World Day Against the Death Penalty 2009 – A Singapore Forum

Editing: Andrew Loh
Photography: Jeremy Philemon

The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, commemorated World Day Against the Death Penalty by organising a forum on 10 October 2009, and calling on the Singapore government to join 139 states throughout the world that have ceased executions in law or practice.

The campaigners also used the event to plead for clemency for Yong Vui Kong, a 21-year-old Malaysian who has been sentenced to death for drug trafficking. He was 19 when he was caught for the offence in June 2007.

Mr Alfian Sa’at moderated the forum and Mr Seelan Palay, an artist and activist, kick-started the forum by presenting case studies of people who have been executed in Singapore. He emphasised the point that Singapore is estimated to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world.

Mr M Ravi spoke next and said that a mandatory death sentence is a cruel and inhumane punishment because even if the defendant’s lawyer is able to adduce fresh evidence or canvass a new argument which has merits, the court system in Singapore, does not have the power to re-open a case where an appeal had already been heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Mr Ravi mentioned that in one particular case, when he asked the Chief Justice if the public prosecutor was “still maintaining that an innocent man be hanged because of procedure”, the Chief Justice answered, “Yes, the answer is yes”. He said that this clearly shows that there is a serious defect in our legal system.

Ms Agnes Chia, a social worker, said that the core values of social work are the dignity and worth of individuals and unconditional positive regard for people, regardless of life situations. Social work believes that people have “an innate ability to change”, because an individual's behaviour affects and is affected by his or her social environment. Many in the forum applauded when Ms Chia said she hopes that more social workers in Singapore will speak up and advocate the abolishment of death penalty in Singapore.

Ms Braema Mathi a human rights activist and the president of MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism), emphasised the fact that these individuals have committed a “blunder” and that this should not be ignored. However, they should be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated; and that the mandatory death penalty makes this impossible.

Activist and social commentator, Mr Alex Au, summed up the forum and said that abolishment of the death penalty is a battle between ideas and values. That “the other side” believes in the idea that death is an appropriate penalty for those who commit certain crimes, irrespective of what scientific statistics might say, and over the value that every life is dignified. He encouraged everyone present to “talk to people about [the] death penalty”, to “go out and tell stories” and to “convince the other side”.

The forum was then opened to the floor for comments and questions. The brother of Yong Vui Kong took the opportunity to apologise to the people of Singapore for the crime his brother has committed. He revealed that his mother, who is suffering from severe depression, is kept from receiving the news that his brother faces the death penalty. He also pleaded with the President of Singapore to grant clemency to his brother.

After some very touching comments and questions from the floor, the forum ended with a call for those present to sign the petition urging the President of Singapore to grant clemency to Yong Vui Kong.

Killed in your name

My heart goes out to the family of Yong Vui Kong and his family.  He was in the prime of his youth (19), when he was caught for the offence of drug-trafficking.  An age when you think that you are invincible, an age where you are most subjected to peer-pressure, and an age where many costly mistakes are made.  And to deprive a mother of the knowledge that her son is facing impending death, to me is crueller than the noose of the hangman.  But in the case of Vui Kong’s mother, it is probably in her best interest right now for the news to be kept from her.

I support the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty and support the call for the Courts in Singapore to be granted revisionary powers over all cases which carry the death penalty.

I agree with Mr Au that the people, who believe in this cause, should talk to people about the death penalty and “go out and tell a story”; because stories have the power to change ideas.

But unfortunately, the people on “the other side” are the majority who support the death penalty for various reasons, whether it be for deterrence, retribution, or for law and order purposes. It will be very difficult for elected legislators to push for the abolishment of the mandatory death sentence even if they personally believe in it, as they are but the representatives of the majority who support capital punishment.

So, tell stories we must, especially to our children, as they are tomorrow's citizens, politicians, defendants, judges and lawyers and the world’s future is in their hands. 

It is also important who tells the story.  The story must be told not just by the elites and the activists, but it must be told by the converts and the common man.

In telling the story, the story-teller must not trivialise the offense committed as a mistake or ‘blunder’, for the fact is, it is something graver than a mere blunder – it is a crime. The story-teller must be able to answer queries and criticisms like who determines if the offender has an “innate ability to change”?

