The President's Pleasure

The practice of TPP was inherited from the British law that ruled Singapore during the British colonial rule of Singapore. Similar to the TPP in Singapore, Britain decreed that youths who commit capital crimes when aged below 18 would not be subject to capital punishment, but to indefinite detention at her Majesty's Pleasure.[1] This practice in Britain for capital offences continued until Britain abolished the death penalty.

Under Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 1985 Ed.), it was ruled that if a person was found guilty of a capital offence which he/she committed when he was below 18 years old, he would be spared the death penalty in Singapore and was to be detained indefinitely under the President's Pleasure. The section was repealed in 2010 following the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code of Singapore.

Extracted from a judgement titled Public Prosecutor v Anthony Ler Wee Teang and Another [2001] SGHC 361 (the original text of Section 213 of the CPC; repealed in 2010):

"213. Sentence of death shall not be pronounced on or recorded against a person convicted of an offence if it appears to the court that at the time when the offence was committed he was under the age of 18 years but instead of that the court shall sentence him to be detained during the Presidents pleasure, and, if so sentenced, he shall be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the President directs, and while so detained shall be deemed to be in legal custody."[2]

Under this TPP measure, the normal length of detention would be between 10 to 20 years. The detainees under this measure will be periodically reviewed by the President's Pleasure Board (appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs) in every 4 years up till the 10th year, when they are annually reviewed and would be considered for release after serving at least 13 years. The President can direct their release, based on a recommendation, if they are found suitable for release.[3][4][5][6] This is done so by granting the detainees clemency, as notably proven by the clemency appeal process by the underaged hired killer of Anthony Ler, who was detained under the TPP for killing Ler's wife under Ler's orders and manipulation.[7]

During the period of their incarceration, the detainees will be in workshops within the institution or undergo vocational and educational programmes, which is determinant of their conduct and behaviour in prison. Such inmates would also be allowed access to family contact through regular visits.[1]

Under this measure, which was carried out by the Singapore Prison Service, it was ruled that any offender, regardless of their age at the time of the commission of the offence, are to be acquitted of any crimes if they were certified to be of unsound mind at the time of the offences. Once there are such cases, the Minister of Law will be notified and may issue an order for their detention under the TPP. Such offenders will be placed in confinement at the Institute of Mental Health or at prisons.[8] Unlike the practice for underaged offenders, this form of TPP did not have a minimum period of detention.

In every six months, the criminals detained under this TPP will have their mental conditions reviewed by psychiatrists. If the psychiatric review finds that a detainee may be discharged without danger of injuring himself/herself or others, the Law Minister of Singapore may order his/her release. During their detention, the detainees may be released into the custody of a friend or relative who provides security and promises to care for them properly and prevent them from injuring themselves or others.[9]

Extracted from a judgement titled Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Meng [2020] SGHC 225 (the original text of Section 251 of the CPC):

Acquittal on ground of unsound mind 251. If an accused is acquitted on the ground that at the time at which he is alleged to have committed an offence he was by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing the nature of the act as constituting the offence or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the finding must state specifically whether he committed the act or not.[10]

Original text of Section 252 of the CPC:

Safe custody of person acquitted 252. —(1) Whenever the finding states that the accused committed the act alleged, the court before which the trial has been held shall, if that act would but for the incapacity found have constituted an offence, order that person to be kept in safe custody in such place and manner as the court thinks fit and shall report the case for the orders of the Minister. (2) The Minister may order that person to be confined in a psychiatric institution, prison or other suitable place of safe custody during the President’s pleasure.[11]

Reportedly, for the form of TPP addressing the underaged, from 1969 to 2001, the shortest time spent under TPP was 7 years and the longest was 26 years, and ten of the detainees were granted clemency. It was further revealed in a December 2001 report, that there were 14 people serving detention under the TPP. In May 2008, a month after the latest conviction of an underaged offender named Muhammad Nasir bin Abdul Aziz for murder, there were seven underaged offenders (including Muhammad Nasir himself) serving time under the TPP.[1] In January 2018, there were two inmates of the TPP remaining in prison. These inmates were the last two people serving time under the TPP since its abolition in 2010.[9] There were no specific data regarding the number of inmates detained annually or their release dates (for most of the inmates).

From the year 1965 until 2008, there were reports of underaged offenders who were found guilty of murder and drug trafficking but given a indefinite detention period under the TPP due to them not reaching the age of 18, though two managed to escape the TPP detention due to successful appeals against their convictions.[12][13] Most of the cases were murder cases. By gender, most of the offenders were male, and most of these inmates were local. Racially, most of the offenders were Chinese, while among the rest, there were a handful of Malays and only one was of Indian descent.

As of 14 December 2017, there were three offenders being detained under this practice due to them being of unsound mind at the time of their offences. Two of them had committed murder while the third had committed the crime of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon.[14]

On the evening of 4 February 1965, in Dorset Road, 18-year-old Abdul Ghany bin Ahmad, who was sweeping the drains nearby, witnessed a known acquaintance - 30-year-old P. Nadarajan - walking towards his two younger brothers - Abdul Wahid bin Ahmad, aged 3, and Abdul Jamal bin Ahmad, aged 4 - who were playing on a concrete bridge nearby. The next moment, Abdul Ghany saw Nadarajan picked up a wooden pole and used it to hit one of his brothers Abdul Wahid on the head thrice, much to his horror and anger. Abdul Ghany rushed to his brother's aid and hit Nadarajan (who threw the pole into the drain) on the back with his broom, confronting the mana and asking him why he attacked his brother. Nadarajan, however, did not give an answer and walked away nonchalantly. 3-year-old Abdul Wahid, who suffered a fatal fractured skull, was subsequently rushed to Outram Hospital, where he died on the night itself.

Nadarajan was arrested a few days later, and on 22 February 1965, he was charged with murder. Nadarajan was said to have provided the deceased boy and his brothers and sisters with sweets and had slept under the staircase at the front of Abdul Wahid's house. However, a psychiatrist found that Nadarajan was a psychopath and was thus of unsound mind when he killed Abdul Wahid. It was also found that for this illness, Nadarajan had been once hospitalised in a mental hospital on 23 October 1962, till his release on an unspecified date prior to the murder of Abdul Wahid.

On 28 February 1973, more than 8 years after he murdered Abdul Wahid, 38-year-old Nadarajan pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Nadarajan was ordered to be taken to Woodbridge Hospital, where he will be detained indefinitely at the President's Pleasure till such time he is fit for release.[15]

At a pasar malam in Trevose Crescent on 17 August 1965, a Malay man, who was identified as 35-year-old Rafie bin Osman, was found dead with a knife embedded on his chest. There was also another serious stab wound on his waist. It was said that the victim and his two companions to be attacked by a group of men armed with knives before he was found dead.

Seven men were arrested in suspicion of committing the murder, though it would ultimately be four of them charged with murder. The four men were: Ramlan bin Manijan, 19; Mohamed bin Adat, 29; Hisom bin Mahidi, 25; and Mohammed Salleh bin Daim, 17. In their trial a year later, both Mohamed and Hisom denied the murder charge while putting up their defence while the other two remained silent. At the end of the trial on 28 July 1966, a seven-men jury unanimously found three men (Mohamed, Salleh and Ramlan) guilty of murder while they find Hisom, by a 6-1 decision, guilty of murder. Salleh, who was aged below 18 at the time of the crime, was ordered to be detained indefinitely at the President's Pleasure, while the rest of the three were sentenced to death.[16]

All four men appealed against their convictions. On 10 March 1967, the Court of Appeal overturned the convictions of all the four accused persons, and set them free due to the evidence being tainted and the jury not properly directed by the trial judge on some reasons.[12]

Mohammed Salleh bin Daim was possibly the first person to escape indefinite detention under the TPP due to a successful appeal against his conviction for a capital offence.

On 20 November 1969, 16-year-old Lee Boo Tiong, a construction labourer, stabbed and murdered Ong Ah Her, a wooden manufacturer in his factory after he tried to extort $10 from Ong's brother. Lee was found guilty of murder in September 1970, but since his actual age was 16 years and 10 months and he was not 18 years old and above at the time of the crime, he was imprisoned under the President's Pleasure.[17] Lee filed an appeal against his conviction, but it was dismissed on 15 August 1972.[18]

On 29 December 1971, there were ten people aged between 16 and 34 involved in the triple killings of a businessman cum gold bar smuggler and his two assistants after robbing them of 120 gold bars worth $500,000. The corpse of the businessman, 55-year-old Ngo Cheng Poh, along with those of his assistants - 57-year-old Ang Boon Chai and 51-year-old Leong Chin Woo - were found in a jungle by the NS conscripts training nearby the area. The police investigations conducted after the discovery of the bodies had managed to lead to the arrests of the 10 men. The 10 men were: Andrew Chou Hock Guan, 25; David Chou Hock Heng, 34; Peter Lim Swee Guan, 24; Augustine Ang Cheng Siong, 25; Alex Yau Hean Thye, 19; Stephen Francis, 20; Richard James, 18; Konesekaram s/o Nagalingam, 18; Stephen Lee Hock Khoon, 16; and Ringo Lee Chiew Chwee, 16. The stolen 120 gold bars were also recovered.[19] The case was known as the "Gold Bars Triple Murders".

