Connect with us

Current Affairs

“Substantial windfall” claim not true: Dinesh Raman’s mother

The mother of Dinesh Raman Chinnaiah says she did not indicate an amount as compensation from the government for the death of her son, contrary to what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said in its latest statement on 13 September.

Published

11 years ago

on

By Gangasudhan / Andrew Loh

dinesh

The mother of Dinesh Raman Chinnaiah says she did not indicate an amount as compensation from the government for the death of her son, contrary to what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said in its latest statement on 13 September.

Dinesh Raman died in Changi Prison 3 years ago, on 27 September 2010.

He was 21-years old.

The government said he died from “positional asphyxia” and has accepted responsibility for his death. It has also offered to pay compensation to his family.

It was reported that 8 prison officers were involved in restraining Dinesh Raman on the morning of 27 September 2010, in what the Straits Times described as a “fierce struggle” which lasted “30 minutes”.

So far, only deputy superintendent Lim Kwo Yin, has been charged for Dinesh Raman’s death.

He was fined S$10,000 by the courts on 19 July.

Following the conviction, the Coroner discontinued his inquiry on 24 July into the circumstances surrounding Dinesh Raman’s death.

The Attorney General’s Chambers explained that the government had already conducted an internal criminal investigation into the matter, and “that while all unnatural deaths are investigated and looked into, there is no multiplicity of proceedings that would be a drain on the state’s resources.”

The AGC subsequently denied the family’s request for it to instruct the Coroner to re-open the inquiry into Dinesh Raman’s death.

Dinesh Raman’s family disputes the findings of the criminal investigation and has lodged an application with the courts to compel the Coroner to re-open his inquiry.

The matter has taken on a new twist when the Ministry of Home Affairs, on 13 September 2013, alleged that the family had “informally suggested that they would be prepared to ‘settle’ the matter for substantial windfall amounts.”

The ministry did not disclose what this alleged “substantial windfall” amount was, or why the compensations negotiations or discussions were apparently being conducted “informally”, even though its statement also said that it has “engaged the family and Mr Ravi [lawyer for Mdm Selvi] on their compensation claim.”

Nonetheless, Mdm Selvi Narayanasamy, the mother of Dinesh Raman, denies having asked for any specific amount of compensation.

She says that a government officer has been contacting her continuously to ask her to settle the compensation issue. According to Mdm Selvi, he has been asking her to name an amount but she has repeatedly declined to do so.

On Monday (9/9/2013), she said the officer had gone to her house with 2 other Chinese men. She said the officer showed her some papers detailing the breakdown of damages to be assessed and asked her to indicate the amounts for each component, but she declined.

In its statement on 13 September, the MHA said:

“The State has offered a compensation quantum calculated on the premise that Dinesh Raman would have gone on to ITE and have had a stable job. This is a generous approach…”

Mdm Selvi says that her concerns are not about money or compensation. Instead, she is firm in her stance that the perpetrators must be held accountable and justice for her son must prevail.

She says that although she was told by the government officer that the prison officers involved had all been dealt with and that they were now consigned to desk-bound jobs within the Singapore Prison Service, she does not see this as justice being served.

Her writ against the government, lodged with the courts last week, contends that the prison officers had “intentionally assaulted” Dinesh Raman, resulting in his death.

The MHA had said, on 12 August, that it had “started disciplinary action against the superintendent, supervisors and other officers involved in the incident.”

However, it has not publicly disclosed what this “disciplinary action” is or what action has been taken against the officers mentioned.

On her court action, Mdm Selvi says she does not see it as being against the government but rather that she is trusting the system to hold those guilty of causing her son’s death accountable.

A High Court hearing has been set on Oct 16 to hear Mdm Selvi’s application to seek the court’s permission for a judicial review of the Coroner’s decision not to re-open his inquiry into Dinesh Raman’s death.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

2 days ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

4 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending