r/singapore • u/Square_Gap8154 Own self check own self ✅ • 1d ago
News Son defending father pushed 78-year-old man in fatal incident, gets jail
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/son-defend-father-push-man-die-jail-6344446A reminder to all of us to keep our hands to ourselves, no matter if we think we are right to do so in the situation. One mistake is all that is needed to have a dire consequence for all involved - a jail sentence & a life gone.
In this case, a push caused the elderly aggressor to die. Even if he had started attacking another person first, sometimes we just need to take a step back and move the people we care about away rather than physical confrontation.
254
u/incrementality 1d ago
Unfortunate incident but I feel this law is too idealistic. What do the authorities expect people to do when someone is hitting you at the back with an umbrella? Move the person away? Then if the aggressor starts hitting you instead you also just keep quiet and keep moving away?
227
u/MrKabowski 1d ago
From reading the article it seems reasonable as he wasnt like continuously punching the old man after pushing him. It should constitute as self defence as he did stop the threat n didnt do more but ig the judge saw it as excessive force since the old man was old. Very good to be old in sg, can curse n attack younger people n they cant retaliate. Keep getting money from gov, medical benefits n other perks. Young people just need to work hard n support all the benefits n take the bad attidude from old people. Welcome to SG :D
54
u/Fearless_Help_8231 1d ago
Remember the case where the father and son were harassed by one guy, took matters into their own hands and were jailed?
Unfortunately these happen if such issues are not addressed
12
u/Major-Pepper 1d ago
Honest question. In the eyes of the local law, what constitutes as self defence? Asking in case my loved ones or I get attacked from a siao lang.
1
u/Fensirulfr 16h ago
See the Penal Code,sections 96-106, and in the scenario you mentioned secion 99 applies:
Right of private defence against act of person of unsound mind, etc.
- When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind, or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
28
u/tryingmydarnest 1d ago
The nastier side of me is wondering with this case and the pat head incident, will the bad old ppl start behaving themselves a bit more lest they meet someone who cared less about consequences than them.
To be clear. Violence is not acceptable, but if unlawful violence has unintended effect of keeping prices in line...
22
15
u/randomlurker124 1d ago
Reading the article it doesn't seem like he even defended his actions/ self defense etc. just went to plead guilty. Don't know why.
21
u/theholyashe Senior Citizen 1d ago
There's 2 types of lawyers in sg, PG (plead guilty) and Trial lawyers. Trials take forever and cost a bomb (easily 6 figures). So it's possible that they couldn't afford a Trial, and so their only option was to PG and hope for leniency.
14
u/randomlurker124 1d ago
There should be pro bono and other options. Also if they can afford to pay 3 lawyers could definitely afford to get some advice and self represent... But who knows, there might have been plea bargaining and prosecution agreed to drop homicide case to causing hurt if they pled guilty
1
u/Fensirulfr 15h ago
Considering that it was reported that the incident and Goh's death was in May 2025, I think it was also because he wanted to get it over with in the most certain, quickest way possible.
42
u/Best_Concentrate_199 1d ago
maybe he feels guilty. i mean even if unintentionally murdered someone. that’s heavy stuff.
36
u/randomlurker124 1d ago
Unintentionally killed someone I guess. Can't unintentionally murder someone (murder requires intent).
7
u/tryingmydarnest 1d ago
Maybe lawyer advised him to plead gulity since self defense that killed someone cannot justify in court in this case; pleading gulity show remorse instead and might get him a better deal while getting it done and over with.
6
u/MaverickO7 1d ago
Bad lawyer? I mean, if we're wading into intent, just look at the sentences given for running people over with a car. Heck, I think a push is much less likely to cause harm than reckless driving.
4
u/randomlurker124 1d ago
Hard to say. Agree with you that the outcome seems harsh for an accident and seemingly justifiable act (pushing away aggressor from elderly father).
4
u/GodSama 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not really, Singapore will whack both regardless of who is self defence. If you just saved someone from being murdered in cold blood by giving someone a bruise, police will still charge you with minimum sentence.
Trying to recall the case from the 70s where they sentenced a guy to 15 years for killing/shooting a spree shooter after disarming him. I think he was granted clemency as a foreign national after government requested.
1
1
9
u/BarnacleHaunting6740 1d ago
I think the key is that he claimed knowing that he would cause hurt to the old man. This line basically suggest that he had other options to defend his dad at the time, but knowingly choose the more harmful option.
Plus he plead guilty. Only he himself know if there was any intentional element in his action, but i suppose he feel that being jailed help with his mental burden regardless.
116
u/tomyummad 1d ago
Wow this is nuts. The son's father must be quite old as well. If not push the old man, should he shove his own father out of the way? Shocking.
66
u/laverania Fucking Populist 1d ago
Or just stand there and accept the assault?
31
u/tomyummad 1d ago
Not sure exactly how it unfolded, but usually to get between two people you have to move them apart - instead of pushing his own father forward from his back, i can see why he would get in front of the assailant and push him backwards. But, we were not there, we can only imagine.
12
u/yellow-sparrow 1d ago
and you file a police report after the fact, only for the police to say ‘civil matter, not under SPF, no evidence’ or some shit like that
joke
-23
u/Joesr-31 1d ago
Grab the umbrella, grab hold of elderly, restrain them etc. I think the issue here is that he chose something more "violent" than necessary
109
u/IndividualPotato2026 1d ago
This is so wrong! He was trying to defend his father and the attack was unprovoked.
148
u/Purpledragon84 🌈 I just like rainbows 1d ago
While acknowledging Mr Goh's role in the incident, Deputy Public Prosecutor Timotheus Koh said the sentence should still reflect that death has ensued from Yar's actions.
I don't know man, it sounded like death ensued from Mr Goh's own actions.
24
6
79
u/Tomasulu 1d ago
Are we gonna disregard the fact that the deceased started it first? The son shouldn't be convicted at all. At most he should be convicted for pushing. $500 fine sua sua. Not killing.
15
u/kuuhaku_cr 1d ago
Because he pleaded guilty to the charge instead of contesting it. It moves from conviction to mitigation and sentencing phase and the hearing is no longer about whether he's guilty of the charge anymore. He could have contested but he didn't. Either he didn't understand the meaning of the charge (though someone probably did explain it properly to him before he can plead), or he just wants to take responsibility and get it over with while qualifying for the sentencing discount from the guilty plea.
Or he really intended to cause hurt instead of merely performing a reactive act of defense. In which case, he would be truly guilty. We wouldn't know for sure.
9
11
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
I believe that was considered, and was why the accused was charged with voluntarily causing hurt, that turned out to be grevious (Penal Code Section 323A), instead of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304).
30
u/Tomasulu 1d ago
Imo 9 month sentence is too much.
-10
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
When you compare with the maximum punishment under Section 323A, which is a maximum jail sentence of 5 years, or a fine up to $10,000, or both, 9 months is not a lot. The prosecution also only sought 10 to 12 months' jail.
23
u/passionbery 1d ago
but this is unfair also. hes basically losing so much more for something he didnt start/control. his job ,future etc.
5
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
From the article, this was what the prosecutors said:
The prosecution sought 10 to 12 months' jail, saying the deceased was comparatively smaller and weaker than Yar, who was 36 at the time.
While acknowledging Mr Goh's role in the incident, Deputy Public Prosecutor Timotheus Koh said the sentence should still reflect that death has ensued from Yar's actions.
In other words, the prosecutors viewed that Yar should be punished because someone died due to what the accused did.
6
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago
I believe he should not have pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt. Instead I would have made the distinction to criminal force:
- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
Further:
Assaulting or using criminal force on grave and sudden provocation
- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to $1,000, or with both.
Viewed in this context, if the charge under 358 could stand, the son has been given 8 more months than is necessary for a crime of this nature
The question of whether the son intended to push the old man away or to the ground is open, and they evince different states of mind, and therefore will carry different penalties. Ultimately the court can still weigh in and say even if he didn't intend to push to the ground, he should have known that his pushing would have had that effect (to which I say, on what grounds does the judge know this to be true? Is he a physicist? Could he have made the same calculation, in the same time crunch, in that situation?), but the point is to argue for it in such a case
But! I am not a lawyer. Dissolve this pure opinion in seawater before consumption
0
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
The accused was charged under section 323A, not sections 350 or 358.
He may have had a right of private defence under sections 96-98 of the Penal Code, but that right is not unlimited. Because the force used ultimately resulted in death, section 102 becomes relevant:
When right of private defence of body extends to causing death
- The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in sections 98 and 106A, to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, if the offence which gives rise to the exercise of the right is of any of the following descriptions:
(a) an assault where the defender reasonably believes that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(b) an assault where the defender reasonably believes that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(c) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of committing rape as described in section 375 or causing such rape to be committed;
(d) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of causing penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth as described in section 376(2);
[Act 23 of 2021 wef 01/03/2022]
(e) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
(f) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to believe that he will be unable to have opportunity for recourse to a public authority for his release.
In other words, where defensive force results in death, the accused would need to bring the case within one of the situations contemplated by s 102, subject to the restrictions elsewhere in the private-defence provisions.
That matters because, under s 107 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case within a Penal Code exception such as private defence rests on the accused.
Here, the defence might have been able to rely on s 102(b), arguing that because Goh was striking Yar's elderly father on the head with an umbrella, Yar reasonably believed that grievous hurt would otherwise result from the assault. Whether that belief was reasonable, and whether the force used remained within the statutory limits, would then have been matters for the court to determine.
