A Singaporean man has received a five-week jail sentence after driving his car into the iconic Fountain of Wealth at Suntec City while under the influence of alcohol. The incident, which occurred on July 13, 2024, marked a stark reminder of the dangers posed by impaired driving and the potential for tragedy when such behaviour intersects with public spaces. Then Shing Chong, aged 58, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and was handed down the custodial sentence on Tuesday, July 14, along with a 2½-year driving ban covering all licence categories from the date of his release.
The circumstances leading to the crash painted a portrait of deteriorating judgment throughout an extended drinking session. Then departed his home on July 12 and drove to Suntec City shopping mall around 6pm with the intention of meeting a friend. He parked in the basement carpark and proceeded to a bar where he would remain for nearly six hours, consuming approximately one litre of beer between 6:15pm and midnight. This substantial quantity of alcohol significantly impaired his motor control and cognitive faculties, though the exact blood alcohol level could not be formally measured as no breath or blood test was conducted immediately after the incident.
Compounding the intoxicating effects of the alcohol, Then had informed medical professionals at the Institute of Mental Health that he had consumed either an antihistamine or a sleeping pill prior to the drinking session. Such medications typically produce sedative effects and can dramatically amplify the depressant impact of alcohol on the central nervous system, heightening both impairment and the risk of catastrophic misjudgment. The combination of these substances created a dangerous cocktail that severely compromised his ability to operate a vehicle safely.
At approximately midnight, Then made the fateful decision to drive away from Suntec City. As he exited the basement carpark, his vehicle momentarily halted for about ten seconds while an automated gantry barrier lifted to allow passage. Upon clearing the barrier, he proceeded onto Temasek Boulevard, where his attention began to drift. The Deputy Public Prosecutor noted that directional signage clearly indicated he was required to turn left into a nearby roundabout. Rather than following these instructions, Then continued driving straight ahead, traversing three lanes of traffic before striking and breaching the protective barricade surrounding the Fountain of Wealth.
The vehicle subsequently plunged into the basement area of the fountain complex, causing extensive structural damage amounting to nearly S$64,600. The collision resulted in injuries to Then himself, including a lacerated scalp that necessitated emergency treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. While the physical damage to the fountain was severe, the human cost could have been dramatically worse. Three construction workers were engaged in maintenance activities within the basement of the fountain at the moment of impact and managed to flee the immediate vicinity unharmed.
The Deputy Public Prosecutor, Gladys Lim, emphasised to the court the narrowness of this escape from tragedy. She stressed that had the construction workers been positioned in the direct path of the falling vehicle rather than elsewhere in the basement, the consequences would have been "far more devastating and catastrophic." This observation underscored the reckless endangerment inherent in Then's conduct and the arbitrary nature of fortune in preventing loss of life. The fact that serious injury or death did not occur appeared to rest entirely on chance rather than on any precaution or careful behaviour undertaken by the offender.
Then's legal representatives from Invictus Law Corporation sought to mitigate the severity of the sentence by requesting a mandatory treatment order assessment. They presented evidence from the Institute of Mental Health indicating that Then suffered from major depressive disorder at the time of the accident, and they contended that his psychiatric condition had substantially contributed to the commission of the offence. Under a mandatory treatment order, offenders receive therapeutic intervention to address underlying mental health issues in place of conventional incarceration. The defence team argued that this approach would be more appropriate and rehabilitative than a custodial sentence.
The prosecution firmly resisted this application, arguing that the facts of the case demanded custodial sentencing to serve the critical deterrent function that criminal law must fulfil. The Deputy Public Prosecutor emphasised that drink driving represents highly irresponsible and culpable behaviour that endangers the public and must be met with sufficient punishment to discourage others from similar conduct. The severity of the offence was underscored by the substantial property damage caused, the proximity to loss of life, and the deliberate choice to consume substantial quantities of alcohol before operating a motor vehicle.
District Judge Koo Zhi Xuan sided with the prosecution's reasoning, declining to order the mandatory treatment order assessment and instead imposing the jail term. The judge explicitly noted that drink driving constitutes unconscionable behaviour and that Then's particular offence had resulted in significant material damage while creating substantial risk of personal injury or fatality. The sentencing reflected the judiciary's commitment to penalising such egregious conduct through proportionate punishment. Additionally, Then was required to make full restitution for the damage caused, demonstrating financial accountability alongside criminal consequences.
The outcome of this case carries implications for the broader Southeast Asian region, where drink driving remains a persistent public safety concern despite increasingly stringent legal frameworks. Singapore's robust approach to penalising impaired driving—combining jail time, substantial fines, and driving bans—reflects a deterrence-based strategy that other jurisdictions in the region have sought to emulate. The incident also highlights the intersection of mental health considerations and criminal responsibility, an evolving area of law across Asia where courts must balance recognition of psychiatric factors with public safety imperatives.
For Malaysian readers and others in the region, the case underscores the critical importance of responsible alcohol consumption and the severe consequences of driving while intoxicated. Transport authorities across Southeast Asia have consistently identified impaired driving as a leading cause of fatal accidents. The Suntec fountain incident, while fortunately not resulting in fatalities, served as a potent demonstration of how quickly and catastrophically a momentary lapse in judgment can unfold. The five-week sentence, combined with the extended driving prohibition, represents Singapore's commitment to holding offenders accountable and protecting public safety.
