Singapore’s High Court has ordered a woman to deposit $15,000 as security for costs related to her legal challenge against a decision by the Singapore Police Force (SPF). The case stems from a police report filed in 2024 concerning an alleged fraudulent business deal and potential public health risk.
Court Orders Security for Costs
Madam Yang Hong, a Chinese national who described herself as a “public health whistle-blower,” is challenging the SPF’s decision to close her case. She initially argued she was willing to pay $1 to proceed with the challenge. However, on November 11, 2025, the court ordered her to provide $15,000 to cover potential legal costs incurred by the SPF should her application for judicial review fail. Madam Yang has appealed this order.
Assistant Registrar Randeep Singh Koonar, in a written decision issued January 7, stated the order was justified given the difficulties the SPF would likely face in enforcing any cost orders against Madam Yang in China. The assistant registrar also found that her challenge did not have a reasonable prospect of success.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute centers around a contract from March 5, 2020, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the contract, Singapore-registered Innoso agreed to sell fabric material to the now-bankrupt Chinese company, Guangzhou Crown Trading, for the manufacture of medical masks. Madam Yang claimed the material, shipped by Indian company Jindal Poly Films, did not meet the agreed-upon bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) standards, causing losses to Guangzhou Crown and posing a public health risk.
Madam Yang had previously filed criminal complaints in China and India, but no action has been taken in those jurisdictions. A criminal revision in India remains pending. Following the SPF’s decision to close its investigation in July 2025, she sought judicial review.
The SPF, represented by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), requested the $15,000 security on October 7, 2025, citing Madam Yang’s residency outside of Singapore. The assistant registrar rejected Madam Yang’s argument that the usual principles for ordering security for costs should not apply in this instance.
What Happens Next?
Madam Yang has already filed an appeal against the order to deposit $15,000. The court will now consider her appeal. If the appeal is dismissed, she will be required to deposit the funds with the Supreme Court registry before her application for judicial review can proceed. If she fails to deposit the funds, her application for judicial review could be dismissed. Alternatively, the court could hear her case without the security deposit, though this is less likely given the assistant registrar’s assessment of the case’s prospects.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted Madam Yang to file a police report in Singapore?
Madam Yang filed a police report in Singapore in October 2024 over an alleged fraudulent business deal and an alleged public health risk related to the supply of fabric for medical masks.
What was the SPF’s initial response to Madam Yang’s police report?
The SPF initially informed Madam Yang that, based on the known facts, it would not take further action, but stated the decision could be revised if new evidence came to light.
Why did the SPF request security for costs?
The SPF requested security for costs because Madam Yang resides outside of Singapore, and the SPF anticipated potential difficulties in enforcing any cost orders against her in China.
As this case unfolds, it raises questions about the balance between access to justice and protecting public resources in cross-border legal disputes.
Related reading