A sum of $40,000 which Yang Yin had received from wealthy widow Chung Khin Chun was raised in court yesterday, as the prosecution sought to poke holes in the former China tour guide’s testimony.

Yang said Madam Chung had transferred the money for him to buy a car, after he told her over the phone that he had obtained his driving licence.

The 42-year-old, who faces two charges of misappropriating $1.1 million from the widow, claimed he then used the money to buy a red car in China to practise driving before he came to Singapore.

Tussle over widow’s $40m assets turns ugly

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

The Straits Times, Madam Hedy Mok, Lianhe Wanbao, Madam Chang Phie Chin, Court Documents

However, deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Sanjiv Vaswani pointed out during his cross-examination yesterday that the money was remitted to Yang on March 25, 2009, while he was in Singapore.

According to immigration records, Yang entered Singapore on Feb 27 and left on March 27 that year.

Records from the Traffic Police also showed Yang had received his licence in China only in August 2009, months after the sum of $40,000 was remitted to his bank account in China, the DPP said.

Referring to Yang’s account of the phone call, the DPP said: “There was no such telephone conversation or you had pretended to leave Singapore and then called her and said ‘I passed my driving test’ and she offered you the money.”

Yang later replied that he could have recalled the incident wrongly and that the conversation could have taken place face-to-face.

“To tell you the truth, at that time in 2014… my mind was in a confused state,” added Yang.

The DPP also highlighted other inaccuracies yesterday, such as the dates when Yang was in China with Madam Chung and her long-time friend, Madam Chang Phie Chin.

Yang said yesterday that he had acted as a private tour guide for the two women during a trip to Beijing from Oct 20 to Nov 10, 2008.

However, DPP Vaswani produced a letter from Yang dated Nov 4, 2008, in which he told Madam Chung it was a pity their 20-day trip had ended so soon.

“This trip would have ended before Nov 4. Your evidence is that you were happily having a trip until Nov 10,” said DPP Vaswani.

Yang, who took the stand for more than two hours on Tuesday to give his side of the story, had claimed that the $1.1 million he is accused of siphoning was a gift from the 89-year-old widow who saw him as the “grandson” she never had.

He also alleged that Madam Chang, 86, had moved out of the bungalow in 2011 after he turned down her request for half of the widow’s money – a claim which DPP Viswani said was an “absurd allegation”.

Madam Chang had moved in to live at the Gerald Crescent bungalow in 2005.

Tussle over widow’s $40m assets: A look at Madam Chung’s bungalow

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

The Straits Times, Raymond Tan

The DPP also produced a 2009 medical report, where Madam Chung had told a psychiatrist that Madam Chang did not want a part of her estate.

The medical examination was conducted while the widow was drawing up her will.

The prosecution also disputed Yang’s claim that Madam Chung had given him a $4,000 red packet after accepting him as her grandson.

In a letter dated Jan 3, 2009, Yang had written to Madam Chung only to thank her for the red packet, the DPP said.

There was no mention of it being given by Madam Chung after she had accepted him as her grandson.

The trial will enter its ninth day today.

This article was first published on August 4, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Singapore Airlines has checked its Boeing 777-300ER engines to ensure there are no internal cracks after investigations revealed this could have caused a recent fire that forced an aircraft to make an emergency landing at Changi Airport.

The inspections and necessary replacements were completed on July 18, spokesman Nicholas Ionides told The Straits Times.

Flight SQ368 which left Changi for Milan, Italy, on June 27, turned back less than two hours later when the pilots received an engine oil warning.

Shortly after the plane landed, its right wing caught fire.

Singapore Airlines plane catches fire at Changi Airport

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

premiummall’s Facebook, The Straits Times, Reuters, AFP

In an interim report, the Transport Ministry’s Air Accident Investigation Bureau of Singapore (AAIB), which is investigating the incident, noted that fuel was found in the oil system, which is not normal.

The fuel had entered as a result of a crack in a tube in the engine’s main fuel oil heat exchanger – a component that exchanges heat between the engine oil and fuel streams.

Following the incident, SIA accelerated the replacement of fuel oil heat exchangers on the GE90 engines powering its Boeing 777- 300ER aircraft, Mr Ionides said.

SIA has 27 B777-300ERs, all of them fitted with the GE engines.

Further investigations revealed that in December 2014, engine-maker GE Aviation had issued a notice to operators for the component to be removed from the engines, inspected for cracks and repaired if needed.

There was no urgency and the checks could be done when the engine was next due for maintenance, GE said then.

The engine on the SIA aircraft which caught fire had been inspected in March 2014, before the notice was issued.

It was not due for another check for some time, The Straits Times understands.

In the wake of the June fire, the AAIB report has recommended that GE Aviation review the urgency rating of the checks “to prevent another fire or other hazardous incident from arising as a result of fuel leakage into the engine oil system”.

Aircraft maker Boeing is also advised to consider the need for operational procedures in the event a flight crew encounters a similar fuel leak situation in flight.

As the regulator of both Boeing and GE Aviation, the AAIB has requested that the US Federal Aviation Administration ask both firms to accept the recommendations.

A Boeing spokesman said the firm is providing technical help at the request and under direction of the investigating authorities.

Mr Ionides said SIA will continue to co-operate fully with the authorities.

None of the 222 passengers and 19 crew on board was hurt in the June incident.

This article was first published on August 4, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Taiwan’s new representative to Singapore Antonio Chiang has been arrested for drink driving – just hours after being sworn in for his job, the island’s media reports said.

Mr Chiang, 72, was pulled over by police for a spot check in Taipei on Tuesday night. A breathalyser test showed his blood alcohol content was 0.27mg per litre.

In Taiwan, drivers caught with 0.25mg per litre or 0.05 per cent of blood alcohol content can be jailed for up to two years and fined up to NT$200,000 (S$8,500).

Mr Chiang, a former deputy secretary-general of Taiwan’s National Security Council and a well-known journalist, was sworn in by President Tsai Ing-wen on Tuesday morning as her government’s top envoy to Singapore.

According to police cited by Taiwanese media, Mr Chiang did not tell the officers who he was when he was detained, but merely pleaded that he had “had a bit to drink during dinner with friends”.

Mr Chiang also reportedly asked the police to process his case as quickly as possible as he had “business to attend to the following day”.

Police transferred him to the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office under charges of endangering public safety, Taiwanese media said.

He was allowed to go at about 1am yesterday after being questioned by prosecutors.

Ms Tsai’s spokesman Alex Huang told Central News Agency yesterday that he “would seek more information about the case”.

But he added that drink driving “is wrong and sets a bad example for society”.

Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the incident was Mr Chiang’s “private matter”. It added, however, that “it is common knowledge that drink driving should be avoided”.

The opposition was quick to condemn Mr Chiang’s misdemeanour as unbecoming of a diplomat.

“By sending such a fellow to represent Taiwan in Singapore, President Tsai is making all Taiwanese lose face,” Kuomintang legislative whip Tsai Cheng-yuan said in a Facebook post last night.

Mr Chiang was supposed to begin a series of briefings yesterday for his posting to Singapore, the United Daily News reported.

His relocation to the Republic may now hinge on the outcome of the drink driving case.

If you went home and saw a stranger with your wife in a state of undress on your marital bed, what would you do?

Shawnald Lee Hong Heng, 25, concluded that the man was trying to take advantage of his wife, Ms Tricia Wong Kai Yan, and attacked him.

He repeatedly punched Mr Donovan Quek Hon Yong, 25, inflicting severe injury that required two operations.

Mr Quek, who is Ms Wong’s friend, suffered a black eye, fractures in the eye socket area, and loose and chipped teeth. He did not retaliate.

For the attack in July last year, Lee was sentenced to five weeks’ jail last Tuesday after pleading guilty to voluntarily causing hurt.

The prosecution had deemed the case a unique situation and the presiding judge had acknowledged that Lee was emotionally charged by the scene before him.

Some netizens felt that the sentence was too harsh for someone who had been trying to defend his wife’s honour.

