Singaporean man sentenced to death for passion fueled murder

The Straits Times: 'Marsiling Baby' to hang for murder

He killed his girlfriend after finding her in bed with another man earlier

By Selina Lum

Pathip's claim that his mind went blank during the killing was not consistent with his actions, said the judge. -- PHOTO: SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE

A 24-YEAR-OLD man was found guilty yesterday of murdering his 18-year-old girlfriend in Ang Mo Kio more than two years ago.

Friends and family of Pathip Selvan Sugumaran who packed the courtroom wailed as the High Court passed the mandatory death sentence on him for the murder of Miss Jeevitha Panippan.

The body of Miss Jeevitha, a private student and kindergarten teacher, was discovered on July 8, 2008, behind an electrical substation opposite Block 154, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5. She had 15 external injuries, out of which three wounds were fatal blows.

Pathip, who is known to his family and friends as 'Marsiling Baby', did not dispute that he killed her on the night of July 7, 2008.

But he claimed that he had been provoked by Miss Jeevitha who had taunted him by saying her new beau was better in bed. He said he lost self-control and his mind was 'blank' during the stabbing.

Defence psychiatrist Tommy Tan said Pathip has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition associated with impulsivity and rage, and that this abnormal mental state reduced his responsibility for the killing.

But these defences were rejected by the High Court yesterday.

Pathip and Miss Jeevitha became lovers in April 2008. A month into their relationship, she reported him to the police for rape - they had unprotected sex after an argument and she was worried about getting pregnant. But they continued to date.

On the morning of July 7, 2008, Pathip went to her flat at Block 157. When he peeped into her bedroom from outside, he saw her in bed with a man.

That evening, he bought a kitchen knife. He later told police that he wanted to use the knife to threaten her into telling the truth about the man.

On the same day, he met Miss Jeevitha and her mother at Block 155 and he said he wanted to marry her.

After the older woman went off, Pathip pulled her to the back of the substation and confronted her.

He said that when she told him that her new beau was better in bed, he whipped out the knife and stabbed her while she shouted 'I love you'. After she collapsed, he kissed her and removed a gold chain he had given her.

Later, Pathip and his mother crossed the Causeway but she returned to Singapore alone. The next day, he decided to return after she told him over the phone that the police would take her to the police station if he did not.

In his written judgment, Justice Kan Ting Chiu said Pathip's claim that his mind 'went blank' was not consistent with his actions. If that had happened, he would have been alarmed to see her bleeding when he snapped out of it, and would likely have called for help. Instead, he just left her there.

He also said the defence has not established that Pathip had ADHD. Reports from Pathip's days in school and national service showed that he functioned normally.

Justice Kan added that Pathip talked about his mind going blank only when he saw Dr Tan in October last year.

The judge said it was clear that Pathip's mental processes did not cease during the attack.

Pathip's lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan, said his client would be appealing.

selinal@sph.com.sg

Activists cry murder over Singapore hanging

FMT: Activists cry murder over Singapore hanging

By Teoh El Sen

KUALA LUMPUR: Anti-death-penalty activists have asked the Singapore government to admit that it wrongfully executed a young Malaysian in 2003 and demanded that it release British writer Alan Shadrake, whose latest book sheds new light on the case.

“Singapore has murdered an innocent person in cold blood,” said N Surendran of Lawyers for Liberty in reference to the hanging of M Vignes, who was 21 when he was arrested in 2001 on suspicion of drug trafficking.

Surendran was speaking to reporters outside the Singapore High Commission, where his organisation and the Civil Rights Committee of the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall had submitted a memorandum demanding the abolition of the death penalty and a halt to all pending executions.

Vignes was hanged in Changi Prison on Sept 26, 2003. Shadrake is awaiting trial for criminal defamation and contempt of court for allegations he made in his book against the Singapore government.

He was arrested a day after the launching of the book, Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock.

“Alan's book revealed a shocking truth,” Surendran said. “We now know the key witness in Vignes's trial was himself being investigated for rape, sodomy and later convicted of corruption."

'Crucial facts'

Surendran said Singapore authorities had maliciously concealed these "crucial facts" from Vignes's lawyer, M Ravi.

"Worse still, when Ravi asked Chief Justice Yong Pung How whether an innocent man could be hanged because of procedural matters, he replied 'Yes, the answer is yes’. This is as if the CJ has himself strangled him with his own hands."

