Before his death, Teo had identified him to her son as his father and shared her disappointment with the way he treated them. She also disclosed to her son where his relatives lived and the car that belonged to his paternal uncle. What subsequently happened was that her son, along with his friend, set fire to the uncle’s car. The fire spread and a few other cars were burnt in the process. Unfortunately, the son had asked his mother to get the things needed for the burning, covering up his intention by telling her that he was having a barbeque with his friends. She had immediately got the charcoal and other required items and gave them to him. Subsequently, when the investigation proved that the fire had been deliberately set, the police arrested the son and his friend. His friend was sentenced to probation. We fought very hard for the son, who was the main culprit, and also managed to get him on probation but with restricted terms.
One of the things about probation is, if a probationer commits a new offence, he can be taken back to court and be punished for the original offence along with the new one.
In the meantime, Teo was charged for abetting her son in setting the cars on fire. She defended herself, saying, “No, I did not know that he was going to burn the cars. I thought he was going to have a barbeque.” But when her son was arrested, he made a statement implicating his mother. He claimed that he did it because he was frightened and did not know what he was saying.
Anyway, the case against Teo went on trial. While her son was giving evidence for the prosecution, the DPP tried to impeach him on the basis that what he was saying in court — that his mother was not involved — was contrary to what he had stated to the police. Teo, who was sitting behind me, realised that her son was going to be in trouble. He would either be charged for perjury in court or he would be charged for giving a false statement to the police. Whichever way you look at it, her son would be committing an offence. She was afraid that his probation might be revoked and he would be sent to jail. As she was signalling and trying to communicate with me, she caught the judge’s attention. He told me, “Mr Anandan, I think your client wants to say something to you.” I turned around and she anxiously said to me, “I want to plead guilty.”
Intending to calm her down, I said, “OK, just hold on.” I informed the District Judge (DJ) that I needed a short recess as there seemed to be some change in the instructions from my client. The DJ agreed and I went out of the courtroom with Teo. I asked her what the matter was and she said she wanted to plead guilty. I asked why, especially when the evidence against her so far was quite flimsy. I felt that she should not plead guilty. She persisted, saying she wanted to plead guilty to get her son out of trouble and to keep him from going to jail. I told her that if she pleaded guilty, then she would go to jail. I also reminded her that should she go to jail, the only person who would be able to look after her son was her sister who was suffering from cancer. I asked her for her final decision. She answered without hesitation, “I’d rather go to jail than see my son go to jail.”
Unfortunately, I had no choice when the instructions were such. I informed the DJ that we were changing our plea and she would be pleading guilty. I asked the DPP whether he was prepared to accept the original sentence for the charge of abetting an act of arson. He turned down our request. You know, many of these DPPs, when they know you are down they don’t hesitate to kick you. Here, he knew the reason why she decided to plead guilty. He was not going to give way. I said, “You know why she is pleading guilty. Between you and me, you know that she is doing it not out of convenience but because of her love for her son. Why don’t you take that into consideration and see whether you can go back to the original offer? They will still send her to jail but it will be for a shorter term.” He refused to commit and said that he would confer with his senior DPP. Half an hour later, he came back and said that his instructions were to stick to the revised charge. He could not go back to the initial offer of a reduced charge as it had expired. He said, “Sorry, but you have to plead guilty for the current charge.”
I explained to Teo that she could be in big trouble but she was insistent and willingly accepted the consequences. So she pleaded guilty and we submitted the psychiatrist’s report. The DPP asked for a deterrent sentence, meaning a longer jail term. However, the DJ gave her six months, saying that the DPP’s request was too high. We decided to go on appeal.
The High Court judge who heard the appeal reduced the sentence to two months. He was more compassionate than the DPP and the District Judge.
Again it shows that sometimes people do things without realising the consequences of their actions or they willingly accept blame because they do not want a loved one to get into trouble. They plead guilty for noble reasons. In this case, my client pleaded guilty to save her son. She didn’t want him to go to jail. She’d rather go to jail herself than to see her son imprisoned.
A mother’s love for her son can be very deep and this episode shows it so clearly. I could see the depth of her maternal love and I felt so sorry for her. There was only so much I could do for her. It was a decision she had to make. However, the prosecution couldn’t see it and neither could the DJ. To them, a spade is a spade; white is white and black is black. There are no shades of grey. I cannot understand why the prosecution can be so hardhearted and unwilling to understand the nature of the accused person or the motives behind the accused person’s actions. If they could take that step, it would improve our legal system considerably.
We need to get DPPs who are experienced enough, who have seen the world and who understand the complexity of human nature, to come to the right decisions. Instead, we have a lot of what we, at the Defence Bar, call “scholar nerds” — these are people who don’t understand anything except that it is the law and this is how it goes. They do not know how to exercise discretion.
FIVE
A SUDDEN LOSS
One afternoon, while I was at dialysis, I was given the sad news that Mr Karpal Singh, the lawyer whom I mentioned in my earlier book, had died in a car crash. I was very sad to hear that because he was a man whom I respected very much.
