Call from Persons with Disabilities to Halt the Imminent Execution of Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam

Español / 中文

Jump to Signatories / 곧장 서명인에게 가다 / 署名者一覧へ / 跳转到签名者 /
Ir a los firmantes / Passer aux signataires

Nagaenthran’s appeals have been rejected by the Court of Appeal. His execution date has been set for this coming Wednesday, April 27, at 6am Singapore time.

The Singapore government has also scheduled executions of three other men who are deserving of procedural accommodations: Roslan bin Bakar and his co-accused, and Rosman bin Abdullah. Currently, their executions have been stayed, or they have been granted a presidential respite order — not a clemency, which means they may still be executed.

The Transformative Justice Collective posts the latest updates on the death row situation in Singapore on their Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts.

You can find information on how to sign this statement here.

The Statement

We, persons with disabilities, call on the Singapore government and president to halt the imminent execution of Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam, a person with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities.

In this statement, we would like to inform the public and the state about points that we understand may not be so well-known, but that are essential to ensuring the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities to life and access to justice. We will address:

  1. Who is a person with a disability?
  2. Why there have been specific calls to stop imposing the death penalty on persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities
  3. Barriers to due process and fair trial guarantees, and the need for procedural accommodations for persons with disabilities
  4. Real access to justice for persons with disabilities
  5. The need to recognise what persons with disabilities are saying about what we need, and to give us an accessible timeline to do so


For too long, the needs of persons with disabilities have been decided on by nondisabled people who do not pay attention to what we are actually saying. We are told that we are too complicated to understand. We have been fit into boxes and given black and white labels that nondisabled people find easier to comprehend. Then, we are told that we do or do not require certain supports because we do or do not fit certain diagnostic labels, and that certain treatment is or is not appropriate for us based on someone else’s perspective. This is not how our lives work.

Nor can a society say that it is inclusive if the support we ask for is considered goodwill and not something that is our right so that we will have equity in participation in all aspects of life, including in having a fair trial.

Who is a person with a disability?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights with Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Singapore is a State Party to, takes an interactions-based, rather than individual and medical, approach to disability. It says:

[D]isability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others1

This means that Nagaenthran’s exact medical diagnosis is not the issue. What matters is that barriers were put in his way. The criminal legal system is hard to navigate on its own, and even the court experts could not deny that Nagaenthran has significant differences in communication and thinking.

We know that Nagaenthran has difficulties with attention, verbal fluency, set-shifting, abstract reasoning, strategy formation and problem solving, and may have had difficulties in knowing who to trust. This is something that many of us who are persons with intellectual disabilities, persons with psychosocial disabilities, and/or Autistic people have experienced.

We consider Nagaenthran to be one of us persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. We fully believe that he had a right to the full range of procedural accommodations, including a justice facilitator whose job it is to advocate for procedural accommodations in how police interviews and court proceedings are carried out, to dispel prejudice, and to provide emotional support and communication facilitation. This should have been provided throughout his interactions with the criminal legal system, beginning from the time of his arrest.

Why there have been specific calls to stop imposing the death penalty on persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities

Singapore has signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A ratification is a promise that a state makes, where it agrees to be legally bound to, in Singapore’s case, align its laws with a convention. Nevertheless, it must also immediately stop any violations like executions from happening to persons with disabilities — and it has the ability to do so through presidential clemency or an immediate moratorium with subsequent changes to the laws.

Executing Nagaenthran would, without doubt, violate Singapore’s obligations under the CRPD. In particular, it would violate Article 10 on right to life, Article 13 on access to justice, and Article 15 on freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, amongst others.

