Nothing screams holiday season like the mandatory haul reels on TikTok and Instagram. But before you start filming yours, here is what Singapore Customs wants you to know.

During a week-long sweep in May 2026, 43 travellers were caught for failing to declare and pay taxes on their goods.

The total duty and GST evaded came to about S$5,354, with S$9,740 in composition sums imposed.

So, what do you need to do to ensure you do not end up being one of them?

What counts as taxable?

All goods brought into Singapore are subject to GST, and that includes everything from souvenirs and gifts to food, regardless of whether you already paid tax on them overseas.

Returning residents are not exempt either.

Why does it matter?

Simply put, it keeps things fair for local businesses that have been paying GST on the same goods all along.

The GST you pay also goes towards ensuring Singapore stays running. It goes into the national treasury, the same pot that pays for the MRT line you take home from the airport, the schools down the road, and the hospitals that you hopefully will not need to use.

How much can you bring in before you need to pay GST?

Well, it all boils down to how long you have been away and why you are bringing the goods in.

That said, there is one part people often get wrong. You declare the full value of your goods, not just the amount above your relief.

The relief is applied when Customs works out how much GST is payable.

These reliefs apply only to goods intended for personal use or consumption. Items brought in for commercial purposes or on behalf of others are not eligible.

A note on liquor and tobacco:

Planning to stock up on drinks duty-free?

You can bring in up to two litres of liquor (depending on type) for personal consumption if you meet the conditions below.

As for cigarettes and tobacco products, there is zero duty-free concession. Every stick is subject to duty and GST, no exceptions.

To make things clearer, here are some scenarios to help you figure out what you need to declare.

Scenario 1: Quick day trip to Johor Bahru (less than 48 hrs)

You zipped across the Causeway for a day and came back with groceries, a bag and a new top, totalling S$280.

Since you were away for less than 48 hours, your GST import relief is up to S$100. You will need to declare the full S$280, and GST will be charged on S$180, which is the amount above your relief.

The easiest way to do it? Declare via the Customs@SG Web Application before you even cross back, get your e-receipt, and walk through the Green Channel.

Scenario 2: Short holiday to Bangkok (48 hrs or more)

Four days in Bangkok, and you did some damage: clothes, skincare, a new bag and a pile of souvenirs, totalling S$1,200.

Since you were away for 48 hours or more, your GST import relief goes up to S$500. You will need to declare the full S$1,200, and GST will be charged on S$700.

Declare via the Customs@SG Web Application up to three days before you fly home, pay, and waltz through the Green Channel when you land.

Still, there are a few assumptions worth clearing up:

How to declare and pay — without the queue

Good news: declaring your goods does not have to mean joining a long queue at the checkpoint.

When you arrive in Singapore, you will need to use either the Red or Green Channel at customs.

If you have dutiable or taxable goods to declare, head to the Red Channel.

If you have nothing to declare, use the Green Channel.

The easiest way to pay taxes is via the Customs@SG Web Application, which lets you declare and pay your GST up to three days before you even land, anytime and anywhere.

Once you have paid, you will get an e-receipt. Flash it to officers if you are stopped, and waltz through the Green Channel like the law-abiding traveller you are.

Prefer to sort it out on arrival instead?

Look for the Customs Declaration Kiosks at the checkpoints or terminals.

Payment is cashless and fuss-free. The Customs@SG Web Application accepts Visa, Mastercard, American Express, UnionPay, JCB, PayNow, Apple Pay and Google Pay.

What happens if you do not declare?

Don't even think about sneaking that newly acquired bag past customs.

Those who fraudulently evade customs or excise duties can be fined up to 20 times the amount evaded, jailed for up to two years, or both.

That bag suddenly does not seem like such a bargain.

Failing to declare goods is an offence under Singapore law. Minor cases may be settled with a composition sum, but more serious offences go straight to court.

For cases where the penalty exceeds S$5,000, offenders may be charged in court without any offer of composition.

Use the Customs@SG Web Application to declare and pay in advance.

For more information, visit Singapore Customs' website.

This sponsored article made this writer double-check her own declaration habits before her next trip.

The government has accepted the recommendations put forth by the 2026 ministerial salary review committee, which means that the salaries of Singapore's political appointment holders will be adjusted for the first time in 15 years.

The move has attracted international news coverage, which described Singapore's ministers as the highest paid in the world.

A minister at grade MR4 will earn up to S$1.8 million in the distant future, up from S$1.1 million.

The salary points of all other ministerial grades and PAHs will similarly adjust upwards, since the MR4 salary is the benchmark salary.

The new salaries will take effect from Oct. 15, 2026, with existing ministers and PAHs getting a one-off adjustment of up to 9 per cent, subject to their performance.

This means that an existing MR4 minister receiving $1.1 million will see an increase of his or her annual salary to $1.2 million if they receive the maximum 9 per cent adjustment. 

Announcing the adjustment, PM Wong emphasised the importance of being able to attract the best talent and build a strong political team for Singapore, and explained how a competitive remuneration will help in that.

However, he also acknowledged that money cannot be the be-all end-all for those looking to join political office.

Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing reiterated this in his ministerial statement.

He commented, "As the Prime Minister has said, some CEOs of major Singapore companies earn six or seven million dollars a year, sometimes more. We are not trying to match that. Nor should we. But we cannot pretend that such opportunity costs do not exist."

If public office salary can never match private sector dollars, and if money ought not to be the primary motivation for seeking the job, then how does raising salaries ease the challenge of assembling the best team for Singapore?

There are many challenges to convincing someone to take the leap into the life of politics. Raising salaries and making it as competitive as political appetite allows for is perhaps the easiest hurdle to lower.

Is now a better time?

Before getting into the weeds of the money conundrum, one question to ponder about is timing.

Back in May, Chan said that consideration of the salary review committee's recommendations will be deferred until the impact of the Middle East crisis is clearer.

It's been five months since, and the conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran is nowhere near any form of conclusion.

Oil prices have eased from its peak, but remains elevated compared to pre-conflict levels.

In the interim, Singapore was again hit with 12.5% tariffs by the U.S.

Singapore's GDP forecast has, however, been raised.

Have the storm clouds cleared?

Eugene Tan, political analyst and Professor of Law at Singapore Management University (SMU), told Mothership that PM Wong may have decided to "bite the bullet" and move on the matter as the conflict appears to have the makings of a "forever war".

The ministerial salary issue is sensitive, emotive and "not a vote winner", Tan remarked.

"Parliament has completed the first year of its term, so time is of the essence in moving on unpopular or sensitive issues," he added.

The current term of government and 15th parliament officially took office on Sep. 5, 2025.

The next general election is due to be called by 2030. Election issue or not, the clock is ticking on growing the talent pool.

"It is also likely that the challenge of recruitment has grown and there is the imperative and urgency to ensure that matter is addressed," Tan continued.

Nonetheless, Tan said that there is never a good time for ministerial salary increments.

Aaron Maniam, Deputy Director at the Institute of Policy Studies, said the same.

Maniam pointed out that the latest move increases the government's flexibility to recruit, while the "very careful phasing of the implementation" reflects the "continued recognition of the prevailing economic uncertainties".

Can money overcome the recruitment challenge?

On the conundrum of money as incentive, both PM Wong and Chan emphasised in their statements that the salary increase is to give the current and future governments the best chance of bringing in the best people for the top jobs.

In PM Wong's words, "It’s not simply about what we pay ministers today. It’s about whether future Prime Ministers will continue to have a realistic chance of persuading capable Singaporeans... to step forward and build a first-rate team for Singapore."

At the same time, money cannot be the primary motivating factor, and it will not be more than private sector salaries.

To derive the MR4 salary benchmark, a 40 per cent discount is applied to the median income of top 1,000 Singapore citizen earners as a reflection of the spirit of public service.

This framework was established by the 2012 ministerial salary review committee.

Tan opined that it is unlikely that the increments will lead to a "beeline of private sector candidates".

"I would look at the salary adjustments as an attempt to ensure salaries do not become a bigger hindrance than they are to capable individuals considering whether to enter politics," he shared.

"The salary adjustments are not meant to act alone in attracting suitable candidates, but are meant to reduce any deterrence to public office and provide the government with flexibility in their recruitment efforts," Maniam said.

Maniam also pointed out that salaries are part of the "practical realities of a political career" to ensure that financial burdens do not add to natural pressures of political work, which might in turn deter individuals from stepping forward.

In recent times, the most notable private sector individual who made the switch to public life is Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) Tan See Leng.

Tan received a shout-out from PM Wong, who said that he would like to bring in more people like Tan.

Most of the other recent new cabinet appointees were senior civil servants, however.

Jeffrey Siow, who is now Minister for Transport, was the highest-ranking civil servant to leave civil service and enter the political arena in the 2025 general elections.

The other GE2025 debutant to enter PM Wong's cabinet was David Neo, who was the Chief of Army. Neo is now Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.

Non-monetary considerations

To SMU's Tan, it is "more likely the case" that non-monetary considerations are decisive.

Such "non-monetary considerations" were acknowledged by both PM Wong and Chan.

Apart from pay cuts and the uncertainty of electoral outcomes, political life places "real demand on families", PM Wong said.

"Money will never be able to suitably address these concerns," Tan commented.

