Singapore fines French teen $465 for viral straw-licking stunt
A Singapore court fined a 19-year-old French student S$600 (£348) after he licked a straw from an orange juice vending machine and returned it to the dispenser, then posted the video on Instagram. Didier Gaspard Owen Maximilien, who is studying in Singapore, pleaded guilty to one count of public nuisance after the clip, captioned "city is not safe", provoked widespread disgust online and was picked up by local news outlets.
The vending machine operator, iJooz, said it replaced all 500 straws in the affected dispenser following the incident, which took place at a machine in the Goldhill Centre on 12 March after Maximilien had been boxing. Public nuisance carries a maximum penalty in Singapore of a S$2,000 fine, three months' imprisonment, or both, and both prosecutors and the defence had asked for a fine. His lawyer told The Straits Times that Maximilien was "truly sorry" and had not anticipated the seriousness of the consequences.
- French student fined £348 in Singapore for licking vending machine straw
- Video posted to Instagram sparked public disgust and news coverage
- iJooz replaced all 500 straws in the machine after the stunt
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who see the fine as justified point out that deliberately contaminating a shared drinking implement and returning it to public use is not a harmless jape but a genuine public health risk, forcing the operator to discard all 500 straws in that machine. Singapore's public nuisance laws are well known and consistently enforced, and a S$600 fine sits far below the statutory maximum, reflecting a proportionate response to a guilty plea rather than an excessive one. Supporters add that doing something for social media clout that risks other people's health, then mocking the city's safety in the caption, deserves a clear deterrent message, both to the individual and to others tempted to chase viral attention through similar stunts.
The case against
Those who view the punishment as disproportionate argue this was a foolish, impulsive prank by a 19-year-old rather than a calculated act of harm, and that no one was shown to have actually been sickened by it. They note the financial penalty came alongside intense public shaming, international news coverage and reputational damage that likely far exceeds S$600 in real-world consequence, making further punishment somewhat redundant. This view also cautions against applying broad public nuisance statutes so readily to youthful bad judgement and social media exhibitionism, worrying that treating a silly video with the same seriousness as genuine public endangerment risks criminalising immaturity rather than addressing it more proportionately, for instance through a warning or restitution.