Ex-professor convicted in Hong Kong yoga ball murder case files another appeal
A jailed Malaysian anaesthesiologist in Hong Kong has filed an appeal against his conviction of murdering his wife and teenage daughter with a yoga ball filled with lethal gas in 2015, marking yet another attempt to clear his name.
Advertisement
Former university professor Khaw Kim Sun, who was sentenced to life imprisonment, filed the application on Tuesday with the Court of Appeal against the trial judge's ruling, according to a document seen by the Post.
A seven-member High Court jury last month unanimously found the 60-year-old guilty of causing the deaths of his wife, Wong Siew Fing, 47, and their second child, Lily Khaw Li Ling, 16, on May 22, 2015.
The two died of carbon monoxide poisoning after a leaky inflatable yoga ball filled with a lethal amount of the gas was placed in the boot of Khaw's Mini Cooper car, which the pair were riding.
Khaw, who was previously with the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), was convicted of two counts of murder after a trial in 2018, but filed an appeal to clear his name while serving a life sentence.
Advertisement
The Court of Final Appeal quashed his conviction in 2023 after ruling that the trial judge had misdirected the jury.
The case was sent back to the High Court for a retrial, which began in November last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
3 days ago
- Asia Times
Anwar's immunity bid fails in rule-of-law test for Malaysia
In a landmark June 4 ruling, Malaysia's High Court denied Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's controversial attempt to shield himself from civil proceedings by invoking a constitutional mechanism — a move critics say was a veiled attempt at political immunity. The court's rejection of Anwar's bid marks the beginning of a legal confrontation unprecedented in Malaysian history: a sitting prime minister now stands to defend himself in court while governing the nation. The decision arrives on the heels of a motion by Anwar's legal team seeking to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court. These questions, according to the defense, pertained to the burdens placed on the Prime Minister's Office by an ongoing civil suit and were framed not as an immunity plea but as a request for a 'constitutional filter.' Yet the distinction was semantic at best. 'We are not claiming immunity,' Anwar's counsel asserted on June 3. 'We are simply seeking clarity to protect the executive's function.' But the subtext was clear: Anwar wanted out of the dock. The case in question — a civil suit filed by Muhammed Yusoff Rawther alleging sexual misconduct by Anwar — predates Anwar's premiership. The incident allegedly occurred in 2018, and Rawther filed the suit in 2020. Notably, Anwar did not attempt to strike out the suit at any point over the past three years. Only on May 23, 2025 — a staggering 912 days after he assumed office — did he pivot to constitutional arguments. Rawther's lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, minced no words in court. 'Why did the Prime Minister take 912 days to raise this issue?' he asked. 'If the matter truly affected his ability to discharge executive functions, he should have addressed it long ago.' Rafique also pointed out that Anwar's affidavit failed to provide any reason for the delay — a procedural omission that, in the eyes of many, exposed the real motivation behind the application. More damningly, Rafique invoked Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. 'No man — not even the Prime Minister — can stand above that,' he said. 'Immunity, whether cloaked as a filter or wrapped in legalese, is still immunity.' Presiding Judge Roz Mawar Rozain dismissed all eight questions as 'untenable, abstract and speculative.' She ruled that the Federal Court need not be burdened with academic hypotheticals. The trial, she affirmed, will proceed as scheduled on June 16, and 20,000 ringgit (US$4,700) in legal costs were awarded to Rawther. Anwar's team immediately sought an urgent stay of the ruling, but it also was dismissed. They now have 30 days to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal, though the countdown to the trial has already begun. In her oral judgment, Roz Mawar made it clear: Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Constitution — which Anwar's team cited to support their plea — contain no implicit or explicit provision for immunity. The Constitution, she emphasized, enshrines accountability, not executive insulation. Anwar's maneuver has drawn comparisons to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2020 attempt to sidestep legal scrutiny. Facing multiple indictments, Netanyahu petitioned the Knesset for parliamentary immunity, claiming the charges were politically motivated. While Israel's system at least provides a legal pathway for such immunity via legislative vote, Malaysia's does not. Anwar's attempt to manufacture a similar buffer through the courts was both bold and, ultimately, unsuccessful. In both cases, the public response was the same: dismay at the spectacle of a sitting prime minister attempting to rewrite the rules