A Singapore court handed down a five-week jail sentence on Tuesday to a 58-year-old man whose vehicle careened through barriers and plummeted into one of the nation's most recognisable landmarks after he had consumed approximately one litre of beer. Then Shing Chong was also disqualified from holding or obtaining driving licences of all classes for two and a half years following his release, a substantial penalty reflecting the gravity of the offence and the risks posed to public safety.
The incident occurred on the evening of July 13, 2024, when Then's car crashed into the basement level of the Fountain of Wealth at Suntec City. According to evidence presented by the Deputy Public Prosecutor Gladys Lim, Then had departed his home the previous afternoon and travelled to the shopping mall to socialise with a friend. After arriving at approximately 6pm and parking in the basement carpark, he proceeded to a bar where he consumed roughly one litre of beer over a six-hour period between 6:15pm and midnight.
The sequence of events leading to the collision revealed a cascade of poor decision-making compounded by impaired judgment. When Then eventually left the bar and headed toward his parked vehicle, he drove out of the carpark and entered Temasek Boulevard. However, as he navigated this major thoroughfare, his focus deteriorated significantly. Instead of following directional signage that clearly indicated a required left turn into a roundabout, Then continued driving straight ahead, crossing three lanes of traffic in the process.
His vehicle subsequently smashed through the protective barricade surrounding the Fountain of Wealth before dropping into the basement below. The destruction was substantial, with damage assessed at nearly S$64,600, which Then has since paid in full. The incident's potential for tragedy loomed large in the judge's considerations. Three construction workers who were working in the basement at the time of the crash managed to evacuate the area without injury, but their escape from harm underscored how catastrophic the outcome could have been.
The Deputy Public Prosecutor emphasised this narrow escape during submissions to the court, noting that had the workers been positioned directly beneath the impact zone when the vehicle plunged into the basement, the consequences would have been "far more devastating and catastrophic." This observation proved crucial in the judge's reasoning, as it highlighted not merely property damage but the genuine risk of serious bodily harm or fatality inherent in Then's actions.
Complicating the case was Then's mental health history. The defendant's legal team, comprising lawyers from Invictus Law Corporation, sought to present an Institute of Mental Health report suggesting that Then suffered from major depressive disorder at the time of the accident. They argued for a mandatory treatment order, which would have allowed him to undergo psychiatric treatment instead of serving jail time. The lawyers contended there existed a contributory link between his psychiatric condition and the commission of the offence.
However, the prosecution successfully opposed this approach, arguing that the circumstances demanded a custodial sentence to serve as a deterrent. Additionally, notably absent from the evidence was a breath or blood alcohol reading taken immediately following the accident. After the crash, Then was rushed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital's emergency department where he received treatment for injuries including a lacerated scalp. The lack of contemporaneous alcohol measurement, though he had reportedly consumed roughly one litre of beer, complicated the technical proof of his precise intoxication level at the moment of driving.
Interestingly, Then had also informed the Institute of Mental Health that he had consumed either an antihistamine or a sleeping pill prior to drinking the beer that evening. This detail raised concerns about his judgment in mixing medications with alcohol, a dangerous combination that would have further impaired his cognitive and motor functions. The judge ultimately agreed with the prosecution's stance on sentencing, emphasising that drink-driving constitutes highly irresponsible behaviour warranting custodial punishment.
District Judge Koo Zhi Xuan stressed in his decision that Then's offence had caused significant property damage to a prominent public landmark and carried a substantial risk of injuring or killing people. The two-and-a-half-year driving disqualification represents a substantial period during which Then will be unable to legally operate any motor vehicle in Singapore. This extended ban serves both as punishment and as a public safety measure ensuring he remains off the roads while undergoing any necessary rehabilitation.
The case serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of drink-driving in Singapore and across Southeast Asia more broadly. Despite decades of public awareness campaigns and increasingly stringent penalties, impaired driving continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The Fountain of Wealth incident, given its occurrence at one of Singapore's most visited shopping destinations and its damage to an iconic structure, garnered considerable public attention and underscored the indiscriminate nature of the dangers posed by driving under the influence.
For Malaysian observers, the case carries particular relevance given similar challenges with drink-driving enforcement across the region. The Singapore court's emphasis on deterrence and public safety, combined with the substantial financial penalties and lengthy disqualification, reflects a hardline approach that jurisdictions throughout Southeast Asia are increasingly adopting. Then's case demonstrates that regardless of mitigating circumstances such as mental health conditions, courts remain unwilling to excuse the fundamental irresponsibility of operating a motor vehicle after consuming substantial quantities of alcohol.
