Death penalty: Discussion reveals misconceptions

By tham yuen-c

THE questions came fast and furious at a public consultation on proposed changes to the mandatory death penalty. One man asked if Singapore should keep the death penalty at all. Another asked whether or not financial considerations came into play when deciding whether to sentence someone to death or to life imprisonment. A third demanded that the Attorney-General's Chambers reveal why it decides to prosecute in some cases and not in others. Many of the comments suggested some confusion over the proposed changes to the mandatory death penalty - announced in Parliament last month - as well as misconceptions about Singapore's criminal justice system. So, in the end, the event held last night by the opposition National Solidarity Party (NSP) and civil society group Think Centre turned into a lecture of sorts on the basics of the law. Its organisers had wanted to discuss the finer points of the changes affecting the mandatory death penalty, and to gather feedback which it plans to send to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law. But many came to speak out against the death penalty. Lawyer Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, head of NSP's law committee, opened the session with a brief rundown of the changes, which include lifting the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and murder only in a limited number of specific instances.

She was followed by fellow speakers: former attorney-general Walter Woon, activist Rachel Zeng and Think Centre president Sinapan Samydorai. About 90 people attended the forum. Professor Woon, now a law professor at the National University of Singapore, explained the prosecutorial and judicial processes and what the proposed changes meant, saying: "It is important there is a national debate about this, and it's only possible if people are informed." The other two speakers wanted the death penalty to be done away with altogether. Ms Zeng, who is from the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, argued that "common sense and personal morals and values" were enough to deter people from crime. And Mr Samydorai made an impassioned speech about human rights, saying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits the death penalty. But Prof Woon corrected him, pointing out that this was not true. In fact, he noted, the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials in the 1940s were held after the declaration was made, and the guilty were hanged. When asked how individuals could contribute to the discussion, Prof Woon replied: "The kind of recommendations that will end up in the waste basket are the ones that are polemic. "You have to be intellectually coherent if you want to influence policy. You have to make sense, and you have to understand that it takes time." yuenc@sph.com.sg
Copyright 2012 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. picture credit: theonlinecitizen.som