More can be done, Tan said. "I think it is imperative for society to be instilled and inculcated with the ethos of public service."

"Even if pay is not an issue, the lack of such an ethos will mean the pipeline of political leaders will not be healthy. Are we losing the public service ethos as a society?" He asked.

The law professor also said that it is noteworthy for PM Wong to address the point that potential candidates assesses whether the team they are joining are people they want to serve alongside.

"In other words, is how the government governing, a deterrent in itself?" Tan mused, adding that it remains to be seen what is being done on this front.

Ministerial salaries was a difficult issue which Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong would have preferred not to leave to his successor, if not prohibited by circumstances.

PM Wong recognised the delicateness of the issue, describing political salaries as "difficult and emotive".

In electing to settle ministerial salaries, PM Wong also signaled a willingness to confront politically unsavoury issues.

"It would have been easier politically for me to leave things as they are. But that would not be the right thing to do," he said in Parliament.

"Restraint cannot become neglect. That's why I have decided we must act now," he continued.

Finding the right benchmark

In 2012, when debating ministerial salaries, the Workers' Party proposed an alternate framework to peg a minister's salary to that of a senior management grade in the civil service instead.

Back then, chief among their criticisms of the 2012 framework was that the proposal to peg a minister's salary to the top 1,000 income earners has "created a flawed formula".

These income earners make up a small percentage of the workforce and are unrepresentative of the general population, the WP said in a 2012 statement.

They also proposed for any review or change of the salary structure for political office to be subjected to Parliamentary approval.

In establishing the benchmark for the MR4 salary, the 2012 report committee explained that the median income of the top 1,000 earners was chosen to "send a strong signal to prospective political appointment holders on the type of talent being sought".

The 2026 committee affirmed the continued relevance of this benchmark.

"Top 1,000 earners strike me as being highly selective and perhaps leaning on being elitist," Tan remarked.

He continued, "While the committee took the view that the figure better reflects the talent pool who are up to the job, a legitimate question is whether there is any empirical basis for this."

Tan opined that the number of income earners should be much larger, at 10,000 for example.

"Otherwise, it would make the pool much elitist and, more importantly, engender concerns that the pay formula is skewed towards higher salaries for which the top 1,000 earners may well be outliers," he explained.

Maniam described politics as "one of the most exacting careers around", one that is "cognitively and emotionally demanding".

"These are jobs with similar scope, complexity, budgets, decision-making demands and executive functions to a Minister's roles," Maniam said of the top 1,000 earners.

Maniam further noted that the number of income earners accounted for in the benchmark has risen through the years — from 24 to 48, and now 1,000.

This is to reflect reality that Singapore needs to draw its leaders from a wide range of roles and functions, he commented.

The previous benchmark prior to 2011 drew on the principal earned income of the top eight earners across six professions, meaning that the benchmark pool was 48 individuals.

Parliament set to debate government's position

While the government's decision on the salary adjustments do not need to pass a vote in parliament, parliament is nonetheless set to debate the government's position on the ministerial salary review on Thursday (Sep. 10).

Earlier this year during his Budget 2026 speech, WP chief Pritam Singh questioned if some of the National Bonus indicators, such as GDP and income growth, were still relevant in the age of AI.

The government has previously stated that GDP growth may longer entail as much job growth.

The government will be tightening the targets for the National Bonus and studying indicators to reflect the quality of life as experienced by Singaporeans.

The WP manifesto also calls for the abolishing of the office of the mayor.

Under the new salary adjustments, mayors' salaries will go up from S$660,000 annually to S$810,000 annually.

The government accepted the committee's recommendation to study the delinking of the mayor's salary from the MR4 benchmark.

The committee highlighted that considerations for the salary of community-related roles like mayors and Members of Parliament may differ from those of ministers.

On the framework, Chan said:

"Let me be upfront. No formula will be perfect or be able to satisfy everyone. There is no universally ideal benchmark. The key question is this – what is a workable framework and range of figures that allow the PM, any PM, to reasonably assemble a team that Singapore deserves?"

PM Wong concluded by saying:

"I ask for your understanding and support as we make this adjustment.

This is not about the PAP government of today. We cannot predict what the political landscape will look like years from now. But whichever party is in government, Singapore will need strong and effective political leadership to serve our people and take our country forward."

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is appealing the sentence of British national Oruche Morgan Fidelis, 22, who was found guilty of assaulting Low Ek Yong, 66, a private-hire vehicle driver in Singapore.

AGC described the sentence imposed on the accused as "manifestly inadequate".

Another appeal pertains to the decision of the District Judge to amend the charge to one of assault.

The charge before that was voluntarily causing hurt where grievous hurt is actually caused.

