The Police have arrested a 29-year-old man for his suspected involvement in a case of theft.
On 14 December 2022 at about 10.40am, the Police were alerted to a case of theft from a makeshift storeroom along Lorong 1 Toa Payoh. A trolley and copper wires amounting to about $500 were purportedly stolen.
Through ground enquiries and with the aid of images from Police cameras, officers from Tanglin Police Division established the identity of the man and arrested him within five hours of the report.
The man will be charged in court on 15 December 2022 with theft under Section 379 of the Penal Code 1871. The offence of theft carries an imprisonment term of up to three years, a fine, or both.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE 14 December 2022 @ 9:40 PM
On the evening of January 23, 2021, Mohammad Noor Iszuan Noordin, 26, got into an argument with his wife about the attire for their upcoming wedding reception.
In a fit of anger, Noor threw his 25kg yellow bicycle down from the 14th floor of a Housing Board block located in Choa Chu Kang Crescent.
An argument over wedding attire
According to CNA, Noor pleaded guilty to one count of committing a rash act endangering the personal safety of others and was sentenced to a month’s jail on December 15.
After a person who witnessed the incident contacted the Police for help.
During the investigation, Noor initially lied to the investigators.
The prosecutor argued that the potential harm caused by throwing the bicycle from such a height and at a time when foot traffic has high warranted a sentence of six weeks’ jail.
The court also took into account Noor’s diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning.
For penalties of rash act, he could have been jailed a maximum of 6 months and/or fined a maximum of S$2,500.
Previously the Police said:
“The police have zero tolerance against acts that endanger the lives or safety of others and will not hesitate to take action against those who blatantly disregard the law,”.
My bank card information was stolen by foreign websites in the middle of the night, and then kept receiving a one-time verification code, it should be that someone kept trying to use it again.
So I immediately called the hotline of UOB, waited for nearly 10 minutes, and finally got through the manual customer service (voice prompt manual customer service is busy), you can freeze the card, but if you need to replace the same card number, you have to transfer to another department, and wait, about 10 minutes.
The computer voice prompted twice manual busy and directly hung up?!
Well, the next day to the nearby UOB bank, the counter lady is very gentle, the service is also very good, helped to replace a temporary card, because the frozen card has to pay insurance and children’s tuition, so it needs to be replaced, but the bank counter cannot
Still have to call the hotline, and it is a long wait, and it is transferred to other departments, and it is manually busy and hung up directly!!!
After applying for a temporary card, opening another credit card, and failing to call the hotline for more than two hours, the counter lady couldn’t stand it and used the internal phone to call in, and the person on the phone said to call me back within a day.
Well, leave the bank and wait for the call, Friday to now Monday, no one called back, got up at six o’clock this morning to call the hotline, this time the manual answer is relatively fast, also said to call me back, however, I don’t know wait until when???
I think that UOB is such a big bank, the system setting is very strange: go to the counter in person can not handle business.
The authority on the phone is actually greater than the authority to go to the person to do it? What is this operation?! Since there are such strange regulations, but the hotline cannot be opened, is this deliberately causing trouble for people?
Even the employees of the bank said that they did not understand such a practice of UOB, it is said that the operator complained, but it is complained about, and the operator who complained by the person who is provoked by the phone is so innocent, but the rules of the bank itself are too unreasonable!
UOB’s counter-service attitude is very good, but the bank’s unreasonable and bizarre rules are really disappointing!
So far, I haven’t received a call, I’m really worried about how I pay the insurance, fortunately, the tuition fee will be deducted next month…
EasyParcel Singapore and J&T Express refuse to take responsibility for damaging my parcel.
The customer received the item and the entire parcel was wet and the item inside was soaked with water. The box was torn and the item was damaged.
Wrote it to them and they refuse to compensate saying that the packaging was improper, I need to affix a fragile sticker, bubble wrap everything and ensure there is no space in the box.
I am also told to pack in a double-walled box with further padding.
As expected, they find a lot of excuses to push the responsibility away.
Here are what netizens think:
Never ever used J & T services, they are unprofessional & inexperienced in handling parcels. I used QExpress almost the same price with J & T, reliable service all my customers praised them
It not delivery service fault, it sender to be blame how they pack and what kind of box quality they use.
Very bad service. They have insurance and should claim on it instead of blaming the shipper.
the packaging look worst then from Tmall send from china. spore packing standard so bad/low, services also very poor… omg
Keep emailing to the courier don’t give chance might happen to others….make broadcast post to aware all about this situation
What they said is true.. unfortunately, that’s the loophole for them to avoid responsibility.. same goes to food delivery.. any spilt food incident, it’s the provider to answer.. rider just deliver.. but out of goodwill, some rider ensure food are properly wrapped..
Sender has to ensure proper packaging, the small value they are earning is to cover their logistic operational cost, they cant be answerable for the many thousands of packages, not easy, else pay a premium engage dedicated delivery driver & vehicle, trained to company standard
Public transport is an integral part of our lives, especially in cities. It helps us get to work, school, and other places in an efficient and cost-effective way.
However, with more and more people using public transportation, it is important for people to be mindful of their behaviour when using it.
The sign is for show?
Not only was this woman’s behaviour inappropriate and inconsiderate, it was also a health hazard. Not only did it create an unpleasant atmosphere on the bus, it also posed a risk of spreading germs and diseases.
In order to ensure that public transport remains a safe and pleasant environment for everyone, it is important for us to be mindful of our behaviour and be respectful of other passengers. We should be aware that our behaviour may have an impact on the comfort and safety of others, and should strive to act in a manner that is courteous and considerate. It is also important to remember that while our actions may seem insignificant to us, they may be very uncomfortable or even dangerous for others.
Here are what netizens think:
They cannot do it at home cause it will dirty their own so they do it on other people’s properties.
To prevent an unethical person from resting their legs on the opposite seats, perhaps they can re-position d single seat to face the opposite bus windows like those in MRT train seats. Otherwise, if possible, they can juz remove d single seat for more standing space.
Not siding the Aunty but sometime the bus brakes is too strong…worst if you sit at the last row and at the centre..can dive like that.
Yes… Is very common nowadays, I had seen many times . Who care as long there’s no enforcement no pain.
Thug life.. ehh but actually this seat the leg space like sitting airplane.. if I am not related or know her I won’t even seat at the space in front of her. So awkward
No sense of hygiene. Big and mature enough to use her brain.
Facebook user Iluv Ben Ten shared how she was charged a whopping $24 for a packet of Nasi Padang consisting of just 3 ingredients.
She broke down her charges, saying that she was charged $20 for the fish egg (fish roe), $2 for the tofu and another $2 for the sambal goreng.
She purportedly bought her nasi padang from a stall at Bedok Corner.
Here is what she said
Bought this nasi Padang at bedok corner, It consists of Fish egg, tofu and sambal goreng….. Guess how much can this meal be? It was $24!!!!!! The shop lady told me the fish egg is gonna be expensive… But who would taught is gonna cost me this much… Fish egg -$20 Tofu -$2 Sambal goreng -$2
Netizens’ comments
Stall owner should at least tell buyer before scooping the dish for her
Fish egg/roe is already ex. Should ask the price before taking 1. Fish eggs are charged based on the size and what type of fish eggs they are.
Sorry most nasi padang is expensive i agree but to scam people is not most…it could be an individual work that is working at that stall. But for fish roe and other dishes to add up to 24 dollars is totaly absurd. How can u pay $24 straight up front for it if its true the price being told? Don’t u ask them whats the $24 add up to? If its true to what u say next time u have the right to not buy when the price is too expensive.
The owner should at least inform the price or we ask the price before we are getting it. I went to market and saw small size cost about $8 plus and fish egg eventually not cheap.
Anyway thank you for sharing
Kindly can share which nasi padang at bedok corner so that we can avoid in case we go down to patrol for food
A 32-year-old migrant worker died yesterday (13 December) during a workplace accident at a construction worksite at Tengah.
He had been purportedly crushed by a crane.
Graphic images and video(s) of the incident soon emerged on Facebook, showing the deceased worker’s dead body pinned under a crane part.
The crane pinning the deceased worker, who was wearing a yellow hard hat and a green safety vest, was seen in a video being lifted off him by another crane.
The Ministry of Manpower confirmed the incident and identified the deceased as a 32-year-old migrant worker from India.
They said that the worker was unloading steel bars with another co-worker from a lorry crane at Tengah Garden Avenue when the boom of the lorry crane suddenly fell.
It then struck the deceased and pinned him against the lorry bed, and he was then pronounced dead at the scene.
The worker’s employer and occupier of the site, Woh Hup Pte Ltd, has been ordered to stop all lifting operations involving lorry cranes.
The developer of the site is Taurus Properties SG Pte Ltd.
The deceased migrant worker becomes Singapore’s 44th workplace fatality this year.
45 year old man arrested
The Singapore Police Force also added that they were alerted to the incident at about 4.35pm yesterday, and that a 45-year-old man had been arrested for causing death by a negligent act.
At the time of writing, police investigations are ongoing.
A horrific accident took place in Perak, when a lorry sped past a car, resulting in its cargo crashing into the vehicle on 29 October.
The pregnant woman in the car ended up losing her unborn baby and she also suffered severe injuries, and her husband shared dashcam footage of the accident online on 11 December.
The car was seen in the video heading towards a ben when the lorry from the opposite direction, was speeding up to make a sharp turn.
The cargo at the back of the lorry then falls out and hits at least 2 cars, as the camcar then falls onto its side as debris flew all over.
The car that the pregnant woman was in, was knocked off the road.
In the man’s Facebook post, he said that he will not forgive the lorry driver for the death of his unborn child and wife’s injuries.
He said that nobody from the company has called to apologise for the incident or even offer condolences, and he demanded an explanation on how the accident occurred.
Malay Mail also reported that the lorry driver had even ran away from the scene, but was later arrested at a road block at Batu Melintang Jeli in Kelantan.
Geylang is one of the most ‘exciting’ places in Singapore, when it comes to Geylang anything is possible.
In the wee hours of today, a car crashed into a lok lok shop hitting a 32-year-old man who was working at the eatery.
The 32-year-old shop assistant was sent to Tan Tock Seng Hospital and the driver of the vehicle was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.
Aftermath
A group of the crowd stood near the scene of the incident in disbelief.
Chairs, tables and a metal rack was seen destroyed by the vehicle.
According to a video uploaded on Tiktok, the incident took place at Geylang Pavilion Square (Lorong 16) at around 1 AM.
Penalties:
The offence of dangerous driving under Section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 carries a fine not exceeding $5,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both; and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Offenders may also face disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles.
The offence of driving while under influence of drink under Section 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 carries a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $20,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Offenders may also face disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is an extremely dangerous and irresponsible act that can cause a serious or fatal traffic accident. All motorists are reminded to abide by traffic rules to keep the roads safe for everyone. The Traffic Police will not hesitate to take firm action against motorists who choose to flout traffic laws and endanger the safety of other road users.
56-year-old Belgian Willy Frida D Burm, a Singapore PR, was sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment on 13 December after pleading guilty to one count of using criminal force to deter a public servant from his duty, and another count for insulting a public servant, with 3 other charges being considered for his sentencing.
What happened?
In January 2020, Burm had drunk some wine at a tapas bar in VivoCity before going to Wala Wala Cafe Bar to drink beer.
At about 6pm, Burm went over to another customer’s table and grabbed the man’s laptop, before using the laptop to hit the table thrice.
A bouncer then stepped in to intervene but Burm refused to let go of the laptop and left the bar with the laptop in hand.
The police were then alerted to the incident, and police officers approached Burm after he left Wala to ask him to hand over the laptop.
Burm then held the laptop over his head and threatened to drop it on the ground, which he eventually did, damaging the laptop in the process.
When the police tried to get him into a police car after arresting him, Burm headbutted one of the police officers and used vulgarities on them.
