Quora Answer: How Long is a Life Sentence in Singapore?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How long is a life sentence in Singapore?”

This is not a straightforward answer since it is a bit more complicated than that. In Singapore, before 20^th August 1997, a life sentence meant 20 years.  After that date, a life term meant for the rest of the natural life.

In May 1996, Mathavakannan Kalimuthu was convicted of murder with common intention, for the murder of a gangster with two others, and suffered to sentence death.  He was 19 years of age, at that time.  In 1998, Mathavakannan made a clemency petition to President Ong Teng Cheong, was granted a commutation of his sentence to “imprisoned for life”, in April 1998

In November 2002, the Singapore Prison Service wrote to the Singapore Armed Forces, stating that the Mathavakannan’s tentative date of release was 28^th August 2011.  This clearly suggested that his sentence was not imprisonment for his remaining natural life.  This set in motion a chain of events.  Mathavakannan sought clarification from the Singapore Prison Service, who, in turn, sought advice from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and the Minister for Law.  He was informed that “imprisoned for life” as stated in the commutation order should be construed as imprisonment for his remaining natural life.  He then filed a criminal motion, seeking a declaration that his sentence, based on a proper interpretation of the commutation order, should be for 20 years instead.

The basis of the AGC’s position was the case of Abdul Naser bin Amer Hamsah, who had been sentenced to life behind bars for kidnapping.  This was a landmark judgement , where Yong Pung How rule that a life term meant for the rest of the natural life.

On the 22^nd January 2012, the late Subhas Anandan, and Sunil Sudheesan of RHT Law, argued that presidential clemency for Mathavakannan, their client, was granted for an offence committed before 20^th August 1997.  Subhas argued that there was no mention of commuted sentences in the ruling.  Since there was ambiguity, the benefit of the doubt should be given to their client.  Justice Lee Seiu Kin, who presided over the hearing, agreed, and concluded that the presidential pardon is to be construed as 20 years’ imprisonment.

The cardinal legal principle here is all changes in criminal law, imposing liability, should apply only to future cases.  As such, since the crime and sentencing was prior to the landmark judgement of former chief justice, Yong Pung How, his interpretation of law should not apply retroactively to Mathavakannan’s case.