MORATORIUM ON MDP:
The Online Citizen calls on the Singapore Government to impose a moratorium on all executions for those sentenced under the Mandatory Death Penalty (MDP). Our Special Focus Week the next 7 days or so urges the Singapore Government to consider the concerns and issues raised with regards to, in particular, the Misuse of Drugs Act and its provisions. TOC believes that there are serious and valid concerns about the application and provisions of the MDP which mandate a moratorium on executions. We urge the Prime Minister and his Government to consider these concerns and to allow an open and robust discourse with members of the public, the legal fraternity and Members of Parliament so that a true national consensus on judicial executions, based on informed considerations, is arrived at. We begin our appeal to the Government with our editorial position on the matter.
TOC Editorial
Why a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking will be both sensible and timely.
The Court of Appeals’ judgement on the Yong Vui Kong drug trafficking case on 31st December 2009 has reopened questions about the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty. In a rather unexpected ruling, the court signalled its willingness to hear arguments against the usual precedents on this issue.
Rightly so, even though those arguments are well-worn and familiar. The chief drawback is that the mandatory death penalty leaves no room for judicial discretion and the consideration of mitigating conditions, such as the age of the defendant or his personal circumstances, and whether there is the possibility of rehabilitation. It is therefore needlessly arbitrary and cruel. Contrary to popular belief, there is also no definitive study showing that the mandatory death penalty has the much-lauded deterrent effect, in part because it is difficult to prove what might have happened without it. But chances are that effective enforcement and an expeditious court system play more important roles in deterring offenders.
The mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking is particularly egregious for several reasons. First, it lacks a sense of proportionality. A young unwitting drug mule (a typical profile of those arrested for trafficking) caught with 30 grams of morphine, for example, gets no more sentencing consideration than a serial killer, while this does nothing to deter the real traffickers who put him up to it. Second, the defendant is saddled with an unusually onerous burden of proof: if caught in possession of a drug, he is automatically presumed to be responsible for it and to know its nature, and if caught with a certain amount he is alleged to be trafficking.
In spite of this, detractors have argued that public support for the death penalty in Singapore is overwhelmingly strong. A commonly cited 2005 survey by the Straits Times indicated a 95% margin of support among 425 respondents, though the survey was undertaken just weeks after the high-profile drug trafficking Nguyen Tuong Van case involving an Australian-Vietnamese national at that time. Even so, there was no indication that the mandatory death penalty was properly understood or differentiated from capital punishment in general.
Furthermore, the figure might reflect apathy rather than conviction. Public awareness on crime and punishment issues is low: the Law Society, for instance, pointed out in 2009 that local universities barely cover the study of criminology or penology, and that there were scant statistics for research on the causes of crime and the effects of penal policies. Public opinion might be very different if the human cost of the mandatory death penalty was given greater public airing.
In any case, legal thinking on the subject has been gradually evolving. In 1981, the Privy Council found in the Ong Ah Chuan case that the mandatory death sentence for drug offences was in keeping with constitutional provisions. Since then, the Ong Ah Chuan ruling has formed the main plank of the state’s arguments for enforcing the mandatory death penalty for trafficking, but in 2004 the Privy Council reversed its position by ruling that “it is no longer acceptable, nor is it any longer possible to say…[as in the Ong Ah Chuan case]… that there is nothing unusual in a death sentence being mandatory.” The Yong Vui Kong ruling subsequently marked a change in the Court of Appeals’ receptiveness to arguments against the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty, despite a ruling by the Court in the Nguyen Tuong Van case that the prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment could not be found in the Constitution.
It is worth noting that legal thinking has usually been ahead of public opinion: right up till capital punishment was suspended by the British legislature in the 1960s, there remained strong public support for it to be retained for some serious offences. Given the gaping flaws in Singapore’s mandatory death penalty, it is about time that such an anachronistic policy be discarded. The Court of Appeal’s refreshingly open-minded attitude towards considering this proposition is therefore welcome.
In the meantime, it is only right for the government to impose a moratorium on executions under the mandatory death penalty – whatever the outcome of the court’s deliberations – so that a more informed public discussion can take place.
____________________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I support the mandatory death sentence for all drug carrying mules
But I also advocate a need to inform all entering foreigners about Singapore’s legal position towards drugs before their flights. This can be done at the air port or whatever.
I support the call for moratorium on the mandatory death penalty.
The mandatory death penalty should continue to be exercised and observed as a stern warning to future would-be offenders.
Removing the mandatory death penalty (but preserving the option) would create a situation whereby no judge will exercise the option.
Removing it altogether will be perceived as judiciary weakness by drug users and would-be offenders and hence is not an option.
Concurrently, I would hope for an upward revision for 1st deg offenses such as sexual assault and 1st deg battery, looking at a rise in domestic offenders recently, but at the same time, I hope for a downward revision for statutory rape penalties, with the option for expungement in the future. The young should be educated, not punished.
Do Re Mi you trivilise the people that die.
They die for tokenism – that somehow killing off the distributors will be effective against drug trafficking when they should really be getting the makers of drugs.
And sometimes the people that die are in desperate situations that deserve our sympathy, at the very least. Who does something so dangerous willingly without other reasons? Would you in a nomal situation?
Doing away with death sentence will encourage even more to take the risks and when caught, to claim and ask for sympathies. Rather, a jury be formed to look at every case before the death sentence is passed. Just look at the nos. of youngsters caught as runners for loan sharks. If no deterent measures, even younger kids than Vui Kong will be in the game for quick monies.
Pardon one offense, and you encourage the commission of many.
These people (drug traffickers), however extraordinary a situation they find themselves in, should not take it upon themselves to infringe upon society, wrongdoings and grave harm.
Many argue that the death penalty is a symbolic gesture – that there is no definite proof for the merits of the death penalty as a effective form of deterrence. However, in such cases, the burden of proof (of demerit) lies with the party in objection, and does not lie with the Legislation.
Furthermore, there is neither proof, nor definite link, for the supposed benefits in event of the abolition of the death penalty (for drug trafficking).
In fact, suspending the death penalty because of ‘ no definitive study showing that the mandatory death penalty has the much-lauded deterrent effect’ and ‘chances…that effective enforcement and an expeditious court system play more important roles’ shows that the TOC article was written without much thought in mind.
@ vince: discretion (for the sentencing of the death penalty) will never/seldom be exercised by judges who hold the authority to impose it due to moral concerns/public repercussions. That is why I still think that having a mandatory death penalty should form the bottom line for 1st degree drug offenders.
Do Re Mi,
which is the rationale for a moratorium. Because we can debate till the cows come home and we’ll still be none the wiser.
I support the moratorium for the mandatory death penalty. No matter what the outcome, this is an issue that needs to be given a better airing. The number of people who do not have a proper understanding of the law and the consequences is staggering. Many people take on the simplistic view of MDP = clean streets, no MDP = chaos and druggies and death everywhere. There needs to be more discussion and more thought put into this, because taking a person’s life should never be taken lightly.
@Zefly: I must have missed something because I don’t see the rationale for a moratorium. There must be a sound argument against the validity of the status quo in order to suspend and put to debate, aspects of the status quo.
As I said, the burden of proof lies with the opposition(against the penalty w.r.t drugs). Right now, there is no clear and convincing evidence for the case of the opposition, which is necessary for any debate, much less a moratorium, to occur. Without such clear and convincing evidence, any actions to change the status quo will result in confusion, and even worse, possible polarization between the religious and secular community.
I reiterate again, there is no clear and convincing evidence for the lack of merits, on the issue of deterrence, in the mandatory death penalty. Lack of merits is also not equitable to a presence of demerits, and henceforth, does not warrant the call for either a debate, or a moratorium.
At best, I would suggest an independent Commission for the Death Penalty in Singapore to be set up, as well as any relevant studies in criminal psychology etc to be done before anyone can derive a meaningful conclusion.
Simply calling for a moratorium/debates among the uninformed/uneducated public (on this issue) is meaningless.
@Do Re Mi,
While slightly tangential to what you are talking about, I recommend you to read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05bar.html
@Do Re Mi,
“There must be a sound argument against the validity of the status quo in order to suspend and put to debate, aspects of the status quo.”
“I reiterate again, there is no clear and convincing evidence for the lack of merits, on the issue of deterrence, in the mandatory death penalty.”
This is a puzzling assertion. Why should the status quo be necessarily and arbitrarily privileged in any political or legislative debate? How does any policy gain any moral/philosophical/practical superiority by simply being the case at present?
For the sake of argument, what would your position on the issue be if the status quo is that there is no mandatory death penalty?
This assertion of yours is so arbitrary to the extent I would want to hear your justification for it, as opposed to your imposition by fiat.
Do Re Mi,
This article is an editorial, stating TOC’s position. The reasons for this will be expanded on during the course of the next one week. So, please do be patient.
Andrew
@spiegel: Mandatory Death Penalty is applied across many offenses in Singapore and drug trafficking is just one of them. In my case, i was only referring to the mandatory death penalty with regards to drug trafficking.
Appreciating that Singapore neither does not have ‘the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles’ as cited by the ALS nor the judiciary incompetencies and legal-political tangles as in the Federal system, there has to be an independant study of this issue before any efforts in opposing the MDP will bear fruit.
Moreover, Section 210.6 of the Model Penal Code as attempted by the ALS is doomed to fail from the start because there is an irreconcilable difference between human discretion and legislative demands.
Criminal Law in Singapore is largely statutory. Any attempts to amend or repeal parts or part thereof the Misuse of Drugs Act, require parliamentary proceedings. It is therefore important that substantiated proof (not necessary without any reasonable doubt) be present before we proceed into putting any acts to vote. As I said, till now, there has not been any conclusive study on the effects of the MDP on the Singapore Society and its relative effects on criminal psychology in Singapore. Wouldn’t it be logical to obtain at least clear and convincing evidence before proceeding to debates among the general public, much less a moratorium on MDP?
Finally Spiegel, just as you have made the correct assumptions, in my opinion, the burden of proof, just as enforced in the Act, reverses the burden of proof upon the accused. Whether or not this is valid is another issue for another day, but my position remains a logical one (which is to question the basis of suggestions to change the status quo) rather than one of personal preference.
@andrew: I appreciate the effort you guys have put into uncovering the various facets of the singapore society, but what I cannot accept is the inherent bias and the negative overtones of all of TOC’s articles. It makes me wonder sometimes whether TOC is aspiring to be one of the rubbished UK political blogs.
Moderating Editor: No, we are not.
Straits Times survey where can trust wan?!… they will most likely craft the survey with words in ways with the likelihood of people responding to a set of questions predictably.
i don’t expect Straits Times journalists to risk their ricebowls for the “scoop”!
@mice is nice: is there a correlation between regulation and truth? Please keep in mind that causation does not imply correlation.
@mice is nice: read this. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=4087&ttype=2
hi Do Re Mi,
thanks for the link, but the english abit “cheem” for me… -.-”
but i agree that its “odd” that the burden of proof in drug trafficking cases, lies on the accused.
@Do Re Mi:
Your position is certainly not a logical one until you have stated why it is that the burden of proof rests on those wanting to change the status quo, rather than on those who want to retain the status quo.
Because there are fundamental rights at stake here (the right to life), the burden of proof ought in fact to be the exact reverse of what you assume. The baseline position ought to be that fundamental rights cannot lightly be infringed, and that if you want to infringe them, you had better provide a solid reason. The burden of proof therefore rests on those who wish to maintain the status quo.
@Mohan: To put things simply, i’m saying that the accusations by TOC w.r.t Drug Trafficking are groundless. This issue is not classical debate but its falls into the category of policy debates similar to proceedings in moot courts, where evidence and logic prevails, neither of which was apparent in this TOC article.
I’m also not trying to justify who has the onus of proof, rather, that the burden of proof is greater on the Proposition than on the Status Quo (not a Opposition), if the status quo prevails, since the Proposition has more to lose out on, based on different values, and as the Status Quo currently stands.
Just to remind you, I Refer to ARTICLE IV, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1, as well as ARTICLE IV, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 6(b), of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, where ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, and ‘Nothing is this Article shall invalidate any law relating to the misuse of drugs or intoxicating substances which authorises the arrest and detention of any person for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation’ to reason that your argument on ‘baseline position ought to be that fundamental rights cannot lightly be infringed’ is invalid.
And once again, I say for the last time that there is no clear and conclusive evidence for the Proposition’s case and the status quo shall rightfully prevail unless new evidence says otherwise. Having said and repeated what I want to say, I have no further wish to argue.
