Should we abolish the death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore?

Author: Ngo Zun Yin

Editor: Isaac Goh

Poll: Should we should abolish the death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore?

Change Image

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

Note: You may need to log in to vote. Simply sign in using your Google account. Your vote is anonymous.

With the recent rise in the number of controversial executions for drug traffickers in Singapore, questions have been raised as to whether it is justified to use capital punishment. The use of the death penalty is arguably one of, if not the most severe form of punishment that the state can use since it involves taking away the most fundamental right of humans - the right to live. Singapore’s use of the death penalty on drug traffickers has often been subjected to condemnation by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)[1]. Furthermore, neighbouring countries like Malaysia and Thailand have lightened their laws when it comes to drug trafficking. Malaysia has ended its mandatory death penalty for drug offences, while Thailand has legalised marijuana[2]. This would put Singapore as one of the few countries that maintains its stance on the use of capital punishment on drug traffickers. Despite international pressure to amend its use of capital punishment, Singapore continues to maintain and affirm its stance of zero tolerance. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (MDA), anyone found trafficking more than 500 grams of cannabis, 250 grams of methamphetamine, 30 grams of cocaine or 15 grams of heroin is subjected to the mandatory death penalty.[3] While it is true that the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights, the death penalty continues to show its merits of keeping Singapore a drug-free city through the act of deterrence to force drug traffickers to think twice when attempting to traffic drugs into Singapore.

Detractors of the death penalty postulate that the death penalty takes away one’s right to live and that drug trafficking is not a crime severe enough to only be paid for by giving up one’s life. Compared to “more serious" crimes like murder, drug trafficking isn’t severe enough for the death penalty to be considered. Moreover, the death penalty violates the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Under Article 3 and Article 5, the UDHR states that humans have a right to live and the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, respectively[4]. While this is true, many may have failed to realise that having a safe, drug-free environment should also be a fundamental right of humans. Without a strong form of deterrence, how, then, may we ensure that Singapore remains drug-free and safe from these threats? In order to maintain public order, we need to have a form of deterrence to reduce the chances of drug trafficking in Singapore. A strong one, in fact, given how little quantity of drug can bring about significant damage. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) has stated before that 31 grams of heroin is sufficient to feed the addiction of about 370 abusers for a week. Thirty-one grams of heroin alone is enough to ruin 370 lives.[5] While it is important to value individual rights, we should also remember that others also have their rights when it comes to being free of such drugs and the potential to be addicted to them.

Another argument that critics of the death penalty bring up is that we can never be sure that criminals indeed had the intention to traffic drugs and that, often, they are subjected to unfair decisions made by the judges. For instance, the recent controversial case of Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran Dharmalingam being executed even after it was established that he possesses the mental age of someone below 18 and had a below-average IQ is one such example that critics have brought up[6]. Under the change to MDA in 2013, the mandatory death penalty can be reduced to life imprisonment if it was proven that they were only couriers in charge of transporting, sending or delivering the drug. Additionally, it has to be shown that they had either “substantively assisted” CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore, or they were suffering from a condition that substantially impaired their mental responsibility for their actions[7]. Critics argue that with his below-average IQ, he should not have been executed as his mental responsibility is impaired. How can we then be so sure that Nagaenthran Dharmalingam had the intention to traffic drugs or that he was unaware at the time that he was committing a crime? We can never be entirely sure that intention and awareness were present. However, being mentally impaired does not free him of the fact that he was aware of what he did. It was beyond reasonable doubt that he knew what he did was against the law. As such, the judges made the right call not to reduce the sentence. To quote from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), “Singapore has a fair and just criminal justice system. All persons are accorded full due process under the law, and there are additional safeguards provided in capital cases to ensure that the death penalty is passed only after a very rigorous legal process.”[8] With this very rigorous process, there is minimal chance that a sentence has been wrongly passed. Ultimately, we can never ensure that every sentence is wholly accurate, but with rigorous and detailed legal processes, we can minimise this risk to nearly zero.

The death penalty acts as a strong deterrence in forcing drug traffickers to think twice before intending to traffic drugs. Often, this argument has been largely criticised for being inaccurate as many studies seemingly show that there would have been no difference as to the number of cases should the death penalty be removed. However, we should realise that this method of comparison is not fair and accurate. To truly see the difference, we would need Singapore to remove the death penalty to be able to compare the difference fairly. The death penalty acting as a deterrence would mean that potential cases were prevented due to the fear of the penalty. Simply, it is an unfair comparison. Moreover, Singaporeans generally also support the use of the death penalty. In 2019, MHA commissioned a survey of 2,000 residents on their views of capital punishment. The majority of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment as a deterrent against serious crimes[9]. There is also evidence that drug traffickers who had been arrested knew about the death penalty and the amounts that would attract the death penalty, and this caused them to reduce the amount of drugs they trafficked. MHA found that there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight of opium trafficked in the four-year window after the mandatory death penalty was introduced in 1990 for trafficking more than 1,200 grams of opium[10]. Since Singaporeans largely support it and it has been shown to reduce the cases of drug trafficking, why then should we abolish it when there are no conflicts present?

Infographic produced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore

In conclusion, Singapore’s stance on maintaining the death penalty for drug traffickers is justified and holds water. Without the ability of capital punishment to deter potential traffickers, Singapore would be plagued with drugs. With the rigorous and detailed legal processes, we can also be sure that every drug trafficker is subjected to the right and just punishment.

References

[1] ‘Singapore: UN experts condemn continued use of death penalty for drug-related crimes’ (United Nations, 28 April 2023) <Singapore: UN experts condemn continued use of death penalty for drug-related crimes | OHCHR> accessed 14 August 2023

[2] John Yoon, ‘Singapore Hangs Man in Second Drug-Related Execution in Three Weeks’ (The New York Times, 18 May 2023) <Singapore Hangs Man in Second Drug-Related Execution in Three Weeks - The New York Times (nytimes.com)> accessed 14 August 2023

[3] Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 s5

[4] Human Rights Act 1948

[5] Associated Press, ‘Singapore Hangs First Woman Since 2004, Amid Fresh Wave of Drug-Related Executions’ (Time, 28 July 2023) <https://time.com/6299116/singapore-death-penalty-woman-executed-drugs> accessed 14 august 2023

[6] Davina Tham, ‘Court of Appeal dismisses plea by mother of Malaysian drug trafficker on death row’ (Channel NewsAsia, 26 April 2022) <Court of Appeal dismisses plea by mother of Malaysian drug trafficker on death row - CNA (channelnewsasia.com)> accessed 14 August 2023

[7] Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 s33B(1)(2)

[8] ‘The Death Penalty in Singapore’ (Ministry of Home Affairs, 5 November 2021) <Detail (mha.gov.sg)> accessed 14 August 2023

[9] ‘The Death Penalty in Singapore’ (Ministry of Home Affairs, 5 November 2021) <Detail (mha.gov.sg)> accessed 14 August 2023

[10]  ‘The Death Penalty in Singapore’ (Ministry of Home Affairs, 5 November 2021) <Detail (mha.gov.sg)> accessed 14 August 2023