Woman given warning for putting feet up on bus contests charge of 'hitting' bus driver
Tan Wee Teng, 52, was accused of two counts of public nuisance, two counts of criminal force and harassment for incidents dating between August 2023 and August 2024.
According to charge sheets, she put her feet on a pole on Bus 198 at a bus stop along Jurong Town Hall Road at about 10am on Aug 30, 2023, and refused to put them down.
This disrupted the public bus service, causing annoyance to passengers who had to disembark as a result.
A similar incident involving her feet on a pole and passengers having to disembark allegedly occurred again on Bus 99 in Boon Lay on the evening of Oct 26, 2023.
This caused a disruption of the public bus service, resulting in passengers having to disembark and causing annoyance to passengers, the charge read.
On the morning of Jan 19, 2024, she allegedly harassed Mohamed Razli Sanusi by cursing at him on Bus 180 along Jurong Town Hall Road.
She was also accused of hitting him on his inner calf with a walking aid.
The court heard that Tan was given a 12-month conditional warning for these four offences.
However, she was charged again for a fifth offence - for hitting bus driver Ding Shuai's arm on Bus 99 at about 11.40am on Aug 23, 2024.
The case was heard in court on Monday afternoon, with the prosecutor intending to ask for all five charges to be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
Tan would then be given a three-year conditional warning, during which Tan could not offend again or risk being prosecuted for the fresh offence and the old ones.
However, Tan protested saying three years was "very excessive". She claimed that she was being "set up" by the bus driver, who knew her and deliberately "hit (her) first" to get her to retaliate.
She said she was "innocent" and had written to the Deputy Attorney-General, and had already been crime-free for 12 months.
It was therefore unfair to be given another conditional warning for three years.
"I would rather go to trial," said Tan. "Because the complainant was not a victim but a self-confessed perjurer!"
She cited the case of Dr Yeo Sow Nam, who was acquitted of all charges after the complainant admitted to lying.
Tan repeatedly told the court in a heated tone about what had happened that day on Ms Ding's bus.
"I did not commit any offence at all except this particular China woman," she said.
"She even said no la, no need la, no need ambulance. She tell the police all the lies except the truth, that she hit me first, and she did it intentionally," said Tan.
"It's not the first time she saw me. She see me before. ... She purposely hit me ... to provoke me to hit her back. I just tapped her lightly, like tit for tat," said Tan.
"She tell the control room that passenger hit her, she want to call the police, then they said - do you need ambulance, are you injured? She said no need la, then they arrested me!"
Tan claimed that the bus driver had said "no need la" "in a very sarcastic tone" and had "exaggerated" to "blow up the whole thing".
The police then arrested Tan for punching the bus driver, but the charge was later amended to "hitting".
At one point Tan broke down in the dock, saying she was "arrested for a serious offence which I did not commit".
"It's not fair to me. I say - you might as well prosecute me now. No need to wait three years. I am innocent. Instead of prosecuting the perjurer who lied. They don't have evidence. I was arrested because (of) this China woman," she said, crying.
District Judge Lorraine Ho explained matters to her multiple times, as Tan had no lawyer. She previously had a lawyer from the Public Defender's Office, but the lawyer had been discharged.
"You told me many times in court today that you did hit her back," said the judge.
"I hit her very lightly," said Tan.
"You did hit her," continued Judge Ho.
"No! She hit me first, you've got to have all the facts right! You've got to get the facts clear, you know! You cannot ... when the evil (person) is still out there ... then you're going to convict everybody of murder? Just because the person was set up by the real murderer?" said Tan.
"We are not talking about murder here," said Judge Ho.
"Yes but it's the same concept," Tan replied.
CCTV FOOTAGE PLAYED IN COURT
The judge requested closed-circuit television footage of the alleged hit to be shown in court.
The prosecutor showed the incident from four different angles.
Tan was seen boarding a bus. The driver reached out her hand towards Tan, and Tan is later seen reacting to the bus driver.
Tan, who smiled as she watched the footage, told the judge that she had seen the bus driver before.
"And every time she ask me verbally to tap my card, then I ask to alight. A few times, she realise she can't get money just by opening (her) mouth," said Tan.
"So every time you try to get on the bus, you don't pay for the fare?" asked Judge Ho.
"Yes. I put my bag on the card reader, there's no sound. So the bus driver notice, and I say - open the door, I want to alight," said Tan.
"I did see your hand did touch her," said the judge.
"Yes, but I didn't punch her. There's a story behind, OK," said Tan.
"Therefore the charge was amended to 'hit' her," said the judge.
"Yes, but she lied to the police that I punch her!" said Tan.
"So you tried to tap the fare gate using your handbag, and this was not the first time," said the judge.
"Yes. I alight immediately. If I don't take the bus, I don't have to pay. She recognise me. That was last time la, she didn't use her hand, she use her mouth verbally. She hit me, waiting to hit me, so evil malicious! Then I retaliate back. She provoke me to hit her back," said Tan.
"Wait, wait, wait," said the judge. "So this is not the first time you have taken her bus, right?"
"Yes, but I do nothing wrong I ask her to open the exit door, I alight and she drive off," said Tan.
"So every time she asked you do to this ... because you don't have card with you, you can't pay is it?" asked the judge.
"No. I got no card. Sometimes I have the card in my cooler bag, sometimes I take it out," said Tan.
"So you don't have a card with you to pay money right," pressed the judge.
"I hit her back. I believe she is intentionally hitting me so she can provoke me to hit her back ... I am here to expose her lies!" said Tan.
JUDGE'S DECISION
After about two hours of back-and-forth, the judge granted the prosecution's application to have all five charges given a discharge not amounting to acquittal.
This means that the prosecution will have the option of reviving the charges if Tan commits any further offence in future.
"In this case, the prosecution will only pursue prosecution if the accused commits fresh offences during the 36-month conditional warning," said Judge Ho.
"A conditional warning is not issued by the courts but by the police. There is no unfairness or injustice caused to the accused as suggested by her, because without a trial she is now unable to prove her innocence that the complainant was lying."
Judge Ho added that there was "no delay" on the part of the prosecution, given that Tan was charged in August 2024, and the prosecution made a decision in May 2025 not to proceed further with the charges against her.
"Finally, if the accused says she's remained crime-free since her last conditional warning period ... and does not intend to commit any offences in future, then truly the accused will not be prosecuted for any offence once the discharge not amounting to acquittal is granted," said the judge.
Immediately after the decision was given, Tan asked if she could request for trial instead.
"I want to be prosecuted by the AGC," she said, adding that she was "very curious" what evidence they had against her.
If she had been convicted of public nuisance, she could have been fined up to S$2,000 if it was a first offence. Repeat offences include a possible jail term of up to three months.
If she had been convicted of criminal force, she could have been jailed for up to three months, fined up to S$1,500, or both.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
Malaysian authorities searching for Singapore driver who filled container with subsidised fuel, Singapore News
Malaysian authorities have launched an investigation into a Singapore-registered car after its driver was spotted filling a tank of subsidised Ron95 petrol at a petrol station in Johor Bahru. The incident occurred at Caltex Nusa Sentral, located in the Iskandar Puteri township, on Sunday (Aug 3) at around 6.30pm, according to a post on the SG Road Vigilante Facebook page. Photos showed a blue Mini Cooper, with a Singapore-registered licence plate, and a driver filling up a plastic container with Ron95 petrol. Ron95 is subsidised petrol that is available for sale only to Malaysian-registered vehicles. Foreign-registered vehicles are prohibited from purchasing Ron95 fuel and are only permitted to purchase Ron97, which is not subsidised. Lilis Saslinda Pornomo, director of the Johor Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry (KPDN), said that the ministry is aware of the incident and has opened an investigation. "A thorough investigation is being conducted to identify the location of the station involved and determine whether there has been a breach of existing regulations," she told the New Straits Times. The ban on the sale of RON95 petrol to foreign-registered vehicles remains in force, said Lilis Saslinda. "If the investigation confirms any offence, appropriate action will be taken against the parties involved, including the petrol station operator if found to be negligent or complicit," she said, reminding petrol station operators to adhere to government guidelines. [[nid:713993]]
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Spotting red flags, taking swift action: Inside DBS' fight against scams
When DBS or POSB customers spot unauthorised transactions in their bank statements, their calls often reach Mr Muhammad Saifuddin, a customer relations and scam management lead at DBS Bank. 'Many victims cling to false hope, believing fraudsters' promises of profitable investments or job payments,' said Mr Muhammad. In 2024, the Singapore Police Force reported 852 love scams, which resulted in S$27.6 million lost. Separately, job and investment scams led to the largest financial losses, amounting to more than S$476 million. Behind these stark figures are individuals whose hard-earned savings were wiped out in an instant. To counter increasingly sophisticated scams, DBS and POSB have implemented a rapid response system that is activated as soon as a customer reports suspicious activity. 'Our teams are trained to act within minutes,' said Mr Muhammad. 'When someone calls our scam hotline, we can immediately lock their accounts and prevent further losses.' Staff like Ms Lee Bee Bee, assistant service manager at the POSB branch in Yishun West, are often the last line of defence against scams. Last year, Ms Lee stopped a customer from falling for a scam. 'The customer believed he was about to receive S$100,000 from an overseas friend,' she said. 'The scammer – posing as a CEO – claimed their own bank account had been frozen, and asked the customer to transfer money to help activate a SIM card.' The request was part of a familiar pattern: Fraudsters often use fake emergencies to build trust and prompt urgent action. Ms Lee persuaded the customer not to proceed with the transfer, pointing out that suspicious web links, requests involving SIM cards and demands for gift card purchases are all common scam tactics. 'When a customer insists on making an urgent overseas transfer, especially for so-called medical bills or to receive valuable items like gold bars, that's an immediate red flag,' said Ms Lee. The warning signs can look different depending on who scammers are targeting – and they are tailoring their tactics to exploit victims of all ages. Job scams target teenagers who are new to the workforce, and individuals aged 20 to 49, who may be looking for a side hustle or seeking extra income. These schemes usually begin on social media, with scammers promising easy money for simple tasks. Telltale signs include payments made by individuals rather than companies, initial contact via social media or messaging apps, and early small payouts designed to build trust before scammers demand larger sums of money. Older Singaporeans are especially vulnerable to love scams, which rely on emotional manipulation. Open conversations with elderly relatives about their online relationships can help family members spot red flags early and allow families to step in before it's too late. WHAT TO DO IF YOU SUSPECT A SCAM If you spot unauthorised transactions, contact the bank immediately. DBS and POSB will activate the Safety Switch, which immediately locks your account and suspends access to online and mobile banking, DBS PayLah!, as well as all physical and digital transactions, including ATM, debit and credit card use. 'This gives customers time to report the scam and protect their remaining funds,' said Mr Muhammad. If your card details are compromised, the bank can help block, cancel and replace the affected card to prevent further misuse. Should you be approached with an offer that seems too good to be true, Mr Muhammad advises seeking a second opinion before acting. 'Consult family members before sending money to strangers, verify suspicious transactions through the bank's scam hotline, and remember – legitimate businesses won't ask for payment in gift cards or cryptocurrency,' he said.
CNA
6 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Amid Kpod panic, let's not forget ‘regular' vapes are still dangerous
SINGAPORE: In recent months, Kpods - vape devices laced with an anaesthetic called etomidate - have dominated headlines in Singapore and around the world. Many of us have come across stories about teenagers turning into 'zombies' and behaving erratically. Parents have recounted tragic experiences of their children's addiction struggles. There have been calls for stricter regulations around the accessibility of Kpods, especially for young people. This has drawn increased public attention to the dangers of vaping, and rightfully so. But amid this intense focus on Kpods, it's worth considering if something larger is being overlooked. That is, the broader issue of vaping itself, which paved the way for Kpods in the first place. When one product becomes the face of the problem, there's a risk that others fade into the background. It is not hard to imagine how a young person might view Kpods as the extreme, and 'normal' vapes as an acceptable compromise. This division, whether conscious or subconscious, risks blunting the urgency around the vaping epidemic as a whole. STUDENTS USING AND SELLING VAPES Although vaping has always been banned in Singapore, products are still smuggled in. Despite tight border controls and stringent laws, the number of vaping offences has steadily increased. In the first half of 2025, more than 2,500 reports of vaping were made, nearly matching the full-year total of over 3,000 such incidents in 2024. Schools are reporting more students caught with vapes. Some teenagers are now not just users, but also sellers. Just last week (Jul 25), two teenagers approached a Primary 4 student from Fairfield Methodist School as he was walking home from school and tried to get him to buy a vape. In a separate case, a 15-year-old boy who was caught with vapes five times over a 10-month period was recently ordered by a court to be placed in a boys' home. In yet another case, a man was charged in July for manufacturing Kpods at home, the first case of its kind in Singapore. Police found 569 empty pod casings, 1,485 pod covers, 100 loose vape pods and disposable vapes in an HDB flat. The scale of the problem suggests a deeper issue than just breaking the law: Demand is growing, and supply chains are adapting. HEFTIER PENALTIES ARE ONLY PART OF THE SOLUTION Law enforcement has moved quickly. Singapore's plan to list etomidate as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act is a necessary step. It gives law enforcement stronger grounds to impose heftier penalties for Kpod offences. But this is a game of whack-a-mole. A major driver of the Kpod scourge is relentless marketing on social media platforms such as Telegram. Vapes are aggressively marketed as trendy, harmless consumer products. While improving drug enforcement laws is important to stay ahead of these schemes, enforcement alone may not be enough. Part of the challenge lies in how vapes are distributed. They are small, easy to hide and hard to trace. Many are distributed through encrypted messaging apps, peer-to-peer networks, and even unwitting parents returning from overseas trips. This is why another layer is needed: One that educates people on the dangers of vaping and helps them take ownership of their well-being. One recent example is the vape bin initiative, which encourages users to surrender their vapes without fear of punishment. The idea is simple: Get harmful devices off the streets and into bins. Critics have asked why a vape user would not just toss the device down the rubbish chute if he or she truly wanted to quit vaping. Whether the vape is thrown into a rubbish chute or a vape bin is not the point. These initiatives are about fostering community cooperation. About telling people that there is no shame in their past actions and offering a public, deliberate first step to quit vaping. But these efforts can only succeed if backed by support structures such as public education, counselling and addiction recovery services. Teens who are vaping to cope with mental health issues, academic stress or social pressure are likely to respond more favourably to counselling and other rehabilitative programmes than the stick. It is worth noting that a similar, albeit smaller, initiative was launched in November 2023 by the MacPherson Youth Network and Bilby Community Development, calling for youths aged 12 to 30 to surrender their vapes to receive a S$30 gift voucher for shops like Decathlon and Sephora. Whether such financial incentives are enough to motivate quitting is unclear. A more effective long-term approach would focus on helping vape-addicted youths address the underlying issues that compel them to vape in the first place. THERE IS NO 'SAFE' VAPE As public discussions on Kpods continue, it is important to remember this: All forms of vaping come with serious health risks. There is no 'safe' vape. The authorities are rightly cracking down on Kpods, but that attention should serve to open up the conversation, not narrow it. Kpods may be the latest concern, but they are part of a much larger and evolving landscape. The more we talk openly about the risks, the more we can prevent harm before it starts.
