27.3 C
Singapore
Saturday, September 6, 2025
Ads
Home Blog Page 2183

VIBRANT CEO PUSHED EX-CHAIRMAN OF KTL DOWN STAIRS & BROKE HIS SHOULDER, CONVICTED

0

Khua Kian Keong, the Chief Executive of Vibrant Group, has been found guilty of causing grievous hurt. The announcement was made through a bourse filing, as reported by The Straits Times.

The incident took place over two years ago, when Khua allegedly pushed Tan Tock Han, the former chairman of KTL Global, down a flight of stairs, resulting in a severe fracture to Han’s right shoulder.

The motive behind this altercation was reportedly a dispute involving a substantial debt of $2.4 million owed by Tan Tock Han.

Khua Kian Keong, who is 55 years old, has been convicted under Section 325 of the Penal Code 1871 of Singapore. This section stipulates that individuals who voluntarily cause grievous hurt can face imprisonment of up to 10 years, along with a significant fine or caning.

However, due to Khua’s age, he will be exempt from caning.

The court is set to reconvene in October for the mitigation and sentencing phase. Meanwhile, Khua is seeking legal counsel to determine the best course of action for his defense.

The conviction of their Chief Executive has sent shockwaves throughout Vibrant Group’s board and nominating committee. The company is now navigating a challenging period as they assess the implications of this incident on their reputation, operations, and stakeholders.

Khua has assured the board of his full cooperation and has pledged to keep them informed of any significant developments.

Following the announcement, shares of Vibrant Group experienced considerable volatility. On the day of the news, the stock surged by 7.5 per cent or $0.005, reaching a closing price of $0.072.

Investors and analysts are closely monitoring the situation to gauge its potential long-term impact on the company’s financial performance and market value.

The news of a corporate leader facing criminal conviction has raised concerns about corporate governance, ethics, and leadership in the business world.

MOE SENIOR ASST DIRECTOR CHARGED WITH DRINK-DRIVING & INJURING MAN IN BRAS BASAH ACCIDENT

0

43-year-old Edmund Lam Kiat Choong, a senior assistant director at the Ministry of Education (MOE) was charged in court on 4 August with one count of drink driving and another count of dangerous driving, after he was allegedly caught drink driving in 2022 and injuring another driver after crashing his car.

The incident involved a head-on collision with another car while driving against the flow of traffic, resulting in injuries to the other driver.

The Alleged Incident

On December 8, 2022, in Bras Basah Road, shortly before 2 am, Edmund Lam was reportedly driving under the influence of alcohol. According to court documents, he drove against the flow of traffic for nearly 320 meters before colliding head-on with another car.

The driver of the other vehicle, a 54-year-old man, sustained injuries as a result of the accident. However, specific details about the extent of his injuries were not disclosed in the court records.

Legal Implications

The legal limit for alcohol consumption while driving is 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath. However, Lam was allegedly found with more than double that amount, measuring at 77 micrograms.

The Accusations and Response

As a section head at the MOE, Lam is accused of one count each of dangerous driving and drink driving. Following the incident, the Ministry of Education expressed its intention to conduct disciplinary proceedings once Lam’s court case concludes.

They emphasized that the ministry takes staff misconduct very seriously and will take appropriate disciplinary action against those who fail to adhere to their standards of conduct and discipline.

Lam is expected to plead guilty on August 11, according to court records.

In the event of being found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, a person who is committing this offense for the first time may face imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and be subject to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

In the case of a repeat offense, the penalties become more severe. A repeat offender may be sentenced to a maximum of two years in jail and fined up to $20,000.

52 Y.O MAN WHO PUNCHED FM 91.3 RADIO HOST CHERYL MILES, CHARGED & REMANDED @ IMH

0

In a shocking incident that took place on July 26, a 52-year-old man was charged with being a public nuisance after he allegedly assaulted One FM 91.3 radio host Cheryl Miles at the Orchard MRT station.

What happened?

On a seemingly ordinary day, at around 4.20 pm, Cheryl Miles was walking out of the Orchard MRT station when she encountered a man who blocked her path.

Without warning, the man then allegedly punched her right arm in the concourse area. The incident occurred at the bustling transit hub, leaving bystanders shocked and concerned for Cheryl’s well-being.