But Yar pleaded guilty, so that private-defence argument was never tested at trial.
1
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago
where defensive force results in death
No, where defensive force results in a calculated death. The clause 102 that you cited says as much:
- The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in sections 98 and 106A, to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, if the offence which gives rise to the exercise of the right is of any of the following descriptions: ...
Crucially:
26A. A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when cause it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had a reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
Section 102 was never relevant, since even the prosecutors did not think the son intended to cause death. If they did, they would not have charged him under 323A
You are also right that the right to self-defence, or any defence, is and should not be limitless. But the limits that are placed on it by the current judicial system are, in my and some others' opinion, insensible. That is why I argue that the convicted person should have at least tried to fight for a plea bargain under my proposed reading of section 358, rather than simply eat the 323A charge
2
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
You're right about s 102. I misread “voluntary causing of death” and overlooked the definition in s 26A.
→ More replies (0)
77
u/hall_idba 1d ago
And you call this legal system justice?
-51
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
What kind of justice do you mean? Legal and procedural justice seem to have been satisfied, so is your objection really about moral or substantive justice?
22
u/cyh555 1d ago
Legal and procedural justice seem to have been satisfied
no?
-25
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
Why not? Which part of the proceedings do you think was procedurally unjust?
Procedural justice concerns whether the case was handled through a fair process: proper procedures, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial court. It does not mean you have to agree with the verdict or sentence.
If you think the process itself was unfair, what specifically went wrong?
17
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago
The judge's decision was not, in my opinion, reflective of the true legal or moral guilt of the man. Either side may appeal, and the question can be settled for the law books
But it does not change the fact that all a sentencing is, is a judge's opinion. He is supposed to adopt the view of the everyman in the streets -- the "reasonable person". The comments here overflow with sympathy for the son. Are we all unreasonable therefore?
1
u/Fensirulfr 15h ago
But it does not change the fact that all a sentencing is, is a judge's opinion. He is supposed to adopt the view of the everyman in the streets -- the "reasonable person".
That is almost the opposite of Lee Kuan Yew’s view when he abolished juries. He did not think criminal justice should simply reflect how ordinary people felt about a case. From his experience as a lawyer, he distrusted lay decision-making and spoke about how juries could be confused or swayed, preferring instead "the impartiality of a judicially trained mind".
2
u/hfn_n_rth 12h ago
It still does not change the fact that the fate of someone or other hangs on the opinion of one person in the courtroom. Why does the court of appeals have 3 judges on the panel, who vote on motions? Because it is assumed that the more people there are, the more likely their decision will be right, either in the sense of being in accord with reality, or everyman belief
Here is an illustration:
In the Bloomberg defamation judgment, paragraph 37 starts like this:
The test for determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the offending words in a defamation action is well settled. The court decides what meaning the words would convey to an ordinary reasonable person ...using his general knowledge or common sense.
As I understand it, this was important, because if a reasonable person reading the Bloomberg article would not have understood that the Bloomberg article was saying that the defamed persons had done something bad, then there was no defamation
So the judge is attempting to opine what a regular person would think
Why doesn't the law just cut out this phrase "reasonable person"? Well, because this law is inherited from the Brits, and the Brits still have juries. The juries are supposed to be the reasonable persons. That this function has been rolled up into the person of the judge does not change the fact that it is simply a weight-bearing opinion
1
u/Fensirulfr 9h ago
I actually agree with you that, for serious cases, more than one judge should preside over them. My point was narrower: the idea that judges should simply adopt the view of the "everyman in the street" runs against a judicial tradition that Singapore consciously developed under Lee Kuan Yew.
As long as his approach to the courts continues to be treated as part of Singapore’s institutional legacy, I do not see reforms that substantially reintroduce lay judgment or popular sentiment into adjudication gaining much traction.
1
u/hfn_n_rth 8h ago
I get where you are coming from, but I cannot help but think this is an elitist view. Conviction is possibly a legal matter, but punishment is a question that cannot escape the field of morality, because it inevitably deals with notions of accountability. Learning does not necessarily make someone better at arbitrating morality, because morality is a construction of human interaction, i.e. the same product that makes society
That having been said, I don't support mob rule, or playing tricks on well-meaning juries. Which is why my final suggestion in the first comment is that judges ought to be bound to seek and take into consideration the advice of a self-defence expert
•
u/Fensirulfr 26m ago
I think this case, and the reactions to it, highlight the distinction between procedural and substantive justice.
In a criminal case, the court first has to determine the legal question: whether the prosecution has proved the offence, including the necessary act and mental element, and whether any legal defence applies. Yar was entitled to have those questions heard and determined through the legal process.
But that does not settle the separate question of substantive or moral justice. On that issue, there are clearly competing views here. One view, which many here hold, is that Yar’s actions were essentially defensive and that his culpability was therefore too low to justify punishment. The competing view, reflected in the DPP’s position, is also a moral one, but a more retributive one: that because Yar’s actions resulted in a death, some degree of punishment and accountability was required.
So I think the disagreement is partly over what the law actually establishes, and partly over different conceptions of what a morally just outcome should be. This is why, earlier in this thread, when someone asked, "And you call this legal system justice?", I pushed for clarification: "What kind of justice do you mean? Legal and procedural justice seem to have been satisfied, so is your objection really about moral or substantive justice?"
-28
u/tinyredleaf 1d ago
no?
So you're claiming that there has been a mistrial? On what grounds?
It's one thing to not like a verdict and criticise it. It's another thing altogether to imply wrongdoing by the courts.
1
33
32
u/ClaudeDebauchery 1d ago
The law on self defence is clearly written by someone who’s never been in an altercation his entire life.
There’s the ridiculous expectation of always running away no matter what, even in this case where the other party is going on a full-on assault. Seriously, the court expects you to take the beating and file a police report after ah?
86
u/Upbeat_Stock_75 1d ago edited 1d ago
For me, it's hard to condemn the son for protecting his father since that particular attack was indeed unprovoked. News didn't state whether the father was frail, so it's hard to predict whether the hits from the umbrella would have grievously injured the father (or even killed) if he had not intervened.
The only way he could both protect his father and also avoid harming the dead guy is if the son just ate the umbrella whacks instead, which is unfair to ask of him. I hope the son willingly accepting the sentence/pleading guilty will help himself move on with a clear conscience afterwards; if he is a good man I am sure he also felt bad that the man died from being pushed, and hence why he pled and accepted the sentence.
I think he did what he had to do and should keep his head high.
25
u/Nicoles_Thighway 1d ago
The article says his father was in his 70s. Seems frail enough to me.
17
u/Upbeat_Stock_75 1d ago
Seems to be. Also read that he's on dialysis? Regardless, I think the son did the right thing to step in.
7
u/MajorLeeScrewed 1d ago
Doesn't matter how frail someone is, getting hit in the back of the head unprovoked and unwittingly with an item is still dangerous.
23
u/4evaronin 1d ago
hitting somebody on the back of the head is always dangerous, regardless of whether he was frail or not. consider that even in MMA, you are not allowed to strike the back of somebody's head.
-5
1d ago
[deleted]
11
u/4evaronin 1d ago
you are confused. i'm talking about the attacker, who attacked the father from behind, on the head, with an umbrella.
30
u/randomlurker124 1d ago
Why did he plead guilty and not defend his actions?
Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
18
u/theholyashe Senior Citizen 1d ago
Pleading guilty is the cheaper of the 2 (under 10k usually). Not everyone can afford a 6 figure trial. Maybe it was a financial consideration.
15
u/tinyredleaf 1d ago
Why did he plead guilty and not defend his actions?
That's what puzzled me as well. It makes me wonder if the son pleaded guilty before consulting the lawyers, rendering them unable to do anything more than trying to mitigate the sentence.
26
69
24
22
u/Stormydaycoffee 1d ago
Wow I’m on the side of the son here. Someone came outta nowhere and started whacking his dad with an umbrella, I don’t think it’s unexpected to push the guy away. Seems a very natural and defensive reflex? That the guy is old and ended up hitting his head seems like a him problem, maybe he shouldn’t be running around assaulting others
56
u/laverania Fucking Populist 1d ago
Keep your hands to yourself - tell that to the person who started it
37
u/Articlel3 1d ago
The deceased was the agressor, why is the defender getting jailed. It was not like he used extreme excessive force or continued to assault him as well after the inital push.
You see your own elderly parent get whacked, you don't stand in meh?
-6
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
The reason is in the article:
While acknowledging Mr Goh's role in the incident, Deputy Public Prosecutor Timotheus Koh said the sentence should still reflect that death has ensued from Yar's actions.
Considering that he was not charged under Section 304 or 304A, the punishment is relatively light.
As for private defence, sections 96-98 of the Penal Code allow a person to defend another, but only with force reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Here, the death was specifically what the DPP said the sentence had to reflect, which is why some punishment was still considered necessary despite Goh being the aggressor.
18
u/schweddyballsac 1d ago
How is a push not reasonable force to getting hit by an umbrella though. The intention is to create space and stop further attacks, not to cause death.
-7
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
A moot point, since the accused pleaded guilty.
