Singapore: Further information: Kho Jabing's execution date set for 20 May
The execution of Kho Jabing has been set for 20 May. The Court of Appeal in Singapore rejected the appeal of Kho Jabing on 5 April and upheld his death sentence.
Further information on UA: 103/15 Index: ASA 36/4028/2016 Singapore Date: 12 May 2016
URGENT ACTION
KHO JABING’S EXECUTION DATE SET FOR 20 MAY
The execution of Kho Jabing has been set for 20 May. The Court of Appeal in Singapore
rejected the appeal of Kho Jabing on 5 April and upheld his death sentence.
The family of Malaysian national Kho Jabing have been notified that his execution has been scheduled in Singapore
for 20 May and have been invited to see him for a final visit. On 5 April the Court of Appeal of Singapore unanimously
rejected the appeal put forward by Kho Jabing, a 31-year-old Malaysian national, and lifted the temporary stay of
execution it had granted in his case on 5 November 2015.
Kho Jabing was convicted of murder on 30 July 2010 alongside a co-defendant. At the time of conviction, the death
sentence was mandatory for murder charges. The Court of Appeal substituted his co-defendant’s conviction to
“robbery with hurt” on 24 May 2011 but confirmed that Kho Jabing had committed murder and upheld the mandatory
death sentence. In 2012, Singapore’s mandatory death penalty laws were reviewed and some discretion was
introduced in cases involving murder or drug trafficking.
For murder, the mandatory nature of the death penalty is retained only when the act was committed in an ‘intentional’
manner. For other instances, judges can use their discretion to impose the death sentence, life imprisonment and also
caning. Following this, Kho Jabing’s sentence was changed to life in prison with 24 strokes of the cane. This sentence,
however, was appealed again by the prosecution and on 14 January 2015, the death sentence was re-imposed
against Kho Jabing by the Court of Appeal in a three-to-two decision.
Please write immediately in English or your own language:
Urging the President to immediately halt Kho Jabing’s execution and reconsider the rejection of his clemency
application;
Noting that, while not seeking to downplay the seriousness of the crime or its consequences, Kho
Jabing did not intend to cause death, and there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively
than imprisonment;
Calling on the authorities to immediately re-impose an official moratorium on all executions with a view to
abolishing the death penalty, and commute all existing death sentences.
PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 23 JUNE 2016 TO:
President of Singapore
His Excellency Tony Tan Keng Yam
Office of the President of the Republic of
Singapore
Orchard Road, Singapore 238823
Fax: +65 6735 3135
Email: istana_feedback@istana.gov.sg
Salutation: Your Excellency
Prime Minister of Singapore
His Excellency Lee Hsien Loong Prime
Minister's Office
Istana Annexe, Orchard Road
Singapore 238823
Fax: +65 6332 8983
Email: lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg
Salutation: Your Excellency
And copies to:
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia
His Excellency Dato' Sri Anifah Aman
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia
No. 1, Jalan Wisma Putra Precinct 2
Federal Government Administrative
Centre 62602 Putrajaya, Malaysia
Fax: +603 8889 1717
Email: anifah@kln.gov.my
Also send copies to diplomatic representatives accredited to your country. Please insert local diplomatic addresses below:
NameAddress 1Address 2Address 3 Fax Fax numberEmailEmail address Salutation Salutation
Please check with your section office if sending appeals after the above date. This is the fifth update of UA 103/15. Further information:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa36/3782/2016/en/
URGENT ACTION
KHO JABING’S EXECUTION DATE SET FOR 20 MAY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
On 18 July 2014, Singapore carried out its first two executions since 2012, when two men were hanged after they had been
convicted of and mandatorily sentenced to death for drug trafficking. Their executions ended a moratorium on the implementation of
death sentences established in July 2012 to allow the Parliament to review the country’s mandatory death penalty laws. Since then,
the authorities of Singapore have executed at least four other people, including three for drug trafficking. At least five new
mandatory death sentences were imposed in 2015, four for drug trafficking and one for murder. At least 23 people remained on
death row at the end of the year.
Following the adoption of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 and the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 on 14
November 2014, the courts of Singapore are now given the discretion not to impose the death penalty in certain circumstances. In
murder cases, defendants may now be spared the death penalty if they are charged with murder under sections 300(b) and 300(c)
of the Penal Code and prove that they did not intend to cause death. Following these amendments, the Court of Appeal of
Singapore had to consider how to determine what punishment to impose in cases of murder for which both the death penalty and
life imprisonment with caning are sentencing options in Kho Jabing’s case. The five judges’ bench unanimously established that the
death penalty should be imposed when the manner by which the offender carried out the murder “exhibits viciousness or a blatant
disregard for human life”. While the five judges agreed that the evidence available in Kho Jabing’s case specifically did not allow for
a precise reconstruction of the murder, they reached different conclusions as to whether it was possible to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he had inflicted more than two strikes on the victim’s head, showing a “blatant disregard for the sanctity of
human life”. Three judges found that Kho Jabing’s actions deserved to be punished by death, while two held that the evidence
available did not prove that he had hit the victim more than twice. The death penalty was therefore re-imposed with a close three-
to-two majority.
The legal appeal submitted in the lead-up to Kho Jabing’s scheduled execution on 5 November was rejected on 5 April 2016. While
upholding his death sentence unanimously, the Court found that disagreement among the judges is not a ground to review a
decision and that a simple majority is sufficient, including in death penalty cases. It also established new guidance restricting the
grounds on which legal challenges can be submitted to review final decisions in criminal cases to new evidence or legal arguments,
which must be “reliable, substantial and powerfully probative”; or to cases in which a miscarriage of justice has occurred, if “there is
a powerful probability that the decision concerned is wrong” and if it can be shown that a decision by the court has been affected by
“fraud or a breach of natural justice”. The Court also suggested that the Parliament considers the new guidance with a view to
further regulating post-conviction appeals.
The mandatory imposition of the death penalty is against international law. The UN Human Rights Committee has said that “the
automatic imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the
[International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights], in circumstances where the death penalty is imposed without any possibility
of taking into account the defendant’s personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence”.
Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and a violation of
the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Amnesty International supports calls, included in five
resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly since 2007, for the establishment of a moratorium on executions with a view to
abolishing the death penalty. As of today, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; in the Asia-Pacific
region, 18 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes and a further 10 are abolitionist in practice.
Name: Kho Jabing
Gender m
Further information on UA: 103/15 Index: ASA 36/4028/2016 Issue Date: 12 May 2016