The article that was published yesterday on the final court verdict between local blogger and influencer Vaune Phan and owner of another motorcycle workshop in Singapore - Mark Yeow was one of the most read articles within the Singapore biking community in a long time. It is a classic tale with one party happy that justice has been served, and the other party feeling exactly the opposite.

Vaune Phan outside the State Courts

What made the story so talked about and put everyone in awe is that the whole incident was started between Vaune and another workshop, Revology Bikes. And that the amount of damages awarded to Vaune is one of the highest amount even meted out by the local state courts and could very easily break the livelihood of any individual. Until now however, the news that we have received are only from the local news media, but Vaune has now shared her side of the story. We've reached out to Vaune for her permission to syndicate what she has written, and the excerpt below is reproduced with her permission.

Some takeaways from what she has mentioned:

• The total amount awarded by the state courts is higher than the published S$60,000
• The total actual amount is actually S$104,427.80 - S$40,000 in damages, additional S$20,000 for malicious and aggravated damages, S$38,000 in legal costs, and a further S$6,427.80 in disbursements 
• There is an injunction against Mark to remove any past, current and refrain from future defamatory posts against Vaune

From Vaune's perspective, she had to go ahead and take legal action after Mark's 'relentless' attack on her and she had to do what she did to protect herself, her sponsors, and her livelihood.

From Mark's perspective, he was standing up for a fellow industry partner and out of his demand for justice, would not back down when being 'bullied' by local influencers.

It's hard to say who's right and who's wrong, but the state courts have given their verdict. We understand that Mark will be appeal the State Court's decision and the case is expected to go to the Appeal Courts to be reviewed again.

Vaune has stated that she will be donating the damages to her to a local charity after her legal fees have been paid off.

The "Gap" that started it all

Below is Vaune's thoughts on the matter on her personal blog - Vaune Phan (reproduced with permission):

Quote

 

It can be terrifying to know that a person whom you’ve never met or even know existed could be so relentless in his acts of malice towards you, attacking the work you do and down to your personal life.

But for those who, like me, have been a victim of defamation, can rest assured that the Laws of Singapore does not tolerate such behaviours with this Judgement issued by the State Courts that sets an important precedent.

Here’s the full story in its whole truth, and how the person who defamed me was ordered by the Court to:

1.     Pay a total of S$104,427.80 in damages and legal costs and

2.     An injunction to remove all his past, present defamatory posts made towards me and to refrain from doing so in the future

As some of you may know, after my experience with Revology Bikes that has been resolved after the SCT ruling (you can read the story here), I was subjected to intense defamatory posts online by this unknown person by the name of Mark Yeow (the defendant in this suit. I also later found out that this person was actually brought to Small Claims Tribunal in 2013 by another party which you can read here). 

Months after months, he was persistent in his attacks towards me, my work, my clients/sponsors whom I work with and he simply refused to stop. 

It was actually rather scary to see someone behave in such a manner like he has some sort of personal vendetta against you, especially when you’ve never met or know this person. Furthermore, he was never a part of the Revology Bikes incident so it was absolutely bizarre seeing him on the loose this way.

When he refused to remove his defamatory posts and continued them, to protect myself as well as the clients that I work with, I felt I had no choice but to take legal actions against him for defamation, in hope to bring his excessively destructive actions to a stop.

As of 15th December 2020, I’m so thankful to share that I’ve been finally vindicated.

Deputy Principal District Judge Wong Peck found the defendant to have acted in malice, and delivered judgment on my case in open court. She ruled that:

1.            The defendant’s 4 internet posts were indeed defamatory of me.

2.            There was no valid justification or other defence for the defendant’s defamatory posts.

3.            The defendant is ordered to immediately remove his 4 defamatory posts and is further ordered not to make such defamatory posts about me in future.

