A 67-year-old Singaporean woman was hit by a bus and trapped under it while holidaying with her family in Taiwan on Sep. 16.

According to Focus Taiwan, she was using a crosswalk on a road in Taichung when the accident happened.

Images on social media showed a woman lying face down underneath the bus and adjacent to its front left tire.

Emergency personnel tended to her.

Local authorities said she was seriously injured in the accident, suffering a pelvic fracture, open fractures to her right upper arm and left lower limb, and was in a state of cardiac arrest.

Her vital signs were restored while en route to China Medical University Hospital, where she remains under treatment.

LTN reported that the woman was in Taiwan with her family of nine, including her daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter.

The 45-year-old bus driver has tested negative for alcohol and drugs.

He was reportedly behind the wheel for just over five hours that day.

According to The Straits Times,  the driver claimed to have done all the necessary checks before making the turn.

He apparently only realised he had hit the woman after he heard screams from people around.

A witness told local media that the bus had been moving very slowly.

With his country battling its most intense wildfires in over a decade, Indonesia's forestry ​minister Raja Juli Antoni warned that the blazes could continue until early November 2026.

According to Reuters, this is due to the likely late arrival of the rainy season.

Efforts to contain seasonal fire outbreaks have been complicated by El Niño-linked dry weather.

Borneo and Sumatra, in particular, have felt the brunt of the conditions with fires raging on both islands over the past weeks.

Raja Juli also urged "individuals, farmers, and corporations alike to refrain from using fire during this very strong El Niño period".

Transboundary haze

Fires in Indonesia are behind the transboundary haze experienced in Singapore and Malaysia.

On Sep. 16, the National Environment Agency updated its haze outlook, writing that many air quality stations in Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, West Kalimantan, and Central Kalimantan are reporting unhealthy to hazardous levels.

At the time of writing, Singapore's 24-hour air quality forecast was stated as "moderate" to "low unhealthy".

Malaysia's deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who will be in Jakarta from Sep. 17 to 20, said he would officially raise the transboundary haze issue.

"Diplomatic measures must be pursued alongside technical efforts involving officials from neighbouring countries and Malaysian states," he said, according to Reuters.

The woman who hacked her adoptive father to death in their Sengkang flat in 2022 has lost her appeal against her 18-year jail sentence.

Tan Qiu Yan, 35, sought a lighter sentence of 12 to 15 years instead.

She argued her motive for the attack was because her father had wanted to kill her.

According to CNA, the Court of Appeal rejected this claim, pointing out that she had not previously brought it up.

When Tan was sentenced on Jul. 14, 2025, it was found that she suffered from a delusional disorder and believed her father, 67-year-old Tan Ah Bang, would kick her out of their flat and leave her homeless.

The court has since upheld that her core motivation was a belief that the older man was preventing her from owning a flat promised to her by her adoptive mother, who died months before the killing.

A judge added that after buying a chopper, Tan was able to delay her decision to kill her father for two months, proving she was able to control her actions, reported CNA.

2022 killing

Background

According to court documents seen by Mothership, Tan was adopted by Koh Li Hua and Tan Ah Bang, when she was less than a year old.

Before Koh died of lung cancer on Aug. 29, 2022, she promised her daughter, then 31, that she would leave her share of the flat to her.

Arguments between father and daughter soon began, including during Koh's wake, when Tan and her father quarrelled over financial assets multiple times.

On one occasion, Ah Bang got angry and told his daughter that she had to move out.

She retorted that her mother had left the flat to her and began to cry.

Ah Bang relented, and promised his daughter that he would transfer the whole house to her.

Housing dispute

The younger Tan did not trust her father and came to believe he would chase her out of the house so he could have the whole house to himself.

On Sep. 4, 2022, a few days after the funeral, she purchased the biggest chopper she could find from the FairPrice outlet at Nex.

She intended to use the 18cm-long weapon to kill her father if he did not keep his promise.

After the funeral ended, Ah Bang made an appointment with his lawyers to settle matters pertaining to Koh's estate.

