Three complaints were lodged alleging workplace discrimination due to National Service (NS) obligations between 2024 and 2025, Minister of State for Manpower Foo Cexiang said in Parliament on Sep. 9.

He added that NSmen who believe that they have been unfairly treated because of their NS obligations may seek assistance from the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP).

Have not needed enforcement action

Under the Enlistment Act, employers have specific statutory duties in relation to their employees’ NS obligations.

They include reinstating employees after NS, granting leave of absence for NS obligations, and not dismissing employees on account of their NS obligations.

"To date, MINDEF has not had to pursue formal enforcement action under these provisions," Foo said.

Where concerns have been raised, MINDEF would engage employers directly to clarify their obligations.

This approach has been effective in resolving issues, Foo assured.

Legal protections

Foo was responding to a Parliamentary question from Workers' Party Member of Parliament (MP) Kenneth Tiong about the figures for such complaints.

Tiong also asked why NS liability is not protected under the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA), and what protection a serviceman has against being passed over for promotion because of in-camp training.

Foo explained that the WFA, which will come into force at the end of 2027, takes a "calibrated approach".

The protected characteristics included in the Act account for about 95 per cent of discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM.

MOM will also consider expanding the WFA's scope if other forms of discrimination complaints persist or increase significantly in number, Foo said.

NSmen are further protected under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), which prohibits all forms of workplace discrimination including those based on NS obligations.

Employers found breaching the guidelines will be required to correct their practices, and in egregious cases, even get their work pass privileges suspended by MOM.

A bankrupt property agent duped his fellow agents into co-broking falsified sales, using them to receive advance commissions and leaving them to deal with the aftermath.

CNA reported that Cheong En Kiong, 51, pleaded guilty on Sep. 8, 2026 to four charges including forgery, cheating and receiving benefits from criminal conduct.

Other outstanding charges will be considered during sentencing.

According to court documents seen by Mothership, Cheong has been an undischarged bankrupt since 2019, meaning that he is obligated to make monthly payments to his creditors and is placed under certain financial restrictions.

Cheong was an agent under ERA Real Estate Singapore when he committed the offences.

According to CNA, he is no longer listed on the Council for Estate Agencies' public register.

The scheme

Cheong exploited the payment system of LytePay, a Monetary Authority of Singapore-licensed payment institution. It disburses advance commissions to real estate salespersons in exchange for a processing fee.

To do so, a real estate agent would first have to submit documents of the property sale to LytePay, which then delivers the advance commission to the agent.

After the seller of the property pays the commission due to the real estate company, the company would deduct the advance commission already received by the agent and pay the remainder to LytePay.

Cheong falsified property sale documents and used other agents' LytePay accounts to receive advance commissions with no actual sale taking place.

The Prudential unit

In June 2022, Cheong asked a fellow property agent, named only in court documents as A1, to be the co-broker for the sale of a unit at Prudential Towers.

The unit was worth about S$11 million.

A1, who is 38 years old, had known Cheong for a decade at the time. She had no prior experience with a sale of this magnitude.

Cheong told her that he was unable to submit an advance commission request to LytePay himself, and asked her to submit the sale documents to LytePay instead. He promised her a S$5,000 cut as well as the Medisave and income tax for the sale.

At the time, she was recovering from injuries sustained in an accident.

A1 believed that Cheong was offering her a legitimate opportunity. Unbeknownst to her, Cheong had forged the signatures in the documents, using the signature and personal details of a former client to falsify the sale.

While the unit was left unsold, A1 submitted the documents to LytePay, who disbursed S$91,653.39 to her.

After deducting her share and the processing fee, she transferred S$83,554 to Cheong.

He used the money to repay his debts.

Around six months later, ERA discovered that the purported buyer of the property had not sent them the commission owed. The company's internal investigations revealed Cheong's fraudulent actions, and he was issued with a warning.

ERA asked both Cheong and A1 to repay the advance commission of S$91,653.39 that they received from LytePay.

To date, Cheong has only paid back S$10,000 to S$12,000 of the owed sum, leaving A1 to bear the remaining amount.

LytePay issued a statutory demand to A1 to claw back the money, and has deducted A1's commissions from her other sales to offset the balance.

A1 has asked Cheong to pay her multiple times, but he has not done so.

The Lucky Plaza unit

This was not the only time that Cheong pulled off the scheme.

In October 2025, Cheong approached a client, named only as B1 in court documents, who was the owner of a commercial property in Lucky Plaza.

He lied to B1 that there was a buyer for the property, and asked him for his signature to exercise the purchase.

B1 signed on some blank documents that he provided.

Cheong then approached his friend and fellow real estate agent, known as B4 in court documents, to be the unwitting co-broker in the sale.

B4, a 63-year-old agent with OrangeTee & Tie, was suffering from prostate cancer at the time.

Nevertheless, he agreed to help Cheong after being told about his financial woes.

As before, Cheong deceived him into thinking that the sale of the Lucky Plaza unit was legitimate, forging the signatures of some of his other separate clients in the documents.

According to court documents, this was actually not the first time that Cheong had deceived B4.

Earlier in July 2025, Cheong had in fact roped B4 into being a co-broker for the false sale of yet another unit at Prudential Tower, on the eleventh floor.

B4 submitted the documents for the Lucky Plaza property sale to OrangeTee, requesting an advance commission via LytePay.

LytePay delivered S$7,955 to him. He then transferred S$4,700 to Cheong.

A few months later on October 2025, OrangeTee sent a letter to the purported buyer of the eleventh floor unit at Prudential Tower, reminding them that they still had about S$135,000 outstanding in agency fees.

The buyer informed OrangeTee that no such deal occurred.

After conducting internal investigations, OrangeTee discovered the fraudulent transactions of both the Prudential Tower and Lucky Plaza unit sales, and fired B4.

B4 was made to bear the full amount from the advance commissions doled out through LytePay, totalling S$86,014.

Until now, Cheong has made no restitution to OrangeTee, B4, or LytePay.

Aftermath

Those involved made police reports in October 2025.

Cheong has been remanded since April 2026.

The deputy public prosecutor sought 24.5 to 28 months' imprisonment, noting that he made use of his friends for his personal gain, reported CNA.

She said he had not just omitted information but actively deceived the victims, leaving them with "substantial financial obligations to LytePay".

Furthermore, he displayed a pattern of repeated offending, having defrauded those involved via the same means on separate occasions.

CNA reported that the Cheong's lawyer asked for 18.5 to 21.5 months' jail instead, citing his immediate guilty plea and full cooperation with the authorities.

The case was subsequently adjourned to October 2026 for sentencing.

For cheating or forgery to commit cheating, he could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined.

For acquiring property that are the benefits of criminal conduct, he could be jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$500,000, or both.

Six men, aged 23 to 76, will be charged on Sep. 10 in separate cases of outrage of modesty, or molestation.

36-year-old

On Jul. 16, a 36-year-old man allegedly molested a 23-year-old woman in the vicinity of Victoria Street.

The incident was reported to the police, and the man was arrested at the scene.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty and one count of uttering words intended to insult the modesty of any person.

29-year-old

On May 7, a 29-year-old man allegedly molested an 18-year-old woman and a 22-year-old woman in the vicinity of Bayfront Avenue.

The incident was reported to the police, and the man was arrested at the scene.

He will be charged with two counts of outrage of modesty.

23-year-old

On Apr. 26, a 23-year-old man allegedly molested a 23-year-old woman in the vicinity of Boat Quay.

The incident was reported to the police.

Through follow-up investigations, the police established the man’s identity and subsequently arrested him.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty.

27-year-old

On Apr. 4, a 27-year-old man allegedly molested a 30-year-old woman in the vicinity of Kallang Avenue.

