A 52-year-old woman, Tan Wee Teng, appeared in court on July 7, 2025, facing five charges linked to multiple disruptive incidents on Singapore buses between August 2023 and August 2024. Tan was the woman seen in a viral video with her feet on a bus pole, which drew public attention and prompted police investigations.
She was charged with two counts of public nuisance, two counts of criminal force, and one count of harassment. According to court documents, the first incident occurred on August 30, 2023, when Tan refused to remove her feet from a pole on Bus 198 along Jurong Town Hall Road. Her actions allegedly caused annoyance to other passengers and disrupted service, leading commuters to disembark. A similar episode happened again on Bus 99 in Boon Lay on October 26, 2023, also resulting in disruption and passenger inconvenience.
On January 19, 2024, Tan was accused of verbally harassing a fellow commuter, Mohamed Razli Sanusi, and striking him on the calf with a walking aid. Despite these incidents, she was initially issued a 12-month conditional warning.
However, on August 23, 2024, Tan allegedly hit a bus driver, Ding Shuai, on Bus 99, prompting her to be formally charged. This fifth incident led the prosecution to propose a discharge not amounting to an acquittal for all five charges, along with a three-year conditional warning. This means the charges can be revived if Tan commits another offence within that period.
Tan strongly objected to this arrangement, calling the three-year period “very excessive.” She insisted that she was the real victim and accused the bus driver of provoking her and lying to the police. Tan claimed that the driver had intentionally hit her first and fabricated details to get her arrested. She also argued she had remained crime-free since her last warning and said she was being unfairly penalised without a proper trial.
The court session became increasingly heated, with Tan repeatedly asserting her innocence and alleging that she was set up. She cited the high-profile case of Dr Yeo Sow Nam, where the complainant later admitted to perjury, as a parallel example of wrongful accusation. Tan admitted to hitting the bus driver but described it as a “light tap” in retaliation after being provoked.
District Judge Lorraine Ho reviewed closed-circuit television footage from four different angles. The video showed the driver reaching toward Tan and Tan responding physically. Tan smiled during the footage but maintained she had not committed a criminal act. She also admitted to not paying her bus fare at times, explaining that she would attempt to tap her card with her bag and alight when there was no fare deduction.
Despite Tan’s emotional objections and frequent interruptions, Judge Ho explained that a conditional warning is not issued by the court but by the police. The judge stated that Tan’s inability to go to trial at this point did not reflect an injustice, as prosecution would only proceed if new offences occurred.
Judge Ho emphasised that without further infractions, Tan would not face prosecution, noting the conditional warning’s protective rather than punitive nature. The judge also stated that there was no delay on the prosecution’s part and that the charges were managed within a reasonable timeframe.
Tan, unsatisfied with the outcome, asked to be prosecuted anyway, claiming curiosity about the evidence against her. If convicted of public nuisance, she could have faced a fine of up to S$2,000, while criminal force could carry up to three months’ jail or a fine of S$1,500. Harassment offences could lead to six months’ jail, a fine of up to S$5,000, or both.
Ultimately, the court granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal for all five charges, placing Tan under a 36-month conditional warning.
Comments
Post a Comment