Reactions to Yong Vui Kong’s appeal verdict
The Online Citizen (5 Apr) published a joint statement by Think Centre and Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) on Yong Vui Kong’s appeal verdict. Think Center and SADPC said they found the verdict “highly disappointing” and “daunting” that President Nathan had no apparent right to decide against the advice of the Cabinet regarding the granting of clemency appeals. There was no value in the state execution of Yong, they said, and the reason there were still drug mules entering Singapore proved that the mandatory death penalty (MDP) had failed to serve as a deterrent. They also stated that the Singapore government actively advocates chances to be given to former convicts and to help them rejoin the society under the Yellow Ribbon Project, and they did not see how it could not be extended to Yong and the other drug mules who were mostly marginalised youths led astray.
The statement called for the government to heed the call of its young citizens and people in the world who were moving towards more humane ways to deal with non-violent crimes, rather than imposing the MDP for drug mules. It noted that the UN General Assembly had called on member states to establish a moratorium on executions as a step toward the abolition of the death penalty, and that a total of 109 countries voted in favour of the resolution, while 35 countries voted against and 41 abstained.
The statement concluded by calling for the government to declare an immediate moratorium on all death sentences and to commute Yong’s sentence. The Online Citizen (5 Apr) also republished an appeal by SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha last November for clemency for Yong.
Separately, Temasek Review (5 Apr) carried an opinion piece on the mandatory death penalty (MDP). The author acknowledged the differences between Singapore and other countries, and stated that he was not trying to get Singapore to emulate our Western counterparts, particularly in Europe, where almost all of the countries had abolished the death penalty. However, he cited, among other reasons, the multitude of alternatives to the gallows that the government could consider, such as tougher or multiple life sentences or caning. He argued that the MDP was not an effective deterrent, as some would-be offenders did not even know that the MDP was being implemented in Singapore.
To be honest, I find this a classic example of a grey area. Both sides of the camp have their own valid reasons behind their arguments. To those who are for capital punishment, a large part of their resolve seemed to stem from the MDP being a deterrence and the whole notion of "an eye for an eye" (in cases where victims are involved.) To them, the rationale was simple: if you had done something wrong, then you have to pay the price, and in this case, we have made it clear that the price is your life. They don't accept the argument that it is not fair for only the runners of the drug lords to bear the brunt of the punishment (in cases of drug-trafficking) when some of them were not even aware of the death penalty to begin with. I guess to them, ignorance is a flimsy excuse.
However, who are we to judge? Normal people living our normal lives, with no clue how these runners fell into the situation of being the pawns of drug lords. It could have been desperation, it could also have been the thrill; yet whatever the circumstances, I still find myself decidedly uncomfortable at the notion of playing God. Who gave anyone the right to end a life that wasn't theirs to begin with? One can then throw it back and say, then who gave the accused the right to take the life that was not his to begin with? Shouldn't he be punished for it? No doubt, but does that have to mean his life for the one he took - This justification of "an eye for an eye" in cases where there are victims involved also makes me uncomfortable... because haven't we always been taught, that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?
At the other end of the spectrum, they believe that the MDP has not been working well enough as a deterrence to justify its implementation. It is felt that this penalty fails to nip the problem in its bud. To them, life is too sacred and preserving life should always be the first priority. It is felt that there are alternatives such as harsher sentences, harsher rehabilitation processes and even caning/whipping. This is when people cringe and say, "Caning? But that is so barbaric." Are they then suggesting that the taking of another's life is humane? I don't deny that the act of caning is honestly quite boorish and uncivilised even, but you know what they say about a rock and a hard place ;) I agree with the opinion, that "wounds heal but a life once taken can never be returned, it is final."
Yet, going back to the other end, there is the issue of cost of life imprisonment. It might seem tasteless, to put cost against a life, but unfortunately, it is a very real problem. They argue that while the MDP has not been entirely all-encompassing in its effect of deterrence, it has nevertheless helped to curb numbers. It is why Singapore is so well-known for its safety - a comfort that has our harsh laws to thank. Imprisonment and rehabilitation might work, but for how long? If people grow to not fear the penalty of imprisonment, it will only bring about problems that we are currently seeing in the UK - a growing number of inmates increasing costs and whose expenses are borned largely by taxpayers.
I pause at this juncture because I came to realise that a common rebuttal from both sides is this:
Put yourself in their shoes.
One side says, put yourself in the shoes of the family of the victim - wouldn't you want justice to be served? He took the life of your loved one. Are you really willing to let him continue living his? How is that fair?
Then the other side also says, put yourself in the shoes of the family of the accused - wouldn't you hope that he would have a second chance? Wouldn't you beg and plead and pray that instead of taking his life, he is given the chance to show remorse, to rehabilitate, to turn over a new leaf?
How is one supposed to choose a side? I'm still muddling my way through this grey area and at present, find it extremely tough to agree wholeheartedly with one camp.
Today's Swedish words are:I know it's really difficult not to have double standards... because there are indeed some awfully heinous crimes that truly deserve the death penalty. It takes a really really big heart, to be able to be, well, the bigger man. But I'd like to draw your attention to the speech given by Matthew Shepard's father at his trial, way back in 1999. That speech gave me the shivers when I first read it, because it rang true, of courage and moving on. It also gave me pause, to consider the notion that life imprisonment can indeed be worse than death.
I would like nothing better than to see you die, Mr. McKinney. However, this is the time to begin the healing process. To show mercy to someone who refused to show any mercy. To use this as the first step in my own closure about losing Matt. Mr. McKinney, I am not doing this because of your family. I am definitely not doing this because of the crass and unwarranted pressures put on by the religious community. If anything, that hardens my resolve to see you die. Mr. McKinney, I’m going to grant you life, as hard as that is for me to do, because of Matthew. Every time you celebrate Christmas, a birthday, or the Fourth of July, remember that Matt isn’t. Every time that you wake up in that prison cell, remember that you had the opportunity and the ability to stop your actions that night. Every time that you see your cell mate, remember that you had a choice, and now you are living that choice. You robbed me of something very precious, and I will never forgive you for that. Mr. McKinney, I give you life in the memory of one who no longer lives. May you have a long life, and may you thank Matthew every day for it.
Fängelse - Prison
Bestraffning - Punishment/Penalty
No comments:
Post a Comment