Many anti-death penalty advocates have been asked to put up corrections under the law against the statements they have made about the execution of the convicted drug trafficker, Tangaraju Suppiah.
Tangaraju, 46, a Singaporean, was hanged on April 26 2023 after being convicted of abetting the trafficking of more than 1kg of cannabis.
Anti-death penalty activists had advocated on various online platforms that Tangaraju Suppiah had been convicted unfairly, in which the statements have been refuted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Under the POFMA order, activist Kirsten Han, lawyer M Ravi, Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), The Online Citizen Asia (TOCA) and TOC co-founder Andrew Loh were required to carry a correction notice alongside their publications, and have since put up correction notices as checked by Channel NewsAsia (CNA). If they refused to do so, they could be fined up to $20,000 and jailed for up to 12 months.
MHA Debunks The False Claims
Denied An Interpreter And Lawyer
Some statements included the capital sentence that was given to Tangaraju that he was being denied an interpreter and had no access to a lawyer during his trial. However, MHA had spoken out about these claims and said that the statements were false.
Moreover, MHA mentioned that, “Tangaraju was accorded full due process under the law. He was represented by legal counsel and had access to an interpreter throughout his trial.” Hence, such false claims were a baffling sight for them.
Uninformed About Justice of the Court of Appeal Steven Chong’s Presence
Another statement included how Tangaraju was not informed that the Justice of the Court of Appeal Steven Chong would be hearing his appeal.
“Tangaraju’s then counsel was informed, before the appeal was heard, that Steven Chong was the Attorney-General when decisions were taken in respect of his case,” MHA said.
“Steven Chong was not, however, involved in the decision-making process”.
Refuting this, the MHA said Tangaraju’s conviction by the High Court was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and his conviction has not been overturned.
Mr Ravi’s Personal Costs Orders
More claims included that several personal costs orders were made against Mr Ravi to penalise him for his work in death penalty cases.
However, the MHA said the costs orders were made for justifiable reasons and in accordance with the law, noting that Mr Ravi had filed unmeritorious applications to the courts, which were found to be abuses of the court process.
“The Government takes a serious view of the deliberate communication of falsehoods,” added the MHA.
Is POFMA giving too much power to the authorities as arbiters of truth?
Given the many claims against the Government to help lift the death penalty off Tangaraju, it shows how many are strongly advocating for an anti-death penalty and poses a question of, is it really necessary to go to the extent of giving offenders a death penalty?
