AGC Explained Why Only 1 Person is Charged with Murder in Orchard Towers Incident

If you’ve no idea what the headline means, one name would enlighten you immediately:

Natalie Siow.

Suddenly, it all makes sense, right?

So now, all you want to know this: who is Ang Guan Chong, or AGC?

AGC Isn’t Ang Guan Chong

AGC stands for Attorney General’s Chambers, and officially, it “plays a pivotal role in Singapore’s criminal justice system, and also serves as the ‘Government’s law firm’ by providing legal advice, representing the State in domestic and international disputes and drafting our laws.”

But fret not; we know you’re not here to learn about this, so we’ll just simplify it with an example.

You see, disputes happen every day and the courts are places for judges to decide who’s right or wrong.

Even if a person kicked and ate an innocent cat in Yishun, you can’t say he’s wrong until a judge deems him to be, so the courts are always impartial. That’s also part of the reason why decisions made by judges would be open for all to see.

In court, there are two types of cases: civil and criminal.

Let’s say Ah Hock wants to sue Ah Lian for breaking his heart. In this case, the Government, which is the AGC, won’t be involved because it’s a civil case between Ah Hock and Ah Lian.

But if Ah Lian uses a knife to stab Ah Hock’s heart to literally steal his heart, then Ah Hock doesn’t need to sue Ah Lian; instead, the AGC will “sue” (the correct term is “charge”) Ah Lian. This is called a “criminal case” and actions will be taken based on something known as a “penal code”.

So as you can see, in the Orchard Towers incident, the AGC will decide who to “sue”. Heck, if they want to, they can also sue the building owner, but they’ll have to be impartial also lah.

Which leads to the next point: why, in this case, only one person is “sued” for murder?

Today, the AGC released a media statement to explain their position.

AGC Explained Why Only 1 Person is Charged with Murder in Orchard Towers Incident

Let’s summarise everything first.

Only one person would be charged with murder: Tan Sen Yang.

It turned out that three of the accused – Natalie Siow, Joel Tan Yun Sheng, and Ang Da Yuan – did not use any weapons, so their murder charge was reduced to assault. We should call this group of people Group A.

Another three, Tan Hong Sheng, Loo Boon Chong and Chan Jia Xing had their murder charge reduced to consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon in a public place. We should call this group of people Group B. They didn’t assault anyone but…erm, just follow Group A and the “murderer”. In fact, they were “not involved in, or had tried to stop, the fight.”

Group A

For Group A, they’ve admitted to kicking and punching the deceased during the fight. However, there was no prior plan to assault him. The entire incident, from the time of the initial confrontation to the time the deceased collapsed, lasted less than one minute.

They also did not know that Tan would use a weapon during the fight. Their acts resulted in two abrasions on the deceased’s upper body, which were minor and non-fatal in nature. There was insufficient evidence to show that they intended to cause more than simple hurt.

As such, charges of voluntary causing hurt with common intention were proceeded against them.

Group B

For this group, they’re different because they didn’t technically hurt the deceased, so they’re charged with  “consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon in a public place.”

In fact, in the case of Chan, who was given a 12-month conditional warning, he had apparently tried to stop the attack on the deceased and had cooperated with police investigations. Their only offences were…erm, to put it simply, to be at the wrong place at the wrong time lah.

Murderer

And finally, we’ve left with Tan Sen Yang, who’s charged with murder.

This is quite clear: he had the knife and allegedly slashed the deceased a few times. Today, his case was transmitted to the High Court today (i.e. he’ll be tried there).

The 28-year-old is charged with murder under section 300(c) of the Penal Code, for causing the death of Satheesh Noel s/o Gobidass by using a karambit knife with the intention of causing multiple injuries to the deceased’s head and neck area, and the said bodily injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

You can read more about Chan’s conditional warning here, and Natalie Siow’s sentencing here.

And also, you can read more about AGC and its role here, because chances are, you might feel like joining them after reading this article.