A 46-year-old Singaporean man, Zeng Jianlong, was sentenced to 4 days imprisonment on 30 May after pleading guilty to two charges under the Park and Trees Act, with 4 other charges being considered during his sentencing.

According to Shin Min Daily News, he had been sleeping at the East Coast Park pavilion for months with his belongings.

He was originally fined $1,400 but couldn’t pay the amount and was sentenced to jail time instead.

What happened?

In 2022, a 46-year-old man was discovered sleeping in a pavilion located in East Coast Park.

Camping in the park is permitted only in designated areas with the appropriate permits, and the pavilions are strictly off-limits for this purpose.

However, the man, identified as Zeng Jianlong, was found sleeping in the pavilions multiple times during the months of March to June 2022, as reported by Shin Min Daily News.

National Parks Board (NPark) inspectors encountered Zeng sleeping in a pavilion on several occasions between April 8th and May 1st, 2022, during their routine patrols in the park, which took place between 3 am and 6 am.

Moreover, in December 2021, Zeng also entered a restricted shelter area due to Covid-19 restrictions and remained there without permission.

During their investigation, authorities found evidence indicating that Zeng had essentially turned the pavilion into his temporary residence.

Personal belongings, including an inflatable mattress, folding table and chairs, mug, cooler box, and fishing gear, were discovered within the pavilion. Furthermore, Zeng was observed smoking in the pavilion despite the presence of a “no smoking” sign.

Zeng appeared in court on May 30th, where he faced six charges under the Park and Trees Act. The prosecutor highlighted that living in public parks without proper authorization is prohibited, even for campers who need to obtain camping permits for designated areas.

Moreover, Zeng’s possessions had completely taken over the pavilion, rendering it unusable for other park visitors.

Zeng pleaded guilty to two of the charges, and the judge considered the remaining charges during sentencing. He was ultimately fined S$1,400, but as he claimed he was unable to pay the amount, he was sentenced to four days in jail instead.

Zeng offered no mitigation or explanation for his actions, leaving his motives for sleeping in East Coast Park undisclosed.

However, during a previous hearing, he stated that he was unaware of the need for a permit to sleep in the park. The judge instructed Zeng to remove his belongings from the pavilion before the May 30th hearing, and Zeng confirmed that he had complied at the start of the subsequent hearing.

The punishment for drug possession in Singapore has been increased from the current maximum of 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $20,000, to 30 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

Ministry of Home Affairs’ statement

Commencement of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2023

1.   The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill was passed by Parliament on 21 March 2023. 

Provisions That Will Take Effect on 1 June 2023

2.   The following provisions of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2023 (“Act”) will take effect on 1 June 2023:  

Increase in Penalties for Possession of Large Quantities of Controlled Drugs Deemed to Have the Highest Potential to Cause Serious Harms

3.   Currently, the punishment for possession of any controlled drug, regardless of weight, is up to 10 years’ imprisonment, or a fine of up to $20,000, or both.

4.   The Act introduces increased punishments, including caning, for the possession of selected controlled drugs above certain weight thresholds. The drug types for which the punishment for the possession offence will be increased are morphine, diamorphine, opium, cocaine, cannabis, cannabis resin, cannabis mixture and methamphetamine. The maximum punishment for the drug possession offence will now be 30 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for these eight drug types.

Clarify Powers of Seizure Based on Reasonable Suspicion

5.   The Act clarifies that CNB officers may make seizures based on reasonable suspicion. These amendments align the position in the MDA with the powers of investigation provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.

Amendments Relating to the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972 (“SAF Act”)

6.   Currently, SAF servicemen caught for drug consumption may be charged under Section 26 of the SAF Act or Section 34 of the SAF Act. Section 34 of the SAF Act may also be used to charge SAF servicemen for drug possession. The Act clarifies that only previous convictions for drug consumption under Section 34 of the SAF Act, and not for drug possession, will count towards enhanced punishment for repeat drug consumption under the MDA. Similarly, the Act clarifies that only antecedents for drug consumption under Section 34 of the SAF Act will count towards long-term imprisonment under Section 33A of the MDA for the repeat consumption of specified drugs.

7.   The Act also amends the scope of the recall provision under Section 31(1A) of the MDA. Section 31(1A) allows the Director of CNB to recall any former drug abuser to report for a urine test, throughout the person’s life, to ensure that the person is no longer a drug addict. The Act amends Section 31, so that persons convicted under Section 26 of the SAF Act for drug consumption and persons convicted under Section 34 of the SAF Act for drug consumption, can be recalled by the Director of CNB and subject to a urine test.

Amendments to Misuse of Drugs (Community Rehabilitations Centres) Regulations, the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions, Medical Observation and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations and Misuse of Drugs (Controlled Equipment, Material and Substances) Regulations

8.   Technical amendments to the Misuse of Drugs (Community Rehabilitations Centres) Regulations, the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions, Medical Observation and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations and Misuse of Drugs (Controlled Equipment, Material and Substances) Regulations will also be made to bring into effect, the above-mentioned provisions of the Act which will come into force on 1 June 2023.

Other Provisions to Take Effect in First Half of 2024

9.   The remaining provisions of the Act will take effect in the first half of 2024. These relate to the new legislative framework for psychoactive substances. More details will be announced separately. Please refer to the Annex for more information on the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Image source: Unsplash

A 38-year-old male cyclist gestured towards a car to “watch out” after he felt that they were driving too close to him, and the female driver and her male passenger then alighted from the vehicle to argue with the cyclist before beating him up.

The female driver, identified as Ariel Fong, aged 30, and her male passenger, Phua Xuan Yew Javier, aged 28, pleaded guilty on 30 May to one charge of voluntarily causing harm to the cyclist. The court imposed a fine of S$4,000 on Fong, taking into consideration another similar charge, while Phua received a fine of S$3,500.

What happened?

According to court documents, on the day of the incident, Fong picked up Phua from Bugis at approximately 10 pm and was en route to drop him off at his home around 11 pm. As Fong encountered parked cars along her side of the two-lane road, she made the decision to overtake them and drove into the opposite lane.

At the same time, the male cyclist and his female cyclist friend were riding their bicycles towards Fong’s vehicle in the opposite lane. Sensing that Fong was driving too closely, the cyclist vocalized his concern by shouting, “Watch out!” while making a hand gesture directed at the car.

Fong continued driving after passing the cyclist but eventually stopped the car, claiming to have heard a noise at the rear. When she inspected the situation, she noticed the cyclist had dismounted his bicycle and was gesturing towards her.

This prompted Fong to approach the cyclist, and Phua followed suit. A heated argument ensued between Fong and the cyclist regarding the right of way. In the midst of the altercation, the cyclist allegedly swung his bicycle at Fong, surprising Phua, who promptly intervened by pushing the cyclist away from Fong.

Angrily, Fong retaliated by forcibly removing the cyclist’s mask to identify him, which led to him questioning her actions. Attempting to leave the scene with his friend and seek refuge in a nearby condominium, the cyclist found himself restrained as Fong grabbed his shirt and began physically assaulting him. Phua joined in by striking the cyclist’s head.

The cyclist’s friend intervened, trying to halt the assault. However, Fong redirected her aggression towards the friend, resorting to kicking and pulling her hair. Witnessing this, the cyclist managed to break free from Phua’s grip, rescuing his friend from Fong’s attack.

Subsequently, the cyclist’s friend sought assistance from the security guard at the entrance of The Cristallo condominium, requesting police intervention. Simultaneously, the cyclist attempted to reach the guardhouse but was grabbed from behind by Phua, who proceeded to strike him in the head. The scuffle continued, resulting in both individuals falling to the ground.

Fong re-engaged in the altercation, repeatedly punching the cyclist’s face and head, as well as kicking his body. Eventually, the cyclist’s friend managed to separate them and brought the injured cyclist to the guardhouse for safety.

Fong and Phua left the scene in their car and returned home before the arrival of the police.

The following day, the cyclist sought medical treatment at a polyclinic, where it was revealed he had a 1cm laceration on his lower lip, multiple abrasions on the back of his head, bruising on his left cheekbone and nose, and a mildly displaced nose fracture. He was issued a two-day medical leave and subsequently visited Changi General Hospital for a review of his injuries. Additionally, he consulted an ear, nose, and throat specialist to address the specific issues caused by the incident. The cyclist’s medical expenses totaled S$1,066.65.

Fong and Phua then compensated the cyclist’s medical expenses.

25-year-old Nikhil Durgude pleaded guilty on Thursday (1 June) to multiple charges, including one count of intentionally causing harm to obstruct a public servant from performing their duties. His additional charges included the possession of cannabis and the consumption of methamphetamine.

He had assaulted a police officer and left his face bloodied during an incident at a condominium unit where another police officer drew his gun.

What happened

According to court documents, on November 5, 2020, three officers, including Senior Staff Sergeant (SSS) Chua Ming Cheng and Inspector Zheng Yiyang, visited a unit at City Suites in Balestier as part of a police operation.

They identified themselves as police officers to Nikhil and two other individuals, Prakash Mathivanan and Malani Naidu Prabhakar Naid, who were present in the living room.

While complying with the officers’ instructions to squat and place their hands on their heads, the trio engaged in conversation. When SSS Chua instructed them to stop talking, Prakash stood up and attacked the officer, causing him to fall. Prakash also struck SSS Chua in the face and upper body.

Inspector Zheng responded by drawing his service revolver and aiming it at the sofa, which was in the general direction of Prakash and Nikhil. After commanding Prakash to cease his attack on SSS Chua, Prakash turned towards Inspector Zheng and forcefully grabbed the officer’s hands, which were holding the revolver.

Before SSS Chua could rise and assist Inspector Zheng, Nikhil assaulted him by repeatedly punching and kicking him. SSS Chua fell once again, and Nikhil continued to attack him while he lay on the floor.

The prosecution stated, “The accused engaged in this assault to prevent SSS Chua from assisting Inspector Zheng and, thereby, aimed to hinder SSS Chua from fulfilling his duty as a public servant.”

Some time later, two additional officers entered the unit, leading to Nikhil ceasing his assault on SSS Chua.

Tested positive for drugs

All three individuals were subsequently arrested. A urine test conducted at the Central Police Division headquarters, where Nikhil was taken, revealed the presence of methamphetamine.

Previously, the police had reported that a man was shot in the abdomen during a confrontation with officers who were conducting a raid in the condominium.

SSS Chua sought medical attention at Singapore General Hospital and sustained a cut on the forehead, as well as abrasions on the right elbow and left forearm.

Nikhil could face imprisonment for up to seven years, corporal punishment in the form of caning, or a fine for intentionally causing harm to a public servant.

His sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

37-year-old Goh Chong Tse was given a fine of $9,000 on 31 May after pleading guilty to five charges. One of the charges was related to using his home as a commercial farm without a proper license, as he bred his dog for commercial purposes.

The remaining four charges were for owning three dogs without the necessary license and for keeping more than three dogs without obtaining permission from the Director-General of Animal Health and Welfare. It’s worth noting that Goh’s residence was not officially registered as a dog farm or pet shop.

According to Ms Joanne Wee, a prosecutor from the National Parks Board (NParks), Goh and his wife, Ms Jamie Ng Sze Eng, had a corgi named Waffles between 2019 and July 2020. Ms Ng found the dog as a stray and later registered it under Goh’s name.

In December 2020, Goh met Ms Jermaine Ang, and they reached an agreement to artificially inseminate Waffles using sperm from Ms Ang’s stud dog. Ms Ang agreed to cover the cost of the insemination and it was also decided that she would keep one puppy from the resulting litter.

Around February 27, 2021, Waffles gave birth to six puppies. Ms Ang kept one of the puppies, while Goh and his wife kept four. One of the puppies was sold for $9,500.

On February 9, 2022, officers from NParks conducted an inspection at Goh’s residence based on information they received. During the inspection, the officers verified the licenses for the dogs. It was discovered that Goh did not possess valid licenses for three of the dogs from February 27, 2021, to February 9, 2022.

Operating a farm without the necessary license could have led to a maximum sentence of 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

For each count of owning a dog without a license, Goh could have been fined up to $5,000. The same penalties could have been imposed for owning more than three dogs on his property without it being registered as a dog farm or pet shop.

Over a span of more than two years, on nearly a hundred occasions, an individual discreetly used a hidden camera cleverly disguised as a smoke detector inside a toilet to surreptitiously record at least five women, including some of his own friends.

Darren Yeo Wei Hong, aged 34, committed these offenses between 2013 and 2015, and proceeded to share certain video recordings with acquaintances who were likely to recognize the victims involved.

Why is your client smiling

However, shortly before Yeo received a one-year prison sentence for his actions, an incident occurred that raised concerns for Senior District Judge Bala Reddy.

The judge, noting Yeo’s smile, posed a question to Yeo’s defense attorney: “Why is your client smiling?” To which his lawyer Shashi Nathan said that he was nervous, and Yeo then stopped smiling in the docks.

Yeo had pleaded guilty to eleven charges, including multiple counts of violating a woman’s modesty.

These offenses came to light when an individual stumbled upon some of the videos on Yeo’s Instagram account and promptly notified the police in April 2019.

To safeguard the identities of the victims, a gag order has been imposed regarding the location where the offenses took place.

More than 20 victims showed up

On the day of the sentencing, more than twenty individuals, including some of Yeo’s victims, attended the State Courts to witness justice being served.

Most of them were attired in black. While approximately ten individuals secured seats within the gallery, the others had to wait outside as the courtroom could not accommodate everyone.

A hushed silence fell as Yeo arrived with his wife. The couple shared an embrace before he took his place in the dock.

Yeo continued to smile while standing in the dock, prompting Judge Reddy to address his behavior.

In response, Yeo’s defense lawyer, Shashi Nathan, explained that his client was feeling nervous, and Yeo promptly ceased smiling.

Hid a camera inside women’s toilet

Deputy Public Prosecutor Vincent Ong informed the court that Yeo had purchased a camera, concealed it above a shower stall in a women’s restroom, and clandestinely recorded videos of his victims.

Yeo retrieved the video clips, saved them onto a memory card, and downloaded them onto his laptop.

Given his familiarity with some of the victims, Yeo labeled the videos under their respective names.

He created two Instagram accounts to distribute videos of the victims while they were showering.

Yeo also utilized his mobile phone to record these videos, subsequently sharing them electronically. Eventually, he was apprehended in 2019, and his hard disk drive contained no less than 690 explicit films.

The Deputy Public Prosecutor mentioned that Yeo had downloaded these videos from the internet.

Stole women’s bras

Separately, between 2010 and 2012, Yeo intruded upon several women’s bags in a communal area of the building to steal their bras.

He proceeded to take photographs of himself wearing the undergarments before returning them to the bags.

During the sentencing hearing, Deputy Public Prosecutor Ong urged the court to impose a prison term ranging from one year to fifteen months, emphasizing Yeo’s high level of culpability and premeditated nature of his offenses.

Asked for forgiveness

Yeo was represented by Mr. Nathan and Ms. Laura Yeo, who appealed for their client to receive a prison term of between 8½ months and 11 months.

Mr. Nathan expressed Yeo’s remorse and his desire to seek forgiveness from his victims.

Judge Reddy acknowledged the psychiatric evaluations indicating that Yeo suffers from paraphilic and voyeuristic disorders, which contributed to his offenses.

Nonetheless, the judge emphasized the gravity of Yeo’s offenses and the significant harm they caused to the victims.

He stated, “The videos captured sensitive and intimate areas of the victims’ bodies, resulting in a flagrant intrusion upon their privacy and inflicting distress and emotional harm.”

“Furthermore,” he continued, “the accused exacerbated his crimes by