Forums

Singaporean woman HLC in July 1997 married Malaysian man PTL. She had a child from her previous marriage and he was a bachelor.  Among the conditions agreed on by both parties in a marital agreement dated Aug 9, 1997, was the permission for Mr PTL to have "can at any time have one other woman partner in his life" other than Ms HLC. Ms HLC filed for divorce in 2021 and claimed for equal division of assets, among other things. She demanded a list of damages to be paid to her, claiming that Mr PTL committed adultery with Ms GEN. In a court document dated April 16, Judge Evrol Mariette Peters granted the divorce and instructed Mr PTL to pay Ms HLC a monthly maintenance of RM10,000 ($2,847) and RM 6,000 for two of the five children they had together.   The judge rejected Ms HLC's argument that she had signed the marriage agreement under duress as there is lack of evidence and her educational background, which includes a degree from National University of Singapore, weakened her claim of ignorance and duress.     She granted Ms HLC a quarter of Mr PTL's monies in fixed deposit bank accounts and the Employees Provident Fund. Ms HLC does not get to keep her ex-husband's Porsche and is given his KIA Sportage instead. She also gets 20 per cent of Mr PTL's shares in eight companies.

A woman who posted a video criticising a restaurant at Cineleisure incurred the wrath of netizens instead, who called her out for being entitled. In a video posted to Instagram on Monday (April 15), a user who goes by the name Ana Ortiz claimed that she and her family were "kicked out" of The Assembly Ground restaurant because she brought in food from another restaurant. On her Instagram bio, she describes herself as a Columbian living in Singapore.    Explaining that she could not eat anything in the restaurant as she had recently undergone pancreas surgery, the mother of four said that the rest of her family, which consists of her husband and four daughters, had ordered food from there. "We paid for six people to eat here, but now I have to leave," Ortiz said. "I have to tell my super small daughters that they have to leave the food on the table and find food somewhere else - they are starving!" Ortiz is then heard asking a restaurant employee to repeat that she could not eat at the restaurant and had to "take away all her family [members] and leave all the food". The employee responded that only Ortiz's food had to be removed from the restaurant and she had to leave if she wanted to eat it.   Ortiz's husband can then be heard repeatedly saying "we are leaving" to the employee while Ortiz tells her daughters to put their food back as the entire family leaves the restaurant. The young girls look visibly upset at having to leave, with one of them saying that she "was so hungry" and "only had two bites". Why some restaurants ban outside food Ortiz repeatedly bashed the restaurant for their actions and said: "I told them this is going on Instagram, and I need you (the viewers) to share this, because this restaurant deserves it." Ortiz has since made her Instagram profile private but her video has been reposted on Reddit and TikTok. Many netizens were enraged by Ortiz's behaviour, calling her entitled.   "Classic 'Karen' behaviour," said one netizen. "Any sane person would have put their food away, let their family finish eating and eat their food later - not force their own kids away from their food, make a scene and a smug video," another Redditor said. Some netizens explained why restaurants often do not allow outside food. One such netizen said: "I worked in a restaurant previously. I was told by multiple managers that this policy is put in place to prevent the establishment from being wrongly held liable in food poisoning cases." "Of course, some restaurants use this as a way to chase away non-paying customers."   Another netizen who related to Ortiz's dietary restrictions said: "I've been in situations where I needed to have my own prepared meals. Two things I do: First, I ask if it's ok - and even if it is, I will still order something from their menu, a drink or take away something for home." "Second: if it's not ok, I just say thank you and order a drink." "Most establishments are ok with it, I've never been asked to leave [for this reason]," the netizen added. Netizens voice support for restaurant The incident recently caught the eye of American content creator Soogia, who made two TikTok videos saying that Ortiz was entitled. As a result, netizens from the US and many other countries left encouraging messages on The Assembly Ground's TikTok page, voicing their support.   One netizen commented: "We support you! Not entitled people for sure. Food looks great!" "I want to thank that 'Karen' for her video. Now I have a new place on my list to visit and show support," said another TikTok user. Responding to AsiaOne's queries, The Assembly Ground Cineleisure said that the matter has been resolved privately between the parties involved. AsiaOne was not able to reach out to Ortiz for comment as she has since made her Instagram account private.

A CHINESE national who absconded after he was charged with authorising Singaporeans to front his purchase of landed properties worth millions of dollars has been fined S$45,000. On Thursday (Apr 18), District Judge Kok Shu-En imposed this sentence on Zhan Guotuan, who has paid the fine.  The S$45,000 will go towards the Consolidated Fund, which is analogous to a bank account held by the government. The revenues of Singapore are paid into this fund, out of which government expenditures are made.    On Tuesday, Zhan pleaded guilty to authorising Hwampoa, a Singapore-incorporated company, to purchase an East Coast Road property with the intention that the company hold it in trust for him. Three other charges were taken into consideration.  Under the Residential Property Act, foreigners are required to apply to the Singapore Land Authority for approval to buy any landed residential property. Residential property should not be purchased by a citizen or an approved purchaser as a nominee of a foreign person. The court heard that Zhan was a shareholder in two companies, Alphaland International and Xin An Technology Group, which were in the business of property development.   The prosecution said: “The business plan was to buy landed properties in Singapore, demolish those houses, develop condominiums on (that) land, and sell the condominium units for profit. Under this plan, Alphaland was the property developer, while Xin An was the main contractor for the development.” Zhan, who was a Singapore permanent resident at the time of the offences around 2007, gave his employee Tan Hui Meng general authorisation to manage the affairs of Alphaland and Xin An in Singapore on his behalf, as he was based mainly overseas and returned to Singapore only periodically. Tan proceeded to incorporate Hwampoa in July 2007 for the purpose of holding the East Coast properties in trust for Zhan. Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Foo Shi Hao said: “Investigations revealed that Hwampoa had no employees and no business operations.”  In or around August 2007, Tan informed Zhan about the “East Coast plan” and the plan to purchase the property under Hwampoa’s name. Zhan then authorised Hwampoa to acquire the property with the intention that it holds the property in trust for him. Hwampoa exercised the option to purchase on Aug 8, 2007, at a price of S$2.4 million, which was largely paid from bank loans – all of which were later redeemed using Alphaland’s monies.   At a meeting in or around August 2007, Tan also informed Zhan that he purchased two other landed properties under Guan Aimei – the wife of one of Zhan’s employees – and Tan, in trust for Zhan. In total, the three properties were purchased for more than S$6 million. Zhan was unhappy that the two other properties had not been bought under the name of his companies, but proceeded to authorise Tan’s acquisitions of these properties with the intention that they are held in trust for him. Hwampoa has since sold the property and made restitution of S$2.1 million to the state in September 2019. For Zhan, the prosecution had sought the maximum fine of S$50,000 under Section 23 of the Residential Property Act.  DPPs Foo and Louis Ngia said in written submissions: “If not for Zhan Guotuan’s voluntary disgorgement of his financial benefit, his plea of guilt, and the fact that his role was far smaller than Tan Hui Meng’s, we would have sought a custodial sentence against him. But in the light of all these facts, we submit S$50,000 fine is fair.” Zhan’s defence lawyer, Poon Pui Yee from Harry Elias Partnership, had argued that Zhan’s intention was always to acquire the properties for his property development business. Poon had sought a fine lower than the S$50,000 proposed by the prosecution. 

Don't mind Sinkieland bringing in talent like this