Corrections regarding false statement concerning the scheduling of a prisoner for execution

The Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) is aware of the following publications that contain a false statement concerning the scheduling of a prisoner’s execution:

• Posts by Transformative Justice Collective (“TJC”) on Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter) and TikTok on 3 Dec 2024 (“TJC’s FB, IG, X and TikTok posts”).

These publications contain a statement that a death row prisoner was scheduled for execution before he had the opportunity to submit his clemency petition to the President. This is not true.

Facts:

An execution will only be scheduled when a death row prisoner has exhausted all rights of appeal and the clemency process in relation to his or her conviction and sentence.

TJC’s post made reference to a Court of Appeal (“CA”) judgment issued on 11 October 2024, Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 39 (“CA 30/2022”). The death row prisoner mentioned in the video refers to Roslan Bin Bakar (“Roslan”), who was the only appellant in CA 30/2022 scheduled for execution on 15 November 2024. When Roslan’s execution was scheduled and carried out, he had no outstanding relevant legal proceedings which would affect the carrying out of his sentence.

On 13 November 2024, Roslan filed an application to the courts for a stay of his execution (“OAC 1/2024”). The CA dismissed his application, and rejected his argument that he did not have sufficient opportunity to seek advice and to prepare a fresh clemency petition to the President arising from the CA’s decision in CA 30/2022. The CA noted that more than a decade had passed since his appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the CA, and that he had lodged no fewer than five previous petitions for clemency – which had all been rejected by the President. The CA also noted that Roslan was warned by his former counsel on 16 October 2024 (five days after the CA delivered its judgment in CA 30/2022) about the imminence of his execution, but he did not submit his clemency petition despite having close to one month after the warning. The CA further found that Roslan had no lack of legal advice in the background, and that the papers for his application in OAC 1/2024 were ready all along but were deliberately held back to create an “artificial crisis of time”, once notice of execution was given. The CA’s decision in OAC 1/2024 is reported as Roslan bin Bakar v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 51.

It was only on 13 November 2024 that Roslan wrote to the President to request an order of respite on his execution. Roslan was notified on 15 November 2024 that his request was rejected. The execution was then carried out in accordance with the law.

The Government takes a serious view of the deliberate communication of falsehoods.

The Minister for Digital Development and Information and Second Minister for Home Affairs has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (“POFMA”) Office to issue a POFMA Correction Direction to TJC in relation to TJC’s FB, IG, X and TikTok posts; and to issue a Targeted Correction Direction to TikTok Pte Ltd. The Correction Direction requires TJC to insert Correction Notices relating to the original posts, with a link to the Government’s clarification. The Targeted Correction Direction requires TikTok to communicate a Correction Notice to all end-users in Singapore who had accessed, or will access, the TikTok post. We advise members of the public not to speculate and/or spread unverified rumours.

Read More

• In TJC’s FB, IG, X and TikTok posts, TJC also questioned if the government bodies who were the “wrongdoers” in CA 30/2022 could be trusted to advise the President fairly in relation to clemency applications. It is clear that the government bodies here refer to the Singapore Prison Service (“SPS”), and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (“AGC”).

• Article 22P of the Constitution provides that the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet in deciding whether to grant a clemency petition.

• There is an established and robust process for the assessment of every petition for Presidential clemency. Reports from different parties are submitted alongside the Attorney-General’s opinion, for the Cabinet’s deliberation, before it advises the President. The Cabinet, and not SPS or AGC, assesses every petition fairly and impartially, and advises the President after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. The Cabinet is collectively accountable to Parliament and ultimately to Singaporeans for its decisions.