SINGAPORE, April 20 — A family court in Singapore has set out how emotional and psychological abuse should be understood under newly expanded domestic violence laws, granting a personal protection order (PPO) to a woman who left her matrimonial home with her infant son after a series of escalating incidents with her husband.
The ruling, among the first under amendments to the Women’s Charter that came into force in January 2025, shifts the legal focus firmly towards the harm suffered rather than the perpetrator’s intent, marking a significant recalibration in how family violence is assessed.
In a written judgment, cited by Singapore-based media organisation CNA, Magistrate Allen Chong framed the issue starkly: “How should the law respond to conduct of this kind? The kind of conduct which leaves no bruises, that a man on the street might not recognise as family violence, but that a person living within it may experience as a slow intrusion into her sense of safety.”
The case centred on a woman who married in July 2024 and moved into her husband’s family home before giving birth in April 2025. She left the home in September that year with her five-month-old baby after what the court described as a “slow accumulation of smaller” incidents.
Among them were arguments that escalated into shouting, the snatching and throwing of her phone, and an incident in which the man admitted using his foot to push her away while she was holding their child.
The magistrate placed weight on a message sent by the husband afterwards apologising “for kicking you and making you feel unsafe and in danger”, describing it as “the words of a man who knew he had crossed a line”.
While the husband argued that his actions were defensive or part of ordinary marital disagreements, the court rejected this, finding that both the woman’s reaction and the objective circumstances pointed to intimidation and distress. It also ruled that he could not rely on self-defence.
Crucially, the judgment clarified that emotional or psychological abuse under the revised law is “harm-focused, not intention-focused”.
CNA reported Magistrate Chong as saying that proof of a perpetrator’s subjective intent to cause distress is not required.
“The question is what the conduct did to the complainant or would objectively do to someone in their position,” he said.
The expanded legal definition now explicitly includes behaviour that “torments, intimidates, harasses or distresses” a person, or could reasonably be expected to cause mental harm — even if it takes the form of a single incident or conduct not directly targeted at the victim but still perceived by them.
Applying this framework, the court found that the incidents formed a pattern of increasing aggression within the first year of marriage, culminating in physical contact while the woman was holding their child.
The magistrate said the husband’s failure to acknowledge the seriousness of his conduct was a key concern, describing it as a risk factor for future violence.
A PPO was granted to restrain the man from committing further family violence, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.
The husband has appealed the decision to the High Court.
* If you are experiencing domestic violence, the following hotlines offer free and confidential support: Talian Kasih at 15999 or WhatsApp 019-2615999 (24/7); All Women’s Action Society at 016-2374221 / 016-2284221 (9.30am-5.30pm); and Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) at 03-30008858 or SMS/WhatsApp TINA 018-9888058 (24/7).
