The Certificate of Entitlement (COE) Category A premium for smaller cars rose S$2,003 to S$132,004 in the bidding exercise that closed on Oct. 21, 2026.

This puts Cat A premiums above Cat B premiums, which is for larger cars.

Cat B, for bigger and more powerful cars, rose S$1,801 to S$131,901.

This is S$103 below Cat A.

"We note that there is an upcoming car exhibition which may lead to elevated demand and COE prices during this period," the Land Transport Authority (LTA) said in a statement.

"We urge car buyers and dealers to be prudent in bidding for COEs," the authority said.

The Cat A premium is now S$1,005 below the record S$133,009 set on Sep. 9.

Cat A premiums previously closed above Cat B once in February, in April and in June.

Other categories

Only the motorcycle and Open category premiums fell.

Cat C, for goods vehicles and buses, rose S$311 to S$92,200.

Cat D, for motorcycles, fell S$234 to S$10,778.

The Open category, which can be used for any vehicle except a motorcycle, fell S$1,210 to S$135,790.

When a mother in Singapore passed away, her will bequeathed her estate to two sons and two granddaughters, leaving two of her other sons out of her inheritance.

After the brothers' relations grew strained due to their exclusion from the inheritance, their uncle proposed that the sons included in the will use the proceeds of a property sale left by their mother to give S$300,000 to each of the brothers.

Though they signed a handwritten agreement, and sold the property — a semi-detached house at Eng Kong Road — for S$5 million, one of the sons included in the will refused to allow the sum of S$600,000 to be withdrawn and distributed to his other two brothers.

This prompted the other son to take him to court and compel him to pay his brothers.

On Oct. 19, the judge found that the handwritten agreement was legally binding, and ordered the man to honour his payments.

The two brothers had several other financial and legal disputes which were also addressed in court.

Backstory

The mother, according to an Oct. 19 judgement, died in December 2012 and left behind several properties and monies.

Her four surviving sons were the claimant — David Chan Yip Tong, the defendant, Franklin Chan Yip Tong, and their two other brothers, Jack Chan Yip Tong and George Chan Yip Tong. 

One son, Oliver Peter Yip Tong had died before her.

David and Franklin were named as the executors of her estate, which was to be bequeathed to David, Franklin, Oliver's daughter, and George's daughter.

Three properties were to be inherited:

• The Eng Kong Road house, to be divided equally,
• A retail property at Far East Shopping Centre to be divided by the two sons and Peter's daughter, and
• A condominium unit at Hindhede Walk to be shared by the two granddaughters.

Relations between the brothers soon became strained, especially because Jack and George were left with nothing.

Their uncle, Tam Sook, then flew from Mauritius to Singapore in June 2018 to help mediate.

After he proposed that David and Franklin should use the proceeds from the Eng Kong Road property sale to give S$300,000 each to their brothers, the two agreed orally.

However, the sum was never transferred.

Franklin claimed that in their oral agreement, one of the conditions agreed upon was that the house would have to be sold by Sept. 30 2018, and since the house was not sold by then, the agreement was superseded.

David, on the other hand, disagreed that it was a condition, arguing that it was a target date by which they would attempt to pay George and Jack.

Sold

In September 2021, Franklin told David that there was a offer to buy the house for S$5 million. As David was a co-owner of the property, his signature was needed in order to facilitate the sale.

When Franklin met David to procure his signature, David told him that he would not authorise the Option to Purchase (OTP) unless Franklin agreed to sign an agreement to give the S$600,000 sum to their other two brothers.

This agitated Franklin, and the two began to quarrel. However, Franklin later relented, and both brothers signed the agreement.

However, the next day, Franklin sent David a text message:

"This is my stance and I declare this note was not created by me, I reject and disagree totally with this note. I was signed under duress with your unknow (sic) hidden ulterior motive. Sorry"

David retorted that he would then consider the OTP to be invalid.

Nevertheless, the property was ultimately sold in April 2022, with the proceeds split between David and Franklin.

Yet the S$600,000 was still not distributed to their brothers.

The two had placed the sum in a joint account that needed authorisation from both parties to make any withdrawals.

David refused to let Franklin withdraw any amount, stating that the money was payable to their brothers.

On the other hand, Franklin claimed that the handwritten agreement was invalid due to lack of consideration and economic duress and/or unconscionability.

Judge weighs in

The judge found that the agreement was valid and that Franklin was obliged to honour it.

Franklin first argued that David had stipulated a set of stringent concessions from the buyer, and since Franklin was the property agent facilitating the sale, the two brothers agreed that David would sign the OTP in exchange for Franklin getting the buyer to agree to his onerous demands.

This meant that David would have committed himself to signing the OTP.

However, text messages revealed that he was non-committal to the sale, telling Franklin, "We shall see the market then."

Furthermore, Franklin claimed that he bought a HDB flat around that time, and since private property owners were not allowed to concurrently own a HDB flat, he needed to divest himself of the Eng Kong Road house, and that David knowingly used this to mount pressure on him.

But more text messages revealed that he told David he was actively considering buying another condominium at the time.

The judge thus struck down Franklin's arguments that he signed the handwritten agreement and made the sale under duress.

His opinion was that it was "obvious" that Franklin was "bent on making a killing from the sale".

Namely, the buyer had offered a price of S$5 million, more than 10 per cent above the bank's valuation of S$4.5 million.

Text messages revealed that when Franklin told David that they found a "windfall offer", the latter replied that he first wanted the payments to their two brothers to be addressed.

Exasperated, Franklin complained that he finally found a "sucker" willing to pay S$5 million, and questioned why David was so reticent.

As such, the judge rejected Franklin's arguments and ordered him to pay the full S$600,000 to George and Jack.

"The defendant should not be allowed to now raise the doctrine of economic duress to wriggle out of keeping to his word," the judge said.

Other issues

Aside from the sum to be paid to their brothers, the judge also settled several issues between David and Franklin arising from the inheritance.

David successfully claimed S$39,300 in unpaid rent and rental proceeds from Franklin for the Eng Kong House road.

Franklin had previously stayed at the property in exchange for rent, followed by another tenant that Franklin found.

The judge also dismissed several claims by Franklin regarding "excess rent" and property tax.

He also ordered that David furnish an account of a blue attaché case containing valuables belonging to their mother.

A rubbish truck caught fire at the junction of Bedok Reservoir Road and Bedok Reservoir View on Oct. 20.

Photos and a video shared on social media showed a pile of rubbish on the road, with firefighters spraying water on it.

Rubbish on the road

According to a Facebook post by SG Road Vigilante (SGRV), cardboard inside the rubbish truck had caught fire, prompting its contents to be unloaded onto the road.

A photo shared by SG Road Vigilante (SGRV) showed a pile of rubbish on the road, with an SCDF vehicle at the scene and a jet of water directed at the rubbish.

A video shared by Singapore Incidents also showed firefighters spraying water on the pile of rubbish on the road.

No injuries reported

In response to Mothership's queries, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) said it was alerted to the fire at about 12:40pm on Oct. 20.

"The fire involved the contents of a rubbish truck," SCDF said. "SCDF extinguished the fire using two water jets."

There were no reported injuries and the cause of the fire is under investigation.

Netizens react

The incident also drew some humourous comments online.

"Like after eat mala, then suddenly laosai (diarrhea) on the road," one Facebook user commented.

Another joked: "Truck bit into a Mala powerbank."

After drinking three glasses of whisky on ice, a 35-year-old Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officer drove home and crashed his car into a concrete barrier at a slip road into Loyang Avenue.

Ken Ong then walked home and returned with his father-in-law, and claimed he drank three cans of beer at home to the officer at the scene.

He was arrested after failing a breathalyser test and later admitted to drinking alcohol before driving.

Ong pleaded guilty to four charges, including drink driving, driving without due care and attention, and two counts of giving a public servant information which he knew to be false.

At the time of the incident, he held the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police at ICA, according to court documents seen by Mothership.

Drink driving

On Jun. 14, 2025, Ong drank three glasses of whisky on ice at Prinsep Street between 12am and 2am.

He attempted to arrange for a valet driver, but was unsuccessful and subsequently decided to drive himself home to Pasir Ris.

Ong later lost control of his car and collided with a concrete barrier along Tampines Expressway (TPE) towards Seletar Expressway (SLE), at the slip road into Loyang Avenue.

He decided to walk home from there and asked his father-in-law to accompany him back to the collision.

When they returned at about 4:30am, they found that a police officer was at the scene.

The police officer had spotted Ong’s car slanted diagonally across two lanes at about 3:50am.

Upon inspection, he found that the car was deserted and damaged in the front.

Ong identified himself as the owner of the car to the officer and claimed that he had not drunk alcohol before driving.

According to court documents, he told the police officer that he was driving his car until it stopped at the incident location and became stationary.

He also said he walked home and drank three cans of beer before returning, and that any damage that the car had was old.

The police officer administered a breathalyser test, which Ong failed.

He was arrested for drink driving and brought to the Traffic Police headquarters.

There, Ong underwent a Breath Analysing Device (BAD) test at about 7:38am.

