[Top photo: Report published by The New Paper, depicting examples of truncheons that Mr Yuen may have attempted to bring in to Singapore.]
By Joycelyn Wong
HIS parents' home in Kuala Lumpur had been broken into three times.
And about four years ago, his mother was stabbed by robbers at a KL shopping centre carpark.
So when Yuen Wai Loon, 32, a Malaysian, saw truncheons being sold at a supermarket in Phuket, Thailand, he decided to buy two of them for his parents.
Yuen, an air steward with Singapore Airlines (SIA), thought they could use the extendable truncheons for decorative purposes and also to protect themselves.
But he was arrested when he arrived at Changi Airport and charged with possessing a prohibited item without lawful authority.
Yuen was convicted after a trial and fined $1,000. He is appealing and the case will be heard today.
During his trial, the court heard that he came across the truncheons and felt that they would make interesting souvenirs for his parents.
Yuen was on holiday in Phuket with his girlfriend and her family. He told his holiday-mates that he planned to give them to his parents for their protection.
Yuen paid 200 baht ($8.40) for each truncheon. When extended, they were about 43cm-long and resembled metal rods.
He packed them in his checked-in luggage when he flew to Singapore. He said in court he didn't know he could not bring them in.
Yuen arrived at the Changi's Budget Terminal at about 1.50am on 28 Feb 2007 and the truncheons were detected during an X-ray screening.
He told the court that he had no intention of using the truncheons here and had planned to give them to his parents in Malaysia.
Yuen had been working for SIA for eight years and had received training on the kind of items that were prohibited. But he said he was not told specifically that truncheons were among them.
He added that he travelled in and out of Singapore regularly. And while there were notices in Changi Airport informing passengers about the types of prohibited items, he was certain that truncheons were not on the list.
Senior Staff Sergeat (SSSgt) Lai Chin Wah, who was the investigating officer, testified that this was true.
But SSSgt Lai said he had been told by SIA that its cabin crew were briefed during their training that metal rods were prohibited items.
The prosecution said this should have prompted Yuen to find out from customs officers if truncheons were prohibited.
Indeed, the customs officer who screened Yuen's luggage had asked him if he had anything to declare.
Yuen said he did not mention the truncheons because he thought the officer was referring to items such as liquor, cigarettes and perfume.
Not allowed on planes
He added that he knew truncheons were not allowed on planes, which was why he had packed them into his luggage.
His lawyer, Mr Wong Siew Hong, said this did not necessarily mean Yuen 'ought to know' that it was against the law to possess them.
Mr Wong also objected to the charge that was brought against Yuen, which falls under the Private Investigation and Security Agencies Act.
He said the Act should not apply to Yuen, who was neither a private investigator or carrying out the business of a security guard agency.
But District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam felt otherwise. She said the Act did not state that only those who were in these two businesses were bound by it.
She also said that Yuen had the opportunity to check with the customs officer if truncheons were prohibited, but he did not do so.
In passing sentence, she took into account that Yuen had a clean record and was unlikely to repeat the offence. So a jail term was not necessary.
For possessing a prohibited item, Yuen could have been jailed one month and fined $1,000.
