> the High Court found that the appellant had borderline intellectual functioning; not that he was suffering from mild intellectual disability. This was conceded by the appellant’s own psychiatrist, Dr Ung Eng Khean (“Dr Ung”). Further, Dr Ung also accepted (see Nagaenthran (CM) at [76]) that borderline intellectual functioning is not a mental “disorder” as set out in the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 5th Ed, 2013). Further, in Nagaenthran (CA) (at [34]–[41]), we held that even assuming the appellant suffered from an abnormality of mind, any such abnormality did not substantially impair his mental responsibility, because he did not lose his ability to tell right from wrong.
I then think Nagaenthran's lawyer made a grievous concession:
> [The appellant’s counsel, Mr Thuraisingam] eventually conceded that this was a case of a poor assessment of the risks on the appellant’s part. But, as the Minister stated in Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Reports (14 November 2012) vol 89 … ‘[g]enuine cases of mental disability are recognised [under s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA], while, errors of judgment will not afford a defence’. To put it quite bluntly, this was the working of a criminal mind, weighing the risks and countervailing benefits associated with the criminal conduct in question. The appellant in the end took a calculated risk which, contrary to his expectations, materialised. Even if we accepted that his ability to assess risk was impaired, on no basis could this amount to an impairment of his mental responsibility for his acts. He fully knew and intended to act as he did. His alleged deficiency in assessing risks might have made him more prone to engage in risky behaviour; that, however, does not in any way diminish his culpability.
I'm not sure if your reading of 'intellectually disabled man' aligns with the court's reading, and I don't think it's as clear cut as "oh, Singapore executed a man with no mental responsibility over what he is doing, according to the rule of law there, and so LHL is evil"
> Malaysia currently has a moratorium on the death penalty, due to serious national debate (in which the government has been an active participant) on whether to abolish it, or at least significantly narrow its scope
You're right on the moratorium. 'Due to healthy debate' is a rather charitable reading, though. There's a depressing account of the entire moratorium in Chapter 45, 'Law Reform', from former AG Tommy Thomas's autobiography My Story: Justice in the Wilderness, which lays out the background machinations of the former administration's attempt to repeal the death penalty, which was ultimately a failure. The moratorium was implemented by the Prisons Board under the instructions of acting AG Engku Nor Faizah Engku Atek, and supported by Thomas. More surprisingly, (if Thomas is to be believed) the Prisons Board themselves had no objection to abolishing the death penalty! I won't try to summarise the complex political machinations here, but saying that 'strong National debate' is a factor for the moratorium would not be Tommy Thomas's reading of the situation. I don't expect the moratorium to last — though I pray that it will. But it's difficult to say which side might use it as a political football given the current state of Malaysian politics.
My overall point: using the moratorium on the death penalty as an example of Malaysia's 'enlightened approach' vs Singapore is grossly mistaken; it's more accurate to describe it as a political football used to score points against one's opponents (made complicated by the fact that there is quiet support for the penalty from both the conservative Malay power base as well as the conservative Chinese political power base, on both sides of the parliament, as Thomas found out the hard way). I say that the chapter is depressing because 'national debate' seems to have very little to do with it.