Malaysia and the Politics Behind the Death Penalty: A Tumultuous Relationship

Source: World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (24 October 2022)

https://worldcoalition.org/2022/10/24/malaysia-and-the-politics-behind-the-death-penalty-a-tumultuous-relationship/

Being one of the few countries around the world to still retain the use of the death penalty in the 20th century, it was a pleasant surprise when the Malaysian Government announced their agreement to abolish the mandatory death penalty on 10 June 2022, following the completion of research that was tabled to push for alternative punishments. Suffice it to say, many Malaysians, international bodies, and abolitionist advocates warmly welcomed this long-awaited news, almost 4 years in the making since the Pakatan Harapan government’s commitment to making Malaysia a no-death penalty zone in 2018.

But to say that our road towards abolition has been smooth sailing would be a far cry from the truth: prior to the announcement, the commitment to do away with the death penalty was filled with multiple delays and setbacks by Parliamentarians, not to mention a political crisis in between which resulted in the changing of government three times which slowed our progress. Adding on to this, advocates continue to face challenges in combatting age-old ideologies that were influenced by government policies of the yesteryears regarding the use of the death penalty, especially with drug offences.

But all in all, from our observations, these events brought to light one factor that played an incredibly significant influence in Malaysia’s abolitionist journey – namely, politics.

Thus, this article will attempt to break down how Malaysian politics has shaped the death penalty as our country knows it today. Firstly, we will explore the background context behind our country’s inheritance of the death penalty, and the political events that have occurred over the years to shift our nation’s view from retentionist to abolitionist.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

As a previous member of the British colonial administration from 1826-1957, it is of no surprise that the then British Malaya not only inherited the legal and political systems of its British counterparts, but also the laws and punishments that were present at that time – this included the death penalty, of which the United Kingdom (‘UK’) was notoriously famous for in the course of its history. Although Malaysia liberated itself from British rule on 31st August of 1957, it still retained a good majority of these systems and laws that continue to be implemented to this day.

Ironically, the UK took their first steps in abolishing the mandatory death penalty in 1964, just a mere few years after Merdeka, Malaysia’s Independence Day before doing away with it in totality in 1998: One could attribute this to their obligations as signatories and members of various international treaties and bodies, including the European Council of Human Rights and many United Nations Conventions.

Malaysia however, did not follow suit, choosing to focus its resources and policies in favour of stabilising the socio-political changes that were occurring within the country, considering that we were fresh out of independence – an exploration of this can be found later in the article. As of today, the mandatory death penalty applies for 11 offences, ranging from murder, drug trafficking, terrorism, kidnapping, and possession of firearms. A parliamentary reply in February 2022 listed approximately 1,341 persons on death row, of which 905 death row inmates are convicted of offences involving the mandatory death penalty.

THE LONG AND WINDY ROAD TOWARDS ABOLITION

As mentioned earlier, Malaysia’s commitment towards abolition has come a long way considering the politics that have shaped the existence of the death penalty in our country over the years. This section will explore some of these events that have occurred and their respective influences.
The 1980s – The Mahathir Administration, and the War on Drugs.

No discussion on the politics behind the death penalty in Malaysia would be complete without diving into the infamous ‘war on drugs’ that most ASEAN countries undertook since the 1960s: this was often associated with that of the Mahathir administration for Malaysians.

Pre-1980s, the British colonial government introduced the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA 1952’) in Malaysia as a response to the growing threat of drug-related substances in the 1950s. The Act aimed to govern offences related to drug use and trafficking in the country and still continues to be in force to this day. However, it was only during Mahathir’s administration that the death penalty was introduced into the DDA 1952 in 1975, and was made mandatory in 1983.

This amendment was a result of efforts conducted by the government’s campaign against drugs since it was viewed as a security concern in light of the early stages of Malaysia’s development as an independent country fresh out of colonisation. Quintessentially, the issue was framed in a way that depicted drugs as something incredibly harmful to society, not the mention the dangerous threat it represented to Malaysia’s national security because it could possibly derail national development and cause major incitement to violence.

Thus, it was thought that in order to eliminate drug addiction, action must not only be taken through intensive efforts such as education, advertising, testing, and rehabilitation for relatively small amounts of drugs like heroin, cocaine, or marijuana, but also extremely harsh penalties to nip it at the source: to contextualise a few things, one could associate the increasing rates of drug use in Malaysia the early 80s to the fact that we were situated nearby the ‘Golden Triangle’, an area comprising of Thailand, Myanmar, and Vietnam that were known to be the main producers of heroin poppies – hence, it was of no surprise that the country was used as a point of supply to other regions in South East Asia and the world.

In light of this context, ‘nipping it at the source’ meant targeting the use of the death penalty on those involved in drug trafficking rings, to discourage those who intend to use Malaysia as a transit point for international smuggling to the rest of the world. Hence, the introduction of the death penalty in drug laws was seen as a convenient tool to instil fear in drug suppliers and, rather hopefully, deter them from carrying out their trade.

Suffice it to say, this framing dominated the political space from the 1970s to 1989s: that the mandatory death penalty was a necessary evil needed to combat drug offences. This framing largely influenced public perception at the time to retain the death penalty for drugs because of the threat it posed to breaking down family relations and taking away lives, of which those of the older generation continue to hold onto such sentiments today. To further put it succinctly, this mandate was reflected even in the judiciary’s judgment in various cases, most significantly in Chang Liang Sang & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1982] 2 MLJ 231:

other than in the most exceptional circumstances, a sentence of death should be imposed following a conviction for trafficking, in order to mark the gravity of the offence, to emphasise public disapproval, to serve as a warning to others, to punish the offender and most of all the protect the public

Henceforth, it is of no surprise that our country’s drug laws then were considered to be one of the harshest in the world, even more so with the implementation of the ‘no mercy’ policy for those applying for clemency in the 1990s. According to statistics by Amnesty International, Malaysia saw the hangings of more than 120 death row inmates convicted solely on drug offences from 1983 to 1992, of which 1992 saw at least 39 executions, the highest minimum amount recorded in one year. On average, this meant 15-16 executions per year.

Reflecting upon this period, however, 22 years after Mahathir’s administration, studies have shown that the then Prime Minister’s attempts were somewhat fruitless, especially in relation to heroin: it was found by the US Central Intelligence Agency that almost 2 in 3 Malay youths had used heroin throughout that era, proving that the extreme measures to tackle the issue were insufficient. Additionally, an article published by the New York Times in 1989 showed that the country’s addiction rate still rose, and the intensive war drained much of the country’s financial resources (at that time, it was estimated that $22 million was spent a year).

 
2010s: A Change of Heart – The Roger Hood Research on Public Opinion of the Death Penalty, and Amendments to s39B(2A) DDA 1952.

It was only at the beginning of 2010 that Malaysia began to see an uptick in the abolitionist agenda following a few events.

Firstly, the case of Yong Vui Kong drew more attention towards the flaws of the laws administering the death penalty, most particularly in relation to how it unfairly targets vulnerable communities: members of the public and leaders questioned the injustice that was meted out against innocent drug mules and carriers, especially since these individuals often came from poor socioeconomic backgrounds and had no choice but to turn to such trade in order to sustain themselves, or their family. As a result of his case, a 2010 campaign to save his life and commute his sentence in Singapore saw more than 109,346 signatures being collected, and members of the Bar Council, NGOs, and civil society organisations coming together to mobilise on public action. Most significantly, members of the public came together to form a clemency petition that was submitted to the Istana in Singapore – an impressive and collective feat that had never been seen before.

It was through the collective efforts of Parliamentarians, lawyers, and activists that likely brought a great change of framing within the community, namely that we started to view things from a human rights and injustice perspective in order to humanise the criminal and focus more on improving our legal procedures to adhere to international fair trial standards. In short, effort needed to be put in place to prevent miscarriages of justice in light of the irreversibility of the death penalty, a key argument that runs through abolitionist rhetorics. Particularly, there was a focus on how the death penalty represented the state impugning upon the constitutional rights and liberties of the accused: most importantly, the right to life: these human rights ideologies that the older generation used to despise was slowly becoming more ingrained into our communities – namely, the growing acceptance of human rights in Malaysian laws.

Thus in light of the growing popularity of the abolitionist agenda, a research study on public opinion conducted by the late Roger Hood in 2013 found that there was minimal opposition to the abolition of the death penalty – even more so for drug offences. In response to this report, Nazri Aziz (a then-law Minister of the Barisan Nasional Government) cited that this would not have been possible without the support of the public. This was explicit proof that public support for certain issues do play a big part in determining the existence of certain laws in place.

Further, Parliament passed an amendment to Section 39B of the DDA 1952 which saw the mandatory death penalty replaced with discretionary sentencing instead – however, some criticisms of the amendment include the fact that it is not retrospective for previous convictions, which makes it unfair for those that have assisted authorities in the past (a now mandatory element in to fulfil for discretion to be exercised in the amendment Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s.39B(2A)(d). Additionally, it has been cited to be unsatisfactory in tackling the issue of drug offences as found by research studies conducted in 2022.

All in all, it could be said that the political climate and society, in general, were slowly changing to reflect one that was leaning towards mercy and forgiveness.

