Connect with us

Community

Court reveals two more charges against alleged druglord in Yong Vui Kong case

Published

on

~by: We Believe in Second Chances~

 
 
In a letter responding to Mr M Ravi, counsel for Mr Yong Vui Kong, the Court of Appeal has revealed two further charges made against Chia Choon Leng, the alleged drug syndicate mastermind in Yong’s case. 
 
The two charges do not relate directly to Yong, and the Prosecution has all along declined to disclose them on the basis that they are irrelevant. 
 
This latest twist in Yong’s case goes some way to painting a clearer picture of how much more culpable in the drug syndicate Chia was. 
 
The two charges revealed against Chia were for trafficking an amount of heroin that triggered the death penalty. 
 
More interestingly, the person Chia is alleged to have trafficked the drugs to was one Koh Bak Kiang, whose judgment is actually published and a matter of public record. 
 
In Koh’s judgment, District Judge Wong Keen Onn noted that Koh had acted on Chia’s instructions and that Chia had “recruited him to run Chia’s or one of Jessie’s (Chia’s wife) errands. The errands included collecting and delivering small quantity (sic) of drugs”. 
 
Justice Wong further noted that Chia seemed to have been part of a syndicate and that he and his wife were the “two persons who were planning and giving instructions”. 
 
For reasons unknown, Chia never stood trial for these two, or any of the other 26 charges against him. 
 
Yong’s latest appeal to the Court of Appeal is premised on alleged unequal treatment meted out to him vis-à-vis Chia. 
 
In arguments before the Court of Appeal and filed in Court, Mr Ravi has submitted that it is a violation of Yong’s right to equal treatment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore for Yong to be prosecuted under an offence carrying the mandatory death penalty while Chia, who was alleged to have been close to the criminal apex of the drug syndicate, is currently held in executive detention despite the Prosecution initially preferring up to 26 charges against him for trafficking and other drug related offences. 
 
The Prosecution has resisted the disclosure of the other (nearly 20) charges against Chia on the basis that these charges are not relevant to the issues Yong has raised before the Court of Appeal. Mr Ravi makes the argument that this view of culpability is too narrow, and that the surrounding charges would clearly show (as in Koh’s case), Chia’s obviously greater culpability in the entire criminal enterprise than Yong. 
 
In response to Yong’s current application, all the Prosecution has revealed is that the reason for the withdrawal of the 5 charges made against Chia in relation to Yong was because of ‘insufficient evidence’. They have also refused to justify their decision to charge Yong with a capital crime, but not Chia.
 
The one who got away.
 
Of particular note in Koh’s judgment is the fact that Koh had his charge reduced for testifying against Chia: Koh was charged with trafficking 14.99 grams of diamorphine. In sentencing, the Judge also took into account and gave “substantial weight” to the fact that Koh was willing to be a prosecution witness. 
 
This is significant for Yong as part of his argument hinges on the fact that he was at all times a compellable witness against Chia and could have, under appropriate conditions, testified against Chia. He merely expressed a concern to testifying in open court for fear of his family’s safety. 
 
Under this argument, Yong should have been given an opportunity to take advantage of the same opportunity that Koh did and it was unreasonable for the Prosecution not to allow him to do so given the obvious public policy reasons for capturing someone higher up in the syndicate chain. 
 
After all, in his statements to the police, Yong identified Chia as the person who supplied him with the drugs to bring into Singapore. During his trial, Yong also repeatedly referred to Chia as his ‘boss’.
 
The newly revealed charges raise many more questions that the Prosecution has yet to satisfactorily answer. 
 
How could the Prosecution not have sufficient evidence against Chia in Yong’s case if there were ample findings of fact through Koh’s case that Chia was pretty high up in a drug syndicate hierarchy? Surely this, combined with Yong’s evidence, would be sufficient to secure a conviction against Chia in Yong’s case? 
 
Finally, the fact that the Court has now taken the initiative to disclose an additional two charges against Chia to the Defence makes it untenable for the Prosecution to continue asserting that the remaining 20 or so charges against Chia are irrelevant. 
 
If the Court of Appeal finds the charges relevant enough to disclose, shouldn’t the Prosecution? 

 

 

 

 

 


This article is written exclusively for TOC by 'We Believe in Second Chances'. 

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Community

Reddit user alleges brother-in-law secretly recorded her showering, asks for advice on what to do

A Reddit user recounted the disturbing experience of catching her brother-in-law secretly recording her while she showered. Despite her family’s efforts to dissuade her, she allegedly proceeded to file a police report. Netizens rallied behind her decision, affirming that she made the right choice.

Published

on

By

SINGAPORE: A Reddit user recently shared her troubling experience, seeking advice on whether she could report her brother-in-law for secretly recording her while she was showering.

In a post uploaded on Wednesday (11 Sept), she explained that she lives with her family, including her pregnant sister and her sister’s boyfriend, who are staying with them while waiting for their Build-To-Order (BTO) flat.

The incident occurred one night when she was showering in a bathroom with a faulty door. To avoid disturbing her family with the loud noise caused by locking the door, she left it unlocked.

During her shower, she heard knocking and tapping sounds from the bathroom door.

When she looked out through the sliding door that separated the wet and dry areas, she saw a phone peeking over the top of the door. Shocked, she quickly closed the sliding door.

Afterwards, she felt overwhelmed and debated whether to inform her family. She also feared that her sister might have been a victim of the same behaviour.

Seeking advice, she asked on Reddit whether she could file a police report, and how the police might handle the situation if evidence had been deleted or if her brother-in-law denied it.

Netizens urge user to report incident

In response to her story on Reddit, many netizens encouraged the user to report the incident to the police.

