Ñ‚ãâµãâ»ã‘å’ãâ½ã‘âã‘ë†ãâºãâ° High Resolution Blue Stripe Channel Shirt High Resolution

The recent case of Malaysian Drug Mule, Nagenthran Dharmalingam, has brought Singapore's death penalty legislation onto the forefront of the world stage, drawing criticism and backlash from people worldwide. Founder of Virgin Group, Richard Brenson, has even called on Singapore's President Halimah Yacob "to use her pardon powers and spare Nagenthran's life". For the small percentage of you living with Patrick Star, Nagenthran faces the death penalty for trafficking 47.72 grams of Heroin in April 2009 and would not be awarded clemency on an unsound mind. This case brings about the age-old dilemma: Should the Death Penalty be retained or abolished? Here is my take:

What is the Death Penalty?

The death penalty is a legal practice applied mainly to those convicted for murder, drug trafficking, and some firearms-related offences in Singapore. Singapore's faith in the deterrence that the death penalty brings is evident in 2020 when it had voted for the eighth time against the United Nation's Moratorium of the Death Penalty Resolution. Singapore was one of the 38 countries that voted against the resolution, while 123 countries favoured, and the remaining abstained from voting or were absent. Singapore has cited that capital punishment was not prohibited under International law, and its sole purpose is to act as a deterrence against serious crimes.

Though three crimes warrant the death penalty, I will focus on the punishments for drug trafficking as my views on the other two align with the current legislation. As per the last blog post, I emphasised that there must always be a cause for every action. So why does the Singapore government mandate such stern and austere punishments? The Ministry of Home Affairs website has explicitly stated that the death penalty acts as a deterrent against the three serious crimes. It has also claimed that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is reflected in:

1. The public support that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment;
2. The significant reduction in "serious crimes" such as drug trafficking
3. Drug traffickers scaling down their crimes such as smuggling in lower amounts of drugs.

While statistics do not lie, there are always many facets to a story, and data can always be skewed to further substantiate one's motive.

Public Support for the Death Penalty

The government has constantly emphasised that the general public supported the death penalty to prove the public's backing of the policies and legislation in Singapore. Their claims were exemplified during a survey conducted by REACH, a department under the Ministry of Communications and Information, which interviewed 1,160 Singaporeans through computer-assisted telephones. The survey results revealed that 80% of interviewees felt that the death penalty should be retained.

However, if we delve into the finer details of the results, 57% outrightly supported the death penalty while 23% said it "depends". Let us note that the 80% of the public stating that the death penalty should be retained does not necessarily mean that they agree that certain crimes such as drug trafficking and homicide warrant the death penalty. They concur that the death penalty should remain one of the various punishments for an offender to be dealt with. The "black and white" nature of the survey does not consider the public's opinion on other forms of deterrence and methods to reduce crime rates. Thus, due to the ambiguous nature of the survey, it allows data to be misinterpreted and skewed to propagate the government's desired message. Therefore, the public support for the death penalty is drastically lower than the "80% support" the government claims.

To counter the inaccuracies in REACH's survey, NUS' Faculty of Law Associate Professor Chan Wing Cheong conducted a research survey titled "The Public Opinion on the Death Penalty in Singapore: Survey Finding". The survey presented different scenarios and more variables in its questions rather than asking point-blank if "the death penalty should be retained". Though the survey also revealed that a high proportion of the public supported the death penalty in the three serious crimes, only less than half supported the mandatory death penalty. Furthermore, more than half supported the discretionary death penalty for drug trafficking and firearms offences. When enquired about the preferred measures to reduce violent crimes leading to death, "Greater number of executions" was ranked last. In contrast, "Better moral education of young people" and "More effective policing to bring criminals to justice and make punishment more certain" were ranked first and second, respectively. So what can we make of these results? The public is more inclined to an inter-personal approach such as rehabilitation and education rather than using capital punishment as a primary deterrent to reduce crime rates.

Government's Amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act

In 2012, the government had shown attempts to award offenders of the three serious crimes more lenient punishments through the amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The amended act allows offenders to be granted a life sentence instead of the death penalty only if he/she acted solely as a courier AND was suffering from an "abnormality of the mind" that "substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts" OR had received a Certificate of Cooperation (COC) from the prosecution certifying that he/she had "substantively assisted' the authorities in disrupting drug trafficking activities. This is a commendable first step by the government in seeking other forms of punishments by factoring in the situational context and background of the offender rather than blindly throwing the death sentence when he/she may have been acting under duress.

However, one inherent flaw of this new amendment is not made extensively known to the public: The prosecution provides the issue of a Certificate of Cooperation (COC). Not even the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the land, can question it or conduct a judicial review unless proven that the decision was made in bad faith. Moreover, the decision for the COC is also made behind closed doors with an absolute lack of transparency. Thus, the prosecution does have the power to act in their interests and get away with "bad calls" if they are not caught. Moreover, the Attorney-General holds the dual role of Public Prosecutor and Chief Legal Advisor to the government, and their actions do likely bear some influence from the government. Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong has refuted this accusation, stating that the lack of a political office held by the Attorney-General and constitutional safeguards allows the prosecution to work fairly and justly without political pressure. However, it is nearly impossible to conclude that the prosecution does not have any influence or ulterior motive in their actions after working closely with the government for an extended period.

This was apparent in the 2014 Drug Trafficking Case of Muhammad Ridzuan Md Ali and Abdul Haleem Abdul Karim. The prosecution only awarded Haleem a COC during the trial, allowing him to serve life imprisonment while Ridzuan faced the death penalty. For reasons unknown, the prosecution had rejected Ridzuan's COC even though he had provided details to the Central Narcotic Branch (CNB) of the drug supplier's description, name, and identity, according to his sister Noraisah. The prosecution may have some valid reasons for not issuing a COC. However, as their reasons were not made public, it does invite questions as to how two people trialled for the exact case walked out with two drastically different outcomes.

Therefore, the authorities have to state what constitutes "substantive assistance" because if a COC's awarding is dependent on a specific outcome achieved, such as disrupting drug trafficking activities, many variables are not being accounted for. Not only does the quality of assistance provided by the offender comes to play, but the authorities' competency and ability to take action is vital in disrupting drug trafficking activities. While the government's efforts in not treating every case "by the book" is applaudable, they need to be more transparent by explicitly defining terms in the legislation and ensuring they are not vaguely worded to ensure equality and fairness for all drug offenders in any trial. This allows offenders to know their rights as well.

Coming Back to Nagenthran's Case

Under the amended Misuse of Drug Act, Nagenthran should have been eligible to serve life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. He merely acted as a courier and had an IQ of 69, which is within the range for an individual to have an increased risk of being diagnosed with one or more mental disorders. However, the trial judge had rejected this plea on the basis that though having obtained an IQ of 69 shows he had borderline intellectual functioning, he was not found to have any degree of intellectual disability when committing the crime. While I do have faith and trust in the judge's decision not to grant clemency, the government still needs to be explicit and transparent in letting the public know how they determined that he was indeed of sound mind during the act of crime.

Furthermore, though a case about murder and not drugs, in 2002, Singapore extradited British Murder Suspect and fugitive Michael Mccrea to Singapore from Australia to undergo trial, promising Australia that Michael would not serve the death penalty. Michael was then sentenced to 24 years in prison for culpable homicide of a couple at Orchard towers. How can the government award Nagenthran the death penalty and not provide any form of clemency when offenders convicted of more sinister crimes that warrant the death penalty are walking away with just prison time?

There is a need for the government to always justify their actions and not just expect the public to trust them blindly. Singaporeans are not just merely sheep today. We are made up of youths with daring initiatives and who are outspoken in their views. The online petition against Nagenthran's death, which accumulated over 60,000 signatures, proves that Singaporeans want their voices to be heard. In cases like Nagenthran's, where there have no precedents for a plea on an unsound mind, justifying their actions would ensure the government is always held accountable and allows for fairness and equality in all subsequent cases. Moreover, the public would be able to learn the perspectives of the government better and would not immediately assume that our government is acting in bad faith.

How Should Punishments be Awarded for Different Crimes?

Punishment and charges should always be in proportion to the seriousness of a crime. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) website has stated that crimes have to fulfil three considerations to warrant the death penalty:

1. The seriousness of the offence (harm it will cause society)
2. How frequent or widespread the offence is
3. The need for a very high deterrent

The government has claimed that as drug trafficking fulfils these three requirements, there is a need for the death penalty for those found guilty. However, there must be consistency and reasoning when analysing the different types of crimes to deem if they qualify for the death penalty. A rapist can face up to 20 years imprisonment in Singapore, while a mere drug trafficker can face death. I will be using the three considerations by the MHA to prove why rape should carry a stricter sentencing/punishment than drug trafficking.

