Letter from Mr Marcus Lee to The Online Citizen on the death penalty issue.
Dear TOC,
You might be wondering why I am writing about Mr Yong Vui Kong’s death sentence more than 2 weeks after the impassioned online discussion on TOC over this issue. It really started with a minor altercation between your Editor-at-large, Choo Zheng Xi, and myself on Terence Lee’s blog, “Irreligious”. [1] The issue was quickly resolved when Zheng Xi agreed that I could engage TOC in discussion on this matter.
The process of writing this letter has been a journey of self-discovery for me. I’ve learnt to think responsibly about the life and death of a fellow human being. I wish to cut down on personal attacks against TOC and focus instead on a constructive discussion about the death penalty.
I have to thank this online publication for a few things: first, its effort to campaign for Yong to be treated mercifully; second, the sincere attempts to educate and stir empathy among members of the wider public. Nevertheless, I still have strong reservations about the stand against the death penalty. I have to tread carefully though, and draw a distinction between the abolishment of the death penalty and that of the mandatory death penalty.
First of all, I wish to point out that the debate over the mandatory death penalty shouldn’t be framed solely from the perspective of the drug trafficker. TOC has repeatedly pointed out that Yong’s life had been affected by parental divorce, poverty, abuse and a lack of education. [2] While I acknowledge that Yong deserves sympathy for his plight, I wish to remind everyone that drug users are also victims. I believe many Singaporeans have been educated about the deadly effects of drugs, thanks to years of campaigning by the Central Narcotics Bureau.
Nonetheless, I have also considered Zheng Xi’s point that was raised on “Irreligious”:
“One of the fundamental tenets of criminal justice is that the punishment must fit the crime as well as criminal, hence the possibility of mitigation. You do not sentence a hardened drug smuggler to the same penalty as a first time offender. A law that leaves absolutely no judicial discretion in sentencing is arbitrary” [1]
I now understand that the campaign to abolish the mandatory death penalty aims to abolish capital punishment as the default automatic sentence meted out to all drug traffickers regardless of circumstance. This is different from wanting to abolish capital punishment altogether. I humbly admit that I had a rudimentary understanding of this crucial difference during our previous exchange on “Irreligious”. My stand however, remains the same – I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment for drug traffickers who have knowingly caused harm.
In meting out justice, I believe judges should be able to take into account mitigating factors. I am not trained in law but I hope you will find these suggestions sensible:
1. Social background of the offender
TOC argues for clemency for Yong based on, among other factors, his “tragic family circumstances” and “socialized corruption” [3]. I question if this basis for requesting for a lighter sentence takes away the element of impartiality in our law. Aren’t criminals supposed to be convicted equally regardless of their background? I question if this will lead to bias towards people from underprivileged backgrounds. Please, someone convince me why the answer is “no”.
2. Possibility of reform
TOC also raises some other factors in support of Yong: the absence of a “prior criminal record”, “possibility that he can be reformed” and “whether or not an alternative punishment might suffice” [3]. Can Yong turn over a new leaf? Yong’s brother says that Yong has “embraced Buddhism” and “his personality has changed greatly”. He also says “the prison wardens and priests dote on [Yong] because he’s now a very good kid”. If this is true, Yong is truly a new man.
3. Knowledge of the magnitude of the crime
Having no “prior criminal record” doesn’t mean that the offender is any less culpable. It is still possible for a first-time offender to carry out a crime knowing full well the impact of his actions.
According to the Straits Times:
“… Deputy Public Prosecutors Peter Koy and Stella Tan argued that some of the packets had their ends opened and Yong would have seen the drugs. Perhaps most damaging was the evidence of Yong’s accomplice Reggie Gwee Chin Hian, 22, who testified that he had received drugs from Yong five to six occasions between May and June last year [ie 2007] There had also been two past instances when the drugs were not wrapped when he received them” [4]
It appears that Yong had peddled drugs repeatedly over two months. He very likely knew what the packets contained, thus making him aware of the repercussions should he be caught. I acknowledge that Yong “…was assured by his superiors that these drugs were of an insufficient quantity to warrant the death penalty”, at least according to TOC [5]. I also acknowledge that it might not have been easy for Yong to leave the shady business of drug dealing despite knowing the contents of the packets, since drug lords are not reputed to be benevolent or merciful. Yong also needed money to support his mother, who suffers from depression (refer to the video in [6])
In one of your articles, TOC referred to Yong’s “boyish frailty” [3]. I remain skeptical about the argument that Yong should be excused because of his youth. Yong was 19 at the time of his offence. Our law regards as minors those aged below 16 years of age. Even younger people have been found to be capable of committing crimes consciously. For example, a 15-year-old recently solicited sex on the Internet[7].
In summary, my view of Yong is that he might not have had malicious intentions in peddling drugs. He seemed fully aware of what he was doing, though he appeared somewhat helpless. I hope you will find this impression to be just.
I now conclude, contrary to my previous comment on “Irreligious”, that it will be more constructive for our society if Yong is given a chance to reform. My conscience is more important than my pride. If Yong is executed, it will be a sobering reminder that our law only takes into account the actions of offenders and not their personal situations.
I am done now discussing Yong’s case and would like to move on to the death penalty being a reasonable punishment for many drug traffickers. First, I’d like to quote this often-repeated anecdote of a reader who calls himself Andrew Chuah:
“I am [also prepared to] hang my former and only brother who is a top drugs syndicate member based in Penang and he is also very highly educated with top class university from Cambridge, UK and a Master from NUS and has tens of millions of investments in Singapore….”[8]
If this story is true, Andrew is talking about a drug lord who was not forced into the trade through pitiful personal circumstances. On the contrary, he has been blessed with financial riches and a good education. Despite this, he has consciously chosen to harm others through drug trafficking. This person deserves death because he seems so remorseless. It seems unfair to use taxpayers’ money to support him in jail. I will say once again that abolishing the mandatory death penalty is different from abolishing the death penalty altogether. The death sentence should still be a viable option as a form of punishment.
I’d like to share with TOC other arguments against the death penalty that I have come across online and how they have not convinced me. These arguments may or may not have been endorsed by TOC. I just want to share. Please do not take anything personally.
1. The death penalty leaves no room for correction
According to Amnesty International: “Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who are innocent will be executed.”[9]
Errors in sentencing do not discredit the death penalty itself, rather they call for greater care in handing out punishment to criminals.
2. The death penalty is inhumane and therefore should be abolished
Campaigners often use emotional language in their drive to abolish the death penalty. Note the power behind the sentiments expressed in “Irreligious”:
“How many more 20-year-old teenagers must we hang before we realise something is wrong with our justice system?”
“If you are the hangman standing in front of Yong at the gallows, would you have the heart to hang him yourself?” [1]
We are human beings with feelings, nothing wrong with that. It sickens us to see a person make the ghastly transition from life to death, and I have been a witness. Moreover, nobody likes to see young people die. But the perceived cruelty of the death penalty does not automatically mean it is always undeserved. When meting out justice, we should not be totally affected by raw emotions.
I’d like to go on to my last point, which actually might be the most important. Does the death penalty deter drug abuse? I have found sources that explore the relationship between the death penalty for drug trafficking and the prevalence of drug abuse. They are the UN’s Drug Report [10], cross-referenced with Wikipedia’s list of countries that sentence drug traffickers to death. [11]
According to the UN Drug Report, Iran, which has the death penalty for drug trafficking, heads the list of countries with the highest seizures of morphine and heroin. However, the rest of the list consists of countries which do not have the death penalty for drug trafficking. The list for countries with the highest incidences of cocaine seizures is made up entirely of countries which do not have the death penalty for drug trafficking. Among countries with the highest incidences of cannabis seizures, only Indonesia has the death penalty for drug trafficking. The results are the same for other lists – they are dominated by countries which do not sentence drug traffickers to death.
Clearly, there are points of contention. For example, I can question whether a high rate of seizure of drugs corresponds with a high prevalence of drug use. I can question too if the high rate of drug seizures is necessarily due to the death penalty, although it seems to be the case since such a pattern is seen throughout the various lists.
Given the limits of my abilities and time, I cannot analyse all the statistics. I only hope that the sources I have raised will be a starting point for the exploration of the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring drug offences.
In summary, with regard to Yong’s case, I hope we can explore the possibility of giving him a lighter sentence in the hope that he will reform. I remain skeptical about certain arguments against the death penalty. I believe it to be a reasonable punishment for certain drug traffickers. Although we must consider mitigating factors, let us not be carried away by emotion as we do so.
In any debate, it is tempting to want simply to win the argument. I believe the more important goal is to learn how to make our society a better place. I hope my letter has been of some educational value. At the end of the day, all we want is for Yong and other drug traffickers to receive sentences they truly deserve.
Regards,
Lee Jin Fu Marcus
———
Internet sources
- http://irreligiously.blogspot.com/2009/12/personal-appeal-to-all-my-friends-yes.html#comments
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/calling-for-an-end-to-the-mandatory-death-penalty/
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/toc-editorial-media%e2%80%99s-silence-on-yong-vui-kong-a-national-shame/
- http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_302234.html?vgnmr=1
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/high-court-grants-rare-stay-of-execution-appeal/
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/vui-kong-we-care-day-for-compassion/
- http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_412730.html
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/m-ravi-speaks-on-death-penalty/
- http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html
10. http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation
——
The Online Citizen replies:
Dear Marcus,
Thank you for a well-thought out letter. We are heartened that you support giving Vui Kong a chance to reform instead of being put to death.
TOC has not publicly or officially taken a stand on the mandatory death penalty as yet, although we are concerned about the application of the mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers. We will make our stand known in due time.
Thank you.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
—–
Budamaxx1952 @ 49
Yes you are right, it is not my own life I am talking about. Please elaborate more on your stand against the death penalty so that we all can learn
Hi Buddamaxx1952,
Do you know what you are talking about???
Its quite easy for you to be advocating to save a human being’s life, becos you are sitting comfortably from your armchair at home and once again bringing up much hyped moral issues and totally ignoring the guilt of the offender (which is the point of why he was sentenced to death in the first place).
Do you know that anyone faced with death, regardless of guilt or cause, would not, of wish to die, and certainly want to live, beyond a reasonable doubt (its sweeping statements like that which you make.) save perhaps christian martyrs but then again, they’re not the topic of the discussion here.
dont believe me? try dangling yourself over a cliff. haha.
There is only 1 thing that distinguishes ‘ignorant’ people like you from those who are opposed to your kind — Reason. reason to realize that the topic at hand, is not simply about compassion and wisdom, but the reasoning behind why this dude was given the death penalty. compassion and mercy has a place in the Law of course, Lady Justitia’s left hand does sometimes angle downward, but she is holding a pair of scales after all: there are real and apparent justifications (which are clearly more central than mere compassion) for sentencing the guy to death (which we either agree or disagree with). A lack of reasoning to see why compassion should not be accorded to those who break the law for a multitude of reasons. (whether you agree or not, you surely must see those reasons). and once again, merging the moral issues with the outcomes and using one to justify the other.
However its not too late for you to change; by the way dont let my diatribe make you lose your beauty sleep tonite — everyone is afraid to die!!! I certainly am!!! but if i break the law, perhaps, i might deserve it. and if you do, you too. on the basis of reason. (and yes i am being rather flippant here)
When laws are vague and left up to the judge/govt/police’s discretion, people complain. For they are people and thus fallible and corruptible. The one regarding assembly of one person and shooting of ‘political’ videos are some of the things that came to mind.
When laws are clear cut (mandatory), where the judge has no choice, people also complain. Now they become dispassionate cold robots….
So is the issue really about the law being mandatory or not? I would not think so. It is simply a case of the Law not being what YOU want, and thus you complain. That’s the long and short of it.
