'Badge lady' Phoon Chiu Yoke given extension to pay remaining fine, prosecution tried to seek more jail time
The prosecutor said Phoon Chiu Yoke should not be given a deferment to pay her fine and asked for five days' jail in default of the unpaid fine.

Phoon Chiu Yoke seen leaving the State Courts on Jun 15, 2021. (Photo: TODAY/Ili Nadhirah Mansor)
SINGAPORE: Anti-masker Phoon Chiu Yoke, who is currently in jail for her latest offences of failing to wear a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic, managed to escape more jail time after a judge accepted her explanation for why she has not paid half her fine.
Phoon, 56, is serving a nine-week jail term meted out on Sep 11 for four charges of not wearing a mask along Orchard Road and for failing to attend an investigation by the Singapore Tourism Board.
As part of her sentence, she was fined S$3,000 (US$2180). If she did not pay the fine, she would have to serve 10 days' jail in default.
However, according to Phoon, when she went to court on Sep 18 to serve her jail term, the court clerk accepted her suggestion to pay her fine in two equal instalments.
She then paid half the fine - S$1,500 - on Sep 18, expecting to pay the other half when she was released.
However, she was hauled to court on Wednesday (Oct 4) over the remainder of her unpaid fine.
Phoon, who appeared in court on Zoom in a white shirt from her place of custody, explained to District Judge Tan Jen Tse what happened.
She said she asked the court clerk if she could pay S$1,500 on the day she surrendered, and the remainder when she was released.
She claimed that the clerk agreed to this.
Judge Tan corrected Phoon and said the clerk had agreed that the payment of the balance would be assessed by Judge Tan.
The prosecutor said she did not know what happened, but said her position was "to object to any deferment to pay the fine".
This is on the basis that Phoon was already given a deferment of her jail term and she had seven days to raise the complete sum of S$3,000 but failed to do so.
Therefore, she ought to serve the in-default sentence of five days, said the prosecutor.
Phoon then told the judge that if the clerk had told her "no" in response to her request for instalment payments, "then I could have paid S$3,000 on the day itself".
"So this arrangement was made with the consent of the court clerk. Your honour, my preferred arrangement will be - once I serve up to the earliest release date, which is six weeks, I should be able to go to the State Courts to pay the rest of the fine," said Phoon.
She estimated that she would be released on Oct 28 or Oct 29, and said she could make the payment anytime if she had access to her wallet or credit card.
Judge Tan told her: "I just want to make it clear - firstly, that the court clerk did not tell you that you could pay in two instalments. Basically I was on leave and the case did not come to me. The clerk said you could pay S$1,500 first and I will decide on the rest. I note the DPP objecting, but I will give you time to make payment. Can you pay by Nov 15?"
Phoon said this would be "no problem at all".
"I want to make it clear to you that if you don't pay by then, a warrant of arrest will be issued against you," said Judge Tan.
She assured the judge that she understood.