 
2018: A New Hope…? Reflecting on the Political Turbulence and Achievements of Pakatan Harapan and Perikatan Nasional.

Prior to the Pakatan Harapan coalition’s victory in the 14th Malaysian General Elections in 2018, the coalition released a manifesto in terms of the promises that the coalition would bring about should they be elected as government of the day – perhaps most significantly was the promise to abolish the death penalty totality in from Malaysian laws, despite their manifesto stating the mandatory death penalty only.

As per their promise after being elected, the then-government affirmed their position and proceeded to impose an official moratorium on all executions in October 2018 which continues to remain in place to this day, something that was widely praised as our first steps towards abolition. Additionally, they also took it upon themselves to review the country’s drug offences, whereby Mahathir, who was the ruling Prime Minister for the second time, declared that the mandatory death penalty which he imposed was seen as “too harsh and effective as a deterrent”.

The coalition were met with resistance by other parties, and very sadly, a slight setback in 2019 occurred when the coalition announced that it would not be abolishing the death penalty in totality just yet, but rather, to focus on abolishing offences that held the mandatory death penalty first and allowing for discretion to be given to judges for certain crimes.

Making matters worse, we saw the coalition’s power as government of the day fall apart following the infamous ‘Sheraton Move’ in 2020, which saw a new government under the coalition of Perikatan Nasional taking over (to last only 17 months before then Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin resigned) – in light of 2 Cabinet reshuffles and the political instability that took place, not to mention the Covid-19 pandemic that put Parliamentary work on a hold due to the declaration of national emergency in the country, this meant that any progress to do with abolition suddenly came to a halt and resulted with a standstill in development. Since the move, progress on the presentation of findings were riddled with postponement after postponement due to the need for further scrutiny and research.

This hiatus, however, did not last long: we saw discussions on the death penalty beginning to gain traction again in late 2021 as a result of the international uproar and heavy campaigning from local and international NGOs fighting against the imminent execution of the late Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam. For the first time in a long time, this saw the culmination of Members of Parliament and Government Officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs coming together and actively taking action to communicate with their Singaporean counterparts to halt his execution in light of his circumstances. Post-execution, calls to abolish the death penalty in Malaysia were made even stronger, emphasising the fact that we could not possibly criticise the acts of our neighbours if we also retained the exact same punishment in our own backyard.

Alongside this period, Parliament also saw Ministers bringing up plans to review and legalise cannabis for medical purposes, an issue which has slowly been gaining traction in the recent years across the globe. Malaysia also saw itself gaining membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council for 2022-2024. All in all, these efforts publicly displayed our commitment towards the abolitionist cause, which brought about praise from the international community.

It was finally in June 2022 that there was an announcement to present the proposals to the alternatives for the mandatory death penalty soon. This was a result of the presentation of a report on the study of alternative sentencing for capital punishment during a Cabinet Meeting, and would mean that the 11 offences holding the mandatory capital punishment will be replaced with alternative forms of punishment. The Malaysian Government will be expected to see a tabling of the relevant legislative amendments needed to abolish the mandatory death penalty in October during a parliamentary setting, and hopefully be on a road towards seeing these amendments take effect by January 2023.

In light of all that has happened, Malaysia’s journey proves to be a prime example of how vital public support and collective action from various stakeholders are, as this in turn changes the laws to reflect the ever-changing societal values that Malaysians uphold. From the CSOs, we saw the agenda being framed in light of the justice and human rights angle to appeal to the public understanding of the death penalty. But all in all, the awareness that has grown over the years among the public has provided sufficient pressure on government bodies in creating bipartisan support in the issue to continue and finish the work of their predecessors in pushing for the relevant amendments.

 
CONCLUDING REMARKS

Overall, despite the turbulent journey that Malaysia has undergone towards being an abolitionist country, recent events and activities that have taken place since still demonstrate the ever-present commitment towards the agenda. This was a result of the collective effort through legal complexes (lawyers, bar council and the judiciary) and civil society organisations (national, transnational, and international advocacy groups) that have utilised the use of litigation, networking, and advocacy – a rather potent combination – in incrementally and successfully highlighting the injustices of the death penalty in our country towards the masses and pressing Parliamentarians for change. This in turn helped to change the political climate regarding the death penalty to steer the change that is very much needed to actualise Pakatan Harapan’s original vision of abolishing the death penalty from Malaysian laws.

All that is left now is for the Malaysian government to follow through with their decision. While it might take time for change to be implemented, hope still remains for Malaysia to turn over a new leaf.

Sri Lanka: President informs the Supreme Court that he will not sign the death sentences

Source: Colombo Page (1 September 2022)

Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe on 31 August 2022 informed the Supreme Court through the Attorney General that he will not sign the implementation of the death penalty.

This was informed by Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, who appeared for the Attorney General when several fundamental rights petitions filed requesting the annulment of a decision taken by former President Maithripala Sirisena in 2019 to execute four defendants sentenced to death for drug trafficking were called before the court.

This petition was called before a three-member Supreme Court bench comprising justices Vijith Malalgoda, L.T.B. Dehideniya and Murdu Fernando.

When the Attorney General inquired about this yesterday (30), President Ranil Wickramasinghe has informed the Attorney General that he will not use his signature to execute the death penalty and accordingly to inform the court about this when the relevant case is heard in the Supreme Court.

When the case was called yesterday, Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, who represented the Attorney General, stated before the court that the government has taken a policy decision not to implement the death penalty and there is no change in that decision.

The chairman of the bench, Justice Vijith Malalgoda, informed the petitioner’s lawyers to inform the court on the next court date whether there is any need to continue this petition.

After considering the facts presented, the bench adjourned the hearing until February 23 next year.
Former President Maithripala Sirisena had made a statement on 26 June 2019 that he had decided to sign the execution of four prisoners sentenced to death for drug-related offences.

Several parties including the Sri Lanka Bar Association, the Center for Policy Alternatives, and the Organization for the Protection of Prisoners had submitted these fundamental rights petitions to the Supreme Court against the former President’s decision.

The petitions alleged that the then president’s decision was against the country’s public policy. Also, the petitioners submitted facts to the court that it is against international human rights principles, unjust and unfair.

Therefore, these petitions requested the court to issue an order invalidating the decision of former President Maithripala Sirisena.

Although Sri Lankan courts give death penalty in serious crimes such as murder, rape and drug trafficking, no executions have been carried out since 1976.

Vietnamese justice sentences seven people to death penalty for drug trafficking

Source: MSN (4 August 2022)

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/vietnamese-justice-sentences-seven-people-to-death-penalty-for-drug-trafficking/ar-AA10h7Xg

The judiciary in Dong Thap province in southern Vietnam has sentenced seven people to death, while two others have been sentenced to life imprisonment and 20 years in prison, respectively, in a drug trafficking case.

The judicial authorities have found them guilty of the crimes of "illegally storing, transporting and organizing drug consumption", according to the verdict released by the Dong Thap People's Court.

Provincial police intercepted one of the defendants in August 2020 while driving a car loaded with nearly 46 kilograms of drugs, including heroin, methamphetamine and keratin.

Already during the trial, the defendants admitted to transporting drugs from Cambodia to Vietnam on as many as thirteen occasions with goods ranging from 20 to 45 kilos.

Thus, the Dong Thap People's Court ruled that the activities carried out by the group were harmful to society, which was the reason for the death penalty.

Vietnamese law is particularly harsh on drug trafficking, since the production or sale of 100 grams of heroin or cocaine, or 300 grams of methamphetamine, is punishable by death.

Human rights organizations have repeatedly urged the Vietnamese authorities to abolish capital punishment. This is the highest number of executions handed down in a single case so far this year.

Thailand breaks away from Southeast Asia’s brutally punitive drug policies

Source: New Mandala (18 July 2022)

https://www.newmandala.org/thailand-breaks-away-from-southeast-asias-brutally-punitive-drug-policies/

In a region that stands out for having some of the most brutally punitive drug policies in the world, it was astonishing to witness Thailand become the first country in Asia to legalise cannabis. Until recently, Thailand had one of the largest prison populations in Southeast Asia, and one of the world’s highest rates of female incarceration, with most inmates convicted for drug offences. It also imposes the death penalty for certain drug offences (although there has not been an execution for a drug offence for over 10 years), has waged an anti-drug campaign that enabled the extrajudicial killing of at least 2,400 people in 2003, and arbitrarily detains thousands of people in compulsory detention centres for drug users in the name of drug rehabilitation.

Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, drug policies are no less harsh. So far this year, four men have been hanged for drug trafficking offences in Singapore. Thousands of people have been killed extrajudicially by the police in the Philippines since 2016, and even greater numbers of people are being held under arbitrary arrest and detention in prisons and in compulsory drug rehabilitation programmes. The over-investment in law enforcement and criminal justice systems to carry out the broad scope of punishment imposed by drug laws around the region has led to the inadequate capacity of social and health agencies to deliver responses to drugs that are genuinely grounded in principles of health, harm reduction, and development.

These impacts are comprehensively evident in Thailand, but in 2021, several drug policy reforms came into effect, starting with the legalisation of kratom (a plant indigenous to Southeast Asia and commonly used in some rural communities in Thailand as a mild stimulant to treat fatigue), followed by the establishment of the Narcotics Code (which contained reduced penalties and revised sentencing rules to reduce levels of incarceration and shift towards providing a health response to drug use), and continuing with the legalisation of cannabis in 2022.

