Murder of Samynathan Pawathai

Last updated
Samynathan Pawathai
Born
Samynathan Pawathai

1947
Colony of Singapore
Died28 April 1985 (aged 38)
Tanjong Rhu, Singapore
Cause of deathFatal slash wound to the liver
Other namesChelia Dorai
OccupationIce factory worker
EmployerNanyang Chinese Ice Factory
Known forMurder victim

On 28 April 1985, at his workplace in Tanjong Rhu, 38-year-old ice factory worker Samynathan Pawathai, alias Chelia Dorai, was attacked by eight men who sought revenge against one of Samynathan's friends, who hurt one of the attackers in an earlier fight, and Samynathan died as a result of grievous injuries sustained from the attack. Out of the eight murderers, only five were caught and charged with murder, while the remaining three perpetrators went on the run till today. Out of the five, two of the attackers - Abdul Ghaffur Parith Mohamed Kassim and S. Ganesan Shanmugam- were each jailed six years for manslaughter, while the other three - Kumar Nadison, Jabar Kadermastan and Chandran Gangatharan - were found guilty of murdering Samynathan and sentenced to death. The trio were hanged on 28 April 1995 after all their appeals were rejected.

Contents

Murder investigation

On 28 April 1985, at an ice factory in Tanjong Rhu, at least two workers were attacked by a group of armed men at their workplace, and they were seriously injured as a result of the attack; the two men were said to have been struck by an axe. One of the men, identified as 38-year-old Samynathan Pawathai, died in hospital while the remaining victim survived with timely medical intervention. [1]

An autopsy was later conducted by Dr Wee Keng Poh, a forensic pathologist, and he found that Samynathan suffered a total of 18 injuries on his body, and one of the slash wounds had penetrated his liver and led to a massive loss of blood, and his opinion was that the wound was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Following the death of Samynathan, the police classified the case as murder and conducted their investigations. [2]

Within a day after the crime, the police managed to round up five suspects allegedly responsible for Samynathan's murder, and the five men - Abdul Ghaffur Parith Mohamed Kassim, Chandran Gangatharan, Kumar Nadison, Jabar Kadermastan and S. Ganesan Shanmugam - were charged with murder. The five men and another three people were all said to be Malaysians, and they were accused of being members of an unlawful assembly and having a common object of causing grievous hurt to Samynathan, which thus resulted in Samynathan's death. However, the remaining three perpetrators behind the case were not identified, and they were never caught. If found guilty of murder under Singaporean law, the five men would be sentenced to death. [3] [4]

In April 1986, after a pre-trial conference, the district court ordered all the five men to stand trial at the High Court for murder. [5] [6]

Court proceedings

Trials of Abdul Ghaffur and Ganesan

On 31 October 1988, both 25-year-old Abdul Ghaffur Parith Mohamed Kassim and 28-year-old S. Ganesan Shanmugam pleaded guilty to lesser charges of manslaughter, after the murder charges against them were dropped, which allowed them to no longer face the death penalty for murdering Samynathan Pawathai, while the remaining three perpetrators were confirmed to stand trial for murder in a separate court session on the same day. [7]

On the same date, Justice Chan Sek Keong, who heard their cases in a separate court, decided to sentence both Ganesan and Abdul Gaffur to six years of imprisonment each. He stated that the attack was a disproportionate reaction to the earlier dispute that left one of their friends hurt, and there could have been better ways to mediate the conflict. Justice Chan also added that he accepted that both Abdul Ghaffur and Ganesan had no intention to cause death, even though they wielded lethal weapons that were capable of causing serious injury or death, and he took into consideration the fact that the pair had been drinking alcohol prior to the attack, which may have influenced their decision to tag along with their other six accomplices to wallop Suppiah. [8] [9]

Murder trial of Chandran, Jabar and Kumar

The murder trial of Chandran Gangatharan, Jabar Kadermastan and Kumar Nadison took place on 31 October 1988. The trial was presided over by two trial judges - High Court judge L P Thean (Thean Lip Ping) and Judicial Commissioner Chao Hick Tin - in the High Court.

