Even as you read this, it may well be that the 3 Indonesian Islamist militants who have been convicted over the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings that killed 202 people have already been executed.
The Indonesian government has already signed off the execution of bomber ringleader Imam Samudra and his two henchmen, brothers Amrozi and Mukhlas.
These three Jamilah Islamiah members were not the Islamic warriors they like to think they have been. They were nothing more than cowardly murderers whose victims were mainly women and children.
However, the dilemma lies not with Indonesia but with Australia which suffered the heaviest toll in the 2002 cold blooded murders.
Australia as a nation has abolished the death sentence and has frequently spoken out against man’s ultimate punishment, State sanctioned executions.
Yet in the pending execution of Samudra, Ambrozi and Mukhlas, the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, has deftly tap danced away from the traditional Australian Labour Party ideological stand against the death sentence.
Kevin Rudd knows he wouldn’t survive politically if he speaks out against the death sentences of those 3 convicted Bali bombing murderers.
Is that then the Australian dilemma?
No, the dilemma lies in the unfortunate fact that a number of young Australian drug smugglers caught by Indonesian authorities are awaiting the death sentence as well, and Australia has appealed for their pardon.
Australian civil activists and even some Labour ministers have lambasted the Australian government for not being consistent on its stand against the death sentence, where it would seem to other nations (like Indonesia) that Australia would only protest against the cruel State sanctioned killings when Australian citizens were/are involved.
Some years ago, when an Australian drug smuggler, Nguyen Van Tuong, only in his early 20’s when arrested, was sentenced to death by the Singaporean government, then-PM John Howard refused, yes, refused to appeal for clemency though there was domestic urgings by churches and NGOs for the Aussie PM to make a personal appeal to his Singapore counterpart.
Howard refused to do so.
I thought he was hypocritical in stating that Australians were opposed to the death sentence, and that he believed Nguyen should not be executed because of his previous clean record and mitigating circumstances, and yet in the same breath, stating he won’t make a personal appeal for Nguyen.
Being a political animal, his decision was of course based on home politics.
Then, his far greater insincerity showed through, when to the horrors of those who had appealed, he added words to his refusal which were virtually fatal for Nguyen. Howard stated in unambiguous terms that Nguyen's execution would not hurt Australia's relationship with Singapore.
… which could only be read as an indirect message to Singapore to go ahead with the hanging of Nguyen. It was the final nail in Nguyen’s coffin.
Many Australians compared, or rather contrasted the Howard’s government’s disdainful and dismissive treatment of Nguyen Van Tuong with that of high support for Schappelle Corby when the latter was arrested by the Indonesian government for the same crime, smuggling drugs.
Three years ago in a post titled PM Howard Tiptoed Thro' The Tulips I wrote the following of Howard:
… he is however, is a very calculating politician who is very conscious and careful not to offend the more conservative elements of Australian public […]
Howard is very much governed by his perception of where the voters are, making him the most consummate politician, and possibly explaining why he continues as a popular prime minister for so long […]
Also read my Extracts from the ‘Death of Reason’!
Meanwhile in Malaysia, I was reliably informed ;-) that some Muslims don’t support the death sentence for Ahmad Najib Aris, the convicted rapist-murderer of Canny Ong Lay Kian. These people believe that a Muslim, regardless of his crimes, should not be executed for the mere death of an infidel.
We do not know yet the decision of the Federal Court in last month’s appeal by the convicted murderer-rapist, but I wonder whether Ahmad Aris will get away with his appeal on compassionate grounds that (I read this somewhere) he has children etc.
Should the Federal Court show compassion and commute his death sentence?
Please don’t answer … because I have the only answer for such a crime or any such crimes ...
... we must NOT impose a death sentence on anyone.
In this regard I had also protested against the execution of a Malaysian Islamist militant for treason. I had argued what value would there be to Malaysia in executing the man?
Similarly I would argue against the execution of Ahmad Aris. Yes, lock him up for life but do not debase ourselves by sanctioning his execution.
Apart from death being an irrevocable sentence, where we cannot make subsequent amends for mistakes in and by the legal process, there is also the question of values, of our humanity, of reverence for God’s creation.
