Mercy for Nagaenthran

Photo: AFP

“IT’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away everything he’s got and everything he’s ever gonna have.” – William Munny

The story of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam begins in 2009, when he was working in Johor Baru. His father was due to have a heart operation, so he sought to borrow RM500 from a man, “K.”

K told him that he would loan Nagen the money if he agreed to carry something into Singapore. When Nagen refused, K assaulted Nagen and threatened to murder his girlfriend.

Nagen crossed the Causeway with 42g (less than three tablespoons) of diamorphine, which was strapped to his thigh.

He was apprehended by the Singaporean authorities, charged, found guilty and sentenced to death.

During the course of his trial, his lawyers brought up the fact that Nagen had an IQ of 69 – an uncontested fact emphasised by psychological experts during the trial. By international standards, this essentially defines Nagen as having a mental disability.

The Singaporean Home Affairs Ministry recently reiterated that despite this, the courts found him to have a “criminal mind” that made a deliberate, purposeful decision.

Reading their statement detailing this position, you would have thought they were describing the likes of Pablo Escobar.

Nagen is not Pablo Escobar.

By all accounts, he sounds more like a confused, frightened young man who barely understands what is happening around him – not some sort of criminal mastermind that deserves to be hung.

The Singaporean justice system allows for clemency and the commutation of such sentences. Does Nagen deserve such clemency?

Kokila Annamalai is a Singaporean activist who has been coordinating with Nagen’s family. On Nov 3, she wrote a Facebook post. Here are some excerpts:

“Nagen’s younger brother Navin has been visiting him in prison every day for the last three days. Navin says Nagen is incoherent, and unable to make any eye contact. His eyes keep darting around, and he keeps looking in different directions – at the ceiling, or behind him, as if someone is standing behind him when no one is there. Navin says it’s really disconcerting to see him like this.

“Nagen doesn’t seem to register most things his brother talks about, though he smiles occasionally. He speaks a few disjointed sentences, and then falls silent for long periods during their visit. The only person he seems to remember clearly is his mother, and he repeatedly tells Navin to look after her.

“According to Navin, Naga doesn’t know that he is facing imminent execution. Navin said, ‘He seems to be in a different world altogether. This is not Nagen, he is not himself at all.’

“Navin also said that a prisoner in a cell next to Nagen passed Navin a message that Nagen hasn’t talked to him or anyone else in more than a year, and remains standing in his cell all day long.”

Malaysian human rights lawyer N. Surendran’s observations seem to be similar. He said:

“(Nagen) doesn’t really get what is happening. He has some vague idea that something is going to happen to him on the 10th of November but he thinks he is going to go to a beautiful garden and be happy there. It’s beyond words.”

Nagen is not the first such story. There are/were also the cases of Yong Vui Kong and Pannir Selvam Pranthaman.

Drug mules are invariably recruited from the lowest socioeconomic rungs of society. They often face coercion to the point that they are practically victims of human trafficking.

Drug lords probably send hundreds of such people across the Causeway, standing to make massive financial gains while risking only the lives of the drug mules.

We’ve heard countless stories of such drug mules being sentenced to death, but for the life of me, despite how impressed we are supposed to be with the Singaporean government, I cannot recall ever hearing of even one truly important drug lord being investigated, much less arrested and charged.

I understand that governments are deeply invested in concepts such as sovereignty. No one likes to be told what to do, or feel coerced into changing course because of external pressure.

For some though, the question of saving face becomes more important than the question of true justice.

Some may feel that if they show clemency in Nagen’s case, it is tantamount to showing weakness on the part of the government, weakening confidence in the judiciary, and so on.

My plea is for the Singapore government to not fall into the trap of such old-fashioned thinking.

Having spent days and weeks now researching blockchain technology, and speculating about the future of the world, it seems clearer than ever to me that the future success of any individual, entity, or organisation will hinge primarily on their willingness to leave behind outmoded thinking patterns and adapt to current realities.

There is no need to abandon principles or to completely redefine a value system, as many of these things are timeless.

But there is a deeply pressing need to abandon inflexibility and the habit of confusing authoritarianism with true strength.

In the old days, people probably assumed that ignoring the will of the people was probably “conviction” and “strength”. This may never have been true, but even if it once was, there is no way it remains true today. Today, it is the exact opposite that is true.

Singapore remains perhaps one of the only countries in the world that has had the same political party in power for the entirety of its existence.

The smarter leaders within said party are visibly anxious about when the other shoe will finally drop, and they are wise to be. Some of them may even be paying very close attention to what has happened here in Malaysia.

In the end, nothing will bring about the demise of a government faster than turning a deaf ear to reasonable pleas.

Conversely, nothing will inspire confidence more than a government that is responsive and willing to change course when it is the logical, reasonable and compassionate thing to do.

After all, which is the more clear and present danger? That by showing mercy, Singapore will suddenly be drowning in drug mules carrying in tablespoons of drugs at a time? Or that by refusing to show humanity, confidence in a government already perceived to have somewhat overstayed its welcome will continue to be shaken to its core?

If the government and the courts don’t want to overturn their decisions, they don’t legally have to.

If the government wants to spin this as not caving to pressure, but a minor adjustment to a decision based on compliance with international laws and standards rather than the result of pressure in any way, shape, or form – that’s fine as well.

All that matters is that we prioritise saving lives over saving face.

Nathaniel Tan can be reached at [e-mail]. The views expressed here are solely his own.