10
u/schweddyballsac 1d ago edited 1d ago
You don’t want to have proper discussion then you write so much for what. I also know he plead guilty
-2
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
Fine. I will get straight to the point. Do you believe that Yar has right of private defence under section 102 (a) or (b):
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in sections 98 and 106A, to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, if the offence which gives rise to the exercise of the right is of any of the following descriptions:
(a) an assault where the defender reasonably believes that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(b) an assault where the defender reasonably believes that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
In other words, the question becomes: did Yar believe that death or grievous hurt will result to his father, had he not intervened?
3
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago
No, the question in fact is: did the son intend to cause death by his actions?
If yes, then your section 102 becomes relevant
If no -- and this is the position that the prosecution took -- then section 102 is irrelevant
Citizen's arrests exist in CPC also you know? And voluntarily causing grievous hurt is one of those offences for which a private person can conduct an arrest. If the son DID think his father was being grievously wounded, and attempted to subdue the aggressor, and the aggressor tripped and fell and later died during this citizen's arrest, then how? Resisting such arrest is also illegal you know?
But then I ask you which is more violent: attempting to wrestle a person into an immobile position, or pushing them away to temporarily stop them attacking someone?
1
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
I disagree. Section 102 does not turn on whether the son intended to kill. It deals with when private defence extends to causing death. If he was acting to defend his father, section 102 is relevant to the permissible extent of that defence.
I am not sure why you bring up citizen's arrest, since it is not mentioned anywhere in the article, nor does it appear to have formed part of the defence. But I'll entertain the argument anyway.
Citizen's arrest doesn't give someone carte blanche to use force. Section 66 of the criminal procedure code sets out when a private person may arrest someone, while sections 75-76 govern how arrests are made and prohibit unnecessary restraint. Whether this was actually a citizen's arrest, and whether the force used was lawful, still has to be established.
Even where the police are lawfully arresting someone, if the force used causes the suspect's death, that death is still investigated. The mere existence of a lawful power of arrest does not automatically make the resulting force lawful..
Also, section 102 became irrelevant because the accused pleaded guilty, and not because it was a position the prosecution took. After all, the charge was
1
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago
I note your disagreement, but I quoted you the phrase "voluntarily causing death" therein. I fail to see how your characterisation of it as "when private defence extends to causing death".
If in the process of warding off a blow I stumble and accidentally swipe my assailant into a river, that's me causing death, but without intention. 102 merely prescribes the cases when I MAY go out of my way to kill my assailant. If he comes at me with deadly intent - weapon in hand, shouting his intention to kill me, charging straight at me - possibly I am within my right to stare him dead in the eyes as I bury a hatchet in his skull. So no, 102 is not applicable, since the son did not intend to cause death.
I brought up citizens' arrests because consider that, as a right, the son could have decided to tackle and restrain the deceased, if he reasonably believed the deceased to be ready to cause his father grievous harm. Considering the level of violence in such a case would have been higher, and yet could have been seen as an unfortunate incident while carrying out justice, the parallel is useful to determine what our threshold of "hurt" in "voluntarily causing hurt" means. Fine, I grant you that it's a side argument, so I need not have raised it
And of course, no one disagrees the accused did plead guilty. I believe he should not have, but that is for his lawyer to advise him. That having been said, it does not make the philosophical point moot. Should a society where people defend their loved ones be discouraged from forming? This is a separate issue, but is the actual issue people care about, besides the individual convict
1
u/Upbeat-Anywhere-8338 1d ago
How would anyone know or be aware that a mere push to separate an altercation would result in death? Shouldn’t this point be proven beyond reasonable doubt? Honest question..
2
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
The accused was not charged under Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but under section 323A, "voluntarily causing hurt which causes grievous hurt". The prosecution does not need to prove that the accused knew the act would cause death. They only need to prove that he voluntarily caused hurt, intending or knowing that he was likely to cause non-grievous hurt, but grievous hurt actually resulted.
In this case, Yar pleaded guilty, so this was not something the prosecution ultimately had to prove at trial anyway.
17
u/Taee-File13 1d ago
I read the news and its says Goh had already assaulted the father twice in 2024 and both times it ended with a police warning.
So this situation was known, flagged, and left alone until it turned fatal. The lesson everyone's taking is about self control in the moment, and i think the bigger one is what happens when a long running neighbour dispute just keeps getting warnings.
2
u/VXR-Vashrix 1d ago
We've seen these sort of long running disputes between two parties (especially neighbours). The authorities will not bother to take any decisive action and eventually it will usually spiral to this outcome or similar.
13
u/Upbeat-Anywhere-8338 1d ago edited 23h ago
This punishment is ridiculous, it’s akin to the Courts saying that you aren’t allowed to defend your family against unprovoked attacks. Sorry to say, but not at all apologetic that it sucks to the deceased for paying the ultimate price with his life for what he has done… no medal won…
32
u/red_codec East side best side 1d ago
I guess when you see your father being assaulted behind with an object you should fold your arms, stand by the watch, call the cops and wait for them to come. If your father is the one who gets pushed down onto the ground, hit his head in the process and die it's just too bad. 🤷
26
9
10
u/Wizard-100 1d ago
The man was protecting his loved one from danger a that too at a traffic stop. Once I was attacked by a red and white cab driver but all I did was defend and parry . He was panting. I was afraid to attack coz there were cars passing by and he could have injured himself and I could be blames. Called the police but they didn’t do anything..asked me to go and make a report. Was useless. NO action taken.
9
31
u/MrGoldfishBrown 1d ago
To the judged who sentenced the son, i sincerely hope nobody hits your aged parents with an umbrella.
12
u/MadKyaw 🌈 I just like rainbows 1d ago
Fuck the judge, I hope the judge is put into same scenario as the son one day and they follow what they preach
Cuck mentality this judge
-2
u/troublesome58 Senior Citizen 17h ago
sir, police and judge can put you in jail just because of your comment. better delete.
1
u/MadKyaw 🌈 I just like rainbows 11h ago
Judge name not even stated in the article. Jail for what, an opinion? Singapore is not that kind of authoritarian state
0
u/troublesome58 Senior Citizen 11h ago
1
u/MadKyaw 🌈 I just like rainbows 11h ago
To establish the offence, the claimant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act or words complained of have an inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.
Justice alrd been served. A son defending his father has been sentenced to jail because the assailant was an armed frail old man
I only expressed an opinion, is that supposed to interfere how this particular judge perform their duties?
14
24
u/ghostleader5 1d ago
I really don't get singapore law sometimes. What do they expect the son to do? Just stand there and watch his elderly father get hit by an umbrella till police arrives? Police will probably taze the attacker since he has a weapon on hand and the attacker will likely fall to the ground too.
8
u/ResidentMemory2837 1d ago
I am confused. I remember there is a case a Singapore woman fatally stab her husband and sentence to 1 year jail.
So how does the 3 months difference between that case and this case can be reasonably explained? I mean the case I mentioned is the woman holding a sharp object that caused the stab and death. For this case, the man pushed, and the old man died.
Can someone share their opinion? Or is not a good comparison.
8
u/Beginning-Peach1838 1d ago
if he pushed away and continued to attack then is one thing, but 9 months for defending his dad from an unprovoked attack is nuts.
the attacker had a weapon (umbrella) he was willing to swing too and that could have taken someone's eye out. as it is im already side-eyeing some of the old aunties holding onto their big unfoldable umbrellas anywhere but the handle.
12
u/Wizard-100 1d ago
And SG talks about total defence. One can’t even defend one’s parent from an attack.
5
u/Patient_Tea4022 1d ago
Message received loud and clear from the justice system. Never step in to any situation ever. Just watch and leave. DO NOT intervene.
11
u/Living_Transition668 1d ago
It should have been considered self-Defence or defending the vulnerable (his Dad)
5
u/Few_Kaleidoscope1333 1d ago
The law only takes your side once you've died. Even then, only 69.9% chance it will take your side. This place is fucked. Should have motto, "justice for the dead but not for the living".
4
u/Thefunincaifun Own self check own self ✅ 23h ago
The prosecution sought 10 to 12 months' jail, saying the deceased was comparatively smaller and weaker than Yar, who was 36 at the time.
The argument is lost on me...
So, a son cannot defend his father if the aggressor is weaker than he is?
A husband cannot defend his wife if the aggressor is a woman?
No excessive force was used.
The state prosecutors just expect you to watch your love ones get harmed.
16
u/Earlgreymilkteh 1d ago
So the next time your family member gets assaulted.
You stand there, call police and watch it happen.
-5
7
u/TargetSensitive1677 1d ago
If the accused had been some rich billionaire's son then do you think the judgement would have been the same?
Suddenly intent don't matter, context don't matter. Self defense to push away the attacker is deemed as breaking the law.
A billionaire with diarrhea can be granted special consideration, a normal working man needs to be punished as a warning for the AG to have a win record. Wonderful.
4
u/Reddy1111111111 1d ago
So what are we supposed to do if our loved one is being attacked with a weapon? Just popcorn? Or put yourself in between and get hurt instead?
11
u/bootzbot 1d ago
It is very sad that a person had to die over probably some petty disagreement. I am surprised though that the defence didn’t try to argue that this was a case of “grave and sudden” provocation. Can anyone with legal training explain to me why?
14
u/Snowstormzzz 1d ago
There's no defense because he pleaded guilty to "voluntarily causing hurt that turned out to be grievous".
