Law Minister on death penalty

[Shin Orochi]

May 10, 2010
Tough stance saves lives

<!-- by line --> By Zakir Hussain , POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
<!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar -->

Mr Shanmugam, who is also Second Home Affairs Minister, was responding to Joo Chiat resident Jack Lin, 26, at a dialogue that capped his visit to the ward. -- ST PHOTO: JONATHAN CHOO

<!-- story content : start --> SINGAPORE has no qualms about taking a tough line on serious crimes and imposing the mandatory death penalty because it believes this stand has saved thousands of lives, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said yesterday. The penalty applies to crimes such as murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking, and Mr Shanmugam believes it has had a deterrent effect and sent a clear signal to drug barons on Singapore's position. He acknowledged it was easy for death penalty opponents to focus on the plight of the individual who faced being hanged.

But the consequences of getting rid of the death penalty had to be considered: 'You save one life here, but 10 other lives will be gone. What would your choice be if you were to make that choice?' Mr Shanmugam, who is also Second Home Affairs Minister, was responding to Joo Chiat resident Jack Lin, 26, at a dialogue that capped his visit to the ward. Mr Lin had asked whether the case of Yong Vui Kong, whose lawyers argued against the mandatory death sentence, would affect the future of such a punishment.

Read the full story in Monday's edition of The Straits Times.
[email protected]

 

[littlefish]

The penalty applies to crimes such as murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking, and Mr Shanmugam believes it has had a deterrent effect and sent a clear signal to drug barons on Singapore's position. He acknowledged it was easy for death penalty opponents to focus on the plight of the individual who faced being hanged.

I don't understand. How would punishing the individual send a signal to the drug barons when they are not affected in the slightest way? Is he saying an individual's rights can be discarded as long as it served the interests of the community? If so, we are really on the slippery slope to a Fascist or Communist regime.

 

[Sideswipe]

death penalty - national referendum
let the peoples decide the life of themselves and their fellow peers and respect the majority decision no matter what result.

 

[jw5]

The death penalty is a hot topic in Taiwan now.
The ex Justice Minister stepped down, because she claimed that none of the death row inmates would be put to death while she was in office.
She also claimed that she would be willing to die for them, which was bullshit, as 4 of them were put to death just last week, and she was nowhere to be seen.

There's a group of people in Taiwan, consisting of lawyers and other people, who have formed themselves into an alliance to work towards the abolishment of the death penalty. I have seen some of them speak on Taiwan TV, their objective is to be respected but I have the feeling that they are very set on their value system and that this value system is in most part, centred based on religion. Their purpose is simply to prevent people from being put to death by the state, they don't seem to be so concerned what is the alternative to the death penalty, how to convince the people especially the families of victims, or whether the people on death row are there due to miscarriages of justice.

As death penalty is the product of a value system, a national referendum is the only way to decide whether to continue or abolish.
What is strange is some inconsistencies that have occurred in different cases with fairly similar circumstances in SG.
Anthony Ler convinced a teenage boy to kill his wife. Ler was given the death penalty.
In another recent case, a woman convinced her young lover to kill her husband. She was sentenced to 9 years jail. Ex AG Woon went to appeal for a death sentence, but the original sentence was upheld.