The Police have arrested a 23-year-old woman for her suspected involvement in a case of loanshark harassment.
On 20 August 2022, the Police were alerted to a case of loanshark harassment along Tampines Avenue 5 where a residential unit was splashed with unknown liquid and a debtor’s note was placed on the floor. Through ground enquiries and with the aid of images from Police cameras, officers from Bedok Police Division established the identity of the woman and arrested her on the same day. One mobile phone was seized as a case exhibit.
The 23-year-old woman will be charged in court on 22 August 2022. Under the Moneylenders Act 2008, first-time offenders found guilty of loanshark harassment shall be punished with imprisonment of up to five years, a fine between $5,000 and $50,000, and caning of up to six strokes.
The Police have zero tolerance against loanshark harassment activities. Those who deliberately cause annoyance and disruption to public safety and security, will be dealt with severely in accordance with the law.
Members of the public are advised to stay away from loansharks and not to work with or assist them in any way. The public can call the Police at ‘999’ or the X-Ah Long hotline at 1800-924-5664 if they suspect or know of anyone who could be involved in loansharking activities.
A video emerged online showing a woman alighting in the middle of a zebra crossing, outside what appears to be Ang Mo Kio Hub.
The white Toyota that the woman was in, came to a sudden halt right on the zebra crossing, resulting in the car behind stopping as well.
The camcar then honked at the woman for alighting on the zebra crossing, and the irate woman then turned around to stare at the camcar driver.
She was seen gesturing at the camcar driver, before pointing a middle finger.
Netizens comments
For those who say it’s just a few seconds, nothing wrong was done and close one eyes. I only hope the traffic police and LTA are as liberal and lenient as you think they are. This is what the LTA website has stated. You are aware of the following : Violation 1: Stopping a vehicle in a manner such that it causes unnecessary obstruction to other road users . Fine: $70 Violation 2: Stopping a vehicle in a zebra-controlled area Fine: $120 Anytime I would agree with you but we don’t come up with the rules, the government did.
Because of that middle finger pointing, send the video to TP
wrong means wrong. What’s up with all these “close 1 eye” and “give and take” comments?
Just forward the video recording to LTA and CC a copy to Traffic Police.
These are the type of people who can’t be told that they’re doing things wrong.
Pls report these ppl who like to use their middle finger! Let the driver go and explain to TP and pay for his/her passenger mistake.
we booked a staycay in early aug for the last weekend of aug, and this week he just got invited to his friend’s wedding.
also, he is unable to bring a +1 as the friend said there are not enough seats.
he said that he’ll be going on saturday from 6pm onwards so i’ll be alone all the way until midnight-ish in the room. he said he’ll come back after that and spend the night with me.
Firstly, he accepted the friend’s invite so late minute, and that he did not care about how I’d feel being left alone in the room for half a day when this is supposed to be our staycay.
It’s like damn sus for a close friend to send an invitation so last minute. & I don’t think he respects my time and treats me like an option.
I’ve turned down my friends’ or family’s invites to go out on that particular weekend because we got our staycay booked. But I don’t think he understands that this is basic respect.
I won’t be upset at all if his friend invited him before we made plans and I won’t stop him from going at all.
I just find it very disrespectful for half-canceling on me we agreed to spend the weekend together beforehand. He made it seem like I’m making mountains out of molehills as he’ll be coming back after that.
AITA for being mad about this? Should I be more understanding and cincai to wait in the room for him lol? Please advise. Thank you!
Facebook user Iphigenia Jena, shared how she bought 3 t-shirts at $40 each from a Vietnamese salesgirl at Bugis Street because they were from the same country.
She later went back to the same shop on the 3rd floor and found out from another sales girl that the same shirt that she bought was selling at 2 for $40.
Here is what she said
2nd floor of the Bugis Street . There is a Vietnamese woman who is currently an employee of the shop. 26/7 I come here to buy things.
I bought a pant for 40 dollars ( before 45 dollars ) . And bought three short sleeved t-shirts for $40 each ( previously reported at $45 per shirt ) .
I find the price expensive compared to other shops but we still buy because I think the seller is Vietnamese from the same country as me.
At first she said a $45 shirt was reduced to $40 because I’m Vietnamese, so she reduced it.
on August 21st I returned to bugis. I bought two more of the same shirt, just different style in the 3 floor ( but same shop ) and I asked how much the old one bought before.
One Chinese girl said it was only $25 for one shirt and two for $40. I bought two more shirts.
The next day (August 22) I went back and met that Vietnamese woman. I asked her why she sold me for 40 dollars a shirt . She didn’t give me the bill that day. And she only accepts cash. I bought three t-shirts for $120. When I bought things, a few people came to ask, she still said it was 45 dollars a shirt. And only sell me 40 dollars a shirt.
