Media Release

10 October 2011

For Immediate Release

Singapore:  On Sunday, 9 October 2011, nearly 20 local activists and supporters gathered together at the Speakers’ Corner to commemorate the 9th World Day Against the Death Penalty. The event, jointly organised by the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, We Believe in Second Chances and Think Centre, is part of a global movement started since 2003, to mark October 10 as a World Day against the death penalty across the world.  This year’s World Day focuses on the inhumanity of the death penalty as a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.

In a statement (Annex) read out at the gathering, it was reiterated that the death penalty “is an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment and it fundamentally goes against Article 3 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights that states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.” The Singapore Government however, guards it’s ‘right’ to impose the death penalty and had been the leading opposition voice in the United Nations against calls for a moratorium on death penalty. Most recently it rejected recommendations to abolish or to impose a moratorium made during Singapore’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council (6 May 2011).

Today the world is increasingly moving away from accepting the use of death penalty with two thirds of the world’s countries having already abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Concerned Singaporeans continues to urge the Singapore Government to rethink it’s current stance on the death penalty and impose a moratorium to create the time and space for society to explore alternate sentencing options and to work ultimately towards its abolishment.

For media enquires, contact following spokespersons:

Rachel Zeng, SADPC ([email protected])

Sinapan Samydorai, Think Centre ([email protected])

——————————–

Annex

Statement delivered on 4.30pm, 9 October 2011, Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park, Singapore

1.      Dear Friends,

2.      We are here today to commemorate the World Day Against the Death Penalty.  We would like to once again express our solidarity, with groups and individuals all over the world, in calling for a worldwide end to the use of the death penalty on this day. We believe that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.

3.      The death penalty is an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment and it fundamentally goes against Article 3 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights that states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

4.      To date, two thirds of the world’s countries have already abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.  This is confirmed by the increase in the number of states supporting a UN General Assembly’s resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolishing it since 2007. Efforts made by activists and organizations all over the world who have worked for years to persuade their governments to abolish this form of punishment have also contributed greatly to this development.

5.      In Singapore, it seems that we still remain in the dark ages keeping company with other countries that  continues to uphold this abhorrent practice.  Locally, the application of the death penalty is problematic as it is rendered as mandatory sentencing, for categories of crimes such as drug trafficking, murder, kidnapping, treason and certain firearms offences.

6.      The majority of publicly known capital cases are related to drug trafficking and related offenses. This is largely due to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) whereby anyone found carrying the stipulated amount of controlled drugs listed in Section 17 of the Act, shall be presumed to be in possession for the purpose of drug trafficking unless proven otherwise. This meant the presumption of innocence is not guaranteed and the burden of proof shifted to the accused. When convicted, the accused persons are almost guaranteed to meet the hangman unless his clemency plea is accepted by the President of Singapore  of which, not a single appeal has succeeded in the last 12 years.

7.      It has been repeatedly pointed out that the mandatory death penalty (MDP), effectively ties the judges’ hands and deny them of the discretion to look into the mitigating factors. For example, outside of drug-related offences the MDP is also applied against crimes of passion such as murders committed in the spur of the moment when emotions are running high, as well as offenders of unsound mind or sub-par intellect. Such instances only fails to prove the much vaulted deterrence factor of the death penalty that is often purported by the State, and there is always the risk of error in applying the death penalty.

8.      The death penalty has been reduced to an exercise in administrative expediency, with the government withholding crucial statistical figures on the State’s use of the death penalty from the public sphere. Without the necessary facts and figures corroborating the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, the government cannot continue to insist anecdotally that the death penalty is effective in curbing specific crimes.

9.      A conflicting message is also being sent out to our society: we do not condone murder nor do we allow euthanasia, and persons who attempts suicide are committing a crime but yet we allow the Government the liberty of prescribing death and execute premeditated killings, even for non-violent and non-heinous crimes.  At what cost to the sanctity of life do we want to maintain peace  and security for our society?

10.     We call for a paradigm shift in our judicial system and principles, a shift away from the emphasis on retributive justice as can be seen with the State pre-occupation with the death penalty, towards the emphasis on restorative aspects of justice.

11.     Thank You.

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

王瑞杰称政府将和国人一起制定政策 林鼎讥:“选举来料!”

在上周六(15日),副总理王瑞杰表示,新领导班子必须从带领国民过渡到每个人都能积极参与制定、设计政策,藉此巩固政民互信的关系。 他说,接下来几个月,整个第四代领导团队,将主动与人民交流和联系,坦诚相告新加坡面对的挑战和必须作出的取舍,聆听大家意见群策群力,“共同合作与前进”。 王瑞杰是在周六出席“群策群力,共创未来”对话会。该活动是由民情联系组(REACH)和亚洲新闻台主持,约有400名与会者。 他以已故前副总理拉惹勒南当年所提“以行动彰显民主的社会”(democracy of deeds)为目标,表明新领导班子未来需过渡到让每个国民都能积极参与政策制定的制度,结合大家力量解决问题。 “第四代领导团队广纳民意” 他在华语致词中,则表示,接下来面临的最大挑战是“如何发展我国精诚团结、具建设性的政治文化”,他认为这是我国社会稳健发展的基础。 他说,第四代领导团队自踏入政坛后,就不断与各界人士交流,倾听民声、广纳民意。而许多国民也愿意为新加坡积极奉献、实现理想。 “所以未来政府不仅着重为国人建设新加坡,而是会“同”国人建设家园”。他说,会提供新的机会和方式促进政府和国人合作,让国人参与制定政策以及落实相关措施,更好地应付各种挑战。政府与人民共同设计的政策可涵盖广泛范围,包括住房、社会流动和环境可持续的课题。 不过,人民之声党领袖林鼎表示,王瑞杰所言令他笑掉大牙。“朋友们可以问问自己,过去50年,有多少次人民行动党有主动接触你共同制定(co-creating)政策?” 林鼎:王瑞杰急切争取选票…

法官陈成安为前女佣翻案 两年前亦曾反对康希等六被告减刑

近两周来狮城最热门议题,莫过于高庭推翻国家法院判决,为印尼籍前女佣巴蒂莉雅妮的偷窃罪名翻案。后者终获沉冤得雪,摆脱纠缠四年的官司。 高庭法官陈成安,在判词中质疑,报警指控巴蒂偷窃的廖文良一家,可能存在“不当意图”(improper motives),有理由相信廖文良为了阻止女佣到人力部投诉,所以廖家父子先发制人,突然解雇女佣,不让后者有时间去人力部。 再加上所谓“赃物”移交警局过程也存在疑点,这迫使包括总检察署、警方等各造,在有关判决之后,都表明需重新检讨此事,探讨是否采取进一步行动。 尽管众人皆期待总检察署等能给出令人满意的调查结果,不过此次翻案审讯,也令不少人开始注意到高庭法官陈成安和巴蒂的辩护律师阿尼尔(Anil Balchandani )。 在上周,本地客工组织发布阿尼尔的专访影片,其中可得知处于弱势的女佣、客工往往在面对诉讼时处于下风,有时甚至直接道歉或认罪,对他们而言更为简便,经过审讯后就被遣返回国,但这本身就是一种不公正。 至于法官陈成安,当年曾和国务资政兼国家安全统筹部长张志贤、前外交部长杨荣文在圣约瑟书院就读,成绩顶尖。原本从伦敦大学毕业后成为工程师,但后来转换轨道攻读法律,成为执业律师,也曾在总检察署担任署理检控官。 陈成安任法官期间亦审理过不少大案。其中也包括举国轰动的城市丰收教会失信案。 2017年,城市丰收教会案上诉,高庭三司:赵锡燊、吴必理和陈成安共同审理。然而,在审讯中三司对严重失信罪看法出现歧见。 2017年:三司对康希等人严重失信罪存歧见…

【冠状病毒19】研究称戴口罩、配合封锁措施 能显著降低冠病传播率

英国剑桥大学与格林尼治大学,发表英国《皇家学会学报A》的研究结果,全人口范围内使用口罩,能将冠状病毒19传播降低至可控水平。 仅靠封锁仍无法阻止疫情复发。不过,即使民间只是佩戴家庭自制的口罩、有足够人群在公共场合配搭的情况下, 就能有效降低病毒传播率。 剑桥大学科学家斯图特称,在有效疫苗成功开发之前,广泛使用口罩、加上社交距离和一些封锁措施相结合,或是“控制这一大流行病,同时重新开放经济活动的方式之一”。 总理李显龙曾在今年1月30日,表示理解国人无法买到口罩的焦虑,但重申只有身体不适时才需要戴口罩。他指出,卫生部建议只有生病时才需要戴口罩。如果身体健康就不用。 不过,随着本地疫情局势升温,总理李显龙在4月3日的直播中,坦言政府重新思考对口罩的建议。 早在今年2月,本地就有四名医生联署,呼吁全民若离开家门都要经常戴口罩,也应避免在有冷气的地方如商场或饮食中心聚集。可惜的是,他们的建议当下并未立即被采纳。 卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授曾表示,戴口罩仍不是最重要的防疫事项。

Boat catches fire on Marina Bay – The boatman reported missing

Rescue divers from the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) scoured the waters…