Singapore completes review of mandatory death penalty

QX179R SG

SINGAPORE: The Singapore government has completed a review of the mandatory death penalty for all its laws.

On Monday, Parliament was given an update of the review in relation to laws related to drug offences and certain types of homicides.

In a ministerial statement in the House, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean said that all executions that have come due since the review started in July 2011, have been deferred.

And he explained that the review reaffirmed the relevance of the death penalty for all the offences to which it currently applied.

Mr Teo said: "The death penalty has been an important part of our criminal justice system for a very long time, similar to the position in a number of other countries.

"Singaporeans understand that the death penalty has been an effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment for very serious offences, and largely support it. As part of our penal framework, it has contributed to keeping crime and the drug situation under control."

For drug traffickers, Mr Teo said that the review concluded that the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply in most circumstances.

However, where two specific, tightly-defined conditions are met, Mr Teo said the death penalty will still apply but it will now be at the discretion of the courts.

These conditions are: firstly, the trafficker must have only played the role of courier, and must not have been involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of drugs; secondly, discretion will only apply if having satisfied the first requirement, either the trafficker has cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau in a substantive way, or he has a mental disability which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act.

Mr Teo said that the government proposes to change the law such that when these conditions are met, the courts will have the discretion either to sentence the trafficker to death, or alternatively to pass a sentence of life imprisonment with caning.

Under Singapore's laws, anyone who trafficks drugs is liable for the death penalty - from syndicate leaders, to distributors, to couriers who transport drugs, and pushers who sell drugs - as long as the quantity of drugs involved is above the stipulated thresholds.

Mr Teo noted that the weight element is often misunderstood. He said the mandatory death penalty threshold for heroin is 15 grammes of pure diamorphine, which is often portrayed as the weight of a few 50-cent coins.

But in street form in Singapore, at a typical purity level of 2.3%, 15 grammes of pure diamorphine is equivalent to some 2,200 straws of heroin worth S$66,000, based on each straw having a gross weight of about 0.3gm and street price of about S$30.

DPM Teo warned that this quantity was enough to feed the addiction of more than 300 abusers for a week. In such cases, the death penalty is imposed, given the harm caused by these drug traffickers and the numbers of lives they destroy.

He said: "The government's duty is first and foremost to provide a safe and secure living environment for Singaporeans to bring up their families. We must be constantly vigilant, adapt our law enforcement strategies and deterrence and punishment regime to remain ahead of criminals.

"We must do what works for us, to achieve our objective of a safe and secure Singapore. The changes announced today will sharpen our tools and introduce more calibration into the legal framework against drug trafficking, and put our system on a stronger footing for the future."

Concluding, Mr Teo said the government will monitor how the changes impact and influence the behaviour of the criminal organisations. If the situation worsens, it will consider tightening the provisions or making other changes.

On homicide offences, Parliament was also informed that the review of the mandatory death penalty showed that Singapore should retain the death penalty in its penal laws, except for certain types of homicides where it should no longer be mandatory but be at the discretion of the courts.

Law Minister K Shanmugam explained that the mandatory death penalty will continue to apply to the most serious form of murder, intentional killing.

Mr Shanmugam warned that offenders who intended to cause the death of their victims ought to be punished with the most severe penalty, and the law ought to provide the most powerful deterrent against such offences.

However, he explained that other categories of murder could be committed with different degrees of intent and under a variety of situations that may not deserve the death penalty.

In such cases, the courts should be given the discretion to order either life imprisonment or the death penalty.

"This change will ensure that our sentencing framework properly balances the various objectives: justice to the victim, justice to society, justice to the accused, and mercy in appropriate cases," Mr Shanmugam said. "This is a matter of judgement and the approach being taken is not without risks, but we believe this is a step we can take."

The minister explained that the changes were a right step to take as Singapore society becomes safer, less violent and more mature, citing the nation's relatively low incidence of homicides, with 16 recorded homicides, or about 0.3 per 100,000 population, in 2011.