For (1): Compared to a drug trafficker, a rapist poses more of a threat to society due to the direct emotional and physical trauma they leave on their victims. The victims can suffer from psychological trauma, such as Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS), which disrupts the individual's physical, emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal behaviour. This could lead to high levels of distress and anxiety, which may stick with them for their whole life. Walking alone at night and getting intimate with their partner, which were experiences we enjoyed without stress, would now be experiences riddled with fear and cautiousness. Furthermore, a rapist has a clear intention to inflict harm on others for their pleasure compared to a drug trafficker whose sole purpose may be to improve his financial well-being. Though consumption of drugs can cause death, the drug trafficker cannot possibly bear full responsibility for it. Drug-related deaths and long term medical issues from consumption can be due to many reasons, such as overconsumption or a body's inability to accept foreign material. Thus, It is unequivocal that rape warrants the death penalty more than drug trafficking due to the immediate harm and threat it poses to society.

As for (2), while the number of cases relating to drug abusers and traffickers in Singapore is about 3000 in 2018 and 2019 compared to rape cases standing at 213 and 281 respectively, the number of people executed for drug trafficking is far lesser. In 2018, only two judicial executions were carried out, while there were 11 in 2019. This reveals that the number of drug trafficking cases that constitute the death penalty is less prevalent. Keep in mind that numerous drug traffickers enter Singapore successfully without getting caught. In addition, there are rape victims who have not reported their experiences in fear of embarrassment and vulnerability. Therefore, the number of rape cases reported in Singapore could be higher and more widespread than drug trafficking cases.

For (3), the need for a high level of deterrence is subjective and should be based on the level of harm they inflict on society and its prevalence. Hence as explained in (1) and (2), a higher level of deterrence is needed for rape than drug trafficking.

What is My Stand?

The death penalty should not be abolished as one of the various modes of punishment in the Singapore Justice System. It should be kept but reserved only for the most heinous crimes such as murder and rape as it serves as retribution to the victims family and friends and is the only form of justice that is equal in severity to the crime committed. Most importantly, the sacrifice of these individuals removes the imminent threat they had to society and ensure that their chances of recidivism are close to none. The intention of a crime committed should also play a role when considering awarding of the death penalty. Who is more deserving of the death penalty: An individual who murders people with the sole purpose of inflicting harm or an individual who smuggle drugs in a desperate attempt to make money? Thus, a judge must always consider the context of a crime before issuing the death penalty instead of just saying "It's the Law".

However, capital punishment should be completely abolished for drug trafficking. Some may argue that it is due to the stringent policies and laws that drug trafficking cases have decreased. I beg to differ. A study by Amnesty International revealed that the number of judicial execution for drug-related offences in 1994, 1995 and 1996 stood at 53, 52 and 40, respectively. Thus, we can see that the death penalty does not perform its role in deterrence as the government claims. It is impossible to conclude that the death penalty has been the primary cause for lower drug trafficking cases in the last few years. While I cannot deny that the idea of facing death does thwart people from committing such crimes, the lower number of cases in recent years can also be due to better education, improved financial status and less market demand, among numerous other reasons.

Unfortunately, it is unrealistic even to consider that the government will repeal the death penalty for drug trafficking in the near future unless the PAP leadership begins to lose faith in capital punishment for some unknown reasons. Thus, we need to trust the people we have voted into power to make the right decisions about whether to discharge the death penalty or not. So how do we build this trust? A recurring subject that I have brought up throughout this post is the need for transparency. Transparency and open communication are critical for the government to gain the public's trust. When most of the world has moved towards abolishing the death penalty, our government needs to present to Singaporeans the details, statistics, and reasons as to how the death penalty is beneficial to Singapore's safety. Furthermore, open communication is a two-way street and as such the government needs to provide more opportunities for discourse with the public. By doing so, the public can learn the different perspectives of the government before blindly throwing accusations at the state. When the government places the general public in the centrepiece of their focus, good faith and trust start to build between both groups.

So what do you think? Should the death penalty be abolished or retained? Let me know in the comments!

jonesagon1988.blogspot.com

Source: https://politicseconscurrentaffairs.blogspot.com/2021/12/should-singapore-abolish-or-retain.html

Share this post