SINGAPORE: A 39-year-old man went on trial on Wednesday (Jan 22) for showing his daughter his private parts, asking if she wanted to touch them, and letting her do so.
This allegedly happened in 2016, when the girl was five to six years old. She is the man’s eldest child.
The father of three is contesting the charge of sexual exploitation of a child.
He does not deny that the act happened. His defence is that his wife asked him to do this, and that he did it to teach their daughter about the differences between male and female body parts.
The identities of the girl and her parents are protected by a gag order.
Now 14, the girl chose not to testify against her father. This was because she wanted to lighten any consequences he may face, the investigation officer told the court.
The man also faces two charges that have been stood down during the trial. The identity of the victim in each charge is redacted.
He is accused of criminal intimidation by placing a knife to a person’s arm in October 2023 and saying: “You believe I will use a knife to kill you? I will show you now.”
In April 2024, he allegedly hit a 12-year-old girl’s arm and leg and slapped her face, causing redness.
The man was initially arrested and investigated for these allegations, before his eldest daughter reported the alleged sexual offence.
According to facts agreed upon by the prosecution and defence, the daughter had previously expressed curiosity about why boys stand to urinate, while girls must sit.
The man also believed that his daughter had looked at him urinating before.
Sometime in 2016, the man noticed her looking in his direction and asked her if she was still curious.
When she nodded her head, the man exposed himself to her. He then asked if she wanted to touch his private parts. She nodded, and then did so.
The man testified that the girl was cared for by her grandparents in her early years, and came to Singapore for her education when she was five or six.
In 2016, the year of the alleged offence, she had just returned to her parents’ care.
The man said that before the incident, he and his wife had discussed their daughter’s curiosity about the differences between male and female body parts.
He said that when his daughter previously asked him about this, he was “very shy”.
“But on that occasion, I showed it to her because as a parent, as a father, I wanted to teach her something. I did not have any other intention,” he told the court through a Mandarin interpreter.
He said that after the act, he told her “not to allow any male person to touch her private parts, and she should not touch other people’s private parts as well”.
The man cried as he said: “I have a good intention to teach her. I felt that at that moment, what I did was correct as a father.”
He also said he was worried that if he did not resolve “her curiosity since young”, she might fall into bad company when she grew up.
The man testified that he and his wife had a “plan” to educate their daughter, and that his wife had asked him to show his private parts to the girl.
His wife corroborated this in court, saying that their daughter seemed to “really want to know” what the real body part looked like, and had asked to bathe with her father before.
She said that she only made the request of her husband after their daughter had asked about male and female body parts many times.
This made the mother feel worried and like she had “no choice” but to teach the girl by showing her the real body part.
“I could not think of any better method,” said the woman.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Yohanes Ng disputed that the woman had really asked her husband to show their daughter his private parts.
Mr Ng said that the man left out this important information in his statement to the police.
He suggested to the man’s wife that she was lying to protect her husband and because she felt guilty. The woman disagreed strongly with this.
Both parents also said they were aware that formal sex education exists.
The man said he received sex education lessons in secondary school, while the mother said she never received such lessons in school or from her parents.
The defence lawyer also questioned the investigation officer about the girl’s reasons for not testifying against her father.
The officer told the court that the girl said she did not want her family to be broken, and was sad to see her younger sibling, who loves their father, go through this experience.
Under questioning, the officer agreed that in the girl’s statement on this, she had said that she initially wanted to testify because she was angry with her father at the time.
The officer also agreed that the girl had said she initially wanted to testify because she noticed that her mother was fed up with her father too, and she wanted to teach her father a lesson.
The offence of procuring an indecent act from a child carries a jail term of up to five years, a fine of up to S$10,000 or both.