Miles then took out her phone and filmed her alleged attacker, who was seen looking away from the camera and gesturing at her, before trying to walk away as Miles exclaimed in the video “-police, yo, yo, you just punched me, dude,” as the man waved her away before leaving the scene.

Suspect Identified and Apprehended

The police sprang into action immediately after receiving reports of the assault. Through meticulous investigation and the assistance of surveillance cameras at the station, officers from Tanglin Division managed to identify the suspect as William Aw Chin Chai.

On Tuesday, authorities arrested him in connection with the attack on Cheryl Miles.

Legal Proceedings and Medical Examination

Following his arrest, William Aw Chin Chai will be remanded for a medical examination at the Institute of Mental Health to assess the suspect’s mental state and determine if there are any underlying issues that may have contributed to his alleged actions.

The case has been adjourned to August 17 to allow for this examination to take place.

Consequences of Public Nuisance Offense

The charge of being a public nuisance carries serious implications. If found guilty, the offender can face imprisonment for up to three months and be fined up to $2,000.

61 Y.O ARRESTED, STEALING AT PLACES OF WORSHIP ALONG JOO CHIAT & JALAN ISMAIL

0

The Police have arrested a 61-year-old man for his suspected involvement in a series of theft in dwelling cases and fraudulent possession of property.

On 3 July 2023 and 26 July 2023, the Police were alerted to two separate cases of theft in dwelling where items such as mobile phones, cash and wallet were stolen from places of worship along Joo Chiat Road and Jalan Ismail respectively.

On 31 July 2023, the Police received a call for assistance on an alleged dispute along Joo Chiat Road. Through ground enquires and with the aid of images from CCTV cameras, officers from Bedok Police Division established the identity of the man and interviewed him. The man was found in possession of several electronic devices, a Singapore passport and an EZ-link card that did not belong to him. He was allegedly involved in the two cases of theft in dwelling reported on 3 July 2023 and 26 July 2023, and was subsequently arrested.

The man will be charged in court on 2 August 2023 with theft in dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871 and fraudulent possession of property, punishable under Section 35(5) Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906.

The offence of theft in dwelling carries an imprisonment term of up to seven years and a fine. The offence of fraudulent possession of property carries an imprisonment of up to one year, a fine of up to $3,000 or both.

WOMAN MOLESTED AT HAJI LANE, MAN ARRESTED WITH IN 1 HOUR

0

The Police have arrested a 35-year-old man for his suspected involvement in a case of outrage of modesty.

On 1 August 2023 at about 9.50pm, the Police received a report that a woman was purportedly molested by an unknown man at the vicinity of Haji Lane.

The woman managed to take a photo of the man and provided it to the Police when she reported the incident. Through follow-up investigations and with the aid of CCTV footage, officers from Central Police Division and the Police Operations Command Centre established the identity of the man and arrested him within one hour of the report. Police investigations are ongoing.

The offence of outrage of modesty carries an imprisonment term of up to three years, or a fine, or caning, or any combination of such punishments.

The Police have zero tolerance towards sexual offenders who threaten the safety of the community. Offenders will be dealt with sternly in accordance with the law. The Police would also like to urge members of the public to remain vigilant and to report the matter to the Police immediately, if they witness an incident of outrage of modesty, or are aware of someone being a victim of outrage of modesty.

31 Y.O OVER WORRIED AS BF TO BE DID NOT REPLY THEN STARTED PANIC

0

Im 31 years old and it’s not getting 31 is not getting any younger for a woman.

I’ve been on 4 dates with a 33y.o who I met on online dating a month and a half ago. Yesterday I wasn’t expecting a Valentines Day related gift or to hear from him because we don’t text every day. So it was a pleasant surprise to get a picture of him and his parents’ dog (he spent the weekend out of town at their place) texted to me yesterday.

I responded “Aw cuties ” and then probably did something I shouldn’t have and am now cringing at. I sent a GIF of Homer telling Marge “happy Valentine’s Day” where they’re just at the kitchen table, nothing implying love, hearts or flowers and he never responded.