Personally, I would like to all laws to be mandatory and clear cut (if they were constructed properly to take care of as many situations as possible).
@ 52) lobo76 on January 7th, 2010 11.03 am :
In a democracy it is understood that it is everyone’s right to express their opinions (for or against) on matters, and in this case the law.
At the end of the day, in a democracy, should not a law represent what the majority of society wants?
To envision a day or a place whereby people do not ‘complain’ or ‘advocate’ (however you want to see it) for what they want is unrealistic imo .. for that’s part of what makes us human, the fact that there is the reality we do not all see eye to eye on everything.
Yes, in a democracy, majority should be represented.
However, that is, if only all are well informed. Without freedom of speech, without freedom of press, without proper education, without equality, democracy is flawed.
When one, or rather many, are not required to vote based on absurd demarcation and gerrymandering, democracy is tragically non-existent.
“Aren’t criminals supposed to be convicted equally regardless of their background? I question if this will lead to bias towards people from underprivileged backgrounds. Please, someone convince me why the answer is “no”.”
Quite simply, are Haitian quake survivors stealing food to be considered looters and thus criminals? What about a rich youngster similarly shoplifting bread?
If you consider these two points as the extremes on a spectrum representing the criminality of theft, you will realize that the case of a poor person stealing out of desperation will fall closer to the Haitian looter than the rich brat. If you also consider that the looter ought not to be punished and the youngster ought to be, then you have to concede that the underprivileged thief has to be given a lesser punishment for the same conviction (ceteris paribus). It is not a case of being biased as the basis for legal punishment is the general idea that the punishment should fit the crime.
In short, I think it is quite obvious that the circumstances and motivations behind the criminal act, and not the act alone, should be taken into account when meting out “justice” through the legal system.
yong’s faced a lot of decision that we may faced or never. He have no choice to choose for his chidhood but he have the right to choose whether he want a bright future or not. unfortunately, he choose a road that cannot U-turn…when he choose this road, this means that he cannot turn back anymore…what decision that he made, he should responsible.
[w]e (will send) a signal to all the drug barons out there: just make sure you choose a victim who is young, or a mother of a young child, and use them as the people to carry the drugs into Singapore.”
In regards to the above comment, I find it rather iilogical. May I know, if the drug lord were to ask a 11 or 12 yrs old kid as a carrier. What would be the court decision?
If those drug lords wants the drug to reach Singapore, by hook or by crook they will get it in.
Why is Singapore promoting yellow ribbon and giving ex-prioners a second chance.
Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness: blind justice and blind impartiality. Can I know is there really justice for this case? The mastermind is still out there. All the blames have to be solely bear by this guy. If there is no complete justice here, it means that there is no law.
I agree that he should be punished. My personally view is that life sentence should be a fair and just sentence for him. This is how i see as a justice done.
I strongly don’t agree with the abolishment of death penalty like what the previous taiwan law minister have insisted. But this is really an exceptional case.
This is like permitting the operation of casino in Singapore. From what I believe is that gambling kills. If Singapore is able to control the social problems brought by gambling, I dont see why the home affairs cannot control the drug activities here without the help of death penalty.
There is one thing i don’t understand. Why don’t the officer let this guy off and setup up a special task force with the malaysia police and try to get the mastermind and crackdown the organisation instead of sentencing him to death and end case.
I dont read criminal law. I have no knowledge on it. I sincerely hope that the decision maker can review on his case again.
hi, i happened to come across this article. I have to say that you have brought up the points and i do agree with your views. However, the odds are against us and changes cannot be done overnight. Let’s hope for the best.
Does our votes count at the end of the day? Well, who are we to judge and do we blame the law for taking another person’s life? So many questions…I supported the signature campaign for Yong – was it the right decision? Does Yong want to carry on with his life or that we have set a drug trafficker free to roam the streets? It was reported that he has repented, is it a show to gain sympathy? There are a lot of doubts but if we are not sure; we should give him a chance. Not only are we saving A Life; if it is true that he has repented and dedicating his life to counsel others, then we are indirectly saving more lives through him.