Mr Shanmugam told Parliament that once legislation has been put in place, all accused persons who meet the requirements can elect to be considered for re-sentencing under the new law.

This will include accused persons in ongoing cases, as well as convicted persons who have already exhausted their appeals and are currently awaiting execution.

"While we have outlined the principle of the changes today, those giving legal advice to the accused persons should carefully study the legislation when it is enacted and properly understand the precise scope of the changes. In the meantime, they should not make any assumptions or give misleading advice," Mr Shanmugam said.

The minister also told Parliament that for firearms offences, the government's conclusion is that such offences are a serious threat against law and order, against which the country must continue to maintain a highly deterrent posture.

The mandatory death penalty will therefore also continue to apply to firearms offences.

Mr Shanmugam stressed that in making the changes, the government seeks to achieve and balance two broad objectives.

The first is to continue taking a strong stance on crime.

"Where many other countries have failed, Singapore has succeeded in keeping the drug menace under control. Singapore's homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world, and we believe that the deterrent effect of the death penalty has played an important part in this. Our tough approach to crime has resulted in crime rates which are significantly lower than many other major cities," he said.

"Young children can take public transport by themselves. Women can move around the city freely. We have no gun violence, no protection rackets, no drug pushers on the streets, no inner-city ghettoes. Citizens and visitors alike feel safe, in and out of home, at all hours of the day. This is something enjoyed by few cities in the world. This is something we should seek to preserve."

The second is the refinement of Singapore's approach towards sentencing offenders.

Mr Shanmugam warned that Singapore's cardinal objectives remain the same and crime must be deterred and society must be protected against criminals.

"Justice can be tempered with mercy and, where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance," he said.

"How these objectives are achieved and balanced depend on the values and expectations of society, as it evolves and matures. We believe the proposed changes strike the right balance for Singapore today. They will seek to ensure that our criminal justice system continues to provide the framework for a safe and secure Singapore, while meeting the need for fairness and justice in each case."

There are 35 persons awaiting capital punishment; 28 are for drug offences and seven for murder. Draft legislation implementing the changes outlined will be introduced later this year.

- CNA/wm/ir

bycai SG

The world leaders should love their citizens more dearly, come together courageously and charitably to destroy or restrict only small quantity of the poppy for medical need. The inmates should be tortured with vegetarian foods and mandatory religious prayers every days.

According to a U.N. sponsored survey, as of 2004, Afghanistan accounted for production of 87 percent of the world's diacetylmorphine. Afghan opium kills around 100,000 people annually.

The cultivation of opium in Afghanistan reached its peak in 1999, when 350 square miles (910 km²) of poppies were sown. The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, a move which cut production by 94 percent. By 2001 only 30 square miles (78 km²) of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km²), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more.^[74] Opium production in that country has increased rapidly since, reaching an all-time high in 2006. War in Afghanistan once again appeared as a facilitator of the trade.^[75] Some 3.3 million Afghans are involved in producing opium.^[76]

At present, opium poppies are mostly grown in Afghanistan, and in Southeast Asia, especially in the region known as the Golden Triangle straddling Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Yunnan province in China. There is also cultivation of opium poppies in the Sinaloa region of Mexico and in Colombia. The majority of the heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico and Colombia. Up until 2004, Pakistan was considered one of the biggest opium-growing countries.

dragg SG

Singapore Plans to Exempt More Criminals From Death Penalty

Singapore, which imposes the death penalty for serious crimes including murder and drug trafficking, said it plans to exempt more cases from the mandatory sentence.

While the nation will uphold the death penalty for those who manufacture and traffic drugs, the punishment will no longer be mandatory for all those caught carrying drugs exceeding certain amounts, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said in parliament today. Courts will have the discretion to either sentence the offender to death or life imprisonment with caning if the accused is only a courier and has cooperated with authorities or has a mental disability, he said.

