A Singaporean woman, 40, was sentenced to eight weeks and five days' jail for dining and dashing at a Haidilao restaurant, as well as committing a series of petty retail shop thefts, including stealing two loaves of raisin bread.

The accused, Ong Rou En, pleaded guilty to three charges on Oct. 5.

The remaining charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.

Claimed she gets to eat for free

On Oct. 28, 2024, at about 12am at the Haidilao restaurant at Paya Lebar Quarter (PLQ), Ong ordered S$203.50 worth of food.

The items included a beef tallow soup base, Iberico pork, prawn paste, Chinese bullfrog, and crispy pork strips, among other dishes.

Two hours later, the staff presented Ong with the bill.

Instead of paying, the accused suddenly said the restaurant manager had promised her a free meal.

The staff then clarified with the restaurant manager and was told that what the woman claimed was not true.

Ong then said she was a Haidilao staff at the Marina Bay Sands outlet.

After verifying with the Marina Bay Sands outlet, it was again discovered that the woman was not telling the truth.

She also could not produce a staff card when asked for it.

She then left the restaurant without paying.

The manager made a police report on the same day.

Stole bread

About two months later, on Dec. 21, 2024, Ong committed theft at a shop at Block 720 Jurong West Avenue 5.

She stole two loaves of California raisin bread valued at S$7.80 and returned a few minutes later to take six sambal ikan bilis buns valued at S$9.60.

The store manager noticed the thefts three days later while reviewing surveillance footage and reported the matter to the police.

Ong subsequently admitted to stealing the items as she had an urge to do so.

Stole from Don Don Donki

On Oct. 6, 2025, at about 5.45pm, Ong took S$300 worth of items at the Don Don Donki outlet located in Jurong West, and placed them in a white tote bag.

The items included one bottle of Smirnoff ice wild grape drink valued at S$4.90 and four slices of Mekajiki sashimi valued at S$55.20, among other goods.

She spent 15 minutes in the shop.

The retail manager detected the accused’s offences when he reviewed the surveillance footage more than a week later on Oct. 15 and reported it to the police.

The accused admitted to the theft and said she had been under a lot of mental stress at the time.

Pleaded for leniency

The court heard that Ong expressed remorse and deep regret for wasting public resources, Shin Min Daily News reported.

She added that she would actively seek treatment after her release, claiming that she never intended to evade responsibility and had promised her lawyer that she would change.

She also explained that she dined and dashed at Haidilao because she was angry with the waiter.

Are civil servants really more honest than the average person?

Amid an ongoing investigation about a U.S. study which claimed to have identified a statistical pattern of Singapore civil servants purchasing homes near MRT stations before their locations were publicly announced, there have been conversations about whether the existing safeguards are enough.

The paper questioned if "pro-integrity social norms can substitute for formal enforcement in deterring misconduct by public officials".

In response, the government said it is reviewing the data of property purchases made between 2007 and 2011 by officers who were involved in rail planning, and has even extended the scope to 2014 as a matter of prudence.

The government has since updated the parliament that eight public officers whose property purchases warrant further examination have been referred to the police, after reviewing property transactions made by 191 officers.

As we wait for the results, it's worth considering: exactly what is the basis for these "social norms", and what does it mean for Singapore's systems?

Professor Leong Ching, NUSS professor of Behavioural Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, writes about her experiment on the matter.

By Leong Ching

On Oct. 6, the coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Seng announced that eight public service officers had been referred to the police for further investigation.

This came on the back of a working paper from the US-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) alleging that civil servants here “disproportionately” bought private homes near MRT stations before those stations were announced.

The minister added that this did not mean that wrongdoing had been established; rather the police would review the facts and that due process would be followed.

Whatever the results may be, it has brought new salience to a larger issue: the issue of honesty in the Singapore civil service.

Assessing people’s honesty

In policy studies, the motivations of civil servants have long been the subject of study and theorising.

But empirical experiments testing honesty are notoriously difficult. Like the Higgs-Boson particle, honest behaviour is almost impossible to observe in an experimental setting.

