Does forgiveness and redemption have a role in the playbook of policymakers? In most cases, the answer is a cold "no."

After all, these concepts cannot be quantified or monetized; they don't provide for instant, assessable outputs. Therefore, policymakers rarely consider them as tools to guide decision-making, unless a different type of consideration is made.

In some unique circumstances, the cold rationale that drives policymaking can make space for a different way of thinking. On such rare occasions, those in power might set aside their traditional methods and embrace a new North Star. For me, the case of Datchinamurthy Kataiah, who was hanged in Singapore on Thursday for drug trafficking, represents such an exception that breaks the norm.

This case centers on capital punishment in one of the most unforgiving nations in the world, where mistakes and crimes incur the highest price. Singapore has made its draconian approach to law and order a foundational pillar of its governance. The city state has now executed 11 convicts this year alone.

From the perspective of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), the approach has worked: Singapore remains one of the safest places on Earth, and the death penalty is arguably the jewel in the crown of their strong, uncompromising stance.

The case of Datchinamurthy is not so different from others, yet unique on its own. It resembles many similar situations in that, once again, those paying the highest price are at the very end of a heinous global supply chain: drug trafficking.

Datchinamurthy, a Malaysian citizen, acted as a "mule", or courier, bringing about 45 grams of heroin into Singapore in 2011 when he was arrested. According to the defense, he was unaware of the package's contents, which he transported for a minimal compensation of less than US$100.

However, this case is also exceptional because, over all these years, Datchinamurthy had chosen to defend himself even without any formal legal background. His family said he was not absolving himself of committing a crime. Even if he was unaware that he was carrying a contraband, Datchinamurthy admitted his mistake. The problem lies with the harshness of capital punishment.

People like Datchinamurthy deserves an opportunity to prove to the state and to wider society that persons who make mistakes can repent and change, even if it means spending the rest of their life behind bars.

In August, Singapore did the rare thing of commuting a capital punishment for a drug-related case, the first time since 1998. That is why there were calls for Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to advise President Tharman Shanmugaratnam to commute Datchinamurthy's sentence, as he did in August.

I am afraid the PAP might be concerned that a second clemency within a very short timeframe would be too much and, as a consequence, would dent the narrative of a "tough cop" nation that Singapore has embraced since its foundation.

This would be a mistake for several reasons. Singapore can retain its top spot in world safety rankings even if it reduces its use of capital punishment. Moreover, zero tolerance against drugs does not necessarily require the end of a person’s life.

Someone like Datchinamurthy, if given a chance, could play a significant role in promoting awareness against drug smuggling and drug use, even from jail. What a powerful message it would be if a capital punishment convicted felon, thanks to a clemency, turned himself into an advocate against drugs. Compassion is an essential part of our nature, and policymakers should not be afraid of showing it when making decisions. Compassion, together with forgiveness and redemption, makes humanity better. Imagine living without them. What would be the state of our world? Humans are a better species because of their unique capacity to assess circumstances and, in some cases, show mercy.

The members of the PAP, like any other human beings, have a conscience. I was hoping that, in the case of Datchinamurthy, the final decision on his life would have established a new guiding principle. However, this was not the case. Nevertheless, I remain steadfast in my belief that Singapore can do better.

I am wrapping up by directly appealing to the highest authorities of Singapore.

Dear Prime Minister Wong and President Shanmugaratnam, I know you always act for the betterment of your country. Singapore can indeed become a better country while remaining equally safe and secure.

You can keep proving that your nation is one of the best in the world, not only because of the effective, evidence-based technocratic decision-making you and your party have embraced. But also because the best approaches sometimes must give space to certain universal principles that make all of us better people and, consequently, better societies.

Prime Minister Wong, you recently received a very strong mandate to govern. You have the power to prove, or at least attempt to prove, that capital punishment is not always the best tool at a policymaker's disposal. Your party could really test whether a temporary moratorium on the death penalty would cause a spike in drug or violent crimes in the country.

This trial-based approach to policymaking is worthy of being considered. Personally, I don't believe it would, and I would never justify the death penalty, but that is not the main point.

Dear Prime Minister Wong and President Shanmugaratnam, the case of Datchinamurthy deserves a reconsideration from your side. Like him, there are other inmates in similar circumstances fighting for their lives, when what they need is a chance for redemption.

I do hope that in these difficult instances, you will find the boldness and courage to change your approach and find a new North Star that, rather than being less tough or less draconian, would be simply more humane.

***

The author is a freelance writer who focuses on human rights, democracy, and regional integration in the Asia-Pacific.