PHV driver fined S$650 for touting at HarbourFront taxi stand after asking customer for S$65 fare

A private-hire vehicle (PHV) driver was fined S$650 after he was found to have loitered around the taxi stand at HarbourFront Centre and solicited passengers.

The incident happened on March 31, 2024, after a passenger returning from Batam, Indonesia, encountered the driver while waiting in the taxi queue.

The driver, Steven Gan Teck Guan, was subsequently charged with loitering for the purpose of soliciting passengers. He contested the charge and represented himself in court.

Driver offered ride for S$65

According to the court judgment, Ranjit Singh Manjit Singh was waiting at the HarbourFront Centre taxi stand after returning from Batam when Gan approached people in the queue.

Singh said Gan pointed out that the taxi queue was long and offered to provide passengers with a ride. When Singh asked about the fare, Gan reportedly said he would charge the premium price displayed on the Grab app.

Singh checked his Grab app and saw a displayed fare of S$65.

He then asked Gan whether he was touting for passengers. The two subsequently became involved in a verbal exchange.

Singh took photographs of Gan’s vehicle and submitted feedback to the Land Transport Authority (LTA), stating that the vehicle had been parked at the taxi bay.

Gan later denied that he had been touting. He claimed that the incident had been fabricated by the LTA, with Singh allegedly working with the authorities to entice him into committing an offence.

Driver claimed he was waiting for a customer

Gan told the court that Singh had approached him first and that he merely responded after Singh initiated communication.

He also claimed that he was waiting for a personal customer at the time and had been walking around because of his diabetes, arthritis and gout.

Gan said he would wait at the location for passengers with personal bookings or ride-hailing bookings.

However, he later acknowledged that his earlier statement to the LTA was not completely accurate, although he did not explain which parts were untrue.

Gan also alleged that Singh had offered him S$50, which he rejected. According to Gan, he told Singh that he had an appointment and that Singh should make a booking through Grab instead.

He claimed that his personal customer eventually failed to turn up, after which he drove away.

No ride-hailing bookings found

Surveillance footage covering the period from 5.30pm to 6.15pm showed Gan remaining in the area for more than half an hour.

The footage also showed him walking around where people were waiting for taxis.

The judge found this significant because there was no evidence that Gan was at the location to fulfil a pre-arranged booking.

The investigation officer had also contacted four ride-hailing companies — Grab, Gojek, Tada and Ryde Technologies — to check whether Gan had any bookings between 5pm and 6.30pm that day.

None of the companies had records of a booking for Gan during that period.

Gan nevertheless maintained that he had been waiting for a personal customer.

He admitted that he had no evidence proving that he had customers that day, but said he knew many passengers travelling from Indonesia because he had previously driven a minibus.

He claimed he had met the customer in a toilet previously, but could not remember when the meeting took place. He also said the customer had not provided him with a specific arrival time in Singapore.

The judge rejected this explanation and found Singh’s evidence credible.

Court rejects claim that incident was fabricated

The court also rejected Gan’s allegation that the LTA had fabricated the case or conspired with Singh to trap him.

Based on the evidence, the judge found that Gan had been loitering at the taxi stand for the purpose of soliciting passengers.

The prosecution sought a S$700 fine. The court noted that the LTA had previously offered Gan a S$500 composition, or out-of-court settlement, for the offence.

LTA prosecutors also said they would have sought a S$600 fine if Gan had pleaded guilty instead of contesting the charge.

The judge ultimately imposed a S$650 fine, taking into account Gan’s conduct and the fact that Singh felt the situation could potentially escalate.

Gan remains out on bail while awaiting an appeal.

The case highlights Singapore’s strict rules against taxi and private-hire vehicle touting, particularly at designated taxi stands and other locations where passengers are waiting for transport. Drivers who solicit passengers outside the permitted booking system can face enforcement action and financial penalties.