In the meantime, as the rest of Singapore winds down to enjoy the long weekend, the person on the death-row goes into high anxiety as he does not know if it will be his last weekend; for in Singapore, the hangings take place on the Friday, and he is given four days notice of his execution on the Monday. And what is worse is he will never touch his loved even one last time, before he is executed by the state on  behalf of the citizens – he is killed in your name.

-----------------------------

Volunteers from Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign will be on standby with the petition at Hanis Cafe at the Central Library (the one closest to Bugis MRT) from 2pm to 6pm on this Saturday, October 17, 2009. 

Team Hope

I had a hand in putting this together:

That baffling reply – and the opposition’s silence

The reply of Mr Chee Keng Chye, Deputy Director (Upgrading Programmes Management) Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Mr Sanjay Devmurari, Deputy Director (Corporate Communications), People’s Association(PA), in response to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman’s letter is baffling.

Their reply said that it is the “Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents”. The issue they skirted around was that 82 of the 84 appointed grassroots advisers are elected Members of Parliament (MP) who belong to the People’s Action Party.

If it is indeed government practice to implement national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations, then they should change their policy to appoint elected MPs as grassroots advisers (even if they are opposition MPs), or hold separate elections for the proper election of grassroots advisers by residents.

To suggest that all grassroots advisers “regularly engage the local residents to understand their needs and concerns” is almost tantamount to the HDB and the People’s Association campaigning for the PAP’s Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yi Pin.

Mr Low slapped a fee on his previously free health-screening programme, stopped his Meet-The-People sessions and the free breakfast service for the needy immediately after losing the last general elections; while Mr Sitoh’s right hand man, when commenting on the lack of community outreach events after the last general elections said, “So far, there’s been nothing. There is also nothing planned”.

Both Mr Low’s and Mr Sitoh’s reactions immediately after the elections does seem vengeful, if not at least bitter; and certainly not one of understanding the needs and concerns of the residents.

What is even more baffling is the deafening silence of the opposition MPs in the two wards, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong.  How do they feel about being identified merely as Town Council chairmen? Are they displeased that the announcement was not made to them first and/or through them to their constituents? They cannot continue to hide behind a theory that the media is biased against them, for the media of today is diverse and include not just the mainstream media but also the many bloggers whose reach is growing day by day online.

-------------

Mr Low Thia Khiang, Secretary General of the Workers' Party and Member of Parliament for Hougang has since given a robust reply to HDB and PA on this issue: "No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading"

Revisit the Policy and Practice

"All things being equal, we have always put the PAP wards first”, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan again reiterated the illogical reasoning to bring upgrading efforts to People’s Action Party (PAP) wards first, as the majority in those wards voted for the policy when they voted for the party in the General Elections.

The PAP policy of giving priority to PAP constituencies in the matter of upgrading of HDB estates is an extremely divisive one, for it discriminates and denies the privileges of the tax-payer, between colleagues, friends and even family members who live in a PAP ward and the opposition ward.

The reasoning employed to bring the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), or Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP), or Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), last to opposition held wards, if applied logically across all the policies initiated by the PAP over the years, will be disastrous.

Could you imagine constituents in opposition held wards not being eligible for GST offset packages because that policy is initiated by the ruling party; or that opposition held wards will not be a part of Integrated Land Use Planning because these are policies crafted by the Ministry of the ruling party?

Member of Parliament (MP) Mr Chiam See Tong appealed in parliament in January 2008 that, “It is very unfair of the Government to discriminate against Potong Pasir. Potong Pasir for the last 20 years has been completely deprived of any upgrading benefits. Millions of dollars have been spent, but Potong Pasir has not benefited even one cent of those funds spent on upgrading public flats. Are Potong Pasir residents not Singapore citizens? Don’t they pay income tax, don’t their sons do National Service? The Government should use public funds fairly for the benefit of all constituencies including the Opposition ones.”

His appeal appeals to logic because upgrading of HDB estates is done with public money, and therefore should be applied fairly and equally for ALL Singaporeans, not just those living in PAP constituencies; and it should be prioritised according to needs and not according to whether a certain area has voted for a particular political party.

Mr Mah’s argument that it is the practice for the grassroots advisors to announce upgrading programmes in constituencies is archaic, if not illogical. The grassroots advisors in 82 of the 84 constituencies are elected Members of Parliament for their particular constituency.
This argument makes it clear that even if grassroots organisations profess to be apolitical, they are all administratively linked to the PAP and that these are therefore para-political organisations.

Opposition parties like the Workers’ Party, which has set up an educational trust to award bursaries to the needy constituents of Hougang, also carry out grassroots level work and have Constituency Committees. But these are not recognised as grassroots organisations by the ruling party and so are not eligible for state fund, which is so very essential for the development of administrative competence of any grassroots organisation.

The 'practice' as articulated by Mr Mah can only be valid if grassroots organisations are democratised and become an independent political or even a true apolitical space. In the absence of this, the Housing and Development Board and/or the Ministry of National Development, should have released the news of upgrading in opposition held constituencies to their respective MPs as they are the only true representative of the people in their constituency.

Spillovers of tolerance

We talk of tolerance as if it is a good thing. When compared against intolerance, of course it is! But what does tolerance really mean? It means to put up with or tolerate someone who is different from you.

While it may be good to put up with someone who is different, tolerance isn’t all that helpful when it comes to the development of positive relationships. For this, we have to move beyond tolerance to acceptance.

Fear is the greatest enemy of acceptance. Many fear that acceptance means having to agree with the behaviour or culture of another – it does not. Someone can be accepted without the other agreeing, understanding or celebrating their behaviour. Most of all tolerance stands for judgement, while acceptance is about love.

Tolerance is about artificially creating a ‘culture of niceness’. Tolerance creates a breed of people who are nice on the surface, but beneath the surface may lay deep prejudices, stereotypes and biases, all only waiting to explode at the slightest provocation. Acceptance on the other hand, is a ‘heart thing’ – where one is nice to people who are different because their heart lines-up with it.

The Prime Minister of Singapore urging all groups to exercise restraint and tolerance in his National Day message said that for Singaporeans to live together peacefully, “we need good sense and tolerance from all sides”. But after 44 years of being an independent nation and with tolerance being preached from the highest office of the nation for a period longer than that, have we truly evolved at least into a tolerant nation?

Tolerance of cell-group members, who sing loudly next door, tolerance of the fragrance of incense which invades your home, tolerance of consuming halal and non-halal food at the same table because there is no more sitting space in the hawker centre, are all but only instances of tolerance of common space; not even tolerance of beliefs.

Member of Parliament, Mr Michael Palmer said recently at a dialogue, “Tolerance evokes a situation where you don’t talk about it. You bottle it up, suck it in, even if you are not very happy with it.”

Do all Chinese eat everything? Do all Indians ‘smell’ because of the gingelly oil they apply on their heads? Do all gays have multiple sexual partners? Tolerance only reinforces such prejudices; and what’s worst, forces the people carrying such misperceptions to remain silent and not discuss openly if their bias is right or wrong. The end result – it gets transmitted from one generation to another.

Tolerance like all things bottled-up and sucked-in has got a tendency to leak out from time to time. Ken Lim, one of the judges of the Singapore Idol, riled the Indian community recently when he dismissed a wannabe Singapore Idol, Malaque Mahdaly as “that was amateurish, it lacks quality, but you’ll make a good Vasantham star”.

A group of teenagers, decided to do a Malaque recently and posted their video on Youtube (the video on Youtube was removed and republished under a different moniker). Unfortunately all the teenagers featured in the video were Chinese. The posters ethnicity did not go unnoticed and has evoked ‘spillovers’ of tolerance in the comments to this video, from some in the Indian community, which are acerbic.

Perhaps the ad for the Vasantham Star was so unprofessionally made that it was waiting to be spoofed. But what gave the idea to these young people that Indian stars sang while running around coconut trees? Old Bollywood and Kollywood movies?



For Bollywood and Kollywood, stars do not run around trees while they sing in the new movies. Movies like Unnaipol Oruvan, a Kamal Hassan-Mohanlal starrer, does not even have songs, and are so professionally produced that it looks like a Hollywood movie. Was the idea that Indian stars sang while running around trees communicated to these young ones by their elders and they bought the stereotype wholesale without even bothering to get their facts straight?

At the end of the day, all of us should be laughing at this ’spoof’ if we looked at it as Singaporeans mocking/spoofing a Singaporean show; instead, it has now turned ugly – the Chinese mocking the Indians. Strip away the ethnic undertones and this is nothing more than harmless tomfoolery.

More than forty years of talk about tolerance is enough. It has only created people who hide behind a veneer – that they have the capacity of putting up with other people’s differences; but without re-visiting their own presumptions. There is an imperative need for Singapore to move beyond tolerance – to acceptance. And this is no highfalutin ideal.