Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Former bubble tea store owner acquitted of molesting 2 teen employees

SINGAPORE — Two teenage employees at a now-defunct bubble tea store did not give evidence that was convincing enough to convict their former employer of molesting them, a district court judge has ruled.

Tan Kah Heng (pictured) was accused of molesting two female employees aged 16 and 17 in 2017 but has been acquitted of the charges.

Tan Kah Heng (pictured) was accused of molesting two female employees aged 16 and 17 in 2017 but has been acquitted of the charges.

  • Tan Kah Heng was acquitted of eight outrage of modesty charges
  • District Judge Christopher Goh gave several reasons for disbelieving the alleged victims’ evidence
  • This included one of them setting out a totally different story in court than what was alleged

 

SINGAPORE — Two teenage employees at a now-defunct bubble tea store did not give evidence that was convincing enough to convict their former employer of molesting them, a district court judge has ruled.

Tan Kah Heng, 55, was acquitted of eight outrage of modesty charges on Wednesday (Feb 24). The prosecution withdrew a ninth charge midway through the trial.

He had been accused of molesting two female employees aged 16 and 17 at the time in 2017. 

Both of them and the store, which was located at an MRT station, cannot be named due to court orders to protect their identities.

The two alleged victims had known each other from secondary school.

Tan was accused of touching the younger girl’s buttocks first before smacking it and hugging her from the back in November 2017.

As for the other girl, Tan was accused of brushing against her buttocks six times on unspecified dates that same month.

District Judge Christopher Goh said on Wednesday that at the end of the day, he was not convinced that either teenager's evidence was “unusually convincing”.

The judge has to be convinced of the evidence. This is the threshold to convict an accused person of molestation, based mainly on the alleged victims’ evidence.

For example, the first alleged victim had made a police report on the evening of Nov 15, 2017. 

The three times Tan had allegedly molested her happened two to three weeks before this, but the charges did not state the dates or even the general time of day, the judge noted.

The police report also suggested that Tan molested her on Nov 11, 2017. She then confirmed that two purported acts occurred the following day instead, but was confronted with documentary evidence that she did not go to work that day.

As for her reaction after the alleged offence, District Judge Goh said that her actions did not appear consistent with someone who had been molested.

“Her evidence was that she was shocked after the first incident of molest. Notwithstanding this, she did not tell anyone what happened, not even her close friend, (the other victim) who worked with her and even then, she continued to work for long hours after that. 

“If we were to take the number of hours as calculated by the victim herself, it would suggest that for the two weeks prior to Nov 15, 2017, she worked about 11 hours a day, assuming she had no day off. This appeared to me to be strange if she had indeed been molested.”

She had also not told her parents about what happened until two weeks after making a police report. The evidence suggested that she was more concerned about not getting her salary rather than the molestation, the judge added.

While there were allegations that Tan called the girl pet names such as “baby” over WhatsApp text messages, there was no further evidence of this, District Judge Goh said.

“I conclude that it would not be safe to convict the accused based on the evidence I have before me… I did not find her actions internally or externally consistent,” he added.

As for the second teenager, the judge found her evidence “so much less convincing” than the first.

He gave similar reasons such as her also being unable to pinpoint when the acts occurred, and her reactions after the incident.

The prosecution withdrew one of the charges relating to her because she had “set out a completely different story” from what was alleged. There was even confusion as to which charge should have been withdrawn.

District Judge Goh told the court: “The onus is always on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and not for the accused to prove otherwise. Allegations of sexual misconduct are easy to make and, in most cases, difficult to disprove.”

Tan was represented by lawyer Chia Boon Teck from Chia Wong Chambers LLC.

Related topics

molest court crime bubble tea acquittal

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Popular

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.