So when she just saw me again, she still smiled and remembers who I am and what I bought. But after I told her, she said who I bought from, not hers . What’s this ??? Then after that she also said “ You buy like few month ago then now you come back “ ?
Next, she vehemently denied that she sold me $40 a t-shirt that day. She asked me “YOU KNOW THE PRICE IS WRONG THAT DAY WHY DON’T COME BACK TO ASK ME IMMEDIATELY. YOU WAIT UNTIL TODAY THEN ASK ME “… ?????
she makes no sense of a lot of things . I don’t understand what this definition is. How do I know the price is right or wrong.
Plus, I don’t have too much free time, every day I go shopping or check if she’s selling right or wrong. I didn’t know the price until the 21st when I bought more. and return on the 22nd to find her.
I said I wanted to talk to the owner that I wanted her to check the camera for me. Then she said go check it out. but then after that she said that the owner didn’t have much free time to check for me. she kept flipping back and forth. because she is afraid. cover for fraudulent trade.
During the conversation, I always used honorifics to talk to her. she as soon as I asked she 360 degrees changed the way she talked, she uses abusive and disrespectful words. During the whole conversation, I never asked her to return the money, but she kept saying harsh and sarcastic sentences.
If you buy things, please stay away from this shop or ask for the correct price. I have messaged to her boss but no answer .
My partner is too nice. He is nice to me and also to everyone around him. He is someone that is easily convinced by anyone and easy to be taken advantage of.
So at his workplace, coworkers especially female coworkers like to approach him for help and they like to make small requests like helping them to run errands, takeaway breakfast for them, driving them out for lunch when there are eating places at walkable distance and sometimes dropping them home since it is along the way etc.
I don’t want to be the bad person and ask him to stop helping people.
As his girlfriend, my concern here is that he can’t say no and his female coworkers are taking advantage of that. Anyone can influence his opinions.
I have tried talking through this with him and usually his reply will be like “I don’t see any issue in this” and says that’s who he is. We will end up in small arguments because of this.
Due to these small arguments, he chose to “help” them out “behind my back” instead e.g. bringing them out for lunch or fetching them home and this makes me more annoyed because he don’t get my point.
I know that he is trying to save some petrol money too so we are meeting up lesser so that he can “save” up on his petrol money.
Yet, he won’t hesitate to bring his female coworkers out for lunch when they requested for it or he will drop them off to their houses directly after work dinner.
All these requests are happening on a very frequent basis. He mentioned that he don’t want to let me know because he wants to avoid these “stupid” arguments.
Also, I don’t feel like he prioritizes me more than them. Make it clear first that I don’t want him to stop being friends with them.
I feel like being his girlfriend just being another one of his coworkers/friends because seems like whatever he is doing for his female coworkers are the same as towards me.
So is it wrong for me to feel annoyed? And to all the females, can you accept your partner being such a pushover/people-pleaser and also often putting his females coworkers/friends’ needs first?
A resident living on the third floor of Block 223A Sumang Lane, shared that his upstairs neighbour on the 4th floor, has been throwing hair, used sanitary pads and water out of her kitchen window for about a year.
He told STOMP that he sometimes sees the woman standing near the kitchen window and combing her hair, and she would throw some hair out of her window, which would then be blown into his home by the wind.
The resident, Mr Tan, added that he would find hair sticking on his food, balcony, kitchen floor and basin.
Tan also shared with STOMP the photos of the hair that the women threw, as well as the sanitary pads which landed on the grass patches below.
He also added that the woman has been pouring water down from his unit and onto the neighbour’s laundry hanging outside.
He shared that he has since reported the incident(s) to the National Environment Agency on 22 July, about a month ago.
NEA reported said that they have deployed a surveillance camera to capture any littering act at the suspected unit, and will not hesitate to take enforcement action.
However, Tan added that the littering of the disgusting items is still going on and that he had to clear the hair away every day.
He lamented how he doesn’t even dare to hand his clothes outside or put food near his kitchen window, and that his next-door neighbour even moved out because he couldn’t stand it anymore.
A 12-year-old boy spent the money that was donated by his relatives for his father’s cancer treatment on mobile phone games, according to the South China Morning Post.
The incident happened in Fuchun county in Sichuan, China.
Took the money while visiting sick father
The boy spent about 3,800 yuan (or SGD $775) at the Xiaomi Game Centre, a mobile gaming platform, back in July.
He took the money when he was visiting his father, who has late-stage brain cancer, at the hospital and used his dad’s phone.
Sole breadwinner
The father, who is the sole breadwinner of the family after his wife died 10 years ago, suffers from late-stage brain cancer and doctors opted for a cheaper treatment method after considering the family’s financial resources.
Before he got sick, he worked in construction while his 15 and 12-year-old sons stayed home.
Their relatives pooled monetary donations for his cancer treatment, and they only realised that the money was stolen by the 12-year-old boy after a relative went to make payment for the medical bills after the father died.
