Warning: This story mentions suicide and contains descriptions of a suicide.
SINGAPORE: A funeral director convicted of assisting her ex-boyfriend’s suicide by nitrogen gas was sentenced to six years and two months’ jail on Friday (Oct 18).
City Funeral Singapore director Alverna Cher Sheue Pin, 42, was found guilty of helping her ex-boyfriend, 32-year-old Wee Jun Xiang, commit suicide by turning the valve of a nitrogen tank four to five times and positioning it in his car.
Cher had also placed a bag on the car’s rear seat floor and adjusted the tank so that nitrogen would pour into the bag, containing the gas and speeding up the execution of the act.
Mr Wee died by inhaling nitrogen gas in his car at a multi-storey car park at Bedok Reservoir Road on May 16, 2020.
After the act, Cher asked another man to drive a van containing the nitrogen tank away from the car park. She then disposed of the bag, which was from IKEA, and lied to a police officer that Mr Wee had been experiencing chest discomfort for two weeks before his death.
These acts constitute the second charge – of obstructing justice – for which Cher was also found guilty.
During Cher’s trial, it emerged that she was a beneficiary in a S$1 million (USD$761,000) life policy he had purchased in 2019. Giving her testimony in court, Ms Cher had said that she encouraged Mr Wee to live on and that she never touched the nitrogen tank.
Opening his sentencing submissions, Deputy Public Prosecutor Marcus Foo said that the two charges Cher had been convicted of contained “extremely serious offences”.
The prosecutor cited parliamentary reports which stated that an individual who acted inconsistently and undermined or subverted the “sanctity of life” must face “hefty punishment to underscore the need for individuals not to undertake such action”.
In her acts, Cher had undermined or subverted that “sanctity of life”, said Mr Foo.
He said that Cher’s culpability was “not low”, and her acts of handling the nitrogen tank and the IKEA bag displayed her “intimate participation” in Mr Wee’s suicide efforts. In this way, Ms Cher was not a passive onlooker, he said.
“Prior to May 16, 2020, the accused was significantly involved in his suicide plans to the point that she participated in a ‘trial run’. She told him to ‘die handsome’. The accused’s actions of enlisting a doctor so that the deceased’s death could appear natural would also have encouraged him to take further steps in pursuing his suicide plans,” he said.
“The accused’s willingness and agreement to dispose of evidence of suicide on the deceased’s behalf goaded him to press on with his suicide plans.”
In his arguments, Mr Foo pointed out parts of the defence’s mitigation plea that he disagreed with – particularly that her actions were influenced by overwhelming emotional distress, that she cooperated with the authorities, and that she made efforts to dissuade Mr Wee from suicide.
The record of proceedings showed that Cher had “given a series of untruths” to the authorities, including how Mr Wee had died from a heart attack, said Mr Foo.
On the point about Cher’s supposed emotional distress, Mr Foo pointed out that a psychiatric expert was called to the stand to testify to Cher’s clear state of mind, and the defence had not called an expert witness to rebut this.
As to Cher’s efforts to dissuade Mr Wee, Mr Foo said the evidence speaks for itself, as it outlined the extent of her involvement in Mr Wee’s plan.
Cher’s lawyer, Mr Peter Ong, stressed that Mr Wee had been the one to plan his suicide, including by researching nitrogen.
He said that many things were “cast upon” Cher. For example, that Cher had lied that Mr Wee had died of a heart attack when there was in fact no evidence to say that Mr Wee did not have a heart disease.
Cher had lied, but she had subsequently come clean to the police, something the prosecution “conveniently omitted”, Mr Ong said.
Rebutting the prosecution’s point about how Cher had failed to cooperate with the police, Mr Ong said that an investigating officer had said she was “very cooperative” and calm.
At some points during the mitigation, Cher, who was seated in the dock, dabbed and wiped her face as she listened calmly to a Mandarin interpreter.
In his mitigation, Mr Ong also denied that Cher had shown criminal intent when she had said to Mr Wee via text: “See (you) in another world.”
This was after Mr Wee had texted her to say he was commencing his suicide.
Mr Ong said: “I don’t remember (anyone) showing any evidence saying she wanted him to die.”
“When a cancer patient is dying of terminal disease, if you say ‘I will see you in another world’, is it I want him to die?” he asked.
Mr Ong sought less than a year’s jail for his client.
The prosecution argued for the “upper half” of the sentencing range for the charge of abetting suicide, which carries a jail term of up to ten years and a fine.
It also sought one to one-and-a-half year’s jail for the charge of obstructing justice, with the proposed sentences for both charges to run consecutively.
Those convicted of obstructing the course of justice can be jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.
In his judgement, District Judge Shawn Ho agreed with the prosecution on how Cher had been involved in Mr Wee’s suicide plans and that her culpability could be seen by how she handled the nitrogen tank and the IKEA bag.
Judge Ho also said he would not place any weight on the point of Cher being a beneficiary for several reasons, including that Cher had not received any payout, and that she had not asked him to postpone his suicide by 11 days just so that she would have been eligible for the payout.
Cher has lodged an appeal against both her conviction and sentence.
Where to get help:
Samaritans of Singapore Hotline: 1767
Institute of Mental Health’s Helpline: 6389 2222
Singapore Association for Mental Health Helpline: 1800 283 7019
You can also find a list of international helplines here. If someone you know is at immediate risk, call 24-hour emergency medical services.