They subsequently realised that Ah Bang had automatically become the sole owner of the flat.

On Nov. 2, 2022, Tan asked her father when he was free to go to the Housing and Development Board office to add her as a co-owner.

But he demurred, and they began to quarrel.

Ah Bang scolded her for not telling him she'd received her mother's Central Provident Fund monies, and for going to check on the status of Koh's investment.

He also chided her for meddling with household matters, and for stopping him from throwing Koh's belongings away.

In the midst of the argument, Ah Bang said he would not leave her the flat after his death, threatening to donate it instead.

At that moment, Tan considered killing her father with a pair of scissors on the table.

She decided against it as she did not think they would be sharp enough, but continued to contemplate his death.

She also considered merely injuring him, to scare him into transferring ownership of the flat to her.

But she dismissed this in the end, as she believed she would be sent to prison, while Ah Bang would still get to keep the flat.

After lunch the next day, she began to practise using the chopper.

She also tested its sharpness on a banana.

Killing

Tan decided to give her father "one last chance".

On the afternoon of Nov. 3, 2022, she went to the bathroom, where he was scrubbing her work uniforms.

She asked if he would share ownership of the flat 50-50 with her but he refused and told her not to bring up the matter anymore.

Tan then decided to kill him, plotting to catch him by surprise in the common toilet.

After dinner that evening, she waited for him to take a shower.

The moment he opened the door, Tan swung the chopper at his neck.

He tried to say something to her, but she ignored him.

Over the next 10 minutes, she hacked at his neck at least 45 to 50 times.

She continued to hack at him even after he fell backwards and became motionless.

By the end of her onslaught, the chopper had become blunt, and the blade was chipped.

After murdering her father, Tan cleaned up the mess and changed into new clothes as she was covered in blood.

She also watched anime and looked through photos of herself as a child with her parents before finally calling the police.

"My father passed away at home. Can police come please," she said over the phone.

Appeal

Tan pleaded guilty in July 2025 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

She was then sentenced to 18 years' jail, with the judge calling the killing a "shocking and brutal act of violence" against her adoptive father.

According to CNA, Tan submitted a letter of appeal arguing against the judge's claim that her father doted on her as he cooked for and washed her clothes.

These were "not the truth", she said.

She also wrote that she had hoped to have a "happy ending" by becoming closer to her father after her mother's death, but this did not happen as he loved money instead of his family.

The Public Defender's Office sought a lower sentence of 12 to 15 years, reflecting a higher degree of mental impairment.

He argued that Tan had interpreted her father's kindness right before the killing as his treating her well before killing her.

She also believed he had wanted to kill her to keep the disputed assets, the lawyer claimed.

However, the Deputy Public Prosecutors called for the judge to uphold the 18-year sentence as a reflection of her culpability and decision to take her father's life, despite the case being a tragic one.

There was also nothing wrong in principle with the sentence, they said.

A 90-year-old man, who sought spousal maintenance from his 89-year-old former wife, has had his claim rejected by a family court in Singapore, with the judge noting that both of them are in "the twilight of their lives".

In a judgement published on Sep. 16, the judge said both parties would receive substantial sums following the division of their matrimonial assets, with the man set to receive about S$2.4 million.

The sum was "more than sufficient to meet the needs of a 90-year-old retiree for the remainder of his life", the judge said.

Assets in matrimonial pool

The couple had been married for more than 64 years and have three children.

They were granted an interim judgement for divorce in September 2024, and there were no issues of custody or child maintenance since their children are all aged 60 and above.

The couple’s only jointly owned asset was their matrimonial home, valued at about S$5.8 million.

Assets held in the man's name and included in the matrimonial pool were valued at about S$14,500, largely comprising his Central Provident Fund savings.

About S$80,000 in assets belonging to the ex-wife were also included in the pool, including almost S$20,000 in CPF savings.

The ex-wife claimed that she had contributed entirely to the purchase of the matrimonial home.

