Once a Jolly Hangman (2 page)

Once a Jolly Hangman unearths new or little-known information. The author argues convincingly that only those cases with possibly negative political or economic outcomes appear to have succeeded in preventing executions of foreign nationals. In contrast, he exposes the pitiful, hopeless situation of poor, uneducated or desperate drug mules with no important connections and the irony of Singapore's economic backing for the brutal government of Myanmar - the origin of so much of the drug supplies. Alan Shadrake's interviews with Singapore's executioner, Darshan Singh, provide eye-opener descriptions of actual executions. And he gives the reader insights into the efforts of Singapore's own small group of anti-death penalty campaigners, such as heroic lawyer and human rights activist M. Ravi, alongside whom we, on the outside, are privileged to work. And, importantly, the reader is brought close to the heart of the matter - to the anguish of the victims themselves.

Amnesty International sees the death penalty as the ultimate torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading, prohibited by international human rights standards. It is a view now shared by an increasing number of governments, as they become convinced that executions are futile, do not solve crimes, have no particular deterrent quality, are
more than likely to be imposed disproportionately on the marginalised in society, are irreversible, yet may result in executing the innocent. Moreover, executions add to a culture of violence by making state violence an acceptable way to deal with problems. The Singapore government's view is an exception to this now majority international opinion. Singapore's leaders cling to their outmoded arguments that there is no international consensus on the death penalty, that it is a deterrent, that it is used for only the most serious crimes, that it is not a human rights issue, that Singapore has a transparent and fair justice system, and that Amnesty International has got its facts wrong. They are arguments increasingly difficult to uphold in the face of world standards and trends.

Margaret John

Coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia

Amnesty International Canada

1

Singapore On Trial,

Verdict: Guilty As Charged

The basic argument in favour of capital punishment in Singapore - and everywhere else it is practised - is that it maintains law and order, deters crime, prevents recidivism and is a just and proper punishment for heinous offences. Opponents say it does no such thing. It does not and never has deterred criminals any more than life imprisonment. More than this, they argue that capital punishment violates human rights, leads to executions of some who are wrongfully convicted and discriminates against minorities and the poor. This book exposes many cases where vulnerable young people, in all kinds of desperate situations, have committed crimes through fear and threats of death from drug syndicates who seduce them into becoming drug carriers. They are rarely, if ever, caught and prosecuted and in many cases have the money to buy their way out of trouble. In several cases I have investigated in Singapore, narcotics police, using well-paid informants, have helped 'load' the evidence in sting operations involving minor marijuana smugglers to ensure they end up on the gallows. In another case, a young man of 21 was hanged on the questionable evidence of a Central Narcotics Bureau officer who was later jailed for 15 months for corruption in another case. This case alone is a sound and compelling argument to abolish the death penalty in Singapore.

Capital punishment, of course, has always been a very contentious issue in many parts of the world. Proponents discount any errors or occasional prosecutorial machinations as par for the course and
argue that examples of something going wrong judicially are in any case rare. The Singapore attitude seems to be that it is better for all convicted criminals to be hanged rather than an innocent one go free. Arguments over the rights and wrongs of capital punishment have raged for centuries ever since the state killing of criminals and political opponents has been in vogue. It has been used by nearly all societies both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. However, there has been a trend toward abolition in most part of the world over the past three decades. Today all European countries (with the exception of Belarus), most of Central and South America and about half of African states have either made the death penalty illegal or it is effectively not in use. Of all the regions of the world it is Asia that has most resisted the abolitionist wave. From the Middle East to Japan judicial execution remains a fact of life and death. But even here countries have not been entirely immune to abolition: in Southeast Asia, for example, Cambodia, Philippines and Timor-Leste no longer provide for the death penalty for any crime.

Today, some 58 countries still use capital punishment. The death penalty is usually reserved as punishment for serious crimes such as premeditated murder, espionage,
treason or as part of military justice but in some countries sexual crimes - rape, adultery and sodomy - also carry the death penalty. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are likewise punished. In military regimes around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offences such as cowardice, insubordination and mutiny.

A study carried out by the United Nations in 2001 concluded that Singapore had by far the highest per capita execution rate in the world, three times higher than Saudi Arabia, the next highest. The situation has not improved in the subsequent decade. Singapore takes a morbid pride in that fact that it is known worldwide for the strictness of its laws. Those accused of gun crimes or drug trafficking are sentenced to death. The Misuse of Drugs Act includes the death penalty for at least 20 drug-related crimes. For example, the mere possession of more than 500 grams of hashish or marijuana is punishable by death. The same applies to the possession of more than 15 grams of hard drugs such as heroin or amphetamines.

