Three men named Nguyen, Shanmugam, and Tookie
I opened my MSN contact list the other day and saw an interesting nickname for one of my contacts; it read: "Singapore's attitude is barbaric, pure and simple. WTF! http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/10/29/1130400399810.html"
I had a hunch that it was referring to the Nguyen Tuong Van case, and accessing the link, it was confirmed.
But what disturbed me was that it seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction to the Australian newspapers review-cum-criticism of the application of the death penalty in Singapore. While I am personally divided on the issue of capital punishment in our country, I believe very strongly that we need to relook very carefully at its use for crimes other than those involving loss of life.
In short, I think the use of the death penalty for drug crimes is excessive, and I am firmly opposed to the method of application, viz. the fact that it is mandatory. Why should the most serious and severe punishment be made mandatory for any crime, and for that, any crime other than murder?
Moreover, the legality of Nguyen's sentence is also in doubt (at least to me)-he was caught whilst trying to smuggle drugs from Cambodia to Australia. He did not pass through Singapore customs, nor did he intend to do so. He was charged for importing drugs into Singapore. Shouldn't Australia be the one who should try him as he was attempting to import them into Australia? Why is Singapore trying (and hanging) him simply because his aircraft stopped here, and not extraditing him to Australia?
I read the judgment of Kan Ting Chiu J. and I note in para. 84 of his judgment that:The degree of moral blameworthiness of an offender and other mitigating and aggravating factors are taken into consideration for sentencing in the vast majority of the offences where the sentence is not fixed. The failure to do so could raise questions whether the sentencing power is properly exercised. But where the legislature has by the proper exercise of its powers prescribed that for offences involving large quantities of drugs the offenders shall be punished with death, the punishment will be imposed without hearing pleas in mitigation, and there is no denial of the equal protection of the law to the offenders.
I know that the law is supposed to be unbending and absolute in its interpretation, judging based on facts of the case and without recourse to emotive appeals, but certainly some consideration must be made for the circumstances surrounding the accused. If this is already done for those convicted of lesser crimes, why not for more serious ones? But how can any consideration be made if the law provides one and only one punishment regardless of the circumstances, and what more the highest punishment? Going further down, paras 85 to 90 acknowledges the ruling of the Privy Council on the illegality of mandatory death sentences, but inserts a proviso that it doesn't hold here-simply because we do not have a provision in our Constitution or anywhere guaranteeing that no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment. This easily and brusquely dismisses the compelling arguments of Lord Bingham in para. 89.
Take for instance the case of Shanmugam Murugesu, who was hanged on 13 May 05 for drug smuggling. Because of that, his teenage sons are now orphans. They are unwilling and innocent victims of their father's crime. Shanmugam was the cause of that, no doubt; but in executing him, I find it difficult to exonerate the state of being an accessory to their plight. Should his mother die of grief from his hanging, will the state care? Some might even argue that that is not their concern. But is it right? Before his death, Shanmugam co-operated fully with the authorities to nab the ringleader of the gang. However, he was not given the chance to rehabilitate and it was deemed more 'just' to simply put him to death. I feel very disturbed that this society is so unforgiving that it cannot accept that a perpetrator of a heinous crime can turn over a new leaf, even despite all evidence to the contrary. Should Shanmugam have been spared, would he have continued to ply drugs into Singapore, or would he have led an honest life, helping counsel drug addicts of the consequences of their actions. Which scenario would be more likely?
Stanley 'Tookie' Williams had his death sentence ratified recently. He was sentenced to death 20 years ago for a murder he claims he did not commit. Whether he did or not is another matter. What matters is that in the intervening 20 years, he has more than just repented for his deeds and past gang-violence. Now he has helped to guide incarcerated youth back to the right track by powerful books written from Death Row. He helped create the Internet Project for Street Peace and has received more than 50,000 e-mails from youths, parents, teachers and even law enforcement officers from around the world testifying that his writings changed and saved lives. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize twice, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has even given the unprecedented recommendation that his life be spared. But all in vain, and he is to be executed on Dec 13. A man who has done much good since turning over a new leaf-and one who would have continued to do much more good should he be given a chance to live-will have his good work snuffed short.
In these cases, what good would come from executing them? Nguyen's mother wrote to the Queen, saying much suffering has been caused by Nguyen, but more would come from killing him. If the object is to minimise the amount of suffering caused by a social ill, two wrongs don't make a right. If the object is to punish the offender, the punishment is excessive. If the object is to deter such attempts at trafficking, "you cannot kill a lamb to educate a wolf," as said by the abbot of Victoria's Quang Minh Temple-what is the point of killing an ant when the queen ant still lives? More will just come.
It is disturbing enough that the general population seems to show no or very little interest in the death penalty, let alone question its rationale, effectiveness and proportionality of use in relation to the crimes it is administered for. It is more disturbing that someone can raise so much ire from a knee-jerk reaction to an article criticising its use, and is more concerned about the criticism of the issue rather than the issue itself. For crying out loud, this is a life-and-death matter we're talking about here, not just a simplistic matter of your country getting criticised!
If he wasn't offline and this not the month of exams, I as a fellow Singaporean would ask him to justify his comment.
Postscript: What is more bizarre than executing a criminal is executing an innocent man. After reading this article on Shanmugam, I was shocked to read Fact #6 where no less than our CJ acknowledged that the public prosecutor would maintain that an innocent person be hanged because of legal procedure. I really want to find out the context of that statement now.
