Proceedings

The trial of both Juminem and Siti Aminah began at the High Court on 28 March 2005. Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim represented Juminem, while Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo represented Siti. The prosecution was led by Amarjit Singh, David Khoo and Jason Chan. The trial judge was Choo Han Teck. The trial itself marked the first time that two senior counsels have been assigned to defend suspects charged with murder.^[12][13] It was also extensively covered by the Indonesian media, and representatives of the Indonesian embassy in Singapore also attended the trial to provide support for the pair, and they reportedly expressed their faith in the fairness and impartiality of the Singaporean judicial system.

The prosecution's case was that the maids committed the crime out of vengeance and greed. They cited the evidence that the maids stole from Esther Ang after killing her in her sleep, and also referred to the statements of the maids, who both stated that Ang had often been harsh in her scoldings and expectations of their work performance (especially Juminem), which led to the maids perceived they were abused by Ang and thus planned the killing a week ahead before they executed the plot. On these grounds, the prosecution sought a conviction of murder for both Juminem and Siti Aminah.^[14][15]

On the other hand, both Siti and Juminem denied that they did the killing for the purpose of robbery. The defence counsels of Siti and Juminem argued that the maids indeed suffered from alleged abuse under Ang's supervision, and because their main defence for each maid was diminished responsibility, their version of events was that Juminem felt depressed and dissatisfied with her work under Ang, in addition to Ang having owed her about S$300 (Ang reportedly had a gambling habit),^[16][17] and thus wanted to get back at Ang, and roped in Siti to help her after suggesting it to Siti, who agreed to tag along out of sympathy for her older friend (after she failed to persuade Juminem to cancel the plan).^[18][19][20] After killing Ang by hitting her abdomen with a wine bottle and strangling her, they decided to steal money and other valuables from Ang's home to make it look like a robbery took place, and it was not out of greed.^[21][22] The defence also sought to reduce their clients' murder charges to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.^[23]

Psychiatric evidence

As a further corroboration of their defense of diminished responsibility, three medical experts were called to testify for Siti and Juminem.

Dr Douglas Kong Sim Guan, a psychiatrist who assessed Juminem, was the first to present his evidence. He found that Juminem suffered from reactive depression of moderate severity, and it substantially impaired her mental responsibility. Dr Kong stated that based on Juminem's diary entries, he noted that her initial optimism towards her work was gradually marred by her strong sense of homesickness, loneliness and longing for her boyfriend and family, and her impression about her employer.^[24] Dr Kong also said that Juminem noticeably lost weight while she worked in Singapore, and had difficulty adjusting to a different environment from her home, as well as suffering from imsomnia and her low self-esteem from Ang's frequenct criticisms of her work performance, he determined these above factors as the symptoms of her disorder and that it was exacerbated by Ang's scoldings and her financial woes. Additionally, the severity of Juminem’s condition was so much so that she herself was unable to differentiate between rationality and irrationality.^[25][4]

The remaining two medical experts, Dr Clare Ong Kwee Hiong and Dr Ung Eng Khean, testified for Siti in her defence. Dr Ong, a consultant psychologist, testified that Siti had low IQ, and as a result, she lacked the ability to think logically and had difficulty understanding the co-relations between given matters and actions.^[4] As for Dr Ung, a consultant psychiatrist, he testified that Siti suffered from a depressive disorder, and he referred to Siti's inability to adjust to a foreign environment and her lack of familial support in a foreign land, as well as her immaturity, inability to cope with stress, the huge financial burden she bore, and the frequent scoldings she received from Ang, it led to Siti having a depressed mood, weight loss, fatigue, difficulty in thinking and concentrating, and also feelings of worthlessness. Dr Ung said that Siti's low IQ and slow speed in learning also had a contributory link to her psychiatric state, and Siti was more likely to be led along by the older maid Juminem due to her sister-like relationship with Juminem, the influence Juminem had over her, and her sympathy with Juminem's plight, and these were the reasons why she joined Juminem in the plot of murdering Esther Ang.^[26][27]

In rebuttal, the prosecution called on two psychiatrists to rebut the defence's evidence. Dr Kenneth Koh, a consultant psychiatrist who assessed Juminem, said that he did not detect the symptoms from Juminem during his interactions with her.^[28] Dr Cai Yiming, a senior consultant psychiatrist who assessed Siti, similarly stated that she was not suffering from diminished responsibility. Although he conceded that Siti was just a follower in the crime, Dr Cai said it was unlikely that Siti's mental faculties were severely affected to the extent of her losing her sense of judgement and self-control, and she was still considerably mentally sound at the time of the crime.^[29]

Verdict

On 5 September 2005, after a trial lasting 19 days, Justice Choo Han Teck delivered his verdict.

In his verdict, Justice Choo found that the two maids indeed suffered from diminished responsibility and that the defence's psychiatric evidence should be accepted over those of the prosecution.^[30] He stated that in the case of Juminem, Dr Kong's evidence was more objective and had a more complete assessment of Juminem's mental state, and while he did not deny Dr Koh's credentials as a psychiatrist, Justice Choo said Dr Koh never had access to Juminem's diary entries in order to further examine her mental condition, and therefore Dr Kong's evidence should be preferred over that of Dr Koh, and it was accepted that Juminem suffered from diminished responsibility at the time she killed Esther Ang.^[4][31]

In the case of Siti Aminah, Justice Choo determined that she was more likely to be led along by the older and adult-looking Juminem due to her pity for her friend and the influence Juminem had over Siti. He also agreed that Siti had low IQ and her psychiatric evidence of a depressive disorder were corroborated by the other sources of evidence, including her relationship with Ang and Jack Boon's mother (who also reprimanded her) and her school report cards, and Dr Ung's assessment of Siti based on her account and the above evidence was more complete than Dr Cai. Hence, Justice Choo was inclined to rule that Siti Aminah also suffered from diminished responsibility.^[4]

Aside from this, Justice Choo did not agree that Ang was a maid abuser, because there was no evidence of physical abuse suffered by the maids, and there was insufficient evidence to show that Ang's scoldings amounted to maid abuse, and she was at best, an employer who was hooked greatly to expecting a lot from her maids' work performance and strict with them and obsessed with perfection.^[4][32]

Nonetheless, based on his overall findings, Justice Choo found both Juminem and Siti Aminah not guilty of murder, and instead convicted them of a lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, also known as manslaughter in Singapore's legal terms. The permissible punishment for manslaughter was either life imprisonment or up to ten years' imprisonment.^[33]

With respect to sentence, Justice Choo sentenced 20-year-old Juminem to the maximum sentence of life in prison, while at the same time, he sentenced 17-year-old Siti Aminah to ten years of imprisonment, and backdated their sentences to the date of their arrests. When coming to his decision on sentence, Justice Choo considered that Juminem was the mastermind and played a larger role than Siti, the premeditation behind the offence, and the youthfulness of Siti, and hence subjected Juminem to the heavier sentence of life while electing to order Siti to serve ten years behind bars.^[34][35]

Based on the landmark ruling of Abdul Nasir Amer Hamsah's appeal on 20 August 1997, an offender sentenced to life imprisonment must remain behind bars for the rest of his or her natural life. This was in contrast to the previous law where it decreed that a life term was equivalent to a fixed jail term of twenty years. The legal change was applicable to criminal cases that were committed after 20 August 1997. Since the killing of Esther Ang occurred on 2 March 2004, six years and seven months after the legal reform, Juminem, who received a life sentence for this case, was to be imprisoned for the remainder of her natural lifespan.^[36]