Govt bans Amnesty International man from speaking in S'pore
-
Govt bans Amnesty International man from speaking in S'pore
15 April 2005
In yet another attempt to stifle debate about the death penalty in Singapore, the Government has refused to grant Amnesty International Spokesman, Mr Tim Parritt, a permit to speak at the public forum organised by the Open Singapore Centre on 16 April 2005 at Hotel Asia, Scotts Road. The title of the forum is “Death penalty and the rule of law in Singapore.”
Amnesty International (AI) is a prominent critic of the death penalty in Singapore. In an authoritative report published in 2004 that received world-wide attention, it cited Singapore as having a “shockingly high, hidden toll of executions.” The country has the highest number of executions per capita in the world. AI added that the death penalty in Singapore is shrouded in secrecy.
In a blatant attempt to keep the matter under wraps, the Singapore Government has now denied Mr Parritt, a Briton, an opportunity to speak (see letter from Immigration & Checkpoints Authority below) and to engage Singaporeans in an open discussion on this life-and-death matter. This exposes the real side Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who wishes the world to believe that he wants a more “open” and “inclusive” Singapore as Prime Minister. Mr Lee forgets that politicians are judged by the actions, not words.
As always the reply is given at the very last minute and no reasons are stated for the rejection of the the application.
The forum will proceed, nevertheless. The other 5 speakers J B Jeyaretnam, Anthony Yeo, M Ravi, S Samydorai, and Chee Soon Juan will address the issue. No permit is required if the speakers are locals. Singaporeans are strongly encouraged to attend the forum as they will also get a chance to meet and have discussions with Mr Parritt in private. The AI Spokesman will arrive in Singapore on Friday afternoon (15 April 2005).
In the meantime, death-row inmate Mr Shanmugam’s mother, Mdm Letchumi, has been in better spirits over the last few days. She called up lawyer M Ravi and excitedly told him that she had received calls from her relatives in India (Mdm Letchumi was born there) who had expressed support and asked what they could do to help her win her son’s pardon. It is understood that news of Mr Shanmugam’s impending execution has been published in some newspapers in India. Who can blame her as she desperately looks for any help that could possibly save her son from death. Illiterate and finding it difficult to follow the legal process, Mdm Letchumi gave a heart-wrenching appeal on video, begging for her son’s life as only a mother can: “Please give my son back to me...Please don’t hang him, please don’t hang him.” (http://empower-sg.http3.net/16Apr2005forum.html)
Fellow Singaporeans, please find time to attend the forum tomorrow and help us appeal to President Nathan to save Mr Shanmugam from the gallows. The reasons against his execution are compelling and will be discussed at the forum. The action is urgent as Mr Shanmugam is due to be hanged in a few weeks from now. Mdm Letchumi and her twin grandsons will also be present and they will be grateful for your support. -
just wondering, why is he on death row?
-
Could be a drug offence..Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:just wondering, why is he on death row? -
Our dear CSJ is going to speak on the capital punishment issue? Will he politicise it at the next GE?
-
It's not gonna work.. Seems to me that most Singaporeans believe that the capital punishment is necessary for heinous crimes.Originally posted by iveco:Will he politicise it at the next GE? -
Not 100 per cent of them, though. Every GRC is bound to have some people who oppose capital punishment. They could swing the vote aaway from MIW.Originally posted by cornyfish2000:It's not gonna work.. Seems to me that most Singaporeans believe that the capital punishment is necessary for heinous crimes. -
He can't. He's bankrupted.Originally posted by iveco:Our dear CSJ is going to speak on the capital punishment issue? Will he politicise it at the next GE? -
He may not be able to stand for polls, but his lieutenants will lead the battle for him.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:He can't. He's bankrupted.
-
Yes. But I feel, unfairly or not, that SDP is gonna be a has-been party. They don't inspire me, for one.
-
I oppose capital punishment.Originally posted by iveco:Not 100 per cent of them, though. Every GRC is bound to have some people who oppose capital punishment. They could swing the vote aaway from MIW. -
i support capital punishment.
-
how abt caning ?Originally posted by LazerLordz:I oppose capital punishment.
-
i support too.Originally posted by crazy monkey:how abt caning ?
i once worked at a factory which employed prisoners. they told me that caning is the only thing that career criminal fears. -
Caning is a lesser evil.If it breaks down a hard-core criminal so that he can be reahbilitated, so be it.But no one can take away a life he or she did not give.Originally posted by crazy monkey:how abt caning ? -
Why is the government so afraid of a public debate on human rights issues?
I do agree that we don't want foreigners to make us reform our criminal justice system to suit their taste but what's the harm in hearing what Amnesty has to say? Let Singaporeans hear an alternative point of view and let us decide if we want to change our criminal justice system. You cannot prevent it anyway. Singaporeans have access to the internet and we are well aware of Amnesty's views.
Cabinet ministers aren't the only ones educated in Singapore. Let ordinary Singaporeans decide how we want to run our country. Then when Amnesty criticizes Singapore for the death sentence, we can truly say that having considered all the arguments, Singaporeans want to run our country in this way.
I don't want a foreigner to tell me how my nation is to be run, but I don't want an elitist oligarchy to tell me that either. -
Exactly.Fear of open discussion usually comes about when some people are very insecure.But don't let your insecurity disable the nation's progress.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Why is the government so afraid of a public debate on human rights issues?
I do agree that we don't want foreigners to make us reform our criminal justice system to suit their taste but what's the harm in hearing what Amnesty has to say? Let Singaporeans hear an alternative point of view and let us decide if we want to change our criminal justice system. You cannot prevent it anyway. Singaporeans have access to the internet and we are well aware of Amnesty's views.
Cabinet ministers aren't the only ones educated in Singapore. Let ordinary Singaporeans decide how we want to run our country. Then when Amnesty criticizes Singapore for the death sentence, we can truly say that having considered all the arguments, Singaporeans want to run our country in this way.
I don't want a foreigner to tell me how my nation is to be run, but I don't want an elitist oligarchy to tell me that either. -
Me-too.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I oppose capital punishment.
-
Why do you either support or oppose capital punishments? Is it on moral or other grounds?
I'd like to hear your views one way or the other.
Cheers! -
Bad excuse.
If this country's politicians have such a good time commenting and telling other country's leaders what to do, then it should be of little consequence to let the reverse happen.
In fact, there should be freedom of speech in Singapore, and this "foreign devil" should be allowed to speak his mind. Who knows, he might raise a valid point?
However, this pales in comparison to the real reason the PAP administration has told the Amnesty International representative to "shut it". It does not intend to abolish the death penalty, not even if the entire world presses for it, and this saga has already proven that.
Any locals speaking up about this can be easily dismissed, and perhaps gagged in the local media, but with a foreign representative from a large human rights organisation attracting such a huge media attention, it isn't easy to ignore. -
Originally posted by pkchukiss:
Such is the reality of equivocation here.I couldn't help laughing when we try to tell Burma to clean up her act.What a laugh.
Bad excuse.
If this country's politicians have such a good time commenting and telling other country's leaders what to do, then it should be of little consequence to let the reverse happen.
In fact, there should be freedom of speech in Singapore, and this "foreign devil" should be allowed to speak his mind. Who knows, he might raise a valid point?
However, this pales in comparison to the [b]real reason the PAP administration has told the Amnesty International representative to "shut it". It does not intend to abolish the death penalty, not even if the entire world presses for it, and this saga has already proven that.
Any locals speaking up about this can be easily dismissed, and perhaps gagged in the local media, but with a foreign representative from a large human rights organisation attracts such a huge media attention, it isn't easy to ignore.[/b]
Sadly enough, it has seemed that policies here are no longer very much about what the people want after a careful debate, but rather what the government wants.This is not good because a monopoly of viewpoints is not something that can sustain us for years to come.
If you want contributions from the populace, then you might have to accept that they have differing views and policies might have to change.But the root of the matter is the elitist system where they are "given" the "mandate" to decide for the rest.This I do not agree with.