According to a court hearing, a man who is infamous for multiple crimes turn up to court on Monday (Sept 6) and he was jailed for 17 months.
33-year-old Mohammed Faisal Seeni Syed headbutted a police officer and used a racial epithet at another after they responded to a report about a ruckus he was causing after he got drunk.
In another incident, the accused threatened his father with a knife while drunk and stole a gold necklace and money from his wife.
Orchard Tower
The court heard that the incident happened back in 2018 when the authorities were contacted about a man behaving rowdily in public and he was shirtless.
When the Police officers arrived on the scene they tried to calm Faisal down but he responded to the officer’s saying “Melayu Babi”. He then tried to run away, but the officers managed to catch up but the man head-butted the officer in his face before he was arrested.
In an operation conducted at an industrial facility in Woodlands Industrial Park on September 2, 2021, Singapore Customs detained a Malaysian lady, a Malaysian man, and three Singaporean males, ranging in age from 21 to 54, and confiscated more than 6,000 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes.
At the loading/unloading bay of the industrial building, Singapore Customs officials witnessed boxes being moved into a Singapore-registered box truck.
Officers stepped in to inspect the cartons, suspecting they contained duty-unpaid cigarettes.
The vehicle contained 1,120 boxes of duty-free cigarettes. A Malaysian lady and three locals were detained.
Following the arrests, a neighbouring Singapore-registered box truck was searched, A total of 4,928 cartons of duty-free cigarettes were found.
The driver of a Malaysia-registered lorry accused of delivering duty-unpaid cigarettes to the industrial facility is the sixth individual detained in the operation. When he attempted to exit Singapore, he was stopped at the Tuas Checkpoint. The two Singapore-registered box trucks and the Malaysian-registered lorry were confiscated, together with a total of 6,048 boxes of duty-unpaid cigarettes. The avoided duty and GST (Goods and Services Tax) were $516,490 and $41,430, respectively.
A guy shared how all the anti-vaccination aunties are apparently afraid of being tracked by the government, and that the government is “putting chips” inside them.
The pekchek guy then asked: “You think you very important is it, the government want to track you all…”
“You big state secret ah? You got the code to the nuclear bomb? That everybody want to track you?”
“You’re literally a useless tiny speck of dust, why the f**k would the government want to track you lol.”
A netizen shared a video on Tiktok using a speedometer to describe Singapore’s Covid-19 progress from the Circuit Breaker (CB) period.
Covid-19 first reached our shores in January 2020, and is still around with the government moving towards treating it like an endemic instead of a pandemic.
The situation did improve after the CB period and we were at phase 3 as vaccinations and regular testings began to roll out, before we went back to a heightened alert and almost 200 cases a day now.
Lets hope that the situation improves so that we do not need to go into another CB.
In a tender for security officers at a condominium at Hillview has been accused of racial discriminatory hiring practices.
Their tender requirements stated that they will be needed to pay compensation if the security firm failed to provide a Chinese Speaking guard.
Here is the full post:
Potentially Discriminatory Stipulations by Managing Agents and Buyers of Security Services
SAS has had sight of a Tender Document put out by managing agent (“MA”) Savills Property Management Pte Ltd on really.sg for the provision of condominium security services at Hillview Heights that contain the following “Penalty Rates”:
“(19) Failure to provide Chinese speaking guard for more than six shifts per month (dialect acceptable) – Warning Letter and DEDUCTION (Deduction will be imposed for the 1st six shifts too if exceeded six shifts per month) – $100.00 per shift
(20) (sic) Deployment of guards outside the age limit of 21 years old to 60 years old without the prior approval of the management – DEDUCTION – S$100.00 per occurrence”
These are amidst other clauses of concern to SAS, but SAS is highlighting these particular clauses because they appear to penalise security agencies unless they exercise discrimination in their hiring and deployment of security officers.
In clause (19), Savills has stipulated that the agency will be penalised unless it deploys an officer who can speak Chinese or “any dialect”. As we all know, Mandarin and the dialects are not mutually translatable – so what exactly is the job requirement here that Savills is looking for? Furthermore, for a Singapore condominium, is it a reasonable requirement for a Chinese speaking officer to be deployed at all times? It appears that the intention is for an ethnically Chinese officer to be deployed on a frequent basis at the condominium. This would be race discrimination.
As regard clause (20), this appears to be age discrimination, especially because there is nothing in the Tender Document that indicates on what basis the management would give or withhold its “approval”. It appears there is just an intention for older workers not to be deployed at the site.
We welcome Savill’s clarification on the above clauses.
SAS will raise this with TAFEP Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices and Singapore Ministry of Manpower, but we are also well aware that there may not be much they can do, because the fair employment guidelines apply only to employers. In this regard, MAs like Savills and service buyers like Hillview Heights may be able to get away with forcing service providers like security agencies to carry out discriminatory practices. In fact, SAS had raised this gap in the law with MOM last year and urged that the guidelines be extended to buyers of outsourced services as well.
SAS has been reaching out to MAs and security buyers to assist them in crafting outsourced services contracts that are in line with TAFEP guidelines and fair to our workers. We will continue to monitor tenders and contracts put out by MAs and buyers for clauses that are discriminatory.
Members of the public are encouraged to whistleblow unfair practices to MOM, TAFEP, USE or to SAS at [email protected].
A resident shared how he has a “selfish neighbour” who allegedly discriminates against those who do prayers and turned on his/her.
He claimed that when he was doing his prayer for the 7th month, his neighbour allegedly turned on his/her fan and blew it at him.
Here is the story:
“i have a very selfish neighbour who did not think for others and during 7th Month, religious discrimination towards others who do prayer. on fan and blow towards other unit, hanging broom and unwanted bags and etc outside the kitchen window. unhygienic family.
what is the town council or ministry of environment doing to those selfish people.
This couple, wife always yell and shouting either mid day or sometime middle of the night.. on and off quarrel with this husband.
Now, even worse,hang broom outside the kitchen window. cannot imagine resident below hanging their cloths to dry during sunny day.
Their unit is a few away from the lift and he park his bike spoilt fan around the lift area where there is parking lot downstairs for those who own their bike and discard spoilt fan away.
sad to have this kind of selfish neighbour around.”
Images source: Yee Sing Quek on Facebook via Complaint SIngapore
Social disputes escalated to business disputes, a woman who ordered food from a home baker was left to wait outside the baker’s home after closing the door on her.
She stands there and waited for 30mins before the baker has the courage to come out and tell her that the order screwed up and her stuff is not read.
Then you make her wait outside for what?
Then the customer demanded a refund for wasting her time and the baker to her “Sure” to report to the Police.
The post has been shared over 1,600 times since yesterday.
We have compiled a video of all the information related to the case
Here is what the netizen posted on Facebook:
I want to share my last encounter & final straw of my patience with this famous baker SUGARYKNEADS CO. ok since there has been too many incidents & almost all is about delivery. But my case, i self collected & got this. This happened in may 2021 before Hari Raya. Ordered bakes for my families & a friend. I was sooooo mad because I am insulted that way, to be treated that way & after hearing & seeing so many people got their day / event ruined by this HBB, I will share this. A repost from my instagram story when i was so bloody mad & angry for being so disrespected in that manner.
To her, she thinks an apology & refund for the bakes i dont get, will settle this, but you truly insulted me. Alot cases was linked to delivery issues, i got that too. That was why i wanted to self collect. But self collect & this is what happened. No one should be treated like this or any other ill mannered way she has done. & This is to create awareness & for owner to have a sense of responsibility for her flaws/ mishaps/ poor service because she clearly doesnt have one.
I took this while waiting, and texted my sis that im waiting for her to get the bakes & its kinda taking too long. My sis was the one who liased with her because at that time i was already too exhausted with her service, only buying because my families & a friend wants it. Been ordering yearly since they established in 2019.
We already texted her before hand while i was on my way, she replied ok. Didnt even inform anything about no bakes to be collected. It could have save my time & hassle right? But i really dont know whats her intention or purpose.
