Government needs to do more to abolish mandatory death penalty for all crimes

Amnesty International and the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) welcomes the Singaporean Government’s move towards putting an end to the mandatory death sentencing for drug trafficking and homicide cases, and the moratorium on executions in place until proposed changes in the law are enacted.

Mandatory death sentences are prohibited under international law and Amnesty International and ADPAN therefore call on the Government of Singapore to abolish mandatory death sentencing unconditionally.

Mandatory death sentences prevent judges from exercising their discretion and from considering all extenuating circumstances in a case. International human rights law prohibits mandatory death sentences as they have been found to constitute arbitrary deprivation of life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Many courts and judicial bodies around the world have ruled mandatory death sentencing as unconstitutional.

These proposed changes are key in saving the lives of those who are currently in death row in Singapore, particularly the case of Malaysian Yong Vui Kong, who is facing imminent execution. Yong Vui Kong, who was 19 years old when arrested in 2007,was given a mandatory death sentence for possession of 47g of heroin, which under Singapore’s existing laws amounted to drug trafficking and warranted mandatory death penalty.

Yong Vui Kong was a courier and has identified in a police statement the alleged mastermind of the operation who instigated him to transport the controlled drugs to Singapore. The charges against the Singaporean alleged to have masterminded the crime have been withdrawn. Yong Vui Kong’s case has attracted international attention and concern from the diplomatic community.

Amnesty International and the ADPAN join local groups in Malaysia and Singapore in calling for the Singaporean Government to commute Yong Vui Kong’s sentence.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, believing that the death penalty violates the right to life and is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.  Amnesty International understands the devastating impact of violent crime and sympathizes with victims of crime and their families.

However, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. Victims of crime are doubly victimised by unfair trial procedures which can result in the innocent being executed and the real perpetrators never being brought to justice.

 

You May Also Like

律师:巴蒂案存“一连串的失误” 赢公众信任端视当局能否妥善、公开检讨

印尼籍前女佣巴蒂胜诉一事,仿佛成为本月热门话题,特别是高庭法官陈成安的判决如同在司法界抛下震撼弹,迫使警方、总检察署都得检讨案件,内政兼律政部长尚穆根也表示,将在下周的国会会议发表部长声明。 在Audent Chambers事务所服务的高级律师哈碧星,于《海峡时报》撰文分析前女佣巴蒂案。他提到有鉴于巴蒂案件“一连串的失误”(the chain of errors),任何的检讨都不应被拘束,也不该将问题归咎于某些人为疏失而已。 “应视此案为检视和解决现有机制缺陷的重要契机。” 哈碧星认为,这不意味着要打击警方、总检察署、法院等维护公共利益的努力,反之,也不该对司法机构的疏失羞于启齿。 在高庭法官陈成安的判决中,点出所谓“赃物”移交警局过程存在疑点。包括廖家声称开箱检查女佣留下的三大箱子并报警,但警方迟至五个星期才去取证和分类“赃物”,且未立即取走,而是一年半后才将这批物件保管。 再者,尽管巴蒂的母语是印尼语,但警方却以英语和马来语问话,且只让她检视不清楚的图片,而不是实际涉案物品。这同样引起许多疑点,包括这是否符合警方搜证的程序?如是,那么其他案件的证物搜证是否也被影响? 再者,若巴蒂案件的搜证与正常程序不同,那么负责警员这么做的原因何在?那么负责检控的检控官,难道没发现搜证过程出问题吗? 尽管总检察署没有义务去解释检控的决策,惟考量到巴蒂案牵涉群众利益,透明化乃是去建设对体制信任的一个关键。…

社论:行动党需要更多李美花 有先问过人民需要吗?

日前,本地中文时事网站红蚂蚁,刊载一则文章,标题为《人民行动党需要更多李美花》。 文内提到,近期义顺区议员李美花在国会中以《阿公的故事》,比喻不知感恩的选民为“死鬼仔”、“败家子”,引起网民非议,成为众矢之的。而财政部长王瑞杰则出来打圆场,要正视现下新加坡面对的挑战,呼吁不要曲解李美花的言论。 文章认为: 李美花在国会讲话一向来有她的一套风格,作风非常乡土化,讲话不用华丽辞藻,非常“阿花”,她的发言常会给国会的严肃气氛带来解放。此次的“阿公与阿成”的论述是她一贯风格的体现,说话有一定的道理,但缺乏严密的逻辑,很容易被人炒作成争论性议题。但她的甘榜作风,相当适合基层的打拼。 文章未批判李美花的立场问题,反而为她辩称,人民行动党其实需要多一些这类的甘榜议员,协助拉近它与人民的距离。 问题是,关键不在于,人民行动党需不需要,作为服务人民的政党,她应该去问问,到底人民还需不需要这样的议员? 首先,”阿公和阿成“的比喻,即说明行动党议员普遍仍未摆脱家长式的父权思维,认为政府已经做了这么多,那么人民要做的,就是”少说话,多感恩“,阿成只要感谢阿公,为阿成做了这么多就可以了。 这是一种典型自上而下、用家长式的姿态傲视子民的心态,一开始架子已经摆出来,阿成到底要什么?这个家要怎么建设下去?阿成到底过得好不好?这不需要阿公关心。再怎么接地气,也掩饰不了对人民高高在上的倨傲心理。 这样的论述等同把人民,乃至建国一代、立国一代一同从独立至今,为国家作出的贡献抛诸脑后。好像从独立以来,这个国家的建设,人民”阿成“好像是缺席的,国家就是行动党独挑大梁建起来的。 阿成没给“家用”吗? 有网民就曾指出,阿成也没有一味跟阿公要钱,阿成也有给“家用”。 作风乡土 …

Religion and the right not to respect it

There is a critical difference between rights to religion & criticism of religions, says Joel Tan.

Historian Thum Ping Tjin opposes fake news law since “virtually anything can be deemed misleading”

Historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin told Yahoo News Singapore in an email…