Galing Anak Kujat[a] (born c. 1983) is a convicted robber and a native Malaysian of Iban descent who came from Sarawak, Malaysia.
He was best known to be the accomplice of Kho Jabing, a convicted murderer who also came from Malaysia and was known for his years-long battle against the death penalty in Singapore.
Galing and Kho were both involved in the 2008 robbery and murder of mainland Chinese national and construction worker Cao Ruyin in Singapore.
Initially facing a murder charge and possible execution, Galing was eventually imprisoned and jailed for robbery with hurt.
Galing was represented by lawyers Chandra Mohan s/o K Nair and Chia Soo Michael, while Kho was represented by lawyers Johan Ismail and Zaminder Singh Gill, while the prosecution consisted of Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) Leong Wing Tuck and Gordon Oh of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
Dr Teo Eng Swee, the pathologist who performed an autopsy on the victim Cao Ruyin and released a medical report, told the court that he believed that the skull fractures on Cao was caused by at least 5 blows or more, and one of these were possibly caused by either a blow or a fall on the back of the head.
Kho told the court that he only struck the deceased with the tree branch twice, but he claimed he did not know the force exerted or where he aimed at; the prosecution later indicated that he said so in his police statements that he hit the victim on the head twice.
Other than that, Kho insisted that he only intend to rob but not to kill Cao Ruyin, stating that he felt deep remorse for causing the death of the victim.
Justice Kan Ting Chiu found both Kho Jabing and Galing Kujat guilty of murder and sentenced both of them to death by long drop hanging (the standard method of execution in Singapore).
Instead, they convict him of a lower charge of robbery with hurt under section 394 of the Penal Code, and ordered that his case was to be remitted to the original trial judge for re-sentencing.
The outcome of Galing's re-sentencing went unreported, but this information was revealed in subsequent court documents and news articles covering Kho Jabing's murder case from 2013 onwards.
This outcome left only Kho Jabing to hang for Cao Ruyin's murder while Galing managed to escape with his life.
Through the removal of the mandatory death penalty, the judges in Singapore were given an option to impose a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment with or without caning for offenders who commit murder but had no intention to kill (the death penalty remains mandatory only for murder offences committed with intention to kill, which came under section 300(a) of the Penal Code).
This discretion is similarly applied to those convicted of drug trafficking, provided that they only act as couriers, suffering from impaired mental responsibility (e.g. depression) or any other conditions.
[15] Because of this, through his newly appointed lawyers, Kho Jabing was granted re-sentencing, and on 14 August 2013, following a re-trial by the High Court, Kho Jabing's death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane by High Court judge Tay Yong Kwang, who took over the task of re-sentencing since the original trial judge Kan Ting Chiu was retired from the Bench at that point of time.
With the outcome of his re-sentencing, Kho Jabing became the second convicted murderer on death row to be spared the gallows after 23-year-old death row inmate Fabian Adiu Edwin, who was similarly re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane in July 2013 for robbing and murdering a security guard in August 2008 when he was merely 18 years old.
[18][19] After that, Kho subsequently made multiple appeals against the death penalty, including a clemency plea to President of Singapore Tony Tan.
[20] Even after his incarceration, Galing Kujat still made an influence, largely in the fate of Kho Jabing, as well as an indirect effect on the implementation of the guiding principles of the discretionary death penalty applied for murder cases in Singapore since the law's reforms in 2013; this also led to Galing indirectly having an effect on the sentencing and appeal outcomes of some murder cases affected by the guiding principles o the death penalty, though less significantly than Kho Jabing and the 2015 appeal verdict.
His conduct and that of Galing's, together with their violent acts, would bring disquiet to society and made them have a fear that the ill-fortune that befallen on Cao Ruyin and his friend Wu Jun will similarly befall on them.
The defence also said that Kho had no criminal history in both Malaysia and Singapore prior to Cao's murder, the lack of weapons beforehand, and his only intention was to rob the deceased but not to take his life and not the mastermind of the robbery.
He said that there was an unclear and disputed sequence of events, and the young age of Kho were factors that made him decided to not impose the death sentence.
Justice Tay also sentenced Kho to receive 24 strokes of the cane on behalf of the violence he exhibited when he robbed and fatally assaulted 40-year-old Cao Ruyin in 2008.
They said that Kho may have chanced upon the murder weapon (the tree branch), but the fact was he used it when he rained strikes with great force on Cao's head.
They made a reference to the medical report of forensic pathologist Dr Teo Eng Swee, which stated that the skull fractures resulted from severe force, which made it clear that more likely, Kho's tree branch was the more possible weapon that caused the fractures compared to Galing's belt buckle.
On the other hand, the two remaining judges, Lee and Woo, dissented with separate judgements and upheld the life sentence while dismissing the prosecution's appeal.
Galing Kujat's case was referred to and mentioned in another case which involves the murder of one Bangladeshi named Munshi Abdur Rahim, an illegal syndicate leader, though ultimately, one of the offenders and the only one of them that claimed trial would be convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon instead of murder.
On 24 September 2016, 32-year-old Munshi Abdur Rahim was fatally slashed to death at a field nearby Tuas View Dormitory by three Bangladeshi men, who came from a rival syndicate that illegally sold contraband cigarettes.
"The bus camera footage was not of a high quality, some of the scenes were dark, and in some frames, the view of Rahim's legs was obstructed by the assailants' bodies, and it did not show important details of how the assailants struck Rahim," the judge said as she convicted Manik, who denied inflicting the fatal injury and the knowledge that his other two accomplices would inflict the fatal injury.
The defence argued for 10 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane on account of Manik's remorse over the attack and cooperation with the police.
Besides, Justice Thean said that Manik did not plead guilty and was armed in contrast to another person - Muhammad Faizal bin Md Jamal - who was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment and 8 strokes of the cane for a reduced charge of causing hurt to a murder victim in a separate murder case.