The last time I spoke with Karpal was when I had telephoned him, as President of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, to invite him to come to Singapore to be one of the guest speakers for a Criminal Law Conference organised by the association.
He answered the phone, “Hey, how are you? I hope you are not in some trouble?” Amused, I replied, “No, I am not.” I then explained the purpose of my call and he responded, “Of course, I will be there, but you have to give me proper notice as to when it is. Don’t call me and tell me that the next day I have to be there like you did before. Give me sufficient notice and I will be there. Don’t worry.” He also added, “Come to think of it, in Malaysia, we don’t have a criminal lawyers’ association. I think we should start one.” Agreeing with him, I said, “Yes, you should and maybe the two associations can work together on many issues.” His last words to me then were, “That is a very interesting proposition, working together with you, Subhas. I think that is going to get a lot of people worried. But it’s a good idea. I will think about it.”
However, the conference had to be postponed and I telephoned him to tell him about it. We ended that conversation with him telling me to call him whenever I was next in Kuala Lumpur. Sadly, that was the last time I spoke with him.
When I heard that he had died in a traffic accident, I was very rattled and shaken by the tragic way he went and the fact that people can suddenly leave you. He was such a dynamic person. I will never forget this old friend of mine. His death led me to be more appreciative of all of my old friends.
There is a book written about him by Tim Donoghue. I have a copy, given to me by a mutual friend who said to me, “Read the book. You might like it, you might not like it.” I read it. Donohue had mentioned an incident between Karpal Singh and me in Singapore University when we were both studying there. This incident was also mentioned in my earlier book.
Karpal loved f
un. He enjoyed himself to the extent that he failed his exams a number of times. But it never bothered him. He gave people the impression that his whole purpose in life was to have a good time. Subsequently, when he graduated and went back to Malaysia, he changed. He entered politics and became a noted opposition member who showed people that he actually cared for them and that he had compassion for them. He took on difficult cases that nobody else wanted to do and he did the best he could. And that is why he left his footprint, not only in Malaysia’s political world, but also in the legal arena. He went on to practise constitutional law and proved to the world that a person can be academically weak but when it came down to practice, it was a different game altogether. He was better than those who received first class honours or a second upper. He showed his true mettle in practice.
It is not going to be easy to find somebody to replace him. But then, Malaysia is a country that is capable of nurturing exceptional people. Let’s hope that a replacement will be found as soon as possible. I have a lot of fond memories of Karpal.
I had wished to go to pay my last respects at his funeral but I couldn’t make the trip to Malaysia because I had to undergo dialysis regularly. I myself nearly died because of my heart and kidney failure. Vimi offered to make the necessary arrangements if I really wanted to go as she could see that I was torn in my decision. But I said no as I felt that there was no point going when he was no more. I think Karpal would understand. He has always understood. But if I were well, I would attend his funeral because he was a man whom I cared for deeply. I wish his family all the best. I do not know how they are going to cope with such a loss but I suppose they have no choice but to do so. Stuck in my dialysis chair, I prayed for the soul of my dear friend who left us suddenly and very tragically. I thought of the past.
Some time in the early 1980s, I had asked Karpal to come and assist me in a contempt case involving the Workers’ Party Chairman Wong Hong Toy. I gave him only 24 hours’ notice. He cursed and swore at me but came that very evening. He went straight to JB Jeyaretnam’s (JBJ) house so that he could prepare for the next morning’s trial. That morning, we went to Court and argued the case the whole day until it was adjourned.
The sad part was JBJ did not even bother to host Karpal a lunch or dinner, much less meet him outside of Court for any social interaction. He gave a lot of excuses, saying that he had to meet his Party members and that he had other meetings and appointments. I felt really disappointed and upset, and I invited Karpal and his wife to dinner. I also invited them to lunch the next day before they left for the airport. I waited for them and when they arrived, Karpal looked at me and asked, “Subhas, why are you so glum today?” I just kept quiet.
He said, “You are upset because your client is not here?” I didn’t answer him. He said, “You know, Subhas, don’t ever be upset because of things like this. I did not come because I have any relationship with Jeyaretnam. I don’t even know who he is. I have not moved with him socially. It doesn’t matter whether he came and had lunch or dinner. I only came because of you as we have been friends since we read law in Bukit Timah campus. The spirit of the Union House that binds us will not allow me to let you down. Whenever you call me for help, I will come and I expect you to come when I call you. We all must have the spirit of helping each other. That is what made me. That’s what it should be.”
I just looked at him and thought to myself, “What a great guy he is, talking about Bukit Timah campus and the Union House.” He expressed his feelings so eloquently to me. He essentially told me, “Look, you call, I will come and if I call, you must come.” The bond will never be broken. So, you can imagine how I felt when I heard that he died in a car crash. I was so sad I wasn’t able to say anything for some time because he is a man who doesn’t deserve to die like that — in a horrific car crash. But that is how life is. We cannot predict the way we are going to go. Maybe we can influence the way we live, but how we go, we can never know. God bless Karpal Singh and may his spirit live on forever in Malaysian history.
