SINGAPORE: Thinking that a six-year-old boy had kicked his son in the private parts, a private-hire driver went to his son’s enrichment centre and punched the boy in the face.
The boy fell backwards, and did not hit his head on the floor only because his grandmother was holding his hand.
Mak Wai Onn, a 53-year-old Singaporean, was sentenced to five weeks’ jail on Thursday (Jul 18).
He pleaded guilty afresh to one count of voluntarily causing hurt to a minor, due to a technical error over how the charge was classified.
In sentencing him, Principal District Judge Jill Tan told the unrepresented father of three that his actions were entirely disproportionate.
“First, you asked the victim if he had kicked your son, but before the victim could respond, you punched him,” said the judge.
“You … did not even wait to find out if you were confronting the right person,” she said.
“Second, even if the victim had kicked your son in the groin, what you should have done was to find out what happened between the boys to determine who was in the wrong before acting further,” said the judge.
She added that even if the victim had been wrong in kicking Mak’s son in the groin, the appropriate action would have been to inform his parents of his misbehaviour and leave it to them.
“It was not for you to discipline the boy,” said Judge Tan.
WHAT HAPPENED
The court heard that Mak and his wife had gone down to their six-year-old son’s enrichment centre on the night of Oct 18 last year to pick him up from a class.
When his wife returned to Mak’s car with their son, she said the teacher had told her that their son had been kicked.
Mak began to drive off, but his son told him that his private parts were in pain.
Mak then stopped his car, checked and claimed to have seen redness over his son’s groin.
He drove back to the school, which cannot be named as it is covered by a gag order protecting the victim.
Mak’s wife went to check with the teacher but said both the teacher and the boy involved were unable to say what exactly happened.
Mak then decided to clarify the matter himself.
When he got to the enrichment centre, the victim’s grandmother had arrived to pick him up.
Mak confronted the boy without ascertaining if he was the culprit and asked if he had kicked his son.
Before anyone could react and before the boy could answer, Mak punched the boy in the face.
The impact of the blow sent the boy swinging backwards as he held on to his grandmother’s hand and he landed on his buttocks.
A witness called the police and the victim went to see a doctor, but no obvious signs of significant injury were seen on him and he was assessed to be well.
He was referred to a child psychiatrist and orthopaedic surgeon for further evaluation.
Mak made full restitution of S$440.65 (US$328.70) for the victim’s medical treatment.
I LOST CONTROL: MAK
In mitigation, he said: “I stated in my police statement that I wish to apologise to the (boy’s) parents. I really didn’t want this. It happened.”
He said he knew he did punch the child, and that he was a “fully grown man” but claimed he “calibrated (his) energies” when punching the boy.
“My intention is not to knock him out or injure him. I just lost control of my temper,” said Mak.
“I watched my son grow up and he has small fights with other children of his age. Children get into fights. Usually it’s mild, hand, legs or body. I won’t get exceptionally angry. At that time, I was thinking, why out of all the (places) in the body you choose the super vulnerable part,” said Mak.
He said he got angry, and was worried that his son would get kicked again if he continued taking lessons at the school.
“As the video shows, my anger got the better of me. I immediately regretted. I told the police I would be pleading guilty,” said Mak.
He said he did not get a chance to apologise as the police arrived and separated him from the boy and his parents.
He asked for “the lightest sentence”, saying he had three children, one aged 10, one aged seven and the third a newborn, and that his wife would have to take care of them if he went to jail.
“That will be difficult, but that’s the court’s decision,” he said.
The prosecutor sought six to nine weeks’ jail. Mak has convictions from 1996 and 2002 for criminal trespass, insulting the modesty of a woman and traffic offences.
Judge Tan said this was an “unprovoked attack”, with the blow hard enough to cause the boy to swing or snap backwards.
However, she noted that Mak had paid for the boy’s medical expenses and accepted that he truly regrets his actions and is remorseful.
For voluntarily causing hurt to a minor, he could have been jailed for up to six years, fined up to S$10,000, or both.