It’s been 24 hours and I feel silly. We’ve never really talked about what we are looking for but have expressed we are interested and want to see where this goes. Also, he’s moving to another country for his graduate program.

Wondering if this is the cue for me to let it go and move on. We have plans to see each other on Sunday which we made over the weekend and I don’t know if that’s even going to happen anymore. I’m prone to anxious attachment and maybe I’m just overthinking things. Advice for handling the anxiety that comes with the early stages of dating?

Does anyone else have any Valentine’s Day blunders with new dates? Just me?

Here are what netizens think:

  • You say you have anxious attachment and there’s a pattern with these types I observed. When the person they are dating is doing something negative, for example not showing enough interest (in your case: not responding to a text), instead of “judging” them based on this negatively perceived behaviour (like “wow lame, no text back”), they always see that negative behaviour as NEUTRAL (justified, good) and instead they put the negativity on themselves (“I sent an embarrassing thing, I did a bad thing”).
  • I feel like that GIF would have been fine even if you’d just started talking THAT DAY. I wouldn’t assume it freaked him out. If it did, to reiterate what other commenters have been saying, I think that’s waaaay more about his attachment stuff than it is yours.
  • As someone who overthinks every thing (and spends days in a shame spin and embarrassment cycle after doing something dumb), I can honestly promise you that sending a Simpsons GIF is not a big deal. It’s funny and lightweight, and you weren’t professing your undying love for the dude. You were literally just wishing him a happy holiday. I sent valentines messages to tons on people in a platonic sense.

2 MEN ARRESTED, FRAUDULENTLY REGISTERS SIM CARDS FOR ILLICIT ACTIVITIES

0

The Police have arrested two men, aged 40 and 37, for their suspected involvement in fraudulently registering mobile lines and trading of these fraudulently registered mobile lines.

6 hour operation

On 31 July 2023, in a six-hour operation, officers from the Commercial Affairs Department and Police Intelligence Department arrested the men. Preliminary investigations revealed that the 37-year-old man was working at an events company that conducted SIM card registration roadshows. He had allegedly registered additional prepaid SIM cards without the customers’ consent. These additional prepaid SIM cards were then sold to individuals who wanted to purchase SIM cards without using their identities. The 40-year-old man allegedly abetted the offences and procured the pre-registered prepaid SIM cards from the other man and resold them to others for suspected criminal purposes. Upon their arrests, an assortment of paraphernalia such as mobile phones, prepaid SIM cards and records were seized. Police investigations are ongoing.

Criminals may exploit such fraudulently registered prepaid SIM cards as an anonymous channel of communications for illicit activities such as unlicensed moneylending, scams and vice. Scam syndicates have also been found to perpetrate their criminal activities using such prepaid SIM cards to contact victims and to communicate amongst themselves, to evade possible detection.

The offence of illegally obtaining personal information under Section 416A of the Penal Code 1871 carries an imprisonment term of up to three years,a fine of up to $10,000, or both. The offence of unauthorized modification of computer material under Section 5(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1993 carries an imprisonment term of up to three years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

The Police take a serious stance against any person who may be involved in scams and will continue to clamp down on retailers and assistants who may be indirectly facilitating illicit activities. Those involved in such illicit activities will be dealt with in accordance with the law. Members of the public are advised to refrain from purchasing pre-registered prepaid/postpaid SIM cards and to always maintain a clear view of their identification documents to prevent them from being misused during the registration of SIM cards by retailers or assistants.

TOXIC BOSS ALLEGEDLY REFUSED TO LET EMPLOYEES WORK FROM HOME

0

A netizen shared how his friend is working for a company with a toxic boss who refuses to let any of his employees work from home, and is asking for advice.

Here is the story

Asking for a friend, has anyone (successfully) reported or knows someone who has reported their company for failing to abide with the WFH regulations?

Brief background:

His company has about 10 employees. Small-ish (SME) company, bosses are old and very traditional (read: toxic). However, despite the government setting WFH requirements at 50%, his bosses have refused to let any of his/her employees work from home, even though the nature of their job is such that it is possible to do their jobs entirely remotely/from home. My friend has two elderly parents who he doesn’t really want exposed to COVID, and largely stays at home because he doesn’t want to run into the risk of passing on the virus (~20k cases yesterday).

