On Capital Punishment

Essay: Capital Punishment For Drug Trafficking Offences

Part 1: Lack of open public discussion

It saddens me that there is a lack of open public discussion in Singapore on the use of capital punishment for drug trafficking offences (“Singapore’s drug law”).

The media coverage in Australia over the imminent execution of Nguyen Tuong Van, an Australian, is starkly contrasted with the deafening silence in Singapore’s media whenever a Singaporean is hanged for drug trafficking. Could this be a case of “familiarity breeds contempt”, seeing as 20-40 people (I stand to be corrected) are executed every year on average in Singapore? Are we so used to hearing drug traffickers being executed, that Singapore’s drug law has ceased to become an issue of larger national or society interest?

I’m convinced Singaporeans do care about Singapore’s drug law. The “Solidarity Vigil for Nguyen Tuong Van" organized by Think Centre and the Reach Out Campaign held on 7 November 2005 was attended by 130 people; a sizeable crowd considering past attendance records at similar events. Moreover, going by the passionate discussions taking place on various local online blogs, it is apparent that Singaporeans are deeply concerned with Singapore’s drug law. Why hasn’t the Singapore government or local media acknowledged differing views on Singapore’s drug law and initiate a public discussion?

What springs to mind is a recent speech by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong at the 5th anniversary dinner of Today newspaper. I have quoted relevant parts of his speech concerning the role of Singapore’s media.

“…The media disseminates information, news, analyses and commentaries. It influences and shapes public opinion…

…They have a greater responsibility to society than merely publishing a sensational story, scooping the news or turning in a bigger profit for shareholders. There are larger national and societal interests at stake…

…I do not favour a subservient press. An unthinking press is not good for Singapore…

…Opinions and analytical pieces on salient issues are important for giving readers varying perspectives.

…The media is free to put across a range of worthy different viewpoints to encourage constructive social and political discourse. It should not parrot the government’s position. It would lose its credibility if it tries to be the government’s propagandist. A discredited media would not serve our national interests….”

So far, our media has not published any carefully researched reports, interviewed any experts or government officials, conducted any public surveys, or written any balanced commentaries and analyses concerning Singapore’s drug law (I stand to be corrected). A few readers’ letters concerning Nyugen’s plight and Australia’s protest have been selectively published. However, these letters are usually not well researched (and understandably so) and do not focus on the broader issue of Singapore’s drug law. Compare the current media situation with the Singapore government initiated public discussion of the casino debate. The difference is glaringly obvious.

TO BE CONTINUED….Part 2: Singapore government’s position, Part 3: Opposing viewpoints, Part 4: Recommendations & Conclusion