Whether people are inherently honest is an old question. Much of our public life is built on an assumption of good faith — that we act honestly with one another and in our relations with the government.

Yet, from tax evasion to false declarations, people often fall short; in terms of policy design, audits and penalties are costly ways to detect and punish such behaviour.

In search of a low-cost and effective intervention, my colleagues and I at the National University of Singapore conducted a field experiment with 34,543 adults in nine countries across the Americas, Asia, and Europe.

The experiment

We designed three experimental conditions.

The first, “private cash”, got participants to privately roll a die and report the outcome, with a cash reward proportional to the reported value.

The rules were simple: if you roll a 1, you do not get any money, and if you roll a 6, you get S$5.

The incentive, therefore, is to report as high a number as possible.

If all participants in a large sample were perfectly honest, we would expect an average of 3.5. Anything higher indicates a degree of dishonesty.

The second, “private lottery”, was similar, but we introduced an element of chance. We wanted to see if people were more likely to be dishonest if their chances of getting the cash reward were determined by a virtual lottery.

The higher the reported value of the die roll, the higher the chance of winning. Again, the incentive is to report a high number.

The third, “public cash”, gave participants a choice to roll the die either privately or on a platform visible to the researchers. In this group, they could choose whether to be observed or not.

Importantly, they would still get paid out whatever amount they reported whether honestly or not.

The results

We found that most people were indeed dishonest.

Rolling entirely in private — the first experimental condition — average reports ranged from 3.76 in China to 4.43 in Mexico.

But most people were not maximally dishonest. Rather than thinking “in for a penny, in for a pound” and declaring a 6 when they rolled a 1, most shaded the truth a little.

They were partially dishonest — or, as they might tell themselves, partially honest.

Adding an element of luck — in the second condition — made little difference.

The most surprising result came from the third condition. I had expected most people not to opt into the condition to roll the dice on the NUS server where “you may be observed by the researcher”.

Instead, 85 per cent chose this option — and as a result were completely or almost completely honest, with averages ranging from 3.46 in Germany to 3.61 in Indonesia.

In the formal model, we worked out a coefficient which showed that people derived utility from being “seen to be honest”.

An intriguing finding.

Are public servants different?

For public servants, empirical evidence on honesty has largely been drawn from proxy samples — students who want to join the public service, police applicants and counter staff.

The results are mixed, i.e. we don’t know whether they are indeed more honest.

But our earlier, unrelated experiment provided a basis for answering the age-old question.

To find out, I ran the same experiment with nearly 3,000 public sector workers in the United States.

Rolling in private, public servants reported an average of 3.87, against 4.02 for Americans in the general population study.

When no one was watching, public servants were measurably more honest than everyone else (even if not perfectly so).

Given the option to be observed, 91 per cent opted in. Their average fell to 3.69.

At this number, the gap with the general public, who had been offered the same choice, disappeared. Even the few who declined to be observed were about as honest as those who opted in.

The offer itself seems to have been enough.

In short, civil servants do seem to be able to call on their better angels when no one is watching. Why?

Being seen to be honest

In the NBER paper, the authors argue that their data shows that social norms have limited persistence and are not enough to maintain a low-corruption equilibrium without formal enforcement.

My study does not compare enforcement with social norms, although it makes two interesting points about civil servants’ internal beliefs and their outward behaviour.

First, in the study, the more honest people believed their peers to be, the more honest they themselves were. They also consistently rated their colleagues as more honest than themselves.

Second, a common assumption about civil servants is that their internal values (or public service motivation) is related to higher standards of moral behaviour.

In this study, I did not find a connection — that is, an individual’s attraction to public service, commitment to public values, compassion, and self-sacrifice did not predict honesty.

Yet, most participants want to be perceived as honest and would behave honestly if given the chance.

A high bar

What would this insight look like in practice?

Well, for a start, like Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) 1960 in Singapore —  "Presumption of corruption in certain cases".

