SINGAPORE – A paedophile was back at it again when he stroked two boys on the thigh on separate occasions earlier this year, just over a year after he had been released from prison for a similar offence.

On Thursday (Dec 26), Seyad Sulaiman Maideen Pillai, 53, was sentenced in the State Courts to seven years’ preventive detention, which was backdated to June 15.

Prevention detention is a separate regime from regular sentencing, and applies to recalcitrant offenders. The sentence can range from seven to 20 years, and offenders must serve the full sentence in prison with no reduction for good behaviour.

Last month, Seyad pleaded guilty to two counts of outrage of modesty, with one other count of a similar nature taken into consideration for the sentencing.

The names and ages of his victims cannot be revealed due to a gag order by the court to protect their identities.

WHAT HAPPENED

According to court documents, Seyad was aboard bus service 105 around late May when one of the victims boarded the bus alone at around 7.30am.

The former cleaner beckoned for the boy, who was heading to school, to sit next to him by patting the empty seat beside him.

When the boy sat next to him, Seyad gave him S$2, which the boy accepted, as “he did not want to appear rude”.

Seyad then proceeded to rub the boy’s thigh and placed his arms around the victim’s shoulders.

The documents stated that the boy did not push Seyad away as he was scared, but he managed to alight the bus about five minutes later when it reached his bus stop.

Before the boy alighted, Seyad mimicked a kiss at the boy.

It was not stated where Seyad and his victim were seated in the bus, or if there were any other passengers who noticed what was happening.

Seyad found his second victim on June 11 at around the same time in the morning on the same bus service.

While Seyad’s second victim was not alone — he boarded with his younger sister — he chose to sit separately from her. The boy sat at the second last row of the bus, while his sister sat at the front.

Seyad, who was sitting in the last row, called out to the boy. The boy went over, thinking that he needed help. 

The older man then proceeded to ask the boy: “Where is my friend?” — a reference to the first victim. The boy replied that he did not know what Seyad was talking about.

He then asked the boy: “Do you love me?” The boy replied no.

Seyad then proceeded to stroke the boy’s thigh, which forced the victim to push his hands away. As the boy stood up to leave, Seyad started touching his lower back and shoulders.

The second victim’s mother filed a police report later that day, and he was accompanied by his father to school, for his safety, on subsequent mornings.

On June 14, the second victim and his father spotted Seyad on bus service 105. The victim’s father called the police, and they kept an eye on Seyad until he disembarked at Far East Plaza where they lost sight of him.

The police were able to track down and arrest Seyad.

‘GIVEN PLENTY OF CHANCES TO REFORM’

On Thursday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Dwayne Lum told the court that according to Seyad’s preventive detention report, he is at a “high risk of criminal reoffending”.

Previous media reports on this case stated that Seyad’s previous offences dated back to 1986.

In July 1986, he was reportedly fined S$500 for molesting a 10-year-old girl, while in August 1995, he was jailed six months and caned three strokes for molesting a 10-year-old boy.

In 1999, Seyad was sentenced to five years' corrective training and six strokes of the cane, while in 2012, he underwent corrective training for six years.

The last two offences were for also for sexual crimes against minors.

Despite being incarcerated previously, Mr Lum said that Seyad’s mild intellectual disability meant that he was unable to apply what he learnt in jail when he was released.

“Protection of the public is paramount in this case,” said Mr Lum. “He was given plenty of opportunities to reform and learn, but he has persisted in reoffending.”

Seyad’s defence counsel Diana Ngiam did not dispute what Mr Lum said.

“It is clear the accused, on his own, is unable to articulate or formulate solutions to the problems he has,” said Ms Ngiam.

She suggested that what would be required for her client is supervision, and knowing what help is available for him after his release from prison.

“Let's see what we can do to help this accused person post release,” said Ms Ngiam. “Spending more time in prison is, in my humble submission, not going to help the accused much.”