In Singapore, we are used to paying a premium for imported food and drinks, but a 19-year-old exchange student recently set a national record for paying the highest price ever for a single plastic straw.

The incident took place at Goldhill Centre in Thomson Road. Didier Gaspard Owen Maximilien, a 19-year-old French student attending a local business school, had just wrapped up a boxing session. Feeling like Rocky Balboa and needing something refreshing, he strolled over to a nearby iJooz fresh orange juice vending machine.

Instead of simply purchasing his drink, grabbing a straw, and going about his day like a normal human being, inspiration struck. Or, more accurately, clout-chasing struck.

Didier pulled a straw out from the shared dispenser, licked about half of it like a Popsicle, and shoved the freshly slobbered straw back into the public machine—all while recording the entire stunt for an Instagram Story.

The twist? He didn’t actually leave the dirty straw behind for an unsuspecting customer—once the camera stopped rolling, he retrieved that exact same straw to drink his orange juice and took it with him when he left.

Because bo liao (bored) teenagers cannot resist broadcasting their antics online, he edited the clip and uploaded it to show off to his followers. Right on cue, someone in his network screen-recorded the footage and leaked it online. The video went viral, public outcry erupted over hygiene concerns, and iJooz was forced to respond immediately by discarding and replacing all 500 straws inside that machine dispenser.

The Legal Hangover

Fast-forward to court day: Didier pleaded guilty to one count of being a public nuisance, with a second charge of mischief taken into consideration. Because he had upcoming studies back in France and lacked a local guardian to oversee a probation order, the judge handed him a clean $600 fine.

While $600 might sound like a manageable fine, the real headache comes next: the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) routinely reviews criminal convictions of foreign pass holders, meaning his student pass status remains on thin ice.

How Does the “$600 Straw Lick” Compare to Other Public Nuisance Cases in Singapore?

Under Section 268 / Section 290 of the Penal Code, an act of public nuisance occurs when someone causes common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public. Penalties vary drastically depending on the severity of the act, whether public safety or health was compromised, and the context (such as during a pandemic).

Here is how Didier’s case stacks up against other notable public nuisance and prank incidents in Singapore:

Case / Incident	Summary of Act	Sentence / Outcome	Key Difference
The iJooz Straw-Licking Case (Didier, 2026)	Licked a straw, placed it back into an iJooz vending dispenser, and posted the video online.	$600 fine (Mischief charge taken into consideration)	Low physical harm because he used the straw himself, but caused public alarm and business disruption.
The NTUC FairPrice Coughing Prank (Nigel Yap & Friend, 2020)	Clad in masks during the height of COVID-19, two teenagers filmed themselves taking drinks off supermarket shelves, sipping/tasting them, putting them back, and coughing.	10–12 months’ probation + community service	Occurred during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, greatly amplifying public panic and food tampering risks.
The MRT Grab-Handle Prank (Nigel Fong, 2020)	Hung upside down on MRT grab handles to film TikTok videos, causing disruption and annoyance to commuters.	Fine / Conditional Warning	Disturbance to public transport infrastructure without hygiene or contamination threats.
MRT Track Intruders / Stuntmen (Various cases)	Hopping onto train tracks or jumping over MRT gantries to film social media content.	Fines ranging from $1,000 to $2,500	Direct breach of public security and high physical safety hazards.
Excessive Noise / Residential Nuisance (Neighbour disputes)	Persistent, deliberate banging of floors/walls or blasting music late at night despite police warnings.	Fines up to $1,000 – $2,000	Ongoing, long-term harassment of specific neighbours rather than a one-off viral stunt.

How Singapore’s Laws Penalize Social Media Pranks & Viral Clout-Chasing

Singapore does not have a single “prank law” written specifically for TikTok or Instagram. Instead, the legal system applies a robust web of existing statutory laws, criminal codes, and administrative penalties to clamp down on clout-chasing stunts.

Because Singapore prioritizes public order, hygiene, and social peace, what a creator might dismiss as “just a joke for views” is frequently prosecuted as a criminal offense.

1. Primary Criminal Charges Used for Social Media Stunts

Depending on the nature of the prank, prosecutors draw from several key legal frameworks:

• Public Nuisance (Penal Code, Sec 268/290): Covers food tampering, disturbing public places, obstructing commuters, or creating public distress for content. Penalties include fines up to $2,000 or imprisonment for higher-severity public nuisance.
• Mischief & Property Damage (Penal Code, Sec 425/426): Applied when stunts force businesses to discard inventory (e.g., throwing objects, spilling liquids, or contaminating food stock). Penalties include imprisonment up to 2 years, a fine, or both.
• Protection from Harassment Act (POHA, Sec 3 & 4): Covers filming non-consenting strangers in distressing/humiliating ways, jump scares, intrusive street interviews, or uploading content intended to alarm. Penalties include fines up to $5,000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.
• Transmitting False / Alarming Messages (Penal Code Sec 505 / Telecoms Act): Applied when staging fake emergencies, false bomb scares, active shooter hoaxes, or viral pranks causing public panic. Penalties include imprisonment up to 3 years, fines up to $10,000, or both.
• Disorderly Conduct in Public (MOPONA): Covers climbing public structures, running around naked, staging flash mobs that block traffic, or aggressive public behavior. Penalties include fines up to $2,000 or imprisonment up to 6 months.

2. Aggravating Factors That Escalate Penalties

Singapore judges evaluate context strictly. A prank that might receive a conditional warning under standard circumstances can quickly result in harsher penalties if it hits any of the following triggers:

1. Public Health & Hygiene Risks: Stunts involving food contamination, coughing on items, or tampering with public amenities draw zero-tolerance responses.
2. Disruption to Public Transport & Critical Infrastructure: Jumping train tracks, hanging onto buses, or triggering emergency stop buttons carry mandatory harsh sentences due to physical safety hazards.
3. Involvement of Minors or Non-Consenting Bystanders: Targeting vulnerable individuals or forcing unsuspecting citizens into distressing situations triggers harsher POHA charges.
4. Intentional Monetization of Illegal Acts: Proving that the offender performed the illegal act specifically to gain social media followers, sponsorship dollars, or ad revenue demonstrates premeditation, often resulting in higher fines or jail terms.

3. Non-Criminal & Administrative Consequences

For many creators—especially foreign nationals or foreign students—the criminal fine is often the least damaging part of the outcome:

• Immigration & Visa Revocation: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Ministry of Manpower (MOM) routinely review convictions of foreign pass holders. Serious offenses or public order violations often lead to pass cancellations, deportation, and future entry bans.
• Civil Lawsuits from Businesses: Businesses targeted by clout-chasers (like iJooz or supermarket chains) can sue creators for commercial losses, brand damage, and inventory disposal costs.
• Platform Enforcement & Account Bans: Singapore authorities regularly work with social media platforms (TikTok, Meta, YouTube) to take down viral videos of illegal stunts and suspend the accounts responsible under local content regulations.

The Takeaway

Singapore courts take public hygiene, transport security, and social peace seriously—especially when stunts are filmed for online clout. While Didier avoided jail time or probation due to procedural circumstances, a criminal record in Singapore carries long-term consequences for foreign students, including potential visa revocations or future entry bans.