Amnesty International and the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network condemn in the strongest terms the execution in Singapore of Malaysian national Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah on 25 September 2025 and are alarmed at the continued violations of international human rights law and standards associated with the use of the death penalty in the country.[1] We renew our call on the government of Singapore to urgently establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards full abolition of this cruel punishment.

The last-minute stay of execution left Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and his relatives in excruciating anguish for approximately seven hours.

We oppose the death penalty unconditionally as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We strongly condemn the treatment of Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and his family, which amounts to  cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in line with international standards on the death penalty.^[3] Torture and other ill-treatment or punishment are absolutely prohibited under international human rights law,^[4] and this is also a rule of customary international law binding on all states, whether or not they are parties to particular treaties which include this prohibition.

This continued pursuit of executions by the Singapore government at all costs, including with shortened notice periods, must immediately stop.  

death sentence unlawful under international human rights law and standards

Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah was convicted and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty after he was found in possession of 44.96 grams of diamorphine (heroin), presumed to have knowledge of the drug and to possess it for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and convicted.

We reiterate that the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences violates international human rights law and standards, which restrict its use to the “most serious crimes”, most recently interpreted as referring to “crimes of extreme

gravity involving intentional killing”.^[1] Several UN bodies, including the International Narcotics Control Board, have repeatedly clarified that drug-related offences do not meet this threshold.^[2]

We also remain alarmed by the continued resort to the mandatory death penalty, which removes judges’ power to consider the particular circumstances of the offence and the background of the convicted person, also in violation of international law and standards;^[3] and the reliance on the legal presumption of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act, based on the amount of drugs a person is found with. When these legal presumptions are invoked, the burden of proof is shifted onto the defendant to be rebutted to the reversed –and therefore higher – legal standard of “on balance of probabilities”. Legal presumptions of guilt violate the right to be presumed innocent – a peremptory norm of customary international law – and other fair trial guarantees under international human rights law that mandate that the burden of proving all charges rests on the prosecution.^[4] In addition, presumptions of guilt have also had the effect of lowering the threshold of evidence needed to secure a conviction in capital cases.

urgent need for moratorium on executions as critical first step

So far in 2025, Singapore has executed 11 men, including nine for drug-related offences. In recent years, only two countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) were known to have carried out executions – Singapore and Viet Nam. With the recent abolition of the death penalty for transporting drugs in Viet Nam on 25 June 2025, Singapore is due to be the last ASEAN country to carry out executions for this offence.^[5]

Several others remain at imminent risk of execution in Singapore, including Malaysian nationals Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, Saminathan Selvaraju, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren and Singapore national Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed. We renew our call on the Government of Singapore to immediately establish a moratorium on all executions; commute all death sentences; and review national legislation to bring it in line with international human rights law and standards, pending full abolition of the death penalty.

^[1] Central Narcotics Bureau, “Execution of a Convicted Drug Trafficker – 25 September 2025”, 25 Sep 2025, https://www.cnb.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/News/Index/execution-of-a-convicted-drug-trafficker—25-september-2025

[2] We, The Citizens, “No more. Not in my Name”, 26 September 2025, https://www.wethecitizens.net/no-more-not-in-my-name/?ref=we-the-citizens-newsletter

[3] UN Human Rights Committee, Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan v.Jamaica, Communication No. 210/1986, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/35/D/210/1986 (1989), paras.13.7 and 14.

[4] Article 2 of the Convention against Torture; Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Committee Against Torture, General Comment No.2, UN Doc.CAT/C/GC/2, 24 January 2008, para.1; International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, Rule 90. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.

[5] Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Safeguard No.1 of the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, adopted through UN Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50.

[6] UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October 2018, para.35; Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (2012), UN Doc. A/67/275, para.122; UN Chief Executives Board, “What we have learned over the last ten years: A summary of knowledge acquired and produced by the UN system on drug-related matters”, UN Doc. E/CN.7/2019/CRP.10; UN Chief Executives Board, “What we have learned over the last ten years: A summary of knowledge acquired and produced by the UN system on drug-related matters”, UN Doc. E/CN.7/2019/CRP.10; Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2021, UN DOC. E/INCB/2021/1, para. 90.

[7] UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October 2018, para.37.

[8] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 24: Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant (Art. 41), para.8.

[9] UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Viet Nam: Parliament votes to abolish death penalty for some offences”, 27 June 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/viet-nam-parliament-votes-abolish-death-penalty-some-offences

Memandangkan lima banduan lelaki kini dipercayai berisiko di Singapura, kami, pertubuhan masyarakat sivil yang bertandatangan di bawah, menyeru pihak berkuasa Singapura untuk menghentikan serta-merta semua hukuman mati. Kami juga menggesa kerajaan Malaysia untuk mengambil semua langkah yang mungkin untuk melindungi hak rakyatnya yang berhadapan dengan hukuman mati di Singapura dan mendesak supaya hukuman mati dihentikan sepenuhnya, di Malaysia dan di peringkat antarabangsa.

Antara mereka yang berisiko pelaksanaan hukuman mati ialah Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, Saminathan a/l Selvaraju, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren dan Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed. Kesemua mereka dijatuhi hukuman mati kerana didakwa mengedar dadah, dan masing-masing telah menjalani kehidupan selama tujuh hingga sepuluh tahun sebagai banduan akhir. Sementara Jumaat adalah warga Singapura, empat lagi adalah warga Malaysia. Rayuan terkini kelima-lima mereka telah ditolak, selepas bertahun-tahun mereka berjuang mengatasi segala kemungkinan untuk mendapatkan keadilan.

Singapura telah pun melaksanakan hukuman mati ke atas sepuluh lelaki, termasuk dua rakyat Malaysia, setakat tahun ini. Pada Ogos 2025, Kabinet Singapura menasihatkan Presiden untuk memberikan pengampunan kepada seorang yang dihukum mati—kali pertama ini dilakukan dalam hampir tiga dekad. Walaupun kami mengalu-alukan keputusan yang jarang berlaku ini, ia hanya menekankan kesewenang-wenangan dan kekejaman hukuman mati untuk semua yang lain yang masih berisiko.

Individu yang dihukum mati di Singapura dan keluarga mereka hanya diberi notis empat hingga tujuh hari sebelum hukuman mati dilaksanakan. Sebagaimana kami menggesa pihak berkuasa kedua-dua negara untuk melindungi hak asasi manusia dan menamatkan hukuman mati, kami juga menggalakkan rakyat Malaysia dan Singapura untuk bertindak sekarang untuk membantu menghentikan hukuman mati yang akan dilaksanakan terhadap individu-individu ini; kami tidak mampu untuk menunggu, sementara kami tahu mana-mana individu ini mungkin mendapat notis pelaksanaan dalam beberapa hari akan datang.

Pada persimpangan kritikal ini, kerajaan Malaysia mesti bertindak tegas untuk melindungi nyawa rakyatnya dan semua yang menghadapi hukuman mati, serta mendesak pemansuhan hukuman mati di rantau ini. Ramai anak muda Malaysia, sering daripada latar belakang sosio-ekonomi yang kurang bernasib baik, telah terdedah untuk direkrut ke dalam perdagangan dadah, dan kerajaan Malaysia mempunyai kewajipan moral untuk membela mereka, bukan membiarkan mereka mati di penjara asing. Setelah memansuhkan hukuman mati mandatori pada 2023, dan meneruskan usaha ke arah pemansuhan sepenuhnya, Malaysia kini perlu melangkah lebih jauh dengan memperluaskan advokasinya untuk melindungi warganegaranya di luar negara yang kekal berisiko di bawah rejim hukuman mati mandatori yang keras dan kejam di Singapura.

Sementara itu, rakyat Singapura yang gerun dengan hukuman mati ini mesti bersuara menentang hukuman yang tidak berperikemanusiaan ini. Singapura semakin bersendirian di rantau ini dalam melaksanakan hukuman mati mandatori dan melaksanakan hukuman mati bagi pengedaran dadah.

Kes Pannir Selvam Pranthaman

Salah seorang warga Malaysia yang berisiko tinggi ialah Pannir Selvam Pranthaman. Kes beliau dipenuhi dengan pelanggaran undang-undang dan piawaian hak asasi manusia antarabangsa, dan menunjukkan kelemahan asas dalam rejim hukuman mati yang kejam di Singapura.

Pada 2017, Pannir disabitkan kesalahan mengimport 51.84g diamorphine (heroin) ke Singapura dan dijatuhkan hukuman mati mandatori. Walaupun terdapat bukti bahawa beliau hanyalah “kurier” dan telah memberikan maklumat substantif kepada pihak berkuasa, Jabatan Peguam Negara Singapura enggan mengeluarkan Sijil Bantuan Substantif kepada Pannir. Tanpa sijil sedemikian, mahkamah tidak mempunyai pilihan selain menjatuhkan hukuman mati kepada beliau. Pannir, melalui keluarganya, telah berkongsi maklumat dengan Polis Diraja Malaysia berhubung operasi sindiket di sepanjang pantai Malaysia. Kesnya juga telah terjejas oleh kekurangan perwakilan undang-undang semasa soal siasat polis, undang-undang yang menyekat rayuan selepas sabitan kesalahan, penafian bantuan guaman pada peringkat selepas rayuan, dan pelanggaran komunikasi istimewa antara mereka yang menghadapi hukuman mati dengan peguam.

Pada 5 September 2025, Mahkamah Rayuan Singapura menolak permohonan terbaru Pannir untuk penangguhan pelaksanaan, walaupun aduan tatatertib beliau terhadap bekas peguam beliau masih belum diselesaikan. Mahkamah berkata dalam penghakimannya bahawa Persatuan Undang-undang Singapura mungkin perlu bertindak segera untuk “memelihara” keterangan Pannir sebelum pelaksanaan hukuman mati ke atas beliau─satu pengakuan yang mengejutkan dan mengerikan tentang kekejaman besar hukuman mati yang semakin hampir.

Penggunaan Anggapan (Bersalah) Undang-undang dalam Kes-kes Jenayah: Pertarungan Berani oleh Datchinamurthy, Saminathan, Lingkesvaran dan Jumaat

Pada Ogos 2022, Datchinamurthy, Saminathan, Lingkesvaran dan Jumaat memfailkan cabaran terhadap perlembagaan anggapan (bersalah) undang-undang berhubung dengan pengedaran, pemilikan dan pengetahuan di bawah Akta Penyalahgunaan Dadah Singapura. Mereka masing-masing telah disabitkan berdasarkan kepada dua anggapan sedemikian yang terkandung dalam Seksyen 18(1) dan 18(2) Akta itu.

Akta Penyalahgunaan Dadah membenarkan anggapan (bersalah) undang-undang digunakan oleh pihak pendakwaan, di mana beban pembuktian dialihkan kepada defendan untuk disangkal oleh mereka kepada piawaian undang-undang “pada keseimbangan kebarangkalian”. Walaupun bidang kuasa lain seperti Kanada, Hong Kong dan United Kingdom telah menolak penggunaan anggapan undang-undang untuk disangkal atas imbangan kebarangkalian—atas dasar membenarkan seseorang tertuduh disabitkan walaupun keraguan munasabah masih wujud—Singapura terus menggunakan anggapan (bersalah) undang-undang tersebut dalam kes pengedaran, pemilikan dan pengetahuan dalam kes dadah. Anggapan bersalah secara berkesan melemahkan jaminan perbicaraan yang adil di bawah undang-undang hak asasi manusia antarabangsa dan melanggar hak untuk dianggap tidak bersalah, norma lazim undang-undang antarabangsa. Selanjutnya, anggapan pemilikan dan pengetahuan boleh digunakan bersama-sama di Singapura—penggunaannya telah diterangkan di mahkamah lain sebagai suatu penghinaan kepada anggapan tidak bersalah.

Empat lelaki banduan akhir ini telah mengharungi suatu cabaran perjalanan yang panjang dan sukar. Skim bantuan guaman di Singapura tidak meliputi pemfailan rayuan luar biasa. Memandangkan mereka tidak mempunyai cara untuk menghubungi peguam secara persendirian, mereka berempat tidak diwakili untuk masa yang lama, memaksa mereka hadir ke mahkamah tanpa peguam untuk menghujahkan bantahan mereka sendiri. Apabila peguam kanan asing menawarkan untuk mewakili mereka secara pro bono, mahkamah memutuskan bahawa mereka sendiri perlu menghujahkan permintaan untuk menerima peguam asing ini untuk mewakili mereka di Singapura — mewujudkan keadaan yang keterlaluan di mana orang yang dihukum mati terpaksa mengemukakan hujah undang-undang yang sangat teknikal manakala peguam kanan asing hanya boleh melihat ini berlaku. Akhirnya, Mahkamah Singapura menolak permohonan mereka supaya peguam ini mewakili mereka.

Hanya kira-kira dua tahun selepas cabaran perlembagaan mereka difailkan, beberapa peguam tempatan bersetuju untuk mengambil kes mereka, yang ditolak bulan lalu. Dengan berakhirnya kes ini, tiada lagi prosiding undang-undang tertangguh untuk menghalang pihak berkuasa Singapura daripada menjadualkan pelaksanaan hukuman mati mereka.

Kebimbangan Besar Terhadap Lain-lain Pelanggaran Undang-undang dan Piawaian Hak Asasi Manusia Antarabangsa

Kami mengingatkan pihak berkuasa Singapura bahawa perlindungan antarabangsa mengenai penggunaan hukuman mati melarang pelaksanaan hukuman mati sementara rayuan atau prosedur lain yang dilakukan masih belum selesai. Sudah tentu boleh diakui bahawa penglibatan Pannir—untuk mengarahkan peguam, memberi keterangan dan menjawab sebarang bukti yang dibangkitkan oleh bekas peguam beliau—adalah satu-satunya cara untuk memastikan keputusan yang adil dalam aduan beliau yang dikemukakan kepada Persatuan Undang-undang Singapura. Ini amat kritikal memandangkan aduan itu termasuk perbualan langsung yang melibatkan Pannir dan bekas peguam beliau; dan beberapa orang lain yang dihukum mati yang juga telah memfailkan aduan terhadap peguam yang sama ini telah pun dilaksanakan hukuman mereka sebelum keterangan mereka didengar.

Seperti Pannir, surat-menyurat peribadi kedua-dua Datchinamurthy dan Saminathan juga telah disalin dan diserahkan oleh Perkhidmatan Penjara Singapura, tanpa kebenaran, kepada Jabatan Peguam Negara—suatu tindakan yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan Singapura sebagai menyalahi undang-undang.

Individu yang dijatuhkan hukuman mati di Singapura telah menimbulkan kebimbangan serius tentang halangan yang sangat terlarang yang mereka hadapi dalam memfailkan permohonan undang-undang selepas rayuan jenayah mereka selesai. Mereka juga berulang kali membangkitkan betapa sukarnya untuk mereka melibatkan peguam di Singapura, memandangkan risiko denda yang membebankan, teguran dan kos yang perlu ditanggung oleh peguam untuk mengambil kes jenayah di peringkat akhir. Keadaan hukuman mati di Singapura semakin memburuk saban tahun, dengan banduan mengalami pengasingan dalam sel bersendirian, komunikasi yang sangat terhad antara mereka dan orang tersayang mereka, dan pihak berkuasa penjara menjadikannya hampir mustahil bagi banduan yang terlibat dalam cabaran undang-undang yang sama untuk berbincang antara satu sama lain.

Hukuman mati bagi kesalahan dadah melanggar undang-undang dan piawaian hak asasi manusia antarabangsa, yang mengehadkan penggunaan hukuman mati hanya kepada “jenayah paling serius”, yang difahami sebagai pembunuhan dengan sengaja. Pengedaran dadah tidak memenuhi ambang ini. Kedua-dua Jawatankuasa Hak Asasi Manusia Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dan Pelapor Khas Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu telah secara konsisten mengesahkan pendirian ini. Namun sebahagian besar hukuman mati yang berlaku di Singapura dijalankan sebagai sebahagian daripada kempen nasional “perang melawan dadah”—yang mana menunjukkan betapa jauhnya pendirian Singapura berbanding masyarakat antarabangsa dalam soal hak asasi manusia dan keadilan.

Perdana Menteri Baharu, Lawrence Wong

Sebagai perdana menteri baharu Singapura, Lawrence Wong berpeluang mengambil langkah penting untuk menghentikan penggunaan hukuman mati yang kejam dan tidak berperikemanusiaan di Singapura yang telah meragut ratusan nyawa sejak merdeka. Mengenakan moratorium serta-merta ke atas hukuman mati dan memansuhkan hukuman mati mandatori akan menjadi langkah penting yang mendesak yang boleh beliau lakukan, dengan tujuan ke arah pemansuhan sepenuhnya. Ini bukan sahaja akan menyelamatkan nyawa ramai banduan akhir, tetapi juga memastikan Singapura tidak ketinggalan oleh trend antarabangsa yang menolak penggunaan hukuman mati.

Perdana Menteri Wong setakat ini tidak membuat sebarang kenyataan umum mengenai penggunaan hukuman mati oleh Singapura. Bagaimanapun, pengampunan pertama yang diberikan kepada banduan hukuman mati dalam tempoh 27 tahun—yang tidak mungkin berlaku tanpa Kabinet Wong menasihati Presiden Tharman Shanmugaratnam untuk berbuat demikian—menunjukkan bahawa perubahan boleh dilakukan. Perdana Menteri Wong tidak seharusnya berdiam diri dalam isu ini, dan harus menunjukkan kepimpinan dalam menamatkan penggunaan hukuman mati oleh Singapura.

Peranan Malaysia sebagai Pengerusi ASEAN: Peluang Menerajui Pemansuhan

Pemansuhan hukuman mati mandatori Malaysia berkuat kuasa pada Julai 2023, sebelum proses pendakwaan semula menyeluruh di mahkamah untuk semua individu yang dijatuhkan hukuman mati mandatori sebelum pindaan, termasuk mereka yang disabitkan kesalahan mengedar dadah. Akibatnya, kebanyakan hukuman mati telah diketepikan dan digantikan dengan 30 hingga 40 tahun penjara dan, jika berkenaan, sebat.

Kami diberi suntikan semangat dengan pengumuman baru-baru ini bahawa moratorium pelaksanaan hukuman mati terus dipatuhi di Malaysia dan kajian baharu sedang ditugaskan untuk mempertimbangkan kemungkinan pemansuhan hukuman mati sepenuhnya. Sebagai Pengerusi Persatuan Negara-Negara Asia Tenggara (ASEAN), Malaysia mempunyai kedudukan unik untuk memperjuangkan hak asasi manusia di rantau ini. Campur tangan Malaysia dalam kes ini bukan sahaja menunjukkan komitmennya untuk menyokong rakyatnya yang menghadapi hukuman mati di luar negara, tetapi juga kepimpinannya dalam memajukan agenda hak asasi manusia dalam ASEAN.

Kami menyeru pihak berkuasa kedua-dua negara untuk:

1) Melibatkan diri dalam campur tangan yang pantas dan berkesan: Gunakan semua saluran yang ada, termasuk rayuan diplomatik langsung untuk menggesa Kerajaan Singapura supaya tidak melaksanakan hukuman mati ke atas Datchinamurthy, Pannir, Saminathan, dan Lingkesvaran, dan untuk menghalang hukuman mati selanjutnya daripada berlaku di Singapura, termasuk yang akan menyalahi undang-undang di bawah undang-undang dan piawaian antarabangsa;

2) Memanfaatkan mekanisme ASEAN dan memimpin melalui contoh: Gunakan kedudukan Malaysia sebagai Pengerusi ASEAN untuk menyokong kerjasama serantau untuk menghapuskan hukuman mati, sambil bergerak ke arah pemansuhan sepenuhnya di negara sendiri untuk menunjukkan contoh yang kukuh bagi rantau ini.

3) Berkomitmen ke arah pemansuhan hukuman mati sepenuhnya: Melaksanakan atau mengekalkan moratorium ke atas pelaksanaan hukuman mati, dan menjalankan kajian bebas, berasaskan bukti dan telus untuk menjauhi hukuman mati.

Ini bukan semata-mata untuk menyelamatkan nyawa beberapa orang lelaki banduan akhir terpilih yang mendekam di Penjara Changi Singapura. Ia adalah mengenai menamatkan kekejaman hukuman mati, memastikan kedua-dua Singapura dan Malaysia menegakkan maruah dan hak semua, dan menunjukkan kepimpinan yang diperlukan untuk menggerakkan negara mereka dan serantau ke arah pemansuhan.

Kami menyeru Kerajaan Malaysia untuk bertindak tanpa berlengah-lengah, dan kepada pihak berkuasa Singapura untuk melaksanakan moratorium serta-merta ke atas hukuman mati, dan mengelak daripada mengeluarkan sebarang notis pelaksanaan.

*Pada 21 September 2025, keluarga Datchinamurthy Kataiah menerima berita bahawa hukuman mati ke atas beliau akan dilaksanakan pada 25 September 2025 di Penjara Changi.

Penandatangan:

1. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
2. Amnesty International
3. Capital Punishment Justice Project
4. Transformative Justice Collective (Singapore)
5. Student Actions for Transformative Justice (SATU, Singapore)
6. Alliance Against the Death Penalty (AADP, Singapore)
7. Function 8 (Singapore)
8. Center for Orang Asli Concerns
9. Advancing Knowledge in Democracy and Law initiative
10. Freedom Film Network
11. Sebaran Kasih Malaysia
12. ECPM (Together Against the Death Penalty)
13. MADPET-Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture
14. Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights
15. Redemption Pakistan
16. Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)
17. North South Initiative
18. Julian Wagner Memorial Fund Inc.
19. Australians Against Capital Punishment
20. The National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
21. Centre for Independent Journalism
22. HAKAM
23. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)
24. Coalition for Clean & Fair Election (BERSIH)
25. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia [SABM]
26. SIS Forum (Malaysia)
27. TENAGANITA
28. Maldivian Democracy Network
29. Bersih
30. KLSCAH Youth
31. Puerto Rico Bar
32. ALIRAN
33. International Federation of Journalists

As five men are now believed to be at imminent risk in Singapore, we, the undersigned civil society organisations, call on the Singaporean authorities to immediately halt all executions. We also urge the Malaysian government to take all possible steps to protect the rights of its nationals facing execution in Singapore and to press for a complete end to the death penalty, at home and internationally.

Among those who are at imminent risk of execution are Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, Saminathan a/l Selvaraju, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren and Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed. All of them were sentenced to death for drug trafficking, and have each spent seven to ten years on death row. While Jumaat is a Singaporean, the other four are Malaysians. The five of them had their most recent appeals dismissed, after many years of struggle for justice against all odds.

Singapore has already executed ten men, including two Malaysians, so far this year. In August 2025, Singapore’s Cabinet advised the President to grant clemency to one person on death row—the first time this has been done in almost three decades. While we welcome this rare decision, it only underscores the arbitrariness and cruelty of the death penalty for all others still at risk.

Individuals on death row in Singapore and their families are only given four to seven days’ notice of their execution. As we urge the authorities of both countries to protect human rights and end the death penalty, we also encourage Malaysians and Singaporeans to act now to help stop the imminent executions of these individuals; we cannot afford to wait, knowing that any of these individuals may get an execution notice in the coming days.

At this critical juncture, the Malaysian government must act decisively to protect the lives of its nationals and all those facing execution, as well as push for the abolition of the death penalty in the region. Many young Malaysians, often from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, have been vulnerable to being recruited into the drug trade, and the Malaysian government has a moral duty to advocate for them, not leave them to die in foreign prisons. Having abolished the mandatory death penalty in 2023, as it continues its journey towards full abolition Malaysia must now go further by extending its advocacy to protect its nationals abroad who remain at risk under Singapore’s harsh and cruel mandatory death penalty regime.

Meanwhile, Singaporeans who are horrified by these executions must speak out against this inhumane punishment. Singapore is increasingly alone in the region in implementing the mandatory death penalty and carrying out executions for drug trafficking.

The Case of Pannir Selvam Pranthaman

One of the Malaysian nationals at grave risk is Pannir Selvam Pranthaman. His case is riddled with violations of international human rights law and standards, and demonstrates fundamental flaws in Singapore’s cruel capital punishment regime.

In 2017, Pannir was convicted of importing into Singapore 51.84g of diamorphine (heroin) and was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. Despite evidence that he was a mere “courier” and had provided substantive information to the authorities, Singapore’s Attorney-General’s Chambers refused to issue Pannir a Certificate of Substantive Assistance. Without such a certificate, the court had no choice but to sentence him to death. Pannir, through his family, has shared information with the Royal Malaysia Police regarding syndicate operations along Malaysia’s shores. His case has also been affected by the lack of legal representation during police interrogation, restrictive laws that curtailed post-conviction appeals, the denial of legal aid at the post-appeal stage, and breaches of privileged communication between those facing the death penalty and lawyers.

On 5 September 2025, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Pannir’s latest application for a stay of execution, even as his disciplinary complaint against his former lawyer remains unresolved. The court said in its judgment that the Law Society of Singapore may need to act urgently to “preserve” Pannir’s testimony before his execution—a shocking and macabre acknowledgment of the grave cruelty of his looming execution.

The Use of Legal Presumptions of Guilt in Capital Cases: A Valiant Fight by Datchinamurthy, Saminathan, Lingkesvaran and Jumaat

In August 2022, Datchinamurthy, Saminathan, Lingkesvaran and Jumaat filed a challenge against the constitutionality of the legal presumptions of guilt in relation to trafficking, possession and knowledge under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act. They each had been convicted with reliance on two such presumptions contained in Section 18(1) and 18(2) of that Act.

The Misuse of Drugs Act allows legal presumptions to be used by the prosecution, whereby the burden of proof is shifted onto the defendant to be rebutted by them to the legal standard of “on a balance of probabilities”. While other jurisdictions such as Canada, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom have rejected the use of legal presumptions to be rebutted on the balance of probabilities—on the basis that it allows for an accused person to be convicted despite reasonable doubt still existing—Singapore continues to apply such legal presumptions in cases of trafficking, possession and knowledge in capital drug cases. Presumptions of guilt effectively undermine fair trial guarantees under international human rights law and violate the right to be presumed innocent, a peremptory norm of customary international law. Further, the presumption of possession and knowledge can be applied together in Singapore—the use of which has been described in other courts as a severe derogation from the presumption of innocence.

It was a long, arduous journey for the four men to see this challenge through. Legal aid schemes in Singapore do not cover the filing of extra-ordinary appeals. As they had no means to engage a lawyer privately, the four men were unrepresented for a long time, forcing them to appear in court without lawyers to argue their challenge by themselves. When foreign senior counsel offered to represent them pro bono, the court ruled that they would have to argue by themselves the request to admit these foreign counsels to represent them in Singapore —creating an outrageous situation in which persons on death row had to present highly technical legal arguments while the foreign senior lawyers could only watch. In the end, the Singapore Courts rejected their application to have these lawyers represent them.

It was only about two years after their constitutional challenge was filed that some local lawyers agreed to take on the case, which was dismissed last month. With the conclusion of this case, there is no longer any pending legal proceeding to prevent the Singaporean authorities from scheduling their executions.

Grave Concerns Over Other Violations of International Human Rights Law and Standards

We remind the Singaporean authorities that international safeguards on the use of the death penalty prohibit carrying out executions while appeals or other recourse procedures are pending. Surely it can be recognised that Pannir’s involvement—to instruct counsel, give testimony and respond to any evidence raised by his former lawyer—is the only way to ensure a fair outcome in his complaint lodged with the Law Society of Singapore. This is especially critical given that the complaint includes a direct conversation involving Pannir and his former lawyer; and that several other persons on death row who had also filed complaints against this same lawyer have already been executed before their testimonies could be heard.

Like Pannir, both Datchinamurthy and Saminathan also had their private correspondence copied and forwarded by the Singapore Prison Service, without authorisation, to the Attorney-General’s Chambers—an act that Singapore’s Court of Appeal has ruled to be unlawful.

Individuals on death row in Singapore have raised serious concerns about the extremely prohibitive barriers that they face in filing legal applications after their criminal appeal has concluded. They have also repeatedly brought up how difficult it is for them to engage lawyers in Singapore, given the risk of onerous fines, reprimands and costs that lawyers have to bear for taking up capital cases at later stages. Conditions on death row in Singapore have worsened over the years, with prisoners enduring isolation in solitary cells, severely restricted communications between them and their loved ones, and the prison authorities making it close to impossible for persons involved in the same legal challenge to confer with one another.

The death penalty for drug offences violates international human rights law and standards, which limit the use of capital punishment only to the “most serious crimes”, understood as intentional killing. Drug trafficking does not meet this threshold. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the United Nations Special Rapporteurs have consistently affirmed this position. Yet the vast majority of executions that take place in Singapore are carried out as part of the country’s extremely punitive “war on drugs”—demonstrating how far out of step Singapore is with the international community when it comes to human rights and justice.

Lawrence Wong’s New Premiership

As Singapore’s new prime minister, Lawrence Wong has an opportunity to take the momentous step of leading Singapore away from the cruel and inhumane use of the death penalty that has taken hundreds of lives since independence. Imposing an immediate moratorium on executions and repealing the mandatory death penalty would be critical urgent steps that he could lead on, with a view towards full abolition. This will not only spare the many people currently on death row, but also ensure that Singapore is not left behind by the international trend away from the use of capital punishment.

Prime Minister Wong has so far not made any public statements on Singapore’s use of the death penalty. However, the first clemency granted to a death row prisoner in 27 years—which would not have been possible without Wong’s Cabinet advising President Tharman Shanmugaratnam to do so—shows that change is possible. Prime Minister Wong should not remain silent on this issue, and should demonstrate leadership in ending Singapore’s use of the death penalty.

Malaysia’s Role as ASEAN Chair: A Chance to Lead on Abolition

Malaysia’s abolition of the mandatory death penalty came into effect in July 2023, preceding a comprehensive resentencing process in court for all individuals sentenced to the mandatory death penalty prior to the amendments, including those convicted of drug trafficking. As a result, most death sentences have been set aside and replaced with 30 to 40 years imprisonment and, when applicable, whipping.

We are encouraged by the recent announcement that the moratorium on executions continues to be observed in Malaysia and that a new study is being commissioned to consider the potential abolition of the death penalty. As the current Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Malaysia is uniquely positioned to champion human rights in the region. Malaysia’s intervention in these cases would not only demonstrate its commitment to support its nationals facing execution abroad, but also its leadership in advancing a human rights agenda within ASEAN.

We call on the authorities of the two countries to:

• Engage in swift and effective intervention: Utilise all available channels, including direct diplomatic appeals to urge the Government of Singapore to halt the executions of Datchinamurthy, Pannir, Saminathan, and Lingkesvaran, and to prevent further executions from taking place in Singapore, including those that would be unlawful under international law and standards;
• Leverage ASEAN mechanisms and lead by example: Utilise Malaysia’s position as ASEAN Chair to advocate for regional cooperation to abolish the death penalty, while moving towards full abolition at home to set a strong example for the region.
• Commit to steps toward full abolition of the death penalty: Implement or maintain a moratorium on executions, and commission independent, evidence-based and transparent studies on moving away from capital punishment.

This is not merely about saving the lives of a select few men languishing on death row in Singapore’s Changi Prison. It is about ending the cruelty of the death penalty, ensuring that both Singapore and Malaysia uphold the dignity and rights of all, and demonstrating the leadership needed to move their countries and the region towards abolition.

We call on the Malaysian Government to act without delay, and on the Singaporean authorities to implement an immediate moratorium on the death penalty, and refrain from issuing any execution notices.

*On 21 September 2025, Datchinamurthy Kataiah’s family received news that his execution will be carried out on 25 September, 2025 at Changi Prison.

Signatories:

1. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
2. Amnesty International
3. Capital Punishment Justice Project
4. Transformative Justice Collective (Singapore)
5. Student Actions for Transformative Justice (SATU, Singapore)
6. Alliance Against the Death Penalty (AADP, Singapore)
7. Function 8 (Singapore)
8. Center for Orang Asli Concerns
9. Advancing Knowledge in Democracy and Law initiative
10. Freedom Film Network
11. Sebaran Kasih Malaysia
12. ECPM (Together Against the Death Penalty)
13. MADPET-Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture
14. Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights
15. Redemption Pakistan
16. Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)
17. North South Initiative
18. Julian Wagner Memorial Fund Inc.
19. Australians Against Capital Punishment
20. The National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
21. Centre for Independent Journalism
22. HAKAM
23. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)
24. Coalition for Clean & Fair Election (BERSIH)
25. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia [SABM]
26. SIS Forum (Malaysia)
27. TENAGANITA
28. Maldivian Democracy Network
29. Bersih
30. KLSCAH Youth
31. Puerto Rico Bar
32. ALIRAN
33. International Federation of Journalists

On the occasion of the 2025 International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, also known as World Drug Day, on 26 June – which also marks the Support. Don’t Punish Global Day of Action – we, the undersigned 70 organizations, call on the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) to unequivocally condemn the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences and take concrete steps to ensure that international human rights safeguards restricting the imposition of this cruel punishment are fully implemented, with a view to its full abolition. The continued failure to take a stand against the death penalty by these UN bodies mandated to oversee the development and implementation of international drug policies contributes to a lack of transparency and accountability for these human rights violations, and risks being interpreted as tolerance or even complicity at a critical moment when drug-related executions are in an unprecedented rise.

THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG-RELATED OFFENCES: EXECUTIONS ON THE RISE IN A HANDFUL OF COUNTRIES

The death penalty is retained for drug-related offences in at least 34 countries. Although official information on the use of the death penalty is not publicly available for many countries, research carried out independently and separately by our organizations indicates that this punishment is mostly imposed for offences related to the cultivation, manufacturing, trafficking or importing/exporting of controlled substances.

Drug-related executions have been increasing in recent years. In 2024, Amnesty International and Harm Reduction International recorded over 600 drug-related executions, which constituted around 40% of total executions globally (1,518) and a 25% increase on the known total executions for these offences in 2023 (508 out of 1,153), making 2024 the deadliest year on record since 2015.1 These figures show that punitive drug policies have become a significant driver of the use of capital punishment both globally and in many countries individually.

Drug-related executions were known to have been carried out in four countries in 2024: Iran, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and China. In China, official sources confirmed drug-related executions, but state censorship and lack of transparency did not make it possible to establish a credible figure. The authorities of Iran carried out approximately 500 executions for drug-related offences in 2024, the majority of executions confirmed nationally, according to figures by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre, Iran Human Rights and others.2 These constituted 79% of the known global totals for drug-related executions. In Saudi Arabia, the number of drug-related executions (122) constituted 35% of the national total and an alarming rise from the only two recorded in 2023.3 In Singapore, eight out of 9 executions carried over the year were drug-related.4 Civil society monitoring also suggests that drug-related executions were carried out in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Viet Nam, but could not confirm it due to restrictive state practices.
Amnesty International and Harm Reduction International recorded at least 337 new death sentences known to have been imposed for drug-related offences in at least 13 countries in 2024: Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, and Yemen. In addition to these, Harm Reduction International recorded death sentences for drug-related offences in Egypt, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Thailand. It is estimated that at least 2,300 people were on death row for drug offences in 19 countries at the end of 2024; though actual figures are likely to be significantly higher.

Attempts to discuss or introduce the death penalty as punishment for drug-related offences were also recorded in some countries in 2024, including Fiji, the Maldives, Nigeria and Tonga.

However, recent developments in several Asian countries suggest that, in the long term and with sufficient political will, a significant decrease in the global resort to the death penalty for drug-related offences is possible. Among other examples, in July 2023, Pakistan repealed the death penalty for drug-related offences; the first country to do so in over a decade; 5 and in April 2025, the Ministry of Public Security of Viet Nam proposed repealing the death penalty in the Penal Code for eight crimes, including drug trafficking.6 The 2023 repeal of the mandatory death penalty Malaysia resulted in the commutation of more than 1,000 death sentences, with none of the more than 40 sentences confirmed by the Federal Court relating to drug trafficking.

A CLEAR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND STANDARDS

International human rights law and standards restrict the use of the death penalty to the “most serious crimes”, which do not include drug-related offences. Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Safeguard No.1 of the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, adopted through UN Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50, provide that the imposition of the death penalty must be restricted to the “most serious crimes”. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that “The term ‘the most serious crimes’ must be read restrictively and appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as […] drug and sexual offences, although serious in nature, can never serve as the basis, within the framework of article 6, for the imposition of the death penalty. […].”8 In a 2023 report to the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights highlighted that “[d]rug-related offences can never serve as the basis for the imposition of the death penalty”.9

The three UN Drug Conventions do not make any reference to the death penalty, while several UN human rights and drug control bodies have reiterated the total opposition to the death penalty, including for drug related offences. The UN Common Position on Drugs has reiterated in unequivocal terms that the application of the death penalty for drug-related offences does not respect the spirit of the UN Drug Conventions and has the potential to become an obstacle to effective cross-border and international cooperation against drug trafficking.10 The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has also noted that the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences is in breach of the UN Drug Conventions and a violation of international human rights law, and has called on States that still retain this punishment for drug-related offences to consider abolishing it for such offences and commuting death sentences that have already been imposed.11 More broadly, the INCB has stressed that respect for human rights is a prerequisite for the implementation of the UN Drug Conventions, and that measures adopted with the purported aim of furthering drug policy that are inconsistent with universally recognized human rights norms are a violation of the Conventions.

WORLD DRUG DAY AND THE DEATH PENALTY

World Drug Day is an initiative designed to encourage international cooperation to address the risks and harms of drugs. However, this day has unfortunately been used by various governments to promote highly punitive approaches as the authorities display “zero tolerance” and “iron-fist on drug crime” stances. In some retentionist countries, World Drug Day has been used to support an increased resort to the death penalty or even to ramp up drug-related executions. For example, World Drug Day has been a regular hook for Chinese courts, including the Supreme People’s Court, to issue judicial guidelines on how to apply the death penalty for drug-related offences.12 The authorities of Iran have also reaffirmed on World Drug Day their strong resolve to act as “the flag bearer of the global fight against narco-traffickers and death dealers”.13

Meanwhile, the publication of the World Drug Report, launched by UNODC every year on 26 June, presents a unique opportunity for UNODC to publicly condemn the application of the death penalty for drug-related offences and recommend concrete measures that states that still retain this cruel punishment can implement to align their domestic policies with international human rights law and standards.

Our organizations reiterate our call on all international drug control mechanisms, including the CND and UNODC, to consistently incorporate death penalty abolition (and human rights more generally) into their work, including in connection with the World Drug Day.14 In particular, we urge the CND to establish a standing item in its agenda to address the human rights impacts of drug policies; and for UNODC to ensure that human rights are part of its constant monitoring work, including through the inclusion of a specific chapter on human rights in its yearly World Drug Report.

The continued and unequivocal public condemnation by UNODC and the CND of the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences would be critical, in the long term, to change the perception of this issue and foster a context for discussions that puts the protection of human rights at the core of international and national drug control policies.
This statement is co-signed by:
ACAT Germany (Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture)
ACEID (Costa Rica)
Africa Network of People Who Use Drugs [AfricaNPUD]
AIVL-Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League
ALQST for Human Rights
Amnesty International
Añadir REPECAP – Academicsforabolition. Spain
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
Association for Humane Drug Policy, Norway
Capital Punishment Justice Project
Center of Legal and Social Studies (CELS)
Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Puerto Rico
Corporación Acción Técnica Social – Colombia
Corporación Viso Mutop- Colombia
Corporación Viviendo
DITSHWANELO – The Botswana Centre for Human Rights
Drug Policy Alliance
DRUGZ (https://drugz.fr/ ; France)
drustvo AREAL (Slovenia)
ECPM (Together against the death penalty)
Elementa – Colombia and Mexico
European Network of People who Use Drugs (EuroNPUD)
European Saudi Organization for Human Rights
Groupement Romand d’Études des Addictions (GREA), Switzerland
German Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (GCADP)
HUMANITY DIASPO
Human Rights Dallas
Hands off Cain
Harm Reduction International
Harm Reduction Malta
Harm Reduction Nurses Association (HRNA)
HAYAT
Health and Opportunity Network (HON)
HIV Legal Network, Canada
IDUCARE, Philippines
Indonesian Drug Policy Reform Network (Jaringan Reformasi Kebijakan Narkotika)
Institute for the Rule of Law of the International Association of Lawyers (UIA-IROL)
Instituto RIA, AC (México)
Intercambios Puerto Rico
International Center for Ethnobotanical Education, Research and Service (ICEERS), Spain
International Commission of Jurists
International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC)
International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO)
Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)
The Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya)
Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat
lifepark (Switzerland) – movement against the death penalty
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Mainline (Netherlands)
Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)
Menahra
MANAS (Portugal)
Mantes la Galette (France)
My Brain My Choice Initiative (Germany)
Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS)
Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA)
Release (UK)
Reprieve
Responsible Business Initiative for Justice
Skoun, Lebanese Addictions Center
Southern Methodist University Human Rights Program
StoptheDrugWar.org (US)
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty
Transnational Institute (TNI)
WHRIN
Witness to Innocence
Women Beyond Walls
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

1 Amnesty International, “Death sentences and executions in 2024” (ACT 50/8976/2025), April 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/8976/2025/en/; Harm Reduction International, “The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2024” March 2024. https://hri.global/flagship-research/death-penalty/the-death-penalty-for-drug-offences-global-overview-2024/
2 According to monitoring and research by Amnesty International Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre; Harm Reduction International and Iran Human rights.
3 European Saudi Organization for Human Rights, “Blood Era: A Historic Record of Executions in Saudi Arabia 2024”, January 2025, https://www.esohr.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Blood_Era_A_Historic_Record_of_Executions_in_Saudi_Arabia_2024.pdf
4 Singapore Prison Service, “SPS Annual Statistics Release for 2024”, 11 February 2025, https://www.sps.gov.sg/resource/media-releases/sps-annual-statistics-release-for-2024/

5 Pakistan today, “Pakistan ends capital punishment for drug trafficking convicts”, 26 July 2023, https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2023/07/26/pakistan-ends-capital-punishment-for-drug-trafficking-convicts/
6 Viet Nam News, Proposal to remove death penalty for eight crimes in the Penal Code, 8 April 2025, https://vietnamnews.vn/society/1695403/proposal-to-remove-death-penalty-for-eight-crimes-in-the-penal-code.html the draft amendments are expected to be considered by the National Assembly in October.
7 Amnesty International, “Death sentences and executions in 2024” (ACT 50/8976/2025), p.25.
8 Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ GC/36, 30 October 2018, para.35.
9 UN Human Rights Council, Human rights challenges in addressing and countering all aspects of the world drug problem- Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Doc.A/HRC/54/53, 15 August 2023, para.30.
10 UN Chief Executives Board, “What we have learned over the last ten years: A summary of knowledge acquired and produced by the UN system on drug-related matters”, UN Doc. E/CN.7/2019/CRP.10.
11 Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2021, UN DOC. E/ INCB/2021/1, para. 90.

12 Amnesty International, China: Annual execution spree looms on UN anti-drugs day, 25 June 2004, https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/asa170262004en.pdf; Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, Courts remain committed to handing down heavy punishment for drug-related crimes, 27 June 2023, https://english.court.gov.cn/2023-06/27/c_897735.htm; Legal Information, The Supreme Court has released 10 typical cases (最高法发布10件毒品犯罪典型案例), 26 June 2024, http://legalinfo.moj.gov.cn/zhfxfzzx/fzzxyw/202406/t20240626_501176.html
13 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman: Iran flag-bearer of fighting narco-traffickers, 26 June 2024, https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/748605/Foreign-Ministry-spokesman-Iran-flag-bearer-of-fighting-narco-traffickers
14 Among other examples, Amnesty International, “World Drugs Day: UNODC must integrate ending drug related executions in its work”, (ACT 50/4347/2021), 26 June 2021, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ACT5043472021ENGLISH.pdf

In a welcome move, on 14 August 2025 the President of Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, granted the first clemency in a death penalty case in the country since 1998. However, it is gravely concerning that this positive outcome came closely after the announcement of the third execution being carried out by the Singapore authorities within a period of three weeks – all for drug-related offences.[1] The use of the death penalty for drug-related offences violates international human rights law and standards.[2] The undersigned organizations urge the Government of Singapore to immediately establish a moratorium on all executions, and commute all existing death sentences as the first critical steps towards fully abolishing the death penalty.

first clemency in close to three decades exposes need to repeal requirement for certificates of substantial assistance

On 14 August, the President of Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, acting on advice from the Cabinet commuted the death sentence of a 33-year-old man from Singapore, reducing it to life imprisonment.[3] This was the first clemency granted in a death penalty case in close to 30 years, a decision that is as welcome as long-overdue.

The power of granting clemency is a discretionary prerogative of the executive, but the lack of a positive outcome in a clemency petition for such a long interval had given rise to the question of whether UN safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, which provide the right to apply for clemency and for such applications to be granted in any cases, were meaningfully implemented in Singapore.[4] As noted by the UN Human Rights Committee, clemency petitions must be meaningfully considered, and “[n]o category of sentenced persons can be a priori excluded from such measures of relief, nor should the conditions for attainment of relief be ineffective, unnecessarily burdensome, discriminatory in nature or applied in an arbitrary manner.”[5] We call on the President of Singapore and the government to ensure that this first, and overdue, commutation marks the beginning of a new approach, leading to lives being spared from the gallows through the exercise of this power.

It is further significant that the justification provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, as reported in the media, for the commutation of the death sentence in this case was to reduce the disparity in the sentencing outcomes between this case and that of another man arrested in connection to the same offence but tried separately, who was not sentenced to death.^[6] Our organizations have long held that an inherent arbitrariness affects death penalty cases worldwide, with sentencing outcomes shaped by many factors relating to the circumstances and background of the individual facing the death penalty, as well as structural and systemic challenges embedded in the criminal justice system itself – turning the death penalty inevitably into a “lethal lottery”. Full protection against the arbitrary deprivation of life can only come through the full abolition of this cruel punishment.

Our concern about the inherent arbitrariness of the death penalty applies directly to its use in Singapore. In particular, the requirement for a prosecution-issued Certificate of Substantive Assistance needed for individuals to be spared the death penalty is one example of great concern. Following amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2013, there are two scenarios that allow for limited sentencing discretion: first, where a person is found to be a “courier” and to have a mental or intellectual disability that meet the legal threshold of “abnormality of the mind” which substantially impaired their mental responsibility for their acts and omissions in relation to the offence; or second, where a person is found to be a “courier” and the prosecution issues a Certificate of Substantive Assistance confirming that they assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting further drug trafficking activities. In respect of the second scenario, without the Certificate of Substantive Assistance, the court has no option but to impose the mandatory death penalty.

This certificate requirement effectively shifts the sentencing decision to the prosecution. This violates the right to a fair trial, as it effectively places the decision between a life-or-death sentence in the hands of an official who is not a neutral party in the trial and should not have such powers; it undermines the independence of the judiciary, breaking down the separation that must exist between prosecution and court; and violates the principle of “equality of arms,” namely the equal powers of prosecution and defence before the courts.^[1]

Our organizations have also long denounced the lack of transparency that surrounds this process, as well as the fact that the decision on the assistance is based on statements made by the defendant during interrogation without a lawyer present, and limited information shared on the outcome of the investigations into the submitted information.[2] The Certificate of Substantive Assistance requirement introduced a systemic disparity and compounded unfairness in the determination of life and death decisions in capital cases. To address that, we renew our call on the Government of Singapore to immediately halt all executions and bring national legislation in line with international law and standards, as the first critical steps.

Third execution in three weeks among continued violations of international human rights law and standards

The positive clemency decision came the day after the Singapore authorities announced that they had carried out the third execution in three weeks. The Central Narcotics Bureau announced that a 60-year-old Singaporean man was executed on 13 August;[3] a 44-year-old Malaysian on 30 July;[4] and a 56-year-old Malaysian on 25 July.[5] All three individuals were convicted of drug-related offences, bringing the number of drug-related executions recorded for 2025 to eight, out of the 10 total.

The use of the death penalty for drug-related offences violates international human rights law and standards, which restrict its use to the “most serious crimes”, most recently interpreted as referring to “crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing”.^[6] Several UN bodies, including the International Narcotics Control Board, have repeatedly clarified that drug-related offences do not meet this threshold.^[7]

We also remain alarmed by the continued resort to the mandatory death penalty, which removes judges’ power to consider the particular circumstances of the offence and the background of the convicted person, also in violation of international law and standards;^[8] and the reliance on the legal presumption of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act, based on the amount of drugs a person is found with. When these legal presumptions are invoked, the burden of proof is shifted onto the defendant to be rebutted to the reversed and therefore higher legal standard of “on balance of probabilities”. Legal presumptions of guilt violate the right to be presumed innocent – a peremptory norm of customary international law – and other fair trial guarantees under international human rights law that mandate that the burden of proving all charges rests on the prosecution.^[1] In addition, presumptions of guilt have also had the effect of lowering the threshold of evidence needed to secure a conviction in capital cases.

waning executions for drug-related offences in asean countries underscore urgency of moratorium on all executions in singapore

In recent years, only two countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) were known to have carried out executions – Singapore and Viet Nam. With the recent abolition of the death penalty for drug transporting in Viet Nam on 25 June 2025, Singapore is poised to be the last ASEAN country to carry out executions for this offence.[2]

Singapore is also isolated at a global level. In 2024, Amnesty International and Harm Reduction International recorded only four countries known to have carried out drug-related executions: China, Iran, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia.[3] Civil society monitoring also suggests that drug-related executions were carried out in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Viet Nam, but these could not be confirmed due to restrictive state practices.

Recent developments in several other Asian countries also suggest that, with sufficient political will, a significant decrease in the resort to the death penalty, including for drug-related offences, is possible. In July 2023, Pakistan repealed the death penalty for drug-related offences.[4] Also in 2023, Malaysia repealed the mandatory death penalty, which resulted in the commutation of more than 1,000 death sentences, with none of the more than 50 sentences confirmed by the Federal Court relating to drug trafficking.[5]

Following the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty, especially for drug-related offences, and to bring Singapore into line with international human rights law and standards, we renew our call on the Government of Singapore to immediately establish a moratorium on all executions; commute all death sentences; and review national legislation to bring it in line with international human rights law and standards, pending full abolition of the death penalty.

This statement is co-signed by:

Amnesty International

Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network

Capital Punishment Justice Project

Harm Reduction International

[1] Central Narcotics Bureau, “Execution of a Convicted Drug Trafficker – 13 August 2025”, 13 August 2025 

https://www.cnb.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/News/Index/execution-of-a-convicted-drug-trafficker—13-august-2025

[2] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 – Article 6: right to life, UN Doc.CCPR/C/GC/36, 3 September 2019, para.35.

[3] The Straits Times, “Drug trafficker gets death sentence commuted after President Tharman grants clemency”, 15 August 2025, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/man-on-death-row-granted-clemency-in-rare-move-to-reduce-disparity-between-outcomes; South China Morning Post, “In rare move, Singapore commutes drug trafficker’s sentence from death to life in prison”, 15 August 2025, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3322038/rare-move-singapore-commutes-drug-traffickers-sentence-death-life-prison  

[4] UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council in resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984. The safeguards were endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1984 without a vote.

[5] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 – Article 6: right to life, UN Doc.CCPR/C/GC/36, 3 September 2019, para.47.

[6] The Straits Times, “Drug trafficker gets death sentence commuted after President Tharman grants clemency”, 15 August 2025, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/man-on-death-row-granted-clemency-in-rare-move-to-reduce-disparity-between-outcomes

[1] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, para.8.

[2] Amnesty International, “Cooperate or die – Singapore’s flawed reforms to the mandatory death penalty” (ACT 50/7158/2017), 11 October 2017, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/7158/2017/en/

[3] Central Narcotics Bureau, “Execution of a Convicted Drug Trafficker – 13 August 2025”, 13 August 2025, https://www.cnb.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/News/Index/execution-of-a-convicted-drug-trafficker—13-august-2025

[4] Central Narcotics Bureau, “Execution of a Convicted Drug Trafficker – 30 July 2025”, https://www.cnb.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/News/Index/execution-of-a-convicted-drug-trafficker—30-july-2025

[5] Central Narcotics Bureau, “Execution of a Convicted Drug Trafficker – 25 July 2025”, 25 Jul 2025, https://www.cnb.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/News/Index/execution-of-a-convicted-drug-trafficker—25-july-2025

[6] Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Safeguard No.1 of the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, adopted through UN Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50.

[7] UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October 2018, para.35; Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (2012), UN Doc. A/67/275, para.122; UN Chief Executives Board, “What we have learned over the last ten years: A summary of knowledge acquired and produced by the UN system on drug-related matters”, UN Doc. E/CN.7/2019/CRP.10; UN Chief Executives Board, “What we have learned over the last ten years: A summary of knowledge acquired and produced by the UN system on drug-related matters”, UN Doc. E/CN.7/2019/CRP.10; Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2021, UN DOC. E/INCB/2021/1, para. 90.

[8] UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October 2018, para.37.

[1] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 24: Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant (Art. 41), para.8.

[2] UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Viet Nam: Parliament votes to abolish death penalty for some offences”, 27 June 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/viet-nam-parliament-votes-abolish-death-penalty-some-offences

[3] Amnesty International, “Death sentences and executions in 2024” (ACT 50/8976/2025), April 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/8976/2025/en/; Harm Reduction International, “The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2024” March 2024. https://hri.global/flagship-research/death-penalty/the-death-penalty-for-drug-offences-global-overview-2024/

[4] Pakistan today, “Pakistan ends capital punishment for drug trafficking convicts”, 26 July 2023, https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2023/07/26/pakistan-ends-capital-punishment-for-drug-trafficking-convicts/

[5] Amnesty International, “Death sentences and executions in 2024” (ACT 50/8976/2025), April 2025, p.25; “Malaysia: Two years since mandatory sentencing repeal, government urged to fully abolish the death penalty” (ACT 50/9557/2025), 4 July 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/9557/2025/en/

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is concerned with yet another execution scheduled in  Singapore. Rosman bin Abdullah has been scheduled for execution on 23 February 2022 for the  offence of drug trafficking. 

The number of executions scheduled by Singapore in recent months is highly concerning as prior cases  were all identified to be problematic in nature. Nagaenthran a/l Dharmalingam, Roslan bin Bakar and  Pausi bin Jefredin were all identified to be of low IQ, and yet Singapore has consistently refused to  acknowledge the implication of their conditions in relation to the crime they are convicted of. 

