NOVEMBER 3 ― Yesterday, a mother went shopping for her son; but unlike the usual shopping treat, this mother went to purchase a set of new clothes that her son would wear when he hung from a noose.
Come dawn this Friday, Sarawakian Kho Jabing will face the gallows in Singapore. This, though, need not be an end to his life if the powers-that-be heed the cry of anti-death penalty advocates calling for a stay on his execution.
Amnesty International and other anti-death penalty advocates in Malaysia, Singapore and elsewhere have spent the last months working every possible avenue to stop Kho Jabing’s execution. We are now left with less than 72 hours and hoping for a miracle.
Kho Jabing, in prison for seven years and on death row for five, has exhausted all possible legal avenues, including the last option of clemency.
I have never met him, nor do I need to, to be convinced that the State has no right to decide when someone lives or dies. I do not need to know him to know that murdering him will deter future murderers.
At a time when more than two-thirds of all countries have already abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, Singapore’s continued use of the death penalty goes against the global trend of ending the practice of capital punishment.
More disturbingly, the re-imposition of the death sentence in Kho Jabing’s case by Singapore’s Court of Appeal in January 2015 came amid a split, three-to-two decision. The strong dissent of two justices raises an important question, even for those who agree with the death penalty: has Kho Jabing’s case sufficiently shown his disregard for the sanctity of human life?
Life and death decision in the balance
In July of 2010, Kho Jabing was first convicted and sentenced to death for the death of a construction worker named Cao Ruyin in Singapore. At the time, death was the mandatory punishment for murder.
A 2012 review of Singapore’s mandatory death penalty laws paved the way for discretionary sentencing for cases of murder in which there is no intention to cause death.
On 30 April 2013, the Court of Appeal confirmed that Kho Jabing’s case met the revised definition of murder for which discretion is allowed, and remitted his case to the High Court for re-sentencing. On 18 November 2013, Justice Tay Yong Kwang re-sentenced Kho Jabing to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
This reprieve was, however, short-lived; the decision was appealed by the prosecution, and on 14 January this year, the Court of Appeal re-imposed the death sentence against Kho Jabing in a close three-to-two decision.
The five judges unanimously agreed that the evidence available prevented a precise reconstruction of the murder, differing as to whether it was possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kho Jabing inflicted more than two strikes on Cao Ruyin and therefore represented a “blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life” — the key principle on which his case turns.
On this basis, three judges found Kho Jabing’s actions deserving of punishment by death, whereas two held that the evidence available did not prove with certainty that he had hit Cao Ruyin more than twice.
Having exhausted all available legal avenues, Kho Jabing formally applied for clemency from the President of Singapore on 27 April 2015.
Despite the numerous letters appealing on Kho Jabing’s behalf, delivered by his sister Jumai and mother Lenduk – who endeavored to travel to Singapore despite difficulties meeting costs on their own – clemency was rejected.
Of justice and mercy
The motivation for reforming Singapore’s sentencing framework was, to paraphrase the Minister of Law at the time, to ‘better balance the multiple objectives of the justice system: justice to the victim, to society, to the accused, and mercy in appropriate cases.’
Growing up, Kho Jabing received educational instruction only until the Primary 6 level. He then quit school to support his family financially, culminating in his leaving for Singapore in search of higher wages.
Kho Jabing’s seven years in jail have been tremendously difficult for him and his family. In this time, his father passed away, leaving his mother and sister in Sarawak, Malaysia, where they survive on RM150 (less than 39 USD) per month in welfare assistance.
Given that Cao Ruyin’s family may be in a similar circumstance, the loss of another life would only compound the tragedy in this story – doing little to further the ends of justice.
Thus, beyond evidentiary uncertainties and substantive judicial disagreement, imposing the death penalty fails to properly account for the principles of justice to the accused, and the provision of mercy.
Ensuring justice and fairness in the legal process
Amnesty International Malaysia does not seek to downplay the seriousness of Kho Jabing’s crime, nor its consequences.
However, the re-imposition of a death sentence by the Court of Appeal in a split 3-2 decision on the basis of an unclear reconstruction of the facts does more than raise serious questions: it makes the case for clemency, an essential safeguard of due process, all the more compelling.
By rejecting Kho Jabing’s clemency appeal, the Government of Singapore failed to fulfil the purpose of ensuring justice and fairness in the legal process, and curtailed the spirit of its own reform efforts aimed at reducing reliance on the death penalty as a means of administering justice.
Amnesty International Malaysia strongly urges the Malaysian authorities to explore all necessary avenues to halt the execution and commute Kho Jabing’s sentence. The Malaysian authorities should also urge their Singaporean counterparts to similarly commute all existing death sentences for others on death row, and immediately re-impose an official moratorium on executions, with a view to abolishing the death penalty, in line with five UN General Assembly resolutions adopted since 2007.
It is Amnesty International Malaysia’s hope that alongside these efforts abroad, the Malaysian authorities will set a good example by accomplishing the same at home.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
