In an effort to reduce plastic bag usage and promote sustainability, FairPrice, has introduced a new policy requiring customers to scan a barcode and pay five cents for each plastic bag used at self-checkout counters.

Starting from July 3, this initiative comes in response to the upcoming mandatory plastic bag charge that will be implemented across major supermarket chains.

FairPrice Group’s Chief Sustainability Officer, Chan Tee Seng, emphasizes that the aim of this new policy is to create a seamless and user-friendly experience for customers.

Rather than increasing staff at self-checkout counters, FairPrice is implementing an honor system. Under this system, customers will be responsible for scanning the barcode themselves, ensuring that the number of bags used is accurately accounted for.

FairPrice believes that the majority of their customers will act responsibly in adhering to this practice. He said that “If they’ve taken five bags, then they scan it five times. And we believe that by and large, many of our customers will do the right thing.” 

Recognizing the importance of education, FairPrice is actively training their frontline staff, including cashiers, to engage customers in conversations about the environmental reasons behind the plastic bag charge.

By providing information and raising awareness, FairPrice aims to encourage customers to make conscious decisions regarding their plastic bag usage.

FairPrice Group plans to disclose the details of how the funds collected from the five cent charge will be utilized for environmental or social causes in approximately 18 months. This transparency ensures that customers are aware of how their contributions are making a difference and supports FairPrice’s commitment to sustainability.

At present, FairPrice already imposes a charge of 20 cents per transaction when customers request plastic bags at the cashier in 11 of their outlets, regardless of the number of bags used.

Additionally, for 178 convenience shops operated by FairPrice, such as Cheers and FairPrice Xpress outlets, the charge per transaction is 10 cents.

With the implementation of the new policy, the mandatory charge of five cents per bag will apply to all supermarkets and convenience stores, including those with smaller bags compared to traditional supermarkets. This consistent approach ensures fairness and reinforces the message of responsible plastic bag usage.

Dr. Amy Khor, the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, has expressed her hopes that the plastic bag charge, similar to schemes in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Britain, will reduce plastic bag usage by 60 to 90 percent.

With around 400 major supermarkets, including FairPrice, Cold Storage, Giant, Sheng Siong, and Prime supermarket stores, implementing charges for disposable shopping bags, the impact of this initiative is expected to be substantial.

In a harrowing case of domestic violence, a mother experienced a prolonged period of mistreatment at the hands of her own son. Over eight months, she endured physical violence, resulting in severe injuries, while her husband stood by and watched without doing anything, according to The Straits Times.

The incidents escalated to a point where the mother’s life was threatened. This article aims to shed light on this distressing situation, examining the legal proceedings, the impact of counseling, and the need for accountability and rehabilitation.

The mother, who shared a similar height with her son, was subjected to numerous acts of violence. In one instance, her son forcefully dragged her into the kitchen, brandishing a chopper and threatening her life. The court documents revealed that he uttered the chilling words, “I will kill you.”

Recognizing the danger, the mother urged her son to put down the weapon, which he reluctantly did before the police arrived at their family home. These acts were not isolated events; they persisted over several months, leaving the mother in a constant state of fear and pain.

A particularly disturbing incident occurred when the mother and son were discussing the son’s future education. Frustrated by his mother’s inability to answer certain questions, the accused became agitated and struck her head with a hard-cover report book.

The mother, fearing for her safety, locked herself in her bedroom and called the police. However, her son managed to find the key and forcibly brought her into the kitchen, holding a chopper threateningly and repeating his intent to kill her.

Pleaded guilty

The 16-year-old boy pleaded guilty to several charges, including voluntary causing hurt, voluntary causing grievous hurt, and criminal intimidation.

The court also considered additional charges of voluntarily causing hurt during the sentencing process. These offenses were committed between March and November of the preceding year. Due to the accused’s age, a gag order was imposed on both the victim and the perpetrator.

The court proceedings revealed that the accused had a history of physically assaulting his mother. Recognizing their son’s anger management issues, the parents sought help from a Family Service Centre for counseling.

Additionally, the accused received support at the Institute of Mental Health, where he was diagnosed with anxiety issues. However, after ceasing counseling sessions in December, the abusive behavior resumed, leading to more violent incidents.

The breakdown of support for the accused is a significant concern in this case. The court highlighted that the accused’s father failed to intervene and protect his wife despite witnessing the attacks.

This lack of action raises questions about the dynamics within the family and the crucial role of family members in preventing and addressing domestic violence.

During the legal proceedings, the prosecution emphasized the need for both probation and Reformative Training Centre (RTC) reports. The doubts surrounding the father’s and brother’s ability to provide adequate support for the accused’s rehabilitation were cited as reasons for this call.

Notably, the prosecutor highlighted the disturbing fact that the accused’s father did not intervene to protect his wife, even when he witnessed the attacks taking place.

The defense lawyer, Mr. Justin Ng from Kalco Law, pleaded for a probation report, acknowledging the wrongfulness of his client’s actions.

He noted that the accused is currently living apart from his mother and has not exhibited any violence towards other family members. This information was presented as a mitigating factor during the proceedings.

To determine an appropriate sentence, the district judge ordered a probation report for the accused. The report will aid in understanding the extent of rehabilitation required for the accused’s betterment.

Sentencing is scheduled for August, at which point the judge will make a decision based on the details provided in the report.

In a recent court trial, a woman faced charges of attacking a female police officer who was attempting to ensure her safety by trying to get her off the road.

According to Channel NewsAsia, the accused, Tatiana Kuriachaia, a Russian national aged 33, pleaded not guilty to four charges, including voluntarily causing harm to a public servant, using abusive language towards a public servant, and creating a public nuisance.

The incident occurred on April 27, 2019, when Sergeant Genevlene Ho Ting En, the alleged victim, and her colleagues responded to an unrelated case of rioting on Claymore Road during the early hours of the morning. Sgt.

Ho first noticed Kuriachaia sitting on a chevron marking in the middle of the road, between two lanes. Concerned for her safety, Sgt. Ho approached her and inquired about her presence there. Kuriachaia explained that she was waiting for her Grab ride.

Sgt. Ho, prioritizing Kuriachaia’s safety, requested her to move off the road and wait on the pavement for her ride. However, Kuriachaia insisted that she would remain on the chevron marking, believing that no cars would hit her.

Despite repeated attempts to persuade her, Kuriachaia refused to comply. The officers warned her of potential arrest if she continued to obstruct traffic.

During the confrontation, Kuriachaia resisted when Sgt. Ho attempted to handcuff her. Eventually, the officers managed to secure her hands behind her back according to standard operating procedures and escorted her to the police vehicle.

However, to everyone’s surprise, Kuriachaia manoeuvred her cuffed hands from the back to the front by slipping them under her legs.

Following this unexpected turn of events, Kuriachaia became verbally aggressive, questioning why she was being handcuffed and arguing that it violated her human rights.

In the struggle that ensued, Kuriachaia kicked Sgt. Ho, striking her hand and stomach. Sgt. Ho immediately called for backup, and the officers successfully re-cuffed Kuriachaia with her hands behind her back, securing an additional pair of handcuffs to her seatbelt.

Video footage from the police body-worn cameras revealed Kuriachaia’s agitation throughout the journey to the police lock-up. She continued to shout, demanding answers about her arrest and the officers’ identities.

At one point, she leaned toward Sgt. Ho, who attempted to push her away, resulting in Kuriachaia biting down on Sgt. Ho’s arm. This struggle lasted a few seconds, with Kuriachaia showing no intention of releasing her bite.

Kuriachaia was seen in the footage saying “I’m so dangerous right!” before asking the policewomen if she knows the law, saying that “I studied law,” and asking her “did you? How old are you? You look like you are f-ing 18! you know who my husband is? Unfortunately you don’t know, unfortunately for you.”

Sgt. Ho suffered a bruise from the bite and had to undergo blood tests at the hospital. In court, the defence questioned Sgt. Ho’s actions and conduct raised concerns about her treatment of the accused. Sgt.

Ho confirmed that she had reviewed the case with her commanding officer to address these concerns. Additionally, the defence challenged whether Sgt. Ho had checked for injuries immediately after hearing Kuriachaia’s screams and shouts of pain.

Sgt. Ho maintained that she had examined the accused for injuries while placing her into the police vehicle but found no visible signs of harm.

The trial is ongoing, and if Kuriachaia is convicted of voluntarily causing harm to a public servant, she could face a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment and a fine.

Due to her gender, caning is not a possible punishment.

Mr. Huang (68 years old), a businessman operating his business operations in Ang Mo Kio, spoke to Shin Min Daily News and said that he received an advertisement on Telegram last October.

The sender claimed to be a professional investment mentor. After approximately two months of acquaintance, the mentor recommended Mr. Huang to join a natural gas company’s online platform and open an account for investment purposes.

“Between October and November last year, I transferred a total of 80,000 yuan to the account provided by the company in four separate transactions. Subsequently, I observed profits reflected in my account,” Mr. Huang disclosed.

He further disclosed that due to some recent setbacks, the “mentor” enticed him with high returns, stating that if life was not going well, it was even more important to earn more money.

According to the information documented in the police report, Mr. Huang made the final two transfers to the accounts of two users between November 21 and 30.

Unfortunately, shortly after completing the transfers, Mr. Huang discovered in early December that his bank account had been frozen.

This discovery only emerged when he attempted to utilize the accounts for other transactions.

Fortunately, he still had approximately S$59,000 remaining in the frozen accounts, but the situation proved immensely inconvenient as he required liquidity for his business operations.

Upon realizing the frozen bank accounts, Mr. Huang reached out to his “investment guru” for assistance. The individual initially claimed willingness to contact the bank on his behalf. However, by the end of December, Mr. Huang found that the “guru” had blocked him on Telegram.

Despite attempting to establish contact through their previous Telegram channel, Mr. Huang received no response. Additionally, messaging platforms proved unsuccessful in reaching them. Furthermore, the online links associated with the “investment company” were inaccessible.

Consequently, Mr. Huang lodged a police report regarding the incident. The bank requested that he submit the report and any relevant documents to the police’s Anti-Scam Centre.