The moral compass of the elites

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Doctor hounded ex-girlfriend, threatened to share her intimate photos, abducted her off street​

Chua Cheng Yu's in-car camera footage showed how he shoved his former girlfriend into his car and slammed the door shut.

Summary

• Chua Cheng Yu pleaded guilty to harassing and abducting his ex-girlfriend after their relationship deteriorated in March 2023.
• Chua's actions included forcing his way into her apartment, damaging belongings, multiple scuffles with physical harm, and stealing personal items over several incidents.
• On March 1, 2024, Chua abducted her in public, leading to her escape attempts and injuries. He faces sentencing on Oct 1, with potential for compensation and mental health treatment.

AI generated

Aug 05, 2025

SINGAPORE – An aesthetic doctor hounded his former girlfriend incessantly as their relationship broke down over a period of around one year.

His actions culminated in an attack in which he violently forced her into his car in a public area and restrained her against her will.

On Aug 5, Chua Cheng Yu, 40, was convicted after he pleaded guilty to four charges – the use of criminal force; causing intentional harassment, alarm and distress; voluntarily causing hurt; and unlawful restraint.

He will return to court on Oct 1 to be sentenced.

Chua had met his former girlfriend when he worked at Veritas Medical Aesthetics, a clinic he founded. He is still listed as a doctor on its website.

In 2022, she and Chua entered into a romantic relationship, which was plagued with constant quarrels and disagreements, according to court documents.

By March 2023, their relationship had soured.

On April 1 that year, at around 8pm, he went to her apartment, forced his way inside when she opened the door, and began to throw items around her house.

Chua believed that she was cheating on him, and decided to take her laptop and hair dryer in the midst of the argument.


During the scuffle, he pushed her, causing her head to hit a wall. He then left the apartment with the items.

Around an hour later, he returned to her apartment, but became angry when she did not reply to his questions.

He then left again before returning once more after 10pm. They started arguing again, and Chua snatched her phone and a remote control to the gate of her condominium.

During another scuffle, she fell backwards and hit her head on the floor after Chua pushed her. He then drove off with her items in his car.

Chua returned to her residence at midnight and asked her to meet at the lobby of the condominium so he could return her phone, in exchange for her house key. He ran away after receiving the house key.

On May 24, 2023, Chua picked her up after a dinner to take her home. When they arrived at her place, he said he wanted to “secure their relationship” by keeping some of his belongings at her place. He also requested that she store some of her belongings at his house.

She turned down his requests and quickly left his car to go back to her apartment.

Angered, Chua began to message and call her multiple times on Telegram. When he did not get a response, he messaged her through a mobile game, threatening to share intimate photos of her.

On March 1, 2024, she received and ignored several calls from Chua while she was at work.

At around 10pm, she left the office and had just stepped out onto the street outside International Plaza when Chua pulled up in his car.

Chua messaged and called the victim multiple times on Telegram. When he did not get a response, he messaged her through a mobile game, threatening to share intimate photos of her.

PHOTOS: COURT DOCUMENTS

He got out of his car to talk to her despite multiple rejections, before crying and begging for her to get into his car.

When she continued to reject his entreaties, Chua became angry and grabbed her in a bear hug to carry her to his car.

He managed to shove her into the car and slammed the door shut before speeding off.

The entire altercation, recorded on public closed camera television (CCTV) and by his own in-car camera, was played in court on Aug 5.

Footage showed she made an attempt to escape from his car by crawling out of a window when he stopped at a traffic junction, but Chua managed to pull her back in before speeding off again.

She then told him that she needed to feed her cats at home, and he agreed to drive to her apartment.

When they were close to her apartment, she managed to jump out of a car window when he was preoccupied with her phone, and ran across the road to her condo.

CCTV footage from the condo showed Chua sprinting after her and tackling her to the ground, before dragging her across the road back towards his car.

After struggling, she got free of Chua’s grip and ran to a condo security guard, who shielded her from Chua. Chua then quickly returned to his car and drove off with her belongings still in it.

Chua’s in-car camera footage showed how the victim tried to escape through the car window at a traffic junction before he pulled her back.

PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS

She suffered multiple abrasions and bruises on her body as a result of the abduction.

Chua was found and arrested at the basement of a hotel in Novena at 3.14am on March 2, 2024.

Court documents show Chua was later diagnosed with major depressive disorder, but the prosecution said he was of sound mind when the abduction was carried out.

A report on suitability for a mandatory treatment order has been called for Chua, which means he will undergo treatment for his mental conditions in lieu of jail time if he is found suitable.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Benjamin Low said the prosecution would be seeking a compensation order, with the quantum to be derived from medical bills that the victim incurred due to the incident.