The CRPD Committee has made calls in multiple Concluding Observations to abolish the death penalty, especially for people with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, and has called on states to suspend all current death sentences and halt the execution of persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities.2

Further, in its Concluding Observation to Iran, the CRPD Committee expressed concern that “persons with disabilities, particularly persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities may be at risk of facing a greater risk of death penalty due to lack of procedural accommodations, in criminal proceedings.”3

Disproportionate barriers to due process and fair trial guarantees, and the need for procedural accommodations

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has expressed:

The CRPD Committee is of the opinion that the duty to refrain from imposing the death penalty on persons with intellectual or psychosocial disability is grounded on the disproportionate and discriminatory denial of fair trial guarantees and procedural accommodations to them …4

Singapore itself has acknowledged the importance of procedural accommodations. But Singapore’s version of justice facilitators, the Appropriate Adult Scheme5, did not exist in 2009, when Nagaenthran was interrogated by the police. The Straits Times reported in 2015 about the importance of the Appropriate Adult Scheme, where a volunteer with the scheme was quoted as saying that the programme is important because persons whom the scheme seeks to support “can easily agree to accusations” because they are “fearful of police or other authority figures”.6 This casts doubt as to whether it is fair or even just reasonable to take Nagaenthran’s confessions during his initial police investigation as his most authoritative statement.

Additionally, in response to the court’s criticism that Nagaenthran had given inconsistent statements to mental health professionals, we would like to affirm as fellow persons with disabilities that medical and mental health professionals can absolutely also be figures of authority. Many of us have experienced medical trauma, or have had bad, even dehumanising, experiences with doctors. Even in non-criminal cases, we may not feel safe around doctors, and may say different things to different professionals depending on how safe we feel around them. Inconsistencies in what we say often comes from a place of fear. 

What Singapore has said about access to justice for persons with disabilities

In its reply to the CRPD Committee in April this year, Singapore stated that, with emphases added:

There are procedural accommodations that facilitate effective access to justice for persons with disabilities at all stages of legal proceedings. The Police are trained to identify suspects and witnesses with mental disabilities and to take steps to reduce the trauma experienced by them throughout investigations.7

Nagaenthran was not accorded these procedural accommodations in his interaction with the police, his trial or his appeals over the course of 10 years. While he had legal counsel, the courts do not implement the procedural accommodations required by the International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities, which was jointly released by the CRPD Committee.8

Real access to justice for persons with disabilities

Real understandings of what access to justice means for persons with disabilities is something that has gained greater prominence only recently, and this was accomplished through the advocacy and central participation of persons with disabilities ourselves. The International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities9, issued by the United Nations, was released only last year, in August 2020, after Nagaenthran’s court of appeal case and his failed application for presidential clemency in 2019.

After centuries of discrimination, it is of utmost urgency that states adopt and implement access to justice for us as it will make a significant difference. For instance, because of the state-of-the-art advocacy and training by the Mexican NGO Documenta, and since the introduction of justice facilitators recognised by the criminal legal system of Mexico City, there have been cases where judges have ruled that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against an accused person with a disability because procedural accommodations had not been provided from the time of arrest.

Nothing about us without us

We would like to note how little time there is for us after the announcement of this execution to do advocacy, especially since it concerns us, persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. For some of us, it takes much longer for us to read the information or express out our thoughts on this issue. Some of us require easy read versions to access information about what is happening to one of us.

For some of us, it may not be possible to do all this by November 10, and Nagaenthran might have been executed before we can respond. Many of us have hated ourselves for not meeting normative standards on how quickly things should be done, and some of us will blame ourselves for Nagaenthran’s death too. This is yet another reason why irreversible penalties like the death penalty should not be imposed on persons with disabilities.  

For Nagaenthran, there was a lack and even total absence of procedural accommodation accorded to him from the start, both when interrogated by the police and in the courtroom. This means that he was denied true due process based on current best practices about access to justice for persons with disabilities, and even by Singapore’s own current standards.

Ascertaining whether access to justice has been equally fulfilled for persons with disabilities always involves an element of added subjectivity and therefore added arbitrariness. A sentence with the finality of the death penalty should not apply when such a disproportionate degree of arbitrariness exists.10

People like Nagaenthran, people like us, face discrimination in our daily lives. We face discrimination in employment, find it harder to find acceptance, and are more likely to experience or be threatened with violence, abuse and exploitation. Many of us are driven to death by suicide by these messages and by an inaccessible society that tells us that our lives are less worth living. We ask you: In this context, what message would the execution of Nagaenthran tell us about us our worth as persons with disabilities?   