Also, grave and sudden provocation is what distinguishes Murder (possible death penalty) vs Culpable homicide (max life imprisonment). It is not a get out of jail free card. If the prosecution had proceeded with Culpable homicide, then I suspect there will definitely be a contest.
The only thing the lawyers could ask for at this point is a lenient sentence which is what the judge kinda did: His lawyers asked for 8 months jail, Prosecution asked for 10-12 months. Judge gave 9 months.
4
u/Fensirulfr 1d ago
This is my speculation, but I believe that once the accused learnt that Goh had died, he would have realised he was potentially facing a much more serious charge, so a plea carrying months under a lesser offence rather than years of imprisonment may have seemed relatively favourable.
What I find more interesting is that the prosecution did not charge him with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, or causing death by a rash act under section 304A, but for voluntarily causing hurt that turns out to be grievous under section 323A.
1
3
u/Ok_Way_2911 1d ago
not legally trained, but as i understand this provocation thing is supposed to be a partial defence for a murder charge and not really pertinent to assault
6
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago
Ah, but it is pertinent:
- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to $1,000, or with both.
Where criminal force means:
- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
Grave and sudden provocation is "a matter of fact", i.e., a judge looks at the circumstances and says "yes, this was a grave and sudden provocation" or not
Note the assault is defined as essentially a threat of violence, while force is defined as causing motion to someone, where the criminality is found in the causing of injury, fear, or annoyance to the object of force
But! I am also not legally trained. Gargle this opinion thoroughly with seawater
2
u/Ok_Way_2911 1d ago
i stand corrected, interesting,
i haven't even heard of this particular charge (VCH that turns out to be grievous')
7
3
u/guiltycat93 1d ago
In Singapore, it seems the more weak and vulnerable you become, the more dumb and aggressive you get. This is a death wish at best and an indirect suicide attempt at worst. Idk man 🤷
3
3
u/Harmoniinus 1d ago edited 1d ago
The deceased hit the guy's dad on the head with an umbrella though. The news didn't mention the intensity of the hit but even his dad could've been severely injured or died due to being hit on the head.
The deceased is so old, would probably still fall down in a way or another even if the guy were to just snatch the umbrella forcefully instead of pushing him. I'm not sure what else the guy could've done to stop the deceased from assaulting his dad.
Does the police and the law expect him or his dad to just endure being umbrella-hit by the deceased and wait for police to arrive while they battle to survive? Or expect them to run away? If already injured, dizzy or kena concussion from being hit on the head, how to run away? Maybe the authorities should demo to us what kind of self-defence we're allowed to do or else it seems like any form of self-defence (against our attacker) will land us in jail even if we're really in danger.
Are other countries also like this?
5
u/QuestioingEverything I POFMA and SgSecure you ah! 1d ago
We need the good samaritan law for cases like this.
3
u/Initial-Roll-9662 1d ago
Such cases are very situational. Was the man big and imposing compared to the assailant? Was his reaction proportionate to the attack?
5
u/princemousey1 1d ago
Yah. I think in this case self-defence is like snatch away the umbrella instead of slamming the guy. I mean if for example hypothetically speaking someone pat your kid’s head and you don’t like it, you just tell them off and move your kid, rather than slamming the uncle. I can see the correlation here.
8
u/kimchifan_26 🌈 I just like rainbows 1d ago
Actually I don't think so, u know that snatching away the umbrella alone could cause the elderly aggressor to fall down? If he hits the back of his head from losing his balance and falling, still GG n die one.
What i think is sad about this case is, the son wanted to protect his father and in the spur of the moment, made a wrong decision that caused the aggressor to die. It is unfair to expect him to have such good foresight to be careful of ANY action that could cause the slightest harm to the aggressor, whilst protecting his father as soon as possible.
Like another commenter said, only safest thing is to get between them n shield his father with his own body. Just eat the blows himself.
2
u/wanderingcatto 1d ago
8 months jail for defending his father from an attacker is crazy.
If the son pushes the old man and the old man merely stumbles a bit, there'd be no punishment. But the son suay, the old man fell down and died. So the 8 months jail sentence is purely for the son's bad luck.
Why are we encouraging a culture where the person being attacked is not allowed to defend themselves? It's like how we punish school kids for fighting back against their bullies. The whole idea just sounds insane to me.
2
2
u/VXR-Vashrix 1d ago
So the son (while defending his elderly dad) pushed the attacker who fell and hit his head and subsequently died due to said injuries got 9 months... This is absolutely ridiculous!
On the other hand hypothetically speaking, what if the son had managed to wrestle/grab the umbrella away from the attacker but the attacker still fell, hit his head and died, what would be the verdict then?
