Tan Muay Lan v Jeffrey Wong Chen Hwee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chay Yuen Fatt
• Judgment Date: 15 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGMC 35
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 24 February 2020
• Docket Number: Summons Case No. MSC-900817-2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wee Pan Lee (Wee, Tay & Lim LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Defendant in person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Complaints to magistrate,Private prosecution,Protection from harassment,Abusive and insulting words,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Conviction
• Published date: 24 June 2020

District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt: Introduction

This was a private prosecution instituted by the complainant, Madam Tan Muay Lan, against the defendant, Mr Jeffrey Wong Chen Hwee, on a charge of uttering insulting and abusive words that were likely to cause distress to the complainant, which is an offence under s 4(1)(a) and punishable under s 4(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap. 256A, Rev Ed 2015) (“POHA”). Both parties were tenants of an industrial complex and the complainant was also a member of the Management Corporation Strata Title (“MCST”) Committee (the “committee”) that manages the shared facilities of the said complex.

The defendant (in person) denied and contested the charge. At the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $1,000 in default to serve five days’ imprisonment. He is appealing against the conviction and sentence.

Charge

For ease of reference, I set out the charge framed by the complainant against the defendant as follows:

You… are charged that you, on or about 13 February 2018 at or at about 3:30PM in the Aljunied Industrial Complex Management Corporation Strata Title (‘MCST’) Office at 625 Aljunied Road #08-04 Aljunied Industrial Complex Singapore 389836, did utter and use abusive and insulting words, to wit, in the English language words to the effect that “she had seduced men to do her bidding”, and in the Hokkien dialect “他们两个人的关系好到穿同一条裤子。AIC 每个人都知道。” which in the English language means “So close with another man until they were sharing the same pants. Everyone at AIC knows”, implying that the said Tan Muay Lan is a loose woman, which utterances were said in the presence and within hearing of Tan Muay Lan (NRIC No. XXX) which is likely to cause distress to the said Tan Muay Lan and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 4(1)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Chapter 256A)

Complainant’s case

The complainant is a 57 year-old female Singaporean. She was represented by counsel who led evidence from the complainant and a fellow committee member in prosecution of the defendant.

The complainant’s case is that the defendant uttered and used abusive and insulting words (i.e. that she seduced men to do her bidding and was “sharing the same pants” with another man) suggesting that the complainant was a woman of loose sexual morals. These words were heard by the complainant and which caused her distress.¹

The complainant’s evidence is summarised as follows.² She was a committee member of the Aljunied Industrial Complex (“AIC” or the “complex”) for a year between May 2017 to May 2018.

On the day in question i.e. 13 February 2018, the committee was having a meeting in the meeting room of the MCST office. The following photograph tendered in evidence shows the general layout of the MCST office³:

There are three areas that are material to the case: management office (A) (“small office”); conference or meeting room (B) ; and waiting area outside the small office and the meeting room (C) (also referred in these grounds as the “anteroom”)

As the committee meeting was in progress, the defendant and his father came to the MCST office wanting to confront the complainant regarding the return of certain goods (voucher books) that had been ordered by the committee. These voucher books were printed by the printing company which was owned by the defendant and his father and which was located within AIC and across from the MSCT office. The nature of the dispute regarding the return of the voucher books are not material to the charge.

The defendant banged on the main door leading to the anteroom. The banging could be heard by the committee members who were inside the conference room. The complainant and the committee’s chairperson, PW2 Lim Siong Beng (“Vincent”), stepped out of the conference room and opened the front door to see what the defendant wanted. A heated dispute arose between the complainant and the defendant. There was also some allegation that the defendant injured his elbow due to the opening of the door but that is not material to the charge. Eventually, Vincent ushered the defendant and his father into the small office (A) to separate them from the complainant so as to calm the situation. The complainant remained in the anteroom. She was able to see, through the glass panels, that the defendant was talking to Vincent inside the small office. She went back into the conference room but came out again to see whether they were still talking inside the small office.

The complainant testified that when she went back into the conference room, she was unable to hear the conversation inside the small room clearly. At times, the defendant was talking loudly and was also gesticulating. At other times, the voices became soft. She had to step out of the conference room into the anteroom to hear what was being said in the small office. She testified that she was able to hear the defendant bad-mouthing her loudly through the door and glass panels of the small office. The complainant heard the defendant say that the complainant would seduce men to do things for her. In particular, he said in English and Hokkien that the complainant was “so close with another man until they were sharing the same pants” or words to that effect and that everyone in the building knew about it.

The complainant testified that she felt both angry and humiliated when she heard what the defendant had insinuated about her. She wanted to storm into the small office to confront the defendant but Vincent preventing her from opening the door.

The complainant called Vincent as a prosecution witness. Vincent was present at the committee meeting when the defendant and his father interrupted the meeting. Vincent gave an account of the events that transpired that day.⁴ Vincent testified that after the defendant and his father stormed into the MCST premises, he ushered them into the small office so as to separate them from the complainant. He testified that the defendant was shouting and “showing his fist.”⁵ He testified that the defendant told him that the complainant had seduced men to do her bidding.⁶ The defendant repeated this allegation in English, Mandarin, and Hokkien.⁷ Vincent further testified that the defendant told him in Hokkien that the complainant was “so close to the extent that wearing the same pants” or words to that effect. Vincent understood that the defendant was insinuating that the complainant was promiscuous.⁸

Vincent also testified that the complainant, who was standing on the other side of the door and glass panel, reacted immediately to the defendant’s insinuation.⁹ The complainant was visibly agitated and wanted to rush into the small office. Vincent believed that the complainant heard what the defendant had said and that she was hurt by those words. Vincent immediately prevented the complainant from opening the door to enter the room.

Vincent’s account of events is supported by the closed-circuit television (“cctv”) footage at the various timestamps stated above.¹⁰

In light of the testimonies given above which supported a prima facie case against the defendant, I called on him to give his defence to the charge.

Defence case

The defendant is a 43 year-old male Singaporean. He elected to give evidence on the stand. He also called another witness, Chew Lin Kiat (DW2) (“Chew”), to testify in his defence. It is not in dispute that the defendant worked at a printing company, Instia Printing Pte Ltd, which was located on the same floor and across from the MCST office.

In summary, the defendant’s defence is that he did not utter the alleged words regarding the complainant at all. The defendant also denied talking loudly to Vincent.¹¹

He further suggested that the complainant is being vindictive and had fabricated these false allegations against him because she was upset with the defendant for voting her out of the committee. The tables have been turned following the alleged offence because the defendant is now a member of the committee as its treasurer.

The defence also tendered the contents of the a WhatsApp message¹² to show that Vincent had instigated the complainant to commence these proceedings against the defendant.¹³

The defendant’s sole defence witness, Chew, was the managing agent for the complex. Chew testified that he could not hear what was being said inside the small office when he was standing outside the door to the small office.¹⁴

Chew also testified that he did not see the defendant doing anything which would have cause the complainant to be agitated.¹⁵

For completeness, it is noted that the defendant is not relying (at least not in its complete sense) on s 4(3)(a) of the POHA which provides that it is a defence for an accused person to prove that he had no reason to believe the victim would hear, see or otherwise perceive the word or behaviour used, or the communication made. Likewise, he is also not relying on s 4(3)(b) of the POHA which states that it is a defence for an accused person to prove that his conduct was reasonable. His primary defence is that he did not utter the alleged words as stated in the charge. His secondary defence is that, in any event, the complainant could not have heard what was being said in the small office. This secondary defence is somewhat different from the defence in s 4(3)(a) of the POHA which would be that he did utter the words but he did not think that the complainant would be able to hear them.

Court’s findings and decision The offence

The present offence is provided in s 4(1)(a) of the POHA as follows: 4. – (1) No person shall by any means – (a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or

(b) ….

Which is heard, seen, or otherwise perceived by any person (referred to for the purposes of this section as the victim) likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

...