If you follow politics or social issues in Singapore, there are phrases and expressions that quickly become familiar, rhetoric and spiels that any member of civil society will be able to recite to you with their eyes closed. Honestly, activists could pretty much write the government’s press releases themselves, so accustomed are we to the same few arguments.
That’s why reading the Ministry of Law’s response to the recent report by Human Rights Watch comes as no surprise.
The Ministry accuses the report – which highlights issues such as freedom of expression, migrant workers’ rights and gay rights – of making “false assertions”. This is naturally to be expected. Anything members of the ruling party say that attracts criticism is by default “misrepresented” or “misunderstood”. Anything external bodies say to criticise Singapore and its government is by default “false”, and also a misrepresentation of the government. The world would just be so much simpler if everyone could only accept that our government has a master plan, and stop being so contrary!
I am now so used to such responses from the government that reading such statements don’t usually provoke any particular response anymore. Oh look, the same ol’ same ol’, let’s just keep going.
But I would just like to especially point out one section of the response:
…contrary to assertions in its news article1, capital punishment is not prohibited by international law. A large number of countries, including many modern, developed countries (like the US) impose the punishment. In Singapore, capital punishment has contributed to low rates of crime and drug use; and is overwhelmingly supported by Singaporeans.
It is ironic that in rebutting Human Rights Watch’s “false assertion”, the Ministry of Law makes use of more false assertions, namely that capital punishment is the reason for low crime rates in Singapore and that it is overwhelmingly supported by Singaporeans. As far as we know, both these statements have no concrete evidence to support them.
An installation art piece depicting the limited time Yong Vui Kong has to live should he not be granted clemency.
Activists have asked time and again for evidence that the death penalty actually is the cause for low drug and crime rates in Singapore, but such studies have not been forthcoming. Instead, we’ve seen that drug crimes were actually on the rise from 2008 – 2010, after the Central Narcotics Bureau corrected their misreported statistics. This, despite diligent meting out of the mandatory death penalty to drug mules such as Yong Vui Kong and Cheong Chun Yin.
Even Professor Michael Hor, who teaches at the National University of Singapore, has doubts as to the deterrent effect of the mandatory death penalty.
The other point – that there is “overwhelming support” for the death penalty in Singapore – is similarly unsubstantiated. Other than a 2006 survey done by the Straits Times saying that 96% of 425 Singaporeans polled support the death penalty, there has not been, to my knowledge, any other real study done.
Even if you round down the population of Singaporean citizens to 3 million, 425 is only 0.01% of the population. Unless the Ministry of Law has some unpublicised study on Singaporean support for the death penalty, they’re really saying that 96% of 0.01% of Singaporeans support the death penalty. That’s hardly overwhelming.
To be fair, the Ministry could be right. A large number of Singaporeans are probably pro-death penalty. None of the campaigners have ever been so naive to think that Singaporeans are for the abolishment of the death penalty. But then comes more questions: why do Singaporeans support the death penalty? How much do they really know about the law and its applications? How much debate and discussion has there been in the public domain? Do they really support the death penalty, or are they just supporting the status quo?
I’ve only been involved in the anti-death penalty campaign for two years, nothing compared some of my fellow campaigners. Some of our earliest activities have seen only 30 people, many family and friends. But interest has been growing, and events getting bigger and bigger. Our last forum at Sinema Old School had over 100 people, some of whom hadn’t known much about the death penalty before, some who were even pro-death penalty. It is slow and it is hard, but there has been some change. Perhaps one day the so-called “overwhelming” support will not be so overwhelming anymore.
Things are ever-changing, ever-evolving. Perhaps it’s time for the government to start accepting these changes, and stop giving the same old responses to criticisms.
george
January 28, 2012
IMO, the mandatory death sentence is much more than a crime deterrent measure of the govt. To say the least, it is wholly unjustified and unbecoming of the govt to hide behind its citizens whenever its motives and principles are being scrutinized. Moral cowardice.
IMO, the MDS is actually an extension of certain govt leaders’, in particular LKY’s, vindictiveness towards those who dare to ‘defy’ them. When you look at all the records in the public domain on what LKY had said and done in matters relating to people who in his eyes dare to ‘defy’ him, his vengeful streak becomes quite plain and evident.
Look at what happened to the Malaysian born SIA pilot who represented his union some years back, look at the late ex-Minister Teh Cheang Wan, look at Dr Chee Soon Juan, look at Francis Seow the ex-Solicitor General, look at lawyer Tan Liang Hong, look at Chia Tai Poh, look at the so-called ‘Marxist’ conspirators, and of course JBJ whom he had seen fit to grind into the dirt even after he was controversially and conspiratorially felled.
The list is long and the circumstances and context of each ‘case’ told of but one point – his overwhelming gratuitous need to terminate his opponents and those who offended him with the most extreme of personal malice and prejudice. In other words when he hates your guts he would skin you alive if he can.
But, I notice that he does have a ‘saving’ grace – I have yet to see him mete out the same to a woman. I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I don’t remember an instant involving one.
Kirsten Han
January 28, 2012
For brevity’s sake I just focused on the DP arguments but one more thing: what the hell is up with the “capital punishment is okay, the USA does it too” sentiment? The USA is not the centre of the universe, and as we all know, neither is it the epitome of civilised and good behaviour. The fact that the USA has capital punishment is shameful and horrific, and not a validation of Singapore’s use of the death penalty.
Also, it’s rich for them to shovel this defense out now, and when we point out USA’s freedom of information and more diverse political arena, they go, “Oh no no, the USA is not good, look at all the mess and troubles…” Hypocritical much?
Tan Ian Wern
January 30, 2012
To be fair, the representativeness of the ST survey depends on its sampling method. If it was a random sample, 425 responses could give a result with an error margin of less than 5% (to use the current example: there is a greater-than-95% chance that actual death penalty support falls between 100% and 91%). Most major survey companies in the U.S. use sample sizes of around 1000 to measure a population of 30 million. So as far as sample size is concerned the ST isn’t doing badly.
But I don’t know the ST’s methodology in this survey, and I suspect the ST is quite fond of doing non-random straw polls, so…
More importantly, studies in the U.S. find that general questions like “Do you support the death penalty?” significantly inflate the degree of support for the application of the death penalty in specific cases and under specified circumstances. If the question were asked at a less general level (e.g. for specific offences, for criminals of a certain age/handicap), pollsters might find a very different picture of public opinion.
And anyway the more pertinent question in the local context is whether people support the mandatory death penalty, and for what offences. No one has asked this question in surveys. One wonders why.