Singapore: After losing the key to his locked bicycle, a police officer searched two shopping malls for a cutting tool to remove the lock, but to no avail.
When his friend jokingly suggested that he call the police to get a “free service” for the stolen bicycle to unlock his bicycle, the police did so.
The false report by the police led to the deployment of three police officers to the scene and the mobilization of manpower from multiple police departments, including one investigator.
Ong Chee Seng, 50, was fined S$3,000 on Thursday (October 21). He admitted to an allegation of deliberately providing false information to civil servants and considered a second similar allegation.
The court learned that Ong was an officer of the Singapore Police Force at the time of the crime.
On the morning of May 26 this year, he rode a folding bike to the Waterway Point mall in Punggol to buy lunch. He secured the bicycle to the bicycle parking place with a lock and put the key in his pocket.
However, when he returned to the bay later, he could not find the key. Ong went back the same way to find the key, but did not succeed.
In the end, he took the train home and left his bicycle in the mall. Later that day, he went to the Compass One shopping mall near Sengkang and then returned to Waterway Point to look for equipment to remove the bicycle lock.
Ong couldn’t find any shops selling the knives he needed. He also approached the security counter at Waterway Point and asked to borrow a knife, but was refused because the team could not verify whether the bicycle was his.
At 3:50 pm that day, Ong sent a message to the WhatsApp group chat he shared with six other participants. He asked his friend Ellen if he could borrow a knife from him, but Ellen did not.
Another friend made fun of Ong and jokingly suggested that he call the police. The friend said that he should claim that he found his bike and pretended that it was stolen before.
His friend suggested that the police would then provide him with a “free service” and help him unlock the locked bicycle. He added that Wang should take a picture of his locked bicycle and show it to investigators. In fact, none of the group chat members wanted Ong to call the police.
He actually called the police
At 5:30 pm that day, Ong checked the Punggol Neighbourhood Police Center hotline online and dialed the number provided.
He told the police officer on the line: “I found my stolen bicycle at the bicycle parking lot in Waterway Point. I need the help of the police.”
As a result, an investigator was sent to the Ong case, and two ground response officers were sent to the bicycle parking area. One of them asked Ong what happened, and Ong told him that a bicycle locked there belonged to him.
The police officer asked Ong where he had parked his bicycle before, and Ong incorrectly pointed to another location within walking range. He lied that he had parked his bicycle on the railing before going to the mall to buy food.
When he returned, the bicycle was gone, he claimed. He further claimed that when he was looking for a bicycle on the same day, he accidentally found a bicycle secured with a bicycle lock at the location. Even though he knew it was fake, Ong said it all.
The police officer continued to ask Ong for the special engraving or serial number on his bicycle, but Ong did not know any. He showed a photo of his bicycle to the police officer, and the police officer began investigating the scene.
The police officer took a picture of Ong, and Ong asked why it was necessary. The police officer replied that this was to match his clothing with CCTV footage, because the police would check him to see if the bicycle belonged to him.
At this point, Ong knows that the race is over, because he will be shown on CCTV footage that he puts the bicycle in the bicycle parking area. Then he admitted that no one had stolen his bicycle and that he had lost the key to the bicycle lock.
The prosecutor said that due to Wang’s false information, the manpower of multiple Singapore Police Force (SPF) departments was activated for further investigation.
Ong’s lawyers stated that the crime was “completely motivated by stupidity” without any malicious intent.
If you deliberately provide false information to civil servants, Ong may be fined up to S$5,000.
In response to CNA’s inquiry, SPF stated that its officials “should abide by the law and maintain the highest standards of conduct and integrity”.
“We deal with police officers who have seriously violated the law, including accusing them in court.”
SPF added that on the same day Ong submitted the false report, he disclosed the crime of providing false information.
An investigation was subsequently conducted, and Ong was suspended on September 3.
SPF stated that after Ong was convicted, it had begun to take “internal actions” against Ong.
