CORRECTION NOTICE:
This post contains false statements of fact.
The prisoner awaiting capital punishment (PACP) referred to in this post was afforded due legal process. He was tried and convicted by the High Court for drug trafficking, and was sentenced to the death penalty. His conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. Throughout these proceedings, he was represented by legal counsel assigned under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences.
After his application for clemency was denied, the PACP went on to file three legal applications for permission to take out review proceedings in respect of his appeal. All the applications were summarily dismissed by the Court of Appeal. He was represented by counsel of his choice in all three applications.
In all, he was represented by no fewer than 8 lawyers. He was not denied legal counsel at any stage. It is false to allege as TJC has that the prisoner was denied due legal process.
An execution will only be scheduled when a prisoner has exhausted all rights of appeal and the clemency process. Some PACPs have repeatedly filed last-minute applications, without basis, with the obvious purpose of preventing the capital punishment from being carried out. In such cases, when the Courts grant a stay of the execution, the stay is occasioned by the prisoner’s own decision to file applications at the last minute. Scheduled executions are not arbitrarily stayed by the Prison authorities. Thus, it is also false to allege that executions are stayed, without any accountability to the families of the prisoners.
Laws in Singapore, including those relating to the death penalty, are considered and enacted by the Legislature, according to proper legal process. Any law that is sought to be introduced or amended must go through the Parliamentary process and be assented to by the President, before it becomes law. It is false to allege that the State alone decides who lives and who dies, by reason of the death penalty. Our laws are not made arbitrarily.
For the correct facts, visit: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually080824
On Thursday, 1 August 2024, the Transformative Justice Collective learnt that a Singaporean death row prisoner was issued an execution notice on Monday, 29 July 2024, informing him and his family that his execution has been scheduled for Friday, 2 August 2024.
Not only is this notice period shorter than the seven days usually granted, the notice was also issued before the written judgment was delivered in a case the prisoner brought before the court to challenge his conviction. In other words, his execution was scheduled even before the court judgment was out. Why such haste? To make the situation even more egregious, this prisoner is also part of a separate ongoing joint application, with a hearing scheduled for September 2024. Why is the state denying him the opportunity to see this application through?
In recent years, we have heard plenty from the government and the courts about “abuse of process”. They talk about the need for “finality” in the legal process; they expect people to accept their death sentences and sit in their cells, quietly and obediently, waiting for the moment they are taken away to be killed. They warn lawyers against filing supposedly “frivolous” cases, imposing personal costs against those who dare to bring such challenges before the court.
As abolitionist activists who have worked closely with multiple families of death row prisoners, we have borne witness to plenty of abuse and contempt. We see contempt for human dignity, relationships, and the rights of prisoners. We see how human life is treated frivolously while desperate prisoners and families are accused of wasting court resources with “frivolous” cases. We’ve seen a prisoner kept in court until almost 1am when his execution was scheduled for 6am the same day—he missed out on precious time with his family and his last meal. We have seen applications, which would usually have gone through months-long processes, expedited to mere days, putting prisoners with no legal counsel, no resources and no legal training in the most intimidating and unfair position of rushing to prepare and argue their own cases against well-resourced, highly educated state prosecutors.
New laws have been passed to make it even more difficult for death row prisoners to file post-appeal applications. Too often, we see disregard for the plight of families, like in this case we found out about today, where the state has given the family only four days’ notice of his execution, even though he is still party to ongoing legal proceedings. In recent months, multiple families have experienced the horrifying emotional roller coaster of receiving the dreaded execution notice for their loved ones, only to be told the day before that the execution has been stayed. There is no accountability to these families, no answer to their indignation, pain and confusion—they are treated like pawns in the hands of the state.
The death penalty regime has never been about justice, fairness, or keeping Singaporeans safe. It is about showing off state power. The state often reminds us that they are the only ones who can set—and change—the rules, making it harder and harder for those fighting for their lives to push back against this cruel practice. We are told it is an “abuse of process” when the state’s plans to kill are disrupted by a prisoner’s appeal to the court, but when it comes to achieving the state’s goals, it seems as if processes are malleable after all—they can simply change the laws. The more that those on death row, their families and ordinary Singaporeans challenge the death penalty, the more the state doubles down on its stance.
With capital punishment, the state grants itself maximum discretion to callously determine when people can live to fight another day, and when they have to die.
Transformative Justice Collective 