A father's revenge.

 “You are too much”. 

That’s what a father-in-law told his son-in-law, just before he stabbed him three times outside a Telok Ayer Street coffee shop on 10 July 2017, at 1:20 pm lunchtime. 

But, what is too much? 

Is it that his son-in-law, Spencer Tuppani, 39 yr old, had taken over the company his father-in-law had painstaking built up by persuading him and his wife to assign their shares to him? 

Is it that Spencer shortchanged them by paying a paltry sum of $450,000 from the sale of shares, as his father-in-law expected to receive more?

Is it that Spencer is suspected by his father-in-law to harbour plans to get rid of his sister-in-law too, possibly including his own wife?

Are all that too much? Wait, there’s more.

How about the time when his father-in-law found out that Spencer was having an affair with another woman, and they had two children born out of wedlock?

The papers in fact reports that the father-in-law “believed that Mr Tuppani had plans to cheat him of his business by divorcing his daughter after taking control of all their shares.”

After the offence, Tan Nam Seng, called his daughter, Shyller, and told her this: “I can’t sleep at night. I have done it. I have killed him. Don’t cry. I am old already. I am not scared (of) going to jail.” When Shyller cried over the phone, Tan said: “What’s done cannot be undone.”

Indeed, what is done was he had stabbed his son-in-law while he was having lunch with three friends. Before that, Tan went to his office, took a knife from the pantry and headed to the coffee shop to hunt Tuppani down. 

“Closed-circuit television footage was played in court showing Tuppani running away and collapsing in front of a restaurant in Boon Tat Street”.

That’s not all. He went over and kicked him twice in the face. And chasing passers-by away, Tan told them: “This is my son-in-law, don’t help him, let him die.”

I guess the intention to end a life is quite clear. It was a premeditated act conceived with resolve at the office’s pantry (when Tan armed himself with the knife) and ended with him kicking his face and telling passers-by to “let him die”. 

Tan was thus convicted of a reduced culpable homicide charge and will be sentenced in due course. He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The papers explained: “His condition, which included “overwhelming ruminations and worries about the well-being of his daughters,” impaired his mental responsibility for his actions, said an Institute of Mental Health report.””

Lesson? Sadly, truth is stranger than fiction. Such family tragedy is not only limited to the Netflix screen, but the reality of it can be even more visceral and shocking.

So, how is the hand of justice going to mete out the sentence in this case? How does the judicial fact-finder then perform a Solomon and divine the nuances, which concern many moral and legal wrongs at so many levels? 

Needless to say, we have progressed far beyond the tribalistic or folksy justice of ancient days where it is about an eye for an eye, or a life for a life. Over time, we have institutionalised that whimsical justice into the impersonal hand of the rule of law, instead of putting it in the emotional hands of the one deeply aggrieved, and seeking revenge.

But for argument’s sake, I trust this case appeals to the emotional side of us as against the rational side, where the rule of law resides with a firm hand. 

For on one side, you have ingratitude, greed and lust. And on the other side, you have betrayal, hatred and revenge. I therefore trust that the scale of justice from the emotional side will never find its balance. 

And I also trust there will be many out there who quietly sympathise with the struggles of the protective father for the well being of his daughters and family. We are human after all. We are thus more easily swayed by emotions than reason. This is evident with the numerous scams of late involving promises of companionship and quick-fortune. 

But, at the end of the day, a life is gone. That is a fact. He too has loved ones. He may have done what he was alleged to have done, but it was still a life that deserved to live, comeuppance notwithstanding. 

In other words, Tuppani did not deserve to have his life prematurely ended in such a way, with impunity. And if we are tempted to pitch the case as a heroic father sacrificing himself to protect his family from a crook, justice would not only be blind, but immobilised, to the adverse effect on society. 

But if we allow reason to be tempered with emotion, more relevantly, compassion, both working hand in hand, it is hoped that the hand of leniency will mete out the sentence in a way that the troubled conscience of society will be assuaged for both sides' sake.