Salon closes Marsiling outlet, concerns arise over prepaid packages and alleged unpaid salaries   The shelves and styling stations were empty, and chairs were folded and stacked in a corner of the unit.   💆‍♀️ https://stmp.sg/LSHb   @stompteam Here's the full detailed account:       📌 Incident Overview   Business: Santorini Hair Spa Location: Marsiling — Block 182, Woodlands Street 13 (#01-03) Reported by: Stomp / Shin Min Daily News — Published: 28 Sep 2026, 09:23am Key concerns: Quiet closure → unclaimed prepaid packages + alleged unpaid staff salaries (1–3 months)       What Happened   - Longtime customer Ms Chua (8-year patron) learned the Marsiling outlet would close "anytime soon" — company had closed all outlets quietly without formally notifying customers with remaining package balances - Previously, patrons of shuttered branches were directed to the Marsiling/Woodlands branch to use their credits — but rumours of its imminent closure raised fears of being left stranded - Earlier closures: - Bishan — announced 19 Jan 2025 - Bidadari — announced 31 Aug 2026 - Hougang, Tampines, Ghim Moh, Sembawang — marked permanently closed on Google, no social media announcement - As late as 25 Sep, the salon still listed Marsiling, Ghim Moh & Hougang as active outlets in promotional posts       On-Site (28 Sep, after 1pm)   - Salon closed to public — Google still marked it "open" - Empty shelves, folded chairs, stations cleared; sealed moving boxes stacked throughout - Two employees present; declined media queries, said only management could respond — no contact info given - Farewell notice posted: cited "difficult decision" after 8 years; advised customers to approach staff about "remaining package balance options"       Prepaid Packages & Customers   - Staff reportedly tried contacting package holders to arrange redemptions before closure; bookings became fully booked - Ms Chua exhausted her package in July and didn't renew — relieved but inconvenienced as this was her nearest salon - Neighbouring regular "Crystal" also had no package — remarked "Heng ah" (what a relief) but worried about finding comparable service elsewhere       Alleged Unpaid Wages   - Ms Chua, who knows staff, alleges salaries 1–3 months in arrears owed to employees - Staff informed her company promised updates on outstanding salaries by 30 Sep 2026       Status & Response   - Facebook page now states "permanently closed" - Stomp has contacted Santorini Hair Spa for official comment — pending        

A woman from the United States (US) was shocked to find that two litres of 100% fresh milk could cost S$6.70 in Singapore. Content creator Jennifer Lee Berger, who now lives in Singapore, shared her discovery on Facebook last Saturday (26 Sept). Milk not available in full gallons Ms Berger recently began a content series called “Sticker Shock in Singapore” where she shares how supermarket prices in Singapore can “absolutely blow [her] mind”.   On 26 Sept, she was surprised to learn that Singapore supermarkets do not sell full gallons, or about 3.78 litres, of milk. What shocked her even more was that two litres of 100% fresh milk from the brand Meiji costs S$6.70. Source: Jennifer Lee Travelwithme on Facebook “It normally sells for $6.95, and keep in mind I’m at FairPrice, not the bougie supermarket,” she added.   Woman calls milk in Singapore ‘liquid gold’ Based on an internet search, half a gallon of whole milk, or about 1.90 litres, can cost only US$1.49 (S$1.90) in the US. The price of milk led Ms Berger to ask: “Singaporeans, I’m assuming we aren’t drinking milk here and use it like liquid gold?”   Previously, Ms Berger also expressed shock at the S$14.95 price of a regular-sized (340g) box of Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal. By comparison, the 532g family size in the United States costs less than half as much, retailing at US$5.29 (S$6.70).     Source: Jennifer Lee Travelwithme on Facebook Local netizens explain Singapore imports milk Local netizens responded with reasons why milk may be more expensive in Singapore than in the US. Many said that Singapore doesn’t have the space to raise cows, and having to import milk makes it more costly. Source: Facebook One user also added that there are cheaper milk brands than the Meiji brand Ms Berger shared. Another said powdered milk is also a cheaper option. Source: Facebook Meanwhile, some highlighted that cow’s milk is not consumed daily by Singaaporeans, so they are not sold in large bottles, adding that soya milk is more popular. Source: Facebook MS News has reached out to Ms Berger for more details.

