A fitness corner in Fernvale, near Jalan Kayu, was turned into a public laundry rack.

Shirts, shorts, towels and even underwear, were spotted hanging on multiple exercise equipment from hangers, preventing residents from using the public facilities.

The fitness corner is near Block 414A Fernvale Link.

The incident came to light after photos were posted to the Facebook group Complaint Singapore.

The caption on Facebook read: "I came across this scene at the public fitness corner near Block 414A Fernvale Link and couldn't help but wonder if I had missed an announcement. Since when did outdoor exercise equipment become a communal clothes drying rack?"

The post added: "These fitness stations are installed for everyone in the neighbourhood to exercise and stay healthy, not to dry personal laundry. If one person starts doing this, what's stopping others from following? Before long, will the entire fitness corner become an open-air laundry area instead of a place for residents to work out?"

Reactions online

One commenter urged the town council to install clear "No Drying of Laundry" signs, issue written warnings to first-time offenders, and take enforcement action against repeat offenders where permitted under the applicable by-laws.

Another commenter, however, saw the lighter side, joking that having a towel readily available after a workout was actually quite convenient.

Town council responds

In a statement to Mothership, an Ang Mo Kio Town Council (AMKTC) spokesperson said the town council was aware of the incident.

It has since deployed its team to put up advisory notices at the fitness corner to remind residents not to dry laundry on the equipment as it inconveniences others and blocks access to the shared facilities.

The spokesperson added: "We seek the co-operation of all residents to use our shared community facilities responsibly and with consideration for others, so that these amenities remain accessible, clean and enjoyable for everyone in the neighbourhood."

A man who financed a criminal syndicate that sold anonymised WhatsApp and WeChat accounts to scammers has been jailed four years and fined S$52,000.

Ronnie Low (Liu Luoli), 50, was sentenced on Jul. 14 after pleading guilty to three charges, including being a member of a locally-linked organised crime group (OCG) and engaging in a criminal conspiracy to acquire benefits of criminal conduct, reported CNA.

Two further charges were taken into consideration for sentencing. If Low cannot pay the fine, he will serve an additional five months in jail.

The SIM cards seized from the syndicate's premises were linked to 2,393 police reports and a total of S$51 million in losses across a range of scams, according to court documents seen by Mothership.

How the syndicate began

The operation traced back to mid-2022, when Alvin Kok Jun Keat, then 31, was looking for ways to earn fast cash and came across an "SMS modem".

This is a device capable of receiving multiple SMS messages sent to pre-registered SIM cards, with the messages retrievable through a connected computer, court documents showed.

Kok devised a business plan around the device: setting up anonymous WhatsApp and WeChat accounts using pre-registered SIM cards, then activating them using one-time passwords (OTPs) received through the modem.

Customers who bought these accounts could conceal their identities while using them for criminal purposes, including scams.

He imported an SMS modem from China and sourced pre-registered SIM cards through Telegram, hiring an unidentified person to advertise the service on the platform.

He then charged US$30 (S$38.50) for 30 days' use of a WhatsApp account, or US$10 (S$12.80) for a WeChat account, with all payments made to a cryptocurrency wallet.

Low's role as financier

Low was introduced to Kok in October 2023 by his friend, 47-year-old Tan Shay Howe, after Kok went looking for investors, according to court documents.

Kok told Low the business was profitable and guaranteed him S$15,000 to S$20,000 a month in returns.

He had asked Low for S$100,000, but Low invested only S$40,000, as he did not have the full sum in cash. Tan separately invested S$25,000 for a cut of the profits.

Low received roughly half of the syndicate's monthly net profits after operating costs, salaries, SIM card top-ups and rental, were deducted.

In total, he made about S$92,651 from the syndicate's illegal activities over the roughly seven months he was involved, of which at least S$6,000 went towards personal expenses such as food and drinks.

Court documents stated that Low knew the business was illegal and that customers were likely using the accounts to carry out scams, and that he was aware payments were made in untraceable cryptocurrency.

The raid and scale of losses

The syndicate's operations shifted twice more — first to a private property on Meng Suan Road in November 2023, then to an empty office space above a car repair workshop on Toh Guan Road in March 2024, after Tan took over the business from Kok when their relationship soured.

On May 29 2024, the police's Anti-Scam Command raided the Toh Guan Road premises and seized 24,000 SIM cards, 27 SMS modem devices, seven monitor screens, seven mobile phones and seven central processing units.

Between November 2023 and May 2024, the syndicate generated S$887,477 in sales profits.

The seized SIM cards were linked to 2,393 police reports made between January and May 2024, with investment scams accounting for the single largest share of losses at S$24.1 million from 392 reports, closely followed by job scams at S$23.2 million from 1,173 reports.

The syndicate's customers were based mostly overseas, including in Malaysia, Myanmar and Cambodia.

Prosecution and defence arguments

Deputy Public Prosecutor Jordon Li sought at least 52 months and two weeks' jail, along with the S$52,000 fine, arguing that Low was a financier of "an elaborate and highly successful illegal business" who had knowingly participated in the syndicate for around seven months.

Li told the court, according to CNA, that Low took "the lion's share" of the profits despite limited day-to-day involvement, which reflected his position at the top of the group's hierarchy.

Li cited the Singapore Police Force's Annual Scams and Cybercrime Brief 2024, noting that scam and cybercrime cases rose 10.8 per cent to 55,810 in 2024, with victims losing at least S$1.1 billion.

Low's defence lawyers sought a lighter sentence of 39 months' jail and the same fine, arguing that Low's role never went beyond that of a "passive financier", unlike Tan, who progressed from investor to owner and operator of the business.

One of the lawyers told the court, as cited by CNA: "If not, everyone is a key player. If everyone is special, no one is."

He added that Low had been in Dubai for most of the period and had no involvement in the syndicate's operations.

The judge acknowledged that Low was not involved in running the syndicate, but noted that his financing had allowed the group to scale up its operations.

Rosmah Mansor, wife of former Malaysia prime minister Najib Razak, is suing Malaysian comedian Harith Iskander for defamation over a stand-up comedy routine she claims mocked and insulted her.

According to The Star, the writ of summons was filed at the High Court on Jun. 9 by Rosmah.

What the routine allegedly involved

The alleged defamation stemmed from Harith's performance at the Swiss-Garden Hotel in Melaka on Jan. 17, titled "Harith Iskander: The Outspoken Comedy Tour".

According to Rosmah's statement of claim, Harith showed images of frightening mythological creatures well known in Malaysia, including the toyol, pontianak and pocong, before showing the audience an image of Rosmah as part of the joke.

The statement of claim read:

"During the performance, the defendant displayed images of scary mythological creatures from Malaysian folklore, including but not limited to the 'toyol', 'pontianak', and 'pocong', before subsequently displaying the plaintiff's image to the audience as part of the joke's narrative."

The statement of claim also alleged that Harith joked about drivers spotting a terrifying figure in their rearview mirror on a dark road, with her image appearing on screen at that moment.

Rosmah, 75, said this was a deliberate attempt to portray her as frightening, damage her reputation, and subject her to public ridicule and body shaming.

She is seeking an unconditional apology along with unspecified general, aggravated and exemplary damages from Harith.

A toyol is a mythical, goblin-like creature, a pontianak is a female ghost, while a pocong is the spirit of a deceased person trapped in its white burial shroud.

Harith's defence

In his statement of defence, Harith denied that the performance was malicious or defamatory.

He added that the routine had to be seen in the full context of a comedy show.

Harith pointed out that Rosmah's case leaned heavily on two clips from a TikTok account @mayychan0303 he said he had no connection to, and argued that the footage did not capture his full 90-minute set, per The Star.

He also said recording and uploading the clips without permission went against the event's house rules.

On the specific moment involving Rosmah's image, Harith said it lasted less than five seconds out of the entire hour-and-a-half performance and was never the focus of the show.

His defence stated that the display was momentary and could not be taken out of the broader context of the performance.

He also said that before the show started, disclaimers and house rules were read out in both Bahasa Malaysia and English, and that his legal team would be relying on these during the trial.

Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng were awarded S$230,000 in damages each for defamation by Bloomberg and its reporter, Low De Wei.

The Singaporean ministers sued the news outlet and the reporter over an article it ran on Dec. 12, 2024, titled, "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy".

The article discussed the sale of Good Class Bungalows (GCBs) in Singapore and claimed there was a lack of public records regarding GCB transactions.

It mentioned private properties purchased by Shanmugam and Tan.

Article found to have defamed the ministers

In a judgment released on Jul. 14, Judge Audrey Lim found that the article had indeed defamed the ministers.

She ruled that it linked the duo's property transactions to secrecy, opacity and money laundering, creating a defamatory impression.

“An allegation that a person has deliberately structured his property dealings to escape examination for possible money laundering plainly tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society,” she wrote.

Lim also found that the "natural and ordinary meaning" of the article is that the claimants "took advantage of the absence of checks and balances or disclosure requirements to conduct their property transactions in a non- transparent manner" and that they did so to "hide their transactions and avoid scrutiny that might extend to the possibility of money laundering".

"These are grave assertions that directly impugn the claimants’ personal integrity, character and professional reputation. This is therefore a factor that points towards the award of higher damages," Lim said.

Bloomberg, as the publisher, and Low, as the author, are found to be jointly and severally liable for the defamation, meaning they are jointly responsible for paying the full amount owed.

Purpose was to publish a story about ministers

Justice Lim said that internal correspondence from Bloomberg reveals that the dominant motive behind the article was to publish a story about the ministers, particularly Shanmugam and their GCB transactions.

"The genesis of the Article lay not in a story about trends in the GCB market (as the defendants claim), but in an interest in the claimants," Lim noted.

"The broader narrative of how wealthy individuals in Singapore use non-caveated transactions and trust structures to keep their dealings secret or 'off-radar' was the cover devised to carry that story," said Lim.

Defendants acted with malice

In assessing the amount of damages to be awarded to Shanmugam and Tan, the judge said the defendants had acted with malice.

She said Low knew it was untrue that non-caveated transactions were hidden from the Government, and that the article conveyed a false view that there was a regulatory gap which buyers can exploit.

The judge also found that Bloomberg’s conduct in removing the paywall pertaining to the article also demonstrates malice.

She did not accept that the paywall was removed to comply with the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) direction; rather it was done to make the article accessible to the broader public.

Related

A man took the company that employed him to court recently, claiming wrongful dismissal for terminating his employment about three months after he turned 63, without notice or payment in lieu.

The company contended that the termination was lawful as it was "retiring" the man, and no notice or salary in lieu was required in such circumstances, according to a judgement dated Jul. 13.

It also argued that it offered re-employment to the man, but he had turned the offer down, which meant that it was not required to give him an employment assistance payment.

The man sought S$11,600 (about his two months' basic salary) in damages, and an employment assistance payment of S$14,750.

The full sum was ultimately granted to him by the judge at the Employment Claims Tribunals, who ruled that the company was lawfully required to give the man two months' notice or salary in lieu, and that it did not reasonably engage or consult him regarding re-employment.

Wrongful dismissal

The man was let go on Jun. 18, 2025, when the statutory retirement age was 63 years old.

In the notice of termination, the company informed him that it would "process [his] retirement" on Jun. 18, 2025, as his last working day, and his "retirement" would take effect from the following day.

It added that because this "retirement marks the natural end of [the] employment", it could let him go without giving the two months’ notice or salary in lieu as stated in his employment contract.

The judge said that the company breached the employment contract.

Under the Employment Act, a company was required to give two months’ notice or salary in lieu if it were to terminate the contract after the employee attained the statutory retirement age.

The judge also noted that the man was seeking only S$11,600 in damages, a sum less than two months of his gross salary, which was S$6,428 a month.

Thus, this claim fell within what he was "properly entitled to recover", the judge said.

The re-employment offer

The man argued that the company did not fulfil its obligations to offer re-employment to him, and thus it was required to compensate him with an employment assistance payment.

The judge pointed out that the company did not make any offer of re-employment to the man before he turned 63.

Re-employment discussions were initiated by the man himself over email on Jun. 8, 2025, and the company replied with an offer two days later.

In this offer, the man's salary would be cut from S$6,428 to S$4,000, and he would be under a six-month fixed-term contract.

His role would also be adjusted from area manager to training executive, due to a restructuring exercise that would render the man's original role redundant, according to the company.

The company gave him a firm deadline to decide and accept the offer by Jun. 17, 2025 — about a week after it was first made.

His request for a short extension, also because he was on medical leave, was declined.

The man ultimately rejected the offer, saying that it was drastically different in scope from his existing role, offered little employment stability, and involved a substantial reduction in salary.

The day after receiving this rejection, the company sent the notice of termination.

Was it 'unreasonable'?

The man contended that the terms of the proposed re-employment and the manner the company offered it were unreasonable.

Under the Retirement and Re-employment Act, the employer must offer re-employment for at least one year unless otherwise agreed by both parties.

The man highlighted this in his claim, and the judge acknowledged it as well.

He argued that since the company gave an offer confined to six months, which was not accepted by the man, the offer did not suffice to discharge the company's re-employment obligations.

On the points about the change in job role and reduction in salary, the judge said that these factors alone do not render a re-employment offer unreasonable.

However, he believed the company did not engage with the man early on the offer — a process that would have allowed "meaningful discussion" about salary, possible re-employment arrangements, and more.

"Where engagement is perfunctory or opaque, employees may feel that their past contributions have been overlooked, or that the terms proposed are imposed rather than fairly negotiated," the judge said.

He noted that the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-Employment of Older Employees recommends that consultations on re-employment should ordinarily begin at least six months before retirement.

On why the company began discussions only three months after the man turned 63, the human resources executive who had liaised with him accepted that these requirements had been overlooked and expressed regret that the matter had not been addressed earlier.

She also explained she declined the man's request for a deadline extension due to "her own disposition and a desire to conclude the matter expeditiously".

Judgement

The judge believed it was "unsurprising" that the man came to view the re-employment offer process as unfair.

The way it was conducted "fell short of the standard of reasonableness", and thus the judge ruled that the company was required to pay an employment assistance payment.

He allowed the man's total claims for S$26,350 in full, and also ordered that the company pay S$250 in costs and S$70 in disbursements.

Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan paid his respects to Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol, the eldest daughter of Thai King Maha Vajiralongkorn, on Jul. 14 while on a working visit to Bangkok.

Paying respects

Bajrakitiyabha passed away on Jun. 11 after being in a coma for almost three years, after being hospitalised for a cardiac condition in 2022.

Vivian, accompanied by MFA officials, presented a wreath to the late princess, and in a social media post, paid tribute to her.

He called her a steadfast champion of the vulnerable and disadvantaged, noting her initiatives to uplift underprivileged children and support female inmates.

He also credited her as an accomplished diplomat, saying she had represented Thailand on the international stage with distinction and grace, citing her advocacy for justice, the rule of law, and women's rights, which had earned her recognition from the United Nations and the international community.

Vivian said that Singapore extended its deepest condolences to the King, the royal family and the people of Thailand, as well as a book of condolence.

Highest honors

Bajrakitiyabha was hospitalised in December 2022 after experiencing heart problems while training her pet dogs for the Thailand Working Dog Championship.

Her condition worsened, and she eventually fell into a coma.

On Jun. 11, 2026, the Bureau of the Royal Household reported that she had passed away, after her condition had worsened.

Her father issued a royal command ordering the Bureau of the Royal Household to arrange royal funeral rites with the highest honours according to royal traditions, as well as to enshrine her at the Phiman Rattaya Hall in the Grand Palace.

Informal Myanmar meeting

Vivian was in Bangkok to attend the Informal Meeting of Asean Foreign Ministers with Myanmar and the Extended Informal Consultation on Myanmar.

There he received a briefing by a senior representative of the Myanmar authorities, Tin Maung Swe, on developments in Myanmar.

Myanmar has been fighting a civil war between the military-backed government, sometimes referred to as the Junta, and a number of Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) as well the the People's Defence Force (PDF), ever since the military seized power in February 2021.

The Junta had initialled agreed with Asean to conform to the Five-Point Consensus, which included the cessation of hostilities and giving the bloc access to political prisoners, amongst other things, but has thus far failed to comply, instead holding elections in December 2025 in attempt to legitimise the government.

Speaking to the press after the meeting, Vivian stressed that all Asean countries reaffirmed the central importance of the Five-Point Consensus, saying that it was and it remains valid.

Three areas for progress

Vivian then said that Asean wanted to see demonstrable progress in three specific areas. First, an end to violence, especially against civilians. Second, the release of political detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi.

And finally, for the Asean Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management to be able to deliver assistance across Myanmar, regardless of political allegiance.

Replying to a question about inviting Myanmar back to Asean before progress had been shown, Vivian said that Asean was trying to engage with all stakeholders, including military authorities .

He said that they were also engaging with a wide variety of EAOs and the PDF, who were opposed to the Myanmar junta.

"The key point is Asean wants to engage across the board, widely and in an inclusive manner."

While in Bangkok, Vivian was also hosted to lunch by Thai prime minister Anutin Charnvirakul.

Vivian said that both countries had enjoyed a "close and enduring friendship", and said he looked forward to working with Anutin to "further strengthen the Singapore-Thailand partnership and advance Asean's shared interests."

A 56-year-old Chinese national was sentenced to 13 months’ jail and fined S$1,000 after driving an over-height lorry with a high crane affixed to it and hitting the Central Expressway (CTE) tunnel ceiling.

He was also disqualified from holding all classes of driving licences for 24 months.

Lai Daohong (transliterated) pleaded guilty to two charges under the Road Traffic Act on Jul. 13, Lianhe Zaobao reported.

Incident

The incident occurred on Nov. 8, 2024, at about 12:10pm, at the CTE entrance along Cairnhill Road towards the Seletar Expressway (SLE).

In a video circulated online, the crane attached to the truck first struck a tree branch

It then hit a height restriction bar before striking the CTE tunnel entrance.

The ceiling became visibly damaged with hanging exposed wires visible.

The road was reportedly closed for about 10 hours, and repair costs amounted to about S$1.45 million.

Failure

According to court documents, the driver failed to check if the crane had been lowered before driving the truck.

At about 11:50am to 12:10pm on the day of the incident, he travelled approximately 3.1km along Nassim Road, Tanglin Road, Orchard Road, Pit Building Road, and Cairnhill Road before hitting the tunnel entrance.

The height limit for the tunnel was 4.5m.

After noticing he had struck the tunnel ceiling, he stopped the truck and lowered the crane.

He was then arrested for illegally driving a heavy motor vehicle over a height of 4.5m without being escorted by a police officer or an auxiliary police officer.

According to the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the slip road only reopened at about 10:35pm on the same day, following recovery works.

Second conviction

The driver had previously been fined S$3,500 and disqualified from driving for nine months on Jan. 25, 2017, for driving a heavy vehicle that struck a building or structure.

This is his second conviction for a similar offence.

The prosecution argued that drivers of heavy vehicles ought to exercise greater caution.

They cited the damage caused, such as cables in the tunnel ceiling coming loose, and the substantial repair costs.

The prosecution further argued that this caused traffic congestion in the tunnel at the time.

While no one was injured, they cited the incident’s high-risk nature and the inconvenience caused to other motorists.

The accused reportedly said through an interpreter that an alarm had malfunctioned at the time of the incident.

He claimed that if the warning sound had gone off, he would not have forgotten to lower the crane.

The prosecution argued that the heavy vehicle driver did not merely make a momentary error, but had failed to notice that the crane was not lowered throughout the entire journey.

They also said he did not mention the alarm malfunction during the investigation, and even if the alarm was not working as usual, it was his duty to check it before driving.

Given his prior similar record, the driver should have been all the more aware of the need to do so.

The defence lawyers stated that he stopped his vehicle after the incident, cooperated with the investigations, and expressed remorse.

The accused was apparently his family's sole breadwinner, it was argued.

As Tatsanai, 31, lay outside the burning Na Ladprao pub in Bangkok waiting for rescue workers, she turned to her boyfriend and asked: "Am I still beautiful?"

Her boyfriend, Phitsanu Nim-mian, 31, recounted the moment to reporters on Jul. 13 after accompanying her family to Phahon Yothin Police Station to file an official report, according to Khaosod English.

Tatsanai had told him earlier: "I can't take it anymore. I'm in so much pain. Am I still beautiful?"

He told reporters what he said to her:

"It's all right. Focus on getting treatment first. No matter what happens to you, I accept everything.

Just come home and be with the children. It doesn't matter if anything was lost. I only want you to be safe."

What happened that night

The fire broke out at the Na Ladprao pub in Chatuchak, Bangkok, at around 12:02am on Jul. 13, killing at least 27 people and injuring 63 others, as Mothership reported.

Most fatalities resulted from smoke inhalation. Flames reportedly spread rapidly through ceiling decorations, and many victims had rushed to the toilets at the back of the pub, where rescuers had difficulty reaching them.

Tatsanai had gone to the venue that night with colleagues from the cosmetic clinic where she worked. She had invited Phitsanu to join them, but he stayed home to care for her two children.

He drove her there around 9pm and planned to fetch her later. On his way home, one of his tyres burst, forcing him to call a mechanic.

He only learned about the fire when he received a call asking if he was Tatsanai's boyfriend.

The caller initially said her phone had been lost, then told him she had been severely burned.

When Phitsanu arrived at the scene, he found flames and thick black smoke engulfing the building. Tatsanai had managed to escape, but had to run through the flames to do so because the exit was narrow.

Bystanders used a cloth to extinguish the fire on her hair and head before she lay outside waiting for rescue workers.

Critical condition

According to the doctors, Tatsanai remained in critical condition with burns to her arms, legs, face and back. Doctors also sought permission from the family to shave her head and clean her wounds.

Hospital visits have since been suspended to reduce the risk of infection.

Tatsanai's father, Thuan Manpraphan, 61, told Khaosod English his daughter was being treated in the intensive care unit at Paolo Hospital Chokchai 4.

Though she had begun regaining consciousness, he said burns covered most of her body except her face.

The hospital told the family she would need to be transferred eventually, though no receiving hospital had been confirmed yet.

Calls for accountability

Phitsanu called for entertainment venues to have more emergency exits and clearly marked evacuation signs, saying Tatsanai had told him the venue's entrance and exit were both narrow.

He also weighed in on reports that an emergency exit had allegedly been locked to stop customers from leaving without settling their bills.

He told Khaosod English:

"If that is true, it is completely unacceptable. Money should never be considered more important than people's lives. If something like this happens again, how many more people will die, and who will take responsibility?"

Phitsanu claimed that official coordinator had reached out to the family with information or assistance.

He added that he had met Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and Bangkok Governor Chadchart Sittipunt at the scene on the night of the fire, and was advised to register at Phahon Yothin Police Station.

