This article first appeared in the Q1 2021 issue of the SID Directors Bulletin published by the Singapore Institute of Directors. Please click on the excerpt below for Braema’s full article.
[Repost] Article by MARUAH Secretary Braema Mathi in Q1 2021 edition of “Directors Bulletin” published by the Singapore Institute of Directors6 January 2021
(Updated with slides) The Public Order Act and its disempowering effect on Singapore – Sunday, 20 December 202010 December 2020
Please click on the links below to access a copy of the slides used by the speakers during their presentation.
Once again, we thank our speakers, Ms Priscilla Chia and Mr Howard Lee, and all participants for making time this afternoon to discuss the impact of the misuse of the Public Order Act on political and social discourse in our country.
We look forward to having you join us again at our next event. Please keep a lookout on our Facebook page or here on this website for updates.
We, the undersigned, call for a comprehensive review of the death penalty and death row inmates’ rights in Singapore, made more urgent by the following points that have surfaced in relation to recent death penalty cases.
An overly high threshold for review applications
On 19 October 2020, the Court of Appeal set aside 32-year-old Malaysian Gobi Avedian’s death sentence, reinstating the original sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane given to him by the High Court in 2017.
The Court of Appeal reviewed Gobi Avedian’s case after the application filed by his counsel cleared the threshold as set out in Section 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). However, we are nevertheless concerned that the threshold to review cases that have already been through the appeals process is extremely high, and would preclude the possibility of many other death row cases being reviewed, even if there are still outstanding questions and doubts.
For example, under s394J of the CPC, a case can only be reviewed if there is material that could not have been adduced earlier. Furthermore, in the latest Court of Appeal judgment for Gobi Avedian, it was made clear that it is not enough for there to be a “real possibility” that the court’s earlier decision was wrong — there has to be a “powerful probability”.
It is very alarming, in the context of the death penalty, that it is insufficient for there to be a real possibility that the court was wrong. Our position is that this is a matter of life and death, so any possibility that a mistake has been made should be closely scrutinised and reviewed.
Given that the death penalty is an irreversible punishment, it is important that every opportunity is given to the inmate to seek legal counsel and bring up matters before the court, regardless of what stage their case is at. Inmates might also be represented by different lawyers at different stages of their case, who might have advised them differently. They should not be prevented from submitting material for a review simply because their counsel had failed to present it to the court at an earlier stage.
A need for automatic review of death row cases following changes in law
Gobi Avedian’s death sentence was able to be set aside because of, among other things, developments in case law from a Court of Appeal ruling in 2019. It is unknown how many other death row inmates’ cases could be impacted by such developments.
In Gobi’s case, he was fortunate to have had a lawyer take another look at his case at a very late stage, and identify how developments in the law have made his case worth reviewing. This is very unusual: after their initial appeals have been exhausted, it is difficult for death row inmates to find lawyers to represent them or review their case.
If there are changes or developments in the law, it should not be left to a death row inmate’s fortune in finding legal counsel before their case is reviewed.
The need for accountability for breaches in lawyer-client privilege
In dismissing Syed Suhail’s criminal motion, the Court of Appeal said that M Ravi had failed to show any evidence that there had been any prejudice against his client even after it was revealed that the prison had forwarded letters that Syed had written to his then-defence counsel and his uncle, to the prosecution.
We are deeply concerned that the Singapore Prison Service breached lawyer-client privilege in such a way. Even though inmates are under the prison’s custody, it is highly unethical to copy and forward their privileged and personal communications on to a third party, much less the prosecution. Prisoners also have an expectation of privacy, and this right should be respected.
Although the deputy prosecutor had declared to the court that he had not read the letters, there has been no independent investigation into the matter.
We hope that there will be a clear accounting to the public of how something like this could have happened, and why the Attorney-General’s Chambers did not recognise that this was a breach right away, instead waiting two years to bring this matter to light.
Threats against lawyers representing death row inmates at a late stage
In dismissing a criminal motion filed by death row inmate Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin, the Court of Appeal warned against invoking the review process too “lightly”, adding that defence counsels could be sanctioned for abusing the court process if they do so. The Attorney-General’s Chambers is also applying for a cost order against Syed’s lawyer, who is also M Ravi.
Following Gobi Avedian’s acquittal from his capital charge, the AGC has also taken issue with M Ravi expressing his opinions on the prosecution’s conduct in his client’s case, demanding that he apologise and retract his comments. They have since lodged a complaint against him to the Law Society.
We strongly condemn harassment and threats against lawyers who represent death row inmates, particularly M Ravi, who has taken on multiple death row inmates at a late stage. Death row inmates already face great barriers in looking for lawyers who will review their case and advise them at a late stage. Imposing the threat of penalties, or actual penalties, against lawyers who are merely doing their best to lobby for their clients raises those barriers further by deterring lawyers from wanting to take on late-stage capital cases.
We are relieved that a man has been saved, but are alarmed by how close we have come to a wrongful execution. We note that Gobi Avedian had already exhausted his legal appeal as well as the clemency process, and was at risk of imminent execution. If not for M Ravi’s intervention at a late stage, Gobi could have been executed without anyone realising that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
In the case of Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi as well, his team of pro bono lawyers fought for him to be acquitted of a capital drug trafficking charge, which he was convicted of by the Court of Appeal in 2015. Ilechukwu is now able to return home to Nigeria after living on death row in Singapore for years, only because his lawyers didn’t give up even at a late stage.
This highlights a serious problem with capital punishment. It is a harsh and irreversible punishment, and a life, once taken, cannot be returned. One innocent life taken by the state is one too many — this is why the death penalty should be abolished as soon as possible.
- Repeal Section 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code that sets a high threshold for cases to be reviewed
- When there are changes to laws or case law that will affect death row inmates, their cases should be automatically reviewed
- Launch an independent investigation to look into how often the prison might have forwarded inmate correspondence, including privileged communication, to the AGC
- Put an end to the harassment and threats against lawyers who represent death row inmates
- An immediate moratorium of the death penalty, with a view to abolish capital punishment
Transformative Justice Collective
Community Action Network
No Readgrets Book Club
Beyond the Hijab
SG Climate Rally
We Who Witness
The Bi+ Collective
Tow Ying Xiang
Today is World Day Against the Death Penalty.
Sobering. Singapore hangs an average of 2 persons per month.
Mainly drug traffickers.
Of course, criminals need to be punished.
Longer prison terms and rehabilitation.
Killing them off – No; Not Again; Never Again.
Abolish the Death Penalty.
MARUAH shares this video message in solidarity with lawyers who work hard to defend clients facing the Death Penalty, all activists who are lobbying against the death penalty, especially those in Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign and for each of them who was hanged to death.
MARUAH Secretariat, 10th October 2010.
1 October 2020
MARUAH is relieved that an interim stay of execution had been granted to Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin, and he was spared from being hanged to death on Friday, 18th September 2020. We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has ordered a subsequent hearing fixed on 6th October 2020 to hear further arguments on his case. MARUAH appreciates the appeal and the work of the pro bono team of lawyers and volunteers led by lawyer M Ravi which has led to this stay order, till the verdict at the hearing. Syed Suhail was sentenced to death on 2016 for drug trafficking.
Syed Suhail’s case has also brought to light that his personal correspondence including letters to his lawyer, had been sent by the Singapore Prison Service to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). There has been no statement from the AGC. But Ministry of Home Affairs had stated that, in 2018, there was “no legal prohibition’ to sharing correspondences. Numerous troubling questions have surfaced on what had happened in the past and the current legal prohibition that is available. Pertinently, MARUAH is concerned over the past practices as even if there was no legal provision, there is an inherent ethical code that correspondence on cases ought not be shared without approval of the inmate or the lawyer. We note that in a recent case in April this year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prison service cannot pass to AGC the prisoners’ correspondences to lawyers or family members, without their consent or a court order. This chain of shared correspondences, inadvertently, raises questions related to the integrity of prosecutorial processes and prejudice. In the light of what Syed Suhail’s case is highlighting, MARUAH asks that an independent inquiry be held to ascertain breaches that have taken place in the past and to assess impact on the outcome against defendants in the court cases.
Singapore reviewed the Death Penalty in 2012 to review the charges that carried a mandatory death sentence for a person guilty of drug trafficking offence. It offered certificates of substantive assistance for drug traffickers who give assistance that enable broader investigations into the case for prosecution. The certificate offers an eligibility to be reprieved from capital punishment. MARUAH notes that Syed Suhail has not been given such a certificate. We ask what are the conditions that the accused persons have to fulfil in the process of offering assistance so that the prosecution will offer such certificates. There is a lack of transparency on the scoping of ‘assistance’, risking clarity on the certification.
MARUAH believes that death penalty is inconsistent with prevailing customary international law. Involved in a research with National University of Singapore, MARUAH has to accept that most Singaporeans still see the death penalty as a deterrent, keeping Singapore safe. To validate this belief, MARUAH asks that data on all forms of drug-related offences and number of executions be made public so that we can assess the co-relation between the death penalty and keeping Singapore drug-free. We agree that Singapore needs more debates and education on the death penalty so that citizens understand that this is an inhuman punishment as the death penalty constitutes a violation to the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Singapore and Singaporeans can do better and work on alternative punishments, such as longer prison terms, instead of executions. MARUAH reiterates its call along with many committed stakeholders, that Singapore ought to look at the practices in many countries, and so Abolish the Death Penalty.
 As of 2017, 106 countries had abolished the death penalty and 142 were abolitionist in law or practice, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
Capital punishment is meted out for drug-related crimes in 15 countries, but according to rights group Amnesty International only four countries recorded executions for drug offences in recent years – Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.
Please register at https://forms.gle/KL9dMieoWzu7P3Yb7 before 11.59pm on Thursday, 1 October 2020. We will be sending the video conference link via email to all those who have registered.
Read more about:
MARUAH’s UPR submissions to the UN Human Rights Council: https://maruah.org/upr/
Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs on UPR: https://www.mfa.gov.sg/SINGAPORES-FOREIGN-POLICY/Key-Issues/Singapore-Universal-Periodic-Review
UN Human Rights Council’s UPR process: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx
MARUAH hosted the GE2020 Post election webinar entitled “Our Youth, Our Future” this morning (5 September).
We would like to thank all our speakers, Discussant Prof Kenneth Paul Tan and Moderator Ms Braema Mathi for taking time to share their thoughts and contributing to a lively discussion. We also would like to thank all Zoom participants and viewers who watched the webinar via the Facebook livestream.
The video from the webinar has been uploaded to MARUAH YouTube channel at https://youtu.be/glRSVAvrdqE, please feel free to share this with all your contacts.
If you would like to join MARUAH as a volunteer, please fill in this form – https://bit.ly/3jLdqx6.
Thank you and we look forward to having you at our next online discussion.
We stand in solidarity with everyone in Singapore’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender-diverse, intersex, non-binary & queer (LGBT+) community.
We extend our love to those who are questioning, exploring, or even struggling with your gender identity, sexual orientation, and/or attractions. We feel your loneliness, and we hear you.
We reach out especially to those among us who have survived attempts to change us through conversion practices. We feel your shame and your pain. We see you for who you are, in your beloved wholeness.
We believe that faith and religion may be comforting resources, but we also acknowledge the evidence that shows the harm and trauma that conversion practices can cause us.
We are here to offer you a safe and affirming space to be yourself. We feel your strength and your resilience, and we extend our compassion.
Above all, we are here to let you know that you are not alone.
You are not alone. We’re here.
For a full list of community organisations in Singapore which jointly supported this statement, please visit https://heckinunicorn.com/pages/statement-love-support-lgbt-members-community-in-singapore
Congratulations on this lead up to Polling Day on July 10th. Wishing each candidate and all political parties the absolute best.
As Singapore citizens we will be making our way to the polling station if we can, practice ‘stay safe’ habits and vote for the political parties and the candidates that we think will best represent our interest and with whom we can work to build up our country as a peaceful, prosperous and equal society to live in, where we can enjoy happiness, have fair and equal access to justice for all persons and practice non-discrimination as our moral code.
So, as a human rights organization, MARUAH is reminding all political parties and candidates that they need to fulfil State obligations to promote, protect and fulfil a citizen’s rights. We also reassure that an individual’s right does not mean it is to the exclusion of community-mindedness or a mutualism, as this is already a given in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 29). We also state as Singapore becomes more diverse and we live in an interconnected world that the core values of human rights – indivisible, inalienable, interdependent and universal – are not compromised as legislation, policies and programmes are prepared and set for the future. These core principles are also part of the Sustainable Development Goals in its 2030 vision, in its frameworks and in international agreements. As such we make the following calls on what we would like to have over the next five years, till the next General Elections. We ask:
- that we achieve a higher level of accountability through a Transparency Act that we hope will be enacted before the next General Elections
- that the Freedom of Information Act be enacted so that data, public documents, and historical materials can be shared with the public and where needed, can be held as archives
- that the Freedom of Expression be legislated as the digitized world is the norm and we already have the counterbalancing force via legislation – Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) – and the authoritative powers as given to each Minister
- that an Anti-Discrimination Act be enacted as soon as possible
- that all political parties and especially those with representatives in Parliament take on a participatory approach with civil society freely and not selectively, setting the ground rules for fair-minded conversation aimed at the betterment of people, protecting their rights and developing a stronger democracy
- that the budget for Defence be reduced from its current proportion of the national budget and that there is an increased focus on peace building, reparative and remedial work in the region and internationally through our diplomacy, making it Singapore’s mainstay reputation
- that we ratify international peace treaties such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1951)
- that we also ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990)
- that we make determined plans to ratify the core human rights instruments of the International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
- that we become signatories to the Core International Labour Organisation’s Agreements that are still pending
- that we build up, to achieve an excellent track record, on the Paris Agreement (2016) and so become a leading force in the region as a Climate Change promoter and advocate, to protect and preserve the environment
- that we continue to be a key leader in ASEAN in bridge-building but support the human rights agenda of ASEAN in that they need to be fulfilled
- that we develop an economic climate that builds up on a national developmentist approach of self-sufficiency, a greater reliance on regional supply chains for goods, raw materials and human resources and process Singapore’s shift from just market-driven capitalism to sustainability and self-sufficiency in the creation of new industries and job opportunties
- that policies be centred on ensuring that all basic needs of an individual are met adequately and well, so that no one is left behind or be placed, divided into various recipient clusters to receive social protection of social insurance, social assistance and universal transfers, which ought to be well-planned and implemented on a sustainable scale leading to empowerment, confidence and independent living of individuals and communities
- that land prices are not pegged to market prices for public housing and for small scale enterprises so that costs are not beyond a middle-income individual with an unbroken career path
- that we set the National Minimum Wage that takes into account the living costs in Singapore
- that health care pricing be reviewed with inputs from experts and by studying the schemes held by other countries so that people in Singapore can access healthcare with affordable healthcare insurance schemes
- that we measure success by determined factors of well-being, happiness of the people and of having participatory and democratic processes
- that as citizens there will be greater monitoring of politicians and political parties due to digitisation of information as well as rising awareness in politics