Couple on trial for hiring maid while under ban, hiding her from police and sending her home

• The trial of Syed Mohamed Peeran Syed Ameer Hamza and his wife Sabah Parveen began on June 7
• They have both been charged with obstruction of justice and failing to ensure their domestic worker got enough rest daily
• Syed is also accused of not paying the worker all her outstanding salary
• The couple allegedly put the worker on a plane back to Indonesia on the day that police officers knocked on their door

SINGAPORE — He and his wife had been banned from employing domestic workers since 2015, but Syed Mohamed Peeran Syed Ameer Hamza used his business associate’s identity to successfully hire one in 2018.

Syed and his spouse, Sabah Parveen, then allegedly did not provide the worker, Ms Aminah, with enough rest daily. He also purportedly did not pay her salary for at least two months.

On Monday (June 7), the couple claimed trial to multiple criminal charges, including obstruction of justice by common intention.

They are both accused of sending Ms Aminah, 32, who goes by one name, back to her home country of Indonesia shortly after police officers went to their condominium unit in Balestier in January 2019.

Between July 2018 and then, the couple allegedly failed to ensure that she was given adequate rest every day.

Syed, a 40-year-old Singaporean, and Sabah, a permanent resident aged 36, have two young children. He faces four charges, while she faces two.

As Ms Aminah’s de facto employer, Syed is further accused of failing to ensure that he had paid all her outstanding salary before she was repatriated, and instigating his associate to lie that he was Ms Aminah’s employer.

His lawyer, Mr Adrian Wee from law firm Characterist, told the court that he does not dispute the elements of the charges and admitted that Syed was the “principal offender”.

However, Mr Wee added that Syed is “not in a position” to admit to the common intention element for the obstruction of justice charge, which states that both he and Sabah are liable for the offence.

Syed also did not have day-to-day knowledge of how much rest Ms Aminah got, though he does not deny being responsible for this, Mr Wee said.

FACTS AGREED BETWEEN PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE

The court heard that in May 2015, Syed learned that he and his household had been placed on a blacklist for hiring foreign domestic workers till June 30, 2019.

He then wrote to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in a bid to lift the ban, but this was rejected.

Court documents did not specify the reason behind the ban but stated that MOM had considered “all the relevant information, in addition to the composition of the charges”.

In early 2018, Syed’s household recruited Ms Aminah, who was in Indonesia at the time.

Then, in July that year, he circumvented the ban by persuading his associate to apply for in-principle approval for Ms Aminah to be employed as a domestic worker in Singapore. This was the first step in the work pass application.

Syed was in Hong Kong at the time.

He got the associate in Singapore, Mr Suresh Murugaiyan, to falsely indicate to MOM that Mr Suresh would be Ms Aminah’s employer. Syed also got the other man to give Syed’s phone number and email.

MOM’s Work Pass System automatically approved Mr Suresh’s application. If Syed or his household members had used the system, it would have automatically prevented their application from going through, the court heard.

Ms Aminah arrived in Singapore on July 17, 2018 and began working for Syed and Sabah.

Shortly afterwards, Syed convinced Mr Suresh to submit formal work permit declaration forms, which again stated that Mr Suresh was the Ms Aminah's employer.

The work permit application was approved on Aug 14, 2018.

Ms Aminah, who never knew about the ruse, never met Mr Suresh and thought Syed was him.

She was paid for the first three months of her employment, and was not paid for at least two months before leaving Singapore on Jan 24, 2019. She was compensated with S$1,000 that day.

COUPLE ALLEGEDLY HID HER FROM POLICE

On Monday, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Chong Kee En said the prosecution will argue that she was not paid for three months. On the other hand, Syed’s lawyer, Mr Wee, said he “currently takes the view” that she was paid in November 2018.

Ms Aminah, who took the stand as the first prosecution witness, testified that she was given only four days off in the first two months and none for the remainder of her employment. Under the law, foreign domestic workers should be given a day off every week.

DPP Chong also laid out the prosecution’s case against Syed, saying that Ms Aminah had called the Centre for Domestic Employees, which in turn contacted MOM.

When the ministry contacted the police, officers went to the couple’s residence at The Mornington condominium. They asked where Ms Aminah was and Syed allegedly denied that she worked for him.

DPP Chong said that the couple then hid her in the toilet of their master bedroom and told her that she had caused great trouble by calling the police.

Syed then allegedly deleted material from her mobile phone, took out the SIM card, hid her at a neighbour’s home and asked for their help to take her to Changi Airport.

DPP Ching added: “Evidence will show that what happened concurrently was, on that very night, Syed used Sabah’s credit card to purchase an air ticket to Jarkarta, Indonesia.” 

The prosecution’s evidence will include closed-circuit television footage from The Mornington and Changi Airport, as well as body-worn camera footage from an officer who went to their home.

Sabah’s lawyer, Mr Jeremy Pereira, told the court that she did not know her household was barred from hiring dometic workers, as Syed was the main decision-maker.

As for giving Ms Aminah enough rest, Mr Pereira said that his client was “quite flexible” and gave her “quite a lot of free time”, though she would scold Ms Aminah for not properly supervising her children around the swimming pool area, for instance.

Sabah also believed that Ms Aminah was going to be sent back to Indonesia and did not know the police were investigating them for possible offences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, Mr Pereira added.

The trial continues on Tuesday.

If convicted of obstruction of justice, the couple could be jailed for up to seven years or fined, or both.