In an alarming incident, a Grab passenger took to social media to recount an unsettling encounter with a Grab driver who allegedly directed racist insults at him during a recent ride. The incident sheds light on concerns related to racial discrimination within the ride-hailing industry.

What happened?

The passenger detailed his experience in an Instagram post, explaining that the Grab driver cited roadworks as a reason for not being able to proceed with the ride. Despite the passenger’s willingness to wait, the situation took an unexpected turn when he suggested canceling the ride due to the road closure.

The driver allegedly responded by asking the passenger about his ethnicity, specifically questioning if he was Indian. When the passenger questioned the relevance of his ethnicity, the driver purportedly made derogatory comments, stating that the passenger’s behavior was different and suggesting that he should “go back to India.”

Reported to Grab

Expressing his distress, the passenger promptly reported the incident to Grab, seeking a resolution. Despite the reported racial insults, the passenger chose not to name and shame the individual involved. Instead, he emphasized his commitment to Singapore, where he has worked and lived for the past 10 years.

In response to the incident, the passenger decided to take a Gojek ride to reach his destination. He highlighted the incident as “totally uncalled for and blatant racism.” Despite the distressing encounter, the passenger expressed gratitude for the overwhelming support he received from the community, with numerous individuals reaching out to apologize for the unfortunate incident.

As of the Instagram post, the passenger revealed that he is still awaiting a response from Grab regarding the reported incident. The outcome of Grab’s investigation and any subsequent actions taken against the driver could have significant implications for the platform’s commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of its passengers.

What the netizen said

“It was a Grab ride I booked and the driver said the road is closed due to roadworks so he can’t turn in my lane. I told him I can wait and then he said no and when I asked him to cancel the ride if he isn’t coming, he asked me if I am Indian. When I said how does that matter he went on to say your behaviour is different and that I should go back to India.“

“I reported it to Grab and still waiting for a response – I got a Gojek in the meanwhile and reached my destination. But was totally uncalled for and blatant racism. I don’t want to name and shame the person though. I work here and been here for 10 years. What’s sad is that it’s so blatant and for no reason! But then again, one bad apple doesn’t change my experience of Singapore – I love it and have had so many people reach out to apologize what I experienced.”

Source: @sgfollowsall on Instagram

In an unexpected turn of events for the Toto draw on Thursday, December 21, there was no Group 1 winner, leading to the top prize soaring to a staggering S$12.8 million (S$12,791,400 to be exact).

However, in accordance with Singapore Pools rules, the prize was divided among the Group 2 winners, resulting in a unique split of the substantial jackpot, according to Singapore Pools.

Group 2 Triumphs as Group 1 Eludes

With no Group 1 winner emerging over four consecutive draws, the S$12.8 million jackpot was distributed among the Group 2 winners. Each winning ticket, totaling 12 in this instance, took home an impressive sum of approximately S$1.19 million, inclusive of the Group 2 prize.

Interestingly, the majority of winning tickets were purchased by punters at physical Singapore Pools outlets, showcasing the enduring popularity of traditional brick-and-mortar locations for Toto purchases.

Out of the winning shares, three were attributed to iToto System 12 bets, adding a layer of diversity to the pool of winners.

Snowball Effect: From S$10 Million to S$12.8 Million

Initially estimated to be S$10 million, the top prize experienced a significant surge, surpassing expectations and reaching an impressive S$12.8 million. This escalation can be attributed to the heightened interest from punters placing their bets on this draw. The detailed formula for tabulating Toto prize money played a role in this remarkable growth.

Two hours before the draw stopped accepting bets at the extended time of 9:30 pm, the top prize had already accumulated to a staggering S$12.4 million. Despite the usual sales closure at 6:30 pm, an extension was granted for this particular draw, contributing to the remarkable jackpot amount.

Winning Numbers

Where the winning tickets were sold

Group 1 has no winner, and the prize amount of $12,791,400 has been cascaded to Group 2.

Group 2 winning tickets sold at:

• Cheers Hougang Central – Blk 810 Hougang Central #01-214 ( 1 QuickPick System 8 Entry )
• Singapore Pools Chinatown Point Branch – 133 New Bridge Road, Chinatown Point #01-36 ( 1 QuickPick System 8 Entry )
• Nalayanee Trading Enterprise – 127 Upp Paya Lebar Rd ( 1 QuickPick System 7 Entry )
• NTUC FP Bukit Batok MRT Station – 10 Bukit Batok Central Bukit Batok MRT Station #01-08 ( 1 QuickPick System 7 Entry )
• NTUC FP Nex – 23 Serangoon Central #03-42 NEX ( 1 QuickPick System 7 Entry )
• Singapore Pools Tanjong Pagar Branch – Blk 1 Tanjong Pagar Plaza #01-49/50 ( 1 QuickPick System 7 Entry )
• Singapore Pools Account Betting Service – – ( 1 System 7 Entry )
• Seah Geok Eng Agency – Blk 118 Rivervale Dr Rivervale Plaza #01-15 ( 1 Ordinary Entry )
• Singapore Pools Bukit Batok N3 Branch – Blk 324 Bukit Batok St 33 #01-47 ( 1 Ordinary Entry )
• iTOTO – System 12
    •  Singapore Pools Account Betting Service – –
• iTOTO – System 12
    •  Singapore Pools Account Betting Service – –
    •  7-Eleven Chua Chu Kang Drive – Blk 689B Chua Chu Kang Dr #01-306
    •  7-Eleven Yishun Ring Road – Blk 103 Yishun Ring Road #01-69
    •  Afro Asia Co Pte Ltd – Blk 604, Yishun Street 61, #01-323
    •  Cheers Haig Rd – Blk 12 Haig Rd #01-333/335
    •  Cheers New Upper Changi Rd – Blk 59 New Upp Changi Rd #01-1272
    •  Dawn Florist – 21 Hougang St 51 Hougang Green Shopping Mall #01-04A
    •  Golden Lagoon Trading – Blk 136 Marsiling Road #01-2182
    •  Li Li Cheng Supermarket (Punggol) Pte Ltd – Blk 273C Punggol Place #01-884
    •  Ng Teo Guan Self Service – Blk 301 Ubi Ave 1 #01-241
    •  NTUC FP Clementi Avenue 2 – Blk 352 Clementi Avenue 2 #01-141/143
    •  NTUC FP Dawson Place – Blk 57 Dawson Road #01-07 Dawson Place
    •  NTUC FP Sengkang East Ave – Blk 279 Sengkang East Ave #01-06
    •  NTUC FP Tanjong Pagar Plaza – Blk 5 Tanjong Pagar Rd Tanjong Pagar Plaza #01-01
    •  OCN (Singapore) Pte Ltd – Blk 501 West Coast Drive #01-266
    •  Rangoon Provision Shop – 681 Race Course Road #01-309
    •  Seah Koon Huat (Bukit Merah View) – Blk 116 Bukit Merah View #01-233
    •  Sheng Siong Tanglin Halt Road – Blk 88 Tanglin Halt Rd #01-10
    •  Singapore Pools New Upper Changi Branch – Blk 26 New Upp Changi Rd #01-666/668
    •  Singapore Pools Pasir Ris N7 Branch – Blk 735 Pasir Ris St 72 Pasir Ris West Plaza #01-358
    •  Singapore Pools Tanjong Pagar Branch – Blk 1 Tanjong Pagar Plaza #01-49/50
    •  Singapore Pools Woodlands N3 Branch – Blk 305 Woodlands St 31 #01-77
    •  Singapore Pools Yishun N1 Branch – Blk 101 Yishun Ave 5 #01-37
    •  Tay Ah Tho Trading – Blk 768 Woodlands Ave 6 Woodlands Mart #01-21
    •  Teo Sook Cheng Agency – Blk 293 Yishun St 22 #01-225
• iTOTO – System 12
    •  Singapore Pools Account Betting Service – –
    •  Singapore Pools Chinatown Point Branch – 133 New Bridge Road, Chinatown Point #01-36
    •  7-Eleven Clementi Street 11 – Blk 109 Clementi Street 11 #01-15
    •  Fatt Chye Heng Trading – Blk 7 Hougang Ave 3 #01-48
    •  FP Xpress MacPherson – 110 MacPherson Rd, Exxon-Mobil
    •  Giant Sunshine Place – 475 Choa Chu Kang Ave 3 Sunshine Place #01-01/10
    •  NTUC FP Clementi Avenue 3 – Blk 451 Clementi Avenue 3 #01-307
    •  PFG Framing & Trading – Blk 960 Jurong West Street 92 #01-182
    •  Rangoon Provision Shop – 681 Race Course Road #01-309
    •  Singapore Pools Lor 4 Toa Payoh Branch – Blk 85 Lor 4 Toa Payoh #01-340
    •  Singapore Pools Sim Lim Square Branch – 1 Rochor Canal Rd Sim Lim Square #B1-37
    •  Singapore Pools Suntec City – 3 Temasek Boulevard #B1-143 Suntec City Mall
    •  Tampines Trading 828 – Blk 828 Tampines St 81 #01-234
    •  Tay Ah Tho Trading – Blk 768 Woodlands Ave 6 Woodlands Mart #01-21
    •  Xie Sheng Dept Service Co – Blk 632 Bedok Reservoir Rd #01-820

Prizes not claimed by Tue, 18 Jun 2024 will be channelled to donations and grants managed by the Tote Board.

A slashing incident at Pasir Ris Street 72 took place on December 20 that stunned Singaporeans and took over the headlines, as 4 people ended up with injuries in the horrific attack, including the assailant himself.

The assailant, 61-year-old Loh Chye Hoe, has since been charged in court yesterday (December 21) with the attempted murder of 46-year-old Wong Tai Huong, according to The Straits Times.

The Disturbing Incident

Court documents reveal that Loh Chye Hoe allegedly used a cleaver to slash Mr. Wong Tai Huong multiple times at around 4:50 pm on December 20 within the premises of Pasir Ris West Plaza. The severity of the attack has prompted swift police action and legal proceedings.

The aftermath of the incident saw four individuals, including Loh, injured and rushed to Sengkang General Hospital. Loh, semi-conscious at the time, was later charged on December 21 while still in hospital.

Two individuals connected to the case were transferred to Tan Tock Seng Hospital for specialized treatment, while the remaining two continue to receive treatment at Sengkang General Hospital.

Recovery and Community Support

A spokesperson for Sengkang General Hospital assured the public that the individuals are “recovering well and are in stable condition.”

However, due to patient confidentiality, specific details about their conditions remain undisclosed. The community has rallied together, with Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean visiting the mall to inquire about the well-being of shopkeepers near the scene.

Shop Disputes and Previous Incidents

The incident has shed light on underlying tensions between businesses in the area. Loh Chye Hoe, who runs a mobile phone shop called Esther’s Shop at Loyang Point, has been associated with disputes with another mobile phone shop, Pacific Mobile, and Royal Regent, a provision shop.

Pacific Mobile and Royal Regent share the same owner, and the rivalry between the two establishments had reportedly escalated earlier in 2023.

Previous Altercations and Business Rivalry

An employee at Pacific Mobile disclosed that Mr. Wong, the victim, is the owner of the shop, and conflicts between the two neighboring shops were frequent due to business rivalry. A big argument in July or August 2023 resulted in police intervention. The dispute revolved around items placed outside one shop, blocking the storefront of the rival.

Witnesses reported seeing a man loitering near Royal Regent hours before the attack. The same man purchased a can of beer and peanuts from a nearby provision shop around 4 pm. Shortly after, loud screams were heard, and a woman from Royal Regent was seen with a significant gash on her face, attempting to fend off the assailant with a broom.

Legal Ramifications and Next Court Date

Loh’s next court date is scheduled for January 11, 2024. If convicted of attempted murder, the offender can face severe penalties, including life imprisonment and caning, or up to 20 years in jail, fines, or caning, or a combination of these punishments. It’s worth noting that men above 50, and women, cannot be caned

Recap

A 52-year-old Briton, Mark Alan Edge, was sentenced on 19 December to 13 months imprisonment for on count of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, according to Channel NewsAsia.

In a bizarre incident on July 12, 2020, Edge was with his wife when they mistakenly boarded the wrong Grab car, leading to a sequence of events that culminated in an unprovoked assault.

The Mistaken Ride

In the haze of their inebriation, Edge and his wife had drunkenly and unknowingly boarded a Grab car that had been booked by a 62-year-old man, described by the prosecution as a “good Samaritan.”

This unfortunate mistake set off a chain of events that would leave lasting consequences for everyone involved.

As the couple realized their error and disembarked, Edge’s wife inadvertently left her phone in the back seat of the Grab car. Little did they know, this simple oversight would lead to a violent altercation later on.

Attempt to Return the Phone

Upon discovering the forgotten phone, the victim who had originally booked d the ride, showing commendable kindness, boarded the car in an attempt to return the misplaced item. What should have been a straightforward resolution took a sinister turn when Edge, fearing extortion, decided to take matters into his own hands.

The situation escalated quickly upon reaching Holland Village. Instead of a civil exchange, Edge sucker-punched the victim from behind, fracturing bones and causing severe injuries. The attack was described as an “unprovoked violent campaign” by the prosecution.

Legal Proceedings

Edge contested the charge, presenting a different narrative of events. The court heard testimonies from the Grab driver, who expressed fear for the victim’s safety, and Edge’s wife, who had an imperfect recollection of the incident. Despite the defense, District Judge Luke Tan convicted Edge, emphasizing the severity of the assault.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay highlighted the gravity of Edge’s actions, seeking 18 to 21 months’ jail, including a compensation order of S$14,481.30. The prosecution argued that Edge’s response to the victim’s kindness was an unjustifiable act of violence.

Edge’s Defense

In his defense, Edge maintained that he perceived the victim’s actions as an attempt at extortion. Despite his wife’s testimony, the court found him guilty of repeatedly assaulting the victim, leading to fractures and significant injuries.

The victim, a director at Manulife Singapore, suffered not only physically but also financially. Medical expenses amounting to S$14,481.30 underscored the real-world consequences of Edge’s actions.

Undeterred by the criminal proceedings, the victim initiated a civil suit against Edge. The judge refrained from ordering compensation, leaving the matter to be addressed in the civil trial, where a comprehensive resolution could be sought.

Judge’s Ruling

While Edge faced a jail term, the judge opted not to order compensation, expressing confidence in the civil trial to address the broader issues of compensation, damages, and related matters.