A recent incident of a group of people foraging marine life from a Changi intertidal area has sparked discussion online and backlash in the nature community.

Large amounts of seafood such as clams and crabs were later allegedly prepared and cooked at restaurant at Chinatown, Havelock Palace.

The foraging incident has been described as deplorable by Pasir-Ris Changi Member of Parliament Valerie Lee, and the restaurant has also been flooded with one-star reviews on Google Maps.

Businesses to ensure food prepared is fit for consumption

In response to Mothership's queries, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) clarified that there are no regulations prohibiting local food businesses from preparing wild-foraged seafood or other customer supplied ingredients.

However, under the Sale of Food Act and the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulation, food businesses must still ensure that the food prepared on their premises is fit for consumption.

They must also be handled under sanitary conditions.

Caution and due diligence must be exercised by such businesses that accept wild-foraged catch brought in by customers, in order to ensure that the ingredients do not pose any food safety risks.

SFA noted that wild marine life collected from public shores may carry much higher food safety risks.

This is because some marine organisms can accumulate bacteria, viruses, parasites, biotoxins and contaminants from surrounding waters, some of which may not be eliminated through cooking.

Bivalve molluscs in particular, readily accumulate bacteria, viruses and toxins in their bodies as they eat by taking in and filtering water.

As such, SFA advises against harvesting and consuming shellfish from the wild, which may contain biotoxins.

All imports of live oysters must also be from SFA-approved sources and accompanied with a health certificate, to ensure food safety, according to SFA's advisory.

Not illegal to forage

Karenne Tun, Group Director at the NParks National Biodiversity Centre, previously said in response to Mothership's queries that NParks is aware of a social media post on intertidal foraging and "seeks the understanding of the public to protect our intertidal biodiversity".

According to Tun, NParks restricts the collection of animals from intertidal zones under its jurisdiction.

These zones include Sisters' Islands Marine Park, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, Labrador Nature Reserve's rocky shore and Chek Jawa Wetlands.

For intertidal areas outside its jurisdiction, Tun says it focuses on public education on best practices and how visitors can interact responsibly with marine wildlife.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Minister for Law Edwin Tong both used the Legal Profession Symposium 2026 on Jul. 29 to call for collective action on the sustainability of Singapore's legal profession, with Menon describing it as a "rule of law concern" and Tong outlining plans to review legal education and launch a new AI council for the legal sector.

Menon: Five interconnected pressures

Speaking at the symposium, Menon outlined five interconnected pressures facing the profession and described three workstreams within the Future of the Legal Profession Committee (FLPC) to address them.

Menon said the sustainability of legal practice had been examined over several years through surveys, consultations and direct engagement with the profession, including the 2023 SAL Young Lawyers Survey and the more recent Anthro-LawSoc Legal Profession Sustainability Study.

He said: "Sustainability is not a single issue problem. It is the cumulative product of interconnected pressures across the legal ecosystem."

He identified five pressures deserving particular attention: the intensity of legal work, incentive structures, workplace culture, gaps in leadership and mentorship, and a generational divide within the profession.

The five pressures

On the intensity of legal work, Menon said earlier generations could only take home as much work as their briefcases could carry, while today, work follows lawyers everywhere and constant availability has become an expectation, largely because of technology.

On incentive structures, he questioned whether the billable hours model remains relevant in the age of AI, and whether young lawyers were being held to targets and business development expectations before they had adequate support or guidance.

On workplace culture, he was unequivocal: "Abusive emails, humiliation, and persistent disrespect towards colleagues have no place in our profession."

On mentorship, he noted that only about one in 10 respondents to the Young Lawyers Survey had participated in a structured mentorship programme, and said technical excellence as a lawyer does not automatically produce the ability to lead, supervise or develop people.

On the generational divide, he said the tensions between senior and junior lawyers should not be reduced to stereotypes: "If each generation reduces the other to stereotypes, one as unwilling to endure the demands of the craft, and the other as indifferent to the adverse cost of prevailing customs and practices, mutual misunderstanding will deepen disengagement."

