Yesterday, (20 Feb), Japan Tobacco International Singapore (JTI) pleaded guilty to three offences under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act 1993 for supplying cigarettes at Ultra Singapore 2016 music event.

The company was fined S$15,000 in total. The court stated that it took into account, five other similar charges against the company when sentencing.

In 2006, prior to the music festival at Ultra, Mark Lim, a producer of Pico Art International, reached out to JTI’s trade marketing manager to discuss a possible sponsorship. The three parties worked together despite Ultra’s initial suspicion in regards to the deal.

Prakash Otharam, a prosecutor for the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) explained in court that, “Ultra suspected that there might be issues pertaining to the legality of the collaboration with JTI, but took the position that they were agreeable to the working collaboration so long as JTI ensured that the working collaboration was legal.”

“In spite of its suspicion, Ultra nonetheless agreed to the collaboration with JTI.”

The tripartite had a mutual agreement that Ultra would initially receive S$20,000 as part of their sponsorship arrangement.

Additionally, Ultra would also receive a performance-based incentive from JTI, based on the number of cigarettes that were purchased at the music festival.

Meanwhile, Pico Art conspired to assist JTI in recruiting part-time workers to operate the booths. There were advertisements displayed at the booths for the prices of different cigarette brands, namely Winston, Camel, Mevius and LD.

However, the Central Narcotics Bureau banned festival-goers from taking in open containers such as cigarette packets as stipulated by the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act 1993. To circumvent this, smokers would have to purchase cigarettes from JTI if they decide to smoke during the musical event.

As festival-goers placed orders for the cigarettes, the part-timers worked at both the booths would convey the orders to their colleagues stationed at the nearby 7-Eleven convenience store at Bayfront MRT Station to purchase the cigarettes.

The part-time recruits would then leave the festival grounds to collect and distribute them to the respective buyers.

Given the demand for cigarettes during the music festival, JTI had then resorted to purchase the advertised cigarette brands in bulk from the 7-Eleven store and had them stocked at the booths.

In a span of the two-day musical event, approximately 1,300 to 1,600 packets of cigarette were sold.

In 2018, a spokesperson from HSA issued a notice to JTI alleging that the company went against certain sections of the tobacco control regulations at the 2016 event.

To note, the distribution of any tobacco product in Singapore without a valid licence is deemed illegal. As such, advertisements and promotions relating to tobacco products are also prohibited under the law.

According to Singapore law, the legal age for smoking is above 18. Only those in this age category are allowed to enter the music festival grounds. However, now the minimum legal age for smoking has been revised to 20. This is part of the Government’s progressive plan to raise the minimum legal age to 21 over a period of three years.

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

推着电动滑板车走半小时 送餐员示范禁令后“正确送餐方式”

电动滑板车禁令颁布后,靠有关代步工具工作的送餐员生计大受影响。一名送餐员示范正确的送餐方式,就录制了一段视频,行走了半个小时才成功将饮料送达目的地。 一名GrabFood送餐员将自己的送餐行程,于11月11日上载到优管(Youtube)的Guide to GrabFood频道上。 在视频开端就提到目前的条规,包括在行人道上行驶将被罚款2000元、草坪上行驶罚款5000元、在沟渠盖上行驶则罚款四万元,但是他的银行户头内只有300元等,随后就开始其送餐行程。 他到淡滨尼中5路的世纪广场(Century Square)一家奶茶店,领取了顾客所点的饮料后,就朝向目的地,即淡滨尼42街第458座组屋前进。 基于所走的路线都没有公共连接道,所以这名送餐员唯有推着电板车,在人行道上行走。“如你们所见,我现在在人行道上,所以只能推着电动滑板车。这是“最合法”的送餐方式。” 一路上,他一边推着电板车,一边阅读网友们的评语。 网友的评语有赞有弹,也有提醒不能违规的事项。而他一边行走时,也分享了有关政府和送餐服务商,推出700万元以旧换新援助计划的看法。 “我真的觉得很值得,因为是提供给在职的送餐员,有1000元,而要换成脚车的也能领取600元,我觉得有多了,很不错。” 此外,他也提到自己是幸运的,因为身体健康,所以行走送订单并不是问题,但是对其他面对某些状况的送餐员而言,可能就做不到了。“一些送餐员是残缺人士、或者身体抱恙,需要电板车帮助送餐;有的则是因为教育水平不足,无法找到更好的工作,需要这份工作来支撑生活。”…

客工分享宿舍内消毒情况

客工Ganeshthala18,在社交媒体抖音(Tik Tok)分享一段15秒的视频,显示可供宿舍内消毒的作业情况。相信有关视频是在回利阁客工宿舍(Toh Guan Dormitory)拍摄。 管理层为了照顾客工们的健康安全,展开逐个房间清理和消毒工作。 视频中只见四名身穿全白隔离服、戴着口罩和防护面具、穿着黄色塑胶鞋的消毒人员在一间客工宿舍外,门口还有一名消毒人员正在进行工作。 为遏止冠状病毒疫情进一步恶化,回利阁客工宿舍自4月初传出病例后,已被列为隔离区。

Border closure: Malaysia may allow its citizens to leave if accommodation in Singapore is secured

On Thursday (19 March), Malaysia’s Senior Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob informed that…

被控无准证办集会、拒签口供有罪 高庭驳回范国瀚上诉

社运份子范国瀚因无准证举办集会、拒签署口供,合共被罚款3200元,不服判决于日前(10月4日)向高庭提出上诉。惟今日被高庭裁决驳回上诉。 根据书面判词,高庭法官蔡利民驳回范国瀚辩护律师杜莱辛甘的辩述。后者指当时范所举办的“公民抗命及社会运动”论坛,只不过是“讨论”和“分享有关公民不服从的观点和经历”。 范国瀚在2016年11月26日,在新民巷美景城(Midview City)的AGORA,主办“公民抗命及社会运动”论坛,邀请香港“黄雨伞运动”中的学运领袖黄之锋,透过Skype与现场观众连线对谈交流。 法官指出,控方展示范国瀚有意透过上述活动,认可“透过公民不服从带来社会改革”,这属于“集会”的范畴。 “依我之见,如讨论涉及捍卫/主张某一立场、宗旨或运动,也形同在宣扬相关志业。” 尽管论坛的主题相对中立,惟法官也指出在脸书对有关活动的简介,可见其“并非纯粹中立的学术讨论”。有关简介指将邀请香港众志秘书长黄之锋,与本地社运分子施兰以及韩俐颖,分享公民不服从和民主,在营造促进进步和改变的社会运动扮演的角色。 法官认为,有鉴于黄之锋的身份,范国瀚邀请对付参与讨论,就显示范认同透过公民不服从带来社会改革的志业。 至于范国瀚被指拒签口供,法官指出警方有法律权力,要求供证者签署口供,以保障口供的可靠性。 控方曾要求调高保释金至1万5000元 法院是在今年1月3日裁定,范国瀚被指无准证举办集会,且拒绝签署口供,被判有罪。他因无准证办集会被罚2000元或10日监禁,而拒绝签口供被罚1200元或6日监禁。 据功能八号氏族会总监张素兰在脸书分享,控方曾要求提高保释金至1万5000元,所幸范国瀚辩护律师回应,范没有潜逃的风险,也真诚地出庭,法庭也驳回了控方的要求。…