A then-16-year-old boy who was out on bail for a series of theft at the time raped a then-14-year-old female schoolmate on the floor inside a toilet at Admiralty Park back in 2020; as another man, the victim’s then-22-year-old ex-boyfriend held her down, according to The Straits Times.

The now 19-year-old boy pleaded guilty in the High Court on 17 October to one count of rape, with the prosecution seeking a jail term of 8 to 10 years for the boy, as well as 6 to 7 strokes of the cane.

However, the judge, Justice Pang Khang Chau adjourned the boy’s sentencing and called for a report to see if he is suitable for “reformative training”.

The ex-boyfriend who allegedly pinned her down, now 25 years old, is also facing multiple charges in court, including the abetment of rape.

The accused persons and victim cannot be named because of a court order protecting the identity of the victim.

What happened?

The incident occurred on June 27, 2020, the then-14-year-old victim’s then-22-year-old boyfriend had threatened to find other girls if she refused to drink alcohol with him, and the victim then relented.

The couple then got a bottle of whiskey and proceed to Admiralty Park, where they drank the alcohol at a playground and live-streamed it on social media.

The then-16-year-old accused saw the live stream on Instagram and messaged the victim, asking if her could join them because he just had an argument with his own girlfriend, who was also the victim’s best friend.

The victim agreed and when the accused reached the playground, half the bottle of whiskey had already been finished by the couple.

The group then finished the remaining alcohol and the victim then vomited and laid down on the ground, before her boyfriend asked her to wash up at the toilet nearby.

However, the girl couldn’t walk properly as she was too inebriated, so the accused then tried to bring the girl to the toilet on his e-bike, but she fell off it while on the way.

The accused and co-accused then resorted to physically carrying the girl into a handicapped toilet and placed her on the floor.

The trio were inside the toilet when the victim heard the door locked, as her boyfriend then helped her take off her shirt and jacket.

The boyfriend then performed an obscene act on the girl as the accused held the jacket over her face. The boyfriend then told her to lie down, as the accused then held the jacket over her face once again, while she cried and struggled.

The boyfriend then proceeded to hold the victim down as the accused raped her, before removing the jacket and telling her to clean herself up while the accused waited outside.

The victim then questioned her boyfriend and asked him why he didn’t try to save her, and he instead blamed her to having intercourse with the accused, and an argument ensues.

They eventually broke up later that year, in September.

The accused who raped the girl, was eventually found out after he began serving his reformative training for separate theft offences.

The victim also told her teacher on 17 February 2021 about her rape, and the school alerted the girl’s mother, who then reported the incident to the police on 23 February.

In a recent episode that has sparked outrage and debate across Singapore, a PRC (People’s Republic of China) man publicly voiced his rather condescending opinions about Singaporeans. His remarks, aimed at locals, especially those living in government-subsidized housing, have left many in the country feeling disheartened and belittled.

He says we live in budget homes with low level jobs

The man looks down on poor local people, saying that many of us rent homes from the government at a budget fee.

The PRC man bragged that he is just sitting here and making money, unlike you people who are working jobs like food delivery riders and truck drivers or working in factories.

Full video loading…

The man said:

“Are you jealous that China people are making money in Singapore?

Look at my watch, this watch alone can let you eat for several years.

Look at my chain I don’t think any of you can afford it. What right do you guys have to say “to ask me go back to China”.

You are now taking a subsidy from the government to stay in budget homes. You bunch of stinky salted fish and shrimp are everywhere.

When I see you guys on the road, I don’t even want to look at you.

You Singaporeans who go to China will get assaulted.”

The SGH Saga Unveiled

The saga began with an incident that occurred at Singapore General Hospital (SGH), where the PRC man saw a bunch of negative comments against the influencer who broke the headlines.

This incident was captured on video and quickly went viral on social media, igniting a firestorm of discussions. The incident served as a stark reminder of the deep-seated tensions between some Singaporeans and PRC nationals.

he PRC Man’s Insensitive Comments

The man’s remarks were nothing short of audacious. He proudly proclaimed that he was effortlessly making money in Singapore, implying that he was superior to those who worked in less glamorous jobs, such as food delivery and factory work. His taunting questions, “Are you jealous that China people are making money in Singapore?” and flaunting his expensive watch and jewelry, were met with disdain by many.

“Look at my watch,” he said, “this watch alone can let you eat for several years. Look at my chain; I don’t think any of you can afford it. What right do you guys have to ask me to go back to China?”

Join us on our WhatsApp channel for instant news

A 34-year-old married woman, Daljeet Kaur Dharam Chand, was charged in court with one count of contributing to the risk of dangerous fire by allegedly pouring thinner on the kitchen floor and setting it on fire, causing her 32-year-old lover to get burned, with the victim suffering severe burn injuries on covering 15% of his body.

At the time of the incident, Daljeet was living with her lover at a HDB flat in Sembawang, while her husband and her three daughters lived in another unit with her mother.

She pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the allegations against her, claiming trial, which was heard in court on 16 October, according to Shin Min Daily News.

Had an argument with lover

The incident took place on September 6, 2021, Daljeet and her lover engaged in an argument via a series of heated text messages from between 5:21 pm to 7:35 pm.

During this period, Daljeet bought two bottles of paint thinner and a pack of matches, signaling a pivotal turning point in the chain of events, as she returned home.

Her lover came back home at about 7.37pm and the two then got into a physical fight after another argument.

At approximately 7:48 pm, Daljeet then allegedly poured the paint thinner onto the kitchen floor of their flat and used matchsticks to set fire to it, which ultimately resulted in her lover catching fire and suffering burns to 15 percent of his body.

The Trial

Prosecution’s stance

The prosecution emphasized that Daljeet did not deny igniting the fire, alleging that she did so with full knowledge that it would lead to a fire outbreak, seemingly as a means to prevent her lover from leaving the premises.

During the course of investigations, Daljeet initially admitted to setting the fire but later retracted her statement and denied it instead.

The prosecution also highlighted how there was no evidence to prove that the fire was set by her lover instead.

The Defense’s Perspective

On the other hand, the defense argued that Daljeet’s actions were in self-defense as she felt threatened by her lover and desired to escape from him.

Notably, Daljeet’s mother testified in her daughter’s defense during the trial. She described the violence her daughter allegedly endured at the hands of her lover, revealing that Daljeet had communicated her intention to leave before the incident.

Testimony & statement to police don’t match

However, the prosecution highlighted how the mother’s testimony in court and her previous statements to the police do not add up.

In her initial statement to the police, Daljeet’s mother indicated that her daughter was intending to burn down the house and had bought some flammable liquids.

However, in court, she only claimed to have known about Daljeet’s intention to leave.

The prosecution also questioned the mother’s testimony in court, about her claiming to have knowledge of her daughter’s lover initiating the fire and if she knew, why she didn’t report this to the police.

The mother then claimed that she had “panicked” because she knew her daughter bought the flammable liquids, which was why she didn’t tell the police about it, before adding that she doesn’t have a clear picture of what happened.

The hearing into the case continues.

In a world where our furry friends have become an integral part of our lives, it is alarming to hear about instances of neglect and indifference towards them.

A recent incident at IKEA Alexandra on October 15, 2023, sent shockwaves through the hearts of animal lovers and concerned citizens.

A Singaporean woman and her husband discovered a dog left unattended inside a locked car for more than 30 minutes and when the owner returned, appeared indifferent and told her to mind her own business.

An Unexpected Discovery

The story began when the Singaporean woman, Ms. Ng, and her husband were preparing to head home after shopping at IKEA Alexandra.

As they approached their car, they noticed unusual movement inside the vehicle parked next to theirs. Intrigued and concerned, Ms. Ng took a closer look, only to be horrified by what she found.

The Neglected Canine

What Ms. Ng discovered was a dog left alone inside the locked car. This incident took place at around 8 PM.

Ms. Ng, a fellow pet owner, couldn’t ignore the plight of the helpless dog. She realized that the dog had been left alone for a considerable amount of time, as the car’s bonnet felt cool to the touch. The situation was distressing, to say the least.

Ms. Ng then stepped out of her car to check on the dog. She observed the dog, which she believed to be a Japanese Spitz, pacing back and forth inside the vehicle, as she waited for the return of the owner.

Seeking Help

After about five minutes of waiting, Ms. Ng and her husband decided to take action. They contacted the building security.

The security team swiftly took action, making an announcement over the building’s public announcement system, urging the owner of the car to return immediately.

As Ms. Ng and her husband waited by the car, another concerned passerby approached them. This individual had also noticed the dog in the car and was worried about its well-being. He informed Ms. Ng that he had seen the dog at 7:37 PM and had even taken a picture of the situation.

By this point, more than ten minutes had passed since Ms. Ng’s initial discovery, indicating that the dog had been left unattended and locked inside the car for at least 30 minutes.

Confronting the Owner

Moments later, a man approached Ms. Ng and her group, appearing agitated. He questioned the reason behind them reporting his car. In response, Ms. Ng explained their concerns for the dog’s well-being and requested the owner to check on it.

The owner’s response was shocking. He claimed that he had left the dog in the car for only a short while and insisted that there was nothing to worry about. He even asserted that the car had cooled down and unlocked his car door to let his dog out to show them that it was unharmed.

A Matter of Cruelty

Ms. Ng emphasized that leaving the dog unattended in a locked car for more than 30 minutes was cruel. In a bid to make the owner understand the gravity of the situation, she urged him to consider being locked in a car with no air conditioning, water, or ventilation for half an hour.

In response, the owner claimed he could stay in the car for one to two hours. He brushed off concerns, stating that it’s none of her problem and told her “don’t be a busybody with what I do with my dog”.

He then got into his car and left the scene.

Reporting the Incident

Ms. Ng’s distress and concern led her to take further action. She reported the incident to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) as well as the Animal & Veterinary Service (AVS) to ensure that this matter did not go unnoticed.

The executive director of SPCA, Aarthi Sankar, said that the hot and humid weather of Singapore can turn a stationary vehicle into an over because the temperatures can rise very quickly, even if the windows are partially opened.

Temperatures can even hit 43 degrees celsius in just the span of 10 minutes, and lead to heatstroke in dogs and even deaths.