Woo Bih Li, judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore

@1tm122n22m Atma Unum

Woo Bih Li is a controversial figure in Singapore’s judiciary, known for presiding over death-penalty cases. His sentences often spark discussions on law and justice. ⚖️🇸🇬 #Justice #Law #Singapore #WooBihLi #SupremeCourt 🌟 https://wp.me/p3JLEZ-8jz

Woo Bih Li SC (Chinese: 吴必理; pinyin: Wú Bìlǐ) is a Singaporean lawyer who has been serving as a judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore since 2003.

Education and career

Woo received his Bachelor of Laws from the University of Singapore in 1977. He was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court in 1978. He joined the Singaporean law firm Allen & Gledhill in 1970 and in 1992, he established Bih Li & Lee in 1992, becoming its Managing Partner. Having been appointed Senior Counsel in 1997.

He was appointed Judicial Commissioner in May 2000, and Judge of the Supreme Court in January 2003. he was subsequently appointed a Judge of the Appellate Division on 2 January 2021, and took over as President of the Appellate Division on 1 November 2022 from Justice Belinda Ang. On 21 June 2024, it was announced that Woo would be extended for a further two years in this capacity with effect from 31 December 2024.

As a Judge, he dealt with Finance, Securities, Banking, Complex Commercial Cases, Employment, Tort Claims, Public Law and Judicial Review, Criminal Trials and Death Penalty.

Previous cases presided by Woo

In March 2003, during Woo Bih Li’s tenure as a judge, he presided the trial of Yen May Woen, a Singaporean hairdresser who was charged with trafficking 30.16g of diamorphine. He found that in contrast to Yen’s testimony that she never know about the drugs in her bag, evidence showed that Yen confessed to the narcotics officers that she was carrying the diamorphine in her bag after they caught her while she alighted a taxi at a Toa Payoh carpark. Yen was found guilty as charged, and she was sentenced to death by Woo after a seven-day trial. Yen lost her appeal and she was hanged on 19 March 2004.

In July 2003, Woo found a jobless man guilty of murdering a six-month-old baby girl after the defendant, Soosainathan Dass Saminathan, raped the child inside his bedroom at his Hougang flat. Woo found that Soosainathan had indeed committed the crime based on the circumstantial evidence against him, despite his claims of innocence. Soosainathan was automatically sentenced to death upon his conviction for murder. After losing his appeal in September 2003, Soosainathan was hanged on 21 May 2004.

On 29 September 2003, after presiding the Chai Chee rape-murder trial for five days, Woo found the Malaysian-born defendant Tan Chee Wee guilty of murdering 26-year-old Thabun Pranee and passed the mandatory death sentence on Tan, who was accused of bludgeoning the Thai housewife to death after he robbed and raped the victim. Woo cited in his verdict that Tan’s actions were “violent and merciless” and admonished him for having brutally killed Thabun with intent to silence her. Woo’s ruling was later upheld by the appellate court, which dismissed Tan’s appeal, and Tan was hanged at the age of 30 on 11 June 2004.

Woo was also the trial judge that heard the 2004 case of Harith Gary Lee, who was charged with killing his girlfriend Diana Teo Siew Peng by throwing her off the tenth floor of her Choa Chu Kang flat. Woo notably made the unusual decision of personally inspecting the crime scene a month before delivering his verdict. He rejected Lee’s claims that the victim fell off the parapet on her own volition due to financial troubles, and found that he had intentionally pushed her off the parapet as corroborated by the witnesses who directly seen him committing the crime. Lee was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in April 2004, and he lost his appeal in September of that same year before he was hanged on 22 April 2005.

From May 2005 to April 2006, Woo heard the case of G Krishnasamy Naidu, a taxi driver who armed himself with a chopper and nearly decapitated his wife Chitrabathy Narayanasamy in a horrific chopper attack right in front of her colleagues at her workplace. Chitrabathy was revealed to have several affairs with other males in the past and the suspected relationship between Chitrabathy and a security guard was what led to Krishnasamy killing his wife. It was also presented in court that Krishnasamy was suffering from morbid jealousy, a delusional disorder that made one suspect about the sexual unfaithfulness of his/her partner based on uncorroborated or circumstantial evidence and it formed his irrational beliefs over his wife allegedly cheating on him. Although Woo accepted at the end of the trial that Krishnasamy was indeed suffering from the illness, he disagreed that the disorder had substantially impaired Krishnasamy’s mental responsibility at the time of the murder since he was able to elaborately plan his wife’s murder and execute his plot, and thus he sentenced Krishnasamy to death after finding him guilty of murder. However, Woo’s decision was ultimately overruled by the Court of Appeal, as they agreed that Krishnasamy was indeed suffering from diminished responsibility and his actions were a result of his irrational thoughts caused by morbid jealousy and thus, Krishnasamy’s murder conviction and death sentence were both set aside and he was re-sentenced to life imprisonment for an amended charge of manslaughter.

From 2006 to 2009, Woo presided the 94-day murder trial of the Tham Weng Kuen murder case, in which two brothers were charged with murdering the 69-year-old victim in 2005. Woo found both brothers guilty and sentenced them to death. However, upon appeal, the appellate court determined that only one of the brothers, Muhammad Kadar, was responsible for the killing while the other, Ismil Kadar, was innocent. Therefore, Ismil was acquitted and released, while Muhammad was eventually executed in April 2015.

In March 2015, Woo presided the trial of Yap Weng Wah, a 30-year-old Malaysian engineer who faced 76 counts of raping 31 boys between the age of 11 and 14. Yap was diagnosed with hebephilia, a type of sexual preference for early adolescent children between 11 and 14 years of age. Woo noted that Yap demonstrated an aggravating criminal conduct and a high possibility of re-offending, and had an utter lack of remorse for his offences. Therefore, Woo sentenced Yap to 30 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.

Controversy

On Thursday July 07, 2011, the blog javertworld relates what he thinks is “More info on the Police srew up”, with the following text:

“I also read from the newspaper that the victim has no case against the government. Three words came to my mind. WTF?!
I extra some key point from the report.
The judge was Justice Woo Bih Li.
SSI Zainal also breached rules governing the conduct of police officers when he recorded the first statement on a slip of paper and transferred it to his field diary much later in the day – a move Justice Rajah said was ‘clearly unacceptable’…..
Justice Rajah said the prosecution had not been able to give any plausible reason for why SSI Zainal, a seasoned investigator with 28 years of experience, failed to comply with the rules. He said Mr Ismil was in a vulnerable state when his first statement was taken as he was under the influence of drugs. He was ‘prone to be vulnerable to suggestions and manipulations when… under stress or threat’…..
What exactly happened when the statement was taken? Any other witness beside SSI Zainal?
Why his conviction was overturned
•Mr Ismil’s first two police statements confessing to attacking Madam Tham should have been found inadmissible.
After they were recorded in a police car and the police station, they were not read back to Mr Ismil. He was also not given the chance to make corrections, and neither statement was signed by him. This is a breach of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Very scary. This imply anyone can confess a crime for you.
Mr Ismil’s first statement was not recorded in the investigator’s pocket book or field diary but on a slip of paper, and the entry was transferred to his field diary much later in the day. His second statement was also not immediately recorded in the pocket book or field diary.
Police not following procedure.
Mr Ismil, a drug abuser, was under the influence of drugs when he was first questioned. The trial judge preferred the evidence of the prosecution psychiatrist and found that his withdrawal symptoms had lessened by the time he was questioned.
I thought a judge should be unbias and take need to take all evidence into account why hey preferred the prosection psychiatrist report? IF in doubt should a 3rd party psychiatrist be consulted?
But the appeal court said the trial judge was wrong to determine that Mr Ismil ‘miraculously recovered’ just before giving his statement.
Defence psychiatrists said that Mr Ismil, who has an IQ of only 73, was vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation, so it was likely the confession was false. But the prosecution psychiatrist disagreed.
The appeal court said the trial judge erred in preferring the evidence of the psychiatrist, who did the interview without a Malay interpreter. The appeal court noted that there was no objective evidence linking Mr Ismil to the crime.
If you asked me the police and the Judge really screwed up man.”

Artists Against the Death Penalty: A Fight for Human Rights

The death penalty, often regarded as a legal recourse for the most grievous crimes, starkly contrasts with the principles of human rights. The debate surrounding capital punishment encompasses ethical, legal, and emotional dimensions, prompting various artists to advocate against its practice.

1. Death Penalty and Human Rights Violations

The argument against the death penalty is rooted in the fundamental belief that every human being has the right to life, irrespective of their actions or circumstances. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” The irreversible nature of the death penalty raises profound moral questions. Miscarriages of justice, the disproportionate application of capital punishment against marginalized groups, and the psychological torment endured by those awaiting execution collectively underscore the inherent violations that the death penalty represents.

Moreover, it is argued that capital punishment fails to act as an effective deterrent against crime, negating the rationale often employed to justify its existence. The implications extend beyond individual rights, reflecting systemic issues within the legal framework that demands scrutiny and reform.

2. People Promoting the Right to Life

The death penal­ty has long been opposed by human rights and civ­il rights activists, who ques­tion whether cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment can be applied fair­ly and whether the risks of exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple are too great, and by those who con­sid­er it moral­ly wrong for the gov­ern­ment to take the life of a pris­on­er who has already been inca­pac­i­tat­ed by incar­cer­a­tion. Some of their arguments are:

• The death penalty is a blatant violation of human rights.
• The death penalty is an ineffective punishment.
• The death penalty does not bring closure or healing to victims’ families.
• The death penalty is applied unfairly.
• The death penalty risks executing innocent people.

Iris Atma has been actively engaged in performance art and artivism, using her creative talents to raise awareness against the death penalty while advocating for the peaceful rest of those who have been executed. The video performance “XII. Le Pendu” is and spiritual art for the right to live. Through her evocative performances and installations, she emphasizes the profound implications of capital punishment on individuals, families, and society at large. By blending artistic expression with activism, Atma seeks to create a dialogue around the moral and ethical dimensions of the death penalty, encouraging audiences to reflect on the value of life and the need for compassion and justice for those affected by state-sanctioned executions. Her work not only sheds light on the harsh realities of the death penalty but also honors the memories of those who have lost their lives to it, calling for a more humane approach to justice.

3. Organizations Fighting for the Right to Live

• Amnesty International
• Death Penalty Information Center (DPI)
• Alaskans Against a Death Penalty (AADP)

Organizations such as Amnesty International play a pivotal role in the global fight against the death penalty. Their strategies encompass:

• Research and Reporting: Amnesty conducts rigorous investigations to document and expose the use of the death penalty around the world, providing evidence that influences public policy and opinion.
• Advocacy and Campaigns: Through sustained advocacy campaigns, Amnesty works to mobilize grassroots support, encouraging individuals and communities to voice their stance against capital punishment.
• Legal Assistance: The organization often collaborates with legal experts and human rights lawyers to provide support for individuals facing the death penalty, ensuring they receive fair representation throughout the judicial process.
• Awareness Raising: By leveraging art, campaigns, and public speaking events, Amnesty International engages diverse audiences, using storytelling and creative expression to drive home the urgency of their cause.

Through collaborative efforts between artists and advocacy groups, a powerful movement against the death penalty is emerging, galvanizing public sentiment and striving for a world where the right to life is upheld for all individuals. The intersection of art and activism remains a potent force in challenging oppressive systems and advocating for fundamental human rights.

Keep on reading

• The Victory of the Sphinx, Art by Iris Atma
• Vamp Iris Atma Ra; psychological profile
• Arachnid symbolism
• Henri, the Black Cat
• Etreum Highway; Experimental Poetry Videoart
• We Invite you Read Performance Art Memories in XIX. Solar Sphinx
• Read “XIX. Solar Sphinx”; book about Sexual Pleasure and Trauma
• Je suis la femme Sphinx

Uterus Healing Meditation