She said she had previously bought a property under the Teacher's Estate housing scheme, and that the proceeds from its sale were used to purchase the couple's matrimonial home.

The man disputed this, arguing that he had contributed towards both properties.

As such, he sought an equal division of all the matrimonial assets.

The judge noted, however, that neither party’s account was supported by documentary evidence.

Ex-wife argued that she was the main provider

The ex-wife sought an 80:20 division of the matrimonial assets in her favour, arguing that she had borne virtually all the family’s financial and non-financial responsibilities throughout the marriage.

She said that during the first 32 years of the marriage, she was the main financial provider.

Among other things, she paid for a domestic helper to care for the children, and also paid for their tuition, courses, weddings, and family holidays.

She also gave their son S$50,000 to start a business, which later failed, she said.

She added that following her retirement in 1992, she funded the household from a monthly pension of about S$2,400, half of which she gave to her ex-husband.

The ex-wife also said she was the children’s primary caregiver.

Her responsibilities included cooking for the family, engaging and supervising domestic helpers, managing the household, paying her son’s medical bills, and organising outings and meals for the children and her ex-husband’s extended family.

The ex-husband sought an equal or near-equal division based on their indirect contributions.

He said that until their retirement, the couple had pooled their incomes in joint accounts.

After retirement, household expenses were paid from their pooled savings and subsequently from joint accounts the ex-wife held with their son and eldest daughter.

He also said he had done his "fair share" in caring for and bringing up the children.

Ex-husband "does no more than assert in general terms that he did his fair share"

The judge said the parties’ indirect financial contributions during the first half of their marriage were difficult to determine because of their differing accounts and the lack of objective evidence.

However, the position was clearer for the second half of the marriage, after both parties had retired, the judge said.

It was undisputed that the ex-husband had no income other than a monthly annuity of S$485.75 from insurer NTUC Income.

The ex-wife's monthly pension of about S$2,400 was the couple’s only other income stream, and she gave half of it to her ex-husband.

The ex-wife also produced records showing that she had paid the property tax bills up to 2024, as well as household bills she continued to pay herself.

On indirect non-financial contributions, the judge found that the ex-wife had made the greater contribution.

She provided detailed evidence of her role as the children’s primary caregiver from birth.

Even while working, she helped them with their homework and managed their schooling and activities.

She also ran the household, cooked for the family, organised gatherings, and trained and supervised the domestic helpers they employed.

"The husband, on the other hand, does no more than assert in general terms that he did his fair share," said the judge. "He descends to no particulars of caring for the children, their schooling, their health or their emotional needs."

The judge also noted that the husband did not dispute most of the ex-wife's account of what she had done for the family, nor provide a competing account of his own contributions.

He assessed the parties’ indirect contributions at 70:30 in favour of the ex-wife.

Ex-husband illegally excluded her from the matrimonial home

The ex-wife also alleged that her former husband had illegally excluded her from the matrimonial home from March 2025 by placing a padlock on the gate.

On this basis, she sought a 2 per cent increase in her share of the matrimonial assets.

However, the ex-husband argued that his ex-wife and their eldest daughter had moved out of their own accord.

The judge noted that the allegation of illegal exclusion was raised for the first time in written submissions.

He also considered that both parties would receive substantial sums from the matrimonial pool regardless.

As such, he declined to increase the ex-wife's share.

Division of assets at 60:40

Taking into account the parties’ direct and indirect contributions, the overall division was assessed at 60:40 in favour of the ex-wife.

The ex-wife was awarded about S$3.5 million, while the ex-husband was to receive about S$2.4 million.

The ex-husband subsequently sought maintenance as an incapacitated former husband under the Women’s Charter.

He cited his medical and mobility issues, inability to earn a livelihood, minimal income and the fact that the ex-wife had left the matrimonial home, leaving him to meet its expenses alone.

Alternatively, he sought a 5 to 10 per cent increase in his share of the matrimonial assets as a lump sum in lieu of spousal maintenance.

