A one-year-old boy fell into the pool of his private residence, where he had been playing alone, and subsequently drowned.
His fall went unnoticed by his parents for 10 minutes.
After he was removed from the pool, he was sent to the hospital, but was pronounced dead.
An internal review was later launched by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
This was after the victim's father questioned the emergency response of the paramedic who was called to the scene, claiming that he had refused to send the boy to the hospital until the birth certificate was produced.
Incident
The incident occurred on Jun. 9, 2024 at about 12:53pm, according to Lianhe Zaobao.
A coroner's inquiry into the boy's death was conducted on Oct. 6, 2025.
The court heard from an investigating police officer, an SCDF quality control officer, an emergency doctor, and a paramedic.
Any identifying information about the victim has been withheld to protect his identity.
What court heard
CCTV footage reviewed in court showed the child playing alone in the yard of his home.
He was seated by the poolside to play with the water, but fell in suddenly.
The boy was not discovered until 10 minutes later by his mother, who called the boy's father for help.
The father jumped into the pool to retrieve his son before administering first aid in the living room of the home.
An ambulance was called.
The boy died in hospital at about 4pm later that afternoon.
Allegedly asked for identification card
The boy's father later told the police in a statement that the paramedic at the scene had claimed an identification document was needed before the boy could be sent to the hospital.
This claim sparked an internal review by SCDF.
SCDF's investigation
Investigations found that the paramedic had performed adequate first aid at the scene.
However, in the process, he had potentially neglected the time sensitivity of the issue.
It was revealed that this was the first paediatric case that the paramedic in question had attended to.
It also highlighted a number of areas that the paramedic could have fared better.
They included having better communication with the family, allowing the boy to lay completely flat in the ambulance instead of being on a stretcher, and covering the boy with a blanket to preserve his body heat.
The SCDF quality control officer confirmed during the inquiry that the shortcomings did not hinder the first aid administered on the boy.
Body camera footage from the paramedic showed the boy being placed in the ambulance at about 1:33pm and the paramedic using first aid equipment to remove the water from the boy's body.
In another part of the clip, the paramedic told the father in the passenger seat of the ambulance that he could not drive unless he produced a birth certificate.
After the father complied, the ambulance left the scene after 1:43pm, and reached the hospital in nine minutes.
Not necessary, but did not hinder process
The quality control officer clarified that the paramedic's request for an identification document was to speed up the registration process of the boy at the hospital.
It was not a necessary step for the victim's transfer to the hospital.
During the coroner's inquiry, the paramedic said he had asked for the birth certificate in an attempt to lead the family members away from the scene so as to not hinder the other paramedics' rescue efforts amidst the chaos.
He then repeated his request in the ambulance after realising the document had not yet been obtained.
It was deemed a necessary step at the time, the paramedic told the court.
The emergency doctor testified that, according to the timeline of events, administering first aid immediately after the boy's heart stopped beating would have been the most effective way to save him.
As the boy was only discovered 10 minutes after his fall into the pool, the outcome would likely have been the same even if the ambulance left for the hospital earlier, the doctor said.
A final hearing will be held at a later date.