Singaporean charged with breaking PAP flags, harassing volunteers in Hougang on GE2025 polling night
According to Channel News Asia, Seng Guan Heng is facing five charges, including mischief, intentional harassment, using criminal force and causing annoyance while drunk.
The incident took place late at night on May 3, the day of the Singapore General Election 2025.
According to charge sheets, Seng damaged five PAP posters and broke the flag poles of two party flags at an open-air carpark at Block 328 Hougang Avenue 5 around 11.20pm. The posters were worth about S$205 (RM680).
He allegedly hurled Hokkien vulgarities at a group of PAP volunteers, pointed his middle finger at them and pushed two men on their chests. Seng was also said to be shouting while drunk during the confrontation.
Appearing alone in court today, Seng said through a Mandarin interpreter that he intends to plead guilty. He added that he needs to travel frequently for work and cited upcoming trips to Vietnam and Indonesia.
However, the judge cautioned him that court permission is required for travel once charges are filed.
'Mr Seng, once you are charged in court, you cannot travel freely, and each time you travel you have to make an application to the court for permission, and that requires an increase in bail amount ... it is not a matter of you informing (the court),' said the judge.
The case has been adjourned to August for further mention.
If convicted, Seng faces up to two years' jail, a fine, or both for the mischief charge. The intentional harassment charge carries up to six months' jail or a fine of up to S$5,000. For using criminal force, the penalty is up to three months' jail or a S$1,500 fine. Causing annoyance while drunk can lead to six months' jail, a S$1,000 fine, or both.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
6 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Suspended Thai PM asks for more time to respond to ethics case
Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended from prime ministerial duties on July 1. (EPA Images pic) BANGKOK : Thailand's suspended prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra asked a court for more time to file a defence statement in a case that could see her dismissed over the handling of a border dispute. Paetongtarn's office asked the constitutional court for a deadline extension, secretary-general Prommin Lertsuridej told reporters today. The court has not yet responded to the request or specified how much more time it will give, he said. 'We've requested an extension today, but by how long is up to the court,' Prommin said. 'It's within our rights to do so, as we couldn't prepare the statement in time.' The court suspended Paetongtarn from prime ministerial duties on July 1 and gave her 15 days to submit a written response. It acted after a group of senators submitted a petition accusing Paetongtarn of violating ethical standards over her remarks in a leaked phone call with former Cambodian leader Hun Sen. The youngest daughter of billionaire and former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, Paetongtarn faces disqualification and removal from office if the court finds her guilty. The court case is the biggest threat yet to Paetongtarn's nascent political career and less than year-old government. She came to power in August last year after her predecessor, Srettha Thavisin, was ousted in a similar ethics-related case over an appointment of a cabinet minister. Paetongtarn's coalition government was plunged into a crisis when Hun Sen leaked the phone recording of his conversation with the Thai leader. Critics say she appeared to be siding with Hun Sen and criticising the Thai army while discussing solutions to a simmering border dispute with Cambodia. That angered conservative-leaning activists and opponents, who organised the biggest public protest in years to demand her ouster. The suspended premier also reportedly faces a separate probe by the national anti-corruption commission over the same allegations of ethical violations. If the panel determines that there is sufficient evidence, it may formally charge Paetongtarn and refer the case to a division of the Supreme Court for adjudication. Past rulings by the court in similar cases have led to lifelong bans on Thai politicians from holding or running for public office.
Free Malaysia Today
6 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Russian court hands US-owned food company's assets to the state
Since being placed under Russian state management, Glavprodukt's sales have dropped sharply. (The Moscow Times) MOSCOW : A Moscow court has ruled that the assets of US-owned canned food company Glavprodukt be handed over to the Russian state, the TASS news agency reported late on Friday, following a months-long legal tussle over the company. One participant in the court proceedings, who declined to be named, confirmed to Reuters yesterday that the court had satisfied the prosecution's claim in full with immediate effect after a six-hour court session. The seizure of Glavprodukt, the only US company Moscow has seized, coincides with stalled attempts to reset US-Russian relations. Glavprodukt and other assets ultimately owned by US company Universal Beverage and founder Leonid Smirnov were placed under temporary state management by presidential decree in October 2024. Prosecutors subsequently sought to justify the seizure by arguing the measure was necessary to ensure a stable food supply in Russia, according to a letter seen by Reuters in April. 'The court ruled that the general prosecutor's case on the seizure of Glavprodukt assets and property of its head Smirnov in favour of the state be satisfied in full,' TASS quoted the court as saying. 'The decision comes into force immediately'. Court filings showed Universal Beverage had applied for a postponement of proceedings, but no ruling was specified. The court did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'The decision made violates the law of Russia. 'Steps will be taken, and some have already been taken, to protect our interests, not only in Russian courts but also in American courts as well as international courts,' Smirnov told Reuters. 'Our efforts in Washington definitely will be accelerated,' he added. Smirnov said he plans to appeal the decision in Russian courts. He has already begun legal proceedings in the US state of Arkansas, where Alexander Tkachev has business interests. Tkachev is a former agriculture minister and the ultimate owner of Druzhba Narodov, the company which requested the Kremlin appoint new management at Glavprodukt, Reuters reported in April. Since being placed under state management, Glavprodukt's sales have dropped sharply, and it has posted regular monthly losses, according to documents seen by Reuters last week. The new management team plans to boost dwindling sales with exports to China and North Korea, according to documents reviewed by Reuters and people familiar with the matter.
Malay Mail
9 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Back channel diplomacy is a strategic must in Asean — Phar Kim Beng
JULY 15 — In the highly fluid and dynamic diplomatic environment of Southeast Asia, back-channel diplomacy is not merely an option — it is a strategic necessity. While Asean may appear ritualistic and indecisive on the surface, beneath that calm exterior lies a quiet but firm will not to acquiesce. When issues are too politically combustible or diplomatically delicate to be addressed in formal settings, Asean turns to a different toolkit — one built on discretion, trust, and personal rapport. This is not weakness. It is survival through subtlety. The quiet refusal to accept the unacceptable Asean is often criticized for being too slow, too soft, or too silent. But this criticism stems from a misreading of its behaviour. What looks like passivity is often a calculated refusal to escalate, provoke, or humiliate. Asean's silence in the face of provocation is not always surrender; it is sometimes the only viable way to keep lines of communication open when more forceful approaches would slam them shut. This is where back-channel diplomacy comes into play. It allows Asean states to convey their discontent, concerns, or proposals discreetly. It enables dialogue when formal avenues are blocked. It also enables member states to preserve unity even when they disagree internally. The real work of diplomacy, in such moments, happens far from microphones and cameras. Myanmar: The case for quiet tenacity One of the most pressing examples is Myanmar. Since the 2021 military coup, Asean's formal mechanisms have struggled to engage the junta meaningfully. Public commitments have been ignored or undermined and attempts to dispatch envoys have met roadblocks. Yet the crisis continues to affect the credibility of the region — and the lives of millions. In such a scenario, back-channel diplomacy is not just helpful — it is indispensable. Regional actors have engaged the regime not through loud pronouncements but through quiet visits, confidential dialogues, and the use of respected intermediaries. This includes religious leaders, retired generals, and former diplomats who, while not speaking officially, carry enough stature to be taken seriously. These unofficial engagements are often the only way to negotiate humanitarian access, facilitate de-escalation, or push for incremental confidence-building. When no one else can talk, someone must still listen — and nudge. The value of personal trust networks What enables these efforts to function is not institutional power but personal trust. Southeast Asia has long operated on the strength of relationships: old classmates in government, retired military officers with transnational bonds, scholars who are quietly respected across borders. These relationships become the scaffolding upon which back-channel diplomacy is built. They allow officials — active or retired — to float ideas informally, share warnings discreetly, and explore compromise without political cost. If a proposal fails, it vanishes with no public embarrassment. If it works, it can be elevated to the formal track with minimum friction. This diplomatic informality is not a sign of disorganization. On the contrary, it reflects a high degree of regional maturity — an understanding that trust, not treaties, is often what prevents conflict. Asean is often criticized for being too slow, too soft, or too silent. But this criticism stems from a misreading of its behaviour. What looks like passivity is often a calculated refusal to escalate, provoke, or humiliate. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Back channel diplomacy in a region of shifting standards Back-channel diplomacy becomes even more critical at a time when the return of great power competition is accompanied by a troubling duality: one standard for the powerful, and another for everyone else. When rules-based international order is selectively applied — or outright ignored — Asean cannot afford to rely solely on formal mechanisms that move too slowly for fast-unfolding crises. In the absence of credible enforcement of international norms, and with the law of the jungle gaining preponderance, Asean must quietly but consistently find ways to de-escalate tensions, protect its cohesion, and preserve regional autonomy. One recent cautionary tale, however, reminds us that while back-channel diplomacy is necessary, it must also be conducted with care and supervision. The leaked phone call between then–Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen, though unofficial in nature, inadvertently exposed the risks of personal, unstructured communications between senior officials. Yet despite the fallout, the issue at hand — the closure of transnational cybercrime hubs straddling the Thai Cambodian border — was and remains a legitimate diplomatic concern. These cybercrime centres, reportedly targeted for shutdown by Chinese authorities, had grown into entrenched organized networks. When Thailand acted to close border crossings, organized criminal interests in Cambodia were affected, triggering both diplomatic unease and operational confusion. It is precisely in such moments — when sovereign decisions clash with transnational pressures — that Asean needs discreet dialogue, not diplomatic posturing. Back-channel diplomacy must not occur in a vacuum. It requires structure, oversight, and credible interlocutors — what might be called policy sherpas — to navigate sensitive files before they escalate. Whether they operate through Track 1.5 dialogues, Track 2 consultations, or confidential political envoys, these sherpas can help test solutions, clear misunderstandings, and build pathways for official action. Asean needs more of them, not fewer. Informality is Asean's quiet instrument of agency In a region as politically diverse and historically fragmented as Southeast Asia, formal diplomacy is often constrained by divergent national interests. What can't be said officially still needs to be communicated. Back-channel diplomacy provides that space. It gives Asean the room to manoeuvre, to clarify misunderstandings, and to avoid unintended escalation. This informal diplomacy also serves another critical function: it prevents external actors from monopolizing the regional narrative. In a world where external powers routinely seek to divide Asean for their own strategic ends, back-channel engagements among member states help ensure a minimum baseline of unity and coordination — even if it remains invisible to outsiders. Rethinking what success looks like Western observers often measure diplomatic success by visible breakthroughs: peace treaties, televised summits, signed declarations. But in Asean's context, success is sometimes best measured by what doesn't happen: crises that don't escalate, provocations that don't trigger retaliation, and situations that don't spiral out of control. Back-channel diplomacy contributes directly to this kind of quiet stability. It prevents issues from hardening into stalemates. It allows countries to test each other's intentions without making irreversible moves. And it provides an escape route from the paralysis of unanimity when formal consensus is elusive. Conclusion: The strength of stillness Asean's style may be quiet, but it is not dormant. Its preference for back-channel diplomacy is neither accidental nor incidental. It is a reflection of the region's hard-won understanding of what works — and what doesn't — in a complex geopolitical theatre. To mistake silence for inaction is to misread the language of diplomacy in Southeast Asia. Back-channel diplomacy is not a retreat. It is a recalibration. It is a way of navigating constraints, preserving unity, and preventing collapse without spectacle. In the end, diplomacy is about outcomes, not optics. And in that quiet corner where official scripts cannot go, Asean's strength lies in its ability to whisper when the world expects it to shout. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