I rest my case.
@Mohan: NUS law? interesting stand you have on some issues.
‘What is needed is a dispassionate on-going discourse on the use of the death penalty, with as much input from a sufficiently informed Singaporean public as is reasonably possible’. Prof Hor talks about the multifaceted issues of the Death Penalty in Singapore – DEATH, DRUGS, MURDER and the CONSTITUTION. http://lordhercules.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hor-death-drugs-murder-and-the-constitution.pdf
Credits to Mohan’s blog for providing the link.
Sorry. Wrong citation of the Constitution. Correct version should be Article 9(1), and Article 9(6)(b). http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-CONST&date=latest&method=part
DoReMi,
If one day your only child was lured into taking drugs and then gradually into trafficking to feed his habit, would you still be supporting this death penalty? I would like you to put yourself into thinking this happened for five minutes and letting yourself immerse into the horror of the situation. Please do not shrug it off and say it will never happen but to hold that thought for five minutes and then consider your position again please.
I just have certain questions to ask regarding some assumptions that the editorial itself and the people commenting on it seem to make (both those in support of and against the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking).
1. Why is it simply taken for granted that drug trafficking should be illegal?
I know people are going to throw the “drug destroy lives” and the “drugs kill people” arguments. However, if a person is taking drugs in the privacy of his own home and not causing any harm to anyone else, what right does the state have to prevent him from doing that? If the concern is that people will commit crimes in drug induced intoxications, then isn’t the better way to remedy that situation by having stricter laws regarding the crimes committed, rather than prohibiting consumption. In Europe, the lowest crime rates are in the Netherland, where soft drugs are currently legal.
If drugs themselves are not illegal, then we wouldn’t have to have a war on drug syndicates and could regulate them rather than killing their mules.
2. Why is the death penalty legitimate?
After all, we as a society are killing a person. In principle, what gives the state the right to exact such brutality? People argue that the state is merely exacting retribution for the convict’s crime (argument usually used for Murder) but do we genuinely want to live in an eye-for-an-eye society. Personally, I think that there are some acts that are just so heinous that they should never be condoned – killing a person is one of them. Which means that no one, not even the state, should have the legitimacy to do it in any circumstances. If this means that a murderer gets lesser punishment than his crime (which I reject, since I think life incarceration is equally, if not more, punitive) then we have to accept it. In our rage to exact vengeance, we as a society should not commit the very act that we are so opposed to.
3. Why is it assumed that drug trafficking should attract the death penalty?
The link between a person bringing drugs into Singapore and selling them to someone, and that person dying from an OD is very spurious. The “drug traffickers kill people” argument IMHO doesn’t make sense.
Regarding deterrence – The deterrent effect of a punishment always has to be balanced with the magnitude of the crime committed. Just because killing a drug mule is an effective deterrent does not mean that we should do it. If that were the case, why don’t we have excessive punishments for all the highly committed crimes – e.g. caning drunk drivers is likely to have a strong deterrent effect, dishing out life imprisonment to fraudsters is likely to scare people away etc.
4. Why is it assumed that the general person in Singapore makes the above 3 assumptions?
We’ve never had a proper debate on this issue where all the sides are allowed to voice there opinion. Parliament certainly has not discussed this issue with the sort of vigour it deserves. The MSM has done very little to outline the various arguments.
Furthermore, the law has a normative effect. People in societies where slavery was legal were more likely to accept and support it than those in which it is not. Even if people support the status quo, that is not a good reason for our government to keep it. After all, in the past, the government has passed various laws which were not popular because they were “good for the country”. Shouldn’t we change a law, even if it is popular, because it is the right thing to do?
Given the above, surely it is time that we reconsider these issues. Do Re Mi, killing a person is not something we should condone simply because, oh, the other reasons weren’t good enough. We, not the state, not the hangman, but we the people, YOU AND I, are taking a man’s life. Surely, if you had a gun and were made to decide whether you could kill a person, you would ask yourself whether there was a bloody good reason for doing it and not pull the trigger simply because people in similar situations in the past had done so and there was no compelling reason not to. If we place these moral standards on ourself as individuals, why is it that we forget that when act as a society?
Ultimately, I think Singaporeans should remember, that every single time a person is killed on a Friday morning at Changi prison, he is not killed by the hangman, the judge, the government or by Singapore. He is killed by all the people who represent those institutions. He is killed by Singaporeans – like you and I.
Death sentences and caning should be banned in a civilised society. Until such punishments are removed, Singapore is still a barbaric country. I have seen prisoners undergo these process and it made me sick forever – it is just horrible.
I believe a better substitute for heidous crime is hard labour. Drug related offences should never merit a death sentence.
Just curious, are you a Singaporean? Also, do you see a distinction between the Mandatory Death Penalty and the Death Penalty?
1. ‘Why is it simply taken for granted that drug trafficking should be illegal?’
The drug trade is extremely profitable. Nations go to war for drugs – 1st and 2nd Opium War. Apart from having disproportionate economical effects, drug trafficking also cause far-reaching socio-economical effects that extend much further than the traffickers/abusers/cartels themselves. Often, drug abusers obtain drugs from traffickers and suffer from massive withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of intake. After getting addicted, they become dependent and cannot function normally in their daily life, which will then infringe on the integrity of their family and friends. Those closest to the drug addict will thus become victims to his addiction. Also, drug cartels, due to the profitability of the trade, wield considerable political and social influence. They pose an immediate and serious threat to the stability and peace of Singapore should they exist. (Singer, M. 2008. Drugs and development: The global impact of drug use and trafficking on social and economic development. International Journal of Drug Policy)
Bonum commune communitatis, or for the greater good of the community. Having the view that ‘a person is taking drugs in the privacy of his own home and not causing any harm to anyone else’ is too simplistic and ignores the fact that humans are social animals. Also, having ‘stricter laws’ does not solve the problem; outlawing the entire trade does. Finally, arguments based on an individual’s right to freedom can only apply if their actions does not infringe on the rights of others. This is obviously not the case.
2. Why is the death penalty legitimate? I offer a rephrase – Why is the death penalty necessary?
Good question, but it is out of context as the legitimacy of the death penalty is a necessary premise for the Singapore context of the argument (MDP w.r.t Drug Trafficking). However, there are a few issues behind the validity and the fairness of the death penalty. For more information about the death penalty in Singapore and issues surrounding it, read ‘Death, Drugs, Murder and the Constitution, Hor, 2010’. http://lordhercules.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hor-death-drugs-murder-and-the-constitution.pdf, courtesy of Mohan’s blog:
3. Why is it assumed that drug trafficking should attract the death penalty? Rephrase – Why does drug trafficking attract the death penalty?