Uncertainties remain on Thailand’s path toward regulating cannabis

On 9 June 2022, people lined up to make their first legal purchases of cannabis. Every part of the plant has been removed from the list of controlled substances under Thailand’s drug laws. Under these laws, activities relating to cannabis — from consumption to distribution and import/export — were previously met with fines, imprisonment, and even the death penalty. Now, only cannabis extracts exceeding 0.2 per cent THC (the psychoactive component of the drug) remain illegal, which seems to primarily refer to cannabis oil.

Oddly enough, detailed regulations on the definition of ‘extracts’, as well as the use, sale, and cultivation of cannabis, are yet to be released (although they are expected in September 2022). This has resulted in a temporary grey zone where — aside from a few rules (e.g., to prevent public nuisance, and prohibiting sales to people under 20 years of age and pregnant women) — there are virtually no restrictions on the cannabis products that are now widely available for sale. Mobile vans stop in areas with concentrated tourist traffic and offer either pre-rolled joints or a menu of different cannabis strains to choose from to roll your own joint. The government even started to give away one million cannabis plants to households, as people are now allowed to grow an unlimited number of plants at home for their own use.

While statements from the Thai government insist that cannabis has been legalised for medical purposes, they remain vague on the extent to which non-medical use is allowed. In practice, it is now possible to buy and sell cannabis buds and flowers containing any level of THC, without a doctor’s prescription. If people are allowed to grow their own cannabis, then it also naturally follows they can use it however they choose, for medical or non-medical purposes, without a prescription required. The distinction between the medical and non-medical use of cannabis can be blurred in reality — although the 0.2 per cent THC threshold recommended by the WHO to distinguish cannabis intended for medical use is an important yardstick in the international drug control treaty framework.

The fact is that long before the international drug control treaties were agreed upon (in 1961, 1971 and 1988), cannabis was part of Thailand’s traditional medical, spiritual, and culinary practices — like in many other parts of the world. After decades of prohibition (following pressure from countries such as the US), it is heartening to see Thailand reclaim its culture and traditions. The legalisation of cannabis has been championed by Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, who made it his central promise during the 2019 general election campaign. Since then, he has continually referred to the twin benefits of improved access to medical treatment and economic growth as the main aim of the reforms.

There are several issues of concern arising from the rushed nature of the reforms, however. For instance, the reforms were adopted without substantive public consultations, where the voices of people who use cannabis or farmers seeking to enter the new cannabis market could have been heard. In addition, people who use cannabis for medical purposes have found the government-supplied products ineffective and have returned to the black market to fulfil their treatment needs. Small-scale farmers have found the bureaucratic hurdles and costs of commercial production too high and doubt that they can compete with larger corporations. As a result, a group of advocates have put forward a people’s draft law to push for a decentralised regime that would enable the market participation of a wide range of local farmers and other actors in the supply chain. Given the newfound availability of legal cannabis, there is also a pressing need for education and advice to promote the safe and responsible use and cultivation of cannabis.

The significant impact of changes in drug laws

It is important to note that at each step of Thailand’s drug law reforms since 2021, people deemed eligible were released from prison. Over 10,000 people convicted of kratom-related offences and over 3,000 people convicted of cannabis-related offences were released from prison and had their convictions expunged. Many more who were convicted of other offences that were ineligible for release also had their convictions relating to kratom and cannabis expunged. People in prison were encouraged to apply for reconsideration of their sentences after the Narcotics Code took effect, which could result in a sentence reduction and make them eligible for immediate release.

Unlike the cannabis reforms, the legalisation of kratom and the adoption of the Narcotics Code took place after a lengthy consideration process, which was led chiefly by the Ministry of Justice. The pathway to reform was significantly different to that of cannabis — not to mention, overshadowed by the cannabis reforms. However, in a region still marked by extremely cruel and inhumane responses to people engaged in drug-related activities, the reforms to Thailand’s criminal justice, health, and economic systems resulting from the series of drug law changes represent a welcome change. Hopefully, the changes will become a model to look to for Thailand’s neighbours. But for now, uncertainties and concerns about the future shape of these reforms remain.

How A Singapore Execution Set Off Wave Of Protests

Source: The ASEAN Post (30 May 2022)

https://theaseanpost.com/environment/2022/may/30/how-singapore-execution-set-wave-protests

The only post on Tan Mei Qian's Instagram profile is a picture of her and two friends delivering a letter to Singapore's President.

The letter contained a request to spare the life of Datchinamurthy Kataiah, a 36-year-old man who has been languishing on death row for the past seven years.

His crime – trafficking 44 grams of heroin, around three tablespoons worth, into Singapore.

"The media is heavily censored. So, there is little opportunity for us to raise our opinions here," Ms Tan said.

But that changed last month when another man, Nagaenthran K Dharmalingham, was executed for smuggling drugs into Singapore from Malaysia.

Birth Of A Movement

His hanging sparked a debate as young, aware and globally conscious Singaporeans began speaking up, mostly on social media – an unusual occurrence in politically passive Singapore.

In the days before Nagaenthran's execution, around 400 people gathered at Hong Lim park – the sole place in Singapore where protests are largely allowed without prior police approval.

In the past, rallies against the death penalty that were held there had attracted crowds of less than 50.

But this, a demonstration to halt the execution, was a watershed moment, activists say.

"Nagaenthran's case galvanised many in Singapore and made everyone realise how unforgiving and brutal our punishment system is," Jolovan Wham, the protest organiser, said. Nagaenthran was handed the death sentence for strapping 43 grams of heroin to his thigh.

In the months leading up to his hanging, his lawyers and family filed appeals and clemency requests asking for his death sentence to be commuted on the grounds that he was intellectually disabled.

One assessment found him to have an IQ of 69, a level internationally recognised as a learning disability.

But the courts rejected the claim and found that he knew what he was doing at the time of the offence.

There was hope that the pandemic, which led to a two year pause in executions, would alter Nagaenthran's fate.

But on 27 April, he was hanged at dawn.

Widespread Support

Most Singaporeans support the use of the death penalty but Nagaenthran's case has ignited debate over capital punishment. Singapore's government says its strict drug laws, including the death penalty, are an effective deterrent against crime, making it one of the safest places in Asia.

Just over a month before Nagaenthran's execution, Singapore's Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam told parliament that the majority of residents still support the death penalty and consider it appropriate punishment for drug trafficking. He was referring to preliminary findings from a 2021 survey.

But he did concede that young Singaporeans' support for capital punishment for drug traffickers was lower than the national average.

The responses to Ms Tan's post reflect these findings: "lol go study lah and I hope you never ever get to experience the destruction drugs cause to both the addicts and their loved ones," one comment reads.

Another says, "Please la girl don't fall prey to this nonsense... propaganda. You have no idea what a drug-run state looks like".

But Ms Tan is hopeful.

"I think we are going in a good direction because there is a lot more conversation about it."

More Executions To Come

The increased awareness has been a crutch for the families of those on death row. Datchina's family feels stronger and more resolute about his case because of what they saw at Hong Lim Park, said Kirsten Han, who has been campaigning against the death penalty for more than a decade.

"That is very distinct from other cases that I've worked on. Singaporeans are trying to find action to take themselves," she added.

Nagaenthran's case prompted criticism from the United Nations (UN), an European Union (EU) representative and global figures like billionaire Richard Branson. International rights groups called it a "tragic miscarriage of justice".

"For the first time I see a group of people are voicing out against the death penalty. Social media is full of Nagaenthran's case across so many industries – business, actors, ministers," said Angelia Pranthaman whose 31-year-old brother Pannir Selvam Pranthaman is also on death row, awaiting an execution date.

Activists, who have been trawling through court judgements and speaking to families, estimate that there are more than 60 people currently on death row in Singapore. Prisoners – and their families –have been appealing their cases in Singapore's courts, often representing themselves because lawyers are unwilling to take on late-stage cases.

'Broken System'

As efforts continue to save those who have received execution notices, some are questioning the punishment itself.

Amnesty International says out of the 10 death sentences handed out in Singapore during the pandemic – one sentence was handed out on Zoom – eight were for drug offences.

Singapore is also one of the few countries in the world that have mandatory death sentences for drug crimes – those caught carrying more than 15g of heroin are subject to the death penalty.

UN experts have said the death sentence is disproportionate for the number of drugs in question. Many also say those convicted are victims of a larger problem. "Our system is such that we impose the harshest penalty on the mules. But unfortunately, the drug lords behind the mules are still doing their business in other countries," criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan said.

Calls For Abolition

Experts say there is a global shift towards abolishing the death penalty, and that Singapore is an outlier among developed nations.

That said, Asia is home to the top executioner in the world.

China is believed to execute thousands of people every year, but official data is not publicly available.

Indonesia continues to use the death penalty for drug trafficking but hasn't carried out an execution since 2016.

Singapore's neighbour Malaysia has a moratorium on executions and has amended its laws, but Human Rights Watch says judges continue to hand out death sentences, rather than life imprisonment, in the majority of cases.

Other countries in Southeast Asia – the Philippines, Myanmar and Thailand – no longer have capital punishment.

"Singapore's international reputation has already deteriorated significantly with the execution of Nagaenthran," said the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network in a statement after his death.

Despite renewed calls from across the world for Singapore to reconsider capital punishment and existing death sentences, abolition or even a moratorium on executions seems unlikely in the near future.

"It won't happen too soon, but I have been encouraged by the number of young people who are taking action," Mr Wham said.

"I'm optimistic."

Death penalty: Singapore’s growing abolition movement

Source: The Interpreter (4 May 2022)

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/death-penalty-singapore-s-growing-abolition-movement

The sun baked the concrete and tarmac as mourners walked behind a hearse carrying Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam, wailing and crying out for the life that had been lost. Over 200 people attended his funeral, sending him off on the final leg of a horrific journey that had begun 13 years ago, when Nagaenthran had been arrested in Singapore and eventually charged with trafficking 42.72 grams of heroin.

Nagaenthran’s story triggered an outpouring of support and concern in the final six months of his life. Although the Singapore government has repeatedly insisted that he was not intellectually disabled – even going as far as to issue a statement to that effect on the day he was hanged in prison – it was not a matter of contention that he’d had an IQ of 69, far below the average, and that he had “borderline intellectual functioning” as well as other cognitive impairments. As far as international standards were concerned, Nagaenthran was a person with intellectual/psychosocial disabilities. When his family first received an execution notice in October 2021, informing them that he would be put to death on 10 November, people expressed shock at how cold the letter was, informing his mother in bureaucratic language about the imminent hanging of her son.

Unlike most other death row prisoners in Singapore, Nagaenthran’s case attracted the attention of the international press. People followed its twist and turns, through desperate late-stage court applications to the surreal stay of execution that came after he tested positive for Covid-19, making him somehow too sick to kill. An online petition urging the President of Singapore to grant him clemency garnered over 100,000 signatures. Solidarity letters were signed by people from multiple sectors, from healthcare workers to professionals within the legal industry. When the Singapore government ignored our pleas and executed him anyway on 27 April, many Singaporeans showed up at the wake the mourn him, bringing flowers and cards and handwritten messages of support for his family.

The breadth of support for Nagaenthran that materialised within a very short period was not something I’d seen before as an abolitionist in Singapore. In 2010, the family of Yong Vui Kong – who has since been re-sentenced to life imprisonment – had also gathered over 100,000 petition signatures, but it had taken them weeks of canvassing in the streets of Singapore and Malaysia to reach that number.

Nagaenthran’s psychosocial disabilities made his case a particularly sympathetic one. Even people who were not necessarily against capital punishment agreed that a vulnerable person like him should have been spared. But that alone cannot account for the increase in support for abolition, and the shift in discourse on the death penalty in the country that is underway.

On 3 April, a protest against the death penalty drew a crowd of about 400; three weeks later a vigil for Nagaenthran and another death row prisoner, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah (originally scheduled for execution on 29 April, but who later received a stay of execution) had a similarly strong turn-out. Unlike the campaigns on which I’d worked on a decade ago, which had tended to focus on the specifics of a particular case, the participants of these protests demanded not just pity and mercy for a specific person, but complete abolition of the capital punishment regime. Placards and chants zeroed in on systemic oppression and exploitation, pointing to the intersections of race, class and structural inequality. People did not hesitate to describe death sentences as murder and state violence, and to call for an end to the killing.

Singaporeans, usually assumed to be protest-averse and politically passive, are also coming forward to act on their convictions. Ahead of executions, multiple people have personally delivered letters to the presidential palace, seeking pardons for death row prisoners. The night before Nagaenthran’s execution, a small group of Singaporeans gathered outside Changi Prison despite a heavy police presence, writing messages and saying prayers for a man they had never met, but whose humanity they recognised and cared for.

While it is true that most Singaporeans are still in favour of the death penalty, a comprehensive public opinion survey conducted by academics has shown that this support isn’t as overwhelming and unshakeable as the government often portrays it to be. Abolitionist sentiments and conversations have emerged on social media platforms despite being largely excluded from local mainstream media coverage. The government still insists that the death penalty for drugs is an effective deterrence, imposing their own interpretations of public opinion surveys to push that claim. But a growing number of Singaporeans are now questioning and challenging, even directly rejecting, this dominant narrative.

The impact of such expressions of support cannot be understated. While still in the minority in terms of overall public sentiment in the country, the fact that people are showing up and taking action not only grows the movement, but also has a deep and lasting impact on the loved ones of those on death row. Family members often feel silenced, intimidated and humiliated by the stigma attached to having a relative on death row – public demonstrations of solidarity show them that they are not alone in their fight. In recent years, my conversations with families have evolved. Where they used to focus only on the specifics of their loved one’s case, family members now express much more concern for every other case on death row, and repeatedly state the need for complete abolition of the death penalty.

Nagaenthran’s death caused much pain and suffering, particularly for his family, but also for many Singaporeans who had desperately wished for him to be spared. Many people will need time to process their shock, disappointment, anger and grief, but the anti-death penalty movement presses on. We have no other choice. Although Datchinamurthy, who lived in the cell next to Nagaenthran’s, managed to win himself a stay of execution, such stays are only temporary, and multiple prisoners are at risk of imminent execution. While we did not succeed in keeping Nagaenthran alive, the support his story garnered for the abolitionist movement now represents hope for many others.

‘Not only is the prisoner killed, but his family is destroyed’

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (30 April 2022)

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/not-only-is-the-prisoner-killed-but-his-family-is-destroyed-20220429-p5ah3v.html

Singapore: Apart from the family members and friends of the prisoners he has represented, Julian McMahon knows about as well as any Australian about the grisly, heartbreaking reality of the death penalty.

The Melbourne barrister was the lawyer for Bali 9 members Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, who faced an Indonesian firing squad in 2015, and for Melbourne man Van Tuong Nguyen, who was put to death for drug trafficking by Singapore in 2005.

“The role of the lawyer in those circumstances is to provide steady guidance and not to be overwhelmed by the emotional horror of it all,” McMahon told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

“That comes later. It’s deeply upsetting to participate in. By participating up close you see that not only is the prisoner being killed, but also his family is being destroyed. The ripple effect of an execution is to kill the prisoner, destroy the family and ultimately to harm all those involved in the process.”

The issue of capital punishment has naturally peaked in prominence in Australia over the years when Australians have been caught up in its crosshairs, most notably in those instances in Indonesia and Singapore, and in Malaysia, which executed Perth man Kevin Barlow and Brian Chambers, from Sydney, for heroin importation in 1986.

The body of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam was to be cremated in his home town of Ipoh in Malaysia’s Perak state on Friday afternoon, two days after his execution inside Changi prison and more than a decade after he was arrested entering Singapore with 42.72 grams of heroin strapped to his thigh and given a mandatory death sentence.

He was the second inmate to face the gallows in Singapore in the last month. Three others have received execution notices this year – all for drug offences as well - as the city state begins carrying out the death penalty again after a two-year hiatus during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the case of a 34-year-old Malaysian man with “borderline intellectual functioning” being hanged by Singapore this week generated worldwide attention.

The ultimate penalty

The resumption of executions has thrust the spotlight back onto the hardline stance on narcotics of Singapore, which shares one of the world’s busiest land crossings with Malaysia and regards the death penalty as a core national policy, crucial to maintaining its status as one of the safest places on the planet.

The island nation is far from alone in Asia in handing out the ultimate penalty for drug trafficking.

The region is a global leader when it comes to capital punishment for drugs crimes. According to the latest report by Harm Reduction International, which assembles figures on the death penalty for drugs, there were 237 known drug-related death sentences handed down worldwide last year and more than 90 per cent of them were in south-east Asia.

Indonesia was the frontrunner with 89, followed by Vietnam with at least 87, Malaysia 15, Laos 14, Singapore 10 and Thailand two.

Yet while Singapore has resumed executions, none of its regional neighbours except Vietnam - where capital punishment is a state secret and numbers are unknown - have actually carried one out in recent years. In 2021, Indonesia went a fifth straight year without delivering one for any offence, Malaysia’s last execution was in 2017 and Thailand hasn’t put a prisoner to death for drugs since 2009, although it did execute a man by lethal injection in 2018 over a robbery resulting in death.
The war on drugs

It’s not to say that those tied up in the drugs game or linked to it have not paid the highest price at the hands of the state. The Philippines abolished the death penalty in 2006 but President Rodrigo Duterte took matters into his own hands after his election in 2016 in a so-called war on drugs that rights groups estimate has led to more than 20,000 drug-related killings by authorities and vigilante groups.

And in countries such as Indonesia, the lack of executions doesn’t equate to progress, said HRI’s human rights lead Ajeng Larasati, who is Indonesian.

“There is a still a huge appetite [by courts] to sentence people to death for drugs in Indonesia,” she said.

In Malaysia, judges are also still prescribing the sentence despite even though they have limited discretion to opt for a life sentence and whipping rather than the death penalty for drug trafficking, under an amendment to the law passed in 2017.

Last October Hairun Jalmani, a 55-year-old single mother of nine in Sabah, was sentenced to death after being found with 113 grams of methamphetamine.

There are at least small signs things might change. A parliamentary committee is expected to this year table a further amendment to the law in Malaysia, where convictions for murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking have had mandatory death sentences.

But Dobby Chew, the Malaysia-based executive coordinator of the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, warns the anticipated changes fall a long way short of abolition, as had briefly been foreshadowed by then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad when won election again in 2018.

“From what we understand it’s only going to recommend that mandatory death sentences be replaced with full discretion for judges,” Chew said.

Across the Johor-Singapore Causeway, though, there is no sign anything will change.

In Singapore, drug trafficking, including for more than 15 grams of heroin, is among the offences that carries a mandatory death penalty and all but three of 60 prisoners on death row were there on narcotics offences, according to the Transformative Justice Collective, a Singaporean organisation seeking reform of the city-state’s justice system.

This week, the United Nations human rights office expressed alarm at “a rapid rise in the number of execution notices issues since the beginning of the year in Singapore”.

But Singapore authorities staunchly back the deployment of capital publishment, pointing to its deterrent effect and studies they say demonstrate support by its population.

The Herald and The Age requested an interview with Singapore Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on the use of the death penalty but was directed instead towards statements by the Central Narcotics Bureau and Attorney General’s Chambers defending the execution of Nagaenthran, saying he had been transporting enough heroin to “feed the addiction of 510 drug abusers for a week”.

In response to previous questions, though, the home affairs ministry said: “The death penalty is an important component of Singapore’s criminal justice system. It is applied only after due process of law and with judicial safeguards. We use capital punishment in the most limited of circumstances, to deter the most serious crimes in Singapore’s context, such as murder and drug trafficking, and this has proven effective. In so doing, the larger interest of ensuring our people’s fundamental human right to safety and security, is served.”

In parliament here last month, Shanmugum said the majority of Singaporeans believed the death penalty served as an effective deterrent against serious crimes, reading from preliminary findings of a government study.

The home affairs ministry has said there is evidence that drug traffickers had reduced the amount of drugs they transported because they knew about the death penalty and the thresholds for different drugs, pointing to reductions in the trafficking of opium and cannabis after the introduction of the mandatory death penalty in 1990 and another government study showing “severe legal consequences had limited [offenders’] trafficking behaviour”.

The deterrence argument is one that is furiously contested including by rights groups. “Based on research that has been carried out, there is no reliable evidence of the deterrent effects of the death penalty. It’s not just for drugs, it’s also for other crimes punishable by death,” Larasati said.

The way McMahon sees it, it is also ineffective on another front. It is almost never the drug kingpins themselves who are ensnared.

“The so-called zero tolerance policy only works against the easy target – the intellectually disabled or the drug addicted or the generally incompetent low-level drug mule,” he said.

“That in itself should give pause to reflect on what’s really happening because those people are constantly replaceable by an endless line of foolish or vulnerable young offenders.”

Having experienced Singapore’s system at close quarters, he added: “It is a shocking fact and aberration for a sophisticated state to maintain a mandatory death penalty, particularly for relatively minor drug offences.”

Malaysia’s Death Penalty Hypocrisy

Source: Human Rights Watch (28 April 2022)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/28/malaysias-death-penalty-hypocrisy

When Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a Malaysian national, was facing the death penalty in Singapore on drug charges, Malaysia’s prime minister and foreign minister twice wrote to the Singapore government asking for clemency. According to a statement from the Foreign Ministry, they even offered to discuss transferring Nagaenthran to Malaysia.

On April 27, Singapore hanged Nagaenthran in the face of massive international calls for clemency. After the execution, Malaysia’s Foreign Ministry put out a statement thanking all of those who had campaigned on his behalf.

While the Malaysian government’s activism on behalf of its citizen is laudable, it is also hypocritical. Nagaenthran was sentenced to death in 2010 for bringing 42.72 grams (approximately three tablespoons) of diamorphine – a drug made from morphine – into Singapore. He likely would have faced the same death sentence had he been arrested in Malaysia.

Judges in Malaysia are currently required to impose the death penalty on almost anyone convicted of “trafficking” in drugs – presumed for anyone possessing more than minimal amounts. Since the presumption applies to those carrying 15 grams of morphine or diamorphine, Nagaenthran also would have been presumed to be “trafficking” in drugs under Malaysian law.

Amendments passed in 2017 provide Malaysian judges limited discretion to impose a life sentence plus whipping instead of the death penalty. However, according to research by Australia’s Monash University, judges exercised their discretion to impose a life sentence in only four of the 38 cases in which a defendant was convicted of drug trafficking between March 2018, when the amendments went into effect, and October 2020. The other 34 defendants were sentenced to death.

While Malaysia declared a moratorium on executions in July 2018, the laws imposing the death penalty remain on the books and courts continue to sentence defendants to death. On the same day that the Foreign Ministry issued its statement on Nagaenthran, a court in the city of Kuching sentenced a man to death for trafficking methamphetamine.

The Malaysian government should stop playing games with people’s lives and commit to enacting legislation to eliminate the death penalty for all – not just some – drug offenses in the next sitting of Parliament. And if it wants its international calls for clemency to be taken seriously, the government should move swiftly to full abolition of the death penalty, an inherently cruel punishment wherever it is carried out.

Singapore hardens opinion against death penalty as ‘sense of injustice’ grows

Source: The Guardian (13 April 2022)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/13/singapore-hardens-opinion-against-death-penalty-as-sense-of-injustice-grows

The news was delivered in just a few cold sentences. An appeal for clemency for Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a man on death row whose case has prompted a global outcry, had failed.

“Please be informed that the position...remains unchanged” wrote Singapore president’s principal private secretary, in a letter to Nagaenthran’s family: “The sentence of death therefore stands.”

Nagaenthran’s relatives and supporters have campaigned tirelessly for his life to be spared. He was arrested in 2009, aged 21, for attempting to smuggle a small amount of heroin – about three tablespoons – into Singapore and has since spent more than a decade on death row. His lawyer has argued that he has an IQ of 69, a level recognised as indicating a learning disability, and should be protected from execution under international law. Nagaenthran has said he was coerced into carrying the drugs.

Nagaenthran’s case has appalled rights groups, and provoked an outcry from voices around the world - from billionaire businessman Richard Branson, a critic of the death penalty, to EU representatives and UN experts. Domestically, it has also prompted some younger Singaporeans to question a system that the government has long claimed makes the city state “one of the safest places in the world”.

“The death penalty is applicable only for a very limited number of offences, involving the most serious forms of harm to victims and to society, such as intentional murder and trafficking of significant quantities of drugs. We have put in place many judicial safeguards surrounding its use,” the government says.

The Singapore government does not disclose how many people are on death row. Since 2019, eight death row prisoners have been given execution notices, placing them at imminent risk of hanging. One of these men was hanged last month.

‘Sense of injustice’

Death penalty cases are rarely reported in any detail in Singapore’s tightly controlled media, but Nagaenthran’s story has been shared widely online. Isaac Chiew, a 22-year-old university student, said he hadn’t thought very much about the death penalty, until he came across Nagaenthran’s case on Instagram. “Reading all the details really made me feel this sense of injustice,” he says. “It just made me feel - this could have been my friend or me in a different circumstance.” Nagaenthran was just a young man who had been in the wrong place at the wrong time, says Chiew. He began to read about others on death row, and was struck by stories of people who were condemned to death simply for falling in with the wrong crowd or making a mistake.

Profiles of some death row inmates shared online by campaigners show they are not big time criminals, but rather men from marginalised communities who have faced poverty, or struggled with addiction.

“Social media has allowed us to centre the voices of death row prisoners and their families,” says Jolovan Wham, a human rights activist.

In a rare protest this month, more than 400 people turned out at Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim park, the only place where demonstrations are permitted in Singapore, to call for executions to be halted.

Kirsten Han, a journalist and activist who has spent a decade campaigning against the death penalty, believes its likely the highest turn out ever seen at such a demonstration. The message, too, was different.

“Previously a lot of other death penalty events might have been focused on - give this person a chance,” said Han. But protesters were now critiquing the whole system. They weren’t, she added, just expressing pity for any one person; they were calling for abolition of the death penalty. Most of the attendees were young Singaporeans.

The Singaporean authorities have shown no willingness to move towards dropping the death sentence, despite a global shift towards abolition, said Ariel Yin Yee Yap, a doctoral researcher and teaching associate at Monash University.

“My research indicates a long pattern of state justification and legitimisation, to both the international community, and domestic audiences, [of] its continued practice of capital punishment,” she said. The government argues that capital punishment is the most effective deterrent against crime - an idea debunked by criminological research, she adds.

Public support

Research suggests that the death penalty is supported by the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans - but that this is not an unconditional or strongly held view. A study by the National University of Singapore found that seven in 10 Singaporeans said they agreed with capital punishment in general, but that support fell when people were presented with different scenarios and asked to choose whether the person convicted should be executed. Support also depended heavily on the premise that it was a more effective deterrent than other forms of punishment, and that no errors were made when such sentences were administered.

Research suggests the more information people have about the death penalty, the more their support wavers, said Han. “That’s part of the challenge. How do we give them these details when it can’t get into mainstream media?”

Han hopes attitudes will change with time. But she adds that, public opinion aside, governments should still commit to abolishing the death penalty. “Human rights issues should not be subjected to whatever the majority votes for.”

For Nagaenthran, there are no more procedural steps left. His last ditch appeal was rejected last month as baseless by Singapore’s top court. The clemency, now refused, was the only option left.

Will 2022 signal sea change in the death penalty for drugs?

Source: Jakarta Post (6 April 2022)

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/will-2022-signal-sea-change-in-the-death-penalty-for-drugs-jakarta-post-contributor

JAKARTA (THE JAKARTA POST/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - On March 30, Singapore executed Abdul Kahar bin Othman, a local man sentenced to death for drug offences and the first person to be executed in Singapore in since 2019.

Othman had been unable to appeal his execution because he did not have a lawyer. Eight of the 35 countries that still retain the death penalty for drug offences are in South-east Asia and were responsible for a staggering 91.5 per cent of all confirmed death sentences given for drug offences worldwide, according to the Global Review 2021 from Harm Reduction International (HRI).

The imposition of these death sentences is shrouded in secrecy and characterised by widespread human rights violations (HRI 2019), such as lack of access to legal representation (HRI 2020), as in Othman's case. Too often, there are reports of torture, ill treatment and coerced confession.

The situation is particularly dire for foreign nationals who find themselves sentenced to death outside of their home countries, often without interpreters and lawyers made available to them during the legal process, says a March 2019 HRI briefing paper.

In Indonesia, all 14 convicted drug offenders who were executed in 2015 and 2016 were foreign nationals. Obviously, 2021 was not the first year in which death sentences in South-east Asian countries comprised the overwhelming majority of death sentences for drug offences around the world.

The HRI's Global Overview 2020 shows that 98 per cent of confirmed global death sentences for drugs, or 209 out of 213 sentences, were delivered in South-east Asian countries: 79 in Vietnam, 77 in Indonesia, 25 in Malaysia, 13 in Laos, eight in Thailand and six in Singapore. The figure presented in the 2019 HRI briefing paper is similar, with 170 out of 180 confirmed death sentences, or 94.4 per cent.

The percentage of drug convicts on death row is alarming: 98 per cent in Laos, 66 per cent in Indonesia, 67.8 per cent in Malaysia, 55 per cent in Singapore, 63.5 per cent in Thailand and 50 per cent in Brunei Darussalam. By 2021, a total of 1,633 people were on death row for drug offences in the region, although the figure in Vietnam remains unknown.

The above figures likely paint only a partial picture because of a lack of transparency, but they demonstrate how the drug policies of South-east Asian countries have a significant, negative impact on human rights in the region as well as efforts to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Capital punishment is an abhorrent, outdated and inhumane form of punishment. Applying it for drug offences is a violation of international human rights law, a position that has been reaffirmed by numerous international authorities and human rights bodies.

Closer to home, however, Asean human rights bodies, including the Asean Inter-governmental Commission for Human Rights (AICHR), remain silent on the issue.

Nothing was heard from the AICHR in response to Othman's case, either before or after his sentence was carried out. The regional commission also failed, and continues to fail, to respond to Singapore's announcement on the execution of Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, whose case has sparked an international outcry from rights groups.

Five UN human rights experts published a statement in Nov 2021 urging Singapore to halt his execution, accompanied by dozens of statements and joint statements from civil society organisations. In Feb 2022, Singaporean authorities issued notices of execution for three more people on death row for drug offences.

Again, nothing was heard from the AICHR. More executions are set to follow that of Othman. Earlier this week, Singapore's Court of Appeal dismissed Dharmalinggam's appeal. This means that Singapore does not necessarily need to issue a new notice of execution, and rights activists fear that Dharmalinggam may be executed soon.

As a regional human rights mechanism, the AICHR has the responsibility and the legitimacy to denounce and seek to address human rights violations that occur in the region. The death penalty is a human rights issue in South-east Asia, but the region's main human rights body is yet to oppose it publicly.

Moving forward, there are plenty of opportunities for the AICHR to raise and advocate for abolishing the death penalty for drug offences. It is not too late for the AICHR to ask the Singaporean government to stop its planned executions and undertake much-needed reform of the country's draconian drug policies.

It is also not too late to support the Philippines' Commission on Human Rights in blocking President Rodrigo Duterte's plan to reinstate the death penalty. And certainly, there are plenty of opportunities to support Malaysia's effort to abolish the death penalty for drug offences as the country plans to table an amendment to that policy in late 2022.

So, will 2022 be the year that South-east Asia can finally have a regional human rights mechanism that champions abolishing the death penalty for drug offences?

Singaporeans protest the death penalty in rare demonstration

Source: France24 (3 April 2022)

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220403-singaporeans-protest-the-death-penalty-in-rare-demonstration

Singapore (AFP) – Hundreds of protesters in tightly controlled Singapore staged a rare demonstration against the death penalty Sunday as fears grow the city-state is set to carry out a wave of hangings.

Authorities last week conducted the country's first execution since 2019 when they hanged a drug trafficker. Several other death row convicts recently had appeals rejected.

Organisers said about 400 people joined the demonstration at "Speakers' Corner" in a downtown park, the only place in the city-state where protests are allowed without prior police approval.

They held signs reading "Capital punishment does not make us safer", and "Don't kill in our names", and chanted slogans against the death penalty.

"Capital Punishment is a brutal system that makes brutes of us all," Kirsten Han, a prominent local activist, said in an address to the crowd.

"Instead of pushing us to address inequalities and exploitative and oppressive systems that leave people marginalised and unsupported, it makes us the worst version of ourselves."

Protests are unusual in Singapore, which frequently faces criticism for curbing civil liberties.

Aside from in "Speakers' Corner", it is illegal for even one person to stage a demonstration without a police permit.

Abdul Kahar Othman, a 68-year-old Singaporean drug trafficker, was hanged Wednesday despite appeals for clemency from the United Nations and rights groups.

Next in line to be executed could be Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, a mentally disabled Malaysian convicted of heroin trafficking who lost his final appeal last week.

His case has attracted a storm of criticism, including from the European Union and British billionaire Richard Branson.

Three other men sentenced to death for drugs offences had their appeals rejected earlier in March.

Prosperous but socially conservative Singapore has some of the world's toughest drugs laws, and has faced mounting calls from rights groups to abandon the death penalty.

Authorities insist that capital punishment remains an effective deterrent against drug trafficking and has helped to keep the city-state one of the safest places in Asia.

Report: Fewer Nations Using the Death Penalty for Drug Offenses, But Executions and Secrecy Are Up in Those that Do

Source: Death Penalty Information Center (23 March 2022)

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/report-fewer-nations-using-the-death-penalty-for-drug-offenses-but-executions-and-secrecy-are-up-in-those-that-do

Fewer countries are using the death penalty for drug offenses, but according to a new global report, executions increased in those that did and took place in proceedings characterized by authoritarianism and secrecy.

In its eleventh annual report on The Death Penalty for Drug Offenses: Global Overview 2021, released mid-March 2021, the international drug monitor Harm Reduction International (HRI) found that eight “high application” nations contributed to an increase in known death sentences and executions. “The group of countries actively resorting to capital punishment as a central tool of drug control is shrinking, but is also more and more characterized by opacity and secrecy, if not outright censorship,” HRI wrote.

To be classified as “high application” by HRI, a country must have carried out an execution or imposed at least ten death sentences for non-violent drug offenses within the past five years. HRI classified Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam as high application nations.

HRI confirmed at least 132 executions for drug offenses in 2021, an increase of 336% from the number of known drug executions in 2020. That total, however, “is likely to represent only a fraction of all drug-related executions carried out globally,” the group warned, because the secrecy shrouding the death penalty in countries such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam makes it impossible to track their execution practices.

HRI also reported “[a] minimum of 237 death sentences for drug crimes … in at least 16 countries,” representing an increase of 11.3% from 2020 and 29.5% from 2019. About ten percent of those death sentences were imposed on foreign nationals. “Individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds, women, and members of vulnerable groups remain disproportionately affected by the imposition of the death penalty for drug offences,” the report said.

“Executions were confirmed to have taken place in Iran and China, and were likely carried out in Vietnam and North Korea,” HRI reported. HRI confirmed at least one drug-related execution in China but reported the country was believed to have conducted more than a thousand executions in 2021. HRI also confirmed 131 executions for drug offenses in Iran.

The huge increase in executions for drug offenses in Iran — up from 25 in 2020 — more than offset the decline in confirmed drug-related executions in Saudi Arabia following a moratorium on executions for drug offenses announced by the Kingdom in 2020. Saudi drug executions fell from 84 in 2019 to zero in 2021, although the Kingdom is still sentencing people to death for drug offenses and has denied drug offenders on death row retrials or commutations, HRI said. Singapore, HRI reported, carried out no drug executions for the second consecutive year.

Indonesia imposed 89 death sentences for drug offenses in 2021, the most confirmed sentences of any nation. HRI confirmed from media and court reports that Vietnam imposed at least 87 death sentences for drug crimes in 2021, although the actual total remains a state secret. HRI was unable to confirm death-sentencing numbers from China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

HRI reported that more than 3,000 people are confirmed to be on death rows across the globe for drug offenses, with drug death sentences increasing at a faster rate than death sentences for other offenses. The report said that women who are sentenced to death and executed are disproportionally likely to have been convicted of drug offenses. Eight-six of the 164 women executed in Iran between 2010 and October 2021 had been convicted of drug offenses, the report said, at least five of whom were put to death in 2021.

Use of the death penalty for non-violent drug offenses has long been recognized as a violation of international law.

The Singapore lawyer who defends those facing the gallows

Source: Al Jazeera (7 March 2022)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/7/death-penalty-the-singapore-lawyer

Singapore is known for being tough on crime, with some of the harshest punishments in the world, including a mandatory death sentence for certain offences, including drug-related crimes.

One lawyer, M Ravi, has been taking on the state in high-profile cases for decades.

Ravi has been diagnosed as bipolar and is currently suspended from practising law on mental health grounds, but he has been heavily involved in the case of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a Malaysian man with a learning disability found guilty of drug offences and sentenced to death.

A last-minute appeal that attracted worldwide attention gave Nagaenthran a reprieve, and he contracted COVID-19 in November of last year, further delaying the process.

Singapore’s Court of Appeal heard his case on March 1, and has reserved judgement until an undisclosed date.

Ravi spoke to Al Jazeera about why he takes on such challenging cases. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Al Jazeera: You are one of the few lawyers involved in the defence of people facing the death penalty. Why do you take on such cases?

M Ravi: My original focus was mainly commercial and corporate cases, looking at intellectual property, technology, that kind of stuff.

In 2003, when a Malaysian boy Vignes Mourthi was facing the death penalty [for smuggling 27 grams of heroin into the country], I mounted a last-minute constitutional challenge at the request of the former opposition leader in Singapore, Mr J B Jeyaretnam. He’s almost like a Nelson Mandela of Singapore.

On the eve of the execution, I asked the then Chief Justice if we could reopen this case. He said that the case had run its course and there was little I could do.

I then asked [that] if I could show that he was innocent, would Mourthi still be hanged? He said yes. That was a horrifying statement. I saw the way the poor and the oppressed were being treated. It brought me to fight against the death penalty in Singapore.

Al Jazeera: The Law Society of Singapore has suspended you from practising law on psychiatric grounds following your diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What has happened?

M Ravi: As I was preparing to argue Nagaenthran’s appeal, my doctor said suddenly that I am unwell. And that’s it, the Law Society said I have to stop as the doctor found that I am unwell.

I’m still doing work, preparing bundles of papers. If I don’t do that, Nagaenthran will be in the gallows.

The psychiatrists that have spoken to me from around the world, and other people I have spoken to, said that I don’t need treatment and just need rest.

Of course I am frustrated. I was originally told by my doctor that I can still argue Nagaenthran’s case and my MC [medical note] should end on January 13. Then he extended it to March 13. And the court is not going to wait, the Attorney General is pressing that Nagaenthran’s case should go ahead and be rushed through.

Al Jazeera: What other challenges do you face when taking on these difficult cases, going up against the Singapore state?

M Ravi: The Law Society and the Attorney General have applied to the Court of Appeal to suspend me from practice – or even strike me off.

That’s because of a case in 2020, the case of Gobi Avedian. He was supposed to be executed, but I managed to stop it. 

The authorities are extremely frustrated because I frustrated their scheme of the death penalty. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that this is the first miscarriage of justice case in Singapore.

In this case, the Court of Appeal said we have made a mistake. The question I asked the Attorney General is ‘What if I had not come to practice law in this case?’ Gobi would have been gone. I criticised the entire administration of the death penalty.

Then there is the media. They constantly say that I am mad. There is psychological harassment about my psychiatric condition.

Al Jazeera: Will Singapore ever get rid of the death penalty?

M Ravi: It will. Just look at the case of Yong Vui Kong. He was only 19 when he was caught [trafficking heroin into Singapore in 2007].

This boy was supposed to be executed and, on the eve of the execution, I filed to stop it.

It took three, four years, but finally the law was amended [Yong was spared]. The law now gives judges some discretion.

So there is a precursor to tell us that things can change. Singapore is ripe to repeal the death penalty, most countries in the Southeast Asia region don’t practise it. Philippines is a no, Myanmar no, Thailand no, Indonesia yes but still slow.

And now we have Richard Branson taking them on and telling other rich people about it.

I think they have no choice but to get rid of it.

Al Jazeera: How confident are you and your team of Nagaenthran’s appeal?

M Ravi: It’s a humungous amount of work. There are five Deputy Public Prosecutors, they are all at the top. Singapore finds a lot of resources to kill people.

I think I will be able to win. Five judges are [hearing] the case. If it’s a shut case and not serious and open, they wouldn’t even come.

Secondly, psychiatric prison experts from the UK and Australia have given their expert opinion to say that the methods used by the Institute of Mental Health in Singapore are backwards. The tests are all wrong. The manner in which they are administered are very childish.

Malaysia Should Scrap the Death Penalty Once and For All

Source: The Diplomat (4 March 2022)

https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/malaysia-should-scrap-the-death-penalty-once-and-for-all/

In January, Malaysia’s Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said the cabinet would discuss the findings of a study on alternatives to the mandatory death penalty, which applies to crimes including drug trafficking, treason, and murder.

After almost two years without any progress on death penalty reform, this is a welcome development.

For more than 40 years, Amnesty International has campaigned against the death penalty around the world, and more than two-thirds of countries have abolished it in law or in practice. Here’s why Malaysia – and other countries that retain the death penalty – should show human rights leadership and set an example by scrapping it once and for all.

Simply put, governments should not kill people. Or as the United Nations Human Rights Committee has put it, “the death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life.”

Every single human being has the inherent right to life and governments have an obligation to protect lives, not take them. This right is recognized under international law for all human beings, without distinctions of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.

Amnesty International, and many other individuals and organizations around the world, believes that the death penalty violates this right.

In Malaysia, we have found numerous violations of the right to a fair trial. Defendants who cannot afford or are unable to hire their own lawyers are often unrepresented during police interrogations, and lack interpretation if they do not speak Bahasa Malaysia, while there are credible allegations of torture and other ill treatment at the hands of authorities, among other examples.

The imposition of the death penalty after a violation of the right to a fair trial is a violation of the right to life. There is no perfect criminal justice system and mistakes can always occur. The irreversible nature of the death penalty leaves no room for redress if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted and executed.

The death penalty also discriminates. The greater the disadvantage, the greater the risk of being sentenced to death. Our research has found that the burden of the death penalty in Malaysia has largely fallen on those convicted of drug trafficking, which has disproportionately included women and foreign nationals.

As of September 2021, 67 percent of people on death row are there for drug offenses, some for carrying as little as 15 grams of opioids. A majority of people sentenced to death are also from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, while ethnic minorities are overrepresented among those on death row.

These findings gain an even greater significance when considered in the context of laws and policies that contravene international law and standards: for example, the lack of access to interpretation from the point of arrest for foreign nationals, or the impossibility of having coercion or other mitigating circumstances taken into account at sentencing, because of the mandatory death penalty.

The application of the death penalty can also be arbitrary, particularly for those whose nationality, gender, socioeconomic background, or other characteristics can contribute, or leave them more vulnerable, to being sentenced to death.

What about the argument that the death penalty acts as a unique deterrent against crime?

This has never been backed by evidence. For instance, a study comparing the murder rates in Hong Kong and Singapore, both of a similar size and population, for a 35-year period beginning in 1973 found that the abolition of the death penalty in Hong Kong and the high execution rate in Singapore in the mid-1990s had little impact on murder levels.

It is high time the authorities focused their resources on tackling the root causes of crime and devised long-term, more effective solutions. The death penalty does not make us safer. Furthermore, we believe those found responsible for crime deserve second chances.

These beliefs are becoming mainstream. As of today, 144 countries – more than two-thirds of the world’s nations – have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In the Asia-Pacific region, more than 20 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, with Papua New Guinea becoming the latest in January of this year.

In 2020, six Asia-Pacific countries carried out executions, the lowest since Amnesty International began keeping records. Despite voting at the U.N. General Assembly in 2018 and 2020 in favor of two resolutions calling on all countries to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, Malaysia remains part of an increasingly isolated minority of countries that still practices capital punishment.

Given that it recently took its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, by abolishing the death penalty, Malaysia can align itself with the global trend, improve its human rights record, and send a strong signal to other countries in ASEAN and the region that positive change on the death penalty is not only possible, but required to protect human rights.

We call on Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and his cabinet to do the right thing and abolish the death penalty in Malaysia.

Nagaenthran case puts Singapore’s death penalty in spotlight

Source: Al Jazeera (12 November 2021)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/12/nagaenthran-case-puts-singapore-death-penalty-in-spotlight

Singapore – Nagaenthran Dharmalingam remains confined to a cell in Singapore’s Changi Prison, living on death row as he has been over the past 11 years.

This week was set to be his last, but an eleventh hour stay of execution and the discovery of a positive COVID-19 test, kept him alive — for now.

His story has caused ripples in the tiny Southeast Asian city-state, intensifying the debate around the death penalty in a country famed for its no-nonsense approach to crime.

In 2009, aged 21, Nagaenthran was caught trying to enter Singapore with just under 43 grams of diamorphine (heroin) strapped to his thigh. A year later, he was sentenced to death.

