~by: Jewel Philemon~

"Who's your daddy?" was the last Mr Lawrence Wong remembers hearing as a suited Mr Robert James Springall sped away in a taxi from the scene of a violent assault.

It all began on a Saturday night in April 2010 when Mr Wong, his fiance, Ms Sabrina, and friend, Mr Paul Louis Liew Kai Ming,  met at popular nightspot, Balaclava, to plan Mr Wong’s impending wedding to Ms Sabrina. The merry evening soon turned into a nightmare when three heavily drunk expatriates attacked the trio and two taxicab drivers, in a brawl that made headlines when two of the three assailants fled the country while on bail.

“It was past midnight when we left Balaclava, so I called a friend, Mr Tay, who drives a cab to pick us up”, recounts Mr Wong in a chat with TOC, “He agreed to pick us up and while we were waiting for him, another taxi (driven by Mr Tan) pulled up. It was at this time that four suited men walked in to the vicinity.” Mr Wong says that the Caucasians proceeded to walk into another bar and downed a few more drinks, despite already appearing quite heavily under the influence of alcohol.

Mr Wong says that the four men (later identified as Robert James Springall, Robert Stephen Dahlberg, Nathan Robert Miller and Mr B) left the bar without paying, causing quite a commotion with the bouncers. In an attempt to flee the scene, the quartet approached Mr Tan’s taxi for a ride.

The group turned rowdy when Mr Tan refused, highlighting that he was 'on call'. Miller pounced on Mr Tan’s taxi bonnet and began jumping on it, much to the delight of his companions. “I called Tay and asked him to hurry as I sensed trouble,” Mr Wong explains.

It was at this point that Springall started assaulting Mr Tan and brutally pulled him out of the car, delivering several sharp blows to his neck and chest.

“Tay arrived then and we hurried into our taxi”, Mr Wong continues, “I was the last to get in, but it was at that time when I saw Mr Tan crawling towards me, saying that he has a heart problem and that he has a battery in his chest.”

“All I could think of at the moment was, ‘What if he (Mr Tan) is my father? Would I still walk away then?’ There was a crowd gathered there and no one did anything. People were taking videos instead of helping this man!”

“Miller came at me as I tried to help Mr Tan. Tay, my friend, stepped into the altercation and acted as a human shield for me and took the blow.  Dahlberg then came in and hit me as Miller chased Tay around. Tay collapsed to the ground and held Miller’s leg, begging for mercy but Miller started kicking him in his face!”

“I did not want to have any contact with the assailants as that may be construed as offensive”, reasons Mr Liew, a law undergraduate “All my body contact was with Tay and my back was facing the assailants.”

This was when Dahlberg charged at Mr Liew from behind and smashed him into a pillar. Dahlberg continued to smash Mr Liew into the pillar and, according to Mr Wong, backtracked 10 metres away and charged forward into Mr Liew who was already bleeding profusely with several head wounds. “Blood flowed from his head like this," said Mr Wong demonstrating by pouring out a cup of water. "He easily lost over a litre of blood that night," Mr Wong added.

The episode came to a close when the attackers finally decided to flee the scene. Mr Wong followed the men as he felt that, “they could kill someone that night.”

“If you don’t f**k off, I will kill you like what I did to them.”, one of the assailants threatened Mr Wong as they escaped. The expats successfully fled in a taxi near Pan Pacific Hotel.

"Who's your daddy?" was the last Mr Lawrence Wong remembers hearing from the traumatic incident.


'Inefficient, Ineffective, Slow Police and Legal System' – Watch this space for part 2 of ‘Expat Assault Victims tell all’ tomorrow. 

Part 2 HERE and Part 3 is HERE.

Editor's note: This article was edited on 16 February 2012 at 4.45pm because TOC was contacted by one of the four men identified in this story that he is concerned that 'there are several untruths being reported' and that his 'association to the fight is very misleading'.  TOC has arranged to meet this person to clarify on his involvement in this expat assault case.  

Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

疑酒后失言导致打群架 五男子遭警方逮捕

疑酒后失言,导致两组人在芽笼路一家店外,拿着塑料椅子“开战”。期间还有一名女子似因丈夫被打,边追打对方边问“为什么打我老公,为什么打我老公”,只是最终引来警察,将五名男子逮捕调查。 有关事故是于昨晚(12月4日)11时许,在芽笼1巷的一家马来餐厅外的路段爆发,甚至造成了轻微的交通堵塞事件。 长达50秒的殴斗事件视频,随后被网民上载到脸书上,期间只见到十余名男女在马路上打架,甚至将人打到路中央。 期间,还有一名穿着连身裙的女子,在看到一名光头男子遭对方人马拿椅子砸头后,立刻冲上去喊道“为什么打我老公”,并朝着对方“开打”。女子之后也被对方推倒,但是仍然站起来怒气冲冲地要打对方。一名男子见状就趋前拉起她的两只手,尝试安抚和阻止她。 两方人马都有人拿着椅子、挥着拳头打人,没有任何一方愿意先退让。 据一名在现场的民众指出,当时有一帮男女在该处不远的一家餐馆吃饭。当时有一名女子上洗手间时,另一桌子的一名男子碰了她一下,并“邀请”她一起上厕所,引起女子不满。 女子回桌后将此事告知同伴,两帮人马就开始吵起来,而经过现场的民众的调解后,才没有拿出事情来。 岂知两帮人在离开餐厅后,却在路旁相遇,就一言不合地又打了起来。 有关视频在半天的时间内就吸引了超过九万人观看,且有逾千人转发,以及367人留言评论。 大部分的网民都将此事当做一场闹剧,更表示芽笼地区常常都有类似“趣闻”来娱乐大家。有者则认为两帮人马其实都还算理智,至少他们只是拿着塑料椅子,而非菜刀。 警方在今早发出文告指出,当时已依循滋事打架的罪名,将五名年龄介于21至47岁的男子逮捕,而目前调查尚在进行中。 根据我国法律,滋事打架一旦被判罪名成立,或面对不超过一年的监刑、或被罚款最高5000元,或两者兼施。

林志蔚投稿《联合早报》 最低工资需足以反映“生活工资”

续上周针对最低薪金制议题,在国会与执政党议员交锋,工人党盛港集选区议员林志蔚也投稿《联合早报》,续阐述对于最低工资和政府渐进式薪资模式的比较。 尽管林志蔚的国会辩论获得广大报导和讨论,惟他也认为,论述中某些较细致复杂的部分却似乎被埋没。他表示,朝野双方都同意有必要向收入最低的工友给予援助,而通过某种形式的最低工资制,来提高工友工资也是做法之一。 “国务资政尚达曼甚至把渐进式薪金模式称为“加强版最低工资制”,可见这两项提议之间并不存在巨大的差距。” 当然,从设计上说,制定最低工资确实有可能造成失业率上升,进而降低经济效率。在我们看来,为了加强社会公正,作出一定的权衡取舍是值得的。更何况,全球各地数百项研究的证据也显示,只要不把最低工资定得太高,最低工资制对就业的影响微乎其微,甚至无法察觉。 而政府渐进式薪金制(PWM)和最低薪金制的差异,在于后者主张定下一个简单划一、适用于经济体系中所有工薪阶层的最低收入水平。“相比之下,渐进式薪金模式则根据不同行业设定不同的最低工资,同时为工资增幅制定额外层级,让工友随着掌握更多技能、赚取更高工资。” 渐进式薪金模式自2012年首次公布,并于2015年起正式推行以来,仅涵盖三个行业领域,覆盖收入处于底层第30个百分位数的受薪工友当中仅20巴仙人口。 但是,若让渐进式薪金模式以更快速步伐覆盖所有行业,正如全国职工总会副秘书长许宝琨所期许,那至少就最低工资的概念而言,这两种制度之间几乎没什么实际区别。 唯一有待厘清的,就只剩下必须决定工资最低的行业应有的最低工资水平。由于所有其他行业的最低工资都不可能低于这个底限,因此工人党在乎的是,这个工资底限水平必须足以反映“生活工资”,意即足以维持基本生活费。 虽然渐进式薪金模式具备让工友提升技能的灵活性和奖励元素,看似有一定的好处和优势,但是林志蔚认为,设计更简单的最低工资制,成效会更显著。最低工资制体现了这项政策的目标:确保努力工作的国人能赚取足够收入来维持生活。 “工人党建议把最低工资定为1300元。我们是根据政府2019年一家四口的家庭平均基本生活必需品开支调查报告得出这个数额。当然,我们没必要固执地紧咬着这个数字不放。就如我在国会上回应其他议员提问时也曾说过,我的建议是成立一个独立的全国理事会来探讨这个问题,决定最低工资水平,并在必要时定期修订这个数额。” 第二,根据不同行业设定不同的最低工资水平,可能会间接鼓励业者抱着侥幸心态钻漏洞,以至于违背了推行这个模式的初衷。打个比方,一些雇主可能刻意篡改行业领域的类别,以便符合资格采用适用于这个特定行业的较低工资底限。随着更多行业推行渐进式薪金模式,这种滥用情况恐怕只会更严重。 第三,为不同的行业设定不同的最低工资水平、工资层级,以及种种条件和标准,只会使行政工作变得非常繁琐复杂。这还会带来额外的交易成本,并为制度注入诸多低效元素。这些额外的低效元素对经济可能造成的负担,比起从一开始就推行最低工资制,恐怕还要更沉重。…