The test revealed that the proportion of alcohol in his breath was 76μg of alcohol in every 100ml of breath. The prescribed limit is 35μg of alcohol per 100ml of breath.

Expended resources

At about 11:10am on the same day, a police senior staff sergeant obtained a statement from Ong.

Ong admitted to drinking alcohol before he drove, but maintained that he also drank two or three cans of beer at home.

The traffic police subsequently expended resources for further investigations.

On Jun. 19, 2026, Ong admitted to the police that he had drunk alcohol before he drove, and not after.

Investigations revealed that Ong failed to have proper control of his car, resulting in a collision with a concrete barrier on the left side of the road.

Ong's sentencing date is scheduled for Oct. 22.

Singapore's Prime Minister Lawrence Wong called his official visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) "an opportunity" to strengthen ties between Singapore and the UAE "amid growing global uncertainty".

In Facebook posts on Oct. 21, he added that it is also an opportunity to "explore new areas of cooperation".

"The UAE is a longstanding partner of Singapore," said PM Wong, who arrived in Abu Dhabi on Oct. 20 for his first official visit to the UAE as Prime Minister.

He is doing so the invitation of Mohamed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the UAE.

Prepare for future

On Oct. 21, PM Wong said he was glad to catch up with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled Bin Mohamed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, whom he had previously hosted in Singapore in 2024.

Both had met again on the sidelines of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 2025, he noted, adding that it was good to reconnect in Abu Dhabi.

"We exchanged views on how our countries can prepare for the future, while staying rooted in our heritage and values, and keeping the well-being of our people at the heart of what we do," said PM Wong.

Areas of interest in both countries

PM Wong's visit also marked a fruitful discussion with UAE business leaders, hosted by Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, Chairman of Abu Dhabi’s Executive Affairs Authority and Group CEO of Mubadala.

He noted that the UAE has "considerable strengths in energy — not just oil and gas, but also renewables and nuclear power".

"It is also investing heavily in new capabilities, particularly in AI and defence technologies," he said.

PM Wong pointed out that "these are areas of interest to Singapore too, and there is much scope for us to deepen cooperation".

"Beyond government-to-government partnerships, we can do more to connect our businesses and investors, explore new opportunities, and build on each other's strengths," he said,

He added: "We share many priorities, and there is much we can learn from each other's experiences and approaches."

"I look forward to building on our friendship and deepening our cooperation in the years ahead!"

Official visits

This is part of PM Wong's official visits to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from Oct. 18 to 22.

He had earlier visited Qatar from Oct. 18 to 20, where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) announced in an Oct. 19 statement that Singapore and Qatar plan to upgrade their bilateral ties to a Strategic Partnership.

Both countries had agreed to work towards elevating relations in a meeting on the same day with both countries' ministers and senior officials in attendance.

An Anytime Fitness member is disputing a S$65 “tailgating” charge he received after a man apparently followed him into the gym at Tampines Grande.

In a Xiaohongshu post, the gym member said he had tapped into the premises and the stranger tailed him to get in.

He subsequently shared screenshots of what appeared to be a WhatsApp exchange with a person representing Anytime Fitness Tampines Grande.

Did not know the man

In the screenshots, the outlet told the gym member that CCTV footage on Oct. 8 showed a person entering the gym without separately tapping a key fob.

The gym member was asked if he knew the person who had followed him into the premises.

The message also included what appeared to be an image from surveillance footage showing a man in a red t-shirt entering the gym after the gym member went in.

The gym member replied that he did not know the person behind him, adding that he usually visited the gym alone and that the outlet could check his previous access records.

The gym member was then told:

“Please note that allowing someone to enter without tapping in separately is considered tailgating, regardless of whether you know the person.”

He was also told that tailgating carried a S$65 fee, referring to a notice at the entrance.

In a subsequent message, the gym acknowledged that the member might not have intentionally let the other person in.

However, it said members were expected to ensure the door closed securely behind them to prevent unauthorised access.

According to the screenshots, the member was given 48 hours to settle the charge.

‘Not your security personnel’

The gym member disputed the charge, saying he had neither invited nor intentionally allowed the stranger to enter.

In his reply to the outlet, he said: “I am a paying member of Anytime Fitness, not your security personnel.”

He also questioned how was he supposed to know whether a stranger behind him had tapped in and argued that he should not automatically be held responsible for another person’s actions.

The gym member also asked for the matter to be escalated to management.

In his Xiaohongshu post, he said he had been a long-time member of Anytime Fitness and was disappointed with how the issue had been handled.

Lodged police report and contacted CASE

In an update on Oct. 14, the gym member said he had yet to receive a further response or explanation from Anytime Fitness.

He also said he had lodged a police report and contacted the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

Similar case in 2023

In August 2023, a man was charged S$60 after another person allegedly entered an Anytime Fitness outlet in Bugis behind him without tapping a key fob.

The man disputed the fee, saying he had not noticed the woman entering behind him.

In a follow-up TikTok video, he shared screenshots of his gym membership's terms and conditions, which stated that members could be charged a guest fee if they allowed someone else to use their key fob.

However, a separate clause in his membership acceptance letter stated that members could be charged S$30 if someone else used their key fob.

The man questioned the difference between the S$30 fee stated in his letter and the S$60 he was charged, claiming he had not been informed of the increase.

He eventually paid the S$60 fee after being told he could be barred from all Anytime Fitness outlets if he failed to do so.

Mothership has reached out to Anytime Fitness for comment.

A Malaysian mother's final conversation with her eldest daughter lasted just 17 seconds.

The 19-year-old teen and her younger sister, 14, died in a house fire in Kampung Koh, Sitiawan, Perak, on Oct. 16.

The victims were identified as Kiong Lee Yi, 19, and Kiong Bao Yi, 14, according to Malaysian news outlet Sinar Harian.

Their parents had gone out for breakfast that morning and returned shortly before 9am to find their house engulfed in flames.

Final phone call lasted 17 seconds

According to Oriental Daily, the sisters' mother, Lim Siew Lee, received a call from her eldest daughter while both girls were trapped inside the house.

Lee Yi told her mother that the house was on fire.

Lim urged her to escape with her younger sister, but the call ended after just 17 seconds.

She said she was unsure whether her daughter had heard her instructions before the line went silent.

"The last time I heard my daughter’s voice was only 17 seconds. I will never hear her voice again."

Lim subsequently tried calling her daughter several times but couldn't get through.

Family tried to enter burning house

Speaking to Sinar Harian, the sisters' 50-year-old father, identified as Kiong, said he and his wife tried to enter their home after discovering the fire.

However, the intense heat and flames prevented them from getting inside.

According to Oriental Daily, Kiong also attempted to force open a wooden door at the back of the house.

He said the wooden door at the back of the house could normally be opened by pushing against it, but he was unable to open it that day.

The girls' uncle, who also lived at the property, rushed home from work after learning about the fire.

He also tried to enter the house to rescue his nieces but was unsuccessful, suffering burns to several parts of his body in the process.

Fire brought under control at 10:30am

According to Bernama, the Perak Fire and Rescue Department received an emergency call at 9:01am.

Firefighters from Sitiawan and Seri Manjung, alongside the Pantai Remis Volunteer Fire Brigade, arrived at the scene at 9:10am.

Perak Fire and Rescue Department director Sayani Saidon said the fire affected two adjoining double-storey houses, which were almost 90 per cent destroyed.

The blaze also destroyed three cars and a motorcycle. It is currently unknown as to how the fire started.

Firefighters brought the fire under control at around 10:30am.

The sisters were found in different parts of the house, with one on the upper floor and the other downstairs, Sinar Harian reported.

A 19-year-old male is assisting with investigations after officers at Pasir Panjang Scanning Station intercepted an inbound cargo container filled with an assortment of controlled weapons and ammunition.

The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) posted a video on its Facebook page on Oct. 21, showing the foiled attempt.

The container was referred for further checks based on information from ICA’s Integrated Targeting Centre (ITC).

An image analyst noticed anomalies in the scanned images and sent the container for enhanced checks.

A total of six packets and a bottle of BB pellets, 40 packets of 72 caps and five units of replica guns were uncovered.

Investigations

After the case was referred to the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the 19-year-old is assisting with investigations for an offence under the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act 2021, ICA said.

ICA said they remain committed to facilitating trade and travel while keeping Singapore’s borders safe and secure.

A resale five-room flat at City View @ Boon Keng sold for S$1.64 million in October 2026.

The transaction set a record resale price for a flat of this type in the Kallang/Whampoa area.

The 1,259 sq ft unit at Block 9 Boon Keng Road is between the 34th and 36th floors, according to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) website for checking resale flat prices.

It is part of a Design, Build, Sell Scheme (DBSS) project.

DBSS projects are built by private developers.

The S$1,302 psf price is the highest recorded for any five-room resale flat in the area.

Previous record resale price

The previous record resale price in the area involved a 1,249 sq ft premium apartment unit at Block 8A Upper Boon Keng Road.

The Kallang Trivista estate flat sold for S$1.588 million (S$1,273 psf) in September 2026.

83 years left on lease

City View @ Boon Keng entered the resale market in 2016.