Nagaenthran is a person who has been disabled by society and by the criminal legal system, and now, after navigating a world and court system that was inaccessible to him, he faces the death penalty, the ultimate rejection of his humanity.  

We submit that the central issue is not whether Nagaenthran met certain tests to quality for ‘abnormality of mind’ that would excuse him from mental responsibility for his actions and therefore the death penalty, but with what the state did or did not provide. In this case, the state did not provide.

We emphasise the need for the Singapore criminal legal system to study the latest standards and emerging best practices about justice, and access to justice, for persons with disabilities.

We call for an immediate moratorium on the death penalty for persons with disabilities in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities.   

We urge the Singapore government and the Singapore president to halt the execution of a/l K Dharmalingam.


There is still time to sign.

If you or your organisation would like to sign, you can email and we’ll add you in. Just let us know:

  • If you are signing as a person with a disability or organisation of persons with disabilities, or as an ally.
  • If you are signing as an individual, whether you’d like to include any affiliations.

The statement is also available in Spanish, French, Korean and Chinese.

Organisations of Persons with Disabilities

We Who Witness (Singapore)
Your Head Lah! (Singapore)
ActivaMent Catalunya Associació (Spain)
Advocacy-France (France)
愛知「障害児・者」の高校進学を実現する会 (Japan)
Association of Indonesian People with Disability of Padang City Chapter (Indonesia)
Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education: All Means All (Australia)
Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO), we hold the vote for Australia on Disabled People’s International (DPI) (Australia)
Autism Aspergers Advocacy Australia
Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network (United States)
Bangladesh Protibandhi Kallyan Somity (BPKS) (Bangladesh)
Blind Citizens Australia
Brain Injury Australia
Bristol Disability Equality Forum (United Kingdom)
Center for independent living BLOOM (Japan)
Center for Independent Living Iruka (Japan)
Center for Independent Living Sanda (Japan)
CIL Fuchu (Japan)
Deaf Australia
Deafblind Australia
Deafness Forum of Australia
Disabled Peoples’ International Korea (South Korea)
Down Syndrome Australia
Disability Advocacy Network Australia
Disability Justice Australia
Disability Resources Centre (Australia)
En Primera Persona, A.C. (Mexico)
Entropía Social, A.C. (Mexico)
French Group of People with Disabilities, Groupement Français des Personnes Handicapées (France)
Fund for Community Reparations for Autistic People of Color’s Interdependence, Survival, and Empowerment (United States)
IL Minamitama (Japan)
Japan Council on Independent Living Centers (Japan)
Japan National Assembly of Disabled Peoples’ International (DPI-Japan)
Japan ZentokuSyoudaisyaKaigohosyoukyougikai 全国障害者介護保障協議会 (Japan)
名古屋「障害児・者」生活と教育を考える会 (Japan)
NARPA National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy (United States)
No FASD Australia
NPO, the Center for Independent Living Muchu (Japan)
Physical Disability Australia
Pemuda Sosialis’ Disability Justice Bureau (Malaysia)
People with Disability Australia
Polio Australia
Porque, the Organization of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities (Japan)
PsychRights (United States)
SinColectivo (Mexico)
Sociedad y Discapacidad (Peru)
Surviving Race: The Intersection of Injustice, Disability, and Human Rights (United States)
Welfare Community Development Association, Center for Support for Independent Living for People with Disabilities (Japan)

Disabled Peoples’ International European Region
European Network of (Ex-)Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
Redesfera Latinoamericana de la Diversidad Psicosocial (Latin American Network of Psychosocial Diversity)
Transforming Communities for Inclusion (TCI), a global organisation of persons with psychosocial disabilities

Autistic Minority International
Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry*
MindFreedom International
World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry

* We note that best practices are still developing, so we are not wedded to any particular system for effective participation.

Individual Signatories

Emmy Charissa (Singapore)
Chan Li Shan, mental health advocate and PhD student at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa (Singapore)
Karuna Marsh (Singapore)
Phoebe Tay, PhD Student (IGP-Global Asia) at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore)
Timothy Ng, Pan-Disability Advocate (Singapore)
Abi Marutama, Human Rights Analyst, Indonesia Department of Justice (Indonesia)
Akiko Iwamoto (Japan)
Akitoshi Shibata, CIL HOSHIZORA (Japan)
Alexis Padilla, PhD, Blind Independent Researcher (United States)
Alicia Loza (Mexico)
Dr Antoni Tsaputra, S.S, MA, Ph.D, Association of Indonesian People with Disability of Padang City Chapter (Indonesia)
Atsunobu Tomikawa, Japan Council on Independent Living Centers (JIL) (Japan)
Brenda Jimenez (Mexico)
Catherine Chrisomalis (United States)
Celeste Fernandez (Argentina)
Center for Independent Living Iruka (Japan) signed both as an organisation and as individuals:

Ryo Oshiro
Emika Morita
Tomohiro Watanabe
Masaru Shinzato
Akashi Terukina
Kazuto Tobaru
Katsunobu Karimata
Kenji Sueyoshi
Yuko Shinzato
Kaori Uehara
Mika Sueyoshi
Hajime Okawa
Ayaka Yamaguchi
Sakyo Yoshimine
Yui Nakachi
Yuzo Okuma
Shibuki Hiyane
Masaki Kokuba
Hiroaki Ikeda
Sayuri Fusato
Minako Kobashigawa
Hitomi Shimabukuro
Kazuyuki Fusato
Chisato Unki
Takafumi Shinzato
Shuko Teruya
Reiko Nagai
Eriko Sadaoka
Izumi Komesu
Yasunori Takami
Yukie Nakamura
Yuji Nakamori
Tsai Shuhuan

Cora Segal, MA Candidate in Gender & Women’s Studies (United States)
Daisuke Kasayanagi (Japan)
Diana Schooling, National Lawyers Guild, Diversity Specialist and Educator (United States)
Dorothy Gould, Founder of Liberation (United Kingdom)
Elena Dal Bo, Asociacion Azul, por la vida independiente de las personas con discapacidad (Argentina)
Elizabetha Consuegra Ríos, Works on Human Rights and Education, Bachelor in Education, Universidad Panamericana of Mexico City (Mexico)
Emmett Stoffer, Turtle Island (United States)
Frank Hall-Bentick AM, UN ESCAP Asia-Pacific Decade Disability Rights Champion, Chairperson, Australian Disability and Indigenous People’s Education Fund (Australia)
Feliza Alí Ramos (Bolivia)
Gary Nelson Ramirez Sunagua
郝天行 (Hao Tien Hsing) (Taiwan ROC)
Hnin Su Htwe (Myanmar)
Hiroaki Funabashi, CIL Ring Ring (Japan)
Hiroaki Furihata, Human Care Association (Japan)
Jean-Luc Simon, Chair of the Disabled Peoples’ International European Region; Vice Chair of the French Group of People with Disabilities, Groupement Français des Personnes Handicapées; Board Member of the International Network on the Disability Creation Process (France)
Jeremy Augusto Miranda Fernández (Costa Rica)
Joanna Marbaniang (India)
Judith Grophear (United States)
Kene Onukwube (Nigeria)
Kristijan Grđan, Human Rights Advocate and Vice President of Mental Health Europe (Croatia)
Kweon Ohyong, Korean Alliance for Mobilizing Inclusion (South Korea)
Kwon Yongeun (South Korea)
Laura J Welti, Bristol Disability Equality Forum (United Kingdom)
Lucila Lopez (Argentina)
Lupita Torres
Mabel Bianco, President, Fundacion para Estudio e Investigación de la Mujer Argentina (Argentina)
Marcela Benavides, Antropóloga, UCH, Presidenta, Corporacion Cimunidis (Chile)
Mari Yamamoto, Board Member, World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (Japan)
María Teresa Orbegozo Lagunilla (Spain)
Mariano Godachevich, Expert on Human Rights and Disability (Argentina)
Mary Carr (United Kingdom)
Masaaki Kato (Japan)
Meghadeepa Maity (India)
Megumi Takahashi, CIL HOSHIZORA (Japan)
Mikiko Endou (Japan)
Miles Grillo (United States)
Naomi Suzuki (Japan)
Norio Koga (Japan)
Rajive Raturi, Disability Rights Initiative, Human Rights Law Network (India)
Raz Roslan (Malaysia)
Rebecca Dosch Brown (United States)
Robyn Sparkles (United States)
Sadami Watanabe (Japan)
齊藤 恵 (Japan)
Sandra Jimenez (Mexico)
Segundo Patiño, Red Latinoamericana de Vida Independiente de Personas con Discapacidad (Ecuador)
Sorin Michaels (United States)
Sovereign Syeda Siddiqi (Bangladesh and Nigeria)
Sudhakar Dayanidas, Retired Joint Transport Commissioner from Hyderabad, Telangana State (India)
Susan Chan (Hong Kong)
鷹林茂男 (Japan)
Tamara Jimenez (Mexico)
Takeshi Inoue, Mainstream Association (Japan)
Thee Sim Ling (Malaysia)
Tay Kok Tiak (Malaysia)
Wendy Barrantes Jiménez, Morpho Center for Independent Living (Costa Rica)
Yoshiaki Tsukada (Japan)
Yuki Ryohei, CIL HOSHIZORA (Japan)
Vera Kubenz, Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom)
Wan Zakirah bt. Wan Zakaria (Malaysia)
王修梧 (Wang Shiou Wu), Taiwan Mad Alliance (Taiwan)
Zulma Ferreira, Asociación Vida Independiente de Paraguay (Paraguay)