Hence, he really wants to WFH (also because its wayyyy more convenient), and was wondering if there’s a way to force his company’s hand into allowing their employees to work from home.

As mentioned above, anyone know of a way to do so? Also, what/who are the “proper” channels to report to? And are there any potential ramifications for reporting to MOM, etc. if he eventually does so?

Thanks for everyone’s help in advance!

Netizens’ comments

  • Your friend’s best bet is to look for another job. Likely the boss won’t play nice with the employees after getting snitched.

Coming from personal experience.

  • Look for another job asap then snitch.

Take photos, save emails and messages

MAN GETS PUNCHED IN PATTAYA, VICTIM FINED, NOTHING HAPPENED TO ATTACKER

In the age of social media and viral videos, incidents like the one that occurred on Jomtien Beach in Pattaya capture the attention of millions worldwide. A video showing a Thai man punching a South Korean YouTuber, Anseong Ri, has gone viral on YouTube, raising questions about privacy, cultural differences, and social norms.

The Beach Altercation

The incident took place at approximately 2 am on a Friday, July 28, when Anseong Ri was livestreaming on YouTube and Kick websites. The video shows Ri walking on the beach, engaging with his audience when suddenly, Anupong, a Thai man in an orange shirt, confronted him, shouting angrily about not being filmed without permission.

Anupong demanded Ri to stop recording, to which Ri responded that he hadn’t filmed him. A heated argument ensued, with both parties exchanging expletives. As tensions escalated, Anupong threw punches at Ri, causing his nose to bleed. Despite pleas from onlookers, the attack persisted until Ri managed to walk away.

Attacker did not get fined, jailed or arrested

a prominent online platform, reported that Ri took some time to compose himself before returning to address the issue. However, another foreign tourist discouraged him, advising that it was not worth pursuing the matter further. Tourist Police intervened, and Ri was charged 34,000 baht for filming others without permission. Surprisingly, Anupong faced no legal consequences for the physical assault.

Debates and Opinions

The incident has sparked intense discussions online, with viewers expressing diverse opinions. Some believe that Ri was unjustly attacked and that Thailand is a dangerous place for foreigners. They argue that everyone should respect personal boundaries and that violence should never be the answer.

On the other hand, some viewers opine that Ri’s actions warranted consequences due to his disregard for others’ privacy. They argue that even though the attack may have been excessive, filming others without consent is an invasion of their privacy, and cultural norms should be respected.

GIRL FLIRTS WITH MARRIED MAN AT WORK, COMPLAINS WHEN RUMOURS START

0

My married colleague 37y.o guy bought me lunch last Friday. We are on two different sub-teams in the same company but he offered to help me on a major project throughout the weekend- because of his assistance I would bring him snacks or energy drinks. He made a joke one day about I should buy him lunch and I agreed. Fast forward and we agree to a lunch date and he ended up buying me lunch instead, in addition to getting me a box of cookies on Valentine’s day. I offered again to buy him lunch since he paid when I should have and he agreed on next Tuesday.

We have a good banter, and sometimes it can teeter on flirtatious or even adult jokes but I always thought it was jokes. When we went out to lunch nearby the office, another colleague happened to be eating at the same restaurant and saw us. Then rumours started spreading immediately… I confronted the colleague who saw us and said it was none of his business what we do with our time off the clock (probably not the best phrasing at all) and to stop spreading rumours when he has no information about anything.

However, it made me wonder if I’m the one in the wrong for allowing flirtatious behaviour from a married man and allowing him to buy me lunch. He is married but I don’t think he is on good terms with his wife. I know he also has an 8-month-old son but from certain phrasing, he’s used it seems like he and his wife are separated and co-parenting although he hasn’t specifically said that.

Am I wrong to confront the rumour spreader?

Here are what netizens think:

  • This reads like a fantasy of a 37yo man who is unhappy with his home life and daydreams about having an affair with his much younger friendly coworker.
  • She is also young and probably feels flattered and like she is saving him, and it is flattering to have someone show you attention, especially if it is someone you admire. But hopefully she will realise this guy is a dick and she will pull her head out of her arse and will keep things professional from now on.