He lured her away from the group into the bushes and raped her.
In Singapore's Little India district, a Malaysian man exploited the vulnerability of a foreign domestic worker — her unfamiliarity with local authority, her distance from home — to commit an act of calculated predation. A court has now sentenced Sharveen Chetty to 12 years imprisonment and 12 cane strokes, affirming that the impersonation of power in service of violence is not impulse but design. The law has spoken its portion; the rest belongs to a silence the record cannot hold.
- A man posed as a police officer to isolate a foreign domestic worker from her companions outside a Singapore train station, then raped her in nearby bushes — a crime the judge determined was deliberate, not spontaneous.
- The defense's claim of unpremeditated attraction collapsed under the weight of the evidence: a false identity, a calculated separation, a weaponized authority — none of it the language of impulse.
- Two additional charges, including a second rape count, loomed over sentencing even as Chetty was only tried on one, casting a wider shadow over the court's deliberations.
- His guilty plea, entered abruptly before the victim was called to testify, spared her the ordeal of cross-examination — a small mercy inside a larger wound.
- The court sentenced Chetty to 12 years and 12 cane strokes, landing within the prosecution's recommended range and placing a legal marker on a crime whose human cost extends well beyond the transcript.
On the evening of July 11, 2022, outside a subway station in Singapore's Little India, Sharveen Chetty approached a 35-year-old Indonesian domestic worker standing with friends and told her he was a police officer. She believed him. He led her away from the group and raped her.
Nearly four years later, a Singapore court sentenced the 48-year-old Malaysian man to 12 years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane. He had pleaded guilty on February 4 to one count of rape — a plea entered abruptly, before the victim or key witnesses were called to testify, sparing her the further ordeal of cross-examination.
Justice Dedar Singh Gill found the crime to be one of deliberate calculation, not spontaneity. The defense had argued the assault arose from sudden attraction. The judge rejected this. The false claim of authority, the careful separation of the victim from her companions, the targeting of someone foreign and unfamiliar with local police — these were the marks of predation, not impulse. Two additional charges, including a second rape count and an impersonation charge, were considered during sentencing though not tried.
The prosecution had sought between 11 and 13 years with 12 cane strokes, citing the extent to which Chetty had concealed his identity and engineered the victim's isolation. The sentence fell within that range. What the sentence cannot reach is the longer aftermath — the kind that belongs to a woman far from home, in a country not her own, who encountered a man who turned her foreignness into a weapon against her.
In the early evening of July 11, 2022, outside a subway station in Singapore's Little India district, a 48-year-old Malaysian man named Sharveen Chetty approached a 35-year-old Indonesian domestic worker who was standing with friends near the exit. He told her he was a police officer. She believed him. He lured her away from the group into the bushes adjacent to the station and raped her.
On Wednesday, a Singapore court sentenced Chetty to 12 years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane. He had pleaded guilty on February 4 to one count of rape, after initially contesting the charges when his trial began two days earlier. The abruptness of his guilty plea—coming before the victim and key witnesses were called to testify—meant she was spared the ordeal of cross-examination in court.
Two additional charges hung over the sentencing: a second rape count and a charge of impersonating a police officer. The judge, Justice Dedar Singh Gill, considered both when determining the sentence, though Chetty was not tried on those counts. Medical evidence came from a doctor at Women's and Children's Hospital who examined the victim the day after the assault. Forensic scientists from the Health Sciences Authority also testified during the trial's opening day.
What made the crime particularly grave, in the judge's view, was not merely its violence but its calculation. Chetty had deliberately targeted someone he knew was foreign, someone unlikely to be familiar with Singapore's police or authorities, someone isolated from her companions. The defense had argued the assault was not premeditated—that it arose spontaneously from attraction. The judge rejected this. The impersonation of a police officer, the deliberate separation from witnesses, the false claim of authority—these were not the marks of impulse. They were predatory.
The prosecution had recommended a sentence between 11 and 13 years in prison with 12 cane strokes, emphasizing the extent of Chetty's efforts to disguise his identity and the calculated nature of drawing the victim away from her friends. The court's sentence fell within that range. Chetty himself acknowledged in court that he had become sexually attracted to the woman—a statement that sits uneasily in the record, a fragment of his own perception offered as though it explained something about what he had done.
The guilty plea, while sparing the victim further trauma, did not spare her the fact of what happened. An Indonesian domestic worker, far from home, working in a country not her own, encountered a man who weaponized her foreignness against her. The court's sentence is now in place. What remains is the longer, quieter aftermath—the kind that does not appear in court transcripts or sentencing documents.
Notable Quotes
The judge found it aggravating that Chetty targeted the victim because she was a foreigner who might be unfamiliar with local authorities.— Justice Dedar Singh Gill
Chetty admitted he became sexually attracted to the victim.— Court record
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did he change his plea so suddenly, on the second day of trial?
We don't know his reasoning. But the timing matters—it meant the victim didn't have to sit through cross-examination, didn't have to be questioned about what happened to her in those bushes.
The judge seemed to focus heavily on the fact that she was foreign. Why did that aggravate the crime in his eyes?
Because it made her more vulnerable. She wouldn't know if he really was police. She wouldn't know her rights or how to report him. He chose someone he thought would be easier to control, easier to silence.
He told the court he was attracted to her. Does that matter legally?
Not in the way he might have hoped. Attraction doesn't excuse anything. The judge saw it differently—as evidence of predation, not passion. He saw what he wanted and took it.
The second rape charge was considered but not tried. What does that mean?
It means there was another victim, or another incident. The court factored it into sentencing without requiring a separate trial. It darkened the picture of who he was.
Twelve years and caning—is that severe by Singapore standards?
It's substantial. The prosecution asked for 11 to 13 years. The court gave him the middle ground. In Singapore, caning is physical punishment. Twelve strokes is serious. But for what he did, many would say it's proportional.