The judge rejected both requests.

He said both parties were "in the twilight of their lives", with neither having any earning capacity or realistic expectation of improving their financial position through employment.

He noted that the pair relied on monthly pensions or other payouts as their sources of income, and both would receive substantial sums from the matrimonial pool.

"The husband alone will take more than S$2,000,000 from the matrimonial pool," said the judge. "That is a sum more than sufficient to meet the needs of a 90-year-old retiree for the remainder of his life."

As such, he found that an order for maintenance against the ex-wife, who was a retiree living on a pension, would not be just or necessary.

Both parties to bear their own costs

The ex-husband also sought reimbursement from the ex-wife's share for property tax he had paid for the 2025 and 2026 years of assessment.

He argued that she had paid nothing towards the property tax after moving out in March 2025.

The judge rejected the argument that the ex-husband should bear the full tax simply because he lived in the property, or that the ex-wife should bear it because she had moved out.

The couple continued to own the matrimonial home as tenants-in-common in equal shares even after the ex-wife moved out, he noted.

The property tax for the 2025 and 2026 years of assessment would therefore be borne equally by both parties, he said.

The judge also ordered that each party bear their own legal costs for the ancillary matters.

The matrimonial home is to be sold on the open market within six months, with both parties having joint conduct of the sale.

The Singapore police will be charging a 44-year-old man for his involvement in a case of vandalism that took place at Police Cantonment Complex.

On Sep. 15, 2026 at about 10:55pm, the police were alerted to a case of vandalism at Police Cantonment Complex.

A man had allegedly thrown a rock weighing almost half a kilogram at the glass door of its main entrance.

The man was immediately arrested at the scene by responding officers.

Preliminary investigations revealed that the man, who was believed to be intoxicated, had thrown the same rock twice, causing the glass door to shatter.

The rock was seized as a case exhibit.

The man will be charged in court on Sep. 17 with the offence of vandalism.

The offence carries a fine of up to S$2,000 or up to three years' jail, as well as three to eight strokes of the cane.

One woman in Singapore believes she has "swiped to the end of the stacks" on dating apps and is now asking TikTok to find her a husband instead.

32-year-old Dionis Liaw laid out her case in a video posted under the handle @dionislovespink.

"I have officially run out of men in Singapore on dating apps"

In the video, Liaw said she had been actively dating since March.

In her search for the 'one', she has paid for premium subscriptions on a multitude of dating applications like Coffee Meets Bagel, Hinge, Bumble, Facebook Dating and Matchcatch, spending over S$1,000.

"I have officially run out of men in Singapore on dating apps," she lamented.

She added: "I'm outsourcing my husband's search to TikTok now. TikTok, you find me one then."

@dionislovespink I spent $1,000+ on dating app premium, swiped to the end of the stacks… so fine, TikTok you find me one then 😭😂 I literally only need ONE. If you’re genuinely single, marriage-minded, want kids and think we might actually be compatible — form is in my bio 💀 If not, send this to your suspiciously eligible single friend pls 😂 #DatingInSingapore #SingaporeTikTok #FindMeAHusband #DatingApps #dionislovespink ♬ original sound - Dionislovespink - Dionis 🐈‍⬛🐈💕

Frustration and challenges

Although her decision to film a TikTok video was spontaneous, she said that the "frustration... had been building for months".

She explained that the challenge with dating apps was not a "shortage of people", but finding someone whose life goals and lifestyle aligned with hers.

She said:

"You can match because you find each other attractive and have chemistry, then only later discover that one person doesn't want children, doesn't want marriage, has a completely different communication style or sees relationships very differently."

She emphasised that she is "quite intentional about dating", and said she would rather ascertain if there is compatibility early on, as opposed to "spending months dating someone only to discover that we want completely different futures".

As such, since her "dating app judgement had clearly failed [her]", Liaw has resorted to creating a matchmaking form.

"The execution is a bit ridiculous, but the intention is real," she quipped.

