Singapore on Friday hanged a 55-year-old man for drug trafficking, its narcotics enforcement agency said, the city state’s third execution in a week as the United Nations called for a halt.
The UN and rights groups say capital punishment has no proven deterrent effect and have called for it to be abolished, but Singaporean officials insist it has helped make the country one of Asia’s safest.
Singapore’s Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) said the death sentence was carried out for Rosman Abdullah, convicted of trafficking 57.43 grams (2.03 ounces) of heroin.
Under the country’s tough drug laws, the death penalty kicks in for any amount above a 15-gram threshold.
The hanging at Changi prison followed the November 15 execution of two men* – a 39-year-old Malaysian and a 53-year-old Singaporean – also for drug trafficking.
“Rosman was accorded full due process under the law, and was represented by legal counsel throughout the process,” CNB said in a statement.
The Singaporean, first sentenced in July 2010, had exhausted his appeals, including one for clemency from the president.
His execution was the eighth this year in the city state, seven for drug trafficking and one for murder.
According to an AFP tally, Singapore has hanged 24 people since it resumed carrying out the death penalty in March 2022 after a two-year halt during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The UN on Thursday reiterated its call on Singapore to review its position on capital punishment.
“The use of the death penalty for drug-related offences is incompatible with international human rights law. There is increasing evidence showing the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent,” UN Human Rights spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani said in a statement.
The CNB, however, said capital punishment was “imposed only for the most serious crimes, such as the trafficking of significant quantities of drugs which cause very serious harm” to users and society at large.
* 15 Nov 2024 - A 39-year-old Malaysian and a 53-year-old Singaporean, who were convicted of having in their possession controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking, had their capital sentence carried out on 15 November 2024. They were accorded full due process under the law and were represented by legal counsel throughout the process. Their petitions to the President for clemency were unsuccessful. Capital punishment is imposed only for the most serious crimes, such as the trafficking of significant quantities of drugs which cause very serious harm, not just to individual drug abusers, but also to their families and the wider society. (CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU, 15 November 2024)
Source: Agence France-Presse, Staff, November 22, 2024
Singapore’s death penalty: A deterrent, a statement or simply blind faith?
His execution, the third for drug-related offences in Singapore this month and the eighth this year, has drawn attention from international human rights groups.
Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), urged the Singapore Government to commute his sentence to imprisonment, criticising the use of capital punishment for drug-related offences as incompatible with international human rights law.
Shamdasani pointed to growing evidence that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, calling on Singapore to align with the global shift toward abolition.
OHCHR experts reiterated that the death penalty for drug trafficking violates international law, urging Singapore to adopt a human rights-based approach to address drug issues.
The execution invites a critical rethinking of Singapore’s death penalty: does it genuinely deter drug offences, act as a symbolic statement of state authority, or reflect blind faith in a failing policy?
Deterrence: A belief unproven
The deterrent effect of the death penalty is a cornerstone of Singapore’s anti-drug stance. The government frequently cites public surveys to bolster its position, with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reporting that 87.9% of respondents in 2023 believed the death penalty deters significant drug trafficking.
However, recent statistics raise questions about this claim. According to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), drug abuser arrests increased by 10% in 2023, with over a quarter of those arrested under 30 years old. First-time offenders rose by 18%, while cannabis users saw a 17% increase, marking a decade high.
The steady rise in drug abuser arrests suggests a consistent supply of drugs continues to enter Singapore, despite harsh penalties for traffickers. This raises a critical question: if the death penalty effectively deters trafficking, why does the drug supply persist?
For many traffickers, particularly those facing economic hardship, the lure of financial security or survival may outweigh the perceived risks of punishment. This challenges the assumption that the death penalty is a universally effective deterrent and calls into question whether punitive measures alone can address the root causes of the drug trade.
Enforcement or demand?
Government agencies often cite increased enforcement as the reason for rising drug arrests, arguing that tougher operations uncover more cases rather than reflecting a failure of the death penalty as a deterrent.
However, Singapore’s unique context complicates this explanation. As a water-locked country with strict border controls, the persistence of drug trafficking raises fundamental questions about internal demand. Without significant demand, suppliers would have little incentive to risk smuggling drugs into Singapore, no matter how stringent enforcement measures may be.
The increase in arrests among younger individuals, including first-time offenders, further suggests a growing appetite for illicit substances. This trend challenges the narrative that the death penalty alone is sufficient to deter drug-related activities. Instead, it points to deeper societal and structural issues that punitive measures fail to address.
This disconnect between strict penalties and the continued availability of drugs highlights the need to examine other factors, such as enforcement strategies and the drivers of internal demand.
The human element: exploitation and desperation
A recent CNN interview with Matthew, a former drug offender in Singapore, sheds light on the thought process of criminals.
Despite knowing the severe penalties, Matthew admitted the threat of execution did not influence his actions. “At that point in time, I wasn’t thinking about it. In fact, I was actively avoiding the whole issue of consequences,” he said.
