Cleaner jailed 3 years for making multiple 999 nuisance calls

SINGAPORE — He had been dealt with in court several times since 2000 for calling the emergency 999 hotline, and for making bomb threats.

But Gurcharan Singh got into the same kind of trouble again this year — while he was out on a remission order for his previous offences.

On Thursday (Sept 6), the 61-year-old cleaner was jailed for three years after pleading guilty to five counts of making calls to an emergency telephone number with the intent of annoying the operators, as well as sending false messages.

Twelve other similar counts were taken into consideration for sentencing.

The court heard that Singh first called 999 on the evening of June 10 after drinking a few cans of beer earlier in the day. He had used a public phone at a void deck of a block of flats at Chai Chee Road to do so.

During the call, which lasted for about two minutes, the operator advised him to call back using another phone as he could not hear him.

However, Singh told him: “You are stupid”. He also threatened to “put one dynamite to the immigration house”.

After making the call, he went to buy more beer and drank it at the void deck of another block of flats. He then called 999 again using a public phone.

He again expressed his unhappiness with the immigration authorities, and told the operator he would like to meet him.

Realising that Singh had previously called 999, the operators alerted their supervisor. The police managed to trace Singh’s location and arrested him that night.

He was later released on bail, but went back to his old ways nine days later.

On June 19, he called 999 a total of 15 times from the same public phone in Chai Chee after consuming some beer.

He asked the operator if immigration officers were “alert with their job”. When asked if he had an emergency to report, he said he did not and requested to leave his number for an immigration officer to call him.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Daphne Lim asked for 45 months’ jail, calling Singh a recalcitrant offender who had an alcohol problem. As he had used a public phone, “resources had to be extended to track who the caller was”, she said.

District Judge Eddy Tham noted that Singh was enrolled in a National Addictions Management Service (Nams) programme for eight months in 2013 to deal with his drinking problem.

Nevertheless, he was jailed for 20 months that same year, then for two years in 2016. He was out on a remission order when he committed his most recent offences.

He also went through five years of corrective training in 2008. It is a harsher form of imprisonment, as the offender is unlikely to be given early release for factors such as good behaviour.

During sentencing, District Judge Tham told Singh, who was unrepresented, that his brief stint in Nams “offered a glimpse of hope”, but he needed to make the first move to address his alcoholism.

“These offences, committed in an intoxicated state, are serious because you affected a vital public service… Despite long incarceration, it has not made any significant difference,” he said.