Quick Read
- A Singaporean delivery rider, Mohamad Isman Rosli, was fined S$2,000 on March 5, 2026.
- He caused the death of a S$1,500 live Asian red arowana by leaving it in his car for at least four hours.
- The delivery job was cancelled due to a Lalamove app glitch in October 2025.
- Rosli initially lied to police about returning the fish before admitting he disposed of it.
- The case has sparked public debate on gig economy responsibilities and live animal transport policies.
SINGAPORE (Azat TV) – A delivery rider in Singapore was fined S$2,000 (approximately US$1,170) on March 5, 2026, after a S$1,500 live Asian red arowana died in his car. The fish, a highly valued ornamental species, was left unattended for at least four hours following a cancellation of the delivery job due to an application glitch. The court ruling has reignited discussions about accountability within the gig economy and the protocols for transporting live animals.
Mohamad Isman Rosli, 26, a part-time delivery rider for Lalamove, pleaded guilty to one charge of mischief. A second charge, related to lying to police about returning the fish, was also considered during his sentencing. The incident, which occurred in October 2025, underscores the challenges and responsibilities faced by individuals working in on-demand services, particularly when unexpected technical issues arise.
The Arowana Delivery Gone Wrong
The events unfolded on October 7, 2025, when Isman accepted his first delivery assignment through the Lalamove platform. His task was to collect a live Asian red arowana from Fu Long Aquatics and transport it to a customer. Court documents indicated that Isman picked up the fish, which was placed in a plastic bag, around 9 PM and was fully aware he was transporting a live animal.
However, approximately 40 minutes into the job, the delivery assignment was unexpectedly cancelled due to a glitch in the Lalamove application. Instead of immediately returning the fish to the farm or attempting to contact the customer, Isman proceeded to complete other deliveries, leaving the valuable arowana in the plastic bag inside his car. This decision proved fatal for the fish, which remained in the vehicle for at least four hours without proper care.
By the time Isman finished his other jobs around 1 AM on October 8, he found the fish farm closed. He drove home, and upon checking the fish later, discovered it had died. Isman then disposed of the dead arowana by throwing it into a rubbish chute at his residential block’s void deck, failing to inform either the fish farm or the intended customer about the loss.
Police Investigation and Court Proceedings
The following day, a representative from Fu Long Aquatics lodged a police report regarding the missing fish and the inability to contact the rider. When initially interviewed by police on October 9, Isman falsely claimed he had returned the fish to the farm late on October 7. Investigators later analyzed police camera footage, including recordings from Isman’s residential block, which contradicted his statement.
Confronted with the evidence, Isman eventually admitted to throwing the dead fish away. He was arrested on January 21, 2026. Prosecutors highlighted that police resources were expended on analyzing footage and taking additional statements during the investigation. As of February 27, Isman had not made any restitution to the customer for the S$1,500 loss. The prosecution sought a fine between S$2,000 and S$3,000, citing the victim’s financial loss and the investigative resources wasted. For mischief, Isman could have faced up to a year in jail, a fine, or both, but the court ultimately imposed a S$2,000 fine, with a default of two weeks’ jail if unpaid.
Broader Questions on Gig Economy and Live Animal Transport
The case has sparked considerable discussion on online forums in Singapore, with many users questioning the allocation of responsibility in such scenarios. Commenters on platforms like HardwareZone and Reddit debated whether the rider should bear sole responsibility, especially given the app glitch that initiated the problem. Some users questioned Lalamove’s policies regarding the transportation of live animals, with one commenter on Mothership’s social media posts asking, ‘I thought Lalamove got policy no transportation of live animals?’
Others pointed out the buyer’s potential role, suggesting that for a S$1,500 fish, more robust transportation arrangements, possibly by the buyer themselves, might have been warranted. The incident highlights a grey area in the rapidly expanding gig economy, where the traditional lines of employer-employee responsibility are often blurred, and specific protocols for sensitive deliveries, such as live animals, may not be clearly defined or communicated.
The outcome of this case serves as a stark reminder for both gig workers and platform operators regarding the critical importance of clear guidelines, swift communication, and contingency plans when dealing with high-value or sensitive deliveries, particularly in the face of technological failures. It also underscores the legal consequences of negligence and dishonesty within these evolving service models.