公积金局针对蔡莉莉申诉作澄清 遭当事人驳莫要误导读者

日前本社报导,一名单亲妈妈蔡莉莉女士(译音),因为被诊断患有红斑狼疮,自2016年起就一直待业。她想申请提早领出公积金过活和养活家人,遗憾的是被当局拒绝。她在上月15日,写信给新加坡总统哈莉玛求助。 对此公积金局在脸书作出回应,指蔡女士在2011年在国立大学医院被诊断患有红斑狼疮,“该医院多次劝他进行进一步诊断,惟蔡女士婉拒并坚持出院。院方尝试安排跟进预约,不过不成功。” 当局称本社在报导中,未提及有不同机构已协助蔡女士。不过在报导中,我们亦涵括社会与家庭发展部,在获悉蔡莉莉致函总统后,已回函表示将审视其个案。 公积金局指蔡女士在上月19日到邱德拔医院求诊,而社工则告知蔡女士其医疗费用可全面获得保健基金(Medifund)辅助;但公积金局又指自该日起无法联系蔡女士,直到她回国。当局表示已建议她以医疗理由申请领取公积金。 疑似蔡女士脸书账号回应公积金局声明 不过对于公积金局的声明,在该帖文留言处,疑似由蔡女士的账号则留言指自己当时离院,是因为在进行MRI扫描时,尽管抗议有过敏,不过仍被“强行”注射,导致其左手前臂肿胀三个月、无法好好走路、吃饭睡觉。 她声称曾向新加坡医药协会投诉惟不得要领;更呼吁公积金局不要误导读者,“若您需要更多事实,与其发布半汤不水的故事,倒不如直接联系我,我会不胜感激。” 电邮质问为何刊载其全名 据了解,蔡女士也透过电邮,质问当局为何在脸书声明刊载其全名? “你有权这么做吗?报章和网络文章都遵循我的要求未报导真名。我要求贵局解释用意何在?在艰难时刻求助,难道意味着我要公开我的身份,成为网络霸凌的对象?” 她直言本身已经为现有处境感到忧郁,为何还要把她“逼到墙角”。“你要逼我直接跳出窗口吗?我住在八楼。” 事实上,这已不是公积金局在声明中,直接公开公积金局成员的名称。过去一些在网络上对于公积金局申诉者,都被当局直接公开点名。…