The birthday that might not have been.

When you’re involved in a death penalty case, you’re always aware of the ticking clock. Time is running out. There might be no tomorrow, no next week, no next year. Life events like birthdays are no longer just one more landmark to celebrate – they’re tinged with sadness and uncertainty, because who knows if there will be another?

And that’s just how I feel. I can’t even begin to imagine how the family of a death row inmate feels. I can’t even begin to imagine how the inmate himself feels. I don’t think anyone can.

Can we be forgiven?

In the 12 years that he was our head of state, former President S R Nathan did not grant a single clemency.

This isn’t a topic that he has spoken much on, but he finally opened up recently during an interview. His response highlights an alarming problem in the clemency process for inmates on death row.

“The constitution clearly lays it down that I have to act on the advice of the cabinet, and the cabinet acts on the advice of the Attorney-General,” he said, explaining how the Attorney-General sifts through all the evidence available and makes a recommendation to the President.
- ‘I have to ask the man up there to forgive me’, 7 December 2011 

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the President cannot act in his own discretion when it comes to granting clemency to death row inmates, but has to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Nathan now confirms that the Cabinet acts on the advice of the Attorney-General (AG).

However, in these capital punishment cases, the AG’s Chambers acts on behalf of the State as the prosecution. It is the AG’s Chambers who are pushing for the ultimate punishment of death in the first place. Therefore, if the AG is the one who makes the recommendation to the Cabinet and the President, Singapore’s clemency process becomes no more than a farce where the prosecutor decides whether to suspend the very sentence he has invested so much time and energy in securing in the first place.

How much discretion should the Prosecution have?

The following was first published in The Online Citizen.

The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement in the case of Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General after the appellant’s lawyer Mr M Ravi mounted a challenge to the use of prosecutorial discretion at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Mr Ravinthran was arrested alongside with a Mr Sundar Arujunan in 2006. Both were charged with drug trafficking.

However, while Mr Ravinthran was charged with the full amount of drugs (5560g of cannabis and 2078g cannabis mixture), Mr Arujunan was only charged with trafficking in 499.99g of cannabis and 999.99g of cannabis mixture, just below the thresholds for the Mandatory Death Penalty. Therefore, Mr Arujunan has received 20 years in jail with caning, while Mr Ravinthran is on death row.

The most precious thing.

What is the most precious thing in your life? What matters to you most? What do you hold on to, what do you protect?

These were the questions Toshi Kazama asked during his photo presentation Eyes On Preciousness. For the past 15, almost 16 years, Toshi has been photographing death row inmates, families of both victims and the inmates, execution chambers, prisons and crime scenes. Despite having been a victim of attempted murder himself, he is a committed anti-death penalty activist, and has travelled to numerous countries to share his experience. And luckily for us, he managed to make a stop in Singapore.

My Responses to the Same Ol’ Arguments

As an anti-death penalty activist who does most of her campaign work online I find that I, along with my fellow activists, spend a lot of time engaging people on Facebook threads and in blog comments, etc. And when we engage with people who appear to be pro-death penalty, or anti-anti-death penalty (i.e. they don’t seem to have their own beliefs or arguments to put forward, they just don’t like ours), we find ourselves repeating the same things over and over again (even if these points were already addressed in the article the people are commenting on – which seems to me to be a signal that some people don’t actually read before they whack).

After almost 2 years of this, I have decided to write down, point by point, argument by argument, my usual responses. The points made by pro-DPers are in bold, and most have been taken from actual comments I have come across. I might also add more as I come across more arguments.