• Source: Quek Loo Ming case

On 31 December 2001, while volunteering at an end-of-year event, 56-year-old Quek Loo Ming (郭禄明 Guō Lùmíng), a retired laboratory officer, spiked a bottle of water with methomyl and offered it to the chairperson of a resident's committee in Bukit Timah, with hopes that the chairperson, who allegedly mistreated Quek, would suffer from diarrhoea after drinking the contaminated water. However, the chairperson did not drink it, and instead, three other volunteers of the event drank it and it led to them being hospitalized.
One of the three victims, 62-year-old Fong Oi Lin, died of poisoning on 3 January 2002; the other two – 66-year-old Richard Ho Sin Shong and 38-year-old Wong Ah Kim – were in critical condition before they recovered and survived. Quek was later arrested and charged with murdering Fong and causing grievous hurt to Wong and Ho, and subsequently, the most serious charge of murder in Quek's case was downgraded to manslaughter, and Quek was found guilty and sentenced to nine years of imprisonment for manslaughter and inflicting grievous injury. Upon the prosecution's appeal, Quek's sentence was increased to 15 years' imprisonment.




Background


Born in 1945, Quek Loo Ming went to the University of Singapore (the current National University of Singapore) and attained a Bachelor of Science degree after his graduation. Some time after completing his university degree and during his adulthood years, Quek worked as a laboratory officer and forensic scientist at the Toxicology Laboratory of the Department of Scientific Services (DSS), before its merger with Department of Forensic Medicine (DFM) to form the Institute of Forensic Science (IFS). Quek worked for 12 years at the IFS before he retired in June 2000 upon reaching 55 years of age. He went on to work as a volunteer member of a resident's committee at Bukit Timah. Other sources revealed that Quek also worked as an acupuncturist. He was known to many as a pleasant and polite man who diligently helped out in volunteering activities.
During his adulthood years, Quek was married with at least one daughter.




Murder of Fong Oi Lin



On 31 December 2001, Quek Loo Ming was one of the volunteers at an end-of-year event organized by the resident's committee. According to Quek, he was unhappy with the committee's 49-year-old chairperson Doreen Lum (林丽卿 Lín Lìqìng). It was alleged that Lum mistreated Quek, treating him like an "errand boy" and never gave him credit for his volunteering work on all occasions. On that afternoon, Lum ordered Quek to buy 20 packets of chicken rice for the volunteers, and despite completing the task, Quek was aggrieved for receiving the task on an extremely short notice and in combination to his previous issues with Lum, Quek decided to seek revenge and teach Lum a lesson.
According to Quek's testimony to his lawyers and police, he once handled the case of a Filipino maid's death while he was still a laboratory officer at DSS. In that particular case, the maid had committed suicide by mixing a large dose of methomyl with her coffee before she drank it; methomyl was a strong poison used for pesticides, and could cause death with a large dose while normally affecting the nervous system and cause muscular paralysis. Quek, who obtained the poison from his workplace sometime before his retirement, returned home on the way and placed a tablespoon of powdered methomyl into an empty mineral water bottle and added water, mixing it with the methomyl. He offered the contaminated water to Lum, hoping she would drink it and suffer from suffer from diarrhoea.
However, Lum did not consume the water. Instead, three of the people present at the event drank the contaminated water while eating satays and other foods at the event. These three people fell gravely ill and became unconscious after drinking the water and were rushed to the National University Hospital for treatment, where they remained in critical condition. On 3 January 2002, one of these three people, 62-year-old Fong Oi Lin (冯爱莲 Féng Aìlián; 1940 – 3 January 2002), a tea lady and a volunteer of the event, died as a result of the poison. The remaining two people were 66-year-old retired accountant and vice-president of the resident's committee Richard Ho Sin Shong (何常胜 Hé Chángshèng) and 38-year-old electrician Wong Ah Kim (黄亚金 Huáng Yájīn), who both spent weeks at the hospital recovering from the poison and survived. The contaminated water was disposed of by Fong prior to her falling ill, because she found it smelly, which prevented other people present at the event from consuming it.
At the time of her death, Fong was survived by her husband, a daughter (aged 34 in 2002) and two sons, and several other relatives. One of Fong's children eventually bore a grandchild of Fong some time after she died.




Arrest and charges


On 10 January 2002, a week after Fong Oi Lin died, 56-year-old Quek Loo Ming was arrested at his Clementi flat after the police investigators found evidence linking Quek to the methomyl poisoning case. It was initially misunderstood by police that the poisoning was done on the satays eaten by the three victims, before it was finally revealed that Quek had done the poisoning by spiking a bottle of mineral water.
Reportedly, Quek expressed remorse for the death of Fong Oi Lin and he also told police he never intended to murder Fong, much less harming both Richard Ho and Wong Ah Kim, and he stated he only wanted to go after Doreen Lum for how she treated him. Lum denied in a press interview that she had any personal issues with Quek. Lum was also regretful for the death of Fong, with whom she had a good relationship with. The arrest of Quek was also shocking to Fong's family, as Quek attended the funeral of Fong and also took part in the preparations for her wake. Quek's daughter also said her father had once advised her to not bear grudges, which was ironic due to Quek bearing and acting on his hatred against Lum and thus led to the methomyl poisoning. Quek's wife also stated her husband broke down when he was officially arrested for murdering Fong.
On 11 January 2002, a day after his arrest, Quek was charged with murder for having caused Fong's death by methomyl poisoning. Under the law, an offender charged with murder would be sentenced to death upon his or her conviction. On 18 January 2002, Quek returned to court to be charged with two counts of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means for injuring both Wong and Ho.




