The High Court yesterday declared illegal and unconstitutional the provision of awarding death sentence under the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Special) Act 1995.
Section 6(2) of the act carried out the provision of awarding death sentence to any person for killing any woman or child after rape.
The bench comprising Justice Md Iman Ali and Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal delivered the verdict following a writ petition filed by Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Sukur Ali of Manikganj district, a condemned convict, challenging legality of the act.
The court also stayed the execution of death sentence of Sukur Ali, son of Hashem Mondal of Manikganj for two months. He was given capital punishment under the section in a rape and murder case filed in 1999.
In its verdict, the court observed that whatever is the nature of crimes, death penalty cannot be the only punishment for the criminals as per the constitutional provision.
The Court said the circumstantial condition and credibility of evidences and witnesses should be taken into consideration in awarding punishment. If death is the only option for crimes then the jurisdiction of the judges are restrained.
Advocate Ruhul Quddus, counsel for one of the petitioners, told reporters that under the criminal law the provision of death sentence should not be the only option as the punishment for the criminals.
From now on death penalty should not be the only option for the criminals following the HC verdict, he added.
The Women and Children Repression Prevention (Special) Act 1995 has been replaced by the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act 2000 with a provision of life-term imprisonment and capital punishment as an alternative.
On July 12, 2001, the Women and Children Repression Prevention Special Tribunal of Manikganj awarded capital punishment to Sukur Ali, now in Dhaka jail.
Later Sukur filed an appeal with the HC against the trial court verdict. But the HC on February 25, 2004 upheld the judgment of the trial court and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court also upheld the HC verdict on February 23, 2005.
Then BLAST and Sukur Ali filed a writ petition with the HC on December 2005 challenging constitutional validity of the section.
After two days of the writ, the court issued a rule upon the government to show cause as to why the provision of the act under which the case was filed and trial was done should not be declared unconstitutional and without lawful authority.
Now, let’s compare it to extracts from the report on the Court of Appeal verdict for Yong Vui Kong’s case…
In a landmark ruling, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong affirmed the line of decisions passed in Ong Ah Chuan and Nguyen. He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which establishes that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, neither precluded ‘inhuman punishment’ nor did it embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty, as lawyer M Ravi had argued.
CJ Chan said that the rulings of certain Caribbean jurisdictions against the mandatory death penalty were concerned with murder cases, and as such had no direct application to the case at hand. Furthermore, he noted the lack of an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment in the Singapore Constitution.
CJ Chan mentioned that reading the constitutional proviso of Article 9 (1) to forbid ‘inhuman punishment’ would be an act of ‘legislating … new rights under the guise of interpreting’. He noted that the government had considered – and rejected – a proposed constitutional clause against inhuman punishment in 1969.
The court also did not find applicable the Indian Supreme Court ruling that declared the mandatory death penalty inconsistent with their constitutional equivalent of Article 9 (1). CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament. Affirming the decision of Ong Ah Chuan, the court believes that any law that conforms to the ‘clear’ principles of natural justice would suffice.
The Daily Star article was sent to me by my friend Reza after conversations on the death penalty. He’s researching the death penalty in Bangladesh at the moment, while I’m campaigning against the mandatory death penalty in Singapore, and so it was one area of interest in both our countries that we share. Upon reading the article, I was amazed at the contrast between our two justice systems.
Bangladesh is a country we often label as a “third world” country, while Singapore has often been heralded for our advancement, our forward-thinking values, our entry into the “first world”. Yet the Bangladeshi court was the one with the moral courage to challenge the government, demanding that the government prove that the mandatory death penalty was constitutional. After reviewing the case, the High Court then had the strength to stand up for what they believed was right, and declare the death penalty* illegal and unconstitutional.
The Bangladeshi High Court also highlighted the fact that the mandatory death penalty restricts the jurisdiction of the judges, a concern that anti-MDP campaigners in Singapore have been raising from the very, very beginning. How is it that this realisation can come so easily to the court and lawyers of Bangladesh, and yet be constantly overlooked, side-stepped and quashed by Singapore’s government and justice system alike?
Some might point out that the cases are different: in Bangladesh it was in the case of murder and rape, whereas in Singapore it’s for drug trafficking. However, the High Court said that “whatever is the nature of crimes, death penalty cannot be the only punishment for the criminals as per the constitutional provision”. Whatever is the nature of crime, it is not the crime that is in question, but the fact that mandatory sentencing in itself restricts the judges and denies due process to the defendant.
(And need I even mention that the crime in question in Bangladesh was even more heinous than that of Vui Kong’s attempted drug trafficking?)
The case of Bangladesh is yet one more addition to a long line of countries proving that the abolition of the mandatory death penalty is becoming customary international law – yet another point denied by the Court of Appeal last Friday.
It is an embarrassment to Singapore that our supposedly “first-class” system falls short even when compared to the judiciary of a “third world” country. Projecting the image of the “first world” is not equivalent to being in the “first world”.
* Although the article uses the term “death penalty”, from what was reported I conclude that they are actually referring to the “mandatory death penalty”.
________________________
This article by Kirsten Han first appeared on funny little world and we thank her for granting us permission to reproduce it here
____________________________________________
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 wonder what will happen if one of the”aristocrat” members or their kins are caught doing things that will warrant a death penalty.
Here we are talking about the penalty that these grave criminals committed and you are campaigning against Singapore’s Death penalty as being “Constitutional, Unconstitutional, Legal, Illegal”? Those who were killed in the crime, they deserve to die? Those who took people’s life away deserve to live? It is not an embarrassment to Singapore.
Not a problem, they will minus the wt
of packing, minus impurities so it would not exceed the death penalty limit.
If it still does, the rubber stamp Parliament will be convened in no time to raise the DP limit and make it retropective.
The article compares oranges to apples.
Taking specific provisions out of context in its application to Singapore is strange, not to mention subjective.
The death penalty was not really declared illegal in Bangladesh. It is still applicable in Bangladesh just not for all cases.
The Sukur Ali case would not have been capital punishment if tried in Singapore. That’s because Sukur Ali was only age 14!
Singapore does not kill anyone below 18 and there are clear distinctions in legislation that apply in avoiding the same conclusion as the Bangladesh court. Whilst age was a major issue in the sukur ali case, it was not in YVK.
Komnenos 21 May 2010,
I wonder what will happen if one of the”aristocrat” members or their kins are caught doing things that will warrant a death penalty.
Oh but we do have experience with that.
Remember the son of High Court judge Amarjeet Singh and NMP Dr Kanwaljit Soin?
His name was Dinesh Bhatia. He was supposed to get 12 months jail for drug trafficking but he got away with 4 months of jail term and remaining jail term was served at home wearing an electronic tag.
Do you also remember who was the lawyer who defended him?
None other than our now esteemed and tough law minister: Shanmugam
I rest my case.
[And need I even mention that the crime in question in Bangladesh was even more heinous than that of Vui Kong’s attempted drug trafficking?]: Kirsten Han.
-
One word that stood out amid the comparative report is ‘attempted’, as can be seen above.
-
We tend to see Vui Kong as one who, by attempting to smuggle drugs, is the destructive person we think he is because of the destructive nature of drugs. We do not see the fact that he had actually done nothing to cause destruction and mayhem because he was caught before the drugs he carried could cause such destruction.
-
Now, contradict this with the government’s constant assurance to the international community “that death penalties will only be served on the most serious of crimes” and that ‘it is the will of the people that such a penalty be served’.
-
In January 2004, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a response to Amnesty International’s report, “Singapore: The death penalty – A hidden toll of executions”. It defended the nation’s policy to retain the death penalty, predicating its arguments on, amongst others, the following grounds.
• There is no international consensus on whether the death penalty should be abolished
• Each country has the sovereign right to decide on its own judicial system, taking into account its own circumstances
• The death penalty has been effective in keeping Singapore one of the safest places in the world to work and live in
• The application of the death penalty is only reserved for “very serious crimes”.
-
We now ask, is Vui Kong’s crime so serious that it warrants the death penalty? Who has he hurt? Attempting to hurt is very different to causing hurt, and since Vui Kong was apprehended and therefore, in truth, prevented from hurting anyone, shouldn’t it then be seen that his crime is not an earth-shattering one?
-
It also brings across another question? Is Singapore as safe as we think it is? Remember Goh CT telling BBC in 2003 that there were “in the region of about 70 to 80 hangings” that year? He of course retracted that statement later and changed the number to ten.
-
Also, our famous chief executioner, Darshan Singh boasted that he had executed more than 850 people during his term of service, which included 18 people in one day, and 7 people within 90 minutes.
-
In 2007, Ho Peng Kee said in Parliament: “Certain of us may hold the view that the death penalty should be abolished. But in a survey done two years ago, reported in the Straits Times, 95% of Singaporeans feel that the death penalty should stay. This is something which has helped us to be safe and secure all these years and it is only reserved for a very few select offences.”
-
Following the hanging of Van Tuong Nguyen in 2005, PM Lee reiterated the government’s position, stating that “The evil inflicted on thousands of people with drug trafficking demands that we must tackle the source by punishing the traffickers rather than trying to pick up the pieces afterwards… It’s a law which is approved of by Singapore’s inhabitants and which allows us to reduce the drug problem.”
-
November 2007, Singapore’s ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon said: “My delegation would like to remind this committee that capital punishment is not prohibited under international law…. [the death penalty] is an important component of the administration of law and our justice system, and is imposed only for the most serious crimes and serves as a deterrent. We have proper legal safeguards in place to prevent any miscarriage of justice.”
-
Two telling points emerges from these quotes:
1. The will of the people is the deciding factor for the continued use of the death penalty.
2. It is used for only the most serious of crimes.
-
I guess we have our answers here, if our question is how we can put a stop to it. We have to find a way to tell the government that we no longer want the death penalty, more so the mandatory one, and also to ensure that it is only reserved for the ‘most serious of crimes’ if it is kept.
-
Vui Kong’s crime is no where near this description by his failed attempt to smuggle drugs, even if we believe he is guilty of drug trafficking.
-
No wonder we are called the ‘Disneyland with the Death Penalty’, and the government has been telling the world that we are so because of us, not them.
agree with lim.
It’s from a newspaper, so probably the headline is more ‘attractive’ than if it had qualified that it was for illegal only minors and women.
… I wonder if women are included in the Act, and if anyone picked up about this gender inequality part.
there is a difference between both country.
Singapore being a rich country would be buzzing with drug lords in town.
do you have any friends in drugs, i have seen my friends going in and out of drc, even till 56 years old, you want that.?
all drug lords should be shot and hang by the balls, should i have my way.
do you knoa what is happening in brazil, mexico, south america,??? read all about it….
DEATH penalty is needed to punish those who commit serious crimes..!!
society must be rid of such scums
eye for an eye
death to those who commit heinous acts !!
eaglfly,
It seems that your comparison does not stand. Mexico and Brazil are both large countries with rural and urban poor. South America isn’t a country. So, does it not follow that if there are serious drug problems in Mexico and Brazil, we may reasonably expect there to be none in small, rich Singapore?
That aside, I do agree with your method of execution – then countries that are so utterly atavistic as to maintain the death penalty could have no pretense of defending the polity through the regrettable but necessary exercise of the ultimate penalty, but would instead be outed as barbarous, paleolithic savages who masturbate to torture porn.
By the way, the plural of anecdote isn’t data.
Agents Provocateur
we may reasonably expect there to be none in small, rich Singapore?
No. There is no such thing as ‘none’. At least not for perpetuity and with the kind of number of people we are talking about (ok..maybe for the Vatican there could be ‘none’.. but not others).
Realistically, the best anyone can hope for is ‘very little’.
if the rural poor, drug sales and use are rampant, imagine what will happen to a high gdp per capita country? Drugs will flow in more than rice.
And whats with the bolding, highlighting and increase of font size? To distract readers away from the fact that DP was “illegal” for minors, not for everyone? Trying to weasel and bring down our judicial system again?
from gemami:
[We do not see the fact that he had actually done nothing to cause destruction and mayhem because he was caught before the drugs he carried could cause such destruction.]
Just because someone was caught before he could cause grievous hurt to another person doesn’t mean that his crime is any lesser because he didn’t cause the hurt. The fact that he had no respect for the lives of the others that he would have harmed is enough to warrant the death penalty.
He did try to bring in the drugs, which we can take to assume that he did not care even the slightest to those whose lives might be blighted by those drugs.
While the death penalty may seem cruel, I believe that it is necessary, and an important part of Singapore’s laws. Only with it can we remain relatively drug free, as many others before me in this thread have pointed out. It is meant as a deterrent as much as a punishment; if we were to let Yong Vui Kong off the hook, it may send a message to other potential drug dealers and traffickers that Singapore is getting more tolerant towards drugs.
Such a message should never be allowed to be sent out.
LKY’s law is Singapore’s law. The good news is that he is close to 90 and will soon disappear from the face of this earth. We do not have long to wait.
The mandatory death sentence will soon be thrown into the dustbin of history. Justice will prevail.
Singapore 1st world mei? Don’t anyhow say la. Karma will strike one. So many 3rd world mentality in Singapore. Can’t even reach 2nd world wanna claim. Aiyo! Sia Sway! :P
Third world or first world has no relevance to moral justice of the court.
Understandably, our judicial system are greatly handicapped by the indirect involvement of the ‘Executive power’ of the system, hence the judges though intellect in law but are nitwits in true justice of the constitution.
The system employs the court judges, and I have yet to see any country in the world apart from S’pore with a bunch of compliant “men of justice”.
Sad for the long-haul fair trial of true justice in S’pore.
We seek for independent mind of justice, not otherwise !! Can the judges do that.
The whole absolute system under one ‘executive’ voice sucks !!!
Yong Vui Kong is doomed from the start.
Sad, sad, sad.
Nothing should be carved in stone.
More so when dealing with Human beings.
Even more so when dealing with ending someone’s life. Someone you hardly know.
Even if there the decision may be restrained due to whatever, are they not allowed to do something about it within the legal boundaries? Cannot Repeal?
Law professionals knows best all these things. So, if they really feel something is worth repealing, they could have done so. Not doing so, seems like suggesting acceptance or agreeing to the rules.
Fortunately, laws are not really carved in stone. For a similar offence laws can be different in different countries, even among 1st worlds.
So, the point is, Everything Can be Changed. This we need to keep in mind.
@TOC
It will be good to start with something like, “In Bangladesh, The High Court yesterday declared illegal …” or “In Dhaka”.
leesjuanpat,
hmm.. to me, it is precisely because our judges are ‘compliant’, we need a mandatory system. It’d be much harder for the ‘executive power’ to influence a decision subtly.
For example, the issue about clause 258 or something. It’s to give the police more power, which in turns lets executive powers influence decisions behind the back.
of course laws can be different in different countries. This is because laws are set by a certain group of individuals.
Law is different from Ethics , though can overlap at times.
It may be LEGAL to gamble money at singapore casinos, it may not be in some religious countries. Is it Ethical to gamble at casinos? Its up to each person’s value system.
Each country can have their own reasons.
Thus, humans being the same genetically, law can be different because the people who set them are different. Its up to them.
People should understand that laws are technically changeable. Its up the peoples involved and responsible and have power to change laws.
I agree in part with Gemami. The only way that the MDP can be amended is via parliament.
That fact was reiterated in the YVK judgement. It highlights that the courts are heavily restricted in its ability to challenge the will of parliament.
If the change in law is of concern to sufficient number of voters, that will influence politician platforms.
Unfortunately, can’t see how lives of dumb drug mules would figure high on most voter needs/ preferences. Not a bread/butter issue.
If death sentences is declared illegal. does this means that murder is declared legal now?
It is one thing to campagin against death sentences, but another thing to do it blindly with totally no considerations for the victims’ sufferings and their loved ones/family members’ pain!
I think you misunderstand Singaporeans thinking. We are not against the death penalty. We ARE death penalty “without borders” and justice where the accused is “Singularly” interrogated by the SPF without legal representation while in the SPF custody. And now ALSO, with subject admissions by the accused also admissible in a court of law per the discretion of the state’s A-G and Counsels against the defense. This makes a “mockery” of individual rights for Fair AND Just trials as the state then has “certain” privileges that the accused NEVER had right from the onset of arrest. Bias and wrongful sentences can thus occur due to “rigidity of death penalty law” as even judges hands are thus “bound” by the LETTERS of the “Crafted” laws. And discretion being solely in the hands of the SPF and state A-G and Counsel’s to admit “admissions’ to the SPF by the accuser under one-sided circumstances of being interrogated “ALONE” that is also provided by state laws!
The key word and point here is about being interrogated for a highly possibly “Death Penalty” by the SPF in TOTAL LOCKUP without any 3rd Party Witness and Legal Representative! By law morale and ethic, IS THIS TRUE Justice since ministers for MOHA & MOL only “claim” that the SPF “will not” act against the interests of the accused? Isn’t that “TOO BROAD A Law in Case & Principle Stroke”? The giving of UNDUE DILIGENCE to discretion? Meaning depending on Absolute Trust and “integrity” of the SPF in TOTAL?
Am not lawyer but my common sense and values tell me THAT Something IS AMISS here and infavour of govt? If not, why does SPF need to interrogate IN TOTAL SECRECY”. Point in summary is “Are we become ‘lawless’ in our law on death penalty by giving away too much discretion to the govt’s SPF? And is it then a “deliberate” change?
How about death penalty for reasons uncommon to Singapore. Should it be abolished.
http://g5sikhmedia.co.uk/events/view/1073/39.html
I personally feel that the death penalty should be abolished. Yes… Some may argue that serial murderers and rapists and kidnappers get away ‘scotfree’ for the crimes they have committed, for the lives they have taken. But think about it, you say that they have tried to play God by denying someone else’s right to live, yet you yourself is trying to play God as well by sentencing him to death. Do not judge others lest be judged.
This heinous Mandatory Death Penalty is just a form of legalised-state-assisted-murder.