~by: Ravi Philemon~

On 1 February 2012, I wrote an article for TOC titled, 'Death penalty has contributed to low rates of drug use? Where's the proof?'. In that article I had said:

I refer to the Law Ministry's media release refuting Human Rights Watch's (HRW) country report for Singapore. In its media release the Law Ministry said, " HRW also made false assertions. For example, contrary to assertions in its news article1, capital punishment is not prohibited by international law".

Although I did not find that particular assertion in HRW's country report,..

But as a TOC reader rightly pointed out, the Law Ministry's media release pointed to HRW's article, 'Singapore: Stop Hiding Behind Old Excuses' and not to HRW's report. 

The reader also pointed out that International Harm Reduction Agency (IHRA) in its report "The Death Penalty for Drugs Offences : Global Overview 2011", identified 12 states that imposed Mandatory Death Penalty for drug offences – Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Oman, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, UAE and Yemen; and that Taiwan, Japan and India were not on that list. 

I apologise for these oversights in that article. I agree that the conversations on mandatory death penalty, must be based on facts and that you cannot fight false assertions with false assertions.

But having said that, the crux of my earlier article is true. The most important part of that article being:

"HRW's assertion on the death sentence in its country report, is I believe, meant to draw attention to the 'mandatory' aspect of the death penalty and how it is applied to drug related offences here in Singapore.

In its media release the Law Ministry said, ' A large number of countries, including many modern, developed countries (like the US) impose the punishment. In Singapore, capital punishment has contributed to low rates of crime and drug use; and is overwhelmingly supported by Singaporeans.'

It's true that although 16 states and the District of Columbia have abolished death penalty in the United States of America, it is still practiced in the other states of the USA. The mandatory death penalty though has been ruled as unconstitutional since 1976 in that country."

For even in the HRW article pointed out by the reader, HRW had said:

"The government also maintains mandatory death sentences for 20 drug-related offenses and judicial sentences that include caning, which amounts to torture. Both punishments should be banned for being in violation of international law…"

HRW had not said that capital punishment is prohibited by international law, but that mandatory death sentences for drug-related offenses are in violation of international law.

And also, even if IHRA had mentioned 12 countries that still had mandatory death penalty in its report, a cursory check with 'Death Penalty Worldwide' shows that Egypt and Oman do not have such laws now. And that organisation is unsure if mandatory death penalty is applied in Laos. But what's certain is that mandatory death penalty had been ruled as unconstitutional in the USA since 1976. 

If we look at the other countries mentioned in the report, Singapore stands with very few modern developed countries, in not setting aside or relaxing the mandatory death penalty.

Even if Singapore's Court of Appeal had ruled in Yong Vui Kong's case that just because the majority of States in the international community do not impose the mandatory death penalty (MDP) for drug trafficking, this does not make the prohibition against the MDP a rule of Customary International Law, the IHRA report states:

"Mandatory death sentences have been criticised as being ‘over-inclusive’ and ‘unavoidably violat[ing] human rights law’. In 2007, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions wrote, ‘In such cases, individualized sentencing by the judiciary is required in order to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life.’ Such mandatory sentences have also been criticised by the former UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as by numerous national courts."

I want to thank that TOC reader for pointing me in the right direction, so that I can put forth an argument based on hard facts in joiing the many voices that call for a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty in Singapore. 

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

陈清木致意工友们付出“恩重难报” 坚信疫情后国民终将浴火重生

新加坡前进党秘书长陈清木医生录视频,感谢全体工友的付出和牺牲,特别是当前在前线抗疫的医疗人员。 他提及当前因为疫情我国无法欢庆五一劳动节,数以万计工友生计大受影响; 再者客工宿舍确诊病例激增,也揭发外籍客工拥挤、卫生欠佳的住宿环境,他们未得到应有的尊重和待遇。 陈清木提及尽管我国号称第一世界国家,但财富未被均等分配,国家财富理应让更多贫苦人民受惠。 (视频来源:陈清木脸书)

票箱若遗失可以不计? 选举修法令人起疑

新加坡民主党于昨日发文告警示民众,选举部近期提呈不寻常的选举法修改条例,充满疑点。 其中一项修法建议,规定在前往计票中心前,如已封箱的投票箱已损毁获遗失,可以不计其选票。除非选举官认为有关投票站的票数足以左右最终结果,可以重新召开新一轮投票。 有关修改选举法的动议,在本月10日通过一读。 民主党质问,为何在这个时节点提出这项修改?选举部是否能向选民解释,过去有无发生过票箱被毁获不见的事件? 该党称,过去都不曾发生类似案例,但政府却无法给出合理解释,为何要修改此规章。 在投票站直接计票 如果选举部关系票箱遗失的问题,最好的办法,就是在投票时间结束后,直接在投票站清算该站的选票总数。 “在其他国家都这么做。投票结束后,选举官就宣布开箱,在各政党候选人、代表乃至民众的在场见证下,当场唱票。” 算票结束后,选举官必须当场宣布该投票站的票数,记录并交给选举部。现今资讯工艺发达,如此计票过程肯定可以有效、迅速且透明地进行。只有在所有投票站都算好票,并总和所有投票站成绩后,才正式公布最后结果。 如此,就能解决行动党所谓担心票箱在运送到计票中心的过程中,损毁或不见的担忧。 “如果行动党政府希望打造公平透明的选举制度,首先应该让选举部从总理署的管辖下独立出来,并在独立的选举委员会监督下运作。” 文告指出,只要选举部仍在总理署的掌控下,对于选举法的任何改动,都很难让新加坡人信服。民主党呼吁行动党政府停止忽悠人民,真诚打造一个自由、公平和透明的选举制度。…

美鹰管理公司EH-REIT被令撤换 股东向王瑞杰求情

被指管理公司涉违规,金融管理局在上月底下令美鹰酒店信托(Eagle Hospitality Trust)的受托机构DBS Trustee,撤换和委任新管理公司。 美鹰酒店信托的管理公司是美鹰酒店信托管理公司(Eagle Hospitality REIT Management,简称EH-REIT)。2019年5月24日,美鹰酒店信托上市,EH-REIT之后就一直负责管理该信托。 然而,美鹰酒店信托上市以来风波不断,该信托在美国加州长滩市的游轮玛丽皇后号,传出维修问题,结果股价大跌。 信托的主要租户Urban Commons LLC,无法缴足保证金和及时支付租金,致使一笔3亿4100万元贷款违约,在今年3月24日自愿停牌。即便现任与前任董事和员工,也因为涉嫌抵触证券与期货法令接受调查。…