Several went to The New Paper’s Facebook page to justify Lee’s actions, arguing that any husband would have done the same in protecting his home and his wife.

Mr Zad Zainal commented: “Normal reaction from any man, yes, any man. The (other) man has no right to be in the room at that time. Had the husband returned later, it would have been a different story.”

Ms Wendy Low wrote: “Hey, the husband is a victim. Yes, he beat up the man, (but) if I’m the man and I see my wife naked, I would also do that. What more on their bed in their bedroom. Isn’t that too much?”

Others felt that Lee’s five-week term was harsh compared to other cases where offenders received similar sentences for what they felt were more serious offences.

But criminal lawyers TNP spoke to said it was inappropriate to make such comparisons because every case and the sentencing considerations involved are different.

Every case has a different background and the sentences depend on varying factors, said Mr Rajan Supramaniam, a lawyer at Hilbourne Law LLC with more than 15 years of experience.

He said that in Lee’s case, which was classified under voluntarily causing hurt (VCH), factors like severity of injuries, compensation and surrounding circumstances would come into play.

Other criminal lawyers like Mr Amarick Gill of Amarick Gill LLC, who has close to 20 years’ experience, highlighted the severe injuries inflicted as one of the predominant factors in the case.

He said: “In this case, the injuries sound quite bad. (Lee) probably reacted emotionally and without proper thought, but the court also has to consider the degree of the injuries.”

Lawyer Josephus Tan of Fortis Law Corporation said compensation would also be considered in sentencing, but stressed that every fact had to be decided in totality of the case.

He added that while there was an element of provocation – in that Lee was under the impression that his wife was being taken advantage of – he could have reacted differently. SHOVE “Any relatable man might have felt the emotional charge. If you see your wife in such a situation, you could go over there, grab the person with appropriate force and shove him off,” said Mr Tan.

“After that, you can contact the authorities to take him away. (If Lee had done this,) the matter would not have escalated.”

He added that the victim had sustained severe injuries including fractures.

“Normally (when the victim suffers fractures), the assailant would be charged under VCGH (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) but (Lee) was charged under VCH,” said Mr Tan.

“I believe the unique facts of this case meant that discretion could have already been exercised (since) Lee was given a lesser charge.”

According to the Penal Code, a VCGH offence is more severe and carries a jail term of up to 10 years and can include a fine or caning.

The lesser VCH offence entails a jail term of up to two years or a fine of $5,000, or both.

On the online reactions to Lee’s case, Mr Gill cautioned against the public judging the severity of an offence and sentence on the jail term alone.

“You can’t directly compare the sentences of two different cases as the facts differ,” he said.

“The layman will not be able to fully see the reason and the justification of such sentencing, but the judge would have considered everything and weighed each element.”

Mr Tan said: “This is what we call ‘kopitiam law’. Members of the public should not judge or engage in such coffee shop law clinics or compare cases and their sentences because they are not fair comparisons.

“When the public is outraged, this is where vigilante justice might appear, and that is dangerous.”

Other cases with five-week jail sentence

OCTOBER 2015

A Briton hit a policeman in his left eye area.

The 39-year-old tourist, who was drunk then, was also fined a total of $1,400 for pushing a motorist on the chest and damaging the backrest of a wooden bench at the police lock-up holding bay.

He pleaded guilty to hurting an officer in a police car, pushing a motorist on the chest and committing mischief.

Three other charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.

APRIL 2015

A 40-year-old man was riding his power-assisted bike on a pavement in Paya Lebar Way when he knocked down a 68-year-old housewife.

The woman sustained a head injury and facial fractures.

The man was sentenced in July this year after pleading guilty to causing grievous hurt by performing a rash act.

JULY 2014

A 26-year-old man was jailed for five weeks and ordered to pay compensation of $108 to a taxi driver after admitting to kicking him in the face.

The man had vomited in the taxi. He attacked the driver after he was asked to pay for the cost of cleaning the vehicle.

This article was first published on August 4, 2016.
Get The New Paper for more stories.