SINGAPORE — Unable to tolerate her employers’ repeated assaults any longer, a foreign domestic worker climbed out of the living room window of a fourth-storey Sengkang flat and sat on a ledge. 

Ms Amandeep Kaur, then aged 27, was eventually rescued by a foreign worker who was involved in painting the surrounding blocks of flats.

Her employers —  Mohammad Tasleem, 41, and Farha Tehseen, 39 — who claimed trial to multiple counts of abuse against Ms Kaur were found guilty of all charges on Tuesday (June 9).

Farha, a Singapore permanent resident, was convicted of 10 charges. 

She was guilty of using a pair of heated tongs to hit Ms Kaur’s arm, striking her with a rolling pin and broomstick, and punching her face, among other abuses. These left her with bruises on her face and upper and lower limbs.

Tasleem, who is also a permanent resident, was convicted of punching Ms Kaur once in her eye and kicking her twice at her waist area.

District Judge Shaifuddin Saruwan told the court that the domestic worker was a credible witness and gave evidence that was “internally and externally consistent”.

While there were a number of inconsistencies in her testimony, this did not affect her overall credibility and the prosecution had established all the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge added.

The couple, represented by lawyer Peter Keith Fernando, will return to court on Aug 21 for sentencing.

For each charge of causing hurt, the couple could be jailed up to two years, fined up to S$5,000, or both. Farha could be jailed up to two years, fined, or get both penalties for criminal intimidation.

Those convicted of crimes against their dometic helpers can receive one-and-a-half times the usual punishment.

WHAT THE COUPLE DID

Ms Kaur tried to escape just two months after she began working for the couple on Nov 9, 2016. 

She testified during the trial that the couple were frustrated and angry with her as they thought that she performed poorly at work and had a bad attitude.

She said that Farha treated her badly from the start and when she asked why she was being punished, Farha replied: “I’m the one who called for you to come here. I can do whatever I wish onto you.”

Ms Kaur’s relationship with Tasleem was “initially good” but turned sour later, she testified. Then, Farha accused her of having an affair with Tasleem.

On her first day of employment, Farha slapped her while she was making chapatis (flat bread) and then punched her later that day.

On two other occasions that month, Farha also struck Ms Kaur with a pair of heated tongs when the helper was making chapatis.

On New Year’s Eve in 2016, Farha physically abused Ms Kaur by kicking her back, grabbing her hair and punching her nose. 

She also took a toy stick to hit Ms Kaur’s calves several times. Tasleem did not try to stop his wife. 

Farha then told Ms Kaur to complete her chores within five minutes and threatened to throw her out the window if she failed to do so. 

She told Ms Kaur that if anyone asked, she would tell them that Ms Kaur’s “mental state of mind was not good” and she had jumped. 

The couple then left the flat with their two children.

Ms Kaur then tried to escape through a window that day “in a moment of utter terror and desperation”, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Houston Johannus said.

A couple spotted her crying while perched on the window ledge and with the help of workers doing paint work nearby, they rescued Ms Kaur using a gondola lift. 

In their defence during the trial, Farha claimed among other things that the Ms Kaur smelled like cow dung, banged one of their two young sons’ heads against a wall, and threatened to frame Farha if they sent her back to her home country of India.

The couple also brought in Ms Kaur’s former employer as a witness, which DPP Johannus said was an attempt to show the helper’s incompetence.

The prosecutor added that they had wanted to cast Ms Kaur in a negative light to show that they wanted to repatriate her but she did not wish to return home and therefore cooked up a plan to falsely implicate them of abuse.

This argument was “wholly misconceived and dishonest”, DPP Johannus said.