Private-hire driver quotes S$65 Grab fare, gets fine for soliciting at Harbourfront Centre taxi stand

GAN’S CASE

Gan, who was not represented by a lawyer, argued that LTA had fabricated the story and conspired with Mr Singh to entice him, although he did not “fall into the trap”.

He said he did not solicit passengers, because it was Mr Singh who began communicating with him and he then offered Mr Singh a fare that he rejected.

The prosecution tendered closed-circuit camera television footage from 5.30pm to 6.15pm that day, showing that Gan remained at the location for more than half an hour.

During this time, he repeatedly walked around the taxi bay area near people waiting in the taxi queue and in the adjacent area. He parked his vehicle in a lot and left the boot open.

The judge said it was clear from the evidence that Gan had no ride-hailing bookings at the time and was therefore not at the location for the purpose of fulfilling any bookings.

The investigation officer testified that he had confirmed with ride-hailing firms Grab, Gojek, TADA and Ryde Technologies that Gan did not have any passenger bookings between 5pm and 6.30pm that day.

Gan claimed he was there to wait for a personal job and was not loitering, but had to walk around due to his diabetes, arthritis and gout.

He said he sometimes prayed when he was walking. In his statement to LTA, he stated that he had parked there to wait for passengers who had personal bookings, and to be on standby for ride-hail bookings. 

He later claimed that this statement was “partially untrue” but did not point out the portions he disputed.

Gan also claimed that it was Mr Singh who had approached him first, but Mr Singh disputed this. Mr Singh also disagreed that he had pointed at Gan’s vehicle and asked if it was available for service.

Gan alleged that it was Mr Singh who offered him S$50 and Gan rejected it, saying that he had an appointment and Mr Singh should use the Grab app for transport.

Mr Singh disputed Gan’s claims. 

Gan said that he drove off when his personal customer did not show up.

District Judge Koh Jiaying found Mr Singh’s evidence to be credible despite an inconsistency about the premium fare displayed on the app. He had testified it was S$65 but put in his feedback to LTA that it was S$76. He later confirmed in court that it was S$65.

Judge Koh rejected Gan’s explanation that he was waiting for a personal job. Gan had agreed that he had no evidence to show he had customers arriving there that day, but said he had many passengers from Indonesia from years before when he drove a minibus.

He claimed that he had met his customer in a toilet.

Judge Koh also rejected the allegation that LTA had fabricated the charge or conspired with Mr Singh, saying this was entirely unsupported by the evidence.

The prosecution sought a fine of S$700, saying the composition or out-of-court fine LTA had previously offered was S$500. The LTA prosecutors said that they would have sought a fine of at least S$600 had Gan pleaded guilty.

The judge imposed a fine of S$650 considering Gan’s conduct and the fact that Mr Singh was placed in a position where he felt that the situation could worsen. 

Gan is on bail pending appeal. The payment has been stayed pending the appeal hearing.

A first-time offender who solicits or loiters to solicit passengers under the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors, Trishaw Riders and Passengers) Rules can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to S$1,000, or both.

Repeat offenders face double the fine and double the jail term.