ON THE DEATH PENALTY IN SINGAPORE

This piece is about three things: the Pope visiting Singapore in September, the discomfort a good number of western ambassadors to the City State might often feel and the determination of a bunch of human rights activists that should be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize (seriously).

It is also a reflection also about apparent contradiction in the leadership of the government in Singapore: on the one hand, the modesty and approachability of the new PM Lawrence Wong and on the other, the usual, righteousness championed by the People ‘Action Party’s old school, emblematically espoused by K. Shanmugam, the Law and Home Affairs Minister.

Ultimately the underlying issue is the capital punishment and the way it is administrated in Singapore.

Let’s start from the activists peacefully but adamantly and courageously battling the ruling party and its stance on death penalty.

Recently the group, the Transformative Justice Collective, received, two corrective orders about a posting expressing concern about what, at the end, resulted in two more capital executions.

The orders were based on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) whose design and use have been widely criticized by anyone who truly understands something about and care for about civil freedoms and freedom of expression.

The TJC were complaining of the fact that two prisoners already sentenced to the gallows were executed despite the fact that they still had pending civil applications — and in one case, an additional pending criminal review application.

It’s true, we are talking about technicalities but they do matter. The correction notice imposed by the POFMA office basically confirmed what they the activists had claimed, that the two prisoners still had a legal review process going on.

The TJC, undeterred, published a response, We Stand By What We said that boldly starts with “Dear Minister Shanmugam, here our correction direction for you”.

Among different points, the group objects the following government’s statement “Some PACPs (prisoners awaiting capital punishments) have repeatedly filed last-minute applications, without basis, with the obvious purpose of preventing the capital punishment from being carried out”

You do not need to be a legal luminaire to realize that the courts and not the state should decide if a case has or has not basis.

TJC’s response was the following: “Regardless of whether this review application was “materially similar” to previous applications, it is not for the government to substitute the Court’s role with their own view on the potential outcome of the review application”.

“The government significantly restricted public statements it contended would undermine social or religious harmony or the legal system, interfered in domestic affairs, or did not safeguard national or public interest”.

This is not a statement by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International but it comes from the USA State Department.

One sentence is even more significative; “The law was not supposed to apply to opinions, criticisms, satire, or parody”.

What they members of the TJC are doing is simply state their opinion. For them and for many others, Singapore has a quirky (actually I would say “weird”) way of understanding and interpreting the rule of law.

This is an opinion and anyone can disagree with it.

Accordingly, the capital punishment can be, as per PAP’s belief, the most effective way of dealing with drug traffickers.

Yet people must be entitled to dissent, peacefully and respectfully and that’s what the TJC is doing.

Now coming to the Pope’s visit.

Francis will soon embark on a trip to South East Asia and from 11 to 13, he will be visiting Singapore.

One of the key tenants of the Catholic Church is the sacrality of life and its total rejection of the death penalty.

As a former altar boy, along the years I grew detached and disillusioned with many aspects of the Catholic Church.

Yet, if there is one thing, I am still very proud of the Church’s teachings, is its strongest condemnation of the capital punishment.

Will Pope Francis speak out his own and his own church’ convictions about the sanctity of life?

He should, loudly and vocally and without hesitation.

At the worst, what could happen? Could the Pope Francis be POFMAed for his views on capital punishment?

Pope Francis has just written the preface of a soon to be released book written by American anti-death activist Dale Recinella,“A Christian on Death Row: My Commitment to Those Condemned”.

The Pope’s central message is simple and unequivocal: “Death penalty never brings justice, but is a poison for society’.

“Capital executions, far from bringing justice, fuel a sense of revenge that becomes a dangerous poison for the body of our civil societies. States should focus on allowing prisoners the opportunity to truly change their lives, rather than investing money and resources in their execution, as if they were human beings no longer worthy of living and to be disposed of”, the Pope wrote.

Will Pope Francis raise to the moral challenge and question the righteousness of the PAP’s official policy on death penalty?

Now coming to being a Western Ambassador in Singapore. If you come from a nation strongly advocating for human rights, being based in the city state must be one of the most challenging postings.

Singapore is a darling, a key player for many western governments, but at the same time, it is a sort of “problematic” partner due to its unique understanding and interpretation of the rule of law.

What can they do beyond issuing statements condemning the executions as they the EU together with Norway and Switzerland did recently?

For these ambassadors in Singapore, it is a conundrum but I do wish that they will grow in their assertiveness while advocating for a core value of their governments.

Last point is about the image that PM Lawerence who has been trying to project during the recent National Day Rally’s Speech. He came up with a new array of progressive policies supposed to soften the hardships that many Singaporeans are experiencing.

He was approachable and went all the way to be relatable to the commoners because he genuinely feels one of them.

All very good but this is a stark contradiction with the PAP’s approach to capital punishment that is too uncompromising, too narrow, too intimidating even to talk about it.

I do hope that with the time, PM Lawrence will show humanity not only in his speeches to the Singaporeans but also humanity in trying to grasp with a contentious issue like death penalty because unlike what the PAP thinks, this is a contentious subject.

I am wrapping with a quote sent to me by Kirsten Han, a writer, human rights activist and TJC member who recently won the Portside Review’s Human Rights Essay Competition.

“TJC remains committed to our work towards the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore, as well as ending the war on drugs that has already delivered so much pain and trauma. We don’t believe in pinning our hopes on the benevolence of politicians in power. Instead, we prefer to recognize, reclaim and build power among the Singaporean people to work towards a future where the state does not kill in all our names. In the years that TJC has been active, we’ve seen many Singaporeans demonstrate, in various ways, how much they care about human life, and seen a growing willingness to ask important questions about who this current, highly punitive system of policing and punishment really serves”.

The author writes about human rights, regional integration and youths in the Asia Pacific