Local News

Police are investigating claims from a Pasir Ris resident via her Facebook post that a drone was seen flying by her bathroom window as she was showering. The woman was staying in a HDB flat on the 17th storey.

Police have confirmed that a formal police report have been lodged, and that the area where the drone was flying was within 5km of an airport or an airbase, where a licence is required to be obtained for such actions take place.

In the Facebook post, Amelia Yeo said she noticed something flying outside her toilet window as she was showering. She normally does not shut the windows, as she stays on the 17th storey, and she has no privacy issues as there is no structures nearby her window. Ms Yeo claimed that she saw the drone fly past her window several times, with a slow speed. Police were immediately notified, but their immediate investigations revealed no clus as to who had flown the drone. 

Peeping Toms have now gone high tech, and making use of new technology to sustain their perverted kicks.

Under ther proposed amendments towards the bill, any minister has the power to decide if a statement is false or misleading and against public interest. Something many Singaporeans were afraid of. 

Pritam Singh said:

“Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party opposes this Bill. All the Workers’ Party MPs will speak against it. Our objections centre primarily around a fundamental matter.”

He mentioned that while we have to find a way to deal with fake news, but it should not be up to the ministers subjective opinion that a false or misleading statement is not in the public interest. He noted that the select committee was aware of the public's sceptism with letting the executive decide what is a falsehood instead of the courts, yet they still went ahead to propose this bill. He also said:

“To reinforce this point, it is apparent that the Bill gives remarkable leeway to the Executive to define what a falsehood, especially since the Government has said that it will not act on all falsehoods.”

Do you oppose this bill as well? What do you think will happen if we just let the government decide what is a falsehood? Would there be any potential abuse of power if this bill comes in place? Let us know!

A husband and wife team went to great lengths to set up a renovation company that had no intentions of fulfilling their obligations, and end up with them scamming $1.7m off their 'customers'. 

The husband and wife, named as Aszrul Mohd Yusoff and Husniyati Omar, set up a renovation company called Carpentry Design Works in 2016. They even set up a showroom and office at Telok Kurau Road and Yishun Industrial Street 1 respectively. They posted the advertisements on Facebook, offering their renovation services as well giving off a free air-con unit. They even provided written agreements on the works to be done, but both never intended to honour their agreements.

In some cases, only hacking works were done, before the duo disappeared with the money. In all, a total of 89 people were scammed out of about S$1,796,000. Both the husband and wife are currently in jail serving sentences for other cheating cases. 

Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan has revealed in Parliament that about 33.4% of taxi drivers are aged between 60 to 74 years old, while 92.4% of the Taxi Driver Vocational Licence (TDVL) are above the age of 40. Generally, the retirement age in Singapore is 65.

The breakdown does not say why so many of the taxi drivers are actually above 40 years old, and why almost a third of taxi drivers are about retirement age, or those who have already should retire. But this alarming numbers show that even when taxi drivers reach retirement age, they cannot afford to retire and enjoy the rest of their lives. So they have ot keep on driving even when they are very old.

And as for most TDVL holders being 40 and above, this clearly shows that the job market for this group are not as rosy as the government have made it out to be, thus most turning to driving a taxi to earn a living. Is this healthy for Singapore? 

How would you feel if you were denied a job because you are pregnant? Is this considered discriminatory in Singapore?

Facebook user Li Wu vented her frustration about a company who wanted to hire her but changed their mind after realising that she was pregnant. Her post detailed events from 23 Apr to 6 May which led up to her complaint. 

The employer had initially expressed interest in recruiting her but did not seal a contract as the person-in-charge was not around. They told her to go for a medical check-up first as she was expected to start work on 2 May 2019. 

After going for the check-up and finding out about her pregnancy, she notified her employer who later said that she was not suitable for the job. Their reasons were that the job requires climbing a steep staircase and handling a heavy workload, all of which they reckon are too demanding for a pregnant woman. 

Despite their decision, Li Wu really wanted the job. She told the employer that she has been through the same work in the construction industry and will not have any problems with it.

Alas, her explanation was not convincing enough for her employer. 

Throughout the episode, she felt that she was unfairly treated. She did not understand why her employer will reject her just because she was pregnant. She was also angry at her employer for simply justifying their actions by saying that she did not sign a contract with them and that she "did not pass" the medical examination. 

As of yesterday, the issue was still not resolved amicably. 

"I know I can file a complaint to MOM, but how would that change my circumstances? I wont be able to go back to this job and I wont be able to find another job as a pregnant woman. Can anyone help me?"

The recent changes to the Criminal Law Bill was passed in the latest Parliament sitting. One of the proposed changes is to that of Section 309, which criminalizes attempting suicide in Singapore. 

This Law is well known in Singapore. A person down on his luck, depressed and decided to end his life. He was saved, but will them ultmately face criminal charges for attempting suicide. As if his problems that eventually drove him to attempt suicide not enough, now he has to face being a criminal, for his failed attempt.

Although the MInistries of Law and Home Affairs have said that the rate of prosecution for attempting suicide is low, there are still people getting prosecuted for attempting suicides. Th e Government has also admitted the detriments of having such a law. Thus, in order not to further stigmatised and isolate the person from society with a criminal charge, the Law should be repealed and help rendered to those people instead.