The Boon Tat Street killing that continues to make Singapore rethink justice

SINGAPORE: In 2017, the heart of Singapore’s Central Business District was the scene of a killing that stunned lunchtime crowds — and later, split public opinion. Tan Nam Seng, a 69-year-old semi-retiree and founder of a successful shipping business, stabbed his 38-year-old son-in-law, Spencer Tuppani, three times in the chest at a Telok Ayer coffee shop.

The incident was caught on CCTV, witnessed by passers-by, and ended with Tan calmly waiting for the police to arrive. As the details emerged in court, the story — and public sentiment — changed dramatically.

A family and a business entwined

Tan founded TNS Shipping in 1974, building it into a family-run enterprise. His three daughters worked for the company, and in 2005, his eldest daughter, Shyller, married Tuppani, who soon became a director and later CEO of the firm.

Tuppani was credited with saving the company from collapse during the 2008 financial crisis, even selling personal assets to keep it afloat. By 2016, the business had recovered, and he brokered its sale for S$9 million.

But the sale left Tan with only about S$450,000 for his shares — a sum that fueled deep resentment. Soon after, Tan discovered that his son-in-law was having an affair and had fathered two children with another woman, while still living under the same roof as his wife and in-laws.

The family’s private life was unravelling amid custody disputes, workplace suspensions, and public knowledge of the affair. Tan became convinced that Tuppani was manoeuvring to remove his daughters from the business and take full control.

By mid-2017, Tan’s mental state had deteriorated. He suffered from major depressive disorder, ruminating obsessively about his daughter’s well-being and feeling powerless to protect his family. Sleep eluded him. Conversations failed. Meetings were avoided.

On July 10, fate and fury collided. Spotting Tuppani at lunch, Tan retrieved a 22cm knife from the office pantry, walked to the coffee shop, and stabbed him three times in the chest. As Tuppani stumbled, Tan followed, stopping others from helping, and even kicking him twice before laying down the knife and waiting for the police.

Three years later, Tan pleaded guilty to culpable homicide, the charge reduced in light of psychiatric findings that his depression, as a result of a tumultuous few years, had significantly impaired his judgment and impulse control — in the end, he was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison.

His jail term was backdated to the date of his arrest.

With the usual one-third remission, The Straits Times reported in 2020 that he was expected to be released in about two-and-a-half years’ time.

Online, a wave of compassion emerged. Netizens acknowledged the taking of a life while also understanding the chain of betrayals and perceived injustices that had driven Tan to the edge of sanity.

One particularly striking reflection read:

“Relying on official justice to be served by the institutions of the State is a social construct… I realised that recovery was not possible by legal means. And he could not rely on the State. The fact that he stood and waited for the Police says a lot. He was prepared to stand by his act… This case is an example of how to think and act without adhering to social constraints but do justice where the organs of government can’t.”

While most agreed that killing can never be condoned, many recognised that Tan’s act came from a place of desperation and a human response to a system that, in his eyes, had failed him.

Tan’s case marks a notable moment in Singapore’s legal history where mental health was weighed heavily in sentencing for a violent crime.

Mental health continues to be a prevalent concern as many citizens are in the midst of battling rising stress levels, long work hours, a sleep deprivation crisis and the costs of living.

The sentencing acknowledged that while the act was deliberate and deadly, it was also shaped by a mind besieged by illness.

Tan passed away on Aug 10 at the age of 77. Many netizens were comforted by the reminder that the law is not immune to compassion — and that public opinion can see shades of humanity even in the darkest acts.