In a grim reminder of Singapore’s strict stance on capital punishment, a former property agent convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and young daughter in 2017 was executed on April 16, 2025. The case of Teo Ghim Heng, who strangled his family members and later set their bodies on fire, has reignited debates about mental health defenses and the application of the death penalty in the city-state.
A Tragic Crime in Woodlands
Teo Ghim Heng, aged 49 at the time of his execution, was found guilty of killing his wife, Choong Pei Shan, 39, and their four-year-old daughter, Zi Ning, in their flat in Woodlands, a residential area in northern Singapore, on January 20, 2017. Choong was six months pregnant with their unborn son at the time of her death. According to court records, Teo strangled his wife with a bath towel and used his bare hands to ensure she was dead before turning on his daughter. In a chilling aftermath, he slept beside the bodies for a week, using air conditioning to delay decomposition, before setting them ablaze in an attempt to cover up the crime. 
The Singapore Prison Service confirmed to local media that Teo’s sentence was carried out at Changi Prison Complex. In a statement released on April 16, the police emphasized the legal rigor of the process: “He was accorded full due process under the law, and was represented by legal counsel both at the trial and at the appeal. His petitions to the President for clemency were unsuccessful.”
Financial Strain and Personal Turmoil
The roots of this horrific act lie in a combination of financial distress and personal conflict. Teo, once a successful property agent, saw his income plummet during a market downturn in 2015. By late 2016, he had taken up a job as a sales coordinator at a renovation company, but the family’s expenses remained high, exacerbated by Teo’s gambling habit. Court documents reveal that by the end of 2016, he was burdened with debts of approximately 120,000 Singapore Dollars (US$89,000 as of April 17, 2025), prompting him to list their flat for sale.
Tensions boiled over in January 2017. On January 18, Teo and Choong argued bitterly over their finances, with Teo raising the issue of an extramarital affair Choong had in 2014. Two days later, on the morning of the murders, Choong berated Teo for failing to send Zi Ning to school due to unpaid fees, reportedly calling him “useless.” This confrontation, prosecutors argued, was the immediate trigger for the violence that followed.
After committing the murders, Teo took deliberate steps to conceal his actions. He purchased air fresheners to mask the smell of burning and decomposition and fabricated a story about a suicide pact with his wife, even forging suicide notes and lying to relatives about the family’s absence during Chinese New Year celebrations. The bodies were discovered on January 28, 2017, the first day of the Lunar New Year, after Choong’s family grew concerned and alerted the police.
Legal Proceedings and Rejected Defenses
Teo was convicted of two counts of murder by the High Court in November 2020, with a third charge related to the death of his unborn son withdrawn by the prosecution. He was sentenced to death, a penalty reserved in Singapore for the most serious crimes, including intentional murder. During the trial, Teo’s defense team argued that he had been provoked by his wife’s insults and had lost control, and later claimed he suffered from depression that diminished his responsibility for the crimes.
However, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. The lower court found no evidence of provocation severe enough to warrant a lesser charge of culpable homicide, while the apex court, in dismissing Teo’s appeal in February 2022, ruled that he did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The judges also pointed to Teo’s calculated efforts to cover up the murders as evidence of intent and awareness, undermining claims of diminished responsibility.
Singapore’s judiciary has long maintained a strict interpretation of mental health defenses in capital cases, requiring clear medical evidence of severe impairment at the time of the offense. Legal experts note that such defenses rarely succeed in murder trials, particularly when evidence suggests premeditation or post-crime deception, as in Teo’s case.
Capital Punishment in Singapore
Teo’s execution underscores Singapore’s unwavering commitment to capital punishment for grave offenses. The city-state, known for its low crime rates and stringent laws, imposes the death penalty for crimes such as murder and drug trafficking, often drawing criticism from international human rights organizations. The police reiterated in their April 16 statement that such punishment is reserved for “the most serious crimes,” reflecting a policy rooted in deterrence and retribution.
According to data from local advocacy groups, Singapore has carried out dozens of executions over the past decade, though exact numbers are not always publicly disclosed. The majority of these cases involve drug-related offenses, but murder convictions like Teo’s also frequently result in hanging, the method of execution used in the country. While the government argues that the death penalty is a necessary tool to maintain public safety, critics contend it lacks proven deterrent value and risks irreversible errors, especially in cases where mental health issues are raised.
Teo’s case has drawn particular attention due to the brutality of the crime and the familial context. Public sentiment, as reflected in online discussions and local media commentary, appears divided. Some express sympathy for Teo’s financial and emotional struggles, while others argue that the heinous nature of the murders—targeting a pregnant woman and a young child—justifies the ultimate penalty.
Mental Health and Legal Reform Debates
The rejection of Teo’s depression defense has reignited discussions about how Singapore’s legal system handles mental health in criminal cases. Mental health advocates argue that the threshold for proving diminished responsibility is too high, often excluding individuals who may have been suffering from undiagnosed or untreated conditions at the time of their crimes. They call for broader access to psychiatric evaluations during trials and greater judicial discretion in sentencing, particularly in cases involving domestic violence or extreme stress.
Conversely, legal scholars caution that relaxing standards for mental health defenses could risk undermining accountability in cases of deliberate violence. They point to Teo’s actions after the murders—such as fabricating evidence and deceiving relatives—as indicative of rational, if desperate, decision-making rather than a mental breakdown. This tension between compassion and justice remains a contentious issue in Singapore, where public support for the death penalty remains relatively high, according to periodic surveys by local institutions.
Broader societal questions also linger about the pressures of financial instability and familial discord in a high-cost, competitive society like Singapore. Teo’s descent from a successful professional to a debt-ridden individual with a gambling problem mirrors challenges faced by many in the city-state, where economic success is often equated with personal worth. While these factors do not excuse his actions, they highlight the need for stronger social safety nets and mental health support systems to prevent such tragedies.
A Case That Haunts
As Singapore moves forward from Teo Ghim Heng’s execution, the case leaves an indelible mark on public consciousness. It serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of unchecked personal crises and the limits of legal mercy in the face of brutal crime. For many, the image of a father and husband committing such acts against his own family remains incomprehensible, a tragedy that defies easy answers.
Yet, as debates over capital punishment and mental health continue, questions persist about whether justice has truly been served—or if deeper systemic changes are needed to address the root causes of such violence. For now, the Woodlands flat where Choong Pei Shan and Zi Ning lost their lives stands as a silent witness to a family’s collapse and a nation’s unrelenting stance on retribution.
