Nasir didn’t realise that his friend was just boasting that he knew how to hire assassins. At first, the friend had asked for $500 for the assassin, who was supposedly a Thai. When Nasir agreed to the sum, the amount was raised to $4,000. Nasir wasn’t daunted. He said he could still afford it and told his friend to instruct the assassin to do the job. His friend even asked him for a photo of Aniza’s husband. Nasir duly got a photo from Aniza and told her that he had made all the arrangements. Days passed but nothing happened to Manap. Nasir called his friend but he was avoiding him. The friend had by then realised that Nasir was serious about the matter and prepared to pay the $4,000. There was no assassin after all and, in his mind, Nasir had little choice as to what he had to do if he wanted to keep Aniza as his girlfriend. She had threatened to leave him and return to her ex-boyfriend who was apparently prepared to do the deed. (To this day, nobody knows whether she had lied about the ex-boyfriend.) Nasir was so in love with Aniza that he could not live without her. So he decided he might as well do what she wanted.
He told her not to worry and assured her that he would kill Manap. Aniza instructed him: “Don’t contact me. I will contact you. I will contact you with my friend’s phone. It’s best that we don’t have any communication during this period.” Nasir agreed. That night they left the pub together. Nasir had a knife and his crash helmet with him which he would use to disguise himself. He went to Whampoa Drive and waited for Manap. He had been told by Aniza that if he was asked why he was there, he was to say that he was going to borrow a video tape from Aniza. Finally, Manap returned home and saw Nasir outside the flat. He knew Nasir because he had seen him before, but before he could react, Nasir stabbed him in the neck a few times. As Manap collapsed, he asked Nasir: “Why are you doing this? I’ve done you no harm.” Nasir just shook his head because he knew what Manap said was true. He had done Nasir no wrong, but Nasir had stabbed and killed him because Aniza wanted him to do it. As Nasir was running down to the next floor to take the lift, he heard groans from upstairs. Realising that Manap had not died and that he could identify him, he ran up the steps and stabbed him again. This time, he stabbed him through the chest to make sure that he was dead. Then wearing his helmet, he ran back home.
Although the police had released Aniza after taking an initial statement from her, they arrested her a few days later. They had managed to trace earlier phone calls between her and Nasir which indicated that there was a plot to kill her husband. At the police station, she broke down during questioning and confessed to the whole scheme. But in her confession she put the entire blame on Nasir, saying he had initiated the move to kill her husband. She made it look as though her role in the murder was minor and Nasir had masterminded the whole plot. The police arrested Nasir and told him that they knew everything, that Aniza had confessed, that there was no point in lying, and that it was better that he told the truth.
Upon learning what Aniza had told the police, Nasir lost his cool and related everything that had happened. He said he did it for the love of Aniza and related how her repeated threats to leave him forced his hand. He managed to convince the police that he was telling the truth. The police questioned Aniza again and after looking at all the evidence, decided that it was Aniza who had made use of Nasir. She had everything to gain with her husband’s death. Both of them were charged with murder.
I was briefed to act for Nasir. Aniza was represented by my close friend, Noor Marican. After a few appearances in court, the prosecution decided that Aniza would be charged on a lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The charge against Aniza was reduced because a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health certified that she was going through depression and that it impaired her thinking. As such she was entitled to the defence of diminished responsibility which is an exception to the charge of murder. I was very surprised that the prosecution readily accepted the psychiatrist’s report and reduced the charge against her based on that report. In many cases, the prosecution demands a second psychiatric opinion.
Noor Marican was, of course, very happy that the charge was reduced and had his client plead guilty to the reduced charge. The prosecution, in their statement of facts, focused the blame squarely on Aniza, stating that she was the main cause of the tragedy. She had instigated Nasir to commit the act and the statement of facts disclosed that she manipulated Nasir. The prosecution asked for the maximum sentence, that is, life imprisonment, on Aniza. But Justice Chan Seng Onn, who heard Aniza’s case, did not impose it. Instead, he imposed a sentence of nine years and since she was a woman, she would not be caned. With good behaviour, she could be released in six years because of one-third remission for good behaviour. The sentence was also backdated to the time of arrest. In essence, it meant that she would serve about five years before being released from prison.
In the meantime, we wrote to the prosecution to reduce the charge for Nasir, saying that they had themselves admitted that Nasir was manipulated by Aniza. Although she did not do the actual stabbing, it was quite clear that she was responsible for my client holding the knife. In fact, in my mitigation for Nasir, I called Aniza a manipulative monster but it would have been fairer to call her a mad manipulative monster. The prosecution did not want to reduce the charge for Nasir. They said it had to be murder and since he was below 18 years at the time of offence, he would not be sentenced to death but would instead be held under the President’s pleasure. In other words, Nasir could be held for a very long time until the President decides when he should be released. In my experience, people who are held under the President’s pleasure stay at least 10 to 12 years in prison. I said it was not fair that Aniza would be released in less than six years and this boy, who was clearly manipulated by her, should pay such a heavy penalty.
