Ten reasons why Singapore should not impose the death penalty on Nagaenthran
By Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy
MORE than a decade after he was condemned to death for drug trafficking, Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, 33, is scheduled to become the first prisoner executed by Singaporean government since 2019.
But here are ten reasons why the island state should not impose the death penalty on him:
First, Nagaenthran might have admitted to the crime of engaging in drug trafficking, but he was found to be mentally impaired.
In other words, his testimony as to the crime might not be valid and hence the death penalty should be quashed or reduced to imprisonment.
Second, Nagaenthran was sentenced to death and his appeals were dismissed on grounds of his testimony that perpetrated drug trafficking.
But understand from his lawyers that the fact that he was mentally impaired was not factored in the final decision making.
Third, punitive laws against drug trafficking are found to be inhumane in that they punish the drug mules and not those who are the brains behind the global drug syndicates.
Those who receive draconian punishment are not the real perpetrators of the global drug trade.
Fourth, International laws and conventions on human rights have long argued for countries to move away from capital punishment to laws that are rehabilitative in nature.
The argument being that capital punishment does not function effectively in reducing drug trafficking.
Fifth, moving away from capital punishment on drug trafficking does not in any way impair the sovereignty of countries to have their own laws and mechanisms to deal with the menace of drug trafficking.
In fact, doing away with crude capital punishment laws might enhance the reputation of countries like Singapore and Malaysia as responsible and humane in nature.
Sixth, Singapore is a responsible nation in the global community.
Even though it is a tiny island, it has achieved tremendous growth and development in the decades after independence.
It is a strong base for global companies engaging in trade and investment.
However, there is one blot – the existence of repressive laws in general and on drug trafficking in particular.
Doing away with capital punishment might be the first significant step in the direction of having a liberal and democratic political environment.
Seventh, executing Nagaenthran might give the impression that Singapore is tough and uncompromising on matters of drug trafficking.
Many others have been executed in the past but had such executions brought down the number of drug trafficking cases?
The answer is simply no.
The root of the problem is the existence of drug syndicates with powerful political connections.
Singapore is in no position to make a dent in curbing the menace of drug trade.
It can merely exercise its limited jurisdiction within the confines of the small island territory.
Eighth, the passage and enforcement of laws must be based on justice and not merely to punish those who were caught and found guilty.
But unfortunately, countries like Singapore, Malaysia and others have never approached laws from the point of justice.
This is the reason why the poor and the unfortunate get entrapped in crimes and get punished severely.
Punishment is often class-biased in nature.
Nineth, the poor and the unfortunate get caught in drug trafficking not because they might be earning big bucks but because this is a chance in their lifetime to make money for themselves and their families.
It is not that they should be spared because they come from poor socio-economic background; rather, they should be punished without resorting to capital punishment.
Tenth, the global challenge to move in the direction of justice and democracy presupposes commitment from the community of nations.
Nations that are still in possession of archaic and cruel laws must ensure these blots are removed in the quickest possible time.
Imposing the death penalty on Nagaenthran simply reinforces the impression that Singapore is adamant and unprepared in partaking in the efforts to render the world as more humane and democratic. – Nov 5, 2021
Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang.
Everyone so concerned about one Malaysian life in SGP. But he had a fair trial.
ReplyDeleteBut everybody now forget about Afghanistan where summary executions without trial is now the norm. No Meow. Everybody Happy Now?
QUOTE
Afghanistan: Rights group accuses Taliban of 'extrajudicial executions'
Over a dozen ethnic Hazaras were shot dead by Taliban fighters weeks after surrendering in Afghanistan, Amnesty International said. The rights group said the killings could constitute "war crimes."
Taliban militants "extrajudicially executed" 13 people in central Afghanistan, rights group Amnesty International said in a report released Tuesday.
While the Taliban leadership have promised amnesty for former government forces and employees since their takeover in mid-August, numerous reports have emerged of extrajudicial killings around the country.
What did the report find?
According to the report, the killings took place on August 30 in the town of Kahor in the central Afghan province of Daykundi.
Out of the 13 people who were killed, 11 of the victims were former members of the Afghan security forces.
The group had negotiated a surrender and agreed to turn over government military equipment.
Many of the group — who were also fleeing with family members — had left the area, but Taliban fighters caught up with one vehicle and "opened fire on the crowd."
A 17-year-old girl was among those killed in the crossfire that ensued.
The remaining former Afghan security forces then surrendered to the Taliban, who "promptly took them to a nearby river basin and executed them," Amnesty said in the report.
The rights group said it had verified videos and photographs of the dead bodies, as well as speaking with eye witnesses.
Taliban committing 'horrific abuses'
According to Amnesty, the local Taliban-appointed chief of police for the province denied the killings.
Taliban leaders have not yet responded to media requests for comment on the report.
The killings of surrendering forces "appear to be war crimes," Amnesty said in its report.
"These cold-blooded executions are further proof that the Taliban are committing the same horrific abuses they were notorious for during their previous rule of Afghanistan," said Agnes Callamard, Amnesty International's Secretary General.
Concerns for ethnic minorities
Members of the Hazara ethnicity, who are Shiite Muslims, have been frequently targeted by attacks in the past in Sunni-majority Afghanistan.
Hazaras account for around 9% of Afghanistan's 36 million population — making them the country's third-largest ethnic group. They were also targeted by the Taliban during the group's rule over Afghanistan in the 1990s. The Taliban's members are predominantly Pashtun, one of Afghanistan's two largest ethnic groups.
Following the Taliban's takeover of Kabul on August 15, and subsequent declaration of control over Afghanistan, leaders of the hard-line Islamist group made initial promises to offer amnesty to former government forces and employees — as well as to be inclusive towards ethnic minorities and women....
UNQUOTE
While I agree that the death penalty should be abolished, we must not presume to usurp Singapore's right to protect its citizens.
ReplyDeleteAnd again while it is true that drug mules tend to be the lower strata of society, my stand is that this should not be an excuse for them to be mules. There are many other ways to earn a living.
True that the big bosses are seldom held accountable. So, just as the wild life tag line is, "When the buying stops, so will the killing"
If the drug mule cohort no longer exists, these drug cartels have no way to distribute and sell their drugs.
In summary, I believe it would be more productive if any campaign to do away with the death penalty in general and in Nagaenthran case in particular is conducted quietly behind the scenes.
No government would want to be seen as giving way to pressure groups.
The legal standard for mental impairment in capacity to stand trial in court is very different from the standard applied for ability to hold a job or function in daily living.
ReplyDeleteIf a person committed a crime, and has the ability to understand what he did , he can be tried for the crime.
That is the task for a Court Appointed professional to determine.
I have ZERO sympathy for willing and cognizant drug mules.
If they had got away with the crime, they would have happily partaken in whatever reward they received for their "success" , and probably do it again some other time.
The fact is they committed a crime which is an essential part of drug trafficking.
There are (rare) instances where the person genuinely had no idea the contraband had been slipped into their luggage, or were under extreme duress to carry the package. The number of such cases over the decades can be counted on one's fingers.
The argument that severe punishment for drug mules has no effect on reducing drug trafficking, true or not, is not a relevant issue.
The drug mules are a vital , willing and rewarded part of the illicit drug supply chain.
When the chain breaks, the killing stops.
Re your "The argument that severe punishment for drug mules has no effect on reducing drug trafficking, true or not, is not a relevant issue", you are tokking kok. Why should a justice system keep executing criminals for a crime when such executions do not stop the crime?
ReplyDelete