Elderly man accused of being a noisy neighbour on trial for breaching couple’s protection order

Mr Chan said Heng harassed him and his wife throughout 2025, especially in the middle part of the year.

“So in August, we actually got our lawyers to issue a cease-and-desist letter to Mr Heng, then subsequently because the harassment did not stop, it continued, so we sought an expedited protection order against Mr Heng in December for our own safety,” said Mr Chan.

The prosecution showed a video dated Jan 19, this year depicting Heng sitting outside his unit with some items as a man approached him and showed him some paper.

Mr Chan said this was the process server showing Heng the order, in a video clip obtained from a camera outside his flat.

At about 5.35pm on Feb 5 this year, Mr Chan called the police to tell them that Heng was singing and striking metal objects outside his flat, in breach of the order.

He said he was returning home from work when Heng saw him and began banging some cans very loudly and singing very loudly.

The loud noises and singing continued when Mr Chan went into his flat, he said.

“It made me feel extremely uncomfortable and unsafe, because we don’t know whether or not Mr Heng will act out against us,” said Mr Chan.

The prosecution played several other video clips where loud metal noises and banging or the sound of Heng singing or chanting could be heard. He was usually seated outside his flat in the videos.

Asked what impact Heng’s actions had on him, Mr Chan said: “Because we feel very unsafe within our own home, and we don’t know when Mr Heng will act up against us, we are actually planning, or have decided, to uproot our lives from our matrimonial home and move back to live with my parents for safety’s sake.”

WE NEVER COMMUNICATED NOR QUARRELLED: HENG

Heng was unrepresented. He cross-examined Mr Chan through a Mandarin interpreter, asking where in the videos could it be seen that he had harassed Mr Chan.

Mr Chan said it was in the loud banging noises, the chanting and the singing.

“In the day time, do I not have the liberty to sing or do my own things?” asked Heng.

Mr Chan said his liberty should not come at the expense of others.

Heng then asked what basis Mr Chan had to apply for the protection order, since they had never communicated nor quarrelled since Mr Chan and his wife moved in.

Mr Chan pointed to the alleged “sustained harassment” against him and his wife, even though this did not take the form of direct confrontation. They had evidence of Heng’s “persistent harassment”, including pouring “things” outside their flat, leaving litter outside the flat and striking a metal pole outside their flat.

“There are instances when we are at home, and (he was) making us feel afraid to be in the vicinity of Mr Heng, and despite a legal letter to him … the harassment continued, and hence we had to seek a protection order for our own safety,” said Mr Chan.

Heng then asked if there was “any real situation” where Mr Chan felt harassed.

When the judge said he needed to be specific, Heng said he could not remember which day or month it happened as it was Mr Chan who felt that way.

On Feb 5, Heng said he was cleaning his cans as usual and clearing his things and was not harassing Mr Chan.

He added that he had gone for mediation with Mr Chan on Mar 27 this year, and the matter was resolved and the protection order withdrawn.

The prosecutors said they will rely on CCTV footage, a letter containing signed proof of service of the protection order and other testimonies to prove the charge.

The trial continues.

If convicted of breaching the expedited protection order, Heng can be jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$5,000, or both.