Forums

SINGAPORE: A vape pod containing the drug was found in her possession during a routine check by police officers on Nov 14, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Health Sciences Authority (HSA) said in a joint press release on Monday (Dec 8). She has been issued a Special Pass to allow her to remain in Singapore to assist with investigations by the police for other offences. "Following the conclusion of her case with the police, she will be deported and barred from re-entering Singapore," the authorities said. Under the enhanced anti-vaping framework that came into force on Sep 1, foreigners caught in possession of or using Kpods, or who test positive for etomidate, may have their pass or immigration status revoked and be deported and banned from re-entering Singapore. DRUG REHABILITATION CENTRE In another case, a 16-year-old Singaporean boy was on Nov 27 admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) for two months after he was caught for etomidate-related offences on three occasions. He is the first etomidate abuser to be sent to the DRC since it was classified as a Class C controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act on Sep 1. HSA first caught the boy in possession of a regular vape on Sep 4.  On Oct 2, he was caught at his residence with vapes that were tested to contain etomidate. This constituted his first etomidate-related offence, the authorities said. He reoffended and was arrested for possession and consumption of etomidate on Oct 11 at his residence.  His third etomidate-related offence was on Oct 23, when he was arrested after being found slurring and behaving abnormally in a private-hire vehicle. "Etomidate abusers admitted to the DRC will undergo rehabilitation programmes to address their risk of re-offending," said MHA and HSA. "These programmes may include psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes, pro-social support programmes and religious counselling." After discharge from the DRC, they will undergo regular drug tests and supervision in the community. The total duration of rehabilitation in the DRC and subsequent community supervision is 12 months. Importers, sellers and distributors of etomidate e-vaporisers will face much stiffer penalties. This includes three to 20 years’ imprisonment and five to 15 strokes of the cane for importers, and two to 10 years’ imprisonment and two to five strokes of the cane for sellers and distributors. Source: CNA/nh(mi)

SINGAPORE: Singapore Customs has seized contraband cigarettes involving unpaid duty and Goods and Services Tax (GST) of over S$1.87 million (US$1.44 million), it said on Monday (Dec 8). This is its largest inland haul of contraband cigarettes to date this year.  Customs seized a total of 17,279 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes and a van during two enforcement operations on Nov 30 and Dec 1 at Pandan Loop and Jurong Port Road, it said in a media release. A 27-year-old Singaporean man and three male Indian nationals, aged between 30 and 39, were arrested in connection with the haul. On Nov 30, Customs officers conducted an operation at an industrial building at Pandan Loop, where they saw a Singapore-registered van reversing into a loading and unloading bay and three men moving brown boxes into the vehicle's cargo compartment. The officers conducted a check and discovered 2,400 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes in the van, which was being driven by the Singaporean man. After further questioning, the men led them to a unit in the building, where another 3,195 similar cartons were found. The men were arrested, and the van and a total of 5,595 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes were seized. Cartons of contraband cigarettes found by Singapore Customs officers in the van during an enforcement operation. (Photo: Singapore Customs) "Based on information gathered, a follow-up operation was conducted on Dec 1, 2025, at a warehouse at Jurong Port Road," Customs said. "Customs officers found and seized another 11,684 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes stored on the premises." Court proceedings are ongoing against all four men, Singapore Customs said. "This case underscores Singapore Customs' steadfast commitment to detecting and deterring tax evasion. With our robust and decisive enforcement, all offenders caught will be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law," said a spokesperson for the agency. The spokesperson also urged the public to support their efforts by reporting any suspicious activities. Under the Customs Act and the GST Act, those convicted of buying, selling, conveying, delivering, storing, keeping, possessing or dealing in duty-unpaid goods can be fined up to 40 times the amount of duty and GST evaded, or jailed for up to six years, or both. The vehicles used in committing such offences may also be forfeited.   Source: CNA/dy(kg)

SINGAPORE: Courts and Prism+ have been taken to task by Singapore's consumer watchdog for using certain website features to mislead shoppers into making purchases. "Courts automatically added unsolicited items into consumers’ shopping carts, while Prism+ used fake countdown timers and misleading stock indicators to pressure consumers into purchases,” the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) said in a media release on Monday (Dec 8). The two retailers of consumer electronics and home appliances have given an undertaking to CCS not to engage in any unfair trade practices, said the agency. COURTS Following a consumer complaint, CCS investigations found that during certain promotion periods, Courts would automatically add items to shoppers' online carts without seeking consent. For instance, an Acer vacuum cleaner was added to a consumer’s cart after that consumer selected an Apple iPad for purchase, said CCS. This practice puts consumers at risk of unknowingly paying for the