We wrote many representations to the prosecution with all the factors in favour of Nasir. Every representation was turned down and the prosecution insisted that they had to go on a charge of murder. I believe they were afraid that if they reduced the charge, Nasir might get the same sentence as Aniza or even less. The prosecution did not want that to happen. I don’t know why they wanted Nasir kept in prison for such a long time, especially when he had shown so much remorse and cooperated with the police. According to the psychiatrist’s evaluation, he showed remorse. He realised that he had been made use of by Aniza. He was just a tool for her vengeance. His love for her turned to hatred because he now knew how she had used him. There was no love left in him for her. Everything we could throw into our mitigation, including remorse, was not accepted by the prosecution. They insisted on charging him for murder.
For the first time in the legal history of Singapore, a person was allowed to plead guilty in a capital case without the prosecution calling witnesses to prove its case. Justice Kan Ting Chiu, who heard Nasir’s case, agreed that there was no need to waste everybody’s time by calling witnesses, when I as defence counsel, assisted by my nephew Sunil, had agreed that there was no need for it. We had advised our client of his rights and there was an agreed statement of facts which clearly brought out the ingredients of the charge. Nasir was prepared to accept the statement of facts.
The DPP Tan Kiat Peng, who was assisted by DPP Samuel Chua, was not happy, stating that it might lead to criticism. The judge laughed and said: “The only person who should be worried about any criticism would be the defence counsel who is experienced enough to advise his client, and he told me that his client had no problem with the agreed statement of facts. So, you take instructions from your superiors in the afternoon and tell me whether we have to go through the fuss of calling all these witnesses for nothing because I can still rule against you.” The DPP returned in the afternoon and said they were not very happy but would leave it to the court. The judge said: “Well, I’ll just agree to the statement of facts and Mr Anandan has already explained to the accused of the consequences. That’s good enough for me.”
It was also the first time that we were allowed to state points in our c
lient’s favour as our mitigation. Normally, when a person is found guilty of murder, there is no mitigation as there is no other sentence but the death sentence. In this particular case, as there was no death sentence due to his youth, the case would be reviewed periodically by the President. The judge allowed me to point out those facts that were in Nasir’s favour so that when the authorities review his case, they would know what sort of a person he is. I raised all the mitigating factors: how a 16-year-old boy had been manipulated, how he thought his lover was so great and how he was not prepared to lose her.
Nasir had written a letter to the judge acknowledging that he was foolish. (A section is reproduced on page 209.) He thought that his love would last forever but he now realised that it doesn’t. In it, Nasir asked the judge for a chance to reform. It was a very touching letter in which he described his feelings and explained why he killed Manap. The judge said that he understood what my client and I were trying to tell him but under the law, his hands were tied and he had no choice but to send him to prison at the President’s pleasure. He also pointed out to Nasir that no matter what he said, he was still responsible for causing the death of a man. Nasir just nodded and was taken away.
I had a chat with Nasir just before he was taken away. He thanked me for all that I had done for him and he said he would try to study in prison. I told him that if he had any problems with the authorities, he could let me know. I would arrange for him to do his ‘O’ and ‘A’ level exams. He was going to be there for a long time. The judge was kind enough to allow his family to have a word with him in court. There were a lot of tears. When I was walking out of the court with Sunil and my intern, Michelle Chua, Nasir’s family who was outside stopped us. They held my hand and thanked me for my work on the case. I told them that I couldn’t do very much. However, they were very grateful for the points of my mitigation. The press had asked to interview the family but they declined.
That was the end as far as the case was concerned, but when I went back to my office, I started thinking about how ridiculous Nasir’s situation was. Here was a woman who had instigated and practically caused the death of her husband and who would serve less than six years in jail, while a boy, still in his youth and completely under the control of this woman, would spend a longer time in jail. He was madly in love with her and she would use sex to entice him to do anything for her. She even threatened to leave him. She did everything possible to ensure that this boy would heed her demands. Where is the justice in this case? Where is the fairness? I believe the judge wanted to show compassion but had no choice. He had no opportunity to show any compassion as the law decreed that Nasir had to be sent to prison under the President’s pleasure. The judge’s hands were tied.
Why didn’t the prosecution reduce the charge? Wouldn’t that be fair if the charge for the main culprit was to be reduced for whatever reason? Shouldn’t the prosecution have given this 16-year-old boy the same chance? Many a time the prosecution has erred in exercising its prosecutory prerogative which is so rigid and strong that compassion is considered a weakness. Why they must take such a tough stand, I cannot understand. Reducing Nasir’s charge to culpable homicide would have been the fairest thing to do. In this case, justice and law were not distant cousins. They were total strangers.
NINETEEN
ANTHONY LER
That Certain Smile
The case of Anthony Ler was particularly heinous and tagged the crime story of 2001 because it set loose a range of emotions amongst Singaporeans. There were three things that struck members of the public as they looked on in morbid fascination during the trial: How could a man kill the mother of his own daughter? How could he coach a teenage boy to commit murder? How could he put his young daughter in a position in which she ended up with no parents?
Ler did all these things. He was accused and convicted of abetting in the murder of his estranged wife Annie Leong Wai Muen, an insurance agent. In May 2001, Ler had enticed a 15-year-old boy to murder the mother of his own four-year-old child by offering him $100,000 and the promise of beautiful women. Because of his youth, the 15-year-old could not be named in the newspapers. While Ler was hanged for his part in the crime, the youth escaped hanging because he was too young and was detained at the President’s pleasure. It is believed that the boy, now in his early twenties, is still detained.
Some people have likened Ler’s case to the O J Simpson trial, albeit a watered down version. The local media recklessly added to the sensationalism by showing a smiling Ler chatting with policemen. During his trial, Ler tried to defend himself by claiming that the idea to murder Madam Leong had been a joke. However, the motivation behind the murder was greed as Ler’s web design business was apparently in dire financial straits and he was in need of cash. He wanted his wife out of the way so he could, as the sole owner, sell their flat. Ler offered the boy money to do the deed. Together, they plotted out the details.
Ler arranged for his wife to sign some documents with him. Meanwhile, the boy lay in wait for her to return to her flat on the fourth floor of Block 923 Hougang Avenue 9. Without suspecting that anything could be amiss, Madam Leong went down to the void deck of the block with her four-year-old daughter to meet Ler. Apparently, she went back to her flat without her daughter and was less than 50 metres away from the flat when she was attacked. She staggered towards the front door and collapsed in her mother’s arms. She was bleeding profusely and died later in Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Madam Leong’s mother later told police that Ler appeared only a few minutes later, saying he was at the void deck and had heard screams. He supposedly told his wife not to close her eyes and to try to stay awake. A neighbour noted that his daughter had come up with him.
Fingers were pointing at Ler as soon as the murder was reported in the media on May 17, 2001. Some members of the public even said he had hired someone to kill his wife though the motives were unclear until the case reached the courts. Ler was apprehended with evidence found in his computer by the CID’s Technology Crime Forensic Branch, Technology Crime Division. After the murder, to avoid being overheard, Ler and the boy had communicated by typing messages to each other using Ler’s computer. They did this sitting side by side in Ler’s flat. Even though Ler had not saved the files in his computer, the police were able to retrieve the correspondence using advanced software. The communication between them led to Ler’s downfall because it offered hard evidence of his involvement in the case.
I went to Queenstown Remand Prison to take instructions on the evidence given to me by the prosecution. I showed Anthony Ler the messages between him and the boy from the computer. He was shocked and asked me how they could recover the evidence when he had erased them. I told him it was possible and legal. He just looked at me and for once, he lost his silly smile.
There are similarities in the cases of Aniza Essa and Anthony Ler. Both had enticed young boys to commit a serious crime. Ler used a 15-year-old boy while Aniza goaded her 16-year-old lover. Both manipulated the egos of the teenagers. Initially, Ler had chosen and trained the boy’s friend to do the act but the friend had backed out. The 15-year-old boy had been very hurt and asked Ler, “Why did you choose him when you knew me first? I can do the job. I’m better than him.” And when, at the final moment, he had a change of mind, Ler sarcastically said, “It’s not as easy as you think, is it?” Similarly, Aniza used the threat of asking her ex-lover to do the deed if Nasir “can’t do it” knowing that the boy was very much in love with her and could not bear to lose her.
The tragedy in both these cases is that youths were employed by adults to commit murders. Ler was sentenced to death. He has been executed and I believe his last wish was to donate his organs, perhaps in atonement for what he did. In contrast, Aniza will be out in five to six years’ time. But the prosecution has appealed against the sentence on Aniza. It is for the Court of Appeal to decide whether she’ll get life or something else.
When Anthony Ler’s mother came to see me, she was like most mothers—desperate
to save her son in any way possible. I was not keen to take on the case. I had been following the investigations in the newspapers and was a little perturbed with the smile that appeared on every photo published by the press. It almost always seemed a permanent fixture on his face. But when I heard his mother’s plea and saw the tears in her eyes, I just couldn’t say no to her. I thought of my own mother and how she would have felt if something similar happened to me or my siblings. And so I agreed to defend him.
When I first went to see him at Queenstown Remand Prison, I really didn’t know what to expect. He was already seated in an interview room waiting for me. As I entered the room, he politely stood up and shook my hand even though his other hand was handcuffed to a hook on the wall. The first thing I noticed was his smile. It was a smile that could be interpreted in so many ways. That smile could be a sneer, it could be a smile of confidence, or it could be one that belies some deep fear. For some reason, I have never related his smile to one of happiness. Throughout the trial, he wore that smile and he kept that smile even when giving evidence. Somehow, I felt it was his security blanket. Maybe I was right. I was not the only person who wondered about that enigmatic smile. Even the media mentioned it.
On the day of his execution and cremation, a crime reporter by the name of Vijayan called me to ask whether I would be attending Ler’s funeral. Of course, I said no. It is not my practice to attend my clients’ funerals. Later, Vijayan told me that only Ler’s brother was at the funeral. Nobody else came.
The Best I Could Page 18