Brother granted court orders against sister who repeatedly entered his room to clean it over 8 years

SINGAPORE: Two adult siblings went to a family court to obtain court orders against each other – the brother complained that his sister had been entering his room repeatedly over eight years to clean it, while the sister alleged that her brother had assaulted her.

The court granted orders to both siblings: A personal protection order (PPO) and a partial domestic exclusion order for the brother, excluding his sister from entering his bedroom, and a personal protection order for the sister against her brother.

According to a judgment made available on Thursday (Oct 31), the unidentified brother's chief complaint was that his sister repeatedly entered his bedroom to clean it.

He felt that his privacy had been intruded on, and it caused him such stress that he was admitted to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) a few times.

In her defence, the sister explained that she merely wanted to clean the room "as her siblings did not clean their rooms".

She applied for a personal protection order against her brother over an incident when tensions erupted over the cleaning issue, and her brother assaulted her.

District Judge Tan Zhi Xiang said the court is empowered to make a protection order under the Women's Charter, with two requirements that must be met.

First, the court must be satisfied that family violence has been committed, or is likely to be committed. Family violence can mean causing hurt, wrongful confinement or causing continual harassment.

Second, the order must be necessary for the protection of the family member.

Judge Tan said the sole issue was whether the sister's acts in repeatedly entering her brother's room to clean it amounted to "continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish" to him.

"I accept that, ordinarily, a sibling cleaning another sibling's room would be harmless – and indeed a loving act – and most certainly not amount to harassment," said the judge.

However, he said each case "turns on its own facts" and what may be harmless under one set of circumstances might be highly distressing in others.

The two siblings had appeared without lawyers and were guided through the trial process and allowed to cross-examine each other.

According to the brother, his sister would enter his room sometime between 10pm or 11pm until 4am. This was corroborated by another sibling, who shared a bedroom with the brother.

This sibling testified that the sister would "choose the wrong timing to clean the room" when she did not stay in that room.

She used to enter at 9pm but changed this to 11pm, and she "may come back in the middle of the night to clean and clean until the wee hours of the night" before going back to her own residence at 3am or 6am.

The sister did not dispute that she had gone into her brother's room to clean it at night. 

When asked by the court why she felt the need to do so, the woman said: "Because I need to work, my dear."

She explained: "I need work, my own schedule. I got to go according to my own schedule, my free time. I cannot say, you want me to come at 8am, means 8am. I'm not their maid, I'm not their worker."

She said she could only clean the room at her own discretion as she had a "tight schedule".

According to their mutual sibling, this cleaning had been going on for about eight years, with the siblings being unable to sleep at night, rushing in on weekends to lock their rooms quickly to prevent the sister from entering.

Judge Tan said: "It is not difficult to imagine that having someone in one's bedroom in the wee hours of the night would be disruptive and distressing."

He accepted that the sister's conduct had caused the brother anguish, with tensions erupting one day such that he assaulted her.

"While this was unacceptable – and was the reason why I granted the PPO for the sister – it provided further support for the finding that the sister's conduct had caused the brother deep distress," said the judge.

He said the evidence clearly showed that the sister was aware that her brother did not want her in his room.

Their other sibling stated that the sister would not take "no" for an answer, trying to enter via other means if they tried to lock the door.

The judge rejected the sister's case that she had to clean the room for hygiene.

She had stated: "If the person does housework themselves, clean up their own room themselves, it's fine. But they don't even do so at all after 40 years of age. Not even one finger ... the whole window frame can be black (in) colour."

She said the unit was on the second floor with "a lot of pests" and that her siblings could "even let ... lizards go into the cupboard and stay inside there" and let cockroaches lay eggs.

She also claimed that the cupboard had "turned mouldy with yellow dots".

"So, when things (are spoilt), who is the one who (repairs them)? I am the one who (repairs) and (pays) for everything. Huh? They don't even pay a cent, they don't even ... bother. When (the) light is (spoilt), I repair (it). Everything I do," said the sister.

However, the judge said there was no evidence to show that the brother's room was in such a squalid state that it had to be cleaned frequently against his will. 

There was also no evidence of pests in his room or house. The photos tendered by the sister showed "at most a messy house", said the judge.

"In any event, both parties are adults and it was not necessary for the sister to impose her own hygiene standards on her brother," said Judge Tan.

He said he was satisfied that the sister had committed family violence against her brother, and that it was clear she had "no insight into the impact of her conduct on her brother".

When asked if she was willing to stop entering his room given his discomfort, she replied: "No, because ... this unit belongs to my dad, not him. If he's not comfortable, he can stay out. You ask him to stay out or get his own place. Because, literally, he (doesn't) upkeep his room and he'll breed all the (pests)."

Breaching a personal protection order or a domestic exclusion order is a criminal offence punishable with a fine, a jail term or both.