unsolicited items if they fail to notice and remove such items before checkout. Courts' "sneak into basket" conduct on its website in this screenshot taken by CCS on May 29, 2025. (Image: CCS) "Despite receiving customer complaints about this practice in as early as 2024, Courts made no changes until CCS intervened in June 2025," the agency said. “Courts has given an undertaking to CCS to cease this practice immediately. In addition to making changes to its website, Courts also agreed to refund customers affected by this unfair trade practice." In response to CNA's queries, a Courts spokesperson on Monday confirmed that it has made changes to its website and processed refunds to all affected customers. "We understand the impact this incident may have had on our customers and are fully committed to enhancing our consumer protection policies to prevent similar occurrences in the future," the spokesperson said. PRISM+ In a separate investigation, CCS found multiple design features on the Prism+ website that pressured consumers into making purchases by creating false urgency. These included fake countdown timers displaying messages claiming that popular items are selling fast, urging shoppers to purchase quickly to "avoid losing out". "However, these timers served no technical function, were not linked to any of Prism+'s inventory systems and simply reset after reaching zero without affecting the checkout process," CCS said. Prism+ also used misleading indicators claiming that stock was running low despite substantial inventory being available. For one product, the indicator was displayed even though the monthly sales figures represented only 7 per cent of Prism+'s total available stock, said CCS. “Prism+ explained that the indicator 'In Stock: Running Low' is used for any product with inventory levels above 100 units," the agency said, noting, however, that this threshold was not disclosed to consumers. The stock indicator on certain product listing pages on the PRISM+ website shows "In Stock: Running Low!" in this screenshot captured by CCS on Jan 20, 2025. (Image: CCS) The agency also found that Prism+ used unsubstantiated statements like "while other brands are all out-of-stock due to supply chain disruption", and "there’s an industry-wide shortage and all brands are sold out completely" on product pages. "Prism+ could not substantiate the statements when asked by CCS and claimed the statements were made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic," the agency said. In addition, CCS said investigations revealed that for 10 products, Prism+ inflated discounts by offering “up to 67 per cent off” despite the maximum discount being unachievable. For one product, the actual discount only amounted to 38 per cent.  "Prism+ attributed this to technical errors,” said CCS. The agency added that Prism+ has rectified the website issues and provided an undertaking not to engage in any unfair trade practices. In a statement on Monday, Prism+ acknowledged CCS' findings regarding what it called a "small number of legacy marketing practices" on its website. "These included genuine unintentional errors in our internal stock metafields, legacy COVID-period shortage messaging that was not updated, and website-level discount claims that were not always aligned with specific product offers." It added that it cooperated "fully" to review and amend its website after CCS reached out to the firm. "All required corrections were made swiftly within days and strengthened safeguards have since been implemented," it said, adding that no recent customers have been affected. Prism+ said that since May 2025, all prices and discounts displayed on its website accurately reflect the offers available.  "We regret any concern caused to customers in the past and have strengthened our internal processes to uphold the highest standards of transparency."   When contacted for more information, CCS said that it has been "stepping up" enforcement against businesses that utilise dark patterns, or website design features to mislead or deceive customers. It pointed to actions it took against Agoda and Lambency Detailing, for misleading website design and fake reviews respectively. "Consumers who are harmed by dark patterns from errant businesses can approach CASE for advice or assistance." CCS, which falls under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, is the administering agency of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA).  While it does not have any legal power to compel businesses to provide redress or compensation to affected consumers, it can gather evidence and take enforcement actions.  In egregious cases, CCS can file for court orders to stop businesses from engaging in unfair trade practices. Non-compliance with a court order may result in contempt of court, which carries penalties of a fine or jail term. “Under Singapore’s fair trading laws, it is an unfair trade practice for businesses to charge for the supply of unsolicited products, or to make false or misleading claims to pressure consumers into making purchases,” CCS said on Monday. “Countdown timers should only reflect genuine timelines given to consumers, while stock indicators should be reasonable.” The commission also advised consumers to review their shopping carts for unexpected items when shopping online and verify that payment amounts match intended purchases. Customers should also question the authenticity of urgency claims before making impulse purchases. “These two interventions form part of a series of recent enforcement actions taken by CCS against businesses that employ dark patterns to mislead and pressure consumers into unintended purchases,” said CCS chief executive Alvin Koh.  "CCS remains committed to ensuring fair, transparent and honest business practices in the digital space, enabling genuine competition amongst suppliers while empowering consumers to make informed decisions.”

[SINGAPORE] OG has sued supermarket operator Hao Mart for allegedly breaching its lease agreement over Taste Orchard by failing to pay rent from January to November 2024, as well as subletting parts of the premises without seeking its approval. As Taste Orchard’s landlord, OG claimed Hao Mart’s actions were a breach of the 7.5-year lease it had signed and thus served as grounds for termination. As at Oct 1, OG is seeking to claim nearly S$6.6 million from Hao Mart comprising S$5.6 million in principal arrears for rent; S$426,299 in increase in property tax; S$366,699 in principal arrears for charges; and S$178,857 in accrued interest so far.   In addition, it is seeking to claim mesne profits until Taste Orchard’s premises are handed over; subsequent interest on this outstanding sum; as well as other damages to be assessed. Taste Orchard, formerly known as OG Orchard Point, opened in February 2024 as a food-focused mall spanning more than 150,000 square feet. OG had originally leased all five levels of the mall to master tenant Hao Mart for 7.5 years, of which three floors were occupied by the latter’s supermarket Eccellente. However, it terminated the lease after less than two years, requiring Hao Mart and its sub-tenants to vacate and surrender the premises by end-December. OG’s lawsuit comes shortly after Hao Mart sued PropNex Realty and its agent, Michael Tan Ban Aik, for alleged misrepresentation in the leasing of Taste Orchard. Hao Mart is seeking to claim almost S$3.5 million in losses, comprising five months of rent. It said that it had to pay this rental despite not being able to operate due to project delays, which it attributed to Tan’s misrepresentation. OG’s allegations In a statement of claim dated Oct 21, 2025, OG alleges that Hao Mart had failed to pay rent for the period of Jan 17, 2024 to Nov 1, 2024, amounting to a sum of S$9.2 million. OG is represented by Dentons Rodyk’s Koh Kia Jeng and Astrid Teo. It claimed that despite making further demands for payment on four separate occasions – July 19, Aug 7, Aug 21 and Oct 10 – in 2024, Hao Mart had “failed, refused or neglected” to pay rent and other charges due. This is with the exception of S$10.3 million – which OG received from Hao Mart around Dec 23, 2024 – and S$2.2 million, which OG received from United Overseas Bank on Jun 11, 2025, after issuing a demand to the bank under a letter of guarantee. Both of these sums were supposedly payment for damages, given OG’s termination of the lease agreement. Secondly, OG alleged that Hao Mart breached the lease agreement by subletting or parting possession with “parts of the premises” without obtaining its prior written consent. It said that it had learnt “sometime in August 2024” that Hao Mart had entered into various tenancy agreements with other third parties. OG claimed that Hao Mart did not remedy its unauthorised subletting of the premises, even after its solicitors had demanded for this on Aug 21, 2024 and Oct 10, 2024. As a result of these breaches, OG said that it notified Hao Mart – by letters dated Nov 18, 2024 – that it would be exercising its right of re-entry and accordingly, ending the lease agreement. It added that Hao Mart was given six weeks to vacate and surrender the premises no later than Dec 30, 2024, on top of reinstatement. However, OG stated that to date, Hao Mart has “failed, refused or neglected” to return the premises and remains “wrongfully in possession” of it. Taste Orchard, formerly known as OG Orchard Point, opened in February 2024 as a food-focused mall spanning more than 150,000 square feet across five levels. PHOTO: BT FILE OG said that on Oct 21, 2025, it had issued a letter to Hao Mart informing the operator of the outstanding sum of S$6.6 million as at Oct 1. On top of this, OG is seeking to claim interest of 12 per cent per annum, calculated daily, and mesne profits – or double the rent – from Hao Mart until the premises are handed over. It said that the latter is in accordance with a clause in the lease agreement commencing from Oct 21, 2025. Furthermore, OG alleged that it has suffered “damages, loss and expense” arising from or connected with these breaches and lease termination. It stated that it “expressly reserves all rights to claim for any further losses, damages, costs or other reliefs” arising from or connected to the lease agreement – including its termination – against Hao Mart, whether in these proceedings or by commencing separate proceedings. At the time of filing this statement of claim, OG said that it is “unable to quantify” the losses relating to procuring a replacement tenant for Taste Orchard. Hao Mart denies claims, said OG’s action is “misconceived” In a defence and counterclaim filed on Nov 19, 2025, Hao Mart denied OG’s claims, including its purported failure to pay rent for the period Jan 17, 2024 to Nov 1, 2024. The defendant is represented by Vita Law’s Sean Francois La’Brooy and assisted by Watershed Law Christian Teo and Esther Yong. Hao Mart stated that OG’s action is “misconceived” and has been superseded by both parties’ subsequent entry into an “oral agreement” – which OG has in turn breached. Following the claimant’s notice that it would retake possession of Taste Orchard’s premises, Hao Mart said both parties held a meeting at OG’s office on Jan 20, 2025 to negotiate. Those present at