Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

The High Court overruled the acquittal of a 57-year-old Singapore company director who molested and sexually harassed his female staff over a period of five months.

Tan Chee Beng, who faced three charges of molestation and one charge of insulting the modesty of a woman, was sentenced to 12 months in jail.

He had denied the charges and claimed trial.

A district judge originally convicted him of only one count of molestation and acquitted him of the other charges, resulting in a five-month jail term.

The prosecution appealed the acquittal and asked for the conviction of all four charges.

Offended in three incidents

According to the Apr. 13, 2023 judgment, Tan, who also went by Sam or Samuel, was one of two directors in a food supply firm and was in charge of operations.

The victim, an administrative staff working at the company's warehouse, reported to the other director but also worked with Tan.

She cannot be named due to a gag order to protect her identity.

1) Pulled victim's hand to his groin

The victim testified that Tan "started to be very touchy" in August 2018 and that one morning late that month when the both of them were in their company's office, Tan smelled her hair and told her it smelled nice.

She said he told her he was aroused and took her hand by the wrist to pull toward his groin twice despite her objections.

She resisted both times and stepped out of the office soon after.

2) Used his hand to swipe her groin

During the second incident on Sep. 10, 2018, the victim said she was updating the office's whiteboard, wearing a black dress about 2cm to 3cm above her knee.

She said Tan came up to her and remarked "[o]h, you're wearing dress [a] today" and "[o]h, so short", before swiping her groin with his hand twice over her dress, smiling as he did so.

She dashed out of the office crying as she said she was "really scared and upset".

Two other employees saw her and she told them what happened.

The victim messaged Tan later on the same day that she didn't feel comfortable with what he did to her.

Tan called the victim immediately, apologised, and told her to delete the message.

The victim did not, explaining that she "felt very suspicious" and kept it for her own safety.

She also told the other director in the office later the same day that Tan was "trying to be funny" with her, adding that she would not hesitate to make a police report if he did not stop.

However, she decided not to make a police report as she hoped things would return to normal.

3) Rubbed her breast

The victim said Tan molested her again in January 2019 when she was in the company's cold room.

She said she was checking products for delivery when Tan entered and stood beside her.

He rubbed her back before moving his hand up to her right breast.

Tan stopped after an employee entered the cold room, and the victim brushed Tan's hand away.

After the incident, the employee, one of the two that the victim had confided in earlier, asked her why she appeared so stressed and worried in the cold room.

The victim told the employee that Tan had "started his nonsense again" and that he had "tried to touch" her.

Another employee, who the victim had confided in, told the company's shareholder about Tan's actions.

The shareholder urged the victim to lodge a police report and a few days later fetched her to the police station, where she lodged a report on Jan. 23, 2019.

Denies allegations

High Court judge Vincent Hoong pointed out that even though the prosecution had put forth an "entire gamut of evidence" that presented a coherent and consistent story by the victim, Tan had chosen to remain silent and not take the stand to defend himself in person.

Instead, the defence resorted to poking holes in the prosecution's case to support his acquittal.

The defence made multiple allegations against the victim, which included claiming that her evidence was inconsistent, suggesting she had the motive to implicate him, and pointing out she was late in reporting the matter.

Hoong took apart the allegations piece by piece.

Claimed victim was inconsistent, but judge thinks inconsistencies immaterial

The defence pointed out several inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, such as when she was unclear about the exact date she had dinner with a company shareholder to complain about what the accused did.

Hoong felt that the defence had placed excessive weight on these inconsistencies, immaterial details that witnesses could not have been expected to "recite with exactitude" years after the incidents.

He emphasised that the core elements of the charges fundamentally remained the same and highlighted that her testimony was consistent in court, consistent with her previous statements and corroborated by at least three witnesses.

Said victim wanted to frame him

Tan also alleged that the victim had the motive to frame him.

The defence suggested that she feared that her employment would be terminated as she kept making mistakes and concocted the allegations against Tan to have a "hold over" him.

Hoong disagreed and pointed out that even though she admitted that she needed the job, there was still no reason for her to frame the accused as she did in fact lose her job subsequently.

Also, as Tan did not give evidence in the trial or call any witnesses in his defence, Hoong said there was "not one iota of evidence" pointing towards any plausible motive or collusion by the victim and other persons to frame him.

Claimed victim reported to police late

Hoong noted that another "central tenet" in Tan's defence was that the victim filed the police report belatedly.

The defence emphasised that the victim continued to accept car rides from Tan after being molested the second time and, in doing so, "willingly placed herself" in circumstances where she would be alone and close to Tan.

Tan also suggested that it was questionable that she did not confide in her close friends or family members.

Hoong stated that, in his judgment, there were good reasons why the victim had delayed reporting Tan.

He pointed out that the victim was afraid of losing her job, which she needed as she had claimed she was a single mother with two children.

Tan also apologised to her, and she hoped things would return to normal.

The victim had only decided to report the matter when she was molested for the third time and realised Tan would not change his ways.

Victims should not be straitjacketed

Hoong also addressed one of the district judge's findings that the victim's failure to scream during any of the incidents made her less credible.

The district judge noted in his judgment that "there was no explanation given as to why the [complainant] did not scream for help. Moreover, as a mature adult, there was no reason for her not to shout for help".

Hoong criticised the findings and emphasised that the district judge had himself noted that victims of sexual crimes cannot be straitjacketed into reacting or behaving a certain way,

"It was simply not a question of whether the complainant was “a mature adult” or not. The fact of the matter is that victims to sexual assault, regardless of age, level of maturity, or even gender, cannot be expected to react in a uniform way."

Hoong pointed out that, like what the prosecution had submitted, a scream in the circumstances of the offences would have achieved little as he could have simply retracted his hand, leaving no trace of his intrusion.

Judge calls out his victim-blaming behaviour

After convicting the accused of all his charges, Hoong highlighted that Tan abused his position of trust and was persistent in his offences, repeating his predatory actions toward the victim in the workplace.

Hoong also pointed out his victim-blaming and manipulative behaviour to demonstrate his lack of remorse.

This victim-blaming and manipulative behaviour showed that the accused consistently demonstrated no remorse for his offending.

Accused said he's "just joking" and blamed victim for "sexy"  dressing

For example, Tan had sought to downplay his actions as him “just joking” and implied that it was the complainant’s fault for dressing in a “sexy and seducing” way.

Hoong noted that Tan's offences had also caused some emotional and psychological harm to the victim, and there is a need to deter workplace sexual harassment.

Tan also concocted an affair between him and the victim to deflect any blame for his misconduct.

In conclusion, Hoong believed that a total sentence of one year's jail was adequate.

Top image from Getty Images