Andrew Loh
“It is time for Malaysia to abolish the death penalty,” Malaysian Law Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said on Monday. His remark is a significant recognition on the part of his government in the debate over capital punishment in Malaysia. He is after all also a senior minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.
And as far as I know, he is the most senior Malaysian minister to have called for the abolition of the death penalty thus far.
“If it is wrong to take someone’s life, then the government should not do it either. It is ironic and not correct,” Nazri was reported to have said. “No criminal justice system is perfect. You take a man’s life and years later, you find out that another person did the crime. What can you do?” he added.
“For me, a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else’s life, even if that person has taken another life,” the New Straits Times quoted the minister as having said.
Malaysia and Singapore are the only two countries in Southeast Asia which impose the mandatory death penalty for certain crimes. The two countries rarely release information about executions but Malaysian activists say 358 hangings were carried out between 1981 and 2005 in Malaysia. Singapore, on the other hand, has been ranked top in the number of executions worldwide by Amnesty International.
Singapore ministers have repeatedly insisted that the death penalty deters crimes such as drug trafficking and persists in hanging even those as young as 18 and 19.
This was most explicitly spelt out in no uncertain terms by the Singapore Law Minister, K Shanmugam, in May 2010:
“Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” Shanmugam said, referring to the 22-year old Malaysian who is currently on Singapore’s death row. “We are sending a signal to all the drug barons out there: just make sure you choose a victim who is young, or a mother of a young child, and use them as the people to carry the drugs into Singapore.”
Curiously, the minister seems to believe that drug barons do consider the social status of the drug mules before employing them to traffick drugs.
The Malaysian Law minister, however, holds a different opinion – he does not feel that the death penalty is a deterrent.
The Singapore government has not provided any statistical proof or studies to back up its claims that the mandatory death penalty deters crimes. It thus seems that the application of the mandatory death penalty is based on nothing more than a “feeling” that it reduces crime, particularly for drug trafficking.
The Malaysian Law Minister’s comments come in the wake of growing public awareness and support for Yong who was arrested and sentenced to death for trafficking in 47.27g of heroin in 2007. Yong was 18 and a half years old when he was caught in Singapore.
Activists in both Malaysia and Singapore are campaigning to have his death sentence commuted, given his young age and his impoverished family background. A recent petition signing campaign in Malaysia and Singapore saw more than 100,000 people adding their support to the call to save him from the gallows. (Click here.)
Yong is expected to submit his clemency appeal to the Singapore president, who has never granted a single clemency in his 11 years as president, in the coming weeks.
With Nazri Aziz apparently giving support to the call for abolition, perhaps it is also time for Singapore to take a long hard look at its own laws regarding the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty. Several quarters have raised concerns about the issue, including opposition politicians, academics, activists, bloggers and the Law Society of Singapore.
Among countries which are reviewing their laws are China and Japan. The Japanese Justice Minister last week opened its execution chambers to journalists and she has encouraged a public debate on the issue.
Singapore’s application of the death penalty, however, is shrouded in secrecy and the media has shied away from highlighting the issue to bring about a similar public debate.
In the meantime, the island will continue to hang the young and the poor, in its belief that this deters the drug barons.
If drug lords cared about the young and the poor, would they even use them as drug couriers in the first place?
Perhaps it is time for the Singapore public to be given the opportunity to have a meaningful debate on questions such as these.
It is time to stop burying our heads in the sand.
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
This is a surprise call from a Malaysian Minister known for his radical acts.
Perhaps he is a human at heart.
Singapore may follow Malaysia’s decision – as with regards to the ISA, the Singapore Government has publicly indicated that when Malaysia give up the ISA – the same will be considered in Singapore.
Malaysia will do well to act in the interests of all – as the people of Malaysia and Singapore share common family bonds across the political line since the Colonial Period, and continue with new family ties through marriage of younger generations.
Its unlikely Sg will ever abolish the death penalty, perhaps not in my lifetime. I have a niggling feeling the authorities have become so pragmatic & economically calculative, that they don’t want to hv to subsidize life sentences for the many, many drug traffickers languishing in Sg jails.
Unless & until the powers that be start to see individuals in their own right, & not wave the ‘collective good’ trump card they always use, what’s one more life? be it young, impoverished, or female even?
Sg will even inflict violent punishments of the rotan against vandals & over-stayers, whose crimes do not involve violence against another human being. That is the attitude that is pervasive.
What is perhaps more realistic to hope for for Sg in the shorter term, is that the judiciary is able to exercise its discretion in imposing the death sentence, or the rotan. Currently, Sg has way too many mandatory sentences, that leaves the judges’ hands tied. The Misuse of Drugs Act creates a presumption that anyone caught with 15g or more of morphine for eg is a trafficker, & if the accused cannot rebut that presumption, he faces a mandatory death sentence. Usually, the accused faces an uphill task of rebutting this presumption (which is almost the diametric opposite of ‘innocent until proven guilty’), if he has limited access to counsel & to police investigative reports – until very much later.
To me, things won’t change unless there is a change in deeply rooted attitude:
- valuing the individual individually;
- that no human being or organization is infallible;
I shudder to think that people like Lim Swee Say, Vivian Balakrishnan, Mah Bow Tan, Lim Hng Kiang, Yaacob Ibrahim are the ones who have such power over someone’s life.
They are all members of the Cabinet which holds clemency power.
If you’re not scared or frightened by this aspect alone, something’s not right with you.
We need a change in so many areas of the MDP that i am appalled that no MP sees the shortcomings in them.
And we’re using these laws to hang the young?
Come on. There comes a time when someone has to speak up! And now is as good a time as any, given the number of people the state is killing!
I think it is better not to hang the guilty person than to hang the innocent person. For the innocent person, once hanged is not reversible and no amount of money or compensation will bring him back.
Regardless of who ultimately has the authority to decide the clemency application under the law (pending possible action under Article 100 of the Constitution), it remains a fact that Shanmugam has already compromised and prejudiced the legal process by declaring the outcome in the Yong Vui Kong case (as opposed to a general non-specific comment) even BEFORE the clemency application is submitted.
This is a fundamental and inexcusable error.
He M’sian. They like to wayang, talk a lot
Let’s see what happens to next convicted drug traffickerin M’sia.
i don’t want MANDATORY death penalty under MDA at all.
damned! even PROVEN violent criminals can escape just punishment and prey on the court’s sense of mercy by submitting false, unverified mitigation.
i want death penalty at the discretion of the court, and only reserved for the most serious crimes e.g. first-degree murder.
Singapore is run by a group of walking DEAD. How to have compassion?
A significant step towards what? Protecting violent criminals at the expense of good honest law-abiding citizens?
Imagine that the DP is abolished completely and your son is murdered. Then you’re told that you not only cannot hang the murderer, but even worse, you must also contribute money to keep that scumbag alive!
How can this EVER be justified? I dare any of you abolitionists to go to a court hearing and try to convince a deceased’s family of your position.
It’s always easy to chant feel-good utter stock phrases when you don’t have to face the real victims of your campaign, and by real victims I do not mean the murderers.
@Chiper:
Very well said!
@Chiper,
“A significant step towards what? Protecting violent criminals at the expense of good honest law-abiding citizens?”
Where exactly was the violence inflicted by the so-called “VIOLENT” criminals on your so-called “law-abiding citizens” who were already so addicted to drugs?
Remember that consumption of drugs, even prior to its supply by those so-called “VIOLENT” criminals is itself a CRIME.
Drug mules are only involved in the supply gap that your poor, innocent imaginary cases of preyed-upon and violence-inflicted ‘victims’ have created by their own demand for those drugs
“I dare any of you abolitionists to go to a court hearing and try to convince a deceased’s family of your position.”
First of all, I would challenge YOU to come forward with a list of the number of people who are now deceased because of the acts of a drug trafficker or a drug mule selling drugs to people who are already exposed to it or worse, addicted to it.
“It’s always easy to chant feel-good utter stock phrases when you don’t have to face the real victims of your campaign, and by real victims I do not mean the murderers.”
What is it your much vaunted “VICTIMS” don’t already have to help them in their needs?
Services to ease them out of the addiction that is not the fault of the drug traffickers, or worse drug mules?
What the hell are the drug rehabilatition centres and the hospital services for then if not to satisfy your “what about the victims?” needs?
@chiper
drug business, like any other business, works on demand and supply.
there are many reasons why more younger generation take drug and ecstacy and why drug addicts continue to be a drug addicts. It is not because of drug mules like vui kong and putting the entire blame on them is just irresponsible. Drug mules are victim, because drug baron does not want to risk their own life.
just because we are law abiding citizen does not make us a more superior human being than others. All the more we should care and concerned about the marginised people in the society and we should not turn a blind eye to injustice and oppression. why should the society care about a single person individual human right, while the majority of us are comfortable in our life, my answer is, we will then move to be more civilised society.
“How can this EVER be justified? I dare any of you abolitionists to go to a court hearing and try to convince a deceased’s family of your position.”
the abolitists all around the world have asked that question, and that is why there is this thing called “restorative justice”. check on this, you will find the answer.
value life, is the core of humanity.
“An eye for an eye” may be a fair principle.But for the govt,it shouldn’t use such a principle on criminals.The reason is the govt should uphold a humane principle.
I understand the crime rates didn’t increase after death penalty had been abolished. So it would be good for the govt to se an example to the ppl.
“An eye for an eye … and soon the whole world will be blind” said Gandhi.
In a thousand years from now, I should think this great Asian leader will still be remembered and revered for his humanity; while another leader of a small Asian island, so-called Mentor to Ministers, and known for his Machiavellian instincts and narcissistic memoirs, will probably merit a footnote or two.
@Save Vui Kong and ncy
Did you guys not read my comment at all before going on and on about drug mules?
Where did I mention drug mule? In fact, I expressly said MURDERER and VIOLENT CRIMINALS. Drug mules generally do not resort to violence commit their crimes.
I was addressing the M’sian minister’s comments, where he said the DP should be abolished. He did not specify abolished for drug offences only, so I think I’m quite justified in understanding his comment as advocating total abolition, which would include murder.
I have a lot of faith in the integrity and sound judgment of Lim Swee Say, Yaacob Ibrahim, Mah Bow Tan, Vivian Balakrishnan and Lim Hng Kiang. They are all honourable men.
I am against the death penalty except for very limited crimes. Under the present climate, all we can hope for is the doing away with mandatory death sentences and giving the judge some discretion. I hope the issue will be addressed in parliamnet and MPs given a free vote.
Btw, don’t pin too much hope on the opportunistic Nazri. He is known for foul behaviour in Parliament, is suspected of corruption in taxi licensing and his playboy son was implicated in a murder charge.
Chiper, you’re right. I did misread your post. My apologies.