Murali Pillai SC, Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport, explained in a 2024 speech on anti-corruption how this use of presumptions worked in Singapore law.

He said: “Where a person employed by the government or public body receives gratification from someone who had dealings with the government or public body, both the giver and receiver are deemed to have given or received the gratification corruptly as an inducement or reward, unless it is proven otherwise.”

This is an extraordinarily high bar.

As the Singapore High Court explained in 2014, once a public servant is shown to have received a gift from someone dealing with the government, "the evidential burden of proof shifts to the recipient", who must offer an innocent explanation to rebut the presumption of corruption.

In short, to be seen as honest.

Designed for scrutiny

This is exactly what we are seeing play out in the PSD review and the police investigation.

Whatever the results from the PSD review therefore, the broader lesson is the same: integrity cannot simply be assumed from who public servants are (i.e. their public sector motivation, which may not relate to specific behaviours) nor from social norms (e.g. a belief in the honesty of others, which does co-relate to honest behaviours).

Instead, institutions and rules must be designed for scrutiny and the opportunity to be seen to be honest.

Second, and I think more significantly, there is the role of formal enforcement.

Empirically, formal sanctions have been shown to be effective deterrents, but even in the highly improbable instance that social norms can be shown to achieve the same behavioural outcomes, such enforcement must not be replaced.

Punishment is not mere quotidian behavioural intervention, it is a moral requirement underwritten by theories of justice and a contractarian understanding of public policy.

An incorrupt civil service does not require that no one be ever tempted, but instead, that those who give in to temptation be predictably punished, and honest officers given every opportunity to be seen to be so.

While at a night club celebrating his wife's pregnancy, a 27-year-old man felt that another man was staring at him and his friends several times.

Feeling affronted, he confronted the other man, a Malaysian, and the situation quickly turned violent.

Along with three of his friends, Jonathan Soo Wen Jie punched and kicked the Malaysian repeatedly. At one point, Soo also struck his head with a metal bar.

All four assailants were drunk at the time, according to court documents.

As a result of the assault that lasted almost two-and-a-half minutes, the victim suffered lasting blurriness and pain in his left eye for several months after the incident.

Soo pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous hurt, and was sentenced on Oct. 5 to a year-and-a-half in jail and four strokes of the cane.

His three friends involved have also been convicted.

Tan Swee Heng, 45, was also sentenced on Oct. 5 to a year and five months in jail and three strokes of the cane, while Ong Jun Ren, 37, was previously sentenced in April 2026 to a year in jail and two strokes of the cane.

The last accused, Koh Ming Quan, 20, was sentenced in August to probation as he is a young offender.

How it started

The incident happened at the Mask 51 night club in Geylang at around 2:02am on Apr. 28, 2025.

It was caught on video by the club’s CCTV cameras.

In addition to celebrating the pregnancy of Soo's wife, they were also there to celebrate Tan's wife's birthday.

The victim was there to meet a friend for drinks, and sat at the back of the club.

Soo noticed that he appeared to be staring at him and his friends as they went to get drinks.

It aggravated Soo, and he walked aggressively towards the victim along with Ong. After arguing with him, Soo threw a punch at him.

The commotion alerted Koh and Tan to go over, and Koh attempted to calm Soo down.

Ong, however, began pointing aggressively at the victim and arguing with him.

When the victim's friend tried to defuse the situation, Soo told him not to intervene or else he would be beaten up too.

The assault

After Soo and the victim exchanged more words, Soo threw a flurry of punches at the victim's face.

The victim turned away and did not retaliate.

Soo, Koh, and Tan then pulled him over to the centre of the club and hurled him against a table, causing him to hit his head and fall to the ground.

While he was still on the ground, Soo and his three friends began punching and kicking him multiple times.

Tan grabbed the victim by his hair and attempted to pick up a bottle to hit him, but was stopped from doing so by Tan’s wife.

As the victim got to his feet, Ong went forward to elbow him in the back, and Koh shoved him against a table. Koh also picked up a glass bottle and smashed it on the victim's back.

