August 27, 2024
KATHMANDU – The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an activist group that campaigns against the death penalty, has received two corrective orders following a posting expressing concern about the recent execution of two drug convicts in Singapore.
The orders, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, were based on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the design and use of which have been widely criticized by anyone who truly understands and cares about civil freedoms and freedom of expression.
The TJC was complaining about the fact that the two prisoners already sentenced to the gallows were executed despite the fact that they still had pending civil applications – and in one case, an additional pending criminal review application.
It is true, we are talking about technicalities. But they do matter. The correction notice imposed by the POFMA office basically confirmed what the activists had claimed, that the two prisoners still had ongoing legal reviews.
Undeterred, the TJC published a response boldly starting with “Dear Minister Shanmugam, here is our correction direction for you”.
Among different points, the group objects to the government’s following statement: “Some PACPs [prisoners awaiting capital punishment] have repeatedly filed last-minute applications, without basis, with the obvious purpose of preventing capital punishment from being carried out”.
You do not need to be a legal luminaire to realize that the courts and not the state should decide if a case does or does not have a basis.
The TJC’s response was as follows, “Regardless of whether this review application was “materially similar” to previous applications, it is not for the government to substitute the Court’s role with their own view on the potential outcome of the review application”.
“The government significantly restricted public statements it contended would undermine social or religious harmony or the legal system, interfered in domestic affairs, or did not safeguard national or public interest”.
This is not a statement by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International but it comes from the United States Department of State.
One sentence is even more significant; “The law was not supposed to apply to opinions, criticisms, satire, or parody”.
What the members of the TJC are doing is simply stating their opinion. For them and for many others, Singapore has a quirky way of understanding and interpreting the rule of law.
Accordingly, Singapore’s ruling People Action Party (PAP) believes capital punishment is the most effective way of dealing with drug traffickers.
Yet people must be entitled to dissent, peacefully and respectfully, and that is what the TJC is doing.
The controversy looms ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to Singapore on Sept. 11-13 as part of his Southeast Asian trip.
One of the key tenets of the Catholic Church is the sacrality of life and its total rejection of the death penalty.
As a former altar boy, over the years I have grown detached and disillusioned with many aspects of the Catholic Church. Yet, if there is one thing I am still very proud of in the Church’s teachings, is its strongest condemnation of capital punishment.
Will Pope Francis speak out on his and the church’ convictions about the sanctity of life? He should, loudly and clearly and without hesitation.
At worst, what could happen? Could the pope be POFMAed for his views on capital punishment?
Pope Francis has just written the preface of a soon-to-be-released book written by US anti-death activist Dale Recinella, A Christian on Death Row: My Commitment to Those Condemned.
His central message is simple and unequivocal: “The death penalty never brings justice, but is a poison for society”.
“Capital executions, far from bringing justice, fuel a sense of revenge that becomes a dangerous poison for the body of our civil societies. States should focus on allowing prisoners the opportunity to truly change their lives, rather than investing money and resources in their executions, as if they were human beings no longer worthy of living and to be disposed of,” the Pope wrote.
Will Pope Francis raise to the moral challenge and question the righteousness of PAP’s official policy on the death penalty?
The European Union mission together with the embassies of Norway and Switzerland issued a joint statement deploring the execution, but what can the Western countries do beyond this?
For Western ambassadors, being based in Singapore must be one of the most challenging postings. The city-state is a darling, a key player for many western governments, but at the same time, it is a sort of “problematic” partner due to its unique understanding and interpretation of the rule of law.
For these ambassadors, it is a conundrum but I do wish they would grow in their assertiveness while advocating for the core values of their governments.
During the recent National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lawerence Wong projected a new array of progressive policies supposed to soften the hardships facing many Singaporeans. He was approachable and went out of his way to be relatable to the commoners because he genuinely felt like one of them.
All very good, but this is in stark contrast to PAP’s approach to capital punishment, which is too uncompromising, too narrow and too intimidating even to talk about it.
I do hope that with time, PM Lawrence will show humanity not only in his speeches to Singaporeans but also humanity in trying to grasp a contentious issue like the death penalty because unlike what PAP thinks, this is a contentious subject.
Let me wrap with a quote sent to me by Kirsten Han, a writer, human rights activist and TJC member who recently won the Portside Review’s Human Rights Essay Competition.
“The TJC remains committed to our work towards the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore, as well as ending the war on drugs that has already delivered so much pain and trauma. We don’t believe in pinning our hopes on the benevolence of politicians in power. Instead, we prefer to recognize, reclaim and build power among the Singaporean people to work towards a future where the state does not kill in all our names.
“In the years that TJC has been active, we’ve seen many Singaporeans demonstrate, in various ways, how much they care about human life, and seen a growing willingness to ask important questions about who this current, highly punitive system of policing and punishment really serves”.