Worse, the minister revealed that no investigation papers were opened and the matter was not even referred to the public prosecutor. It is the public prosecutor who should have decided whether it was important to keep such a possible material witness alive or not and whether to commence investigations on those whose names were provided by Pannir Selvam Pranthaman.
Pannir, a convicted drug trafficker, was executed in Singapore on 8 October.
Malaysia, as such, lost a crucial witness that would be needed to identify and prosecute others involved in the crime of drug trafficking, including also those who gave or asked (or compelled) Pannir to ‘smuggle’ the drugs into Singapore from Malaysia.
The wrong of the deputy minister – did Malaysia just say ‘OK to the killing of Pannir?
On the afternoon of 7 October, before Pannir was executed and before the Court of Appeal gave its final decision whether to stay the execution, Deputy Home Minister Shamsul Anuar Nasarah made a statement in the House of Representatives claiming that the information recently provided by Pannir Selvam Pranthaman to Malaysian police was “of no operational value”.
He said police interviewed Pannir for about four hours on Sept 27.
“The information provided by the subject had no operational value for the police to conduct further investigations,” he said in a special chamber session in Parliament.
He said police had earlier investigated three people named by Pannir and his family but found no link.
“The ministry found there was no room to pursue the case further.”…
Shamsul said as no investigation paper was opened, no referral was therefore made.
“Referral to the DPP is made only after an investigation paper is opened and arrests or seizures have been made.” – Free Malaysia Today, 7 October
It is not for the police or the minister to decide whether the evidence provided warrants further investigation; or whether it was best for Pannir (a potential witness) to be kept alive. It is for the public prosecutor.
It is for the public prosecutor and not the minister to decide whether there is operational value for the police to conduct further investigations. The police have to investigate and send the investigation paper or evidence to the public prosecutor – who then decides whether further investigation is needed or not.
In this case, the investigations were against other suspects in Malaysia, and maybe also Pannir for crimes committed in Malaysia.
Here, there was a material failure in the administration of justice, when now a crucial witness has been executed because of the action, omission or negligence of the minister or the police. Were investigation papers even opened against the three who were previously named or identified by Pannir?
There are unforgivable material failures that resulted in a Malaysian, who may have been a necessary witness, being hanged to death.
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) demands the removal of Deputy Home Minister Shamsul Anuar Nasarah, who negligently or intentionally made a disturbing statement on 7 October knowing that it could also prejudice the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision – which was pending and could have stayed the execution – and even Singapore’s decision to halt the execution in response to Malaysia’s request.
Additionally, Madpet calls for a thorough investigation with a view of prosecuting or taking action against all who did wrong, who may be considered also ‘accomplices’ in the murder or killing of Pannir by Singapore including the said deputy minister.
Is Malaysia protecting other criminals in Malaysia?
Was Malaysia’s failure to keep alive a Malaysian drug trafficker, who most likely was just a mule, a failure of the government to protect the life of a citizen and also an act of support or acquiescence by the government to protect other ‘criminals’ involved in the crime of drug trafficking in Malaysia.
Even for murder, the focus should not only be on who actually killed the victim but also on identifying and prosecuting all other accomplices, including those who may have paid or ordered the killing.
In Altantuya Shaariibuu’s murder case, where the victim was blown up using C4 explosives, what is the progress of the investigation to identify who obtained the C4 and how it was obtained by the perpetrators?
Were Pannir or others hanged in Singapore victims of human trafficking?
In the case of Mary Jane Veloso, the Philippines government acted and proved she was most likely a victim of human trafficking. That would have reasonably been a consideration that Indonesia may have taken into account when they decided to stop the execution and repatriate her back to the Philippines alive.
The principle of non-liability and non-punishment for crimes committed by victims of human trafficking has been accepted by many jurisdictions, including by Asean and even by Malaysia.
Did Malaysia even investigate this aspect, to use it as a possible reason that they may be victims of human trafficking and as such would that have been a valid reason why Singapore should not have executed Pannir and other Malaysian ‘drug traffickers’?
The Asean Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which was adopted in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 21 November 2015 clearly states in Article 14(7) that:
“Each Party shall, subject to its domestic laws, rules, regulations and policies, and in appropriate cases, consider not holding victims of trafficking in persons criminally or administratively liable, for unlawful acts committed by them, if such acts are directly related to the acts of trafficking.”
Trafficking victims are forced or otherwise compelled by traffickers to commit crimes or other illegal conduct, including involvement in the sex trade, involvement in drug production or trafficking, petty crime, possession or the use of fraudulent documents, or entering another country in a manner that does not comply with its immigration laws and other crimes.
Did Malaysia even investigate this aspect when Malaysians are at risk of being executed?
Against Malaysia’s position on a moratorium on executions
Malaysia now has already abolished the mandatory death penalty, and had adopted a moratorium on all executions pending the abolition of the death penalty – a position that is supported by over two-thirds of United Nations member states, which reasonably, Singapore, being a UN member state, should also follow.
RELATED | Singapore Keeps Hanging Low-Level Drug Couriers, But It Can't Execute Its Way to a Drug-Free Society
Malaysia voted in favour of the 2024 UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on executions. The resolution passed with 130 member states voting in favour, 32 against, and 22 abstaining. Malaysia has voted in favour of this moratorium consistently since 2018.
God-like powers of the public prosecutor
In Singapore, which still disappointingly has the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, there is only one way a convicted drug trafficker can escape death, and that is if the Singapore public prosecutor issues a certificate stating that the accused has substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore – the ‘certificate of substantial assistance’.
This is absolutely unjust, as any convicted person can only provide assistance within his or her knowledge or capacity only. And that must be enough to send him to prison, rather than to his death.
In Singapore, the public prosecutor has God-like powers to decide whether the convicted person lives or dies. This is not right – it should be the court that decides whether the convicted person has given assistance (not substantive assistance) within his or her capacity or not, and, if so, then sentence him to imprisonment rather than death.
Sadly, the Malaysian deputy minister’s statement inadvertently supported the Singapore public prosecutor’s non-issuance of the certificate of substantive assistance, hence denying Pannir the right to be sentenced to imprisonment – and justifying his execution.
Malaysia should stand by its declared principles and oppose any country’s violation of these principles
The argument that Malaysia must respect the laws of other countries is flawed, as Malaysia must condemn and not recognise laws that are inconsistent with Malaysia’s own laws and principles.
Likewise, Malaysia should not respect any Singaporean law that is inconsistent with Malaysia’s laws and principles. Malaysia must oppose any country that continues to execute people, or any laws that provide for a mandatory death penalty to be consistent with our stance on a moratorium on executions.
Pannir was the fourth Malaysian to be executed this year in Singapore, and there are still about 10 Malaysians on Singapore’s death row.
Madpet calls on Malaysia to do all that is needed to ensure that no more Malaysians are executed by any country.
Madpet also calls on Malaysia to work towards an extradition treaty with Singapore (and other nations where Malaysians are at risk of being executed) which will facilitate the repatriation of such prisoners at risk of execution to Malaysia to save Malaysian lives. Singapore has extradition treaties with other countries like Australia but not Malaysia.
Just as Malaysia took all efforts to facilitate the release of those Malaysians wrongly detained by Israel, Madpet prays that a similar exercise or more effort be taken to at least save the lives of all Malaysians at risk of being executed in other countries, especially in Asean member states like Singapore.
Source: aliran.com, Charles Hector, October 22, 2025. Charles Hector, issued this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet).
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
Comments
Post a Comment
Offensive pro-DP comments will not be published.