Whether the murderer is a Muslim or non-Muslim, drug smuggler, Islamist bomber, American or Israeli uniformed massacrers, or the victims were Malays, Chinese, Indians, whites, blacks, whoever, my personal stand is to leave out completely the draconian brutal capital punishment.
For those religious, I say do not usurp God’s will and prerogative. For those secular minded, I say we must not destroy a human life for it only debases our humanity.
At a national level, it has to do with a nation having higher values and not subordinating itself to institutionalized murder. It has to do with our not stooping down to brutal punishment, which has been proven not to stop crimes. It has to do with our refusing to succumb to caveman's mentality, that silly ‘an eye for an eye’ because if we do, soon everyone in this world will be blind (if they aren’t already).
Please read my post on the death of Nguyen Van Tuong titled Not a Martyr, Not a Hero, but a Human Being which discussed people’s views that State sanctioned killings ‘diminish’ us.
In SE Asia, wealthy Singapore has, by the size of its population and number of executions, the highest execution rate in the world, exceeding even those of China or the USA. See also:
(1) In a Perfect Country!
(2) Home and Free
... whilst economically poor Philippines has (for the second time in 2006) abolished the death penalty. The Filipinos had actually abolished the death penalty before in 1987 but restored the sentence in late 1993 for heinous crimes such as murder, child rape and kidnapping. But it has taken the high path of morality again.
In this respect, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, especially George Bush, the Singapore government, and our own Malaysian government have all been failures.
Related:
(1) Forgotten But Unfortunately Not Entirely ...
(2) Sorry We Killed You
(3) Brotherhood of Death - Victims & Perpetrators
(4) Hot Babe: "No More Hot Seat!"
I take it that you are also against the killers of Altantuya receiving the death sentence. So you should plead against the death sentence handed down on Cannie Ong's BBQer, who is on death row.
ReplyDeletethe meaning of humanity is beyond your understanding
ReplyDeleteSure, we need to show our humanity and compassion to the needy and the weak. But show humanity to killers and murderers?
ReplyDeleteLet's say you are a judge who have a corrupt govt official before you. The evidence is obvious and the witnesses have all testified that this parasite has siphoned off vast amounts of the taxpayers' money. His lawyer is pleading for a light sentence on compassionate grounds, because he has to support 4 wives and 40 school-going kids.
Are you going to throw the book at him or are you going to transfer him to another position where he can continue to empty the country's coffers?
Another case in point regards the crooks caught in mixing melamine with milk and animal feed, resulting in kidney stones and death among innocent consumers. Would you give them a light tap on their knuckles and let them off with just a warning? Or are you going to hang them and confiscate their ill-gotten gains to compensate the victims?
The point is, humanity is for human beings, not for sons of bitches
matey, we aren't talking about ordinary crimes but the 'death sentence'.
ReplyDeleteI'd never have taken you for someone who doesn't believe in the death sentence, KT.
ReplyDeleteI personally think it's inhumane. No human being has the right to order the death of another.
We need to be consistent - no death sentence.
my dear crankster, I have always worn my left wing liberal beliefs openly on my sleeve like a badge of honour ;-)
ReplyDeleteI reckon you have, but you being a Malaysian-born, I didn't think you'd be *this* liberal.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it's always good to know another liberal. Though I have a streak of conservatism in me! ;-)
We may have a state sponsored Murder on our plate with the 2 kuci policeman left to take the rap for the death of Allantunya.
ReplyDeleteIf there is not death sentence, then be equal to all races / religion. Is a Muslim martyr more worthy than a kafir?
Although its true to say that Singapore has a high execution rate, this is because the population of Singapore is small and if they execute 3 persons the rate becomes 1 per million. However China can execute 600 persons and the rate is only 0.5 per million. So although its mathematically correct to say Singapore has a high execution rate, one should look at the bigger picture
ReplyDeleteon another note someone once asked a presidential candidate (not the current ones) whether if an escaped convict raped and killed his wife would he support the death penalty for that person. he said no. & lost the election (though I am sure there were other reasons). cant remember who it was though, some years ago.
