GD at [107]). The Judge disbelieved Sanjay. While the evidence was unclear as to whether Sanjay was the person who transferred the money to Nur's bank account, it was undisputed that Sanjay was present at the two locations where the transfers of money were effected using an ATM. The Judge therefore found that Sanjay had a role to play in the transfers of the money, even if he "might not have been the one who actually effected the transfers" (GD at [108]).

125 As against these findings, the main contention that Sanjay vigorously pursued on appeal was that the Judge erroneously failed to consider the oral statement that he allegedly gave to the CNB officers shortly after his arrest. Specifically, in his oral statement made in response to questions posed by SI Tay, which was recorded by SSSgt Alwin in the CNB field book (see at [14] above), Sanjay claimed that he said he thought the SKP Box contained collectors' hunting knives and cigarettes, and that SSSgt Alwin had inaccurately recorded in the CNB field book that Sanjay had given non-verbal responses by shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders. SSSgt Alvin also did not read back what he had recorded or obtain Sanjay's signature to confirm what had been recorded. Not only was there a defect in so far as the procedures regarding the taking of statements under the CPC were concerned, but this was said to support Sanjay's case that he had maintained a consistent account from the start.

126 Dealing first with the alleged procedural defect, it was undisputed that SSSgt Alwin did not read back the statement he recorded to Sanjay, and also did not obtain Sanjay's signature in the CNB field book. Nonetheless, the failure to abide by any requirement as to formalities does not automatically render a non-compliant statement inadmissible. Explanation 2(e) in s 258(3) of the CPC provides that if a statement is otherwise admissible, it will not be rendered inadmissible just because the recording officer or interpreter did not "fully comply" with the requirements of ss 22 or 23 of the CPC. In any event, the Judge was cognisant of this procedural irregularity but dealt with this as a question of weight (GD at [30]). Ultimately, the Judge concluded that there was no basis for her to conclude that the CNB officers had inaccurately recorded what Sanjay had said to them (GD at [84]). We saw no basis to interfere with the Judge's analysis.

127 In any event, we did not accept that Sanjay's contention that the alleged mis-recording of the oral statement would, in itself, displace the Judge's finding that Sanjay's story (that he was collecting collectors' hunting knives and possibly contraband cigarettes) was untrue.

128 To begin with, it was unsatisfactory that the Defence never put it to SSSgt Alwin in cross-examination at trial that he had deliberately ignored Sanjay's alleged oral statement. It was not then open to Sanjay to raise this allegation at this belated stage of the proceedings. But more importantly, if Sanjay had raised this explanation at the start and if it was true, it is inexplicable why he did not maintain this account in the subsequent police statements. In his contemporaneous statement recorded by SI Tay after his arrest and after his car had been searched, Sanjay claimed that he did not know what the SKP Box contained. And in his cautioned statement, Sanjay changed his position by claiming that the box contained illegal cigarettes, without mentioning any collectors' hunting knives.

129 As we emphasised to Mr Jumabhoy at the hearing, the Judge's key concern was that Sanjay had given different versions regarding his belief as to the contents of the SKP Box - which was the centrepiece of Sanjay's defence. Beyond this, the Judge's finding that Sanjay's account could not be believed was based on a variety of grounds which we have summarised above (GD at [124]).

130 Ultimately, the Judge's finding that she disbelieved Sanjay's account of his knowledge of the contents of the SKP Box was one of fact and, in our judgment, it could not possibly be said to be against the weight of the evidence.

131  For these reasons, we dismissed Dzulkarnain's appeal in CCA 30 and Sanjay's criminal motion and appeal in CM 23 and CCA 32 respectively. We therefore also upheld the sentences the Judge imposed on the respective appellants.

Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya and Shirin Chew (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) for the appellant in CA/CCA 30 of 2020;

Andre Darius Jumabhoy (Andre Jumabhoy LLC) and Si Hoe Tat Chorng (Acacia Legal LLC) for the appellant in CA/CCA 32 of 2020 and the applicant in CA/CM 23 of 2022;

Tay Swee Keng Mark, Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek and Keith Jieren Thirumaran (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent in CA/CCA 30 of 2020, CA/CCA 32 of 2020 and CA/CM 23 of 2022.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher's duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

# data[].attributes.body
Chain of Custody

# data[].attributes.body
Chain of Custody

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - The recently passed Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill has drawn some attention because it enacts what some are calling a "guilty until proven innocent" provision.

Specifically, the Bill, which was passed in Parliament in February, adds a new section to the Environmental Public Health Act 1987 that creates a rebuttable presumption that "killer litter" thrown from a high-rise flat is the fault of the flat's owner or tenant.

However, it is not accurate to think of this as "guilty until proven innocent". The prosecution still would need to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Understanding how this works requires unpacking the concept of a presumption.

BURDEN AND STANDARDS OF PROOF

Claims in law generally need to be proved. This is a matter of producing appropriate evidence from which a court can draw the conclusion that the claim is true.

There are two key concepts to bear in mind.

First, who is required to prove the claim? This is called the "Burden of Proof". Generally, the party making the claim has to prove it.

In criminal law, the prosecution brings a charge against the accused person, so the prosecution bears the burden of proof. In civil law, the claimant brings a claim against the defendant (for example, for negligence) and therefore the claimant bears the burden of proof.

Beyond this overall burden of proof in a case, each specific fact alleged also has its own burden of proof. Generally, the party making the claim bears the burden of proving it.

For example, in a criminal case, although the prosecution bears the overall burden of proving the offence, if the accused person raises a specific fact in his defence (saying he was not present at the time of the offence, for example), then the burden of proving that specific fact is on him.

Second, the issue is then to what extent does the claim need to be proved? This is called the "standard of proof".

There are two main standards of proof in legal proceedings: "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "on balance of probabilities".

"Beyond reasonable doubt" means that the claim must be proved to the point where there can be no reasonable doubt that it is true.

This does not require that there be no doubt at all, since it is always possible to raise an unreasonable doubt (for example, claiming that an identical imposter committed the offence and not the accused). This is the standard generally used in criminal proceedings.

"On balance of probabilities" means that the claim is found to be more likely to be true than not. This is the standard generally used in civil proceedings.

PRESUMPTIONS

The effect of a rebuttable presumption is to reverse the burden of proof for a specific fact within a case, not the burden of proof for the case as a whole.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 contains several presumptions. For example, under Section 17, any person caught in possession of a certain amount of controlled drugs (such as opium, cannabis or cocaine) may be presumed to be in possession for the purposes of trafficking those drugs.

Under Section 18, a person caught in possession of controlled drugs is presumed to have known the nature of those drugs.

The effect of these rebuttable presumptions is that the burden is on the accused to show that he was not trafficking those drugs, or that he did not know the nature of the drugs.

Generally, the accused need only prove this on the balance of probabilities.

The prosecution still bears the overall burden of proving the case and will have to prove the facts that give rise to the presumption.

For example, in a drug trafficking case, before the presumption of trafficking can arise, the prosecution must prove that the accused was in possession of the required amount of controlled drugs.

Similarly, in the case of the new "killer litter" presumptions, the effect is not to create a "guilty until proven innocent" regime.

The prosecution still needs to first prove that "killer litter" was really dropped from a specific flat and it must do so beyond reasonable doubt.

Only once this is done does the presumption kick in - the burden then shifts to the accused person to prove, likely on balance of probabilities, that either he was not present at the time of the offence, someone else committed the offence, or that he had provided the details of the suspected offender to the authorities.

PRESUMPTIONS AS POLICY

Presumptions are created as a matter of policy. They can be used where it would be unreasonable or unworkable to expect the normal rules of proof to apply.

This general policy is expressed in Section 108 of the Evidence Act 1893, which puts the burden of proving facts within the special knowledge of a person on that particular person.

For example, illustration (b) to that section states, "A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that A had a ticket is on him or her."

Here, it would be unreasonable to expect the prosecution to prove a negative.

Presumptions can also sometimes be used for convenience. For example, Section 114(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1893 creates a presumption that a child born during the course of a valid marriage is the legitimate child of the husband.

Similarly, if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who ought naturally to have heard from him, then he is presumed to be dead under Section 110 of the Evidence Act 1893.

One major presumption that must not be overlooked is the presumption of innocence.

This means that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven, beyond reasonable doubt before a court of law, to be guilty of a crime. This presumption applies automatically to all criminal proceedings.

Other presumptions that shift the burden of proof of one element of an offence do not contradict this principle, since the overall burden of proving the case still falls on the prosecution.

Only where a presumption effectively shifts the burden of proof for the entire case to the accused will there be a legal issue, which is not the case in relation to the killer litter provision under the Environmental Public Health Act.

The courts have said that no presumption should have the effect of forcing an accused person to prove his innocence.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Alexander Woon is a lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences' School of Law and is a lawyer at RHTLaw Asia. He was a deputy public prosecutor at the Attorney-General's Chambers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explainer: Are suspects 'guilty until proven innocent' under revised killer litter law and who bears the burden of proof?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - The recently passed Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill has drawn some attention because it enacts what some are calling a "guilty until proven innocent" provision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - The recently passed Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill has drawn some attention because it enacts what some are calling a "guilty until proven innocent" provision.

Specifically, the Bill, which was passed in Parliament in February, adds a new section to the Environmental Public Health Act 1987 that creates a rebuttable presumption that "killer litter" thrown from a high-rise flat is the fault of the flat's owner or tenant.

However, it is not accurate to think of this as "guilty until proven innocent". The prosecution still would need to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Understanding how this works requires unpacking the concept of a presumption.

BURDEN AND STANDARDS OF PROOF

Claims in law generally need to be proved. This is a matter of producing appropriate evidence from which a court can draw the conclusion that the claim is true.

There are two key concepts to bear in mind.

First, who is required to prove the claim? This is called the "Burden of Proof". Generally, the party making the claim has to prove it.

In criminal law, the prosecution brings a charge against the accused person, so the prosecution bears the burden of proof. In civil law, the claimant brings a claim against the defendant (for example, for negligence) and therefore the claimant bears the burden of proof.

Beyond this overall burden of proof in a case, each specific fact alleged also has its own burden of proof. Generally, the party making the claim bears the burden of proving it.

For example, in a criminal case, although the prosecution bears the overall burden of proving the offence, if the accused person raises a specific fact in his defence (saying he was not present at the time of the offence, for example), then the burden of proving that specific fact is on him.

Second, the issue is then to what extent does the claim need to be proved? This is called the "standard of proof".

There are two main standards of proof in legal proceedings: "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "on balance of probabilities".

"Beyond reasonable doubt" means that the claim must be proved to the point where there can be no reasonable doubt that it is true.

This does not require that there be no doubt at all, since it is always possible to raise an unreasonable doubt (for example, claiming that an identical imposter committed the offence and not the accused). This is the standard generally used in criminal proceedings.

"On balance of probabilities" means that the claim is found to be more likely to be true than not. This is the standard generally used in civil proceedings.

PRESUMPTIONS

The effect of a rebuttable presumption is to reverse the burden of proof for a specific fact within a case, not the burden of proof for the case as a whole.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 contains several presumptions. For example, under Section 17, any person caught in possession of a certain amount of controlled drugs (such as opium, cannabis or cocaine) may be presumed to be in possession for the purposes of trafficking those drugs.

Under Section 18, a person caught in possession of controlled drugs is presumed to have known the nature of those drugs.

The effect of these rebuttable presumptions is that the burden is on the accused to show that he was not trafficking those drugs, or that he did not know the nature of the drugs.

Generally, the accused need only prove this on the balance of probabilities.

The prosecution still bears the overall burden of proving the case and will have to prove the facts that give rise to the presumption.

For example, in a drug trafficking case, before the presumption of trafficking can arise, the prosecution must prove that the accused was in possession of the required amount of controlled drugs.

Similarly, in the case of the new "killer litter" presumptions, the effect is not to create a "guilty until proven innocent" regime.

The prosecution still needs to first prove that "killer litter" was really dropped from a specific flat and it must do so beyond reasonable doubt.

Only once this is done does the presumption kick in - the burden then shifts to the accused person to prove, likely on balance of probabilities, that either he was not present at the time of the offence, someone else committed the offence, or that he had provided the details of the suspected offender to the authorities.

PRESUMPTIONS AS POLICY

Presumptions are created as a matter of policy. They can be used where it would be unreasonable or unworkable to expect the normal rules of proof to apply.

This general policy is expressed in Section 108 of the Evidence Act 1893, which puts the burden of proving facts within the special knowledge of a person on that particular person.

For example, illustration (b) to that section states, "A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that A had a ticket is on him or her."

Here, it would be unreasonable to expect the prosecution to prove a negative.

Presumptions can also sometimes be used for convenience. For example, Section 114(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1893 creates a presumption that a child born during the course of a valid marriage is the legitimate child of the husband.

Similarly, if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who ought naturally to have heard from him, then he is presumed to be dead under Section 110 of the Evidence Act 1893.

One major presumption that must not be overlooked is the presumption of innocence.

This means that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven, beyond reasonable doubt before a court of law, to be guilty of a crime. This presumption applies automatically to all criminal proceedings.

Other presumptions that shift the burden of proof of one element of an offence do not contradict this principle, since the overall burden of proving the case still falls on the prosecution.

Only where a presumption effectively shifts the burden of proof for the entire case to the accused will there be a legal issue, which is not the case in relation to the killer litter provision under the Environmental Public Health Act.

The courts have said that no presumption should have the effect of forcing an accused person to prove his innocence.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Alexander Woon is a lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences' School of Law and is a lawyer at RHTLaw Asia. He was a deputy public prosecutor at the Attorney-General's Chambers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explainer: Are suspects 'guilty until proven innocent' under revised killer litter law and who bears the burden of proof?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - The recently passed Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill has drawn some attention because it enacts what some are calling a "guilty until proven innocent" provision.

# data[].attributes.body
Potential CA threat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trash balloons from North Korea hit South’s presidential compound

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SEOUL: Trash-carrying balloons sent by North Korea hit the South Korean presidential compound on Wednesday (Jul 24), security officials told AFP, prompting Seoul to mobilise chemical response teams in the esc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Illinois police have released bodycam footage that showed the chaotic moments that led to the fatal shooting of a woman who had called 911 to report a suspected intruder at her home.

The killing of Sonya Massey, 36, over Independence Day weekend has led to criminal charges against one of the officers who responded to her home, and has drawn condemnation from President Joe Biden.

Sangamon County Sheriff's Deputy Sean Grayson has been fired from the police force and charged with murder and official misconduct.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

On Monday, Illinois State Police released bodycam footage that showed the officers yelling at Ms Massey to put down a pot of boiling water as they point their pistols at her.

The incident in the early hours of 6 July began when Ms Massey called police to her home in Springfield, 200 miles (320km) south of Chicago, to report that she believed someone had broken into her home.

Deputies followed her inside when Ms Massey entered her home, and watched as she searched for her identification.

Mr Grayson saw a pot sitting on a stove, gestured towards it and said, "we don't need a fire while we're here".

Ms Massey walked to the stove to remove the pot. She and Mr Grayson appeared to laugh over her pot of "steaming hot water," before she said, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus."

"You better (expletive) not or I swear to God I'll (expletive) shoot you in your (expletive) face," Mr Grayson said. He then drew his pistol as he shouted for her to drop the pot.

"OK, I'm sorry," Ms Massey is heard saying before she ducked and raised her hands.

"What else do we do? I'm not taking hot (expletive) boiling water to the (expletive) face," he said after shooting her.

On Monday, the Sangamon County State's Attorney's Office said Mr Grayson was not justified in his use of force on Ms Massey.

In a statement, President Biden said he was "heartbroken" for her family.

"Sonya Massey, a beloved mother, friend, daughter, and young Black woman, should be alive today," he said.

"Sonya's death at the hands of a responding officer reminds us that all too often Black Americans face fears for their safety in ways many of the rest of us do not."

Lawyers for Ms Massey's family have commended prosecutors for their swift action against Mr Grayson.

Lawyer Benjamin Crump said the footage "is going to shock the conscience of America".

"It is that senseless, that unnecessary, that unjustifiable, that unconstitutional," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sonya Massey: Bodycam footage shows fatal police shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sonya Massey was shot at her home after police told her to put down a pot of boiling water.

# data[].attributes.body
Undesirable Publication Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - A TikTok video of a woman warning others about an offer she received to partake in a highly paid sexually suggestive photoshoot involving 50 men went viral this week, with several users saying they had received a similar proposition.

On Tuesday (July 2), junior designer Lai Yi Jing, 21, posted a video on the platform saying that she had received an email by a man named "Gavin Choo", who identified himself as a freelance Singapore-based photographer.

The man said he was scouting for models for a paid project, describing it as a "clothed" indoor photoshoot with a "unique concept". In return, she would be paid S$8,000 for participating.

Wondering if it was too good to be true, Ms Lai said that she asked the man for more details to ascertain if he was a legitimate photographer.

The man responded that the model would have to be dressed in a crop top and a tennis skirt and that the shoot would involve 50 other men performing a sexual act.

He then said that the remuneration would be raised to S$12,000.

Ms Lai said in the video that she did not take up the offer.

"I'm just raising awareness on this. If you ever receive an email, be it named Gavin Choo or whoever else, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," she said.

"I would do anything for money, just not this."

The video had amassed more than 138,000 views and 220 comments in the three days since it was posted.

SHADY BUT 'NOT NEW'

TikTok users in the video's comment section expressed shock at the nature of the man's offer, with some asking Ms Lai to report the man to the authorities.

Many who commented on the video stated that they had been propositioned by the photographer for a similar photoshoot as well, either through email or a direct message on social media.

One user wrote: "One time this photographer asked me to do a shoot in a hotel room alone but it was too sketchy (so) I turned (it) down."

Another said: "I received this as well but the terms of the outfit and poses (were) different."

However, several users said that offers for such "photoshoots" have been around for some time.

One comment read: "I remember this exact thing happened years ago, I can't believe it's being a thing again."

Another wrote: "This was a scam when I was 18... almost 18 years ago."

Back in 2021, several women in Singapore had also taken to social media to share their experiences of being propositioned for similar photoshoots of a sexual nature.

In one instance, a woman had been offered up to S$22,500 for a three-hour shoot which involved signing a non-disclosure agreement - a legally binding document to keep information confidential.

The woman had made a police report, and the police informed her that they found the man who sent the email and gave him a warning.

Under the Films Act, it is illegal to make or reproduce obscene films, even if these are not for distribution or exhibition to the public. Those found guilty can be fined up to S$40,000 or jailed for up to two years, or both.

The Undesirable Publications Act also states that it is illegal to take obscene photos if the photos were taken in order to supply or distribute them to others. This offence can result in a fine of up to S$2,000 or a jail term of up to two years.

In response to TODAY's queries, Ms Lai said that she made the video to bring awareness to the situation, and that she had blocked the man's number after rejecting his offer.

While she felt "disgusted" that such a situation had occurred to her and other women, she added that "these things are expected to happen because there are a lot of weird people out there".

When asked if she had made a police report, Ms Lai said that she had not, because she initially felt there was "no point" in doing so if the police could only issue a warning to the man.

However, she believes that it is worthwhile for the police to "look into the case" again to ascertain if the perpetrator is the same man responsible for the past cases.

"We never know if his next victim would actually fall for it, and who knows what would happen (then)?" she said.

TODAY has reached out to the Singapore Police Force for clarification on the actions that can be taken against perpetrators in such cases where no obscene films or photos have been taken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#trending: TikToker warns women of photographer recruiting for 'unique photoshoot' that is sexual in nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - A TikTok video of a woman warning others about an offer she received to partake in a highly paid sexually suggestive photoshoot involving 50 men went viral this week, with several users saying they had received a similar proposition.

# data[].attributes.body
CPC Power to investigate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
264.4K likes, 4726 comments. “reason why i no longer fear the police as much as i used to - it’s all just scare tactics. also thanks to the person who reported me, cause now i’m more empowered than ever ✊🏽 ps. i forgot to mention this in the video but if the police call and tell you to head down to the nearest police station, you can also ignore until they issue you an official interview letter. you can also choose to keep replying “no comment” if you’re not comfortable answering any question don’t be afraid cause whatever we’re saying is the truth and we are on the right side of history ✊🏽❤️🍉 jewelry - @Deema & Co. Jewelry scarf top - @Muslim Breakfast Club”

# data[].attributes.body
Interview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Must Share News - Independent News For Singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Taxi driver dies while giving police statement after argument with private-hire driver

A 73-year-old taxi driver fainted while recording a statement to the police about a dispute with a private-hire driver and later died at the hospital.

According to Shin Min Daily News, the incident occurred on 26 June around 5pm at the exit of a multi-storey car park at 19A Dover Crescent.

The taxi driver, Lin Tianfu (name transliterated from Mandarin), accidentally reversed into a private-hire car when the parking barrier didn't open.

Enraged, the private-hire car driver got out and started insulting Mr Lin, prompting a heated argument.

Taxi driver accidentally reversed into private-hire vehicle

On 1 July, Mr Lin's daughter, Lin Xiaohui (name transliterated from Mandarin), went to the taxi company to collect her father's belongings and reviewed a dashcam recording of the incident.

The footage showed Mr Lin attempting to pass through the parking lot barrier, which did not open.

As a result, he reversed his car and accidentally collided with the private-hire car behind him.

The private-hire driver then exited his vehicle and approached Mr Lin's taxi, cursing angrily at him.

Mr Lin, afraid to get out of the car, tried to move forward and accidentally hit the other driver's leg. The other driver then called the police.

Despite efforts from bystanders to calm the situation and allow Mr Lin to move his car aside, the situation remained tense until the police arrived.

Daughter blames private-hire car driver's attitude for father's death

Ms Lin said that when the police asked her father to move his taxi aside, the car's wheels went over the curb.

"My father was very experienced and rarely made such mistakes, so we suspect he was already feeling unwell at that time."

During the police investigation, Mr Lin's complexion grew increasingly pale.

He squatted on the ground, leaning against the car, and suddenly collapsed.

The police and medical personnel performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on Mr Lin, but he was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Reflecting on the incident, Ms Lin said that the private-hire car driver's actions were the only thing that might have upset her father.

She said that her father had over 20 years of driving experience and was generally healthy, only suffering from minor issues like high blood pressure and asthma.

Thus, she believes the aggressive behaviour of the private-hire driver caused her father significant stress, contributing to his collapse.

Although she heard the driver regretted his actions afterward, a life was still lost.

"This was actually a minor issue that could have been discussed calmly," Ms Lin said. "I saw only minor scratches on the back of the taxi. What was he so agitated about?"
Also read: Taxi Driver Argues With PMA Rider In S'pore, Quarrel Turns Into Fistfight With Mop
Taxi Driver Argues With PMA Rider In S'pore, Quarrel Turns Into Fistfight With Mop
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com. Featured image adapted from Shin Min Daily News.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S'pore taxi driver faints & dies while recording police statement about dispute with private-hire driver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A taxi driver fainted while recording a police statement about a dispute with a private-hire driver and later died after being taken to a hospital.

# data[].attributes.body
Concealing dead body

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: A man has been accused of knowingly concealing the corpse of a woman in an apartment in Hougang.

The woman's body was only discovered four days after its alleged concealment, by which time it was in a decomposed state.

Jason Hong Kai Qi, a 33-year-old Singaporean, was first charged in April with one count of knowingly concealing a human corpse.

He allegedly had reasons to report and seek assistance over the dead body in a condominium unit at Block 43 Hougang Avenue 7 at about 4.10pm on Apr 23, but chose to leave the unit.

As a result, the decomposing body of Ms Nallur Yang Hui Ying was only discovered four days later on Apr 27.

According to the charge, Hong "prevented the discovery of a human corpse".

His charge sheet did not specify the nature of his relationship with Ms Yang and it did not state how or when she died.

When he was first charged, the case was adjourned pending a Health Sciences Authority report to determine the woman's cause of death.

However, there was no mention of this when Hong returned to court for a further mention of his case on Monday (Jun 24).

His case dragged from the morning to the evening as he had no identification on him and did not bring his bailor.

Hong, who did not have a lawyer, claimed that his passport and IC had been seized during a search.

The prosecutor asked if it was the police or Immigration and Checkpoints Authority who seized his documents, but Hong said: "Uh, it's unclear. But I have already made a police report about it."

When further questioned about his IC, Hong said his IC was at home and he was unsure if an agency had taken it or he had lost it.

He was identified by his bailor at about 5pm on Monday and the prosecution sought six weeks' adjournment, saying they were anticipating reports from the Attorney-General's Chambers, and that Hong is also under investigation by the Central Narcotics Bureau.

Hong is out on bail of S$20,000 (US$14,790) and will return to court in August.

If convicted of knowingly concealing a human corpse and preventing its discovery, Hong could be jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man accused of concealing woman's corpse in Hougang condo unit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The woman's body was only discovered four days after its alleged concealment, by which time it was in a decomposed state.

# data[].attributes.body
Mental First Aid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gen Zen: What if someone you know self-harms or has a panic attack? Here is what I learnt about giving mental health ‘first aid’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I signed up to attend a 12-hour mental health “first aid” course, I was hoping to learn more of how to offer appropriate words of comfort or advice to people who need a listening ear.

# data[].attributes.body
Moneylender

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New: You can now listen to articles.

Sorry, the audio is unavailable right now. Please try again later.

Mr Alan's brush with "Ah Longs", a colloquial term derived from the Cantonese phrase for illegal moneylenders, despite him not having borrowed a cent from them is not unique.

In May, Mr Md Sharif Uddin, a Bangladeshi worker, by his employer amid alleged harassment by "loan sharks" and a failed last -minute appeal to extend his stay.

Mr Sharif denied ever taking any loan and the police that he had borrowed from unlicensed moneylenders.

On Friday, Ng Kwong Seng, a Singaporean man who rose through the ranks to become a "towkay" (boss) for an illegal moneylending syndicate based in China, was sentenced to 51 months' jail and a fine of S$495,000.

For 13 years, Ng had worked for the syndicate, which charged Singapore borrowers 20 per cent interest for loans.

With the "Ah Long" menace being a never-ending story, TODAY takes a closer look at how unlicensed moneylender harassment tactics have evolved in this digital age, and why this illicit industry persists.

Before the dawn of the digital age, spraying paint and locking gates were among the unlicensed moneylenders' favourite tools of the trade.

Ms Priya (not real name), who works in the media industry, recalled a period when her family was harassed by loan sharks every few days between 2003 and 2008 after her father was saddled with unpaid debts.

"Common tactics were spray paint, putting a copy of my father's identity card and address in all our neighbours' letterboxes and chain locking our gate," said the 34-year-old.

Harassers would bang on their door and shout in her family members' faces to return money when they opened the door.

However, unlicensed money lenders had to reduce such "open harassment" tactics when the authorities installed closed-circuit television cameras in all lifts and at lift landings, said Ms Priya.

They instead adopted "very silent" approaches, such as having a person pass a letter through the door which demanded repayment.

The harassment eventually "tapered off" in 2008, said Ms Priya, who attributed this to a stepped-up police presence in her neighbourhood and her family successfully paying off their loans.

Mr Howard (not his real name), 28, recalled his family being the neighbourhood's "public enemy" when they faced loan shark harassment.

The intimidation, which continued for over a month in 2010, included continuous calls looking for his father who had borrowed the money, and vulgarities and threats over the phone.

"They spray-painted my father's and our house details across the block, at the lift lobby, ground floor and car park. We attempted to put a plastic sheet over our door to minimise the mess, however, they went on to splash red paint on our neighbours' doors," said Mr Howard.

The harassment stopped after one alleged harasser was caught while carrying paint in Mr Howard's neighbourhood. But having being stigmatised as the "family who borrowed from Ah Long ", Mr Howard's mother later moved the family out of the area.

Ms Gloria James, head lawyer at Gloria James Civetta and Co, said that unlicensed money lenders typically use intimidation, harassment and threats to collect debts, including threats of violence to the borrower and their loved ones.

She noted that the persons involved in harassing borrowers may not be the actual moneylenders, but other individuals they engage known as runners.

Recent years have also seen the increasing use of social media not only to harass debtors - but also to advertise and contact potential borrowers, such as in unsolicited messages boasting fast approval loans.

"Unlicensed money lenders have increasingly been using online tactics to harass debtors, including posting on social media platforms... this causes embarrassment for the borrowers and it would be difficult to detect given that postings can be made anonymously," said Ms James.

"They may also contact neighbours, family members, co-workers and employers online in an attempt to cause harassment and to embarrass the borrower."

She recalled her recent case where an unlicensed moneylender had contacted the borrower's estranged wife and mother-in-law on Instagram, and sent them threatening messages in an attempt to demand payment.

Another victim of unlicensed money lender harassment, who wanted to be known only as Mr Tan, said his troubles started last month after his former domestic helper had purportedly borrowed around S$500 from an unlicensed money lender she had met on social media platform TikTok.

During the period of harassment, besides calls from unlicensed moneylenders, Mr Tan encountered five to six delivery platform workers from Lalamove sent to collect items from his house for three days.

He ended up installing closed-circuit television cameras outside his home in case the harassers took "more aggressive" actions, said the 45-year-old personal trainer.

A combination of factors finally put a stop to the harassment, including making a police report, unplugging his land line and urging Lalamove to ban the account that was sending orders to his house.

Despite the plethora of strictly regulated licensed money lending alternatives and the exorbitant interest rates charged by loan sharks, many still resort to borrowing money from illegal moneylenders due to financial and socioeconomic reasons, financial experts told TODAY.

For the borrowers, the perceived immediate access to cash with minimal documentation and credit checks are key factors that draw them to loan sharks.

Associate Professor of Finance Mandy Tham from Singapore Management University (SMU) noted that as legal lending requires the credit assessment of the borrower, it is less accessible to "subprime borrowers" whose credit assessment may not meet the loan requirements.

Subprime refers to a credit classification for borrowers who have a limited credit history, and for loans made to such borrowers who may pose a higher risk of being unable to repay their loan.

"When one could not meet the credit assessment of legal lenders, one has no choice but to borrow from loan sharks as a last resort, especially after exhausting friends and families," said Assoc Prof Tham.

Those who borrow from loan sharks also tend to be from lower-income backgrounds who may be more "desperate", and less able to access legal lending options, the experts said.

"With the ease of obtaining a credit card today or a credit line from the bank, only the communities that are struggling turn to such options (illegal moneylenders). It is less of an awareness issue, but more of a lack of options," said Mr Reginald Koh, founder of financial literacy podcast The Financial Coconut.

"I believe this will never stop. Loan sharks have always been around, the increased discussion today merely reflects harder financial times for our fellow Singaporeans," he added.

Associate Professor Razwana Begum, head of the public safety and security programme at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, said that gig workers, who may be living "day by day" on an unstable income with no savings may also be at "higher risk" of seeking financial assistance from unlicensed moneylenders.

"Immigrants and foreign workers are also targeted by unlicensed money lenders. Without established credit histories or sufficient knowledge of local financial systems, immigrants might see unlicensed moneylenders as accessible sources of funds," said Assoc Prof Razwana, who is also a Nominated Member of Parliament.

Over the years, various measures have been introduced to protect borrowers, including tighter regulation of licensed moneylenders and debt collectors, and harsher punishments for unlicensed moneylenders.

In a written parliamentary reply on trends in illegal moneylending activities in 2020, Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam said that there was "no clear trend of increase" in terms of youths arrested for such offences every year.

He added that the police were stepping up efforts to counter these crimes, in light of the economic downturn potentially leading to more people seeking illegal loans.

"On the public education front, police launched the fourth anti-unlicensed money lending campaign in January 2020, with the aim of increasing public awareness, first to not to borrow from unlicensed moneylenders or work for them.

"Second, that there are social assistance and credit counselling agencies which provide help for unlicensed money lender cases; and third, that legal moneylenders are not allowed to advertise via SMS or WhatsApp, and hence the public should ignore, block and report unlicensed moneylender advertisements received via SMS or WhatsApp."

There are no publicly available statistics on cases relating to unlicensed money lender harassment.

In November 2008, the Moneylenders Act 2008 was passed in Parliament. The Act, which came into effect in March the next year, clarified the money lending activities to be licensed.

Under the updated law, all moneylenders who grant secured and unsecured loans to the public have to be licensed and regulated, adhering to regulations including restrictions on publishing false and misleading marketing material.

It also introduced measures to counter loansharking such as extending the punishments for those who instigate persons to conduct harassment activities to include caning.

Since then, various amendments to the Act have been made, including tightening the laws to tackle loan sharks more effectively.

LAWS FOR MONEYLENDING SECTOR

In 2018, changes to the Moneylenders Act were passed in Parliament.

A few years later in 2022, Parliament passed the Debt Collectors Bill to regulate debt collection activities in Singapore, following a "high number of police reports" on debt collector harassment the previous year.

A statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs then noted a spike in the number of police reports against debt collectors acting in a manner that caused "alarm and nuisance" to members of the public.

Licensed debt collectors told TODAY that since the introduction of the Debt Collectors Act, which took effect in 2023, companies have adapted to greater scrutiny on tactics that might be perceived as harassment.

Mr Sean Lee, business manager of Assured Debt Recovery, said that debt recovery is more difficult with the tighter regulations, especially when encountering "aggressive" or uncooperative debtors.

Certain debt collection tactics such as hanging banners identifying debtors at their residence are outdated, he said.

However, he emphasised that it is also important for the law to weed out the "black sheep" in the industry who may go "overboard" with their debt collection tactics to embarrass debtors.

Mr Lee's staff wear uniforms and adhere to industry practices such as wearing body cameras to record the entire debt recovery process, so that debtors are also clear that the staff are legal debt collectors.

Mr Leroy Frank Ratnam, chief executive and commercial adviser at debt collection firm JMS Rogers Global, said the firm follows a "strict protocol" for engagements with debtors.

While its debt recovery tactics have remained largely the same, the company has strengthened its "intelligence divisions" to ensure they have the "most accurate data" on debtors to increase the probability of collections.

"Gone are the days of using the approach of aggression and intimidation. Debts can be collected with the accurate study of the situation and the crafting of the right strategy to approach," said Mr Ratnam.

Collapse to view Expand to view

More than expanding the ways unlicensed moneylenders harass debtors, online platforms have also enabled recruitment of those who assist unlicensed moneylender activities, especially young persons.

Lawyers who have acted in proceedings related to unlicensed moneylending noted an increase in young people being recruited to assist unlicensed money lender activities, including harassing borrowers.

Telegram has been a "game changer" in the past five years, as a transnational messaging platform popular among youths where users can be easily recruited for criminal activities, said lawyer Kalidass Murugaiyan, who has worked with young offenders between the age of 16 and 22.

"Around 10 to 15 years ago, (recruitment) used to be on websites. There were popular forums where these (listings) were posted, but now it's gone even deeper, because it's on Telegram. If you go to Telegram and type 'Sell ATM card', you might get something," said Mr Kalidass from Kalidass Law Corporation.

Young people can also be "easily manipulated", as some unlicensed money lenders will "acclimatise" runners by asking them to do less aggressive modes of harassment, such as placing a debtor's note, before asking them if they want to do "something more" for an additional S$100.

Mr Kalidass cited cases where the youths involved were told they only had to place a post-it note at debtors' homes, but were later asked to buy paint and splash it there, which they may feel pressured to do since they were "already in the loop".

Lawyer Ray Louis also noted an increase in young offenders involved in cases of unlicensed moneylender harassment, who were recruited over Telegram or online marketplace Carousell.

The youths' parents were not aware of their involvement with loan sharks until it was uncovered by the authorities, as the youngsters' handphone usage was unsupervised.

"For the young who are naive, it just means going to the debtors' home, doing some stuff and then running away. So they think it's a simple job and they get paid S$50 to S$100," said Mr Louis from Ray Louis Law Corporation.

Furthermore, young persons may be more easily recruited because they or the loan sharks recruiting them are aware that young offenders, such as those between 16 and 21 years old, are likely to get lighter sentences like probation if convicted, though it is always possible form them to get a harsher punishment like Reformative Training.

"In the past, more adults were involved. However, with the penalty of possibly jail and also caning, a lot of adults may not be willing to take the risk," said Mr Louis.

"My last client was young, (studying) at the Institute of Technical Education and he was accused of harassing debtors. He did get probation, but this exemplifies the trend right now."

As for why young persons are drawn to working as runners, the police said on Thursday that youths tend to commit such offences for "fast cash".

For conducting harassment such as splashing paint or placing a bicycle lock at a debtor's gate, the going rate can be S$300 to S$800 per job, though some are paid less, said officer-in-charge of the Bedok Police Division's Anti-Unlicensed Moneylending Squad, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Michael Ho in an interview with the media.

He pointed to a March 2020 case where four youths aged between 17 and 18 were caught for vandalising a house with paint and locking a gate with a bicycle lock.

The youths in that case confessed to having committed the acts for "quick cash" and having learned about the job through a Telegram group called "SG Fast Cash".

They were offered S$100 as a group for this incident of harassment and eventually charged in court and sentenced to 21 months of probation.

When asked if there was a noticeable trend of youths who commit such offences being from lower-income families, ASP Ho said that these youths typically come from a range of backgrounds.

"Some of them come from better off families, but (they commit these offences) because of the attraction (of earning money) and the lifestyle, their daily expenditure, (as) they may spend more as compared to previously," said Mr Ho.

Lawyer Sanjiv Vaswani said that his firm Vaswani Law Chambers has also seen a "marked increase" in the number of enquiries from young persons charged with being debtors turned runners.

This refers to individuals who cannot secure a credit line with a bank and turn to online advertisements promising easy cash for a work-from-home opportunity, which can turn out to be "bait advertisements" for unlicensed moneylenders offering quick loans, said the former prosecutor.

"Subsequently when it is time to repay and the borrower can't keep up with payments, these unlicensed moneylenders will sometimes use these younger borrowers as their runners to harass some of their bigger clients," he added.

POLICE RESPONSE TO EVOLVING LOAN SHARK TACTICS

The authorities said that they are monitoring the evolving landscape of unlicensed moneylending, and are working with various stakeholders to address new methods of harassment.

Senior Investigation Officer of the Criminal Investigation Department's Unlicensed Moneylending Strike Force, Inspector Ong Tiam Huat,highlighted a February 2024 case where a woman was charged in court for using her TikTok account to promote and advertise an illegal moneylending business.

"The police work closely with all the relevant stakeholders, including social media platforms to tackle the online unlicensed moneylending activities, and we'll continue to take tough enforcement action against those involved in loansharking activities," he added.

While the evolution of the unlicensed moneylending space to the digital realm has made tracking the perpetrators and syndicates more difficult, officer-in-charge of the Criminal Investigation Department's Unlicensed Moneylending Strike Force, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Alvin Li, said the police go through training to understand how these platforms work and the measures needed to curb criminal activity.

With the strict laws and enforcement here, unlicensed moneylending syndicates have "shifted overseas" and syndicate members maintain a "high level of secrecy", DSP Li said.

"It makes it challenging, or even impossible for us to uncover their identities. Witnesses fear reprisal to themselves and family members should the syndicate members come to know that they provided information to the authorities," he added, stating that some witnesses can turn "hostile" and refuse to cooperate with police investigations.

He shared an example of a "towkay", or financier of an overseas unlicensed moneylender syndicate, who operated "behind the scenes" and was dealt with under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act in 2019 after the police tracked the syndicate for over three years.

The Act is a decades-long law that allows the detention of people linked to certain criminal activities, including secret societies and unlicensed moneylending, without trial.

DSP Li said this syndicate was linked to over 1,800 reported cases of harassment here, but prosecution of the manwas "not viable" as borrowers were unable to identify him and syndicate members were afraid of testifying against him.

"We had to work with foreign law enforcement agencies to locate him and process his coordination back to Singapore," said DSP Li.

"The unlicensed moneylending syndicates will continue to evolve and exploit the easiest ways to harass borrowers and their families. They will stop at nothing. We will continue to monitor the trend, the tactics, and work with the various stakeholders to disrupt their activities, and identify and prosecute these offenders."

In terms of public education efforts, the police also conduct anti-unlicensed money lending talks during outreach efforts to "vulnerable groups" such as migrant workers, students and volunteers from non-governmental organisations, said Insp Ong.

During school engagements, the authorities will highlight the seriousness of getting involved with unlicensed moneylending activities and the consequences by law of engaging in such actions.

The authorities also engage with young offenders' parents during the course of investigations, and refer them to other resources such as counsellors through the Ministry of Social and Family Development, said ASP Ho of Bedok Police Division.

"We will talk to parents and try to understand more. Let's say if the youth is rebellious or always asking their parents for money, through talking to parents we will ... see how to help them and refer them to the appropriate resources for the future."

Collapse to view Expand to view

GETTING TO THE ROOT CAUSE

Despite the well-documented horror stories about victims of loan sharks, illegal moneylenders will continue to exist in some form simply because there is demand for them, said experts.

Associate Professor of Sociology Alwyn Lim from SMU said: "Illegal money lending indicates to us that in this society, there is much more of a demand for liquidity than actually exists, that is, things seem to need a lot of money.

"As long as the demand for liquidity exceeds the supply, there will be an illegal industry that forms around it. If our society wants to tackle that, we have to get to the roots of what is causing that."

Mr Josephus Tan, managing director of Invictus Law and a criminal defence lawyer who has represented clients as young as 14 in such cases, noted that many of his cases were done pro bono for the "down and out", who became involved with loan sharks because of their financial or family circumstances.

He recalled a case of a man who had borrowed money from loan sharks because he had no money to pay for his father's funeral.

In another case, a man with a failed small business who contracted cancer borrowed money from loan sharks to pay for his family's medical bills. To offset his debts, the loan sharks asked him to hand over his banking information to them.

"People recruited by loan sharks are victims in their own right, either the young and ignorant who want to make a quick buck or those who owe the unlicensed moneylenders and are trapped in the vicious cycle (of assisting lenders)," said Mr Tan.

One way to help people who are more likely to borrow from unlicensed sources is to introduce "targeted, contextualised" saving plans and financial literacy programmes for them, said Assoc Prof Razwana.

She also suggested enhancing "financial inclusion" by increasing access to credit for low-income individuals, such as through microfinance and community banking initiatives.

Mr Louis Chua, a Member of Parliament (MP) for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency, suggested that "ethical lending practices" should be encouraged, apart from raising awareness on the dangers of illicit borrowing.

Strict regulations on all forms of lending, even from licensed moneylenders and banks, to prevent "exorbitant interest rates" and "highly misleading" charges should also be encouraged to protect borrowers, he added.

"Beyond that, we should also establish stronger support systems for those in financial distress, offering a range of services from counselling, to emergency financial assistance and even debt restructuring programmes," said Mr Chua.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, MP for Mountbatten Single Member Constituency, pointed to the various agencies that people can turn to.

"Those who are from low-income backgrounds should also know that there are different available to assist them with their finances, for example, from Social Service Offices and Comcare," he said.

On the issue of young runners, Mr Melvin Yong, MP for Radin Mas Single Member Constituency, said that during his time as a police officer, he had come across many cases of unlicensed money lending and saw the impact it had on those involved, including youths recruited by loan sharks.

This motivated him to create the bi-annual youth engagement programme, Delta League, in 2011, to engage youths through football and keep them "meaningfully occupied" during the school holidays.

While illegal moneylending may seem impossible to eradicate, the question then is whether the same can be said of harassment of borrowers.

Ms James noted that as many unlicensed moneylenders may be based overseas, it has become "trickier" for local authorities to catch them.

As for victims of loan-shark harassment, they are often caught in a "double bind", given that borrowing from such lenders is also illegal.

"They might fear getting in trouble themselves if they report the activity. As a result, even if they do come forward, they might be hesitant to provide the full details of the situation, hindering prosecution efforts," said Ms James.

"This lack of cooperation, stemming from a well-founded fear of violence and potential legal repercussions, makes it significantly harder to build strong cases against the lenders."

While lawyers emphasised that current punishments for assisting unlicensed money lending activities here are strict, bringing to justice the people or syndicates behind such harassment is more difficult.

Mr Vaswani noted that unlicensed moneylending is a criminal enterprise that is "borderless", as the masterminds can "easily tap" people in Singapore to conduct harassment or lending of their personal bank accounts no matter where they are based.

"We need to address the root of the problem - which is why do people have to borrow from such sources in the first place? Are people doing so to feed an addiction?

"Or is it to feed their family, in which case the other question to ask is were there no other alternatives? Theoretically, if you strip away the need to borrow from such sources and you will slowly dismantle the unlicensed moneylending industry," he said.

Still, lawyers said that cracking down on runners and illegal local lenders can curb the harassment problem.

"Law enforcement can still put pressure on the unlicensed moneylender and their operations by taking strict action against the runners and local lenders, as well as seizing assets," said Ms James.

Mr Vaswani emphasised that the ubiquity of police cameras in housing estates has also gone a long way in the identification and tracing of suspects involved in loan shark harassment, and the freezing of bank accounts used for unlicensed moneylending activities can greatly hamper illegal moneylending operations.

At the end of the day, reducing inequality is key to ending the "Ah Long" problem, said Assoc Prof Razwana.

"As long as inequality exists, we will not be able to completely eradicate unlicensed money lenders. However, we could try to minimise the dependency and make it harder for them to operate."

the big read loan shark loan sharks

Read more of the latest in

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Big Read: 'Ah Longs' go digital with new tactics and the trouble it spells

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Mr Alan had no idea that his employee had borrowed from "loan sharks" until he was harassed with almost 120 calls over three days from various unlicensed money lenders.

# data[].attributes.body
Criminal Force

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hoping to talk to some women, a Malaysian man in Singapore devised a plan to create "opportunities" for conversation.

Tan Jun Hao, 31, mixed flour and his own urine in a small plastic bottle, intending to squirt the mixture on women and alert them that their clothes were dirtied.

Especially those wearing dark-coloured bottoms, he admitted.

He even considered mixing red dye into the mixture.

Squirted the mixture on victim's dress

According to court documents, on the morning of Apr. 9, 2024, Tan prepared the mixture of flour and urine and kept it in a small plastic bottle with him as he left his house.

At around 8:30pm, Tan spotted a 26-year-old woman wearing a black dress going up the escalator from Nicoll Highway MRT station towards an overhead bridge.

He decided to follow her up the escalator.

While she was walking along the overhead bridge, Tan squirted the mixture on her dress.

However, he did not stop to talk to her and instead quickly walked ahead.

The victim initially thought the stain on her dress was bird droppings due to its smell and tried to wipe it off with tissues.

The stain grew larger.

She then had to go to a friend's house to clean up.

Did the same to two other unknown victims

Tan admitted to doing the same to two other unknown victims.

He had also prepared red dye at home, which he intended to mix into the liquid.

On Jun. 20, Tan was fined S$1,200 after he pleaded guilty to using criminal force on the woman.
Top photos from Canva

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
M'sian man, 31, squirts mix of flour & his urine on women in S'pore for 'opportunities' to chat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He targetted women wearing dark-coloured bottoms.

# data[].attributes.body
Difference between robbery and extortion/theft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to section 390 of the Penal Code, a robbery consists of either:

While robbery consists of either theft or extortion, it is more than that. Otherwise, a person should be charged with just theft, or just extortion, instead of robbery.

This article will explain:

How is Robbery Different From Theft?

Theft becomes robbery when the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause:

Death,

Hurt,

Wrongful restraint,

Fear of instant death,

Fear of instant hurt, and/or

Fear of instant wrongful restraint,

in the course of committing the acts of theft, or taking or attempting to take one's property away.

On the other hand, theft involves stealing without causing, or attempting to cause, any of the above-mentioned elements to the victim.

If the theft involved force or the threat of force, but neither were used for the purpose of carrying out the theft, then the offender may be found guilty of only theft and not robbery.

How is Robbery Different From Extortion?

Extortion becomes robbery if the offender has put a person, when committing robbery, in fear of:

Instant death;

Instant hurt; and/or

Instant wrongful restraint.

The offender also has to be in the presence of the person put in fear, forcing (or extorting) that person in fear to deliver up what they have been asked for.

In 2021, a Canadian man, David James Roach, was jailed for 5 years and sentenced to 6 strokes of the cane for robbing Standard Chartered Bank's Holland Village branch on 7 July 2016. (His caning sentence was not carried out as Singapore had given Britain an assurance that Roach would not be caned if Britain assisted in extraditing Roach to Singapore.)

Roach entered the bank and handed a piece of paper to the woman at the bank counter that read: "This is a robbery. I have a gun in my bag."

Roach proceeded to put his hand into his bag, putting the woman in fear for her life and causing her to believe that he was indeed in possession of a weapon. This led to her withdrawing the cash requested by Roach and handing it over to him.

In this case, Roach may have committed robbery by extortion as at that time, he was in the presence of the woman behind the bank counter from whom he was extorting money, and who was the person put in fear. He also put the woman at the bank counter in fear of instant death that induced her to deliver up the cash that she was being extorted for.

What are the Penalties for Committing Robbery?

A person found guilty of robbery will be sentenced to a jail term of 2-10 years, along with caning of at least 6 strokes under section 392 of the Penal Code.

If the robbery had been committed between 7pm and 7am (i.e. robbery by night), the offender will be sentenced to a jail term of 3 to 14 years, along with caning of at least 12 strokes.

Can you be charged and sentenced even if your robbery attempt failed?

Yes, as you can be charged with attempted robbery.

A person found guilty of attempting to commit robbery will be sentenced to a jail term of 2 to 7 years, along with caning of at least 6 strokes.

What are the penalties if you hurt someone while committing robbery?

Any person found guilty of voluntarily causing hurt while committing or attempting to commit robbery, or being involved in such a robbery, will be punished with a jail term of 5 to 20 years, along with caning of at least 12 strokes.

What are the Penalties for Committing Armed Robbery?

Armed robbery involves the possession or use of any deadly weapon, or causing grievous hurt or attempting to cause grievous hurt or death to any person, while committing the robbery.

Offenders who are guilty of committing armed robbery will be punished with caning of at least 12 strokes in addition to any other punishment he may be liable for.

For example, if a person had been armed when committing the robbery at 10am, and hurt someone in the midst of the robbery, he/she may face the collective punishments for:

Committing robbery, which results in a jail term of 2 to 10 years and at least 6 strokes of the cane (as the robbery had not been committed between 7pm and 7am);

Causing hurt to any person in the committing robbery, which results in a jail term of 5 to 20 years and at least 12 strokes of the cane; and for

Armed robbery, which results in at least 12 strokes of the cane.

This would result in the offender facing a minimum jail term of 5 years and at least 12 strokes of the cane (which is higher than the minimum 2-year jail term and 6 strokes of the cane for just robbery alone).

What are the Penalties for Committing Gang-Robbery?

A gang-robbery takes place when at least 5 people come together to commit or assist in the commitment of the robbery.

If the group of people who committed or assisted in committing robbery had consisted of only 2, 3 or 4 people, then they may be charged only for robbery instead of gang-robbery.

Offenders found guilty of committing gang-robbery will be sentenced with a jail term of 5 to 20 years, along with caning of at least 12 strokes.