Nagaenthran claimed he was coerced into carrying drugs, although he later said that he acted as a mule because he needed the money.

His legal team has argued that his low IQ of 69 indicates an intellectual disability, affecting his ability to make informed decisions.

The case has provoked widespread international condemnation from human rights groups to representatives from the European Union and British entrepreneur Richard Branson.

There was even a rare intervention from the Malaysian Prime Minister. Ismail Sabri Yaakob penned a letter to his Singaporean counterpart Lee Hsien Loong, seeking leniency, according to Malaysia’s state news agency Bernama.

The plight of Nagaenthran has also generated rare criticism within the city-state itself. A petition started by a Singaporean to halt the execution has received more than 80,000 signatures.

Singapore has previously seen support for the death penalty. A 2019 survey by the Institute of Policy Studies of 2,000 residents found 70 percent agreed that execution was more of a deterrent against serious crime than a life sentence.

But this case has reignited the debate about Singapore’s death penalty.

“There are a few factors of Nagen’s case that catch people’s attention and garner sympathy,” said local activist Kirsten Han.

“The fact that he has an IQ of only 69 and other cognitive impairments, and yet has still been sentenced to death with his execution scheduled, is really alarming.”

‘Criminal mind’

Intricate details of Nagaenthran’s case have been shared and scrutinised online. In Singapore, outrage against death penalty cases is usually confined to fringe activist groups, but this story has gone mainstream.

High profile social media accounts shared photographs of the letter sent to Nagaenthran’s family in Malaysia by the Singapore Prison Service.

It briefly outlined when their son would be executed, before providing a stream of information about the logistics they need to sort in order to enter Singapore during the pandemic including quarantine procedures.

“I’ve met people who expressed shock by how cold the notice of execution to the family was. But that’s actually the standard way that such notices are delivered to families.

“The only difference with Nagen’s family is that the letter was longer because they had to include COVID regulations,” Han explained.

Singapore has a zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs, and anyone caught carrying more than 15 grams of diamorphine may face the death penalty.

There was, however, a slight relaxation of the rules in 2012. The Misuse of Drugs Act was amended, giving judges the opportunity to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment with caning in specific cases.

One of these technicalities would allow for an offender to avoid execution if they are mentally disabled. It was on this point that Nagaenthran’s appeal was launched in 2015 and failed.

Stephanie McLennan, Senior Asia Initiatives Manager at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera that Nagaenthran received no “disability-specific accommodations” during his investigation and trial, a violation of international law.

But the defence of an intellectual disability has been disputed by the Singapore courts.

In a statement, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said: “He knew it was unlawful for him to be transporting the drugs, and he concealed the drugs to avoid it being found.

“Despite knowing the unlawfulness of his acts, he undertook the criminal endeavour so that he could pay off some part of a monetary debt. The Court of Appeal found that this was the working of a criminal mind.”

Little impact on criminal syndicates

If Nagaenthran is hanged, he will become the first person to be executed in Singapore since 2019.

Over the last eight years, 35 people have been killed by the state, according to Singapore government data. Twenty eight of them had been convicted of drug offences.

Singapore argues that its tough justice system makes it one of the safest places in the world.

Authorities say that drug traffickers are aware of the rules and given the risks faced, the quantity of illegal substances smuggled into the country is reduced.

Data from the MHA points to a 66 percent reduction in the average net weight of opium trafficked in the four-year period after the mandatory death penalty was introduced in 1990, for trafficking more than 1,200 grams of opium.

But the risk of death has not eliminated the illegal drug trade.

Last month, a Singaporean man failed in his appeal against a death sentence after he was caught smuggling one kilo (2.2 pounds) of cannabis into his homeland in 2018. And last year, another man was sentenced to death over Zoom for his role in a drug deal back in 2011.

The Singapore authorities may market the ultimate punishment as the ultimate deterrent, but anti-death penalty campaigners see things differently.

They argue that the death penalty punishes small players in a much larger game.

“Drug trafficking is still as prevalent in the region and Singapore is no different. Most of the executions witnessed over the years has largely been mules or trafficking in relatively minor quantities,” Dobby Chew, Executive Co-ordinator of the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network told Al Jazeera.

“The syndicates behind the drug trade are still very much present and in operation even with multiple executions over the years.”

Campaigners are keen for Nagaenthran’s case to stay at the top of the news agenda, possibly acting as a catalyst for more support to abolish executions.

“First they tried to execute someone who is intellectually disabled. Now they are granting him some form of mercy and treating him for COVID-19,” said Chew.

“But for all we know, once he is cured, they’ll proceed with the execution. I think that the absurdity of the turn of events would force people to rethink what they know of the death penalty.”

Mercy petition seeks support to save Malaysian-Indian from gallows in Singapore

Source: The Indian Express (5 November 2021)

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/singapore-malaysian-indian-nagaenthran-k-dharmalingam-death-sentence-appeal-petition-7608025/

An online petition to save an Indian-origin Malaysian from gallows next week has gathered nearly 40,000 signatures with human rights activists urging the government to halt the execution, saying the man is intellectually disabled.

Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam, who is on death row at Singapore’s Changi Prison, was convicted in 2010 for drug trafficking.

Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Wednesday said that the High Court and the Court of Appeal held that Nagaenthran’s mental responsibility for his offence was not substantially impaired.

He was found to have clearly understood that what he did was a crime and took the “calculated risk” to pay off his debt.

This was the finding by the High Court while sentencing the convict to death in 2010 for importing drugs into Singapore and it was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which “flatly rejected his account of being coerced under duress”, TODAY newspaper quoted the MHA as saying.

The MHA also said it is helping Nagaenthran’s family with travel arrangements from Malaysia to Singapore and that his visitors will be granted extended face-to-face visits daily, according to the Singapore tabloid.

Nagaenthran was convicted and given the death penalty in November 2010 for importing 42.72 grams of heroin a year before.

“His petition to the President for clemency was unsuccessful,” the MHA said.

An online report, cited by media outlets, said Nagaenthran would be hanged on November 10.

The petition to President Halimah Yacob to pardon Nagaenthran was started on October 29. It seeks 50,000 signatures in support of the clemency plea to the president. It has gathered 39,962 signatures as of Thursday.

The petition states that the convict should be pardoned because he had testified that he was “coerced” into drug trafficking by a man who had threatened to kill his girlfriend.

It also states that Nagaenthran has an intellectual disability and a low IQ, impaired executive functioning and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“Given that Nagaenthran is intellectually disabled, committed a non-violent crime and was allegedly coerced by assaults and threats, we sincerely appeal for President Halimah Yacob to uphold Singapore’s commitment to the UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) by pardoning Nagaenthran’s death sentence,” media reports said, citing the petition.

Nagaenthran had first appealed to be resentenced under amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act that were passed in 2012.

The amendments allow a court to sentence a drug offender to life imprisonment instead of death if he is merely a courier on the condition that the public prosecutor issues the offender a certificate of substantive assistance for helping the Central Narcotics Bureau disrupt drug-trafficking activities.

Nagaenthran then lodged a second appeal for a judicial review into the public prosecutor’s decision not to issue him a certificate of substantive assistance.

The High Court dismissed both applications and in 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed both of Nageanthran’s appeals against the High Court’s decision.

20,000 Please for Presidential Pardon over Malaysian Man on Death Row

Source: Coconuts KL (2 November 2021)

https://coconuts.co/kl/news/20000-plead-for-presidential-pardon-over-malaysian-man-on-death-row/

Nearly 20,000 people have signed an online petition pleading to Singapore President Halimah Yacob for clemency over an intellectually-disabled Malaysian man on death row.

Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam was 21 when he was arrested in Singapore in 2009 and subsequently convicted for trafficking 42.72g of diamorphine, a narcotic analgesic used to treat severe pain. Now 33, Nagaenthran reportedly suffers from ADHD and has a very low IQ of 69.

He faces imminent execution on Nov. 10.

His family was informed of the scheduled hanging two weeks ago, according to Singaporean activist-journalist Kirsten Han, who said that she has also been assisting the family with travel arrangements so that they can bid him farewell.

“Given that Nagaenthran is intellectually disabled; committed a non-violent crime; and was allegedly coerced by assaults and threats, we sincerely appeal for President Halimah Yacob to uphold Singapore’s commitment to the [United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] by pardoning Nagaenthran’s death sentence,” the petition set up Thursday by human rights advocate Olivia Seow said. The petition also said that the Singapore justice system had failed to protect people with disabilities.

Those who commit crimes related to more than a dozen offenses including kidnapping, murder, and drug trafficking may be sentenced to death in Singapore, with exemptions to those under 18 and pregnant.

Rights groups such as Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, or ADPAN, and Malaysia’s Lawyers For Liberty have condemned the Singapore government’s decision to execute Nagaenthran.

“The execution of any person with mental or intellectual disabilities is extremely unconscionable and reprehensible. The person would be unlikely to have the appropriate capacity to stand trial or even appreciate the severity of their predicaments,” ADPAN executive coordinator Dobby Chew wrote Friday.

Lawyers For Liberty advisor N Surendran said in a statement: “No civilized nation should resort to hanging the mentally disabled.”

The human rights group also urged the Malaysian authorities to save Nagaenthran from the gallows.