One user strongly urged her to make a police report, stating, “You will only be enabling the criminal to commit future crimes if you let it slide.”

They explained that the police would record her statement and possibly confiscate the suspect’s mobile device for forensic IT investigations.

The Redditor reassured her that even if the data had been deleted, it was still possible for the police to retrieve timestamps of recordings or detect suspicious activity, such as deleting files at certain times.

They added that lodging a police report would serve as a precedent if the suspect engaged in similar behaviour in the future. The user was also advised to confide in a trustworthy family member or friend for support when filing the report.

Another user mentioned that she did not need to leave her room to make a report, as it could be done via the police website using Singpass, or by calling 999.

Additionally, one user recommended contacting the AWARE hotline for victims of sexual assault, particularly if her family was not supportive.

User files police report despite family’s reaction

In a subsequent update, the user thanked netizens for their support and confirmed that she had informed her family and filed a police report.

She shared that her brother-in-law had contacted her mother, indicating he was aware of being discovered.

Despite this, the user expressed frustration with her family’s response.

Her sister suggested that informing the family was punishment enough for her husband, and her parents urged her to “calm down” and reconsider filing the report.

The user felt disappointed by their lack of empathy, suspecting cultural norms may have influenced their reaction.

Netizens support user’s decision

In further responses, many netizens backed her decision to report the incident, assuring her that none of the blame rested on her.

One user praised her for being brave and doing the right thing by reporting the incident to the police, noting that “saving face” is a common cultural practice.

They added that the family should realise the true fault lay with the brother-in-law, describing him as a “pervert” and stating that no one should side with such behaviour.

Others reassured her that the family was already damaged by her brother-in-law’s behaviour, and that she had made the right choice.

A user expressed relief that she had filed the report, advising her not to feel guilty or be swayed by her family’s attempts to dissuade her.

They pointed out that many cases go unreported due to the desire to “save face” or “give someone a chance.”

The user added that her brother-in-law’s behaviour was likely not an isolated incident and praised her for taking the right steps to protect herself and others.

Continue Reading

Community

TikTok video shows woman confronting 12 tenants in HDB flat, demands immediate eviction

A now-viral TikTok video shows a woman confronting tenants after allegedly discovering 12 people living in an HDB flat. She demanded they leave within an hour and called the police. While some praised the agent for enforcing HDB regulations, others felt the one-hour notice was too harsh, especially for migrant workers who might have come home after a long day. The current occupancy limit for four-room or larger HDB flats is eight people.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: A now-viral TikTok video, with nearly 2 million views, features a woman, reportedly a property agent, confronting a group of tenants after allegedly discovering 12 people living in an HDB flat.

The woman, along with a person filming the scene, seemingly there for an inspection, is seen counting the tenants and questioning how many people are staying in the unit.

The one-minute clip, posted last Thursday (5 September) under the title “HDB unit being illegally sub-let,” captures the cameraman comparing the situation to “Crime Watch.”

The video alleges that 12 individuals are crammed into the flat, raising questions about whether this is allowed in Singapore.

While counting heads, the woman also inspects the rooms, revealing cramped conditions.

Clothes hang from window grilles, a thin mattress leans against the wall, and belongings are scattered across the floor.

At one point, the cameraman alerts her to someone in the toilet, visible as a shadow behind the door.

In the kitchen, she questions an occupant about a missing cabinet door, but he cannot provide a clear explanation.

In another room, visibly dissatisfied, the woman finds a dismantled bedframe propped against the wall and asks who is responsible for it.

Later, she sternly addresses some of the tenants, saying, “I give u one hour to pack your stuff, and get out of the place, if not I call the police.”

The video ends with a shot of a police car parked below the HDB block, but it doesn’t show or explain what happens next to the tenants or whether they were eventually evicted.

@homesinhd

Camera man feels like he is on Crime Watch. 12 pax squeeze in one flat in Singapore is crazy!! SG can meh? #realestate #realestatesingapore #singapore #crimewatch #police #exposed #caughtoncamera

♬ MILLION DOLLAR BABY (VHS) – Tommy Richman

In the comment section, some commended the property agent for taking responsibility by conducting spot checks to ensure tenants complied with HDB regulations.

However, others felt that the one-hour eviction notice could be too harsh for the tenants.

Several commenters speculated that the tenants, who appeared to be migrant workers, were likely unaware of the illegal subletting arrangement.

They may have paid rent, only to come home after a long day of work to find themselves being evicted.

In response to a netizen’s question about the illegal subletting, the admin of the TikTok account clarified that there were unauthorized tenants staying in the unit who were not registered with HDB.

The admin also mentioned that only six people are allowed to stay in four-room or larger flats, but some commenters corrected this information, noting that the maximum occupancy had been revised to eight.

Indeed, a joint press release in December 2023 announced that the occupancy limit had been increased from six to eight persons for three years, from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2026.

This revised cap applies to four-room or larger HDB flats, including living quarters within HDB commercial properties that are comparable in size to a four-room flat.

The measure is intended to ease rental pressure, driven by the sharp rise in residential rents due to COVID-19 disruptions and increased rental demand.

However, authorities have also warned that they will strictly enforce the occupancy cap and may revoke rental approvals for homeowners who violate these regulations.

2019 Report Reveals Four-Room HDB Flat Housing 24 Tenants

In 2019, a report emerged alleging that a four-room HDB flat was housing 24 tenants, four times the maximum allowed by HDB.

The flat contained three double-decker bunk beds crammed into each bedroom, accommodating at least 18 people across the three rooms. One bedroom alone had eight occupants, and the living room was illegally partitioned into two additional rooms, rented to two couples, bringing the total to 24 tenants.

Continue Reading

Trending