“These provisions retain the strong deterrence posture of our capital punishment regime while providing for a more calibrated sentencing framework when specific conditions are met,” Teo said. The proposed changes will provide a framework for accused persons to assist the state in targeting those who play “a more significant role in drug syndicates,” he said.

Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. Still, the city state has been criticized by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International for maintaining the death penalty even as more than two-thirds of countries worldwide have abolished it in law or in practice.

The death penalty will still apply for “intentional” murders, while courts will have the discretion to impose life imprisonment in less severe crimes, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said. The seriousness of the crime, personal culpability and deterrence will be considered, he said.
Second Chance

Intentional killing is still considered “one of the most serious offenses,” and the state reserves the right to punish offenders with the most severe penalty, Shanmugam said. When the crime isn’t intentional, the courts will have the discretion to impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment.

“Justice can be tempered with mercy and where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance,” he said. “The approach being taken is not without risks, but it is a step we can take.”

Draft legislation outlining the changes will be proposed later this year, Shanmugam said.
’First Step’

The proposal is an important first step toward consistency with universal standards of human rights, Braema Mathi, president of Singapore-based human rights organization Maruah, said in a statement today. The mandatory death penalty is “fundamentally troubling, and it continues to be applied to a substantial number of criminal offences,” Mathi said.

In a 2004 statement, the ministry of home affairs said the country executed 110 people for drugs-related offenses and 28 for murder and arms-related offenses over five years.

There are currently 35 prisoners awaiting capital punishment, 28 for drug offenses and seven for murder, Teo said.

“There will be an appropriate process where they will be given the opportunity to be considered whether or not the new sentencing regime can be applied to them,” he said.

There has been a “progressive reduction in the use of the death penalty in Singapore,” Amnesty International said in a statement in May.

Recent cases that have put the death penalty in the spotlight include Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian who was sentenced with execution for smuggling 47 grams (1.7 ounces) of heroin to Singapore, and last year lost a bid at the city’s highest court for a presidential review of his sentence. An online petition appealing for clemency garnered more than 41,000 signatures.

In 2005, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong dismissed Australia’s calls to commute the death sentence for Australian drug smuggler Nguyen Tuong Van.

A book on the city’s death penalty resulted in a contempt of court charge for British author Alan Shadrake. His book, “Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore’s Justice in the Dock,” suggests that the government “succumbs to political and economic pressures” in meting out the death penalty, the Attorney-General’s Chambers said in court papers. Shadrake was convicted and sentenced to jail.

from bloomberg

BadzMaro SG

No death for possession. Just life sentence. -_-

QX179R SG

Criminal lawyers, human rights groups welcome death penalty review

SINGAPORE: Two human rights groups and the Association of Criminal Lawyers have welcomed the announcement by the Singapore government that the death penalty will no longer be mandatory in certain limited circumstances.

The Association of Criminal Lawyers called the move a significant milestone in Singapore's legal history. Its president, Subhas Anandan, said death row inmates deserve punishment but not all deserve death.

But human rights group MARUAH said it regrets the "narrow scope of this move", and that it is "troubled" that the mandatory death penalty will continue to be maintained for offences such as intentional murder, kidnapping, firearms offences and drug trafficking where the conditions spelt out by the government are not met.

In its submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review of Singapore in 2011, MARUAH has highlighted that the mandatory death penalty fundamentally conflicts with international human rights norms.

So MARUAH said it is glad at this "first step towards consistency with universal standards of human rights", but it called on the Singapore government to do much more.

In a statement, MARUAH president Braema Mathi said: "We applaud the Singapore government for taking this important first step. But this is only a small step in the right direction, as the mandatory death penalty is fundamentally troubling, and it continues to be applied to a substantial number of criminal offences."

In a phone interview with Channel NewsAsia, she described the review of the mandatory death penalty as a move towards "greater enlightenment".

