Lawyers For Liberty founder N Surendran and executive director Latheefa Koya. Source: HAKAM

Malaysian lawyer and founder of human rights and law reform organisation Lawyers For Liberty (LFL) N Surendran has lambasted Singapore’s Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam’s alleged “attack” on Malaysia’s de facto Law Minister Liew Vui Keong, branding the Minister’s remarks “arrogant & unbecoming” of a senior minister.

Mr Shanmugam told The Straits Times that Datuk Liew had reached out to Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong, in addition to writing in to the Singapore Government over the case of 31-year-old Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, a Malaysian drug mule on death row who has been granted a stay of execution by the Court of Appeal on Thu (23 May), just one day before his execution was due to take place.

He said that while he acknowledges that some ministers in the Pakatan Harapan government are “ideologically opposed” to the death penalty, Singapore remains steadfast with its decision to continue imposing the death penalty on persons found guilty of drug trafficking, and thus expects Malaysia to “respect that condition as well.”

“It is not tenable to give a special moratorium to Malaysians, and impose it on everyone else, including Singaporeans who commit offences which carry the death penalty,” said Mr Shanmugam, adding that the Government will not “be deflected from doing the right thing for Singapore” and its population, whom he believes “is supportive of that stand.”

“It is simply not doable to keep asking Singapore not to carry out the penalties imposed by the courts,” he said, adding that the Singapore Government “will respond to Mr Liew once the case is over”.

Mr Surendran, via a string of tweets, issued a retort to the Singapore Law Minister’s remarks, stating that his dismissal of Datuk Liew’s letter of appeal as “ideological” is inappropriate against “a minister of a friendly country”:

Mr Surendran also rebutted Mr Shanmugam’s claim that the death penalty serves as an “effective deterrent” against drug trafficking, highlighting that the Minister did not offer any proof supporting his claim, and that studies have shown that “execution doesn’t deter traffickers”.

Referring to one of Mr Shanmugam’s “suggestions” to Datuk Liew on how to manage the problem of Malaysians trafficking drugs into the Republic, Mr Surendran labelled the suggestion to “arrest the traffickers before they come into Singapore” to avoid them from facing the death penalty in Singapore as “childish” and “silly” for a Cabinet minister:

The Malaysian lawyer also questioned Mr Shanmugam’s claim that Singapore’s population supports the death penalty for drug-related offences when “there’s barely any freedom of expression” in the Republic, where “timid” Singaporeans shy away from criticising “their govt”:

LFL’s executive director Latheefa Koya also took to Twitter on Fri (24 May) to criticise Mr Shanmugam’s statement on the death penalty against “poor M’sians who are lured in as drug mules”, highlighting the contradiction between such a stance and his Vesak Day message, which advocated “kindness” and “compassion”:

Pannir Selvam, who is represented by Singapore lawyers Too Xing Ji and Lee Ji En, had applied for a stay on his death sentence on the grounds of challenging President Halimah Yacob’s rejection of his petition for clemency.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, one of the three Court of Appeal judges who had granted his request for clemency, said that Pannir Selvam, who was convicted in 2017 for the offence of trafficking 51.84g of heroin into Singapore via Woodlands Checkpoint in 2014, was told of the rejection and his execution date just a week prior to the scheduled execution date, which did not leave the Malaysian man with sufficient time to seek legal advice on what he could do to challenge the rejection.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, in response to Malaysian media reports, said on Thu that Pannir Selvam’s petition was “carefully considered”, and that President Halimah had acted on the advice of the Cabinet in not granting clemency, in line with Singapore’s Constitution.

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

"Going out on street is the only way we can deal with a stubborn government", says Hong Kong protester

The protests against the proposed Extradition Bill in Hong Kong shows no…

What “Tan Kin Lian For President” means

The following is an excerpt from ‘Think Happiness’ Dharmendra Yadav/ Tan Kin…

王乙康回应耶鲁-国大取消异议课程事件 亚菲言脸书澄清数点

上月中旬,耶鲁—国大学院临时取消一门名为《新加坡的异议与抵抗》的课程。有关课程将由新加坡知名剧作家亚菲言(Alfian Sa’at),与参与学生探讨本土的公民抗命模式。 此后美国耶鲁大学总校对此展开调查,包括耶鲁—国大教员以及原本负责策划课程的亚菲言(Alfian Sa’at)会面,了解来龙去脉,表示课程没有影响学术自由与开放审视,取消课程是考虑到学术要求和法律问题。 对此,包括宏茂桥集选区议员殷丹博士、马林百列集选区议员谢健平、官委议员特斯拉博士和王丽婷等人,都对此事深表关注,在国会作出提问,质问课程遭腰斩的原因,或此举是否意味着对学府内的学术环境更为受控和僵化? 教育部长王乙康在回答议员提问时则解释,“本地学府被用来进行党派政治平台,表达对政府异议,不是空穴来风”,而教育部了解有关课程后也表达了担忧。 他说,课程也让学生参观芳林公园和展示示威标语,而这可能让学生面对触法的风险。 此外,邀请社运分子范国瀚、施兰巴莱等曾因公共秩序有关罪行被定罪的人物;以及邀请《新叙事》的负责人覃炳鑫和韩俐颖等人,他指两人接受“外国资金”。 王乙康似乎对亚菲言近日来在脸书发表的贴文做功课,他引述亚菲言在本月5日(周六)的贴文,指后者提到复兴“新加坡学生运动”,特别是在“政治自觉化”等领域。 实际上,亚菲言的原贴文是指,耶鲁国大有许多学生关心他的近况,他赞扬许多大学生都很聪明敏锐,并且受到强烈道德正义感驱使。他认为,这似乎某种程度上有一部分,是源于新加坡学生运动的复兴,特别是在政治自觉、气候变化、性别权益等领域。 王乙康称:“负责有关课程的个人可以保有对新加坡的看法,甚至公开在社交媒体,但我们是否应让这种政治异议存在于我们的教育中?” 有者认为学府享有学术自由,培养学生批判精神,甚至异议能有助促进民主。但王乙康指出,考量所有因素和涉及的人物,会发现“这是有动机和目的的课程”。…

10 double decker buses featuring USB charging ports to hit the road on 1 Sept

The Land and Transport Authority (LTA) and Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT)…