Yes, ST
Finally, a sensible article from ST. Writer Ken Kwek argues that our country should reassess the death penalty, because the abolition of it is simply too unrealistic for Singapore. I agree. I’m personally still undecided about capital punishment. It’s hard for me to say it should be abolished, i.e. Pol Pot and Hitler, serial Silence-of-Lambs-esque killers would deserve the death penalty. But those are the extreme cases.
In Nguyen’s case, despite my previous post that might hint otherwise, I agree that it’ll be too difficult for Singapore to step down now. The law is clear and everyone knows it’s such in Singapore. There was no doubt in this case that he smuggled heroin strapped to his back. He has admitted to doing it, for reasons of getting his brother off debt, but he did it, and he took a gamble and lost.
What I’d like to call for right now is more transparency to this law, i.e. not all cases will be this clear-cut and there should be more noise (for and against) about it. This society must decide for itself what it wants. Also, as Ken Kwek argues, our country’s death penalty should re-look it’s simplistic sweep of offenses that are clearly of different degrees.
…the problem with the anti-death penalty movement is not inconsistency, but that it is too simplistic and indiscriminate, viewing criminality in broad and absolute terms…
How do we determine, for instance, whether a person smuggling 500g of cannabis causes as much social harm as one trafficking in 15g of heroin? According to the law, both are equally harmful and punishable by mandatory death…Is smuggling 500g of cannabis (a considerably milder drug than heroin) as atrocious as killing another person in cold blood?
…The axiomatic principle held by activists, that the death penalty is simply wrong across the board, only serves to promote an ideal wholly divorced from the reality of Singapore’s laws. It does little to encourage greater scrutiny and review of the mandatory death penalty, and the crimes to which it applies.
…Perhaps in the months ahead, when emotions have died down, the mandatory death penalty – meaning its case-by-case, crime-by-crime application – should be reassessed by lawyers, officials and citizens alike.
If that happens, we should all focus on the specific – how the mandatory death penalty might be removed for certain crimes – rather than fall for the broadbrush rhetoric calling for its complete and unconditional abolition.
All that BS-talk about Singapore’s sovereignty and how we cannot bow down to the bloody ang mohs is tosh and debates based on that disrespects the more important and humane issue: what is the value we put on human life vs. the harm put out by the crime committed.
In this case, the heroin he trafficked does kill, but he will not kill, the person injecting himself with heroin kills himself. Even if you want to take the stand of killing the indirect killer, why is marijuana put in the same category, where it is pretty much impossible to kill yourself with pot? (no I’m definitely not a pothead, I’m going by facts). Also, on that same scale, shouldn’t the manufacturers, importers and sellers of alcohol and cigarettes all be killed for killing so many indirectly?
Ultimately however, if you want to bring in the ’sovereignty’ argument, it is this society that should decide what we want in our country. As Sudhir said, "if Singaporeans want the death penalty, then fine, so be it, we should be allowed to live how we want". The problem is, there has never been a referendum to find out what this society wants. Neither has there been a near-balanced public discourse about it to educate people clearly of what we would be voting for even if there is one held.
So what do we do? Well, there should be more media exposure listing down one by one with facts and statistics of the effects of each drug/crime. There should be more philosophical debates about the basis of capital punishment (re: Marx). There should then be a genuine nation-wide referendum to decide where our society stands on this. If we choose to continue with our laws, then we will continue with status quo, hopefully, with more press transparency with each subsequent case. Unfortunately, there are too many in our government (and yes, I have spoken to our own civil servants) that think this society is not mature nor intelligent enough to handle this kinda debate.
I hope they are wrong. Let’s hope the tide will turn. Re: Singabloodypore.

