SINGAPORE - A 67-year-old man outraged the modesty of his son's domestic helper in February last year by touching her stomach and kissing her.

He struck again later that month, when the 25-year-old was feeding his granddaughter.

The man was jailed for four months on Monday (June 22), after pleading guilty to two charges of outrage of modesty.

Two other similar charges were taken into consideration by District Judge Wong Li Tein during sentencing.

A gag order, which prohibits the publication of any information that might lead to the maid being identified, is in place to protect her identity.

At the time of the offences, the victim was employed by the man's son to clean the elderly man's home and care for his newborn granddaughter. Court documents did not state the address of the offender's home.

On Feb 7, 2019, at about 7am, the man approached the maid while she was washing milk bottles in the kitchen.

He put his right hand on her shoulder and his left hand on her stomach, startling her.

He then hugged her and kissed her on the lips, before telling her that he liked and loved her.

She did not reciprocate and pushed him away, after which he left the kitchen.

The man struck again in the afternoon of Feb 15, when he returned home from work.

He entered the woman's room while she was feeding his granddaughter milk and kissed her.

Court documents state that she did not react, as she was holding the baby.

The next day, the woman told a friend about the incidents and subsequently reported them to her maid agency.

A police report was lodged later that month.

For each count of outraging the modesty of a domestic worker, the man could have been jailed for four years and fined. He cannot be caned, as he is above 50 years old.

Under the law, a person convicted of offences against a domestic worker may be sentenced to twice the maximum punishment for the offences if he or she is her employer, or a household member of her employer, or her employment agent.

However, this does not apply if the offender can prove that his or her relationship with the domestic worker did not negatively affect her ability to protect herself from the offender.