Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

High Court rejects maid abuser’s appeal for mandatory treatment, upholds 6-month jail term

SINGAPORE — A High Court judge on Friday (July 23) dismissed a 39-year-old woman's appeal against her jail time given for abusing her domestic worker, after she asked twice for a report to be called to assess her suitability for a community-based sentence.

Ong Si Mien seen leaving the State Courts on March 4, 2021.

Ong Si Mien seen leaving the State Courts on March 4, 2021.

Follow us on Instagram and Tiktok, and join our Telegram channel for the latest updates.

  • Ong Si Mien, 39, pleaded guilty to three charges of assaulting her Indonesian domestic worker
  • She struck the victim on the head with a metal bowl and cordless phone, and also slapped her
  • Her lawyer rehashed arguments for a mandatory treatment order, which is a community-based sentence
  • Justice Tay Yong Kwang rejected this and found that her six-month jail sentence was not “manifestly excessive”

 

SINGAPORE — A High Court judge on Friday (July 23) dismissed a 39-year-old woman's appeal against her jail time given for abusing her domestic worker, after she asked twice for a report to be called to assess her suitability for a community-based sentence. 

Justice Tay Yong Kwang agreed with a lower court judge that the state of Ong Si Mien’s mental condition — postnatal depression — did not justify departing from the usual custodial sentence for such offences.

Ong had assaulted Yulia, who only goes by one name, at least half a dozen times within two months in 2016 with household items such as a cordless phone and metal bowl. 

The abuse began two weeks into Yulia's employment.

The Indonesian worker eventually escaped Ong’s Sengkang flat without any money save for some coins from her home country, before getting help from a member of the public at a bus stop.

Ong, a mother of two young children, was sentenced to six months’ jail in the State Courts earlier this year after pleading guilty to her offences. 

She had since made restitution of S$5,200 to Yulia, now aged 33.

At the time, District Judge Eddy Tham rejected her lawyer Amarjit Singh Sidhu’s argument for a mandatory treatment order suitability report to be called.

This is a community sentencing option offered to offenders suffering from mental conditions that contributed to the offence. Those found suitable must attend sessions with a court-appointed psychiatrist.

The district judge found that while her postnatal depression made her more easily irritable, stressed and angered by Yulia’s failure to meet expectations, it did not cause her to be violent since she could still control herself.

APPEAL ARGUMENTS

In the High Court on Friday, Mr Singh urged Justice Tay once more to call for the report.

The defence counsel noted that a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) had found that she suffered from postnatal depression at the time, which she developed after giving birth to her second son. This, however, only partially contributed to her offences.

She also suffered from borderline obsessive compulsive personality traits, though this did not amount to a formal mental disorder.

Mr Singh argued that a mandatory treatment order suitability report would give a fuller picture of Ong’s mental condition in deciding whether she could be given the community-based sentence.

However, he conceded that the district judge had given her some sentencing discount for her mental illness. She is still going for treatment at IMH.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Yang Ziliang argued for the jail sentence to be upheld. He noted that in one instance of abuse involving the cordless phone, Ong had grown upset with Yulia for taking a late shower but she did not hit the maid right away, instead taking a call on the phone first.

After this, Yulia requested once more for a job transfer but Ong refused, saying that she would "transfer" her to India instead.

DPP Yang noted that this was a “different mental state than just reacting to perceived triggers”.

SENTENCE NOT ‘MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE’

In dismissing Ong’s appeal, Justice Tay said that District Judge Tham applied the correct sentencing principles in relation to domestic worker abuse.

“It’s obvious that the district court took into consideration her psychiatric condition when assessing her culpability for offences in question,” Justice Tay said, noting that the individual sentences were already reduced in light of her mental condition.

The sentences for two of Ong’s three charges of voluntarily causing hurt to Yulia were cut by half.

District Judge Tham could also have chosen to run all three individual sentences consecutively, but chose to run two instead.

“On the facts here, I do not think such a sentence can be said to be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive,” Justice Tay said.

Ong briefly addressed the court, tearing up as she said: “I’m very remorseful for my actions and I’ve been suffering from depression since I was 16.”

The judge allowed her to begin serving her sentence on Aug 6, in order to make care arrangements for her sons.

The maximum penalty for causing hurt is up to two years’ jail and a fine of up to S$5,000.

Employers of foreign domestic workers, or those in their household, are liable to one-and-a-half times the punishment — resulting in up to three years’ jail and a fine of up to S$7,500.

Related topics

abuse foreign domestic worker court crime appeal

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.