Quoted from the Judgement

4.            The defendant is to pay me in total of S$104,427.80, with the breakdown as follows:

         a.     S$40,000 in general damages.

         b.     In addition, because the defendant’s actions were motivated by malice against me, the defendant is ordered to pay me a further S$20,000 in aggravated damages.

        c.       Finally, the defendant is ordered to compensate me a further S$38,000 in legal costs and S$6,427.80 in disbursements I have incurred.

The total sum of S$104,427.80 in damages and legal costs that the defendant is ordered to pay does not including interest (which will continue to accrue until full payment is made).

I believe this may be the highest award of damages and legal costs a social media personality has received from the Singapore Courts to date and I’m very very thankful for the due justice that was carried through. I would however like to stress that social media personality or not, NO ONE should be subjected to defamation in any form.

I hope this incident helps the defendant realise that there are other less expensive and foolish ways to get a girl’s attention.

What do you think? If we have a jury system in Singapore - would you side the plaintiff or the defendant? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below!

Vaune Phan with her Ducati Panigale

Vaune Phan with her Ducati Panigale

Prominent local blogger and influencer Vaune Phan, who is best known for riding around in her chrome-red Ducati Panigale, has concluded a year long defamation suit against Mark Yeow, owner and proprietor of a motorcycle workshop in Singapore. The case concluded in the courts yesterday (15th Dec 2020) with Vaune being awarded a compensation of S$60,000 for defamatory remarks made against her by Mark causing her to lose potential and existing income streams. This is a reduction from her initial claim against Mark for S$80,000.

Vaune Phan with her "Chrome Red" Ducati

The twist in this story, however, is that this whole incident started with another workshop entirely - Where there was a big incident last year whereby another workshop, Revology Bikes, apparently caused "damages" to Vaune's bike while on a routine installation of a camera recording system and Vaune took to her social media to voice her thoughts on the issue. It was at this point where Mark came into the picture with several "accusations" against Vaune and this cause the entire episode to blow up.

Mark is said to be appealing the court's decision and we have reached out to him for his comments.

Mark Yeow at Scooter Narcotics

What do you think about this whole debacle and how it has turned out? Definitely not something that reflects well on the motorcycle industry in Singapore as a whole! Let us know your thoughts and comments in the comments section below! We'd love to hear from you!

Additional reading:

Mark Yeow & Scooter Narcotics Interview with AsiaOne in 2012

Attached below is the complete article from The Straits Time:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/blogger-awarded-60000-in-damages-after-winning-defamation-suit

Quote

 

SINGAPORE - A blogger, who has been featured riding her motorcycle overseas various times by the media, was awarded $60,000 in damages after winning a defamation suit in the State Courts on Tuesday (Dec 15).

After a three-day trial, the court found that social media personality Vaune Phan had been defamed by Mr Mark Yeow on four occasions last year.

He had posted three defamatory statements on Facebook and had sent a separate one to a WhatsApp chat group, according to court documents.

Ms Phan was represented by lawyers Suresh Divyanathan and Cherisse Foo from Oon & Bazul LLP.

Mr Yeow, the chief mechanic at a motorcycle workshop and the operations director at another, was represented by lawyers Luo Ling Ling and Sharifah Nabilah from Luo Ling Ling LLP.

Among other things, he had insinuated that Ms Phan had lied during proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) over her dispute with another motorcycle workshop, Revology Bikes.

The blogger had claimed that Revology damaged her motorcycle when it reinstalled a camera that it had previously fixed on the vehicle.

In her SCT claim filed on Dec 21, 2018, she said there was a "sizeable gap" between the fairings and the body of the motorcycle after it was returned to her.

Ms Phan published a Facebook post on Dec 30 that year, with a link documenting the incident with Revology.

Court documents state that Mr Yeow published a series of comments on her post on Jan 5 last year. He called her a "cheapskate", "freeloader" and "poser", among other things, and also accused her of cyber bullying.

In a Facebook post the next month, he questioned her integrity and her claim that Rexology had caused the gap between the fairings and the body of her motorcycle.

He also tagged Ms Phan's past, present and potential sponsors, business partners and other motorcycle workshops in his post.

Mr Yeow subsequently included a link to the post in a message to a WhatsApp chat group, in which he also used the words "cheating" and "karma" in March that year.

In the same month, the SCT ordered Revology to pay the blogger $4,630 as compensation.

Mr Yeow later received a letter from Ms Phan's then lawyers, Parwani Law LLC, demanding that he remove his Facebook post and his Jan 5 comments.

But he commented about Ms Phan again in May last year, on a Facebook post by electronics company Samsung. The post was an advertisement for a new mobile phone and featured the blogger, who had been contracted to promote it.

Addressing Samsung with another Facebook account, he said the company "should do some homework and fact finding before hiring an influencer" and that there were plenty of capable individuals "who can show you what dirt biking means".

The advertisement was later removed, and Ms Phan's contract to promote the mobile phone was terminated.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Actor Edmund Chen and marketing consultant settle defamation suits
Courts & Crime: Read more stories
On Tuesday, District Judge Wong Peck rejected Mr Yeow's claim that the blogger's popularity was already waning prior to the remarks being made, finding that she had an extensive online social media presence and that her reputation had been lowered by the statements.

The judge also said in her judgment that his remarks were not justified.

Among other things, she disagreed with his explanation that Ms Phan's behaviour had caused loss to Revology's business and was therefore "cyber bullying".

"As the SCT ruling stands and Revology has paid compensation to the plaintiff pursuant to such ruling, I disagree how such facts when made public can constitute cyber bullying," the judge added.

Noting Mr Yeow's attempts to prove that the blogger had lied during the SCT proceedings, she said: "My view is that it is not open to this court to examine the SCT decision and findings of fact."

The district judge also ordered Mr Yeow to pay legal costs to Ms Phan, as well as to take down his Facebook statements and refrain from making similar defamatory remarks against her again.

But the judge did not allow Ms Phan's claim for damages of $6,404 for the termination of her contract with Samsung, ruling that the blogger had not proven the termination was due to Mr Yeow's statements.

Thanking her lawyers in a statement to The Straits Times, Ms Phan said she was not suing for personal gain but to protect her reputation and the clients she works with.

"After recovery of my full legal costs, I will donate the remainder of the damages... to charity," she said.

Mr Yeow told ST that he intends to appeal against the decision.

 

When a video of a Traffic Police (TP) officer helping an old lady cross the road made its rounds online, many netizens took to social media to share the heartwarming act.

The incident, which happened along Cantonment Road on Nov 21, was posted on SG Road Vigilante's YouTube page and has since garnered more than 58,000 views.

Stomp got in touch with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and found out that the TP officer in the video is 37-year-old Staff Sergeant Fathur Rahman Bin Rohani, who has been serving in the SPF since 2009.

When Stomp spoke with Fathur via email, he shared that he was concerned when he first saw the elderly lady walking along the center divider with an unsteady gait. 

When he noticed there were many vehicles travelling past her, he immediately decided to stop and help her.

"My main concern was her safety. I had to help her to ensure that she crosses the road safely," Fathur said.

"As soon as I approached her, I suggested that she hold onto my hand.

"Initially, she was apprehensive. But when she understood my intentions, she followed me closely while I directed the traffic away from us.

"After we crossed the road safely, she thanked me and I gave her some road safety advice.

"I'm glad that I managed to help her cross the road. The safety of all road users is always my priority."

Fathur shared that this was not the first time he encountered elderly people who needed help while he was on duty.

"Once, while I was patrolling, I came across an elderly uncle who could not meet the timing of the traffic light as he was walking slowly," Fathur said.

"He had just passed the center divider when the pedestrian light turned red. I immediately directed the vehicles in view to stop so that the uncle didn’t have to rush to cross the traffic light.

"I always feel very happy and accomplished whenever I help someone out."

Fathur added that when his family members recognised that it was him in the viral video, they praised him for his actions.

While such encounters gave Fathur a sense of achievement, he made sure to note that there are also challenges that come with being a TP officer.

"Weather, road conditions and having to look out for traffic offenders while ensuring the safety of other road users are some of the challenges that I face daily. The risks for all road users are real," Fathur said.

"I advise all pedestrians, regardless of age and health, to use the overhead bridge or controlled pedestrian-crossings for their own safety.

"For motorists on the road, please remain focused while driving or riding. Do not speed and do not use your communication devices while on the move."

Due to this good deed, Stomp visited the Traffic Police HQ and had a photo opportunity with Fathur and he was pictured with a BMW R1250RT - the latest bike to grace the Traffic Police fleet.

What do you think about the new BMW bikes used by the Singapore Police Force? They'll now be able to keep up with almost anything on the roads!

The specifications of this BMW 2019 R1250RT are:

ENGINE
Type: Horizontally opposed twin
Displacement: 1254cc
Bore x stroke: 102.5 x 76mm
Maximum power: 136 horsepower @ 7750 rpm
Maximum torque: 105 ft/lbs @ 6250 rpm
Compression ratio: 12.5:1
Valvetrain: DOHC w/ dual profile cams, 4vpc
Cooling: Liquid and air

SINGAPORE - The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has set up an association to represent freelance and self-employed individuals (FSEs) - such as delivery riders.

NTUC said in a statement on Friday (Dec 11) that its FSE unit had been engaging workers in the sectors and found that they were ready to formalise their representation to push for better work protection and prospects.

FSE stated that delivery riders will be represented by the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) and the NDCA is expected to cover some 2,000 delivery riders. 

Supported by NTUC, the group will work closely with various stakeholders to address work issues faced by FSEs, enhance support frameworks and uplift work prospects.

NDCA seeks to address the safety of FSE delivery riders by ensuring all members have sufficient insurance coverage in the event of income disruption. Currently, many delivery riders bear the risk of illnesses and injuries themselves.

NDCA members will enjoy NTUC benefits such as insurance coverage against death and total and permanent disability, cash support like the NTUC Care Fund for income loss and training assistance.

"The association represents (sic) a rapidly growing part of the freelance workforce. The union will continue to work closely with the government, the associations as well as freelance workers to ensure that they are well protected as they go about their businesses," said Ms Yeo Wan Ling, director of NTUC and the organisation's spokesperson for FSEs.

What does this mean for delivery riders? Do you think that this is a good initiative to allow NTUC and delivery riders to band together for better benefits and fairer wagers from the big boys like FoodPanda, Deliveroo, Lalamove and Grab?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below!

P.S. If you are a current delivery rider or thinking about joining the industry, join us in our forum section below to discuss tips and tricks, and get advice from other seasoned delivery riders! Ride SAFE!

https://www.singaporebikes.com/forum/357-delivery-riders/

In recent times, with the influx of food and parcel delivery riders, there has been an increasing number of motorcycles and bikes that park on the pavement while going about their daily task.

Until recently, this has been widely accepted so long as the bikes are not in the way of pedestrians and do not cause too much of a nuisance. Based on what we see on our forums however, more and more of these parking offences are being ticketed by our law enforcement officers for "illegal parking" offences.

The case for motorcyclists in Singapore has not been helped recently with an article posted to Stomp, contributed by Stomper "Yap", stating that "If motorcycles can park illegally, then why cars cannot?"

While we think that we should be gracious to our fellow commuters and residents here in Singapore, and practicing give and take should be the Singaporean way, with more car owners sounding out about the illegal parking practices of us bikers, it will be sooner rather than later that the authorities start to take action.

What do you think? Should motorcycles be allowed to park at designated pavements areas so long as they vacate within a certain timing? Or should us a bikers look for proper parking lots just like the cars?

Let us know in the comments below!