• A noodle stall assistant splashed hot water at another noodle seller during a squabble 
• She was quarrelling with her over a missing bottle of cleaning lotion
• A trial judge had acquitted the accused, but a High Court judge overturned it

SINGAPORE — A worker from a fishball noodle stall in Whampoa Market who splashed hot water on a prawn noodle stall owner at least three times in 2017 was sentenced to 10 months’ jail on Friday (Aug 21). 

Kim Eng Suthivanich, 52, was initially acquitted of her charge of causing hurt by means of a heated substance at a district court, on grounds that she did not intend to hurt or know the hurt that would likely be caused from her act.

However, the prosecution successfully appealed against the acquittal at the High Court on June 29 in the lead-up to Friday’s sentencing, proving that Suthivanich had formed a clear intention to hurt her victim.

Apart from the jail sentence, she was also ordered to compensate her victim S$226.

Suthivanich, a Singaporean, ran Uncle Sim Fishball Noodles. 

Her victim is Ms Leow Suat Hong, 46.

The incident took place after a heated argument between the two, and Ms Leow sustained first-degree burns on her upper chest, right loin and left arm and second-degree burns with a blister on her chest from the attack.

NOT ON SPEAKING TERMS

The court heard that Suthivanich was hired by stallholder Sim Kok Soon about seven months before the incident, which took place on Aug 13 in 2017. 

Suthivanich knew that Ms Leow was acquainted with her boss and had his permission to borrow things such as condiments from the fishball stall and to use the fridge at his stall. 

They had never spoken to each other directly even though Ms Leow would go over to the stall for such needs.

Ms Leow sensed that Suthivanich was unhappy with her. 

Suthivanich had previously told another hawker, Ms Sim Ai Choo — who operates Mr Sim’s lor mee stall that is located in the same market — that Ms Leow had taken a bottle of cleaning lotion and a cloth from the fishball stall but did not return them.

Suthivanich also asked Ms Sim to tell Ms Leow to return the items.

Ms Leow denied taking the items and told Ms Sim to tell Suthivanich that she did not take them.

A QUARREL

On the day of the offence, at about 11am, Ms Leow wanted to retrieve cooking ingredients from the fishball stall so that she could start business but ended up arguing with Suthivanich.

She asked if Suthivanich was gossiping about her and why she “disliked (her) so much”, prompting Suthivanich to admit her feelings and raise the matter of the cleaning lotion.

Ms Leow again denied taking it and remarked that everything in the fishball stall belonged to Mr Sim, so it was a matter between her and him even if she had taken it.

This remark angered Suthivanich, who told Ms Leow to get out of the stall. 

However, Ms Leow taunted: “No, I am not going to get out. I want to take my stuff.”

Suthivanich then blocked Ms Leow from walking towards a fridge and pushed her while saying in Mandarin: “Do you believe that I will use hot water to splash on you?”

She then grabbed a ladle from the stove, scooped some water and splashed it at Ms Leow. 

She continued doing this at least two more times, causing Ms Leow to flee.

Suthivanich threw water in the same manner at Ms Leow at least two more times as she ran.

When Ms Leow tried calling the police at a stall nearby, Suthivanich caught up with her and used the ladle to hit her mobile phone out of her hands and the phone dropped and cracked.

TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER

In Suthivanich’s defence, she said that Ms Leow had used Hokkien vulgarities on her, threatened to hit her and had hit her head a few times. 

She also said that the water she splashed at Ms Leow was lukewarm as the tank contained “standby water” for cooking purposes.

She added that the stove was not switched on at the time as there were no customers.

However, Deputy Public Prosecutors Bhajanvir Singh and Delicia Tan asserted that Suthivanich had lied about the stove being switched off, noting that this point was raised only at the trial although it would have been crucial information.

They also argued that any reasonable person in Suthivanich’s position would have felt the heat emitting from the tank, citing the evidence of a witness who said that he could sense that it was hot even as he was standing outside the stall a few minutes after the attack.

As Suthivanich was operating the stall for at least one-and-a-half hours before the incident, it is also “highly improbable” that she did not know that the water was hot, they added.

Pointing out that “the CCTV footage speaks for itself”, they highlighted that despite seeing Ms Leow recoil after the first splash, Suthivanich continued to splash water at her body when she was still in very close proximity.

“The (district judge’s) finding that she did not target the victim is inexplicable,” they said.