Transformative Justice Collective receives 2nd POFMA order over claims on death row executions

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s civil society group Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) has received a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) order for the second time in under a week.

In a statement issued on Sunday (11 August), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announced that it had directed the POFMA Office to issue a Correction Direction to TJC for posts made on 6 August on Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter).

Additionally, MHA issued a targeted correction direction to LinkedIn regarding a post by Julie O’Connor on August 6, requiring LinkedIn to include a notice and a link to the government’s clarification on the original post.

MHA stated that the posts falsely claimed that the executions of two Singaporean death row prisoners on 2 August and 7 August, were “scheduled without regard for due legal process” and that the state “uses capital punishment to arbitrarily decide whether people live or die”.

TJC has complied with the requirement to place correction notices on all three social media platforms.

The group, dedicated to advocating for transformative justice, particularly in the context of abolishing the death penalty, highlighted in its 6 August article about the execution of a 45-year-old and 59-year-old Singaporean.

TJC noted that both man men were convicted of drug-related charges, were ethnic minorities and were blue collar workers at the time of their arrest. One was a lorry driver and warehouse assistant; the other was an odd-job labourer.

TJC also accused that both men were party to ongoing legal proceedings, which the state has denied them the opportunity to see through.

“We know, from the many years we have worked in solidarity with death row prisoners and their families, that the trauma of death row and executions never goes away. It causes irrevocable harm to families, friends, communities and fellow prisoners. ”

TJC argued that capital punishment in Singapore is a demonstration of state power rather than a measure of justice or public safety and calls for collective action to impose an immediate moratorium to protect those still on death row.

MHA Reiterates Exhaustion of All Legal Rights for PACPs and Non-Arbitrary Enforcement of Singapore Law

MHA accused TJC of making two false statements and reiterated that all prisoners awaiting capital punishment (PACPs) have exhausted all rights of appeal and the clemency process.

MHA stated that the second PACP was informed on 31 July that his execution was scheduled for 7 August.

MHA said he was initially arrested on 24 October 2017 and underwent trials in the High Court in 2019 and 2021.

He was convicted of possessing 35.85 grammes of diamorphine, over twice the legal threshold for a capital sentence, enough to sustain the addiction of approximately 430 abusers for a week.

After the trial, in which evidence and arguments were thoroughly considered, he was convicted and sentenced to death on 10 August 2021. His subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (CA) on 11 May 2022.

MHA noted that the 2nd PACP’s clemency applications were rejected by the President on 14 October 2022 and again on 22 November 2022.

He also filed a legal application on 3 December 2022 to review the CA’s decision, but this was summarily dismissed on 28 February 2023.

Additionally, he was a joint applicant in another legal application dismissed by the CA on 27 March 2024, which the court deemed an abuse of process.

MHA clarified that as of 31 July, when the execution notice was issued, the 2nd PACP had a pending civil appeal, but he withdrew this appeal on 5 August, and the court accepted the withdrawal on the same day.

“As such, there were no ongoing legal proceedings involving the 2nd PACP when his execution was carried out on 7 August 2024.”

MHA defended the integrity of Singapore’s legal system and its support for the death penalty, emphasizing that all laws, including those concerning capital punishment, are enacted through a proper legislative process involving both Parliament and the President.

“Our laws are not made arbitrarily, ” said MHA.

“The criminal justice system in Singapore requires every accused person facing a capital charge to go through a full trial, where evidence is considered by the Court before it decides whether to convict the accused person and impose the capital sentence. ”

MHA reiterated that all individuals in Singapore are subject to the law, and those who traffic drugs above the legal threshold will face the death penalty as prescribed by law.

Earlier POFMA correction direction issued on 8 August

Earlier on 8 August, MHA issued POFMA correction direction to TJC over an article and posts which were published on 1 August.

MHA accused TJC of making false statements concerning the treatment of prisoners awaiting capital punishment, that the PACPs on 2 Aug were scheduled without regard for due legal process, and that executions are arbitrary.

TJC also claimed that prisoners who were executed on 2 August are denied legal counsel in court proceedings and have to rush to prepare and argue their own cases, which are deliberately scheduled to be heard at short notice.

MHA clarified that the 45-year-old PACP was convicted for possessing 36.93 grammes of diamorphine, over twice the capital threshold under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, enough to sustain the addiction of approximately 440 abusers for a week.

MHA stated that the PACP was tried and convicted by the High Court for drug trafficking and sentenced to death, with the Court of Appeal upholding the conviction and sentence; he was represented by legal counsel under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences.

MHA stated that after his clemency application was denied, the PACP filed three legal applications to review his appeal, all of which were summarily dismissed by the Court of Appeal; he was represented by his chosen counsel in all three applications.

“In all, he was represented by no fewer than eight lawyers throughout the legal proceedings. He was not denied legal counsel at any stage.”

MHA clarified that executions are only scheduled after all rights of appeal and clemency processes have been exhausted, and that last-minute applications by prisoners, often without basis, can lead to stays of execution.

However, according to MHA’s statement, given that the PACP was informed on 29 July 2024 that his execution was scheduled for 2 August 2024, this suggests that he was given only four days’ notice of his impending execution, which was less than a week as stated by TJC.