He was told that government agencies would step in to help and that those affected would not be left without support.

Thuan said he believed the venue's negligence had contributed to the tragedy, and urged authorities to hold those responsible accountable.

Back home, Phitsanu said her two children continued asking where their mother was.

He told Khaosod English: "I can only tell them, 'Mum hasn't finished work yet. Dad will go and bring her home soon.'"

A 23-year-old Singaporean man, who went on a midnight joyride on the Central Expressway (CTE) towards Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE) with five other people in 2024, was sentenced to four months' jail on Jul. 13, 2026.

Lee Jun En Gilviz, who was the fourth driver in the group of six, will be disqualified from driving for three years from his prison release date.

He had pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving, The Straits Times reported.

Court documents seen by Mothership stated that in the early hours of Oct. 27, 2024, six drivers, including Lee, had been involved in a major road traffic accident.

There were two collisions.

Other sentences

Damien Chia Hwa Chuan, 29, and Sherman Quah Kok Rong, 22, had earlier been sentenced on Jun. 29 to four months and two weeks' jail and two months and three weeks' jail, respectively.

They were also disqualified from driving for three years from their release date.

After pleading guilty to dangerous driving, Marcus Lau Yong Wei, 35, had previously been sentenced on Jun. 26 to four months' jail and disqualified from driving for three years.

ST reported that the other alleged drivers, Goh Jared-Kane, 26, and Kong Jia Quan, 24, are also facing charges.

Speeding

According to court documents, at about 1am on Oct. 27, 2024, the group of six met at a Stadium Boulevard car park before going on a joyride to the downtown area.

They trailed one another at high speeds towards the town area via the Pan Island Expressway (PIE) towards Tuas, the CTE, before exiting at Buyong Road and continuing along Orchard Road, Bras Basah Road, and Raffles Boulevard, until the accident occurred in front of the Fort Canning Tunnel.

The drivers of all six vehicles confirmed that they had been travelling at high speed at the time of the incident.

Lee had been travelling at speeds of between 141km/h and 181km/h along the CTE near the Rangoon Road exit, despite the speed limit being 90km/h.

Collisions

According to surveillance footage, Goh was observed to be speeding along Stamford Road towards Fort Canning Link, where Kong and Lee followed closely behind in separate cars.

Goh then had to brake hard to avoid a collision while making a right turn into Queen Street from Stamford Road.

Kong's vehicle then rear-ended Goh's due to the sudden braking, after which Lee swerved sharply to the right, where his car mounted the adjacent grass verge and overturned.

This resulted in damage to the roadside vegetation, a road sign and a traffic light signal, where the total cost of repairing the damaged property amounted to over S$2,900, ST reported the prosecutor as saying.

In addition, Lau and Chia were also approaching the accident site at high speed.

Lau then braked as debris from the first collision flew across the far-right lane, which caused Chia's car to rear-end Lau’s vehicle.

Aftermath

Quah's, Goh's and Kong's cars did not stop at the accident scene.

They drove away after the collisions to a nearby building.

Lee, who was taken to Singapore General Hospital for treatment, suffered a neck sprain, chest and abdominal contusions, and abrasions on his right hand, while his 22-year-old passenger was not injured.

The accident also caused the front of Lee's car to be dented and ripped off, with the left side mirror shattered, and the windscreen cracked.

Lee was arrested on Mar. 2.

The prosecutor sought a sentence of between four and six months' jail and a driving disqualification of three to four years.

ST reported that Lee had previously been convicted in 2023 for using a communication device while driving.

Dangerous, reckless driving: Prosecutor

In light of this incident, the prosecutor said that rather than a momentary or transient lapse in judgment, Lee's dangerous and reckless driving was sustained and deliberate.

"The most egregious instance occurred at the junction of Stamford Road and Victoria Street, where the accused had entered the junction at an estimated speed of 122km/h to 144km/h in a 50km/h zone, more than twice the legal limit."

Noting that this was not an isolated incident but a prolonged course of dangerous and reckless conduct, he added that Lee's car overturning further demonstrated the dangerous manner of driving that the accused had adopted at the time of the offence.

Following the accident, Lee had made full restitution for the damage he caused, ST reported that his lawyer told the court.

For dangerous driving, an offender can be fined up to S$5,000, jailed for up to one year, or both.

Singapore influencer Mangobossku's new cat grooming venture is under investigation after viewers of a TikTok livestream accused him of handling a cat "roughly" during a session.

Mangobossku, whose real name is Mohamad Hussin Said, has denied any intention to hurt or abuse the cat, telling Mothership that the clip circulating online only showed "a short portion" of a longer livestream.

What sparked the backlash

The controversy began after clips from a livestreamed grooming session showed Hussin handling a cat in a manner that some viewers found troubling.

On Threads, cat owners and self-described cat lovers weighed in, with some saying they would think twice about sending their pets to Hussin's premises after watching the video.

One user urged business owners to educate themselves before entering the pet industry, and pet owners to do their due diligence before engaging one.

She added:

"Simply taking them out of their familiar environment is already stressful enough, let alone having them aggressively restrained and literally hung while being groomed by someone who was even VAPING."

Another user said she had raised concerns with Hussin directly and claimed she had been blocked as a result.

Others raised questions about Hussin's qualifications.

One user pointed out that cat groomers typically spend years training in salons and sitting for courses before being certified, and asked whether Hussin's certificate was authentic or simply "AI-verified" — noting that his grooming premises reportedly shared an address with his car wash business.

Separately, another user raised concerns after coming across footage of Hussin grooming two cats with what appeared to be skin conditions, including redness around the neck and tail that she worried could be ringworm.

She noted he had not worn gloves while handling either cat, and questioned whether tools and surfaces had been disinfected between sessions to prevent cross-contamination.

Authorities confirm investigations are underway

The SPCA confirmed to Mothership that it was aware of the case and had escalated it to other authorities.

"The SPCA is aware of the case, and our Inspectors have escalated it to the authorities at NParks/AVS for further investigation and any enforcement action. If called upon to assist in investigations, we will do our best to support every effort."

NParks similarly confirmed that the matter was being looked into.

"The National Parks Board (NParks) is aware of the alleged mishandling of a cat that happened during a livestreamed grooming session. Investigations are ongoing."

Mangobossku says handling was for the cat's safety

Responding to queries from Mothership, Hussin said the clips circulating online did not tell the full story.

"We are aware of the clips circulating from our TikTok livestream. We understand the concern from viewers who only saw a short portion of the video," he said.

He explained that the cat had been placed in a grooming hammock, a method he described as industry-recognised, to keep it secure during the session.

He added: "The handling seen was to ensure the cat's safety. The full livestream shows the full context.”

He struck a similar tone in an Instagram post on Jul. 11, defending his approach publicly for the first time since the backlash began.

"Whatever people want to say, let them. What matters is we know what we're doing isn't to hurt the cat or abuse the cat, we do all this for the cat's own good and cleanliness. "

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mangobossku (@the_godfather_mangobossku)

Hussin also told Mothership that NParks had since visited his premises to review his procedures, adding that the welfare of the cats in his care remains his top priority.

He has expanded to offer both in-house and home grooming services as well, so paw parents can be present from start to finish.

"This makes the process more transparent and less stressful for the cats. We remain committed to providing safe, low-stress grooming for all pets in our care."

Planning to upskill

Despite the ongoing scrutiny, Hussin has continued to advertise his grooming services on social media, including offering fur-styling options such as the Lion Cut and Bear Cut.

Hussin is reportedly planning to enrol in the Universal Cat Association (UCA) Cat Grooming Programme, an internationally recognised certification course, according to Berita Harian.

Investigations into the case remain ongoing.