Are Robbery and Gang-robbery Arrestable Offences?

Both robbery and gang-robbery are arrestable offences. An arrestable offence is one where the police can arrest a suspect without a warrant.

For example, if a person is suspected to have threatened to kill the victim in the process of stealing their property, then they might have committed robbery and can be arrested without a warrant.

Once the suspect has been arrested, it is up to the police or the court to decide whether to release them on bail.

How Will Offenders be Sentenced for Committing Robbery/Gang-Robbery in Singapore?

The following are sentencing considerations that the court can consider when deciding on the sentence for a person who has committed either robbery or gang-robbery:

1. Factors with regard to the offence of robbery/armed robbery committed, such as the:

Details of the offence, e.g. the nature of the offence, when and where the offence happened, was the offender armed, were there any witnesses

Effect of the offence, e.g. the extent to which the offence had impacted the victim

2. Factors with regard to the offender:

Is the offender remorseful for his actions? E.g. as shown by the offender pleading guilty at the first opportunity

Does the offender have a criminal record, or has he committed past similar offences?

Did the offender offer to make restitution or compensation to the victim of his own accord? E.g. paying of the victim's medical bills where hurt had been caused to him/her during the robbery/gang-robbery

Are there any factors relating to the offender that may reduce his responsibility for the offence? E.g. age, incapacitation, disability, psychiatric disorder

3. (For gang-robbery) Sentences received by other offenders involved in the same offence.

The court will consider the sentence received by any other offenders involved in the same case, but it may not always impose identical sentences.

The court will consider whether there is a difference in liability based on factors such as:

Each offender's role during the gang-robbery

Whether each individual had pleaded guilty or disputed the charge

Factors with regard to the offender (as mentioned above)

4. Sentences and judgments concluded from similar past cases

The court will take judgments from similar past cases of robbery or gang-robbery as a guide.

The court will consider sentences that were concluded in past cases to ensure consistency. However, it will not simply impose an identical sentence as per previous cases. It will also consider the differences in facts between the cases to decide if and how the sentence in the current case should be different.

Aggravating and mitigating factors specific to robbery

Aggravating factors may increase a sentence while mitigating factors may reduce the sentence.

Robbery is aggravated or considered more serious when committed by a gang, an armed person, or between 7pm and 7am. For example, if a dangerous weapon, such as a knife, is used to hurt or cause fear to the victim, or where the robbery is committed against a helpless person at night.

These offences generally carry heavier mandatory minimum sentences, and the sentence meted out to the offender may be more severe depending on the extent of their acts.

On the other hand, mitigating factors include:

Where the offender is:

Of a young age; and/or

A first-time offender

Where there is evidence of genuine remorse or guilt on the offender's part
The offender's capability of rehabilitation

Plea of guilt
Whether the offender had pleaded guilty, and how soon the offender had done so

Voluntary restitution
The making of compensation is of decisive significance only when it had been made voluntarily. Only then would it be a display of true moral conscience on the offender's part

Will Robbery and Gang-Robbery Result in a Criminal Record?

If you are convicted of either robbery or gang-robbery, you will have a criminal record. Given the seriousness of these offences and potential punishments for them, it is unlikely that the criminal record can become spent (i.e. wiped clean) after a certain period of time.

Next Steps

If you have been a victim of robbery/gang-robbery

File a report with the police immediately. Try to provide the police with important details of the robbery that include:

The robber's appearance

The time of the robbery

What the robber took from you

Whether the robber had used force or hurt you

Whether the robber had been in possession of a weapon at the time of the robbery

If you have insurance, you can also contact your insurance company and check if your insurance policy covers theft and robbery incidents.

If you have been charged with robbery/gang-robbery

If you are considering representing yourself for your case, you can. However, doing so runs several risks that you may not desire.

For example, if you are unfamiliar with the defences available to you, or the mitigating factors that can help reduce your sentence, you might not be able to mount the best possible defence for your case. This can in turn lead to you being sentenced unfairly.

Contacting a lawyer may therefore be a better option for you as they aid you in fighting your case appropriately. For example, as practitioners with legal knowledge, lawyers can advise you on how to proceed with your case.

Your lawyer can also help with your application for bail. Further, the lawyer can write representations for you to the prosecution in order to reduce your charges or have the charges dropped altogether.

However, if the Prosecution wishes to press charges, your lawyer can then advise you on whether it is in your interests to claim trial or plead guilty.

Hence if you have been accused of committing robbery, you may want to discuss your options with a criminal lawyer and get advice on how to proceed with your case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Committing Robbery in Singapore: What are the Penalties? - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article explains the differences between theft, robbery as well as extortion, and the penalties for committing robbery and gang-robbery.

# data[].attributes.body
Comparison between Sec 34 and 35

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Section 34 deals with criminal acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. All persons with a common intent to commit a crime can be found guilty, even if they did not physically carry out the act. Section 35 deals with acts that are criminal due to criminal knowledge or intent.

# data[].attributes.body
POHA

# data[].attributes.body
Arrest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9jun2024  0825hrs

A 23-year-old man was arrested for his suspected involvement in a theft of a car and a suspected drug-related offence near Block 645... | By SG Road Vigilante - SGRV | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
9jun2024  0825hrs

A 23-year-old man was arrested for his suspected involvement in a theft of a car and a suspected drug-related offence near Block 645...

# data[].attributes.body
Vulnerable Adult

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Vulnerable Adults Act ("the Act") came into force on 19 December 2018. It seeks to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect, and allows government social services to intervene and render assistance or protection as a last resort when family and community interventions fail.

# data[].attributes.body
Legal System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1 Introduction to Law (lecture notes) - TThhiinnkk aabboouutt iitt LEGAL SYSTEMS Introduction to Law - Studocu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Share free summaries, lecture notes, exam prep and more!!

# data[].attributes.body
Different type if statement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The State of Statements in Singapore’s Legal System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Puah Ee Jie* I. Introduction During the investigations of crimes, numerous statement…

# data[].attributes.body
Hearsay Example and Exceptions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Evidence is crucial in any case you pursue. Regardless of whether you are the plaintiff or defendant in a case, you will need to present evidence for your case. A typical form of evidence would be witness testimonies.

However, not every and all kinds of testimonies can be admitted in court.

Hearsay evidence is one such kind of inadmissible evidence. This article discusses what hearsay evidence entails and its admissibility in the Singapore courts. It will cover:

What is Hearsay?

Normally, when a witness testifies in court, he is recounting his personal recollection and experiences.

Sometimes, a witness may instead recount what he heard from someone else as evidence. The witness may also give testimony about what someone else had written about, for example, in a note, a letter or an email.

Alternatively, the witness may use someone else's conduct as evidence -- for example, he may testify about what someone else narrated to him in sign language.

Such evidence is known as "hearsay evidence". The witness had not actually experienced or witnessed the events but is instead testifying based on what others have communicated to him.

On the other hand, if the witness had actually experienced or witnessed the events concerned, this would not be regarded as hearsay. For example, a witness, John, testifies in court that he himself saw the accused stab the victim or heard the victim scream. This would not constitute hearsay.

It would also not constitute hearsay if John's friends, his aunt, or his brother were the ones testifying in court themselves as to what they witnessed in relation to the case concerned.

What are Some Forms of Hearsay Evidence?

Hearsay evidence may be:

Oral: for example, John testifies in court that he heard gossip from his friends that they saw the accused stab the victim.

Written: John testifies that his aunt wrote to him saying that she heard the victim scream.

Through Conduct: John testifies that his brother nodded when he asked if Mary stole his wallet.

Is Hearsay Evidence Admissible in Singapore?

Inadmissible evidence cannot be used to prove a fact or a claim in court. The evidence will be excluded when deciding the case. The court will consider only admissible evidence when deciding a case.

Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in court, be it in criminal or civil cases, due to considerations of credibility.

Witnesses in court are under oath to speak the truth, but statement-makers outside the court are not. Yet, hearsay evidence is evidence based on these statements made outside of court. It is more challenging to verify the veracity of these statements. This is because the statement-maker is not the one testifying in court and the opposing party is unable to challenge the statement-maker on the veracity of those statements.

However, hearsay evidence may be admissible if it falls within the exceptions of the Evidence Act (see below).

When Can Hearsay Evidence be Admitted as Evidence in Singapore?

Under section 32 of the Evidence Act, hearsay evidence may be admissible in the following cases: (Do note that a statement would also include an opinion, protest or greeting.)

Relates to the statement-maker's cause of death
For example, there was a question as to whether Mary was raped by A. Mary eventually dies of injuries received in a transaction in the course of which Mary was raped. Statements made by Mary as to the cause of her death, referring to the rape are relevant facts.

Was made during the statement maker's business or profession
For example, the court needs to determine Jane's date of birth. Medical records written and kept by a deceased surgeon (in the course of his business) which states that he delivered Jane on a certain day may be admissible.

The hearsay rule would also not apply in the following cases, where:

The statement-maker is dead; or

The statement-maker is outside of Singapore and it is not practicable to secure his attendance; or

The parties to the proceedings agreed to admit the evidence.

Nonetheless, the court still has the discretion to reject hearsay evidence that may otherwise be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act. The court will do so if it is in the interests of justice so that section 32 is not abused.

According to sections 34 to 40 of the Evidence Act, hearsay evidence may also be admitted in court if the statements are made in certain special circumstances. For instance, statements which:

Are entries in books of accounts; or
For example, John sues Mary for $500 and shows entries in his account book that state that Mary owes John $500. These entries are relevant.

Are made in published maps under the government; or
For example, a map that is available for sale to the public states that there is a tree next to the River Jun. This statement is relevant.

Concern any law contained in law books.
For example, a book is published under the authority of the government. A statement in that book that explains a law of the country is relevant.

How is Hearsay Evidence Raised in Court?

Who may raise hearsay evidence

Hearsay evidence may be raised by any party in court. This includes the parties to the case, the lawyers and even the prosecutors, in the context of a criminal case. For example, person A is called as a witness in a criminal trial and says, "I heard person B say that he saw person C commit the crime". This would be considered hearsay evidence.

Who may object to hearsay evidence

Any of the parties may object to hearsay evidence. For example, a defendant may repeat certain out-of-court statements given by individuals who did not testify in court.

In this case, the opposing counsel will then raise an objection to the admissibility of these statements on the grounds of hearsay. For example, the opposing counsel may say: "Objection, Your Honour! Hearsay!".

When an objection is raised, the objecting party indicates to the judge that the evidence is hearsay and should not be admitted.

Who responds to the objection

The party who raised the alleged hearsay evidence will respond to that objection. He may insist that the evidence is not hearsay, or that the hearsay evidence falls within the exceptions of section 32 of the Evidence Act.

Who ultimately allows or disallows the objection

The judge will then rule on the objection. The judge will take into consideration whether there were any facts that suggest that the hearsay evidence had a minimal level of reliability.

Hence, there are two possible rulings.

1. The judge may sustain the objection: Here, the judge essentially allows the objection and agrees that the evidence is hearsay and is inadmissible.

2. The judge may overrule the objection: In this case, the judge disagrees that the evidence is hearsay and it is therefore admissible.

Ultimately, whether evidence constitutes hearsay and is inadmissible depends on the court's discretion. The court engages in a balancing exercise between the interests of justice and the veracity of the evidence.

-

Hearsay evidence involves statements made by individuals who are not testifying in court. Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in Singapore courts and is likely to be rejected by the courts.

If you are unsure whether the evidence in your case constitutes hearsay, or if your case potentially involves a lot of hearsay evidence, you should engage a lawyer. Your lawyer can assist you with assessing the admissibility of your evidence as well as complying with the necessary procedures for admitting such evidence. This may help in ensuring that you have the best available evidence to present your case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hearsay Evidence: Admissibility and Objection of It in Singapore - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article discusses what hearsay evidence entails, its admissibility in the Singapore courts as well as how it is raised in court.

# data[].attributes.body
Abetment Conspiracy and Common Intention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kalidass Law Corporation | Criminal Justice & Legal Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abetment, Criminal Conspiracy, And Joint Liability Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Delve into the depths of abetment, conspiracy, and joint liability. Understand their roles in shared offences under Section 107, 120A, and 34 of the Penal Code.

# data[].attributes.body
Physical and Fault Element

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kalidass Law Corporation | Criminal Justice & Legal Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent News

Criminal Law Decoded: Grasping Physical And Mental Elements

To be convicted of a crime is a serious matter for any person. What then are the essential elements of a crime? This short article will shed light on some of the fundamental concepts of Criminal Law, namely:

What is the physical element of a crime?

What is the mental element of a crime?

What is the physical element of a crime?

Section 22A(2) of the Penal Code describes the physical element of a crime in the following terms:

" A physical element of an offence refers to any fact, proof of which is needed to establish liability under that offence, and that is not a fault element of that offence. "

In simple terms, the physical element of a crime (also commonly referred to as the " actus reus ") refers to some conduct on the part of a person that runs afoul of the law.

To illustrate the point: An offender (D) punches a victim (V) in the nose. As a result, V sustains bruising to his nose. D would likely be charged for voluntarily causing hurt to V under Section 321 of the Penal Code.

What are the physical elements of D's Section 321 offence? The first port of call would be the statute itself - i.e., Section 321 of the Penal Code:

" Whoever does with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt"."

As can be observed from Section 321 of the Penal Code, the physical elements of A's crime are:

The act of A punching B. This is what legal practitioners sometimes refer to as the "Conduct-Type" physical element of a crime.

The bruising to B's nose - i.e., the hurt caused to B. This is what legal practitioners sometimes refer to as the "Consequence-Type" physical element of a crime.

What is the mental element of a crime?

Section 22A(1) of the Penal Code describes the fault (or mental) element of a crime in the following terms:

" A fault element of an offence refers to any state of mind, proof of which is needed to establish liability under that offence, including but not limited to , wilfulness, knowledge, rashness and negligence."

In simple terms, the mental element of a crime (also commonly referred to as the " mens rea") refers to the state of mind of an offender. Put another way, the mental element of a crime simply refers to the 'guilty mind' or 'fault' of an offender. Generally speaking, a person can only be convicted of a crime if both the physical and mental elements of a crime are satisfied.

Why does the law place a requirement of fault on the part of an offender? The answer is simple, and is best illustrated with a simple example:

Person A places his black-coloured Gucci wallet on a table. Person B also places an identical black-coloured Gucci wallet on the same table. Person A then mistakenly takes Person B's wallet.

Is Person A guilty of theft? The instinctive answer is no. Why? Because Person A never intended to dishonestly take Person B's wallet. Simply put, Person A cannot be faulted for taking Person B's wallet.

However, there are some offences which have no 'fault' element. Such offences are known as strict liability offences. This means that only the physical elements of a crime need to be satisfied (see Section 26H of the Penal Code). However, the General Defences in Chapter IV of the Penal Code, including criminal lawyers, are still available to an accused charged with a strict liability offence. Further the accused will have recourse to a further defence of 'reasonable care' under Section 26H(4) of the Penal Code.

There are 4 main types of 'fault' in the Penal Code, namely: (a) intention; (b) knowledge; (c) rashness; and (d) negligence. These are legal terms of art, and are defined in Sections 26C, 26D, 26E, and 26F of the Penal Code respectively. These sections are set out below:
Section 26C of the Penal Code:

A person is said to do an act intentionally where that person does an act deliberately.

A person is said to cause an effect intentionally where that person does anything that causes an effect -

with the purpose of causing that effect; or

knowing that that effect would be virtually certain (barring an unforeseen intervention) to result.

To avoid doubt, a person does not intend or foresee a result of his acts by reason only of it being a natural and probable consequence of those acts.

To avoid doubt, nothing in this section prevents a court from relying on a person's foresight that a certain effect was a probable consequence of his act as a basis to draw an inference that the person caused that effect intentionally.

Section 26D of the Penal Code:

Whoever does an act with awareness that a circumstance exists, , or is virtually certain (barring an unforeseen intervention) to exist, is said to do that act in respect of that circumstance.

Whoever does an act with awareness that an effect will be caused, or is virtually certain (barring an unforeseen intervention) to be caused, is said to do that act knowingly in respect of that effect.

Where doing an act knowingly is a fault element of an offence, that fault element is also established where that act is done intentionally or with wilful blindness.
Section 26E of the Penal Code:

Whoever does any act knowing that there is a real risk that a particular circumstance exists or will exist is said to do that act in respect of that particular circumstance, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk.

Whoever does any act knowing that there is a real risk that an effect will be caused is said to do that act rashly in respect of that effect, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk.

Where doing an act rashly is a fault element of an offence, that fault element is also established where that act is done intentionally or knowingly.
Section 26F of the Penal Code:

Whoever omits to do an act which a reasonable person would do, or does any act which a reasonable person would not do, is said to do so negligently.

Where doing an act negligently is a fault element of an offence, that fault element is also established where that act is done intentionally, knowingly or rashly.

[1] Of course, such conduct must be done voluntarily. In practice, however, this is not an issue for the majority of cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Criminal Law Decoded: Grasping Physical And Mental Elements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the core of criminal law with insights into physical and mental elements shared in this article. Learn how actus reus and mens rea shape legal liability.

# data[].attributes.body
Cheating

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kalidass Law Corporation | Criminal Justice & Legal Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent News

Deciphering Cheating And Aggravated Cheating Offences

Cheating & Aggravated Cheating

Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:

" Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver or cause the delivery of any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat "

To put it simply, the elements of cheating will be made out if a person (A) dishonestly/fraudulent/intentionally deceives another person (B) thereby inducing B to:

deliver or cause the delivery of any property to any person;

consent to another person retaining property; or

do or omit to do anything which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property

For the purposes of this article, the elements of cheating, relevant for criminal lawyers, can be simplistically broken down as such:

Delivery of property as a result of a deception; and

The deception must have been fraudulent or dishonest.

We have previously explored the topic of "property" and "dishonesty". For further information on "property" and "dishonesty" please refer to the article " Theft & Theft in Dwelling ".

In this article, we will briefly touch on the legal concepts of "deception" and "fraudulent".

Deception

The first point to note is that in order for a person to be deceived, he/she must believe the representation to be true. This is a crucial point. If the person does not believe a particular representation there can be no cheating.

For instance, if a person (A) informs another person (B) that he (A) is selling real concert tickets which are in fact fake, and B goes ahead to buy the concert tickets even though he (B) somehow knew that the tickets were indeed fake, there is no deception. Why? Because B was never deceived - he knew that the tickets were fake, and yet went ahead to buy the fake ticket (although such a scenario would not likely to happen in real life).

Fraudulent

"Fraudulently" is defined in Section 25 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:

" A person (A) is said to do an act fraudulently if A does that act with intent to deceive another person (B) and by means of such deception, that an advantage should accrue to A or another person or detriment should befall B or another person (other than A), regardless of whether such advantage or detriment is temporary or permanent."

Explanation 1.- Where the advantage or the detriment A intended by means of the act done is so slight that no reasonable person of ordinary sense or temper would complain of it, the act is not done fraudulently.

Explanation 2.- It is sufficient in any charge for an offence under this Code involving doing an act fraudulently to allege a general intent to act fraudulently without naming any particular person intended to be deceived.

Explanation 1 to Section 25 of the Penal Code is worthy of a quick mention. The drafters of the Penal Code were clearly anxious to prevent the criminalisation of trivial and minor lies.

Combination of the Elements

So, how do the elements combine together to constitute the offence of cheating? A simple example will illustrate the point:

A person (A) strikes up a conversation with another person (B) on Carousell. A informs B that he is selling Coldplay concert tickets. However, the concert tickets are fake. B, believing that the concert tickets are real, purchases the said tickets from A.

Is an offence of cheating made out? Yes, because:

There was a dishonest deception on A's part;

B believed A's deception; and

A's deception induced B to deliver money to A.

Punishment for Cheating

The punishment for cheating is set out in Section 417 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:

" Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both."

Aggravated Cheating

There are other forms of cheating which the law considers to be more egregious than cheating simpliciter (i.e., Section 415 of the Penal Code). The most common of which is " cheating and dishonestly inducing a delivery of property " under Section 420 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:
"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver or cause the delivery of any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."
It is clear that Section 420 of the Penal Code provides for a much more serious punishment than Section 415 of the Penal Code. However, if there was a delivery of property pursuant to a dishonest inducement, an offence of cheating could potentially fall under either Section 415 or Section 420 of the Penal Code.

Sentencing Guideline

The punishment for cheating is usually commensurate with the amounts involved. The logic is undeniable. The greater the amount cheated, the higher the sentence will be. There are, however, other sentencing factors to consider.

For instance, in credit card cheating offences, a more severe sentence might be meted out. The Court's rationale is simple: Given the pervasiveness of credit cards as a preferred mode of payment, the recurrence of credit cheating offences would threaten the reliability and security of Singapore's credit infrastructure.

Another example would be cheating offences against public institutions. Of course, the rationale for a more severe sentence is clear. To cheat a public institution is to cheat the general public at large. In such instances, the Courts have consistently stated that general deterrence is warranted - in other words, a higher sentence might be meted out to an offender to "make an example out of him".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deciphering Cheating And Aggravated Cheating Offences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get insights into property-related offences, cheating and aggravated cheating. Learn about deception, fraudulent, sentencing, and significant legal nuances.

# data[].attributes.body
Misuse or Drug Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kalidass Law Corporation | Criminal Justice & Legal Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent News

A Comprehensive Guide To Drug Offences: Types And Penalties

This short article will discuss three of the most common type of drug offences in Singapore, namely:

Before delving into the forecited offences, a short discussion on the different classes of drugs is necessary. If you are facing legal issues related to drug offences or considering guilty pleas, consulting experienced criminal lawyers can be invaluable.

The Classes of Drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act

There are three classes of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA") - Class A, Class B, and Class C. The punishments for offences relating to Class A drugs are the most severe, and, as such, will be focus of this article.

Class A Drugs are defined in Part 1 to the First Schedule of the MDA. The 3 most common Class A drugs in Singapore are: (a) cannabis (also commonly known as "weed"); (b) heroin; and (c) methamphetamine (also commonly known as - "Ice").

Class B Drugs are defined in Part 2 to the First Schedule of the MDA. They include: (a) Codeine; (b) Norcodeine; and (c) Zipeprol.

Class C Drugs are defined in Part 3 to the First Schedule of the MDA. They include: (a) Benzphetamine; (b) Chlorphentermine; and (c) Triazolam.

Possession

The offence creating provision is Section 8(a) of the MDA, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"... it shall be an offence for a person to... have in his or her possession a controlled drug ..."

It is also important to note the three key presumptions that relate to possession. They are:

Presumption of Possession and Knowledge under Section 18 of the MDA

A person (A) will be presumed, until the contrary is proven, to have possession of a controlled drug if A has possession or custody or control of: (a) anything containing a controlled drug; (b) the keys of anything containing a controlled drug; (c) the keys of any place or premises or any part thereof in which a controlled drug is found; or (d) a document of title relating to a controlled drug or any other document intended for the delivery of a controlled drug.

Further, A is proved or presumed to be in possession of the controlled drug, A would be presumed to have known the nature of that drug until the contrary is proved.

Presumption relating to vehicle under Section 21 of the MDA

The presumption in Section 21 MDA reads as follows:

" If any controlled drug is found in any vehicle, it is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be in the possession of the owner of the vehicle and of the person in charge of the vehicle for the time being. "

The punishment provision for possession of a controlled drug can be found in the Second Schedule of the MDA, which provides for a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years or a fine of $20,000 or both.

What is the sentencing guideline for an offence of possession? There are two key inquiries - 1) The class of the drug; and 2) the amount (in grammes) of drugs found in the offender's possession.

Thus, a higher sentence will be meted out for possession of class A drugs as compared to class B drugs. Further, the greater the amount (in grammes) of drugs found in the offender's possession, the higher the sentence will be.

Consumption

The offence creating provision is Section 8(b) of the MDA, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"... it shall be an offence for a person to... smoke, administer to himself or herself or otherwise consume - (i) a controlled drug, other than a specified drug; or (ii) a specified drug ..."

The punishment provision can be found in the Section 33(3A) of the MDA, which provides for an imprisonment term of not less than one year but not more than 10 years and also a fine not exceeding $20,000 (this applies only to offences after 1 April 2019).

It should be noted that more severe punishments will be meted out for repeated offenders - if, for example, a person has consumed a controlled drug previously (i.e., he is a repeated offender) he will face a minimum of 3 years imprisonment under Section 33(4) of the MDA.

The MDA also contains presumptions relating to consumption:

Presumption concerning premises under Section 19 of the MDA

In summary, if a person is found in or escaping from any place or premises where a pipe, syringe, utensil, apparatus or other article intended for the smoking, administration or consumption of a controlled drug is found, that person will be presumed to have been smoking or adminstering a controlled drug unless the contrary is proved.

Presumption relating to urine test under Section 22 of the MDA

In summary, if a person's urine test comes back positive for a controlled drug, that person will be presumed to have consumed that controlled drug unless the contrary is proved.

It should also be noted that under Section 8A of the MDA, it is an offence for Singaporeans or Singapore Permanent Residents to consume drugs overseas.

Although the punishment for consumption of drugs is harsh, the law also recognizes the need to rehabilitate drug abusers. First time drug offenders might be admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) for treatment and rehabilitation. Admittance to the DRC does not carry a criminal record.

Further, first time drug offenders who are assessed to have a low risk of reoffending might be served with an Enhanced Direct Supervision Order (EDSO). Under the EDSO, the drug offender will not go into DRC, and are allowed to stay at their place od residence. During the supervision period, they will be required to attend counselling sessions and undergo urine tests.

Trafficking

Trafficking is the most serious of the 3 offences. Section 2 of the MDA defines "traffic" as follows:
""traffic" means -

to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute; or

to offer to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a)
otherwise than under the authority of this Act, and "trafficking" has a corresponding meaning;"
As can be clearly observed, the drafters of the MDA have given "traffic" a very broad meaning. For instance, if an offender (A) were to take a packet of drugs from person (B) located at the east side of Singapore, and subsequently hands it to person (C) located at the west side of Singapore, A would have committed an offence of trafficking.

However, in the same example, if A were to then return the packet of drugs to B (and never gave it to anyone else), A would, without more, be a mere "bailee". In other words, A would have merely safe-kept the drugs for B. The key inquiry would thus be whether A knew or intended that the "bailment" was in some way part of the process of supply or distribution of drugs. If A never knew or intended for his safe keeping (of said drugs) to be part of the process of supply or distribution of drugs, A would not be liable for trafficking.

The offence provision for trafficking is found in Section 5(1) of the MDA, which reads as follows:

" Except as authorised by this Act, it shall be an offence for a person, on his or her own behalf or on behalf of any other person, whether or not that other person is in Singapore -

to traffic in a controlled drug;

to offer to traffic in a controlled drug; or

to do or offer to do any act preparatory to or for the purpose of trafficking in a controlled drug."

It should also be noted that the MDA provides a presumption in relation to trafficking:

Presumption of Trafficking under Section 17 of the MDA

If a person is found with a certain amount (in grammes) of drugs, he will be presumed to have intended to traffic it. The onus is on the person to prove otherwise.

For instance, if a person (A) is found to be in possession of 15 grammes of cannabis, the law presumes that A intends to traffic cannabis.

The punishment provision for trafficking can be found in the Second Schedule of the MDA.

What is the sentencing guideline for an offence of trafficking? There are two key inquiries - 1) The class of the drug; and 2) the amount (in grammes) of drugs that the offender had trafficked.

Thus, a higher sentence will be meted out for trafficking of class A drugs as compared to class B drugs. Further, the greater the amount (in grammes) of drugs trafficked, the higher the sentence will be.

It would be helpful to illustrate the punishment for trafficking by way of reference to a very common Class A drug - cannabis.

First, the Court will determine the appropriate starting sentencing point based on the amount (in grammes) of cannabis that the offender had trafficked. The table below illustrates the same:

Next, the Court will then adjust the indicative sentence based on the culpability of the accused - factors such as the accused's motive for trafficking and the degree of sophistication and planning might warrant an uplift in the sentence. Conversely, mitigating factors such as the accused's early plea of guilt and genuine remorse might warrant a downward adjustment to the sentence.

If an offender is found to have trafficked in more than 500 grammes of cannabis, he might face the death penalty. However, the Court retains the discretion to sentence the offender to life imprisonment and not less than 15 strokes of the cane instead of the death penalty if the following conditions are met:

the offender's involvement was restricted to transporting, sending or delivering the drugs, or offering to transport, send or deliver a controlled drug; and

the offender has substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore. The determination of whether the offender has substantively assisted the CNB is at the sole discretion of the Public Prosecutor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Comprehensive Guide To Drug Offences: Types And Penalties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read on to learn more about the drug offence landscape in Singapore, from key drug offences to classes, penalties, and sentencing approaches including death.

# data[].attributes.body
Right of Private Defense.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kalidass Law Corporation | Criminal Justice & Legal Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent News

An In-Depth Look At General Defences In Criminal Law

Defences in criminal law play an integral role in carrying out the function of criminal law. In Singapore, criminal law is mainly laid down through the Penal Code (" PC "), which encapsulates the codified law to protect the rights of individuals against harm. Notwithstanding, another important function of criminal law is to give a deserved response to culpable wrongdoing. To achieve as such, the law of defences seeks to ensure that offenders are given the avenue to reduce or rid themselves of liability, provided that the stringent requirements of the PC are satisfied.

This article aims to provide a brief overview of certain general defences in criminal law, catering to the needs of criminal lawyers and the general public alike. General defences apply to all offences across the PC. Generally speaking, these defences can be categorised into justifications and excuses.

In short, a person who invokes a justificatory defence claims his responsibility for the harmful conduct, but contends that this particular act was not blameworthy as it was done in circumstances which made the conduct rightful in the eyes of society.

Contrastingly, a person who invokes an excusatory defence concedes that his act itself was blameworthy, and accepts the harm caused by his conduct. However, he asserts that he cannot be held entirely liable for this blameworthy act due to the fallibility of human nature.

This article will examine in brief the justificatory defences of private defence and consent, and the excusatory defences of mistake, accident, duress, unsoundness of mind, and intoxication.

Justificatory Defences
Right of Private Defence
Private defence of person or of property is recognised by the Penal Code as a general defence which, if successfully pleaded, acquits the accused entirely of any offence.

First, two preconditions must be fulfilled before the right of private defence may arise:

1. Per Section 97 of the PC, an offence affecting the human body or property was being committed against the accused or another person.

a. For persons, a threat or attempt to commit an offence will suffice.

b. For property, there must have been an attempt or offence committed against the accused.

2. Per Section 99(3) of the PC, there must have been no time or reasonable opportunity for the accused to seek recourse to public authorities for protection.

In addition to proving the preconditions under Sections 97 and 99(3) of the PC, the accused must prove a further three conditions before the defence will succeed. These can be categorised into:

1. The need for a reasonable apprehension of the danger;

2. The duration of the right of defence being commensurate with the continuation of the danger; and

3. The need for the force used to be necessary in defence.
Reasonable Apprehension of Danger
The law requires the accused to have reasonable apprehended the particular danger which he claims required him to exercise defensive action.

Regarding the defence of the person or property, Sections 101 and 104 provide respectively that the right of private defence even extends to the causing of death, as long as the accused reasonable apprehended a threat of death, grievous hurt, or that he would be unable to have recourse to the public authorities.
Duration of the Right of Private Defence
The justificatory nature of this defence means that people are afforded this right only so long as the danger to their person or property continues. Once the danger has passed, the justification afforded by the law to commit what would otherwise be an offence, ceases to exist. In such situations, the accused should now seek recourse to public authorities and allow them to handle the situation accordingly. It follows that the law will regard any harmful response by the accused which occurs once the danger has ceased as unnecessary, and he will not be afforded the protection of this defence.
Use of Necessary Force
Per Section 98(1) of the PC, the right of private defence " does not extend to the inflicting of more harm than it is reasonably necessary in the circumstances ". Here, the word 'necessary' connotes an objective ascertainment of the force used by the accused to counter the danger. Nonetheless, the court will also consider the subjective circumstances of the accused to take into full account the danger that he apprehended.

The defence of consent is laid down in Sections 87 to 92 of the Penal Code. If a successful defence is made out, it result in a complete acquittal of the crime charged.

Consent, or lack thereof, can determine criminal responsibility in two main ways:

1. First, where consent is necessary to the offence element, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the presence or lack of consent.

For example, where consent is made out in an allegation of rape, the offence element of rape would not be established.

2. Second, where the accused person claims that the alleged victim had consented to the suffering or hurt he or she experienced, the accused would thereby claim a defence of consent to rid himself of criminal responsibility.

In relation to the full defence of consent, a number of significant factors presuppose whether the defence is available. This includes:

The type of harm caused;

The age of the person consenting,

The consenting party's ability to consent;

Whether a legal guardian can consent instead, and

Whether the harm had been done for the benefit of the consenting party.

Further, the full defence of consent is supplemented by Sections 90 and 91 of the PC, which respectively define consent in negative terms by stipulating when consent is not real, and declare when the defence of consent is unavailable to acts which constitute offences independently of any harm they might cause.

The justificatory nature of the defence of consent is seen especially in cases where the harm causing act was done for the benefit of the victim. Here, society approves of such an act where it was consented to by the victim, or performed in circumstances when it was impossible to obtain such consent.

Lastly, it is apposite to note that since the term 'consent' is not defined in the PC, it is open to the courts to interpret what constitutes consent, as long as this interpreted definition is in line with Section 90 of the PC. Generally, the definition given by the Kerala High Court is applied, where consent is defined as an " active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of the act ... and knowledge of what is to be done, or of the nature of the act that is being done ".

However, under Section 90 of the Penal Code, consent is vitiated where it was given by a person:

Under fear of injury or under a misconception of fact; or

Of unsound mind or intoxicated so as not to understand what he or she has consented to; or

Who was under 12 years of age unless the contrary appears from the context.

Excusatory Defences

Section 79 of the PC codifies the defence of mistake, which is premised on the fact that to err is human, and that people commit errors of judgements in their daily dealings. Notwithstanding the fact that such a defence exists, there is a necessarily high threshold to be reached before this defence can be invoked.

The defence of mistake does not negate the mens rea of the offence, in that one still wished to commit the illegal act, but instead seeks to provide for persons who act under the mistaken assumption that he was justified by law to commit the alleged criminal conduct. Accordingly, Section 26B of the PC provides that a mistake is made in good faith where the offender exercised due care and attention in the commission of the act.

Importantly, this defence stands only to exculpate offenders on the basis of a mistake as to a fact, as aforementioned, but not a mistake as to the law. This is because the law implies a duty onto every Singaporean resident to be acquainted with the knowledge of the law - such that citizens conduct themselves in a manner which conforms to the laws of the country. Therefore, persons who state they committed an offence due to their mistaken knowledge of the law will not be afforded protection under the defence of mistake.

Section 80 of the PC provides that " nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution ".

Accordingly, there are two distinct parts to this defence. The first requires the offence to have been done by accident or misfortune, while the second part provides the rigorous conditions which the accused must satisfy before the defence will apply. This is to ensure that the accused was not blameworthy whatsoever when doing the act which resulted in the accident. Hence, the defence of accident operates as an excuse - although the accused's conduct and its effect are wrongful, the law may exculpate the accused on account of the external circumstances comprising the accident.

Nonetheless, it must be noted that this defence has seldom been considered by the courts for various reasons. Most notably, most human conduct and their effects are done intentionally or knowingly, while accidents possess the inherent nature of being unintended and unknown.

Since the prosecution bears the burden of proving this element, the accused does not need to raise the defence of accident. Additionally, the requirements for proving the defence of accident form an extremely high threshold, which may prevent or dissuade an accused person from relying on it.

Section 94 of the PC provides for the defence of duress, which reads:

" Except murder and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person or any other person will otherwise be the consequence:

Provided that the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint."

Therefore, the defence of duress applies to rather narrow and unique set of circumstances, where the accused is required to have been threatened with instant death. This is far more onerous to prove than being threatened with impending harm, or serious injury. Further, this defence is unavailable to persons who permitted themselves to become involved in circumstances which exposed them to such threat. In addition, the courts require the accused to have taken a reasonable opportunity to escape if such an opportunity presented itself.

Nonetheless, these onerous requirements are present due to the excusatory nature of the defence - where the accused's conduct is regarded as wrongful in society's perspective, yet the law rules that the circumstances in which the accused found himself in render him blameless. It follows that a high threshold of extreme circumstances must be met, before the law and society will be prepared to excuse the accused for the wrong committed. It is also important to have these requirements in place to prevent against opening the floodgates to large numbers of individuals who wish to claim that they only committed an offence because they were threatened to do so.

Accordingly, the rationale which underpins the defence of duress is that the accused must have been placed in extenuating circumstance where he was robbed of his free will as to whether or not to commit the crime in question.
Unsoundness of Mind
It is codified in Section 84 of the PC that the defence of unsoundness of mind can be entitled in instances where the offence is committed by an offender who is:

1. Incapable of knowing the nature of the act;

2. Incapable of knowing what he is doing is wrong;

3. Completely deprived of any power to control his actions.

The second provision applies only if the person is incapable of knowing that his act is " wrong by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons" and " wrong as contrary to law ".

This defence exists to acquit an offender on the basis that he does not possess the necessary fault element for the offence, since he was not of sound mind during the commission of the offence. Observing this from a criminal responsibility standpoint, where every person is a moral agent with the ability to exercise rational judgement, every person is thus responsible for the choice to engage in criminal activities. However, where the choice is as a result of mental impairment, that person cannot be held to be responsible for his acts, and the law would be unduly harsh to punish them as such.

Section 84 of the PC is read together with Sections 251 and 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code (" CPC "). This provides that individuals who are acquitted on the grounds of unsoundness of mind would be subject to any necessary treatment, and admitted to a mental asylum. This is to ensure both the protection of the public and the insane individual, as it is inappropriate for these individuals to be acquitted and released unconditionally into society. This is given the individuals' mental impairment which is still present and uncured, thus resulting in the high potential for the individual to reoffend.
Intoxication
Section 85(2) of the PC provides that intoxication is only a defence to a criminal charge where, at the time of the offence:

a. The accused did not know what he was doing; or

b. The accused did not know that such act or omission was wrong.

Further, the state of intoxication must have been " caused without the knowledge or against the will of the person charged with the offence ". Under Section 85(2)(a), the accused must prove that he was involuntarily intoxicated against his consent by the malicious or negligent conduct of a third party. Additionally, the intoxication must have been so severe that the accused did not know that his actions were wrong, or that he did not know what he was doing. It is apposite to note that this provision is predicated on a third party's malice or negligence in causing the accused's intoxication.

For the defence under Section 86(2) to succeed, the surrounding circumstances must show that the accused was so intoxicated that he or she lacked the ability to form the intention or knowledge required for the offence. This assessment requires the credible and objective evidence of the accused's level of intoxication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An In-Depth Look At General Defences In Criminal Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
General defences in criminal law, categorised into justifications and excuses, play an integral role in carrying out the function of criminal law - learn here.

# data[].attributes.body
Theft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kalidass Law Corporation | Criminal Justice & Legal Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent News

Theft Laws Simplified: Property, Possession, And More

Theft is defined in Section 378 of the Penal Code as follows:

" Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. "

While Section 378 of the Penal Code appears simple, there are actually several elements that constitute an offence of theft.

This short article seeks to provide a simple overview of the main elements of theft, namely:

a. Property

b. Possession

c. Dishonesty

What is Property?

Property is defined in Section 29 of the Penal Code as follows:

" In this Code -
"immovable property" means land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth; "movable property" includes property of every description, except immovable property; "property" means money and all other property, movable or immovable, including things in action, other intangible or incorporeal property and virtual currency; "virtual currency" means a digital representation of value in money or money's worth that can be digitally traded and functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account or store of value, regardless of whether it is legal tender in any country or territory including Singapore. Illustration
Writings, relating to real or personal property or rights, are movable property."

The first point to make is that theft only relates to "movable property". As can be observed, the Penal Code has given "movable property" a broad definition. For instance, virtual currencies (and, indeed, other intangible or incorporeal property) are now considered as "property" for the purposes of theft. This was only made possible after the recent amendments to the Penal Code. Indeed, this amendment is a good example of how the law continues to evolve with the times.

What is possession?

The first point to understand is that theft is an offence against possession not ownership. This much is clear from the wording of Section 378 of the Penal Code. What exactly is possession? Often this would be an instinctive answer.

Take the example of a man who had placed his wallet on a hawker centre table - although the wallet is not in his pocket, nor in his hands, it cannot be seriously doubted that the wallet is not in his possession.

Take another example of a Singaporean man who had misplaced his watch whilst on a trip to a foreign country 3 years ago. The man then takes no steps to find the said watch due to its cheap value. Would the watch be in his possession? The instinctive answer would be no.

What is dishonesty?

Dishonesty is defined in Sections 23 and 24 of the Penal Code, both of which read as follows:

Section 23 of the Penal Code:

1. A "wrongful gain" is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining it is not legally entitled or avoidance by unlawful means of a loss of property to which the person avoiding it is not legally entitled to avoid.

2. A "wrongful loss" is loss or exposure of risk to a loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it or exposed to the risk of losing it is legally entitled.
Explanation 1.-A person is said to gain wrongfully when the person retains wrongfully, as well as when the person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when the person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when the person is wrongfully deprived of property. Explanation 2.-The word "gain" includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have. Explanation 3.-The word "loss" includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has.
Section 24 of the Penal Code:
A person (A) is said to do an act dishonestly if -
a. A does that act with the intention of causing wrongful gain to A or another person, or wrongful loss to another person, regardless of whether such gain or loss is temporary or permanent; or

b. that act done by A is dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons and A knows that that act is dishonest by such standards.

To aid understanding, a simple example of dishonesty is as follows:

a. The offender A took a watch on a hawker centre table that belongs to another person (B). The offender (A) will then have intended to cause wrongful gain to A by way of obtaining the watch (i.e., property) which A was not entitled to; and

b. The reasonable and honest person would find A's act of gaining the said watch to be dishonest.

What is consent?

It is easy to see why consent is an important element in an offence of theft. Indeed, if a person (A) had consented to another person (B) taking property which is in A's possession, B can hardly said to be guilty of theft.

Explanation 5 to Section 378 of the Penal Code makes it clear that consent in the context of theft can be either expressed or implied:
The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Combination of the elements

So, how do the elements combine together to constitute the offence of theft? A simple example will illustrate the point:

A person (A) walks to Lau Pa Sat hawker centre. He spots a wallet on a table, which belongs to another person (B). B had left his wallet on the table to reserve it, given that Lau Pa Sat is always crowded during lunchtime. A then places B's wallet in his pocket and hurries off.

Is an offence of theft made out? Yes, because:

a. There was a property - i.e., a wallet;

b. The property was in possession of B;

c. A was dishonest - he had intended to cause wrongful gain to himself, and the way in which he had done so would be considered by a reasonable and honest person; and

d. B did not expressly nor impliedly consent to A taking his wallet.

Punishment for Theft

The punishment for theft is set out in Section 379 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:

" Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both."

Theft in Dwelling

It is not uncommon for theft to take place in a building (take for instance, a person who steals an item from a supermarket) This will be an aggravated form of theft - otherwise known as Theft in Dwelling.

Theft in Dwelling is defined in Section 380 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:

" Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine."

As is immediately clear, the punishment for theft in dwelling is more severe than mere theft. This is arguably justified.

In cases of theft in a dwelling house, the offender would most likely be in the victim's house with the victim's consent. If the offender then steals from the victim, his criminal act will invariably involve breaking the trust that the victim had reposed in him.

Sentencing Guideline

The relevant sentencing factors for theft, as understood by criminal lawyers, would include the value of the item stole, the circumstances of the offence, whether a vulnerable victim was involved, and if the offender had similar antecedents.

The starting point for the courts would most likely be the value of the stolen item as it would provide a useful and practical proxy. Generally speaking, the more valuable the stolen item is, the heavier the sentence will be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theft Laws Simplified: Property, Possession, And More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this guide to theft laws, uncover main elements, namely property, possession, dishonesty, and consent, as well as penalties for theft and theft in dwelling.

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kalidass Law Corporation | Criminal Justice & Legal Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent News

Overview Of The Evidence Act: Specific Rules Of Evidence

The law of evidence in Singapore is a complex topic, and it is not the purpose of this article to provide a comprehensive treatment of the same. Rather, this short article will provide a brief overview of the Evidence Act and certain specific rules of evidence.

The Structure of the Evidence Act

The first concept to understand is that all evidence must be admitted through one of the provisions of the Evidence Act ("EA"). In fact, all common law concepts which are inconsistent with the Evidence Act are repealed by Section 2(2) of the EA.

So, what sort of evidence may be admitted under the EA? The starting point is Section 5 of the Evidence Act ("EA"), which reads as follows:

" Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of ."

Section 3(1) of the EA defines "facts in issue" as:

" any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follows."
Illustration A is accused of the murder of B. At A's trial the following facts may be in issue:
(a) that A caused B's death;

(b) that A intended to cause B's death;

(c) that A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;

(d) that A at the time of doing the act which caused B's death was by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing its nature.

"Facts in issue", therefore, can be understood as the primary facts that prove liability or non-liability while "such other facts" refers to the circumstantial evidence from which facts in issue may be inferred.

What then are relevant facts? The answer is found in Sections 6 - 57 of the EA - those sections are essentially an exhaustive list of what the EA considers as relevant and admissible facts. In other words, admissibility under the EA is inclusionary in nature - that is, it informs on what is admissible (rather than what is inadmissible) under Sections 6 - 57.

The following discussions will turn to focus on specific rules of evidence dealt with in Sections 11, 14, 15, 32, and 47 of the EA, which can be broken down as follows:

a. Sections 11, 14, and 15 of the EA will involve the concept of 'Similar Fact Evidence';

b. Section 32 of the EA will involve the concept of 'Hearsay Evidence';

c. Section 47 of the EA will involve the concept of 'Expert Evidence'; and

Similar Fact Evidence

Similar Fact Evidence ("SFE") refers to acts of the accused, one of the parties in the Criminal Justice System, on prior occasions which may be similar or connected to the present offence. So, for instance, an offender is charged with robbing a victim. It was subsequently found out that the offender had previously attempted to rob another person. The offender's previous robbery attempt is similar to the present offence, and thus constitutes as SFE.

The general starting point is that SFE is not admissible evidence. Why? Because the admittance of SFE represents a high risk of prejudice to the accused. Take for instance the robbery example above. If it the offender's previous robbery attempt was made known, the reasonable person might come to the instinctive conclusion that the offender had indeed committed the present robbery offence.

However, this does not mean that, in every instance, SFE is not admissible. The Courts have pronounced that SFE which went towards establishing the physical and mental elements (i.e., Actus Reus and Mens Rea) of an offence, can be admitted through Section 11(b) and Section 14/15 of the EA respectively. However, it must be noted that the Courts have made it clear that antecedents are not relied on to establish the inference that the accused person's past increases his propensity to commit the offence.

In all instances where SFE is sought to be admitted, the overarching test must be satisfied - that is: the probative value of such evidence must exceed its prejudicial effect.

The three forecited sections are set out below:

Section 11 of the EA reads as follows:

" Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant -

b) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable."

Section 14 of the EA reads as follows:

" Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant."
Explanation 1.-A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists not generally but in reference to the particular matter in question. Explanation 2.-But where upon the trial of a person accused of an offence the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person is also a relevant fact.
Section 14 of the EA admits a broad range of facts. However, the facts must show that the state of mind exists not generally but in reference to the particular matter in question (see specifically Explanation 1 to Section 14 above)

Section 15 of the EA reads as follows:

" When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant."

Section 15 of the EA is self-explanatory, and is premised on the notion that a "series of acts with the same characteristics is unlikely to be produced by accident or inadvertence".

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence are the assertions of persons made out of court whether orally or in documentary form or in the form of conduct tendered to prove the facts which they refer to.

For instance, person A is on trial for breaking into person B's house. Person C told person B that he saw Person A breaking into his house. However, Person C is unable to attend court to testify. Person C's evidence would constitute as hearsay.

The prosecution then tries to tender Person C's evidence (that he saw Person A breaking into Person B's house) in Court. Is Person C's evidence admissible? The general starting point is no. Why? Because the veracity of Person C's evidence cannot be tested in court (for example under cross-examination). This is the fundamental objection to hearsay evidence.

The rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence is, however, not without exceptions. Section 32(1) of the EA provides certain exceptions where hearsay evidence can be admitted. The following is a summary of some of the more common exceptions under Section 32(1) of the EA:

a. where the statement is made by the deceased relating to either the cause of his death or any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death;

b. where the statement is made in the course of a commercial, professional or occupational communication;

c. where the statement made is against the interest of the statement maker;

d. where the statement made relates to the existence of a relationship;

e. where the statement is made in a will or deed relating to family affairs;

f. when the statement is made by several persons and expresses feelings relevant to the matter in question;

g. where the statement is made by a person who is dead or who cannot be produced as a witness (for instance, the witness is outside of Singapore and cannot be located);

h. where the parties agree to admit the statement.

It should be noted that, under Section 32(3) EA, the Court retains the discretion to exclude admissible hearsay evidence if it "would not be in the interests of justice to admit it". However, the Court will not normally exercise such a discretion. Some of the factors that the Court will consider are: (a) the danger of reliability or other harm which might compromise fair adjudication; (b) the tendency of the evidence to confuse or mislead; and (c) prejudicial effect of the evidence.

Expert Evidence

The admissibility of expert evidence is governed by Section 47 of the EA, which provides that the opinions of experts upon a point of scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge are relevant facts.

Section 47 of the EA defines an expert as " a person with such scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience ". Crucially, the Courts have stated that a person need not undertake special study to be deemed an expert within the definition of Section 47 of the EA. The person must simply be 'skilled' and must possess sufficient experience and specialist knowledge in the subject matter.

The grounds of the expert's opinion are also relevant under Section 53 of the EA. An expert is expected to draw upon related knowledge and information which will help him to provide an accurate and comprehensive opinion. Put simply, the expert must proffer the grounds on which his opinion is based.

Ultimately, however, the Court remains the arbiter of the matter, and retains the discretion to admit an expert's evidence as relevant. In this regard, Section 47(4) of the EA is instructive:

" An opinion which is otherwise relevant under subsection (1) is not relevant if the court is of the view that it would not be in the interests of justice to treat it as relevant."

If there are two conflicting expert opinions, the Court may elect between the two or reject them both. What the Court cannot do, however, is to adopt a third theory of its own. The Court's choice, crucial for criminal lawyers, will ultimately be dependent on the value, impressiveness, and reliability of the expert evidence.

[1] Chen Siyuan & Lionel Leo " The Law of Evidence in Singapore "

[2] Although one could say that since the abolishment of jury trials in 1969, the prejudicial effect of SFE is less pronounced in Singapore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overview Of The Evidence Act: Specific Rules Of Evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this informative legal breakdown, we explore a brief overview and specific rules of evidence - Similar Fact Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, and Expert Evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Hearsay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I bet I know why she's not here to say she liked me herself: it's so obvious that she does not need to."