The trial court was told that prior to Samynathan's murder, the three defendants of the trial, as well as Ganesan, Abdul Ghaffur and the missing three accomplices were involved in previous physical altercations with Samynathan and friends, which led to the killing of Samynathan. The first was on 27 December 1984, when Samynathan's friend Suppiah Arumugam, who was in charge of supplying labourers to the ice factory, was together with three friends at Tanjong Pagar Plaza when Kumar and some other men confronted Suppiah about a gold chain he snatched, and this caused Suppiah to be assaulted. The second was on 22 April 1985, when Samynathan got into a fight with Jabar at Tanjong Pagar Road, and Jabar's left palm was slashed as a result. Six days later, on 28 April 1985, the date of the murder, the eight perpetrators of the case decided during a drinks session that they should attack Suppiah and his friends to seek vengeance against them for Jabar's injury. Afterwards, the eight men were armed with metal poles, axes, swords and parangs and headed to the ice factory to attack Suppiah and his friends. At that time, Suppiah was not present at the factory, and only Samynathan and his two friends were present, and they were thus targeted and brutally attacked, leading to Samynathan's death and one of his friends seriously injured. [2] All three accused were later called to enter their defence, after the trial court ruled that there was a case to answer, [10] [11] and they put up a defence that they never intended to cause death, and their only intention was to attack Suppiah and not the others, and they were provoked into fighting Samynathan and the others, while the death of Samynathan was caused during a fight. On these grounds, the defence sought to have their clients ruled not guilty of murder. [12] The judgement was reserved on 2 December 1988. [13]

On 11 May 1989, Judicial Commissioner Chao Hick Tin and Justice L P Thean delivered their verdict. Judicial Commissioner Chao, who pronounced the judgement in court, stated that there was a clear intention by all the eight members of the gang to initiate an attack out of revenge, and the three defendants and their other five accomplices had a common intention to cause grievous hurt to Suppiah and his friends, including Samynathan, for having assaulted and injured Jabar in an earlier dispute. In turn, the judges rejected the trio's defence that they were only going after Suppiah and wanted to harm only Suppiah. Judicial Commissioner Chao also pointed out that the trio and the other offenders were the ones that took undue advantage of the situation, and hence their defences of sudden fight and provocation were rejected. He also stated that while the trio were not the ones who inflicted the fatal wounds on Samynathan, they were considered to have committed the crime of murder due to the legal doctrine of common intention, since the lethal injuries inflicted on Samynathan were done intentionally and in furtherance of the common intention shared by all the eight perpetrators behind the attack that cost Samynathan his life. [14] [15] [2]

Therefore, all the three accused - 32-year-old Kumar Nadison, 27-year-old Jabar Kadermastan and 26-year-old Chandran Gangatharan - were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by hanging. [16] [17]

Appeal processes

On 25 April 1991, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the trio against their convictions and sentences for the murder of Samynathan Pawathai. Chief Justice Yong Pung How and two High Court judges Lai Kew Chai and Goh Joon Seng heard the case, and they agreed with the trial court's decision to convict the trio of murder. [18] [19]

Subsequently, two of the appellants, Kumar Nadison and Jabar Kadermastan, turned to one final recourse of appealing to the President of Singapore for clemency, while the third appellant, Chandran Gangatharan, did not petition for clemency. Subsequently, after several delays throughout the next three years, Kumar informed the prison authorities in March 1994 that he decided to not proceed with his clemency application, which left Jabar the sole member of the trio to continue with his clemency process. Jabar's first plea for clemency was submitted through his sister on 29 July 1991, and a second one was also filed on 1 August 1991 and a third petition was launched on 13 July 1993. Ultimately, President Ong Teng Cheong decided to not grant Jabar clemency and rejected his plea on 7 June 1994. A death warrant was finalized and Jabar, together with Chandran and Kumar, were scheduled to be executed on 17 June 1994. [20]

However, Jabar successfully applied for a respite from the President, after his lawyers raised the fact that Kumar submitted an affidavit to assume responsibility for having caused the fatal wounds on Samynathan, and a stay of execution was granted. Jabar was also allowed to make a fourth clemency appeal and it was submitted on 27 August 1994, and after another two months, President Ong rejected the fourth clemency motion on 25 October 1994, making Jabar to lose another chance of escaping the gallows. [20]

Jabar's constitutional challenge

After Jabar Kadermastan lost his fourth clemency plea, a second death warrant was issued, scheduling for Jabar and his two accomplices to hang on 11 November 1994.

