'Badge lady' on trial for not wearing mask again claims video evidence from prosecution was tampered with

SINGAPORE: Phoon Chiu Yoke, who had been filmed without a mask in a video last year with social media personality Xiaxue, contended that closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage that captured her on Orchard Road had been tampered with.

The 55-year-old Singaporean, who appeared in court to contest four charges against her on Friday (Feb 24), objected to the CCTV footage being admitted as evidence, as it had not been stated upfront that the video had been edited. 

Phoon's charges are for failing to wear a mask twice along Orchard Road - outside Mandarin Gallery and outside Victoria's Secret - on Mar 6 last year, for failing to wear a mask in ION Orchard in August last year, and for failing to attend an investigation by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) on Mar 31 last year. 

Wearing a mask outdoors in Singapore was only made optional on Mar 29 last year. That was extended to indoor areas - except on public transport and in healthcare facilities - on Aug 29 last year. 

The first day of Phoon's hearing on Friday saw the prosecution playing CCTV footage which had been spliced from a few different cameras to various witnesses, including Xiaxue.

Xiaxue, whose real name is Wendy Cheng, took the witness stand in the morning to testify that she had seen Phoon without a mask outside of Mandarin Gallery on Mar 6 last year.

During the afternoon session of the hearing, another witness, STB lead investigating officer (IO) Baharudeen Ali Mohamed Kassim, took the stand to testify that he and a colleague had approached Phoon's apartment in Keppel Bay to serve her orders to attend investigations a handful of times. 

This was after the STB received information that the "badge lady" had been seen in an online post not wearing a mask.

Phoon had been dubbed "badge lady" by netizens for demanding to see the badge of a person who had asked her to wear a mask in 2021. She was jailed for 16 weeks in 2021 after pleading guilty to nine charges of violating COVID-19 requirements, including several counts of failing to wear her mask outside of her residence. 

At this point, Phoon interjected to "question" if Mr Baharudeen should be admitted as a witness. 

"My ground is that on hearing of the first mention of the charges dated Sep 7, after the hearing, IO Baharudeen came to me escorted by someone else and he made a snide remark ... he said 'Ms Phoon do you have property'?"

IO Baharudeen had also asked her for her passport even though the court did not do so, said Phoon. 

"In these two instances he was interfering with the court of justice, (he) came to the defence and was harassing the defence," argued Phoon. In response, District Judge Tan Jen Tse said Phoon would have the opportunity to cross examine Mr Baharudeen later. 

Mr Baharudeen testified also that Phoon did not attend investigations in March despite all the orders and numerous phone calls. 

On Mar 24 last year, Mr Baharudeen called Phoon to check if she had received the order. During the call however, Phoon allegedly questioned why STB had enforcement powers and claimed she would only talk to the police before "abruptly" cutting the conversation, said Mr Baharudeen. 

Hours later, Mr Baharudeen learned from the police that Phoon had filed a police report against him, claiming that he had impersonated an STB officer. 

To prove their identity, Mr Baharudeen and a colleague again visited Phoon's residence and managed to speak to her. While Mr Baharudeen offered to record a statement on the spot, Phoon declined, claiming she was busy, according to the IO. 

Phoon also alleged that she was busy helping her brother move house and was unable to attend investigation at an earlier date, said Mr Baharudeen.  

She finally agreed to attend investigations on Mar 31 last year and signed a document to that effect, but also did not attend this session, Mr Baharudeen said. 

VIDEOS TAMPERED WITH: PHOON

After it emerged in the hearing that Mr Baharudeen had stitched various CCTV footage of Phoon outside of Mandarin Gallery together using a video editing software, Phoon objected to the video being admitted as evidence. 

Phoon said that the prosecution had not mentioned the videos were edited, and that there was an "intention to hide the truth". She asked to see and verify the raw footage against the spliced version. 

In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor Heershan Kaur said: "I would like to place on the record that there is no intent from the prosecution to hide the evidence."

When asked by the prosecution to clarify what she meant, Phoon said: "Firstly I am objecting to the way that this piece of exhibit was being described, it was never mentioned ...  that it was edited ... until we pointed out that the camera seems to be looking at it from different angles, then we realised it's two different cameras," she said. District Judge Tan clarified it was three different cameras. 

Phoon then said: "If that is the case, then it's edited and to edit an exhibit without saying it is edited I would say it constitutes to tampering of the evidence."

Mr Baharudeen maintained that apart from cutting, stitching the videos and reducing their file sizes, he did not edit the footage.

District Judge Tan then ordered that the trial enter an ancillary hearing to determine if CCTV footage played in court were substantively the same as those received from Mandarin Gallery, or if they had been tampered with. 

After raw footage was played in court, Phoon relented that there was "no difference" between the footage but then argued that there was no proof that Mandarin Gallery had not tampered with the footage. 

During the trial, District Judge Tan also asked if Phoon was prepared to concede that the person in video footage was her. To that, Phoon said: "I do not object that that person is me." 

If convicted of failing to wear a mask when required, Phoon could be jailed for up to a year, fined up to S$20,000 or both as a repeat offender. The penalties are the same for a repeat offence of not complying with an officer during investigations under the Infectious Diseases Act.