you're reading...
Thoughts on Death Penalty

Political Parties and the MDP

The elections are drawing nearer. People are abuzz with the recently announced budget, and bread-and-butter issues are hot topics of discussion. This year, Singaporeans will once again cast their votes, determine the direction of the country for the next 5 to 6 years.

Through all of this, I cannot help thinking, “What about Vui Kong?”

Since his last appeal hearing on the 17th of January, Vui Kong has been on death row in Changi Prison, waiting for his verdict. Waiting, waiting, while Singapore moves on.

I’m not saying that the bread-and-butter issues aren’t important. However, we need to also remember that the mandatory death penalty, and Vui Kong’s case, also reflects upon the country we call home. So, as a young Singaporean and first-time voter, I decided to email the different political parties and ask them about their stance on the mandatory death penalty.

These are the parties I emailed:
People’s Action Party (PAP)
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)
Reform Party (RP)
National Solidarity Party (NSP)
Socialist Front (SF)
Singapore People’s Party (SPP)
Worker’s Party (WP)

Both email addresses I tried for the Singapore People’s Party bounced back, so perhaps they never got my message. Apart from that, though, I received replies from two parties: SDP and RP.

SDP’s reply was short and simple:

The SDP’s stand on the mandatory death penalty for drug peddlers is clear: We don’t support it. 

RP stated that they would abolish the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, and attached a past press statement:

The Reform Party Calls For Abolition of Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking
The Reform Party is heartened by the recent stay of execution granted to Yong Vui Kong, a convicted drug trafficker, pending a final appeal. However his chances of a reprieve are slim since the law prescribes the mandatory death penalty for anyone convicted of bringing more than 15g of heroin into Singapore. 

Singapore’s use of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking offences is out of step with its aspiration to be a first-world nation and has no place in a civilized society. Those executed have been overwhelmingly from the poorer, more vulnerable sections of society and in several disturbing cases (e.g., Iwuchukwu Amara Tochio) they do not appear to have had any knowledge of what they were transporting. The Reform Party calls for the abolition of the death penalty for drug trafficking offences and, in Yong Vui Kong’s case, for the commutation of his sentence to a lengthy prison term. There is no evidence that the death sentence has more of a deterrent effect than a life sentence.

I personally am against the use of the death penalty in all but the most extreme circumstances. Once carried out, it is impossible to reverse and give life back to someone who has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice whereas other penalties permit the possibility of redress. I recall the case of Zainal Kuning, Mohammed Bashir Ismail and Salahuddin Ismail who confessed to a murder in 1989 and would have been convicted and sentenced to death at their trial in 1992 were it not for my father’s, the late J.B. Jeyaretnam, efforts in forcing the prosecution to re-examine the physical evidence and reveal that it implicated another individual and not his clients. If they had been executed and subsequently it had been discovered that another person was guilty of the crime it would have been too late to make amends and for justice to be served.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
The Reform Party

As part of We Believe in Second Chances, I am glad that these two parties are against the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. I am glad that if it were up to them, Yong Vui Kong would not needlessly lose his life.

I hope that the other political parties will not shy away from this issue. It is not just enough to talk about the economy or industry. This is also our chance to set a new direction for Singaporean society, and help us move towards being a more compassionate, merciful country.

– kirsten



2 thoughts on “Political Parties and the MDP

  1. >are you going to pay for the expenses of the death row convict for life imprisonment?are you willing to risk all these while the low crime rates Singapore is enjoying by having a more lenient law?a crime is a crime, don't use excuses such as I don't know what i am transporting. shouldn't the governments around the world be more focus on solving family problems such as providing better education so that such issues could have been avoided? Will there be a need to risk your life trafficking some unknown stuff if you have the education and means to provide for yourself and your family?The root of crime lies not with the law but the fundamental societal problems.

    Posted by Use Your Common Sense | March 29, 2011, 2:42 pm
  2. >1. All the court processes and appeals and reviews don't necessarily make it cheaper to just execute a person. And anyway, I personally believe that a person's life should not be measured simply in dollars and cents.2. There is no concrete evidence that the low crime rate Singapore is enjoying is because of the Mandatory Death Penalty. If we remove the MDP, it doesn't immediately follow that the crime rate in Singapore would skyrocket.3. We are not against providing better education. What we're saying is that while we are providing education to prevent further such occurrences, we should also have the mercy and compassion to give those who have already made the mistake a second chance. We already have the Yellow Ribbon Project as part of our prison system. Why can we not also educate and rehabilitate these people and allow them to contribute back to society, even from within jail as they serve their sentences? Is death really the answer? We are not saying that they have not committed a crime, or that they are not guilty. But is it okay for us to just take a life like that, especially when it's a MANDATORY death sentence that does not allow judges the discretion to mitigate, a MANDATORY death sentence that follows all the PRESUMPTION clauses of the Misuse of Drugs Act? The odds are stacked against the accused. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, they are guilty until proven innocent, and once they are guilty they HAVE to be sentenced to death. Does that sound like proper justice? How easy would it be for us to wrongfully hang someone?So yes, I agree with you that education is important. But why does it have to be either/or? Why can't we educate as well as give these people a chance to redeem themselves?

    Posted by Second Chances | March 30, 2011, 4:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: