SINGAPORE: A 39-year-old man went on trial on Wednesday ( Jan 22 ) for showing his daughter his private parts, asking if she wanted to touch them, and letting her do so.
This supposedly happened in 2016, when the child was five to six years older. She is the man’s youngest baby.
The father of three is contesting the cost of sexual abuse of a child.
He does no claim that the work happened. His military is that his woman asked him to do this, and that he did it to educate their child about the differences between male and female body components.
The names of the woman and her kids are protected by a gag purchase.
Then 14, the child chose not to speak against her father. This was because she wanted to lessen any repercussions he does face, the inspection official told the jury.
The person also faces two expenses that have been stood over during the test. The personality of the target in each fee is redacted.
He is accused of criminal intimidation by placing a blade to a person’s arm in October 2023 and saying: “You believe I may use a knife to kill you? I will show you presently. ”
In April 2024, he reportedly hit a 12-year-old girl’s arm and leg and slapped her mouth, causing inflammation.
The gentleman was immediately arrested and investigated for these complaints, before his eldest girl reported the alleged physical crime.
According to statistics agreed upon by the prosecution and defence, the girl had previously expressed curiosity about why kids stand to ejaculate, while women had sit.
The person also believed that his daughter had looked at him urinating earlier.
Somewhere in 2016, the gentleman noticed her looking in his manner and asked her if she was still interested.
When she nodded her head, the gentleman exposed himself to her. He finally asked if she wanted to touch his private pieces. She nodded, and finally did thus.
The man testified that the child was cared for by her parents in her earlier times, and came to Singapore for her knowledge when she was five or six.
In 2016, the year of the alleged crime, she had just returned to her relatives ’ attention.
The guy said that before the incident, he and his wife had discussed their daughter’s excitement about the differences between male and female figure components.
He said that when his daughter earlier asked him about this, he was “very shy”.
“ But on that occasion, I showed it to her because as a family, as a father, I wanted to teach her something. I did not have any other purpose, ” he told the jury through a Mandarin speaker.
He said that after the act, he told her “not to help any female person to touch her secret parts, and she should never touch another people’s private parts as well”.
The person cried as he said: “ I have a good goal to teach her. I felt that at that time, what I did was right as a dad. ”
He also said he was worried that if he did not resolve “her attention since young”, she might fall into bad business when she grew up.
The man testified that he and his family had a “plan” to inform their child, and that his wife had asked him to show his personal elements to the child.
His family corroborated this in court, saying that their child seemed to “really want to know ” what the actual body part looked like, and had asked to swim with her father earlier.
She said that she only made the request of her husband after their daughter had asked about male and female figure parts several times.
This made the family feel anxious and like she had “no alternative ” but to teach the child by showing her the actual body part.
“ I could not think of any better method, ” said the woman.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Yohanes Ng disputed that the woman had really asked her husband to show their daughter his private parts.
Mr Ng said that the man left out this important information in his statement to the police.
He suggested to the man’s wife that she was lying to protect her husband and because she felt guilty. The woman disagreed strongly with this.
Both parents also said they were aware that formal sex education exists.
The man said he received sex education lessons in secondary school, while the mother said she never received such lessons in school or from her parents.
The defence lawyer also questioned the investigation officer about the girl’s reasons for not testifying against her father.
The officer told the court that the girl said she did not want her family to be broken, and was sad to see her younger sibling, who loves their father, go through this experience.
Under questioning, the officer agreed that in the girl’s statement on this, she had said that she initially wanted to testify because she was angry with her father at the time.
The officer also agreed that the girl had said she initially wanted to testify because she noticed that her mother was fed up with her father too, and she wanted to teach her father a lesson.
The offence of procuring an indecent act from a child carries a jail term of up to five years, a fine of up to S$ 10,000 or both.