SINGAPORE: Increasingly frustrated and irritated with his son's living habits, a man resorted to physical violence by slapping his son, pulling his hair, pouring water on him and shooting him in the face with a rubber band.
The son, who is above the age of 18 and two years away from graduating, applied for a personal protection order (PPO) against his father and was granted one by the family court.
In a judgment made available on Saturday (Nov 1), District Judge Soh Kian Peng found it necessary to order a PPO for the son's personal safety or protection.
In order to obtain a PPO, the son must establish two things: That his father had committed family violence on him, or that he was likely to do so.
In his complaint form, the son cited numerous incidents of family violence allegedly committed by his father, because the older man did not approve of his living habits.
The son said that he scuffled with his dad in June 2025 when the father tried to close the son's bedroom door.
The son resisted and tried to use his foot to prevent his father from closing the door. His father then tried to use a lighter to burn his foot and stamped on his foot, the son said.
During the trial, the father admitted to stamping on his son's foot and using a lighter to "try to scare" his son. However, he said the lighter was "never lit" and that he did not burn his son's foot.
In another incident in December 2024, the pair argued over the son using a wall socket to charge his laptop.
The son alleged that his father scolded him, slapped his cheek, shoved his head backwards, pulled his hair and spat on him.
In his testimony, the father admitted to slapping his son, pushing him, pulling his hair, grabbing his phone and spitting on him.
In August 2024, the son had fallen asleep on the sofa in the living room. To wake him up, his father shot him in the face with a rubber band.
The next day, when he saw his son sleeping on the sofa, he poured water over him.
The man admitted to what he had done. His reason: if his son wanted to sleep, he should have gone to sleep in his own bedroom.
Judge Soh found that the father had committed family violence on the son in all these incidents.
"While the father alluded to disciplining his son as justification for these acts, he cannot avail himself of the 'correction exception' set out in ... the Women's Charter," said the judge.
"This is because the son is above 18 years of age."
According to Section 58B of the Women’s Charter, family violence does not include any force lawfully used “by way of correction towards a child below 18 years of age”.
The actual ages of the son and father were not produced in the judgment.
Judge Soh found that the incidents had arisen because the son continued to live in the same flat as his father, and this living arrangement would continue for the foreseeable future.
The son had testified that he would continue living there until he had the resources to move out. He said he intended to find his own accommodation once he graduated and found a job, saying he was likely to find gainful employment when he graduated in two years.
Judge Soh asked the father if he realised that his manner of communicating with his son might not be productive.
"The father had told me that he had tried to tell his son nicely, but his words fell on deaf ears, and the son stubbornly refused to change his behaviour," said the judge.
"The father also told me that if the son continued to behave in this way, he would not be able to tolerate it."
Judge Soh said he drew an inference from this that the father was becoming increasingly frustrated and irritated with his son's living habits.
"Further, and on the father's own evidence, it appears to me that when the father realised that his words had no effect on his son, he resorted to physical violence, thinking that this would cause the son to change his behaviour," said the judge.
He added that despite their quarrels and hostility, both the father and son longed for the love, acknowledgement and affection of the other deep down.
"During the course of their respective testimonies, the both of them did express, with a tinge of sadness, that the other had never truly acknowledged their relationship as father and son," said the judge.
He ordered them to go for counselling, in the hope that they "would learn how to better manage their conflict and in time, rebuild the father-son relationship".
Continue reading...
The son, who is above the age of 18 and two years away from graduating, applied for a personal protection order (PPO) against his father and was granted one by the family court.
In a judgment made available on Saturday (Nov 1), District Judge Soh Kian Peng found it necessary to order a PPO for the son's personal safety or protection.
In order to obtain a PPO, the son must establish two things: That his father had committed family violence on him, or that he was likely to do so.
In his complaint form, the son cited numerous incidents of family violence allegedly committed by his father, because the older man did not approve of his living habits.
THE INCIDENTS
The son said that he scuffled with his dad in June 2025 when the father tried to close the son's bedroom door.
The son resisted and tried to use his foot to prevent his father from closing the door. His father then tried to use a lighter to burn his foot and stamped on his foot, the son said.
During the trial, the father admitted to stamping on his son's foot and using a lighter to "try to scare" his son. However, he said the lighter was "never lit" and that he did not burn his son's foot.
In another incident in December 2024, the pair argued over the son using a wall socket to charge his laptop.
The son alleged that his father scolded him, slapped his cheek, shoved his head backwards, pulled his hair and spat on him.
In his testimony, the father admitted to slapping his son, pushing him, pulling his hair, grabbing his phone and spitting on him.
In August 2024, the son had fallen asleep on the sofa in the living room. To wake him up, his father shot him in the face with a rubber band.
The next day, when he saw his son sleeping on the sofa, he poured water over him.
The man admitted to what he had done. His reason: if his son wanted to sleep, he should have gone to sleep in his own bedroom.
Judge Soh found that the father had committed family violence on the son in all these incidents.
"While the father alluded to disciplining his son as justification for these acts, he cannot avail himself of the 'correction exception' set out in ... the Women's Charter," said the judge.
"This is because the son is above 18 years of age."
According to Section 58B of the Women’s Charter, family violence does not include any force lawfully used “by way of correction towards a child below 18 years of age”.
The actual ages of the son and father were not produced in the judgment.
Judge Soh found that the incidents had arisen because the son continued to live in the same flat as his father, and this living arrangement would continue for the foreseeable future.
The son had testified that he would continue living there until he had the resources to move out. He said he intended to find his own accommodation once he graduated and found a job, saying he was likely to find gainful employment when he graduated in two years.
Judge Soh asked the father if he realised that his manner of communicating with his son might not be productive.
"The father had told me that he had tried to tell his son nicely, but his words fell on deaf ears, and the son stubbornly refused to change his behaviour," said the judge.
"The father also told me that if the son continued to behave in this way, he would not be able to tolerate it."
Judge Soh said he drew an inference from this that the father was becoming increasingly frustrated and irritated with his son's living habits.
"Further, and on the father's own evidence, it appears to me that when the father realised that his words had no effect on his son, he resorted to physical violence, thinking that this would cause the son to change his behaviour," said the judge.
He added that despite their quarrels and hostility, both the father and son longed for the love, acknowledgement and affection of the other deep down.
"During the course of their respective testimonies, the both of them did express, with a tinge of sadness, that the other had never truly acknowledged their relationship as father and son," said the judge.
He ordered them to go for counselling, in the hope that they "would learn how to better manage their conflict and in time, rebuild the father-son relationship".
Continue reading...