The death penalty was introduced by the Govt in 1975 as a last resort to stem the increasing drug trade in Singapore, mainly for deterrence. Whether or not there has been a significant deterrence of drug trafficking as a result of the death penalty is the subject for future studies and Commissions seeking to investigate the relationship between the death penalty and the drug trade. Whether or not the results of future studies aid/impete the Proposition to call for a moratorium is another question that is again, out of context.
I do agree on your definition of deterrence though, and in Singapore, the death penalty is meted out only for grievous offences such as drugs, murder, kidnapping and treason. I do not presume to justify the Government’s actions. All I can say is that there is no point in having a group of misinformed people debating on the issue because there will be no headway whatsoever. Try listening to a bunch of 14 year olds talk about string theory in math and you will get what I mean.
4. Why is it assumed that the general person in Singapore makes the above 3 assumptions?
We teach the 1st assumption as part of our syllabus. It’s called Biology, History and Moral Education. For the 2nd assumption, it’s a social norm that is built into our environment since we were born. Most of us accept the legitimacy of the death penalty without question. What varies from person to person is the question of the necessity of the death penalty, as well as the discretion of the judge in exercising it. Finally, for number 3, drug trafficking has already attracted the death penalty. Rather than assuming an assumption like you have suggested, the ‘general person’ forgoes that assumption and simply has no stand on this issue because they are relatively misinformed and apathetic, much like I was before I went into university.
Yes I agree that there must be a dispassionate discourse regarding this issue, but before that, we need to have an independent study/commission to look into the relationship between death penalty and criminal psychology before any discussion can bear fruit. Right now, any discussion on any side will be unsubstantiated and fruitless. Also, as I said earlier, the situation benefits the status quo precisely because the status quo is ‘as is’. So the burden of proof will fall on the Proposition.
‘Do Re Mi, killing a person is not something we should condone simply because, oh, the other reasons weren’t good enough.’ No, I disagree. Having sub-standard reasons in starting a discussion of any kind will not attract the best from their daily lives because they recognize that no result will come out of it. Being religiously/personally motivated is a notable exception, however, such dialogues will still result in useless debates because the situational analysis is flawed in itself. As such, nobody of a sane mind will accept the results of such discussions.
‘He is killed by all the people who represent those institutions. He is killed by Singaporeans – like you and I’ Exactly. That is the perfect reason why any amendments to the Constitution and any amendments to the Statutes must first be substantiated and then accepted by all Singaporeans. This is particularly so when the issue is multifaceted in nature and involves many stakeholders. Such rigorous discourse is currently impossible in our society, much less TOC’s call for a moratorium on the death penalty for drug traffickers.
Personally, I support the Mandatory Death Penalty. It serves as a last line of defense for drug cartels seeking to extend its claws into the Singapore Society. However, the issue here is TOC has called for a moratorium on the Mandatory Death Penalty wrt drug trafficking.
This call for a moratorium extends beyond the normal boundaries, of an individual’s rights, into the society at large even though there is insufficient literature/evidence to support their case, not that there are any in the 1st place. This, this - I take offence in.
Is TOC’s role to ‘educate’/'propagate’?
While acknowledging that “public support for the death penalty in Singapore is overwhelmingly strong,” TOC dismisses this saying that “there is no indication that mandatory death penalty was properly understood or differentiated from capital punishment in general”.
It is pretty dismissive to say if people support the death penalty (& disagree with TOC’s stance), they are probably misinformed. And it seems that since “legal thinking has usually been ahead of public opinion”, TOC has taken upon itself to ‘educate’ the masses and bring them up to speed.
Every time a person is put on death row, there is a debate over the death penalty. Both side put out their points and a passionate debate ensues. Regardless of opinion, at least both sides are heard and people have made up their minds on which side they support.
I find it overpowering that just because a large number ‘lagged’ behind TOC’s stance, it has taken upon itself to campaign for seven days and ‘educate’ people about their ‘ignorance’. I am not against TOC members having a stance on social issues or even an editorial bias on issues.
But to run a seven day editorial campaigning for its opinion, effectively makes it a propaganda machine.
Don’t get me wrong- i like reading TOC for an alternative perspective on the news. But there is a difference with being an alternative news website and becoming a wannabe-Amnesty International newsletter. As a regular reader, I hope I can be frank with the constructive feedback. Thank you.
-RW
Do Re Mi – you write a lot but it is all gas
I do hope you dont resort to personal attacks. Do point out where you think I was wrong or mistaken, and substantiate it.
I repeat, please read this paper written by Prof Hor on ‘Death, Drugs, Murder and the Constitution’. It should answer most of your questions: http://lordhercules.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hor-death-drugs-murder-and-the-constitution.pdf
Paper includes the history of the death penalty and reasons for its legitimacy. Prof Hor also questions different aspects of the criminal law wrt the death penalty, as well as its continued relevance in our society. I think its a good read.
An insult is neither a convincing argument, nor does it lend credibility to the person speaking. It will only further alienate the proposition and the opposition.
By ignoring facts and without proof, it is obvious that TOC readers take comfort in echoing each others’ sentiments with little intellectual and academic integrity.
This is apparent in many discussions where tons of people criticise the government but none (save a few) provide a robust enough analysis for which discussions could be structured upon – just that subsequent readers choose to ignore it and take pride in bashing up the government in an uncivilized manner.
Despite some of TOC’s staffs’ good credentials, if they continue to allow discussions (and articles) to be conducted/presented in this manner, the credibility of their articles and their supposed-neutrality will forever be of question.
Moderating Editor: Regardless of the quality of the discussion, we are more happy with the fact that people are thinking about these issues – which we feel is the most important step.
I see the point where Do Re Mi is coming from and I do not understand why the rest fail to do the same. He is not suggesting there should be no call for a moratorium on the death penalty but instead questions the rationale for such a call when the status quo is already one that makes it legal for the law to dish out the death penalty to offenders that fall under the death penalty descriptions; and; therefore, the onus is on the ones making such a call to rationalize that such a moratorium is indeed necessary, otherwise the signal it sends out would be a confusing one.