AGC said it has filed two notices of appeal to the High Court against the decisions of the State Courts.

Sentenced to short detention order

On Sep. 7, 2026, Morgan was sentenced to five days short detention order (SDO) and 100 hours of community service.

A SDO requires the offender to be detained in prison for a period not exceeding 14 days.

It acts as a deterrent by allowing the offender to experience prison life.

It is a type of community based sentence, which means that if he successfully complete the sentence, the offence of which he was convicted will be removed from his criminal record.

Judged explained decision of SDO

In deciding the sentence, the judge cited an "unfortunate coincidence of a few things", including Morgan's intoxicated state, which prevented him from providing a clear account of what had happened leading to Low’s injury.

The judge also took into account Morgan's clean record, his young age and the fact that he had pleaded guilty after the charge was amended.

However, if Morgan fails to comply with or complete the sentence, he may be brought back to court to be sentenced in accordance with the law.

He was subsequently released on bail.

The assault

On Jun. 12, 2024, Low had picked Morgan up at around 10:30pm.

Upon reaching the destination, Low attempted to wake Morgan, who was asleep, but Morgan reportedly became unhappy, whereupon he lunged at and pushed Low.

As a result, Low fell and hit his head on the ground.

Low was later found to have suffered a skull fracture.

He was taken to the National University Hospital for emergency treatment and subsequently died from natural causes about a year after the incident.

Original charge amended

Morgan had initially claimed trial to a charge under Section 323A of the Penal Code 1871 for voluntarily causing hurt where grievous hurt was caused.

Following the trial, the District Judge exercised his powers under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 on Jul. 15, 2026, to amend the charge to one of assault under Section 352 of the Penal Code 1871.

As the driver had passed away from natural causes in June 2025, the judge had said the only objective evidence available was surveillance footage from a private residence opposite Morgan's residence.

The driver never came to again after going into a coma and could not provide an account of what happened that night.

Could not establish how fracture occurred

The footage showed Morgan waking up, calmly removing his headphones and moving towards Low in a single swift movement.

However, the judge noted that medical evidence only established that Low had sustained a skull fracture.

It could not establish whether the fracture was caused by the fall after being pushed, a punch, or Low tripping.

Could not prove beyond reasonable doubt

Given the uncertainty over how the injury was sustained, the court found that the circumstances were highly speculative.

The prosecution was therefore unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morgan has voluntarily caused hurt, and the court could not convict the accused on the original charge of voluntarily causing hurt which causes grievous hurt.

The charge was consequently amended to one of assault under Section 352.

Under the amended charge, Morgan was found to have committed an aggressive act by raising his left arm towards Low.

Morgan pleaded guilty to the amended charge on Jul. 17, 2026.

AGC filed two Notices of Appeal

In a media statement on Sep. 9, 2026, AGC said it had filed two notices of appeal with the High Court against the State Courts’ decisions in the case.

It filed a first notice of appeal on Jul. 27, 2026, against the District Judge’s decision to amend the charge.

It subsequently filed a second notice of appeal on Sep. 8, 2026, against the sentence, on the ground that it was "manifestly inadequate".

Three complaints were lodged alleging workplace discrimination due to National Service (NS) obligations between 2024 and 2025, Minister of State for Manpower Foo Cexiang said in Parliament on Sep. 9.

He added that NSmen who believe that they have been unfairly treated because of their NS obligations may seek assistance from the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP).

Have not needed enforcement action

Under the Enlistment Act, employers have specific statutory duties in relation to their employees’ NS obligations.

They include reinstating employees after NS, granting leave of absence for NS obligations, and not dismissing employees on account of their NS obligations.

"To date, MINDEF has not had to pursue formal enforcement action under these provisions," Foo said.

Where concerns have been raised, MINDEF would engage employers directly to clarify their obligations.

This approach has been effective in resolving issues, Foo assured.

Legal protections

Foo was responding to a Parliamentary question from Workers' Party Member of Parliament (MP) Kenneth Tiong about the figures for such complaints.

Tiong also asked why NS liability is not protected under the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA), and what protection a serviceman has against being passed over for promotion because of in-camp training.

Foo explained that the WFA, which will come into force at the end of 2027, takes a "calibrated approach".

The protected characteristics included in the Act account for about 95 per cent of discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM.

MOM will also consider expanding the WFA's scope if other forms of discrimination complaints persist or increase significantly in number, Foo said.

NSmen are further protected under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), which prohibits all forms of workplace discrimination including those based on NS obligations.

Employers found breaching the guidelines will be required to correct their practices, and in egregious cases, even get their work pass privileges suspended by MOM.

A bankrupt property agent duped his fellow agents into co-broking falsified sales, using them to receive advance commissions and leaving them to deal with the aftermath.

CNA reported that Cheong En Kiong, 51, pleaded guilty on Sep. 8, 2026 to four charges including forgery, cheating and receiving benefits from criminal conduct.

Other outstanding charges will be considered during sentencing.

According to court documents seen by Mothership, Cheong has been an undischarged bankrupt since 2019, meaning that he is obligated to make monthly payments to his creditors and is placed under certain financial restrictions.

Cheong was an agent under ERA Real Estate Singapore when he committed the offences.

According to CNA, he is no longer listed on the Council for Estate Agencies' public register.

The scheme

Cheong exploited the payment system of LytePay, a Monetary Authority of Singapore-licensed payment institution. It disburses advance commissions to real estate salespersons in exchange for a processing fee.

To do so, a real estate agent would first have to submit documents of the property sale to LytePay, which then delivers the advance commission to the agent.

After the seller of the property pays the commission due to the real estate company, the company would deduct the advance commission already received by the agent and pay the remainder to LytePay.

Cheong falsified property sale documents and used other agents' LytePay accounts to receive advance commissions with no actual sale taking place.

The Prudential unit

In June 2022, Cheong asked a fellow property agent, named only in court documents as A1, to be the co-broker for the sale of a unit at Prudential Towers.

The unit was worth about S$11 million.

A1, who is 38 years old, had known Cheong for a decade at the time. She had no prior experience with a sale of this magnitude.

Cheong told her that he was unable to submit an advance commission request to LytePay himself, and asked her to submit the sale documents to LytePay instead. He promised her a S$5,000 cut as well as the Medisave and income tax for the sale.

At the time, she was recovering from injuries sustained in an accident.

A1 believed that Cheong was offering her a legitimate opportunity. Unbeknownst to her, Cheong had forged the signatures in the documents, using the signature and personal details of a former client to falsify the sale.

While the unit was left unsold, A1 submitted the documents to LytePay, who disbursed S$91,653.39 to her.

After deducting her share and the processing fee, she transferred S$83,554 to Cheong.

He used the money to repay his debts.

Around six months later, ERA discovered that the purported buyer of the property had not sent them the commission owed. The company's internal investigations revealed Cheong's fraudulent actions, and he was issued with a warning.

ERA asked both Cheong and A1 to repay the advance commission of S$91,653.39 that they received from LytePay.

To date, Cheong has only paid back S$10,000 to S$12,000 of the owed sum, leaving A1 to bear the remaining amount.

LytePay issued a statutory demand to A1 to claw back the money, and has deducted A1's commissions from her other sales to offset the balance.

A1 has asked Cheong to pay her multiple times, but he has not done so.

The Lucky Plaza unit

This was not the only time that Cheong pulled off the scheme.

In October 2025, Cheong approached a client, named only as B1 in court documents, who was the owner of a commercial property in Lucky Plaza.

He lied to B1 that there was a buyer for the property, and asked him for his signature to exercise the purchase.

B1 signed on some blank documents that he provided.

Cheong then approached his friend and fellow real estate agent, known as B4 in court documents, to be the unwitting co-broker in the sale.

B4, a 63-year-old agent with OrangeTee & Tie, was suffering from prostate cancer at the time.

Nevertheless, he agreed to help Cheong after being told about his financial woes.

As before, Cheong deceived him into thinking that the sale of the Lucky Plaza unit was legitimate, forging the signatures of some of his other separate clients in the documents.

According to court documents, this was actually not the first time that Cheong had deceived B4.

Earlier in July 2025, Cheong had in fact roped B4 into being a co-broker for the false sale of yet another unit at Prudential Tower, on the eleventh floor.

B4 submitted the documents for the Lucky Plaza property sale to OrangeTee, requesting an advance commission via LytePay.

LytePay delivered S$7,955 to him. He then transferred S$4,700 to Cheong.

A few months later on October 2025, OrangeTee sent a letter to the purported buyer of the eleventh floor unit at Prudential Tower, reminding them that they still had about S$135,000 outstanding in agency fees.

The buyer informed OrangeTee that no such deal occurred.

After conducting internal investigations, OrangeTee discovered the fraudulent transactions of both the Prudential Tower and Lucky Plaza unit sales, and fired B4.

B4 was made to bear the full amount from the advance commissions doled out through LytePay, totalling S$86,014.

Until now, Cheong has made no restitution to OrangeTee, B4, or LytePay.

Aftermath

Those involved made police reports in October 2025.

Cheong has been remanded since April 2026.

The deputy public prosecutor sought 24.5 to 28 months' imprisonment, noting that he made use of his friends for his personal gain, reported CNA.

She said he had not just omitted information but actively deceived the victims, leaving them with "substantial financial obligations to LytePay".

Furthermore, he displayed a pattern of repeated offending, having defrauded those involved via the same means on separate occasions.

CNA reported that the Cheong's lawyer asked for 18.5 to 21.5 months' jail instead, citing his immediate guilty plea and full cooperation with the authorities.

The case was subsequently adjourned to October 2026 for sentencing.

For cheating or forgery to commit cheating, he could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined.

For acquiring property that are the benefits of criminal conduct, he could be jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$500,000, or both.

Six men, aged 23 to 76, will be charged on Sep. 10 in separate cases of outrage of modesty, or molestation.

36-year-old

On Jul. 16, a 36-year-old man allegedly molested a 23-year-old woman in the vicinity of Victoria Street.

The incident was reported to the police, and the man was arrested at the scene.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty and one count of uttering words intended to insult the modesty of any person.

29-year-old

On May 7, a 29-year-old man allegedly molested an 18-year-old woman and a 22-year-old woman in the vicinity of Bayfront Avenue.

The incident was reported to the police, and the man was arrested at the scene.

He will be charged with two counts of outrage of modesty.

23-year-old

On Apr. 26, a 23-year-old man allegedly molested a 23-year-old woman in the vicinity of Boat Quay.

The incident was reported to the police.

Through follow-up investigations, the police established the man’s identity and subsequently arrested him.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty.

27-year-old

On Apr. 4, a 27-year-old man allegedly molested a 30-year-old woman in the vicinity of Kallang Avenue.

The incident was reported to the police, and the man was arrested at the scene.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty.

34-year-old

On Dec. 15, 2025, a 34-year-old man allegedly molested a 17-year-old girl in the vicinity of Silat Avenue.

The incident was reported to the police.

Through follow-up investigations, the police established the man’s identity and subsequently arrested him.

He will be charged with two counts of outrage of modesty and two counts of uttering words and making a gesture intended to insult the modesty of any person.

76-year-old

On May 27, 2025, a 76-year-old man allegedly molested a 22-year-old woman in the vicinity of Hospital Boulevard.

Through follow-up investigations, the police established the man’s identity and subsequently arrested him.

He will be charged with one count of outrage of modesty and one count of uttering words intended to insult the modesty of any person.

Penalties

The offence of outrage of modesty carries a jail term of up to three years, a fine, caning, or any combination of such punishments.

The offence of uttering words or making gestures intended to insult the modesty of any person carries a jail term of up to one year, a fine, or both.

The police advised victims of molestation to move away from the perpetrator and call the police immediately when it is safe to do so.

While ensuring their personal safety, victims should attempt to note key details such as the perpetrator’s physical appearance, clothing, and the time and location of the incident.

Several cases were apparently detected with the help of bystanders, friends, security personnel, and members of the public who intervened, assisted, or promptly alerted the police.

Their actions safeguarded victims, preserved evidence and facilitated swift action.

Members of the public are encouraged to remain vigilant and to take action if they witness or encounter sexual crimes.

The police said they have zero tolerance towards sexual offenders who prey on unsuspecting victims and who threaten the personal safety of those in the community.

Offenders will be dealt with sternly in accordance with the law.

The police said they will continue to work closely with various stakeholders, such as public entertainment outlets, public transport operators, and the community, to prevent and deter molestation cases.

A magistrate's court has ordered a woman in Singapore to pay her ex-husband a total of S$7,085 after displaying "highly unreasonable" conduct towards him.

Deputy Registrar Mark Lim noted in his judgement released on Sep. 7, 2026, that the man had accidentally transferred S$6,650 to her and asked her to return the money multiple times.

Instead of simply returning the money, she prolonged the matter in a legal dispute lasting six months, including filing a police report and accusing his lawyers of misconduct.

Letter of demand

The Straits Times reported that James Jonathan intended to transfer the money to an online financial technology company, but mistakenly transferred it to his ex-wife Adel Ng after saving her as "Wife" in his contacts.

According to the judgement, the pair, who were formerly married and finalised their divorce in 2021, continued to remain in contact on matters including access to their child.

Jonathan then sent Ng at least 10 emails from Dec. 7, 2025, to Dec. 15, 2025, to inform her of the mistaken transfer and request for the money to be returned.

On Dec. 17, 2025, he issued her a letter of demand through his lawyers after she did not respond.

Concerned about getting scammed

Ng claimed that she was concerned about being a victim of a possible scam, and instructed her lawyers to respond in a letter dated Dec. 25, 2025, the judgement stated.

It requested for extensive information, which included Jonathan's identity number, a copy of an identity document and the source of the money.

The letter also questioned the reasons for the "error", and the reasons for the urgency in returning the money.

Police report

The next day on Dec. 26, 2025, Ng deposited the S$6,650 with the police.

She said in her police report that she wished to "return this money under cover of this police report, so as to avoid any misunderstanding or involvement with funds questionable source or bad actors (eg, scammers and money launderers), etc."

Ng added that she felt "the Singapore Police Force (SPF) were the proper authority to determine the legitimacy of the claim [she] was confronted with at that time".

On the same day, Ng's lawyers sent a further email to the Jonathan's lawyers stating they were instructed that Ng "has since deposited the funds in question with the Singapore Police Force".

Sued, defence

A few days later on Dec. 30, 2025, Jonathan sued Ng for the return of the S$6,650.

She filed her defence on Feb. 27, 2026, claiming she was a "passive recipient of S$6,650 of unknown and unverifiable source", and believed there was a "real possibility" she was getting scam messages.

Subsequently in May 2026, both parties filed to strike out each other's applications, with Ng's application being dismissed.

Accused lawyers of misconduct

On Jun. 16, 2026, Ng filed a letter to the court which alleged that Jonathan's lawyers had displayed misconduct and he himself had breached the court's directions, the judgement further stated.

On Jun. 19, 2026, Ng filed a further letter apologising "unreservedly" to the court and to Jonathan's lawyers.

However, she maintained her allegation that he had breached the court's directions.

On the same day, the court found that both Jonathan and his lawyers had not breached the court's directions.

ST reported that the police later confirmed that the S$6,650 had been returned to Jonathan on Jun. 26, 2026.

Decision on costs of action

The judgement further stated that Ng was ordered to pay Jonathan S$6,500 in costs, plus GST, which ST reported amounted to S$7,085.

Lim then laid out his decision on the costs of the action, calling Ng's conduct "so unreasonable" and noted that it unnecessarily prolonged the matter.

After receiving Jonathan's letter of demand, Ng first responded through her lawyers that they needed more time to take instructions, before requesting documents and information that were excessive and unreasonable.

Rather than a genuine good faith effort to ascertain Jonathan's identity, they appeared calculated to vex him, Lim said.

In addition, Ng had further indefinitely delayed any prospect of returning the money by depositing it with the police.

While she justified her conduct by claiming that she was concerned that she was "confronted with a possible scam", Lim said "this beggars belief".

Lim pointed out that Jonathan was "understandably aggrieved by the fact that a mistaken transfer... to his ex-wife that could have been remedied right away eventually escalated into a lawsuit that [went on] for well over half a year".

A Singaporean diver has gone missing following a diving incident in Palau on Sep. 7

A Mothership reader said that the diving expedition occurred on a motor yacht named Black Pearl.

The missing person is also said to be a prominent figure in the Singapore dive industry.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said in a statement to Mothership that it is aware of the incident on Sep. 7 and is providing consular assistance to the person's family.

They are also in contact with the Palau authorities on the search and rescue efforts, which are ongoing, they added.

"We will continue to monitor the situation closely."

Palau is an archipelago of over 500 islands, part of the Micronesia region in the western Pacific Ocean.

In Parliament on Sep. 9, Member of Parliament (MP) Elysa Chen called for the government to consider restitution for those who fall victim to scams on non-compliant platforms, as a form of economic redress.

"Under the spirit of fairness and justice, can we consider redistributing the fines collected to the victims of the very scams the platforms were fined for?" she put forth.

She was speaking during the continuing Parliamentary debate on the Scams (Countermeasures) and Other Matters Bill, which she supports.

Under the Online Criminal Harms Act, online platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Carousell, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok are required to impose preventive anti-scam measures.

Currently, those who do not comply may face a fine of up to S$1 million if they do not act on the Rectification Notice they are issued.

Chen said she welcomes the financial penalties on non-compliant platforms, but noted that the fines collected flow to the state, not the victim.

Thus, she proposed that the new Bill make redress to the victims.

'They keep coming back like zombies'

Speaking strongly against scams, Chen expressed frustration about the difficulty in tackling them.

"I hate how they keep coming back like zombies — we shut one account down, and two more spring up within an hour."

She also pointed out how scammers prey on the most vulnerable — people who may be deceived and coerced.

She shared several "heartwrenching" stories, including one she heard from a Meet-the-People (MPS) session involving a widow whose husband died from a terminal illness.

He had transferred large sums of money to a scammer, thinking that he was investing money to leave more for his wife and children, she said.

The year 2025 saw 37,308 scam cases, with a total of S$913.1 million lost.

While supporting the new Bill, Chen highlighted areas of concern she had when it comes to people who get deceived into scams.

"The measures must strike at the right targets...

A Bill that stops scammers only to catch the vulnerable in the same net will have solved one injustice by creating another."

Protecting those deceived or coerced

Chen highlighted that people may unwittingly become scam mules.

"What if someone was genuinely misled or coerced into handing over his account?" she questioned.

Giving an example, she described a situation where an elderly aunty was deceived into handing over her bank login details for a small token payment she believed was legitimate.

"She would be presumed, until she proves otherwise, to have had reasonable grounds to believe her account would be misused — a presumption she may not have the ability to rebut on her own."

Chen proposed that the government provide opportunities for review through an avenue outside of the police.

She also suggested setting a minimum gain threshold for scam mules, so that "a token sum does not sweep in those who have been deceived alongside the complicit".

She went on to question the punishment for scam mules by restricting their access to SingPass, wondering if that may inadvertently cut people off from essential civic services such as healthcare and CPF matters.

Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Goh Pei Ming later responded to this point, assuring her that will not happen.

He clarified that the SingPass restrictions will only be targeted at services that are at higher risk of being exploited for scams, such as opening a bank account. Services such as healthcare and CPF matters would remain fully accessible.

At the same time, people can still open a bank account without a SingPass, he added.

In response to the proposal of a minimum gain threshold, he said that he had concerns with such an approach.

"Whatever gain threshold that we set, scam mules are likely to endeavour to go below it to escape liability and frustrate law enforcement efforts.

The government's view is that the presumption should apply so long as there is gain, no matter how small."

Generative AI and online platforms can make religious knowledge more accessible, but should not be relied on as the primary source of religious guidance, Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Zaqy Mohamad said in Parliament.

He was responding to a question on whether MUIS would issue guidance to help Muslims verify AI-generated religious answers against authoritative sources, and know when to consult qualified asatizah.

Zaqy said complex religious matters require scholarly interpretation and contextual understanding, and that a qualified asatizah or other trustworthy source should be consulted in those situations.

MUIS has been reinforcing this through Friday sermons, public talks and the MuslimSG platform, and will continue delivering practical guidance through social media and community partners to strengthen digital religious literacy.

How do you check an answer you cannot evaluate?

In two follow-up questions by Saktiandi Supaat, MP of Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, PAP, he noted that someone seeking religious guidance may not have the knowledge to verify an AI-generated answer, even when references are provided.

He asked whether MUIS could strengthen existing channels so members of the public could submit such answers for checking by qualified asatizah and receive a timely response, particularly on matters affecting important family or personal decisions.

He also asked how MUIS would reach Muslims who get most of their religious information online, including those who do not regularly attend mosque programmes or religious classes.

"Certainly room for us to improve"

Agreeing that the questions were valid, Zaqy said the concern extends beyond the Muslim community to how people consume content generally, given that influencers now come from all over the world.

On accessibility, he said: "There's certainly room for us to improve accessibility to information, accessibility to asatizah, for example."

He said MUIS is looking at upgrading the MuslimSG platform, and that it could be made more interactive and accessible in future.

MUIS is also training its teachers to work with the technology.

He said:

"We're educating and even upgrading many of our asatizahs to be more familiar with generative AI and new digital tools. Some of them have already undergone training to better understand the effects, or even how to use AI better, because ultimately they do have to explain."

Asatizah are accessible through the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) website, he added, and people can also approach MUIS directly for religious guidance.

He said religious education has to be approached holistically across both the physical and digital realms, and that MUIS is conscious of the need to reach young people who may be influenced, given the risk of radicalisation and false teachings.

He said the asatizah community also has a role in helping Muslims contextualise teachings received from overseas clerics and muftis into the Singapore context.

A dedicated unit to comb the internet?

PAP MP Dr Wan Rizal then asked whether MUIS could set up a dedicated unit to search the internet for religious misinformation before it gains traction in the community, suggesting the current approach was defensive.

Zaqy said that in an “ideal state with unlimited resources” it might be possible, but the internet is vast and it is very difficult to pick out every site or source.

What matters more, he said, is identifying themes that resonate with people but may be false or not contextualised to Singapore.

He gave an example from a few years ago, when there were questions over whether Muslims could wish others a Merry Christmas.

Themes that run against the spirit of inclusivity and Singapore's multiracial and multireligious context have to be addressed, he said.

"Very difficult to police algorithms"

Zaqy said generative AI presents a particular problem because it does not draw from a single site.

He said:

"Generative AI does not come from sites as well, it comes from algorithms that are pulled together from different sites. So it's very difficult to police algorithms."

He compared it to the risk of self-styled influencers giving out religious information.

He said:

"It's not about guarding where the information comes from, but it's really also about inoculating our people in terms of how to recognise the risk, helping parents also recognise the risk with what's going on with their kids."