"That is really bravo. That is really moving towards a greater enlightenment by the government. This has been too harsh and too long for too many. I still think the death penalty as a tool needs to be discussed thoroughly by the public. It has to be a proper dialogue with the public to fully understand and comprehend whether it is really the best deterrent that we can have to really stamp out drug trafficking or to reduce drug addiction?" said Ms Braema Mathi.

Meanwhile, human rights group Amnesty International wants to see the mandatory death sentence abolished unconditionally.

In a statement to Channel NewsAsia, a spokesperson from the group said mandatory death sentences prevent judges from exercising their discretion and from considering all extenuating circumstances in a case.

It added 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", it said.

The group cited the case of Malaysian drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong, who was 19 years old when he was arrested.

"Yong Vui Kong's case has attracted international attention and concern from the diplomatic community. Amnesty International and the Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) join local groups in Malaysia and Singapore in calling for the Singaporean government to commute Yong Vui Kong's sentence."

The group acknowledged the impact of violent crimes on society and families but added "there is no evidence to demonstrate that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments".

The government announced on Monday that it will change the law such that the mandatory death penalty will not be applied in two types of cases: firstly, where a drug trafficker only played the role of a courier, and the trafficker had substantively cooperated with the police or had a mental disability; and secondly, where there is a homicide but there was no intention to kill.

In these cases, the courts may either impose the death penalty or sentence the convicted person to life imprisonment with caning.

- CNA/ir

QX179R SG

MPs raise questions on proposed changes to death penalty

SINGAPORE: After numerous reviews in recent years, the Singapore government is finally tweaking the death penalty laws.

Speaking in Parliament on Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean mooted lifting the death penalty for drug couriers under certain conditions.

Firstly, they must have only played the role of courier and not been involved in the supply or distribution of drugs. Secondly, they would need to have cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau in a substantive way or demonstrated mental disability.

In such cases, the courts will have the discretion to now impose a life sentence instead of sending traffickers to the gallows.

Nine Members of Parliament raised supplementary questions on the proposed changes to the death penalty framework in Singapore.

Several asked about the level of cooperation needed from the accused drug trafficker to be exempted from the mandatory death penalty.

Christopher De Souza, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, asked: "How much cooperation must be given? I certainly hope that a high level of cooperation is needed and required by the courts and by the amendments, such that we can go upstream with the information collected through that cooperation and go to the people who run these rackets outside of Singapore."

Alvin Yeo, MP for Chua Chu Kang GRC, said: "I'm also slightly troubled by the remark that cooperation needs to lead to concrete outcomes. As DPM has rightly observed, the many drug cartels are very difficult to penetrate the high levels. And indeed, the lower down the hierarchy the courier is, the less likely he is to have information that will lead directly to the ringleaders. Are we in some danger of setting too high a barrier?"

In reply, Mr Teo said: "On the cooperation element, we believe that it will help us, give us an extra set of tools, to reach higher up into the drug syndicates.

"It's going to be very difficult. I'm not sure that we will succeed, but it gives us an extra set of tools to encourage the couriers in this case, to assist us, to dismantle drug syndicates, or to arrest or prosecute members of the syndicates. And I've described a substantive cooperation in those terms. We'll have to define the precise way of having this enacted in the law as we go ahead."

Workers' Party Secretary-General and MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang, asked if there is a need for a mandatory death sentence.

"Why can't we leave it to the court to decide and to impose appropriate sentence, rather than mandatory sentence, especially death penalty. And if mandatory death penalty is an important deterrent, how does non-mandatory, compared to mandatory, have more deterrence? If the court imposes death sentence under certain circumstances, is it not deterrent enough?"

Mr Teo replied: "The mandatory death sentence provides on conviction a very certain and severe punishment. And it has been a very strong deterrent.
In the case of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, we can see that drug traffickers, and others involved in the supply chain, are deliberately, where they can, opting to come below the threshold levels for the mandatory death penalty.

