Yes, I’ve been writing this newsletter since 2018. Yes, I am only now trying out what it’s like to put the date in the header.
(1)
The Ministry of Home Affairs went a bit hard on the use of POFMA this week—I wrote about it a bit—but we shouldn’t forget that 10 October was World Day Against the Death Penalty. The Transformative Justice Collective has a series of events running until 20 October, so be sure to check them out. On Thursday night we had our launch event, ‘The Impact On Us: Living To Tell The Story’. Four speakers—a former death row prisoner and his wife, a lawyer and a Singaporean abolitionist—delivered victim impact statements on how the death penalty has affected them before we opened it up to the floor. Multiple people put their hands up to ask questions and share experiences and reflections. It was such a precious space for people to talk about emotions, about hurt, about grief, about outrage against cruelty and injustice.
Last night we had an amazing webinar on the death penalty and drug policy, rebutting common government narratives and busting myths. If you missed it, you can catch up on TJC’s Facebook page here. I’m also planning to send along some key takeaways as an issue of the Altering States newsletter (as soon as I have time to write it up) so make sure you have a subscription to that if you’d like to receive it!
In other death penalty related news: the Court of Appeal has published its written judgment on the breach of confidentiality committed by the Singapore Prison Service and the Attorney-General’s Chambers when 13 former and current death row prisoners’ private correspondence were copied and forwarded to the AGC without consent. The court found that “the AGC and the SPS had acted unlawfully by, respectively, requesting and disclosing the Appellants’ correspondence pursuant to the Practice. We also find the SPS and the AGC acted in breach of confidence by, respectively, the disclosure and retention of the Appellants’ correspondence pursuant to the Practice.”
The court was told that the prison service used to share letters with the AGC—the government’s legal adviser (although they’re also the prosecution)—to get their legal advice. Since the prison and MHA staff handling prisoner correspondence aren’t legally trained, they tended to be kiasu and forwarded whatever looked legal-ish just in case.
The Court of Appeal judgment did point out one case, affecting the death row prisoner Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin, that couldn’t be explained by this “practice”: The AGC had in its possession a copy of a letter that Syed written to his uncle, but said that they “did not use this correspondence or otherwise gain any advantage in any legal proceedings against Mr Suhail”. However, the court noted that “it became clear to us that Mr Suhail’s correspondence had not only been requested by the AGC, but also used by the Prosecution in CCA 38 in so far as, in its submissions, it had noted the fact that Mr Suhail had sent letters to his uncle. This seemed at odds with the Respondent’s previous representation in OS 975 that Mr Suhail’s correspondence had not been used in any legal proceedings.”
They added: “With respect, it is hard to reconcile the fact that the DPPs handling CCA 38 had “requested copies of [Mr Suhail’s] previous correspondence with his uncle from the SPS” with the statement that “[t]he AGC did not consider itself entitled to these letters”. Indeed, the handling of Mr Suhail’s correspondence, together with the existence of the Practice, does give rise to some concern.”
Still, the Court of Appeal didn’t think there was cause to grant more than the nominal damages of $10 each to three of the death row prisoners. 🙃🙃🙃
I have many problems with this case, but this also shows how inherently problematic it is that the AGC is both the government’s legal advisor and the prosecution.
(2)
Two men have been acquitted after the court found that the statements taken by the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau officers unreliable. The two men had been charged alongside a former LTA deputy group director in a corruption cases, but the trial judge ruled that the statements taken by the investigating officers were inaccurate and could not be relied on. One officer, the judge said, had been “mischievous and conveniently selective” about what to record in the statement, documenting what was incriminating while leaving out things that would have been in the accused’s favour.
The judge wrote: "As submitted by Pay's counsel, the procedural safeguards were meaningless in the face of IO Chris Lim's conduct based on his own evidence which unfortunately demonstrated him to be happy to stretch the truth and the prosecution has offered no explanations for his conduct."
As for the second officer, the judge said: “Pek's [one of the accused] first statement appears to be more a product of IO Jeffrey's authorship than an accurate account of what Pek actually communicated. This is because IO Jeffrey took several liberties in constructing the statement.”
This is pretty outrageous stuff—and emphasises the importance of having a lawyer during questioning and verbatim statements—but I’m also curious how all this came to light in the first place. The CNA article seems to suggest that the investigating officers pretty much admitted to this during the trial… how did that come about?! Did the defence bring it up, and if so, how, to the point that the IOs copped to it? I would love to learn more.
(3)
Rest In Peace, Lee Wei Ling. She died at home on 9 October, at the age of 69. Lee Hsien Yang who now lives abroad is not returning for his sister’s wake or funeral—although the police say he’s free to return, it’s not clear if returning would mean being summoned by the police for an investigation again, since LHY and his wife had left town around the time that they police had wanted to interview them as part of investigation into whether they gave false evidence in judicial proceedings related to Lee Kuan Yew’s will.
It’s been reported that Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife Ho Ching only attended the wake for about 10–15 minutes. Everyone knows that the siblings have been estranged for years.
Now that LWL has passed, the question of 38 Oxley Road’s fate comes up again. Lee Kuan Yew said his daughter could live in the house as long as she wanted, but was clear that he wanted the house demolished after that. According to LHY, his sister wanted to remind everyone of that, instructing him to share this message after her death:
My father's, LEE KUAN YEW, and my mother's, KWA GEOK CHOO, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 to be demolished upon the last parent's death. LEE KUAN YEW had directed each of his 3 children to ensure that their parents' wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.
Thank you for reading! If you found this useful/interesting, help spread the word about We, The Citizens by forwarding this on 😊