As a result, the relatives had to raise some more money to pay the hospital fees.
Gaming company didn’t believe the family
The uncle of the boy, asked the game company for a refund, but they initially didn’t believe him – it was only after a journalist made inquiries and they conducted background checks, did they agree to return the money to the family, which will be put aside for the two boys in the future.
Following their father’s death, the two boys have been placed in an orphanage, according to the local government.
The 12-year-old boy who stole the money said that he feels “sorry for (his) father” and his relatives who pitched in to help.
The Singapore Police said that they received a call for help on 22 August at 9.57am, after a body of a 60-year-old man was found at the Pandan River.
The body was subsequently retrieved from the river and according to the police’s preliminary investigation, they do not suspect foul play.
The man had been reported missing by his family on 21 August, and the deceased is the same man who was reported to have fallen into the river.
The SCDF said that they received a call for help at the Pandan River at 10.15am, and their firefighters brought the body back to land.
Thought it was a gunny sack
47-year-old Rich Liow was kayaking with his friends that morning, planning to kayak from West Coast to Pulau Hantu but detoured to Pandan River after realising they didn’t have a safety boat, according to The Straits Times.
Liow told ST that when they discovered the body while crossing the river, they initially thought it was a gunny sack floating.
They then got closer and saw tattoo’s on the deceased’s back, as well as his white hair, and he then recalled reading in the news about a man who had fallen into the same river the day before.
They then called the Police Coast Guard for help.
While waiting for the authorities to arrive, Liow and his friends remained at the scene to fend off otters that were trying to approach the dead body.
Police investigations are ongoing at the time of writing.
54-year-old property agent, Ramanathan Sujithran, pleaded guilty to 11 charges including multiple counts of cheating, and was sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment on 22 August.
He had scammed nearly 200 foreigners of $308,815 over a series of rental scams.
Background
Ramanathan was under investigation for a series of rental scams in 2017 and was out on bail when he continued his scams until 2019.
He was a property agent for PropNex Realty before he was fired in 2017 and re-registered as a property agent, but he continued to scam his victim via his own real estate company, TSR Logistics.
He would attract his victims by claiming in advertisements that he had rental units available in Singapore, and when his victims responded to his ads, he would then enter into tenancy agreements with them.
Ramanathan was aware that he was “in no position to satisfy the tenancy agreements that he had entered into and would not be renting out the units” to the victims for the periods listed in his agreements.
However, he went ahead and asked them to pay him a deposit to confirm the rental, and would give them repeated excuses on and around their moving-in date, saying that they were not allowed to move in yet.
he would then cancel the “tenancy agreement” and keep the deposits for himself.
For instance, he listed an advertisement in May 2017 about a unit in Hougang Avenue 7 being available for rent without the homeowner knowing about it.
The homeowner had engaged Ramanathan to rent out his master bedroom only.
The victims, three Indian nationals, responded to the ad and he cheated them of $1,400 each, with all three victims not being able to move into the unit that he advertised.
He used the same modus operandi to cheat other victims, and only about $29,000 was instituted to some of the victims.
A horrific murder occurred in Klang on Sunday morning (21st August). A Chinese man came home in the early morning and was shot 8 times in a row by the killer, and the murderer used a Parang knife to take his life. The man died right in front of his home!
Klang South District Police District Chief Assistant Commissioner Xie Hongfang issued a statement confirming that the shooting took place at 12:22 am (August 21) at Seri Kalong Garden, Klang South District.
“At 12.22am today, Klang South Police Headquarters received a call from a local man claiming to have heard gunshots and saw a man lying by the roadside of his home in a residential area.”
He pointed out that when police went to the site of the incident, they found a 41-year-old Malaysian citizen lying on the ground covered in blood. When ambulances arrived at the scene, paramedics confirmed the man had died at the scene.
“According to the police investigation, the deceased had 10 criminal records, including serious criminal cases involving kidnapping.”
He revealed that according to the investigation, it was found that the shooting occurred in a residential area, and there were 2 entrances and exits in the road section of the crime scene, which could lead to the main road.
“According to CCTV footage, at 12.17am this morning, the deceased arrived in front of the house in his Volkswagen. When he got out of the car and went to the fence to open the house, a Nissan Almera suddenly stopped by the road behind him.”
He pointed out that three men quickly got out of the car and fired 5 to 8 shots at the deceased. After the deceased fell to the ground, the assailant chopped the deceased with a parang knife before leaving, and then got into the car and fled the scene.
“The forensic department of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Selangor Police Headquarters (IPK) has conducted a forensic search at the scene and found some physical evidence that could assist in the investigation of the case.”
He said the police have opened an investigation into the case under Section 302 of the Penal Code (murder), which is the only criminal law that imposes the death penalty if convicted.
