SINGAPORE: A 44-year-old man was convicted by a court on Friday (Aug 25) of five counts of molesting an 11-year-old student when he was a teacher at a primary school.
The man, who cannot be named due to gag orders protecting the victim’s identity, also tampered with witnesses including his fellow teachers, by giving them information so they would testify accordingly.
The judge on Friday convicted the man of all counts of molesting the 11-year-old boy five times in a Head of Department room at the unnamed school between November 2017 and October 2018.
In a case that pitted the victim’s testimony against the man’s bare denial, the judge found that the prosecution had established all charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Multiple witnesses testified in the case, including the boy, his relatives, the school’s principal and teachers, as well as former students.
THE BOY’S BACKGROUND
Deputy Public Prosecutors Lim Ying Min and Angela Ang said the victim was from a fractured family, with his parents separating when he was an infant.
The offender took advantage of this, gaining the trust of the victim and his mother as a teacher and mentor in the victim’s life, said Ms Lim.
The boy was largely cared for by different people at various points in his life, including his grandparents, his great-grandmother and a housekeeper.
After being moved to a different primary school in 2016, he felt sad, lost and alone as he did not know anyone. He testified that he did not have a good relationship with his new stepfather, who would allegedly scold and beat him, leaving bruises.
In this period, the boy joined a co-curricular activity (CCA) that the offender was in charge of.
The teacher later appointed the boy as a leader of the CCA and the boy would meet the teacher in his office at the HOD room to discuss CCA matters.
In 2017, the boy began confiding in the teacher about his family problems.
The teacher also asked the boy to be his godson.
They grew so close that even the boy’s mother came to rely on the teacher. But she said she did not know that her son had been going out alone with the teacher, or that he had become the teacher’s godson.
However, the teacher began molesting the boy. The boy testified that the first incident occurred before the school holidays in late 2017, when he was alone in the teacher’s cubicle.
He said he was telling the teacher about his family issues when the teacher placed his hands across the boy’s waist and molested him over his shorts.
The boy testified that he was shocked and uncomfortable and left the HOD room. He also felt embarrassed and did not know what to do.
The molesting continued another four times, with the final incident occurring when the boy confided in the teacher about having to move out and how he had cried as he felt his mother no longer wanted him.
The teacher stood up from his seat to hug the boy, before molesting him.
The boy testified that his focus was not on the teacher’s touch at this time because he was too emotional about having to move out.
This account was supported by his mother’s testimony, in which she said she had made the decision over concerns that her husband would punish her son harshly over his behavioural issues.
HOW THE OFFENCES WERE DISCOVERED
The offences came to light by “sheer chance”, said the prosecution, after the victim’s brother found out that the teacher was celebrating the victim’s birthday.
The victim told his brother that his teacher was taking him out for dinner to celebrate his birthday and was buying him a bicycle as a gift.
The brother thought this odd as he felt teachers did not usually do such things and asked for a photo of the teacher.
When the victim showed his brother a photo of the teacher, his brother jokingly said that the teacher looked “gay” and asked if he had touched the victim.
When the victim turned silent, his brother sensed something amiss and repeated his question. The victim then said that the teacher had touched his private parts.
The victim eventually told his uncle and brother what happened and demonstrated the acts.
The victim’s mother spoke to him about the seriousness of the matter and the consequences of his allegations but the boy stuck to his story.
After the mother reported the incident to the school, the principal arranged for a meeting with the victim and the lead school counsellor. The principal noted that the victim looked “uncomfortable and uneasy” at first, appearing “embarrassed and awkward” and eventually breaking down and crying.
The principal later told the boy’s mother to file a police report, which she did that same day.
The boy testified that he did not say or do anything to stop the teacher because the teacher was bigger than him, and he was afraid that the teacher might do something to him.
He also did not dare to tell his family about what happened because he did not think they would believe him. He also felt they would not have trusted him at the time because he had lied to them about homework, classes and other things.
He also said he did not want to “break” his relationship with the teacher, who had helped him a lot and whom he was grateful for.
At trial, the man downplayed his relationship with the boy and denied knowing about the boy’s family issues despite evidence showing otherwise, said Ms Lim.
The teacher, who was defended by Mr Gino Hardial Singh, claimed that the victim had concocted the allegations because he refused to give the boy a bicycle.
He called the boy a compulsive liar and said he could not have committed the offences because he did not meet students alone in the HOD room, and because of his busy after-school schedule.
He argued that he could not have committed the offences in most of the charges as he had only moved to the cubicle in question in September 2018.
His previous cubicle was visible to people outside the glass door of the HOD room, he claimed.
He also gave inconsistent evidence, such as saying that he did not talk to the victim about the victim being scolded or beaten by his stepfather, even though he had said otherwise to the police.
THE WITNESS TAMPERING
The prosecution said the teacher had persistently tried to obstruct the court of justice in the course of trial, despite numerous warnings.
During the first tranche of the trial, the teacher had sent an image to prove that he was still sitting in a certain cubicle until September 2018 to two defence witnesses.
The witnesses were part of a group chat where they were discussing the seating movements in the HOD room, saying that they were unclear about what happened.
One of the witnesses later confirmed during the trial that the accused was trying to convince the group so they would testify accordingly.
The accused had also contacted a prosecution witness – the principal of the school – by sending her an email while the trial was ongoing.
The accused also met up with defence witnesses and discussed the evidence that they needed to give in court that would be helpful to his defence, including a discussion on his seating arrangement in the HOD room.
In January 2023, the accused contacted a former teacher who was a prosecution witness, telling her that he had left her a birthday present at her home the day before.
The accused also sent messages to one of the defence witnesses saying he had “no choice” but to try and jolt her memory as it was quite critical for him.
He then sent a series of images to the witness, along with his own narration of a chronology of events. He reminded her that when she took the stand, the prosecution would ask her questions like how sure she was, and that she would “say these lor”.
This was despite the witness saying that she could not recall the matters, and expressing surprise that the accused could. The accused then told her to “correct all the wrong” done by a prosecution witness.
The accused also sent a message to participants of a group chat comprising some defence witnesses, saying that they needed to have “some coordination”. He was later cross-examined about this and conceded that he wanted the defence witnesses to testify based on whatever information he had on hand.
One of the defence witnesses confirmed that she understood this to mean that the accused wanted to coordinate what the defence witnesses were to say in court.
She also conceded in cross-examination that the accused had been trying to coordinate the testimonies to ensure that they were consistent and would assist his case.
The teacher also met up with one of the defence witnesses for lunch, preparing a document titled “Evidences” which he sent to the witness. He asked the witness to disseminate it to the rest of the witnesses, and this witness sent the document to a group chat.
The accused later asked one of the witnesses to delete their group chat, where they had discussed evidence despite not being supposed to. He also gave instructions on what to say if the police asked about the group chats.
The prosecution said it was “abundantly clear” that the accused had proven himself to be “a deceitful witness unworthy of credit”.
The man will return to court for mitigation and sentencing next week.
CNA has contacted the Ministry of Education for more information.