Media Release
Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD)
25 August 2010
Singapore
Independent Clemency Board for Death Penalty Petitions
Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD) calls on the Singapore government to set up an independent board to introduce transparency for deliberating clemency petitions in death penalty cases.
SFD makes this call following the recent high court ruling that the President has no powers on clemency.
On this point we like the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to confirm that the cabinet has always been the sole decision making body in deliberating clemency petitions.
SFD notes that the last clemency granted was during the tenure of former President Ong Teng Cheong.
In the interest of transparency, SFD would like the PMO to spell out its protocol for cabinet meetings in discussing clemency petitions.
Moving forward, SFD proposes that the Singapore government convenes an independent clemency board, so that the President in future can take a decision on advice of this board. Among the task of this clemency board can include visits to prisoners for assessment.
SFD notes that the Singapore government has set up boards, committees and councils to make decisions on a wide array of policies – from wages to public transport to political films – so why not an independent Board to deliberate transparently on clemency petitions, given that human lives are at stake.
If the Government wants to execute people in the name of its citizens, then the citizens of Singapore ought to have a right to full disclosures of the government’s deliberations on clemency petitions.
Dr James Gomez
Executive Director
Mr Martyn See
Executive Secretary
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
Thank you, SFD. You said everything that has been on mind.
Seriously? a board to decide if someone who has committed a crime gets a pardon because we feel sympthy for them? if everyone gets a pardon…..then yay crime spree
so maybe the SFD before making such wants, might want to sit down and propose an idea.
so how do we say its ok to pardon one drug trafficker from another? or one murderer to another? maybe who has more sobbing family members?
You said, “Seriously? a board to decide if someone who has committed a crime gets a pardon because we feel sympthy for them?… how do we say its ok to pardon one drug trafficker from another? or one murderer to another? maybe who has more sobbing family members?”
The issue is not whether or not to have a board to decide on this matter. Currently we already have a board – which is the Cabinet – to decide on this matter of clemency. The Cabinet seems to have decided to grant clemency in a few cases during the time of both President Wee Kim Wee and President Ong Teng Chong.
The issue is which board should decide on such issue: should it be the Cabinet or should it be some other independent body.
The power is with the people not the government. We have the right to demand transparency.
“If the Government wants to execute people in the name of its citizens, then the citizens of Singapore ought to have a right to full disclosures of the government’s deliberations on clemency petitions.”
Sounds like a good idea.
is liked askin leekingyou to implement a 9 person jury services…
dream on my fello singapooriums…
Dear all
I wonder really wether anyone knows what some of the views really mean. Save says he supports the SFD statement but simply put the SFD accepts the status quo as legitimate both politicaly and constitutionally. The sfd calls on the cabinet to make a statement but the AG whom is in effect the government’s lawyer speaks for the government and that position is crystal clear.
Debate transparently ? I wonder what sfd means ? I m not open to the idea of parents lawyers brothes sisters and the defendant’s dog appearing and pleading for mercy with the victims of the crime on another , it’s the style in the US and a public spectacle which is
undignified.
I would say the decision should be written in the style of a judicial judgment stating reasons for and against but when the constitution is written to take this into account, the deliberations should not or cannot be subject to review by the courts.
The composition of the board should consist of both ex judges and ex politicians. Mercy is strictly political and should remain within the realm of politics.
As always however it is structured two cardinal points should be kept in mind. It is not a trial , it cannot also serve as a second chance for the criminal convicted to escape his sentence like houdini.
Mercy or lack thereof should remain an act of grace.
Astute
@ whybother
Firstly, SFD is asking for an independent board rather than the cabinet to decide on the clemency issue on death penalty.
Secondly, even if the death penalty is lifted, there are still other punishments for the “criminals”. Example, imprisonment, solitary confinement or caning.
Thirdly, I think how we can justify the punishment will be the same as other governing laws on thief, rape, arson etc. The heavier the crime, the heavier the punishment. So, like the amount of drugs brought in, the type of drugs, whether it is repeated offense whatsoever….
Last of all, I think that you and I are not in trouble with the law for any crimes( I’ll assume that you are not ) because we are educated, self-sufficient, and well aware of the consequences. And those consequences are a deterrent enough.
I think the idea of an independent body to deliberate on clemency is a great idea.
I must ask –
Is there anything in Singapore truly independent?
Who would decide on the deciders?
Who would decide their impartiality?
What guarantee is there that this independent body’s decision would be acceptable?
For the Review Board to be truly independent, it must be free from political interference.
It should be stated that members of the Independent Review Board have to be ordinary citizens drawn from the medical, legal and professions of equal status.
When CJ’s have come forth to say that their hands are tied on MDP.
Then it is certainly time to have an independent body. In fact, most people including me have always thought this was the procedure,during a ‘Presidential pardon’ until recently.
Thanks to lawyer Ravi.
I think there is a conflict of intrest,
When a body (the cabinet) creates or writes this law and makes it legislation on MDP.
Then
Decides on the fate of an individual, calling it a Presidential Pardon, in the name of the President.
It is a timely call by SFD.
Well done dean.
I think SFD is going the right thing to have an independent body for this issue, or else there would come a time when even innocent lives are being terminated by people who have the power to abuse the system.
Look at how fundamentally dishonest the pro-murder camp is. Poster astute says this.
“Save says he supports the SFD statement but simply put the SFD accepts the status quo as legitimate both politicaly and constitutionally.”
First, since when did you become someone who is against the people who are against the status quo?
Just crass opportunism on your part?
No, astute. All I am saying is that this SFD proposal is the best we can do as an interim measure before the full abolishment of the death penalty.
But, yes. SFD’s proposal will require a constitutional amendment.
@Benedict Thambiah,
It’s true. Can there really be any body that would be truly independent while we remain under PAP rule?
I agreed with the SFD proposal with trepidation about exactly that fact, but I am willing to allow for such an independent body for a start no matter how bad a start it will be.
There is a board of Presidential advisers to fulfill this need and who may we know constitute this independent board???waste of time and money and eventually only a facet to accomodate some silly minds.
Democracy anywhere exists only when and if there are independent courts, an independent judiciary and an independent media – as long there is govt influence or control over any of these bodies/institutions one can imagine and dream on for eternity.
Best not to set up this board. Its not as if we don’t already have a cabinet. And most important of all, no one can guarantee the newly set up board would be less likely to be influenced.
Anyway, its not as if our cabinet never pardon anyone or get paid more money if they don’t pardon anyone. A new board would only be wasting tax payers money
All one can do is wish, want,cajole, retort, chide, whine, complain n…. nothing doing; cos SIngaporeans unwittingly bought into the lie of a system that today is an albatross around each free thinking individual’s neck and a stultifying one it has degenerated into.
The system of one-party rule is susceptible to so many ”ills” that fetter independent views or for that matter independent institutions.
Eg from health, trasnportation …. committees – who presides, who decides who forms policies or recommends … the same people appointed by the ruling party or govt lah – there is bound to be influence n control.
One must be delusional to assume that independent views or opinions can emanate from such a set-up or what you will.
Undoing the one-party rule there is a possibility. Otherwise, the same old refrain the same old sorry-go-round!
Everyone is entitled to a free and fair trial- but clemency process? Clemency is a something to be given under extraordinary circumstances.
It is not meant to be a second, ‘softer’ jury to substitute the go-by-book trial process. Neither is it meant to be backdoor for people to escape the law. If we give people the impression that there is a backdoor to escape persecution, there is no longer any use in having laws.
that is why i believe that the default should be no clemency (with the occasional exception) rather than the proposed default where everyone is entitled to a clemency hearing.