Trial of Quek Loo Ming






= Plea of guilt

=
The trial of Quek Loo Ming began at the High Court on 2 August 2002. The proceeding was presided by Judicial Commissioner Choo Han Teck. Quek was represented by Singapore's top criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan, and also Anandan's nephew Anand Nalachandran. The prosecution was led by Ong Hian Sun and Jason Tan from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
Before the start of Quek's trial, Anandan made representations to the AGC to lower the murder charge as part of a plea bargain, and the prosecution eventually agreed to amend the murder charge to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which was equivalent to manslaughter in Singapore law. As a result of the reduction of the murder charge, Quek escaped the death penalty, and he also expressed his intention to plead guilty to all the charges against him. The maximum penalty for either of the charges was life imprisonment.
Upon Quek's plea of guilt, he was convicted of one count of manslaughter and one count of causing grievous hurt, and he also consented to have the second charge of causing grievous hurt taken into consideration during sentencing. The prosecution argued for Quek to be sentenced to the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or at least a jail term lasting more than ten years in view of the charges, placing their emphasis on the extent of harm caused to the victims and the eventual death of Fong as an consequence of Quek's actions, as well as for the sake of deterrence and appease the outrage of the community's feelings.
Under the current law, after the landmark appeal of Abdul Nasir Amer Hamsah on 20 August 1997, an offender sentenced to life imprisonment should remain in jail for the remainder of his natural lifespan, instead of following the old interpretation of life imprisonment as 20 years' jail, and the landmark ruling was to apply for offences (referring to those punishable by life) committed after 20 August 1997, and this rendered Quek, who committed the crime on 31 December 2001 (four years after the landmark ruling), facing the possibility of being imprisoned for the remainder of his whole life should he received a life sentence for killing Fong and injuring both Ho and Wong.




= Sentence

=
On 5 August 2002, Judicial Commissioner Choo released his verdict on sentence.
The judge found that Quek should not be sentenced to life imprisonment, and he stated that while age should not limit the courts from awarding a life term for whichever offender, life imprisonment for a person of Quek's age was not the same as a younger person serving a life term, providing they lived to the same age, and he also stated the lack of precedent cases with a similar nature to Quek's crime and the extenuating circumstances were the reasons why Quek's sentence should be lower than life in this case. Judicial Commissioner Choo stated that while the nature of the offences were deplorable and abhorrent and a life was lost due to a small issue, he noted Quek was a first offender with a "unblemished record" and contributed to society during his time under the government, and also noted Quek was genuinely remorseful of his actions. Even so, Judicial Commissioner Choo dismissed the defence's argument that the victims were not Quek's target(s) as a mitigating factor, stating that this was not a valid excuse for a person who wrongfully harmed another person when his original target was someone else.
As such, Judicial Commissioner Choo handed down a jail term of nine years for the first charge of manslaughter, and a second jail term of three years for one of the two counts of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Additionally, Judicial Commissioner Choo ordered the two sentences to run concurrently. Therefore, 57-year-old Quek Loo Ming was sentenced to nine years' jail, with effect from the date of his arrest (10 January 2002). Although caning was warranted for both offences which Quek was found guilty for, Quek was not caned since he was more than 50 years old at the time of sentencing.
When receiving news of Quek's sentencing, Doreen Lum told the newspapers that she had already forgiven Quek for attempting to harm her, and Lum additionally revealed that from the start, she hoped Quek would not receive the death sentence for the murder of Fong Oi Lin. Quek's wife also publicly apologized to Fong's bereaved kin, and also to the other two victims and their families for her husband's crime.




Prosecution's appeal






= Hearing

=
Soon after Quek Loo Ming's sentencing, the prosecution appealed against the methomyl killer's sentence of nine years' imprisonment, on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal, the highest court of the nation.
Seeking a sentence of more than nine years, the prosecution argued that Quek's actions of poisoning the water were not done out of impulse, and it demonstrated a high level of premeditation on his part. They pointed out that Quek deliberately placed the bottle of contaminated water in a place where people could grab it and drink from it, with hopes that he could satisfy his revenge to make Doreen Lum drink it and suffer from the poisoning. They argued that the clean records of Quek carried little weight in view of the combination of aggravating factors in the methomyl poisoning case, and they stated that the emphasis of sentence should be placed on deterrence and retribution, because with regards to Quek's nine-year sentence, a wrong signal might be sent through Quek's case when it came to the sentencing of offenders who caused death by poisoning, and it was the duty of the court to ensure a sufficiently harsh sentence be imposed to deter other like-minded offenders who might embark on the same path as Quek to commit crimes out of similar motives.
The prosecution also pointed out that regardless of whether or not Quek demonstrated genuine regret for his actions, their stand was if Quek had really been remorseful, he would have, at the first opportunity, provided doctors the information about the poison and in turn, assist them to treat his victims at an earlier stage. They also pointed out that Quek did not surrender himself to the police and was arrested only after investigations linked him to the poisoning case. Hence, the prosecution argued that Quek should be jailed for more than nine years.




= Appeal ruling

=
On 21 October 2002, the Court of Appeal's three judges - Chief Justice Yong Pung How, High Court judge Tan Lee Meng and Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin - meted out their ruling on the prosecution's appeal.
In their verdict, the three judges agreed with the prosecution that Quek's jail term of nine years was manifestly inadequate, and that a heavier sentence was warranted in Quek's case. The three judges that based on Quek's original sentence, he would be granted parole after serving six years (two-thirds of the sentence) with good behaviour, and it would be sending a wrong signal regarding the punishment for cases of death by poisoning. They stated that the poisoning of the water was not done by a layman, but by a former laboratory officer who had the knowledge that methomyl was an extremely potent poison that caused the death of a Filipino maid years ago, and the effects of the methomyl were so much so that even a small volume of it had killed 62-year-old Fong Oi Lin and placed both the lives of 38-year-old Wong Ah Kim and 66-year-old Richard Ho in grave danger. The appellate court admonished Quek for having "acted with complete disregard for the lives and safety of others" and therefore determined that on these aspects and the points raised by the prosecution, Quek deserved to be incarcerated for a period longer than nine years.
As such, the Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution's appeal and set aside Quek's original sentence of nine years' jail. Instead, they sentenced Quek to ten years in prison for the first count of manslaughter, and another five years in prison for the second count of inflicting grievous hurt. Noting that the maximum penalty for both offences was life imprisonment (a sentence which Quek ultimately evaded), the Court of Appeal ordered that both these revised sentences were to run consecutively. In total, 57-year-old Quek Loo Ming was to serve 15 years in prison.




Imprisonment and aftermath


After the conclusion of his court proceedings, Quek remained at Changi Prison serving his sentence of 15 years, with the possibility of parole after completing at least two-thirds of his sentence (equivalent to ten years) on the condition that he maintained good behaviour in prison.
A year after Quek was convicted of killing Fong and harming both Wong and Ho, he and two other acupuncturists in other separate criminal cases were disqualified from practice as an acupuncturist.
Since 2017, Quek had been released from prison, and it was presumed Quek had emigrated to another country with his wife and is currently no longer living in Singapore.
In November 2002, one month after the prosecution's appeal in Quek's case, Singaporean crime show Crimewatch re-enacted the case of Quek Loo Ming and aired it on television.
Quek's case was recorded in the autobiography of his former lawyer Subhas Anandan, titled The Best I Could, which was first published in 2009. Anandan wrote that when he first met Quek, he noted that Quek was truly remorseful for murdering Fong and causing great suffering to Ho and Wong, and he also believed Quek never intended for the three victims to be hurt when he only wanted to go after Doreen Lum for their personal conflicts. Even so, Anandan described Quek as a "very foolish man who took offence at petty things" and described Fong's untimely death as "totally uncalled for" based on Quek's response to the issues he had with Lum. In addition, Anandan stated he respected Quek's wife as a remarkable woman who calmly supported her husband throughout the proceedings. As a result of the case, Quek's wife was forced to leave their Clementi flat and move to another neighbourhood. At the time of writing, Quek's wife planned to leave Singapore and emigrate to another country, and also wanted her husband to join her upon his release.
Five years later, Anandan's book would also be re-enacted as a two-season television series with the same title. The case of Quek Loo Ming was re-adapted and aired as the ninth episode of the show's second season.
In 2013, crime show In Cold Blood re-enacted the case in the eighth episode of the show's third season.
Liz Porter, a crime writer from Australia, included Quek Loo Ming's case in her book Crime Scene Asia: When Forensic Evidence Becomes the Silent Witness. The book was about murder cases from Asia that were solved through forensic evidence; these recorded cases came from Asian countries like Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong.
The case of Quek Loo Ming was known to be one of the high-profile incidents that made headlines in Singapore back in 2002.




See also


Life imprisonment in Singapore
Capital punishment in Singapore
List of major crimes in Singapore




References

Kata Kunci Pencarian:

• Quek Loo Ming case
• Subhas Anandan
• Quek
• Index of Singapore-related articles
• 2002 in Singapore
• List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)
• List of common Chinese surnames
• Chinese Indonesian surname
• List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty
• List of programmes broadcast by ntv7