In a stark reminder of Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance on violent crime, two Indian tourists have been handed severe sentences for Robbing and Assaulting Sex Workers in Singapore. Arokkiyasami Daison, 23, and Rajendran Mayilarasan, 27, both from India, were each sentenced to five years and one month in prison along with 12 strokes of the cane on October 3, 2025. The men pleaded guilty to charges of voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery, offenses that unfolded during their short vacation in the city-state.
The incidents, which occurred on April 26, 2025, involved the assault and theft from two sex workers in separate hotel rooms, highlighting the perils faced by migrant workers in the sex trade. Singapore’s courts emphasized the premeditated nature of the attacks, underscoring the nation’s rigorous enforcement of laws designed to protect residents and visitors alike. As the sentences take effect, the case serves as a cautionary tale for travelers, with authorities reaffirming that no one is above the law, regardless of their temporary status in the country.
Robbing and Assaulting Sex Workers in Singapore Hotel
The sequence of events began innocuously enough for the two men, who had arrived in Singapore on April 24, 2025, intending to enjoy a brief holiday. Just two days into their trip, on April 26, while strolling through the bustling Little India district—a vibrant enclave known for its South Asian culture and eateries—they were approached by an unidentified man. This stranger, sensing an opportunity, handed them contact details for two women offering sexual services, a common underground transaction in the area.
What might have been a fleeting encounter quickly turned sinister when Arokkiyasami Daison proposed a ruthless plan to his companion: contact the women, lure them to hotel rooms, and rob them to alleviate their mounting financial pressures during the trip. Rajendran Mayilarasan, without hesitation, agreed to the scheme, setting the stage for two violent episodes mere hours apart. The first assault unfolded around 6 p.m. that evening in a nondescript hotel room in the heart of the city. The victim, a sex worker who had agreed to meet the men based on the provided contacts, entered the room expecting a standard transaction. Instead, she was overpowered almost immediately.
The perpetrators used strips of clothing to bind her hands and legs, immobilizing her completely. In a bid to silence any resistance, they slapped her repeatedly, inflicting physical pain that qualified as voluntarily causing hurt under Singaporean law. With the woman subdued, they rifled through her belongings, making off with valuables worth thousands of Singapore dollars. Specifically, they stole jewelry estimated at several hundred dollars, SGD 2,000 in cash—equivalent to about ₹1.38 lakh—her passport, and multiple bank cards.
The theft was methodical, targeting items of immediate liquidity and identity documents that could further complicate the victim’s life. The men fled the scene shortly after, leaving the woman tied and traumatized, though she did not report the incident immediately, possibly due to the stigmatized nature of her work. Emboldened by their initial success and unhindered by immediate consequences, the duo escalated their actions later that night. Around 11 p.m., in a second hotel room just a few kilometers away, they repeated the ploy with another sex worker lured under false pretenses. This time, the assault was even more aggressive from the outset.
Read : Suspicious Parcel Containing Meat Appearing to Be Pork Sent to Al-Istiqamah Mosque in Singapore
As the woman entered, Rajendran grabbed her by the arms and dragged her forcefully into the room, while Arokkiyasami covered her mouth to muffle her screams. The physical restraint was accompanied by explicit threats: they warned her not to attempt to leave the premises until they returned, instilling a deep fear of reprisal. Once again, the robbery was swift and targeted. They absconded with SGD 800 in cash—around ₹55,000—two mobile phones valued at over SGD 1,000 combined, and the victim’s passport. The total haul from both incidents exceeded SGD 3,000 in cash alone, not counting the irreplaceable personal items like phones and documents essential for the women’s livelihoods and mobility.
Read : Snapshot Singapore: Top Ten Selfie-Worthy Spots in the Lion City
These attacks were not opportunistic; court documents revealed they were hatched in the moments after receiving the contacts, driven by a calculated intent to exploit the isolation of hotel rooms and the women’s presumed reluctance to involve authorities. The choice of targets—migrant sex workers often operating in legal gray areas—underscored a predatory strategy, preying on societal vulnerabilities.
By the next morning, April 27, the second victim, shaken but determined, confided in a male acquaintance about the ordeal. This disclosure prompted swift police action, leading to the men’s arrest within hours. Singapore’s efficient law enforcement apparatus, bolstered by extensive CCTV coverage and rapid response teams, traced the suspects back to their accommodations, where incriminating evidence, including the stolen passports, was recovered.
Courtroom Drama and Harsh Sentencing
The legal proceedings against Arokkiyasami Daison and Rajendran Mayilarasan moved with the precision characteristic of Singapore’s judicial system. Arrested on April 27, 2025, the men were charged under Section 397 of the Penal Code for robbery with hurt, a grave offense that mandates a minimum of five years’ imprisonment and at least 12 strokes of judicial caning—a corporal punishment reserved for serious crimes and administered only to males under 50.
The duo, appearing unrepresented in court to save on legal fees, wasted no time in entering guilty pleas, a decision that likely spared them from even lengthier terms but did little to mitigate the severity of the punishment. The trial, held in a district court, unfolded over several months, culminating in sentencing on October 3, 2025. Prosecutors presented a compelling case built on victim testimonies, recovered stolen goods, and the men’s own admissions during interrogation. The assaults were described in clinical detail: the binding and slapping in the first case constituted clear bodily harm, while the dragging, muffling, and threats in the second amplified the terror inflicted.
Deputy Public Prosecutor encouraged the maximum penalties, arguing that the crimes exploited the victims’ precarious positions and posed a direct threat to public safety in tourist-heavy areas like Little India. The judge, in delivering the verdict, noted the premeditation and the duo’s lack of remorse in their initial statements, though mitigation pleas later introduced elements of personal hardship. Both men, speaking through a Tamil interpreter, begged for clemency, framing their actions as desperate measures born of circumstance rather than inherent malice.
Arokkiyasami recounted his family’s dire straits: his father’s death the previous year had left him as the sole provider for three unmarried sisters, with mounting debts back home. “We have no money,” he implored, his voice breaking as he detailed the financial void that vacation expenses had exacerbated. Rajendran echoed this narrative, painting a picture of abandonment: his wife and young child languished in India without support, their survival hinging on remittances he could no longer send. These pleas, while evoking sympathy, fell on deaf ears; the court viewed them as insufficient justification for violence against defenseless women.
The sentences—five years and one month each, plus the mandatory 12 cane strokes—aligned closely with the statutory minimum, reflecting Singapore’s philosophy of deterrence over rehabilitation for such offenses. The caning, a controversial yet entrenched element of Singapore’s penal code, will be carried out under medical supervision to minimize long-term injury, though it remains a source of international debate for its perceived cruelty. With no appeals lodged, the men will serve their terms in Changi Prison, a facility renowned for its strict regime and focus on reform programs. This outcome not only delivers justice to the victims but also reinforces Singapore’s reputation as a low-crime haven, where even tourists face unyielding accountability.
Financial Desperation or Calculated Cruelty? Unpacking the Motives
At the heart of this case lies a troubling intersection of personal desperation and opportunistic brutality, raising questions about the thin line between survival instincts and criminal intent. Arokkiyasami and Rajendran’s courtroom confessions painted them not as hardened criminals but as ordinary men pushed to extremes by economic woes—a narrative that resonates amid India’s persistent rural poverty and the allure of overseas remittances. Arokkiyasami’s loss of his father thrust him into a role he was ill-equipped for, supporting a household on sporadic wages from odd jobs.
Rajendran, meanwhile, grappled with the isolation of leaving his family behind, their pleas for funds arriving like daggers amid his depleting vacation budget. The Singapore trip, meant as a respite, instead amplified these pressures: hotel stays, meals, and sightseeing drained their savings, turning a dream holiday into a financial nightmare. Yet, the prosecution pierced this veil of victimhood, portraying the crimes as coldly premeditated. The decision to target sex workers was no accident; it leveraged the women’s likely fear of police scrutiny in a country where prostitution is decriminalized but solicitation and brothel-keeping are not.
By April 26, the men had already spent freely, suggesting their “desperation” was situational rather than existential. Experts in criminology, often consulted in such cases, point to this as “situational crime”—impulsive acts fueled by opportunity and lowered inhibitions abroad. Singapore’s high cost of living, juxtaposed against the men’s modest means, created a perfect storm, but the choice to inflict harm elevates the offenses beyond mere theft.
The broader implications ripple outward. For the victims—migrant women from Southeast Asia, often from Thailand or Vietnam—the assaults compound the daily risks of their profession, from exploitation to violence. Losing passports disrupts their legal status, potentially stranding them without work or return options. Singapore’s government, through agencies like the Ministry of Manpower, has ramped up protections for such workers, including hotlines and legal aid, but cases like this expose persistent gaps. On the Indian side, consular officials have quietly assisted the families, though public backlash in media circles decries the men’s actions as a stain on national pride.
Ultimately, the sentences affirm Singapore’s deterrence model: swift, severe, and impartial. As Arokkiyasami and Rajendran begin their incarceration, their story warns of the perils of unchecked impulses under financial strain. It also prompts reflection on global inequalities that propel individuals toward such crossroads, urging better support systems at home to prevent future tragedies abroad. In a world of rising travel and economic divides, this incident underscores that borders offer no shield from accountability—or the consequences of crossing ethical lines.