KUALA LUMPUR: A sibling feud ended with a brother being granted a court order barring his sister from entering his bedroom to clean it while she, too, was given a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against him to prevent potential assault.
CNA reported that the dispute premises on the brother, who was fed up with his sister who repeatedly entered his bedroom to clean it over several years at unreasonable hours, while she claimed he had assaulted her due to her acts.
The brother said he felt his privacy had been intruded, causing him to admissions to the Institute of Mental Health. He told the court that his sister would enter his room between 10pm and 11pm until 4am, saying that she would "choose the wrong timing to clean the room" when she did not even stay in the same unit.
The sister used to enter his room at 9pm but changed this to 11pm, and she "may come back in the middle of the night to clean and clean until the wee hours of the night" before going back to her own residence at 3am or 6am, it was reported.
During the trial, when asked on why she felt the need to do so, she testified it was, "Because I need to work, my dear."
She explained that she could only clean the room at her discretion as she had a "tight schedule" and she wanted to clean because her siblings would not do so.
A sibling who shared the bedroom with the brother said they could not sleep at night and rushed to lock their rooms to prevent the sister from entering on weekends.
Another sibling stated that the sister would not take "no" for an answer, trying to enter via other means if they tried to lock the door.
District Judge Tan Zhi Xiang said the sole issue was whether the sister's acts in repeatedly entering her brother's room to clean it amounted to "continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish" to him.
"I accept that, ordinarily, a sibling cleaning another sibling's room would be harmless – and indeed a loving act – and most certainly not amount to harassment."
However, he said each case "turns on its own facts" and what may be harmless under one set of circumstances might be highly distressing in others and rejected the sister's case that she had cleaned the room for hygiene.
Tan had said: "It is not difficult to imagine that having someone in one's bedroom in the wee hours of the night would be disruptive and distressing."
He accepted that the sister's conduct had caused the brother anguish, with tensions erupting one day such that he assaulted her.
"While this was unacceptable – and was the reason why I granted the PPO for the sister – it provided further support for the finding that the sister's conduct had caused the brother deep distress," said the judge.
The judge had rejected the sister's case that she had to clean the room for hygiene, despite her stating that the siblings do not lift a finger and the whole window frame could be black. She also testified that they would let lizards and cockroaches into the cupboard and cockroaches to lay eggs and the cupboard had turned mouldy.
The judge had said there was no evidence to show that the brother's room was in such a squalid state that it had to be cleaned frequently against his will.
There was also no evidence of pests in his room or the house and both parties were adults and it was not necessary for the sister to impose her hygiene standards on her brother.
Tan said he was satisfied that the sister had committed family violence against her brother, and that it was clear she had "no insight into the impact of her conduct on her brother".