The Best I Could (24 page)

Aniza was working at Razcals Pub on Beach Road and young Nasir used to frequent the bar. The fact that he was below the legal drinking age seemed to be of no significance to anyone in the bar. If you look at Nasir, you’ll know straight away that he must be below 18 years old. Still, he was served his favourite drinks. He struck a rapport with Aniza, who was eight years older than him, and she would tell him her problems. Nasir also shared his problems with Aniza but they weren’t as serious as hers. Nasir left school early to take care of his father’s shop when his father suffered a stroke and couldn’t walk properly.

When a vacancy for a bartender came up at Razcals, Nasir applied for the job even though he had no experience in bartending. Since the owner knew him as a customer, he was prepared to take him in and teach him the ropes. The owner taught Nasir how to mix drinks and also asked Aniza to help him. Nasir became a bartender working alongside Aniza. Their friendship blossomed. They would go for supper after work and would take the same transport that the pub provided back to their respective homes. They soon became lovers. Nasir had his first sexual encounter with Aniza at the pub, when both of them were there early one day. From then on, they continued to have these early sex encounters at Razcals.

To the 16-year-old boy, Aniza was the most beautiful thing in his life. He didn’t realise that she was manipulating him. She kept on emphasising the problems she was having with her husband and told Nasir that she could not tolerate looking at her husband’s face anymore. Nasir told her many times to divorce him but her answer was always no. “He’ll never give me a divorce. Even if we are divorced, he’ll come back to pester me,” she said. I was defending Nasir and it appeared to me that she was subtly telling Nasir that the only way to solve her problem was for her husband to disappear—in other words, she wanted him dead.

Aniza broached the subject with Nasir about having her husband dead, saying that it would prove his love for her if he killed Manap. When Nasir was hesitant, she said: “Look, if you don’t want to and are afraid, my ex-boyfriend is prepared to do it. If he did it, I would have to leave you and return to him because he killed my husband for me. You would be out of my life.” When Nasir heard this, he was afraid he would lose her and agreed to do it. He made one attempt to kill Manap but didn’t have the heart to carry it out. He told Aniza that he was unable to kill him as a neighbour had come by. Aniza was furious with him. She told him: “This is an excuse I cannot accept. I think you can’t do it. So why don’t I ask my ex-boyfriend to do it.” Nasir replied: “Don’t worry, I’ve got somebody else to do it for you. He knows a hired assassin who will do it.”

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 client’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.