The incident was reported to the police, and the man was arrested at the scene.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty.

34-year-old

On Dec. 15, 2025, a 34-year-old man allegedly molested a 17-year-old girl in the vicinity of Silat Avenue.

The incident was reported to the police.

Through follow-up investigations, the police established the man’s identity and subsequently arrested him.

He will be charged with two counts of outrage of modesty and two counts of uttering words and making a gesture intended to insult the modesty of any person.

76-year-old

On May 27, 2025, a 76-year-old man allegedly molested a 22-year-old woman in the vicinity of Hospital Boulevard.

Through follow-up investigations, the police established the man’s identity and subsequently arrested him.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty and one count of uttering words intended to insult the modesty of any person.

Penalties

The offence of outrage of modesty carries a jail term of up to three years, a fine, caning, or any combination of such punishments.

The offence of uttering words or making gestures intended to insult the modesty of any person carries a jail term of up to one year, a fine, or both.

The police advised victims of molestation to move away from the perpetrator and call the police immediately when it is safe to do so.

While ensuring their personal safety, victims should attempt to note key details such as the perpetrator’s physical appearance, clothing, and the time and location of the incident.

Several cases were apparently detected with the help of bystanders, friends, security personnel, and members of the public who intervened, assisted, or promptly alerted the police.

Their actions safeguarded victims, preserved evidence and facilitated swift action.

Members of the public are encouraged to remain vigilant and to take action if they witness or encounter sexual crimes.

The police said they have zero tolerance towards sexual offenders who prey on unsuspecting victims and who threaten the personal safety of those in the community.

Offenders will be dealt with sternly in accordance with the law.

The police said they will continue to work closely with various stakeholders, such as public entertainment outlets, public transport operators, and the community, to prevent and deter molestation cases.

A magistrate's court has ordered a woman in Singapore to pay her ex-husband a total of S$7,085 after displaying "highly unreasonable" conduct towards him.

Deputy Registrar Mark Lim noted in his judgement released on Sep. 7, 2026, that the man had accidentally transferred S$6,650 to her and asked her to return the money multiple times.

Instead of simply returning the money, she prolonged the matter in a legal dispute lasting six months, including filing a police report and accusing his lawyers of misconduct.

Letter of demand

The Straits Times reported that James Jonathan intended to transfer the money to an online financial technology company, but mistakenly transferred it to his ex-wife Adel Ng after saving her as "Wife" in his contacts.

According to the judgement, the pair, who were formerly married and finalised their divorce in 2021, continued to remain in contact on matters including access to their child.

Jonathan then sent Ng at least 10 emails from Dec. 7, 2025, to Dec. 15, 2025, to inform her of the mistaken transfer and request for the money to be returned.

On Dec. 17, 2025, he issued her a letter of demand through his lawyers after she did not respond.

Concerned about getting scammed

Ng claimed that she was concerned about being a victim of a possible scam, and instructed her lawyers to respond in a letter dated Dec. 25, 2025, the judgement stated.

It requested for extensive information, which included Jonathan's identity number, a copy of an identity document and the source of the money.

The letter also questioned the reasons for the "error", and the reasons for the urgency in returning the money.

Police report

The next day on Dec. 26, 2025, Ng deposited the S$6,650 with the police.

She said in her police report that she wished to "return this money under cover of this police report, so as to avoid any misunderstanding or involvement with funds questionable source or bad actors (eg, scammers and money launderers), etc."

Ng added that she felt "the Singapore Police Force (SPF) were the proper authority to determine the legitimacy of the claim [she] was confronted with at that time".

On the same day, Ng's lawyers sent a further email to the Jonathan's lawyers stating they were instructed that Ng "has since deposited the funds in question with the Singapore Police Force".

Sued, defence

A few days later on Dec. 30, 2025, Jonathan sued Ng for the return of the S$6,650.

She filed her defence on Feb. 27, 2026, claiming she was a "passive recipient of S$6,650 of unknown and unverifiable source", and believed there was a "real possibility" she was getting scam messages.

Subsequently in May 2026, both parties filed to strike out each other's applications, with Ng's application being dismissed.

Accused lawyers of misconduct

On Jun. 16, 2026, Ng filed a letter to the court which alleged that Jonathan's lawyers had displayed misconduct and he himself had breached the court's directions, the judgement further stated.

On Jun. 19, 2026, Ng filed a further letter apologising "unreservedly" to the court and to Jonathan's lawyers.

However, she maintained her allegation that he had breached the court's directions.

On the same day, the court found that both Jonathan and his lawyers had not breached the court's directions.

ST reported that the police later confirmed that the S$6,650 had been returned to Jonathan on Jun. 26, 2026.

Decision on costs of action

The judgement further stated that Ng was ordered to pay Jonathan S$6,500 in costs, plus GST, which ST reported amounted to S$7,085.

Lim then laid out his decision on the costs of the action, calling Ng's conduct "so unreasonable" and noted that it unnecessarily prolonged the matter.

After receiving Jonathan's letter of demand, Ng first responded through her lawyers that they needed more time to take instructions, before requesting documents and information that were excessive and unreasonable.

Rather than a genuine good faith effort to ascertain Jonathan's identity, they appeared calculated to vex him, Lim said.

In addition, Ng had further indefinitely delayed any prospect of returning the money by depositing it with the police.

While she justified her conduct by claiming that she was concerned that she was "confronted with a possible scam", Lim said "this beggars belief".

Lim pointed out that Jonathan was "understandably aggrieved by the fact that a mistaken transfer... to his ex-wife that could have been remedied right away eventually escalated into a lawsuit that [went on] for well over half a year".

A Singaporean diver has gone missing following a diving incident in Palau on Sep. 7

A Mothership reader said that the diving expedition occurred on a motor yacht named Black Pearl.

The missing person is also said to be a prominent figure in the Singapore dive industry.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said in a statement to Mothership that it is aware of the incident on Sep. 7 and is providing consular assistance to the person's family.

They are also in contact with the Palau authorities on the search and rescue efforts, which are ongoing, they added.

"We will continue to monitor the situation closely."

Palau is an archipelago of over 500 islands, part of the Micronesia region in the western Pacific Ocean.

In Parliament on Sep. 9, Member of Parliament (MP) Elysa Chen called for the government to consider restitution for those who fall victim to scams on non-compliant platforms, as a form of economic redress.

"Under the spirit of fairness and justice, can we consider redistributing the fines collected to the victims of the very scams the platforms were fined for?" she put forth.

She was speaking during the continuing Parliamentary debate on the Scams (Countermeasures) and Other Matters Bill, which she supports.

Under the Online Criminal Harms Act, online platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Carousell, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok are required to impose preventive anti-scam measures.

Currently, those who do not comply may face a fine of up to S$1 million if they do not act on the Rectification Notice they are issued.

Chen said she welcomes the financial penalties on non-compliant platforms, but noted that the fines collected flow to the state, not the victim.

Thus, she proposed that the new Bill make redress to the victims.

'They keep coming back like zombies'

Speaking strongly against scams, Chen expressed frustration about the difficulty in tackling them.

"I hate how they keep coming back like zombies — we shut one account down, and two more spring up within an hour."

She also pointed out how scammers prey on the most vulnerable — people who may be deceived and coerced.

She shared several "heartwrenching" stories, including one she heard from a Meet-the-People (MPS) session involving a widow whose husband died from a terminal illness.

He had transferred large sums of money to a scammer, thinking that he was investing money to leave more for his wife and children, she said.

The year 2025 saw 37,308 scam cases, with a total of S$913.1 million lost.

While supporting the new Bill, Chen highlighted areas of concern she had when it comes to people who get deceived into scams.

"The measures must strike at the right targets...

A Bill that stops scammers only to catch the vulnerable in the same net will have solved one injustice by creating another."

Protecting those deceived or coerced

Chen highlighted that people may unwittingly become scam mules.

"What if someone was genuinely misled or coerced into handing over his account?" she questioned.

Giving an example, she described a situation where an elderly aunty was deceived into handing over her bank login details for a small token payment she believed was legitimate.

"She would be presumed, until she proves otherwise, to have had reasonable grounds to believe her account would be misused — a presumption she may not have the ability to rebut on her own."

Chen proposed that the government provide opportunities for review through an avenue outside of the police.

She also suggested setting a minimum gain threshold for scam mules, so that "a token sum does not sweep in those who have been deceived alongside the complicit".

She went on to question the punishment for scam mules by restricting their access to SingPass, wondering if that may inadvertently cut people off from essential civic services such as healthcare and CPF matters.

Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Goh Pei Ming later responded to this point, assuring her that will not happen.

He clarified that the SingPass restrictions will only be targeted at services that are at higher risk of being exploited for scams, such as opening a bank account. Services such as healthcare and CPF matters would remain fully accessible.

At the same time, people can still open a bank account without a SingPass, he added.

In response to the proposal of a minimum gain threshold, he said that he had concerns with such an approach.

"Whatever gain threshold that we set, scam mules are likely to endeavour to go below it to escape liability and frustrate law enforcement efforts.

The government's view is that the presumption should apply so long as there is gain, no matter how small."

Generative AI and online platforms can make religious knowledge more accessible, but should not be relied on as the primary source of religious guidance, Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Zaqy Mohamad said in Parliament.

He was responding to a question on whether MUIS would issue guidance to help Muslims verify AI-generated religious answers against authoritative sources, and know when to consult qualified asatizah.

Zaqy said complex religious matters require scholarly interpretation and contextual understanding, and that a qualified asatizah or other trustworthy source should be consulted in those situations.

MUIS has been reinforcing this through Friday sermons, public talks and the MuslimSG platform, and will continue delivering practical guidance through social media and community partners to strengthen digital religious literacy.

How do you check an answer you cannot evaluate?

In two follow-up questions by Saktiandi Supaat, MP of Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, PAP, he noted that someone seeking religious guidance may not have the knowledge to verify an AI-generated answer, even when references are provided.

He asked whether MUIS could strengthen existing channels so members of the public could submit such answers for checking by qualified asatizah and receive a timely response, particularly on matters affecting important family or personal decisions.

He also asked how MUIS would reach Muslims who get most of their religious information online, including those who do not regularly attend mosque programmes or religious classes.

"Certainly room for us to improve"

Agreeing that the questions were valid, Zaqy said the concern extends beyond the Muslim community to how people consume content generally, given that influencers now come from all over the world.

On accessibility, he said: "There's certainly room for us to improve accessibility to information, accessibility to asatizah, for example."

He said MUIS is looking at upgrading the MuslimSG platform, and that it could be made more interactive and accessible in future.

MUIS is also training its teachers to work with the technology.

He said:

"We're educating and even upgrading many of our asatizahs to be more familiar with generative AI and new digital tools. Some of them have already undergone training to better understand the effects, or even how to use AI better, because ultimately they do have to explain."

Asatizah are accessible through the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) website, he added, and people can also approach MUIS directly for religious guidance.

He said religious education has to be approached holistically across both the physical and digital realms, and that MUIS is conscious of the need to reach young people who may be influenced, given the risk of radicalisation and false teachings.

He said the asatizah community also has a role in helping Muslims contextualise teachings received from overseas clerics and muftis into the Singapore context.

A dedicated unit to comb the internet?

PAP MP Dr Wan Rizal then asked whether MUIS could set up a dedicated unit to search the internet for religious misinformation before it gains traction in the community, suggesting the current approach was defensive.

Zaqy said that in an “ideal state with unlimited resources” it might be possible, but the internet is vast and it is very difficult to pick out every site or source.

What matters more, he said, is identifying themes that resonate with people but may be false or not contextualised to Singapore.

He gave an example from a few years ago, when there were questions over whether Muslims could wish others a Merry Christmas.

Themes that run against the spirit of inclusivity and Singapore's multiracial and multireligious context have to be addressed, he said.

"Very difficult to police algorithms"

Zaqy said generative AI presents a particular problem because it does not draw from a single site.

He said:

"Generative AI does not come from sites as well, it comes from algorithms that are pulled together from different sites. So it's very difficult to police algorithms."

He compared it to the risk of self-styled influencers giving out religious information.

He said:

"It's not about guarding where the information comes from, but it's really also about inoculating our people in terms of how to recognise the risk, helping parents also recognise the risk with what's going on with their kids."

Six women, aged between 22 and 36, were charged in court on Sep. 9, 2026 under the Public Order Act over their alleged involvement in various unauthorised processions and assemblies, as well as other related offences.

Charges

The six women are: Kyal Sin Linn Naing, 22; Elijah Tay, 24; Amirah Mokhlis, 33; Dayana Noor Mohamed, 36; Nur Sabrina Kamel, 32; and Nurul Afiqah Kamel, 33.

Tay faces nine charges, the most among the six.

Two of the women, Nur Sabrina and Nurul Afiqah, are sisters.

According to charge sheets seen by Mothership, Tay is accused of gathering with others near Novena MRT station on Jun. 7, 2024, before moving together to the Ministry of Home Affairs to hand over letters opposing the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill.

Kyal, a Myanmar citizen and Singapore permanent resident, faces the same charge.

Tay is also accused of taking part in candlelight vigils near Changi Prison on Nov. 22 and Nov. 29, 2024, and Jan. 23, 2025, in connection with the execution of inmates.

She allegedly refused to answer questions at Bedok Police Division on Jan. 31, 2025, in relation to two of the vigils.

Another charge alleged that Tay committed an act prejudicial to the maintenance of racial harmony and was likely to disturb "public tranquility" on Feb. 2, 2024.

The charge sheet stated that she led the chant, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at The Arts & Civil Space in Ubi.

This phrase supports the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel, the sheet stated.

Tay is also accused of taking part in an assembly at the State Courts on Feb. 3, 2025, to publicise the cause of abolishing capital punishment in Singapore.

Under the Public Order Act, the courts are a prohibited area.

She is further accused of refusing to answer questions at the Police Cantonment Complex on Jul. 11, 2025.

On Jan. 13, 2025, Tay allegedly organised a public assembly by staging a memorial in front of CREATE at University Town.

The assembly was intended to demonstrate opposition to ties between educational institutions in Singapore and Israel, according to the charge sheet.

Amirah, a Singaporean, is accused of organising a public assembly at Marina Barrage on Oct. 27, 2024, to publicise the cause of honouring children who died in Gaza after Oct. 7, 2023.

Dayana faces two charges.

She is accused of taking part in the procession along the Istana on Feb. 2, 2024, to publicise solidarity with Palestine, and of organising the assembly at Marina Barrage.

Nur Sabrina, a Singaporean, is accused of organising the Marina Barrage assembly and of pointing her middle finger at a public servant at the same location.

Her sister, Nurul Afiqah, is accused of taking part in the Istana procession and organising the Marina Barrage assembly.

Penalties

According to a report by CNA, the lawyers representing the women sought adjournments and asked that their clients be excused from attending subsequent hearings unless their attendance was required.

Both requests were granted.

If convicted under the Public Order Act of organising a prohibited procession, one can be jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$10,000, or both.

If convicted of taking part in a prohibited procession, one can be fined up to S$5,000.

If convicted of knowingly committing an act prejudicial to the maintenance of racial harmony, one can face a maximum jail term of three years, fined, or both.

The offence of using abusive behaviour towards a public servant carries a fine of up to S$5,000.

A 28-year-old male Chinese national was sentenced to eight months’ jail after pretending to borrow S$50,000 from his 37-year-old friend, also a male Chinese national, before robbing the cash from him.

Zhao Ziqi faced one charge of theft.

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced on Sep. 8.

Friends

In court documents seen by Mothership, Zhao arrived in Singapore on Dec. 26, 2025.

He frequented the Marina Bay Sands Casino and met the victim on one occasion.

They became friends and exchanged contact information via WeChat.

Borrow money

On Jan. 7, 2026 at about 10:40pm, Zhao contacted the victim and asked to borrow S$50,000.

Zhao claimed to have sustained gambling losses and required fresh capital.

The victim agreed and arranged to meet Zhao at Orchard Hotel, where Zhao stayed.

At the time, the victim was in the casino and withdrew S$50,000 in cash from his gambling account.

He then booked a private-hire vehicle and headed to the hotel.

Rob

After arriving at the hotel, Zhao brought the victim up to his hotel room.

Zhao’s cousin, whose identity was not disclosed in court documents, was in the hotel room.

He left shortly after the victim arrived.

At about 11:30pm, the victim took S$50,000 in cash out of a bag he was carrying and placed it on the table.

Zhao grabbed the S$50,000 from the victim and ran out of the hotel room to the lift lobby, where his cousin was waiting.

The victim chased Zhao and a scuffle broke out.

Zhao threw part of the cash onto the ground to distract the victim and allow his cousin to grab some of it and escape.

The victim retrieved S$27,500 while Zhao and his cousin escaped with S$22,500.

At about 11:49pm, the police were alerted to the incident.

Surveillance footage captured the incident.

Arrest

After the incident, Zhao and his cousin went separate ways and agreed to meet at Changi Airport at a later date to depart Singapore.

On Jan. 8, sometime before 4:45am, Zhao booked plane tickets to China for himself and his cousin.

The pair met to board their flight.

However, both of them were arrested at Changi Airport at about 4.45am.

S$8,454 in cash was seized from them.

Zhao has been remanded since his arrest.

His cousin was charged in the Youth Court, but the charge was eventually withdrawn.

Evade detection

The prosecution sought eight months’ jail for Zhao.

They argued that Zhao made “concerted attempts to evade detection and to escape Singapore” after he committed the offence.

“Although the sum the accused is charged with is only S$22,500, the court is entitled to consider the fact that the accused attempted to steal the full S$50,000 that he had asked the victim to loan him,” the prosecution said.

Local cosplayer and streamer Rurusama has bought a new home.

In an Instagram video shared on Sep. 5, Rurusama showed off the keys to her new abode, writing in the caption:

"Homeowner ERA. I’m so scared... will make videos about renovations & home shopping.. but pls give me advise im honestly more anxious than excited"

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by RURUSAMA ♡ ルル (@rurusama)

In a follow-up post, she gave a tour of the three-bedroom condominium apartment.

She shared her plans to renovate the unit extensively, as well as her favourite parts of the house.

Notably, she claimed that she chose the unit because of its spacious and "squarish" living room.

She plans to knock down the wall of the adjacent bedroom to expand the size of the living room even further.

She also intends bring in a king-size bed into the master bedroom as an upgrade from her current queen-size one.

The final remaining room will be purposed for her closet and workspace, where she will place her PC.

Finally, she shared that she wants to install RGB lighting in her toilets.

RGB refers to lighting that contains red, green and blue LEDs which can be customised to provide over 16 million different colours.

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by RURUSAMA ♡ ルル (@rurusama)

Who is Rurusama?

Rurusama, who declines to use her real name, is best known for her cosplaying, where she dresses up as various fictional characters, typically those from Japanese anime.

She gained further fame for her fan interaction services at conventions.

At Singapore Comic Con 2024, she offered fans the chance to be slapped across the face by her for S$20, among other offers.

In 2025, she began her acting career, starring in microdramas. She later took on a role in the 2026 Chinese New Year film "Luck My Life".