As Singapore remains in circuit breaker due to Covid-19, a Malaysian man has been sentenced to death via a Zoom video call, marking the first case in our city where such a ruling has been done remotely.
37-year-old Punithan Genasan was sentenced on Friday, 15 May, after being found to be complicit in trafficking at least 28.5 grams of heroin in 2011, a crime punishable by death in Singapore.
Most court hearings in Singapore have been adjourned and will only continue after June 1, but hearings for essential cases are being held remotely.
Human rights groups have criticized Singapore as "cruel" and "abhorrent" for handing out capital punishment during a time where the world is gripped by a pandemic.
"Singapore’s use of the death penalty is inherently cruel and inhumane, and the use of remote technology like Zoom to sentence a man to death makes it even more so," said Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Phil Robertson.
"It's shocking the prosecutors and the court are so callous that they fail to see that a man facing capital punishment should have the right to be present in court to confront his accusers," he said.
Responding to the news, Amnesty International’s death penalty advisor Chiara Sangiorgio has also criticized the sentence.
"Whether via Zoom or in person, a death sentence is always cruel and inhumane. This case is another reminder that Singapore continues to defy international law and standards by imposing the death penalty for drug trafficking, and as a mandatory punishment," he said.
"At a time when global attention is focused on saving and protecting lives in a pandemic, the pursuit of the death penalty is all the more abhorrent."
Singapore is one of only four countries known to still execute people for drug-related offences. It maintains that the death penalty – a legacy of British colonial rule – is necessary as a deterrent against crime, although rights groups have long called for it to be abolished. Among Singaporeans, however, the death penalty is largely uncontroversial, and the fate of Punithan Genasan is unlikely to be changed.
But what do you think of how the Supreme Court has handled this case? Was it overly clinical, considering that by bypassing a courtroom appearance, the accused's family would not have an opportunity to have contact with him? Could the hearing have been adjourned or handled differently?