A pattern of abuse directed at the same people, investigated before, charged again.
Manickam Manohar sent multiple abusive emails to MP Hany Soh and town council staff, accusing them of criminal conduct and using derogatory language. Police noted he had been previously investigated for similar offences against the same MP and town council employees under the Protection from Harassment Act.
- Manickam Manohar, 72, charged with six counts of harassment on June 11, 2026
- Sent abusive emails to MP Hany Soh and town council staff between August 19 and October 6, 2025
- Previously investigated for similar offences against the same individuals
- Maximum penalty: $5,000 fine and 12 months imprisonment
- Case resumes July 9, 2026
A 72-year-old man was charged with six counts of harassment for sending abusive emails and messages to an MP and town council employees over municipal concerns between August and October 2025.
On a June morning in Singapore, a 72-year-old man named Manickam Manohar walked into court facing six charges of harassment. The accusations centered on a campaign of abusive emails and messages sent over nearly two months—from mid-August through early October of 2025—directed at public servants who had done nothing to him except their jobs.
The target of much of his vitriol was Hany Soh, the Member of Parliament for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC. In his emails to her, Manohar made sweeping accusations: that she was "receiving cheating money," that she "misused" her power by "keeping a criminal," that she behaved "exactly like a criminal." These were not measured complaints about policy or procedure. They were personal attacks, delivered repeatedly to her official email address and to the town council she represents.
But Soh was not alone in his crosshairs. Manohar also targeted Neo Yeng Kwang, an employee of the Marsiling-Yew Tee Town Council, calling him a "useless manager" and falsely accusing him of theft and fraud. Other town council staff received similar treatment—labeled "idiot" and "stupid" in message after message. He did not confine himself to email either. Through the OneService App, a feedback channel meant for legitimate municipal concerns, he continued the pattern, referring to Soh again as "stupid" and "idiot," and writing that he was "not so stupid like you to send e-mail or by Facebook to a criminal like you."
What made this case notable was not the novelty of the behavior but its repetition. Police revealed that Manohar had been investigated before for nearly identical conduct—harassment and abusive language directed at the same MP and the same town council employees, all under the Protection from Harassment Act. This was not a first offense, not a moment of anger that had passed. It was a pattern.
The six charges he faced carried real consequences. Under Singapore law, someone convicted of using or communicating abusive words or materials toward a public servant can be fined up to $5,000 and imprisoned for up to twelve months. The law exists to protect those who serve in public roles from sustained campaigns of personal abuse—a recognition that such conduct, repeated and vicious, crosses a line from criticism into something else entirely.
Police issued a statement emphasizing the point: they have zero tolerance for harassment and abusive conduct directed at public officers and town council staff. The message was clear and direct. If you have concerns about municipal or public service matters, there are proper channels. Email campaigns filled with false accusations and personal insults are not one of them. Manohar's case was scheduled to return to court on July 9, where the next phase of proceedings would unfold. For now, the charges stood, and the question of what would happen next remained open.
Notable Quotes
Members of the public who have concerns regarding municipal or public service matters should raise them through appropriate official channels.— Singapore Police statement
Zero tolerance for harassment and abusive conduct directed at public officers and town council staff who carry out their duties in service of the community.— Singapore Police statement
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a case like this end up in court at all? Isn't this just someone complaining, even if rudely?
Because there's a difference between criticism and a sustained campaign of personal abuse. He sent multiple emails over months, not one angry message. He made false accusations—calling someone a thief when they weren't—and kept going even after being investigated before.
So the law is protecting the MP and town council staff from harassment specifically because they're public servants?
Exactly. Public servants carry out duties on behalf of the community. The law recognizes that if you allow people to harass them with false accusations and insults, you're making it harder for them to do their jobs. It's not about protecting feelings—it's about protecting the function of government.
But he clearly had some grievance. Wasn't there something he wanted fixed?
That's the thing—we don't know what his original concern was. The charges don't tell us. What we know is that whatever it was, he chose to pursue it through abusive emails and false accusations rather than through the proper channels that exist for exactly this reason.
The fact that he'd been investigated before for the same thing is striking.
It is. It suggests he either didn't understand or didn't accept that his approach was wrong. Or he didn't care. Either way, it shows this wasn't a one-time lapse in judgment.