It was her daily routine to head out for a late lunch after 2pm, usually at the coffee shop next to her home in Bedok North.

After her meal, 77-year-old Poh Ah Gin enjoyed wandering around the neighbourhood, sometimes collecting cardboard boxes to recycle to pass time. This was what she was doing on Tuesday evening when the driver of a Comfort taxi reversed into her twice at high speed.

The accident took place behind a coffee shop at Block 123 in Bedok North Street 2. Madam Poh was killed instantly.

The 64-year-old cabby, who is believed to have lost control of his Hyundai Sonata before it mounted the pavement, has been arrested for causing death by a negligent act.

Yesterday, at Madam Poh’s wake at Block 120, family members described her as a “happy-go-lucky” woman who was single by choice.

She had lived alone in her three-room flat since 1975, after her mother died. However, she also had a “stubborn” streak, said her sister, Madam Mary Poh, 73, who lives one street away from her and would frequently cycle over to visit.

“My siblings and I would chip in for her expenses. We’ve told her many times that she doesn’t need to collect cardboard, but she insisted on doing it to pass time.”

Madam Poh Ah Gin, who was the third of 11 children, would give the cardboard she collected to a rag-and-bone man for free, said her nephew, Mr Francis Loo, 49, who works in the pharmaceutical industry. “She never earned a cent from it. She was just kind-hearted.”

Another nephew, Mr Patrick Lim, 45, a civil servant, added: “She was an independent and strong lady. Even at her age, she had no problems with her health.”

The family said they were grateful that two doctors from a nearby clinic stepped in to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation after the accident.

“They are really kind to come forward to help,” said Mr Loo. “Some people may say it’s their duty, but I’m really appreciative.”

Madam Poh will be cremated tomorrow afternoon.

Ng Huiwen

This article was first published on April 1, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Last February, a nurse sent her first-hand account of a Thaipusam incident to sociopolitical website The Real Singapore (TRS).

But yesterday, Ms Gowri Yanaseckaran told the High Court the version published by the now-defunct website was “cooked up” and “all nonsense”.

The 32-year-old, who had been unhappy with the way the police had told some of the festival participants to stop playing musical instruments, which resulted in a scuffle, had e-mailed what she saw to TRS.

But what was published on TRS had her blaming a Filipino family for complaining to the police after their young child cried because of the noise made by the “urumi”, an Indian drum.

“There was no such complaint by a Pinoy family, to the best of my knowledge,” Ms Gowri said in her court statement.

“I was surprised as I had made no mention of any complaint by a Pinoy family in my e-mail.”

The testimonies of several witnesses yesterday, in the continuing trial of Yang Kaiheng, 27, also showed the article had made false claims.

Yang and his wife, Ai Takagi, 23, have been charged with writing and disseminating the seditious article, along with five other inflammatory articles and a Facebook post.

Takagi had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 months’ jail last week.

But Yang claimed trial, saying his involvement lasted only about a month in 2012 and was “ad hoc” after that.

Yesterday, Assistant Superintendent of Police Chan Wai Hoong, who was present during the Thaipusam incident, reaffirmed Ms Gowri’s

court statement.

He said: “The initial instruction to approach the group of musicians and advise them to stop playing their drums was issued by me.”

He was not approached by a Filipino family with a complaint, he said.

ASP Abdul Murad testified he had asked Takagi to retrieve her Google search history “to determine if she had carried out any searches that may be relevant to the Thaipusam-related article”.

The word “urumi” and phrase “urumi instrument” popped up.

Also, the Google account used for these searches bore the name “Mohd Farhan”, a fictitious name she had adopted, she told ASP Abdul. The name “Farhan” had been used to sign off an editor’s note which said it was the objective of TRS editors to “instil fear” in companies that hire foreigners instead of Singaporeans.

That article is also the subject of one of the charges against Yang.

Yesterday, the prosecutor sought to establish, among other things, that Yang was inextricably involved in TRS, including developing and maintaining the website. Deputy Public Prosecutor G. Kannan did so by comparing two chat logs.

One is a Skype conversation between a user called “able_tree” and Mr Damien Koh, a Web developer who started TRS with Yang and Takagi but later quit. The prosecution said Yang and Takagi shared the “able_tree” account.

