It was a case that touched many hearts, especially in the
Eastern states. Never had anybody on the Death Row at Changi Prison
aroused so much sympathy. Before Van Ngyuen, many convicts awaiting
execution were seen as beyond redemption. However, Ngyuen showed
the human side of him when it was revealed that the reason for him
to become a drug courier was to clear his brothers debts, not for
personal gain.
During the tumultuous build-up to Ngyuens execution, fierce words
were exchanged between Singapore and Canberra. A Singapore-based
forum revealed that some 55% of Australians thought the death
penalty was needed to combat serious crimes. During an interview
with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an opposition
parliamentarian from Singapore, Steve Chia, revealed that some
Singaporeans, while supporting the death penalty, felt it could be
made non-mandatory. In addition, there were calls for judicial
reform, with people calling for judges to be given more discretion
in the sentencing process.
Capital punishment is one of the key issues in human rights today.
The other major one that has many world citizens feeling concerned
would be torture. This has become a sticking point in the war on
terror. There have been reports of abuse of detainees by American
troops at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib since the start of US-led
operations against suspected terrorists. According to intelligence
sources, the US also has some secret detention facilities on
European soil, much to the chagrin of EU officials. More recently,
the United Nations joined the chorus for the closure of the
detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. This US Navy-built prison houses
terror suspects captured after 9-11. Among its famous inmates are
those like David Hicks.
Amnesty International has many publications related to capital
punishment and torture of suspects. One can find many press
releases on both issues at its website. It is possible for both to
be linked. A likely scenario is one whereby a murder or terrorism
suspect is tortured by police while in custody, makes a false
confession to trumped-up charges, found guilty during his trial and
given the death sentence. In the context of todays climate of
fear, we have to look at both issues under a microscope.
It is known that much of Europe is in a death penalty free zone. In
2000, not a single person was sentenced to death and executed in
Council of Europe member states. This was published in a booklet
drawn up by the Council in June 2001, some three months before the
attacks on New York and Washington. Many countries adopt the
rationale that the death penalty serves as a deterrence for similar
offences in the future. This deterrence principle has taken on a
larger role in the post 9-11 world, as more countries try to
safeguard themselves from terror attacks of similar scale. It could
mean a reluctance to do away with the death penalty as a result of
such a climate. However, it is heart-warming to hear that Madrid
and London have no plans to re-introduce such barbaric punishments
despite the bombings in March 2004 and July 2005
respectively.
Human rights have indeed suffered as a consequence of the war on
terror, something which several interviewees agree with. The
situation was made worse following the invasion of Iraq. The United
States and some of its allies have detained many suspected
terrorists, often under the least humane conditions. In the
aftermath of 9-11, the United States introduced the Patriot Act,
allowing the government to keep tabs on citizens suspected of
involvement in terror activities. This legislation was greeted by
strong opposition from civil libertarian outfits. Not surprisingly,
many of those who fell into this net were Muslims. Accusations of
discrimination were levelled at the Bush administration. The
behaviour of US military personnel towards Guantanamo Bay and Abu
Ghraib inmates drew international condemnation. Rumours about the
Quran being desecrated by US troops at Guantanamo Bay were greeted
by angry protests from the Muslim world.
It is an irony that Western governments, often seen as champions of
human rights, can do a 360-degree turn following the war on terror.
In the past, the US and other Western nations were highly critical
of draconian punishments levelled against dissidents by despotic
regimes worldwide. Now, they seemed to have toned down such
criticism and also partook in such punishments of terror suspects.
Many terror suspects have accused the US government of abuse of
power and violation of the Geneva Convention. Sometimes, we cannot
help but wonder if those detainees were really guilty or were
simply tortured into making false confessions. The heavy-handed
manner in which law enforcement agencies go about fighting
terrorism has also come under scrutiny. Following last years
bombing spree in London, police mistakenly shot dead Jean-Charles
de Menzes, a Brazilian electrician they believed to be a suicide
bomber. It was apparent that excessive force had been applied on to
the poor man. Furthermore, it was revealed in the subsequent
inquiry that police were acting on wrong information when they
followed de Menzes.
Not only can torture be applied to terror suspects, it could apply
in cases of homicide suspects too. Throw in the mandatory death
penalty, and you have got a recipe for disaster. Andrew Mallard can
consider himself lucky that he can taste freedom after 12 years
behind bars for a crime he did not commit. Others like him are not
so lucky in countries where capital punishment is still in use.
Barely after the dust from Van Ngyuens execution settled was
Singapore rocked by another death penalty controversy. A convicted
child killers family set up a petition for his clemency, touching
the hearts of the public. The alleged killer, Leng-how Took, had
been found guilty of strangling an eight-year-old girl at his
workplace. The offence took place in late 2004, but he vanished
shortly after the girls death. The girls mother, a colleague of
his, had returned to China on urgent business, leaving her daughter
alone at home.
The childs disappearance triggered a nationwide hunt for her as
well as the alleged killer, who returned to his hometown in
Malaysia after being interviewed by police. He himself later went
missing, only to surrender himself after his father told him to do
so if he wanted to clear his name. Took later led police to his
alleged victims body, which many saw as evidence of guilt.
However, the fact that the girls mother had a string of
immigration offences in Singapore made some others doubt her
character. During Tooks trial, his parents told the court that he
was mentally unstable, meaning he could not be held accountable for
wilful murder. However, the trial judge threw out his defence and
sentenced him to death. This brought about an immediate appeal from
his lawyers.
The appeal was unsuccessful, being defeated 2-1 by the Court of
Appeal. The dissenting voice, Justice Ting-chiu Kan, felt there
were not enough grounds to support a murder conviction. To him, the
case looked more like culpable homicide instead. To some members of
the public, Justice Kans assessment tallied with theirs. On the
whole, the case looked like it was full of holes, as there were
many questions the trial did not answer. Therefore a vocal minority
thought it more of a manslaughter case instead. They started
comparing his case with that involving four army instructors whose
actions directly resulted in a trainees death. That was clearly a
case of manslaughter, but the four got off lightly. This group of
people felt legal reform was overdue, as it gave the impression
that two sets of laws were in operation one for the elites and
another for the common people.
On the whole, a majority thought the courts were right. They also
applauded the police for a job well done, as it did not take them
long to crack the case. Few wanted to comment on the possibility
that the trial judge could have made a mistake or that the Director
of Public Prosecutions had way too much power. In general,
Singaporeans are a passive lot, and do not question the decisions
made by those in power. They take great pride in their supposedly
efficient institutions, even if what goes on beneath the surface
makes your hair curl. It does not matter if the suspect goes to
court guilty until proven innocent, when it ought to be the
opposite.
This incident shows that even in a justice system thought to be
highly efficient, holes do exist. Hence there are pitfalls in
having a mandatory death penalty. Even the chief justice once
commented that his hands were tied when it came to sentencing
matters, as he was responsible to Parliament. The possibility of
having an Andrew Mallard-type of incident is even higher under such
circumstances. Yet there is no urgency for judicial review. Worse,
the ill-informed public fears that voting in an abolitionist party
into power may worsen the drug problem, as the country executes
drug couriers regularly.
It is possible that Singapore might be having an Andrew Mallard
case on its hands right now. However, Leng-how Took is not going to
be as lucky as Mallard even if his own conviction is equally
misplaced. It is unlikely Took will ever see freedom in the way
Mallard has. The President of Singapore does not appear close to be
issuing any amnesty for Took, a father of two. In fact, Singapore
may well have thousands of Andrew Mallards, but few know about
them. No surprise considering Singapore has the 148th freest press
in the world. At least in Perth we get to hear about the Crime and
Corruption Commission going after the investigators in the Mallard
case.
No doubt most interviewees are comfortable with the justice system
as a whole, they think there is room for improvement where
sentencing and human rights are concerned. They also feel that the
war on terror has been bad for human rights. The world is now like
what George Orwell described in 1984 or the film Minority Report. A
large number of Australians also feel uneasy about capital
punishment. One even said that the state should not sink to the
level of serial killers. With regards to Van Ngyuen, it would have
been better for the authorities in Melbourne to decide his fate,
since he was carrying drugs meant for the Victorian market.
Quite a few interviewees also feel that the UN is right about
calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. To them, what the US
troops did to the detainees put them in the same league as the
Taliban. As for Benjamin Franklins statement that those who trade
liberty for security deserve neither, many do not quite understand
its real meaning. However, what happened post 9-11 has shown that
liberty is being sacrificed for security little by
little.
In short, it is still the war on terror that is the biggest threat
to human rights. But then again, maybe those who spread kill
innocents in the name of God are the ones who are jealous of the
liberty we have and are bent on destroying it. As for the justice
system, it still depends on the national context when it comes to
safeguarding human rights. In this area, the abolitionist states
tend to fare better.