Why this is a rule of law concern

Menon warned that these pressures could lead to chronic stress, burnout and anxiety, with consequences that extended beyond the individual.

He said: "A lawyer worn down for long enough, stops asking whether to change firms and starts asking whether to remain a lawyer at all."

He added that younger lawyers today had more options than previous generations: taking an in-house role, entering public service, going overseas or leaving the law altogether, making the opportunity cost of remaining in practice far more visible.

He added: "Sustainability is therefore not merely an employment or organisational concern. At its core, it is a rule of law concern. The justice system cannot remain strong if the profession on which it depends is unable to sustain meaningful careers."

Three workstreams described

Menon announced three workstreams under the FLPC, which is co-chaired by Justice of the Court of Appeal Hri Kumar Nair, Deputy Attorney-General Valerie Thean and Ministry of Law Permanent Secretary Luke Goh.

The first, a Business and Leadership Skills workstream, will build practical programmes and frameworks for supervision, communication and talent development.

The second is a Bridging Legal Education and Industry workstream, which will build a closer feedback loop between law schools, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and the industry. This will be complemented by a Future Lawyers Network, giving law students earlier exposure to professional life.

The third is a Sustainability and Well-being workstream, which will rethink how legal work is structured, supervised and valued, and promote healthier workplace cultures through platforms such as the Lawyers Sustainability Alliance.

The judiciary must also play its part

Menon acknowledged that the Sustainability Study had raised concerns about some interactions between lawyers and the bench. While judicial officers must uphold exacting standards, he said they must always do so with courtesy.

He said: "Let me say without reservation that discourtesy or abusive conduct will not be tolerated."

Edwin Tong: Attrition figures stable, but quality of departure matters

In his closing address, Tong said attrition in the legal profession had remained broadly stable, with around 60 per cent of lawyers staying in practice after five years and 40 per cent after 10 years, between 2015 and 2024.

He also noted that in Singapore Academy of Law's (SAL) recent survey of newly qualified lawyers, about one in three expected to leave their current firm within the next three years.

However, of the 289 respondents working in law firms, only eight, or less than three per cent, said their sole intention was to leave the legal profession altogether.

He said: "The vast majority still want careers in the law. They simply see themselves contributing in different ways — as in-house counsel, academics, Government lawyers, or judges. I see that not as a loss, but as one of the profession's strengths."

But he said the key question was not whether lawyers were leaving, but why.

He said: "If talented lawyers are leaving because parts of legal practice have become unnecessarily unattractive or unsustainable, then we need to understand why, and do something about it."

Tong's three focus areas: Workforce, workplaces, work

Tong said he believed the focus should be on three areas.

On workforce, he said his ministry would undertake a broader review of legal education, and floated the idea of law students spending one or even two semesters in a law firm or another legal setting before entering the profession full-time.

For litigators, he suggested that certain categories of simpler proceedings or cases below a prescribed value could ordinarily be argued by junior lawyers, giving them the first chair experience.

On workplaces, Tong said his ministry was considering a Legal Profession Sustainability Guide, similar to the GenAI Guide.

The guide would set out professional norms and workplace behaviours the profession should aspire to, illustrated through practical examples of good practice.

It would complement work already being done by SAL through the Lawyers Sustainability Alliance.

He also said mentorship was not optional: "To me, mentoring is not simply something experienced lawyers do if they have time. It is a professional obligation."

On work, Tong announced that under the FLPC, his ministry would establish the Singapore Council on AI for Legal Excellence (SCALE), bringing together leaders from across the profession, academia, technology companies, in-house practice and the public sector to build a clearer, evidence-based understanding of how AI is reshaping legal work and what the profession should do in response.

He also said Singapore's domestic market alone was not enough, and that when Singapore firms succeeded overseas, the benefits extended to the wider profession, strengthening Singapore's reputation as a legal hub and attracting more work and talent.

He added: “I don't believe that lawyers will be replaced by AI. But the lawyer who harnesses AI better than the next will replace that lawyer, and I think it's important that we all understand how AI can best be integrated into our own workforce.”

Singapore's strengths

Tong noted that despite having only 6,400 Singapore-qualified lawyers, Singapore is today the second-most preferred seat of arbitration in the world.

He added that rankings and accolades, while important, were not what truly defined a profession's strength.

He said: "What matters more to me is whether the best and the brightest young legal talent will still continue to aspire to join the profession here in Singapore. Whether lawyers remain proud to belong to it, whether clients continue to place their trust in our lawyers, and whether society continues to see the legal profession as a force for good."

A ChiCha San Chen customer alleged that she was "shamed and blamed" by a staff member following an order mix-up at the bubble tea chain’s outlet at 313@somerset.

The mix-up allegedly happened because she spoke to the staff member in English.

In response to Mothership's queries, a spokesperson from Chicha San Chen said there had been a "communication breakdown".

Staff member was "visibly" annoyed

Speaking to Mothership, the customer said she visited the outlet on Jul. 22.

After waiting for about five minutes, an older staff member approached her to take her order.

According to the customer, the staff member, who was Chinese, appeared "visibly" annoyed when she spoke to her in English.

She did not appear proficient nor confident in English, the customer said.

Miscommunication

Speaking in English, the customer said she did not want milk in her drink, and told the staff member that she wanted the "Sakura Tea drink with green tea".

She pointed to a picture on the menu, and made payment.

But while watching the drink being prepared, the customer said she noticed a younger staff member adding milk to it.

She realised they had misunderstood her order as Sakura Milk Tea instead, and tried to get the staff members’ attention, but was unsuccessful.

When the younger staff member placed the next customer's drink on the counter, she pointed out that the drink was wrong.

In response, the older staff member allegedly rolled her eyes and told her that the drink was what she had ordered.

She claimed the staff member then led her to the front counter and told her to "look at the menu", before saying that it was her fault for ordering the wrong drink.

Switched to speaking Mandarin

At this point, the customer had switched to speaking Mandarin, which the staff member appeared more fluent in.

But the staff member remained unhappy, and "fluently [told her] off" in Mandarin.

When the customer asked for a refund, the staff member allegedly told her: "No, we can’t do that as it was your fault."

According to the customer, she also ended up paying more for her unwanted drink: the Sakura Milk Tea cost S$6.30, while the drink which she originally wanted, the Hachimitsu Sakura tea, cost S$5.80.

Before she left the outlet, the customer told them that she would be writing in about the incident, to which they allegedly shrugged.

She said she contacted Chicha San Chen’s customer service on the same day.

Alleged discrimination

In her messages to the Chicha San Chen team, the customer brought up the alleged "discrimination" based on her language of choice.

She alleged that the staff member did not show any signs of annoyance or unhappiness with the customer behind her, who spoke in Mandarin.

But the customer service personnel did not respond to this allegation.

The customer said she felt as though speaking English in Singapore, which has long been used as the common medium to communicate, may now attract "hostile behaviour" from some people.

In their reply, the customer service team apologised for the incident and said the staff member had been "simply educating [her] on the menu".

According to a screenshot of the chat between the customer and Chicha San Chen's customer service, they said:

"After reviewing the matter with the 313 Somerset outlet team, we found that there was some miscommunication during the ordering process, which led to a misunderstanding regarding the drink ordered.

While we understand there may have been differing recollections of the interaction, we believe the situation could have been handled much better by our staff."

She ended up receiving a S$0.50 refund for the price difference between the two drinks.

"May have been a communication breakdown": Chicha San Chen

In response to Mothership’s queries, ChiCha San Chen confirmed that it was aware of the incidents and that its headquarters had investigated the matter.

The company said that based on investigations, the customer had pointed to the Sakura Oat Milk Tea on the menu when placing her order.

However, as the outlet’s CCTV footage does not capture audio, the company was unable to verify the verbal exchange between the customer and staff.