"So it clearly has an impact on behaviour. Hence the changes we are making are carefully calibrated to maintain the strong deterrent value of the mandatory death sentence, while providing for the courts to have discretion in certain specific, tightly-defined situations."

Sylvia Lim, MP for Aljunied GRC, said: "An overriding concern is that, while we look at the death penalty itself, it should not be looked at in isolation of the criminal procedure as a whole. Because the sentence finally comes out at the end of that process. And I think all of us are interested to ensure that we don't convict the wrong person!"

Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugam, said: "We work with the Bar, and with the judges to make sure we have a system that doesn't fall into either extremely liberal such that prosecution becomes a game of catch-me-if-you-can with a series of procedural hurdles which have no real substantive value, or another system where even innocent people can be convicted.

"We want the cases to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in a fair and proper way. All suggestions to make the process more rigorous would always be welcome. My ministry as well as Home Affairs would be willing to listen to any suggestions in that context. Ultimately the test is: does it improve the system?"

NMP Faizah Jamal said: "Very often, most of these couriers are very young, and probably driven by hard circumstances. While I understand the primary objective is always for the society, my concern is that in the course of the long period of time when they are in remand or in prison, change happens. I wonder if that can be taken into account. People change, and there could be real remorse, and this can be attested to by authorities."

Replying, Mr Shanmugam said: "I think if we focus on any one individual, a powerful case can emotionally be made out for saving a life. For saving lives, powerful cases can always be made out. It is more difficult if you want to balance that against the reality.

"15g of heroin is 300 people using that for a week. Somebody who peddles that, and usually they peddle much more than that, will bring ruin, possibly death, or at least a life of ruin, to a large number of people.

"Let's say, instead of 15g it is 100g, you work it out for yourself, how many thousands of people (are ruined).

"What is never in the headlines is the number of lives that have been lost; the number of children who are orphaned either literally or through their parents being in jail; the amount of sadness and impact on the social fabric of society that those who are on the ground see every day.

"The headlines never focus on the victims of crime. If you look at it - the number of people who are impacted and how tough you need to be to try and save the society as a whole, then you need to send out a clear and consistent message.

"And the clear and consistent message is that if you deal in drugs in a quantity that is enough to support 300 people or more, then you face the death penalty. It's never an easy debate. It's not because we like the death penalty, it's not because we think it ought to be imposed for no reason. It's not because we want to simply, be tough.

"It's because imposed with the duty of ensuring the safety and security of every single Singaporean who goes out on the streets, we feel there's no choice but to have this framework. And that is a conversation we ought to continue to have."

- CNA/ir

BadzMaro SG

but but..... Cannabis and Cannabinoids and its derivates should not be under Class A....

the Bear SG

i wonder which of the politicians' relatives are at risk of being hammered with the mandatory death sentence?

Fcukpap SG

lifting the death penalty subject to certain conditions is, in any perspective, applaudable than a fixed regime of death punishment. But to completely lift it would have disastrous impact on our society and may easily turn singapore into a lively drug trafficking hub..

humanity is to be balanced with stern punishments and a chance to reprieve...this is a good move to transform inflexibility due to insecurities or lack of confidence to a more open legal system to face with greater confidence against the great evils of human nature and society...

the legal system should revive the importance of the jury system, if ever to transform further towards a more democratic and confident legal system...the social and cultural mores of society plays a good part in making a legal system work more humanely and thus, sustainable...

the jury would not possess the technical wisdom of law, but the law should consider various public opinions ...however, the final judgement must fall back to the judicial system and not the jury...the jury should act only as a secondary role..to ensure the judicial system considers thoroughly all areas before enacting the death penalty...

Fcukpap SG

lets not forget....without penalty, there is no law...

sine poena nulla lex...

oxford mushroom SG

Have no issue with abolishing death penalty and replacing with life imprisonment......provided it is accompanied by 10 strokes of the rattan each year for the rest of the criminal's life or until he reaches 50 years-old, whichever is earlier.