The victim has also submitted her own compensation claim.

 

[True Believer]

The 65% must understand that S'poreans cannot change a greedy govt, so voters must change the ruling party.

 

[True Believer]

The 65% must realise that S'pore won't collapse if the Opposition forms the govt

 

[dr.wailing]

Is it any wonder why S'pore is consistently ranked 3rd or 4th in the world crony capitalism index?

Voters of Sinkie's general elections don't care about global rankings of this or that.

 

[True Believer]

Voters of Sinkie's general elections don't care about global rankings of this or that.

The PAP realises this and have successfully melted the hearts of many needy voters through those CDC vouchers which taxpayers have funded.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Ong Ye Kung rebuts complaints about treatment of stallholders at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre​

Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre opened in December 2022 after a three-year delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

PHOTO: SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS

Summary

• Bukit Canberra hawkers aren't charged for storing supplies in baskets or penalised for not providing free meals, according to Health Minister Ong Ye Kung.
• Food critic K.F. Seetoh claimed hawkers paid $70 each month to use the baskets and had to provide 60 free meals at their own expense.
• Mr Seetoh thanked the minister and suggested that they meet so that he could get “the full picture”.

AI generated

Aug 11, 2025

SINGAPORE – Stallholders at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre are not charged for storing supplies in baskets or penalised for not providing free meals, said Health Minister Ong Ye Kung.

Mr Ong, who oversees the ward where the food centre is located, was responding in an Aug 11 Facebook post to concerns raised by veteran food critic K.F. Seetoh about the treatment of hawkers there.

In a Facebook post on Aug 4, Mr Seetoh had claimed that the food centre’s hawkers were forced to pay $70 each month to use blue supply baskets at the back of each stall.

The founder of local food guide Makansutra, in another post on Aug 8, said the stallholders were contractually obliged to offer 60 free meals at their own expense.

“What a ridiculous smash and grab management policy,” he said in the post, which included a screenshot of what appears to be a contract with the hawker centre’s management.

Mr Seetoh also claimed that hawkers were forced to offer budget meals of up to $3.50 for everyone, not just “the poor”.

In March 2023, the budget meal initiative was launched by the Ministry of National Development and the Housing Board to provide Singaporeans with meals typically priced $3.50 and below at coffee shops.

Mr Ong, who also leads the Sembawang GRC MPs, said he had investigated the matters raised after finding out about the food critic’s online posts.

He said the claim that hawkers must provide 60 free meals “does not present the full picture”.

Mr Ong said stallholders had initially agreed to provide 30 meals each month for low-income residents when the hawker centre first opened, before the figure was adjusted to 100 meals over the three-year duration of their lease.

Mr Ong, who is also Coordinating Minister for Social Policies, added: “There are no penalties if they do not or are unable to provide the meals.

“This simple, well-intentioned initiative was meant to encourage our hawkers to ‘pay it forward’.”

Mr Ong, who said he visits the hawker centre frequently, noted that the initiative has yet to commence.

He added: “I appreciate K.F. Seetoh’s concern for our hawkers and share his passion for keeping our hawker culture alive and thriving.

“However, let’s do so without putting down anyone, whether they are patrons, hawkers, the hawker centre operator, or government agencies.”

On Aug 11, Mr Seetoh thanked the minister and suggested that they meet so that he could get “the full picture”.

The 44-stall Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre opened in December 2022 after a three-year delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

At the time of its launch, about 10 per cent of the stalls were run by Sembawang residents.

It was the first such facility to open in the constituency after about three decades.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre will not need to provide free meals under new contracts​

Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre's management said the free meal initiative has not officially started.

Aug 15, 2025

SINGAPORE – The management of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre will scrap clauses requiring hawkers to provide free meals when their contracts are renewed in September.

Following days of public outcry, the management said in a Facebook post on Aug 15 night that it may not proceed with its Pay-It-Forward initiative in its current form, which contractually required stallholders to provide free meals for the needy each month at their own expense, or risk being penalised.

It added that it was making a public commitment that it does not intend to enforce the obligation in the future.

The hawker centre is run by Canopy Hawkers Group, a subsidiary of Food Canopy.

Debate surrounding the Pay-it-Forward initiative first gained traction on Aug 8 when veteran food critic K.F. Seetoh criticised the management’s attempt at “forced charity” in a Facebook post, which included a screenshot of the contract.

On Aug 11, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, who oversees the ward where the hawker centre is located, said on Facebook that hawkers did not face penalties if they did not provide the meals.