He has also provided some valid reasons why having a moratorium would send out the wrong signals to, in this case, the producers and traffickers of drugs.
While I am in agreement with most that the death penalty is a primeval punishment that needs to be relooked into, I cannot help but agree with Do Re Mi that the call for a moratorium has to be perfectly reasoned to be effective – so that it does not send out the wrong signal that the drug dealers are winning the battle against drugs.
Having said that, and IMHO, my personal position has always been that no life should be taken by another man, whether by law or by force. With this, I call for the abolishment of the death penalty for all crimes because criminal acts are man’s justification that such an act does not fit in to their notion of humanity, forgetting than man is nothing but an animal with animal instincts. It just so happens that most are able to tame this instinct better than the few who can’t.
It is instructive to see the extent of our own oppression in the mere framing of the question: the abolitionist movement is asked to adduce the rationale for their stance, while retentionists allow the mandatory death penalty to be unnecessarily normalised as though being the status quo lends an unassailable legitimacy that brooks no questioning.
The discourse needs to move away from arguing why we should not hang people, but to question why we should even kill people in the first place. Being the status quo is not an argument, but merely the result of social contrivance.
@Doremi:
If you take your own arguments seriously, you could also say that we should also extend the MDP to cover drug addicts as well. That would certainly wipe out whatever drug addiction problems we have in Singapore.
Anyway, I’m somewhat skeptical about the MDP seriously deterring the determined drug trafficker or dealer in Singapore. The obvious solution to the problem of having your drug mule killed is to have your drug mule smuggle in smaller quantities of heroin (or whatever) so as to not cross the 15g purity threshold. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if we have quite a lot more people who have been caught trafficking non-executable quantities of drugs, and have been jailed (but not hanged) as a result.
I would agree somewhat with you that the MDP serves to deter drug trafficking in Singapore, but that’s only because it works with a large number of other factors at play in Singapore. Like geography – we only have a small number of entry points into the country because we’re surrounded by water, and it’s hard to smuggle stuff along the Singapore coastline because we have an expensive navy and coast guard patrolling 24 hours a day. It’s that much easier to monitor drug smuggling if all you have to do is master the two causeways and Changi + Seletar airport. Changi airport is also internationally speaking a medium sized airport in terms of air traffic – it’s a little bit easier to police than say, Heathrow in London.
There’s also pretty much nowhere to hide your illegal marijuana farm or amphetamine factory in Singapore. Add this to a well paid and well trained regular police force (bolstered by a great supply of docile and obedient 18 year old men compelled to serve the nation), and what you have is a much greater risk of getting caught for any would be drug trafficker compared to other places.
If the policy goals that we want to achieve are: (a) ensuring minimal drug addiction problems and (b) not being a big drugs transhipment centre, surely we can do that without resorting to hanging people? Have you considered other alternatives, such as greatly increasing the budget for sniffer dog teams and other drug detection technologies (to increase the chances of getting caught), while maintaining sufficiently harsh sentences which don’t involve killing people (hard labour and at least 10 years in prison, plus seizure of assets to disgorge any suspected profits going to your bank account or your family’s accounts). That should do it, shouldn’t it?
I have to go to school, so this will be quick.
@Khairu: Do you normally write in such formal English? Sounds like reading a law journal! (its a good thing but its a bit wierd)
Anyway, how would you define oppression? And although I’m a retentionist, I do not hope to solve the problems between retentionists and abolitionists. This is unlike TOC, which assumes a abolitionist role, and without prima facie, if you may, evidence, calls for a moratorium. Tell me whether that is acceptable to you.
There is simply not enough literature/studies done in this area of law to provide any clear and convincing evidence that TOC may base its call on. In contrast, by calling for a moratorium, TOC infringes on my right to the current Statutes and the underlying Constitution that supports it. This is what I’m unhappy about.
@Jiekai: Again, I want to reiterate that I do not presume to provide solutions for the current predicament that the legal system finds itself in, particularly w.r.t s 300(c) of the penal code where notable exceptions could be granted. I am also not trying to justify the current status quo – it is merely my personal stand on the issue, which as I said earlier, if the deterrence effect is found to have been insignificant and/or non-existent, will change.
W.R.T. MDP in the context of DT, hard labour and 10 years of prison is actually not a substitute for the MDP, nor can it act as a sufficient deterrent. Assuming that the offender treasures life as it is, the marginal effect b/w MDP and 10 years of prison is significantly large. Also, assets-seizing Al Capone powers have a bad track record of abuse in the States, and whether or not it should be implemented in a sweeping gesture to deal with both major and minor drug offenders in Singapore still needs further debate. In particular, its notoriously difficult to determine the extent of the asset-seizure w.r.t family, friends, and in businesses I.E. LLPs.
Finally, regardless of whether the above suggestions work, Singaporeans ought to have a bottom line on their perceived tolerance limit towards drug trafficking, as on all major offenses. Such a delicate debate can only be performed under the best available conditions, represented by all available stakeholders, participated by the most able speakers, and observed by a well-informed public.
Which is currently not Singapore as we know her to be today.
@Do Re Mi,
“W.R.T. MDP in the context of DT, hard labour and 10 years of prison is actually not a substitute for the MDP, nor can it act as a sufficient deterrent.”
To claim to want to wait for studies to show effectiveness of MDP’s deterrence but so willing to make a pronouncement on this is at best ironic.
Let me reframe the argument. For the sake of this argument, I cede to your adamantly-made point that there are no conclusive studies either against or for the mandatory death penalty in terms of invalidating or proving its deterrence value in Singapore.
The status quo takes lives. The proposed moratorium is not a repudiation of the status quo – although you seem to conflate it to be so – and doesn’t take lives. The proposed moratorium is a temporary suspension of the legal institutions that enact the MDP, but does not prevent their reinstatement. When doubt is cast on the status quo (doesn’t have to be conclusive, for nothing truly is in science or any form of knowledge for that matter), wouldn’t it make simple arithmetic and moral sense to suspend the penalty?
It is in essence the buying of time – the time which you can do the studies of deterrence and social attitudes you speak of.
Your argument is fundamentally tautological – you want conclusive evidence to back any call for a moratorium (interestingly, if there is conclusive evidence why not just push for abolishing the MDP straight away? Through the legislative and institutional framework of course).
