Slut remorse case study - Kang May Teng Maria Olivia

A Singaporean · Wednesday at 9:23 PM

axparadox said:
View attachment 238771⁸

Guess which one is Maria Kang.

They are telling you the size of their respective CBs. So 3 inch Sinkies please stop dreaming.

laksaboy · Wednesday at 9:53 PM

Dongyi said:
Now you know why AWARE wanted to change the law to prohibit defendant from examining the past sexual history of the 'victim'.

Most of those AWARE harridans are lesbians, toxic and damaged women with daddy issues, disguising their hatred of men and masculinity as some noble 'activism' for 'equality'. :rolleyes:

k1976 · Wednesday at 10:24 PM

ride the donkey n find a horse?

jurongkechil · Wednesday at 10:34 PM

Got puck puck puck sound?

eatshitndie · Wednesday at 11:21 PM

long “boring” story of “chua” slithering (and boring) into “kang” when they get bored.

Sustanon · Wednesday at 11:26 PM

laksaboy said:
Most of those AWARE harridans are lesbians, toxic and damaged women with daddy issues, disguising their hatred of men and masculinity as some noble 'activism' for 'equality'.

These fucking organization teaches women bad things and should be banned immediately.

axparadox · Thursday at 12:59 AM

Wife looks better than 黑油桶 fuckbuddy, she rotated a few guys from Mindef, taking turns.

axparadox · 2026-03-27T21:56:14+0800

laksaboy said:
(From left) Alina Chia, Kate Shieh, Shirin Ismail, Peh Zhen Yu, Jessica Loo, Maria Kang, Silky Raheja.

The guilty slut has initiated a clean up of her traces online, your hotlink picture is gone.

axparadox · 2026-03-27T21:59:45+0800

Is Maria O Kang sleeping with them too?

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:01:18+0800

Who else is Predator Kang sleeping with?
Isn't that Ong Ye Kung right there?

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:02:13+0800

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:05:29+0800

Is he a Kang visitor too?

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:07:14+0800

Does Jennifer know who she's standing next to?

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:13:51+0800

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:14:28+0800

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:27:57+0800

Kang May Teng, Maria Oliva v Chua Jun Yang
[2025] SGDC 130

:	District Court Originating Claim No 313 of 2022
:	23 May 2025
:	District Court
:	Sia Aik Kor
:	Yeo Kee Teng Mark and Amelia Lee (Fortress Law Corporation) for the Claimant; Siraj Shaik Aziz, Walter Ferix Silvester and Ng Yan Hao Tyler (Silvester Legal LLC) for the Defendant.
:	Kang May Teng, Maria Olivia — Chua Jun Yang

[td]Case Number[/td] [td]Decision Date[/td] [td]Tribunal/Court[/td] [td]Coram[/td] [td]Counsel Name(s)[/td] [td]Parties[/td]

Tort – Assault and battery – Digital Penetration
Damages – Quantum
Damages – Punitive damages
Damages – Special damages

23 May 2025

Judgment reserved.

District Judge Sia Aik Kor:

1 This is the Claimant’s claim for damages against the Defendant in respect of a tort of battery committed on 10 July 2016.

Background

2 The Claimant first met the Defendant sometime in 2015. The Claimant and the Defendant were colleagues at the Defence Policy Office (“DPO”) under the Ministry of Defence (“MINDEF”) at the material time.

The Claimant’s case
Relationship at the time of the incident

3 According to the Claimant, she and the Defendant entered into a romantic relationship sometime in June 2015. Between April 2015 and December 2015, they were sexually intimate with each other. The Defendant had wished that they could be open about their relationship but the Claimant had asked to keep it secret as she had concerns about how their colleagues would perceive them in the office and was concerned about how their relationship might affect the workplace atmosphere or their mutual friends if they were to break up. Their differences in this regard were a constant source of tension within their relationship. As such, the Claimant ended the relationship in December 2015 and they agreed to remain friends. They still had feelings for each other and they worked in the same office and shared many mutual friends. As such, they continued to chat with each other, hang out, go out for meals and attend fitness classes together.

Events of 10 July 2016

4 On 9 July 2016, the Claimant and her colleagues met for dinner and drinks at a restaurant along Club Street. Sometime at or around midnight, a smaller group of them headed to the nightclub BANG BANG. They decided to invite others to join them given that there were still some free spots on the guests’ list. The Claimant messaged the Defendant and invited him to join them at BANG BANG. The Defendant arrived at around 2 a.m. and all of them had a couple of drinks. At around 3 a.m. on 10 July 2016, the group decided to call it a night and everyone made their way out of BANG BANG.
5 As the Claimant and the Defendant were headed in the same direction, they decided to share a taxi ride home. On the ride home, they became physically intimate as they started to make out in the taxi. At some point during the taxi ride, the Claimant invited the Defendant over to her place to engage in sex.
6 Inside her home, the Claimant and the Defendant continued to make out in her living room. At some point, the Claimant got up to go to her bedroom and take a shower in the ensuite bathroom. In the process of showering, the Claimant sobered up. She reflected on the history of the relationship she had with the Defendant and realised that she did not want to revisit their past romantic relationship or give him hope that they were going to get back together. She was overwhelmed with regret for having invited him over and for telling him that they would engage in sex.
7 After she exited the bathroom, she said to the Defendant “You should go home. This isn’t happening” and asked the Defendant to leave her home immediately. The Defendant was taken aback and refused to leave. He turned emotional and pleaded with her to get back into a romantic relationship with him. This escalated into a heated conversation between them. The Defendant bombarded her with questions and was extremely persistent in trying to find out why she did not want to get back together with him. This ranged from asking her if she was seeing anybody, to which she repeatedly answered “no” to disagreeing that they were not compatible. This exchange went on for about 10 minutes before she felt that the conversation was pointless as she simply was not ready to revisit their relationship. She stopped engaging in conversation with the Defendant altogether. Exasperated, the Claimant firmly instructed the Defendant to see himself out and told him that she was going to bed.
8 Believing that the Defendant would leave of his own accord, she retreated to her bed with the lights still on. She laid on her right side with her back facing the Defendant to indicate that she was done speaking with him and that she wanted him to leave immediately.
9 However, instead of leaving, the Defendant continued to plead with her. In a matter of seconds, the Defendant removed his shirt and pants and climbed into her bed. Before she could react, he forcefully wrapped his arms around her from behind and restrained her physically. She struggled to push away his arms but was unable to get free. The Defendant proceeded to use his left hand and reached into her pyjamas shorts, inserting one finger into her vagina without her consent.
10 In a state of immense shock and outrage, she pushed the Defendant’s hand away with her left hand that became free, pushed him off her, sat up and demanded that he leave immediately. She shouted at him to “Get Out!”. The Defendant said nothing but scoffed, got dressed angrily and then left her residence, slamming the front door as he left.
11 A few moments later, the Defendant returned, either knocking on the door or ringing the doorbell and she opened the door tentatively. The Defendant barged in to retrieve his belongings he had left behind in the living room and stormed out of the front door again.
12 Between 4:24 a.m. and 4:32 a.m., the Defendant sent the Claimant the following text messages:

Date/Time	Sender	Text Message
10 July 2016 04:24:33	Defendant	Don’t ever text me again when you’re drunk
10 July 2016 04:24:44	Defendant	Let’s avoid situations that we both don’t want to be in
10 July 2016 04:25:52	Defendant	I’ve had enough
10 July 2016 04:27:23	Defendant	Stop stringing me along if this is going no where
10 July 2016 04:32:07	Defendant	I apologize that I got out of control AGAIN
10 July 2016 04:32:23	Defendant	But let’s avoid putting ourselves in those situations again yeah
10 July 2016 04:32:25	Defendant	Thanks

13 The Claimant only replied later that day at 12:07:29 and both of them exchanged the following messages:

Date/Time	Sender	Text Message
10 July 2016 12:07:29	Claimant	Sorry
10 July 2016 12:11:47	Defendant	Nvm. I’m sorry too for being childish and throwing a hissy fit.
10 July 2016 12:11:55	Defendant	Shld have left the moment you told me too
10 July 2016 12:13:53	Claimant	Ya btw no one allowed on my bed unless clean
10 July 2016 12:14:03	Claimant	And your hair was dirty humph cos you were at the club
10 July 2016 12:14:45	Claimant	Have to change pillow case
10 July 2016 12:15:07	Defendant	Sorry about that
10 July 2016 12:15:13	Defendant	I can wash it for you
10 July 2016 12:16:07	Claimant	Lol it’s fine
10 July 2016 12:16:40	Claimant	I think we could have enjoyed each other last night and had fun and I wanted to
10 July 2016 12:16:48	Claimant	But not for the wrong reasons
10 July 2016 12:16:58	Defendant	I don’t understand
10 July 2016 12:17:21	Defendant	What do you mean not for the wrong reasons
10 July 2016 12:17:39	Claimant	Bad judgement
10 July 2016 12:18:05	Claimant	I’m not in the best place in my life to make decisions that affect people’s emotions
10 July 2016 12:18:43	Claimant	And when you were charging your phone where did you put it huh
10 July 2016 12:18:47	Claimant	On the ledge or on my bed
10 July 2016 12:19:24	Defendant	So are you saying you wanted to do not because of bad judgement
10 July 2016 12:19:56	Claimant	Too many negatives I’m confused now
10 July 2016 12:20:02	Defendant	I’m also confused lol
10 July 2016 12:20:12	Claimant	It means without thinking, would have done it
10 July 2016 12:20:25	Claimant	But that’s having bad judgement
10 July 2016 12:20:36	Claimant	I sobered up and thought about it in the shower
10 July 2016 12:20:46	Claimant	So I couldn’t
10 July 2016 12:21:00	Defendant	Yeah I figured
10 July 2016 12:21:16	Claimant	Ledge or bed – phone ;(
10 July 2016 12:21:29	Defendant	Ledge
10 July 2016 12:21:48	Defendant	I would have loved to do it last night
10 July 2016 12:23:03	Defendant	But not
10 July 2016 12:23:07	Defendant	For the wrong reasons
10 July 2016 12:39:40	Defendant	I still stand by what I said btw – whatever your emotional state is now, it’s better for both of us if you just let me in
10 July 2016 13:17:54	Claimant	That was really sweet and I really appreciate it. Enjoy the movie

Events after 10 July 2016

14 The Claimant explained that she had apologised to the Defendant instinctively and tried to converse to de-escalate any tensions and return the relationship between them to normalcy.
15 The Claimant claimed that it had not occurred to her that she was sexually assaulted by the Defendant. While she had always been aware that what he did to her was entirely without her consent, she had not grasped the full gravity of the Defendant’s actions and felt responsible for hurting his feelings and blamed herself for provoking him into taking out his anger on her. She did not revisit this issue nor confront the negative emotions she had towards the Defendant since that night. Instead, she sought to continue their typical platonic interactions and maintained their friendship. Around December 2016 to early January 2017, there were occasions when she considered revisiting her romantic relationship with the Defendant and acted on those thoughts. She believed that she was acting under the warped belief that if the Defendant genuinely loved her and if they entered into a romantic relationship again, then the incident on 10 July 2016 would not have mattered in the grand scheme of things.
16 Sometime in mid-2017, she was exposed to the rise of the “Me Too” movement, a global social movement against sexual violence. As she read about the stories of various survivors of sexual violence, she came to the sudden realization that she had been sexually assaulted by the Defendant that day. Up until that point, she was unable to reconcile the fact that the non-consensual digital penetration by the Defendant constituted sexual assault because the Defendant was someone whom she had an existing relationship with and it did not cross her mind that someone she trusted could be said to have sexually assaulted her. However, through reading up on the “Me Too” movement, she came to understand that the fact that she and the Defendant knew each other or that they had a prior romantic relationship did not negate the fact that she did not give her consent to be digitally penetrated that night. She struggled to reconcile the fact that he had sexually assaulted her with her feelings of shame and guilt that she deserved what he had done to her because she had upset him.
17 The Claimant did not tell anyone about what had happened until she met up with her university friend group, consisting of Rachel Lai Yanfen (“Rachel”), Choong Hui Ping and Cheah Suet Ping on 28 January 2018. During their lunch, she informed them that she was sexually assaulted by the Defendant back in 2016. As her friends were very quiet and the atmosphere turned extremely dull after that, the Claimant decided to put up a strong front and tried to change the topic.
18 On 29 January 2018, she also shared with Ang Zhe Wei Jeremy (“Jeremy”), who was her colleague then, that the Defendant had sexually assaulted her in her house after a night out, by forcing himself on her, grabbing her from behind and penetrating her vagina with his finger[note: 1].
19 The Claimant subsequently wrote letters to her friends Rachel and Lim Jia Jun Eugene (“Eugene”) on 15 and 22 November 2020 respectively that she had felt hurt that they had not been as supportive as she had hoped when she first told them about the sexual assault. These letters were the first and second instances where she had written down and documented the sexual assault in detail[note: 2].
20 On 2 March 2021, the Claimant wrote an email to the Senior Management of MINDEF mentioning “three unpleasant encounters”, of which the second incident was described as a sexual assault by a civilian officer. Subsequent to her email, the Claimant was strongly encouraged to file an official report with the SAF Military Police Command (“MPC”) and did so with the MPC Special Investigations Branch on 15 March 2021. As the Defendant was not under the purview of the MPC, the MPC strongly encouraged the Claimant to file a report with the Singapore Police Force (“SPF”). The MPC subsequently picked the Claimant up from her office on 26 March 2021 and escorted her to the Police Cantonment Complex to file a police report. The Claimant filed a police report against the Defendant on the same day[note: 3].
21 On 28 February 2022, the Claimant was informed that the SPF decided not to take further action against the Defendant. The Claimant then sought legal advice and commenced this suit on 7 July 2022.

The Defendant’s case
Relationship at the time of the incident

22 According to the Defendant, he and the Claimant were peers working as staff officers in the same unit or office between January 2015 and January 2017. By May 2015, he and the Claimant were in a complicated on-and-off romantic relationship. They were sexually intimate and had consensual sexual relations during the on-and-off romantic relationship. Despite this, they did not enter into a formal boyfriend-girlfriend relationship during that period of time as the Claimant refused to commit to one. He only ended his romantic interest in the Claimant in or around October 2016 after he found out that he was merely someone the Claimant would turn to whenever she was bored and that the Claimant regarded him as “very accommodating” in that regard.
23 From the WhatsApp conversations between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant recalled that he had consensual sexual relations with the Claimant in the early morning of 14 October 2015 and on the night of 30 January 2016 or the morning of 31 January 2016.

Events of 10 July 2016

24 As regards the events on 10 July 2016, the Defendant claimed that he could not recall the exact events that transpired when they were at her place, such as whether they had sexual relations or anything of similar nature. In particular, he could not recall whether he had, as the Claimant claimed, hugged her from behind and used his left hand and inserted one finger inside her vagina[note: 4].

Events after 10 July 2016

25 The Defendant claimed that the Claimant’s attitude towards him and interactions with him after the events of 10 July 2016 were nothing out of the ordinary. They continued to communicate and interact on friendly and cordial terms, some of which were of a sexually intimate nature or initiated by the Claimant. In particular, the Defendant pointed to the Claimant inviting him to go shopping with her on 4 August 2016 and to meet her on 7 August 2016. The Defendant also pointed to the Claimant asking him to give her a wake-up call on 11 August 2016 at around 1 a.m. and inviting him to a house party at her place on 12 August 2016. In or around September 2016, the Claimant also invited him to spend the night at her place and greeted him dressed only in her undergarments. She invited him to stay the night which he did.
26 The Defendant stated that after he and the Claimant had a quarrel as regards her text message to Gan Su Yi that he was accommodating to the Claimant when she was bored, he turned cold on the Claimant but the Claimant continued to try to get his attention. In particular, on 3 November 2016, he relayed to Jane Sea that the Claimant had asked if he would “try to do anything if [she] was in [her] underwear in front of [him] now”. The Defendant claimed that he and the Claimant had a conversation about their relationship on or around 5 November 2016 and agreed to put their relationship behind them.
27 He and the Claimant had dinner together on 10 January 2017 on the Claimant’s initiative. On 15 January 2017, he and the Claimant met at a bar at Rail Mall where she asked if he would consider giving their relationship one last shot which he rejected.
28 The Defendant stated that he and the Claimant continued to engage in regular social activities with their mutual colleagues, including going to bars and nightclubs on at least about 10 occasions after the events on 10 July 2016 but the Claimant did not make known to him any of her allegations as set out in the Statement of Claim.

Standard of Proof in Civil Proceedings

29 The standard of proof that applies in all civil proceedings is the balance of probabilities. As the Court of Appeal held in Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal [2013] 4 SLR 308 at [159] - [161], there is no third legal burden of proof that straddles the civil and criminal burdens. However, due to the serious implications of the Claimant’s allegations, cogent evidence is required before a court will be satisfied that the allegation of sexual assault is established.
30 Given the position of the Defendant taken at trial that he could not recall what had happened on the evening of 10 July 2016[note: 5], the Defendant does not advance his own account of events. The present case therefore centred on the evaluation of the Claimant’s evidence and the reliability of her account. In determining whether the Claimant has discharged her burden of proof that on a balance of probabilities the tort took place, the Claimant’s evidence, including aspects of internal and external consistencies, had to be holistically assessed with the other evidence, including that mounted by the Defendant, against the overall backdrop of the available facts and circumstances.

Internal consistency of the Claimant’s evidence

31 In terms of internal consistency, the Claimant’s account of what had happened on 10 July 2016 remained substantially unchanged across her letters to her friends, her affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”) and her oral evidence.
32 The Defendant pointed to the following inconsistencies in the Claimant’s evidence:
(a) the inconsistency between her police report and her AEIC as to the time the sexual assault took place;
(b) the inconsistency between her AEIC and her letters to Rachel and Eugene as to the words which she had specifically used;
(c) which side of the bed she was sleeping on after she told the Defendant to see himself out;
(d) discrepancies between her account to Eugene and her AEIC;
(e) whether she had told her friends on 28 Jan 2018 and Jeremy on 29 Jan 2018 that the Defendant had digitally penetrated her;
(f) the failure to mention in her AEIC that she had warned the Defendant that no dirty clothes should touch her bed which she had written about in her account to Rachel and Eugene;
(g) inconsistency in what she told Jeremy and Rachel about a second occasion of unwanted physical contact;
(h) stating that Eugene and Jeremy had helped her to avoid the Defendant at the workplace and social gatherings outside work after the incident when Eugene and Jeremy have no recollection of this; and
(i) stating in her AEIC that she had kept the incident to herself until December 2017[note: 6] but admitting on cross-examination that she had told her ex-boyfriend about the incident in mid-2017[note: 7].
33 Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence, I found that these inconsistencies did not affect the credibility of the Claimant.

(a) Time of the incident

34 The Claimant claimed in the police report she made that the incident happened between 2 to 3 a.m. on 10 July 2016. Her statement of claim puts the time of the incident at 3 a.m.[note: 8] but according to her AEIC, the timing of the incident should be after 3 a.m.[note: 9] after everyone left BANG BANG.
35 During re-examination, the Claimant explained that when she wrote the Statement of Claim, she had written it to the best of her memory without access to any of her WhatsApp chat history. It was only after filing the Statement of Claim and during the exchange of documents that she saw the timestamps of the WhatsApp chat history and realised that it was closer to 3 to 4 a.m. as opposed to between 2 to 3 a.m.[note: 10]
36 Given that the Defendant did not dispute that he was at the Claimant’s place after they left BANG BANG, nothing turned on the time of the incident. This was therefore an insignificant inconsistency which did not affect the credibility of the Claimant.

(b) Words that the Claimant used

37 In her AEIC[note: 11], the Claimant had used the words “You should go home. This isn’t happening.” On the stand, the Claimant stated that this meant that sex was not going to happen. She admitted that she did not use the words “we are not going to have sex”[note: 12]. However, in her letters to Rachel and Eugene, she stated that she specifically said that they were not going to have sex[note: 13]. In the Claimant’s letter to Eugene[note: 14], she had said that she had told the Defendant NO or GET OUT. On the stand however, she distinctly recalled that she said GET OUT but could not remember whether she also said NO[note: 15].
38 I find these inconsistencies to be more apparent than real. In both her oral evidence and her letters to her friends, there was evident consistency in that she had specifically indicated to the Defendant that they were not going to have sex. It was obvious in the context in which the words “You should go home. This isn’t happening” were uttered that they would be perceived by the Defendant to mean they were not going to have sex and that she is not consenting to sex. The fact that she did not recount in her letters to her friends the exact words that she actually used that night but merely the meaning of what she had conveyed did not affect her credibility, given that she was essentially saying the same thing in different words.
39 On closer examination, there is also no real inconsistency between her oral evidence and her letter to Eugene that she has told the Defendant to GET OUT. Her inability to remember whether she had also said NO was not of consequence, given human fallibility in retention and recollection.

(c) Which side of the bed the Claimant was lying on

40 The Claimant agreed on the stand that from the foot of the bed looking at her bed, she was lying on the left side of the bed[note: 16]. However, in paragraph 5(f) of her Statement of Claim, she stated that she was lying on the right side of her bed. On the stand, she stated that she had written it from the perspective of when she was lying on the bed, when looking at it from the head of the bed[note: 17]. Correspondingly, I did not think there was an inconsistency in this regard.

(d) Discrepancy between her account to Eugene and her AEIC

41 In her account to Eugene, the Claimant had said that she told him NO or GET OUT and the Defendant then shoved his finger up her vagina[note: 18]. However, in her AEIC, she stated that she had shouted at him to GET OUT after the Defendant had inserted his finger into her vagina without her consent[note: 19]. On re-examination, she explained that she may have messed up the sequence in her letter to Eugene, given that it was a letter that she wrote at 4:00 a.m. in a very high state of distress where she was just writing the words that were coming immediately and to her, they happened practically at the same time[note: 20].
42 In her account to Eugene, the Claimant had said that she went to bed and she told him to see himself out. However, in her AEIC, she stated that she had instructed the Defendant to see himself out before retreating to her bed[note: 21]. When cross-examined on this, she admitted that the account in Eugene’s affidavit is chronologically wrong and that she had not written the account to Eugene in chronological order[note: 22].
43 The focus and purpose of the Claimant writing to Eugene was to express her disappointment at the fact that he had implied that she was partially to blame for leading the Defendant on when she first told him about the incident. In recounting the incident in the letter, it would appear from the excerpts set out below that the Claimant was seeking to highlight that she had indicated clearly her lack of consent to the Defendant before the act and that she was entitled to change her mind about having sex:
I went to shower, alone. I sobered up in the shower and I knew I shouldn’t backslide. I had already been trying to cut him off. So when I came out of my shower, I asked him to go home and said clearly that we were not going to have sex.
He got upset and didn’t want to leave. He basically wanted to get back “together”. I was getting annoyed and I didn’t want to argue. I went to bed. I told him to see himself out. He kept wanting to talk. I reminded him that dirty clothes can’t touch my bed (cos of my OCD) and it was meant to mean, “stay away”.
Instead, he took off his dirty clubbing clothes (this was the night of Shirin’s hen’s night at Bang Bang) and got into my bed. I don’t really recall if he was wearing his underwear, because my back was to the room door. I think it was still on … And I struggled when he held me from behind. I’m pretty sure I told him NO or GET OUT. He then shoved his finger up my vagina. So … I definitely take responsibility for changing my mind about sleeping with him. But I believe we’re allowed to. And that when I said we weren’t going to have sex, and that he should see himself out, that was as clear as a “NO” could get. It is really [expletive] hurting that …idk. I don’t think I wanted you to take sides – let’s be real, no one would take my side/a side but I guess [page break] guess I was hoping for a little support or understanding……
44 Reading the letter, it was clear that the Claimant was not writing about the incident in a chronological sequence. Rather she was trying to press the point to Eugene that she had the right to change her mind about having sex with the Defendant and that she had clearly indicated “NO” to him by telling him that they were not going to have sex and that he should see himself out. Given that the letter was written at 4:08 a.m. in bed and in semi-darkness where the Claimant was focused more on correcting Eugene’s perception that she was partially to blame than in giving a chronologically accurate account, I did not think this inconsistency or variation in account robbed the Claimant of her credibility when there is broad consistency in her account, across her letter to Eugene, her AEIC and her oral evidence, that the Defendant digitally penetrated her even after it was obvious that she had changed her mind about having further sexual contact.

(e) Whether she had told her friends on 28 January 2018 and Jeremy on 29 January 2018 that the Defendant had digitally penetrated her

45 According to Jeremy, he was having dinner with the Claimant on 29 January 2018 when the Claimant revealed to him that the Defendant had sexually assaulted her in 2016. Jeremy was told that the Defendant had forced himself on the Claimant by grabbing her from behind and it was not until she shoved him that he got up to leave[note: 23]. According to Jeremy, he only obtained details that the Defendant had digitally penetrated her subsequently. This differed from the Claimant’s AEIC[note: 24] where she stated that she had informed Jeremy at the dinner on 29 January 2018 that the Defendant had forced himself on her by grabbing her from behind and penetrating her with his finger. When cross-examined, the Claimant could not recall the exact details of what she told Jeremy on 29 January 2018 and she was not sure whether she had indeed told Jeremy about the act of digital penetration[note: 25]. When Jeremy was cross-examined, he testified that he did not have a strong recollection of what the Claimant told him on 29 January 2018 and could not recall if she had told him about the act of digital penetration on 29 January 2018[note: 26].
46 The Claimant did not inform Rachel of any act of digital penetration on 28 January 2018[note: 27]. When cross-examined, Rachel could not recall the specific words that the Claimant said[note: 28].
47 I did not find the Claimant’s inconsistency as to whether she had told Jeremy of the act of digital penetration on 29 January 2018 to affect her credibility. I accepted the Claimant’s evidence that it had been difficult initially to come up with the words to describe what had happened[note: 29] and that her ability to articulate the details of the incident developed as she came to terms with what had happened[note: 30]. This was corroborated by Jeremy whose testimony was that the Claimant became more forthcoming with details as she became more comfortable with sharing her struggles with the incident[note: 31].
48 Similarly, I did not find the Claimant’s lack of details when she first informed Rachel of the incident to be indicative that the incident was a fabrication. It is natural for a victim of a sexual assault to find it difficult to articulate what had happened to them, especially when doing so for the first time to someone. As Rachel testified, she could not recall what was said in reply as all she could recall was the feeling of shock[note: 32]. Such a reaction would therefore accord with the Claimant’s account that the atmosphere had turned sombre such that she decided to put up a strong front and tried to change the topic[note: 33].

(g) Failure to mention in her AEIC that she had warned the Defendant that no dirty clothes should touch her bed

49 While the Claimant had written in her account to Rachel[note: 34] and Eugene[note: 35] that she had warned the Defendant that no dirty clothes should touch her bed, she did not mention this in her AEIC. She denied that that she omitted this in her AEIC because it would show that she was not consistent or unequivocal in telling the Defendant to leave[note: 36].
50 I did not think that the omission of this in the AEIC should be given much weight. The letters to Rachel and Eugene are in the AEIC and the fact that she had warned the Defendant that no dirty clothes should touch her bed is clearly disclosed. A witness of an incident is not expected to provide an identical account each time she describes or recounts the incident. In the present case, given that the Claimant had already told the Defendant to see himself out, the fact that the Claimant had said that dirty clothes cannot touch her bed could not be perceived in the context to mean an invitation to take off his dirty clothes and come onto her bed, much less to digital penetration. In any event, it was not the Defendant’s case that he had misconstrued this statement from the Claimant as consent. When pressed, the Defendant had said that the digital penetration did not happen[note: 37].

axparadox · 2026-03-27T22:28:52+0800

51 The Defendant also argued that the fact that the Claimant had said that dirty clothes cannot touch her bed in her letters to Rachel and Eugene showed that she had anticipated him climbing onto her bed. This was in contrast to her AEIC where she said the Defendant had removed his clothes and climbed on the bed “in a matter of seconds” such that she had no time to react. I did not find this to be an inconsistency of any substance. As the Claimant recounted in her letters to Rachel and Eugene, this had been said to the Defendant in the expectation that he would give up and leave. Given that her back was to him, the Defendant’s reaction was therefore unexpected, giving her little time to react.

(h) Inaccuracy in what she told Jeremy and Rachel about a second occasion of unwanted physical contact

52 Jeremy recounted that the Claimant had told him that the Defendant had groped her breast in a lift[note: 38]. On the stand, the Claimant said that this was inaccurate as the Defendant had put his hand up the back of her shirt and that Jeremy could have misinterpreted it when she told him that the Defendant had put his hand up her shirt[note: 39]. When Jeremy was cross-examined, Jeremy testified that he may have misunderstood or misinterpreted what the Claimant told him[note: 40] and misremembered, given that he is hearing it second-hand from the Claimant[note: 41].
53 In the Claimant’s letter to Rachel, she stated that the Defendant kept trying to feel her up in an elevator.
54 The Defendant gave evidence that he was questioned by the police about the Claimant’s allegations that he had reached out to touch her exposed back as she was wearing a top with a low-cut back[note: 42]. He did not recall the police questioning him about any allegations by the Claimant that he had touched her breasts in the hotel lift[note: 43].
55 This incident was not mentioned in the Claimant’s email to MINDEF or Dr Lee’s reports but mentioned in her letter to Rachel and her police report. It was also not mentioned in her statement of claim or in her affidavit.
56 Given the Defendant’s evidence, I find that Jeremy must have mis-interpreted the Claimant’s account of the second incident. The Claimant’s evidence that the Defendant had touched her back was consistent with her account in the letter to Rachel as well as her report to the police, as evidenced by the questions posed by the police to the Defendant. The very discrepancy between the Claimant’s and Jeremy’s accounts suggests independent recollection as opposed to coordinated or rehearsed testimonies and lends authenticity to their evidence. Given that this second incident is not part of the claim, it was not unreasonable for the Claimant to omit it from her statement of claim or her AEIC. Similarly, the Claimant’s failure to mention it in her email to MINDEF or to Dr Lee does not go to her credibility given that the purpose of those communications differ and context may demand the emphasis of different aspects.

(i) Stating that Eugene and Jeremy had helped her to avoid the Defendant at the workplace and social gatherings outside work after the incident which Eugene and Jeremy have no recollection of

57 Dr Lee had stated in his first report[note: 44] that the Claimant had shared her experiences with a few close co-workers at MINDEF and was able to avoid encountering the male colleague at the workplace and during social gatherings with the help of these co-workers. When cross examined on the stand, the Claimant mentioned that Eugene and Jeremy were the ones who were helping her to avoid the Defendant at the workplace and during social gatherings[note: 45]. While Eugene[note: 46] and Jeremy[note: 47] could not recall such instances, Eugene explained that he may not have remembered such instances even if the Claimant had indeed sought his assistance in avoiding the Defendant. However, in the Claimant’s letter to Eugene dated 22 November 2020, the Claimant had mentioned that Eugene had been sensitive enough to ask the Claimant whether she could breathe the same air as the Defendant which suggests that the Claimant had previously shared with Eugene her discomfort around the Defendant. There is also mention in Rachel’s evidence[note: 48] and the Claimant’s letter to Rachel dated 15 November 2020[note: 49] that there continued to be social gatherings involving the Claimant and the Defendant even after the Defendant left DPO in January 2017, one of which was an “end of bond” party on 15 June 2019 where the Claimant had been upset with Rachel for allowing the Defendant to attend, even after she had told Rachel about the incident in January 2018. Correspondingly, even though Eugene and Jeremy could not recall helping the Claimant to avoid the Defendant, this did not affect the credibility of the Claimant’s account that there had been social gatherings after she had shared her experiences with her co-workers at MINDEF where the Defendant had been present and where she had avoided him.
58 While the Defendant had tried to cast the Claimant’s feelings towards the Defendant after 10 July 2016 as one in which she was fearful of him and whom she wanted to avoid at all costs, this was not an accurate characterisation of her evidence. In her AEIC[note: 50], the Claimant had explained that in the immediate aftermath of the incident, she was shocked but also felt responsible for upsetting the Defendant. At the same time, she was afraid and worried, given that he had sent angry text messages and returned once, that he might return again to argue with her. When asked if there was any expression of anger in the exchange of texts between the parties immediately after the incident, the Claimant had answered that there was fear in her apologising to the Defendant at 12:07:29 in a bid to de-escalate the situation[note: 51]. After the incident, she admitted that she was extremely confused. While she sought to maintain her relationship with the Defendant as before most of the time, there would also be times where she would remember what had happened and try to avoid him[note: 52]. However, it was not always possible to do so as they were working in the same office, shared the same social circle of mutual friends and were invited to the same social activities[note: 53]. This was therefore not inconsistent with Dr Lee’s first report[note: 54] that the Claimant experienced feelings of tension and discomfort in the presence of the Defendant at the workplace and made efforts to avoid him whenever possible.

(j) Stating in her AEIC that she had kept the incident to herself until December 2017 when she had told her ex-boyfriend about the incident in mid-2017

59 The apparent inconsistency in relation to when she started to tell others about the incident dissolves upon scrutiny. Reading the Claimant’s AEIC carefully, the Claimant had stated that she attempted to tell close friends about the incident but could not find the words or courage to describe what had happened and ended up telling friends vaguely that something bad had happened to her sometime after mid-2017[note: 55]. However, by December 2017, she knew that she could no longer keep the incident to herself and eventually spoke to various friends and family members about what took place on 10 July 2016. On the stand, she explained that when she used the words “By December 2017”, she meant that she had started to tell people before December 2017. Her testimony on the stand that she had tried to tell her ex-boyfriend in mid-2017 and used very few words and was not able to express herself clearly[note: 56] therefore cohered with her evidence in the AEIC that she struggled to find the words or courage to describe what had happened.
60 Having examined all the inconsistencies raised, they either disappear upon a closer look or represent minor variations natural to human recall. There is neither incoherence nor material inconsistency in the Claimant’s various accounts. The Claimant’s testimony about the incident remained both cogent and compelling.
61 The Defendant argued that the veracity of the Claimant’s recollection in relation to the incident was questionable as she was intoxicated at the material time and there were material inconsistencies in her recounting of the incident relayed for the first time years after the fact. I had already dealt with the issue of inconsistencies. While the Claimant had some to drink before the incident, the Claimant had taken a shower and sobered up enough to ask the Defendant to leave and have an argument with the Defendant, an account which was corroborated by the text messages sent by the Defendant to the Claimant after the incident. There was therefore no basis to claim that the Claimant’s intoxication and fatigue had affected the veracity of her account.

Claimant’s account was corroborated by the Defendant’s text messages

62 Immediately after the incident, the Defendant sent the Claimant a series of text messages that she should not text him again when she is drunk and that she should stop stringing him along if this was going nowhere. He apologised that he “got out of control AGAIN” but suggested that they avoid putting themselves in such situations again.
63 The text messages exchanged between the Claimant and the Defendant later that day corroborate the Claimant’s account that:
(a) she had initially invited the Defendant over to her place to have sex;
(b) she had changed her mind after taking a shower and sobering up;
(c) she had told the Defendant to leave but the Defendant did not do so;
(d) they had a heated conversation;
(e) at some point the Defendant was on her bed; and
(f) the Defendant eventually left in a huff.
64 On the stand, the Defendant accepted that his apology for being childish and throwing a hissy fit was consistent with the Claimant’s account that he had turned emotional and pleaded with her which then escalated into a heated conversation between the two of them[note: 57]. The Defendant also accepted that his message that he should have left the moment she told him to was consistent with the Claimant’s account that she did tell him to leave[note: 58]. The Defendant also accepted that the messages were consistent with the Claimant’s account that at some point in the night, the Defendant was on the Claimant’s bed[note: 59] and that she had changed her mind about wanting to have sex with the Defendant after her shower[note: 60].
65 However, the Defendant disagreed that his apology for getting out of control again was consistent with the Claimant’s account that he had gotten into her bed and digitally penetrated her without her consent. Instead, he was referring to allowing himself to get into a heated argument with her and arguing with her. When he wrote “but let’s avoid putting ourselves in those situations again”, he was referring to being in a position where both of them were tempted to consider committing to a longer-term relationship as opposed to having sex[note: 61].
66 I do not find this to be a credible explanation, given that it was clear at that point that the Defendant was pursuing a long-term relationship with the Claimant. It was therefore difficult to see why the Defendant would want to avoid a situation where both of them would be tempted to consider committing to a longer-term relationship. The Claimant, on the other hand, was not prepared to commit to a longer-term relationship with him even though she may be prepared to have sex with him. It was clear from the text messages between the parties that this had been the case:
(a) On 27 December 2015, the Claimant had messaged the Defendant that she really would like to keep things as co-workers only and that she was not proud of their behaviour and it was evident that they should not be drinking together[note: 62].
(b) The WhatsApp messages on 31 January 2016[note: 63] did not explicitly mention sex but the Claimant and Defendant had apologised to each other with the Defendant saying that he woke up feeling really lousy and guilty because he had already promised to be a better person and not do this when they were drunk. The Defendant asserted in his affidavit that to the best of his recollection, he and the Claimant had sex that night, based on his interpretation of those messages[note: 64]. The Defendant claimed that he had apologised not because the relationship had already ended and he was not supposed to be having sexual intercourse with her. Instead, he was apologising for not holding back and for entertaining being closer physically and emotionally to her instead of keeping a distance[note: 65]. In my view, the Defendant’s explanation that he had to maintain a distance both physically and emotionally only serves to show he understood that they did not have a long-term relationship and should not be having sex.
(c) The Defendant messaged the Claimant on 19 April 2016 to tell her that he continued to like her all the while and that she meant a lot to him. In response, the Claimant messaged the Defendant on 23 April 2016 that he should not expect anything and she feels like they could be great friends[note: 66].
(d) On 1 July 2016, the Defendant exchanged a number of text messages[note: 67] with the Claimant in which he apologised for overstepping. He had touched her on the shoulder to let her know that he cared but the Claimant was upset with him for thinking that he could be intimate with her anytime and for trying to fight it out in the office within earshot of all her cube mates. The Defendant apologised on 2 July 2016 for lashing out but he was frustrated that she would not take a leap of faith with him. The Defendant said that they obviously still have feelings for each other and he believed that they could make it work. He wished the Claimant would have more faith in them and accept that their relationship could be something good in her life.
(e) Based on the text messages exchanged between Gan Su Yi and Jane Sea on 3 July 2016, the Defendant had told Jane that the Claimant was a tough nut to crack and asked Jane to introduce girls to him. On the stand, the Defendant admitted that it was difficult to get the Claimant to get into a long-term committed serious relationship with him[note: 68].
67 These text messages indicate while the Defendant was pursuing a long-term committed relationship with the Claimant, the Claimant was not interested in doing so. Hence, even if I accept that the Claimant would want to avoid a situation where she could be tempted to consider committing to a longer-term relationship, it was unclear why the Defendant would want to avoid this, given that it was his desire to have a long-term relationship with the Claimant. It was therefore difficult to see how he would be referring to this as a situation which both of them do not want to be in. This is especially when he had said later on 10 July 2016 that whatever the Claimant’s emotional state then, it would be better for both of them for her to let him in.
68 Given that there was no change in the status of the parties’ relationship, just a change of the Claimant’s mind as to whether to have sex, these messages sent immediately after the incident could not have been referring just to the emotional aspects of the relationship and not the physical aspects. While the Defendant tried to explain that the Claimant was apologising for her behaviour for allowing herself to be tempted into considering committing to a longer-term relationship with him at some point during the night[note: 69], this was not borne out by the messages sent by the Claimant where the Claimant had changed her mind about having sex after sobering up in the shower because they should not have sex for the wrong reasons and unthinkingly[note: 70]. The Defendant tried to explain that he was apologising for losing control of his emotions for wanting to convince her to commit to a formal relationship and he was upset with her for taking actions that led him to believe that she was prepared to consider being involved in a serious formal relationship[note: 71]. I find this to be a contrived explanation, given that the Claimant’s actions were not so much an indication that she was considering committing to a formal relationship with the Defendant but an indication that she wanted to have sex with him.
69 Reading the series of text messages that the Defendant sent immediately after leaving the Claimant’s place as a whole and taking into consideration the context of their relationship at that time, his messages were more likely to mean that she should not be texting him when she is drunk where they may be tempted to have physical relations despite not being in a long-term relationship, a situation which they had regretted as indicated in the text messages on 31 January 2016. The apology for getting out of control yet again was therefore likely to have been a hark back to the incident on 1 July 2016 where the Defendant had overstepped the Claimant’s physical boundaries.
70 In this regard, I find the Defendant’s inability to recall the events of 10 July 2016 to be more convenient than credible. The Defendant testified that he could recall that he and the Claimant had consensual sexual relations in the early hours of 14 October 2015 based on the Claimant’s message dated 14/10/15 timestamp 09:44:02 where she said that if “her period started last tues it shd be okay right”[note: 72]. During cross-examination, the Defendant conceded that someone reading the text messages between him and the Claimant on 14 October 2015 would not be able to discern that they had consensual sexual intercourse[note: 73]. Based on the messages, the Claimant did not appear to know what had happened the night prior because she was just passed out on the floor which was how the Defendant found her and she did not know what time the Defendant came over and what time he left. Similarly, the WhatsApp messages on 31 January 2016[note: 74] did not explicitly mention sex, yet the Defendant was able to recall that he and the Claimant had sex that night, based on his interpretation of those messages[note: 75]. Given that the Defendant could recall that he and the Claimant had consensual sexual relations on 14 October 2015 and 31 January 2016, which were dates preceding the incident on 10 July 2016, simply from an interpretation of the messages on those dates even though there was nothing that explicitly stated that they had consensual sexual intercourse and there was nothing significant about the two instances that would leave an imprint in his memory, there was no reason why he could not recall what had happened on 10 July 2016, a date which was later in time and on which he had sent several messages suggesting a heated argument in the Claimant’s room and which would have better registered in his memory.

