Thread by @kixes

This was brought to light on Monday. In an @STcom piece on Syed’s hearing, this is what the Ministry of Home Affairs had to say about the correspondence:

Turns out their position is there was no legal prohibition against sending privileged communication to the adverse party.

This is the @STcom story I got the screenshot from: straitstimes.com/singapore/cour… I believe the original headline was "Lawyer M Ravi seeks to delay drug trafficker's execution", but the story has since been amended to highlight the government's view/response.

According to Syed, the prison is executing Singaporeans first during #COVID19 since the families of foreigners can't visit. This, @MRavilaw argued, breaches Article 12 of #Singapore's Constitution that says all are equal before the law 'cos it treats lives differently.

In court, it was made very clear — reiterated by the chief justice himself — that @MRavilaw's arguments were *not* alleging discrimination or improper behaviour, but that executing inmates out of sequence isn't treating them equally as the law requires.

Still, MHA ⬇️

If they haven't been following online, an @STcom reader might also be misled to think that Ravi was making an empty allegation about some letter that the prison had forwarded. But the revelation about the letter originated *from* the AGC when they admitted it in writing.

If they haven't been following online, an @STcom reader might also be misled to think that Ravi was making an empty allegation about some letter that the prison had forwarded. But the revelation about the letter originated *from* the AGC when they admitted it in writing.