But conclusive evidence can only come when there is acknowledgement of the knowledge deficit on the part of the authorities – for them to say we don’t know a whole lot about the MDP and we are willing to find out more. For any substantive body, academic or official, to conduct studies to produce evidence on the effectiveness of the MDP, there must be an acknowledgement or admission that what we think of the status quo of MDP is not fundamentally sound, or informed by evidence, or effective in practice.
If you do have such suspicions, there is a moral imperative to suspend the MDP – it allows for the aggregation of evidence whilst not killing any more people in the meantime. If the evidence validates the value of MDP, the penalty can be reinstated. In the meantime, you may argue, the deterrence value is lost – but if you buy into the logic of presumption of innocence (which may be wishful thinking since you don’t seem to have a problem with the Misuse of Drugs Act), the legal institutions should err on the side of caution and not convict or in this case kill anyone when reasonable doubt has yet to be exhausted. And as you keep pointing out – there is reasonable doubt over the effectiveness of MDP in Singapore, simply because we don’t know anything.
You insist on framing this in legal/technical terms but I would suggest that public attitudes have to be factored in – i.e. if the public expresses disapproval of the MDP, that would trump even the most conclusive studies proving the deterrence value of the MDP.
You seem to focus on the unique circumstances of Singapore in your argument. The unique circumstances you seek shelter in are not in fact favourable for you. This country doesn’t have much of a track record when it comes to civil society or public engagement with legislative processes even today. Much less so in 1973, when the Misuse of Drugs Act was first passed, or in 1975 when the MDP was introduced. At best, you could say the public acquiesced to the laws produced by Parliament. The MDP was never able (or allowed) to become a substantive issue of public debate in its 35 years of existence.
If civil society groups make gestures to start a debate on the issue, isn’t it only fair to grant audience to their views? If your conception of the legal system accepts the notion that laws should reflect societal attitudes on morality, then the fact that we’ve never had a substantive debate on MDP before and that there is an emergent group of people who voice their dissent on this issue should offer at the very least an imperative for the authorities to discuss the topic, even if they do not have to act on it as yet.
And if such a discussion takes place, it ought to follow – as per the above argument – that the MDP be suspended (not repealed) pending its outcome. The outcome is not pre-ordained. It may turn out that the status quo was valid all along – i.e. the public is strongly in favour of MDP, studies show its effectiveness as a deterrent etc. If so, the moratorium ends and MDP continues.
@Do Re Mi:
Article 9(6)(b) doesn’t apply here. It only authorises exceptions insofar as they relate to arrest and detention, and insofar as they are for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation. It cannot authorise the death penalty, which is more than arrest or detention, and which is not treatment or rehabilitation. Note that 9(6)(b) is an exception to 9(3) and 9(4) only [read the line after 9(6)(b)], and not a general derogation from 9(1).
I propose that if the government should summarily ignore this call for a moratorium, the government should therefore suspend the practice of execution by hanging, which will be replaced by televised bloodsports. This option would allow the government to exercise transparency in the process of execution, improve television viewership and admit to the barbarous atavism of mandatory murder.
Are you submitting a letter to the govt or what?
@Mohan: sorry its my mistake regarding 9(6)(b). The question now is whether 9(1) should stand valid over the ‘fundamental rights’ that is so often cited by many abolitionists, and to what degree is 9(1) applicable/invalid and how should amendments (if desired) be made?
Before any attempts to amend the Constitution, however, we must hold the validity of the notion of ‘fundamental rights’ to task and what it represents before embarking on a possibly irreversible move to amend the Constitution.
This validity is what I’m questioning here. Granted, I may not display any humanitarian tendencies in my arguments as opposed to cold logic, but this is what discourse should be – Factual, dispassionate, and logical. Only after a thorough debate w.r.t the validity of the assumption are we able to move to address further complications brought about by this change in the status quo. It’s the same thing for this call for a moratorium.
In essence, its one step at a time.
P.S. Read Article 12(1) of the Constitution, where contrary to what is normally assumed (equal punitive treatment for equal moral blameworthiness), this – equal punitive treatment for similar legal guilt – is.
@ Spiegel: You have a number of good points; you should voice out more on other issues. What I said in the 3rd last para to Jiekai is simply my personal stand, which, as I said earlier, ‘my personal stand which…if the deterrence effect is found to have been insignificant and/or non-existent, will change.’
I wish to clarify my stand that the aim of ‘waiting for studies’, in your terms, is not to show ‘the effectiveness of MDP’s deterrence’. Rather, the aim of ‘waiting for studies’ is to ‘investigate the relationship of the MDP with respect to criminal psychology in Singapore’, or in other words, has there been a significant impact on criminal psychology and its associated disciplines, due to the introduction of the MDP w.r.t. DT in 1975?
This study, being independent and commissioned by the government, will have no stand on the issue. It simply tells us whether the MDP has the deterrent effect in the area of Drug Trafficking. The findings of such a study can be used by either camps, should they view such results being advantageous to their cause.
My issue is there is currently no such study and therefore no clear and convincing evidence for the Proposition to call for a moratorium. In other words, this call, in purely logical terms, is unsubstantiated.
Moving on, the proposed moratorium is repudiation to the status quo. Here is why, and although this may sound inhuman, bear with me:
1. I’m a Singapore Citizen.
2. The Statutes, as well as the underlying Constitution, protect my civil, as well as legal, rights and liberties.
3. Extrapolating, the execution of the condemned as deemed to be guilty by the Courts of Singapore in accordance with the Statutes governed by the Consitution is an exercise of my rights and liberties to the Singapore Society.
4. A moratorium is imposed, all executions are halted. My right to ‘see justice served’ is interrupted.
5. In other words, the ‘right to execute’ is no longer extended to Singaporeans such as you and me.
6. Justifiably, I would wish to know the reasons for the imposition of a moratorium.
7. Now, ‘human rights’ argument does not apply here. Specifically, none of such arguments in ‘advocation’ of fundamental human rights can apply since, in order for the ‘human rights’ argument to be valid, the legitimacy of premises 1 and 2 is put into question.
8. Now how can you question the legitimacy of premises 1 and 2 without clear and convincing evidence?
9. In your own words, such a ‘temporary suspension’ questions and infringes on my basic rights and liberties as a Singapore Citizen, no matter how ‘temporary’ it may be.
