Talk:Execution of Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam

This article appears to have been written by SG govt
The narrative and the colouring of this article is very biased towards the government stance and appears to be a mouthpiece of the Attorney-General's chambers. The passive tone describing the Singapore Government's claims and the accusatory tone used on Nagaenthran are very partial and misleading.

Beware. The Singapore Government and media (ranked 158th in the world for impartiality and press freedom) are infamous for this. 111.65.38.108 (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete this article or combine it with others?
This person is only famous for being on death row. Shouldn't it be combined with other people awaiting execution? PortholePete (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * International coverage from 2019-2022, clearly worth his own article.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Too much info about other death row inmates
Bringing in @NelsonLee20042020 who seems the principal architect of this article. While this article is certainly thorough and provides depth in coverage of all the relevant events, when I read it, I felt this article includes too much info about other people who are also on death row or the history of capital punishment in Singapore; for example, how drug trafficking offences were converted to life terms where a death row convict provided information to disrupt the drug trafficking trade. The latter is relevant to the subject of this article, but perhaps not in the level of depth provided.

It seems this article dedicates significant chunks to capital punishment in Singapore which is probably more suitable for the other article Capital punishment in Singapore, or could be formed into a discrete article for drug trafficking as a capital offence in Singapore (which may or may not exist already). Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the reminder NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * - I feel that information should only be added from articles regarding Nagaenthran. In the first paragraph of Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, I see five references, dated 2013 to 2015. I don't believe any of the references mention Nagaenthran. If any articles on Nagaenthran in reliable sources discuss legal changes, that's fair game for inclusion. But we should not include content without the reliable sources linking them to Nagaenthran. what do you think?  starship  .paint  (exalt) 15:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay I shall remove them then NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that these references have been removed, but I would also support inclusion of some background as the death penalty in Singpaore, just not to the depth it was previously. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

IQ
We say, describing the Court of Appeal decision, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon pointed out that the appeal was filed based on inadmissible evidence and Ravi's own "self-serving" speculation that Nagaenthran has a mental age of below 18 years old; there was no evidence to show any deterioration of Nagaenthran's mental faculties during his 13-year life on Changi Prison's death row. But we say in the lead The government of Singapore, in response to these pleas, explained that Nagaanethran was not substantially mentally or intellectually impaired despite his low IQ, and hence there was no basis for the government to intervene and commute Nagaenthran's death sentence. Does the government (including the courts) accept his IQ is 69 or do they dispute it? Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Found this info in the CA decision para 3: At the outset, I note that the Plaintiff’s fitness to plead and stand trial to the charge has never been in question. It is also not disputed that in subsequent post-trial proceedings for re-sentencing, he was assessed to have an IQ of 69. The trial judge found that the Plaintiff was not suffering from intellectual disability to any degree but accepted that he had borderline intellectual functioning. He also found that the Plaintiff was able to understand the nature and consequences of his actions and to exercise judgment in terms of whether his conduct was right or wrong. It also says he had borderline intellectual functioning, but that did not mean he had a mental age below 18. (This info is already in the article, apologies for asking!) Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Article title
The article title is more appropriate as Execution of Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam. The deceased was not notable in life, and only received a Wikipedia article because of his conviction and execution. The article Naming conventions (violence and deaths) is very clear that this page should be titled as "Execution of ...". I note that another editor agrees with this article title. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)