Woman given warning for putting feet up on bus contests charge of 'hitting' bus driver

CNA

08-07-2025

SINGAPORE: A woman seen in a viral video putting her feet up against a bus pole when asked to remove her feet from a seat turned up in court on Monday (Jul 7) for five charges against her.
Tan Wee Teng, 52, was accused of two counts of public nuisance, two counts of criminal force and harassment for incidents dating between August 2023 and August 2024.
According to charge sheets, she put her feet on a pole on Bus 198 at a bus stop along Jurong Town Hall Road at about 10am on Aug 30, 2023, and refused to put them down.
This disrupted the public bus service, causing annoyance to passengers who had to disembark as a result.
A similar incident involving her feet on a pole and passengers having to disembark allegedly occurred again on Bus 99 in Boon Lay on the evening of Oct 26, 2023.
This caused a disruption of the public bus service, resulting in passengers having to disembark and causing annoyance to passengers, the charge read.
On the morning of Jan 19, 2024, she allegedly harassed Mohamed Razli Sanusi by cursing at him on Bus 180 along Jurong Town Hall Road.
She was also accused of hitting him on his inner calf with a walking aid.
The court heard that Tan was given a 12-month conditional warning for these four offences.
However, she was charged again for a fifth offence - for hitting bus driver Ding Shuai's arm on Bus 99 at about 11.40am on Aug 23, 2024.
The case was heard in court on Monday afternoon, with the prosecutor intending to ask for all five charges to be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
Tan would then be given a three-year conditional warning, during which Tan could not offend again or risk being prosecuted for the fresh offence and the old ones.
However, Tan protested saying three years was "very excessive". She claimed that she was being "set up" by the bus driver, who knew her and deliberately "hit (her) first" to get her to retaliate.
She said she was "innocent" and had written to the Deputy Attorney-General, and had already been crime-free for 12 months.
It was therefore unfair to be given another conditional warning for three years.
"I would rather go to trial," said Tan. "Because the complainant was not a victim but a self-confessed perjurer!"
She cited the case of Dr Yeo Sow Nam, who was acquitted of all charges after the complainant admitted to lying.
Tan repeatedly told the court in a heated tone about what had happened that day on Ms Ding's bus.
"I did not commit any offence at all except this particular China woman," she said.
"She even said no la, no need la, no need ambulance. She tell the police all the lies except the truth, that she hit me first, and she did it intentionally," said Tan.
"It's not the first time she saw me. She see me before. ... She purposely hit me ... to provoke me to hit her back. I just tapped her lightly, like tit for tat," said Tan.
"She tell the control room that passenger hit her, she want to call the police, then they said - do you need ambulance, are you injured? She said no need la, then they arrested me!"
Tan claimed that the bus driver had said "no need la" "in a very sarcastic tone" and had "exaggerated" to "blow up the whole thing".
The police then arrested Tan for punching the bus driver, but the charge was later amended to "hitting".
At one point Tan broke down in the dock, saying she was "arrested for a serious offence which I did not commit".
"It's not fair to me. I say - you might as well prosecute me now. No need to wait three years. I am innocent. Instead of prosecuting the perjurer who lied. They don't have evidence. I was arrested because (of) this China woman," she said, crying.
District Judge Lorraine Ho explained matters to her multiple times, as Tan had no lawyer. She previously had a lawyer from the Public Defender's Office, but the lawyer had been discharged.
"You told me many times in court today that you did hit her back," said the judge.
"I hit her very lightly," said Tan.
"You did hit her," continued Judge Ho.
"No! She hit me first, you've got to have all the facts right! You've got to get the facts clear, you know! You cannot ... when the evil (person) is still out there ... then you're going to convict everybody of murder? Just because the person was set up by the real murderer?" said Tan.
"We are not talking about murder here," said Judge Ho.
"Yes but it's the same concept," Tan replied.
CCTV FOOTAGE PLAYED IN COURT
The judge requested closed-circuit television footage of the alleged hit to be shown in court.
The prosecutor showed the incident from four different angles.
Tan was seen boarding a bus. The driver reached out her hand towards Tan, and Tan is later seen reacting to the bus driver.
Tan, who smiled as she watched the footage, told the judge that she had seen the bus driver before.
"And every time she ask me verbally to tap my card, then I ask to alight. A few times, she realise she can't get money just by opening (her) mouth," said Tan.
"So every time you try to get on the bus, you don't pay for the fare?" asked Judge Ho.
"Yes. I put my bag on the card reader, there's no sound. So the bus driver notice, and I say - open the door, I want to alight," said Tan.
"I did see your hand did touch her," said the judge.
"Yes, but I didn't punch her. There's a story behind, OK," said Tan.
"Therefore the charge was amended to 'hit' her," said the judge.
"Yes, but she lied to the police that I punch her!" said Tan.
"So you tried to tap the fare gate using your handbag, and this was not the first time," said the judge.
"Yes. I alight immediately. If I don't take the bus, I don't have to pay. She recognise me. That was last time la, she didn't use her hand, she use her mouth verbally. She hit me, waiting to hit me, so evil malicious! Then I retaliate back. She provoke me to hit her back," said Tan.
"Wait, wait, wait," said the judge. "So this is not the first time you have taken her bus, right?"
"Yes, but I do nothing wrong I ask her to open the exit door, I alight and she drive off," said Tan.
"So every time she asked you do to this ... because you don't have card with you, you can't pay is it?" asked the judge.
"No. I got no card. Sometimes I have the card in my cooler bag, sometimes I take it out," said Tan.
"So you don't have a card with you to pay money right," pressed the judge.
"I hit her back. I believe she is intentionally hitting me so she can provoke me to hit her back ... I am here to expose her lies!" said Tan.
JUDGE'S DECISION
After about two hours of back-and-forth, the judge granted the prosecution's application to have all five charges given a discharge not amounting to acquittal.
This means that the prosecution will have the option of reviving the charges if Tan commits any further offence in future.
"In this case, the prosecution will only pursue prosecution if the accused commits fresh offences during the 36-month conditional warning," said Judge Ho.
"A conditional warning is not issued by the courts but by the police. There is no unfairness or injustice caused to the accused as suggested by her, because without a trial she is now unable to prove her innocence that the complainant was lying."
Judge Ho added that there was "no delay" on the part of the prosecution, given that Tan was charged in August 2024, and the prosecution made a decision in May 2025 not to proceed further with the charges against her.
"Finally, if the accused says she's remained crime-free since her last conditional warning period ... and does not intend to commit any offences in future, then truly the accused will not be prosecuted for any offence once the discharge not amounting to acquittal is granted," said the judge.
Immediately after the decision was given, Tan asked if she could request for trial instead.
"I want to be prosecuted by the AGC," she said, adding that she was "very curious" what evidence they had against her.
If she had been convicted of public nuisance, she could have been fined up to S$2,000 if it was a first offence. Repeat offences include a possible jail term of up to three months.
If she had been convicted of criminal force, she could have been jailed for up to three months, fined up to S$1,500, or both.