Father accused of murdering 5-year-old son had troubled childhood, court hears

SINGAPORE — When he was in primary school, Ridzuan Mega Abdul Rahman was placed in the EM3 stream for those who were less academically inclined, and he felt “happy” whenever he obtained a zero in his tests and examinations. He also frequently played truant.

If he had homework to do, he would expect his maternal aunt to complete it for him. If the aunt did not do so, he would poke her hand with stationery out of anger.

On Friday (Nov 15), a psychologist’s testimony and a report she prepared in 2016 gave details on the troubled childhood of a man accused of murdering his five-year-old son. 

In 2016, after Ridzuan was charged with murder, his mother was in prison and his maternal grandmother could not be contacted, so a psychologist could not interview them for her assessment of the accused.

Apart from these two family members, the psychologist did not know of any other reliable individuals who could comment on how he had led his life.

These were what Ms Leung Hoi Ting, a clinical psychologist with the Institute of Mental Health, said when she took the stand during the murder trial on Friday.

Ridzuan and his wife Azlin Arujunah, both 27, are accused of murdering their son by inflicting severe scald wounds on him between Oct 15 and 22 in 2016. The son cannot be named to protect the identity of his surviving siblings.

Ridzuan also faces multiple charges of ill-treating and assaulting the child in the family’s one-room rental flat, including confining him in a metal cage meant for their pet cat, using a heated metal spoon to burn his palm, and punching him on the face.

The court heard that Ridzuan’s maternal grandmother, who worked as a cleaner, would call him “bodoh” (Malay for “stupid”) when he was a young boy, and did not really supervise him while his mother was absent. It was not stated whether his father or grandfather were around at that time.

He was once a resident at the Singapore Boys’ Home, which provides rehabilitation for juveniles between seven and 16 years old.

As he became older, Ridzuan’s social circle became smaller, and he would spend time mainly with his wife and people from his mother’s side of the family. He seldom took part in social activities outside of home because his wife would not accompany him. 

The court also heard that he was less likely to manage his family’s utilities bills because he had relied on his grandmother and wife to do that, and that his uncles found it difficult to understand him as a child because his sentences were not coherent when he spoke.

These added to the personal details already revealed on Tuesday, when the prosecution opened its case.

The court heard previously that the couple were unemployed and relying on financial assistance. To get by, Ridzuan sold amulets, love potions and old currencies on online marketplace Carousell.

However, the information presented in court on Friday was not enough for Ms Leung to diagnose him with any intellectual disability. She was tasked to conduct an intellectual assessment on him.

She noted that Ridzuan had indicated that he has the ability to perform most of the daily living skills, but would not do so due to his personal preference and reliance on others.

This point weighed heavy on her conclusion that Ridzuan was not suffering from any intellectual disability, despite her finding that his “adaptive functioning” — one of three criteria in her assessment — ranged from the extremely low to below average.

Someone who has low adaptive functioning means that the person is unable to meet developmental and sociocultural standards for personal independence and social responsibility.

ADHD AND OTHER DISORDERS

It is the defence’s case that Ridzuan was suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intermittent explosive disorder, and hypnotic use disorder, a condition associated with repeated use of sedative-like drugs.

Psychiatrist Ken Ung Eng Khean, a witness for the defence, found a “causal link” between these disorders and Ridzuan’s offending behaviour.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Wen Hsien asked Ms Leung if she saw any ADHD symptoms during the three hours she spent assessing him, and she said that the symptoms of restlessness she saw was “test anxiety” instead of ADHD.

When being cross-examined by Ridzuan’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, she elaborated that while he appeared fidgety, restless and impatient, these symptoms were eventually alleviated as the session progressed. 

When asked if she had performed any ADHD tests, she said that she did not because she was not specifically looking for any condition. 

Turning to Dr Ung’s diagnosis, Ms Leung then said that it “sounds like he was thinking of ADHD” when evaluating Ridzuan, meaning it appears that the psychiatrist had specifically applied his mind to the condition when exercising his clinical judgment.

Asked why she thought Dr Ung’s diagnosis was wrong when she had not conducted ADHD tests on Ridzuan, she said: “I did not say he was wrong. I suggest that he could have done more to make a more informed diagnosis.” 

Mr Thuraisingam later slammed Ms Leung for being “unable to form a proper opinion”, since she did not do everything she needed to do. This included making the effort to contact Ridzuan’s mother who was in jail, who could have been a “corroborative source” to form a judgement on whether his client had ADHD, among other conditions. 

Ms Leung had assessed that Ridzuan’s intelligence quotient (IQ) falls in the bottom 16th percentile and Mr Thuraisingam charged that she had come up with an “erroneous report” that another IMH psychologist on her team, Dr Cheow Enquan, had referred to in forming his judgement.

Furthermore, Dr Cheow had assessed that Ridzuan appeared to display antisocial personality traits, the lawyer noted. 

The trial continues on Monday, when Dr Cheow is expected to take the stand.