Joint statement on imminent execution of Kho Jabing
We, the undersigned, are troubled by the imminent execution of
Jabing Kho in Singapore, despite strong concerns over the development of
his case. We believe there are strong grounds for President Tony Tan of
the Republic of Singapore to grant clemency in this case.
The family of Sarawakian Jabing Kho,
31, received a letter from the Singapore Prison Service on 12 May 2016
informing them that his execution had been scheduled for 20 May 2016.
Jabing was convicted of murder in 2011.
The announcement came as a shock to the family and all involved in
campaigning for Jabing. We had been under the impression that the
authorities would allow his lawyer to submit a fresh clemency appeal on
his behalf after the criminal motion filed in late 2015 was dismissed in
April this year. His lawyer had sent President Tony Tan a holding
letter informing them of his intention to file a new clemency petition,
and had been in the process of drafting it when the execution was
scheduled.
On 13 May 2016, Jabing’s lawyer
received a letter from the President saying that he would be willing to
consider a clemency petition if it is filed, but will not be postponing
the scheduled execution. Considering that past practice shows that the
President usually takes three months before any decision regarding
clemency is announced, we are concerned that this current state of
affairs will leave the Cabinet and the President with insufficient time
to properly consider a fresh plea from Jabing.
We do not condone Jabing’s crime, nor
do we seek to erase the hurt he has caused to the victim’s family. Yet
the course of Jabing’s case has been tumultuous and traumatic. Due to
amendments made to Singapore’s mandatory death penalty regime and
appeals lodged by the prosecution, Jabing had, over the years, been
sentenced to death, then life imprisonment (with caning), then death
again. This back-and-forth has taken a horrific toll not just on Jabing
as the inmate, but his family.
Furthermore, one High Court judge and two Judges of Appeal had not
believed that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for Jabing
Kho, as they felt that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate
that he had exhibited a “blatant disregard for human life”. (See Annex
A, attached at the end of this statement, for relevant excerpts of the
judges’ ruling.)
The death penalty does not simply
exact an irreversible punishment, but also imposes emotional and
psychological tolls on both the inmate and the family and we oppose it
unconditionally. Having been re-sentenced twice, from death to life and
back again, Jabing and his family have already been put through a deeply
painful process. The knowledge that three respected and honourable
judges hold the belief that the current punishment does not fit the
crime simply makes the situation doubly hard to bear.
We believe that Jabing Kho’s case
presents very strong and persuasive grounds for clemency, and that his
death sentence should be immediately be set aside and commuted to life
imprisonment as allowed by Singapore’s Constitution.
We therefore urge the Cabinet of
Singapore to advise President Tony Tan to grant clemency to Jabing Kho
without delay and re-establish a moratorium on executions as a first
step towards the abolition of the death penalty.
Local Organisations
Community Action Network
Function8
Maruah
Sayoni
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
Think Centre
We Believe in Second Chances
Regional/International Organisations
Advocates Association of Sarawak
Amnesty International
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Center for Orang Asli Concerns
Center for Prisoner’s Rights Japan
Civil Rights Committee KLSCAH
Damn the Dams
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
People’s Green Coalition
Reprieve Australia
Sembang-sembang Forum
Suara Rakyat Malaysia
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP)
The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence
Victims’ Family Organisations
Journey of Hope
Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights
Ocean
Individuals
Abdul Rashid bin Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Atiqah bte Zaimi, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Haminah bte Abu Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Idros Ismail, brother of inmate on death row in Singapore
Jolene Tan, writer and activist
Kokila Annamalai, activist and community organiser
Letchumy Arumugam, mother of inmate on death row in Singapore
Marilyn Siew, activist
Mervin Mikhail
M Ravi, anti-death penalty activist
Osman bin Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Priya Ratha Krishnan, fiancée of inmate on death row in Singapore
Sangeetha Thanapal, activist
Saraswathy Kataiah, sister of inmate on death row in Singapore
Sean Francis Han, activist
Sharmila Rockey, sister of inmate on death row in Singapore
Syida Ismail, sister of inmate on death row in Singapore
Tan Tee Seng, activist
Vanessa Ho, activist
Zaimi Bin Abdul Rahman, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Zarah bte Abu Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
MEDIA CONTACT:
Kirsten Han, We Believe in Second Chances
kirsten@secondchances.asia
Rachel Zeng, Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign
rachelabsinthe@gmail.com
ANNEX A
Comments from judges on Kho Jabing’s case
Justice Tay Yong Kwang, High Court, 2013:
“After considering all the
factors put forward by the parties, I am of the view that the death
penalty is not the appropriate sentence for the convicted person for the
following reasons:
(a) He was relatively young at 24 at the time of the offence in 2008…
(b) The convicted person’s choice and
use of the piece of wood during the attack were, in the words of the
Court of Appeal, “opportunistic and improvisational” and not part of a
pre-arranged plan. Equally so was Galing’s use of his belt as a weapon;
(c) There was no clear sequence of
events concerning the attack. There was no clear evidence that the
convicted person went after the deceased from behind without warning and
started hitting him on the head with the piece of wood. There was
evidence that a struggle could have taken place first between Galing and
the deceased before the convicted person stopped chasing Wu Jun and
returned to assault the deceased.”
Justice Lee Seiu Kin, Court of Appeal, January 2015:
“…there is insufficient evidence to
conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Jabing had caused most of the
fractures (either by multiple strikes or by two strikes with huge
force).
…the evidence could only prove beyond
reasonable doubt that Jabing had struck the deceased on the head twice.
There is also doubt as to whether those two blows were the cause of
most of the extensive injuries found in the skull, as opposed to causing
it to fracture and resulting in death.”
“Based on the evidence that I have
shown to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I am of the view that the
threshold is not crossed. Jabing, along with Galing, had intended to rob
the deceased and his companion, Wu Jun. Jabing had approached the
deceased from behind and struck him with two wicked blows to the head
with the intention, at the very minimum, to incapacitate him. But he had
stopped after that. It was not a case in which he had repeatedly hit
the deceased after he was down, which would justify the conclusion that
he had acted with viciousness and blatant disregard for human life. I
must therefore, with the greatest of respect, disagree with the decision
of the majority of this court to allow the appeal of the Public
Prosecutor.”
Justice Woo Bih Li, Court of Appeal, January 2015:
“In the circumstances, and even
though Jabing’s blows would have been of considerable force, it is in my
view unsafe to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in a
way which exhibited a blatant disregard for human life. I would
therefore dismiss the Prosecution’s appeal for capital punishment for
Jabing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment