Transformative Justice Collective rejects MHA’s falsehood claims after two POFMA orders

SINGAPORE: After receiving Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Correction Directions twice in less than a week, Singapore’s civil society group, Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), has firmly rejected the government’s accusations of spreading falsehoods.

While TJC complied with the POFMA Correction Directions (CDs), they contend that the government fundamentally mischaracterized their posts regarding the executions of two Singaporean death row prisoners.

TJC argued that the POFMA CDs inadvertently confirmed their observations: both executed prisoners had pending civil applications and, in one case, an additional criminal review application when their execution notices were issued.

The group pointed out that these facts are notably absent from CNB’s statements on the executions of 2 and 7 August.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directed the POFMA Office on 8 and 11 August to issue CDs to TJC’s posts on social media, accusing the group for falsely claimed that the two executions were “scheduled without regard for due legal process” and that the state “uses capital punishment to arbitrarily decide whether people live or die”.

In a Monday (12 August) statement, TJC expressed concern about the timing of the execution notices, particularly regarding the 45-year-old inmate executed on 2 August.

The inmate’s review application was only heard on 26 July 2024 and dismissed on 30 July. TJC questioned whether the President signed the Execution Order before the review application had been adjudicated in court.

“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. ”

TJC noted that MHA referred to the Court of Appeal’s 2 August ruling, which asserted that the pending civil appeal would not affect the prisoner’s conviction or sentence. However, TJC pointed out that this ruling came after the issuance of the execution notice, and the prisoner was executed on the same day.

“Similarly, the second prisoner’s later withdrawal from a civil application does not detract from the fact that he was given an execution notice while he was still party to that ongoing case. ”

TJC argued that the issuance of execution notices while prisoners are still party to ongoing legal proceedings is “an affront to due process. ”

TJC recounts an instance from August 2022 when 24 death row prisoners had to represent themselves in court via Zoom without legal representation.

They emphasize that the prisoners were given a very tight timeline to file and argue their civil applications. For example, a civil application was filed on 1 August 2022, and by 2 August, submissions were due by 6pm.

The application was struck out at the High Court on 3 August, and the appeal was heard at the Court of Appeal on 4 August, with the Court of Appeal dismissing it around midnight. A prisoner was executed early the next morning.

TJC described cases from April/May 2024 where multiple execution notices were issued while prisoners were challenging the constitutionality of the blanket ban on legal aid in post-appeal applications.

Even though some executions were stayed shortly before the scheduled dates, TJC argued that prisoners should not be put in a position where they need to file additional applications to prolong their lives.

“Perhaps the state sees the death penalty as an administrative box-ticking exercise. TJC, however, is most concerned with human lives, ” TJC statement wrote, highlighting the emotional and psychological toll on death row prisoners and their families.

TJC reiterated its criticism of the Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act (PACC), arguing that it infringes on the fundamental rights of death row prisoners.

TJC also condemned the “weaponization” of POFMA to target dissenting opinions, emphasizing that this misuse of the Act undermines freedom of expression in Singapore and exemplifies a broader trend of suppressing opposing voices.

In closing, TJC sarcastically urged Home Minister K Shanmugam to watch a YouTube video titled “Fact and Opinion for Kids”, implying that the Minister has struggled to distinguish dissenting opinions from factual statements.