The President has the power to save a human life, but it has to be recommended by the Cabinet and the Attorney General. In the name of citizens, the "million dollar" members of the Cabinet are willing to practice state sanctioned killing. Why?
There are people in Singapore who care about Nguyen Tuong Van.
There are people in Singapore who are concerned about the death penalty.
There are people in Singapore who will not allow this to continue in their name.
The preamble of the UN Charter reminds every nation "to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small." The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 3, affirms the right to life and Article 5 asserts "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." How a state treats its residents and citizens is, often, determine by the government's political will to bear and assume the responsibility of implementing: the international human rights instruments, provide for public human rights education, and the necessary constitutional and legislative reforms.
In a modern democracy, even a guided democracy, like Singapore, public opinion does count. Each person has a conscience, each person can influence public opinion, we can say no to death penalty by writing petitions and voicing our concern. Under Singapore constitution Article (1): All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law.
We want to promote a fair and humane system where there is justice. The laws should be just and implemented fairly with due respect for human dignity and rights. The death penalty is not acceptable and should be abolished or a moratorium called. It's 'a cruel, inhumane and degrading" punishment. The death penalty does not give any chance for human beings to change. Such unjust and unfair laws do not correspond to the people's desire for compassion, care and concern. It neither promotes respect for human dignity nor respect for human rights.
Unfortunately, the Singapore courts do not have the power to review or re-open the case after the appeal process is exhausted. The Courts should have more discretion to consider the whole circumstance, without presumption of guilt before the due process is exhausted, to arrive at a more flexible and humane sentence. The mandatory death penalty for "simple" possession of drugs is an obstacle for such fair, just and humane sentencing. The UN High Commission for Human Rights has urged states which still maintain the death penalty not to impose it as a mandatory sentence, for crimes without lethal or extreme grave consequences.
In 1996, UN Special Rapporteur recommendations call on the Government of Singapore to make changes to the Misuse of Drug Act to bring it into line with international standards. The Special Rapporteur considered the Drug Act, which partially shifts the burden of proof to the accused, does not provide sufficient guarantees for the presumption of innocence, may lead to violations of the right to life when the crime of drug trafficking carries a mandatory death sentence.
If the court decides wrongly the death penalty is irreversible. Surely, this will be seen as miscarriage of justice by anyone with consciences. With due respect to the efficiency of the courts in Singapore, are we not throwing justice away, the courts maybe powerless to stop an innocent man from being hanged.
The President has the power to save a human life, but it has to be recommended by the cabinet and the Attorney General. In reality, it's the Attorney General and the Cabinet that decides whether a plea for clemency is accepted or rejected. They decide whether a person dies by hanging or the sentence is commuted. In the name of citizens, the "million dollar" members of the cabinet are willing to practice state sanctioned killing.
The Singapore Constitution, Article 100, says "The President may refer to a tribunal consisting of not less than 3 judges of the Singapore court for its opinion any question as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution which has arise or appears likely to arise." The elected President has the power to convene the Constitutional court.
Shanmugam Murugesu was hanged on 13 May 2005, the President had refused to convene the Constitutional Court. The cabinet also refused to hear the call for Moratorium on death penalty. Nguyen Tuong Van is facing the death sentence this month. Is it fair and just? Is it fair and just to presume a person guilty from the moment of arrest? Are there loopholes in the Misuse of Drugs Act that could result in the execution of an innocent person?
Laws are not static: it has to be relevant and appropriate, more flexible and humane, as societal values and morals change. Today, people are more informed of their rights and international standards, they wish to participate in local governance and decision that impact their life. We are consciences that the death penalty is a 'cruel, inhumane and degrading" punishment, and it should not be applied in any circumstances. Today, many will not view "simple possession" of drugs deserve to be punished administrative with death penalty. No person should be presumed guilty before the due process is exhausted.
The death penalty is an act of vengeance that is detrimental to building a civilized society, and is demeaning to all of us as citizens and human beings. Based on numerous studies, Criminologists agree that the death penalty has no deterrence value. Why then sentences a man to hang for simple possession of drugs? Is death penalty consistent and appropriate for possession of drugs?
Let us rise above our feelings of fear and vengeance to seek solutions to drug trafficking and crimes that reflect human dignity and promote justice for all. Think Centre calls on our government, the members of parliament, to abandon the use of death penalty.
In the interim, Think Centre calls for the moratorium on the death penalty as fair and just regarding the death penalty. It gives a chance to re-examine both the purpose of the penalty and its perceived effectiveness, and can save the life of the condemned.
A sentence of life in prison for the most serious offenses would keep us just as safe. We could offer more help and guidance to troubled kids before they turn to drugs and crime. Instead of investing foolishly in vengeance, we ought to be investing wisely in humanity and human dignity.
Death penalty is a practice from the past like torture and slavery which must be rejected by all decent human beings. The death penalty is inhumane, cruel and degrading punishment. The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Since 1991, the government had hanged to death more then 400 human, mostly small-fry mules for simple possession of drugs.
In Singapore as well as Australia, laws make by members of parliament may not be just, fair and humane - reflecting the societal or ideological discriminative viewpoints of the day. Both Australia's treatment of refugees and Singapore's implementation of death penalty are certainly against human rights principles. We need to question why laws are not based on principles and values of human rights? Lets keep connecting and dialoguing as human beings regardless of government policies or violations. Both the people in Singapore and Australia should be in solidarity to find just remedies for a decent and dignified human life.
Sources and Relevant Links:
Think Centre Sign Petition: Calling for Moratorium on the death penalty
Think Centre Visit Think Centre Polls - Nguyen Tunong Van {Commute the Death Sentence, NO to Death Penalty, YES to Death Penalty]
Think Centre Think Centre: Reaffirms Call for Moratorium on executions 20 April 2005
Think Centre Think Centre calls for Constitutional Court decision and Moratorium on death penalty 11 May 2005
Think Centre Death Penalty: Nguyen Tuong Van faces death by hanging
Think Centre Death-row detainee Shanmugam: 2 hanged and there are 8 more
Think Centre Two Africans sentenced to death 11 August 2005