She explained: "No, I'm not choosing a husband on this Jotform, I'm just literally deciding who might be worth one date."

What she is looking for

Liaw described herself as 32, separated, and with no kids.

She is dating to marry and hopes to have two children.

"I know quite clearly what I’m looking for," she told Mothership.

In a partner, she is looking for someone who wants marriage and kids, is financially stable with a "provider mindset, drive, doesn't smoke and likes cats".

She also said she would like someone who "preferably knows how to communicate like a functioning adult".

The form includes about 20 questions, covering basic details, and applicants' thoughts on marriage, kids, and their communication style.

Some of the questions include whether a man is okay dating a separated woman whose divorce is not yet final, when they would ideally want to get married, how they feel about having two children, and how they feel about cats.

The form notes that submissions are private, and that submitting does not guarantee a reply or a date.

79 submissions and counting

Speaking to Mothership, Liaw said she has received about 79 submissions so far, 65 through the original Jotform and another 14 through a newer Tally form.

She said the submissions have been mixed — a number appear to be genuinely serious, while some appear to have been submitted as a joke.

"Some of the answers have made me laugh and some people have taken the application much more seriously than I expected."

"Send this to your suspiciously eligible single friend"

She is still screening potential suitors with a careful eye though.

Liaw reiterated that does not want to meet someone just because they filled in the form, and that there has to be enough compatibility for her to genuinely want to know them.

In her video, she ended off on this note: "TikTok, please find me what S$1,000 worth of dating app premium couldn't."

The video has since passed 125,000 views, far more than she expected.

And her efforts beyond the apps appear to have worked somewhat — Liaw told Mothership she has spoken to several respondents.

In fact, she has a first date lined up already.

Three men who went to a nightclub to drink and sing ended up assaulting another customer after he poured away a drink they had offered.

The 50-year-old victim did not know the three assailants.

Toh Soon Heng, 63, has since pleaded guilty to one count of voluntarily causing hurt on Sep. 16 and was sentenced to eight weeks' jail.

The other two men, Cheng Chee Hiong and Wee Keng Mong James, were previously sentenced to three months' jail and six weeks' jail, respectively.

Prosecutors said this was a prolonged and one-sided group attack fuelled by alcohol, which resulted in moderate harm being caused to the victim.

Victim threw away drink

Toh was drinking with Cheng and Wee, along with some other friends at GG KTV Nite Club on Jul. 30, 2025 at about 6pm, according to court documents seen by Mothership.

They bumped into the victim when he came out of the toilet, and one of them offered him a beer.

He accepted the beer but poured it away, triggering the group to start the assault on him.

About half a minute after the assault started, Toh and Wee exited the KTV room and joined in the assault.

Wee grabbed a pack of tissue paper and hit the victim on his head once, whilst Cheng and Toh punched and kicked the victim multiple times.

Assault continued

The victim eventually fled the pub towards a nearby restaurant.

However, the assault continued on his way to the restaurant.

Wee kicked the victim once on his back, causing him to stumble forward.

Later at the restaurant, Cheng threw a large coconut at the victim, though it missed.

Toh also punched the victim once on his face.

Throughout the altercation in the pub and at the restaurant, the victim did not retaliate, court documents said.

The victim was taken to Changi General Hospital, where he was found to have suffered multiple injuries, mainly on his face and head.

The victim was issued a 34-day medical certificate.

Drinks in drink containers without the Return Right logo are on discount in Singapore.

Some of these drinks are going for as much as 50 per cent off, according to The Straits Times.

Checks by Mothership showed retailers, such as supermarkets, are pricing some of these drinks cheaper by about 30 per cent.

This is done in a bid to clear stock, ST reported, according to retailers interviewed.

However, retailers told ST that they are mindful of not selling discounted inventory all at once in the next two weeks to avoid flooding the market.

BCRS kicks in on Oct. 1

The Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) kicks in fully from Oct. 1, 2026.

All plastic bottles and cans from 150ml to 3 litres cannot be sold, unless they have the 10-cent deposit mark.

Under the scheme, administered by the National Environment Agency (NEA), customers are charged 10 cents extra for each drink purchased.

They can get the 10 cents back when they deposit the used containers into a Return Right machine, which is a reverse vending machine.

Container needs to have deposit mark and barcode

Since Apr. 1, 2026, more than 1,000 machines became operational.

The six-month transition period for producers and retailers to clear old stock ends on Sep. 30.

It will be an offence from Oct. 1 to supply any regulated beverage if the container is not affixed with the BCRS deposit mark and a barcode.

Those found guilty can be fined up to S$10,000 and/ or jailed up to three months.

Non-labelled stock, such as those imported from suppliers overseas, can be amended manually or with a labelling machine.

Through a series of coordinated raids across Singapore, the National Parks Board (NParks) seized 101 wild animals that were illegally kept in residential premises on Sep. 14.

These animals are all non-native species, and include sugar gliders, lizards, newts, pythons, tarantulas, and turtles.

They are also not allowed to be sold, offered for sale, or kept as pets in Singapore, NParks said in a Sep. 16 media release.

Among the seized wildlife, many were in poor health, and 13 were found already dead at the premises.

According to NParks, they might have died due to "poor and unsuitable living conditions" such as insufficient space with lack of ventilation and access to adequate food and water.

The raided residences belong to six people suspected to be involved in the illegal sale and/or possession of wildlife species.

Investigations into these six individuals are ongoing.

Protected & threatened animals

Several of the seized species are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Some are species that may be threatened with extinction if their trade is not regulated. Others are protected under the domestic law of a CITES Party that has requested other Parties' help in controlling trade in it.

They include the Armadillo Girdled Lizard, Axolotl, Ball Python, Blue Beauty Anole, Mount Elliot Leaf-tailed Gecko, Pig-nosed Turtle, Grey Banded Kingsnake and the Rosy Boa.

Kept under poor conditions

NParks highlighted that many of the wildlife seized were discovered to be in poor health conditions.

For example, a leopard gecko was found with a ruptured and infected eye, and did not have the ability to shed its skin fully.

A few other leopard geckos and axolotls were also found to be very lethargic and in poor body condition.

One of these leopard geckos thus had to be euthanised on animal welfare grounds, NParks said.

"These conditions are highly indicative of a long period of time captive under poor conditions," they added.

Care for the remaining wildlife

The remaining seized animals are currently being housed and cared for at NParks' Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation.

They will undergo a mandatory quarantine period as they come from unknown sources and may harbour diseases that can infect other animals and humans, NParks said.

After the quarantine, they will be evaluated to decide if they shall be repatriated or donated to animal establishments such as zoos.

Euthanasia may be considered as a last resort.

Tackling illegal wildlife possession & trade

This was not the first coordinated raid by NParks to combat the illegal sale and possession of wildlife.

A similar operation was conducted in 2025 targeting people suspected of engaging in wildlife trade, resulting in 16 wild animals seized from six premises across Singapore.

Under the Wildlife Act, people who offer for sale, sell, or export any wildlife (whether alive or dead) without approval may be fined up to S$50,000, jailed up to two years, or both.

Those who import into Singapore any living wildlife without approval may be fined up to S$10,000, jailed up to a year, or both.

Members of the public with information on suspected poaching, smuggling, or illegal trade of pet animals and wildlife can provide feedback online or call NParks' Animal Response Centre at 1800-476-1600.

Any seasoned K-drama fan would recognise Lee Dong Wook.

You know, the tall, handsome and exceptionally talented actor who has starred in many television series and films.

Here’s an image for reference:

Likewise, the name “Masaki Okada” would be familiar to J-drama fans, especially with the deluge of movies and dramas he’s been in.

For your reference (and for your viewing delight), this is what he looks like:

Imagine how far my jaw dropped when I was told I’d be flying to Seoul to see them in action on the set of Disney+’s second season of “A Shop for Killers”.

In case you missed it...

