Indian-origin couple jailed for abusing maid, obstructing justice in Singapore
Singapore(PTI): An Indian-origin couple was on Friday jailed by a Singapore court for repeat offences relating to the hiring of a maid despite being blacklisted by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and obstructing justice, local media reported.
Syed Mohamed Peeran Syed Ameer Hamza, who circumvented the MOM blacklist by using his business associate's identity to hire an Indonesian domestic worker, was jailed 36 weeks or about eight months.
The 41-year-old Singaporean pleaded guilty midway through a trial to one charge each of obstructing justice and instigating his associate to give false information to secure a work pass.
His spouse Sabah Parveen, a 37-year-old permanent resident from India, was jailed for three days after similarly pleading guilty to obstruction of justice.
The couple's Indonesian maid, Aminah, reported that she was mistreated by the couple.
Another charge of failing to pay all of Aminah's salary was taken into consideration for sentencing, according to a report by TODAY newspaper.
District Judge Jennifer Marie granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal for a charge that the couple each faced, failing to ensure Aminah was given adequate rest every day.
This means that they can be prosecuted for these offences in the future, for example, if new evidence emerges.
The couple cried in the dock as their sentences were readout. Sabah began serving her sentence immediately, while Syed will do so on January 7 in order to take care of their two young children and settle some work matters, said the TODAY report.
The court heard that in 2014, Sabah was charged with three counts of voluntarily causing hurt against their domestic worker at the time.
However, the charges were compounded when she paid SGD5,000 in compensation, which included a flight ticket, to the worker then.
In May 2015, Syed learned that he and his household had been placed on a blacklist for hiring foreign domestic workers until June 30, 2019.
He then wrote to MOM in a bid to lift the ban, but this was rejected. In early 2018, he recruited Aminah. She was in Indonesia at the time.
Then, in July that year, he circumvented the ban by persuading his associate to apply for in-principle approval for Aminah to be employed as a domestic worker in Singapore. This was the first step in the work pass application.
Syed got Suresh Murugaiyan, an Indian origin associate in Singapore, to falsely indicate to MOM to be Aminah's employer.
MOM's Work Pass System automatically approved Suresh's application. If Syed or his household members had used the system, it would have automatically prevented their application from going through, the court heard.
Aminah arrived in Singapore on July 17, 2018, and began working for Syed and Sabah.
Shortly afterwards, Syed convinced Suresh to submit formal work permit declaration forms, which again stated that Suresh was Aminah's employer.
The work permit application was approved on August 14, 2018.
In January 2019, the family made preparations to move to Hong Kong. Aminah thought she would be taken there as well, though she did not wish to go.
She relayed her situation to another domestic worker living in the same condominium complex in the Balestier housing estate. The other woman gave her the number for the Centre for Domestic Employees, which then informed MOM.
When the ministry called Aminah and asked her to give her employer's information, she said that she was afraid. A MOM investigation officer then referred the case to the police.
On January 24, 2019, police officers visited Syed's home twice in rapid succession. Syed answered the door both times, insisting that he had not employed a domestic worker and that it was just him and his family living there.
Sabah witnessed this and realised her husband could be under investigation.
Syed then asked Aminah to hide in a bathroom, before confronting her and asking why she had called the police and (given them a) big problem . He bought a flight ticket for her to return to Jakarta, Indonesia, that same night using Sabah's credit card.
Aminah was given some time to pack and was paid SGD1,000 of her overdue salary. She had been paid for the first three months of work and not paid for at least two more months.
The couple then asked two neighbours, who did not know what was happening, to help Syed take Aminah's luggage down. He accompanied Aminah to the airport where she left for Jakarta.
Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Chong Kee En told the court that after some quick investigative work , the police and MOM realised that Suresh was not Aminah's employer.
Syed denied employing or knowing her, refusing to surrender his and spouse passports and saying that he would not leave Singapore.
However, he bought flight tickets soon after his interview with the police, attempting to leave on the same day before being stopped at the airport. Before Syed tried to leave, the police had placed the couple on a stop-list, which alerts the authorities to stop certain individuals from leaving Singapore.
Aminah returned to Singapore in July 2019 and more details came to light then, said DPP Chong.
He sought nine months' jail for Syed and a custodial term for Sabah, pointing out that Aminah had worked for the family for six months despite the blacklist being in effect.
Syed's lawyer, Rachel Soh, said in mitigation that he had hired Aminah out of concern for his family. He was working as a consultant in Hong Kong at the time and wanted to support them in his absence, Soh added.
Representing Sabah, lawyer Jeremy Pereira told the court that Sabah did not know what her husband had done until police officers showed up at their door.
This put her in an unenviable situation of having to report him to the police or keep silent. He could also have blamed her for his arrest, Pereira said.