In October 1972, the murder trial began. However, nine of the ten men stood trial. The tenth and final man, Augustine Ang, was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, after he confessed to the police for his crime upon his apprehension and cooperated with the police during their investigations. Consequently, for his participation in the murder, Ang was detained indefinitely without trial; he went on to spend around 16 years in prison before his release sometime in the 1980s. During the 40-day trial, Ang became the chief prosecution witness against all the nine men, who pleaded not guilty to murder. The nine men were subsequently found guilty of murder in December 1972; however, seven of these people were sentenced to death while the remaining two, Stephen Lee and Ringo Lee, were spared the gallows due to the fact that they were under the age of 18 at the time of the murders. Both Stephen Lee and Ringo Lee were detained under the TPP. Meanwhile, after exhausting all their avenues of appeal, the seven men were eventually hanged on 28 February 1975.[20]

After serving 17 years in prison, Ringo Lee, aged 33 or 34 at that point, was released in 1988 or 1989. As for Stephen Lee, he was detained for a longer term under the TPP before he was released, presumably sometime in the 1990s and before 2002.

On 20 December 1975, 17-year-old Lim Heng Chau was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint for carrying 499g of heroin. Lim pleaded guilty to drug trafficking but since he was below 18 years old at the time of the crime, Lim was ordered to be detained indefinitely at the President's Pleasure. Lim Heng Chau was the first convicted drug trafficker to escape the gallows since the introduction of the death penalty for trafficking more than 15g of heroin in December 1975, the same month of Lim's arrest for the offence.[21]

On 13 September 1976, 13-year-old Sa'at bin Ismail approached 68-year-old Letchimi d/o Vilappan on a five-foot way of a coffee shop in Serangoon Road, alighting a newspaper and threw the burnig newspaper at the sleeping woman, setting Letchimi on fire and causing Letchimi to be burned to death. Before the incident, Sa'at was said to have quarrels with the woman and he decided to harm her after the woman gave him a lot of trouble and after his father refused to give him pocket money or speak to him. Sa'at, who was a day short of celebrating his 14th birthday when he killed Letchimi, was arrested and charged with murder.

At the trial, Sa'at claimed that he did not expect that Letchimi would be severely burned to death as he only wanted to burn her legs and to frighten her. Nevertheless, the High Court found Sa'at guilty of murder on 27 May 1977. However, due to his age, Sa'at escaped the death penalty and thus he was indefinitely detained at the President's Pleasure.[22] Upon appeal however, Sa'at's murder conviction was reduced to one of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and thus his sentence was reduced to 3 years' probation.

As an aftermath of the case, Sa'at grew up and became a male prostitute, a transvestite. He would run afoul of the law once again a few times. On 15 December 1984, Sa'at chopped off the genitals of a 47-year-old male client and set his blanket on fire. He also committed arson on 15 February 1985 by setting a British man's apartment on fire after spiking the man's drink with sleeping pills. The above two had led to injuries sustained by the victims. Other than those, Sa'at had also committed theft by stealing the possessions of his clients. Sa'at was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for these above offences on 8 December 1986.[13][23] In 12 February 1990, 27-year-old Sa'at robbed a tourist after spiking his drink. A district court convicted Sa'at and sentenced him to 5 years' corrective training four months later for the robbery.[24]

On 20 September 1981, after having a heated argument with another man while driving in a lorry, 22-year-old lorry driver Ramu Annadavascan stopped his lorry nearby East Coast Park and gotten off together with 45-year-old boilerman Kalingam Mariappan, with whom Ramu was arguing with earlier on. The two men were joined in by Ramu's 16-year-old friend and news vendor Rathakrishnan Ramasamy, who was sitting at the back of the lorry. Armed with a gardening rake, Ramu hit Kalingam on the head with the rake once, and next, Rathakrishnan took the rake from Ramu and hit Kalingam on the head; this time, the second blow from Rathakrishnan proved fatal, and Kalingam fell down unconscious on the grass. After Kalingam fell unconscious on the grass, Rathakrishnan was told to bring petrol over by Ramu.

After pouring petrol on the body of Kalingam, whom they presumed dead, Ramu lit a match and set Kalingam on fire, causing Kalingam to suddenly got up and rolled in pain just when both the men were about to leave. The duo leave in Ramu's lorry anyway, leaving behind Kalingam, who was eventually burned to death. Two days later, Kalingam's wife Supalatmi, who was unaware of her husband's death, reported him missing when she did not see her husband returning home for the last two days. Police investigations soon led to the arrests of both Ramu and Rathakrishnan, who were both last seen with Kalingam having drinks of beer before they left in Ramu's lorry on that day itself. The two arrested men were charged with murder. It was further revealed in the trial of the two men three years later that both Kalingam and Ramu had a bad relationship due to some unsettled conflicts and often argued with each other.

On 3 July 1984, despite their defences of no intent to kill Kalingam, both Ramu and Rathakrishnan were found guilty of murder. Ramu was sentenced to death while Rathakrishnan was sentenced to imprisonment under the President's Pleasure since he was below 18 years old when he committed the crime.[25] Both men lost their appeals against their convictions on 14 January 1985.[26] On 19 September 1986, Ramu was hanged at dawn in Changi Prison. As for Rathakrishnan, he went on to spend the next 20 years of his life in prison since his arrest and he was released in September 2001. According to True Files, a Singaporean crime show re-enacting the murder, Rathakrishnan was said to have taken the GCE O-levels examinations and received a certificate, and worked with his relative after his release.[27]

The case of Rathakrishnan and Ramu were recorded in The Best I Could, the memoir of Ramu's former defence lawyer, Subhas Anandan. The memoir was written about Subhas's early life, career and his notable cases.[28]

On 25 February 1982, 44-year-old Pariah binti Sedik pleaded guilty to using a parang to slash her two grandchildren - 2-month-old Mohamed Heymey and 1-year-old Mohamed Rizal - in their Dairy Farm Road home in March 1981. She even ran out of the house and threatened to kill herself before she was captured. A district court sentenced her to serve time under the President's Pleasure, as she was found to be of unsound mind at the time of the offences.[29]

On 18 February 1984, 25-year-old Tan Ho Teck attacked his brother and sister with a knife and grievously stabbed them. Tan's sister, 23-year-old Tan Lay Tin, was stabbed thrice on the stomach but survived due to an emergency surgery, but Tan's brother, 21-year-old Tan Kah Kuan, was stabbed on the lung and he died. Tan Ho Teck was charged with murder. Before that, Tan had run afoul of the law once in 1978, when he raped a female teenage student. For this crime, he was not caught until 1980, and was thus sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment for rape.

In the time of Tan's remand, it was assessed that at the time of the attack, Tan was suffering from delirium due to acute alcohol intoxication, in addition to depression. His attacks of his siblings were also signs of delirium, according to psychiatrist Dr R Nagulendran, for which this diagnosis was supported by Dr Chew Seck Kee, a government psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health (then named Woodbridge Hospital). For the murder charge, Tan Ho Teck was found guilty on 7 March 1987, but was acquitted due to him suffering from an unsound mind when he committed the crime, and was thus ordered to be confined at a mental hospital, where he will serve time at the President's Pleasure.[30]

On 16 March 1991, a 66-year-old woman, Tang Sai Tiong, was robbed and stabbed five times at her Marsiling flat. When she staggered out, a 10 cm long knife was embedded on her abdomen. Her attacker managed to escape. After she was rushed to hospital, Tang was pronounced dead nine hours later.[31]

The crime remained unsolved for three years. In January 1994, a 18-year-old teenager was arrested and was found to be responsible for the murder. The teenager, Mohammad Iskandar bin Mohammad Ali, was charged with murder. He admitted to killing Tang during a robbery attempt on that fateful day of 16 March 1991. A year later, on 15 February 1995, Iskandar was found guilty of murder. However, as Iskandar's actual age was 14 years and 11 months at the time he committed the offence, he was not sentenced to death, but would be serving imprisonment under the President's Pleasure.[32][33]

On 16 July 1991, after their arrival at Changi Airport from Bangkok, two female Hong Kong citizens were arrested by the police for carrying a total of more than 6 kg of heroin, which were hidden in the false bottom of their suitcases. The two Hong Kong women, 17-year-old Lam Hoi-ka and 19-year-old Poon Yuen-chung, were charged with drug trafficking.

Two years later, the women's joint trial began. The two women denied any knowledge of the drugs. They claimed it was a Chinese couple who travelled together with them in their holiday trip in Bangkok that gave them the two suitcases. The Chinese couple, who bought these suitcases for the women to replace their old ones, were never found. The two women were found guilty of drug trafficking. High Court judge M. P. H. Rubin sentenced Lam to indefinite imprisonment under the President's Pleasure due to her actual age of 17 years and 6 months at the time of her arrest, which was under 18 years old and thus Lum was not liable to the death penalty. As for Poon, since her actual age was 18 years and 10 months when she was arrested, she was sentenced to death.[34]

In the aftermath of the case, after the loss of her appeal, and despite the pleas for clemency,[35] 21-year-old Poon Yuen-chung was hanged in Changi Prison on 21 April 1995. On the same day of Poon's execution, there were four other drug traffickers hanged at the same time as her. Two of them - 24-year-old Tong Ching-man and her 25-year-old boyfriend Lam Cheuk-wang - were also Hong Kong citizens, while one was 34-year-old Singaporean Yeo Hee Seng and the fifth was 32-year-old Nigerian Chris Chinenye Ubaka.[36][37]

Lam Hoi-ka was probably the first and only foreigner who was detained indefinitely under the President's Pleasure in Singapore because of her age.

At the end of his murder trial in April 1991, 37-year-old Wong Kwok Wah, who murdered his 62-year-old neighbour more than three years ago, was acquitted of murder and detained at the President's Pleasure, because the High Court found that he suffered from both schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, which affected his mental capacity and thus amounted to unsoundness of the mind. After his conviction, Wong was sent to the IMH, then named Woodbridge Hospital, where he was detained for 10 years till 2001, when he was transferred to Changi Prison hospital to continue his detention. Four years later, in 2005, when the hospital closed, Wong was transferred to Complex Medical Centre (CMC), where he had been serving his sentence since.

On 3 July 2015, 24 years after his sentencing, Wong Kwok Wah filed an appeal against his sentence. The appeal was heard for two days on 19 January 2016 and 25 February 2016, with Wong arguing it on his own without a lawyer representing him. Wong argued that he had been locked up behind bars for 28 years (including the time he spent awaiting trial), which was inhumane. He also clarified he wanted to be sent back to the IMH. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the second day of the appeal hearing, as they found Wong was psychiatrically still a danger to society and was unsuitable for release or to return to the IMH, citing a psychiatrist's opinion that Wong would be highly prone to violence and non-compliance to medication if he was left unsupervised.[38] It is likely that Wong is currently still in prison serving his sentence as of December 2020.

In January 1994, there was a gang attack conducted by three 18-year-old male teenagers on a rival gang member. During the attack, the trio, who were armed with wooden sticks, fatally assaulted and killed the rival gang member, who was identified as 15-year-old Chia Lap Lai. Chia was initially a part of the gang that attacked him before he left and joined another gang. The attack was due to a territorial dispute between Chia's former gang and Chia's current gang, and was out of revenge for Chia changing sides. Soon, one of the three attackers - 18-year-old Ng Beng Kiat - was caught, and was charged with murder. A year later, in March 1995, Ng was found guilty of murder; however, as he was not fully 18 years old at the time of the attack, Ng Beng Kiat was spared the death penalty and was instead ordered to be detained at the President's Pleasure.[39] Ng's two other accomplices, Allan Ong Chee Hoe and Kyaneth Soo Kian Fong, were not arrested as they ran off to Malaysia. In November 1998, Ong was finally caught after 4 years on the run and extradited back to Singapore for trial, while Soo surrendered himself to the police two months later.[40]

In April 1999, five years and three months after the murder of Chia Lap Lai, High Court judge M. P. H. Rubin found both Ong and Soo guilty of murder. During the delivery of the judgement, Justice Rubin stated that the attack on the deceased Chia was premeditated and the duo, together with Ng (who was sentenced four years earlier), had carried it out with ill-feeling and vindictiveness, citing the viciousness of the crime. However, both Ong and Soo were not sentenced to death, as they were both aged below 18 when they killed Chia. As such, Justice Rubin ordered that both Ong and Soo are to be detained at the President's Pleasure.[41]

After their conviction by the High Court in 1999, both Ong and Soo went on to spend the next 13 years and 6 months of their lives in prison. It was in 2012, when both Ong and Soo appealed to the President of Singapore for clemency, in which President Tony Tan, upon the advice of the Cabinet, accepted both Ong's and Soo's petitions on account of their good behaviour in prison and allowed the two of them to regain their freedom and rejoin society.

As of 2018, it was reported that Allan Ong and Kyaneth Soo, both 42 years old, were leading reformed and stable lives. Soo was reportedly married with children and self-employed in a restaurant while Ong was married since 2016 and currently working as a technician.[42][43]

In a Chinese language article, Kyaneth Soo stated that during the first few years in prison, he repeatedly broke the rules and cause trouble. It was during his 4th year in prison that he slowly realise and repent his mistakes, and started to improve himself, as well as encouraging others to do so. He ultimately aced his exams and take up jobs in the prison compound, earning him a better impression in the eyes of the prison officers. In speaking about his past, he hoped that society can be more tolerating of ex-offenders, citing that even though some may be recalcitrant and persisting on their criminal ways, there were others who genuinely wanted to reform and change into a better person. It was revealed that Soo came from a broken family, and his father severed ties with him at age 15 due to Soo becoming a delinquent (this was a result of him and his brother neglected and his mother abandoning him after enduring extreme abuse from Soo's father). Soo stated that while in prison, he tried to reconcile with his father and wrote letters with him, and eventually, his father and him finally mended their relationship.[44]

Till today, it is not known how long did Ng Beng Kiat, the first gang member caught, served his sentence or when he was released.

In December 1995, a teenage couple stood trial in the High Court for illegally trafficking 19.7g of opium in July 1995, and it was decreed under the law that the death penalty will be warranted if more than 12g of opium were trafficked.[45] Lim Peng Ann and his girlfriend were reportedly the youngest people to face the capital charge of drug trafficking, because Lim and the girl were aged 18 and 14 respectively when they committed the offence. Lim's girlfriend was not named in the media since she was below 16 years old when she committed the offence. It was revealed in the court that both Lim and his girlfriend first met each other when the girl was 12, and the girl became pregnant with Lim's child a year later.

In January 1996, Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh of the High Court found the couple guilty of drug trafficking, and JC Singh sentenced them to be detained indefinitely at the President's Pleasure. During sentencing, JC Amarjeet Singh told Lim that he was "extremely fortunate" to be escaping the gallows because when Lim was arrested for the crime, he was merely nine days short of celebrating his 18th birthday, hence by sheer luck, Lim escaped with his life.[46][47] The couple's child was entrusted under the care of the girl's mother.[48]

Four months later, in May 1996, Lim Peng Ann's appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[49]

In October 1999, 40-year-old Yaacob bin Mohamed Yatim was involved in a fight with his 46-year-old brother-in-law Abdul Khalim bin Ahmad, and during the fight, Yaacob stabbed Abdul Khalim to death. Yaacob was arrested and charged with murder, which potentially made him facing the gallows.[50] However, he was found to be suffering from epilepsy, which made him suffering from an unsound mind when he killed his brother-in-law. Hence, in March 2000, Yaacob was acquitted of murder and detained under the President's Pleasure.[51] Yaacob spent seven years in IMH before he was released in 2007.

However, as an aftermath of the case, Yaacob would once again commit murder in May 2015 when he killed his acquaintance Abdul Rashid bin Mohd Nenggal during a fight, and was thus in line for the death penalty a second time. Three years later, on 19 April 2018, despite being convicted of murder, Yaacob escaped the gallows once again like he did the first time in 1999 when he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court.[52]

In May 2001, a shocking murder of a female insurance agent, which was committed by a 15-year-old secondary school student under the orders of the victm's husband, dominated headlines in Singapore, with many people paying attention to the trial and with many people remembering the case even till today.

It was on 18 May 2001, merely four days after the murder of 30-year-old Annie Leong Wai Mun, when the police investigators received a shocking confession by the 15-year-old bespectacled and physically lanky Chinese boy, who confessed to killing Leong out of guilt, and he said he did it under the orders and manipulation of Leong's 34-year-old husband Anthony Ler Wee Teang. Anthony Ler was arrested following this confession and faced a charge of abetting the boy to murder his wife, which, like murder, would warrant the mandatory death penalty if found guilty, while the boy, who was not named in the media due to his age being below 16, was charged with murder. To protect his identity, the court documents and media named the boy "Z". Anthony Ler insisted his innocence throughout, and he was shown smiling throughout the court proceedings and in the media.

Z and Anthony Ler stood trial in November 2001 for murder. It was revealed in the trial that while pending their divorce, Ler had concocted the plan to kill his wife in order to gain custody of their then-4-year-old daughter Avelyn[53] (whom Ler loved very much), and to gain ownership of their flat. Ler was also said to be facing financial problems incurred by his failed business ventures and gambling addiction, for which he was desperate to pay off by selling the flat he and his wife bought under both their names. Ler had also approached five male teenagers, including Z, and offered them money - a price of $100,000 - and some pretty girls. Z, who was initially agreeing to the plan but wanting to back out due to his reluctance to commit murder, was also being threatened by Ler that he would be killed and so do his parents and two other siblings should he not comply to Ler's demands to murder his wife. The prosecution's case was mostly based on what Z told the police in his hand-written confession and police statements. Subhas Anandan, the lawyer representing Ler, sought to prove his client's innocence and discredit Z's account of what happened and tried to paint the teenager as a cold-blooded killer who was willing to implicate an innocent person (referring to Anthony Ler) into a crime he never committed.[54]

Anthony Ler was subsequently found guilty of abetment of murder and sentenced to death by the High Court on 5 December 2001, and after losing his appeals, he was hanged on 13 December 2002. Z, who was convicted of murder on the same day of Ler's sentencing, was spared the gallows since he was not yet 18 years old and so he was detained indefinitely at the President's Pleasure. Judicial Commissioner Tay Yong Kwang, who convicted Z and sentenced him, stated that he did not believe Subhas Anandan's claims that Z was a cold-blooded murderer, but described the boy as a "a morose and mortified teenager who is still trying to come to terms with the cataclysmic events of the last seven months.", stating that Z, being truthful in his account, would not be able to concoct "such an elaborate and consistent yarn" or to manipulate the information to his own advantage.[55][56] During the next 17 years of his life in prison, Z passed both his GCE O-levels and A-levels and obtained a university degree.[57][9]

Z was released on 2 November 2018 after he was granted clemency by President Halimah Yacob. Z was also told to adhere to special conditions like curfew hours and electronic monitoring, and he would continue to receive rehabilitative support to ensure his reintegration into society. In addition, a gag order remains in force to protect his identity due to his age at the time of the murder.[58]

