700px-Hrw_logo.svgSingapore’s execution of Mohammad bin Kadar on April 17, 2015, should be the last use of capital punishment in the country, Human Rights Watch said today.

Singapore has about 25 people on death row. At least two, recently sentenced, could face execution in the coming months. In place of these and other potential executions, Singapore should join the 117 United Nations member countries that in 2014 voted for a global moratorium on the death penalty and move ultimately to abolish it.

“Singapore should realize that its use of the death penalty makes it an increasing outlier among nations,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It’s a barbaric practice that has no place in a modern state.”

Singapore authorities hanged 39-year-old Mohammad bin Kadar after he spent eight years on death row for the 2005 murder of his neighbor, a 69-year-old woman. The court determined that Mohammad bin Kadar, who had a borderline IQ of 76 and was in a drug-induced state, knew what he was doing when he stabbed the victim repeatedly, establishing he had an “intention to kill,” which under Singapore law made the death penalty mandatory.

Image from Zaobao, provided by Singapore Police Force
Mohammad bin Kadar (image – Zaobao, provided by Singapore Police Force)

Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions at the time said in reference to a 2005 drug case in Singapore that having a mandatory death penalty violates international legal standards. Making such a penalty mandatory, thus eliminating the discretion of the court “makes it impossible to take into account mitigating or extenuating circumstances and eliminates any individual determination of an appropriate sentence in a particular case.… The adoption of such a black-and-white approach is entirely inappropriate where the life of the accused is at stake.”

In November 2012, Singapore’s parliament revised the law to restrict the kinds of drug and murder convictions for which the death penalty is mandatory. In murder cases, death sentences are not mandatory if the convicted murderer had “no outright intention to kill.” Mohammad bin Kadar appealed his death sentence on the grounds that the law had been amended, but his appeal was rejected.

According to Amnesty International, since the laws were amended, courts have reviewed and eventually commuted death sentences to life imprisonment and caning in at least nine cases. However, the law still provides for mandatory death sentences, in contravention of international standards.

At least two of those on death row in Singapore, Kho Jabing and Michael Galing, received mandatory death sentences after being convicted in separate murder cases. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all cases because of its inherent cruelty and irreversibility and urges the government to commute the sentences of all those held on death row.

In July 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterated the Singaporean government’s longstanding position on the death penalty, saying that “the death penalty has been an effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment for very serious offences, and [Singaporeans] largely support it. As part of our penal framework, it has contributed to keeping crime and the drug situation under control.”

In its December 18, 2007 resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty, the UN General Assembly stated that “there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible and irreparable.”

“How many people will Singapore execute before they understand that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime?” Robertson said. “Singapore should join with the UN secretary-general in recognizing that the ‘death penalty has no place in the 21st century.’”

More from Human Rights Watch reporting on Singapore.

Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

被罚款影响退还押金 陆交局:对oBike失望

共享脚车公司oBike退出新加坡市场,但是声称若被陆交局征收没收脚车的罚款,可能需动用用户押金来支付,新加坡陆路交通局对该公司无法实践承诺感到失望。 早前,oBike创始投资人石一曾表示,将尽力退回押金给用户,希望陆交局能网开一面,暂缓征收没收脚车的罚款,给与该公司更多时间回收脚车。 陆交局称,在6月30日与石一及oBike管理层会面,后者承诺将把四散公共范围的脚车收拾妥当,并尽快退款给客户,也表明回收脚车的费用不会动用客户押金。 在本月3日的文告中,陆交局认为oBike公司应有具体归还客户押金的计划。 针对7月4日回收脚车的限期,陆交局称,如果该公司展现合作诚意,将所有脚车移出公共范围,会考量放宽限期。 石一:公关讯息误会 不过,石一较后澄清,有关被罚款将导致退回押金困难的说法,乃是下属对媒体发布讯息时造成的误会,并不是出自他本人。“如早前所述,oBike会竭尽所能回收完所有脚车。” 他说,已经委托回收商到各地回收脚车,该公司完全配合当局,希望能令陆交局满意。 截至昨日下午5时,新加坡消费者协会共接获1千044宗要求oBIke退款的投诉。自上周oBike退出市场,该协会受理有关投诉,并反映给oBike,后者曾表示用户押金已被用来购买脚车和维持运营成本。 该协会批评,用户付还押金乃是妥善使用服务的保障,擅用押金于其他用途是“缺乏职业道德和无法接受的“。 oBike公司在其文告表示对于近期造成的不便致歉,并表示目前正与陆路交通管理局和消费者协会等多个单位商议,设法退回用户们的押金。“我们和相关单位紧密配合,达成退回押金给用户的方案。退款程序将在细节确定后公布。” oBike创办人石一也表示,只要用户想取回押金,该公司会尽力偿还,最坏打算就是以自己的股份承担。

国有媒体挑起林鼎私人诉讼 遭非议“转移对重大议题焦点”

人民之声党领导林鼎,非议国有媒体《海峡时报》挑起和炒作其个人法律纠纷,来转移民间对重大社会议题的焦点。 在有关诉讼中,林鼎被中国籍上海公民黄珉(Huang Min)指控拖欠20万新元的贷款,相隔五年未偿还。 “黄珉先生可以提出任何诉讼。但说我会陷入破产是可笑的。过度放大这个私人纠纷,只会分散国民对迫切问题的焦点,例如:公积金、公共组屋、生活成本和天价部长薪资等。” 他在个人脸书分享,昨日在接受《今报》采访时,指出上诉纠纷已上诉到最高法院,也有望上诉成功,他本身是律师,很清楚如何捍卫自己的权益。 私人纠纷上诉最高法院 他要求媒体发布他的完整声明,如果没有,他将自行发布。他也强调,不会再针对私人诉讼对任何国有媒体发表任何谈话,并要求媒体必须做好自己本分,去关注更为重要的民生议题,而不是琐碎新闻。 他在脸书帖文中指出,国有媒体和行动党的网军肯定很乐意炒作他的私人纠纷,藉此转移民众视线。他感谢民众的支持,并表示有能力应对此事。 他解释,在法律界执业17年,他曾转战印尼的采矿业,其公司也是第一家在苏拉威西生产和船运铁矿的公司。 “很多人以为我没生意经验,不会做,但我证明他们错了。在私人企业,纠纷是常有的事,所以我们才需要法律程序。” 林鼎:不排除私人纠纷被可以挑起 他不排除,这个在2013年拖沓至今的私人纠纷又被重新挑起,是“有计划地攻击”。他说,自己一直都是国有媒体和建制派的中坚批评者。…

Why are there new COVID-19 cases detected migrant workers dorms if they were “cleared”?

It has been more than a month since the migrant workers’ dormitories…

别让老人太劳累 司徒国辉冀反思人力政策

新加坡美食大使司徒国辉,呼吁应该重新思考人力政策,不应以缺乏年轻劳动力为由,就意味着可强迫老年人到餐饮业,从事辛苦的劳动工作。 司徒国辉于今日(29日)在脸书上转载他自身的部落格指出,直指人力政策应该重新思考定位,老年人应该享有更好的生活,不应将被年轻人忽视的工作,例如餐饮行业,强迫老人接手,他们值得更好的。 “仅仅因为年轻人没有将焦点放在这些工作上,也不意味着你必须强迫雇佣老年人劳动军团,请照顾好我们的老一辈。“ 文章内指出,他自2018年来,就一直在研究这种现象。他表示,小贩们一直为大多数新加坡人提供便利的服务,亦曾向联合国教科文组织申请将新加坡小贩文化列入“非物质文化遗产代表名录”,甚至在疫情期间,显得更是无比重要,可见小贩文化不可忽视。 然而,因人力政策的影响,小贩中心不得放弃雇佣客工担任小贩中心较为辛苦的工作。他认为,许多小贩都愿意以两千以上的薪水,聘请老人管理档口,但由于长时间的体力劳动,反而让他们身心俱疲。 他也举例,一名公民瑞芳为了能够协助父母,放弃了大学学位,回家继承虾面档口。每日都必须起早贪黑,从对虾子的处理到煮虾面,无一需要强而有力的体力活。为了能够全面照顾档口生意,其丈夫更是辞掉了工程师的工作照顾孩子。 瑞芳尽管曾以2千500元聘雇摊位助理,但仍因体力活太劳累而离开,甚至在去年待产期间,仍需要拜托家中俩老到档口中,并给付丰厚的金额。截至今日,她仍然无法聘雇到助理,只能恳求父母持续协助,每日和她一起辛劳工作。 “她曾以2千500元欲要聘雇助理,然而,他们都在一个月内离开,因为体力劳动的压力,最终她只能说服70岁的父母在他去年待产期间帮助他。当然,他会付给他们丰厚的奖金,截至目前,她仍然无法找到助理,而她的父母则持续协助她,每日都在辛苦劳动。” 这并非是瑞芳一人的故事,而是小贩中心内面临两难的情况:即在缺乏客工与不强迫老人加入劳动行列下,小贩中心又该如何持续运营? 对此,司徒国辉认为,应该需要聘雇年轻活力的本地员工,甚至是以市场价格聘请外国人,至于年长者则适任可居家工作的岗位。 文章最后,司徒国辉也敦促,应该考虑放弃配额制和税收,如有必要,可以合同或期限条件,即签约三年。 “我想说,若想要敞开大门,不仅仅是欢迎每月领1万5千以上的外国PMET,而这些基本服务业的蓝领阶层也应该适用。”