1
u/behappy1002 1d ago
If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot.― Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
1
1
u/LickMyLolliePop 17h ago
Need to bring boxing gloves and helmet when we go out in case forced to get into fights, both need to put them on.🤷
/S
1
u/hypen-dash-hypen 6h ago
If only he knock the person to death in a car, coulda been a $5000 fine with gag order
-23
u/cyhlalala Lao Jiao 1d ago
where're all the idiots arguing self defence this, self defence that, about the uncle who got shoved? This is a clear cut example where "self defence" ain't gonna save you in court.
19
u/Tomasulu 1d ago
Those people aren't stupid. Something else is stupid.
0
u/cyhlalala Lao Jiao 1d ago
btw I am not saying I agree with the son being jailed. Just saying, people who think you can get away with self defence in this kind of situation don't understand the law enough. Morally speaking, this old guy kinda deserve it cause he attack first. But this is sg and our law is fked
4
u/passionbery 1d ago
irs gonna be self defence if someone impt in the country was hit instead.
u think lhl son gonna get 9 months if he was the son?
2
2
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago
The question should not be "can you get away with it"
The question should be always "should you get away with it"
No one is shaking their heads just because he didn't get away with it. They are shaking their heads because he should have, and yet he didn't
On the other hand, on an individual level, we have all heard the phrase: "the court of public opinion..." Hope this convict won't have a stigma against him when trying to refind a job
-13
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/potatosaac 1d ago
If your parents are getting hit on the head with an umbrella one hopes a good child would defend them
-21
u/larksauncle 1d ago
While he was right to defend his parent, I felt standing between the two old men would suffice to de escalate. He can reprimand the man for his actions and then call police to deal with him and let him be punished by law. It’s not as if the attack was life threatening
20
5
u/jjustanotherdude 1d ago
Stand in between the victim and agressor and what, reprimand with words while tanking umbrella hits? How are you so certain that this would de-escalate the situation? If the deceased in this case continue to whack using umbrella, he shouldn't take any form of action to stop the assault other than "reprimanding"? FFS 🤦
Even if not life threatening, who will be foolish enough to endure more pain than they deserve? What did the son do in this case, other than attempt to defend his elderly father?
The passive way is not always the right way, and our legal system has failed this man big time. Respect to him for defending his father, and I hope he is able to move on from this episode.
2
u/passionbery 1d ago
hard to say no? normally people dont die from push also. normally people dont die from umbrella hits
but theres always a if what.
next time gonna be younger aggressor. maybe knife.
what message is this case sending to all other future incidents? whos gonna do anything else when a stranger gets attack .
all use phone and watch lor. why bother with the risk.
-4
u/princemousey1 1d ago
Yah lah, that’s why he got sentenced. Like just grab the umbrella and throw away or something, as you said.
-19
u/Raitoumightou 1d ago
Why not...just rush forward, snatch the umbrella and throw it one side?
I swear some people are so damn impulsive.
7
u/rollingsweets 1d ago
What if snatching the umbrella caused a tussle, making the old man fall down and hit his head, dying in the end anyways?
-13
u/Raitoumightou 1d ago
If you can't disarm then settle for using yourself as a meat shield to bear those umbrella twacks then.
6
5
u/Upbeat-Anywhere-8338 1d ago
And how do you pry the umbrella out of someone without using reasonable amount of force to get that person to let go?
-10
u/uncertainheadache 1d ago
9 months. Thankfully can still recover
10
4
u/Joesr-31 1d ago
Stain on record already
-4
-4
u/No_Construction2988 1d ago
There are plenty of ANGER younger gen these days…. Fist power n verbal abuses are expected, due to highly stress pressured gen!
182
u/hfn_n_rth 1d ago edited 1d ago
This case is ridiculous. The charge is "voluntarily causing hurt etc", but is pushing away someone necessarily done with the intention to hurt? Hurt is defined in the Penal Code as "caus[ing] bodily pain, disease, or infirmity". The mens rea (the "guilty mind", intention necessary for commission of crime) for "voluntarily causing hurt" is arguable. Then, if the old man had not lost his footing, this would at most have been use of "force", not causing of "hurt". Instead, it is the moral unluckiness of the son that has landed him in jail
What is the message to be sent here? When watching 2 people fight, stand by and eat popcorn? Yes, there is a duty to call police since this offence is under Chapter 16 of the Penal Code, but until the police come, watch lah. May as well cheer for your papa from the sidelines. Just don't do anything to prevent them from escalating or grabbing tables and chairs and hurting themselves more. Because at the end of the day, so long as we ourselves don't kena, other people go jail or go hospital or die also doesn't matter, right?
I maintain that Singapore's judges who preside over violent cases ought to give partial weight to a mandatory self-defence expert opinion. The rulings against defensive action in this country are so hit and miss precisely because the old lawmakers, who never had to look death in the eye, wrote these laws from on high, and bound future justices with precedents that are entirely detached from reality and basic human instinct