The other is a WhatsApp conversation extracted from the smartphone of Takagi, an Australian.

DPP Kannan noted that Singlish words like “meh”, “liao” and “lor” were each used at least three times in the Skype conversation, but no such expressions were found in the WhatsApp messages.

The Skype conversations also had Hokkien expletives, which were absent in the WhatsApp chats.

DPP Kannan also highlighted an online conversation in which a Vietnamese programmer addressed “able_tree” as “Yang”.

In the same conversation, the programmer was asked to clarify some things about Elance, an online freelancer portal, which “able_tree” was not familiar with.

On this portal, DPP Kannan noted, was an account with the name “kaiheng” and it was used to hire freelance programmers for TRS.

The hearing continues.

rachelay@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on April 1, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

In the five months since her husband died from burns after he tried to light up an aromatherapy diffuser, the biggest question that has been plaguing Madam Nurul Asyikin Norman is:

“Why was I not given a safety briefing about the dangers of using a diffuser when I bought it?”

Mr Mohammad Rizalludin Hassan, 34, died last Oct 22 from extensive burns to more than 80 per cent of his body after a flash fire in the couple’s Jurong East home.

Madam Nurul saw her husband engulfed in flames on Oct 13 after he lit the diffuser in the bathroom of their master bedroom.

At a coroner’s inquiry yesterday into Mr Rizalludin’s death, Madam Nurul asked a police investigating officer if safety briefings were given to customers who bought the Avita Aromatherapy Diffuser.

The officer, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Alex Neo, said customers are usually given a safety briefing and demonstration by employees at the company showroom in Commonwealth Drive

ASP Neo said this was based on his interview with Mr Chok Wai Chen, operations manager of Shiang’s International, which sells the diffuser.

Madam Nurul, 34, who has four children with her late husband, said in court that she “did not go through a safety briefing” and she did not get any safety demonstration when she first bought the product in 2014 because of the haze.

“I was verbally told how to light the diffuser,” said the primary school teacher.

After seeing an online promotion last year, Madam Nurul went back to the shop alone, and paid a promotional price of $692 for another diffuser and 12 litres of aromatic oils.

Mr Chok had said in his statement: “We cannot be sure if individual members perform the said steps before selling Avita Aromatherapy Diffuser range of products, even if we tell them to do so.

“The reason why we go through the necessary safety procedures before we sell is because we understand that the aromatherapy oils is (sic) flammable and thus potentially dangerous to the consumers of the said products.”

ASP Neo also informed the court about a safety video on the company’s website.

Madam Nurul then asked when the video was uploaded – before or after her husband’s accident.

ASP Neo said Mr Chok “did not specify the timeline” when the video was uploaded.

SIMILAR

Madam Nurul asked ASP Neo if there were similar accidents in the past.

There had been none involving customers who bought the diffuser but Mr Chok told him that there had been one involving an employee on the company premises in 2014, said ASP Neo.

Mr Chok had said: “A staff (sic) sustained minor burns when he used the company’s aromatherapy oil to light up an already ignited catalytic burner, as against safety procedures.”

Mr Chok stated there have not been any reported incidents involving Avita Aromatherapy Diffuser products since they were released in 2007. When contacted by The New Paper yesterday, he declined to comment.

Madam Nurul told The New Paper yesterday how her family had been coping with their loss.

She said: “Emotionally, it’s still quite raw, especially when my mother and I had witnessed what happened to my husband.”

Her mother, Madam Juraidah Nabi, 53, who also saw Mr Rizalludin in flames during the incident, was visibly affected when she read the first few pages of the investigation report.

She started crying quietly and later placed it on the table in front of her.

Referring to the coroner’s inquiry, Madam Nurul said: “The feeling is like reliving the night of the incident.”

The inquiry will convene again on April 4.

Emotionally, it’s still quite raw, especially when my mother and I had witnessed what happened to my husband.

– Madam Nurul Asyikin Norman (right) on coping with her husband’s death

TRAPPED VAPOURS FROM OILS FLAMMABLE

A Singapore Civil Defence Force investigator told the court yesterday that the flash fire was an accident likely to have been caused by the combination of trapped vapours from essential oils and a lighter.

Major Samuel Koh said: “During the pouring of the essential oil into the diffusers, flammable essential oil vapours would have come off and accumulated in the confined bathroom space.

“The naked light from the gas lighter is a competent ignition source which could have ignited the flammable vapours in the bathroom.”

The origin of the fire was traced to the vanity top in the bathroom of the master bedroom.

He said in his report: “The scorch marks observed on the various items in the bathroom suggest that a flash fire had occurred within the bathroom.”

Among the items found there were two sets of aromatherapy diffusers that had sustained heat damage, two disposable lighters and a burnt bottle of essential oil re-fill.

One of the diffusers was partially filled with oil and its catalytic burner was not fully screwed to the diffuser.

Father of 4 dies of burns after essential oil diffuser explodes

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

Berita Harian

ANALYSED

Essential oil fluid from both diffusers and a 5-litre essential oil refill tub kept by the family were analysed.

The temperature at which the liquid gives off sufficient vapour to ignite was determined to be about 16 deg C.

Last Oct 13, Madam Nurul Asyikin Norman had asked her husband, Mr Mohammad Rizalludin Hassan, to help her light up the diffuser.

Mr Rizalludin, an engineer, went into the bathroom and Madam Nurul later said she heard a “loud sound”.

She and her mother then saw him coming out of the bathroom, engulfed in flames. The flames were put out with blankets.

Mr Rizalludin died nine days later in hospital.

An autopsy revealed he had died of extensive burns to the front and back of his torso, entire face, neck and legs.

The scorch marks observed on the various items in the bathroom suggest that a flash fire had occurred within the bathroom.

– Singapore Civil Defence Force investigator

HOW TO USE A DIFFUSER SAFELY

PRECAUTIONS

After filling the diffuser with oil from the essential oil container, wipe off any spilt oil from the diffuser and your hands.

Close the oil container immediately.

Before lighting up the diffuser, remove the oil container from the immediate vicinity.

After lighting up, blow out the open flame after two minutes. Position the burner head away from the reach of children and pets.

SAFETY MEASURES

Keep the oil container away from open flames.

Do not have a lit diffuser next to you when filling up additional diffusers.

Do not leave the flame unattended.

Blow out the flame instead of using an object to snuff it.

Do not try to light a diffuser with the flame of another diffuser.

– Adapted from video at www.myavita.com

zaihan@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on April 1, 2016.
Get The New Paper for more stories.

About 840,000 Singaporean Housing Board (HDB) households will receive the next instalment of the GST Voucher-Utilities-Save (U-Save) rebates in April, said a statement from the Ministry of Finance on Friday (April 1).

Annually, those living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats will be able to offset about three to four months of utilities bills on average with their regular GST Voucher-U-Save.

Those living in 3- to 4-room HDB flats can offset about one to two months of utilities bills on average.

The GST Voucher-U-Save forms one of three components under the permanent GST Voucher scheme, designed to help lower-and middle-income Singaporean households with their living expenses.

The U-Save component is distributed every quarter.

In April, eligible Singaporean households will each receive a GST Voucher -U-Save of up to $65, depending on their HDB flat type. Households whose members own more than one property are not eligible for the GST Voucher-U-Save.

sujint@sph.com.sg

He is at an age where his father could be reading bedtime stories to him, but for Benjamin (not his real name), it is the opposite.

Instead, the eight-year-old reads to his wheelchair-bound father, talks to him, and plays around him – without expecting a response.

His father, Mr Tan Yun Yeow, 37, cannot walk or talk after a horrific workplace accident in 2009.

Mr Tan’s younger brother, Rodney, 28, said: “(Benjamin) is not scared off by my brother’s situation. He just understands that his father is sick and he’s trying to take care of him.”

Mr Tan’s plight was thrust into the spotlight after an apex court ruling on Tuesday.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon dismissed an appeal against Mr Rodney Tan’s ability to sue his brother’s former employer for $3 million in damages over the accident. (See report on next page.)

The ruling has evoked mixed feelings for the family, Mr Rodney Tan told The New Paper yesterday in a phone interview.

The sales manager said: “I think as a family, we feel relieved. But at the same time, we don’t know how this whole thing is going to pan out.

“It’s been six, seven years… There have been some ups and downs not just emotionally. Financially, it’s also a strain on the family.”

Seven years ago, Mr Tan, an engineer, was logging data at a worksite in Changi when there was an electrical explosion. The blast left burns on 38 per cent of his body – his face, torso and arms. He also slipped into a coma.

Complications developed while he was unconscious. First, his kidneys failed. Then, he contracted pneumonia in his right lower lung.

Shortly after, his heart stopped beating for a while.

“Many times, the doctor asked us to prepare for the worst. That initial six months while he was in the ICU (intensive care unit) were very challenging,” Mr Rodney Tan said, adding that his brother’s condition was shrouded in uncertainty.

“We were so afraid he couldn’t make it.”

A month later, the injured engineer underwent a tracheostomy – a surgically-made hole that goes through the front of the neck and into the trachea.

Mr Tan woke up from his coma slightly over a year later with a “reduced conscious level”, according to court documents. He was assessed to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing his financial and personal affairs.

Mr Rodney Tan said he is not clear about the extent of his brother’s brain damage, which he suspects could be due to the respiratory arrest back in 2009.

“He is able to blink and move his head. But we don’t know how bad the damage is or whether he understands us,” he said.

NEW FATHER

The accident happened at a time when Mr Tan was basking in the joy of parenthood.

Mr Rodney Tan said: “When the accident took place, (my brother) was only a year into his marriage.

“He had moved out to his own place with his wife and six-month-old son just three months before…

“He had only just moved into a new chapter of his life and the accident changed it all overnight.”

Mr Rodney Tan, who lives with his injured brother as well as their younger brother and their parents in a five-room flat, said communicating with him takes a lot of guesswork.

“Basically, we can’t communicate with him. It’s hard for him to tell us what he wants as well. Sometimes, we can only feel if he’s relieved, uncomfortable or happy. He won’t be able to give any form of signal,” he said.

The communication barrier exasperated the family initially, he admitted. They had to figure out from scratch what Mr Tan likes and dislikes.

“We would try to get him different types of food to figure out what he likes. The one he likes, he will eat a little bit more…

“It’s frustrating for us, for sure, but all the more frustrating for him. He used to be a very active person, so for him to lose his ability to communicate and move around overnight…” Mr Rodney Tan said, his voice trailing off.

Now that he can proceed with suing his brother’s former employer, he will discuss the next step with his lawyers.

The family, except his mother, Madam Lim Poy Nue, 64, has largely come to terms with Mr Tan’s condition

Madam Lim, who works odd jobs occasionally, told TNP in a separate interview: “Once in a while, memories still come back and haunt us. But at least I know (my son) is still alive.”

Doctors cannot predict if Mr Tan will eventually recover, but his loved ones are grasping at every glimmer of hope.

The family is still paying the hospital bills – which came up to $700,000 – while keeping a lookout for possible tests that could help Mr Tan.

Said Mr Rodney Tan: “There are some cases who stay the same forever, but some cases may take a turn for the better. What we are trying to do now is to let him go for every single test (that may help him)…

“I’m happy to say that seven years down the road, we are still hoping for a miracle.”

Basically, we can’t communicate with him. It’s hard for him to tell us what he wants as well. Sometimes, we can only feel if he’s relieved, uncomfortable or happy. He won’t be able to give any form of signal.

– Mr Rodney Tan, on his brother, Mr Tan Yun Yeow, who survived an explosion seven years ago

Mr Tan Yun Yeow before the accident. 

ABOUT THE CASE

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision allowing the brother of a mentally incapacitated engineer to sue for damages on his behalf.

In 2009, Mr Tan Yun Yeow, 37, suffered severe burns after an electrical explosion at his workplace.

He slipped into a coma and only regained consciousness after more than a year. The hospital then found him to be mentally incapable of managing his financial and personal affairs.

In 2010, on the basis of a lawyer’s letter that Mr Tan’s next-of-kin wished to claim compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act (Wica), the Commissioner for Labour assessed that Mr Tan was entitled to $225,000 – the maximum sum under the law for accidents before Jan 1 this year.

An award of compensation under Wica bars a worker from suing for further damages in court.

BROTHER APPOINTED

In August 2012, Mr Tan’s younger brother, Rodney, was appointed by the court to make legal claims on behalf of Mr Tan under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

Under the MCA, the court may appoint a deputy to make decisions for those who lack the mental capacity to do so. (See report, above.)

Through his lawyers, Mr Noor Marican and Mr Ramasamy Chettiar, Mr Rodney Tan sought to reject the compensation and instead seek $3 million in damages in a High Court suit.

But the insurer for Mr Tan’s employer objected, and argued through lawyer K. Anparasan that the Commissioner had the discretion to accept a claim by the next-of-kin, thus making the 2010 assessment binding.

Justice Quentin Loh disagreed, and ruled that Mr Tan lacked the capacity to make a choice and only a person appointed by the court had the right to act on his behalf.

Last year, he quashed the 2010 notice of assessment by the Commissioner, stressing that the courts will “jealously guard the rights of injured workers who lack the mental capacity and competence to make choices that are in their best interests”.

The insurer appealed. Mr Anparasan argued that Mr Rodney Tan had the legal standing to claim compensation on behalf of his brother.

Second Solicitor-General Kwek Mean Luck, who acted for the Commissioner, said in his submissions that the insurer was trying to force Mr Tan to accept compensation he never chose to claim, depriving him of his right to claim for damages under common law.

On Tuesday, the apex court, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, dismissed the insurer’s appeal.

WHAT IS THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT?

The Mental Capacity Act addresses the need to make decisions for persons who are 21 years old and above, but lack the mental capacity to do so.

It allows the court to appoint a deputy to make decisions and act on behalf of a mentally incapacitated person who has not made a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).

An LPA is a legal document that allows someone to make decisions on a person’s welfare or property matters on his behalf when he lacks the mental capacity.

The Act also allows parents of intellectually disabled children (below the age of 21) to apply to the court to appoint a deputy.

This ensures that their child’s future care is arranged for, should they die or lose their mental capacity.

fjieying@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on April 1, 2016.
Get The New Paper for more stories.

More proof that Singaporeans can’t be trusted to be gracious of their own accord: priority queue stickers in MRT stations.

First, the facts. On Thursday, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced that it will implement priority queues at all MRT stations, by placing stickers in front of train and lift doors.

The teal-coloured stickers are adorable: a cheery smiley face urges commuters to let elderly, disabled, and pregnant travellers, as well as those with prams, to enter first. The stickers are sizeable, too, blocking off space for commuters who are most in need.

LTA introduced the scheme “as a move towards a more gracious society”. But the truth of the matter is that this only underscores how ungracious a society Singapore can be.

Let me be clear: I love the idea of priority queue stickers; I just hate that we have to resort to them to engender plain, common decency.

There’s no doubt they’ll work, in the same way designated priority train seats have worked – it’s now rare to see those seats occupied by able-bodied people when there are others in greater need on board.

Even then, one has to wonder how much of that comes from a genuine desire to be kind, as opposed to the fear of a thorough drubbing via online shaming.

And that’s where the need for priority queue stickers really feels absurd. They’re ultimately a sad admission of the sorry state of affairs – where rules, instead of one’s conscience, are needed to kindle kindness.

So what’s the solution here?

It’s easy to fall back on the usual call to teach graciousness in schools – you know, start from a young age and all that jazz.

But isn’t that what we’ve been doing already? What’s not going right there?

I suspect we’ve been neglecting a crucial piece of the puzzle: the education that goes on outside of school. Teachers are already doing a splendid job, but are we – parents, caretakers, society at large – keeping up the good work once the school bell rings?

We’re certainly not modelling good behaviour when we rush into the train ourselves and chide kids for not getting on quicker. Or when we morph into kancheong spiders and tell them: “Faster – go chope that seat!” Both are missed opportunities to lead by example.

Somewhere, Singa the Courtesy Lion is pouring himself a drink, congratulating himself on his decision to retire in 2013. (Three years ago, Singa dramatically quit his post as Singapore’s graciousness mascot after 30 long years on the job. “I’m just too tired to continue facing an increasingly angry and disagreeable society,” said Singa in an open letter.)

I’m sure the stickers will go some way in engineering more kindness in Singapore. But I just wish we didn’t have to be told.

I’m sure Singa would agree.

This article was first published on April 1, 2016.
Get The Business Times for more stories.