Uncategorized
Anti-Death Penalty in Singapore
One reader reflects on the Death Penalty situation in Singapore
One reader reflects on the situation in Singapore.
Yong Vui Kong’s appeal is going before the Court of Appeal this March. It seems that Singapore cyberspace is pretty much silent on the issue but a few interesting points in the death penalty debate have nevertheless been brought up, specifically the debate on the mandatory death penalty in Singapore. I have said earlier that I would support a movement that removes the mandatory death penalty and I hope with this case and the coverage by TOC, the government would at least entertain the thought of a public debate on the issue.
Michael Hwang puts it most eloquently in his address to the Law Society in 2008, “The extent to which an offender ought to be punished cannot be determined solely by the need to stamp out future repetitions of the same offence; there is a moral limit to the law’s power to make an offender an example for others to fear.” It resonates as I read it because I can imagine someone receiving a heavier sentence as a deterrence but I cannot fathom a person dying to act as a deterrence; not to mention the many petty drug traffickers.
Michael Hor also points out succinctly how problematic the mandatory death penalty is:
Perhaps the most prominent aspect of a mandatory death penalty is the absence of a judicial discretion in relation to the most extraordinary sentence in our criminal law. The judge trying the case can only determine guilt or innocence, and once that is done, the death penalty automatically follows. This goes against the grain of modern penological thinking that the punishment ought to fit not only the crime, but the criminal. It means that the judge should have the power and the duty to take into account the personal circumstances of the offender.
But Michael Hor was also quick to point out that in Singapore’s case, the prosecution and police does mitigate the eventual punishment meted out to offenders in terms of going for a reduced charge. But like Hor, I agree that there is no harm in also allowing the judge to be part of this mitigation process and in fact, it might provide greater transparency and oversight to the criminal law process in Singapore.
In tandem with the mandatory death penalty and the absence of discretion on the part of judges’ sentencing, the legal process under the Misuse of Drugs Act contains presumptions which shifts the burden of proof to the accused. Hence, he is not granted the principle of innocence until proven guilty. He has to prove that he either did not know he was carrying drugs – failure to do so will, in the current system, most probably result in sentencing him to the gallows.
__________________________
Read the original entry on Covered In His Blood blog
_________________________________________________

- Comments2 days ago
Ho Ching’s cryptic post raises eyebrows following SM Lee-Jamus Lim COE policy exchange
- Politics3 days ago
SM Lee defends market approach for COE while Jamus Lim urges more empathy and social fairness
- Law & Order4 days ago
MinLaw penalises 4 law firms over S$3B money laundering case; 1 lawyer referred for disciplinary action
- Community5 days ago
Singapore retiree loses half of SG60 vouchers to suspected misuse, police investigating
- Comments3 days ago
SM Lee defends COE system ‘works quite well’, says no easy way to distribute COEs fairly and cheaply
- Comments4 days ago
PM Wong reaffirms ‘full support and confidence’ in ST as netizens question its impartiality
- Education5 days ago
Jamus Lim backs hiring more teachers but stresses smaller classes, warns on AI reliance
- Crime5 days ago
Man in Singapore jailed and caned for possessing hundreds of child sex abuse videos for distribution