Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan Suzanna

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Carol Ling Feng Yong
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGMC 75
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MCN 901240/2016, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9255/2018/01, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9255/2018/02, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9255/2018/03, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9255/2018/04
• Published date: 23 January 2020
• Year: 2018
• Hearing Date: 10 July 2017,11 October 2017,29 August 2018,16 August 2018,11 May 2018,07 July 2017,21 February 2018,12 October 2017,06 July 2017,13 October 2017,20 October 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor Tang ShangJun
• Defendant Counsel: Defence Counsel Sui Yi Siong,
• Citation: [2018] SGMC 75

District Judge Carol Ling Feng Yong: Charge

The Accused claimed trial to a single charge under section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The charge reads:

You … are charged that you, on the 17th May 2015, at Blk 453D Fernvale Road #23-547, Singapore 794453, being the employer of a domestic maid named Than Than Soe, did voluntarily cause hurt to the said Than Than Soe, to wit, by using a glass medicated oil bottle to hit her a few times on her left cheek, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(1)(a) and section 73(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.).

At the conclusion of trial, the Accused was convicted on the charge. I sentenced her to 20 months’ imprisonment. In addition to the imprisonment term, the Accused was ordered to pay a compensation sum of $38, 540.40 (in default, 7 weeks’ imprisonment).

The Prosecution appealed against the sentence and the compensation order. The Accused, equally dissatisfied, has appealed against both conviction and sentence, as well as the compensation order.

The Victim’s Evidence PW2 Than Than Soe

The key evidence in the Prosecution’s case comes from the victim, one Than Than Soe, a 27 year-old Myanmar national. At the material time, she was a domestic maid employed by the Accused.

Yishun Flat

The victim testified that she came to Singapore to work in 2013. In May 2013, she began working for the Accused at the home of the Accused’s parents in a 3-room flat in Yishun (“Yishun flat”). In this home lived the Accused’s parents, her brother, her children (aged 22, 21 and 17 at the material time) and the Accused herself. The victim’s duties at the Yishun flat comprised of the normal household chores. She slept on a mattress in the living area in the Yishun flat.

After four months, the Accused began finding fault with her. In the beginning, it was just a scolding. As time went along, it developed into incidents of violence such as the Accused hitting her, pulling her ear, punching her eye. Most of the time, the Accused would slap the victim’s face and pull her hair, and this happened two to three times a week.

The victim described an occasion where the blood vessel in her eye burst as a result of the Accused punching her eyes (“red-eye incident”). She did not do anything about it but stated in evidence that she told the Accused’s mother (DW2 Ng Chen Bee, Ruby) and also showed the state of her eye to her. The Accused’s mother did not say anything in response but took the victim to an optician subsequently, after the redness in the victim’s eye had subsided. The victim could not be sure how soon after she was brought to the optician.

In relation to the other incidents of assault which occurred at the Yishun flat, the victim could not remember specifically when the incidents took place. She recounted an incident where she overslept and the Accused hit her with a slipper and another incident at dinner where she did not heat up the curry. In that instance, the Accused was angered and rubbed her face with the curry, pulled her hair and slapped her. This took place in front of the Accused’s parents and the Accused’s two children.

Apart from telling the Accused’s mother about an incident where the Accused knocked her with a comb which broke and the “red-eye incident”, the victim did not tell anybody about the times she was hit by the Accused, not even the Accused’s children. Her evidence was that even though the Accused was out of the flat for most part of the day, the incidents of assault would sometimes take place in the evening when most of the family were home but in their rooms with doors closed.

Fernvale Flat

One and a half years later, the victim moved to the Accused’s own flat in Fernvale (“Fernvale flat”). Her evidence was that once she finished her duties at the Fernvale flat, the Accused would take her to the Yishun flat where she would perform household chores, including cooking. Whilst she had enough to eat when she was staying at the Yishun flat, the victim informed the court that at the Fernvale flat, she did not have regular meals. If the Accused’s family did not buy dinner home or did not cook, she would not eat. On average, she would not have dinner to eat about three days a week. At Fernvale, the victim had a blanket and put her sarong on the floor and slept on it; she did not have a mattress.

At the Fernvale flat, the victim testified that the Accused continued to punch her eyes “every time she’s angry”. When asked to estimate the frequency, the victim could only say about “two to three times a week”¹. The Accused would punch both eyes but mostly on the left eye. Most of the time, these incidents took place in the evening after the Accused returned from work and they would happen in the kitchen when the Accused’s children were not around.

The victim further highlighted an incident which occurred on the night when the Accused returned from Korea (the “Korea incident”). Accused told the victim that the bathroom was not clean and became angry. The Accused then pulled the victim’s hair, kicked her waist, slapped her face and punched her. The victim’s nose bled. This happened in the bedroom and according to the victim, this was witnessed by the Accused’s eldest daughter.

Incident on 17 May 2015

I now turn to the incident which formed the subject matter of the charge. The Accused and her family were out that evening. The victim testified that she was having a very bad headache and applied the medicated oil from a glass bottle. When the Accused returned home, she complained that the “whole house was smelly”². The victim testified that the home was smelly because of the medicine she had used to apply on her head. The Accused was angry when she smelt it because the family dog did not like the smell of the medicine. The Accused then asked the victim to hand her the glass medicated oil bottle. The victim did so. The Accused then used the glass bottle to punch the bottom of the victim’s left eye a few times.

The victim’s demonstration in court showed the Accused’s right hand holding on to the bottle with her fist with the base of the bottle protruding out of the grip and punching the victim’s left side of the face below the eye with the base of the bottle. The victim testified that she was hit three times in such a manner, at the same place. She felt pain. It was blue-black under her eyes and there was swelling.

That night, the victim could not sleep. The facial area was painful and she was thinking “so many times that things that happened to me”³. The next morning on 18 May 2015 after the Accused left for work, the victim called the police. The police came to the home and on the same day, the victim was examined by PW1 Dr Kolhe Lokesh Krishnaji at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH). After spending one night at the police station, the victim was sent to Good Shepherd Centre where she remained until the trial.

Victim’s eye injury

At the Good Shepherd Centre on 19 May 2015, when she was required to sign some forms, it is the victim’s evidence that she could not sign the forms as she could not see properly. Her eyes had become blur some time ago and she already could not see properly then but she had carried on working. She explained that she could carry on working because she could “still see the things”⁴ but she could not see the words on the paper. After the incident on 17May 2015, her eyes “became worse and became more blur”⁵ It was the victim’s evidence that one Sister Matilda from the home (PW5 Aye Hla) had to hold her hand and lead her as she was brought to the optician to have her eyes checked. Before 19 May 2015, the victim had never needed anybody to hold her hand when she walked. That day, the optician told her that “her eye situation [was] very bad”.⁶

Subsequently, the victim saw an eye specialist at KTPH and within a month, the victim underwent an operation at National University Hospital (NUH) where they operated on her left eye. Subsequently, the victim made many more visits to NUH. As of 6 July 2017 – the first day of trial, the victim was still going for check-ups at NUH.

The victim confirmed that in Myanmar, prior to coming to Singapore, she did not have any eye problems. She did not require spectacles and could see clearly in both eyes. It was about 10 months after she arrived that she noticed her vision was “blur”⁷. She could still see and read things but she could not see as clearly as before. She continued doing housework despite the blurred vision. As mentioned, the victim did inform the Accused’s mother who brought her to see an optician who could not do anything. The victim further testified that she also told the Accused that her vision was “becoming blur” and that she wanted to see a doctor because her eyesight was not good. However, her complaint to the Accused was met with the word “bullshit”.⁸ That was how the Accused responded to the victim and this was not denied by the Accused herself.

Victim’s Relationship with the Accused

Much of the details relating to the victim’s relationship with the Accused were elicited in the course of cross-examination.

It was revealed in cross-examination that the victim was once sent back to the maid agency by the Accused because the Accused felt that her work was slow. However, the Accused subsequently came to pick her home. The victim admitted that she was happy to get her job back with the Accused and that she wanted to complete her two-year contract with the Accused. When asked squarely why she would want to complete her contract with someone who was allegedly beating her; the victim answered: “At that point in time….when she sent me back to the agency, the situation wasn’t that bad and she wasn’t hitting or slapping me at…that much. So, only after when I came back from the agency, after about 4 months later yes, things started to happen”...