I’m writing at least part of this newsletter using only my thumbs while lying in bed, because between travel and illness I’ve spent most of the last week a coughing, spluttering mess and managed to screw up my sleep schedule such that I slept for 11.5 hours yesterday but am running on less than two hours sleep today. I am, needless to say, CRASHING 🫠🫠🫠
(1)
Yesterday morning, we appeared in the Court of Appeal to argue our constitutional challenge against the mandatory death penalty for drug offences. There were seven appellants—three sisters of men already executed, and four anti-death penalty activists—but only six of us were able to make it (one appellant had caregiving duties at home she couldn’t get away from). As in the High Court, we represented ourselves.
Once again, we argued that we should have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty. This should be especially true for the three sisters, who have clearly been impacted by the mandatory death penalty. I’ve seen how the death penalty traumatises family members, over and over again. A recent report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council also highlights how the death penalty inflicts “relational punishment” upon the loved ones of persons on death row:
Family members described heaviness, social withdrawal, exhaustion and prolonged grief. One mother, anticipating the execution of her son, stated: “If my son leaves, I’m just going to go ahead and leave with him.” In another account, the prolonged anxiety generated by a death sentence was described as contributing to the premature death of a parent. These testimonies confirm that families do not merely witness punishment from the margins; they absorb it over time through sustained uncertainty, helplessness and grief.
We challenged the mandatory death penalty for drugs on a few grounds, arguing that it undermines the right to a fair trial by denying the accused a chance to be heard on sentencing (because there's basically only one sentence available). We also argued that the mandatory death penalty is unfair because it lumps people with vastly different culpability—for example, a drug mule and a drug lord—into the same category to face the same harsh, irreversible punishment without the court hearing mitigation pleas or having the discretion to impose sentences that fit the specifics of each case.
As the respondent in this appeal, the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s submissions were mainly that we don’t have standing to bring such a challenge, and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed on these grounds alone. Responding to our substantive points, the AGC argued that even if this happens in practice, there's no case law that establishes a constitutional right for someone to be heard on sentencing. Essentially, their position is that constitutional fair trial guarantees cover up to conviction but not necessarily sentencing. (Which, in my opinion, is !@$#ing wild.) They also said that our challenge was essentially asking the court to consider hypotheticals with no concrete information because we weren't bringing forward a specific case.
After standing down for a brief deliberation, the three Court of Appeal judges announced that they agreed with the High Court that we don't have standing to bring the constitutional challenge, and therefore dismissed our appeal. The AGC then sought $50,000 in costs plus $3,500 in disbursements, but the court decided to order us to pay $25,000 all in.
(2)
Pritam Singh was re-elected as the leader of the Workers' Party, but there's been some shake-up in other political parties. Stephanie Tan and Samuel Lim, both of whom were in the Progress Singapore Party's central executive committee, have both left the party. "It has been such a fulfilling journey and while I remain hopeful to continue contributing to Singapore, it will no longer be through PSP due to differences in opinion in the direction of the Party," Tan wrote on Facebook.
Over at the People's Power Party, Goh Meng Seng is no longer leader. William Lim Lian Chin is now the new secretary general.
Given how Singapore politics goes, I wonder if we'll be seeing these people pop up in different political parties before the next general election. I wouldn't be surprised.
(3)
The Online Citizen's website and social media platforms were designated Declared Online Locations (for the second time) under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act in 2025. Now the government has designated its alternate website and Heidoh—another website operated by TOC—as Declared Online Locations, too. The order took effect on 1 July 2026 and will last for two years, until 30 June 2028.
Online pages that have been made DOLs have to carry notices at the top saying that they've published falsehoods. Operators are also not allowed to derive any financial or material benefit from running these pages, so that can be a pain in the butt for indie platforms that require public support.
Thank you for reading! As always, feel free to forward this weekly wrap to anyone you think might be interested, share the web link on social media, or spread the word about this newsletter!
Music for the weekend! I've been obsessed with this one for weeks. It's so beautiful: