Singapore stays execution of Malaysian for second time
A Singapore court has stayed the execution of a Malaysian prisoner for the second time just hours before he was due to be hanged for drug trafficking on Thursday.
Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, 37, had been scheduled for execution at the city-state's Changi Prison for trafficking 51.84 grams (1.83 ounces) of heroin, six years after he was first due to hang.
However, a judge ordered a stay of execution late on Wednesday, citing the pending outcome of a complaint by Pannir to Singapore's law society against his former lawyer for alleged misconduct, court documents seen by AFP on Thursday showed.
News of the reprieve came after relatives and anti-death penalty advocates staged an evening vigil in Malaysia on Wednesday, lighting candles in front of the Singaporean embassy in Kuala Lumpur.
"It's a huge relief that Pannir wasn't executed this morning. But the fight isn't over, a stay is only temporary," Singapore activist Kirsten Han told AFP.
"We need to continue pushing forward with the abolitionist movement. We urgently need a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in Singapore, and eventually full abolition," she said.
It was the second time Pannir avoided the hangman's noose.
He was scheduled to be hanged on May 24, 2019, after his conviction two years earlier but was granted a similar stay the day before.
The United Nations and rights groups say capital punishment has no proven deterrent effect and have called for it to be abolished, but Singaporean officials insist it has helped make it one of Asia's safest countries.
Under Singapore's tough drug laws, the death penalty applies for any amount above a 15-gram (0.53-ounce) threshold for heroin and 500 grams for cannabis.
Singapore has executed three prisoners since the start of the year -- two for drug trafficking and one for a double murder.
According to an AFP tally, Singapore has hanged 28 people, most of them drug traffickers, since it resumed carrying out the death penalty in March 2022 after a two-year halt during the Covid-19 pandemic.
mba/jhe/pbt
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Apple Valley woman latest to be charged in Feeding our Future fraud
An Apple Valley woman is the 72nd person federally charged for her role in the $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic, acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson announced on Friday. Dorothy Jean Moore, 57, of Apple Valley, was charged in a federal indictment with three counts of wire fraud and two counts of money laundering, Thompson said in a news release. According to the release, Moore launched two purported federal child nutrition program sites in late 2020 under the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future. Moore completed and signed meal count forms, claiming to have served 1,500 meals to children each day at each of her sites, which she said she operated out of community churches. Moore claimed and received reimbursements for those meals through the Feeding Our Future program, the release said. In addition, she said she operated a catering company called Jean's Soul Food and claimed additional federal reimbursements for food from that company used at the other sites. The release cited her bank records, saying they show she used 'little of the reimbursement dollars she received to purchase food. Instead, Moore used those funds for other purposes, including to purchase cars and fund an enhanced lifestyle.' She is the 72nd Minnesotan charged with defrauding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's child nutrition programs during the pandemic, when regulations temporarily were loosened and a variety of businesses and nonprofits were allowed to help feed hungry kids while schools were closed. Federal prosecutors have called the scheme the nation's largest coronavirus pandemic fraud, amounting to more than $250 million. 'This fraud is outrageous, brazen, and seemingly never-ending,' said Thompson in the release. 'Stealing from a program designed to feed vulnerable children is not only criminal — it's unconscionable,' said Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr. of FBI Minneapolis. Moore made her initial appearance in U.S. District Court Friday. Brooklyn Center attorney suspended by Minnesota Supreme Court U.S. Customs Border Protection officer charged with possessing child porn Man once convicted in Minnesota of supporting al-Qaida is now charged in Canada for alleged threats Jury finds Milwaukee man guilty of killing and dismembering 19-year-old woman 'We feel relief': Derrick Thompson found guilty in Minneapolis crash that killed five young women
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Man admits causing death of pregnant woman's unborn child in horror crash
A 20-year-old man has pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving after he hit a pregnant woman whose baby later died in hospital. Ashir Shahid, of Windsor Road, Walton le Dale, Lancashire, pleaded guilty to the charge at Preston Crown Court on Wednesday (June 4). Shahid was driving on Station Road in Bamber Bridge, south of Preston, on the evening of September 29 last year. READ MORE: Did anyone win Euromillions £208 million jackpot on Friday night? READ MORE: How the new Covid variant NB.1.8.1 in UK is different to Omicron A woman in her 30s from Bamber Bridge was on the pedestrian crossing when she was hit. Lancashire Police said she was left with serious injuries and is still recovering. The woman was pregnant at the time and, despite undergoing emergency surgery to have her baby boy delivered, he tragically later died in hospital. Following enquires, Shahid was arrested and subsequently charged with causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He pleaded guilty to both charges. A 16-year-old boy from Walton le Dale, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared in the dock alongside Shahid and pleaded guilty to assisting an offender. Shahid was remanded into custody to be sentenced on August 14 at the same court. The 16-year-old will be sentenced at the same time.