mid-game. Anwar's critics say his move reeks of the same hubris — a desperate attempt to evade moral reckoning while cloaked in constitutional garb. For a man who once stood as the face of Reformasi, the optics are devastating. Here is Anwar — long celebrated as a martyr of political injustice, imprisoned under Mahathir Mohamad's authoritarian regime — now attempting to insulate himself from due process using the very levers of power he once opposed. This isn't Anwar's first brush with accusations of overreach. His 1999 conviction for abuse of power — widely seen as politically charged — is now being unearthed in conversations across social media and political circles alike. History, as they say, echoes. The parallel doesn't stop there. Like Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra — another leader accused of self-enrichment and later pardoned — Anwar has blurred the lines between public service and political dynasty. His appointment of Thaksin as ASEAN adviser and his own daughter Nurul Izzah as Deputy President of the PKR have raised questions about nepotism and political insulation, further damaging his image as a reformer. Conversely, Rawther's credibility has only been strengthened by this legal victory. He has, for years, insisted that his pursuit of justice is not politically motivated. The June 4 ruling — which affirms the legitimacy of his claim and the court's commitment to due process — lends weight to that assertion. In a political landscape often defined by backroom deals and unaccountable elites, Rawther has emerged as a symbol of perseverance — a private citizen holding the nation's most powerful man to legal scrutiny. This verdict could well reshape how Malaysia is seen on the regional stage. As the country currently chairing ASEAN, the world is watching. The failure of Anwar's immunity gambit is a litmus test of Malaysia's democratic maturity. What signal would it have sent if a sitting Prime Minister could so easily erect a legal wall around himself? The judiciary, by rejecting this narrative, has reaffirmed Malaysia's commitment to constitutional supremacy and rule of law. In Rafique's words outside the court, 'This ruling ensures that in Malaysia, no executive, no prime Minister, no monarch can place himself above the people.' This episode will linger in the nation's political memory — not just for what it reveals about Anwar's instincts, but for what it says about the resilience of Malaysia's institutions. The prime minister now finds himself in uncharted territory: governing while on trial, a dual burden with no modern precedent in Malaysia. Anwar once said, 'Justice is the soul of governance.' It remains to be seen whether he will honor that creed — or be judged by it.
Asia Times
30-05-2025
- Asia Times
Anwar's bold and conflicted bid for legal immunity
KUALA LUMPUR – In the corridors of Malaysian power, the language of justice often changes depending on who is speaking — and who is being spoken about. Several years after alleging Anwar Ibrahim sexually assaulted him in a private residence in Segambut, Yusoff Rawther's civil suit has reached a legal crescendo — just as Anwar, now prime minister, seeks to halt the case by invoking what he calls a 'qualified immunity.' But this is no ordinary courtroom drama. It is a test of institutional resolve, of whether Malaysia's judiciary can still call to account the most powerful office in the land. The story began on October 2, 2018. Yusoff, then a young research assistant, claimed he was assaulted by Anwar, the man then touted as Malaysia's next prime minister. In December 2019, he went public, took a polygraph test and filed a police report, but no criminal charges followed. By July 2021, Yusoff took matters into his own hands by launching a civil suit against Anwar. The High Court refused to strike it out, sending the case toward trial. Then came a twist: Yusoff was arrested in September 2024 with imitation firearms and over 300 grams of cannabis. His defense insists he never entered the car where the contraband was found, never had control over it and was immediately handcuffed outside. Three prosecution witnesses appeared to support that view. If he was being framed, as his lawyers claim, the motive was as political as it was personal. On May 27, 2025, Anwar made a move no Malaysian prime minister has made before. He applied to the Federal Court to be granted immunity — not for his actions as a sitting prime minister, but for something alleged before he took office. The timing is curious. The civil suit is scheduled for trial on June 16. The Chief Justice, Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat — known for her judicial independence — retires in June. And Anwar's new legal team, appointed just days before, rushed to file their applications to postpone the trial and elevate the question of immunity to the highest court. Critics note that even Malay royalty do not enjoy such blanket protection — they are answerable in a Special Court. Anwar's attempt to shield himself, they argue, goes beyond what any prime minister before him, not even Najib Razak at the height of the 1MDB scandal, ever dared to seek. And therein lies