Ng Chiew Kiat v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 17 November 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 299
• Date: 17 November 1999
• Subject Matter: Appeal,Power of appellate court to interfere with such findings of fact,Sentencing,Evidence,Corroboration,Basing conviction on uncorroborated evidence of complainant,Findings of fact made by trial judge,Findings not to be disturbed unless clearly against weight of evidence and unsupportable,Fine sufficient for relatively minor acts of molest,Witnesses,Whether sentence manifestly excessive,Outrage of modesty,Whether hardship to family a mitigating circumstance,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 151 of 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Victor Yeo Khee Eng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Yap (Peter Yap & Co) and Goh Siok Leng (Christina Goh & Co)

Introduction

The appellant was convicted of the following charges of outraging the modesty of his Indonesian maid (the `complainant`), an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224):

First charge (DAC 28363/98)

You, Ng Chiew Kiat, M/35 yrs, NRIC No S2603901/J, are charged that you, sometime in February 1998, at about 9am, at Block 530 Jelapang Road [num ]17-55, Singapore, did use criminal force on [the complainant], F/Indonesian/19 yrs, with intention to outrage her modesty, to wit, by grabbing her right buttock with your right hand and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

Second charge (DAC 28365/98)

You, Ng Chiew Kiat, M/35 yrs, NRIC No S2603901/J, are charged that you, sometime in April 1998, at about 1am, at Block 530 Jelapang Road [num ]17-55, Singapore, did use criminal force on [the complainant], F/Indonesian/19 yrs, with intention to outrage her modesty, to wit, by caressing her breasts, vagina, right leg and right hand, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

Third charge (DAC 28367/98)

You, Ng Chiew Kiat, M/35 yrs, NRIC No S2603901/J, are charged that you, sometime in April 1998, sometime after midnight, at Block 530 Jelapang Road [num ]17-55, Singapore, did use criminal force on [the complainant], F/Indonesian/19 yrs, with intention to outrage her modesty, to wit, by caressing her breasts with your right hand and kissing her lips, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The district judge sentenced the appellant to three months` imprisonment on the first charge. As for the remaining charges, he was sentenced to nine months` imprisonment and three strokes of the cane on each charge. The imprisonment sentences on the first and second charges were to run consecutively making a total of 12 months` imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. He appealed against both his conviction and sentence. After hearing the submissions, I dismissed the appeal against conviction and the appeal against the sentences on the second and third charges. However, I reduced the sentence on the first charge from that of imprisonment to a fine of $4,000, in default three months` imprisonment. I now set out the reasons for my decision.

The prosecution`s evidence

The complainant had been employed as a domestic maid in the appellant`s household since 30 July 1997. The appellant had two daughters who were six years old and one and a half years old respectively at the material times when the alleged incidents of molest took place. Apart from the appellant, his wife and two children, the appellant`s brother-in-law also lived in the same flat. Part of the complainant`s duties was to take care of the children. She slept in the children`s bedroom, sometimes on their queen-sized mattress and sometimes on the floor next to it. She testified that she got along well with both the appellant`s daughters and that she had a good relationship with the appellant and his wife until the incidents of molest occurred.

Sometime in February 1998 between 9am and 10am, the appellant was in the flat with the complainant and the younger daughter. The complainant was unable to pinpoint the exact date of the incident. However, she recalled that it was a workday between Monday and Friday because neither the appellant`s wife nor his brother-in-law was at home at that time. When the complainant was dressing the younger daughter in the children`s bedroom, she felt someone grab her right buttock. She looked behind and saw the appellant retracting his right hand. She asked him why he did it. His reply in Malay was `Tak apa`, which the complainant explained to mean `there`s nothing` or `not serious`. The complainant did not tell anyone about the incident because she felt `scared` and she was afraid that the appellant`s wife would not believe her.

The second incident of molest took place sometime in April 1998 at about 1am. The appellant`s wife and his brother-in-law were asleep at that time. The children were sleeping on the mattress while the complainant was sleeping on the floor next to it. She was wearing a T-shirt, a pair of baggy shorts with an elasticised waist band, a brassiere and panties. She was awoken from her sleep when she felt someone touching her right leg and right arm. She felt her breasts being touched as well. Following that, she felt a hand being slipped inside her shorts but outside her panties. It was only when she felt someone touching her vagina that she became fully awake. When she opened her eyes, she saw the appellant kneeling on the mattress. As soon as he noticed that she was awake, he quickly pulled his hand out of her shorts and hurried out of the room. She did not scream during the incident because she was too shocked and frightened. Although she had been told during her training course that she should inform her maid agency of any incident of molest, she did not do so because she was afraid that the appellant might scold her and that others, in particular, the appellant`s wife might not believe her story. After this incident, the complainant continued to leave the bedroom door unlocked at night because the appellant`s wife had given her strict instructions not to lock the door since the bedroom had no air-conditioning and would otherwise become too hot.

The third incident occurred sometime in late April 1998 at about 1am to 2am. This time, the complainant was sleeping on the mattress with the children on her left side. She awoke to find the appellant touching her breasts beneath her T-shirt and kissing her lips. He was kneeling on her right side and was supporting himself with his left hand. He touched her breasts with his right hand. He also kissed her lips and put his tongue in her mouth. Once the complainant opened her eyes, the appellant retracted his right hand and left the room. Again, she did not scream during the incident as she was very shocked and frightened.

A few days after the last incident of molest, the complainant telephoned the maid agency on 3 May 1998 and spoke to one of the staff, one Chan Chwee Yin (PW2). She told PW2 that her employer was `naughty` and that he liked to touch her body. PW2 advised her to carry on working and to take care of herself. She also told her that she would get her employer to bring her to the maid agency. Following their telephone conversation, PW2 asked her colleague to contact the complainant`s employer. The appellant`s wife was told to bring the complainant to the maid agency. The explanation given was that the maid training centre in Jakarta needed to speak to the complainant. According to PW2, it was necessary to lie about the reason for requesting the complainant`s presence because she wanted to ascertain the truth of the matter before making any accusation against the appellant.

The following day, 4 May 1998, the complainant spoke to PW2 on the telephone again saying that her employer was `naughty`; that she `couldn`t bear anymore`; and that she was `not happy`. PW2 then made another telephone call to the appellant`s wife asking her to bring the complainant to the agency and the same explanation was given.

On 5 May 1998, the complainant was brought to the maid agency by the appellant. The appellant also brought his daughters along. It was the appellant`s day off from work. At the request of PW2, the appellant and his daughters left the maid agency for a short while. PW2 asked the complainant to confirm whether the allegations she had made over the telephone were true. The complainant confirmed that they were true and went on to offer PW2 more information about the appellant`s behaviour. She said that he made her watch pornographic videos with him. He also touched her breasts, hands and legs while she was sleeping at night. After that, PW2 told her to produce a written statement in Bahasa Indonesian setting out the incidents of molest (exh P19). She wrote in exh P19 that the appellant used to enter her room at night and that he touched her `hand, leg, breast, stomach`. She further alleged that the appellant also touched her back in the daytime and kissed her at night. Further, the appellant forced her to watch pornographic videos with him. When questioned by the defence counsel why she had left out the allegation that the appellant had touched her vagina in exh P19, she replied that she felt `ashamed` to say it. She was afraid that exh P19 would be shown to other people because there were a lot of people including other maids at the maid agency at that time. Further, PW2 only told her to write a statement. She did not know whether exh P19 would be kept confidential.

Exhibit P19 was shown to the manager of the maid agency, one Ng Khim Hock (PW3). PW2 asked the complainant to speak to PW3. PW3 emphasised to her that this was a very serious matter and asked her again if she was telling the truth. She replied that she was. According to the complainant, she also told him that the appellant liked to touch her body and that he made her watch pornographic videos.

Upon the appellant`s return to the maid agency, PW3 informed him of the complainant`s allegations of molest. This was done in the complainant`s presence. According to PW3, the appellant denied the allegations. The appellant claimed that he might have accidentally stepped on her while he was checking on the children one night. The complainant insisted that she was telling the truth.

Following the exchange, PW3 asked the complainant whether she wanted to make a police report or whether she was prepared to forgive the appellant. The complainant replied that she wanted to make a police report because the appellant had done `a lot of wrong things towards` her. Before the appellant left the agency, he asked the complainant to give him his younger daughter`s handkerchief and she duly...