"Based on our investigation, it appears that there may have been a communication breakdown during the ordering process," ChiCha San Chen said.

The company added that the customer had contacted its customer service team and that a S$0.50 refund was issued.

After queueing virtually for hours for tickets to the Singapore BTS concert, a Mothership reader was anxious when she finally got to the ticket selection page.

In her haste, she quickly completed payment without carefully reviewing the details.

It was only later when she checked her confirmation email that she realised she had purchased tickets not for the K-pop group, but for The Click Five.

The American rock band will be performing at Expo on Aug. 29, months before BTS's concert in December at the National Stadium. Tickets to both were sold on the Ticketmaster website.

Mothership spoke to three separate customers, all of whom experienced the same issue and requested a refund.

A Ticketmaster spokesperson told Mothership that "based on the information available, it appears that these customers inadvertently purchased tickets for the wrong event".

Nevertheless, Ticketmaster gave all three customers a full refund on Jul. 24 "as a gesture of goodwill".

How did this happen?

When she realised she had bought the wrong tickets, the Mothership reader felt confused and upset. She tried to investigate what happened.

She said that according to her browser history, she was in the queue for tickets to the Dec. 19 BTS concert during the Jun. 4 online pre-sale.

After that, she was redirected to the Ticketmaster homepage, and then to a ticket selection page.

But the ticket selection page was for The Click Five instead of BTS, she said.

This was a fact she only realised this later.

At the time, her mind was occupied with worry that the tickets would sell out or the website might crash.

"I remember seeing that the event was on a Saturday and assumed everything was correct," she said. "Only later did I realise that The Click Five concert was also on a Saturday, just on a different date."

As she was helping a group of friends secure tickets too, she bought six tickets, at a total cost of S$1,716.

She was not able to get BTS tickets in the end.

"By the time I realised the tickets were not for BTS and rejoined the queue, I had to start from the back again," she said. "Unfortunately, the concert was sold out by then."

Was it a glitch?

The reader suspects there was a possible technical issue on Ticketmaster website.

There was no record on her browser history of her visiting the page for The Click Five's concert, and she was in the correct queue for BTS tickets, she claimed.

This made her believe she was redirected to the wrong ticket selection page.

According to this reader, she was not the only one who experienced this.

She saw a few users on Carousell trying to sell tickets to The Click Five, and after messaging them to ask, learnt that they had similarly ended up purchasing The Click Five tickets while trying to buy BTS tickets.

One claimed they lost about S$2,200 getting the wrong concert tickets.

Requesting a refund

The reader's own attempts to sell her accidental The Click Five tickets have not been successful.

"Most of my friends are not familiar with The Click Five and were not interested in attending the concert," she explained.

Her other solution was to request a refund from Ticketmaster.

Although she felt her chances were slim, she submitted a request and appeal hoping that her case would be reviewed.

However, Ticketmaster told her they had investigated her claim and "no technical fault has been identified", according to screenshots of the correspondence seen by Mothership.

"Based on our review of the transaction logs and system data, we do not find any evidence of a technical issue or malfunction that would have caused you to be directed to the wrong event page."

No glitch found: Ticketmaster

On Jul. 24, the three customers who requested a refund told Mothership they received an email from the platform that day informing them they would receive a full refund.

"While our findings do not indicate that the transaction resulted from a system-related issue, we appreciate your concerns and understand the circumstances you have shared," Ticketmaster wrote in the email, as seen by Mothership.

The platform went on to explain that they "made a one-time exception" to provide a full refund "as a gesture of goodwill and without any admission of liability or fault".

In response to Mothership's queries, a spokesperson confirmed that based on investigations, the customers had "inadvertently" purchased the wrong tickets.

The spokesperson emphasised the responsibility of the customer to be more careful.

"The event name is displayed clearly on the website and throughout the checkout process, and customers are prompted to review all event and ticket details before confirming payment.

As a gesture of goodwill, we have refunded these fans."