the meeting included Hazel Tay, a director and shareholder at OG; her husband Adam Emilianou; as well as Hao Mart director Tan Kim Yong. According to Hao Mart, both parties had discussed whether to negotiate and enter into a new lease. On its part, it had faced “significant difficulties” during the lease period, in seeking to comply with and obtain necessary regulatory approvals and had incurred “heavy” capital expenditure. Ultimately, the defendant claimed both parties “finally decided that there would not be a new lease” and would instead enter into an oral agreement, which happened “around March 2025”. Under the terms of this oral agreement, Hao Mart said that OG would not claim mesne profits or doubled rent from January 2025 onwards. Second, OG was supposed to give Hao Mart “reasonable time” for the facility agreement to be repaid and that it had agreed to allow the mortgage to be redeemed. OG, as the lender, had previously entered into a facility agreement with Dr Tan, the borrower, for a sum of S$66.2 million. Under the arrangement, a mortgage instrument was registered over two properties jointly and severally owned by Dr Tan and his wife Teo Siew Ling. However, Hao Mart claimed OG “held its hands on the matter” from giving the notice of re-entry on Nov 18, 2024” to commencing legal action Oct 21, 2025, which was a period of more than nine months. Third, as part of the agreement, Hao Mart would return the premises to OG by Dec 31, 2025, “by terminating and providing reasonable notice period” to existing subtenants or if additional time was required, by Mar 31, 2026 at the latest. To that end, Hao Mart said that OG would not claim damages in lieu of rent from April 2025 to December 2025. Hao Mart claimed both parties “finally decided that there would not be a new lease” and would instead enter into an oral agreement, which happened “around March 2025”. PHOTO: TAY CHU YI, BT FILE Fourth, Hao Mart said that OG had allegedly requested “forbearance” from the defendant in not commencing legal action against it with regard to the PropNex case. Hao Mart said that it had acceded on its part. Fifth, Hao Mart said that OG would share costs with the defendant with regard to the termination of the subtenancies, with the sum to be agreed upon. This was allegedly also on the basis that OG “would be getting a new master tenant and benefit from delivery of vacant possession of the premises earlier” by Dec 31, 2025 or at the latest, Mar 31, 2026. Sixth, Hao Mart said that OG would compensate the defendant – with the sum to be agreed upon – for the capital expenditure and expenses it had incurred during the lease period. This compensation, it said, also bears in mind “the misrepresentations made by Michael Tan and PropNex” who were OG’s agents at the material time, as well as the extensions of time Hao Mart had required in the lease agreement which OG had agreed to. OG’s action “premature” and “wrongful” In its defence, Hao Mart denied OG’s allegation that it had not paid the outstanding rent and other charges, which amounted to S$9.3 million. It pointed out that the claimant had acknowledged that it had received a larger sum of S$10.3 million, and would refer to the terms of the oral agreement. On OG’s accusations of subletting without seeking its approval, Hao Mart argued that the claimant “knew or ought to have known” of the subtenants and subtenancies as it “maintained an office” on Taste Orchard’s fifth floor. Subtenants “had to apply directly to the claimant” for season parking, it added. As such, Hao Mart asserted that OG had “acquiesced to the subtenants” and by this conduct, is precluded from making claims with regard to the subtenancies. The defendant also argued that it is permitted to grant concession space and licences to third party food and beverage and lifestyle retail stores without seeking OG’s approval, as these are “approved industries” under the lease agreement. Responding to OG’s claim that it is “unable to quantify the losses” arising from having to procure a replacement tenant for the premises, Hao Mart stated that OG had shared that there was, in fact, a replacement tenant “who would be signing a new lease agreement”. That was why OG had requested the premises to be handed over by Dec 31, 2025 or Mar 31, 2026 at the latest, it added. Furthermore, Hao Mart denied that OG is entitled to any reliefs it has demanded. It said that OG’s action is “premature” and “wrongful” since the claimant had agreed the premises could be handed over by Dec 31, 2025, and that this deadline had not yet expired when OG commenced legal proceedings against it. OG has since filed its own reply and defence to Hao Mart, denying “each and every allegation” in the latter’s defence and counterclaim.

Japanese department store Isetan will be closing its outlet at Serangoon NEX shopping mall in April 2026. This comes after 15 years since it first opened at the mall located in Serangoon. In a Facebook post by NEX Singapore, the mall said:     The mall also teased that "new and exciting offerings" are coming soon to NEX.   One outlet left   Isetan recently closed their Tampines outlet in November 2025.   Their flagship store at Isetan Scotts in Orchard remains its only outlet left in Singapore. The store confirmed this in a reply to a comment on their Facebook on Dec. 8.   Screenshot via Facebook