However, a 2022 contract shown to the media, including The Straits Times, indicated that hawkers could chalk up demerit points if they did not provide the meals.

ST had earlier reported in June 2024 that tenants at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre have to participate in a “Belanja A Meal” programme, which required them to set aside 100 meals for the needy at their own cost.

In that report, 25 hawkers from socially conscious enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs), including Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, told ST that their livelihood is becoming less sustainable, with a host of responsibilities that include the need to shield lower-income families from rising costs.

Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre on Aug 15 said that it acknowledged that participation in charitable causes should be voluntary.

It reiterated its position stated in its Aug 12 post, that when stall applications opened three years ago, the initiative had been incorporated into tenancy agreements to differentiate applications and “select the hawkers who shared our vision to contribute back to the community”.

Before the hawker centre opened in 2022, the management had attracted “overwhelming” interest, with nine applicants for each available stall.

The management’s Aug 12 post said it “significantly reduced” the number of meals under the Pay-It-Forward programme from 30 meals a month to 100 meals over the three-year tenancy period, following discussions with the stallholders after the hawker centre opened.

Even so, the programme has not officially started, as the management has not done the preparatory work to identify low-income residents and track their eligibility.

“While hawkers have voluntarily agreed to participate at the point of selection, we also acknowledged the view that charity should not be contractual, and this is something to be reviewed again when the Pay-It-Forward programme is ready,” it added.


On Aug 15, the management further shared that it held back from implementing the initiative as some hawkers had said they may not be able to fulfil their commitments, even though they would have liked to “if their circumstances had been better”.

It added: “We also learnt that in the constituency we are in, the concept of the meal assistance programme is called ‘Belanja A Meal’, (and it) relies on voluntary contributions from patrons, instead of hawkers.”

The management noted that no hawkers have been penalised for not providing free meals under the tenancy agreements, and said it did not intend to enforce the obligation in the future. “This is a commitment we are making publicly.”

The management said that it will work with hawkers to offer “affordable value meals”, and that its hawkers “are not expected to make a loss selling value meals”.

It said: “We remain committed to fostering a caring community while ensuring fairness for our hawkers, and will continue to engage openly with tenants and the public as we refine the programme”.


The SEHC model was started in 2011 when the Government resumed building hawker centres. The scheme had the aim of helping a new breed of hawker centres succeed, by ensuring good visitorship, a diverse food mix that responds to evolving needs, and long-term viability.

Discussion about whether the model was the right way forward sparked debate in Parliament in November 2018.

Following that, the National Environment Agency introduced a series of changes aimed at easing the constraints on hawkers.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

$160k fine for Fullerton Healthcare Corp co-founder who approved falsified claims of over $213k​

David Sin was fined $160,000 after pleading guilty to six counts of falsification of accounts on Aug 21, 2025.

Summary

• Co-founder of Fullerton Healthcare Corporation David Sin approved six expense claim forms which another co-founder submitted in 2019.
• Sin did so despite knowing that Daniel Chan Pai Sheng had submitted the false claims with the intent to defraud the firm.
• The case involved falsified sums totalling over $213,000.

AI generated

Aug 21, 2025

SINGAPORE – One of the three co-founders of Fullerton Healthcare Corp (FHC) approved six expense claim forms submitted by another co-founder, which involved falsified sums totalling over $213,000.

David Sin, 46, approved the claims on multiple occasions in 2019, despite knowing that Daniel Chan Pai Sheng, 51, had submitted them with the intent to defraud FHC, according to court documents.

The prosecution, however, said that Sin did not enjoy financial gains or benefit personally from these offences.


On Aug 21, Sin pleaded guilty to six counts of falsification of accounts and was fined $160,000. The court heard that he will pay the amount in instalments.

The third co-founder, Michael Tan Kim Song, 51, was not involved in these offences. All three men are Singaporeans.

Sin was earlier handed seven other charges for offences including graft.

Without revealing any details, Deputy Public Prosecutor Jonathan Tan made an application for him to be given a discharge amounting to an acquittal over these remaining charges. The court granted it on Aug 21. Individuals given such a discharge cannot be charged again over the same offences.

The court heard that FHC was in the business of investment holding, and had various subsidiaries, including Fullerton Healthcare Group (FHG) and Fullerton Health China.

Deputy public prosecutors Jonathan Tan, David Menon and Ashley Chin stated in court documents that Tan and Chan were medical doctors by training.


In 2010, the pair co-founded FHG, which provided healthcare solutions for corporations.

