Kirsten Han
This is The Online Citizen’s campaign video against the mandatory death penalty with regards to drug trafficking and the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is a video that I was privileged enough to work on, and I am glad to have the opportunity to be involved in this campaign.
However, there has been a lot of discussion and questioning surrounding the issue. It’s great because debate and awareness is exactly what we need, but there has also been a lot of confusion and I often find myself trapped in conversations where I seem to be essentially repeating myself over and over again as to why I am against the mandatory death penalty and why I am involved in this campaign. Therefore, I thought that it would be a good idea to state once and for all in a single entry why I am personally against the mandatory death penalty.
Logical reasons
Logically, the mandatory death penalty makes no sense to me. I am often told that it is a matter of policy for Singapore as it act as a deterrence to potential drug traffickers. However, there have been no studies that can conclusively prove that the mandatory death penalty is effective as a deterrent, making this argument completely moot. One cannot (and should not) proceed with an action just because it might have a certain effect, especially when this action is as serious and irreversible as an execution.
Furthermore, many of those who are arrested and charged with drug trafficking are more often than not simply drug mules who have limited or no information about the drug rings at all. These mules are often uneducated and poor individuals who have fallen on hard times, and are a dime a dozen to the drug lords. Executing one makes absolutely no difference on the drug flow in Singapore; drug lords would simply find a replacement in yet another under-educated, under-privileged person. If we really want to have a deterrent effect, something needs to be done to ensure that we catch the kingpins instead of merely the messengers.
It also goes against logic for judges – who have been through years and years of legal practice – to not be allowed to use their power and discretion, when prosecutors are allowed discretion to decide how they want to charge the offenders, and the President is allowed discretion in granting clemency. Why does it seem like almost everyone has the power to decide on how to proceed,except the judges? How does that make any sense at all?
The presumptions made according to the Misuse of Drugs Act shifts the burden of proof onto the offender instead of the prosecution, causing a “guilty before proven innocent” scenario which is contradictory to every other legal practice. Under such a burden where so many assumptions are made even before one has a chance to speak out, it is almost impossible for anyone to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. And since a guilty charge leads straight to the death sentence, it is all too easy to execute someone who might have been wrongfully accused. Once the appeals and clemency avenues have all been exhausted, there is no way back.
Example: cases such as Rozman bin Jusoh and Iwuchukwu Amara Tochihighlight the problems in the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking.
Emotional reasons
The idea of executing someone doesn’t sit very well with me in the first place, but the idea of automatically executing someone is anathema. As M Ravi (Yong Vui Kong’s defence lawyer) said at the hearing on 15 March 2010: “kill if you must, but not in an automated, robotic, spasmodic way”. To sentence someone to death without careful consideration of mitigating circumstances such as the offender’s education, situation in life, age and number of run-ins with the law is the height of cold-hearted callous behaviour, and certainly not something that a “first-world” country should be doing. We are supposed to be educated, advanced and enlightened, but how can we make those claims when we hang people without blinking an eye?
I am also of the belief that most (if not all) people are deserving of a second chance. Everyone should be given a chance to turn their lives around and atone for their mistakes, but the mandatory death penalty does not allow anyone such a chance. A person who has learnt from his mistakes and changed for the better is capable of doing a lot of good, but with the mandatory death penalty we will never know.
With drug trafficking, which has been internationally declared to be a non-heinous crime, I firmly believe that second chances should be given. With rehabilitation and education, drug offenders can be returned to the right path and become useful members of society. To just put them to death without adequate consideration is to throw away all the potential of a person’s life.
But what about the drug addicts who are victims of drug trafficking?
There have been some who have accused me of ignoring or neglecting the plight of the drug addicts in my stance against the mandatory death penalty. I would like to take this opportunity now to politely disagree.