the rub. Anwar, the man once imprisoned and persecuted by the very system he now leads, is asking that same system to silence a voice calling for justice. The bigger issue is, if we accept this logic, then any citizen can be denied their right to be heard in court, depending on who the defendant is. Indeed, Article 8 of Malaysia's Federal Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Immunity — real or rhetorical — flies in the face of this principle. Anwar frames his application as protection for the Office of the Prime Minister from 'abuse of legal process.' Yet the suit is personal, the alleged incident predates his premiership and the plaintiff is an individual, not a rival party or political movement. This is no frivolous Twitter/X spat. This is about whether the nation's highest office can become a fortress of impunity. On May 29, Perikatan Nasional's whip, Takiyuddin Hassan, urged the Attorney General to intervene — not to side with any party but to protect the Constitution from what he called a 'dangerous judicial precedent.' He noted that Articles 181–183, which govern immunity, were crafted for Malaysia's monarchs, not its ministers. There is speculation, too, about timing and motive. Why is Anwar seeking constitutional cover only now? Is it a strategic bet on the post-Tengku Maimun judiciary? Or a preemptive strike to prevent cross-examination in open court? The deeper paranoia relates to Rafique Rashid, a relatively young legal figure who is central to both Anwar's feud with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and this case with Yusoff. What does Rafique know that so rattles the nation's now most powerful man? This saga is not just about legal technicalities or political strategy. It is about the moral soul of a 'reformasi' movement that promised accountability, transparency and the rule of law. Anwar once stood in prison and declared the system broken. Today, seated in Putrajaya, he asks that same system to shield him. In doing so, he risks becoming the very caricature his younger self once fought against. In the coming weeks, Malaysia's judiciary will be called to choose between precedent and power, between access and exclusion, between immunity and accountability. As Malaysia positions itself as a stabilizing force in ASEAN — mediating conflicts in Myanmar, projecting soft power in Palestine and countering great-power rivalry in the South China Sea — its domestic credibility matters more than ever. A nation that cannot resolve its own crises transparently cannot lecture others on justice. A prime minister who claims global moral leadership must not seek local legal exemption. This case, in its quiet courtroom battles and explosive political undertones, will be remembered not just for what was said under oath, but for what it revealed about the state of Malaysia's democracy. Amir Al Fateh is an independent journalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, specializing in political analysis, governance and civil liberties. He is a verified contributor to Newswav and his work has been featured in MalaysiaNow and Utusan Malaysia. His professional portfolio is accessible via on his Muck Rack profile .
RTHK
30-05-2025
- RTHK
Ex-Goldman Sachs banker gets two years over 1MDB theft
Ex-Goldman Sachs banker gets two years over 1MDB theft Former Goldman Sachs chief of southeast Asia operations, Timothy Leissner, arrives at the US District Court for Eastern District of New York for his sentencing. Photo: AFP A former Goldman Sachs banker has been sentenced to two years in US federal prison for his role in a US$4.5 billion scheme to ransack a Malaysian state investment fund. Tim Leissner, at his sentencing in Brooklyn federal court on Thursday, apologised to the people of Malaysia, who he called the 'real victims' of the scheme. 'The funds raised more than a decade ago could have profoundly benefited the nation and its citizens,' he said in a statement read in court and provided by his lawyers. 'Instead, due to my greed – and the greed of those involved alongside me – they were misappropriated.' Prosecutors said Leissner and other Goldman Sachs bankers helped the Malaysian investment fund known as 1MBD, or the 1Malaysia Development Berhad state fund, raise US$6.5 billion through bond sales. But they say more than US$4.5 billion of the funds were stolen and laundered through bribes and kickbacks. The spoils bankrolled extravagant purchases, from wild parties to lavish spending on jewels, art, a superyacht and luxury real estate, prosecutors have said. They also helped finance the 2013 Martin Scorsese film 'The Wolf of Wall Street' that starred Leonardo DiCaprio. The scandal led to the fall of Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak's government in 2018. Najib was later convicted by a Malaysian court of abuse of power and other crimes related to the scandal and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Leissner had pleaded guilty in 2018 to bribing government officials in Malaysia and Abu Dhabi. He served as a key government witness in the trial of Roger Ng, a fellow former Goldman Sachs banker who was sentenced in 2023 to 10 years in federal prison. (AP)