Some time between 2010 and 2012, Tan approached Sin to invest in FHC. Sin decided to do so in 2013 through a firm called Sin Capital Group, where he was chief executive at the time.

In 2014, he employed Mr Tei Chu Pink, 45, to be the director of Sin Capital’s investment team based in Hong Kong.

Investigations revealed that four years later, Chan approached Mr Tei, a Malaysian, to claim certain business expenses from FHC.

The DPPs said: “Daniel (Chan) told (Mr Tei) that the business expenses would be paid from Fullerton Health China’s accounts, using inflated entertainment invoices, and that (Michael Tan) had consented to the arrangement.”

According to the prosecution, Chan also told Mr Tei the payments were for “consultancy services” provided by Collin Chiew, 57, who was the Singaporean chief executive of insurance broker Aon Singapore between January 2015 and July 2018.


Mr Tei relayed this information to Sin, who consented to the arrangement.

The DPPs told the court that in 2019, Chan submitted for Sin’s approval six claim forms listing purported expenses of more than $334,000 in total, even though the actual expenses were less than half the amount – over $120,000.

Sin approved the claims despite knowing that they had been inflated by more than $213,000.

On Aug 21, the DPPs urged the court to sentence him to a fine of between $150,000 and $180,000.

They said the amount involved was substantial. However, they also noted that Sin was not the mastermind behind the offences.

He is represented by lawyers Melanie Ho, Tang Shangwei and Neo Yi Ling, who pleaded for their client to be fined $120,000 instead.

The team from WongPartnership said he “trusted and assumed his co-founders had good reasons for deciding to pay Collin (Chiew) in such a manner”.

They added: “With the benefit of hindsight, (Sin) accepts that he ought to have done better and should not have turned a blind eye to the breach of corporate governance.”

In February 2024, the four Singaporeans – Sin, Chan, Tan and Chiew – were charged with offences including graft.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau said in an earlier statement that at the time of the alleged offences, Sin was FHC’s president, Chan was the president of Fullerton Health China and Tan was a director at FHG. They no longer hold the positions in the companies.

The cases involving Chan, Tan and Chiew are still pending.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Ownself check ownself fail.
SG government did not check its Ministers and their families thoroughly.


Singapore has revoked the citizenship of Monisha Catherine Iswaran, effective 19 August 2025. The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority has not confirmed her identity, though the name closely matches that of former minister S. Iswaran’s daughter.

Published on 25 August 2025
By The Online Citizen

The Government of Singapore has officially announced the deprivation of citizenship of Monisha Catherine Iswaran under Article 135(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The notice, published in the Government Gazette (No. 3557) on 20 August 2025, states that the decision took effect on 19 August 2025.

No further details were provided in the publication regarding the reasons for the deprivation beyond citing the constitutional clause.

Under Article 135(1)(b) of the Constitution, a citizen may be deprived of citizenship if they have, while aged 18 or over and after 6 April 1960, applied for or used a foreign passport.

This suggests the grounds for action were likely related to Monisha Iswaran’s use or application for a foreign passport, though the specific circumstances remain unconfirmed.

The Online Citizen submitted a formal query to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) last week, requesting clarification — including whether Monisha Catherine Iswaran is related to, or is the daughter of, former People’s Action Party Minister S. Iswaran.

The name is notably similar to that of the former minister’s daughter, raising questions among members of the public.

As of publication, ICA has not responded to the queries.

Neither has Monisha Catherine Iswaran made any public statement regarding the matter, including on her LinkedIn page, where she has remained inactive since the notice was published.

The notice’s timing has also attracted public attention due to its proximity to the conclusion of criminal proceedings involving key figures in a recent corruption case.

On 15 August 2025, billionaire Ong Beng Seng was sentenced to a S$30,000 fine for abetting the obstruction of justice in a case linked to former Transport Minister S. Iswaran.

Ong admitted to belatedly invoicing Iswaran for a S$5,700 business class flight from Doha to Singapore, months after the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) uncovered the travel manifest in May 2023.

The late invoicing was found to have diminished the likelihood of detection.

Due to advanced multiple myeloma and severe medical complications, the court exercised judicial mercy, imposing a maximum fine in lieu of a custodial sentence.

The sentencing came nearly two months after S. Iswaran himself was released from home detention.

He had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on 3 October 2024 for receiving gifts from Ong, including flights and hotel stays. He was released on 6 June 2025.

The last similar notice under Article 135(1)(b) was published on 25 October 2024. Such announcements are relatively rare and typically appear without elaboration in the Government Gazette.

