Why no further action was taken in 2016 Mindef sexual assault case
According to a civil suit judgment dated May 23, the woman had filed a police report in 2021 about the allegations against her colleague. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
Samuel Devaraj
Jun 05, 2025
SINGAPORE – The police said they commenced investigations immediately after a woman reported a sexual assault by her colleague in the Ministry of Defence (Mindef), but did not take further action against the man as the evidential threshold for criminal prosecution was not met.
According to a civil suit judgment dated May 23, the woman had filed a police report in 2021 about the allegations against her colleague over the incident, which occurred in 2016, and was told after 11 months that the police had decided not to take further action against the man.
The woman then sought legal advice and pursued the civil case for battery, which she won. She was awarded $45,000 in general damages and $8,697.39 in special damages, plus interest.
In a reply to queries from The Straits Times on June 4, a Singapore Police Force (SPF) spokeswoman said that after the woman filed the report in March 2021, officers interviewed several witnesses and took the statements of all the parties known to the police then.
The police, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), assessed that a criminal case could not be made out against the man.
This was after it took into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, “including the evidence that was available, and the nature of the interactions and the relationship between the claimant and the defendant”.
The spokeswoman also said the police thoroughly investigated two other police reports that involved the woman in separate incidents.
No further action was taken against the involved parties in these cases as well, the SPF spokeswoman said, adding that the AGC had also been consulted for these cases too.
She noted that legal thresholds for pursuing criminal charges are significantly higher than those for civil proceedings.
She said: “Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt – the highest standard in law – whereas civil cases are judged on a balance of probabilities.
“In this matter, after a thorough assessment, it was determined that the evidential threshold for criminal prosecution was not met. As such, no further action was taken.”
The spokeswoman said that after the report was received, the woman had been immediately offered the assistance of a police victim care officer, who provided her with advice and support.
The spokeswoman added: “The police take all reports of sexual assault seriously. All reports are investigated thoroughly.
“The police are committed to ensuring that investigations are thorough and objective, and fair to both the alleged victim as well as the defendant.”
According to the court judgment for the civil case, the woman had said that she and her former colleague began a romantic relationship in June 2015, and they were sexually intimate.
While the man wished they could be open about their relationship, the woman asked to keep it secret, and she ended the relationship in December 2015.
While they agreed to remain friends, they still had feelings for each other and continued to hang out together.
According to the woman, the pair and other colleagues went to a club on July 10, 2016. The pair later shared a taxi, where they became physically intimate, and the woman invited the man over to her place for sex.
When they were in her home, the woman went to shower. After sobering up, she realised she did not want to revisit the past romantic relationship with the man, or give him hope that they were going to get back together.
After she told the man he should go home, he was taken aback and pleaded with her to get back into a relationship with him.
The woman eventually firmly instructed the man to leave, and went to her bed.
Instead of leaving, the man continued to plead with her. He also removed his shirt and pants and climbed into her bed.
The woman said that before she could react, the man forcefully wrapped his arms around her from behind and restrained her physically.
As she struggled to push his arms away, the man reached into her shorts and sexually assaulted her, she said.
In a state of immense shock and outrage, she said, she pushed his hand away and demanded that he leave immediately, and he did so.
After the incident, she sent text messages to the man to apologise.
In her evidence subsequently, she said she had done so instinctively, and tried to converse with the man to de-escalate any tension and return the relationship between them to normality.
She said it did not occur to her then that she had been sexually assaulted, and she had not grasped the full gravity of the man’s actions. She said she felt responsible at the time for hurting his feelings, and blamed herself for provoking him into taking out his anger on her.
Some time in mid-2017, she was exposed to the rise of the “Me Too” movement, and after reading the stories of various survivors of sexual violence, she realised that she had been sexually assaulted.
She said she had come to understand that the prior romantic relationship between her and the defendant did not negate the fact that she did not give her consent.
On March 2, 2021, the woman wrote an e-mail to the senior management of Mindef, in which she highlighted a sexual assault by a civilian officer.
Mindef strongly encouraged her to file a police report, and she did so. She left Mindef in April 2021.
On Feb 28, 2022, the woman was told that the police had decided not to take further action against the man. She commenced the civil suit against him in July 2022.
In his defence, the man said that he could not recall the exact events that transpired on the day of the incident.
Noting that while the man’s inability to recollect is “superficially plausible”, given that the incident had occurred some years ago, the judge found this to be lacking in credibility.
Mindef said in a statement on June 2 that it “had promptly commenced an investigation when the complainant formally surfaced the allegations”.
“From our investigation, we decided to refer the matter to the police due to the serious nature of some of the allegations. The complainant subsequently lodged a police report. Mindef extended support to the complainant during the period of the police investigations,” it said, adding that it is committed to creating a work environment that is respectful and safe for all its personnel.
“Mindef has zero tolerance for workplace harassment and sexual misconduct. All allegations of harassment and sexual misconduct at the workplace will be investigated.”