The memorandum was submitted to the High Commission’s first secretary, Walter Chia. It demanded that the Singapore government:

• acknowledge the miscarriage of justice that led to the execution of Vignes;
• clear Vignes’s name and make amends to his family;
• institute immediate reforms in the Singapore judiciary to ensure Singaporean judges appreciate and respect human life and liberty;
• take appropriate action according to the Singapore Constitution against Chief Justice Yong;
• halt all pending executions in Singapore and commute death sentences to imprisonment; and
• withdraw all pending criminal charges against Shadrake and apologise for his wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

Speaking to reporters, Vignes' father, V Mourthi, said he still felt as if his son was alive.

"I know he is innocent,” he said. “I want to know what the Singapore government is going to do about this. I hope the truth will finally come out.”

Woman suggests death sentence for road speeding

A Singaporean lady wrote a letter to the Straits Times suggesting the death penalty applied to speeding drivers who cause deaths.

She also recommends caning as punishment for speeding drivers in general. Apparently this is the same Ivy Singh-Lim who recently was in a tug with Building and Construction Authority’s lawsuit for failure to hire professional maintenance and allow BCA inspection. She was hauled to court on May 3rd this year. 

There could have been a million reasons to a car accident, fatal or not. Which is why it is called a car accident. Even an accidental killing of someone is termed as manslaughter and carries a lesser maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Furthermore, on the road a vehicle does not even need to speed to cause fatality due to the nondiscriminatory nature of accidents.

Shall we also cane her for her failure to comply with public, building and workplace safety standards and endangering workers and the public who patronise her company? And if one of her workers die due to workplace negligence, shall we likewise send her to the gallows?

sgdeathpenalty

Speeding deaths: Consider capital punishment

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_555894.html

LAST year, there were 188 road fatalities, or a road death every other day, and driving along Lim Chu Kang Road on Monday morning, it was not difficult for me to see why.

The speed limit of the road was 70kmh, and as I drove along, big trucks and lorries flashed past me, dangerously above the speed limit.

Drivers who speed do not realise that they are part of a killing machine. Speeding is a fatal menace and should be much more policed than it is now.

During my 45-minute journey from Kranji to Suntec City, I did not spot a single police patrol car or Traffic Police motorcycle.

Speed traps are too few and far between, allowing irresponsible drivers to bolt and swerve on expressways unpunished.

Alongside public campaigns on road safety, there should be more traffic policing vehicles to arrest the immediate problem of dangerous speedsters.

It is also appalling to see the types of vehicles allowed on our expressways, and the manner in which they are driven: small motorcycles with unprotected riders in slippers zipping in and out of traffic, and lorries loaded with men and material zooming past speed limits.

Singapore has stringent standards in licensing drivers, but such standards are futile if we let law-breaking speedsters threaten the lives of other road users and do not police such dangerous drivers.

Fines and imprisonment may not be enough of a disincentive.

The punishment which will effectively deter speeding is caning.

And if a driver’s speeding is responsible for a road user’s death, then hanging is a fair punishment for killing someone. 

Ivy Singh-Lim (Mrs)

Drug trafficking: Two escape death

By K.C. VIJAYAN

Two men were spared the gallows yesterday, after the high Court found them not guilty of capital drug trafficking charges. However, a third man, involved in the same case, was sentenced to death.

Both Tamil Selvan, 41, and M. Balasubramaniam, 30, had been jointly tried with Azman Sanwan, 38, who was found guilty for the same offence of trafficking in 1,525.7g of cannabis.

When Azman was sentenced to death, his wife, who was in court with their two young children and other relatives, broke down and had to be helped.

Both Tamil and Bala were remanded to face several other lesser charges that were initially stood down. Each was offered bail of $50,000.

All three men were nabbed by Central narcotics Bureau officers in a sting operation on April 30 2007 at a carpark in front of Block 108, Yishun Ring Road.

Azman was seen tranferring a blue paper bag from the back of a black Honda Civic to the boot of a blue Mitsubishi Lancer parked alongside. He was earlier seen carrying the same paper bag from the Lancer to the back of the Honda. When the officers moved in, they found a wrapped bundle containing two blocks of vegetable matter inside the paper bag. The vegetable blocks were found to contain cannabis.

Azman, defended by lawyer Sunil Sudheesan, admitted that he had brought in drugs a few times before but said that on those previous occasions, they were not big deliveries. He claimed not to know how the drugs got into his car.

Bala and Tamil were at the back of the Honda car trying to separate the exhaust pipe from the bumper, at the time of the incident, as it was seen to be emitting fumes and was out of position. Both, defended by lawyer Ramesh Tiwary, claimed they had no knowledge there was cannabis in either car.

In the grounds for his judgement, Justice Kan Ting Chiu said Azman did not offer any "consistent explanation" for the presence of the blue paper bag found in the boot of the car and there was an "abundance of evidence" against him.

