Public Prosecutor v Chia Meng Chiang (Xie Mingchang) [2026] SGMC 85

Introduction

The shared use of our roads is an everyday reality which demands patience and mutual respect, especially among road users operating different vehicles in the same space. Otherwise, the navigation of vehicles on our roads in close proximity can easily become a flashpoint for anger and confrontation over perceived slights. When road users act on that frustration through verbal abuse or physical violence, this not only endangers public safety, but also exposes the offender to potential criminal liability.

The present matter concerned an incident involving the accused, Chia Meng Chiang, a cyclist, and the driver of a public bus. A disagreement between them concerning their use of the road led first to a heated exchange, then quickly deteriorated into a physical altercation in which both parties sustained injuries.

The accused was subsequently charged as follows:

The accused claimed trial to the charge. The physical altercation was captured by the in-vehicle closed circuit television (“CCTV”) on the bus, admitted into evidence without any objections. Thus, the events were largely undisputed. In the course of trial, the accused admitted that he did commit some acts of violence against Khong. The sole question was whether the acts were done in self-defence.

After carefully considering the evidence adduced during the three-day trial, and the submissions of both parties, I found that the Prosecution had proven the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused of the charge accordingly. I did not accept the accused’s claim that he was acting in self-defence.

Following submissions on sentence, I sentenced the accused to a short detention order (“SDO”) of seven days. The accused indicated that he was ready to commence his sentence on the day it was imposed, and proceeded to do so accordingly.

A few days after the accused had finished serving his sentence and was released from prison, he filed an appeal against conviction and sentence.

When I delivered the verdict and sentence on the charge. I had provided my oral grounds. These are the full reasons for my decision.

The trial

The trial took place over three days. The Prosecution called seven witnesses:

(a) Khong Heng Chuen (“Khong”), the bus driver and the other involved party in the charge;

(b) Wilson Yeoh Wei Sheng, a representative of Go Ahead Singapore Pte Ltd, the bus company, mainly to testify on the extraction of the CCTV footages retrieved from the bus.

(c) Sergeant Amirul Asri Bin Mohamed Redhawn (“Sgt Amirul”) and Sergeant Ang Sheng Nong (“Sgt Ang”), police officers who attended at the scene.

(d) Dr Koh Shao Hui and Dr Rachel Wong, doctors at Sengkang General Hospital (“SKGH”) who prepared the medical reports for Khong and the accused respectively.

(e) Chan Pei Ling, the transcriber and translator for the CCTV footage of the incident.

(f) Inspector Lim Teck Leong Melvin, the Investigation Officer for this case.

The accused elected to testify in his defence. He was the sole witness for the defence.

The relevant provisions

The relevant provisions state:

Undisputed facts

Most of the facts in this case were undisputed as they were captured by the bus's in-vehicle CCTV, which recorded nine different angles covering both the interior of the bus and its exterior – including the front, rear, and both flanks. Khong also gave oral testimony of the events based on the footages, and this was largely undisputed by the accused.

At the time of the incident, Khong was employed as a bus driver and was driving bus service number 85 along Punggol East, which was a public place.

At the junction between Punggol East and Punggol Field Walk, the traffic signal on Punggol East turned red. Khong stopped the bus before the junction at lane 3 of the road.

While the traffic light was red, the accused rode his bicycle along Punggol East, between the vehicles on lanes 1 and 2.

As the traffic light turned green, the accused continued riding his bicycle. Khong also drove the bus forward.

A short while later, the accused changed lanes and rode his bicycle on lane 3 of the road, in front of Khong’s bus. Khong drove the bus along lane 3, behind the accused’s bicycle. The accused initially cycled on the left side of lane 3, but started drifting towards the middle of lane 3. At this point, Khong sounded his horn continuously for about 10 seconds and pressed on the emergency brake in order to prevent the bus from colliding into the accused’s bicycle.

The accused stopped his bicycle, parked it perpendicularly in front of the bus, and walked over to the driver’s side window of the bus. A verbal altercation occurred between the accused and Khong as captured in Exhibit P2 and transcribed in Exhibit P3. Both the accused and Khong used insulting words towards each other, and the exchange was heated.

In the course of the altercation, Khong asked the accused to go to the front door side of the bus, as there were cameras on that side of the bus.

Khong then opened the front door of the bus and begun a video recording using his mobile phone. He first pointed his mobile phone towards the passengers on the bus and explained the situation to them, while the accused stood outside the front door of the bus (on the road) and continued engaging in the verbal altercation. As the accused did so, Khong pointed his mobile phone in video recording mode at the accused. The accused noticed Khong using his mobile phone to take a video of the incident. He boarded the bus and snatched the mobile phone from Khong’s possession.

Enraged, Khong wrapped his elbow around the accused's neck. He continuously shouted at the accused to return his mobile phone and attempted to retrieve it from him. Khong then pulled the accused off the bus and onto the road, dragging him along the ground. While being dragged, the accused aimed several kicks at Khong.

Eventually, the accused managed to pull himself to his feet. He then charged towards Khong in a deep forward bend. Khong grabbed onto the accused’s arm and threw him towards the kerb on the left side of the road.

One of the passengers on the bus alighted and shouted at them to “stop it” and asked them not to fight.

After the accused landed on the kerb at the side of the road, Khong retreated from the accused. After he retreated, he stood on one leg to put on his shoe, which had fallen off. He subsequently squatted down to do the same. In the meantime, the accused rose to his feet and ran towards Khong, aiming a kick at Khong using his right leg. Khong moved back slightly, causing the accused to fall on top of Khong. Khong then pinned the accused down on the road and requested those at the scene to call the Police. Thereafter, the accused ran over to the grass verge at the left side of Punggol East, and various passers-by separated Khong and the accused.

At about 6.44 pm, an informant called the police and reported the incident. The incident location provided was Flo Residence, a condominium located at 5 Punggol Field Walk, Singapore 828741, in the vicinity of where the fight took place.

Following the police call, various teams of police officers, including Sgt Amirul and Sgt Ang, were dispatched to the scene.

Khong and the accused then attended to the Emergency Department of Sengkang General Hospital.

Khong was seen at Emergency Department of SKGH on 25 November 2024 at 2228 hours. He suffered a 1x1cm superficial abrasion over the left olecranon, tenderness over the left little finger distal interphalangeal joint with inability to achieve full extension of the joint, tenderness over the base of the left thumb with pain on ranging and axial loading it. X-ray of the left hand, left little finger and left thumb revealed non fractures or dislocations. However, in view of exquisite tenderness over the base of the left thumb, he was diagnosed to have a possible occult fracture of the left thumb base, left mallet finger as well as left posterior elbow superficial abrasions. He was placed on a mallet splint for his left little finger followed by thumb spica for left upper limb. He was discharged with analgesia with 14 days of hospitalisation leave. A subsequent medical report clarified that on follow up with a hand specialist, Khong did not suffer from any fracture of his left thumb and only a thumb ligament sprain.

The accused was examined at Emergency Department of Sengkang General Hospital on 25 November 2024 at 1927 hours. He was diagnosed with:

(a) Right eye subconjunctival haemorrhage

(b) Cephalohematoma at occipital region

(c) Left chest contusion (possible occult rib fracture). The next day, a formal radiologist report of the chest X-ray noted an acute, mildly displaced left tenth lateral rib fracture

(d) Left big toe contusion

He was prescribed analgesia on discharge and given three days of outpatient medical leave. He was directed to follow up at the polyclinic for review of his chest contusion and other injuries.

Sole disputed issue – whether the accused acted in self-defence

I will focus on the sole element in dispute, which was whether the accused acted in self-defence.

Parties’ cases

The Prosecution’s case was that the accused fought with Khong in a public place. The fight began at the point when the accused committed the first act of physical force by snatching Khong’s phone away from Khong. The fight ended after the accused kicked Khong and Khong pinned the accused down.

The accused argued that he was acting in self-defence. He maintained that Khong had started the fight and his actions were simply to defend himself throughout the scuffle.

The Prosecution refuted the accused’s claim of self-defence:

(a) The accused escalated the fight at various instances, such as by stopping his bicycle in front of the bus, and committing the first act of physical force by snatching the phone away from Khong’s hand.

(b) The accused conceded that he had no reason to believe that he was in danger before he snatched Khong’s phone away. There was thus no objective basis for him to reasonably apprehend danger.

(c) The accused had recourse to authority, since he had his phone with him at all times, and could have called the police.

(d) The accused was not a credible witness as he provided explanations during trial which were inconsistent with the CCTV footage and were illogical.

The Court’s decision

I first considered the background and context of the incident prior to the physical altercation, based on the CCTV footage and the accounts at trial. From Khong’s perspective, the accused’s bicycle had darted across 3 lanes of the road from lane 1 to lane 3, eventually drifting in front of his bus at the centre of lane 3, travelling at a slow speed. This caused Khong to apply his emergency brake to avoid a collision with the accused’s bicycle. He also sounded the bus horn as a warning. Khong was shocked and felt that the accused’s act endangered Khong and his bus passengers, one of whom was thrown from one seat to another.

From the accused’s perspective, Khong was driving a heavy vehicle, but was tailgating him and did not keep a sufficiently safe distance from him. Despite his best efforts to cycle as fast as he could, he could not put additional distance between the bus and his bicycle. He thus decided to adjust his position to avoid being trapped between the bus and the kerb. He was upset as he viewed this as dangerous driving on the part of Khong.

It was evident from their verbal altercation (shown in the video at Exhibit P2, translated and transcribed in Exhibit P3) that they were both angry and had used unpleasant language on each other. Khong started recording the incident, which agitated the accused. The accused responded by snatching Khong’s mobile phone, which was used to record the incident, from him. While the Prosecution’s case was that this was the point at which the fight started, and that significant force was used to snatch the phone since it was done within one second. I did not accept this argument – the speed at which the phone was snatched was not an indication of the amount of force used. In my view, the accused’s act of snatching the phone could only be said to have further escalated the already tense situation.

What happened next was, to my mind, a typical road rage scenario – an incidence of violence perpetrated by road users as a result of real or perceived slights by other road users stemming from differences that arose in the course of the shared use of our roads. Each road user was adamant that he was in the right, resulting in violence originating from differences arising through common road use (Public Prosecutor v Lim Yee Hua and another appeal [2018] 3 SLR 1106 (“Lim Yee Hua”) at [21]).

In my assessment, Khong started the fight – meaning the exchange of physical blows –when he grabbed the accused around his neck with his elbow, pulled the accused off the bus, and dragged him along the road. I accepted that the accused’s argument that even though he aimed three kicks at Khong when Khong dragged the accused along the road (at around 02:40-02:46 of Exhibit P2), this was because the accused was trying to free himself of Khong’s grip on both his hands, rather than participate in the fight.

However, I did not accept that his actions thereafter were a result of self defence.

(a) First, after Khong let go of the accused and the accused managed to get into an upright position on the road, the accused charged towards Khong (at about 02:49 of Exhibit P2) with his head bent towards Khong’s stomach. This was, in my view, an act of violence which continued the fight. Since Khong had already released his hands from the former’s grip and the accused was able to pick himself up, there was no further apprehension of force. It was in response to this that Khong managed to overpower the accused and eventually threw him against the kerb.

(b) Second, after the accused was thrown against the kerb, Khong was no longer holding on to the accused and had in fact backed away from him (02:53 of Exhibit P2 onwards). Khong was on one foot trying to put on his shoe. A passenger also intervened, expressly asking them not to fight and Khong urged the passenger to call the police, indicating that he preferred to leave the matter to the authorities. Khong then squatted down to adjust his shoe. From this sequence of events, the accused could not reasonably have apprehended any further violence by Khong. Yet, he went on the offensive. Based on the video footage (from around 03:00 of Exhibit P2), he ran towards Khong while the latter was squatting down and kicked him, causing Khong to step backwards. The accused then also lost his balance and fell on top of Khong. Khong then restrained the accused, ending the fight.

In summary, I found that:

(a) Prior to the physical altercation, both the accused and Khong were frustrated because each perceived the other to have behaved unreasonably in relation to their shared use of the road. They had a verbal dispute. Khong agitated the accused by filming the incident. The accused further escalated the situation by snatching Khong’s phone away from him.

(b) Khong started the physical fight by grabbing the accused around the neck with his elbow, dragging him off the bus and along the road.

(c) The accused participated in the fight in two ways: first, by charging towards Khong with his head bent towards his stomach, and second, by running towards Khong and kicking after Khong had already retreated.