Please take some time to consider this, and keep in mind that whether or not Singaporeans ‘want to execute’, is irrelevant here, as are other issues such as the ‘Mandatory’ part of the MDP.
Finally, someone see that my argument is tautological. I also don’t understand why it is always necessary for me to rephrase and rephrase and rephrase before people get my point.
‘interestingly, if there is conclusive evidence why not just push for abolishing the MDP straight away?’ This assumption that any evidence will be in favour of the abolitionists is, due to your premise that the aim of studies is to ‘show the effectiveness of the MDP’s deterrence’, is wrong. Furthermore, in light of Ong Ah Chuan v PP, the Courts has already admitted it is no longer possible to say that ‘there is nothing unusual in a death sentence being mandatory’. What is now necessary would be for relevant studies to be conducted so that correct steps could be taken to address the problem (if any). What TOC is attempting is to run before they can walk.
Moving on, ‘But conclusive evidence…more’ and ‘for any substantiative body…practice’ conveniently ignores the burden of proof that weighs down the Abolitionists more than it does the Retentionists.
‘Moral imperative’ is not a good enough reason to suspend the MDP for drug trafficking. For your information, this presumption of innocence is applied in Singapore, but not in the manner that you vision it to be. For the PP to have a case, they must provide prima facie evidence to proof that the drugs were in the possession of the accused. In other words, the PP had to adduce evidence to show that the accused knew that he was carrying drugs. Ignorance of mistake as to its qualities is no excuse for the accused, partly because this may lead to judicial loopholes. I.E. Accused mistook Meth for sleeping pills, which however unfortunate, remains a drug and whose existence he clearly had knowledge of.
I disagree on your stand w.r.t public attitudes. I will be willing to concede if the public is ‘informed’, however, I am in staunch opposition to any decisions and/or stands made by an ‘uninformed’ public. The public opinion can easily be swayed by the opinionated charismatic in any direction. Being informed and being ignorant in this case, is matter of life and death.
In contrary, a well-respected debate among civil societies in Singapore does not necessitate a moratorium on the MDP. They must first debate on the necessities and the repercussions of the proposed moratorium, and if proposed moratorium succeeds, they may then move on to issues surrounding the death penalty. As I said time and time again, the required ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to fuel such a well-respected debate is not present, not is such ‘well-informed’ public existent in present Singapore. Without such clear and convincing evidence, conclusions/affirmatives as a result of such debates will not have the tiniest shred of credibility among academics and discerning stakeholders.
If, however, such debates serve primarily to increase the awareness of the MDP among the public through participation-education, then there is no need for a moratorium. Calling for a moratorium before dispassionate and in this case, credible, discourse can occur is akin to ‘acting without thinking’.
Again, you seem to rely a lot on public ‘favour’. I believe a better word for ‘favour’ would be ‘consensuses’ and/or ‘opinion’. Indeed, the public consensuses may be powerful and compelling. However, it neither entitles such a call for a moratorium ‘greater legitimacy’, nor does it diminish in standing, the importance of the legal and societal repercussions associated with such a moratorium. Again, I believe the public consensuses would be more credible if the public was more informed/educated about this issue.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate what I have said in earlier posts, and to reaffirm my stand.
Firstly,
1. Singapore’s judiciary system is a fundamental civil right for a Singapore Citizen like you and me.
2. Moratorium will infringe on fundamental civil rights of all Singaporeans to put justice on hold for the condemned.
3. At the moment, there is no clear and convincing evidence regarding the relationship b/w the MDP and criminal psychology in Singapore. Unless studies are commissioned, there will be none.
4. Morality is a notion construed by the preferences of the Singapore Society. Without sufficient information, such notions may involve illegitimate assumptions that may eventually prove to be self-defeating.
Hence,
5. The call for a moratorium depends upon non-existent evidential material rests on shaky moral grounds.
6. The call for a moratorium is not a pre-requisite for well-respected debates.
7. Well-respected debates may take place without a moratorium
8. Imposing a moratorium without evidential and sufficient dispassionate discourse is rash and uncalled for.
In contrast,
9. A well-informed public is a pre-requisite for well-respected debates.
10. The public should be informed and educated w.r.t MDP and its effects on drug trafficking.
Therefore, combining 3 and 9,
11. An independent study should be commissioned to investigate said relationship (read 10.)
12. The public awareness should be heightened w.r.t MDP and the multifaceted nature of its issues.
13. With 11 and 12, a public debate with significant weight and credibility can ensue.
14. With 11 and 13, the public opinion, along with clear and convincing evidence, can then be cited in Parliament to make the necessary amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act and the underlying Constitution.
pls ignore some of the grammatical structural errors. didnt take much time to read through it.
Anyway, my response was to Spiegel and Mohan. Hope that both of them have subscribed to this thread.
I know only TOC can see this comment. For the sake of TOC’s credibility because there is no point in arguing, please remove all entries by DRM2 and DRM3 and approve the 1st entry by Do Re Mi. That will remove all incriminating posts and you guys retain your credibility. I also have an errata to post.
Thank you.
Moderating Editor: I think because we did not approve some of your more controversial comments early on, WordPress is now automatically placing comments from your IP address as ‘pending’ instead of publishing them. Also, since I can only afford to monitor comments once a day, it may take some time before your posts are ‘released’ by me. Please be assured that it is a logistical issue and has nothing to do with your position on the subject matter. I’m sorry that you’ve been frustrated by the situation but unfortunately WordPress can sometimes be an entity with a mind of its own! I’m releasing your posts using the nick Do Re Mi and I’ve deleted the posts made under other nicknames (although I acknowledge that we deserve the scolding you gave in them, hahaha).
What it boils down to is this. We can’t think of any good reason, that stands up to scrutiny, for having a mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. In other words, a fundamental constitutional right is being infringed, without any clear justification. If we value rights at all (as we should, if we wish to uphold the Constitution), this is surely sufficient grounds for a moratorium.
Dear mohan,
Valuing rights is not sufficient grounds for a moratorium. In order to value rights as was deemed fit, without the definition of how rights are construed, my rights as protected by the Constitution and enforced by the Judiciary System, is being trampled on even before there is anything to be desired from the debate in success of the moratorium. In other words, the valuing of rights in this case is contradictory.
As the situation involves the primary infringement of my rights as a Citizen, and subsequently the human rights of the accused, shouldn’t justification also necessarily be in that order? It makes no sense to attempt the justification of the rights of the accused so that such a result forms the justification of the primary infringement of my rights as a Citizen.