Tamil, on the other hand was not accused of having handled the bundles containing the drugs. It was also not proved that Bala actually or presumably knew the bundles contained cannabis.

There was nothing to show that all three had a common intention to traffic in the drugs, added Justice Kan in the 54-page judgment, delivered a year after the hearings.

Source: The Straits Times, July 10 2010

The Death Penalty in Singapore: Case Files

• In 2005, Took Leng How, a Malaysian worker at the Pukit Panjang Wholesale Centre came under investigation when 8 year old Huang Na went missing. Took fled Singapore to Malaysia while under police custody. Under the advice of his father, who told him that Singapore laws will protect him if he did not murder Huang Na, Took returned to Singapore to give evidence on how he accidentally strangled Huang Na during a game of hide and seek. Despite no conclusive evidence that Took intentionally murdered Huang Na, he was sentenced to mandatory death. Days before his execution, Took was filled with rage and he told his family that he wanted wear a red suit during the execution, ostensibly under Chinese culture as a way to seek revenge, as he did not believe that he deserved to be hanged. His family pleaded with him to go in peace, and Took finally relented. (This is first hand account from Took Leng How's family) Took's case begs two questions to ponder about: Why would Took Leng How return to Singapore voluntarily to face near certain death sentence if he had really intentionally murdered Huang Na? Why would a person guilty of murder on the eve of his execution have so much hatred in him to seek revenge?

• The trial judge, before passing the death sentence on Yong Vui Kong, summoned the defence counsel and public prosecutor to chamber and asked the prosecution if they would consider reducing the charge given the relatively young age of the drug offender, who was not even 19 at the age of the offence. The prosecution declined and the death sentence was handed to Vui Kong.

• In 2002, Julia Suzanne Bohl, a 20 year old German girl was found with 687g of marijuana in her home in Singapore, 187g higher than the limit which carries the mandatory death sentence. Germany promptly intervened, and because of the politically sensitive nature of the case the charge was reduced to one of trafficking and she was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Eventually, Julia served only 2 years of her prison sentence and she was sent back to Germany. Does the State regard an Australian, Nigerian and Malaysian life as less important than that of a German's?

• The Central Narcotics Bureau routinely uses undercover detective to pose as buyers for drugs, such as in the case of Rozman bin Jusoh. During the trial it became evident that Rozman was intellectually handicapped, taking more than five minutes to answer a simple question like the number of siblings he had. His interpreter and psychologist both emphasized that Rozman was not simply faking it. The trial judge also pointed out that “It was…clear from the evidence that the CNB agent and the undercover CNB officer were more than mere agents, and had, in fact, undertaken a substantially active role in persuading [Rozman] to sell them drugs...". The judge then proceeded to sentence him a lesser sentence of 7 years imprisonment under a lesser charge for subnormal intellect. The prosecution appealed against the sentence, and the High Court eventually passed the death sentence on Rozman after considering that his subnormal intellect was not enough to negate his intention to traffick the drugs.

• Singapore has the highest per capita rate of execution in the world according to Amnesty International, a human rights based group which keeps track of human rights violation around the world. Majority of the executed were for drug offences.

sgdeathpenalty

When an intellectually handicapped gets systematically executed by the system

Law student Mohan Gopalan writes a compelling piece proving once again that removal of mandatory death penalty can indeed save victims that can fall into the trap of the non-discretionary nature of the law.

Described as a "guileless simpleton" with borderline IQ of 74 by trial judge M.P.H. Rubin, he delivered a lesser sentence to the accused, Rozman bin Jusoh, a 22-year-old Malaysian, to 7 years imprisonment for possession of drugs.

But the prosecution appealed and took it to the High Court where they sentenced the accused to death, noting that since the sentence was mandatory, "such considerations (of his subnormal intellect and the narcotics officer instigating the accused to produce drugs) would only be relevant elsewhere".

If even the intellectually handicapped gets systematically executed by the state, what are mitigating factors useful for? Isn't mitigation a redundant process in capital cases like drug trafficking? Shouldn't it then be time for this section of the law to be updated?

There isn't much time for deliberation on this issue. The law regarding capital punish for capital offences must be updated to give judges the discretion to make a fairer ruling. When even one person gets unfairly executed, it is a life gone and there can be absolutely no compensation for the family or the executed convict.

TOC: When discretion could have saved a life: the case of Rozman bin Jusoh

By Mohan Gopalan

On 24 November 1993, an undercover officer from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) approached Rozman bin Jusoh, a 22-year-old Malaysian, asking him if he had cannabis. Rozman told the officer that he did not have any cannabis. Undeterred by this reply, the officer insisted that Rozman find some cannabis for him. Rozman replied, “We will see tomorrow”.

The CNB officer approached Rozman again the next day, asking again for cannabis. Rozman told the officer to wait while he consulted his friends. He found a friend who agreed to supply the drugs as requested, and arranged to hand them to the officer later that evening.

The officer suggested they meet at a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. Rozman brought the drugs in a plastic bag, which he placed on a chair at the table where he and the officer were seated. The officer stood up and walked to the counter to order a drink, and so did Rozman, leaving the plastic bag unattended on the chair. The officer then gave a signal, upon which other CNB officers entered the outlet and arrested Rozman.

Rozman was charged with trafficking in 1040.8g of cannabis. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, trafficking in more than 500g of cannabis attracts the mandatory death penalty.

***

Over the course of investigations and trial, evidence slowly emerged that Rozman was intellectually subnormal.

The CNB interpreter who assisted in recording the statements Rozman had made to the police testified that Rozman was extremely slow. He had difficulties answering simple questions, such as how many brothers and sisters he had. Sometimes, it took him up to five minutes to answer questions as straightforward as those.

A clinical psychologist who had examined Rozman was also called to testify. She found that Rozman had an IQ of 74, which was borderline. Having also observed Rozman during the trial, she testified that Rozman could be easily manipulated by others and would not think deeply about the consequences of his actions. She also thought that Rozman might not be capable of discerning right from wrong.

The trial judge, Justice M.P.H. Rubin, also noticed that something was amiss.¹ He noted that Rozman’s oral testimony was “punctuated with long pauses and was generally delivered in a halting manner”. At times, it was “hazy and disoriented”.

The CNB interpreter and the psychologist both emphasised that they did not think that Rozman was simply faking it. Likewise, the judge noted:

“Having observed the accused in the witness box, it cannot be gainsaid that he gave evidence in an unshrinking manner. There was never a trace of squirming, twisting or shifting. His evidence was, however, punctuated with frequent pauses, sometimes long, yet there was no sign that he was taking his time to contrive, concoct or improvise. In fact, he often looked plainly confused, sometimes even by straightforward questions.”

The judge also noted that Rozman’s “demeanour, inflexion and his swaying body movements…at times suggested that he was apparently oblivious to the seriousness of the charges facing him”. To the judge, Rozman was:

“… a guileless simpleton without any gift for contrivance. It must be so, for which trafficker would leave the drugs unguarded on a chair in a public place and walk up to the counter and ask for a drink?”

The judge did not think that Rozman’s subnormal intellect constituted unsoundness of mind, which would have been a full defence to the charge. However, given his subnormal intellect and the way the CNB officer had acted, the judge did not think it could be said that Rozman had intended to traffick in the drugs. The judge reasoned:

“It was…clear from the evidence that the CNB agent and the undercover CNB officer were more than mere agents, and had, in fact, undertaken a substantially active role in persuading [Rozman] to sell them drugs… [Rozman] was a person without guile and would not have embarked upon this expedition for a mere $100 if not for his feeble mind which seemed to have been overborne by the CNB agent and the CNB operative… There was a grave doubt raised as to whether he could be criminally responsible to warrant the mandatory death sentence, in light of his intellectual disability and the real possibility of being manipulated.”

The judge thought that “it would be unsafe for the court to proceed to convict him on the charge of trafficking”, and therefore convicted him for the lesser offence of possession instead. He sentenced Rozman to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Dissatisfied, the prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Justices of Appeal M. Karthigesu and L.P. Thean, disagreed with Justice Rubin’s decision in the High Court.² The Court of Appeal judges took the view that Rozman’s subnormal intellect was not sufficient to negate his intention to traffick in the drugs. They thought that while Rozman “may have been easily induced or instigated” by the CNB officer to sell the drugs, this fact and his subnormal intellect could be taken into account only in mitigating the sentence. However, they noted that since the sentence was mandatory, “such considerations would only be relevant elsewhere”. Rozman was therefore convicted on the charge of trafficking.

***

Rozman’s case provides an illustration of the problematic nature of the mandatory death penalty. While the judges were sensitive to the mitigating factors in Rozman’s case, they could not properly take them into account, and were left with no choice but to sentence Rozman to death. If the death penalty had not been mandatory, the judges would have been able to take into account Rozman’s subnormal intellect, as well as the conduct of the CNB officer. They could then have decided whether to award Rozman a long prison sentence, instead of the death penalty.³

Without the benefit of this discretion, Rozman bin Jusoh was hanged till death on 12 April 1996.

TOC: When discretion could have saved a life: the case of Rozman bin Jusoh