« University of New South Wales (Asia) in Singapore shuts down | HomePage | REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE - Amnesty International Annual Report 2007 »
24/05/2007
Yet Another Hanging - Singapore to hang ‘One Eyed Dragon’ for nightclub murder
Listen to this article The Death Penalty in action again. Can't imagine this case resulting in mass protest against it.
End the Death Penalty Now!
Web posted at: 5/23/2007 8:30:19
Source ::: AFP
Tan Chor Jin, nicknamed “One Eyed Dragon”, arriving at the magistrate’s court in Singapore for his trial last February. He was sentenced to death, yesterday, for killing a nightclub owner in a rare gangland-style shooting in Singapore. (AFP)
SINGAPORE • A man nicknamed “One Eyed Dragon” was sentenced yesterday to hang for killing a nightclub owner in a rare Singapore shooting which the judge likened to an assassination.
Tan Chor Jin, 39, appeared calm and smiled occasionally while the verdict was read.
He was convicted for the murder in February last year of Lim Hock Soon in a case that shocked Singapore, one of Asia’s safest cities.
High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang said the killing had “the hallmarks of an assured and accomplished assassin.”
Court documents showed Tan, who earned his nickname for being blind in one eye, entered Lim’s flat on February 15 last year.
He tied up Lim’s wife, 13-year-old daughter and domestic helper, looted the family’s valuables and then fired a series of shots into the victim’s face and body.
He fled to Malaysia but was arrested and extradited 10 days later.
Tan represented himself without a lawyer at the trial. After the sentence was handed down, Tan’s only response was to ask the judge for permission to smoke in prison while awaiting his fate.
“They don’t understand what are human rights in the prison, nor allow us to smoke,” Tan said.
Singapore carries out the death penalty by hanging. Tan can still appeal the sentence.
Tan said in a police statement that he was a former gang leader and the victim Lim owed him money from illegal betting.
He said he was in Lim’s house on the day of the killing to talk things over but they got into an argument.
Tan argued he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and shot Lim accidentally in a struggle.
The judge rejected Tan’s defence, saying “however ‘high’ he claimed to have been at the material time, he had not gone over the precipice of sanity.”
Medical experts testified that Tan’s “ability to form an intent was not impaired” despite his intoxication, the judge said. Tan was still “clear-headed” and able to engage in rational conversation and give coherent orders to Lim and his family, Tay added.
The judge described as “nothing more than laughable fantasy” Tan’s assertion that the weapon accidentally misfired six rounds.
“It was even more remarkable that five out of six accidental shots could hit the deceased from both front and back and from various angles,” Tay said to a courtroom packed with curious members of the public.
The murder trial was spread over seven days since it began in January. The prosecution called 47 witnesses.
Tan’s friends, including a former gang member, attended court for the verdict.
13:10 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: Singapore, Death Penalty
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1286107
Comments
Death penalty and all aside, since I do agree with the comment 'no mass protest on this one' considering the article I read had the victims family smiling and saying that he deserves to die and an 'eye for an eye', I am wondering if Singapore's justice system is the most free system I have ever read about.
In Canada, any criminal court case has to be represented by a lawyer. Even if the maximum sentence is 1 year in jail for the crime, all defendants are given a lawyer. If the defendant doesn't want to 'waste money' on a lawyer, the gov't gives him a court appointed lawyer that has to help him, even though the defendant might not be co-operative, this lawyer can not leave the case. Now, for a capital punishment case where the defendant is going to die, Singapore makes it so that the defendant can represent himself? wow, now that is freedom. The gov't steps back and says "we will not coddle you, we will not help you if you dont want, you are on your own to make your own decision" must show total freedom, right?
Not going to mention anything about the death penalty since I get the feeling that the strong speaking regular or two here has the 'eye for an eye' attitude and while might question the wisdom behind applying mandatory hangings for a victimless crime like being a mule for drugs, most would personally put the noose around this man's neck and pull the lever for a crime such as murder in this case.
Posted by: darren barker | 24/05/2007
I fully and unequivocally support the death penalty for MURDER, and *only* for murder.
I fully and unequivocally support caning for crimes of physical assault, resulting in severe physical and emotional trauma.
In both of the above instances, there are VICTIMS who *have no choice* but to suffer at the hands of violent criminals.
"Let the punishment fit the crime".
OTOH, the issue of drugs has no victims — i.e. people who have no choice. Every drug user acts out of choice, therefore drug crimes are essentially "victimless". The death penalty should definitely be STRUCK OFF THE BOOKS for drug-related "crime".
Caning for theft and property damage should also be thrown out — it doesn't matter if the the individual is "incorrigible" or simply just a bloody arsehole, for if being an arsehole were a crime, most of the people in government, and the media, would be rotting in jail.
Getting rid of the death penalty is a bad idea. Who knows? One day we may need to use it on a muderous politician...
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 24/05/2007
I was always of the opinion that the reason for eny sentence was not only as a punishment but also a deterent . As we all know it may well punish but the death penalty is never a deterent .
Posted by: ycbi | 25/05/2007
If we send the murderer to death, isn't it the same as murdering the murderer, and that will make us murderers too. The death sentence should be abolished, and replaced with life imprisonment. This is as I believe everyone has the right to live and will repent if they want to do so.
Posted by: pierrot | 29/05/2007
>everyone ... will repent if they want to do so.
sure, but if they dont want?
murder has a very specific legal definition, different from homicide, manslaughter, wrongful death, etc; executing a convicted murder is homicide, not murder
the strongest argument for abolishing the death penalty is the non-reversibility of execution, so if the conviction was a mistake, it could not be reversed
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 29/05/2007
> the strongest argument for abolishing the death penalty is the non-reversibility of execution, so if the conviction was a mistake, it could not be reversed <
Your argument about wrongful execution is valid but that still doesn't warrant ABOLISHING the death penalty.
It would suggest that the way the death penalty is applied needs to be restricted to a very narrow context: for e.g. if there were reliable witnesses, many pieces of photographic or video evidence from reliable trusted sources, etc etc... to the point where there wasn't any doubt at all regarding the guilt of the murderer.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 30/05/2007
That murderer is a coward.
So are many gangsters here. They appear brave when they are with their gang. Cowards when they are alone.
As for the victim, according to the papers, he may not be
completely an 'angel'.
I am not sure whether the Police has also investigated into the victim's background, esp after interviewing the murderer.
There are many things we do not know about the victim.
Was he part of any illegal activities in the nite-club ?
I feel sorry for the family of the victim, to witness their father being shot cold -bloodedly that fateful morning.
I hope the young daughter and her family have recovered from the ordeal.
Posted by: Robert | 03/06/2007
I highlighted what ‘One Eyed Dragon’ said to Tay Yong Kwang about "on 24 Hour Standby" in my own High Court Appeal, also presided by, guess what, Tay Yong Kwang, about also being on 24 hour standby.
Was that why Chan Sek Keong came up with a 'Bail Court'? If the Courts are KELONG, it won't make a damn difference!
Posted by: lee hsien tau | 06/06/2007
But I don't agree about the smoking behind bars argument. All the trouble for a stick and matches are bound to start fights and such other problems besides secondary smoke inhalation.
Posted by: lee hsien tau | 06/06/2007
People like me and Dr Chee SJ have more important things to worry about, like who's a plant in the cell and so on...
Posted by: lee hsien tau | 06/06/2007
Isn't it wonderful that The State cares for the welfare of even a condemned man, that it forces a guy about to be executed to QUIT a really unhealthy habit?
All Hail The Wonderful State!
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 06/06/2007
I agree with Singapore using the death penalty for violent crimes. I feel they may not be strick enough for sex offenders, because sex offenders do not stop and often advance to murder/rape to leave no witnesses to testify. Drug users are not innocent, they often get to the point of stealing and other crimes to support their habbits. Drug dealers are the root of the problem, long sentences for them. All I can is Singapore don't let a bunch of bleeding heart liberals change you, keep your citizens and visitors safe.
Posted by: Kathy | 21/03/2008
> Drug users are not innocent, they often get to the point of stealing and other crimes to support their habbits. <
Coffee (caffine) is a legal drug. So are alcohol, tobacco (nicotine), aspirin, paracetamol, and ephidrine.
The reason junkies steal is because the stuff they like is prohibited and the only way to get it is to buy it at lack market prices. Govt prohibition of drugs causes a shortage in supply and thus an increase in the price to ridiculous levels which makes them virtually unaffordable to the addict.
I support the idea of LEGALISATION of what are now prohibited drugs. This would cause the price to fall dramatically. Before cocaine and opiates were made illegal, you could buy the stuff at virtually any pharmacy.
In the compact of human freedom: people own their own lives. If they wish to shorten it by getting high, they ought to have the LEGAL RIGHT to do so. Anyway, letting 'nature' deal with people who choose drugs only strengthens the human gene pool :-)
> Drug dealers are the root of the problem, <
Incorrect.
The GOVERNMENT is the only cause of the problem. They are getting in the way of VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE between drug consumer and drug provider. Before the govt came along there was NO problem.
Making drugs illegal and punishable by death causes the HARD CORE members of society (violent thugs and gangsters) to engage in the risky business of breaking the law for enormous profits (risk --> reward). By prohibiting drugs, the govt fosters the growth of organised crime.
Also the anti-drug propaganda makes people live in fear by forcing upon them government LIES. For example: Having a joint with your friends occasionally will not make you a rapist or a failure in society, nor does it function as a "gateway' drug.
If you get a chance, download "Reefer Madness" (1932) from archive.org and have a look at the propaganda put out by the US Govt.
During the same period, the good fishing folk of Singapore were happily smoking ganja and enjoying their idyllic 'waterfront lifestyles' in S'pore whilst America and her drug czar waged violent war on the citizens and the 'evils of marijuana' and 'those Mexicans; - gotta add a little good ol' American racism in the mix. Was there any insurrection and mayhem in S'pore caused by all that ganja smoking? None.
Also absent in those days were bleeding heart western liberals. Ah... what a wonderful time that would have been.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 23/03/2008