It was built in 2011.

There is about 83 years left on its lease.

There are 714 units in three 40-storey residential blocks at City View @ Boon Keng.

They comprise a mix of three- to five-room flats, which range from 731 sq ft to 1,280 sq ft.

Block 9 contains 238 units: 158 five-room units, alongside 56 four-room flats, and 24 three-room flats.

The last record resale price for a flat at City View @ Boon Keng was S$1.54 million set in September 2025.

The area is about a 10-minute drive away from Orchard Road.

HDB flats with very high resale prices 'a minority'

In an April 2026 parliamentary reply, the Ministry of National Development (MND) said about 6 per cent of resale flats transacted above S$1 million in 2025.

Based on the flash estimate for the first quarter of 2026, resale prices declined slightly by 0.1 per cent.

MND added that the resale market continues to provide a wide range of flats at different price points, catering to different budgets and needs.

In 2025, there were four-room resale flats with leases of 70 years or longer in Tampines and Punggol going for around S$650,000 to S$700,000.

In Sembawang and Yishun, such flats were available below S$600,000, MND added, while in Jurong West and Woodlands, there were options below S$550,000.

Eligible first-time resale buyers can get housing grants of up to S$230,000, further reducing the amounts they need to pay, MND said.

Previously, at a media briefing on Aug. 20, 2024, then-National Development Minister Desmond Lee shared that HDB flats with very high resale prices make up "a very small proportion of all transactions", even though record HDB resale prices have frequently made headlines.

Lee added at the time that such transactions made up only 0.5 per cent of all four-room or smaller flats transacted in the last two years, are very central, and are well served by transport connectivity and comprehensive amenities.

Lee noted that more than half of them are also located on very high floors, above 30 storeys, and have good views.

However, they have caused Singaporeans to be concerned about "the affordability of resale flats as a whole":

"Flat sellers who are reading such news raise their expectations about how much the flat could bring, while flat buyers become anxious to secure flats before prices get higher.

If we are not careful, such market dynamics can cause the resale market to run out of line with economic fundamentals and cause a bubble."

Lee also noted then that flats that cross the million-dollar mark made up about 2 per cent of all resale transactions over the last 1.5 years at the time.

A 23-year-old influencer allegedly involved in prostitution and drugs was arrested after her mother-in-law reported her to the police.

The mother-in-law had been worried for her three grandchildren as their mother would allegedly consume drugs in front of them.

She held a press conference on Oct. 18 to expose her, hoping that her grandchildren’s future would not be affected by their parents’ behaviour.

Pregnant

The influencer became pregnant with her first child in 2020, when she was 17. She married her husband and had two more children.

She has three sons aged six, five, and two, according to Sin Chew.

Her mother-in-law, Huang Ling Wei, alleged that sometime in 2024, the influencer had hidden drugs in a candy box, which her son found and consumed.

The boy suffered from seizures and foamed at the mouth.

His parents took him to the hospital, but refused to disclose what he had ingested until the blood report came in two hours later.

The hospital found drugs in the child’s system after the blood test.

He spent four days in intensive care and eventually recovered from the incident after two to three weeks of hospitalisation, Oriental Daily reported.

In another incident, the influencer was filmed using an e-vaporiser in the presence of their children.

They suffered from breathing difficulties, insomnia, and headaches as a result of breathing in secondhand toxic fumes.

Huang said that the Social Welfare Department subsequently intervened and issued an injunction prohibiting the influencer from having unsupervised contact with her children.

Huang’s son was also arrested and jailed for drug and child abuse.

Huang and her eldest daughter subsequently took custody of the children.

Drugs and explicit photos

Huang suspected that the influencer had taken to various platforms to sell drugs, prostitution services, and explicit photos.

Huang said the school later learned through other channels that her daughter-in-law had publicly admitted on social media to taking drugs and engaging in prostitution, and contacted her about it.

Between June and August 2026, Huang said that her family was harassed and locked in their house on three separate occasions, trapping her family inside.

She suspects these incidents to be related to the influencer’s debts and drug-related disputes, Oriental Daily reported.

In September, the influencer forced her way into the house and took a photo with one of her sons, using it to build up an image as a good mother, Huang claimed.

Gathers evidence for police reports

Huang said that she had attempted to report her daughter-in-law to the police multiple times, but had not been arrested, citing insufficient evidence.

She subsequently resorted to secretly purchasing the influencer’s drugs and explicit content and made another report against the influencer.

Following investigations, the police arrested the influencer at a residence in Maluri, Kepong.

On Oct. 18, Huang held a press conference and exposed her daughter-in-law’s actions, hoping to protect her grandchildren.