As the victim staggered towards the exit of the club, Soo picked up a metal bar stool and struck the victim's head with it, then threw it hard at his head.

Soo, Tan, and Ong continued to punch the victim after that.

The victim's injuries

Due to their attacks, the victim had to be sent to the hospital to be treated for multiple injuries, including severe facial fractures and eyelid lacerations.

According to the prosecutor, he requested to be discharged against medical advice for admission.

He felt that he could not afford to pay for medical treatment in Singapore and wanted to return to Malaysia to receive medical treatment.

However, he still did not undergo surgery in Malaysia and his injuries were managed medically. He had to stay at home for a month without working to recuperate.

Months after the incident, he continued to experience blurriness and pain in his left eye, which made it difficult to focus with it.

'Cowardly act'

The prosecutor called for the court to jail Soo between a year and seven months to a year and nine months, along with four strokes of the cane.

He described the case as "a vicious, gratuitous, and cowardly act of hooliganism", arguing that the joint assault of a "hapless male victim" was "an irrational and disproportional response to a perceived slight" against Soo.

On the difference between the four men's sentences, the prosecutor felt it was justified.

He argued that Ong and Tan were less culpable than Soo, who was the main instigator of the assault and displayed much more violence towards the victim than the other two.

In its upcoming review commencing in 2027, the Life Insurance Association, Singapore (LIA) will explore a different approach towards whether certain medical conditions and diseases are claimable under critical illness plans.

It will consider whether claimable conditions can be defined by the underlying disease and its severity, rather than by specific procedures.

In an Oct. 7 written response in parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong acknowledged that some critical illness plans use treatment procedures as "objective indicators" of disease severity and consequent financial impact.

This is because such plans are intended to help policyholders cope with the financial impact of a severe illness, rather than reimburse the cost of medical treatment, he said.

Critical illness questions

Gan was responding to a question by MP Hamid Razak, who asked if critical illness policy definitions could be moved away from being anchored to specific surgical procedures, and towards disease instead.

This is so that insurance cover is not lost solely due to differing treatment approaches, he said.

Hamid is a practising orthopaedic surgeon.

In March, a woman sued Prudential after she underwent brain surgery following a stroke, but her had claim denied.

In her critical illness insurance plan, it was stated that her stroke surgery would only be covered if she had underwent a surgical craniotomy, rather than an endovascular repair.

She argued that having suffered a stroke, she was unable to choose which surgery she would undergo, but eventually lost her suit.

Premiums may be affected

In his written reply, Gan said that any changes will require "careful consideration" as they affect the scope of coverage and claims experience.

Premiums for such policies may also be affected as they are dependent on the probability of claims materialising, he caveated.

He added that updated definitions will apply to new products sold.

Related story

There were no public interest grounds to issue a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) over a report by Israeli media outlet Haaretz, said Minister for Home Affairs and Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam.

The media outlet alleged that a delegation from Israel had discussed the death penalty with Singaporean officials.

In a written reply on Oct. 7, 2026, SM Shanmugam said the assessment at the time, based on legal advice, was that the public interest grounds for issuing a POFMA Direction were not met.

His reply came after Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Fadli Fawzi asked about the reported meeting, including why a correction direction was not issued against Haaretz.

Fadli also asked if illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank were discussed during the meeting, and if Singapore had requested that the meeting be kept secret.

What was alleged in the article

On Sep. 7, 2026, Haaretz reported that a delegation comprising representatives from the Israel Prison Service and the National Security Ministry had made what it described as a "secret visit" to Singapore.

According to CNA, the report claimed that the death penalty was discussed during the visit, citing several unnamed sources.

This claim was subsequently refuted by Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Sep. 11, 2026.

An MHA spokesperson told CNA that Haaretz correspondent Josh Breiner had asked whether discussions on the death penalty had taken place.

Breiner was informed that no such discussions had taken place and that it would be false to suggest otherwise, the spokesperson said.

MHA added that it had hosted the Israeli delegation for an officials-level meeting, during which both sides shared best practices in areas such as emergency response, crime prevention, and forensics.

Such engagements allow the exchange of information and operational cooperation in areas like fire and rescue and cybercrime.

"This is part of the Singapore government’s engagement with a wide range of international counterparts in the conduct of foreign relations, economic cooperation, security dialogue, among others, in pursuit of our national interests," the spokesperson was quoted as saying.

Separately, Israel’s National Security Ministry also told Haaretz that representatives from the ministry and its agencies did not discuss the death penalty during the meeting.

Why no POFMA direction was issued

In his written reply, Shanmugam said Singapore regularly holds discussions with international counterparts on security and law enforcement matters.

Such engagements are important for the exchange of information and intelligence between agencies, he said, adding that they have enabled Singapore to identify potential threats, intervene early, and keep the country safe.

He reiterated that the meeting with the Israeli delegation focused on operational and security-related issues and did not extend to broader foreign policy matters.

"Singapore’s positions on such matters are addressed through the appropriate foreign policy channels, including by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)," he said.

SM Shanmugam added that the contents of MHA’s exchanges with foreign counterparts are confidential and generally not publicised due to security concerns.

He said MHA had responded to the Haaretz article as its claims were "categorically false".

However, it was assessed that the public interest grounds for issuing a POFMA Direction were not met at the time.

Despite this, Shanmugam clarified that the decision did not preclude issuing a POFMA Direction later if circumstances materially changed and warranted a different assessment.

Shanmugam added that MHA’s approach to discussions with bilateral counterparts was focused on matters of shared operational and security concern.

"If (Fadli) believes that MHA should use such engagements to raise broader concerns about the policies or conduct of the country concerned, then he should say so clearly," he said in his reply.

Shanmugam also asked Fadli whether the same approach should apply consistently to all countries with which MHA engages.

"For example, when MHA holds operational discussions with other Middle Eastern or Asian countries, should we also raise the concerns Singapore may have with their conduct or policies?" he asked.

"If that is (Fadli's) position, the Government would be interested to understand how he proposes that such an approach would serve Singapore’s overall interests."

A vehicle collided with a wall panel at Jem’s basement carpark on the morning of Oct. 6, leaving a large hole in the panel near a lift lobby.

Responding to Mothership's queries, Lendlease, which manages the Jurong East shopping mall, said no injuries were reported.

Large hole near Lift Lobby 1

A photograph posted on Reddit showed a large hole in a wall marked “Lift Lobby 1”, with debris scattered on the floor beneath it.

The opening exposed part of the area behind the wall, where a travellator could be seen.

Lendlease confirmed to Mothership that the collision occurred at the mall’s B2 carpark.

Area cordoned off for repairs

Lendlease said its security and technical teams responded promptly to secure the area following the incident.

The affected section has been temporarily cordoned off, while repair works are being carried out.

“The safety of our shoppers, tenants and staff remains our top priority,” it said.

Lendlease added that operations at Jem were unaffected, and both the mall and carpark remain open as usual.

Its statement did not specify what led to the collision or when repairs are expected to be completed.

Tan Ee Ren remembers the moment he decided to become vegetarian at the age of 13.

Speaking to Mothership at Singapore’s first halal-certified, plant-based sushi train restaurant, Sauté Sushi at Paya Lebar Square, Tan said:

“I had watched some videos about the poultry industry, on how the animals are being processed, their lives taken against their will.”

Such documentaries left a deep, vivid impression on him which aligned with his own thinking and religion, Tan added.

“It made me think and sometimes, I teared too, putting myself in their shoes,” he recalled.

“So just one day, I remember, at 13 years old: I told myself in a canteen, from today onwards I’m not going to touch meat anymore,” Tan said.

It is a momentous decision that has stuck with him till today and one that has also served as the driving force behind his decision to open Sauté with his sister, Tan Ai Lin.