“A Shop for Killers” follows college student Jeong Jian (played by Kim Hyejun) who was raised by her uncle Jeong Jinman (played by Lee).

Following her uncle’s apparent suicide, Jian was targeted by assassins in her own home and eventually discovers that Jinman runs Murthehelp, a dark web marketplace that supplies illegal weapons to criminals.

Season one ends with a plot twist (*Spoiler alert*):

After action-packed episodes in which the audience sees Jian defend herself with the help of some martial arts-trained allies of her uncle, Jinman returns to the warehouse alive.

With Jinman’s return in season two, he will work to keep Jian safe while battling a new wave of deadly assassins and the ruthless mercenary organisation BABYLON, like J (played by Okada) and Q (played by Hyunri).

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Disney+ Singapore (@disneyplussg)

Now that you’re up to speed, the set visit for season two happened about a year ago, in August 2025, and it was a highly confidential trip. Which means that I don’t have much evidence of the trip, so you’ve just got to trust me bro.

Along with the Disney+ team and other media folks, we took a long bus ride from Seoul to the production set.

What looked like an ordinary mega warehouse housed something far more expansive: a multipurpose production space lined with meticulously designed sets.

One corner held a replica of a hotel room and corridor…

… while another corner literally housed the exterior of Jian’s home, which some media folks got to shoot prop guns at, courtesy of the stunt and props team.

There was also a shipping container rigged to move like freight jostling in the back of a truck, but we’ll get to that later.

Just as I was about to go “whoa”, we were escorted quietly to the video village as the action started on set.

There I was, watching Lee, Okada, and Hyunri act out stunt-heavy action scenes on a screen, while they were about 10 metres away.

Months, even years of training

That action scene may be just a few seconds on screen, but the reality behind it is months and even years of training.

In fact, Okada jokingly said he was surprised to have received the role, as he had no experience in action work at all.

To play the role of the ruthless assassin J, Okada said: "I trained with the stunt team from the ground up. I had no foundation at all. I filmed the action scenes with Dongwook, and he was incredibly considerate and thoughtful as he guided me through our action scenes together."

To prepare for season two, Geum Hannah, who plays a top-notch assassin and Jinman’s dependable ally So Minhye, said she had picked up different sports on top of her basic stunt training to make her character’s movement “carry more power and feel more desperate”.

Meanwhile, Hyunri, who joins season 2 as Q, said she started stunt training in December 2024, months before production even began. She trained five days a week, including firearm training.

What does the lead actor do to prepare for his gruelling role, you ask?

“I just did what I have been usually doing,” Lee coolly said.

“And yet, he is the best,” Kim jokingly replied.

High-effort production

As mentioned earlier, during the set visit, we were taken into what looked like a shipping container mounted on a gimbal rig.

The production team explained that this shipping container was used for scenes to emulate being inside a moving truck.

Not only did it feel like I was in the back of a container driven by an erratic driver, but the clanging of the metal structures added to the experience as well.

It’s hard to put it into words, so here’s a drawing of what it felt like:

Honestly, I was too busy keeping myself steady so I wouldn’t embarrass myself by falling in the container. So I can’t imagine how the actors have to act and say their lines while dealing with the mini tremors.

“Acting is an incredibly demanding profession. They work very hard, filming under these challenging conditions,” producer Lee Sunghoon said, echoing my sentiments.

Lots more action

So why should you watch season two of “A Shop for Killers"?

As director Lee Kwon puts it, viewers can expect the characters to face more hardships and make greater sacrifices in the latest season.

Lee Kwon said: “Now that they are in conflict with BABYLON, they will attack the main characters. Jinman and Jian will also have to strike back, which will naturally involve a lot of different strategies and various forms of stunt work.”

And if you’re jumping in at season two, Kim said you won't miss out.

“For viewers discovering the series for the first time through season two, there will be plenty to enjoy as well, from refreshing visuals to new characters added to the story.”

Both seasons of "A Shop for Killers" are streaming on Disney+.