Distress

SINGAPORE: Two adult siblings went to a family court to obtain court orders against each other – the brother complained that his sister had been entering his room repeatedly over eight years to clean it, while the sister alleged that her brother had assaulted her.

The court granted orders to both siblings: A personal protection order (PPO) and a partial domestic exclusion order for the brother, excluding his sister from entering his bedroom, and a personal protection order for the sister against her brother.

According to a judgment made available on Thursday (Oct 31), the unidentified brother’s chief complaint was that his sister repeatedly entered his bedroom to clean it.

He felt that his privacy had been intruded on, and it caused him such stress that he was admitted to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) a few times.

In her defence, the sister explained that she merely wanted to clean the room “as her siblings did not clean their rooms”.

She applied for a personal protection order against her brother over an incident when tensions erupted over the cleaning issue, and her brother assaulted her.

District Judge Tan Zhi Xiang said the court is empowered to make a protection order under the Women’s Charter, with two requirements that must be met.

First, the court must be satisfied that family violence has been committed, or is likely to be committed. Family violence can mean causing hurt, wrongful confinement or causing continual harassment.

Second, the order must be necessary for the protection of the family member.

Judge Tan said the sole issue was whether the sister’s acts in repeatedly entering her brother’s room to clean it amounted to “continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish” to him.

“I accept that, ordinarily, a sibling cleaning another sibling’s room would be harmless – and indeed a loving act – and most certainly not amount to harassment,” said the judge.

However, he said each case “turns on its own facts” and what may be harmless under one set of circumstances might be highly distressing in others.

The two siblings had appeared without lawyers and were guided through the trial process and allowed to cross-examine each other.

According to the brother, his sister would enter his room sometime between 10pm or 11pm until 4am. This was corroborated by another sibling, who shared a bedroom with the brother.

This sibling testified that the sister would “choose the wrong timing to clean the room” when she did not stay in that room.

She used to enter at 9pm but changed this to 11pm, and she “may come back in the middle of the night to clean and clean until the wee hours of the night” before going back to her own residence at 3am or 6am.

The sister did not dispute that she had gone into her brother’s room to clean it at night. 

When asked by the court why she felt the need to do so, the woman said: “Because I need to work, my dear.”

She explained: “I need work, my own schedule. I got to go according to my own schedule, my free time. I cannot say, you want me to come at 8am, means 8am. I’m not their maid, I’m not their worker.”

She said she could only clean the room at her own discretion as she had a “tight schedule”.

According to their mutual sibling, this cleaning had been going on for about eight years, with the siblings being unable to sleep at night, rushing in on weekends to lock their rooms quickly to prevent the sister from entering.

Judge Tan said: “It is not difficult to imagine that having someone in one’s bedroom in the wee hours of the night would be disruptive and distressing.”

He accepted that the sister’s conduct had caused the brother anguish, with tensions erupting one day such that he assaulted her.

“While this was unacceptable – and was the reason why I granted the PPO for the sister – it provided further support for the finding that the sister’s conduct had caused the brother deep distress,” said the judge.

He said the evidence clearly showed that the sister was aware that her brother did not want her in his room.

Their other sibling stated that the sister would not take “no” for an answer, trying to enter via other means if they tried to lock the door.

The judge rejected the sister’s case that she had to clean the room for hygiene.

She had stated: “If the person does housework themselves, clean up their own room themselves, it’s fine. But they don’t even do so at all after 40 years of age. Not even one finger … the whole window frame can be black (in) colour.”

She said the unit was on the second floor with “a lot of pests” and that her siblings could “even let … lizards go into the cupboard and stay inside there” and let cockroaches lay eggs.

She also claimed that the cupboard had “turned mouldy with yellow dots”.

“So, when things (are spoilt), who is the one who (repairs them)? I am the one who (repairs) and (pays) for everything. Huh? They don’t even pay a cent, they don’t even … bother. When (the) light is (spoilt), I repair (it). Everything I do,” said the sister.

However, the judge said there was no evidence to show that the brother’s room was in such a squalid state that it had to be cleaned frequently against his will. 

There was also no evidence of pests in his room or house. The photos tendered by the sister showed “at most a messy house”, said the judge.

“In any event, both parties are adults and it was not necessary for the sister to impose her own hygiene standards on her brother,” said Judge Tan.

He said he was satisfied that the sister had committed family violence against her brother, and that it was clear she had “no insight into the impact of her conduct on her brother”.

When asked if she was willing to stop entering his room given his discomfort, she replied: “No, because … this unit belongs to my dad, not him. If he’s not comfortable, he can stay out. You ask him to stay out or get his own place. Because, literally, he (doesn’t) upkeep his room and he’ll breed all the (pests).”

Breaching a personal protection order or a domestic exclusion order is a criminal offence punishable with a fine, a jail term or both.

Continue Reading

When there was no response, the 34-year-old went to an adjacent stairwell from which he tried to climb out onto the ledge to reach the boy. However he was not able to, partly as his movement was restricted by the jeans he was wearing. 

Mr Jahir then went back down to the ground floor, where he continued figuring out how to save the boy. At that moment, Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung appeared at the scene.

The 26-year-old, who works as a painter, was on his way from his dormitory in Woodlands to church when he noticed the commotion.

“I was waiting for my friends at Sembawang MRT when I saw a lot of people at the block, so I went over to see what was happening,” said Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung through a translator. He has worked in Singapore for a year and three months.

Mr Jahir sought his help to get up to the third-floor ledge to rescue the boy, who they said stood motionless and frozen with fear.

Despite the language barrier between them, the duo worked together, climbing out over the parapet on the second floor before Mr Jahir hoisted Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung up to the next level, as Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung was smaller in size and could fit onto the narrow ledge.

Mr Jahir stayed on the ledge below to support Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung. “If he fell down, I could catch him,” he explained.

“HIS HANDS WERE COLD”

Walking along the narrow ledge, Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung soon scooped the boy in his arms and carried him back towards the window and lifted him back inside.

A 25-year-old woman is currently assisting the police with investigations into a case of negligence over the incident.

“The boy was very scared and his hands were cold,” recalled Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung, adding that he did not cry nor utter a single word the entire time.

The duo were also afraid the boy would move and accidentally fall off the ledge, but were aided by people below who held a blanket to catch him if he fell.

Mr Sa Thu Ya Aung said he did not have any hesitation or thoughts in his head when he saw the boy stuck up there, as he has a six-year-old niece and a nephew who is four years old, and would not want anything bad to happen to them if they were in a similar situation.

Both of Friday’s awardees felt happy to receive the award and grateful for the support they have received from the public.

Lieutenant-Colonel Shafi Rafie, head of the community engagement branch of SCDF’s 3rd Division, said the duo were initially unaware of the public’s recognition of their actions until they were contacted by his team.

“I’m deeply heartened by the bravery of Mr Thu Ya and Mr Jahir, whose courageous actions and swift response saved a precious life,” said Colonel Lim Beng Hui, the division’s commander.

“I hope that their public-spirited acts will inspire more people to come forward and render help to others in distress.”

Mr Jahir also urged households with young children to exercise greater caution.

“If (there is a) baby inside, (you) always must close the window. This time round, someone had passed by. Next time, maybe nobody (will) show up, then (the child may) fall down and die,” he said.

Continue Reading

CPIB OFFICERS ‘ Do A Element

District Judge Soh Tze Bian listed three important points he took into account when he delivered a 50-page ruling on Friday and came to a decision on the two men’s conviction.

One of these troubles involved the do of&nbsp, CPIB soldiers who had recorded the two men’s claims. In the end, the judge determined that these assertions were untrue, false, and uncomfortable to rely on.

One of the CPIB officers was investigating officer ( IO ) Chris Lim, who had taken Mr Pay’s second statement.

Mr. Lim had admitted during the test that he had “preconceived the idea that he had offended some sort of person” when he approached Mr. Pay for an appointment.

Judge Soh&nbsp, found that Mr Lim had a “blatant disregard for the truth” when recording Mr Pay’s following speech, and the IO’s strategy had been “mischievous and quickly careful” as he had recorded parts of Mr Pay’s statements that could be construed as incriminating, while omitting evidence that may acquit him. &nbsp,

In the face of Dai Chris Lim’s conduct, according to Pay’s lawyers, the procedural safeguards were meaningless based on his own proof, which regrettably showed him to be happy to extend the reality, and the prosecution has offered no justifications for his conduct.

Similar to Mr. Pek, the actions of IO Jeffrey, whose title was not disclosed, had been a factor in the declaration recording procedure. &nbsp,

Judge Soh found that Mr Pek’s first speech recorded by Mr Jeffrey had contained repeated self-incriminating notes, which were” hardly a faithful picture” of what Mr Pek had said, but indicated an effort to emphasise his guilt.