On 10 November 1994, the eve of his execution, Jabar filed a motion to the High Court, and the triple executions were therefore postponed for the second time while Jabar's appeal was pending before the courts. Jabar's defence lawyer S. K. Kumar argued that it was unconstitutional to hang Jabar after he spent more than five years on death row since his sentencing, regardless of whoever was responsible for the delay. However, the prosecutor Bala Reddy argued that the delay was not done in any part from the authorities, and Jabar was to blame for the delay since he took more than five years to use up any legal means to delay his execution and his actions were tantamount to an abuse of the court processes, and he also spent time with his family to push for clemency on several attempts. [21] [22]

In the end, the motion was dismissed by Judicial Commissioner Kan Ting Chiu, who found that Jabar was entirely responsible for the delay in his execution and he had not proven that it was illegal and unconstitutional to delay his execution until five years after his sentencing, and while an offender had open access to any legal means available to him, the events and circumstances between the time of his conviction and the scheduled time of his execution should also be taken into account. Aside from dismissing Jabar's grounds of appeal, Judicial Commissioner Kan stepped aside to acknowledge that it was unconstitutional to carry an offender's death sentence if the delay in executing the offender was prolonged and unreasonable on the part of the authorities, and this was affirmed in a precedent case by the Indian Supreme Court, where it quoted that:

"The prolonged anguish of alternating hope and despair, the agony of uncertainty, the consequences of such suffering on the mental, emotional and physical integrity and health of the individual can render the decision to execute the sentence of death an inhuman and degrading punishment." [23]

Subsequently, Jabar brought his case forward to the Court of Appeal to review Judicial Commissioner Kan's ruling. On 24 February 1995, the three-judge panel, consisting of Chief Justice Yong Pung How, and Judges of Appeal L P Thean (Thean Lip Ping) and M Karthigesu, rejected Jabar's appeal. They affirmed Judicial Commissioner Kan's verdict and stated that the President of Singapore had the sole prerogative to decide whether to commute an offender's death sentence to life imprisonment, and it was not in the court's ability to fulfill such an outcome, and on this ground alone, they decided to dismiss Jabar's appeal. Given that Jabar's defence counsel raised several precedent cases from India to support his appeal, Chief Justice Yong, who pronounced the decision in court, ruled that these cases were irrelevant, and he said that unlike Singapore, India prescribes either the death penalty or life imprisonment (with or without the possibility of parole) for murder, and it was up to the Indian courts as legally bound to decide whether or not the prolonged delays in carrying out an execution warranted the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment, while Singapore warranted the mandatory death penalty for all cases of murder, and once the death penalty was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, there was no discretion for the Singaporean courts to decide if the sentence of death should be delayed or commuted. Chief Justice Yong also acknowledged that it was indeed unacceptable for a person to death row to spend a prolonged time of imprisonment before execution, and there was no doubt they would feel a certain amount of anguish and mental agony while awaiting execution, and this was an inevitable consequence which death row inmates had to face and it did not have any bearing on their constitutional rights. [24] [25] [20]

With the dismissal of his appeal, Jabar effectively lost his final bid to escape the gallows, and soon after, a third death warrant was given and Jabar was scheduled to be put to death on 28 April 1995, which coincided with the tenth death anniversary of Samynathan, and at the same time, both Kumar Nadison and Chandran Gangatharan were due to hang on the same date as Jabar. Amnesty International, having received news of the upcoming triple executions, appealed to the Singapore government to stay their executions and commute their death sentences to life imprisonment. [26]

Executions of the trio

During the time while Jabar Kadermastan was appealing against his sentence, the remaining two murderers, Chandran Gangatharan and Kumar Nadison, remained on death row awaiting their executions, and they did not file any additional appeals with regards to their case, even after their execution date had been set.

One of the death row perpetrators, Kumar, gained media attention in a different manner compared to Jabar after the hanging. During his incarceration on death row, Kumar gradually became devoted to Buddhism since 1993, and he also showed remorse for murdering Samynathan back in 1985. A senior monk of Poh Toh Si Temple, who often held Buddhist sessions in Changi Prison, stated that Kumar spent his time on death row to study Buddhism and in 1994, a year before he was scheduled to hang, Kumar expressed his wish to be ordained as a monk. The monks of the temple were eventually granted permission to conduct the rites, and Kumar was thus converted as a monk inside prison, and he was believed to be the first prisoner to be ordained as a monk while on death row. [27] [28] It was also reported that after he became a monk, Kumar, who was given a Buddhist name "Dao Ren" (道忍 Dào Rěn), refrained from eating meat, and he turned to vegetarian food, eating one meal per day. As Kumar's daily prison meals were the same as the other inmates, Kumar was allowed to give away all the meat included in his food and he would keep the vegetarian ones for himself. [29]

