We stand in solidarity with M. Ravi, a capital defence lawyer and human rights defender in Singapore with over twenty years of experience. On 21 March 2023, the Court of Three Judges imposed a five year suspension under s83(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1986. M. Ravi was also ordered to pay the costs of the Law Society’s application. This is in the context of M. Ravi facing a number of disciplinary hearings and police investigations, having been personally fined over $70,000 Singapore dollars stemming from death penalty cases he has undertaken, most of which were run on a pro-bono basis. 

Suspending a capital defence lawyer in relation to their public comments, for the maximum possible length of time, from being unable to partake in their livelihood, sends a chilling message to capital defence lawyers in Singapore. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Judges and Lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite has stated in reference to M. Ravi’s suspension, “Lawyers, like everyone, are entitled to freedom of expression.” It has already been publicly noted that these lawyers have allegedly been afraid of taking on cases deemed to be ‘late-stage’ appeals for fear of cost sanctions. Since April 2022, there have been a number of cases where a person facing imminent execution has spent their final days appearing unrepresented, pleading for their lives. In August 2022, 24 persons on death row filed an unsuccessful joint Constitutional challenge on the point of lack of access to Counsel – all appeared unrepresented. 

We challenge the Courts’ contention that M. Ravi poses a “continuing danger” to the public confidence in the Singaporean judicial system. Rather, M. Ravi has demonstrated the key role that capital defence lawyers play in ensuring necessary access to justice at every stage of the criminal justice system for those facing irreversible punishment. This is important given the delayed access to counsel at the start of a police investigation due to structural hurdles that exist in Singapore, along with the recent imposition of laws that cause severe limitations on Post-Appeal Applications in capital cases. These developments threaten the right to a fair trial, with consequences of this issue leading straight to the question of the right to life. We cite the following examples to illustrate this point: 

1. Yong Vui Kong, whose life was spared in 2012 following the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act. This would not have been possible had M Ravi not filed a successful criminal motion after Yong’s appeal had been dismissed. 
2. In the case which is the subject matter of this suspension, M. Ravi successfully argued in a court motion after an unsuccessful appeal that Gobi a/l Avedian’s sentence to death be set aside. 
3. M. Ravi filed an urgent Application to Re-Open an Appeal for Syed Suhail just days before his scheduled execution resulting in the discovery that 13 prisoners – including 12 persons on death row – had collectively had 68 personal letters – including some letters to lawyers – leaked to the Attorney-Generals’ office by the Singapore Prison Service.

Without M. Ravi, Yong Vui Kong, Gobi a/l Avedian, Syed Suhail and a number of others would have been executed. 

The Court judgement (p132) refers to M. Ravi’s reliance on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – which Singapore is a signatory to – as being ‘misconceived’: 

“First, there was no evidence to suggest that his condition had contributed to his misconduct in this case. In fact, at the material time, Mr Ravi was practising under a conditional practising certificate which mandated, amongst other conditions, that Mr Ravi had to attend regular medical appointments to monitor his fitness to practise. Accordingly, there was no suggestion that Mr Ravi was labouring under his previous medical condition when he made the impugned remarks in October 2020, nor even at the point when he took on the Gobi proceedings in September 2019.“ 

The idea that a recognised chronic mental health condition can be ‘switched off’ and not have any relevance – particularly in the context of running a capital defence case – flies in the face of what we know of the experience of persons living with disabilities. We urge the Court to engage more meaningfully with the principles underlying the CRPD, which refers to disability as “an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”. 

Striking off one of the few lawyers prepared to accept these cases is particularly concerning given the climate of harassment and intimidation already faced by those who oppose the death penalty; including detainment, questioning, threats and penalties. To bring into disrepute the concept of fearless advocacy which is the bedrock of legal representation in a robust judicial system, could be disastrous for the rule of law that underpins the Singapore legal system. 

We call on the Singapore authorities to halt its current spate of executions in line with the global trend towards abolition and to end the harassment of lawyers who dedicate their lives to defend those without a voice. 