(d) These were not acts of self-defence as there was no reasonable apprehension of force from Khong at those junctures.

For these reasons, I found that the Prosecution had proven the affray charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentence

Antecedents

The accused is traced with unrelated traffic antecedents, which the Prosecution did not rely on in the course of sentencing submissions.

Parties’ submissions

The Prosecution submitted for a sentence of seven days’ imprisonment. The Prosecution noted that Khong had pleaded guilty to one charge under s 323 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to a seven-day SDO. However, the Prosecution argued that an SDO was unsuitable for the accused. Specifically, the Prosecution highlighted that the accused initiated the confrontation with Khong by stopping his bicycle in front of the bus and snatching Khong’s phone away during the verbal confrontation. He escalated the confrontation by telling Khong to “eat shit” and “come down”. His conduct at trial demonstrated a lack of remorse for the fight with Khong. He denied starting the fight and did not acknowledge any degree of wrongdoing. There was thus no room for the principle of rehabilitation to operate. By contrast, Khong was untraced and had pleaded guilty to the charges. There was some degree of provocation when the accused snatched Khong’s phone away. Thus, although the Prosecution accepted that Khong was convicted of a more serious charge, and the accused sustained more severe injuries than Khong, the accused’s culpability was high and the custodial threshold was crossed.

In mitigation, the accused said that he understood the seriousness of the matter and took responsibility for his actions. He explained that the acts were not reflective of his normal behaviour because he was in a “high-pressure” situation. He submitted for a non-custodial sentence, although he also said that he was financially constrained and a fine would cause him significant hardship. He stated that he had reflected on his actions, sought medical treatment, and was now stable and committed to ensuring this did not happen again.

The Court’s decision on sentence

When determining the appropriate sentence, I was first guided by the High Court’s observations in Lim Yee Hua at [1] and [3] that violence stemming from road rage was to be treated seriously by the courts:

At the same time, I noted that Khong had been convicted of a more serious offence under s 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to the accused, in relation to the same incident. He was sentenced to seven days’ SDO.

I did not agree with the Prosecution that the accused alone had escalated the situation by parking his bicycle in front of the bus, and using insulting words against Khong. As I have highlighted above, both parties in this road rage situation had behaved angrily and used harsh words during the verbal altercation. They each reacted to what they perceived was the other’s wrongdoing in relation to the shared use of the road. The altercation culminated in the accused snatching Khong’s phone from his hand. However, Khong subsequently reacted in a disproportionate manner by wrapping his elbow around the accused’s neck, dragging him off the bus and along the road. He thus not only escalated the incident into a physical confrontation, but also used a greater degree of violence than the accused in the course of the scuffle. This resulted in the accused suffering more serious injuries, including a fractured rib.

I also disagreed with the Prosecution that accused’s conduct at trial demonstrated a lack of remorse. As I pointed out to the Prosecution, the accused’s denial of any wrongdoing was a necessary consequence of the exercise of his right to claim trial. His conduct of his defence was reasonable and his behaviour at trial did not demonstrate an evident lack of remorse. In fact, he expressed remorse during his mitigation plea. I also considered that he was untraced for any violence-related antecedents.

At the same time, I was cognisant that because the accused claimed trial, he was not entitled to the sentencing discount for pleading guilty, which Khong would have received. I also noted that the other involved party in this fight, Khong, was a public transport worker as he was a bus driver (see eg, Wong Hoi Len v Public Prosecutor [2009] 1 SLR(R) 115 at [11] and [18]), although unlike in other cases, this was not a one-sided assault against Khong.

On balance, I did not see why these factors warranted a categorically different sentence – namely, imprisonment – rather than a community sentence in the form of an SDO. I also did not agree that there was no room for rehabilitation to operate in this case. Instead, I was satisfied that having regard to the circumstances explained above, an SDO of seven days was appropriate in the circumstances.

The accused indicated he would start serving his sentence on the date of sentence (5 May 2026). I accordingly ordered the SDO to start on that date.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, I convicted the accused of the charge. I imposed a short detention order of seven days on the charge, which was in my view fair and proportionate.

At the time of filing his notice of appeal, the accused had already completed serving his sentence.