It is so ironical that while I am thinking about Karpal during my dialysis, there sitting opposite me, is retired judge, Sam Sinnathuray, before whom Karpal and I appeared in that contempt case. On the opposing side of that trial were the Attorney-General Tan Boon Teik and DPP Glenn Knight. A week after Karpal left Singapore, Sam Sinnathuray delivered his judgement and he found Wong Hong Toy, Chairman of the Workers’ Party, guilty of contempt and fined him S$8,000.
Today, I am sitting in this chair dictating while the judge is sitting ten metres away from me, watching television during his dialysis.
SIX
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) publishes a newsletter called Pro Bono which discusses the law and the changes to it. In one of the editorials, I reiterated what Sim Yong Chan, the editor of Pro Bono, once said — that we are living in a golden era for criminal law. For instance, members of the judiciary are changing. We have Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who was a practising lawyer before, and we have the then Attorney-General Steven Chong, who was also a practising lawyer with some experience in criminal law practice. To top that, we have K Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs, who formerly practised criminal law. With these three people leading the judicial landscape, changes are expected and changes have come about. I have sat on two Committees: the Criminal Law Committee, which repealed the Criminal Procedure Code and drafted a new Code; and the Penal Code Committee, which considered mandatory death sentencing and decided that for certain offences, the judges will be given discretion whether to impose the death sentence.
Mandatory death sentencing is something I have been fighting against for a long time. I am not against the death sentence but I am against the mandatory death sentence. I have always felt that judges should be given the discretion to choose between a death sentence or life imprisonment. If you don’t give them a choice and if you tie their hands, you are not allowing them to use their discretion. In my opinion, I believe that the golden era for changes to the criminal law started even before Sundaresh Menon became Chief Justice, while the rest slowly came into the picture.
VK Rajah, Justice of Appeal, who also heard Magistrate Court appeals, set the trend of discretionary judgement. He looked at judgements from the Subordinate Courts, many of which he reversed. He was a judge who earned the respect of the Criminal Bar with his decisive judgement and precise explanations of his conclusions and interpretation of the law. I have always appreciated him and the clarity he brought with his judgements. He, I would argue, was the first to start pushing the envelope, bringing about changes in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code. Nobody seems to realise that. Everybody talks about other people. Unfortunately, he is not hearing Magistrate Court appeals anymore.
On the other hand, we have certain judges who make me wonder how they were selected to sit as High Court Judges. For some of them, I would not even select them to sit in the Subordinate Courts as a Magistrate. They do not write proper judgements. Some of them write judgements that are only one page long, while others write on for 84 pages after sentencing a person to death. There should be a limit. There is a need to shorten their briefs, but not to one page, and to convey their judgements with clarity and precision. Some of these judges don’t realise this. Nowadays, the judgements are so long, you wonder why you need to read them and how they are to be reproduced in the law magazines. Hundreds of pages long — I don’t know what these judges are trying to achieve! They do get carried away. I remember when I was a student, we were afraid of reading Supreme Court judgements from India as their judgements could go on to be a tome; one could have a book out of the judgement. Things here are coming to this stage. I think if you can’t say what you want to say in 20 to 30 pages, something is wrong. Anything more will just be a waste of time. It should be insisted that the brief be, well, brief. It often happens now that we ask an intern to read and summarise for us because the essence of the jud
gement is lost when the judge gets too long-winded.
In a particular case, a professor from the National University of Singapore was charged for corruption. His case was heard before the then Chief District Judge (CDJ). I felt that the CDJ’s conduct of the case was not satisfactory and that he was being very high-handed. The defence counsel was not given sufficient time to subpoena the psychiatrist but still managed to produce him in court. In the end, the CDJ convicted the professor on all the charges and wrote a long judgement. Before the appeal came on, he was promoted to be a Judicial Commissioner of the High Court. When his judgement came up for appeal, it was heard before Justice Woo Bih Li. Justice Woo heard both sides of the argument and made a brilliant judgement, declaring the original judgement wrong because of confusion over certain vital points. He wondered why this could have happened.
So, you start to wonder how certain people get promoted when they can’t even interpret the law of corruption properly. They rise as District Judges, sit there and get further promoted. What other greater mistakes can we make? And so, you have to take chances. In the Subordinate Court, I have taken some judges to the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions and got their judgements reversed. Yet, they still remain there, making the same old judgements which always get overruled in the end. As a defence counsel, it irks me to have to deal with such situations on a regular basis. More has to be looked into to ensure that the system can be fine-tuned to benefit all.
I found that dictating while doing dialysis is not as easy as I thought. You see, together with other patients, you watch nurses walking up and down monitoring us. Suddenly, you realise that you are totally dependant on the dialysis machine for your life. Then, depression hits and you wonder why you have to go through this stage and there are even times when you curse God. But, there are times when you pray to Him. It’s all a confused state of mind. Sometimes, you even wonder about the existence of God and whether you are actually going to something that does or doesn’t exist. But deep inside, with my religious upbringing and the fact that I am the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of a Hindu temple, there lies a conviction within me that there is a God and God works in mysterious ways. You really do not understand some of the things He does but again you must learn to accept it. The process of accepting is difficult but slowly I am getting the knack of it.
It's Easy to Cry Page 3