Signed: 

1. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
   
2. Abdorrahman Boroumand Center 
3. Amnesty International Australia 
4. Australians Against Capital Punishment (Australia) 
5. Capital Punishment Justice Project (Australia) 
6. Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM) 
7. Forum Asia 
8. Harm Reduction International 
9. Julian Wagner Memorial Fund (Australia) 
10. 10.Justice Project Pakistan 
11. Odhikar 
12. 12.Transformative Justice Collective 

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) welcomes the proposed bill by the Malaysian government  to abolish the mandatory death penalty. 

The mandatory death penalty deprives the court of the necessary discretion to hear and provide fair  punishment based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances which has consigned countless persons  who do not deserve the death penalty to death row. This is apparent when comparing the 1,324 death  row inmates to other countries in the Asia Pacific, such as Indonesia (355+), India (539+), and Thailand  (510+). Malaysia, for its size, has a significantly disproportionately high number of people on death row. 

Under international law, the death penalty can only be applied to the ‘most serious crime’, which has been  defined as the crime of intentionally killing. The abolition of the mandatory death penalty would bring  Malaysia closer in line with international standards for those countries that retain the death penalty.  Whilst Malaysia retains the death penalty, lawmakers must ensure that the principle of ‘most serious crime’  

will be the foundational policy to be applied by the Attorney General Chambers and other actors in  implementing the death penalty. 

The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is questionable at best. Research and expert opinions  have indicated that there are no effective nor functional means to evaluate the deterrent effect of the  death penalty on crime at a macro level. Furthermore, the abolition of the death penalty in several  countries was noted to have been followed by lower crime rates 1 . In Malaysia, the government has  maintained a moratorium on execution since May 2018, and the crime rate reports from the Depart of  Statistic Malaysia (DOSM) indicate that murder cases have consistently fallen over the past five years from  379 cases in 2017 to 243 cases in 2021. 

It should also be noted that public support for the death penalty has been relatively consistent. The survey  and research conducted by The Centre in 2019 and 2022 did not depart significantly from an earlier study  by Professor Roger Hood in 2013. There is no majority public support for the mandatory death penalty for  intentional murder. When presented with mitigating circumstances, the support for the mandatory death  penalty falls significantly2 . For drug offences, less than 20% of respondents expressed support for the  death penalty for the transport and sale of drugs, and this support fell based on mitigating factors and the  type of drugs involved3. 

Last but not least, there are significant indicators that demonstrate that the death penalty is counterproductive in that it supports or enables crime syndicates, especially for drug offences. The  executions of drug mules in Singapore have resulted in the execution of key witnesses who have had  significant information that could lead to the arrest of crime syndicates in Malaysia 4 . In the past, the  Singapore Minister of Law stated that the death penalty had kept the prices of drugs high and lowered  purity5. However, this has not changed the reality that the quantities of drugs supplied and consumed  remained relatively consistent. This suggeststhat drug syndicates are financially benefiting from increased  prices derived imposed by the perceived supply constraints imposed by the death penalty. 

Abolishing the mandatory death penalty represents a progressive step towards significant reform of the  criminal justice system. ADPAN calls on lawmakers to support this important move towards abolition.

1. ‘What Happens to Murder Rates when the Death Penalty is Scrapped? A Look at Eleven Countries Might Surprise  You’ (Abdorrahman Boroumand Center , 13 December 2018) https://www.iranrights.org/library/document/3501 2‘How do Malaysian really feel about the death penalty’ (The Center, 2019)  
2. https://app.centre.my/uploads/2020/06/Death-Penalty-Survey-Report-The-Centre-June-2020-compressed.pdf
3. 3 ‘How do Malaysians really feel about drugs’ (The Centre, July 2022)   https://app.centre.my/uploads/2020/06/Death-Penalty-Survey-Report-The-Centre-June-2020-compressed.pdf