The Dai had furthermore used a” cut-and-paste approach” to assemble the statement, suggesting that Mr Pek’s reactions might not have been properly reflected. &nbsp,

Pek’s first assertion appears to be more a solution of IO Jeffrey’s writing than a true reflection of what Pek truly said. This is because Dai Jeffrey took a number of liberties when writing the assertion, according to Judge Soh. &nbsp,

By the IO’s own entrance, he had drafted Mr Pek’s first speech with the intent of framing him, focusing almost entirely on recording data that showed his guilt, noted the prosecutor.

Mr. Jeffrey acknowledged during cross-examination that he had drafted significant portions of Mr. Pek’s second statement&nbsp in a way that gave the impression that Mr. Pek was the one who came up with the idea of taking workers money, the prosecutor noted. &nbsp,

The prosecutor argued that this admission suggests that Dai Jeffrey purposefully inserted portions of the speech to present Pek as the promoter of the scheme more than properly documenting what Pek really said during the interview. &nbsp,

HENRY FOO’S TESTIMONY

Another crucial point that the judge took into account was how Foo, the bribe recipient, had testified that Mr. Pay and Mr. Pek never requested any quid pro quo. &nbsp,

Foo was called as a witness for the prosecution, and the judge decided that the prosecution was bound by the testimony of its own witness. &nbsp,

Foo’s testimony was in line with Mr. Pay and Mr. Pek’s assertion that the loans were made “innocently and not corruptly” in the eyes of Mr. Pek and Mr. Pek. &nbsp,

According to the judge, he had consistently maintained that he had no corrupt intentions when he applied for and received the loans and that neither he nor Mr. Pay nor Mr. Pek had any corrupt intentions.

Mr. Pek and Mr. Pay both testified in a similar vein and claimed that the loans given to Foo were personal loans meant to support him as friends and out of goodwill rather than to support his company.

The judge gave the impression that Foo had not been impeached or questioned his credibility, which gave the judge an even greater weight to his evidence. &nbsp,

Judge Soh rejected the prosecution’s argument that Foo’s admission of feeling” corrupted” and his guilty plea should be interpreted as an acceptance of his own corrupt intention, and a belief that Mr Pay or Mr Pek were corrupt. &nbsp,

Foo’s guilty plea was not an admission of corruption, but rather a wise choice to” cut short the pain,” according to Judge Soh, referring to Foo’s testimonies as evidence of how he had admitted guilt to avoid further suffering rather than acknowledgement of corrupt behavior.

Foo was sentenced to five-and-a-half years ‘ jail in Sep 2021, after being found guilty of taking S$ 1.24 million in bribes. &nbsp,

The judge also rejected the prosecution’s attempt to rely on WhatsApp messages that were exchanged between Mr. Pay and Foo to demonstrate that the latter was beholden or indebted to Mr. Pay, concluding that the prosecution’s arguments were not supported. &nbsp,

In conclusion, Judge Soh ordered a discharge for both men, demonstrating that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt its case against them. &nbsp,

In addition to Foo, at least four other men have been sentenced in connection with the case. These are Daewoo Engineering &amp, Construction project director Kim Young-gyu and project manager Ro Sung-young, ex-director of Tritech Engineering and Testing ( Singapore ) Cai Jungang and ex-director of MEPT Engineering&nbsp, Zhang Xihu.

Continue Reading

Steve: 
But the culture you grew up in, the people around you, ( makes a difference ).

Crispina Robert:
Because some of the movies that we watch are very, very violent. They cause accidents and bleeding in children. Is that something that’s changed over the years? &nbsp,

Sean:
I’m not certain whether it has changed, but one of the relationships… is the effects of peer pressure. And if we look at some of the movies, there are spectators and classmates… &nbsp,

Cheung Hoi Shan:
In secondary school, gaze dynamics are very important. I think the new video that we saw, these are all adolescents. &nbsp,

Sean:
In MOE ( Ministry of Education ), what we have tried to do, especially in the last couple of years ( is to have ) have peer supporters. They are educated in each school, serve as the professors ‘ eyes, and monitor the stress of their peers. They will notify the teachers if necessary about specific bullying incidents in order for both the harassed student and the abused student to receive support at the same time. &nbsp,

Crispina: 
But this is so complicated, right? Sometimes, they do n’t want to tell the teacher…

Cindy Chu: &nbsp,
I had n’t really show the teachers about it. First of all, in my experience, I do n’t think there were trusted adults, and even if there were, I would face a lot of hesitation because I did n’t want to appear weak to other students. &nbsp,

Continue Reading