Imagine saying that in court. That's why hearsay evidence is generally unreliable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hearsay - "What Is Law Even" Law Cartoons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I bet I know why she's not here to say she liked me herself: it's so obvious that she does not need to." Imagine saying that in court. That's why hearsay evidence is generally unreliable.

# data[].attributes.body
Burden of Proof

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The burden of proof is only important when you want to sue someone in court. In most cases, if you want to get the court to do something, you must prove all the facts which you need for your case. This is only fair; if you didn't need to do that, you could just go around accusing random people of taking your stuff, and they would have to dig up evidence to say that they didn't.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Burden of Proof - "What Is Law Even" Law Cartoons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The burden of proof is only important when you want to sue someone in court. In most cases, if you want to get the court to do something, you must prove all the facts which you need for your case.

# data[].attributes.body
Rash vs Negligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rashness and Negligence - "What Is Law Even" Law Cartoons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precaution to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness (luxuria).

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional Law

https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/our-community/legal-fact-check/the-constitution-of-singapore/

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Legal Age for Sex in Singapore and Common Sexual Offences - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The legal age to have sex in Singapore is 16 years old. This means that it is a punishable offence to have sex (whether vaginal, oral or anal) with persons below 16 years old, as stated in section 376A of the Singapore Penal Code.

The genders of the parties does not matter. It also does not matter whether the minor had consented to having sex.

The penalties for a person found guilty of having underage sex depends on the age of the minor:

If the minor was between 14 years old and 16 years old, the offender can be jailed up to 20 years, and either fined or caned, if the offender was in an exploitative relationship with the minor. (See below for what it means to be in an exploitative relationship.) If the parties were not in such a relationship, the offender can be fined and/or jailed up to 10 years.

If the minor was under 14 years old, the offender can be jailed up to 20 years, and either fined or caned. If the parties were of the opposite sex and the girl was under 14, the man can be convicted of rape instead (see below).

If the minor was between 16 and 18 years old, the offender could also be charged if the parties were in an exploitative relationship (more information below).

What If You Didn't Know Your Partner Was a Minor?

Section 377D of the Penal Code states that being mistaken about your partner's age is not a valid defence for any sexual offence charges.

This is unless you have been charged with a sexual offence that requires the minor to be between 16 and 18 years old (such as having sex in exploitative relationships, as explained below), and:

You had a reasonable mistaken belief that your partner was 18 years old or older;

You have not been charged with similar sexual offences before; and

You took all reasonable steps to confirm that your partner was 18 years old or older.

Rape

Under section 375 of the Penal Code, a man will be guilty of rape if he has vaginal, oral or anal sex with:

Any woman without her consent; or

A girl under 14 years old, regardless of whether she had given her consent.

If the girl had been between 14 and 16 years old, the man (regardless of age) can be found guilty of rape only if he had had sex with her without her consent. If the sex had been consensual, then the man can be found guilty of only having sex with a minor between 14 years old and 16 years old (as discussed above).

As of 1 January 2020, the rape offence also covers male victims. A man can also be found guilty of rape if he has oral or anal sex with:

Another person (whether male or female) without their consent;

Another person (whether male or female) under 14 years old, regardless of whether they had given their consent.

Marital rape

As of 1 January 2020, men can also be found guilty of rape against their wives if their wives had not consented to having sex.

For more information, refer to our other article on rape laws in Singapore.

Sexual Assault Involving Penetration

Women cannot technically commit "rape" as the rape provision (i.e. section 375 of the Penal Code) applies only to male offenders. However, they can be convicted of sexual assault involving penetration under section 376 of the Penal Code if they:

Use a part of their body (or an object) to penetrate another person's vagina or anus without that person's consent; or

Causes a man to penetrate their vagina, anus or mouth without that man's consent.

Men can also be convicted of sexual assault involving penetration if they use any part of their body (that is not their penis), or an object, to penetrate another person's vagina or anus without that person's consent.

If the person who had been penetrated is under 14 years old, the offender can still be convicted of sexual assault involving penetration even if the other person had consented to the penetration.

Having Sex in Exploitative Relationships

Under the Penal Code, an accused person's relationship with a minor under 18 years old may be considered exploitative depending on factors such as:

The age of the minor

The age gap between the parties

The nature of the parties' relationship

The extent of control or influence that the accused exercised over the minor

If the accused holds certain positions of authority over the minor, the parties' relationship will also be presumed to be exploitative unless the accused can prove otherwise. Such positions of authority include the accused being the minor's:

Parent or step-parent

Teacher (while the minor is still a student)

Religious, musical or sporting instructor

Doctor

Lawyer

If a person in an exploitative relationship with a minor between 16 and 18 years old has sex (whether vaginal, oral or anal) with the minor, that person can be jailed up to 15 years, and either fined or caned. This is even if the minor had consented to having sex.

Molest (Outrage of Modesty)

Molest is prosecuted as the offence of outrage of modesty in Singapore when it involves criminal force, pursuant to section 354 of the Penal Code.

We have another article with more information on the offence of outrage of modesty in Singapore.

Sexual Grooming

Sexual grooming occurs when an offender on or above 18 years old meets another person under 16 years old with the intention of having sex, where the offender had previously met or communicated with him/her at least 1 time.

Commercial Sex with Minors

Commercial sex (i.e. paying for sex) with persons under 18 years old is a punishable offence under section 376B of the Penal Code.

Under section 376C of the Penal Code, Singapore citizens or Permanent Residents who engage in commercial sex with persons under 18 outside of Singapore can still be liable for an offence.

Sexting

Sending sexually suggestive messages to a person under 16 years old may result in a prosecution under section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act or section 376E of the Penal Code.

Read our other article for more information on the laws on sexting in Singapore.

Other Sexual Offences

The following are also punishable offences in Singapore:

Punishment

The quantum of punishment for each respective sexual offence, such as the length of imprisonment or sum of fine, can be found in the Penal Code under the relevant sections for each offence.

However, the exact punishment that will be handed down by the judge will depend on the nature of the offence committed. We have more information on the sentencing framework for sexual offences in Singapore in another article.

-

If you have been charged with a sexual offence and are looking for a lawyer to represent you, feel free to get in touch with one of our trusted criminal defence lawyers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal Age for Sex in Singapore and Common Sexual Offences - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The legal age to have sex (vaginal, oral or anal) in Singapore is 16 years old, regardless of the parties' genders and whether there was consent...

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Arson and Fire-Related Offences and Their Penalties in Singapore - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arson and Fire-Related Offences and Their Penalties in Singapore - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article will cover what constitutes arson, the penalties and other fire-related offences in Singapore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Kidnapping Scam: Penalties & Responding to a 'Kidnap Call/Text' - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Singapore, the offence of kidnapping is provided for under the Kidnapping Act and the Penal Code, which this article will detail. It will also cover staged kidnapping, how to identify a staged kidnap, as well as what to do if you receive a call or text claiming kidnap.

The Offence of Kidnapping and Its Elements

Under the Kidnapping Act

Under the Kidnapping Act, the offence of kidnapping involves:

Abducting;

Wrongfully restraining; or

Wrongfully confining,

a person for the purpose of ransom.

Intention to obtain ransom

You must have had the intention to hold the victim for the purpose of obtaining ransom. Such intention can be shown if you had made the demand for ransom because you hold your victim in captivity and your victim's well-being is in your hands.

Ransom refers to any money you demand for (either belonging to you, such as a debt or the victim's loved ones) in return for the freedom of your victim and is an unlawful gain.

Abduction for ransom

You would have committed abduction if you compel through force, or through deceit to induce, the victim to go from any place. It does not matter whether the victim showed resistance or whether the victim had been conscious during the abduction.

Wrongful restraint for ransom

On the other hand, you would have committed wrongful restraint if you voluntarily obstruct your victim to prevent the victim from going anywhere although your victim has the right to move in that particular direction, like blocking your victim's path.

Wrongful confinement for ransom

Finally, you would have committed wrongful confinement if you wrongfully restrained your victim by restricting their movement within an area, like a walled space in an alley or by blocking the entrances and exits of a building.

Under the Penal Code

Under the Penal Code, you may have committed the offence of kidnapping if you had either:

Kidnapped someone from Singapore: Bringing the victim beyond the limits of Singapore without the victim's consent, or the consent of a person who is legally authorised to give such consent on the victim's behalf or

Kidnapped someone from lawful guardianship: Taking or enticing a victim, who is either a minor under 16 years of age or of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the victim's lawful guardian without the guardian's consent.

The Penal Code also includes the offence of abduction, which involves the offender compelling through force, or through deceit to induce, the victim to go from any place.

Differences Between Kidnapping and Abduction

The differences between the kidnapping and abduction offences in the Penal Code and Kidnapping Act can be summarised in the table below:

The offence is made out if:

The victim had been removed from Singapore, or if the victim is a minor or of unsound mind, and had been removed from his/her unlawful guardianship

The victim was abducted, wrongfully restrained or wrongfully confined with the intention of demanding ransom. The victim need not have been removed from Singapore or removed from lawful guardianship

Penalties

Up to 10 years' jail, and either fined or caned

Either the death penalty, or life imprisonment and caning

The offence is made out if:

The victim was forcefully compelled or deceived into going from any place

Not applicable

Penalties

Up to 7 years' jail, a fine, caning or any combination of these punishments

Not applicable

The tougher punishments under the Kidnapping Act highlights Singapore's determination to deter potential kidnappers from committing such offences.

Offences and Penalties for Kidnapping

Under the Kidnapping Act

If you commit the offence of kidnapping by abduction, wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement for ransom, then you may be punished with the death penalty, or given life imprisonment and caning.

The Kidnapping Act also provides penalties for certain kidnapping-related acts. For example, if you receive or dispose of money that you know to be ransom money, you would be punished with imprisonment for up to 10 years and be liable to caning.

Under the Penal Code

If you kidnap a victim from Singapore or from the victim's lawful guardianship, the Penal Code provides a penalty of Imprisonment for up to 10 years and either a fine or caning.

The Penal Code also provides for other kidnapping-related offences: for example, if you kidnap a victim for the purposes of murdering them, you may be punished with the death penalty, or given life imprisonment and caned.

What is Staged Kidnapping?

A staged kidnapping involves a plan to cheat money from individuals by informing them that their loved ones are being held hostage or have been kidnapped by some other person or group, where in reality, the supposed victim had not been kidnapped.

A scam advisory by the Singapore Police Force on 16 June 2018, highlighted the modus operandi of scam kidnappings involving Chinese national students in Singapore:

Step 1: Strangers who fraudulently represent themselves as Government officials would make unsolicited calls to the victim. The calls would usually involve using caller-ID spoofing technology and this would make the stranger appear as though they belong to official government hotline numbers such as "999".

Step 2: They would inform the victim that the victim had committed criminal offences and they required the victim to assist in criminal investigations to prove the legitimacy of the victim's money.

These victims would be requested by the stranger to withdraw their money and pass it to strangers or transfer the money through a cryptocurrency cash deposit machine or to another bank account.

At the same time, These victims would also be instructed by the stranger to update their location to them over the following days. The syndicate would later inform the victims to change their SIM cards and log out from their social media messenger.

These victims would also be deceived into giving out their personal information on their families in China to the strangers who would make use of such information to cheat their parents.

Step 3: The strangers would then contact the victims' parents who are based overseas to inform them that their children had been kidnapped and then demand payment of ransom monies.

Penalties for Staged Kidnapping

If you falsely claim to someone that you or another person have been kidnapped and ask a certain someone to make payment towards a false demand for ransom, you may have committed the offence of cheating.

For committing cheating, you would be punished with imprisonment for up to 3 years and/or fined.

An example is the case of Mr Vincent Lau Boon Kiat who attempted to cheat money out of family members by telling them that he was being held hostage by the "local mafia" in Vietnam. He had done so to pay his debts and help his girlfriend's family.

He pleaded guilty to one charge of cheating his brother of S$1,000 and was jailed for 5 months.

Is Kidnapping an Arrestable Offence?

All forms of kidnapping are arrestable offences. An arrestable offence is one where the police can arrest a suspect without a warrant.

Once the suspect has been arrested, it is up to the police or the court to decide whether to release them on bail.

How Will Offenders be Sentenced?

Under the Kidnapping Act

The courts have a very limited discretion regarding the sentence because it is limited to the imposition of either death or imprisonment for life with caning.

A plea of guilt is a mitigating factor (which usually reduces your sentence) that the court must take into consideration in assessing the sentence to be imposed on you if you pleaded guilty. However, the fact that you pleaded guilty alone does not entitle you to the lesser sentence of life imprisonment.

The court would pass a sentence on you taking into consideration all the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case including of course the plea of guilty if you had so pleaded.

The death sentence may only be meted out where the manner of the kidnapping or the acts or conduct of the kidnappers would outrage the feelings of Singapore's community.

For example, if the manner of the act or the act itself, is vicious or shows blatant disregard for human life, such as a kidnapper continuously striking the victim on the head with a weapon, to keep him unconscious.

Under the Penal Code

With respect to sentencing for kidnapping from lawful guardianship, the court looks at the duration of the act, the motive for the abduction, and any harm caused to the victim.

Will People Convicted of Kidnapping have a Criminal Record

Yes, if you are convicted of kidnapping, you will have a criminal record.

Moreover, your criminal record could not be treated as spent. In other words,your criminal record for kidnapping will stay with you for life.

What to Do If You Receive a Call or Text Claiming "Kidnap"?

The Singapore Police Force has advised the public to not panic, believe or give any money when you receive a call or text claiming "kidnap".

If you've received a text claiming kidnap

The police advised those who receive such messages to remain calm, not to reply, and to instead block and report the number as spam.

If there might be a chance that the message is legitimate, try to contact the supposed victim of the kidnapping directly to check if they have actually been kidnapped. If you are still unsure after doing so (for example, if you are not able to reach the supposed victim), it might help to file a police report.

If you've received a call claiming kidnap

You are also advised by the police to ignore such calls from strangers and their instructions.

In cases of kidnapping scams, you are reminded that government agencies will neither instruct you to make payment through a telephone call or other social messaging platforms (e.g. WeChat, Facebook) nor ask you for your personal banking information (e.g. internet banking passwords).

What to Do If You're Charged with Kidnapping

If you have been charged with kidnapping in Singapore, you should engage a criminal lawyer to look through your case and assist in determining what would be an appropriate charge against you, as soon as possible.

The toughest sentence that can be imposed for kidnapping is the death penalty and a criminal lawyer can assist in attempting to have the charge and sentence reduced.

You can get in touch with experienced criminal lawyers here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kidnapping Scam: Penalties & Responding to a 'Kidnap Call/Text' - SingaporeLegalAdvice.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article will cover the offence of kidnapping, how to identify a staged kidnap or a kidnap scam and steps to take, in Singapore.

# data[].attributes.headline
OFFICIAL REPORTS - PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD

# data[].attributes.subject
OFFICIAL REPORTS - PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Finding Legislation using Singapore Statutes Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finding Legislation using Singapore Statutes Online

# data[].attributes.body
Notes (see asterisked points in the video):
*Aside from Documentary and Witness evidence, both of which are covered in this video, there are other types of evidence, such as real evidence (e.g. murder weapons), sound or video recordings and electronic records.

**In some limited situations, "hearsay" evidence may be allowed to be admitted before the court. If you're really curious, check out section 32 of the Evidence Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Singapore Government Explained - Part 2: How Laws are Made

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Singapore Government Explained - Part 2: How Laws are Made

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Singapore Criminal Law - using profanities, vulgarities and insulting words at government servants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore Criminal Law - using profanities, vulgarities and insulting words at government servants

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Singapore criminal law - theft and stealing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore criminal law - theft and stealing

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Singapore criminal law - criminal breach of trust (embezzlement)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore criminal law - criminal breach of trust (embezzlement)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Singapore drug trafficking laws Part 1 - Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore drug trafficking laws Part 1 - Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Police Officer Sentenced for Corruptly Obtaining Sexual Favours from Female Subjects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Law enforcement officers have the duty to maintain law and order and conduct themselves with high levels of integrity and discipline. Those who abuse their positions to obtain or solicit any form of gratification in the course of their duties will face the full brunt of the law.

2. On 23 September 2020, Mahendran S/O Selvarajoo ("Mahendran"), a 32-year-old male Singaporean Staff Sergeant of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Computer Misuse Act.
Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act
3. Investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) revealed that sometime in early 2019, Mahendran had sought and received sexual gratification from two female subjects of investigations.

4. The first subject was arrested by Mahendran for a separate offence on 25 April 2019. After her statement was recorded, Mahendran gave her his personal mobile number. Although her case was subsequently transferred to another Police Division, Mahendran continued to contact her on the pretext of investigations, and even amended her statement to reflect more mitigating factors and help her avoid criminal prosecution. Subsequently on 30 April 2019, he obtained oral sex and sexual intercourse from her in the back of his personal vehicle at a multi-storey carpark at Block 264 Serangoon Central after telling her not to worry about the case.

5. The second subject was under Police investigations for a separate offence sometime in October 2017, and Mahendran was again the officer-in-charge. Even after her case had concluded, Mahendran stayed in contact with her without authorization. Then, sometime in February 2019, he deceived her into believing that her employer had contacted the Police about the investigations against her, in a bid to trick her into meeting him in person. During the meetup on 27 February 2019, Mahendran obtained two 'handjobs' from her in his personal vehicle at a multi-storey carpark at Block 590 Ang Mo Kio Street 51, and reassured her that he would reply favourably to her employer's purported queries about her case.
Offences under the Computer Misuse Act
6. Investigations also revealed that Mahendran had accessed devices belonging to the two female subjects and copied out personal videos and folders from their devices to his personal storage devices without authority. In addition, he accessed a third female subject's mobile phone and copied out three of her personal videos without authority.
Swift and Sure Action by the CPIB
7. Recognising the seriousness and severity of this case, CPIB acted expeditiously to arrest Mahendran on the same day it received information about the offences. Initially, Mahendran denied any corrupt intent on his part but the extensive and thorough investigations by CPIB officers uncovered evidence which eventually prompted Mahendran to admit and co-operate with the CPIB officers. The use of digital forensics and credibility assessment tools helped uncover the extent of Mahendran's offences and his corrupt intent, including the fact that there was more than one subject from whom he had obtained sexual gratification. CPIB's swift and comprehensive investigations have brought Mahendran to justice and prevented other subjects from falling prey to his sexual motives.

8. Singapore adopts a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption. CPIB takes a serious view of any corrupt practices and will not hesitate to take action against any party involved in such acts. Any person who is convicted of a corruption offence can be fined up to $100,000 or sentenced to imprisonment of up to 5 years or to both. CPIB will work with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to press for stiff deterrent sentences against public servants who commit corruption offences.

9. The CPIB looks into all corruption complaints and reports, including anonymous ones, and can be reached via the following channels:

a) Write to us at the CPIB Headquarters @ 2 Lengkok Bahru, S159047;
b) Call the Duty Officer at 1800-376-0000;
c) Lodge an e-Complaint; or
d) Email us at report@cpib.gov.sg

10. Where possible, the report should include the following information:

a) Where, when and how the alleged corrupt act happened?
b) Who was involved and what were their roles?
c) What was the bribe given and the favour shown?
Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police Officer Sentenced for Corruptly Obtaining Sexual Favours from Female Subjects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Law enforcement officers have the duty to maintain law and order and conduct themselves with high levels of integrity and...

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Teenager falls from MBS hotel room after drinking at nightclub, death ruled as suicide

# data[].attributes.body
Better AOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Must Share News - Independent News For Singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teenager falls from MBS hotel room after drinking

A 16-year-old student fell from a Marina Bay Sands (MBS) Hotel room on the 24th floor to his death after drinking at a nightclub with his sister and her boyfriend.

The student was staying at the hotel with his family in early August 2023 during his school break.

He was said to have consumed one glass of beer and six other alcoholic drinks at a nightclub before the fatal incident.

The case has been ruled as a suicide, reported 8world News.

Student consumes alcoholic drinks before falling off balcony

In early August 2023, Gao Yuye (name transliterated from Chinese), a 16-year student at Hwa Chong International School, was spending time with his family at the MBS Hotel.

On 9 August, he and his sister, along with her boyfriend who joined later, went to a nightclub on the 57th floor of the hotel at around 9pm.

He allegedly drank one glass of beer and six other alcoholic drinks at the club.

At around 1am, his sister and her boyfriend left him alone at the nightclub as he insisted on staying.

The security guard, manager, and nightclub staff eventually placed the inebriated and unconscious student in a wheelchair and took him to his room.

When no one answered the door, they brought him to the lobby and called for paramedics.

Authorities called after student became uncooperative

The slightly conscious Gao was reportedly uncooperative when paramedics arrived, prompting them to call the police at around 3am.

After the police arrived, Gao led them as well as security officers to his room at around 3.35am to retrieve his ID.

The officers waited outside while he entered the room, but checked on Gao when he took too long.

Upon checking, the police found the balcony door open and suspected he had fallen, so they called for backup.

A surveillance camera caught the student falling off the balcony at around 3.36am. Gao was pronounced dead at the scene due to multiple injuries caused by the fall.

His sister said he didn't show any sign of being in a bad mood on the day of the suicide.

She added he had some disagreements with his friend in China as well as encountered some pressure in schoolwork, but he didn't provide her with details.

The police tried to retrieve evidence from Gao's phone, but it was severely damaged.

His family suspected that his drink might have been spiked. However, the autopsy found no other substance but alcohol in his blood.

Ruling the incident as a suicide, the coroner believed that the deceased could have jumped on impulse or may have thought about it for a long time.
Also read: 19-year-old girl dies after falling from multi-storey carpark in Sengkang

19-year-old girl dies after falling from multi-storey carpark in Sengkang
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com. Featured image adapted from Sébastien Jermer on Unsplash and Freepik, for illustration purposes only.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teenager falls from MBS hotel room after drinking at nightclub, death ruled as suicide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 16-year-old foreign student fell from an MBS Hotel room on the 24th floor to his death after drinking at a nightclub.

# data[].attributes.body
Challenging customer

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Delivery driver, 49, drives lorry into officer at Gurkha camp when his 'wanted' status discovered

# data[].attributes.body
Screen wanted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A delivery driver, who was transporting goods to the Gurkha Contingent at Vernon Road, reversed his lorry into a police sergeant and crushed his leg in an attempt to flee the scene.

This was after the accused's NRIC was scanned, and it was discovered that he was a wanted man.

Muhammad Hizamudin Sheik Allahuddin, 49, was sentenced to 20 months in jail on May 16 for his actions.

He pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant on duty, damaging a police car and having drug utensils.

Five other charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.

What happened

Hizamudin was released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre on Aug. 23, 2021.

He was placed on the prison's day release scheme, which is a community-based programme that allows inmates to work or do skills training outside of prison premises, until Jun. 25, 2023.

However, Hizamudin became a wanted person after a police gazette was issued against him, following his failure to return to an approved institution and could not be contacted by his reporting officer.

This occurred towards the end of his programme on Jun. 5, 2023.

When he was wanted, Hizamudin became a delivery driver on a part-time basis.

As part of his job, he was assigned to make a delivery to the Gurkha camp on Jun. 22, 2023.

"Wanted" status discovered

Hizamudin drove his company's lorry to the compound at about 4pm.

When he arrived, he handed his NRIC for screening and parked beside the guard house.

A pair of police sergeants was dispatched when it was discovered that Hizamudin was a wanted man.

The officers, a male and female pair, showed up in a police car at about 4:30pm.

They asked Hizamudin to switch off his engine and exit the lorry.

He was uncooperative, refused to do so and gave evasive answers.

To prevent Hizamudin from driving away, the male officer moved the police car to the lorry's rear while the female officer continued to speak to Hizamudin.

Tried to drive away

Hizamudin suddenly drove the lorry forward.

He moved the lorry in a manner that allowed him to move off without being blocked by the police car.

The male officer gave chase and reached his hands into the open driver-side window, telling Hizamudin to stop.

Hizamudin then reversed his lorry and did not stop when repeatedly told to do so.

Both officers ended up holding on to the lorry driver's side of the door at that time.

Hizamudin continued to reverse the lorry and the female officer moved to the other door at the passenger's side.

The male officer's legs ended up getting sandwiched between the lorry and the police car, and his right hip got crushed in the process as the lorry continued to reverse.

The male officer was pulled away by two police officers nearby, and he ended up on the ground shouting in pain.

As the lorry accelerated quickly, it caused the passenger side mirror to hit the female officer's arm, causing her to fall to the ground.

Officers jumped lorry

Another police officer stationed at the camp then jumped onto the driver's side door and tried to pull Hizamudin's hands away from the steering wheel as he continued to move the vehicle.

Hizamudin shouted incoherently and continued to drive.

The lorry ended up crashing into a metal railing.

Numerous officers stationed at the Gurkha Contingent jumped onto the vehicle, and Hizamudin was arrested.

Drug utensils were found in the lorry.

The male officer was given three days of medical leave after suffering a hip contusion.

The damaged police car cost the Singapore Police Force S$400 to repair, which Hizamudin failed to make restitution.

The prosecutor sought a sentence of 21 to 24 months in jail, according to .

It was argued that Hizamudin's actions showed defiance against authority and had a high potential for harm, but it was noted that he had indicated his intention to plead guilty at the earliest stage, was cooperative in investigations, and had shown some remorse.

The penalty for causing hurt to a public servant who was discharging his duty is a jail term of up to seven years and a fine or caning.

For committing mischief by damaging the police car, the penalty is a jail term of up to two years, a fine, or both.

The maximum punishment for having drug utensils is a jail term of three years, a fine of S$10,000 or both.
Top photo via Google Maps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Delivery driver, 49, drives lorry into officer at Gurkha camp when his 'wanted' status discovered

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He hit another officer with the lorry's side mirror.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Traffic police officer chases man, 22, on motorcycle & then on foot in Aljunied, finds samurai sword & drugs in car

# data[].attributes.body
Pursuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A traffic police officer on patrol chased and arrested a 22-year-old male suspect along Aljunied Road on May 15 morning.

The was after the man surrendered following a short pursuit on foot.

A black samurai sword, substances believed to be controlled drugs, and drug paraphernalia were subsequently found in the man's car, the police said in response to queries.

What happened

On May 15 at about 11:25am, a traffic police officer was patrolling along Aljunied Road towards Upper Aljunied Road when he signalled for a car to stop for a routine check.

The driver had indicated to the officer that he would comply and pull over at a bus-stop ahead for checks.

However, the man sped off thereafter.

He then abandoned his vehicle at a junction along Aljunied Road and attempted to flee on foot.

Started to run

The man could be seen running in a video posted online, with the police officer in pursuit.

@singaporeroadaccident
Police chasing someone on foot #singapore #erp #erp20 #police #trafficpolice
♬ original sound - Singapore Road Accident

The man then ran back to the road in an attempt to return to his car.

The police officer immediately pulled over, got off his motorcycle and began chasing the man on foot.

As the man bolted over a road divider railing and ran towards a car, two other passengers alighted from the vehicle, and were seen holding on to each other.

The officer reached the car before the man was able to close the door.

The man surrendered himself soon after.

Singapore Police Force told Mothership that the male suspect was arrested for possession of offensive weapon, cheating by personation, various traffic-related offences and suspected drug-related offences.

Police investigations are ongoing.

Top image via Singapore Road Accident/TikTok

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Traffic police officer chases man, 22, on motorcycle & then on foot in Aljunied, finds samurai sword & drugs in car

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Is she innocent? ‘Killer nurse’ Lucy Letby’s conviction in question after new revelations

# data[].attributes.body
Potential question for Google classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is she innocent? ‘Killer nurse’ Lucy Letby’s conviction in question after new revelations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
She was convicted last year of murdering seven babies and sentenced to life imprisonment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Jail for man who used words to deliberately wound racial feelings of Jewish man

# data[].attributes.body
Multiple issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jail for man who used words to deliberately wound racial feelings of Jewish man

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Arif was sentenced to nine months and six weeks' jail and nine strokes of the cane. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Auxiliary police officer arrested for not returning service revolver after duty at Changi Airport

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Based on preliminary investigations, the man had reported to work and drawn his revolver before beginning his deployment at Changi Airport.

He then changed out of his uniform after duty and left his workplace with the revolver, ammunition and baton without authorisation, said the police.

The items were recovered from the man and the revolver was not discharged or used against anyone during the incident, said the police.

The man will be charged in court on Saturday for unlawful carrying of a firearm.

The offence carries a potential jail term of between five and 14 years, and at least six strokes of the cane.

"The man involved in the unlawful carrying of a firearm has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and abused the firearms entrusted to him for his duties," said acting deputy commissioner of police Zhang Weihan.

"Police officers had worked tirelessly to secure his swift arrest and ensured that public safety was maintained," added Acting DC Zhang, who is also the director of the Criminal Investigation Department.

"The police will not tolerate such acts that endanger the public's safety."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Auxiliary police officer arrested for not returning service revolver after duty at Changi Airport

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 27-year-old man was arrested in a shopping mall with the firearm two-and-a-half hours after the police were first alerted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Deep Dive Podcast: Are our bad driving habits causing fatal traffic accidents?

# data[].attributes.body
Driving habit of MOP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The recent accident in Tampines which killed two people has raised questions about Singapore's driving culture. Speeding, beating red lights and drink driving are still stubborn issues.

Bernard Tay, chairman of the Singapore Road Safety Council and Julian Kho, general manager at Sgcarmart tell Steven Chia and Crispina Robert what needs to change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deep Dive Podcast: Are our bad driving habits causing fatal traffic accidents?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We live in a competitive society and are constantly in a rush. Does this show up in the way we drive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Commentary: To improve road safety, we must not let drivers get away with minor infringements

# data[].attributes.body
Traffic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary: To improve road safety, we must not let drivers get away with minor infringements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The authorities must send a signal that disregard for the law will not be tolerated and that the penalty for doing so will not be insignificant, says former veteran newspaper editor Han Fook Kwang.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Over S$5,500 worth of clothes stolen from shops along Bayfront Avenue, Harbourfront Walk; woman arrested

# data[].attributes.body
Shop theft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: A 63-year-old woman has been arrested for allegedly stealing over 100 pieces of clothing worth more than S$5,500 (US$4,071), the police said on Monday (May 6).

The police said they were alerted by a store manager at about 9pm on May 5 that a woman was "behaving suspiciously" in a retail outlet along Harbourfront Walk.

The store manager detained the woman, who allegedly had several pieces of unpaid clothing in her possession.

Police later arrested her and more than 100 pieces of branded items believed to be stolen were recovered from her place of accommodation.

"The total value of the items that were allegedly stolen by her was more than $5,500," the police said.

Preliminary investigations have revealed the woman is suspected to be involved in several shop theft cases at multiple retail outlets along Harbourfront Walk and Bayfront Avenue.

She will be charged in court on Tuesday with theft in dwelling. If found guilty, the woman faces up to seven years' jail and a fine.

The police said they take a serious view of shop theft cases. "Offenders will be dealt with firmly in accordance with the law," they added.

They also advised retailers to adopt the following measures to protect their stores against theft:

Ensure a good line of sight for the displays by using an appropriate shop layout.

Display advisory posters or signage against shop theft.

Display expensive merchandise in locked showcases or at prominent locations like nearby cashier counters.

Install closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) with recording system at the entrance or exit of the store to capture the facial features of shoppers.

Deploy adequate security personnel to patrol the premises in luminous vests for increased visual deterrence effect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Over S$5,500 worth of clothes stolen from shops along Bayfront Avenue, Harbourfront Walk; woman arrested

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE: A 63-year-old woman has been arrested for allegedly stealing over 100 pieces of clothing worth more than S$5,500 (US$4,071), the police said on Monday (May 6).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Jail for man who charged at police officer with a knife after punching his own mother

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jail for man who charged at police officer with a knife after punching his own mother

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pravin Pulanthiradas, 25, was tasered twice by police officers before becoming incapacitated. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Singapore diplomat in Japan questioned by police after reportedly filming male student at public bath: Reports

# data[].attributes.body
Diplomatic  immunity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: A diplomat at the Singapore embassy in Tokyo was questioned by police after being suspected of filming a male teenager at a public bath, according to Japanese media reports on Thursday (May 2).

The diplomat in question is a 55-year-old, who is a "former" counsellor at the embassy, according to NHK. A counsellor is a diplomatic rank for officers serving overseas, such as in an embassy.

Yomiuri Shimbun reported that on Feb 27, the man used his smartphone to secretly film a 13-year-old first-year middle school student in the changing room of a public bath. The boy was naked.

Staff members at the public bath in Tokyo's Minato Ward reportedly called the police who, upon arriving, searched the diplomat's phone and found "multiple naked photos of male customers", according to Asahi Shimbun.

It added that the diplomat refused to go to the police station but told officers he had taken such photos in other public baths.

When asked to delete the photos from his phone, the diplomat "deleted them on the spot", reported the Japanese news outlet. He allegedly deleted 700 photos from his phone, which he told police he had taken in the six months leading up to the incident.

The Tokyo police are investigating potential violations of child pornography laws and are planning to ask Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to have the man turn himself in, said Asahi Shimbun. Formal charges are also being considered.

According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomat cannot be arrested.

When asked by the Asahi Shimbun on Thursday, the embassy was reportedly unaware of the public bath incident. The embassy also told the paper the diplomat had "completed his assignment as of Apr 12" and has returned to Singapore.

CNA has reached out to MFA for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore diplomat in Japan questioned by police after reportedly filming male student at public bath: Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE: A diplomat at the Singapore embassy in Tokyo was questioned by police after being suspected of filming a male teenager at a public bath, according to Japanese media reports on Thursday (May 2).

# data[].attributes.body
Public Order?

# data[].attributes.body
Accident Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Police break into Lengkok Bahru flat after resident deemed to 'pose danger to himself', man dealt with under Mental Health Act

# data[].attributes.body
Section 7

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - A 59-year-old man was apprehended on Wednesday (April 17) after he locked himself in his Lengkok Bahru flat, prompting police officers - who feared that he might put himself in danger - to break into the unit.

In response to TODAY's queries on Friday, the police said that the man was apprehended under Section 7(1) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008, which provides for the admission, detention, care and treatment of mentally disordered persons in designated psychiatric institutions.

The man is also being investigated by the Central Narcotics Bureau for a drug-related offence.

Amendments to the Act were passed in Parliament on April 2, allowing police officers to apprehend a person with a mental disorder if they have a "reasonable belief" that danger to the person or people around him is "reasonably likely to occur".

The changes also provide police officers with powers of search and restraint of subjects who are apprehended, similar to what they have when arresting criminal suspects.

In its response to TODAY, the police said that they received a call for assistance at Block 57 Lengkok Bahru at about 7.50am on Wednesday.

"When police officers arrived, it was established that a 59-year-old man had locked himself in his residential unit. As it was assessed that the man might pose a danger to himself, officers from the Special Operations Command, Crisis Negotiation Unit and Singapore Civil Defence Force responded to the incident," the police said.

The officers managed to gain entry into the unit at about 10.50am. No injuries were reported.

In a video posted on TikTok by user "zailia7276" on Thursday, several police officers wearing black body armour and carrying rifles were seen standing outside a residential unit.

Then, another two officers used an electric saw to breach the unit's main gate, releasing a shower of sparks.

Several police officers holding riot shields proceed to enter the unit after the gate is opened.

In the parliament sitting on April 2, Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo also clarified the difference between an apprehension and an arrest.

In the case of the former, the person will be taken to a medical practitioner who will determine the likely medical causes of their behaviour.

However, when someone is arrested, he will be placed in a lock-up instead, Mrs Teo said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police break into Lengkok Bahru flat after resident deemed to 'pose danger to himself', man dealt with under Mental Health Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - A 59-year-old man was apprehended on Wednesday (April 17) after he locked himself in his Lengkok Bahru flat, prompting police officers - who feared that he might put himself in danger - to break into the unit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Big Read in short: Why youths prefer texting to phone calls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New: You can now listen to articles.

SINGAPORE - Before making a phone call, 26-year-old Nivani Elangovan would prepare herself by mentally mapping out what could happen during the tele-conversation and jotting down pointers on post-it notes for reference.

Typing a phone number into her seldom-used call app on her handphone is an anxiety-inducing task, let alone having to hold a conversation.

"I hate phone calls... because I'm a lot more anxious about things that are uncertain. I like having structure and being as prepared as I can," she told TODAY over the phone.

"Over email or text messages, at least it's in writing and I have time to think about how to reply and what I want to say. When over the phone, there's so much uncertainty about what could play out.

"Even if I do have to make a phone call, I will take a post-it note and write down all the different points I need to cover during my phone call," Ms Elangovan said.

Ms Elangovan's case of "phone anxiety" is not uncommon among digital natives who have grown up amid computers and the internet.

In Australia, a survey last year of more than 1,000 Gen Zers aged 18 to 26 found that only one in 10 prefer to talk to family and friends via a phone call.

About 49 per cent said speaking over the phone made them anxious, while six in 10 dreaded making or accepting a phone call, according to the survey conducted by Australia's telecommunications company More Telecom in May 2023.

This texting preference by Gen Z is not a recent phenomenon; their millennial counterparts - those aged between 27 and 42 - have been doing so as early as 2009, sociologists told TODAY.

According to a survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre released in 2012, the typical American teen aged 12 to 17 was sending and receiving 60 messages in 2011, up from 50 in 2009.

The same survey found that 26 per cent of American teens were calling their friends in 2011 using their handphones, down from 38 per cent in 2009.

In Singapore, 12 youths aged 35 and under told TODAY that texting is the main mode of communication for them, even though three of them still prefer calling.

WHY IT MATTERS

TODAY's interviews with those in their 40s and 50s point to a generational split when it comes to texting and calling.

"Texting on the computer is fine since the screen is bigger and it's easier to read. But on the phone with the small keyboard, it can be quite difficult," said Ms Angie Neo, 59, an administrative executive with a real estate firm.

"Calling is just more straightforward since you just say what you need and get the message across," she added.

The way older people text also differs from youths, such as using fewer abbreviations and taking no offence when their messages are "blue ticked", or left read but unreplied.

For youths, sending a message and getting a signal through two blue ticks indicates that it has been read by the recipient. Thus, for them, a non response is a rude sign, suggesting that they are being ignored.

For older text recipients, this is a non-problem as the blue ticks are simply an acknowledgment that the message has been read.

Mr Edwin Yeo, 56, general manager of public relationship firm SPRG Singapore, added that youth's preference for texting even at the workplace can have its downsides.

"Calls can be more convenient when brainstorming and making clarifications... without misunderstanding as you can hear their tone of voice, unlike text."

THE BIG PICTURE

Youths who prefer texting cite convenience of replying anywhere and anytime and having the time to think of a reply as among some of the benefits.

They note that messaging applications also have unique features that make communication more engaging, such as "video bubbles" which allow youths to send short videos of themselves.

Even among youngsters who prefer phone calls, texting is still the primary means of communicating.

Eighteen-year-old Shayna Choo said she spends roughly two hours weekly calling her boyfriend, but at least eight hours texting her friends during a typical week.

"It's much easier to catch up with them over call, and you feel closer when you hear their voice," said the second-year business student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic (NP).

"But honestly, I text much more than I call (my friends) because my close friends and I have our own lives and it's hard to find a common time."

Like other youths, Ms Choo's calls are reserved for close friends and family members. And if she were to call, these are often scheduled unless it is for something she considers urgent.

If the call is not scheduled, youths told TODAY that they think twice before picking up.

"If it's a close friend, I would worry about what's going on and pick up the call (assuming) it's something urgent. If it's someone I'm not close to, I'll question why before picking up or might text back asking why they are calling," said Ms Tay Xiu Qin, 18, a second-year banking and finance student at NP.

Youths told TODAY there are several nuances when texting that help them derive social cues. This includes how they type, the type of emoji used and the way they express their laughter over text.

In the workplace, their text messages are slightly more formal, as they type without abbreviations. They also give their messages a second read to fix any grammatical errors before sending it out.

BOTTOM LINE

Dr Carol Soon, principal research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, said Gen Zers' preference for texting is "unsurprising" as several studies have shown that millennials have similar preferences.

Texting provides youths with more control over their schedules as they can communicate whenever they want, allows them to multi-task and avoid small talk, she noted.

"This reason also accounts for why people from other generations are also veering to texting, with phone calls used for urgent communications or speaking with elderly members in the family," said Dr Soon.

Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser, a sociologist at the National University of Singapore, noted there are some negatives in texting.

For one thing, youths' reliance on texting might mean more misunderstandings as they lose social cues such as facial expressions, and possibly missing out on learning and practising social interaction skills.

"To me, another negative of only texting is when one misses an emergency call from someone who has no time to write a text, is incapable of texting - such as a senior who is neither literate, nor able to use the text features of the smartphone - or have access to only a landline at home," he said.

Dr Andrew Yee, an assistant professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, added that problems may also arise if conversation partners have different preferences of communication.

"For example, if my co-worker prefers speaking on the phone, they may find my texting or emailing very impersonal, which may lead to inefficiencies in communication," he said.

Despite the pitfalls, Dr Yee said he does not view the new forms of communication as problematic.

"As long as the purposes of communication, such as building relationships and conveying meaning, are satisfactorily achieved, I am not sure if we need to worry too much about it," he said.

youths texting mobile phone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Big Read in short: Why youths prefer texting to phone calls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Before making a phone call, 26-year-old Nivani Elangovan would prepare herself by mentally mapping out what could happen during the tele-conversation and jotting down pointers on post-it notes for reference. Typing a phone number into her seldom-used call app on her handphone is an

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Singapore police NSF had lost big sum of money in job scam, before being found dead from gunshot wound

# data[].attributes.body
Anyway that this can be prevented?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - A full-time police national serviceman was found dead with a gunshot wound to his head in August 2021 after he had lost over $10,000 in an e-commerce job scam.

The Straits Times reported on the first day of a coroner's inquiry on the death of Finnegan Tan Yao Jie on Wednesday (1 February) that he had filed a police report before he was found dead with a gunshot wound on 30 August 2021.

The inquiry heard that the 21-year-old was so upset after losing so much money from the job scam - money which included $7,000 borrowed from his father - that his supervisors at the Special Operations Command (SOC) had considered banning him from using firearms.

However, they had found that his case did not fit into the category of "financial embarrassment", which means owning money and being unable to pay back.

Shouting in restroom that he almost killed himself

An investigating police officer said in court that there was a separate incident in mid-2021 when Tan's colleague heard him shouting in a restroom at the SOC base in Queensway that he had almost killed himself the day before.

CNA reported that one of Tan's supervisors, who has experience in providing psychological support, had intervened and spoken to him then. However, Tan had simply dismissed the matter as just an outburst.

Despite finding that Tan didn't display suicidal thoughts or appear depressed, the supervisor was still considering barring him from using firearms

At the time of his death, Tan was supposed to attend a course for a few weeks, during which he would not be armed.

In his report to State Coroner Adam Nakhoda, the investigating officer said Tan had reported for duty about 10.30am on the day of the incident. He was given a revolver and live rounds when he arrived at the SOC base.

When his colleagues heard a gun go off, they assumed it was a misfire. After a search, officers discovered Tan with a gunshot wound to the head in a toilet, and he was declared dead at around 11.20am by paramedics who arrived at the scene.

Posted suicidal thoughts on social media accounts

Tan's suicidal thoughts came to light after investigators reviewed his social media accounts and found that he had posted privately on Instagram that he wanted to die.

Further investigations found that Tan had intended to commit suicide for some time. This was due several reasons, including that he had been cheated of money belonging to his father, according to CNA.

The investigating officer told the court that Tan was upset about himself having made this mistake, and although he suggested to his father that he consult a psychiatrist, it was brushed off by his father.

The officer also said that Tan had asked his sister "out of the blue" on what she would do if he were gone. However, she did not pursue the matter further. Tan had also expressed suicidal thoughts to his cousin, but he was not taken seriously.

Months before his death, he even searched online for information about suicide, shooting with gloves and writing a will.

The state coroner will release his findings at a later date.
If you have thoughts of suicide or are feeling distressed, you can call the Samaritans of Singapore's 24-hour hotline at 1767 or 1800-2214444. You can also email pat@sos.org.sg. Do you have a story tip? Email: sgnews.tips@yahooinc.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore police NSF had lost big sum of money in job scam, before being found dead from gunshot wound

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - A full-time police national serviceman was found dead with a gunshot wound to his head in August 2021 after he had lost over $10,000 in an e-commerce job scam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Married man admits beating girlfriend to death, angry at her relationships with other men

# data[].attributes.body
323 becoming fatal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: A married man had an affair but began abusing his girlfriend over her relationships with other men, with the assault intensifying until he eventually beat her to death.

M Krishnan, a 40-year-old Singaporean, pleaded guilty in court on Friday (Apr 12) to one count of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The victim, 40-year-old Singaporean Mallika Begum Rahamansa Abdul Rahman, died of a head injury on Jan 17, 2019, after Krishnan assaulted her repeatedly.

The court heard that Krishnan met Ms Mallika in 2015. They began a romantic relationship shortly after, while Krishnan was still married to another woman.

In November 2015, Krishnan's wife returned home and saw Krishnan with Ms Mallika drinking alcohol in the master bedroom.

Upset, the wife used vulgarities against Krishnan, who punched her in the face and grabbed a whisky bottle.

As she was afraid of being hit with the bottle, the wife apologised and later obtained a personal protection order against Krishnan. They remain married today.

Krishnan continued dating Ms Mallika until she died. He admitted hitting her at least once in 2017, over a "trivial matter", but the abuse intensified from January 2019.

This was after Ms Mallika confessed that she had sexual relations with other men, such as when Krishnan was in jail from October 2018 to December 2018.

THE ASSAULT

On Jan 15, 2019, a day before the fatal assault, Ms Mallika made a similar confession while drinking alcohol with Krishnan at his flat.

Krishnan reacted by slapping her, punching her ribs and kicking her thigh.

Ms Mallika pleaded with Krishnan not to leave, but he grabbed her by the neck and pushed her, causing her to fall and hit her head against a wardrobe.

Ms Mallika got up, stumbled to the kitchen and slumped in front of a cabinet.

Krishnan pushed her forehead so it hit a cabinet, before helping her get up.

Ms Mallika went to the hospital the next day with bruises on her hips and multiple abrasions on her face, hands and forearms.

Meanwhile, Krishnan drank alcohol throughout the day on Jan 16, 2019.

That night, the couple spoke to Ms Mallika's sister on the phone about Ms Mallika's relationship with another person.

After the call ended at about 11.30pm, Krishnan felt angry and frustrated over Ms Mallika's relationships with other men and began assaulting her again.

He slapped her face, grabbed her by the hair and punched and kicked her, landing kicks even when she was on the ground.

After helping her to the bed, Krishnan realised that the woman was not breathing or responding.

He called the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) for help at about 1.40am on Jan 17, 2019.

Krishnan then called his nephew and asked him to go to the unit to check on Ms Mallika, admitting that he had hit her.

The nephew found Ms Mallika lying on the bed with her eyes closed and face badly swollen. He could not feel a pulse and called his uncle to ask what happened.

In response, Krishnan said he had called for an ambulance.

SCDF officers found Ms Mallika lying on the bed, which was stained with what appeared to be blood. She was pronounced dead at about 1.50am.

Krishnan surrendered at Police Cantonment Complex at about 1pm that day and was arrested.

HER INJURIES, HIS STATE OF MIND

An autopsy indicated Ms Mallika's cause of death as "head injury", but also listed multiple other injuries on her.

These include multiple fractured ribs, bruises all over her body, bleeding in her head and a "midline shift" of her brain.

Krishnan underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was found to be suffering from adjustment order at the time of the offence. He was also intoxicated, but the psychiatrist found no contributory link between the intoxication, mental illness and the offence.

In a further report, the psychiatrist stated that Krishnan also had intermittent explosive disorder (IED), which is a condition involving frequent impulsive anger outbursts or aggression. He also had a history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, although he was in remission.

The psychiatrist found that Krishnan's IED had "some contribution" to the commission of the offence, but did not impair his judgment and self-control on its own.

However, he said the level of violence inflicted on the victim was likely caused by the alcohol intoxication adding to the IED.

Krishnan has multiple past convictions dating from 2003 for offences like housebreaking by night, using criminal force on a public servant, using abusive words towards a public servant and disorderly behaviour.

The prosecution and defence lawyer Ramesh Tiwary did not make arguments on sentencing on Friday. Instead, they asked for time to prepare arguments on "certain issues that have arisen", and were granted their request.

The case will be heard again on Apr 19.

There are two possible sets of penalties for culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Life imprisonment and caning; or a jail term of up to 20 years and a fine or caning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Married man admits beating girlfriend to death, angry at her relationships with other men

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The victim had gone to the hospital from another assault the night before but returned to another beating that proved fatal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
MOM 'did not advise' employer to fire migrant worker harassed by loan sharks; he can remain in S'pore amid police probe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - A migrant worker, who was fired after his employer was harassed by loansharks for his alleged loans, was terminated following a decision made by his employer and not on the advice of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), said the MOM and the police in a statement on Saturday (April 6).

Their statement comes after the Bangladeshi worker, Sharif Md Uddin, who has been allowed to remain in Singapore while investigations are ongoing, claimed on social media that his employment had been terminated by his employers on the advice of the authorities.

A video of him recounting what happened over the last two months was posted on the social media accounts of migrant worker activist groups on Wednesday. An online petition to stop Mr Sharif being deported was then set up.

Mr Sharifsaid that the issue started when an unknown individual sent a note to his employer claiming that he had borrowed money, along with a copy of his work permit and joss paper money.

The46-year-old, who has gained prominence for his writing and for raising awareness about the plight of migrant workers during his last 16 years here, denied ever borrowing any money.

He said that his employer, Hiap Seng Piling Construction, then raised the issue to authorities, while he separately made a police report about the harassment.

However, on March 11, Mr Sharif said he was given a termination letter by his company stating that they were advised by MOM and the police to send him back to Bangladesh.

In the termination letter seen by TODAY, the company wrote that it decided to terminate Mr Sharif's employment "under police and MOM officer advice.... because of the troublesome bring along from your loan shark issue for us (sic)".

The letter added that Mr Sharif was free to look for another employer, but if he failed to do so the company would arrange for his repatriation.

Mr Sharif said that while he managed to find a new employer, the new company also received similar harassment and it decided not to hire him.

TODAY also saw a copy of an e-mail sent by MrSharif addressed to MOM seeking clarification on his situation, including whether the authorities had indeed advised his employer to terminate him and if they were concerned that information regarding his new employment was "leaked" since no one else was privy to it.

GENERAL ADVICE GIVEN TO EMPLOYER'S FAMILY 'OUT OF CONCERN': MOM, POLICE

In the joint statement on Saturday, the authorities said that the daughter ofMr Sharif's employerhad sought advice from the Geylang Neighbourhood Police Centre on March 9 after receiving debtor's notes and hell notes addressed to Mr Sharif at her home.

"In view of her concerns about the continued harassment at her home from unknown parties and the possible risks to her family's safety, the on-duty officer said that the police would step up patrols around her home and alert her condominium's security," said the statement.

"The officer, out of concern for her family's and her well-being, also advised her generally that harassment would usually stop after the work pass of a foreign worker being harassed had been cancelled, and the worker no longer worked for the employer."

On March 11, a representative from Hiap Seng Piling reached out to MOM with "a general query" on cancelling a work permit if the employer faces harassment due to the worker's alleged involvement in unlicensed money lending activities.

No reference to Mr Sharif or details of the case was given during the call, said the authorities.

MOM did not advise the employer to terminate Mr Sharif's employment, the statement added.

"MOM informed the employer that should the company decide to terminate a work permit, it must notify the worker, settle outstanding salaries and bear the cost of repatriation."

The authorities said that on that same day, Hiap Seng Piling served a termination notice to Mr Sharif and he separately lodged a police report about the harassment that he faced.

"The police subsequently informed the daughter of Mr Sharif's employer of this, and shared with her the possibility that Mr Sharif did not borrow from unlicensed moneylenders," the statement added.

Police investigations into the harassment case are ongoing, the authorities added.

"MOM and SPF have reached out to Mr Sharif to address his concerns and offer our assistance," said the statement.

CONCERNED THAT HARASSMENT WILL CONTINUE: MR SHARIF

Mr Sharif told TODAY that he was glad his concerns were being taken seriously and that MOM officers visited his dormitory on Friday to update him on the situation.

Although he has been told he can stay in Singapore on a Special Pass to assist with investigations, he said he was unsure about where he would stay or how he would support his basic needs in the interim.

"It will be difficult for me to survive without any support in this period... After the case is resolved, I will need an extension of my Special Pass till I find a permanent job, and I am anxious for MOM to reassure me that this will be provided," he said.

Should he find new employment, Mr Sharif added that he was concerned the harassment will continue and hoped the authorities would be able to reassure potential employers that it was "safe to employ (him)".

TODAY has reached out to Mr Sharif's former employer for their comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MOM 'did not advise' employer to fire migrant worker harassed by loan sharks; he can remain in S'pore amid police probe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - A migrant worker, who was fired after his employer was harassed by loansharks for his alleged loans, was terminated following a decision made by his employer and not on the advice of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), said the MOM and the police in a statement on Saturday (April 6).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
MHA clarifies proposal to give police more power to apprehend mentally ill suspects; mental health experts concerned

# data[].attributes.body
Unsound

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - A move to set out the powers of police officers to apprehend suspects with mental disorders has stirred up an intense debate, with mental health experts especially concerned that the proposed changes could lead to more wrongful apprehensions and deepen stigma.

But the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and legal experts said the proposed amendments to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA) are aimed at reducing the ambiguity of what police officers can do when in situations involving those who are mentally disordered, and allow them to intervene before harm occurs.

MHA also said that with these amendments, the powers of apprehension that the police have when dealing with those who have mental health conditions will be aligned with the powers of arrest and apprehension that they already have under the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws.

The proposals, set out in the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, is likely to be debated in the next parliamentary sitting on April 2.

Under the MHCTA now, police officers can only apprehend a person with mental health conditions believed to be dangerous to themselves or other persons when such danger is "reasonably suspected" and "imminent".

Then, police officers must immediately take that person to a designated psychiatric institution for psychiatric assessment and treatment.

But if the proposed amendments are passed, police officers will be able to apprehend a mentally disordered person as long as they have a "reasonable belief" that danger to the person or people around him is "reasonably likely to occur". This danger "need not be imminent, and actual harm is not required".

The proposed change will also provide police officers with powers of search and restraint of subjects who are apprehended, similar to what they have when arresting criminal suspects, said MHA.

The tabling of the bill is in response to a High Court case last year, when a mentally disordered man was awarded S$20,000 in damages, as the court found that he had been falsely imprisoned by the police.

THE POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT DOING THE DIAGNOSING

Given the complexities of mental health conditions and how differently they manifest, mental health professionals are concerned that police officers will incorrectly diagnose someone with mental health conditions when apprehending them.

Mental health researcher Dr Jonathan Kuek said: "It takes years for mental health professionals to develop the competencies required to make good judgments on issues such as the diagnosis of mental health conditions or risks to self or others in relation to a mental health issue."

Ms Ooi Sze Jin, founder and psychologist of A Kind Place, added: "Mental health conditions can manifest with varying degrees of severity. Distinguishing between a situational issue and a diagnosable condition requires a thorough assessment."

Agreeing, Dr Kuek said the current MHTCA laws, which state that police officers can only apprehend people who pose "actual and imminent danger" to themselves or others, is fair.

But if the law is changed such that danger need only be "reasonably likely", this might mean police officers will have to make hasty diagnoses about the mental health of an individual, he added.

"(It) places an unfair burden on individuals who are not trained mental health professionals and are mostly likely not proficient in assessing risk since they're not expected to from a legal standpoint," said Dr Kuek.

But in response to queries from TODAY, MHA said frontline police officers are not trained nor expected to make any diagnosis of mental health conditions.

Instead, they look out for signs of mental health conditions, and may apprehend individuals for conveyance to IMH if they assess that these individuals may pose a danger to themselves or to others.

MHA added that frontline police officers are trained to manage different situations, including how to identify and handle persons with mental health conditions.

THE THRESHOLD MIGHT BE TOO LOW

With the proposed changes, there is a higher possibility of mistakes or wrongful apprehensions given the lower threshold that has to be met before an officer can apprehend someone, said Dr Kuek.

"There is an argument, of course, that we can play it safe and doing so will allow the police to protect even more people, but we also need to factor in the potential trauma people arrested may undergo without actually being a risk to others," he added.

"(The proposed changes) could lead police to be unsure of what to do when eccentric or disruptive, but not dangerous, behaviours occur and choose to apprehend to be on the safe side."

But Mr Alexander Woon, a law lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), said that the threshold in the existing laws may be too high.

If indeed the requirement is that the danger be "imminent", it means that the suspect must literally be about to commit an offence, and the police may be helpless in intervening until it might already be too late.

The amendments lower and make this threshold clearer by setting it at "reasonably likely to occur", which is a good thing, as this means police officers can intervene earlier, he added.

Ms Edith Chen, a law lecturer from SUSS and consultant at law firm Sureshan LLC, said that with the proposed changes, the underlying premise remains that the police can only apprehend someone under the MHCTA if they reasonably believe that the person is endangering the life or personal safety of himself or another.

"What it proposes to do is to offer certainty to what the police may do in carrying out such apprehension under the MHCTA," she added.

"From this theoretical standpoint, the Bill should not change the way law enforcement treats individuals with mental health conditions in a fundamental way."

WILL IT DEEPEN STIGMA?

But some mental health experts are not convinced, and think the wording of the law may deepen stigma against those with mental health conditions.

Ms Nisha Jhangiani, the founder of Mind Wellness Singapore, a company that provides counselling services, acknowledged that the law is essential in ensuring public safety in situations of imminent and potential threat.

But she added: "It would be helpful to establish in greater detail the context in which this proposed law would apply, especially around the reasonable likelihood of harm.

"It would also focus the conversation and minimise inaccurate perceptions and associations people might make about individuals with more common mental health disorders and law enforcement involvement."

Agreeing, Dr Kuek said the proposed changes have a negative subtext.

"It assumes that people with mental health issues are dangerous above and beyond what is immediately apparent, which suggests that people with mental illnesses are inherently dangerous and we should always be on guard even if there's no imminent danger."

"While I'm sure that's not the intent, translating such a broad piece of legislation to operational settings will be challenging," he added.

MHA said those apprehended under section 7 of MHCTA are not arrested but sent to a medical practitioner.

Still, Dr Kuek and other mental health experts say the aftermath of police intervention can have the same effect as being arrested.

Ms Nisha added: "While clarifying the distinction between apprehension and arrest is helpful, the authorities do get involved, and so a threshold for this involvement as it is clarified further would help put people at ease."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MHA clarifies proposal to give police more power to apprehend mentally ill suspects; mental health experts concerned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - A move to set out the powers of police officers to apprehend suspects with mental disorders has stirred up an intense debate, with mental hea

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Woman, 36, jailed 5 days for reporting phone snatched in Geylang, triggering police manhunt with 15 cars

# data[].attributes.body
Giving false info to Public Servant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A 36-year-old woman was sentenced to five days in jail after she lied to the Singapore Police Force (SPF) about her phone being snatched in August 2023.

Lee Yi-Ching's lies resulted in 15 fast response cars being activated for a manhunt that went on for almost two hours.

According to the prosecution, Lee had dropped her phone while she was in a dispute with her boyfriend, and was aware that he had picked it up.

Refused to take her handphone back from her boyfriend

During investigations, Lee's boyfriend said they were at a pub in Sembawang on Aug. 24, 2023, The Straits Times reported.

The couple then left at about 9pm and Lee's boyfriend drove her home in a van.

Prior to alighting, Lee, who had consumed alcohol, screamed at her boyfriend for reasons that were not stated in court documents.

Her boyfriend also left the vehicle to escort her home. During this time, Lee dropped her phone.

When her boyfriend retrieved the phone and tried returning it to her, she refused and screamed at him. He decided to return it to her the next day.

Went to police station to file a report

Lee then went to Geylang Neighbourhood Police Centre just after 10pm and told a police officer that an unknown man had snatched her phone at Lorong 32 Geylang.

A manhunt was triggered.

Police also reviewed closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage that showed her getting out of a van with a man before quarrelling with him.

When the police interviewed her boyfriend at 3:15am on Aug. 25, 2023, he said he kept the phone as Lee had refused to take it back from him.

Lee eventually confessed to her lie later on the same day.

The court heard that she was upset with her boyfriend and that he did not snatch or steal her phone.

Prosecution: Lee kept up her lie for more than 16 hours

According to ST, the prosecution said her lie had resulted in a "significant" waste of public resources.

Lee had maintained her false narrative for 16 hours and 42 minutes, which resulted in her boyfriend being inconvenienced by the police investigation, the prosecution added.

The prosecution had urged for Lee to be sentenced to a week in jail.

For providing false information to a public servant, a person can be sentenced to a maximum of two years in prison and fined.
Top image by Mothership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman, 36, jailed 5 days for reporting phone snatched in Geylang, triggering police manhunt with 15 cars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The prosecution noted that she maintained her lie for more than 16 hours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Man jailed 2 weeks for sneaking another man into Taylor Swift concert

# data[].attributes.body
Criminal Trespass

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Instead, Yan could tailgate any of the other concertgoers while they were passing through the turnstile gate, and if he was stopped by the security officers, Yan could still enter the National Stadium by presenting the lanyard and wristband to the officers and informing the officers that he had friends inside the National Stadium," said Deputy Public Prosecutor Darren Ang.

With Wu close behind, Yan queued up to enter a turnstile gate which was manned by at least three security officers.

As the concertgoer in front of him was entering the turnstile, Wu pushed Yan forward. At the same time, Wu showed the security officer at the turnstile gate his phone and spoke to him in an attempt to distract him from Yan's antics.

Yan entered the area but was spotted by another security officer who escorted him out. The incident was captured by closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras.

After Yan was escorted out, Wu still assured Yan that nothing was wrong. To hide his wrongdoings, he transferred 3,000 yuan to Yan and told him not to reveal the transactions to the police.

Mr Ang said that the gate was crowded then, with many people waiting to enter through the turnstiles.

"The accused's actions caused disquiet to the other concertgoers," he said.

Wu is not the only man to have been charged with helping others illegally enter the concert venue. Two others, Yang Chenguang and Li Xiao Wei, were the first to be charged with abetting concertgoers in cheating the event organiser.

Mr Ang told the court that Yan has not been prosecuted but did not specify why.

He sought two to four weeks' jail for Wu.

"Fundamentally, this concerned a hugely popular event, generating significant local and regional attention. Safety and security is a paramount consideration in the premises. Consequently, actions which disrupt, or undermine these efforts, must be uncompromisingly dealt with," he said.

"Shortly after committing his ... offence, the accused committed a further similar offence by tailgating another concertgoer into the National Stadium himself. This reflected persistent offending," Mr Ang added.

A person convicted of criminal trespass may be jailed up to three months, or fined up to S$1,500, or both.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man jailed 2 weeks for sneaking another man into Taylor Swift concert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wu Zhihong tried to distract a security officer, while another man tried to tailgate a ticket-holder at the National Stadium.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Jail, fine for man who used father's identity to rent car, mother-in-law's details to buy iPhone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - After helping his father register for a Foodpanda account using photos of the man's identity card and driving licence, 36-year-old Tay Hao Ying misused the images to rent a car under his father's name.

Despite not having a driving licence, Tay used the car to provide paid rides to customers and sublet the vehicle to other persons.

On a separate occasion, he took a picture of his wife's NRIC before editing the photo with his mother-in-law's details. He then used the photo to sign up for a Singtel contract to get an iPhone.

On Thursday (March 7), Tay pleaded guilty to:

Cheating by impersonation

Cheating to induce the delivery of any property

Driving without a licence

Driving without insurance

Failing to keep a proper lookout, resulting in a collision

Tay was sentenced to two months' and four weeks' imprisonment, and a fine of S$2,300 or in default six days' imprisonment. He is also barred from obtaining a driving licence for 24 months.

Fourteen charges were taken into consideration during sentencing, including for making a false traffic accident report that his father was the driver in an accident.

He will begin his sentence on April 8 after he was granted a deferment.

WHAT HAPPENED

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Eugene Lau said Tay had taken photos of his father's NRIC and driving licence to help the man register for a Foodpanda account before 2023.

On Jan 18, 2023, Tay decided to rent a car from the car-sharing platform Drive Lah. ​​​​He planned to earn some money by providing rides and subletting the vehicle.

As he had no valid driving licence, Tay applied for the vehicle with his father's details, and used the car to earn about S$1,700.

On Feb 13, 2023 at about 6.45am, Tay was driving along Edgefield Plains towards Punggol Field when he tried to make a U-turn at a junction.

This was when he encroached into the pathway of another car, resulting in a collision.

When the vehicle's driver approached Tay to exchange his particulars, Tay provided his father's details instead.

Tay later made a police report of the accident, lying that his father was driving the vehicle.

"On Feb 19, 2023, the accused was stopped by the traffic police in the Drive Lah car," said DPP Lau.

"Upon their questioning, the accused admitted that he was the driver of the Drive Lah car on Feb 6, 2023 as well."

Separately, Tay edited a picture of his wife's NRIC and replaced her details with his mother-in-law's.

He then used the photo of the edited NRIC to apply for a Singtel mobile subscription on Feb 21, 2023, and received an iPhone 14 Pro Max.

He later forged a letter of authorisation and returned to the Singtel shop on Feb 22, 2023 to collect the phone, which he sold for S$1,400.

DPP Lau sought a total sentence of two months and four weeks' to three months and six weeks' jail, a fine of S$2,300 to S$2,800, and 24 months' disqualification from holding a licence.

He noted that Tay has had several driving-related crimes previously, including for reckless driving in 2017.

As for obtaining the phone with an altered NRIC, DPP Lau said Tay was highly culpable.

"He premeditated the offence and took steps to conceal his identity by first taking his wife's NRIC and editing it," said DPP Lau.

"He also perpetrated the deception necessary to complete the criminal transaction by forging a letter from his mother-in-law."

For cheating by impersonation, Tay faced up to five years' jail, a fine or both.

For cheating to induce the delivery of any property, Tay faced up to 10 years' jail and a fine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jail, fine for man who used father's identity to rent car, mother-in-law's details to buy iPhone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - After helping his father register for a Foodpanda account using photos of the man's identity card and driving licence, 36-year-old Tay Hao Ying misused the images to rent a car under his father's name.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
 Joakim Gomez on Instagram: "I randomly went up to a police vehicle, and asked to be shown around so YOU don’t have to (actually, please don’t. This was strictly for filming hahaha).

Find out more at police.gov.sg/Join-SPF

@spfrecruitment @singaporepoliceforce #Singapore"

# data[].attributes.body
Next Gen FRC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
 Joakim Gomez on Instagram: "I randomly went up to a police vehicle, and asked to be shown around so YOU don’t have to (actually, please don’t. This was strictly for filming hahaha).

Find out more at police.gov.sg/Join-SPF

@spfrecruitment @singaporepoliceforce #Singapore"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2,313 likes, 20 comments - joakimgomez on February 15, 2024: "I randomly went up to a police vehicle, and asked to be shown around so YOU don’t have to (actu..."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Joakim Gomez (@joakimgomez)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
4 arrested over concert ticket scams, including fake passes to Taylor Swift and Coldplay shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Another 11 people, including a 15-year-old boy, are assisting in investigations, said the police. Preliminary investigations revealed that they had "unwittingly facilitated the scams" in several ways.

Most of them took on job offers on Telegram that asked them to receive money in their bank accounts to buy Razer gift cards. They were also asked to facilitate the receipt and transfer of money through their bank accounts.

A 21-year-old woman was asked to change her Carousell account username and email address. Her account was later found to be taken over by scammers.

The 15-year-old boy gave away his Carousell account to a scammer, who had offered to top up his Carousell wallet.

Police advised people to buy tickets through authorised sellers or reputable sources. They should be wary of "attractive, time-sensitive deals where only limited stocks are available", said the police.

"Avoid making upfront payments to bank accounts belonging to unknown individuals and, whenever possible, avoid making advance payments or direct bank transfers to the seller," the police added.

"Always verify the seller's profile through customer reviews and ratings."

Members of the public are also advised to download the ScamShield App and set up security features, such as two-factor authentication and banking transaction limits.

Anyone with information relating to such crimes can call the police hotline at 1800-255-0000, or submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 arrested over concert ticket scams, including fake passes to Taylor Swift and Coldplay shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The four people allegedly facilitated the scams by handing over bank account details or their Singpass credentials to scammers in exchange for money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Police officer suicide: Workplace racism allegations in SPF will be investigated as disciplinary breaches, says Shanmugam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SHREDDING OF LEAVE FORM, ABUSIVE LANGUAGE

SGT Uvaraja also alleged that in 2019, his superior shredded his leave form and uploaded a video of this action in a group chat.

SGT Uvaraja had applied for discretionary time-off which does not require the submission of such a form. He sent this application at the last minute when other officers' leave was already approved, but his superior nevertheless approved his application, Mr Shanmugam said.

This was not his first time doing so. On previous occasions, his teammates who were on leave had to be recalled to cover the manpower shortfall, Mr Shanmugam added.

In this case, SGT Uvaraja's superior spoke to him about inconveniencing the team. SGT Uvaraja maintained his time-off request and asked the superior to end their conversation in their personal chat.

The superior then shredded the leave form and uploaded a recording of him doing so on the team chat group. He said he did this because the form was not required and it contained personal information.

Mr Shanmugam said: "The superior's conduct was not professional. He should not have done that, even though one can understand his unhappiness.

"Uvaraja raised this matter up the chain of command, and the superior was then reprimanded. Uvaraja was temporarily reassigned to a different unit so that both officers could have some time to cool off."

Mr Shanmugam noted SGT Uvaraja's further allegations that other superiors used abusive language against him.

These accusations were not supported by investigations. In fact, SGT Uvaraja often directly sent messages to or called his superiors who responded to him professionally, Mr Shanmugam added.

"COVER-UP" OF OFFICERS' VAPING, SMOKING

In terms of SGT Uvaraja's complaints that other officers' misconduct was covered up, Mr Shanmugam said this was untrue.

SGT Uvaraja had made a complaint in 2021 about fellow officers vaping within police compounds. He alleged that this was covered up.

Mr Shanmugam said that SGT Uvaraja's commander had acted on this information and directed an independent superior from a different unit to conduct a surprise check. All lockers and personal belongings within the police compound were checked, despite the complaint being directed only at a few specific officers.

The officers were interviewed and the complaint was not made out, said Mr Shanmugam.

SGT Uvaraja's identity as the whistleblower was not disclosed to the independent superior or the officers involved.

Separately, in January 2023, SGT Uvaraja reported other officers for smoking within a different police compound. When evidence of this was uncovered during investigations, the officers were referred to the police's Internal Affairs Office and disciplined, said Mr Shanmugam.

"UNFAIRLY HELD BACK"

Mr Shanmugam then addressed SGT Uvaraja's claims that he was unfairly held back in his career and given unfair performance appraisals.

"These are untrue," Mr Shanmugam said.

"Uvaraja was given opportunities to apply for postings, like his colleagues in the Police Land Divisions. When Uvaraja asked to be transferred, his superiors had facilitated and acceded to his requests, wherever possible."

At SGT Uvaraja's request, he was transferred to six different work units in nine years - significantly more than the norm, Mr Shanmugam added.

Two of these transfers were related to his whistleblowing on the alleged smoking offences because he felt uncomfortable working with the colleagues he had reported.

As for his performance appraisals, Mr Shanmugam said that investigations found his performance grades "were a fair assessment of his work contributions". He was also awarded the COVID-19 Resilience Medal.

OSTRACISM

SGT Uvaraja also alleged that he was treated like an outcast by his team, saying he had invited his team to his wedding but nobody showed up.

Mr Shanmugam said this was untrue. SGT Uvaraja only invited his officer-in-charge, who accepted the invitation but fell ill that day and was unable to attend. He apologised to SGT Uvaraja for this.

SGT Uvaraja also told his commanding officer about the wedding but did not follow up with an invitation. Nevertheless, the commanding officer congratulated him in front of his teammates.

OFFICER FACED PERSONAL CHALLENGES, WAS GIVEN SUPPORT

Mr Shanmugam then detailed the professional support that SGT Uvaraja received from SPF amid problems with his family and health.

The sergeant appeared to face psychological stresses and had attended multiple psychological consultations for chronic insomnia since 2017.

He displayed anxiety and depressive symptoms, and also seemed to have a "tense relationship" with his wife and family, said Mr Shanmugam.

In April 2023, SGT Uvaraja's wife called the police after a domestic argument. In July 2023 - the month he died - his brother, mother and sister-in-law also made police reports over altercations involving the sergeant.

There were three criminal and disciplinary investigations into SGT Uvaraja at the time of his death. First, he was under a criminal investigation for offences including under the Protection from Harassment Act.

Second, he was under a disciplinary investigation as he was on medical leave but left his house on multiple occasions in July 2023. This is a disciplinary offence in SPF.

Third, he was put under another disciplinary investigation in April 2023 for leaving unfinished work unattended and refusing to finish the tasks until he was told a third time to do so.

Mr Shanmugam said that the police had given SGT Uvaraja professional support in the form of substantial time off, psychological counselling and coaching.

From 2014 until his death in 2023, he took an average of 120 days of leave annually - "much more" than an officer would typically get, said the minister.

This included more than 100 days of no-pay leave in 2015 and 2022, and more than 200 days in 2016. He was granted the time off after using up his medical and annual leave.

He was assigned a para-counsellor on two occasions - in January 2023 after he reported experiencing work stress, and then in February 2023 when he showed "signs of being unstable" after being transferred to a new unit at his request. A police psychologist also attended to him on the second occasion.

Mr Shanmugam said that SGT Uvaraja's superiors had assessed that his performance was below average. They guided him through face-to-face engagements, reviewing plans for him and setting achievable targets.

For example, when he was at the community policing unit from 2018 to 2021, "various work templates and resources" were given to the sergeant to help him, said the minister.

Mr Shanmugam added that SGT Uvaraja's colleagues were sad that he took his own life, but also disappointed by his false claims about the police force.

"One officer who had partnered Uvaraja shared that she had encouraged him to start afresh when he was given a new posting, despite his past unhappinesses. But she was disappointed when he frequently did not show up for work," he said.

"Another officer recalled how he had spent efforts to arrange one-on-one chats and meals with Uvaraja and sending him well wishes on his birthday to motivate him."

Several teammates worked alongside SGT Uvaraja and tried to help him, including covering his shifts when he was absent, added Mr Shanmugam.

There is "a considerable feeling" among the officers that much was done for SGT Uvaraja by them individually and by SPF as an organisation.

"Despite all that, he seems to have externalised many of his issues onto his colleagues and the SPF. And there is considerable sadness at that," said the minister.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police officer suicide: Workplace racism allegations in SPF will be investigated as disciplinary breaches, says Shanmugam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before his death, Sergeant Uvaraja Gopal claimed his teammates in the Singapore Police Force used racial slurs against him and that superiors bullied him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
5 people helped police arrest chopper-wielding man on Commonwealth Avenue; no sign it was an act of terror

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: Five members of the public helped police subdue a man after he went around wielding a chopper and attacking people around Commonwealth Avenue, including at an HDB lift lobby, Margaret Drive hawker centre and a park connector.

The suspect, a 20-year-old man, will be charged in court on Monday for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, said police on Sunday (Feb 4).

Preliminary investigations revealed that the man acted alone. There were no indications to suggest that the incident was an act of terror, said police.

The man was not known to the seven people he attacked. He allegedly attacked them with a knife, a chopper and his bare hands.

Two men, aged 76 and 40, as well as a six-year-old girl sustained minor injuries and were taken conscious to the hospital. They received outpatient treatment.

Another three men, aged 54, 21 and 20, as well as a 45-year-old woman sustained minor injuries and declined further medical assistance.

A court order will be sought for the suspect to be remanded at the Institute of Mental Health for psychiatric assessment.

The offence carries a prison term of up to seven years, a fine, caning or any combination of these punishments.

It is also an offence to carry an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful purpose. This offence carries an imprisonment term of up to three years and at least six strokes of the cane.

Police said they received a call for assistance at 7.05pm on Saturday about the man holding a chopper running towards 301 Commonwealth Avenue.

They arrived at the location within eight minutes of the call, and arrested the man about 400m away at 1 Dundee Road with the help of the five members of public, who detained the man at about 7.18pm.

The man allegedly attacked the first victim near Margaret Drive Hawker Centre, and the second and third victims at the ground floor lift lobby of a nearby HDB block.

The man then allegedly attacked the fourth victim in the vicinity of Margaret Drive Hawker Centre, and the fifth to seventh victims along the Alexandra Canal park connector.

The police presented the Public Spiritedness Award to the five members of the public who helped in the arrest.

Three of them were present at the ceremony - Mr Mok Kwong Heng, Mr Gangatharan Saravanan and Mr Emmanuel Lee Wei Chuan.

Mr Lee, 21, is one of the victims who gave chase after he was attacked.

"The police would like to commend the five members of the public who detained the offender before the police arrival," said AC Serene Chiu, assistant commander of SPF's Clementi Division.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 people helped police arrest chopper-wielding man on Commonwealth Avenue; no sign it was an act of terror

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE: Five members of the public helped police subdue a man after he went around wielding a chopper and attacking people around Commonwealth Avenue, including at an HDB lift lobby, Margaret Drive hawker centre and a park connector.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Woman, 80, crashes car into Clementi police HQ fence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A car skidded and crashed into a fence at the Clementi Police Division Headquarters (HQ) on Saturday, Jan. 27, 2024.

The accident, which occurred at 5:55pm, left an elderly man and woman trapped and injured.

The driver, an 80-year-old woman and a male passenger, also 80, were sent to the hospital conscious.

According to Shin Min Daily News, the driver lost control of the car while attempting to make a left turn into Lempeng Drive from Faber Path.

The car then hit the curb and crashed into the fence.

Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers arrived in less than five minutes and promptly rescued both people in 15 minutes, said a Shin Min reader known only as Su.

Su, who lives nearby, said he heard a loud bang followed by the sound of emergency brakes.

In his photo shared with Shin Min, SCDF personnel appear to be inspecting the scene and helping to rescue the pair.
Top photo by Shin Min Daily News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman, 80, crashes car into Clementi police HQ fence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The driver lost control when making a left turn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Father gets jail for beating 9-year-old son with umbrellas and cane

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: A 45-year-old man was sentenced to three weeks' jail on Monday (Jan 29) for giving his nine-year-old son a beating with two umbrellas and a cane that left marks on him.

The man, who cannot be named to protect his son's identity, had pleaded guilty in November to one count of voluntarily causing hurt to a minor.

A second charge of injuring his wife, who tried to shield her son, was considered in sentencing.

The beating took place after the boy attended a birthday party with his mother on Nov 30, 2022.

Before leaving the party, the boy said the birthday boy had given him a S$50 note.

Suspecting that her son was lying, the woman asked him to return the money and he did so before heading home.

When the boy's father returned home from work, he wanted to discipline his son for stealing and lying.

He struck the boy multiple times on his palms and thighs with an umbrella.

The man's wife intervened, but he told the crying boy to step outside the house.

The man shut the door on his son, but his wife opened the door to let the boy back in.

The man used a bigger umbrella to hit the boy again. Despite his wife's interventions, he took a cane and continued striking the boy, hitting his wife in the process.

A member of the public called the police over the sound of the beating, crying and screaming from all three parties.

The police arrived and arrested the man. The boy and his mother were taken to hospital, with the boy sustaining multiple red marks on his palms, forearms, calf and hip.

The prosecution had sought six to eight weeks' jail for the man, while defence lawyers Ms Luo Ling Ling and Mr Joshua Ho asked for non-jail sentences such as a short detention order instead.

The lawyers said their client, who works in private education, had attempted to use "correctional force" to discipline his child, but did not expect that his actions would turn out to be "excessive and disproportionate".

At his November 2023 hearing, the man said he was "overcome with emotions" because of his deep disappointment in his son.

"When my wife tried to stop me, I did not stop hitting my son and accidentally hit her as well. I did not set out to hurt my family and I am sorry for what I have done," he said.

He was allowed to begin his jail term in March.

The penalty for voluntarily causing hurt is a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$5,000 (US$3,730), or both.

In cases where the victim is under 14, offenders can face enhanced penalties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Father gets jail for beating 9-year-old son with umbrellas and cane

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The father previously said he accepted that he had used the wrong means to discipline his son.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Lawsuit filed over 'everyday' racial profiling by Japan police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Every time I finish work, I'm hiding in my house ... because I don't want to face another police (encounter)," he said outside the Tokyo District Court.

The third plaintiff, a man born in Pakistan who has been a Japanese citizen since the age of 13, said he has been questioned more than a dozen times, including once in front of his house.

Although lawsuits have been filed in the past about excessive questioning by police, this is the first one regarding racial profiling during questioning, lawyers for the three men said.

In 2021, the NPA spotted "six inappropriate cases of police questioning even though officers had no intention of discrimination based on race or nationality", a senior agency official told parliament in 2022.

The NPA continues to educate officers to respect human rights, the official said at the time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawsuit filed over 'everyday' racial profiling by Japan police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TOKYO: Racial profiling by police is an "everyday occurrence" in Japan, one of three foreign-born residents who sued the government over the issue on Monday (Jan 29) said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Boss In Taiwan Cancels Stressful Corporate Event & Gives Employees S$427 Angbao Each Instead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Must Share News - Independent News For Singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Boss In Taiwan Gives Employees S$427 Angbao From Funds For Cancelled Corporate Event

After hearing that his employees were reluctant to attend a corporate event, a boss in Taiwan cancelled it for them.

He then redistributed the money used to fund the event, giving each of his employees an angbao containing NT10,000 (S427).

Explaining the decision, the boss said no one likes eating with their bosses and would much rather sit down for a meal with their families.

Cancels corporate event for employees

Last Tuesday (16 Jan), Luo Shaonan - the founder of Fufa Shoes in Taiwan - took to Facebook to share about his decision to cancel his company's corporate event.

In his post, he shared that he had initially scheduled a company dinner event that all employees had to attend.

However, Mr Luo ended up cancelling it after learning that his staff found the occasion stressful to attend due to the presence of stakeholders.

In addition, he explained that for some employees, it would be their first time meeting the stakeholders.

As a result, it could be "awkward" for them to have dinner together.

Boss in Taiwan gifts employees S$427 angbao

Mr Luo went on to share that he decided to give his employees angbaos, part of which contained the money he intended to use on the event.

The angbaos contained NT10,000 (S$427.29) each - more than the NT2,000 (S$85.45) that would've been spent per person for the event.

Mr Luo added that his employees said they much preferred the money.

This way, he noted, they could spend it on having a dinner with their family members instead.

Mr Luo ultimately ended his post by stating he would continue to implement changes catering to the needs of his staff.

His post has since gone viral, with more than 2,300 comments at the time of writing.

Many netizens complimented Mr Luo for his efforts in looking after his employees.

Meanwhile, others wanted to know if his company still had vacancies for new staff members.

In response, Mr Luo joked that they could submit their résumés.

Of course, this isn't the first time a company in Taiwan has provided its employees with eye-catching benefits.

Earlier this month, Tigerair Taiwan awarded an average of 10.8 months' bonus to its employees.

Tigerair Taiwan Employees Get Average 10.8 Months' Bonus, Some Receive Up To 14 Months' Worth

Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.

Featured image adapted from Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boss In Taiwan Cancels Stressful Corporate Event & Gives Employees S$427 Angbao Each Instead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A boss in Taiwan gave his employees an angbao each after cancelling a corporate event they felt reluctant to attend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Woman From Australia Bumps Into Boss On Flight After Taking Sick Leave To Travel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Must Share News - Independent News For Singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Woman Takes Sick Leave - Only To Bump Into Boss On Flight

Faking being sick to skip work and go on a trip is probably something that most of us have been tempted to do.

Well, one woman from Australia decided to take the plunge and do such a thing - only to see her boss on the same flight.

Talk about suay.

Fortunately, she was able to avoid any awkward interactions by disguising herself with a cap and sunglasses.

Woman from Australia sees boss on same flight after faking sick

The woman, Leila Soares aka @leilabelosoares, shared a seven-second clip on TikTok detailing the hilarious incident.

Her video starts by showing a line of passengers loading their baggage into the overhead compartments inside a plane.

In the text overlay, she wrote that she messaged her boss to call in sick.

Little did she know he would be on the same flight as her.

While recording the video, she briefly zoomed into a moustached man in blue getting up from his seat. This was presumably her boss.

The video proceeds to cut to Leila herself, seated at the back of the plane.

Fortunately for her, she apparently managed to avoid catching her employer's attention by disguising herself with a mask, sunglasses, and a cap.

Netizens share similar experiences

The video quickly went viral on TikTok, with many expressing their fear of ever finding themselves in the same situation.

Others noted that they had similar encounters with their employers as well.

One user mentioned that they faked being sick to go to the casino - only to find their boss waving at them.

Another netizen said that her husband had the same experience.

After calling in sick, he ended up having lunch in the same restaurant as his boss.

There were those who also asked for an update - even the official Microsoft TikTok account.

While Leila hasn't provided an update yet, we hope she managed to escape the attention of her boss and enjoyed her getaway.

That said, if you really feel like chao keng (feigning sickness), staying home and keeping a super low profile is probably the best idea.

Also read: S'pore Staff Claims Boss Cancelled Approved Leave To Go On Own Holiday, Requests Redditors' Advice

S'pore Staff Claims Boss Cancelled Approved Leave To Go On Own Holiday, Requests Redditors' Advice

Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.

Featured image adapted from @leilabelosoares on TikTok.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman From Australia Bumps Into Boss On Flight After Taking Sick Leave To Travel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A woman from Australia was on the same flight as her boss after calling in sick to go on a trip, making for an awkward experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
35-Year-Old Man Dangling From Bedok HDB Parapet Apprehended Under Mental Health Act

# data[].attributes.body
Sec 7

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Must Share News - Independent News For Singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Man Arrested After Dangling Off 11th-Floor Bedok HDB Parapet

Authorities apprehended a 35-year-old man after rescuing him from a parapet of an HDB block in Bedok.

Footage circulating online showed the man dangling off the side of the block from the waist down.

Negotiators managed to get the man to safety after two hours. Rescuers from the Singapore Civil Defense Force (SCDF) were also on-site to render assistance.

The police later arrested the man under the Mental Health Act.

Man seen dangling from Bedok HDB on 22 Jan morning

According to 8world News, the incident happened on Monday (22 Jan) morning.

In videos and pictures circulating online, a man was seen dangling off a parapet from the waist down, barely clinging to the edge of the structure.

Responding to AsiaOne's queries, police said they received a call for assistance at Block 517 Bedok North Avenue 2 at about 9.55am.

When they arrived, they found a 35-year-old man whose lower body was hanging off the parapet next to the corridor.

As such, the police determined that the man might pose a danger to himself.

Officers from the Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) and the SCDF also responded to the case, the police added.

After two hours of negotiations, CNU officers managed to convince the man to get off the parapet and brought him to safety at around 11.43am.

2 safety life air packs & DART rescuers deployed as a precaution: SCDF

In response to MS News ' queries, an SCDF spokesperson confirmed the incident on 22 Jan at the above location. There, they found a person dangling from the ledge on the 11th floor.

SCDF subsequently deployed two safety life air packs when they arrived at the scene.

Rescuers from the Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (DART) were also on standby as a precautionary measure.

The police later arrested the man under the Mental Health Act. No one was injured from the incident, 8world reported.

Also Read: SCDF Officer Rescues Woman Dangling From Lavender HDB, Onlookers Applaud Heroic Act

SCDF Officer Rescues Woman Dangling From Lavender HDB, Onlookers Applaud Heroic Act

Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.

Featured image adapted from Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
35-Year-Old Man Dangling From Bedok HDB Parapet Apprehended Under Mental Health Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authorities apprehended a 35-year-old man after rescuing him from a parapet of an HDB block in Bedok on Monday (22 Jan).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Man, 49, naked & holding knife, hides amongst tree branches during 3-hour standoff with police in Hougang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man, 49, naked & holding knife, hides amongst tree branches during 3-hour standoff with police in Hougang

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Jail for woman who lied she was molested by a passerby so her boyfriend wouldn't get in trouble for assaulting him

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - When her boyfriend assaulted a passerby shortly after his release from prison, Tan Qiu Yan decided to give false information to the police, telling them that he retaliated because the man had molested her.

The 24-year-old Singaporean was sentenced to one week's jail on Friday (Jan 12) after she pleaded guilty to providing false information to the police.

Her boyfriend, Tan Jek He, 23, has been charged with the same offence and another charge of voluntarily causing hurt, and will return to court on March 11 when he is expected to plead guilty.

The court heard that on the evening of Aug 11 last year, victim Zaman Sariful, 35, was walking along a covered walkway in Lavender Street while using his mobile phone.

Noticing that Tan and her boyfriend were walking towards him from the opposite direction, Mr Zaman moved to make way for them.

As the couple walked by, Tan's boyfriend thought that Mr Zaman was staring at his girlfriend and confronted him.

Even though Mr Zaman denied staring at Tan, her boyfriend punched Mr Zaman once on his left cheek, which resulted in a cut on his left lower jaw.

Mr Zaman then tried to push him away before walking away to call his friends for assistance.

THE PLAN

As Tan's boyfriend had been recently released from prison for a previous offence that was not disclosed in court documents, the couple was worried that he would get into trouble for hitting Mr Zaman.

The two decided to concoct a story to justify his actions, said Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Vincent Ong.

Tan came up with the idea of alleging that she had been molested by Mr Zaman.

They both agreed that if there were investigations into the assault, they would tell the police that her boyfriend acted only because Mr Zaman had touched her right lower butt cheek.

THE LIE

After Mr Zaman met with his friends, they searched for the couple and managed to detain Tan's boyfriend on a pavement near NTUC FairPrice at 808 Kitchener Complex.

One of Mr Zaman's friends then called the police.

When police arrived, they interviewed Tan about the incident.

She gave the police false information, stating that Mr Zaman had molested her and her boyfriend had retaliated by punching him.

Tan also told police that she wished for action to be taken against Mr Zaman.

The police then took a statement from Mr Zaman, who denied touching Tan and hitting her boyfriend.

As a result of their false information, the matter was referred to the Special Victims Unit of the Singapore Police Force for further investigation into the alleged molestation.

The police obtained closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage which captured the incident.

Contrary to what was alleged by the couple, the CCTV footage revealed that there was no contact, at the relevant time, between Tan and Mr Zaman.

About 10 days later, a further statement was taken from Tan who persisted in giving the false information to the police, reiterating that she had been molested.

It was only after the CCTV footage was shown to Tan that she admitted to giving false information to the police and that Mr Zaman had not molested her.

SHIELDING BOYFRIEND FROM INVESTIGATION

Seeking a jail term of between one and two weeks, DPP Ong argued that Tan's culpability in the matter was high as she was an active participant in the conspiracy and not someone who was roped in for an illegal purpose.

"The accused knew that by falsely alleging that the victim molested her, the victim would be subject to investigations by the police, but she only cared about protecting her boyfriend from the lawful consequences of his criminal conduct," said DPP Ong.

In sentencing, District Judge Paul Chan said that there was a clear need for deterrence given the harm that could have been caused to the victim.

The judge added that while Tan's primary motivation was to protect her boyfriend, she was the most important actor in the couple's accounts to bolster the deception.

For providing false information to the police, Tan could have been jailed for up to two years or fined, or both.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jail for woman who lied she was molested by a passerby so her boyfriend wouldn't get in trouble for assaulting him

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - When her boyfriend assaulted a passerby shortly after his release from prison, Tan Qiu Yan decided to give false information to the police, telling them that he retaliated because the man had molested her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Man gets jail for pushing 87-year-old cleaner who suffered skull fracture, traumatic brain injury in fall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man gets jail for pushing 87-year-old cleaner who suffered skull fracture, traumatic brain injury in fall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A cleaner in his 80s was sweeping the grounds of Teban Gardens estate when an encounter with a younger man led to him sustaining a skull fracture and traumatic brain injury.

# data[].attributes.body
Anything you might have observed that is not right?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
HTX launches innovation centre for global tech start-ups to work with Home Team agencies

# data[].attributes.body
What problem do we need solving.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OPEN INNOVATION CHALLENGE

One of Hatch's key programmes - the biannual Open Innovation Challenge - is an accelerator programme that will give start-ups a rare chance to immediately begin working with HTX's scientists and engineers, as well as Home Team departments, to trial and prove their concepts in real-world scenarios.

For example, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) had called for technology to monitor personnel in indoor environments in real time.

Since the Open Innovation Challenge was launched in March, five start-ups have been selected for the programme. This was out of the 60 start-ups from Singapore, the US, UK, Israel and various industries that applied.

Each start-up will receive US$50,000 in funding and can get additional funding on a case-by-case basis.

Two of the selected start-ups, both based in Israel, demonstrated how their technology works at Tuesday's launch event.

One of them - Vayyar, which produces 4D imaging radar sensors - is working with ICA on a radar-based scanning technology to see through and into materials.

"(This means) that you walk and you're being scanned as you go with your luggage. There's no need to stop, and you have a much better experience as a passenger for example," Mr Assaf Kartowsky, Vayyar's project manager of homeland security and public safety, told reporters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HTX launches innovation centre for global tech start-ups to work with Home Team agencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of Hatch's key programmes - the biannual Open Innovation Challenge - is an accelerator programme that will give start-ups a rare chance to immediately begin working with HTX's scientists and engineers, as well as Home Team departments, to trial and prove their concepts in real-world scenarios.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Woman jailed for splashing hot water on husband who wanted to divorce her

# data[].attributes.body
VCH by splashing hot water on victim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: A woman was sentenced to eight months' jail on Tuesday (May 30) for splashing hot water on her husband, who wanted to divorce her.

The man suffered second-degree burns and blistering from the attack.

Indonesian national Rahimah Nisva, 29, pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt by hot water.

The court heard that she married her husband, a 24-year-old Malaysian who lives in Singapore, in 2019.

They registered their marriage in Batam, Indonesia, where Rahimah lived, and had a daughter together in January 2023.

In December 2022, the couple's marital relations began worsening as the man felt Rahimah was being too possessive.

In March 2023, he broached the possibility of a divorce while he was in Batam with his wife.

Rahimah did not display any signs of unhappiness after hearing this, and her husband went back to Singapore the next day.

However, a few days later on Mar 22, Rahimah took a ferry from Batam to Singapore with a colleague.

She had invited her female colleague on what she claimed was a leisure trip, offering meals in return for her company.

When the two women arrived in Singapore, Rahimah told her colleague that she needed to meet her husband to obtain some documents.

Rahimah changed into a black dress and put on headgear that left only her eyes exposed.

She went to her husband's home and scouted the area before going back to meet her colleague.

Early the next morning, Rahimah filled a thermoflask with boiling water and told her colleague that she wanted to meet her husband before they returned to Batam.

She put on a similar getup as the previous day and waited at a staircase two flats away from her husband's home.

Rahimah ran towards him and splashed boiling water from her flask onto his back when he was putting on his shoes outside the flat.

The man who was seated on a chair shouted in pain and tried to remove his shirt while Rahimah fled.

The man's family members quickly lodged a police report.

Officers from the Police Coast Guard intercepted the ferry Rahimah and her colleague were on while it was en route to Batam and arrested her.

The victim was taken to hospital with a second-degree scald injury with blistering and skin loss over his upper back.

The injury extended to the back of his neck and part of his right arm.

He was given 16 days' of medical leave and follow-up appointments with the Plastics Outpatient Clinic at Singapore General Hospital.

The prosecutor asked for seven to nine months' jail for Rahimah, pointing to how the offence was deliberate and premeditated.

"The accused deliberately wore clothing that would conceal her identity, and specifically lay in wait outside the victim's home before ambushing him. She had also paid a visit to this location the day before, to familiarise herself with the area," said the prosecutor.

The victim was also vulnerable as he was tying his shoelaces and unable to evade the hot water at the time of the attack, he added.

Rahimah had also attempted to abscond after committing the offence.

It was not stated in open court or in documents whether the couple has since divorced, but Rahimah said she wanted to reunite with her husband.

For voluntarily causing hurt by means of a heated substance, she could have been jailed for up to seven years and fined. She cannot be caned as she is a woman.

As the offence was against someone she was in an intimate relationship with, the penalties could have been doubled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman jailed for splashing hot water on husband who wanted to divorce her

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE: A woman was sentenced to eight months' jail on Tuesday (May 30) for splashing hot water on her husband, who wanted to divorce her. The man suffered second-degree burns and blistering from the attack. Indonesian national Rahimah Nisva, 29, pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt by hot water.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Whampoa mala hotpot cook punches manager & knocks his tooth out after being nagged about 'messy kitchen'

# data[].attributes.body
Crimminal Intention and Voluntary Causing Hurt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Whampoa coffee shop mala hotpot stall cook completely flipped out one day when his naggy manager kept pestering him about his kitchen being "messy".

The cook threatened to kill the manager with a chopper and punched him until a tooth chipped.

While he might have vented his frustrations, Zhao Chuanfei, 47, paid the price with nine months in jail.

Manager said kitchen too messy

Zhao was a cook working at a mala hotpot stall at the coffee shop at Block 87 Whampoa Road.

On Mar. 3, 2023, at about 3:50pm, his 36-year-old manager walked into the stall's kitchen to check on him.

The manager asked Zhao to reorganise the plates and ingredients as he felt the kitchen was messy.

Cook said he has "own way of working"

Zhao brushed him off and said he had his "own way of working".

The situation escalated when his manager insisted that "different workplaces have different practices" and pointed out that Zhao could choose to quit if he didn't want to follow his instructions.

In anger, Zhao picked up a chopper and pointed it at the manager while moving towards him.

"If you continue to force me, I will kill you!"

However, Zhao decided to drop the chopper and used his hands to punch his manager's face multiple times instead.

Zhao then picked up the chopper again and dragged his manager into a corner.

He then dropped the chopper again and continued throwing punches at his manager's head and body.

Afterwards, Zhao held the chopper at his manager's bicep, threatening, "If you continue to force me, I will kill you!"

Manager left with bruises a chipped tooth

The manager subsequently escaped and called the police for help.

A hospital doctor diagnosed the manager with contusions on his face and body and a chipped tooth.

Zhao, a Chinese national, pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal intimidation and a charge of voluntarily causing hurt on May 25, 2023. Two other charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.

Claimed manager often verbally abused him

According to Shin Min Daily News, Zhao said during mitigation that he came to Singapore to work as he hoped to earn enough money to return home.

He said he was paid S$40 a day.

Zhao claimed that his manager often verbally abused him as the stall's business was not good and was "always trying to find ways to fire him".

He also alleged that the manager wanted to earn a S$400 referral fee by introducing a new cook to the job.

Zhao pleaded with the judge to give him a lighter sentence as he has a cancer-ridden 70-year-old mother who took care of him as a single-parent family.

He said he also raises his son and daughter alone and wants to return home as soon as possible.

Manager regrets not firing cook earlier

When contacted by Shin Min, the manager denied Zhao's claims.

He claimed that Zhao had always been "problematic" and "hot-headed".

The manager wanted to fire Zhao three days after Zhao started work but decided to let him stay on as he was sympathetic to his circumstances.

The manager said he regrets his decision and will be more careful hiring future staff.
Top image via Shin Min Daily News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Whampoa mala hotpot cook punches manager & knocks his tooth out after being nagged about 'messy kitchen'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Whampoa coffee shop mala hotpot stall cook completely flipped out one day when his naggy manager kept pestering him about his kitchen being "messy". The cook threatened to kill the manager with a chopper and punched him until a tooth chipped.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
How accepting negative emotions can help your mental health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW YORK - In a study published recently in the journal "Emotion", researchers found people who habitually judge negative feelings as bad or inappropriate have more anxiety and depression symptoms and feel less satisfied with their lives than people who perceive their negative emotions in a positive or neutral light.

The findings add to research that indicates people fare better when they accept their unpleasant emotions as appropriate and healthy, rather than try to suppress them.

WHY JUDGING YOUR FEELINGS CAN BACKFIRE

When we perceive our emotions as bad, we pile more bad feelings onto our existing ones, which makes us feel worse, said Dr Emily Willroth, a psychologist at Washington University in St. Louis and a co-author of the study.

It's likely to increase the intensity of our negative feelings and the amount of time we suffer from them. Instead of having a feeling pass after a few minutes, you might ruminate on it for hours.

Research has linked emotional suppression with an increased risk for mental health problems. "What one resists, persists," said Dr Amanda Shallcross, a naturopathic physician who studies emotion regulation at the Cleveland Clinic.

When you avoid your emotions, "you're bound to experience longer-term negative mental and physical health," she said.

HOW TO MAKE PEACE WITH YOUR FEELINGS

Remember that unpleasant feelings are part of being human. Negative feelings can even serve a purpose, Dr Willroth said.

"Anxiety can help you to face a potential threat, anger can help you stand up for yourself, and sadness can signal to other people that you need their social support."

When you experience a bad feeling, you don't have to love the feeling - just try to feel neutral about it. The new study found that people who reacted neutrally were just as psychologically healthy as those who reacted more positively.

Practice and experience may also make emotional acceptance easier. Emotional well-being increases with age, and Dr Shallcross's research has found that this could partially stem from the fact that people are generally better at accepting their emotions as they get older.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How accepting negative emotions can help your mental health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW YORK - In a study published recently in the journal "Emotion", researchers found people who habitually judge negative feelings as bad or inappropriate have more anxiety and depression symptoms and feel less satisfied with their lives than people who perceive their negative emotions in a positive or neut

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZSL8qhQyW/?t=1

Taking of one self is also important