An officer told me that a keychain that I had used as a decoration on my bag was in fact a thumbcuff, a prohibited item. The keychain was shaped like a pair of mini handcuffs. Each cuff had a diameter of 2cm.

I was subsequently ushered to a room for questioning. An officer asked if I knew that the 'thumbcuff' was a prohibited item. I explained that the keychain was a souvenir from a colleague who bought it at the Alcatraz museum in the United States.

I had to sign an acknowledgement receipt stating that the item I had was prohibited and must be surrendered to the police for their disposal.

They also made copies of my identity documents. After I regained composure following my release, I realised the absurdity of the claim that I had committed an offence. I decided to check the Singapore Police Force website. While handcuffs were mentioned, there was no mention of thumbcuffs.

Although my keychain is shaped like a pair of mini handcuffs, it can be easily unlocked by pressing on its sides without requiring any keys. My souvenir was simply a keychain and not a thumbcuff.

What is more, a friend of mine managed to buy a souvenir called the 'Guilty Lock/Key Ring', which looks very much like my souvenir keychain, at a local retail store in a reputable shopping mall for only $29. This mini handcuff set comes with an actual locking mechanism and a set of keys to unlock it.

Would the authorities care to clarify if I have indeed committed an offence by having a keychain that is not a real thumbcuff, and explain why a souvenir that is designed with an actual cuff mechanism can be sold openly locally?

Melvin Tay