COMMENT Case No 1: David (not his real name) is a Malaysian who left Singapore to return to Malaysia because he was in steep debt.
Many years later, he went to Singapore to withdraw his Central Providend Fund (CPF) only to discover that there was a warrant of arrest for him, and that he had been declared a bankrupt in his absence when his creditors sued him.
As he had already left Singapore, he did not receive the court summons that was served, and as he did not turn up for the bankruptcy court hearing, a warrant of arrest was subsequently issued.
A warrant of arrest is also routinely issued if one does not turn up when summoned to appear in court for failure to pay traffic fines, television licence fee, service and conservancy charges (public housing monthly maintenance fees), littering, national parks fines and many other such fines.
The Singapore police force charges S$25 to the originating government agency for each warrant of arrest enforced.
WEU woes
Case No 2: John (not his real name) left Singapore a few years ago, and has been working and living in a neighbouring country with his family.
One day, he received a call from the new owners of the flat which he had sold, informing him that they received a warrant of arrest addressed to him.
He called the Singapore Police Warrant Enforcement Unit (WEU), and was told to report to the WEU.
Apparently, the matter was about his non-payment of a four-year-old S$30 parking fine.
John called the government agency that issued the fine to find out more and asked if he could pay the outstanding traffic fine. The reply he got was to report to the police station as a warrant of arrest was already issued and thus the case was out of their hands.
When he reported to the WEU, he was immediately put in handcuffs. About an hour later, he was transported to court to be processed, and while waiting for the judge, he was put in a cell.
About an hour later, he was escorted to chambers in handcuffs to stand before the judge. He had to post a personal bond of S$1,000 before he was released. Only after signing the bail document were his handcuffs removed. All in all, the entire process took over five hours.
The next day, he went to the government agency to pay the compound fine of S$200. He then went back to the court for the matter to be dropped .
Case highlighted on Internet
Case No 3: My home address has been used by Peter (not his real name) as his mailing address because he has been working in a neighbouring country and travels a lot for the last three years.
A letter arrived informing him that as he had not paid the TV licence fee of about S$20 for three months about three years ago, he had been summoned to appear in court. When the government agency was contacted by telephone, the advice was that the matter could be settled by paying S$198.81.
However, they could not just accept a cheque for the amount in the mail as one has to pay in person at their office with documentary proof that he has been working in the neighbouring country.
As he was not in Singapore, he sent a cheque for the amount required and a photocopy of his residency in the neighbouring country to the government agency.
About more than two weeks later, after the government agency cleared the cheque, a warrant of arrest arrived.
The warrant of arrest stated that: “If you wish to make an appeal regarding the warrant of arrest issued against you, please send your appeal directly to the prosecuting agency for their consideration”.
So Peter sent copies of the cheque, the neighbouring country’s residency document, government agency letter and the warrant of arrest to both the government agency and the Warrant Enforcement Unit.
After more than six weeks since the cheque was cleared by the government agency, there was still no correspondence from the government agency – not even an acknowledgment of receipt for the cheque payment.
So will Peter be arrested when he next returns to Singapore?
After his case was highlighted on the Internet, the government agency called to inform Peter that his arrest warrant would be withdrawn.
As of the date of writing this article (which is more than eight weeks since the cheque was cleared by the government agency), there is no sign of the notice of withdrawal of the warrant.
So, in the meantime, Peter, who has a health products business in Malaysia, has been advised not to cross the Causeway.
How many arrest warrants issued?
Given that hundreds of people are charged almost every week at the night courts for failure to pay traffic fines and various fees, how many Malaysians have been served with arrest warrants?
According to the Human Resources Ministry, some 350,000 Malaysians work in Singapore, with 150,000 commuting from Johor Bharu, and the rest believed to be residing in Singapore.
Over the years, the number of Malaysians who have worked or lived in Singapore may be in the millions. So, what is the likelihood of a Malaysian encountering the situations described above?
I’m sure you must be wondering what happened to David’s case. I understand that he returned to Malaysia to withdraw his CPF online, instead of in person, and I believe his warrant of arrest is still outstanding.
Finally, here’s an interesting aside – the Singapore Auditor-General’s Office annual report released this month, chided the Singapore police, which was required under the law to impose on the prosecuting agencies, mainly statutory boards and town councils, a fee of S$25 for each warrant of arrest enforced; for its financial lapse in being slow to seek payment from prosecuting agencies and not collecting about S$648,000 in revenue for 12 years between 1997 and 2009.
