THE Nagaenthran Dharmalingam case has highlighted the cruelty and brutality of capital punishment – and the urgent need to consider more humane alternatives – as the long-drawn case of trials, appeals and clemency has cast a negative image of squeaky clean and prosperous Singapore.

The case has unearthed and revealed some vexing question about Singapore legal and judicial system.

It is now well known that the government pressures the legal fraternity to avoid representing cases concerning capital punishment for drug-related offences.

Lawyers are fearful of the subtle and other forms of threats that will risk their livelihood and professional progress.

Hence, getting top-notch competent lawyers, even if they want to take up these cases on humanitarian grounds, adds to the dilemma of cases similar to Nagaenthran’s.

This is a big handicap and disadvantage to the defendant from the very beginning itself.

This totalitarian attitude of the Singapore government ensures that the authorities always have the upper hand in terms of presenting evidence, cross-examination, witnesses and so on.

Senior and capable lawyers can make much difference in capital punishment cases.

It is not morally proper for Singapore to pressure and harass lawyers wanting to defend capital punishment cases.

In the minds of many, there can be a reasonable doubt whether a defendant like Nagaenthran got all he was entitled to in the legal process.

Denying access to quality lawyers of the defendant’s own choosing or simply preventing and harassing their lawyers does not indicate a proper legal process befitting a member of the Commonwealth.

In short, the entire system – both legal and administrative – is weighted against the defendant, and it is no wonder that 99% are found guilty and condemned to death.

The severity of the offence should make Singapore realise that for capital punishment cases every opportunity should be accorded to the defendant to go through the legal and judicial processes without hindrance, as this will absolve Singapore of any accusation of unfairness and bias.

In the case of Nagaenthran, there will always be a lingering doubt as to whether his low IQ of 69, if argued competently by capable lawyers in the initial stages could have cast a reasonable doubt in judicial minds and would have set him free or sentenced to a jail term.

Although Singapore may possibly deny harassing or pressuring lawyers, one just has to look at the way the government treated its own opposition politicians such as the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam in the past.

Short of cellophane-taping their mouths, opposition politicians have been subjected to all kinds of legal threats and political coercion.

Due to such intimidating circumstances, the opposition has remained weak and static, unlike their counterparts in a more vibrant democratic Malaysia.

Another cruelty has been the long period of incarceration between Nagaenthran’s conviction in 2009 and his execution on April 27.

For 13 years, the sword of Damocles, so to speak, had been hanging over his head!

It looks like he had served two sentences – a life sentence on death row and a capital punishment sentence that ended in his hanging. Is this not double cruelty? Not only Singapore but in numerous countries too this inhumane practice continues.

There have been cases of death row prisoners being executed after more than 20 years. This is nothing less than barbaric.

Amnesty International and others need to pressure governments to look into this double cruelty.

The death penalty should be automatically commuted to a prison sentence if the whole process of appeals and clemency cannot be completed within five years.

The pressure will be on the government to expedite capital punishment cases. There is no point dragging and delaying these cases when there is no new evidence, the laws are tight and clemency is almost impossible to get. Why should the defendants be made to hope against hope and languish in their lonely cells?

It was revealed a few days back that Nagaenthran, after  a long time of incarceration and combined with his inherent mental disability, could not talk. He had forgotten how to speak!

Over the last few weeks, Nagaenthran’s case has dented much of the international glossy image of Singapore, especially when prominent personalities and celebrities, the European Union, civil society groups, Malaysian public and politicians pleaded for clemency on special grounds due to his low IQ of 69.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob had also petitioned for clemency for Nagaenthran.

However, all these were to no avail against a heartless and defiant Singapore when Nagaenthran was executed in the early hours of April 27, leaving many grieving and heart-broken.

To paraphrase a relevant passage of ruthlessness from Shakespeare’s Macbeth (V.i.50-51): All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the stained and murderous hands of the Singaporean government!

This execution will be a blot on Singapore’s administration, which has a high reputation worldwide.

The Nagaenthran episode has spotlighted the capital punishment in Singapore. Many executions are scheduled to take place in the weeks ahead.

There will be much pressure for Singapore to review these cruel laws in the near future.

Singapore opposition MPs from the Workers Party can also move a private member’s bill to abolish the death penalty and opt for lesser punishments such as a life sentence.

One needs to remember that the death penalty in Britain was abolished by way of a private member’s bill in 1965 due to the untiring efforts of Samuel Sydney Silverman.

Individual MPs can endeavour on this issue and over time, the situation may change.

The long reign of the Lee Kuan Yew dynasty, who are ardent supporters of capital punishment, is also coming to an end soon.

Lawrence Wong, touted as the new prime minister, may be more amenable for a review of capital punishment like what has happened in Malaysia, where there is a moratorium against the death penalty in effect since October 2018.

Malaysia, too, like Singapore had been hanging numerous persons for drug-related offences since the 1970s but when it was found that the problem was not abating and that there is a socio-economic dimension to it, many felt that a new perspective on the issue was needed, hence the moratorium.

The world over much pressure is mounting on governments to abolish the death penalty as this historic punishment has no place in the present-day world. – May 6, 2022.

* V. Thomas reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.