The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) said in an announcement on 6 June that a new town will be built at the site of Pay Lebar Air Base, when the facility relocates to another site in the 2030s, according to The Straits Times.

this is to free up about 800ha of land currently being used by the air base, with is being used for military aircraft takeoff and landings.

The 3.8km long runway of the airbase could also be possible turned into a running track.

The Singapore Institute of Planners (SIP) and the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) have been working with the URA on new development ideas.

The site of the air base and the surrounding industrial areas is about 5x the size of Toa Payoh, and the area has been earmarked to be developed progressively into a new town with housing, business and recreational facilities.

Districts within the town have also been proposed by the architects with each district having its own identity.

Additionally, the future Cross Island Line will also be running through the town.

The two men who were seen in a wildly viral video fighting and throwing heavy punches at each other at Great World shopping centre, have been arrested, according to CNA.

The Singapore Police Force said that they were alerted to the fight between the two men at Kim Seng Promenade on 5 JUne.

The identities of the two illegal fighters were established and they were then arrested on 6 June for affray.

At the time of writing, police investigations are ongoing.

The video was filmed by another person who was at the scene at the time and it quickly went supremely viral, with the video being watched over 543,000 times in less than 2 days.

The fight was broke up by members of the public who stepped in to separate the two men.

Potential penalties

According to Chapter 224 of the Penal Code, anyone who disturbs public peace by fighting in public is guilty of committing an affray.

Upon conviction, offenders could face a jail term of up to one year and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

According to Chapter 321 of the Penal Code, anyone who performs an act that causes hurt to a person is guilty of Voluntarily Causing Hurt.

Upon conviction, offenders could face a jail term of up to 3 years and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

FULL VIDEO LOADING…

A netizen, Tyler Jwy, shared how his father had bought a savings plan about 20 years ago and was supposed to get about $40k, but only received a cheque of $20k+.

Here is what he said (SIC)

My dad bought this prudential savings plan twenty years back and he was supposed to get 40k+ this year during March. However, they’ve only sent my dad a cheque for 20k+ (the initial investment is 30k+).

My family went up to the prudential office to lodge a complain and to enquire as to why the company isn’t giving the full sum as promised on the contract. The company dismissed my dad with a convenient bullshit excuse ” our company isn’t earning much so that’s the sum you’ll have “.

Is this ethically right? What’s the point for anyone to save with prudential if you’re going to make a loss in the end after 20 years? That money could’ve been many times more if my dad invested in other financial instruments and inflation.

Is there any case if we were to sue them? My parents are just Hawkers, I don’t understand why you’ve to make the old generation suffer so much

———–

Update: it’s an endowment plan.

Update2 : there has been no withdrawal made and payment has been made regularly since 1994. The agent who sold this policy to my dad is no longer in prudential so it’s more troublesome too. I’ve also attached another pic regarding the loss of $ (which I’ve no idea what it is)

Update3: Hi there! Didn’t expect to receive so much help from everyone. I’ve already sent the documentations to my friends who’re from diff insurance agencies and they’re looking into it to see if they’re able to help   I’ve also translated the knowledge I’ve learnt from everyone to my dad but we’ll have to wait till Monday to see how the situation unfolds (I was told that someone from prudential will be contacting us, we don’t know how it’ll go but we’ll see).

For those who’re not providing any useful advice at all and is attacking my dad and I, please know that none of us expected this to happen. The term insurance is a very new concept to him in the 90s. Just because you’re literate now doesn’t mean that everyone is back then in the 90s. Your parents could’ve bought similiar policies for their retirement plan back then, and they could’ve ended up in a similiar fate if they’ve an unethical agent whose mind is prob only on their KPI, serving them.

Once again, thanks everyone for your advice and concern regarding the situation and I really appreciate it. Have a great weekend ahead!

Update4 08/04: Last update till Monday. I’ve uploaded extra pics regarding the documentation. Thanks to all of you, I was able to understand more about insurances, riders, guaranteed sum etc. I was able to educate my dad on that and advice him accordingly as to what I’ve been told. So here’s his question, why did the policy schedule (pic1) indicate that he would be receiving $42k based on the contract he has in the 90s even though the assured sum is 20k? There has been no signs of the word ” projected ” anywhere in the policy schedule which is pretty misleading imo.

