van Deijzen
van Deijzen
van Deijzen

Just two weeks after he was sentenced to a three weeks’ jail for assaulting a taxi driver, 34-year old Dutchman Dino Petrus Johannes van Deijzen saw his sentence increased to three months.

The deputy public prosecutor had appealed the original sentence, saying the judge in that case, District Judge Imran Abdul Hamid, seemed to have been convinced by van Deijzen’s portrayal of himself as a victim.

The Dutchman, a design executive, had claimed that the taxi driver, Me Ee Kah Ling, had also hit him, resulting in the former losing consciousness.

Justice Imran was reported to have “noted that the victim had also engaged in a scuffle with van Deijzen and traded blows, which would have explained the blunt force trauma suffered by the accused.”

However, justice Tay rejected this.

He said Mr van Deijzen’s claims were “convenient excuses to downplay his use of inexcusable violence” against Mr Ee, 42.

Further, justice Tay noted that Mr van Deijzen was not remorseful and that there were neither an offer of compensation to Mr Ee noran apology from the Dutchman.

Mr van Deijzen and his girlfriend were reportedly intoxicated when they hailed and boarded Mr Ee’s cab at Dunlop Street at almost 1am on 21 October.

They asked to be ferried to blk 538 in Ang Mo Kio.

When the taxi reached the destination, Mr van Deijzen’s girlfriend vomited in the taxi.

Mr Ee then asked the couple to leave the car and asked for the fare.

The couple, however, ignored him and walked away without paying.

At this point, Mr Ee threatened to call the police, and was retrieving his phone from his taxi when Mr van Deijzen pounced on him, slammed the door and punched Mr Ee.

Me Ee tried to escape and ran away, but Mr van Deijzen gave chase and pushed him to the ground, and continued to punch and kick Mr Ee.

The heinous act was caught by the in-vehicle CCTV of Mr Ee’s taxi.

Soosay (Photo: Straits Times)
Soosay (Photo: Straits Times)

Also in June, National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor, Sundram Peter Soosay, 43, has been found guilty of assaulting a taxi driver while drunk.

Mr Soosay, who is a Singapore permanent resident and has been working at NUS since 2008, was lambasted by District Judge Victor Yeo in court.

Judge Yeo said Mr Soosay’s testimony was “riddled with hindsight reasoning, convenient conjecture and hypothesis”.

Judge Yeo then sentenced the law professor to four months jail and ordered him to compensate the taxi driver, 71-year old Sun Chun Hua. (See here.)

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Ho Ching gets May Day award

Award given to Temasek’s ex-CEO for “contributions to the labour movement”.

为印度巴帝公司拨55亿元特别准备金,新电信第二季亏损8亿6800元

由于为印度合资公司巴帝(Airtel)拨出55亿元特别准备金,导致新加坡电信(Singtel)第二季净亏损6亿6800元。 日前印度法院对当地的电业作出“调正后总营收” (adjusted gross revenue,简称AGR)的裁决,该裁决使当地的电信业者需支付数十亿元许可证逾期与频谱使用费用。 新电信表示,巴帝公司在第二季业绩中计入一笔约54亿9000万元的特别准备金,而新电信则按股权比例,扣税钱准备金额为19亿3000万元,因此也蒙受了6亿6800万元的净亏损。 新电信作为巴帝的最大股东,其有效持股比例高达35巴仙。新电信表示,若不包含巴帝公司的条款,新电信的净利润将增长4巴仙。 新电信集团总裁蔡淑君认为,尽管印度法院已作出裁决,但巴帝公司近期也进行行业整合,市场占有率增加,移动服务收入亦连续在第三季度增长。 AGR事件也与印度政府周旋已久,印度法院的裁决意味着电信业者须向印度政府支付总共9200亿卢比(176亿新元)的巨款。当时分析师估计Airtel得支付4460亿卢比(19亿新元),相当于其市值的五分之一。 Airtel昨日表示,第二季业绩已为“AGR”事件的法院裁决作出2845亿卢比的准备金,它第二季因此净亏2304亿卢比(44亿新元)。 另外,新电信的也营业收入则下滑了2.8巴仙,其主要原因为企业业务疲软、运输减少与阻碍。然而新加坡与澳洲间的消费业务一直都是“保有弹性”。 蔡淑君则对此表示,“尽管我们预计当前的艰难或许会延续至2020年,但我们仍将加强市场地位,增加核心网络,做好迎接5G的准备。…

被主流媒体指面对破产 林鼎怒斥:这是抹黑!

人民之声领袖林鼎律师反击主流媒体,表示自己并没有面对破产。 日前,《海峡时报》于22日报导林鼎律师证面临两起未决破产申请,总额145万元。报道指出,周一(22日)星展银行去年10月就54万9千378元的债务,提出破产申请,于高等法院通过视频会议在分庭审理。 另一起破产申请是由贸易公司Sing Wing (I & E)于今年5月提出,债务达90万5千元。 对此,林鼎23日在脸书上澄清并反击,表示自己没有破产的情况,也不会欠下145万元,主流媒体在选举季节以抹黑手段,试图阻止他参选。 “选举来临,抹黑反对党正在进行,我觉得可笑的是主流媒体试图以抹黑我,让我没有资格成为候选人。” 他也指责,没有任何主流媒体联系他向他求证此事。 “他们声称曾试图联系我,但我却从未收到他们任何的电话联系,这似乎在试图制造烟幕,掩盖选民的眼睛。” 此外,他也称这次的抹黑显然构成了人民之声最大的威胁,因为在阻断措施期间,支持者的激增,让他们备受威胁,所以才会希望能够透过各种方式打击人民之声。…