I’m still in Melbourne and loving my time here; I’ve met so many cool people (and also acquired two very excellent work/weekend bags that are The Bomb). I’m off to Sydney next week, where I'll be chatting about Mekong Review, writing and publishing at Better Read Than Dead.
(1)
A disaster week in death penalty-related news again. Two men who’d been on death row for over a decade were hanged for drug offences yesterday morning.
Meanwhile, Parliament has passed amendments to the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act that makes it contempt of court to commence legal proceedings that the individual should have known is groundless for an “improper” purpose (sorry, that’s a mouthful, I know). These amendments have serious implications for prisoners on death row, making it even more difficult and scary to file post-appeal applications. The amendments state that those who “abet” so-called “abuse of process” will also be liable for contempt. It’s really problematic because it’s not always easy or possible to determine whether something is “manifestly groundless” before it’s been heard and considered by the courts; in the face of uncertainty, it’s likely that people will choose to steer clear of assisting death row prisoners completely, even if some applications might have turned out to have merit. This doesn’t protect the administration of justice; it makes the system more vulnerable to miscarriages of justice.
(2)
What about the case where the court ruled that the Singapore Prison Service and Attorney-General’s Chambers had acted unlawfully disclosing and requesting death row prisoners’ correspondence? The officers involved have been “reminded” of their obligations… and that’s it. K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, said there’s “no basis” for further action and that the officers were “acting in good faith”. It’s really magical, isn’t it, how officers of the state so often seem to be acting in good faith even when they’re found to have done something wrong, while citizens participating in peaceful actions are hauled up for investigation or even prosecution and never given that benefit of the doubt. 🙄
(3)
When you’re interrogated by the police in Singapore, you do not have a lawyer with you. I don’t think many people are aware of this, so let me go over it. In most cases, there is no audio or video recording of the questioning. Police officers will ask you questions and type your answers into a document. They are not required to write down what you say verbatim. At the end of the questioning they’ll print the document and show it to you. You can make changes, but once you sign off on the document that’s treated as you confirming it’s an accurate statement that could potentially be used in court.
It was reported in 2018 that video recording of police interviews would be introduced in phases, starting with the interrogations of people suspected of rape offences. In 2023, the government said that this practice had been expanded to other offences, including child abuse and drug-related offences that do not attract the death penalty. In response to a question from Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim this month, Shanmugam said that expansion of video recording interrogations has been going more slowly than anticipated, but that they are “carefully studying how we can expand [video recording] to more cases, including capital cases and interviews with victims or witnesses”. According to the minister, video recording takes up more of an investigation officer’s time compared to a written statement, and there are more administrative needs like transcribing footage.
Perhaps if we didn’t have, and actively enforce, unnecessary broad laws like the Public Order Act then the supposedly resource-strapped police force could cut out bullshit investigations into things—like peaceful letter delivery actions—that don’t need investigating. They could then focus their time on doing things that would be better for fair trials, access to justice and accountability. The last time I was summoned to the police station for questioning, the officer made a point of emphasising that she’d turned her bodycam off, and that there was no recording of the interrogation. Why not keep the camera on? Also, if we don’t have enough resources to do them all, surely not all interrogations need to be transcribed, just the ones needed for prosecution and/or trial? It’s hard to wrap my head around the idea that this wealthy country, that has been willing to expend huge amounts of resources on many other things, is saying they can’t roll out video recording of police interrogations more quickly because it’s resource intensive. Surely it’s a matter of priorities?
On my radar...
The Freedom Film Fest will arrive in Singapore later this month, 22–23 November. As always, they have a line-up of films and discussions related to the themes of freedom, democracy and human rights. Entry is free, but you've got to register for tickets—just click the button below!