Those convicted of obstruction of justice in Singapore can be jailed for up to seven years or fined, or both.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Govt comes out with set of FAQs on women's reservation bill
New Delhi (PTI): The government on Sunday came out with a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to the reservation for women in legislatures following the defeat of a Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha that seeks to provide 33 per cent quota for women in the Lower House and state assemblies.
The FAQs came amid the Opposition's claim that in the name of women quota, the government was trying to carry out delimitation on its own will based on 2011 census.
Here are the FAQs:-
1. Which Bills were introduced by the central government in the Lok Sabha on April 16, 2026?
A:- On April 16, the central government introduced three key Bills in the Lok Sabha: The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026, The Delimitation Bill, 2026 and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
2. Why were these three Bills brought at this point in time?
A:- The 'Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam', commonly known as the Women Reservation Act, provides that reservation for women will be implemented based on delimitation after the Census conducted post-2026.
If the government had waited for the Census and subsequent delimitation, women would not have been able to benefit from 33 per cent reservation even in the 2029 general elections as the Census and subsequent delimitation period takes time.
Therefore, to ensure timely benefits to half the population, it was considered necessary to delink implementation of the Act from this condition.
3. What would have been the benefits if these Bills had been passed?
A:- If passed and approved, these Bills would have enabled women to receive 33 per cent reservation in the Lok Sabha as early as the 2029 general elections.
4. Why was delimitation linked with the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, and why was there a proposal to increase seats?
A:- Delimitation means finalising the boundary of a constituency. It is essential for implementing women's reservation. The limit on seats in the Lok Sabha was set at 550 in 1976. In 1971, the population of India was 54 crore. Today it is 140 crore. Therefore, it is important to increase seats to 850 in the Lok Sabha. This would enable fair representation of people in Parliament.
5. Was there any attempt to modify the Delimitation Commission Act for political advantage? Would ongoing state elections be affected?
A:- No changes were proposed to the Delimitation Commission Act. The existing legal framework remains intact, and any recommendations of the commission would require parliamentary approval and Presidential assent.
Ongoing elections, including those in states like Tamil Nadu or West Bengal, would not be affected, as elections up to 2029 will be conducted under the current system.
6. What was the rationale behind increasing Lok Sabha seats to 850?
A:- The proposal was based on a proportional expansion approach. A uniform 50 per cent increase in seats would maintain the proportion for all states and UTs. Applying this principle to the current 543 seats would lead to approximately 815 seats. Therefore, the upper limit on seats was increased from current cap of 550 seats in Lok Sabha to 850 seats.
7. Would southern or smaller states have been adversely affected by the new delimitation proposal?
A:- No. All states would see uniform 50 per cent increase in seats. Southern states would not face any reduction in representation; rather, their overall share would remain stable. For example, Tamil Nadu's seats would increase proportionally, ensuring no disadvantage. The southern states currently have 23.76 per cent seats in Lok Sabha. This would have become 23.87 per cent after the passage of the Bills.
Lok Sabha seats in Karnataka would have increased to 42 from present 28; in Andhra Pradesh, the seats would have been 38 from the present 25; in Telangana, the total seats would have been 26 from the present 17; in Tamil Nadu, it would have been 59 seats from the present 39 and in Keralam, it would have been 30 from the present 20 seats.
Total seats in the five southern states would have been increased to 195 from the present 129.
This is 543 seats to 816 seats - 50 per cent increase model.
8. Would states that have controlled population growth face any disadvantage?
A:- No, as the increase in seats was proposed uniformly across states, their proportional representation would remain unchanged or slightly improve.
9. Would the representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be affected?
A:- No, the process of delimitation ensures proportional reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. With an expanded House, the number of reserved seats would increase significantly, thereby strengthening their representation.
10. Was this Constitutional Amendment Bill introduced to delay caste census?
A:- No, the government has already started a time-bound programme for caste census. The process includes detailed enumeration, and caste-related data will be recorded during the population count phase.
11. Why was there no separate quota for Muslim women within the reservation framework?
A:- The Constitution of India does not provide for reservation based on religion. Reservation policies are based on social and economic backwardness, as laid out in the Constitution.
12. Why was women's reservation not implemented in the 2024 general elections itself?
A:- Implementing reservation requires delimitation of seats. Delimitation is an extensive consultative process. It takes about two years to complete delimitation. Therefore, these Bills (including Delimitation Bill) were brought in Parliament for implementing women's reservation.
13. Why was the Women's Reservation Bill introduced in 2023 if it was not to be implemented immediately?
A:- The Bill was introduced and passed in 2023 to establish the legal and constitutional framework for women's reservation. Its unanimous passage reflected broad political support at the time, enabling the enactment of the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam.
14. Why was a separate Union Territories Bill required?
A:- Legislative Assemblies in Union Territories such as Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Puducherry are governed by separate legal provisions. Therefore, specific amendments were required to implement women's reservation in these regions, necessitating a separate Bill.