A medical assessment of Rosman noted that he was likely to suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity  Disorder (ADHD) and had prior drug dependence on amphetamines. The assessment notes that while  Rosman was of sound mind during the time of his offence, his underlying conditions likely contributed  to the commission of the offence. Unfortunately, Singapore’s present legal framework does not  provide automatic consideration for individuals who suffer from mental and psychosocial disabilities,  and it does not recognise the impact of such disabilities on a person’s actions leading to the  commission of an offence. The defence of ‘abnormality of the mind’ is only open to accused persons  who are said to have played a minor ‘courier’ role in offending; proper consideration of an accused  person’s mental and psychosocial profile should not be limited based on the role in an offence they  are alleged to have undertaken. This position is discordant with Singapore’s obligations to uphold  Article 12 of the Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities1. 

Furthermore, the Rosman case also reveals the inconsistency and subjectivity behind the issuances of  the certificate of assistance by the public prosecutor. In his statement, Rosman revealed the nature of  his role in the commission of the offence and information relating to the buyer, the seller and the  process of procurement for the drugs in question. Despite his testimony, the relevant authorities have  chosen not to issue the certificate. 

The court in his case ruled that while Rosman may subjectively believe that he rendered substantive  assistance, this would not be adequate if the public prosecutor deemed that there was no substantive  assistance rendered. This is a highly problematic process of certification that relies solely on the  subjective will of the public prosecutor with no need for any form of transparency nor recognisable  and objective standards. The lack of objective standards places excessive power in the hands of the  public prosecution as they would be, in effect, accountable to no one in the issuance of the certificate. 

Given the courts are the ultimate adjudicators in criminal trials, the decision whether or not an  accused person’s level of cooperation amounts to ‘substantive assistance’ should lie with the judiciary  in order for transparency, accountability and consistency to apply.  

During the parliamentary debate on the matter, the Minister of Law suggested that the latitude  afforded to the public prosecutor was to encourage the provision of useful assistance that falls out of  the statutory definition of assistance. However, the present state of how the certificate of assistance  is issued, especially in other cases similar to Rosman when the convicted person has provided  

1 Equal recognition before the law – 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#12

substantial information to the relevant authorities but fail to obtain the certificate, would undermine  the raison d’etre of the certificate of assistance. 

The current method of implementation, and lack of transparency, supports the perception that the  certificate of assistance is unreachable for most convicted, despite their best efforts to assist. In the  long run, this would gradually discourage assistance and cooperation by accused and convicted  persons as they would find it pointless and irrelevant for them to give any form of cooperation when  their final destination would be the gallows despite their willingness to repent and cooperate with  authorities. 

Recognising the existing flaws in the foundation and implementation of the Misuse of Drug Act and  the international norm where drug offences do not constitute the ‘most serious crimes’ which the  capital punishment can be meted out suggests that Singapore ought to suspend further executions  and review its law and policy on the death penalty. 

To this end, ADPAN calls on the Government of Singapore to call off the scheduled execution and  implement a moratorium on further executions.

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) welcomes the President’s decision to grant  respite to Roslan bin Bakar and Pausi bin Jefridin and calls on the Government of Singapore  to commute their sentences considering their vulnerabilities as persons with borderline  intellectual functioning and intellectual disability.  

ADPAN strongly encourages the Government of Singapore to impose a moratorium on  execution and to review the use of the death penalty in Singapore. 

International law and norms limit the use of the death penalty only for the most serious  crimes involving intentional crimes with lethal consequences. Drug trafficking does not meet  this threshold and it is disproportionate for persons convicted of drug offences to be punished  with the death penalty. Furthermore, the death penalty has not been proven to be an  effective means of deterrence and this should not be the foundation on which the death  penalty is applied.

Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM), Responsible Business Initiative for Justice, Eleos Justice, Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP) and Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) are dismayed that Singapore has scheduled two executions for Wednesday, 16th February. 

Executions have been on hold for the past two years in Singapore due to litigation, some of which arose on account of the impact of Covid-19 related restrictions. In November 2021, Singapore scheduled the execution of an intellectually disabled and mentally ill man, Nagaenthran a/l Dharmalingam, only to face legal challenges and international condemnation. Nagaenthran’s execution has been halted while he mounts a further legal challenge before the Supreme Court, which has been scheduled for 1 March 2022. 

As with Nagaenthran’s case, the cases of Roslan bin Bakar and Pausi bin Jefridin offer a window into the deep and systemic injustices that plague the death penalty in Singapore. 

Intellectual disability and the death penalty 

Our organisations oppose the death penalty in all circumstances for all people, and note that there is a global trend towards ending the practice for the intellectually disabled and mentally ill.1 

Singapore has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states at Article 10: 

“Every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.” 

The UN General Assembly in Resolutions 71/187 of 2 February 2017; 73/185 of 17 December 2018; 75/183 of 16 December 2020 has “call[ed] upon States … not to impose capital punishment … on persons with mental or intellectual disabilities.” 

In 2017, the High Court of Singapore acknowledged that both Roslan and Pausi had IQ levels of lower than 70 at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. This indicates a significant impairment in the intellectual functioning of both individuals.2 

Neither Roslan nor Pausi have had an independent psychiatric or medical assessment in recent years, and it is not possible to know how severe their intellectual disabilities are at this point, or whether they have become mentally ill while on death row. However, it is well accepted that without appropriate psychosocial support, intellectual disability may worsen over time. 

At minimum, Singapore must facilitate access to independent psychiatrists and medical practitioners in order to assess the psychiatric and physiological conditions of those on its death row and to provide them with an appropriate standard of care. Surely if Singapore’s Court of Appeal is unwilling to execute a person afflicted with Covid-19 then that same ‘sense of logic, common sense and humanity’ that Justice Andrew Phang spoke of in November in Nagaenthran’s hearing ought to apply to those with intellectual disabilities or severe mental illness.

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) urgently calls upon the Government of Singapore to  stop the execution of Syed Suhail Bin Syed Zin who is scheduled to be hanged at Changi Prison on  Friday 18 September having being convicted of drug offences. 

Singapore is a sovereign nation which rightly recognises the fundamental liberties of the person and  the right to life and liberty in Part IV of its Constitution. To engage in state-sanctioned killing of  prisoners, regardless of the nature of their offending, is an affront to the universal right to life and  accordingly undermines the inherent dignity of all people. Singapore is in a position to adopt the  recommendations of UN member states and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political  Rights (ICCPR) and the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. By doing so, Singapore could promote  the fundamental liberties which it protects in its Constitution and acknowledge that the persistence  of the death penalty is an inherent contradiction to the ‘enhancement of human dignity and  progressive development of human rights’. ADPAN calls for the Government of Singapore to exercise  its sovereign powers and immediately stay the execution of Syed Suhail. 

The death penalty will not ensure the protection and safety of the Singaporean people from drugs.  There is no evidence that executions are a more effective deterrent. The international drug trade  continues to thrive despite thousands of executions being carried out in the last decade for drug related offences worldwide. Syed Suhail has suffered from drug addiction problems and is himself a  victim of the drug trade. ADPAN urges Singapore to take an approach that would address the  underlying causes of addiction and offending rather than continuing to carry out executions.  

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore’s focus should be on preventing the spread of COVID-19  instead of creating more pain and death by carrying out executions. Syed’s sisters and aunt and uncle live in Malaysia. Syed’s father died in 2006. Syed’s execution should be stayed to prevent his family  from being subjected to any more loss. 

It should not be assumed that the death penalty is a necessary feature of the administration of justice  within Singapore. Rather, Singapore has the opportunity to introduce a moratorium on executions and  be a human-rights leader in the Asian-Pacific region, following the unmistakable international trend  towards abolition of the death penalty. ADPAN maintains that the death penalty is cruel and unusual  in all circumstances and advocates for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.  

Proceeding with the execution of Syed Suhail Bin Syed Zin would only illustrate the inherent futility of  the death penalty. ADPAN calls on the Government of Singapore takes action immediately, consistent  with the exercise of its sovereign powers, to prevent Syed’s unnecessary death.