On the Friday morning of 28 April 1995, the three murderers - Kumar Nadison, Jabar Kadermastan and Chandran Gangatharan - were hanged in Changi Prison. After the executions, Kumar was given a funeral in accordance to Buddhist rites, and Kumar's family, including his elderly mother and relatives, attended the funeral and they did not object to Kumar's decision to become a monk. The monks arranged for Kumar to be cremated after the funeral wake, and his ashes would be scattered in the sea. [30] Amnesty International also confirmed in May 1995 that the trio were put to death as scheduled in their death warrants. [31]

In the aftermath of his execution, Jabar's constitutional challenge became a landmark case in Singapore's legal history, where it concerned the substantive review of legislation by the court and constitution. The case was first reportedly cited on 6 June 1995, when a drug trafficker named Yee Kim Yeou argued that his clemency petition was rejected only two years after he filed it and he also spent five years on death row, more than three times the average stay on death row, and his death sentence should be ruled unconstitutional, which were similar to Jabar's case. However, the motion was rejected on similar grounds as Jabar's case. Yee, together with his three accomplices (Melvin Seet, Tan Siew Chay and Ng Teo Chye) were hanged two days later on 8 June 1995. A fifth man, Tan Siang Leng, was initially also convicted but in the end, he was acquitted upon his appeal and released at that point. [32]

Since then, the remaining three killers involved in Samynathan's death were never caught as of today. Both Abdul Ghaffur and Ganesan, who were sentenced to six years in prison for manslaughter in this case, were released since 1991.

See also

Related Research Articles

Nanyang Sin-Chew Lianhe Zaobao, commonly abbreviated as Lianhe Zaobao, is the largest Singaporean Chinese-language newspaper with a daily circulation of about 136,900 as of 2021. Published by SPH Media, it was formed on 16 March 1983 as a result of a merger between the Singaporean editions of Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh, two of Singapore's oldest Chinese newspapers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel Chan Chi-pun</span> Hongkonger and drug trafficker who was executed in Singapore

Daniel Chan Chi-pun was a Hongkonger charged with trafficking 464 grams of heroin on 20 November 1990. Chan was said to have smuggled the drugs in return for money to pay for the treatment to cure his son's blindness. Chan, however, denied knowing that he was carrying heroin and even claimed it was someone else who passed the vest to him at the airport before he was arrested.

Yen May Woen was a Singaporean hairdresser and drug trafficker. Yen was charged with drug trafficking in May 2002 after she was caught earlier that month for carrying 120 sachets, each containing 30.16g of heroin. Yen claimed that she did not know about the drugs, which were found in a bag she claimed she got from a friend. She was found guilty in March 2003 and sentenced to death upon conviction. Yen appealed to overturn her conviction and death sentence, but it was dismissed, and she was eventually hanged on 19 March 2004. For the next 19 years, Yen remained the last woman to be executed in Singapore before Saridewi Djamani was hanged on 28 July 2023 for drug trafficking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Lee Kok Yin</span> 1995 murder of a taxi driver by four Thais in Singapore

On 22 January 1995, 47-year-old Lee Kok Yin, a taxi driver, was murdered by four Thai workers during an attempted robbery at Woodlands. After four months of investigation, two of the four suspects were arrested while the remaining two attackers remained at large.

On 23 May 1996, a 38-year-old Indonesian businessman named Benny Probocemdana Oen was mortally wounded by an assailant during a stabbing incident at Pacific Plaza before he died in hospital. The suspect, identified as 19-year-old Sim Eng Teck, was arrested more than a year later and charged with murder. Sim, who put up a defence of alcohol intoxication and also put forward claims that he only intend to stab the victim's arm during the knife attack, but Judicial Commissioner Amerjeet Singh found that Sim had intentionally inflicted the fatal injuries on Oen and described the killing as a "daringly cold-blooded" murder, and sentenced Sim to death in May 1998. Sim lost his appeal on 1 August 1998, and he had since been hanged.