Signatures from Allies

Organisations Working on Justice for Persons with Disabilities

Documenta (Mexico)
Truth and Justice for Nathalie Collective (France)

Individual Signatories

Chine Chan (Hong Kong)
Huang Yibee (Taiwan)
Irma Iglesias Zuazola, President of Fundacion Down 21 Chile (Chile)
Lennard J. Davis, CODA (Child of Deaf Adults), disability studies scholar and journalist (United States)
Polly Meeks (Belgium)
Ron Thompson, ex-patient and ally, would also like to sign in favour of release for time served (United States)
Serlin Kolt (Australia)
Sum Kun Shan, Chevening Alumni (Singapore)
Tay Pek Ki (Malaysia)

Some signatures from this category have been moved to the list of signatures from persons with disabilities. No names have been removed.

“Nothing About Us Without Us”

For more information

International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities


1 The CPRD Committee reiterated this in its Concluding Observations to Guatelama in where it stated: “The Committee is concerned that the State party has not established a procedure for certifying degree of disability and that assessments are made on the basis of a medical and charity-based approach”, and “The Committee recommends that the State party define the criteria for assessing the degree of a person’s disability in accordance with the human rights principles enshrined in the Convention and establish appropriate regulation in its legislation and policies.” (CRPD/C/GTM/CO/1).



4 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, “Comments on the Draft General Comment No. 36 of the Human Rights Committee on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” October 6, 2017.

5 We would like to register our disagreement with the term “Appropriate Adult”, which reinforces patronising stereotypes that people with disabilities forever remain children. 

6 Amir Hussain, “New Scheme to Help Persons with Developmental Disabilities During Police Investigations,” Straits Times (Singapore), Mar. 31, 2015,

7 “Replies of Singapore to the list of issues in relation to its initial report”, September 29, 2020 (distributed April 29, 2021).

8 The International Principles and Guidelines was jointly released by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the United Nation’s Special Envoy Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Disability and Accessibility.

9UN experts launch ground-breaking guidance on access to justice for people with disabilities“, Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights (Geneva), Aug. 28, 2020,

10 The CRPD Committee has also noted the heightened arbitrary nature of the death penalty for persons with disabilities. In its Concluding Observations to Iran in 2017, it said: “The Committee recommends that the State party take measures to replace death penalty as form of punishment and ensure that persons with disabilities are not subject to arbitrary deprivation of life.” (CRPD/C/IRN/CO/1.)

Call from Persons with Disabilities to Halt the Immediate Execution of Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam. "Nothing About Us Without Us".

Create your website with
Get started
%d bloggers like this: