The 2001 Anthony Ler Murder Trial and its Developments

I was definitely very interested when I saw the developments of the Anthony Ler trial on the Murder of Annie Leong on the news. To be clearer, the murder happened in 2001, and Ler was sentenced to death in late 2002. However, what piqued my interest was the release of the actual murderer in the case after being held at the President's Pleasure for more than 16 years.

I first read about this case, not from the internet, but from reading the late leading criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan's book The Best I Could. This case was one of the more prominent ones discussed in the book, largely due to the shock spread in Singapore over the case, its circumstances, and how Anthony Ler kept a smile throughout his entire court hearings.

As a summary of my uninitiated viewers:

In 2001, Anthony Ler manipulated (my interpretation) a then-15 year old teenager to murder his wife, Annie Leong. He was able to "psycho" the teenager into committing the murder by taking advantage of the teen's youth, ego, and vulnerability, with a promise of a reward of $100,000. After the murder, Ler tried to put the entire murder on the teen, stating that his suggestion of murdering his wife was nothing more than a joke. He also put on a devastated act at Leong's funeral. However, the evidence and testimonials from witnesses proved that Ler orchestrated and planned the murder to the finest detail, which made him guilty of abetment of murder. Under the Singapore Penal Code, abetment is equivalent to actually committing the crime. Hence, Ler was sentenced to death, and was hung in late 2002.

The teen who murdered Leong, who was 15 at the time of the crime, could not be hung for his misdeed as he was not an adult. Instead, he was detained under The President's Pleasure (TPP), which means he was imprisoned for an indefinite amount of time. An appeal for clemency sent to ex-President Tony Tan did not come into fruition in 2013. However, the second appeal sent to President Halimah Yacob late last year, which was approved recently, and the current 32-year old has been set free, with some restrictions as dictated by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

The 32 year old's name was never revealed to the media and public due to a gag order imposed by the court due to his youth at the time of offending.

For more information, you can view the following news sites for details

1) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/annie-leongs-teen-killer-gets-clemency-after-17-years-in-jail

2) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/guilty-as-charged-anthony-ler-lured-teen-into-killing-his-wife

While I initially thought that there would be a divide in opinions over whether the 32 year old should have been released or not, there seems to be a lot of agreement that he has served his time and deserves to have a fresh start. He has also pursued and done well for his O Levels while in prison, and had pursued a University degree too. He is stated to be ready and eager to make amends for his mistake 17 years ago. Personally, I agree with the majority that he is ready to be reintegrated to society, where he can contribute back to society instead of rotting his life away in prison.

Also, it is worth mentioning that being detained at TPP for capital crimes (murder, discharge of firearms, drug trafficking) when below the age of 18 has been discontinued since 2010. At present, anyone below the age of 18 (at the time of offence) convicted of a capital crime is given life imprisonment, whereby release can only be considered after 20 years.

However, the only thing I found rather interesting in this development is the public's reaction towards a child committing crime as compared to an adult. For normal murder cases committed by adults, Singaporeans have no sympathy for the accused, and the mentality of "a life for a life", while at times incorrect, still remains strong. However, when a child commits a crime, for example in this case, after years in prison, the public is okay for him to have a fresh start to contribute back to society. While the arguments for leniency towards youths is evident, such as youths not being mature enough to think, and have a long road ahead of them, isn't the measure of youth or adulthood determined by just a single arbitrary yardstick - the age of 18?

I'm definitely not against having a determinant of adulthood (via age), since it allows myself to do things now as an "adult", such as buying Toto and learning to drive. However, the cognitive ability and maturity of one 18 year old and another certainly can be very different. In other words, one can already think and act like an adult before the age of 18, while another may still lack the intellect and maturity of an adult even at an age of 21!

I feel that the courts should be given more jurisdiction in determining if a minor can be trialed as an adult even for capital cases, and similarly if an accused is of adult age but not of an adult mind. Mental ages of intellectually disabled accused persons are used as mitigation pleas for some cases, and in the case of Amos Yee, he was trialed as an adult although he was a minor at the time of offence. However, one has to wonder if the courts have full discretion to trial a minor as an adult (and vice versa) in serious criminal and capital cases?

I leave my views above for my readers to ponder. Should age be used as an absolute yardstick, or should it be a more relative, case by case determinant? And if the latter, what practical fair standard can we use to determine one's mental age?