On 4 May 1988, while he was driving to Old Toh Tuck Road, 48-year-old taxi driver Jaswant Singh was robbed by four people, and he died eight days later in a coma, as a result of the grievous injuries he suffered. The four suspects, who were all male, were arrested between 1989 and 1990 and charged with murder. Eventually, only one of the assailants, Murgan Ramasamy, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in March 1993. After losing his appeal and death row plea for clemency, Murgan was hanged on 16 September 1994. The remaining three attackers were instead found guilty of lesser charges of robbery with hurt, and sentenced to jail terms between five years and 78 months, in addition to caning.

On 8 October 1993, at his Jalan Berseh flat, an Indian moneychanger named Shamsul Hameed was killed by his friend Jahabar Bagurudeen. Bagurudeen, a businessman, was said to have killed Shamsul due to them having argued earlier about sharing a prostitute. Bagurudeen was sentenced to death after the trial court accepted the same prostitute's testimony that she saw Bagurudeen killing the victim, and rejected Bagurudeen's argument that he killed Shamsul out of anger for the victim's alleged mistreatment of Bagurudeen before the murder. After losing his appeal and clemency plea, Bagurudeen was hanged on 2 June 1995.

On 25 March 1988, at Bukit Timah, 49-year-old lorry driver Yeu Lam Ching was robbed and murdered by two men. The two men, Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman and Mazlan Maidun, were swiftly arrested and charged with murder. Mazlan, who directly stabbed the victim to death with a knife, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, while Abdul Aziz, who only robbed the victim and never took part in the stabbing, was found guilty of armed robbery and thus jailed for ten years and given 12 strokes of the cane. Mazlan was hanged on 21 January 1994 after losing his appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Sivapragasam Subramaniam</span> 1990 murder of a bystander during a gang fight in Marsiling, Singapore

On 14 December 1990, at Marsiling, Singapore, during a gang-related incident, a 20-year-old bystander and Malaysian citizen Sivapragasam a/l Subramaniam was struck on the head with an axe and he died as a result of the head injuries. It was revealed that the infamous gang Ang Soon Tong had entered the territory of their rival gang Gi Leng Hor, which happened to be in the same area where Sivapragasam was killed and had the intent to settle scores with the rival gang relating to prior conflicts. Sivapragasam was mistook for a rival gang member and therefore attacked; five other bystanders were also injured. A total of 14 suspects were arrested, and 13 of them were jailed for rioting and causing grievous hurt. The 14th and final suspect, Sagar Suppiah Retnam, who was the headman of Ang Soon Tong, was found guilty of murdering Sivapragasam and sentenced to death on 31 May 1994. Sagar's appeal was dismissed, and he was hanged on 7 July 1995.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Packiria Pillai Krishnasamy</span> 1984 murder of an elderly man in Singapore

On 27 July 1984, 74-year-old Packiria Pillai Krishnasamy was murdered inside his flat at Tah Ching Road, Jurong. The police managed to arrest two suspects, Ramachandran Suppiah and Krishnan Varadan, who were both allegedly responsible for causing Packiria's death during a robbery bid. In May 1987, Ramachandran and Krishnan were both sentenced to hang for murdering Packiria. Although the duo lost their first appeal against the trial verdict, Ramachandran was acquitted after his second appeal, due to insufficient evidence proving that Ramachandran had participated in the crime, and Krishnan however, remained on death row after failing to challenge his conviction a second time. Krishnan was hanged on 15 April 1994 after spending seven years on death row, and he was reportedly the longest-serving death row prisoner in Singapore at the time of his execution.

On 16 October 2008, during a heated argument inside her car, 47-year-old Choo Xue Ying, alias Jennifer Choo, was assaulted to death by a business partner Rosli bin Yassin, and abandoned it at Bukit Batok Nature Park, where Choo's skeletal remains were discovered four days after her death. Rosli, who was later found to have committed cheating following the murder itself, was arrested and charged with killing Choo, and his girlfriend was also charged with abetting him to commit cheating. Rosli's murder charge was subsequently reduced to manslaughter, and after pleading guilty to the reduced charge and several other unrelated charges for cheating, Rosli was sentenced to 12 years of preventive detention on account of his long criminal record, and subsequently, through the prosecution's appeal, Rosli's sentence of preventive detention was raised to the maximum of 20 years for the same reason, as well as due to his high risk of re-offending and his original sentence was manifestly inadequate.

On 22 September 2005, 37-year-old film-maker Ho Kien Leong, alias Yvess Ho, was found dead inside his flat at Indus Road, Bukit Merah, and he was certified to be stabbed to death around nine days before his highly decomposed corpse was found. Ho's killer, Lim Ah Liang, was arrested in Johor, Malaysia, where he was hiding after he killed Ho by stabbing him 13 times during an argument, and Lim was extradited back to Singapore to be investigated for killing Ho. Originally charged with murder, Lim, who suffered from depression at the time of the murder, was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment on 17 January 2007. Lim later lost his appeal for a lower jail term and is currently in prison serving his life sentence since 2005.

On the midnight of 4 February 2002, at their rented flat in Singapore’s Rangoon Road, 34-year-old Jin Yugang, a cleaner from China, had a drinking session with his 32-year-old roommate Wang Hong and other friends, but an argument broke out between the both of them, and it resulted in Jin using a knife to stab Wang multiple times, resulting in Wang's death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Wee Keng Wah</span> 2005 murder of an elderly woman by her maid in Singapore

On 19 October 2005, 75-year-old Wee Keng Wah was found dead at the foot of her HDB block in Chai Chee, Singapore. On that same day, her 26-year-old Indonesian maid Barokah was arrested and charged with murder. It was later found through investigations that Barokah murdered Wee after the latter caught her sneaking out to meet her lover and Wee threatened to sack her, and Barokah thus had a fight with Wee before pushing her out of the flat window and leading to Wee's fall to death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Tan Tiong Huat</span> 1997 murder of a moneylender by shooting in Singapore

On 12 March 1997, a loan shark named Tan Tiong Huat was shot to death at a carpark in Singapore's Beach Road. The suspected gunman fled Singapore for Thailand, where he was eventually caught and extradited back to Singapore for trial seven years later. The gunman, Lim Thian Lai, was charged with murdering Tan before he was put on trial for an amended charge of illegally discharging a firearm to cause death. Although Lim put up a defense that he was innocent and it was another person who killed Tan, the trial court found him guilty of shooting Tan to death under the Arms Offences Act and sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty for the crime.

On 22 January 1995, 63-year-old taxi driver Tay Chin Wah fired a revolver at two men, Lee Yang Ping and Soh Keng Ho, who both confronted Tay's girlfriend over a debt she owed to Lee, who was a moneylender. Tay was said to have committed the shooting out of anger over his girlfriend's predicament, and the shooting left Lee injured, and he survived with timely medical intervention. Tay was arrested in Malaysia and brought back for trial five years later, and in February 2001, he was sentenced to death under the Arms Offences Act on charges of illegally discharging his firearm with intent to cause harm. Tay's appeal was dismissed, and he was hanged on 26 October 2001.

On 10 August 2001, at Queenstown Remand Prison in Singapore, 19-year-old Shankar Suppiahmaniam, a detainee who was charged with raping two young girls, was found dead inside his remand cell. Shankar, who was pronounced dead in a hospital, was found to have been killed by one of his cellmates, who was also charged with rape in a separate case. The inmate, Kanesan Ratnam, confessed to the police that he strangled Shankar due to their arguments over hygiene issues inside their shared cell and his wish to die in the gallows after some failed suicide attempts. Kanesan was found guilty of murdering Shankar and sentenced to death after a three-day trial in February 2002. Kanesan did not appeal, and he was hanged on 10 January 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Chia Chun Fong</span> 1980 murder of a babysitter in Singapore

On 23 September 1980, inside a terrace house in Opera Estate, Singapore, 23-year-old babysitter Chia Chun Fong was found dead with a knife stuck to her mouth。 The cause of death, which was previously unknown in Singapore's medical history, was due to the knife cutting through a vertebrae artery while being pushed into the mouth, and it consequently led to Chia dying from excessive blood loss. Chia, who was entrusted to care for the infant son of her neighbour, was later found to have been murdered by her husband's distant relative Tan Cheow Bock, who fled from Singapore after the killing. Tan remained on the run for seven years before he was caught for vehicle theft in Malaysia, and extradited back to Singapore for trial. Close to ten years after the murder of Chia, Tan was found guilty of murdering Chia and sentenced to death by the High Court on 31 August 1990.