It takes two to tango. Just as we like to say that the drug mules should have known about what they were carrying and should have known about the harm drugs can do, we can also say that the drug addicts should have known that drug consumption is a grave mistake and will damage not only their lives but their families. We cannot pile all the blame on one end while completely absolving the other. It is too simplistic to label the mules as the malicious bad guys and the addicts as the hapless victims. There is fault on both sides, but the time for pointing the finger and assigning blame has passed. At this point what we need to do is to figure out how we can improve and prevent further cases.
I believe that the answer lies not in execution but in education and rehabilitation. We need to address the problems of both the mules and the addicts, and that requires perseverance and awareness. The mandatory death penalty is an overly hasty solution that at the end of the day accomplishesnothing but the heartache of yet another family – that of the drug mule’s.
The “slippery slope” argument
To be perfectly honest, I don’t get the whole hullabaloo about the “slippery slope”, except that it seems to be an argument for everything in Singapore. “Oh, we cannot subsidise HIV medication because then we will have to subsidise medication for everything else… it’s a slippery slope!” “Oh, we cannot make an exception for you in rental housing because then everyone will want us to make exceptions… it’s a slippery slope!” “Oh, I cannot give you an extra egg in your mee siam because later everyone also want extra egg… slippery slope!” (All right, the last one might be an exaggeration, but you get the idea…)
I suppose in this case the “slippery slope” argument made by Attorney-General Walter Woon at the 15 March hearing was that if the court ruled that the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking was unconstitutional it would set a precedence for courts to go up against Parliament in terms of legislation. I say this: what is wrong with that? If the law is seen to be unjust or problematic, why shouldn’t the courts, who have the power to intepret the law, raise the issue? If the law does not serve justice, we should not hide our heads in the sand and pretend to see nothing, just because we are afraid to speak out in case we get into trouble with Parliament.
The other “slippery slope” argument is that the removal of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking might then lead to the removal of capital punishment all together, and then all hell will break loose in Singapore. Well, firstly, as I have said before, there is no proof that the mandatory death penalty is actually effective as a deterrent, so the belief that “all hell will break loose” is actually unsubstantiated and cannot really be seen as more than a neurotic belief planted in us by the mainstream media over the years. Secondly, is it really so terrible if the death penalty was abolished? Must we kill people to feel safe in our own skin? Must we play God and dictate whether a person lives or dies? I personally might not campaign against a total abolishment of the death penalty (because there are some people I cannot find the heart to forgive), but if the death penalty were to be removed completely I would also see it as a step forward in terms of human rights.
I can only conclude that the “slippery slope” argument is unclear and a mere excuse to keep the status quo.
The case of Yong Vui Kong
The campaign is now going at full force because of the case of Yong Vui Kong, who was arrested in 2007 and sentenced to death in the same year. Fortunately he has managed to get two stays of execution and the verdict is still out with regards to the 15 March hearing (thus the urgent need to get the message out). I hope and pray for moral courage on the part of the judges to be able to do the right thing and recognise the problems of the mandatory death penalty and the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Vui Kong’s case was the one that first motivated me to find out more about this mandatory death penalty issue, and to get involved in this campaign. I believe that he is a perfect candidate for the Yellow Ribbon Project; he can be educated and allowed to turn his life completely around. Since his arrest he has learned to read and write in Mandarin, and is now doing his best to learn English. He has embraced Buddhism in an effort to find peace within his life, and spends a lot of time meditating. His family have noticed the great change, and constantly speak about how he has changed for the better. From what I’ve heard the wardens in Changi Prison dote on him and see him as a good boy. If given a chance I strongly believe that he can go on to do a lot of good in this world, promoting education and getting others aware so that they don’t make the same mistakes as he did. But unless the judges find the strength in their hearts to give him a chance, we will never find out.
I am very strongly against the mandatory death penalty because I do not want Yong Vui Kong – a boy not much older than I am – to be put to death in the name of my country, my fellow citizens and myself. How about you?
—–
—–
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
A discussion on the purposes of the mandatory death penalty should at the very least attempt to provide a glimpse into the minds of potential offenders. Granted, there is indeed a dearth in legal literature supporting the death sentence as an effective deterrent. Singaporeans have to realise that this lack of empirical proof does not illustrate that it is not effective as a general deterrence.
A very simple example of criminal psychology: what are the considerations that will appear in Ah Poh’s mind if he is deciding whether to drive into Johor Bahru with a car that has less than 75% petrol, to take advantage of the lower fuel prices there, and to conceal the actual amount with a fuel gauge-tampering device? Benefits: Fuel savings. Potential costs: If he is caught with less fuel (Section 136A of the Customs Act): $500 fine. If in addition, he gives false information (Section 129(c)): 2 weeks imprisonment. The car might also be forfeited under Section 123 (2) of the Customs Act.
In other words, would-be offenders will run through a simple cost-benefit analysis mentally before forming the requisite mens rea / criminal intention. It seems the alternative to a death sentence would be life imprisonment or even a 20 year jail term, with caning. Removing the mandatory death sentence would provide the justices with a choice to decide on the quantum of punishment. In effect, drug traffickers bringing in >14.99g of diamorphine can either be sentenced to death or perhaps to life imprisonment. Our judges are vastly experienced and I have witnessed myself their legal dexterity. But they are still humans, and are you confident they will impose the death sentence with an absolute detachment of compassion?
People who are sentenced to life imprisonment can, after spending 20 years in jail, be released upon review of the life imprisonment review board. Therefore, a huge chasm would appear in the severity of punishment when we do not impose the death penalty and choose instead the alternative of life imprisonment, no? And alluding back to criminal psychology, comparing 20 years in prison against certain death, which is the stronger deterrent? In addition, looking at the offence of murder – a crime that most people will agree with the imposition of the death penalty, deterrence has a stronger influence in drug cases, as many murders are really committed on the spur of the moment.
This is just my opinion and i’m interested to hear the views of Singaporeans.
Many Singaporeans still don’t understand that saying no to the mandatory death penalty does not means saying no to the death penalty.
Most still don’t understand the meaning of the word “Mandatory”
This nation of fruitloops has yet to grow something pubic.
@ mic o mic
True, and one of the goals of this campaign is also to get people to understand the law and especially the meaning of “mandatory”, because if we can get more people to understand what it entails then the campaign will be all the stronger.
Death penalty is good to manage exponential human growth. Not forgetting the 7%GST social expenditure to feed them in prisons. Only those who suffered pains know what is pains. Pity the victims and not the perpetrators. If my loved ones is one of the condemned, so be it.
It is a very idealistic world. If the judges can make exception to this case, they can also make exceptions to other cases as every criminals and traffickers all have a sob story to tell. Perhaps, the solution is to make exceptions and free all our traffickers and prisoners to enjoy the fresh air and sunshine of Singapore!
Since author mentioned everything about mandatory death penalty, I don’t need to say anything.
From my point of view, I strongly object mandatory death penalty in Singapore. We should give them 2nd chance at least.
Cheers!
The articles on the New Paper on the two female drug mules provides more the reason to ban the death sentence. They would have been hnaged in Singapore but because they were in Argentina, the family can still see their mother whose only crime was stupidity.
@ Devagi
“Perhaps, the solution is to make exceptions and free all our traffickers and prisoners to enjoy the fresh air and sunshine of Singapore!”
I am sorry to say that that is an extremely simplistic way to see things, and not at all what we who are campaigning against the MDP are proposing.
I do not want to see everyone freed; I am not asking for everyone to be pardoned and acquitted. All I am asking is for every case to be closely examined and considered before the death penalty is prescribed.
Freedom only after Rehabitalation. Give them the chance to have a second go at life. I mean for those on the Misuse of Drug Act. Most developed countries has programmes ito rehabilitate drug offenders. Singapore can come up with programmes too. The death penalty stays for murder and if I had my way for rape too
Peace N Love