Matthew’s story reflects a broader reality: offenders are often driven by desperation or exploited by promises of quick money. Many are misled into believing they are merely transporting harmless items, such as gold bars. For individuals struggling to survive or seeking a way out of poverty, such offers can be irresistible.
Even those not in dire straits may fall prey to greed or naivety. Singaporeans frequently fall victim to scams despite public awareness campaigns. If people are so easily deceived in everyday circumstances, it is unsurprising that some are similarly drawn into drug-related crimes, oblivious to the consequences.
A state statement or blind faith?
Singapore’s insistence on the death penalty appears rooted in its desire to assert a firm stance against drugs.
The government cites surveys showing strong public support, with 86.6% of respondents in 2023 backing the mandatory death penalty for serious drug offences. In response to CNN’s quotes from Matthew, the government pointed to surveys indicating that in regions where many of Singapore’s drug traffickers originate, the majority of the public believes that the death penalty deters drug trafficking.
However, it is reasonable to assume that such overwhelming support is shaped by a state-driven narrative that emphasises the necessity of capital punishment while limiting dissenting perspectives.
It also raises questions about the validity of asking the general public whether penalties deter criminals, as they do not face the circumstances or decisions of those involved in such activities. This is akin to asking individuals whether they would consume drugs when they have no intention of doing so, which fails to reflect the mindset or circumstances of those directly involved in drug offences.
Further limiting dissent, advocacy groups such as the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) are legally required under the Public Order and Falsehoods Correction Act (POFMA) to label their statements as falsehoods by publishing correction notices directed by the minister, regardless of context or intent. This effectively forces groups like TJC to concede their views are “incorrect” by government standards, suppressing alternative perspectives and reinforcing the state’s position.
This dynamic stifles open debate and places significant pressure on dissenting voices to conform. Rather than addressing the substance of criticisms, the government enforces compliance, further entrenching the narrative that the death penalty is indispensable.
Such actions suggest that maintaining public confidence in the death penalty takes precedence over fostering genuine dialogue. This raises a crucial question: does Singapore’s reliance on capital punishment arise from evidence-based reasoning, or blind faith in its effectiveness?
Contrasting approaches to drug crime and results
Drug-related trends in Hong Kong have fluctuated, driven by societal factors such as drug availability, economic shifts, and enforcement strategies rather than the absence of capital punishment. This underscores the point that the death penalty is not the definitive factor in shaping drug crime rates. Instead, broader societal and economic dynamics often play a more significant role.
When confronted with Hong Kong as a counterexample, Singapore’s government has argued that the two cities’ circumstances differ significantly.
In an interview with CNN, Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, pointed out that Hong Kong shares a land border with China, which retains the death penalty for drug trafficking.
He argued that China’s strict enforcement system might explain Hong Kong’s relatively low drug crime rates. In contrast, Singapore lies at the doorstep of the Golden Triangle, one of the world’s largest drug production regions.
He pointed out that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has labelled the region as “literally swimming in drugs,” and yet Singapore is arresting fewer people.
“So you know, we are, I think, unique amongst many countries in actually having a handle on the problem,” the minister said.
While the minister emphasised Singapore’s success in controlling drug trafficking, when asked about how drug arrests went up by 10% last year in Singapore, he also acknowledged significant challenges, including rising arrests and the persistent availability of drugs.
“I think I said it’s a fight that you never say you’ve won. It’s a continuous fight. It’s a continuous work-in-progress. Money, our people can afford it. Two, availability. There are a lot of ways to come in. And now there are other methods, couriers, international parcels, and so on. Three, to a large extent, from your earlier questions, a more permissive environment, a drug culture that’s glamorised in films, in media.
So we have all of that, and we are actually fighting a very tough battle.”
The juxtaposition of statements—one highlighting Singapore’s supposed success in controlling drugs and the other conceding rising arrests and the ongoing challenges—reveals a disconnect. The minister’s responses, while addressing the questions, appear to lack coherence, raising concerns about whether the government’s narrative on deterrence and enforcement is grounded in consistency or shaped for convenience.
A policy under scrutiny
Despite these arguments, the death penalty in Singapore persists less as a proven deterrent and more as a statement of the state’s commitment to combating drugs.
This arguably enables the government to deflect blame for rising drug problems, framing them as individual failures rather than addressing policy shortcomings, such as providing better mental health support, managing addiction, or focusing less on the incarceration of offenders.
Ultimately, Singapore’s reliance on the death penalty may reflect more than a firm anti-drug stance. It could signal blind faith in a policy that increasingly appears ineffective.
The government’s reliance on public surveys instead of empirical studies raises questions about whether the death penalty’s deterrent effect is supported by robust evidence or shaped by perceptions promoted by state narratives.
I would personally adopt the belief that the death penalty in Singapore functions as a symbol of the state’s resolve—a grim statement that, despite its apparent shortcomings, the government believes it has done its part in the fight against drugs.
Source: theonlinecitizen.com, Terry Xu, November 22, 2024
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
Death Penalty NewsFor a World without the Death Penalty
Comments
Post a Comment
Offensive pro-DP comments will not be published.