On 19 March 2005, 53-year-old Boon Suan Ban was acquitted of criminal defamation and sentenced to indefinite detention at the President's Pleasure. He was said to have defamed Chief Justice (CJ) Yong Pung How by making an allegation of the obstruction of justice on the part of CJ Yong. Boon, who was brought to court for this offence, was found to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, which caused him to be of unsound mind during the time he committed the offences, which in return produced a verdict that ordered Boon to serve TPP detention.[59][60]

On 1 July 2007, 29-year-old Manap bin Sarlip was found murdered outside his flat at Whampoa Drive. The police investigations led to the arrest of the killer, 17-year-old Muhammad Nasir bin Abdul Aziz, and Manap's 24-year-old wife Aniza bte Essa, who ordered and manipulated Muhammad Nasir to kill Manap. Both of them were charged with murder and abetment of murder respectively.

Muhammad Nasir, the younger of two sons in his family, was born in September 1990. According to media reports which covered his trial and the memoir of his lawyer Subhas Anandan (where there is a chapter dedicated to Muhammad Nasir's case), it was mentioned that Muhammad Nasir's mother abandoned his family while he was an infant, and it was his aunt who took care of him. He left school in Secondary 3 due to him wanting to support his financially disabled family and take care of his father, who was suffering from poor health. It was in end 2006 when he first met Aniza at a pub where he was a regular customer. They began an affair after he started working as a bartender at that same pub in February 2007. Muhammad Nasir was said to have fallen in love with Aniza, whom he regarded as the most beautiful woman he ever seen.[28] Later on, Aniza manipulated and asked Muhammad Nasir if he could help kill her husband Manap, who had been abusive towards her. Muhammad Nasir, who was repeatedly threatened by Aniza that she would leave him, went ahead with the plan with the fear of losing her (for he had been deeply in love with her) and after a few failed attempts, he succeeded.

After their arrests, Aniza admitted there was a plot between Muhammad Nasir and herself to kill her but placed the entire blame on Muhammad Nasir, whom she portrayed as the main mastermind of the murder plot. As for Muhammad Nasir, he flared up and admitted to the killing and the reason he did it was because he deeply loved Aniza and he was afraid of losing her. The police then accepted Muhammad Nasir's version of what happened and thus charged Aniza for abetting and soliciting Manap's murder. However, Aniza was spared the death penalty as she was found to be suffering from depression at the time of the offence and thus, despite the urgings of the prosecution for a life sentence, Aniza was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment for a reduced charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (the sentence for this offence is either life imprisonment or up to 10 years' imprisonment). The prosecution's appeal to increase Aniza's sentence to life imprisonment was later dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Muhammad Nasir, who was represented by veteran lawyer Subhas Anandan, pleaded guilty to murder in April 2008. Aside from that, a psychiatric report certified that Muhammad Nasir was deeply regretful of his actions and felt angered at Aniza for manipulating him. He was sentenced to serve time at the President's Pleasure by High Court judge Kan Ting Chiu. He was currently in prison serving his sentence. Muhammad Nasir was the last underaged criminal convicted of a capital offence to be imprisoned under the TPP due to the abolition of the TPP for underaged offenders who commit capital crimes in 2010.[9][61][62][63]

The case of Muhammad Nasir bin Abdul Aziz recorded in The Best I Could, the memoir of Muhammad Nasir's former defence lawyer, Subhas Anandan. The memoir was written about Subhas's early life, career and his notable cases. Subhas compared the case as similar to that of his former client Anthony Ler, who also manipulated a teenager to murder his wife, and he wrote that it was ridiculous and unfair that his young client Muhammad Nasir, who was clearly manipulated by Aniza, whom Subhas described as a "manipulative monster" in his book, had to pay a very heavy price for what he had done while Aniza herself, as the mastermind, escaped with a light punishment, reflecting his sympathy for the youth and his disappointment over the lack of compassion from the law and prosecutors, who refused to agree to his requests to reduce Muhammad Nasir's murder charge in light of his youth and other mitigating factors of the case. Subhas also wrote in his book, revealing that the boy had wrote a touching letter to the judge and asked for a chance to reform and confided to Subhas his intention to continue his studies in prison; some excerpts of Muhammad Nasir's hand-written letter was reproduced in the memoir.[28] The book was subsequently adapted into a TV show of the same name, with one episode re-enacting the case of Muhammad Nasir (Subhas himself also narrated some details of the case). This re-enactment marked the second time the case was re-enacted on-screen since Crimewatch in 2010.[64][61]

On 26 January 2012, 30-year-old Mohamed Redha bin Abdul Mutalib murdered his 56-year-old mother Asnah bin Aziz by stabbing her multiple times with two kitchen knifes. Mohamed Redha was later arrested and charged with murder. Psychiatric assessments revealed that Mohamed Redha was suffering from substance-induced psychotic disorder (as a result of Mohamed Redha's addiction and intoxication of cough syrup and Dextromethorphan), which caused him to experience delusions and was of unsound mind when he killed his mother. On 15 January 2014, nearly 2 years after the murder, Justice Tay Yong Kwang acquitted Mohamed Redha of murder on the grounds of temporary insanity, and sentenced him to be taken to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), where he will be serving indefinite detention under the President's Pleasure.[65][66]

On the evening of 13 November 2015, many residents of a flat in Bedok North heard loud arguments in Mandarin coming from a unit on the fourth floor. Police were contacted at around 5.20 pm and when officers arrived at the unit, they found an elderly man lying motionless with head injuries. The elderly man, 75-year-old Tan Ah Hin, was pronounced dead at 6.37 pm after arriving at Changi General Hospital. The man's 41-year-old son Tan Kok Meng, who was together in the flat with him at the time of the police's arrival at the flat, was placed under arrest and charged with murder.[67] An autopsy found that the victim died as a result of both strangulation and blood aspiration. His face, chest and arms were covered with bruises, and his tongue has a deep cut which bled massively due to being punched in the face.

After spending five long years in remand awaiting trial, 46-year-old Tan Kok Meng was finally brought to trial in August 2020 for the murder of his father. However, at the beginning of the trial, the High Court was presented with medical reports from two psychiatrists - Dr Cheow Enquan and Dr Subhash Gupta of the IMH - who assessed Tan during the time of his psychiatric remand, which certified that Tan was suffering from schizophrenia and was of unsound mind at the time of the murder. Despite so, the murder charge was not reduced and the prosecution sought a sentence of indefinte detention at the President's Pleasure for Tan, which would be warranted should Tan be found guilty of murder.[68]

On 3 November 2020, Tan Kok Meng was found guilty of murder by the High Court, as he was found to be responsible for the mortal blows inflicted upon his father and those led to Tan Ah Hin's death. However, High Court judge Valerie Thean acquitted Tan Kok Meng of murder despite finding him guilty, due to the fact that he was of unsound mind when he murdered his father. Hence, he was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment under the TPP. Tan would be serving his sentence at a mental facility or a prison or some other safe place in custody.[69][70]

In 2004, a state prosecutor named Paul Quan wrote a paper detailing a 15-year-old teenager jailed under the TPP for killing an insurance agent at the urging of her husband Anthony Ler. Quan, who would become a district judge four years later, argued that it was a very severe punishment to sentence the teenager to indefinite imprisonment, which was opposite to the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which empowers a judge with discretion to sentence a youth offender to an appropriate sentence, since such an act allows a fixed jail term for underaged criminals who commit murder or other heinous crimes. He felt that such a discretion should be given, given the original trial judge, who found the boy guilty, had made a positive illustration of the boy's personality (the judge had stated that the boy was not cold-blooded but was manipulated by an adult and simple-minded, with too much conscience etc.[71]). He also argued that the TPP should be reserved to those underaged offenders who commit the most devious of capital crimes. The paper was published in a 2004 Singapore Academy of Law Journal.[72]

Associate Professor Chan Wing Cheong, who was National University of Singapore law don, stated that there is a "conflict between sentencing options" from his opinion, and he opined that a review was necessary. He also suggested that the President's Pleasure should be abolished. In a letter he wrote to the Straits Times in April 2008, he wrote, "A defined term of imprisonment offers more hope to young persons and therefore assists in rehabilitation."

Veteran lawyer Subhas Anandan, who was president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, agreed that the options of sentences available to the youth offenders should be reviewed, and given that the CPC was undergoing a review on that same year itself, he urged that this review should be done at that moment. Subhas, who represented Muhammad Nasir bin Abdul Aziz, an underaged offender who was detained at the TPP for murdering his lover's husband in that same year, also said in his own words, "From the inmate's point of view, not knowing exactly when he could be released is a form of punishment in itself."

On the other hand, Dr Teo Ho Pin, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Law and Home Affairs, stated that the practice of TPP for underaged offenders should remain. He said that the youth offenders who commit capital crimes should not expect themselves to be escaping from severe punishments, citing that it sent a strong message of deterrence to the young.[1]

In 2010, the law had changed and under the amended law, offenders who were convicted of capital offences but were under 18 years old at the time of the commission of their crimes, would be sentenced to life imprisonment instead of the President's Pleasure. They would be required to serve at least 20 years before they can be reviewed for possible release.[73]

In early 2018, it was reported in an article that there are considerations made by the Ministry of Law of Singapore to make any amendments to the second form of the TPP practice, which was still in practice for offenders of unsound mind. There were also discussions to set a maximum detention period for such offenders and to allow regular court review of the confinement.[73]