A power bank was emitting smoke from a bag on the platform of Buangkok MRT station on Jul. 29, alerting the police and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to the scene.

In a video posted on TikTok, a black bag on the station platform can be seen emitting smoke just before the train doors.

A police officer sprayed it with a fire extinguisher, leaving it covered in white powder.

When an officer opened the bag to look inside, a burst of flame shot out and was quickly extinguished by the officer.

@pokecardboards Disclaimer‼️ this video not to name and shame anybody. Not really sure what caused the fire, but I overheard the owner said “power bank” to the staff Happened around 5pm, 29th July, on a Wednesday evening Video to share awareness on the dangers of power banks, to cure my own kaypohness and I had to wait for the next train anyway. Didn’t stay any longer than I needed to. this is my POV. Otw home from work, and right before leaving buangkok station suddenly everyone from one cabin away everyone running towards my cabin then just right before the door close, someone shout “everybody get out!” Then the door closed on us before we managed to get out, some did some didn’t. I didn’t, I was trying to see what’s going on, and it’s just one cabin away from mine, we can smell smoke building up, starts to become foggy in the cabin having the commotion. Then the door suddenly open again then we all get out. Apparently it’s a bag that caught fire? Probably due to a power bank in the bag? Then the smrt staff and police tried to put it out with an extinguisher, while everyone watching show. Then i watch until the next mrt come then I left. The commotion was still going on when I left, somehow the power bank or whatever that is burning cannot be put out. But ye, that’s what happened and there was a Snorlax involved so, that’s why it’s on this page 🙃 #singaporenews #sgnews #sgnews🇸🇬 ♬ original sound - PokeCardBoards

In response to Mothership's queries, SBS Transit spokesperson Grace Wu said that the incident happened at about 5:06pm that day.

A TransCom Police officer responded to the incident while SBS Transit staff were also on site to assist commuters.

The SCDF, who were alerted at about 5:10pm, said the incident involved a power bank that was emitting smoke.

Before they arrived, the TransCom Police officer used a dry powder fire extinguisher to try to put it out.

No injuries were reported, and the cause of the incident is under investigation.

Passengers exited the train

In the TikTok video, an empty train can be seen stopped at the station platform.

The user who posted the video was a passenger on board a train that stopped at Buangkok station due to smoke.

Right before the train doors closed at the station, they heard someone shout "Everybody, get out!" inside the train, the user wrote in the caption.

They could smell smoke from a cabin away, and the air started to get foggy.

"The door closed on us before we managed to get out," they said. "Some did, some didn’t... Then the door suddenly [opened] again, then we all get out."

Another passenger told Zaobao that the police asked around at the station platform for the owner of the bag that emitted smoke, and a man in his 30s went forward.

The police then asked the man if the bag contained a power bank, but the passenger did not catch the man's reply.

Train service at Buangkok MRT station resumed within five minutes, the SBS Transit spokesperson said.

A total of 147 persons are under investigation for allegedly perpetrating government officials impersonation scams, investment scams and job scams.

They are being investigated for offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (CDSA) and the Computer Misuse Act 1993 (CMA).

From Jun. 17 to 30, the Cyber Command’s Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) and Anti-Scam investigation units, in collaboration with seven land divisions, conducted an islandwide enforcement operation targeting these individuals.

In close partnership with local banks, ASC officers detected and froze 158 bank accounts allegedly linked to scam activities.

More than S$150,000 in suspected scam proceeds were seized.

During the operation, more than 140 individuals were investigated on suspicion of surrendering their bank accounts to facilitate money laundering.

In collaboration with key industry partners, including social media platforms, messaging-application providers and telecommunications companies, police took down 1,123 online enablers and disabled 370 phone lines that were apparently used to support scam operations.

Penalties

Assisting another to retain benefits from criminal conduct in certain circumstances carries a jail term of up to three years, a fine of up to S$50,000, or both.

Unauthorised access to computer material carries a jail term of up to two years, a fine of up to S$5,000, or both for first-time offenders.