ReplyDeleteApart from my moral opposition to the death penalty I also feel that proponents of the detah penalty should furnish evidence that it works as a deterrence (for in many countries that is how it is sold to the public, rather as just punishment). And as we are then dealing in counter-factuals, they in fact cannot prove their case. My biggest beef lies with executing drug mules-since when has that:
ReplyDelete(a) stopped drug dealing and,
(b) when did the big guys ever get caught? We can always execute silly 18 year olds though...
For those who argue it as just punishment, I cannot even begin to argue with you-our world views are too far apart. Mind you, don't you think putting someone behind bars forever is a more fitting punishment than letting them get away by dying? Perhaps...?
Also, as evidenced in the USA, too many people (i.e. one is too many already) innocent people have been sent to death row-kill them and we cannot correct our errors.
That poor man Nguyen was also just in transit at Changi-wasn't going to sell drugs there. Sure he was an idiot, but I wish he got caught in Australia. Most people are also unaware about the exceptional circumstances of his case.
The Bali bombers reflect Australia's rage towards these murderers, but also reflects a significant minority opinion that the death penalty should be faced by those who break the law in countries where it is applicable-there's plenty of support for teh death penalty of the Bali nine on talkback radio, not necessarily due to support of the death penalty but because the Indonesian stance on drug dealing is well known.
Yes, Rudd has to grin and bear it-committed Christian and all-because he is a politician above all, but Howard was even worse. On the foreign front, he assured Singapore it would be business as usual. On the domestic front, he basically 'allowed' Qantas to protect its monopoly on the USA route by denying SIA the right to fly from Australia to the USA partially bankrolled by the public's anger at Sinagpore. Killed 2 birds with 1 stone, our Machiavellian Aussie.
well written, parvinder.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile in Malaysia, I was reliably informed ;-) that some Muslims don’t support the death sentence for Ahmad Najib Aris, the convicted rapist-murderer of Canny Ong Lay Kian. These people believe that a Muslim, regardless of his crimes, should not be executed for the mere death of an infidel.
ReplyDelete================
Muslim may not support death sentence for murderers, BUT Islam most certainly licenses murder upon those who want to leave Islam.
Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Human life is sacred.
Whoever robs a man of his life, the State (civil authority) has the responsibility to forfeit his life.
anon, how could you state: "Human life is sacred" yet in the same breath say that the State is justified to forfeit even a killer of his life? Isn't his/her life, like all lives of God's creatures equally sacred? Or do you have exceptions to your idea of the sacredness of life?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever lost a loved one's life to a criminal act ? Pray that you don't ever have go through that experience.
ReplyDeleteThe judicial process must, of course, be as fair as humanly possible. But at the end, after all due process, if the person is guilty, he should face the penalty.
For the crime of deliberately and intentionally taking another human being's life, execution is a just penalty.
... which is why the victim's family members must never sit in judgement, whence it would become nothing more than medieval raw village justice or vigilante executions!
ReplyDeleteThe State must provide for men learned in justice, strong in integrity, cool and clinical temperament, independence from politics and prejudice, and the highest values to sit in judgement of fellow human beings.
The case of the Australian PM avoiding the issue is a classical case of political pressure, where he refuses to speak up against the death sentence because of domestic political considerations, namely, the need to appease the victims' families (mind you, only some families, because some have expressed their forgiveness and even disapproval of the death sentence).
The State leaders, like the President of the Philippines, must assume the politically difficult but humanely noble leadership of rejecting the death sentence. We on our part must lobby for and support such leadership!
Kind sir, may I count on you and your compassion ;-)
how do you like if your taxpayer money used to feed murderer and rapist scums. and couple with current jail congestion, how would like your taxpayer money to build jails and more jails to lock these scums for good.
ReplyDeleteand how do you like when you heard 10yrs (or maybe 5) yrs later these scums get pardoned. like the utk in ongoing mongolian murder case, assume they were found guilty and lock behind bars for life, and then get pardoned coz bijan became PM and because they are UTK.....
as you condemn datuk chamil's freedom of speech because of malaysians immaturity, i don't think you should condemn death penalty in malaysia.
freedom of speech comes with responsisbility - one can't use the excuse of freedom of speech to 'suggest' or 'instigate' an assassination
ReplyDeleteOTOH, condemning the death sentence doesn't get anyone 'accidentally' killed