Driver Gets S$100,870 Parking Fee After Spending About 5 Minutes at River Valley Car Park   👉 https://goodyfeed.com/driver-gets-s100870-parking-fee-after-spending-about-5-minutes-at-river-valley-car-park/   Here's the full detailed account of the incident:       📌 Incident Overview   When: Friday, 25 September 2026, ~9:00 AM Where: River Valley car park, Singapore Driver's actual stay: ~5 minutes (within the grace period) System-recorded duration: 7,204 days, 22 hours & 51 minutes ≈ 19 years 9 months Displayed fee: S$100,870 — equivalent roughly to the cost of a COE       What Happened   - The driver (Reddit username: templar817) entered the car park; the barrier opened normally - Upon exit, the system showed the massive bill. He posted it online titled: "Accidentally parked for 20 years" - He called the operator — Times Parking — and was told the system failed to detect his In-Vehicle Unit (IU) at entry, even though the gantry let him in - The system appeared to calculate from a very old date — possibly going back to when the Electronic Parking System (EPS) launched in 2004       Key Details   - No money was deducted. The driver confirmed: "Luckily it didn't debit my CashCard" - His card had auto top-up (S$50 from linked credit card when balance negative); he worried it might keep topping up indefinitely — but it did not - He was visiting a school in the area and left well within the free grace period       Response & Resolution   - 28 Sep 2026: Car park management confirmed the incident, apologised - The faulty hardware/component was replaced - Official statement: "The issue has been resolved and the vehicle owner did not suffer any loss as a result." - The incident was widely reported by Mothership, AsiaOne, Stomp, Shin Min Daily News, and Goody Feed       Sources   - Goody Feed: 28 Sep 2026 - Mothership: 28 Sep 2026 - AsiaOne: 25 Sep 2026 - Stomp: 28 Sep 2026    

SINGAPORE: Because his personal laptop was faulty, an IT team leader in charge of the State Courts' cloud system team decided to use his government-managed device containing over 18,000 restricted files to take a cyber security examination. In doing so, he granted an acquaintance remote access to his laptop, causing unauthorised computer modification and risking protected files which included login credentials and secret keys of the State Courts' network. Janarthanan Tamil Kovan, 42-year-old Indian national, was sentenced to 28 weeks' jail on Monday (Sep 28). He pleaded guilty to a charge each of endangering the safety of documents belonging to the State Courts and the Government of Singapore under the Official Secrets Act, and for causing an unauthorised modification of the laptop. A third charge was taken into consideration. THE CASE Janarthanan was employed as a service delivery manager with Lenovo PCCW Solutions in 2017. In June 2024, he was attached to the State Courts as an external IT vendor. He was a team leader of the State Courts' cloud system team, which manages various systems and applications of the courts. Janarthanan was issued with a Lenovo Thinkpad laptop, a government-managed device governed by GovTech's acceptable use policy and Lenovo's own policy. Both policies prohibit unauthorised access and modifications to the laptop. The laptop was protected and onboarded onto GovTech's security suite for engineering endpoint devices (SEED), a mobile device management platform enabling access to the judiciary's Government on Commercial Cloud system. This includes access to the backend infrastructure of the State Courts' applications and systems. On Aug 4, 2025, Janarthanan decided to use the laptop to take an examination administered by ISACA, an international professional association focused on information technology governance, to be certified as a certified information security Manager. Because his personal laptop had a faulty screen, Janarthanan decided to use his work laptop. However, when he logged onto ISACA's system, he realised the laptop was unable to clear pre-examination security checks before he could take the exam. Janarthanan reached out to a person he knew as Hari Balan, whom he had communicated with previously on WhatsApp about IT-related courses. Hari Balan had an IP address in India, court documents stated. He shared the security checks issue with Hari Balan, and the latter offered his help and asked Janarthanan to download "UltraViewer". This was a remote desktop application that would allow Hari Balan to remotely access and control the laptop. Janarthanan downloaded and installed UltraViewer and shared with Hari Balan unique credentials required to initiate the remote connection. A remote connection was thus established for about 10 minutes from 7.45pm that day, Aug 4, between Janarthanan's laptop and another device with an internet protocol address traced to India. At the time, a total of 18,016 files belonging to the State Courts were stored on Janarthanan's laptop. All but one of the files were classified as restricted and non-sensitive. The remaining file was classified as restricted and sensitive (high). The files contained login credentials, secret keys and network architecture details of the State Courts' network. The files provided details of varying degrees to systems of the State Courts, including the Integrated Case Management System used for daily criminal court work. The names of other systems were redacted from court papers. While the remote connection was established, five executable files were transferred into Janarthanan's laptop by Hari Balan. Two were quarantined by Windows Defender and three were successfully executed, tampering with the laptop's firewall rules and anti-virus functionality. Janarthanan saw the files being transferred and asked Hari Balan about it, who said he was trying to bypass the laptop's security so it could pass the ISACA's security checks. Minutes later, the SEED team was alerted to the presence of the transferred files on the laptop. They contacted Janarthanan at about 9.30pm about the running of UltraViewer. Janarthanan denied it and claimed that the laptop was unresponsive. He complied with instructions to disconnect the device from the internet and perform a full virus scan. He was also told that the Government IT Security Incident Response unit would contact him to collect the laptop. At around the same time, Hari Balan told Janarthanan that the laptop's security and network policy blocked its use for the examination. Janarthanan then used his personal laptop to take the exam. He deleted the majority of the files in the downloads folder in his work laptop and cleared its browsing history in order to conceal the offences. He also deleted the UltraViewer application folder containing logs and the application file before handing the laptop over for investigations. On Aug 14, 2025, a representative from the Corporate Services Division of the Singapore judiciary lodged a police report about the unauthorised installation of the remote desktop application. Janarthanan was investigated by the Technology Crime Investigation Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department. He denied knowledge of UltraViewer prior to the incident and lied that he had been experiencing connectivity issues with the laptop's virtual private network (VPN) that day. He claimed he was re-installing the VPN application when the laptop stopped responding, and was force-rebooting it when the SEED team called him. He confessed in a subsequent statement in September 2025. IMPACT Janarthanan admitted that his actions endangered the safety of the files, which could have been exfiltrated or stolen when the remote connection was established. Investigations confirmed, however, that no exfiltration took place. While the files themselves did not contain any sensitive case-specific information, the files contained information that could potentially be used to gain unauthorised access to systems that had sensitive and confidential information, such as case information and judges' notes. To mitigate Janarthanan's actions, the State Courts' Innovation, Technology and Transformation Division undertook a change of all implicated security keys and took measures such as password changes and key rotations. The State Courts also conducted a comprehensive review of their systems and traffic logs to ensure that no anomalies, unauthorised access or data exfiltration occurred, the court heard. They also reviewed the data handling practices for vendors to ensure best-practice compliance. The Government IT Security Incident Response unit conducted its own investigations and the Digital Forensics Branch of the CID also performed a forensic examination of the laptop. Deputy Public Prosecutor Matthew Choo sought seven to nine months' jail, saying Janarthanan had been entrusted with a laptop containing sensitive information. "He ought to have known better, as a team leader of the State Courts' cloud system team, to not allow unauthorised accesses to and make unauthorised modifications to the laptop," said Mr Choo. "Ironically, he did so to take an examination for information security." He said the offences endangered sensitive information and could have caused significant disruption to the systems of the State Courts. Defence lawyers S Balamurugan and A Ravidass of Regal Law sought three to four months' jail instead. Mr Balamurugan said his client's personal laptop had battery and screen issues that day and he had no other viable option available, so he used the company-issued laptop to sit the exam. He had installed the remote desktop application solely for the exam and not for any criminal or other improper purpose, said the lawyer. He added that his client had an unblemished record and had built a long and stable career in the IT industry. He has two children back in India with his wife and his family is facing financial difficulties, said Mr Balamurugan. District Judge Lorraine Ho noted however, that the risk of harm was great as there could be a systemic attack causing possible public alarm and fear. There was also a potential for damage to the reputation of the judiciary's case management system, as there could have been access to court case files. Judge Ho said the offender had allowed an unknown foreign entity to have unauthorised access to data in his laptop. For causing the unauthorised modification of computer contents, Janarthanan could have been jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$10,000, or both. For endangering the safety of documents belonging to the State Courts via a job he had under a government contract, he could have been jailed for up to two years and fined up to S$2,000. CNA has contacted the State Courts for more information. Source: CNA/ll

#猫咪 #TikTokSportsキャンペーン #猫 #AI | TikTok