Death of Benjamin Lim

The death of Benjamin Lim occurred on 26 January 2016, in Singapore, following a police investigation involving the 14-year-old secondary school student.

Lim died by suicide shortly after being questioned by the police about an allegation of inappropriate behavior.

In delivering the findings, State Coroner Marvin Bay ruled Lim's death a suicide.

While acknowledging that the police and school had taken steps to handle the matter sensitively, the coroner highlighted areas where additional measures could have been taken to support the student.

The incident drew significant public attention, raising concerns about police procedures for handling minors, the lack of legal or parental accompaniment during interrogations, and mental health support for young people in Singapore.

---

Background

Lim is described as a sweet, loving son at home, a mild-mannered teenager in school and a well-liked cadet in NPCC.

"He was hardworking; he worked part-time in McDonalds on weekends and school holidays. He kept part of his salaries for himself, and contributed the rest to his mother for household expenses. He was always looking forward to school camping and outdoor activities."

"He would use his own pocket money to buy all the necessary items for such excursion, and did his own preparation."

On 25 January 2016, an 11-year-old girl accompanied by her father reported an incident to the police, alleging inappropriate behavior by a boy in a lift.

After reviewing CCTV footage, the police identified Benjamin Lim, a 14-year-old student from North View Secondary School in Yishun, as a suspect.

Police Investigation

On 26 January 2016, five plainclothes police officers visited Lim’s school to escort him to the police station for questioning.

He was interviewed at the Ang Mo Kio Police Division without a parent, teacher, or legal representative present, as was allowed under the law at the time.

Lim's mother, Mdm Teng, said she received a call from her son’s handphone in that morning.

A police officer informed her that Lim was assisting in an investigation of a case of molestation, and told her to pick him up from the police station at around 3pm.

Mdm Teng said she then asked to speak with her son.

According to her, Lim told her during the conversation that he did not commit the alleged offence. But before he could continue any further, the phone was taken away by the police officer.

Mdm Teng said she asked the same police officer if she could go to the school to see her son. However, she was told it was not necessary for her to do so. Instead, she was instructed to wait for police to call her. The officer then hung up.

Immediately after the police officer hung up on her, Mdm Teng and her daughter went to Lim’s school hoping to find out what was going on. When they arrived, they were shocked to discover that Lim had already been taken away by police. He was not accompanied by anyone from the school.

At about 1pm, the police called Lim's home again and told Mdm Teng that her son had been arrested for molestation.

Mdm Teng and her daughter then made their way to the Ang Mo Kio Police Division Headquarters and requested to see Lim. However, the request was denied.

According to Mdm Teng, she waited for about half an hour at the reception area before a police inspector asked her to follow him. She was then brought to an interview room where a Chinese-speaking officer questioned her about Lim’s conduct and grades at school.

The interviewing officer then told her Lim had confessed to commiting a crime, and that the offence had been captured on CCTV footage.

Mdm Teng said she told the officer she could not believe her son would do such a thing and requested to see the CCTV footage. She said the police told her, “This is the police’s investigation, not your investigation.”

Lim was released at about 2.50pm. Neither he nor Mdm Teng received a copy of their police statement.

After the interview, Lim was released to his parents and returned home.

Death

He had learned from his mother shortly before his death that he would not be attending a school camp scheduled for the next day.

When Mdm Teng last saw Lim, he was playing with his handphone.

A little later, she discovered that his bedroom door, which was normally kept open, was closed. Sensing that something was amiss, she used a spare key to get into the room. Lim was nowhere to be seen.

Mdm Teng rushed to the ground floor and saw her son’s body lying motionless on the ground.

She stated that the police were already on-site when she arrived downstairs.

His death was ruled a suicide. Lim did not leave a suicide note, but his family later stated that he had been distressed following the police investigation.

Parliamentary Discussion on Benjamin Lim’s Case (1 March 2016)

On 1 March 2016, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam delivered a ministerial statement in Parliament addressing the death of Lim and the controversies surrounding the case.

Addressing Falsehoods

Shanmugam highlighted the spread of “deliberate falsehoods” about the case, which he said had unfairly tarnished the Singapore Police Force.

He specifically criticized the socio-political website The Online Citizen for what he described as a “planned, orchestrated campaign, using falsehoods.”

Over 20 articles on the case had been published by the website, some of which he argued misrepresented facts.

