Connect with us

Legislation

Singapore can no longer use majority support as the reason for not abolishing the death penalty

Published

on

Speaking in a panel of a public forum held on last Friday (9 Dec) , Michael Hor, Dean of the Faculty of Law in University of Hong Kong, said that with the results from the survey, “Public Opinion on the Death Penalty”, the Singapore government can no longer support the use of death penalty by claiming it has majority support of the Singapore population.

While Roger Hood, the Professor Emeritus of Criminology at Oxford University and an Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, spoke on the ambiguity of the death penalty and how the general public change their impression of the death penalty when probed further about the implications of the punishment.

Along with Mr Hor and Professor Hood, Chan Wing Cheong, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore; Jack Tsen-Ta Lee, Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Singapore Management
University; Tan Ern Ser, Associate Professor of Sociology and Academic Adviser to Social Lab,
Institute of Policy Studies and Braema Mathi is founder and former president of MARUAH were present at the panel.

The survey on Public Opinion on the Death Penalty conducted by the National University of Singapore (NUS) in April to May 2016, showed support for mandatory death penalty by Singaporeans is much lower that what have been inferred from previous surveys which sought opinion about the death penalty in general.

support-death-penalty

Results from survey conducted on opinion towards death penalty

The survey sampled 1500 respondents aged 18-74 with a questionnaire. While 70% of the surveyed express support for the death penalty, only 8% of them said that they were strongly in favour, and of the 27% who said that they were opposed, only 3% were strongly opposed.

Michael Hor said in response to a question from the audience, “I’ve been thinking for many years, what is it in the governmental psyche that prevents the government from abolishing death penalty, what exactly is it?” after looking at various reasons such as deterrent, public opinions and etc.

But despite the lack of clarity on the reason(s) by the government of not abolishing the death penalty, Mr Hor noted that the results of the survey would mean the Singapore government can no longer hide behind reason that the majority of Singaporeans do not wish to abolish the death penalty.

Pointing to the results, those who strongly support death penalty are in the very small minority. While there are a significant number of people who support the death penalty but when asked if they would support the abolishment of the death penalty, they did not mind if that is the case.

Mr Hor then said that he thinks every state, every country, wants to appear to be civilized among the community of nations.

He explained that the sudden drops in execution in Singapore can be traced to the year 2004, which is likely to be because Amnesty International published a report that year, saying that Singapore had been the highest (country) in capital execution in the world.

“Almost immediately.. something happened.. and the execution was stopped,” he said, “So don’t underestimate this government’s desire to look civilized.”

“Even Chinese government, they too started reducing prosecutions. Why? I think they want to be seen as world’s leaders, and world’s leaders do not execute people like that,” Mr Hor concluded.

Professor Hood, who is also an honorary Queen’s Counsel and a Fellow of the British Academy commented on an earlier response by a member of the audience that there are hideous crimes that the offenders have to be killed for.

He said, “No one doubts that a certain type of killer might be condemned more than others, no one doubts that some other people would do the worst crimes, having the most disadvantages, the most hurt, the most stigmatised and those with the most severe mental illness.”

Noting that there is a certain segment of population who feel that they are not in it for the death penalty but wishes death penalty to be used on certain criminals, states that such mindset is problematic as there is this fundamental question of who decides whether death penalty should be enforced.

“How do you decide who deserves to die, how can it be done without it being arbitrary.” said Professor Hood.

Professor Hood has published studies of public opinion on the mandatory death penalty in both Trinidad and Malaysia, and recently served as a consultant to the review of the death penalty in Malaysia by the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Such problems exist in countries, such as India. Professor Hood informed the audience that in India, even if the convicts are sentenced to death, they’re not being executed. This is because the Court of Appeal, the supreme court has to decide which are cases that truly deserve death; “Some judges favor the death penalty while others will never do it,” Professor Hood stated, and added “…it is impossible to maintain a fair, error free form of execution in India for murder and therefore death penalty has to be abolish.”

Professor Hood said, it has been shown that wrongful conviction is most likely to happen in the most serious of crime due to the pressure from public upon the justice system, so there would be mistakes.

The Professor noted that when people are asked about their support towards death penalty if they knew that people had been executed, had the possibility of being innocent.”, the proportion of support drops. In Malaysia, support drops to 35 percent, the same in Trinidad, China and in Japan.

“Now we see an action in Japan, which doing away with that penalty because it’s a terrible example of a really wrongful conviction and somebody could easily have been executed,” he said and believes that it will similarly be the case in Singapore in time to come.

Earlier this year in its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Singapore received 13 recommendations that called for progress towards abolition of the use of death penalty while twenty countries recommended the Singaporean government re-establish a moratorium on executions.

The government defended the use of capital punishment as “legitimate” to deter the most serious crimes, including drug trafficking.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Civil Society

Transformative Justice Collective urges gov’t to remove expansion of police powers in Road Traffic Act amendments

Published

on

Local NGO, Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), which advocates for the human rights of prisoners and those on death row, opposes the expansion of police powers to stop-and-frisk as outlined in the Road Traffic Act amendment and called for its removal.

In a statement on their website released on Tuesday (18 May), TJC noted its concern that this proposed amendment to the Act introduces measures “without adequate discussion” on the potential cost of these frisk searches on members of the public.

Among others, the amendment allows for police officers as well as “senior approved persons” to conduct frisk searches on commuters of public transport and use handheld scanners to screen them.

The statement added: “Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) is further concerned that these measures will contribute to racial and religious profiling, and perpetuate racist and xenophobic sentiments that have unfortunately been intensifying in our society of late.”

Citing a New York University (NYU) study which shows that young urban men in New York who experienced police stops also reported higher levels of anxiety, while those who experienced more intrusive stops experienced more trauma.

Referencing Senior Minister of State for Transport Dr Amy Khor’s remarks in Parliament as the bill was debated in which she compares frisk searches to routine searchers at major public events, TJC stressed that this “discounts the psychological effect it may have on those who are singled out for searches during their public transport journey in plain view of other commuters.”

“It has been the case that “stop and frisk” practices in other jurisdictions, for example in New York and the United Kingdom, have drawn strong criticisms for disproportionately targeting minority men and boys,” TJC added, noting that this has given rise to a sense of expectation that will be stopped just for going about their day.

In Parliament, Dr Khor’s had highlighted that people afforded with this power to conduct frisk searches will be trained on how to identify people who display “suspicious behaviour.” However, TJC critiqued the lack of detail in the proposed amendments as to what entails “suspicious behaviour”.

It explained: “Suspicious behaviour’ is a nebulous idea, like ‘dangerous people’, both given to stereotypes based on race, skin colour, class and presentation (e.g. people with tattoos and piercings also tend to be disproportionately targeted).”

TJC questioned is such pre-emptive policing is “really capable of being free of biases” given that the very premise of it requires officers to make assumptions on who is more likely to be a danger to others around them.

The group went on to say also that there is evidence to show that raining does not necessarily translate to fairer practices.

It added, “In the absence of transparency around the training materials and guidelines for how officers should make decisions about who to stop and frisk, these reassurances by Dr Khor ring hollow.”

Moving on, TJC noted the lack of legislative safeguards in the amendments against “unnecessary use or abuse of such powers”, noting that police officers and so-called ‘senior approved persons’ are given complete discretion on who to stop and frisk.

The group pointed out that in countries such as the United States or United Kingdom, officers are generally required to have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime or is in possession of an illegal item in order to conduct a search. They are also required to inform the person of the reason for the search.

The proposed amendment to the Road Traffic Act, however, states in a “catch-all” way that a search can be conducted as long as the officer “reasonably considers it necessary” to “ensure the security or safety of persons” on public transport.

TJC criticised that “Such broad powers to police and search our bodies are antithetical to our welfare, autonomy and sense of safety as we use public transport.”

Beyond that, TJC also noted that the proposed amendments do not outline avenues of recourse for individuals who may feel aggrieved by the manner of the search or by the conduct of the officers carrying out the search.

“Ultimately, profiling contributes to a sense of alienation, disenfranchisement and stigmatisation of racial and religious minorities, and other marginalised groups,” TJC warned.

It went on to highlight how, in Singapore, many Indian and Malay men—“especially if they are dark-skinned, travel alone, sport bears or carry backpacks”—are often repeatedly stopped for screening and bag checks.

“They find it extremely humiliating and distressing to be subjected to such a check, to the extent that many of them account for the extra time this will take when they are commuting by public transport,” TJC pointed out.

The group referred to an anecdote of a Tamil man who reported feeling an improvement in his mental health once he started driving and wasn’t subject to the “dehumanising checks” anymore.

TJC asserted, “These frisk searches represent another way for the State to intrude upon the bodies and lives of minority and marginalised communities, who already face microaggressions and other material harms in almost every aspect of their lives.”

It went on to slam the state’s reliance on the rhetoric of “national security” and “terrorist threats” to “justify the unilateral expansion of intrusive police powers and to dismiss concerns about the harms these practices bring about. “

It asserted that when these justifications are cited, there is also the added responsibility of the state on “being transparent about the threat assessment to the public.”

“There is also a need to weigh the necessity and effectiveness of each specific measure that expands police and state powers, against the potential harm and intrusion into our privacy and well-being that they bring,” it concluded, calling for the removal of this expansion of police powers.

 

Continue Reading

Legislation

“Fight fake news with facts, not Acts,” urge media practitioners after M’sian govt’s decision to criminalise spread of fake news under Emergency Ordinance

Published

on

By

The act of publishing or disseminating fake news relating to COVID-19 or the Emergency proclamation is now a crime with effect from Friday (12 Mar) under the Emergency (Essential Powers) (No. 2) Ordinance 2021.

Published in the Federal Government Gazette on Thursday, Section 2 of the Ordinance defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false relating to COVID-19 or the proclamation of Emergency, whether in the forms of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas”.

Those found guilty of creating, publishing or disseminating fake news relating to COVID-19 or the Emergency proclamation could face a fine up to RM100,000, or a jail term of up to three years, or both.

In the case of a continuing offence, individuals may be subject to a further fine of up to RM1,000 for every day during which the offence continues after conviction.

In addition, the Ordinance states that the court may order any publication deemed to be fake news to be removed in 24 hours.

Failing to do so will result in a fine not exceeding RM100,000, with up to RM3,000 added for every day the directive is not followed.

“The law applies to any person involved in the dissemination of fake news both within the country and abroad, regardless of nationality, given that the fake news in question affects Malaysia or a Malaysian citizen,” it said.

Geramm: Fake news should be combatted through fact-checking initiatives, not oppressive legislation

Gerakan Media Merdeka (Geramm) — a coalition of media practitioners and supporters of press freedom in Malaysia and across the Southeast Asian region — expressed concern over the government’s move to gazette such an Ordinance.

In a statement on Thursday, Geramm said that it is alarming that such a law was not drafted by elected parliamentarians and passed through a Dewan Rakyat sitting, given the suspension of Parliament during the period.

“On the surface, the regulations may appear to be agreeable. However, with no clear definition of ‘fake news’, we are concerned over possible abuse that may arise as a consequence,” it pointed out.

The Ordinance, said Geramm, should not be used as a tool to silence, pressure or bully dissidents.

It reiterated its stand to “fight fake news with facts, not Acts”, supporting fact-checking initiatives in place of legislation.

CIJ: Criminalising fake news under Ordinance grants Govt “unfettered powers” to “undermine our fundamental rights” to free speech and expression

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) said it is “deeply shocked and appalled” by the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government’s decision to criminalise “fake news” under the new Emergency Ordinance.

Its executive director, Wathshlah G. Naidu in a statement on Thursday called on the government to stop using the state of Emergency to stifle any criticism of the current administration.

“Without the necessary parliamentary checks and balances, the unfettered powers given to the current administration under the Emergency Proclamation foretells the continued attempts by this government to use any means possible to undermine our fundamental rights and freedoms,” she said.

The introduction of specific elements of the Anti-Fake News Act 2018 — repealed by the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government in 2019 — into the Ordinance is “opportunistic”, Wathshlah added.

She also highlighted how “fake news” is not clearly defined in the law, which opens up a real possibility of abuse through arbitrary arrests, investigations and punitive actions being taken against the alleged offender.

“We anticipate further surveillances and invasions of our privacy, arbitrary censorships of critical and dissenting media reports, and thus, attacks on media freedom, and disproportionate crackdowns on legitimate speech such as dissent and misinformation,” said Wathshlah.

The government should thus withdraw the Ordinance supposedly  targeted at criminalising fake news, as it will go against the fundamental norms of freedom of expression and speech as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Continue Reading

Trending