I had a hunch that it was referring to the Nguyen Tuong Van case, and accessing the link, it was confirmed.
But what disturbed me was that it seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction to the Australian newspapers review-cum-criticism of the application of the death penalty in Singapore. While I am personally divided on the issue of capital punishment in our country, I believe very strongly that we need to relook very carefully at its use for crimes other than those involving loss of life.
In short, I think the use of the death penalty for drug crimes is excessive, and I am firmly opposed to the method of application, viz. the fact that it is mandatory. Why should the most serious and severe punishment be made mandatory for any crime, and for that, any crime other than murder?
Moreover, the legality of Nguyen's sentence is also in doubt (at least to me)-he was caught whilst trying to smuggle drugs from Cambodia to Australia. He did not pass through Singapore customs, nor did he intend to do so. He was charged for importing drugs into Singapore. Shouldn't Australia be the one who should try him as he was attempting to import them into Australia? Why is Singapore trying (and hanging) him simply because his aircraft stopped here, and not extraditing him to Australia?
I read the judgment of Kan Ting Chiu J. and I note in para. 84 of his judgment that:The degree of moral blameworthiness of an offender and other mitigating and aggravating factors are taken into consideration for sentencing in the vast majority of the offences where the sentence is not fixed. The failure to do so could raise questions whether the sentencing power is properly exercised. But where the legislature has by the proper exercise of its powers prescribed that for offences involving large quantities of drugs the offenders shall be punished with death, the punishment will be imposed without hearing pleas in mitigation, and there is no denial of the equal protection of the law to the offenders.
I know that the law is supposed to be unbending and absolute in its interpretation, judging based on facts of the case and without recourse to emotive appeals, but certainly some consideration must be made for the circumstances surrounding the accused. If this is already done for those convicted of lesser crimes, why not for more serious ones? But how can any consideration be made if the law provides one and only one punishment regardless of the circumstances, and what more the highest punishment? Going further down, paras 85 to 90 acknowledges the ruling of the Privy Council on the illegality of mandatory death sentences, but inserts a proviso that it doesn't hold here-simply because we do not have a provision in our Constitution or anywhere guaranteeing that no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment. This easily and brusquely dismisses the compelling arguments of Lord Bingham in para. 89.
Take for instance the case of Shanmugam Murugesu, who was hanged on 13 May 05 for drug smuggling. Because of that, his teenage sons are now orphans. They are unwilling and innocent victims of their father's crime. Shanmugam was the cause of that, no doubt; but in executing him, I find it difficult to exonerate the state of being an accessory to their plight. Should his mother die of grief from his hanging, will the state care? Some might even argue that that is not their concern. But is it right? Before his death, Shanmugam co-operated fully with the authorities to nab the ringleader of the gang. However, he was not given the chance to rehabilitate and it was deemed more 'just' to simply put him to death. I feel very disturbed that this society is so unforgiving that it cannot accept that a perpetrator of a heinous crime can turn over a new leaf, even despite all evidence to the contrary. Should Shanmugam have been spared, would he have continued to ply drugs into Singapore, or would he have led an honest life, helping counsel drug addicts of the consequences of their actions. Which scenario would be more likely?
Stanley 'Tookie' Williams had his death sentence ratified recently. He was sentenced to death 20 years ago for a murder he claims he did not commit. Whether he did or not is another matter. What matters is that in the intervening 20 years, he has more than just repented for his deeds and past gang-violence. Now he has helped to guide incarcerated youth back to the right track by powerful books written from Death Row. He helped create the Internet Project for Street Peace and has received more than 50,000 e-mails from youths, parents, teachers and even law enforcement officers from around the world testifying that his writings changed and saved lives. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize twice, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has even given the unprecedented recommendation that his life be spared. But all in vain, and he is to be executed on Dec 13. A man who has done much good since turning over a new leaf-and one who would have continued to do much more good should he be given a chance to live-will have his good work snuffed short.
In these cases, what good would come from executing them? Nguyen's mother wrote to the Queen, saying much suffering has been caused by Nguyen, but more would come from killing him. If the object is to minimise the amount of suffering caused by a social ill, two wrongs don't make a right. If the object is to punish the offender, the punishment is excessive. If the object is to deter such attempts at trafficking, "you cannot kill a lamb to educate a wolf," as said by the abbot of Victoria's Quang Minh Temple-what is the point of killing an ant when the queen ant still lives? More will just come.
It is disturbing enough that the general population seems to show no or very little interest in the death penalty, let alone question its rationale, effectiveness and proportionality of use in relation to the crimes it is administered for. It is more disturbing that someone can raise so much ire from a knee-jerk reaction to an article criticising its use, and is more concerned about the criticism of the issue rather than the issue itself. For crying out loud, this is a life-and-death matter we're talking about here, not just a simplistic matter of your country getting criticised!
If he wasn't offline and this not the month of exams, I as a fellow Singaporean would ask him to justify his comment.
Postscript: What is more bizarre than executing a criminal is executing an innocent man. After reading this article on Shanmugam, I was shocked to read Fact #6 where no less than our CJ acknowledged that the public prosecutor would maintain that an innocent person be hanged because of legal procedure. I really want to find out the context of that statement now.