A doctor and his friend are sentenced to one year in jail each for taking MDMA, also known as ecstasy, after their arrest during a raid at a villa on Sentosa Island.
Both men contest the charges. They tell the court their drinks were spiked, and they therefore did not knowingly take the drug. In delivering the verdict, the judge rejects the spiked-drink defence, citing inconsistencies in their accounts and their conduct on the night of the party. The prosecution and the court focus on gaps and contradictions in the men’s statements.
After the convictions, the two intend to appeal. Different outlets emphasize different aspects—one highlights the judge’s reasoning and inconsistencies, while another focuses on the sentence lengths and the timeline of the case—but both report the same core outcome: guilty verdicts for drug consumption and jail terms of one year each.