Sauté is not meant to make you feel guilty

Of course, that doesn’t mean his restaurant is aimed at making people feel guilty about eating meat, Tan clarified.

His restaurants do not carry any environmental messages, although this is a secondary outcome of going vegetarian.

“We just wanted to make Sauté taste nice and good, (for people) to step in, who just want to eat one meal that tastes nice without meat. We don’t want any kind of pressure on anyone,” he said.

Sauté, rather, is aimed at filling a “cuisine” gap – recreating entire cuisines as vegetarian, Tan elaborated.

It is an ambitious effort and a sign of Tan’s passion for delicious vegetarian food. Tan thinks that the “cuisine” gap might be due to an absence of people daring to venture out of their comfort zones.

While the market already had “delicious” vegetarian dishes that could be found at hawker centres and coffee shops, there was an absence of something like vegetarian Western cuisine, he noted.

The first outlet

Today, Sauté boasts an impressive five outlets, with a number of vegetarian cuisines available for any curious member of the public.

The one we visited, Sauté Sushi, is, as the name suggests, focused entirely on Japanese cuisine, complete with its own sushi train system to recreate the experience of dining at a sushi restaurant (and help overcome a manpower crunch as well).

Another outlet, Sauté Saranghae at Tampines One, is all about Korean cuisine, while Flavours by Sauté features a fusion of local and Western cuisine.

It’s a long way from the humble beginnings of their first outlet, Sauté, which opened at Bugis Cube in 2016, amidst multiple nail salons and massage parlours.

At that time, his wife was pregnant, which meant that besides his sister, his brother-in-law and parents had to come in after work to help.

“It was really tiring. I was sleeping in the kitchen while cutting vegetables. We couldn’t hire anyone yet.”

“The aircon also wasn’t really working and we had to rent a fan (because it was) stuffy,” Tan added with a smile.

However, the building’s management was kind enough to allow them to place chairs and tables outside their restaurant in order to accommodate the crowd.

When I asked what prompted them to move to City Square Mall two years later, Tan replied that they had received an email from an agent asking if they wanted to venture into City Square Mall. Tan said yes as he was keen to bring the brand greater visibility, as well as shift it to a more convenient location.

In addition, he wanted to change what he perceived was a public view that did not see vegetarian cuisine as a mainstream dining option.

“That’s where we really went in,” Tan said.

Scaling up and expanding the brand

That’s not to say that Tan’s plans for expansions were simply limited to just improving visibility, however.

From the moment he opened his first outlet at Bugis Cube, Tan had already set his mind on how he could build up a lasting brand, his wife, Soek Hui, recounted.

However, as they were unsure how to go about it, they approached one of Enterprise Singapore’s SME Centres.

Eventually, in 2019, they met Ben Teo, a senior business advisor from the SME Centre at Singapore Manufacturing Federation. He had experience in working with F&B businesses and could share with them various insights.

By this time, they had already opened a third outlet, Flavours by Sauté, and had plans in mind to open a fourth, under yet another name.

Teo advised them to standardise the brand’s name and image across all of the outlets.

“That’s (how) we have the brand colour, which is the white, black and green, and the fact that all outlets have the name Sauté,” Tan shared.

The kimchi manpower issue

Amidst their expansion with more outlets, another issue soon emerged – a manpower resource crunch.

Or more specifically, the allocation of manpower for the preparation of kimchi in their vegetarian Korean dishes – a process that can take up a lot of the staff’s time, when they could be attending to other matters, as both Hui and Tan shared.

Part of this has to do with the fact that many of the ingredients in their dishes are handmade, including their kimchi, which does not utilise ingredients such as onion and garlic.

For Tan, the restrictions on onion and garlic have a religious dimension.

Given that Korean cuisine has been one of the cuisines that Tan sought to recreate as vegetarian right from their very first outlet, he had initially sourced for kimchi from external vendors, only to realise that he could not find one that did not utilise garlic and onion, or was produced in a facility free from those ingredients.

