It was a case that touched many hearts, especially in the Eastern states. Never had anybody on the Death Row at Changi Prison aroused so much sympathy. Before Van Ngyuen, many convicts awaiting execution were seen as beyond redemption. However, Ngyuen showed the human side of him when it was revealed that the reason for him to become a drug courier was to clear his brotherÂ’s debts, not for personal gain.
During the tumultuous build-up to NgyuenÂ’s execution, fierce words were exchanged between Singapore and Canberra. A Singapore-based forum revealed that some 55% of Australians thought the death penalty was needed to combat serious crimes. During an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an opposition parliamentarian from Singapore, Steve Chia, revealed that some Singaporeans, while supporting the death penalty, felt it could be made non-mandatory. In addition, there were calls for judicial reform, with people calling for judges to be given more discretion in the sentencing process.
Capital punishment is one of the key issues in human rights today. The other major one that has many world citizens feeling concerned would be torture. This has become a sticking point in the war on terror. There have been reports of abuse of detainees by American troops at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib since the start of US-led operations against suspected terrorists. According to intelligence sources, the US also has some secret detention facilities on European soil, much to the chagrin of EU officials. More recently, the United Nations joined the chorus for the closure of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. This US Navy-built prison houses terror suspects captured after 9-11. Among its famous inmates are those like David Hicks.
Amnesty International has many publications related to capital punishment and torture of suspects. One can find many press releases on both issues at its website. It is possible for both to be linked. A likely scenario is one whereby a murder or terrorism suspect is tortured by police while in custody, makes a false confession to trumped-up charges, found guilty during his trial and given the death sentence. In the context of todayÂ’s climate of fear, we have to look at both issues under a microscope.
It is known that much of Europe is in a death penalty free zone. In 2000, not a single person was sentenced to death and executed in Council of Europe member states. This was published in a booklet drawn up by the Council in June 2001, some three months before the attacks on New York and Washington. Many countries adopt the rationale that the death penalty serves as a deterrence for similar offences in the future. This deterrence principle has taken on a larger role in the post 9-11 world, as more countries try to safeguard themselves from terror attacks of similar scale. It could mean a reluctance to do away with the death penalty as a result of such a climate. However, it is heart-warming to hear that Madrid and London have no plans to re-introduce such barbaric punishments despite the bombings in March 2004 and July 2005 respectively.
Human rights have indeed suffered as a consequence of the war on terror, something which several interviewees agree with. The situation was made worse following the invasion of Iraq. The United States and some of its allies have detained many suspected terrorists, often under the least humane conditions. In the aftermath of 9-11, the United States introduced the Patriot Act, allowing the government to keep tabs on citizens suspected of involvement in terror activities. This legislation was greeted by strong opposition from civil libertarian outfits. Not surprisingly, many of those who fell into this net were Muslims. Accusations of discrimination were levelled at the Bush administration. The behaviour of US military personnel towards Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib inmates drew international condemnation. Rumours about the Quran being desecrated by US troops at Guantanamo Bay were greeted by angry protests from the Muslim world.
It is an irony that Western governments, often seen as champions of human rights, can do a 360-degree turn following the war on terror. In the past, the US and other Western nations were highly critical of draconian punishments levelled against dissidents by despotic regimes worldwide. Now, they seemed to have toned down such criticism and also partook in such punishments of terror suspects. Many terror suspects have accused the US government of abuse of power and violation of the Geneva Convention. Sometimes, we cannot help but wonder if those detainees were really guilty or were simply tortured into making false confessions. The heavy-handed manner in which law enforcement agencies go about fighting terrorism has also come under scrutiny. Following last yearÂ’s bombing spree in London, police mistakenly shot dead Jean-Charles de Menzes, a Brazilian electrician they believed to be a suicide bomber. It was apparent that excessive force had been applied on to the poor man. Furthermore, it was revealed in the subsequent inquiry that police were acting on wrong information when they followed de Menzes.
Not only can torture be applied to terror suspects, it could apply in cases of homicide suspects too. Throw in the mandatory death penalty, and you have got a recipe for disaster. Andrew Mallard can consider himself lucky that he can taste freedom after 12 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit. Others like him are not so lucky in countries where capital punishment is still in use. Barely after the dust from Van NgyuenÂ’s execution settled was Singapore rocked by another death penalty controversy. A convicted child killerÂ’s family set up a petition for his clemency, touching the hearts of the public. The alleged killer, Leng-how Took, had been found guilty of strangling an eight-year-old girl at his workplace. The offence took place in late 2004, but he vanished shortly after the girlÂ’s death. The girlÂ’s mother, a colleague of his, had returned to China on urgent business, leaving her daughter alone at home.
The childÂ’s disappearance triggered a nationwide hunt for her as well as the alleged killer, who returned to his hometown in Malaysia after being interviewed by police. He himself later went missing, only to surrender himself after his father told him to do so if he wanted to clear his name. Took later led police to his alleged victimÂ’s body, which many saw as evidence of guilt. However, the fact that the girlÂ’s mother had a string of immigration offences in Singapore made some others doubt her character. During TookