22 November 2024: Singapore, the world's #1 death penalty cheerleader

What with travel, events and meetings (for work and for fun), I've not kept a super close eye on the news this past week.

But here's something that the local news aren't likely to tell you anyway: there have already been three executions, all for drug offences, this month. That makes eight executions in 2024 thus far.

Rosman bin Abdullah was executed yesterday morning. He was 55 years old and had been on death row for 14 years, like the two others executed the week before. He'd first received an execution notice in 2022, but received a stay of execution. This week, his family was told on Monday that he would be hanged on Friday.

Rosman was part of the prison correspondence case where, last month, the Court of Appeal found that the Singapore Prison Service and Attorney-General's Chambers had acted unlawfully in forwarding and requesting death row prisoners' correspondence without consent. He was one of three prisoners given $10 in nominal damages for breach of copyright. Now he is no longer with us.

Singapore's attachment to the death penalty is just mind-boggling. Of all the things we could be absolutely fixated on, that we would defend at all costs, why would we want to be so obsessed with killing?

At the beginning of this week, there was a vote at the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on a draft resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty. 131 UN member states voted in favour of the moratorium and 21 countries—including Indonesia, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam—abstained. 36 member states voted "No" on the moratorium. Singapore, of course, was one of them.

On top of that, Singapore was key to putting forward an amendment which has been criticised as undermining and distracting from the moratorium vote. To give you an idea, these are the European Union's comments on the amendment:

We deeply regret that Singapore and others have once again introduced an amendment in this resolution, in an attempt to distract from the main focus of this resolution—which is to call upon states to establish a moratorium, with a view to abolish the death penalty.

The vast majority of Member States represented in this room—with different legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious backgrounds—have chosen to do so. Others have not.

The resolution presented for adoption today is a call on States to consider applying a moratorium on executions. The implication of amendment L.54 is that States can use sovereignty as an excuse to disregard the universality of human rights and to consider this call to action as null and void. 

Proponents of this so-called “sovereignty amendment” argue that this only reflects the rights of States as enshrined the UN Charter. However, the Charter does not refer to any ‘sovereign right’ of States. The Charter recognizes the “principle of sovereign equality” (Art. 2(1)), which means that all Member States are formally equal participants in the UN system, regardless of size or status. 

The principle of non-intervention of the UN Charter (Art 2(7)) is another argument used by the supporters of this amendment. However, this has limited scope in the context of international human rights law.

The principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs in the UN Charter do not free states from their obligations under international human rights law. Human rights are a legitimate concern of the international community.

We recognize that the amendment put forward by Singapore has received significant support. To reflect this, the co-facilitators together, with the IRTF, have this year made a genuine effort to find common ground with countries who believe that some elements of the amendment are important in this context. We therefore offered an alternative formulation, which addresses these concerns, but in a way that is aligned with the UN Charter, international law and the universality of human rights. We regret that this effort was never even considered by Singapore and others, when the members of the IRTF have tried in good faith to bridge the gap. 

We should not allow the reinterpretation and misuse of the most fundamental principles of the international order. We are very concerned when the concept of “sovereignty” is used outside the strict confines of the UN Charter—particularly as it is increasingly used by States who claim to defend the UN Charter—as a “carte blanche” to shield states from international scrutiny.

There's no indication that Singapore is going to retreat from state-sanctioned murder any time soon. The situation is desperate, many death row prisoners are in danger of imminent execution. If you believe in a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, sign the #StopTheKilling petition:

Reflections

In last week's wrap, I wrote about the slow roll-out of video recording in police interrogations and questioned why the government seemed to be dragging its heels when it comes to implementation. After the newsletter was sent out I had a conversation with Kokila where she pointed out that, in the few cases where video recording has been used during questionings, it's then used as a justification to not allow people to edit their statements at the end, which could end up disadvantaging people further in a context where they already don't have a lawyer with them and aren't properly informed of their rights. Often moves to direct more resources to law enforcement end up entrenching their power and making the system work even more for them, which is not the same thing as working for justice or fairness.

There are some scenarios that might benefit from video recording. But does it serve to bring justice and fairness more broadly, especially in the Singapore context? And if the answer is no, then what should we do instead to create the fairer, more just society that we want to see? These are questions that I'll continue to ponder, and I hope you'll give them a think too. Feel free to hit reply to share your thoughts.

One little personal(ish) update...

My book, The Singapore I Recognise: Essays on home, community and hope, has been translated and published in Taiwan! It's really exciting to see my work in translation and I'm looking forward to opportunities to have conversations with more people about this book and about Singapore more generally. There are multiple bookstores in Taiwan where you can get a copy of the book, but here's one.