———-

Update5 10/04: A rep from pru contacted my dad and has explained the policy as whole, but there was still no explanation regarding the letter which states the 42k.

2) My dad told her what went down on his visit to Prudential Singapore’s customer service during feb. Basically after the situation which was explained on this post (my dad being dismissed etc), he requested to see a manager, but was denied. Customer service then told us to go ahead with complaining.

3) He was informed that the company has no records of the first letter which I’ve uploaded and asked my dad if there’s a pru logo on it/envelope accompanying it (are you guys insinuating anything?). Just so all of you know, the first letter which accompanied the policy was sent in this gold coloured envelope during the year of purchase (wow this paper is as old as I am).

4) I’ve emailed the documents WITH LOGO to the pru rep as of 11am, she told my dad that she will be visiting him tomorrow. Also I’ve uploaded the documents with logo here too.

Update6 12/04 – Update from my parents:

Yesterday, 3 prudential representatives came to my house to explain the policy to my parents and to understand the entire situation. As the company has no records of the documentation regarding the policy, they took pictures of it and brought it back for investigation.

The reps also told my dad that the policy schedule was done by agent back then and not by the company. Regardless of whether it’s done up by the company or the agent, the fact that the policy was from Prudential, the company should be accountable for it. After all, It has their prudential logo and such mistake is their internal matters.

Fortunately, the reps have also agreed that the company has responsibility regarding this issue too.

My dad then explained to them that he bought the policy back then in the 90s bcuz of the 42k that the agent promised and the written policy schedule (as shown in the pic, there was no indication that it’s a projected sum) and that he wouldn’t have bought it if it was otherwise.

The reps then told him that they’ll be investigating the matter and will be contacting him again next Wednesday.

(My dad also wanted me to convey that he has been honest throughout this whole episode and there’s nothing to hide.)

Post closed: ” I will not be making any further comments on this issue and this post is closed “

Source: Tyler JWY on Facebook

A $1 million ang pao was included in the matrimonial assets to be split between a divorced couple, after a ruling by a Judge of the Appellate Division (JAD).

The ruling on 18 February reverses a previous ruling by the High Court in Singapore after the couple appealed against the previous decision.

Context

The couple got married on 3 January 2015, and had their first child (a son) in November that year.

The wife then moved out of their home on 28 September 2017 and took their son along with her, before filing for a writ of divorce on 25 July 2018.

An interim judgement was granted on 25 January 2019, with both parties still unsatisfied with the High Court’s judgement that was made on 28 January.

They had disagreed over the division of assets and maintenance, with the appeal being presided by judges Belinda Ang, Woo Bih Li and Quentin Loh.

Ang pao meant for son

On their wedding day, the groom was given a $1 million ang pao (a cheque was inside) by his father, who told the court that it was meant for his son alone.

The father also explained that the bride had received jewellery worth about $20,000 during the tea ceremony, and the groom also gave her a BMW.

The wedding dinner expenses were also not paid for by the bride.

The $1 million cheque that was given to the groom by his father was then deposited into his personal account.

The court found that the cheque was given to the husband in the presence of his wife, and that it “would be viewed objectively as a gift to the couple”, even though the cheque was in the husband’s name.

Wife secretly recorded husband

The wife also had a secret audio recording in July 2017 that was taken without her husband’s knowledge, with the wife asserting to the husband that the $1 million was for the both of them and they had intended to put it in a joint account, which the husband did not do so.

The husband also did not correct his wife (in the recording) that the $1 million was for him alone.

However, even with the inclusion of the ang pao into the total poll of matrimonial assets to be split, the overall pool of the assets decreased from $5.4 million to $2.4 million, after the husband’s $1.744 million share of a Bukit Timah property and $2 million of dividends from the shares of an undisclosed company were excluded.

The judges ruled that the pool will be split with the husband taking 66.5% and the wife taking 33.5% of the $2.4 million worth of assets and money.