This meant that they had to make the kimchi in their own kitchens, Tan pointed out, a process that now consumes the time of at least three of their outlets – Sauté Sushi, Sauté San and Sauté Saranghae.

The push to open a central kitchen

Fortunately there is one solution that has since emerged as an effective way of addressing this issue – establishing their own central kitchen.

The idea came about following a visit to another successful restaurant’s central kitchen, arranged by Teo.

Hui shared that what amazed them was the fact that this restaurant established their central kitchen when they only had one outlet.

“Meanwhile, we have five kitchens. All the more we needed to pull our resources together,” she said with a laugh.

She also admitted that initially, the idea of a central kitchen felt daunting, due to the machinery involved.

However, after the restaurant’s owner walked them through how they set up one, the costs that were involved, how they overcame the various challenges they faced, and eventually were even able to scale up to work with commercial clients, Hui and Tan felt much more confident in going ahead.

Since then, kimchi-making operations have been shifted to the central kitchen, allowing staff at the restaurants to better focus on customer service, and growing Sauté’s membership programme, Hui added.

Plans for the future

All that being said, Tan is still looking at how he can expand Sauté even further, given that the central kitchen has opened up possibilities, from expanding overseas, such as into Malaysia, to retailing ready-to-eat dishes.

In addition, the quest to craft new vegetarian dishes and cuisine continues - Tan and Hui shared that they travel to places like China and Japan to experience new ways of vegetarian cooking.

Thanks to Teo and the SME Centre, Tan has also been in contact with the Singapore Business Federation for overseas opportunities.

Tan’s brother-in-law and a co-founder of Sauté, Shah, added, “Actually, we are quite blessed to do business in Singapore.”

“If you are unsure about anything, you can just reach out (to the SME Centres) to explore available support,” he said.

Even though sleeping in the kitchen while cutting vegetables is a thing of the past, Tan pointed out that now, the pressure stems from the fact that multiple families, including those of their colleagues, are dependent on the success of their business.

But it is pressure that he has transformed into a driving force.

“So we always have the motivation to continue doing well in our mission of bringing people meatless food and introducing our cuisines to other people.”

This sponsored article actually made the author enjoy eating vegetarian dishes.

Looking to grow your business? You can go here to find out more.

An Italian man was sentenced to eight years' jail in Singapore on Oct. 7 for trafficking a Singaporean woman to Dubai and making her carry out sex work.

Achraf Arjaouy, 32, was also given six strokes of the cane and a S$9,000 fine.

He was previously found guilty on Apr. 22.

According to Singapore Courts' Integrated Case Management System (ICMS), the fine was not paid and he will serve an additional six weeks' jail by default.

Promised to marry woman

During previous court hearings, it was revealed that Arjaouy had met the victim on Tinder in April 2021.

Posing as a rich pilot from a wealthy Qatari family, he convinced the woman that he was going to marry her in Qatar after what was described as a "whirlwind courtship".

The woman agreed, and the pair then set off for Qatar via Dubai on Apr. 21, 2021.

Arjaouy told the victim she needed to show that she had US$10,000 (S$12,713) in order to enter Dubai.

When she revealed that she had insufficient funds, he then coerced her into engaging in sex work.

During his trial in August 2025, the prosecution accused Arjaouy of capitalising on the woman's confusion by subjecting her to "physical and psychological torture", committing acts of violence against her, and subjecting her to "humiliating and invasive sexual acts".

The woman was also subjected to degradation and threats of mutilation by Arjaouy, the court heard.

In mid-September 2021, the woman contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

The woman's mother went to the police in April 2021 when the woman asked for US$10,000 (S$12,713) shortly after arriving in Dubai.

The woman's ordeal ended in late November 2021 when she returned to Singapore.

Arjaouy came to Singapore in October 2022, and the pair got in touch again.

He was arrested in Singapore in November 2023 for an unrelated offence.

He previously posted a S$100,000 bail, but was remanded again in November 2025 after he reportedly assaulted his bailor, who was apparently his girlfriend, on several occasions.