Singapore maintains a firm policy against dual citizenship.

The use or application for foreign travel documents by a Singaporean adult is treated as grounds for forfeiting citizenship, as prescribed in Article 135 of the Constitution.

As of this report, no public information is available on whether the individual named, “Monisha Catherine Iswaran”, has contested the revocation or sought any form of legal redress.

 

[dr.wailing]

The PAP realises this and have successfully melted the hearts of many needy voters through those CDC vouchers which taxpayers have funded.

@True Believer

What's your definition of "needy voters"?

According to a study titled Analysing Poverty in Singapore by Teo Wen Pin Felix, only about 3% of Sinkies are in absolute poverty and about 25% of Sinkies are in relative poverty.

According to the Elections Department, there were 2,758,858 voters in the 14th general elections.

The majority of electors, 72%, are not hard-up for CDC vouchers.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail, fine for repeat drink driving lawyer who got into accident and lied to police​

After a drinking session, Steven John Lam Kuet Keng, 56, got behind the wheel of his car and was driving along Bukit Panjang Road when he lost control of the vehicle.

Nov 07, 2025

SINGAPORE - A lawyer, who was convicted of drink driving in 2006 and fined $2,200, went on to commit a similar offence in 2024.

After a drinking session, Steven John Lam Kuet Keng, 56, was driving along Bukit Panjang Road when he lost control of the vehicle and it struck some railings shortly before 12.30am on April 7, 2024.

Lam lied to the police later that morning, claiming that somebody else was driving the vehicle at the time.

On Nov 7, the co-founder and director of Templars Law was sentenced to eight weeks’ jail and fined $18,000.

The Singaporean was also disqualified from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for a period of six years from his release date.

Lam, who was called to the Singapore Bar in 1996, had pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention, drink driving, and two counts of giving false information to a public servant.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Jonathan Tan told the court that Lam had earlier gone to a friend’s home on April 6, 2024, and consumed about five cans of beer that evening.

He decided to drive home at around midnight and got behind the wheel of his car.

Lam was driving along Bukit Panjang Road towards Choa Chu Kang Road when he lost control of the vehicle, which mounted a kerb onto a divider and struck multiple guard railings.

He remained in his car after the accident and several passers-by came forward to ensure his well-being.

Three witnesses, including one identified in court documents as A3, then saw Lam getting out of the car and walking to a nearby bus stop. He subsequently returned to his car and sat in the driver’s seat.

The DPP said Lam then tried but failed to move the vehicle out of the divider.

Lam got out of the vehicle again, and footage from a nearby camera showed that he appeared to be making a phone call.

The DPP said: “While holding his phone to his ear with his left hand, he reached out his right hand to flag an oncoming blue taxi. Seeing that the accused was going to leave…A3 quickly walked towards the accused, pointing at him and shouting to stop him from leaving.

“A3 then gestured with his left hand to ask the taxi to drive off and used his right hand to point at the bus stop to ask the accused to wait for the police to arrive.”


Lam still tried to board the taxi despite A3’s intervention, the court heard.

A3 approached him to ensure that he did not leave. Another witness also came forward to assist A3 by gesturing with his left hand to ask the taxi to leave the scene.

After the taxi drove away, Lam followed the two witnesses, and they made their way towards his car.

But the lawyer later used his right hand to flag an oncoming yellow taxi.

A3 had to physically restrain him from approaching the taxi, and the two men got into a tussle.

A3 and three other witnesses later surrounded Lam to ensure that he did not leave the scene.

Two Traffic Police (TP) officers arrived there soon after, and one noticed that Lam reeked of alcohol.

Lam admitted to the officer that he had earlier consumed alcohol, but lied to the latter, claiming that an “unknown friend” had been tasked to drive him home.

DPP Tan said: “The accused claimed that he was seated at the back seat of his car, and had fallen asleep… The accused then alleged that he saw the unknown friend run away from the driver’s seat.”

Despite claiming that the driver was his friend, Lam refused to provide any details about this individual, claiming that he did not know his name or number.

Acting on such information, the officer directed TP resources to search the vicinity of the nearby Lompang Road for the purported unknown friend who had “escaped”.

Lam was arrested after he failed a breathalyser test, and he was taken to the TP headquarters in Ubi Avenue 3.

He was then found to have 61 micrograms of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of breath. The prescribed limit is 35 mcg of alcohol in the same amount of breath.

Lam was in an interview room at the headquarters later that morning when he repeated similar lies to another officer who recorded his statement.

On Nov 7, DPP Tan urged the court to sentence Lam to up to 10 weeks’ jail and a fine of up to $18,000, adding: “The sentence imposed must send the unequivocal message to the accused that drink driving is intolerable and abhorrent.”

In mitigation, defence lawyer Ramesh Tiwary told the court that Lam is remorseful and had acted out of character that day.

He also said that his client had contributed to society and no one was injured in the accident.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Shares of Singapore’s Wilmar tumble after Indonesian court overturns corruption acquittal​

Wilmar International said in a bourse filing on Sept 25 that Indonesia’s Supreme Court overturned the previous acquittals of the group and two Indonesian palm oil companies.

Sep 25, 2025

SINGAPORE – Singapore-based global palm oil company Wilmar International has been found guilty of corruption after Indonesia’s Supreme Court overturned its previous acquittal in a graft case involving cooking oil export permits during the shortage crisis in 2021 and 2022.

Founded by Singaporean tycoon Kuok Khoon Hong, the Singapore-listed company said in a bourse filing on Sept 25 that Indonesia’s Supreme Court overturned the previous acquittals of the group and two Indonesian palm oil companies – Permata Hijau and Musim Mas.

The news sent Wilmar’s share price tumbling on Sept 26. The stock slumped as much as 3.8 per cent to the lowest since February 2016 on an intraday basis, before closing down 1.4 per cent at $2.85.

The companies were accused of illegally profiting from the evasion of state-imposed export controls on cooking oil and palm oil.

The controls were implemented to address Indonesia’s cooking oil crisis and domestic palm oil shortage in 2021 and 2022, as global palm oil prices surged.

Specifics of the Indonesian Supreme Court’s grounds of judgment and any financial awards have not been released.

The Indonesian Attorney-General’s Office (AGO) has sought 11.8 trillion rupiah (S$913 million) in compensation and a billion rupiah fine from Wilmar.

Permata Hijau faced a fine of one billion rupiah and was ordered to pay 937 billion rupiah in compensation. Musim Mas was also fined one billion rupiah and ordered to pay 4.8 trillion rupiah in compensation. Suspects in the case were first named in 2022, including a government official and executives of the three companies or their subsidiaries.

In March 2025, the lower court acquitted the three companies of all charges, but by April, the AGO had arrested all four judges handling the case on charges of taking at least US$1.1 million (S$1.4 million) in bribes to arrange a favourable verdict.

In June, Indonesia’s Supreme Court began reviewing the case, as the AGO seized 11.8 trillion rupiah from Wilmar as compensation for state losses arising from the case.

In a statement, the group said: “While Wilmar respects the decision of the Indonesian Supreme Court, it maintains that the actions taken by the Wilmar Respondents, during the period of a shortage of cooking oil in the Indonesian market, were done in compliance with prevailing regulations and in good faith.”

Shares of the counter closed down 0.7 per cent, or two cents, at $2.89 on Sept 25, before the update.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

13 months’ jail for ex-S’pore Idol judge Ken Lim for molesting 25-year-old woman​

The incident happened at the Hype Records office in Henderson Road on Nov 23, 2021, when Ken Lim was the executive director of the record company.

Summary

• Ken Lim, former Singapore Idol judge, received a 13-month jail sentence on Nov 18 for molesting a 25-year-old woman at his Hype Records office in 2021.
• The victim testified Lim made suggestive comments and molested her during a work-related interview, including touching her chest while kissing.
• Despite denying the molestation charge, Lim was convicted in September. He was acquitted in December 2024 in a separate sexual comment case.

AI generated

Nov 18, 2025

SINGAPORE - Music producer and former Singapore Idol judge Ken Lim, 61, was sentenced to 13 months’ jail on Nov 18 for molesting a 25-year-old woman.

The incident happened at the Hype Records office in Henderson Road on Nov 23, 2021, when he was the executive director of the record company.

Following a trial, Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng convicted him of a molestation charge in September.

The victim’s details cannot be disclosed due to a gag order.

The molestation case involved a work-related interview at Lim’s office.

The victim had said that she met Lim three times, adding that he made suggestive comments at the second and third meeting.

She also said Lim had asked her if she would perform a sex act on a director and have sex with someone “to bring about change”.

The woman added that she was molested during their third meeting, and that it happened after Lim asked her to kiss him. She did so but felt disgusted after doing it.

She told the court Lim asked her to kiss him again but to do it with more passion. The woman said that as they kissed, he touched her chest.

The woman later shared details of the incident with her boyfriend at the time and a female friend, who both testified in court.

The female friend said the woman had shared details of the encounter, and described the interview with Lim as “quite traumatic”.

The friend said she was told that Lim had forced the victim to kiss and perform a sex act on him.

In earlier proceedings, the friend told Judge Lee: “He also said that he wanted to tie her up... She just seemed very traumatised by what had happened and very disgusted that she was forced to do things that she didn’t want to do.”

Lim, who was represented by a team led by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, denied molesting the woman.

In 2024, Lim fought off allegations involving a different woman in a separate trial.

She had accused him of making sexual comments while they were at the Hype Records’ premises on July 25, 2012.

After a trial, District Judge Wong Peck acquitted him in December 2024.

For molestation, an offender can be jailed for up to two years, fined, caned or receive any combination of such punishments. However, Lim cannot be caned as he is over 50 years old.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer ordered to pay client’s opponent $800 after discovery of fake case created by AI​

Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan of DL Law Corporation said the non-existent case was originally cited by his junior lawyer, who would have run the case through an AI app.

Summary

• A lawyer, Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan, must pay $800 after his firm filed court documents citing a fake case generated by an AI tool.
• The court found this improper conduct wastes judicial time and resources, potentially damaging the legal profession's integrity.
• The judge emphasised lawyers must verify AI-generated content and uphold professional duties, as AI tools have limitations.

AI generated

Oct 02, 2025

SINGAPORE – A lawyer has been ordered to pay $800 to his client’s opponent in a civil suit after a non-existent case generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) tool was found in his court documents.

Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan of DL Law Corporation said the non-existent case was originally cited by his junior lawyer, who would have run the case through an AI app.

In an 11-page judgment on Sept 29, Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing said such improper conduct causes valuable judicial time to be lost and unnecessary expenditure of resources.

Ms Tan added: “His actions may, in the eyes of the public, cast a shadow over the legitimacy and honour of the legal profession and its role as a custodian of justice in Singapore.”

Mr Lalwani represented claimants Tajudin Gulam Rasul and Mohamed Ghouse Tajudin in their civil suit against Ms Suriaya Haja Mohideen, who was represented by Mr Umar Abdullah Mazeli of Adel Law LLC.

The judgment did not detail much about the civil proceedings, but said the defendant, Ms Suriaya, had applied to set aside a default judgment entered against her for failing to file a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim.

Lawyers for the claimants filed written submissions on June 1 citing a purported case to support one of their legal arguments.
On July 18, lawyers for the defendant e-mailed counsel for the claimants and said they were unable to find the cited case. Three days later, counsel for the claimants filed amended written submissions, where the case was replaced.

The lawyers claimed the amendments were merely to update the document due to typographical and clerical errors, and because a case was “inadvertently cited”.

When probed by the court, Mr Lalwani admitted the case in fact did not exist. He claimed the original work was done by a junior lawyer, and he realised the error when he took over the matter.

He said: “I am aware of (the) requirement that the case has to be correct. I am not here to mislead anybody, which is why I went to look at it specifically. The original work that was done by my junior has some errors.”

Though Ms Suriaya’s application was eventually dismissed, which meant she had to pay the claimants, the parties considered whether a separate personal costs order ought to be made against Mr Lalwani.

Mr Umar said they had incurred unnecessary time and costs in attempting to find the non-existent case. He added this was the first time he had encountered such a situation.

Mr Lalwani argued that though the case did not exist, the legal proposition that he had sought to rely on existed.

He said after he identified the error, he remedied it as soon as he could and updated the court.

Noting that the junior lawyer in question was just called to the Bar and was fairly new, Mr Lalwani said: “But ultimately, the submissions were filed by me and I take full responsibility for this error. I should have checked.”

Ms Tan, presiding over the matter, said a simple search on a legal research portal would have revealed the case did not exist. The case name was fabricated, and while the citation number was genuine, it was linked to a wholly unrelated matter.

She called Mr Lalwani’s explanations “troubling”, and noted that he was less than candid with the court and sought to downplay the gravity of his improper conduct.

Ms Tan said that as the senior lawyer on file, Mr Lalwani had a duty to supervise the work of his junior colleague, and called his conduct improper, unreasonable and negligent.

In Singapore, lawyers and self-represented persons are allowed to use generative AI tools in preparing their court documents, but must abide by a relevant guide issued in 2024. The guide explains that such tools are unable to discern facts and are not designed to function as search engines. While its outputs may sound persuasive, there is a risk they are inaccurate or fabricated.

Court users must independently verify that all materials placed before the court exist and are accurate, said Ms Tan.

Both Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and High Court judge Aidan Xu have also addressed the impact of AI on the legal fraternity, with Justice Xu noting in an August speech that advocates and solicitors “should know better” than to tender fictitious case citations.

Ms Tan said lawyers must recognise that while technological tools may enhance the practice of law, these tools also have their inherent limitations.

She added: “This incident serves as a solemn reminder that every advocate and solicitor bears a personal responsibility to comply with his or her professional duties.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer who forged court orders after feeling overwhelmed by work gets 2 years’ jail​

On Oct 2, Banupriya Ravichandran was sentenced to two years’ jail after she pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery.

Summary

• Lawyer Banupriya Ravichandran forged multiple documents linked to three clients.
• She was sentenced to two years' jail after pleading guilty to three forgery charges.
• She is expected to begin serving her sentence on Oct 31.

AI generated

Oct 03, 2025

SINGAPORE – Feeling overwhelmed by her workload, a lawyer delayed working on her clients’ deputyship applications and realised later that medical reports linked to them had expired.

Instead of approaching the two male clients for fresh medical reports, Banupriya Ravichandran, who was then working for K K Lee Law Corporation, forged two orders that were purportedly from the Family Justice Courts (FJC), and the men then submitted the documents in their application for grants.

Separately, she also forged the title of a flat that a third client later submitted to the Housing Board.

On Oct 2, Banupriya, 34, was sentenced to two years’ jail after she pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery.

The Singaporean’s particulars could not be found following a search on lawyers on the Ministry of Law’s website on Oct 3.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Wong Shiau Yin said that between 2018 and 2019, two clients – identified in court documents as V1 and V2 – approached Banupriya for help with their deputyship applications.

A deputyship allows an individual to manage the affairs of another person who has lost his or her mental capacity.

The court heard that V1 wanted to appoint himself as a deputy for his son, while V2 wanted to appoint himself as a deputy for his aunt.

During an engagement with the two men, Banupriya obtained the medical reports of the persons lacking mental capacity, which was a requirement for the filing of deputyship applications.

The medical reports had a validity period of six months from the date of issuance.

DPP Wong said that if the reports were to expire, Banupriya would have to request fresh medical reports from her clients.

The DPP added: “As the accused felt overwhelmed by her workload... she delayed working on the deputyship applications. As a result of the delays, the accused subsequently realised that the medical reports had expired.

“The accused did not want to approach V1 and V2 for fresh medical reports, for fear of reprisal, and therefore decided to forge two orders of court purportedly made by the (FJC).”

One of the orders was dated Nov 14, 2019. Between that day and July 28, 2020, Banupriya forged the order by using her office computer to download older documents from earlier cases stored in her then workplace’s shared drive, and converted them into Microsoft Word documents.

After that, she made edits, printed the forged documents and passed them to V1.

The second forged court order, dated Aug 13, 2019, pertained to an order of court appointing V2 and another person as deputies for V2’s aunt. The DPP said that between Aug 8, 2019, and Nov 30, 2020, Banupriya used a similar method to fraudulently create it.

The two forged orders were discovered after V1 and V2 submitted them to the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) for the application of grants.

The social welfare agency had conducted checks with the FJC and found that the names of the applicants did not match those on the court orders.

Separately, a woman identified as V7 in court documents engaged Banupriya in September 2018 to apply for a presumption of death in relation to a co-owner of her father’s HDB flat.

The co-owner was understood to be missing and V7 had engaged the lawyer’s services so that her father could become the property’s sole owner. He could also receive all the proceeds of the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme from HDB, the court heard.


V7’s father died in June 2019 and bequeathed the flat to her. However, Banupriya had yet to apply for the presumption of death by September that year.

She then advised V7 to take an alternative course of action to execute her late father’s will. For this, the lawyer had to apply with the FJC to recognise V7 as the sole executrix of her late father’s will, and to sever the man’s joint tenancy with the missing co-owner.

To do so, Banupriya had to submit a statutory declaration to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) that V7 had to sign. Once it is successful, SLA would issue a hard copy title deed of the flat with a physical severance stamp.

DPP Wong said: “However, the accused also delayed in making the necessary applications... due to her overwhelming workload. This led V7 to pressure the accused for updates, as she was unhappy with the delays over her matter.”

To alleviate the pressure, Banupriya forged the title deed of the flat to appease her client. On Jan 3, 2020, V7 unknowingly submitted the title deed to HDB via e-mail. The forgery was discovered when HDB conducted a check with SLA, said the prosecutor.

Banupriya was later charged in court in 2024.

Her bail was set at $25,000 on Oct 2 and she is expected to begin serving her sentence on Oct 31.