Court

S'porean man, 74, abuses wife while on protection order, splashes hot water on police officers called to assist

He also previously assaulted his wife with great force that she suffered a fracture, bruising, and haemorrhage around her eye.

clock

May 29, 2026, 05:08 PM

Telegram

Whatsapp

A 74-year-old man, while subject to a personal protection order (PPO) restraining him from abusing his family, scolded and pushed his wife out of their flat, then locked her outside.

When police officers arrived, responding to his daughter's call for help, the man splashed hot water at two officers, partially burning one of them.

He was arrested that day, on Jun. 22, 2025, and pleaded guilty in court to three charges on May 28, 2026.

Two charges were for voluntarily causing hurt to a police officer, and breaching his PPO by pushing his wife. The last was for assaulting his wife and causing her grievous hurt in a previous incident in 2024.

Another six charges were taken into consideration.

He was sentenced to two years, two months, and two weeks in prison.

The 2024 incident

According to court documents seen by Mothership, the man had a PPO against him since Jan. 22, 2023.

It was granted by the Subordinate Courts to restrain him from using family violence against his wife and their two daughters.

All of them cannot be named to prevent any identification of the wife and daughter affected.

Married since 1986, the man and his wife lived together in the same flat at the time of the offences.

At around 10pm on Jan. 18, 2024, he assaulted his wife after she intervened in a dispute between him and his 37-year-old daughter at home.

He hit the wife's face hard, and she had to be brought to a hospital for a fracture, bruising, and haemorrhage around her eye.

For the assault and for breaching his PPO, the man was arrested by the police on that day, then released on personal bond the next day.

The 2025 incident

About a year and a half after his previous offence, the man violated his PPO again on Jun. 22, 2025.

He first went looking for his wife at his daughter's pet shop. There, he scolded his daughter to "go and die", and threatened to smash her husband’s head.

The daughter called the police, and her father left for home later.

At their flat several hours later, the man started scolding his wife, saying that her brother owed him money and had taken his amulet worth S$16,000. The claim about the amulet was not true, according to the prosecutor.

He then pushed her shoulder, forcing her out of the house, and locked the door. The wife called her daughter, who called the police for help.

Splashing hot water

Apart from the police, an ambulance and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers also went to the flat, on standby to break open the door.

The man refused to open the door to the police, but an officer took an opportunity to push the door open.

When two officers entered the house, the man bent forward to pick up a metal pot of hot water he had recently boiled, then splashed it at the officers.

According to the prosecutor, he had placed both the water kettle and the metal pot near the front door intending to splash the hot water on the police officers if they did enter the house.

In the officers' attempt to handcuff the man, a struggle ensued, and the man scratched an officer's right wrist.

Both officers who were splashed were sent to a hospital, and one was found to have partial thickness burns over both his thighs, left wrist, and left ankle, which have left scars.

Sentencing

The prosecutor sought a jail sentence between three years, two months, and two weeks, and three years, 10 months, and two weeks.

He emphasised a strong need to deter anyone who might resort to family violence, saying that the courts have held such acts to be "particularly heinous" as they abuse the trust and interdependency between family members.

On the offence of splashing hot water at the police officers, the prosecutor described the act as "dangerous" and a demonstration of contempt for police officers and their authority.

"The circumstances of the attack are egregious and caning is justified," he added. "If not for the fact that the accused is above 50 years old, two to three strokes of the cane would have been warranted."

Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.

  • image
  • image
  • image
  • image

MORE STORIES

Events