Dont you agree that the Constitution must first be reviewed before a moratorium can be imposed? And dont you agree that for any review of the Constitution to stand its ground, there must be substantive evidence to support the formation of a case?
I don’t understand why supporters of the moratorium tend to look towards their own moral judgement and prejudices as proof enough for the call.
I am happy TOC is calling for a moratorium. It is timely. It is necessary. It is crucial.
Some of the arguments here against it verge on the humorous. That is to say, superficial. I dare say that one can only be against a moratorium for these reasons, all of which do not convince me:
1. That they do not know what constitutes the Misuse of Drugs Act.
2. They have a certain small sense of justice. That is to say, they have a one-sided view in that “criminals” should be dealt with harshly even if it’s by laws which are questionable.
3. That the call for a moratorium is based on “morals”. This shows that they do not understand what the call for a moratorium is based on. It is simply based on this: The concern that the law is flawed.
Understand, people, this. The Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the constitutional argument in the Yong Vui Kong case. What does that tell you? And in any decent democracy, when a constitutional challenge to the law is made, and especially when that law concerns the taking of lives, a moratorium should and must be declared.
That is the way of a civilised society – whatever arguments one may have against a moratorium.
I am amazed that some like Do Re Mi has missed this simple point.
I have serious misgivings about the MDP, for the same reasons which others here have spelt out.
At the same time (playing devil’s advocate for a bit), I wonder what genuine purpose a moratorium would serve. The blurb at the top says that a moratorium would “allow an open and robust discourse… so that a true national consensus on judicial executions, based on informed considerations, is arrived at.”
Terms like “a true national consensus” etc. allow one to oppose democracy while speaking its language. If a majority of Singaporeans presently support the MDP, that would seem prima facie a democracy-based argument in its favour. But the liberal would respond, “The majority’s opinion isn’t a true consensus arrived at after reasoned debate.” Notice, however, that the liberal may always invoke this objection against any law or policy with which she disagrees.
Suppose a broader-based debate about the MDP did take place in Singapore, with facts and statistics being made available, and discussions being aired in the MSM. Suppose, though, that at the conclusion of that debate, the majority of Singaporeans still favoured the MDP. How would you respond? The liberal, one suspects, would protest, “Ah, but that wasn’t a truly robust, informed debate… if it had been a real, ‘democratic’ debate, surely most people would oppose the MDP!”
That last assertion is clearly tautological, because you’ve defined what’s ‘democratic’, ‘informed’ and ‘reasoned’ according to what suits your moral convictions. Having done so, you exclude the majority’s opinion because it’s “not arrived at after a full, robust debate”. This is disingenuous: what you really mean is that you think that the majority’s arguments are bad ones, and you would reject them under all circumstances. Otherwise, the liberal would be open to revising his views about the MDP after a full, open debate in which he has heard the majority’s views. But I seriously doubt this is the case. We’ve each already thought about the issues, and come to our own conclusions (e.g., on the proportionality of the MDP w.r.t. drug trafficking offences).
My point is that if one disagrees with the majority on the MDP, it’s likely to be on principled grounds, rather than because the public consensus backing the MDP isn’t a ‘truly democratic’ one. It’s worth noting here that the issue of the MDP for drugs offences has been visited at least twice in Parliament before (if I recall correctly). One might object that these previous episodes weren’t a ‘full’ airing of informed opinions as required in a deliberative democracy, and so on. But you’ve got to come up with independent criteria about what amounts to a ‘full’ debate, that isn’t just a way of smuggling in your own views. Would you, for instance, want a referendum on the MDP?
Moreover, this line of argument commits you to one of two claims: either you are forced to say that (1) after a full debate, it may turn out that the MDP is defensible, so that the liberal has to recant his prior opposition to the MDP; or (2) that after a full debate, a majority (having seen the light) will surely oppose the MDP. If neither claim seems palatable or plausible, then the liberal must jettison all this talk about ‘reasoned debate’ etc., and acknowledge that his argument against the MDP is, really, anti-democratic.
If so, then the burden of justification may shift to the anti-MDP advocate to show why the principle of democracy should be trumped by, e.g., the sanctity of human life. Or at the very least, both sides have an equally compelling prima facie case, so that the argumentative onus cannot be thrown to either.
Second, it’s tempting to dismiss the prevailing majority view as ill-reasoned, uninformed and primitive. For example, one argument in defence of the MDP for drug trafficking might be that social stability is of first importance, and the scourge of addictive drugs so corrodes stability, that even if the MDP had only slight deterrent value, this is sufficient to justify its use as one of the many weapons the State may employ in its arsenal in the ‘war against drugs’. The liberal might think ask for more justification for assigning so much priority to social stability. But she, too, appeals to basic values like “the right to life” and “proportionality” to make her case — values which can’t be further justified, only demonstrated by practical reasoning.
So she takes a predictable tack, asking, “What if one of your children was guilty of drug trafficking? Would you want him or her hanged?” Or, “If you were the hangman, would you pull the lever?” But that’s neither here nor there. We’re not concerned with what you would or would not do to your children or loved ones, but what sort of generalizable rule/punishment would be best for our society. And given the ineradicable disagreement on issues like the MDP, we settle for the majority opinion.
It’s nowadays fashionable (the 377A debate was another example) to excoriate, à la Mill and de Tocqueville, the so-called “majoritarian” or “statistical” version of democracy. But that sort of democracy isn’t simply a mindless counting-of-heads. Nor is it simply a path of prudence (‘Majority wins because Majority has greater numbers, and they would win in a shouting or shoving match.”) It’s also about giving equal respect to every citizen’s viewpoint, no matter how warped or unprincipled they may appear to someone else. We go by the ‘one man, one vote’ principle, because every man (and woman) counts equally. Conversely, if we start discounting people’s views because they’re ill-reasoned or ‘not enlightened’, we’d be treating them as second-class citizens. This wouldn’t be ‘tyranny of the majority’ — just tyranny simpliciter.
I apologize for the glaring lack of proper paragraph breaks in my post above… would be very grateful if a moderator could help.
@Tan Cheng Hua: The results of debates following a moratorium cannot stand if the reason to call for a moratorium is flawed in logic in the first place.
A study should first be completed upon which, form an evidential platform(assuming advantageous) that the call for a moratorium can base itself on.