Arjaouy has 16 other unrelated pending charges, including multiple counts of cheating, which will be dealt with at a later time, reported The Straits Times.

A Singapore court has ordered a six-month extension of an arrest warrant for fugitive Charles Yeo Yao Hui on Oct. 7.

The former Reform Party chairman has been on the run since 2022.

He was charged on Jan. 19, 2022, with three counts of insulting or threatening public officials, and another three for wounding the religious feelings of the Christian community.

According to the Singapore Courts’ integrated case management system (ICMS), he is also facing charges for cheating and absconding.

Yeo was granted permission to travel to Vietnam for work but later absconded while out on bail in July 2022.

He later posted on social media that he was seeking asylum in the United Kingdom (UK).

It was previously reported that Yeo was arrested in the UK and would have his extradition hearing in May 2025.

Arrest warrant extended

In a hearing on Oct. 7, the prosecution applied for a six-month extension of the arrest warrant for Yeo, Lianhe Zaobao reported.

The prosecution reportedly said that Yeo was overseas and uncontactable.

The judge granted the prosecution's application and reportedly suggested that the investigators could try to trace him in other ways.

The case was adjourned to Apr. 6, 2027, for further hearing.

To promote his hawker stall, a man made a TikTok video that begins with him pulling into a car park at Upper Boon Keng Market & Food Centre in a Rolls-Royce Phantom.

The video, uploaded on Sep. 15, sparked admiration as some were impressed that a hawker selling claypot dishes could afford to drive a Rolls-Royce.

It also raised some eyebrows from people who noticed the car's licence number, which can be seen in the video.

They pointed out that the car was recently listed for auction as one of the assets seized during a S$3 billion money laundering probe in Singapore.

At least 11 Rolls-Royce cars were included in a closed-bid auction by Sgcarmart Quotz in July 2026, The Straits Times reported.

Not his car

But Ezam told Mothership that he does not own the luxury car, but had borrowed it from his former boss for the video.

It is also true that the Rolls-Royce is linked to the S$3 billion money laundering case, according to him.

The car was put up for auction and his former boss made the winning bid, he said.

A marketing idea

The idea for the video came up over lunch between Ezam and two of his friends — a car dealer, and his former boss who owns the Rolls-Royce.

They envisioned getting Ezam to drive the car to the hawker centre where his stall was, and someone would approach him to ask what he did for a living to be able to drive a Rolls-Royce Phantom.

That was how the video eventually posted on TikTok went.

In the video, Ezam shares that he currently runs one outlet of his hawker business Seven Claypot in Singapore, along with three more in Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

His aunt has owned the Upper Boon Keng stall since 2004, he told Mothership.

When he suggested recently that she let him help her run the business, she agreed. He made some major changes, including revamping the menus, and now stepping up the marketing.

Responding to the comments

Many comments under his video believed that Ezam owns the Rolls-Royce, and expressed respect for him.

However, Ezam said he had also seen less positive comments where people questioned the car's ties to the money laundering case.

He underscored that his former boss, whom he worked with before venturing into the food industry, had bought the car legally.

"I don’t see any problem with it... As long as it is acquired legally, then I’m good," he said.

Apart from speculating about the origins of the Rolls-Royce, commenters also pointed out that Ezam parked at an accessible parking spot in the video even though he appeared able-bodied.

A comment under his video defended him, guessing that Ezam had decided to park at an accessible space as it would give him more space to capture the car fully in the video.

The user added that Ezam likely moved the car quickly after that frame was shot, and Ezam replied to say that he was in the spot for less than 15 seconds.

Regardless of how the response skewed, the video brought significant attention to Ezam's hawker stall.

"After the video went viral, the business went up," he said. "People have come from far just to catch a glimpse of the car. Some even asked permission to take a picture of it."

Given the success, he and his friends plan to make another promotional video for the stall, featuring not only the Rolls-Royce Phantom but also some of his friend’s supercars.

Related stories