The scale and breadth of the use of the death penalty has not
gone unopposed. The law has been strongly criticised by human rights groups which say it contains provision that violate the right of presumption of innocence, as in the case of a young Nigerian soccer hopeful who was tricked into going to Singapore to join a club by a sophisticated adult. Even the judge who sentenced him to death said there was no evidence that he knew he was carrying drugs. Under Singapore's mandatory death penalty, many addicts have been executed for possessing relatively small amounts of drugs. At the end of 2005, Nguyen Van Tuong, a young Australian of Vietnamese origin was caught with 4.2 kg of heroin while in transit en route to his home in Melbourne. Despite protest rallies and a request for clemency by the Australian government - albeit at the eleventh hour with John Howard being accused of 'tardiness' at trying to save his life - the 25 year-old was hanged. Shortly before a young German woman, known to have been running a lucrative drugs ring in Singapore, was sentenced to only five years, of which she served three for good behaviour - a slap on the wrist which was arranged behind the scenes by the Singapore government under threat of economic reprisals by the German government. In contrast, a poor 36 year-old drug addict, Yen May Woen, who traded to support her habit, was executed for possession of 30 grams of heroin.

Despite the severity of the law in most cases, drug abuse figures for heroin have showed an upward trend over the past four years - a fact that flies in the face of government claims that the threat of the death penalty is keeping Singapore squeaky clean. According to figures from the Central Narcotics Bureau of the 1,876 addicts who were arrested in 2009 some 60 per cent were heroin addicts; in 2008 46 per cent of 1,925 were heroin addicts. The Director of the Bureau believes that one of the reasons to explain the increase is the proximity of Singapore to one of the largest areas where opium is produced - the so-called Golden Triangle - an area of 210,000 square miles in the mountains shared by Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.

Many of the cases I have investigated in this book show that justice in Singapore is patently biased against the weak and disadvantaged while favouring the wealthy and privileged. This is especially true for foreigners from powerful countries willing and able to use their economic might to have the death penalty 'abolished' for their citizens.

Business for Singapore is far too important a matter to allow such a little local difficulty like killing someone.

The generic case for abolition of the death penalty is fairly compelling. Adam Hugo Bedau of the American Civil Liberties Union, and doyen of the abolitionist movement in the United States, says: "The imposition of the death penalty is arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefit of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence. A perfect example of this in Singapore involves a corrupt police officer who quite possibly cooked up evidence against a young man of 21, to ensure that he hanged. Two years after the execution, this officer was jailed for 15 months for corruption in another case. The judge said his actions were akin to attempting to pervert the course of justice'. Everyone in the top echelons of law enforcement in Singapore knew of this case but did nothing to question the police officer's honesty in the death penalty case. If he had been tried first - both cases began at virtually the same time - the young man might well have been given the benefit of the doubt that he was telling the truth and not his accuser. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra Judicial Summary and Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, faulted another death penalty case in Singapore because the trial did not respect legal safeguards around the presumption of innocence: 'It is a fundamental human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty'. Alston went on to note that 'Singapore cannot reverse the burden and require a defendant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not know he was carrying drugs'.

Supporters of abolition say that extreme sanctions like the death penalty have never deterred criminal behaviour in human society. Nor has it taken due cognisance of the fact that opportunistic criminality, which represents 70 per cent of criminal behaviour in developing countries, is largely a product of the basic instinct for survival not the sheer indulgence of base instincts. "The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. It is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilised society', says Bedau.

Reliance on the death penalty, opponents maintain, also obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measure
that effectively contribute to its control. 'Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work', suggests Bedau. Capital punishment also wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defence counsel, juries and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counter-productive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomises the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems. 'A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems - the worst possible example to set for society'.

For most of the past century governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury with reference to the so-called benefits such killing would bring to the rest of
society. This is also Singapore's main argument for keeping the death penalty But the bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory. More than this, the implementation of capital punishment is highly discriminatory. According to Amnesty International, the death sentence is more likely to be imposed in Singapore on those who are poorer and less educated making them more vulnerable than average. Local groups are also concerned about the poor working and living conditions of migrant workers that make them more vulnerable.

The Singaporean authorities have resisted pressure mainly from Western countries and groups to drop its death penalty law, saying it was crucial in the fight against criminality. An internet poll showed a majority of Singaporeans support the death penalty. Of the 2,899 respondents, 55 per cent support capital punishment 'as it helps keep the crime rate down'. Another 27 per cent also gave their support but said its use should be restricted. Only 14 per cent opposed the death penalty, while two per cent were unsure. The abolitionist activist Alex Au discounts the poll findings. He maintains that for Singaporeans the subject of the death penalty is entirely off-limits. "There is never any official discussion about it and no one really knows what happens when

someone is hanged', says Au. He does not expect serious moves to even modify it any time soon:

It will only happen when Singapore's biggest trading partners, the United States and China abolish capital punishment and that will only come about in those countries at a societal level, not a governmental one. This is a copycat society, which is not at all innovative and they might follow these powerful leaders. The subject of the death penalty is not even talked about on internet chatter which speaks to the nature of this society and how it sees - or doesn't see - the subject. When a rare protest was launched in Singapore over an execution the authorities did everything they could to sabotage the campaign. They even put a quick end to a forum being held by protesters who had hired a hotel room for the purpose by intimidating the hotel manager. They then sent in the police to intimidate those citizens who turned up to speak out against the hanging. They don't want the kind of publicity generated in the UK which resulted finally in the death penalty being abolished there. They don't want anyone to hear the hangman's stories or gallows jokes - such stories and jokes - published in newspapers or on the internet about decapitation or the condemned 'dancing on the end of the rope like a fish out of water'.