The Claimant’s interactions with the Defendant after the incident

71 The Defendant argued that the Claimant’s account was not credible because the Claimant did not try to avoid the Defendant after the incident and even attempted to restart a relationship with him.
72 In relation to the Defendant’s submissions, it is accepted that victims of sexual assault may not behave in a stereotypical way. As the Court in PP v Yue Roger Jr [2019] 3 SLR 749 observed at [33] - [34]:
Thus, in the present case, the fact that the Victim did not complain in a timely manner and remained in contact with the Accused over the extended duration of the abuse did not rob her of credibility; I accepted that the Victim was focused on her continued participation in the private rope skipping team, and did not know what to do about the Accused’s sexual advances. I accepted her explanation that she did not resist or report the offences to a teacher or family member as rope skipping was her priority at that time and she feared that her place on the private rope skipping team would be jeopardised were she to do so. I also accepted that she had not reported the offences to her family or the police as she felt ashamed.
Similarly, the fact that the Victim was not driven into despair or helplessness was also not by itself a ground for disbelief of her evidence. People react in different ways to sexual abuse and may compartmentalise or rationalise their reactions. A calm disposition may generally incline the court to conclude that no wrong was committed, but it is not necessary for a complainant to be distraught for her to be believed.
73 The belief that victims of sexual assault will react in a uniform, specific or predictable manner and that differences in victims’ responses to the assault are probative of their credibility or lack thereof has also been referred to as unjustified and a harmful stereotype in Thangarajan Elanchezhian v PP [2024] SGHC 306 at [72].

Immediate reaction after the incident

74 The Defendant suggested that inconsistent with the Claimant’s account that she was in fear of the Defendant in the immediate aftermath of the incident, the Claimant did not consider her safety and opened the locked door to her home for the Defendant to take his belongings that he forgot. I had earlier dealt with the characterisation of the Claimant’s evidence. A careful reading of the Claimant’s AEIC would show that the Claimant was afraid that the Defendant was angry and worried that he would return to argue with her as opposed to being fearful of her physical safety.
75 The Defendant suggested that the Claimant’s conduct after the incident was atypical of her usual reaction where she was unafraid to express her displeasure when he did something that upset her. The Defendant pointed to two instances. On 19 April 2016, the Claimant accused the Defendant of being insensitive and trivialising her trauma when she mentioned that she had been hit on by a married man[note: 76]. On 1 July 2016, she had reacted when the Defendant touched her in the office because she did not want him to think that he could be intimate with her anytime[note: 77]. In contrast, when she messaged the Defendant on 10 July 2016 after the incident, there is no mention that he had touched her without her consent, restrained her against her will or violated her bodily integrity in any way. Instead, she had apologised[note: 78]. The Defendant suggested that if the Defendant had indeed digitally penetrated her without her consent, she would have expressed her unhappiness[note: 79] and the fact that she did not do so suggested that any sexual contact had been consensual[note: 80].
76 During re-examination, the Claimant explained that she had apologised because she wanted to de-escalate the situation and placate him as she was afraid that he was still upset with her, given that the Defendant had sent her angry text messages shortly after he left and had slammed her front door on his way out[note: 81]. She agreed that her silence was uncharacteristic as she was confused and shocked about what had happened to her. Nothing like this had happened to her before so she could not understand what had happened and was therefore unable to speak up about it[note: 82].
77 I did not accept the Defendant’s suggestion that the fact that the Claimant did not confront the Defendant about the incident meant that the incident did not happen. This was because the Defendant was the one who had first reacted after the incident. The Defendant had been upset at the situation and expressed his displeasure immediately after the incident. If the sexual contact had been consensual, there would have no reason for the Defendant to be upset and to send the series of messages in the early hours of 10 July 2016 after he left the Claimant’s house. As the Defendant’s position was that he could not recall what happened that night, there was also no explanation for what had caused him to eventually leave in a huff without taking his belongings after he had initially refused to leave when the Claimant told him to do so.
78 In view of the series of angry text messages where the Defendant blamed the Claimant for texting him when she is drunk and stringing him along, I accept the Claimant’s evidence that her apology had been instinctive in an effort to placate the Defendant.
79 In relation to the incident on 1 July 2016 where the Defendant had touched the Claimant in the office and the Claimant had reacted because she did not want him to think that he could be intimate with her anytime, it would appear from the WhatsApp messages[note: 83] that it was the Defendant who had first raised the issue and proffered the apology. The messages also suggest that it was the Defendant who had lashed out and tried to fight it out in the office within earshot of the Claimant’s cube mates. The Claimant had also in the messages put it down to her fault that she was a mess and would be better off on her own and for his own good. The characterisation that the Claimant was unafraid to express her displeasure when the Defendant did something that upset her was therefore not strictly accurate in relation to the 1 July 2016 incident.
80 Correspondingly, I did not think that the fact that the Claimant did not raise the sexual assault with the Defendant immediately after the incident suggested that any sexual contact had not taken place or was consensual. The Defendant conceded that he was upset with the Claimant and had told her so in his text messages where he had highlighted the portions in which he felt the Claimant had contributed to his actions[note: 84]. As the Claimant explained, she felt responsible for hurting the Defendant’s feelings and blamed herself for provoking him. She therefore did not revisit the issue[note: 85].

The Claimant’s conduct in August 2016 to January 2017

81 The Defendant also pointed to the fact that the Claimant had voluntarily invited the Defendant to shop with her on 4 August 2016[note: 86], to meet with her at Somerset on 7 August 2016[note: 87], and to give her a wake-up call on 11 August 2016[note: 88]. On 12 August 2016, she also invited him to her house for drinks on the night of 13 August 2016[note: 89] and had initiated a conversation with the Defendant on 16 August 2016 at 2:26 a.m..
82 The Defendant’s Counsel also pointed out that the Claimant did not ask her friends to stop teasing her and the Defendant about their romantic relationship when such teasing continued as of 3 September 2016[note: 90]. The Defendant also alluded to an instance in September 2016 where the Claimant had invited him to spend the night at her place and greeted him dressed only in her undergarments.
83 As of October 2016, the Claimant felt that the Defendant could be trusted and counted on and in fact remained in friendly contact with the Defendant[note: 91]. The Defendant pointed out various instances in which the Claimant had reached out to or interacted with the Defendant after the alleged sexual assault including the following:
(a) On 22 October 2016, the Claimant had also asked the Defendant if he wanted to hang out that weekend or the next[note: 92].
(b) The Claimant had indicated on 28 October 2016 that she wanted to talk to him in person[note: 93].
(c) On 3 November 2016, the Defendant relayed to Jane that the Claimant had asked him if he would try to do anything if she was in her underwear in front of him.
(d) As at 14 November 2016, the Claimant was willing to share a ride in a car with the Defendant[note: 94].
(e) On 23 December 2016, the Claimant asked the Defendant out for dinner and asked the Defendant if he was ignoring her[note: 95].
(f) On 24 December 2016, the Claimant asked the Defendant about her relationship with Josiah and stated that she did not think he cared at all[note: 96].
(g) On 31 December 2016, the Claimant sent the Defendant a WhatsApp message that she felt sad that he felt distant and cold[note: 97] and sought to get him to open up to her about who he was romantically interested in. She admitted that she had been mean to him all year and that she was afraid to mean nothing to him which was ironic after how she treated him[note: 98].
(h) Between 2 January and 4 January 2017, the Claimant was keen to meet up with the Defendant over lunch or dinner[note: 99]. When the Defendant replied that he was unavailable on 2 January 2017, the Claimant commented that he was “really being very cold” and wanted to assume that he was giving his friends the same treatment and not punishing her.
(i) On 5 January 2017, the Claimant expressed sadness that the Defendant was leaving their office[note: 100].
(j) The Claimant and the Defendant met for dinner on 10 January 2017. She had heard that he was dating Jane and was keen to find out whether he was dating and who he was dating[note: 101].
(k) On the evening of 15 January 2017, the Claimant and the Defendant had a talk and the Defendant rejected the Claimant’s proposal to consider giving the relationship between the two of them one last shot[note: 102].
(l) On 20 January 2017, the Claimant sent the Defendant a WhatsApp message that she hoped that he was not with Jane to escape the Claimant and that he was not just her rebound[note: 103].
(m) On 27 January 2017, the Claimant sent a message to the Defendant to say that it was nice seeing him that day[note: 104].
(n) The Claimant and the Defendant continued to attend the same parties on 4 February 2017 and 25 February 2017[note: 105].
84 The Defendant suggested that the reason for this continued closeness was because the Defendant did not in fact make any unwanted sexual contact on 10 July 2016.
85 The Claimant explained that she always knew that the Defendant’s act of digital penetration on 10 July 2016 was non-consensual and wrong but did not have the words in her vocabulary to describe it until May or June 2017[note: 106]. She was shocked and did not have the full appreciation of how much she was going to be affected by it[note: 107]. She did not fully realise it because she was in denial. While she knew the act had happened, she could not believe it had happened and did not want to believe it happened to her. Up until mid-2017, she was unable to reconcile the fact that the non-consensual digital penetration by the Defendant constituted sexual assault because the Defendant was someone known to her, a person whom she had an existing relationship with and someone whom she thought loved her[note: 108].
86 The Claimant explained that in a mix of confusion and denial, she was just trying to act and believe that nothing had happened. While there were a lot of different feelings coming up at different times, most of the time, she would just try to normalise the relationship and talk to him the same way that she would have talked to him to put it out of her mind that something had happened. However, there would be times where she would remember what had happened and she may want to try and avoid him[note: 109]. The Claimant explained that she did not try to stop her friends from teasing them as their friends had been doing so for a long time. It would have been weird if she had suddenly objected to them doing so and she saw no point in trying to stop them[note: 110]. The Claimant also explained that she had wanted things to be normal so that he would not confront her about it and it would not cause a rift in her social circle and she wanted her life to go back to normal so that she could feel normal again[note: 111].
87 The Claimant explained that it would be awkward to avoid the Defendant such as refusing to take the same escalator with him[note: 112]. Even when she organised a surprise party for one of their close friends, Amanda pressured her into inviting the Defendant and she did not have any good reason not to invite the Defendant without having to then tell them what happened[note: 113].
88 The Claimant admitted that she would sometimes avoid the Defendant and would sometimes make sporadic romantic advances towards the Defendant in her state of confusion[note: 114]. The Claimant did not deny that in January 2017, she tried to rekindle a romantic relationship with the Defendant[note: 115]. The Claimant stated that it was a very confusing period for her and that she thought she was in a state of denial. If they had resumed a romantic relationship, she would have found it easier to forgive what he had done and to say to herself that it was a one-time mistake and that building on a relationship was more important than just one mistake[note: 116]. She had lost romantic interest in the Defendant but the rekindling of the relationship was a way of trying to justify and minimise what had happened to her. While it was something that happened between the two of them, it was something that she also took responsibility for because she felt that she had pushed him over the edge until he lost control[note: 117].
89 The Claimant explained that she did not raise the incident to the Defendant because she was in shock and did not know what had happened to her. There was also a lot of guilt where she felt responsible for not acceding to him and getting back into a relationship when he asked[note: 118]. By the time she was able to articulate what had happened to her in May 2017, they were no longer in contact and the Defendant had entered into a new relationship. She did not think that he would do this to her again or to anyone else. Hence she did not see a need to confront the Defendant or warn people about him[note: 119].
90 As set out earlier, there is no typical, proper or normal response to a sexual assault. In the present case, underlying the Defendant’s argument is the belief that the Claimant would be expected to avoid the Defendant if the non-consensual digital penetration had happened on 10 July 2016. This however did not take into account the fact that the Claimant and the Defendant were in a close relationship, had previous instances of consensual sex and were part of the same social circle that hung out frequently outside of work. Given that the act happened after the Claimant had initially invited the Defendant to her place for sex but subsequently changed her mind, I accepted her evidence that she struggled with guilt and shame and to process what had happened to her. She may not have immediately recognised that she was the victim of a sexual assault given their relationship and blamed herself for what had occurred, as indicated by her instinctive apology immediately after the incident. Viewed through the overlapping lens of confusion, denial and self-blame, the continuation of usual interactions with the Defendant, including initiating contact with him and making sporadic romantic advances in an attempt to rekindle their relationship to justify and normalise the incident may be a more attractive option than for her to suddenly cut off the Defendant which would invite questions from their group of friends for which she was ill-prepared. This was illustrated by the fact that when she omitted to invite the Defendant to Josiah’s birthday party, Amanda had asked her about the omission[note: 120].
91 Given the context in which the incident had taken place and the relationship between the parties, I did not find the Claimant’s explanations for her behaviour to be implausible or improbable. There are myriad ways in which a victim of a sexual assault would respond, including shock, denial, dissociation, guilt, self-blame and shame.
92 The Defendant submitted[note: 121] that the Claimant had studied and stayed overseas for several years and had a history of consensual sexual intercourse with the Defendant at the time of the alleged incident. Her subsequent behaviour in initiating contact and outings with the Defendant, inviting him to spend the night with her and greeting him in her undergarments at the door was conduct that fell outside the range of behaviours contemplated as atypical responses. I did not accept such an argument because no evidence was tendered that one’s educational background or previous sexual relations would necessarily be correlated to their response to sexual assault, whether in terms of the time they take to process such incidents or the manner in which they would respond to such incidents. It was also important to highlight that the fact that the Claimant and Defendant have had consensual relations on previous occasions did not mean that any sexual contact on 10 July 2016 would have been consensual and the Defendant conceded the same on the stand[note: 122].
93 In this regard, it is noted from the Claimant’s email to MINDEF senior management that the Claimant had taken 6 months to process a 2020 incident where which a senior colleague had touched her buttocks at a party[note: 123]. There was also evidence from the Claimant’s letters to Rachel and Eugene that the Claimant had taken some time to process as well as articulate, not just what had happened to her on 10 July 2016, but also the reasons for why she was upset with Rachel and Eugene in terms of their lack of support. The Defendant was posted out in January 2017 and their final text to each other was on 20 February 2017[note: 124]. The Claimant’s evidence that she had carried on with her usual interactions with the Defendant for the 6 months after the incident as she was still processing what had happened in an attempt to normalise things was therefore consistent with her course of conduct in relation to the processing of similar incidents. By the time she was able to articulate what had happened to her, she was no longer in contact with the Defendant and did not see the need to confront him[note: 125].
94 Given that victims of sexual assault respond in diverse and unpredictable ways, the Claimant’s behaviour in the 6 months post-incident was both plausibly and cogently explained. Her subsequent interactions with the Defendant therefore did not detract from her credibility, when assessed against the context of how the incident happened, the relationship between the parties and the tight social network to which they belong and her failure to characterise the incident as a sexual assault.

Delay in making a police report

95 The Defendant also suggested that the Claimant’s account was not credible as she did not make a police report until 26 March 2021.
96 The Claimant explained that she had struggled for the longest time to start to even describe what had happened to her as it was extremely embarrassing and shameful to be able to say it out loud[note: 126]. Initially she was unable to explain what had happened to her and it was only after a few more times of trying that she found that an easier way of saying it without describing uncomfortable details would be to say that someone forced himself on her or that she was sexually assaulted[note: 127].
97 The Claimant stated[note: 128] that the silence from some of her friends felt like an affirmation that she was to be blamed for what the Defendant had done to her. The initial reaction of her friends was corroborated by Rachel and Eugene as well as the letters that she wrote to Rachel and Eugene:
(a) Rachel gave evidence[note: 129] that when the Claimant first shared that she had been sexually assaulted by the Defendant on 28 January 2018, the atmosphere turned tense and heavy. She was shocked and overwhelmed and did not say much at the time. She also did not speak about the incident with the Claimant until the Claimant passed her a letter on 20 December 2020, which silence was interpreted as a lack of support by the Claimant[note: 130].
(b) Eugene received a letter dated 22 November 2020 from the Claimant where she expressed her disappointment in his response to her when she first told him about the sexual assault because he implied that she was partially to blame[note: 131]. On the stand, Eugene testified that he could not remember his initial response but understood that he could have been more sensitive[note: 132].
98 The Claimant also felt trapped as she and the Defendant still shared the same social circle and she feared that making a report would harm the Defendant or cause a rift between their mutual friends. She was also afraid that the Defendant would blame her for ruining his reputation and come after her. She also weighed that the Defendant had only assaulted her because she had upset him and he did not get his way but given that he was in a new relationship, the risk of him assaulting anyone was extremely low.
99 The Claimant stated that she had never considered filing a police report until she was strongly encouraged to do so by MINDEF[note: 133]. The Claimant explained that after her email to MINDEF management leaked, people who were not the recipients of the email came to know of it, causing a rift in the social circle. She had been strongly persuaded to file the police report by people telling her that she would get justice and it would be her way of getting closure, moving on with her life and recovering from it. It was therefore extremely shocking and distressing when she found out that the police and AGC decided not to take any further action. As she had left the service at that point, she realised that it was truly up to her to try and find recourse for herself, which was when she decided to file a civil suit[note: 134].
100 It is clear that a delay in reporting sexual assault by a complainant is not, on its own, reason to disbelieve the complainant and her allegations. Instead, the explanations proffered by the complainant for her delay in reporting the assault are to be considered by the court in determining the impact of the delay, if any, on the credibility of the complainant: PP v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan [2019] 2 SLR 490 at [66] – [67].
101 In the present case, the Claimant’s failure to disclose the incident until years later did not make her evidence less credible as she had offered reasonable explanations for her conduct. I accept the Claimant’s evidence that she did not intend to make a police report in the first place and had to be persuaded to do so. While she first confided in her friends in January 2018, the lack of support from her friends, the fact that the Defendant was someone she knew and shared the same social network, and the concern that she may have contributed to the incident which was unlikely to recur were some of the factors that went to her reluctance to report the incident. It was not until November 2020, after another incident of sexual assault in 2020, that she took the step of writing about the incident on 10 July 2016 to her friends, Rachel and Eugene. Her MINDEF email which set off a chain of events that eventually led to her filing of a police report was sent on 2 March 2021. The email did not name the Defendant or any of the other counterparties to the other “unpleasant encounters” and was sent only to the senior management and a few other recipients. Its tenor suggested that the purpose of the email was to highlight issues faced by victims of sexual assault and suggest improvements on how to better support them as opposed to meting out punishment to the parties involved.
102 I am satisfied that the delay in the Claimant’s disclosure and her reluctance to report the incident earlier were based on legitimate and credible reasons. Hence, I find that the Claimant’s delayed disclosure did not undermine her credibility.
103 As for the police’s decision to take no further action, no evidence was offered as to the reasons behind this decision. As such, it is not determinative as to the truthfulness of the Claimant’s claim. It would be speculative for the Court to infer from such a decision that the Claimant’s allegations are untrue or fabricated.

Lack of Motive

104 During re-examination, the Defendant postulated that the Claimant had convinced herself that the incident happened because she was not able to cope with him losing interest in her after 18 months of pursuing her and being very accommodating. Bringing this case was therefore her way of trying not to lose, in line with her character of not wanting to lose[note: 135].
105 I had considerable difficulty in accepting this as a plausible motive. I had earlier dealt with the Claimant’s evidence on how this case was eventually brought before the Courts. If the allegations were fabricated and bringing this case was a way of trying not to lose, there was no reason why the Claimant would delay for so long in bringing the case to light or why the Claimant would choose to take such an indirect route to do so. As highlighted earlier, the matter came to light only after the Claimant wrote an email to MINDEF’s Senior Management to highlight issues faced by victims of sexual assault and suggest improvements to make and even then, the Claimant did not reveal the Defendant’s identity in her email.

Finding on liability

106 In summary, this was a case in which the Claimant had a detailed and substantiated rendition of events as against a Defendant who maintains that he does not remember the events surrounding the incident and so does not advance a competing account of what transpired. While the Defendant’s inability to recollect is superficially plausible, given that the incident had occurred some years ago, this was ultimately found to be lacking in credibility. After a detailed scrutiny of the evidence, the Claimant’s recollection of the events that unfolded in the early hours of 10 July 2016 emerged as cogent and convincing. It was corroborated by the contemporaneous text messages exchanged between the parties. A strong thread of consistency also ran through her textured accounts to Rachel, Eugene and Jeremy, which were congruent with her testimony in court. Her interactions with the Defendant in the 6 months after the incident and the delay in bringing the matter to light had been adequately explained and did not detract from her credibility. I thus find that the Claimant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the tort of battery had occurred on 10 July 2016 and move to consider the quantum of damages.

Quantum of Damages

107 The Claimant claimed the following damages:
(a) pain and suffering;
(b) loss of amenities;
(c) psychiatric and psychological harm;
(d) aggravated or punitive damages;
(e) medical and related expenses amounting to $8,687.39 as at 2 November 2023 including the Claimant’s consultation with the homeopath, counselling sessions with the sexual assault care centre at the Association of Women for Action and Research and her consultation and therapy sessions at Resilienz Clinic;
(f) future medical and related expenses; and
(g) pre-trial loss of earnings.

Pain and Suffering

108 It is not necessary to prove actual physical damage in battery. Damages may be recoverable in battery in respect of injury to feelings, including the indignity, mental suffering, humiliation or distress that may be caused as well as anger or indignation arising from the circumstances: The Law of Torts in Singapore (Second Edition) by Gary Chan Kok Yew at 02.021 and 02.027.
109 The Claimant has given evidence on the bodily pain as well as mental and emotional distress that she suffered in struggling to come to terms with what had happened. Her evidence in this regard was corroborated by Jeremy who had observed the toll of the incident on her mental and emotional well-being subsequent to January 2018[note: 136].
110 The Claimant did not make any submission on the appropriate quantum under this head of damages or submit any relevant local cases in relation to the same. In EB v Haughton [2011] EWHC 279 (QB), the Claimant who was 28 years of age claimed that over about a year when she was 10 and 11 years old, the Defendant, who was her mother’s business associate, subjected her to the following assaults of a sexual nature: (a) stroking her leg when she was a front seat passenger in the Defendant’s car on some occasions when he was driving her to and from riding stables; (b) fondling her breasts when standing behind her as she stood at a gate looking at animals; and (c) fondling her under the guise of massaging her and penetrating her vagina with his fingers. The sexual abuse was found to be the main cause of and trigger for the Claimant’s persisting mental health problems namely the anxiety and consequent psychosomatic complaints, sexual problems and post-traumatic stress disorder. Taking into account the fact that the Defendant had betrayed the trust the Claimant put in him by abusing her, the Court awarded £28,000 in general damages.
111 The present case involved a solitary incident. The Claimant did not require psychiatric treatment with medication and her prognosis is favourable. Taking into account these circumstances, I am of the view that the appropriate amount of compensation under this head is $25,000.

Loss of Amenities

112 Loss of amenity refers to the loss of the ability to enjoy life to its fullest: Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 689 at [82]. The Claimant stated[note: 137] that the assault in 2016 had negatively influenced her view of relationships with male partners and her ability to trust them and she had developed fears and concerns about her clothing choices. On the stand, she gave evidence that these started after the incident on 10 July 2016[note: 138]. However, from her letter to Rachel, the Claimant was “kind of involved with Jo”[note: 139] in September 2016, and on her own evidence, she had confided in several close male friends about the 10 July 2016 incident, including her ex-boyfriend before December 2017, Jeremy in 2018, and Josiah and Eugene in 2020[note: 140]. She had confided a highly sensitive incident to at least four different men whom she admitted she trusted[note: 141]. It would therefore appear that she had no impairment in interacting with males. During re-examination, she explained that her relationships did not last because she felt like the other partner could not understand how badly it has affected her and she would make sweeping statements about how this is what men do when he was not the person who assaulted her[note: 142]. There is however no supporting evidence in this relation and nothing to indicate that her ability to form long-lasting relationships with male partners has been permanently affected. Dr Lee was aware that the Claimant did have three relationships after July 2016 but did not mention this in his reports[note: 143] and did not explain why despite this, he found the assault in 2016 to have impacted the Claimant’s ability to trust male partners. As such, I disallow this head of damages.

Psychiatric and psychological harm

113 Dr Lee diagnosed the Claimant as suffering from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood as a result of the assault in 2016.
114 I had difficulties with accepting this for a number of reasons. First, the Claimant only consulted Dr Lee on 24 August 2022, more than 6 years after the incident. The assessment was therefore a retrospective one which would inherently be fraught with difficulties.
115 As mentioned by Dr Lee, adjustment disorder is a psychiatric disorder classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM 5th Edition, 2013) of the American Psychiatric Association (“DSM-5”)[note: 144]. Under DSM-5, one of the diagnostic criteria of adjustment disorders is the development of emotional or behavioural symptoms in response to an identifiable stressor(s) occurring within 3 months of the onset of the stressor(s)[note: 145]. By definition, the disturbance in adjustment disorders begins within 3 months of onset of a stressor[note: 146]. However, in both reports, Dr Lee did not mention the onset of the adjustment disorder. As Dr Rajesh testified, for Dr Lee to meet the satisfactory threshold in a medicolegal context, Dr Lee would have to delineate the Claimant’s symptoms of depression (such as low mood, loss of interest, fatigue, poor concentration) and anxiety (such as constant feeling of worry, muscle tension, headaches and other symptoms) in the 3 months after July 2016 to support his diagnosis[note: 147]. This was sorely missing in Dr Lee’s reports. Dr Lee did not mention the period when the Claimant was experiencing the symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress and there was no description of how these symptoms evolve, their severity and their link to functional impairment. There was also no reasoning on how he was able to extrapolate his observations based on consultations in August and September 2022 to what the Claimant was suffering from six years earlier. As there is no evidence that the Claimant sought any form of help before July 2020, there was no objective evidence or medical records from the relevant time period in 2016 on which Dr Lee could draw his conclusions, even though he had interviewed the Claimant over several occasions and compared notes with the clinical psychologist to ensure consistency of the Claimant’s account. In addition, there was no contemporaneous evidence or corroborative history obtained as regards the impact on her work productivity or other areas of functioning in the three months after the stressor, whether in the form of performance appraisals or accounts from the Claimant’s family and colleagues as to the Claimant’s emotions or behaviour in the relevant time period[note: 148]. The Claimant continued to work in the same organisation after the tort and there was no objective evidence that her functioning at work and other areas of function were impaired.
116 Dr Lee did not address this deficiency on the stand and acknowledged that the symptoms he was examining in August 2022 could have emanated from other stressors closer in time, including a 2020 incident of sexual assault[note: 149]. He also conceded that the development of symptoms happened over the course of the later part of 2016 towards 2017[note: 150]. This clearly raises issues about whether one of the defined diagnostic criteria of adjustment disorder was met and undermines Dr Lee’s diagnosis. While I accept that the specific diagnostic criteria included in DSM-5 are meant to serve as guidelines to be informed by clinical judgment and are not meant to be used in a rigid cookbook fashion, it is nevertheless incumbent upon Dr Lee to explain how the criteria is met or why the diagnosis holds even when the criteria is not met. The failure of Dr Lee to adequately explain his reasoning and how he arrived at his assessment made it unsafe for me to rely on his diagnosis.
117 Accordingly, I find that the Claimant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered adjustment disorder as a result of the tort.

Aggravated damages

118 Aggravated damages are awarded to augment a sum awarded in general damages to compensate for the enhanced hurt suffered by the plaintiff due to the aggravation of the injury by the manner in which the defendant committed the wrong or by his motive in so doing, either or both of which might have caused further injury to the plaintiff’s dignity and pride: Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 689 (“Noor Azlin”) at [235]
119 Without in any way minimising the unacceptable conduct of the Defendant, I did not think this was an appropriate case for an award of aggravated damages. Damages are ultimately compensatory in nature, to compensate the Claimant for the loss she has suffered as a result of the wrong, so far as money can. Compensation for the mental distress caused has already been reflected in the quantum of general damages. The Claimant has not demonstrated any malice, spite, or contumelious conduct or motive on the part of the Defendant in committing the wrong. Given that this was an isolated incident in the context of the parties’ relationship, I decline to award aggravated damages.

Punitive Damages

120 Punitive damages (also termed exemplary damages) are “meant to punish, deter and condemn” and may be awarded “where the totality of the defendant’s conduct is so outrageous that it warrants punishment, deterrence and condemnation”: Noor Azlin at [234] citing ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] 1 SLR 918 (“ACB”) at [156] and [176]. In ACB at [173], the Court of Appeal referred to the award of punitive damages as having a distinct and important role to play in the context of private law by filling that important interstitial space that exists between those cases where the demands of justice are served purely by the award of a compensatory sum, and those cases which properly attract criminal sanction. Among other things, it permits the private enforcement of important interests (particularly personality interests) without the need for individuals to bring a private prosecution (which is rarely done in practice, outside of cases involving intellectual property violations) and it allows for punishment to be effected without the corresponding stigma of a criminal sanction, which is not always appropriate in all cases of wrongdoing. In considering whether punitive damages ought to be awarded, the court should consider whether there is any need for such an award. In doing so, it will have to consider not only the adequacy of any compensatory award, but also the existence and adequacy of any criminal and/or disciplinary sanctions that might already have been imposed on the defendant which could (in turn) obviate the need for a punitive award: ACB at [180].
121 In the current case, the compensatory award was inadequate to sufficiently serve the aim of punishment. While I recognise that this was an isolated incident, the act of digital penetration constitutes a profound breach of personal autonomy and a deep violation of bodily integrity. It is therefore necessary for the Court to mark the disapprobation of such conduct, to censure the Defendant and to deter other like-minded people from repeating it. I therefore award the sum of $20,000 in punitive damages.

Medical and related expenses

122 The Claimant claimed medical and related expenses in the sum of $8,697.39 comprising the sum of $446.19 for homeopath visit on 10 October 2020; the sum of $730 for counselling with AWARE Sexual Assault Care Centre between 21 July 2021 and 24 June 2022; and consultation and therapy fees with Resilienz Clinic in the sum of $7,521.20 incurred between 24 August 2022 and 28 September 2023.
123 It is undisputed that these expenses were incurred after the 2020 incident where a senior colleague had inappropriately touched the Claimant’s buttocks at a party. While this incident was not mentioned in his initial report of 19 May 2023, Dr Lee dealt with the same in his Supplementary Report dated 8 January 2024. Dr Lee opined that if not for the 2016 incident, the Claimant will not be experiencing the depressive and anxiety symptoms. The 2016 incident was the greater contributory factor and the primary factor leading to the development of her psychiatric symptoms which persisted over the subsequent years. Dr Lee subsequently explained that the reason why he put more weight on the 2016 incident was because the 2020 incident was a trigger and a catalyst which opened the floodgates of the negative emotions which had been pent up over the years and which escalated her psychological difficulties[note: 151]. While I had earlier found that I was unable to rely on Dr Lee’s diagnosis of adjustment disorder due to the failure to satisfy a defined diagnostic criterion, which failure he did not explain, this does not mean that his evidence would be rejected in full. Dr Lee’s evidence that the 2016 incident materially contributed to the Claimant’s depressive and anxiety symptoms was not challenged by Dr Rajesh[note: 152] and I accept the same.
124 Given that the 2016 incident had caused or materially contributed to her depressive and anxiety symptoms for which she sought help in the form of homeopathy relief, counselling and therapy, I am satisfied that these were expenditure that the Claimant actually incurred as a result of the tort and allow the same.
125 As the Claimant testified, she started going for counselling at the AWARE Sexual Assault Care Centre after she had made her police report on 26 March 2021[note: 153] and sought professional help from Dr Lee after commencing this suit. The expenses incurred therefore related to the tort established in this case.

Future medical & related expenses

126 Dr Lee opined in his report of 19 May 2023 that given the anticipated prolonged revisiting of the 2016 incident through legal proceedings, it is likely that the Claimant will require ongoing psychological support. The estimated cost for one year of future psychological treatment is between $10,000 and $12,000. There is no further explanation by Dr Lee on why further treatment for one year is needed when prognosis is favourable and psychiatric treatment with medication is deemed unnecessary. There is also no explanation on what further treatment entails and why it is estimated at $10,000 to $20,000. Given my earlier finding that it is unsafe to rely on the diagnosis of adjustment disorder by Dr Lee and the lack of clarity as to whether this assessment of future treatment stems from his diagnosis that the Claimant suffers from adjustment disorder, I disallow this claim.

Pre-trial loss of earnings

127 The Claimant took a term of absence in March 2021 and eventually resigned at the end of that month. She was unemployed for 10 months from April 2021 to January 2022. Given that she did not see a psychiatrist until 24 August 2022, there was no medical evidence to support her claim that she had stopped work due to her psychiatric condition and was unable to work for those months.
128 In her letter to MINDEF dated 2 March 2021, the Claimant stated that she was “resolved to leave civil service because of how disappointed” she was in some of the civil servants around her. On the stand, the Claimant said that she tried to quit and MINDEF told her to make it a term of absence[note: 154]. The Claimant accepted that MINDEF did not ask her to leave and she was the one who wanted to leave[note: 155]. The Claimant stated that she found it difficult to continue working due to her emotional state[note: 156] but no external or psychiatric assessment of her condition at the time of resignation was tendered to the Court. While she gave evidence that she had broken down while speaking to a colonel because she was unable to continue working on a project until the following year[note: 157], there was no evidence that she was underperforming or that the incident in July 2016 had affected her promotion[note: 158]. It was therefore difficult to attribute her choice to leave MINDEF to an inability to work (for which there was no supporting psychiatric or objective evidence) which can be attributed to the Defendant’s tort.
129 The Claimant gave evidence that she had an opportunity to begin a new job in April 2021 but was unable to accept that opportunity because she felt she needed to prioritise her mental health and wellbeing[note: 159]. Again, this was not supported by any medical diagnosis or advice[note: 160]. She did not apply for any jobs between April and August 2021[note: 161] and did not detail the job applications she put in after August 2021 or provide evidence that her job applications were all rejected[note: 162]. In her LinkedIn profile, the Claimant had indicated that she was a full-time entrepreneur at Antler between May and July 2021[note: 163]. Given that special damages had to be strictly proved, the Claimant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her loss of earnings from April 2021 to January 2022 was caused by the Defendant’s act of battery.

Conclusion

130 In summary, I find that the Claimant succeeds in her claim in the tort of battery against the Defendant and is entitled to general damages assessed in the sum of $45,000 and special damages assessed in the sum of $8,697.39. Interest on the general damages is awarded at the rate of 5.33% per annum from the date of the originating claim to the date of judgment. Interest on the special damages is awarded at the rate of 2.67% per annum from the date of the incident to the date of judgment.
131 The parties are to file and exchange written submissions on the issue of costs (limited to 10 pages) within 2 weeks from the date of this judgment.

jurongkechil · 2026-03-27T22:40:02+0800

Got puck puck puck sound?

cowbellc · 2026-03-28T00:06:29+0800

Frankly she's not bad looking. Got OL slut look
fuckable

laksaboy · 2026-03-28T00:14:28+0800

axparadox said:
The guilty slut has initiated a clean up of her traces online, your hotlink picture is gone.

The archive link is here.
Original link: https://www.temasektrust.org.sg/cn/我们的使命/影响力交流站/details/inspiring-women's-inclusion--advancing-aspirations

Looks like Temasek Trust had deleted the entire page, which means it's really her. These PAP-affiliated turds certainly want their 'wholesome' reputation intact, guilt by association is not good for them. :cool:

Slut remorse case study - Kang May Teng Maria Olivia

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Kang May Teng, Maria Oliva v Chua Jun Yang [2025] SGDC 130​

Alfrescian

​

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Similar threads

Kang May Teng, Maria Oliva v Chua Jun Yang
[2025] SGDC 130