Key inaccuracies addressed by Shanmugam included:

• Claims that police officers were not in plainclothes when they visited Lim's school.
  • The minister clarified that all officers were in plainclothes and used unmarked cars.
• Allegations that Lim was interrogated and intimidated by five police officers.
  • Shanmugam stated only one officer spoke to Lim in the presence of school staff, and he was later interviewed by one officer in an open-plan office at the police station.
• Assertions that Lim was coerced into making a false admission.
  • The minister pointed out that Lim admitted to intentionally touching the girl, which corroborated the victim’s report.
• Claims that Lim was denied food and drink.
  • Shanmugam clarified that Lim was offered food and drink but declined.

Shanmugam stated that, based on available evidence, Lim would likely have received no more than a stern warning for the alleged offense, given his young age and clean record.

He noted that such a warning would not have led to prosecution or a criminal record. However, there was no indication that Lim had been made aware of this during the process.

One specific falsehood cited was a claim in a The Online Citizen article (5 February 2016) that police officers at the school wore shirts with the word “Police.”

This was based on a social media post by a woman named Mary Anne Pereira, who later retracted her statement after the police clarified the facts with her.

Coroner's Findings

A coroner’s inquiry heard by State Coroner Marvin Bay was held on 17-18 May 2016, to determine the cause of Lim’s death.

The state was represented by State Counsel Wong Woon Kwong, while Lim’s family was represented by lawyer Choo Zheng Xi.

The coroner’s findings were released on 18 August 2016.

CCTV Footage and the Alleged Incident

On 25 January 2016, while Lim was coming home from school, Lim was said to have made a detour and went to another HDB block in the neighbourhood, before going home.

According to the girl who made the police report, Lim had followed her into the lift and dropped his mobile phone, which he then bent down to pick up.

The girl claimed that she felt a ‘soft tap’ on her left buttock and when she glanced down, she saw Lim's hand moving away from her.

The coroner reviewed the CCTV footage of the incident multiple times and concluded that Lim's hand had touched the girl’s back.

However, the coroner emphasized that the contact was momentary and did not appear to involve grasping or groping.

Using CCTV footage, police officers saw that the culprit was wearing the PE attire of North View Secondary School.

Events on 26 January 2016

Time	Event
9.45am	Five police officers visit North View Secondary School to establish the identity of the subject. Dressed in civilian attire, they arrive in unmarked cars.
	The school’s staff suspect that Lim is the person seen in the CCTV footage, as he was the only student in the school known to wear red-framed spectacles.
10am	The school’s discipline mistress, who had previously taught Lim, approaches him in the canteen. He is seated alone. She speaks to him and invites him to see the school’s principal, Mr Chen Fook Pang. It is said that there are no students near Lim and the discipline mistress ensures that no one overhears their conversation.
	At the principal’s office, Mr Chen reassures Lim and speaks to him to obtain basic facts. One police officer then interviews Lim in the presence of the school’s staff and obtains an initial account of what had happened in the lift. Lim explains that he may have accidentally touched a girl in a lift as he was picking up his phone, which he had dropped.
	Lim calls his mother to inform her of what was happening. He displays visible signs of stress as his mother speaks to him very loudly.
	A decision is made to bring Lim to the Ang Mo Kio Police Division to further assist in investigations. He is not handcuffed or restrained throughout the journey.
11.20am	Lim is interviewed by a senior investigation officer at the officer’s open plan workstation. The interview and statement recording process is visible to anyone who walks past the area.
	According to the police, Lim admits that he had followed the victim into a lift, where he had deliberately dropped his mobile phone and taken the opportunity to touch her thigh while standing up.
12.15pm	Police interview concludes
	Lim is placed under arrest and brought to a temporary holding area, where he waits for his bail to be processed.
2.50pm	Lim is released to his mother’s custody. On the way home, she asks Lim to tell her if he had molested the victim. Lim says that he did not and that he did not know what had happened. Mdm Teng tells him that he should not have admitted to molesting the girl if he had not done so. Lim says that if people said that he did it, then he did it.
3.30pm	Mdm Teng and her son reach their house at 3.30pm. After a shower and a meal, Lim begins playing games at the dining table. His sister is in the living room, while Mdm Teng is performing chores.
4.13pm	Mdm Teng receives a call from the school counsellor. There are two differing accounts as to what transpired during this phone call. According to the counsellor, the school suggested that it would be good for Lim to not attend a school camp and be with his family instead. An email sent by the counsellor to Mr Chen, the school’s principal, tallies with this account. However, according to Mdm Teng, the counsellor told her that the school had decided not to let Lim attend the camp, preferring him to stay home to do e-learning instead. Mdm Teng conveyed this account to reporters.
	After the call, Mdm Teng tells Lim that the school did not allow him to go to the camp. Lim acknowledges this and continues to play games. Mdm Teng begins washing the common toilet, which is opposite Lim’s room. Five minutes later, she sees that the door to her son’s room is closed. She tries to open the door but finds it locked. Her daughter joins her and they knock on the door repeatedly, asking Lim to open the door, but receive no response. Mdm Teng then uses a spare key to open the door.
	They find a window open and that a desk fan normally found on a table in front of the window had been moved to the floor. Lim’s phone is on his bed but he is nowhere to be seen. Suspecting that he had jumped from the window, Mdm Teng rushes downstairs with her daughter. When they arrive downstairs, they find Lim lying on the ground in front of their block. Police officers are at the scene.
4.36pm	Lim is pronounced dead.

