SINGAPORE – Two adult brothers went to a family court to obtain court orders against each other; the brother complained that his sister had repeatedly entered his room for eight years to clean it, while the sister alleged that her brother had assaulted her.

The court granted orders to both brothers: 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 ruling made public on Thursday (Oct. 31), the unnamed brother’s main complaint was that his sister repeatedly entered his bedroom to clean it.

He felt that his privacy had been invaded and this caused him such stress that he was admitted to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) several times.

In her defense, the sister explained that she simply wanted to clean the room “since her brothers did not clean their rooms.”

She sought a personal protection order against her brother over an incident in which tensions erupted over the issue of housekeeping 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.

Firstly, the court must be satisfied that family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed. Family violence can mean causing harm, wrongful imprisonment, or causing ongoing harassment.

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

Judge Tan said the only issue was whether the sister’s acts of repeatedly entering her brother’s room to clean it amounted to “continued harassment with the intention of causing, or knowing that it was likely to cause, distress to him”.

“I accept that, ordinarily, a brother cleaning another brother’s room would be harmless – and in fact a loving act – and would certainly not amount to harassment,” the judge said.

However, he said each case “depends on its own facts” and that what may be harmless in some circumstances can be very distressing in others.

The two brothers appeared without attorneys and were guided through the trial process and allowed to cross-examine each other.

According to the brother, his sister entered his room between 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. and until 4:00 a.m. This was corroborated by another brother, who shared a bedroom with the brother.

This brother testified that the sister would “pick the wrong time to clean the room” when she did not stay in that room.

He used to come in at 9pm, but changed this to 11pm, and “can return in the middle of the night to clean and clean until the wee hours of the morning” before returning to his own residence at 3am or 6am. A.M

The sister did not deny that she had entered 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, dear.”

She explained: “I need a job, my own schedule. I have to go on my own schedule, my free time. I can’t say, if you want me to come at 8 am, it means 8 am. I’m not your maid, I’m not your worker “

He said he could only clean the room at his own discretion as he was on a “tight schedule.”

According to their common brother, this cleaning had been going on for about eight years, and the brothers could not sleep at night and on weekends they rushed to quickly lock their rooms to prevent their sister from entering.

Judge Tan said: “It is not difficult to imagine that having someone in the bedroom in the wee hours of the morning would be disturbing and distressing.”

He accepted that the sister’s behavior had caused the brother distress, reaching such tension one day that he attacked her.

“While this was unacceptable – and was the reason I granted the PPO for the sister – it provided additional support for the conclusion that the sister’s conduct had caused the brother profound distress,” the judge said.

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

Her other brother stated that the sister would not take “no” for an answer, and would try to get in by other means if they tried to close the door.

The judge rejected the sister’s argument that she had to clean the room for hygiene reasons.

She had stated: “If the person does the housework by himself, cleans his own room, it is fine. But he no longer does it even after 40 years. Not even a finger… the entire framework of the window can be black.”

He said the unit was on the second floor with “a lot of pests” and that his brothers could “even let…the lizards come into the closet and stay in there” and let the cockroaches lay eggs.

He also claimed that the closet had become “mouldy with yellow spots.”

“So when things (break down), who’s the one that (repairs) them? I’m the one that (repairs) and (pays) for everything. Huh? They don’t pay a cent, they don’t pay.” even… annoying. When (the) light is (broken), I repair it everything I do,” the sister said.

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

There was also no evidence of pests in his room or house. The photographs presented by the sister showed “at best a messy house,” the judge said.

“In any case, both parties are adults and there was no need for the sister to impose her own hygiene standards on her brother,” Justice Tan said.

He said he was satisfied the sister had committed family violence against her brother and it was clear she had “no idea of ​​the impact of her conduct on her brother”.

When asked if she was willing to stop coming into his room given his discomfort, she responded, “No, because… this unit belongs to my dad, not him. If he’s not comfortable, he can stay outside. Ask him to stay.” go out or get his own place because he literally (doesn’t) keep his room and will breed all the (pests).”

Failure to comply with a personal protection order or domestic exclusion order is an offense punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both.