On 22 December 2001, inside his rented flat in Singapore's Marsiling, 23-year-old Lourdusamy Lenin Selvanayagan, a ship's electrician from India, was stabbed to death by one of his room-mates Arun Prakash Vaithilingam, who was his 23-year-old colleague from the same workplace. Arun, who originated from Tamil Nadu, evaded the authorities for about four months before his arrest in March 2002, and he was charged with murder. Arun put up a defence that he stabbed Lenin during a sudden fight against the murder charge, but the High Court ruled that Arun had taken undue advantage over the unarmed victim by using a knife during the dispute, and therefore found Arun guilty of murdering Lenin, and Arun was sentenced to hang under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Despite the appeals from Arun and the international community against the death penalty, Arun was hanged on 3 October 2003.

References

  1. ↑ "踏上死亡路 替朋友出头 挥斧砍死人". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 3 May 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 Public Prosecutor v Chandran a/l Gangatharan and Others [1989], High Court (Singapore).
  3. ↑ "Five men accused of man's murder". The Straits Times. 30 April 1985. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  4. ↑ "Five charged with murdering man". Singapore Monitor. 29 April 1985. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  5. ↑ "5 accused of murder". The Straits Times. 4 April 1986. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  6. ↑ "遭控非法集会杀死人 五被告表面罪状成立". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 3 April 1986. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  7. ↑ "杀死制冰厂工人两劳工坐牢六年". 联合晚报 (Lianhe Wanbao) (in Chinese). 31 October 1988. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  8. ↑ "Two get six years for manslaughter". The Straits Times. 1 November 1988. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  9. ↑ "结伙寻仇闹出人命两印族劳工监六年". 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) (in Chinese). 1 November 1988. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  10. ↑ "Trio begin murder defence today". The Straits Times. 28 November 1988. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  11. ↑ "结伙寻仇闹出人命三劳工须进行答辩". 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) (in Chinese). 24 November 1988. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  12. ↑ "三印族劳工被控谋杀案 首被告说同伴遭袭向死者一伙人报复". 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) (in Chinese). 30 November 1988. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  13. ↑ "三印族劳工被控谋杀案 联审法官审毕谕令保留判决另日宣判". 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) (in Chinese). 4 December 1988. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  14. ↑ "Death for three who killed worker in revenge attack". The Straits Times. 12 May 1989. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  15. ↑ "纠众寻仇·杀害雪厂工人 三大马劳工判死刑". 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) (in Chinese). 12 May 1989. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  16. ↑ "Tiga dihukum mati kerana bunuh pekerja kilang air batu". Berita Harian (in Malay). 12 May 1989. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  17. ↑ "深夜纠众问罪·杀死制冰工人 三印族劳工 被判处死刑". 联合晚报 (Lianhe Wanbao) (in Chinese). 11 May 1989. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  18. ↑ "三杀人死囚上诉失败". 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) (in Chinese). 26 April 1991. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  19. ↑ Chandran a/l Gangatharan and others v Public Prosecutor [1991], Court of Appeal (Singapore).
  20. 1 2 3 Jabar bin Kadermastan v. Public Prosecutor [1995] ICHRL 11 , [1995] SGCA 18 , [1995] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 326, C.A.(Singapore), archived from the original Archived 26 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine on 26 October 2012.
  21. ↑ "Singapore murderer appeals death sentence". Upi News. 28 December 1994.
  22. ↑ "以刑期拖太久违宪为由死囚第二次上诉求免死". 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) (in Chinese). 24 December 1994. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  23. ↑ "5-year lapse: Death row man seeks a reprieve". The Straits Times. 28 December 1994. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  24. ↑ "Death row man's appeal on grounds of delay rejected". The Straits Times. 13 April 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  25. ↑ "Killer's plea rejected". The New Paper. 13 April 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  26. ↑ "Singapore: imminent execution: Jaber Kadermastan, Chandran A/L Gangatharan, Kumar A/L Nadison". Amnesty International. 26 April 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  27. ↑ "死前深感忏悔 狱中完成心愿 江湖杀手 落发为僧". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 3 May 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  28. ↑ "隆根长老： '既已皈依我佛 应让他完成心愿'". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 3 May 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  29. ↑ "牢房念经 日食一餐". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 3 May 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  30. ↑ "传文法师： 首名死囚 狱中出家". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 3 May 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  31. ↑ "Singapore: Further information on imminent execution: Jaber Kadermastan, Chandran A/L Gangatharan, Kumar A/L Nadison". Amnesty International. 16 May 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  32. ↑ "Death-row trafficker fails in llth-hour appeal". The Straits Times. 8 June 1995. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.