Emotional Impact on Lim

The coroner suggested that Lim may have engaged in "catastrophic thinking," a common phenomenon among young people.

He stated that Lim may have been overly fearful of the consequences of his actions, associating them with severe punishments seen in media, such as Singapore’s Crimewatch.

The coroner noted that Lim was likely unaware that, at most, he could have faced sanctions focused on rehabilitation, such as a stern warning or probation.

The school had recommended that he stay home with his family during this time, but the decision had not been explained directly to Lim, which the coroner later noted could have contributed to a misinterpretation of the situation.

While police had informed Lim’s mother about possible outcomes, there was no evidence that Lim himself had been made aware of these potential consequences. This lack of understanding may have exacerbated his fear and anxiety.

Role of the School and Counsellors

The coroner also addressed the role of the school in Lim’s emotional state. He noted that while the school had acted with Lim’s welfare in mind by recommending he stay home from the camp, the decision was communicated only to Lim’s mother.

The coroner suggested that a school counsellor should have explained the reasoning directly to Lim to prevent misinterpretation. The lack of direct communication may have led Lim to perceive the decision as punitive rather than supportive.

Recommendations from coroner

The state coroner proposed several measures to prevent similar incidents in the future, including:

1. Presence of School Counsellors The coroner recommended that school counsellors accompany students during police interviews. While counsellors would not actively participate in the interview process, their presence could provide emotional support, monitor the student’s well-being, and help alleviate parental concerns.
2. Improved Communication with Students Schools were encouraged to directly communicate decisions regarding a student’s welfare to the student, ensuring that the context and intent are clearly understood. This could prevent students from interpreting supportive measures as punitive or retributive.
3. Awareness of Consequences The coroner suggested better education for young people about the consequences of their actions. He emphasized the need to provide minors with appropriate perspectives to prevent catastrophic thinking, particularly when they are involved in legal matters.

Family's reaction

Following the tragic death of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim in January 2016, his family expressed profound grief and concern over the circumstances leading to his passing.

In an open letter published by The Online Citizen, Lim's father detailed the family's perspective, highlighting a lack of timely communication from both the police and school authorities.

He criticized the manner in which Lim was taken from school by five police officers without waiting for family members to arrive, stating, "The school, in my opinion, should never have handed over my son to five police officers during recess hours without having to wait for the arrival of family members."

During the coroner's inquiry, discrepancies emerged between the family's recollection and the accounts provided by school staff. The family's lawyer noted that Lim's mother had a different recollection of conversations with the school counsellor regarding his participation in a school camp, indicating a divergence in understanding between the parties involved.

The family also disputed certain observations made during the inquiry. For instance, when a school counsellor suggested a correlation between Lim's stress levels and his mother's tone during a phone conversation, the family's lawyer clarified that such a suggestion would be "very upsetting" to the mother, emphasizing the family's sensitivity to interpretations of their interactions with Lim.

Overall, the Lim's family expressed deep sorrow and concern over the handling of the events leading up to Lim's death, seeking clarity and justice for their son.

Public Reaction

The incident sparked widespread public debate in Singapore over the treatment of minors in legal investigations.

Concerns were raised about the lack of safeguards for young suspects, such as the absence of legal or parental accompaniment during police questioning.

Advocacy groups and members of Parliament called for reforms to ensure the mental well-being of minors in similar situations.

Impact and Legacy

Reforms to Police Procedures

In response to the incident, the Singapore Police Force reviewed its procedures for interviewing minors. This led to the implementation of the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects (AAYS) in 2017.

Under this scheme, trained independent volunteers, known as Appropriate Adults (AAs), accompany young suspects under the age of 16 during law enforcement interviews to provide support and facilitate communication.

In April 2017, the Singapore Children’s Society was appointed by the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) to pilot the scheme.

After a successful trial, the program was implemented islandwide in 2019.

Parents and guardians are not permitted to serve as AAs to maintain neutrality.