Madam Chan’s Manhole Meltdown and Her Pop‑Culture Carousell Craze
After falling into a 1.8‑meter pit on Simon Road in 2015, Madam Chan Hui Peng (47) is now suing Singapore’s PUB for S$5 million over the alleged injuries and aftermath. On a recent court date, the attorneys used her sparkling Carousell profile as evidence to paint a complete picture of her post‑accident life.
The Carousell Catwalk
Over 194 reviews in the last 3½ years, we’ve got:
- Essential oils to smelling‑good medicine
- Plants that bloom and don’t ask for a degree in botany
- A Scrabble set—because you can’t go to therapy with no D’s and G’s
- A mattress that’s more than a good night’s sleep
- Pink bikini—yes, you can still surf waves of glory
- A Punggol flat for rent—home sweet home, but with a minimum 6‑month lease
Lawyers for PUB’s insurers pointed out that the woman has chatted with numerous buyers who left glowing reviews, which seems to contradict her claim of feeling “wary of strangers” after the fall.
Case Highlights
When the case got into a courtroom third day, Lawyer Grace Tan of WhiteFern brought photos of the Carousell account to psychiatrists and psychologists, to prove that Chan’s fear of strangers
(she has a PTSD diagnosis) actually stopped her, at first, from meeting new people outside her appointments.
Ms Tan even pointed out that while “she can meet buyers” over the web, Ms Chan’s own mental health professionals are telling her to “live a normal life”, go out, and chat with friends.
Look, It’s Not “I’m Actually Talking to Them”
When summoned, Ms Chan confirmed that she owns the account, but “it’s not always myself operating it”.
It started in April 2017, soon after she began seeing a psychiatrist diagnosed her with PTSD. “You can meet strangers for sales,” the lawyer quipped, “but you’re telling your professional that you’re wary.”
Her reply was: “My psychiatrists and psychologists encourage me to live normally, go out, be friendly.”
Salary & Lies – the Confounding Trint
Madam Chan alleges that, at the time of the accident, she was earning S$11,500 a month for a business‑development role she held just a month before the fall. She uses this figure to calculate pre‑trial earnings loss of over S$1 million.
“She was a boss, right? That’s why it’s big.” — no claim?
Bureau lawyers argue that the company she’s declared as a client was actually run by her, with her 79‑year‑old mother‑in‑law as a former director and her husband acting as a shareholder proxy. She also claimed to be clueless on the identity of Mr Tan Yew Tiak, who turned out to be her maternal uncle on Day 3.
Lead counsel K. Anparasan confronted her: “Madam Chan, stop the lies. Will they cease today? Answer me!
Madam Chan replied, “I’m not lying but, sure.”
Bottom Line
In a battle between a damning lawsuit and the evidence from a Carousell account, our court’s spotlight has switched to a woman who, after a potentially life‑changing fall, must navigate a maze of lawsuits, psychological support, and family politics. The case is far from settled, and the court’s next steps could echo well beyond the mall parking lots of Singapore.
<img alt="" data-caption="The manhole Madam Chan Hui Peng fell into.
PHOTO: The Straits Times file” data-entity-type=”file” data-entity-uuid=”3b4d16e3-ef81-43f3-a67f-11c0e2303134″ src=”/sites/default/files/inline-images/20201126_manhole_st.jpg”/>
Courtroom Show‑down: An Exit or an Exposure?
Mr. Anparasan’s Final Diplomacy
“Three days of cross‑examination, and you’re still playing a far‑ce,” Mr. Anparasan told the judge at the hearing. He warned that there’s an ocean of evidence stacked against the claimant, and that she may have one last shot to get her lawyers to talk things out.
- He offered a “one‑last‑chance” plea to consider dropping the “dishonest” claim.
- He urged her to “think very carefully” in light of the damning facts piling up.
Defender’s Diminution
Madam Chan counter‑charged that Mr. Anparasan was making it tough to keep her calm, citing a “one‑month salary” mishap. She recounted a brief stint at e‑commerce giant Lazada in 2015, where she pulled in a top‑line $11,500—and later lined up a $12,000 offer in 2016. “My market rate is there,” she said, flaunting glowing testimonials from a 20‑year career clutching job before.
When asked if she’d take her lawyers up on continuing the claim, she gave a half‑smile and said, “I will take their advice.”
Next Steps
The trial is slated to resume this Thursday. It remains a cliff‑hanger to see whether the claimant will surrender the claim or keep on fighting.
— Original source: The Straits Times (reprint permitted)