If convicted, scammers and members or recruiters of scam syndicates will face mandatory caning of between six and 24 strokes.

Scam mules who enable scammers by laundering scam proceeds, providing SIM cards or SingPass credentials are liable to discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes.

The police said they take a serious stance against persons who may be involved in scams, and perpetrators will be dealt with in accordance with the law.

The police also advised members of the public to never allow others to use their SingPass credentials, bank accounts or mobile lines to facilitate suspicious or unlawful activities to avoid being an accomplice to criminal activities.

For more information on scams, members of the public can visit www.scamshield.gov.sg or call the ScamShield Helpline at 1799.

Members of the public can call the police hotline at 1800-255-0000, or submit information online at www.police.gov.sg/i-witness if they suspect or know of anyone who could be involved in mule-related activities.

All information provided will be kept confidential.

Three Singaporean men, consisting of two alleged drug traffickers and an alleged drug abuser, aged between 27 and 34, were arrested for suspected drug offences.

The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) arrested the three men on Jul. 27.

A total of about 5,520g of cannabis, 132g of "Ice", 145g of ketamine and four LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) stamps were seized.

They are estimated to be worth more than S$142,000 and could potentially feed the addiction of 860 abusers for a week.

First arrest

On the afternoon of Jul. 27, a 34-year-old man was arrested at a void deck of a residential block in the vicinity of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 for suspected drug trafficking offences.

The man was escorted to his hideout, a residential unit in the next block, where a search was conducted.

Four LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) stamps from the man, and about 879g of cannabis and about 123g of "Ice" from within the unit were seized.

Second arrest

Through further investigations, officers followed up with a second operation.

A 29-year-old man was arrested at the lift landing of a residential block in the vicinity of Pasir Ris Street 11 for suspected drug trafficking offences.

The man was escorted to his residential unit in the same block.

A total of about 4,641g of cannabis and 145g of ketamine were recovered.

The seized drugs included two packets of cannabis found on the man, several packets of cannabis and ketamine recovered from within the unit, as well as blocks of cannabis found outside the unit.

Third arrest

Later in the afternoon, a 27-year-old man was arrested in his residential unit in the vicinity of Jalan Bukit Ho Swee for suspected drug offences.

A search of the unit recovered about 9g of "Ice".

Law

Those convicted of trafficking more than 500g of cannabis may face the mandatory death penalty.

Investigations are ongoing.

A vehicle caught fire in the basement car park of a condominium in Yishun.

The incident occurred on Jul. 29 at about 8:20pm at Orchid Park Condominium along Yishun Street 81.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) said firefighters extinguished the fire with two water jets.

One person was conveyed to Singapore General Hospital for smoke inhalation.

In a Facebook post by Lee Hui Ying, Nee Soon GRC Member of Parliament (MP), she wrote that residents were evacuated and “everyone was calm”.

“Thankfully there were no serious injuries,” she wrote.

Photos showed the walls of the car park charred.

A car also appeared to be completely burnt.

Emergency responders were present.

Lee expressed her gratitude to emergency responders for their “swift response”.

She also mentioned that a police officer and a resident “stepped forward to support”.

“Good to see many neighbours looking out for one another,” she concluded.

The 19-year-old French teenager who filmed himself licking a straw and returning it to an iJooz vending machine was fined S$600 for public nuisance on Jul. 30, 2026.

Court documents seen by Mothership stated that Didier Gaspard Owen Maximilien pleaded guilty to one count of public nuisance.

A second charge of mischief was taken into consideration during sentencing, CNA reported.

His lawyer had previously told the district court on Jun. 26 that Maximilien, who was not present at the hearing, would enter a plea on the afternoon of Jul. 13.

Earlier reports stated that Maximilien had previously been charged on Apr. 24 with one count of committing mischief and another count of public nuisance.

Incident

The incident took place on Mar. 12 at Goldhill Centre in Thomson Road, where Maximilien was attending a boxing session.

Afterwards, at about 2pm, he filmed himself removing and licking a straw from an iJooz kiosk before placing it back into the straw dispenser.

His antics went viral after he posted the video onto his Instagram Story on the same day.

iJooz, which is known for its orange juice vending machines, replaced all 500 straws in the dispenser, valued at S$5.

Prosecution, defence agreed fine suitable

CNA reported that the prosecution agreed with the defence that a fine was suitable.

Taking over the case from a state prosecuting officer, the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) said a fine would suffice given Maximilien's youth and the case's circumstances.

He left the calibration of the quantum to the court's discretion.

The previous hearing had been adjourned so the prosecution could check the status of Maximilien's student pass on conviction.

"I understand that ICA will make that decision having regard to all relevant considerations including circumstances of the case and the outcome of today's proceedings," CNA reported the DPP as saying.

The prosecution's sentencing position is independent of the outcome of Maximilien's student pass, he added.

Teen 'truly sorry': Defence lawyer

According to CNA, the defence had considered pushing for probation or a community-based sentence.

However, there will be logistical difficulties for him to be on probation as Maximilien's father is working in France and the family would have trouble getting someone to be a guardian for him here.

His defence lawyer stated that "the contaminated straw was not used by anyone."

He added: "Unfortunately, he made the decision to share it within his Instagram circle ... someone in his circle, within his Instagram circle of contacts, had taken a screen video of it and forwarded it to a media outlet and that's how it went viral."

This was to explain how the incident became something that "may have caused public disquiet", he said.

The lawyer noted that Maximilien is "truly sorry for having caused all this trouble and he realises that what appeared to him at that time as something perhaps playful has turned out to be something very consequential".

He also shared that Maximilien's family has also "counselled him on the importance of taking responsibility for his actions".

Penalties

His parents have "every intention" of ensuring he pays for the fine, the lawyer added.

Probation or other community-based sentences should ordinarily be the port of call considering Maximilien's age and the nature and circumstances of the case, CNA reported the district judge as saying.

However, she agreed a fine was suitable and agreed with the figure that the defence submitted, given the practical and logistical difficulties.

The prosecution did not seek a compensation order.

For public nuisance, Maximilien could have been jailed for up to three months, fined up to S$2,000, or both.

Singapore content creator Mabel Kee has removed her YouTube video about the alleged infidelity of her partner of seven years.

In a TikTok story on Jul. 28, the 22-year-old said she would be taking down the video that day, and thanked her viewers for their support.

At the bottom of the story, she included a screenshot of a letter from the Online Safety Commission (OSC) addressed to her.

"The Online Safety Commission has received a report in respect of your online conduct in making a video post," the notice read.

OSC confirms reaching out

In response to Mothership's queries, an OSC spokesperson confirmed that the commission received a report concerning Kee’s video and contacted her about it:

"In this instance, we recognised that this was an emotionally trying period for Ms Kee. Rather than issuing a direction in the first instance, we wrote to her to explain that there were parts of the video that we considered to constitute online harmful activity and gave her the opportunity to address those concerns.

We thank Ms Kee for doing so proactively."

OSC also said: "When reports are received, the OSC quickly assesses the information and evidence provided to determine what action to take in the circumstances of each case."

OSC urged the public to find out more about what to report or avoid running afoul of the law on the OSC's website.

What is OSC?

The OSC receives reports submitted by victims of suspected online harms.

It deals with online harmful activities that fall within the scope of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025, which include online harassment, doxxing, non‑consensual disclosure of private information, and publication of false material.

The video in question

The 50-minute video uploaded on Jul. 15 was circulated quickly, hitting around one million views by the time Kee removed it.

In the video, she shared that she and her partner, also 22, had gotten engaged on Oct. 17, 2025, and they were trying for the Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise in the June 2026.

However, these plans and the relationship broke down when she apparently found out that he was cheating on her with another girl.

The story has been dubbed the "Hougang Block ABC saga" based on the name Kee gave the residential block she found her ex-fiancé had allegedly been booking repeated private-hire rides to.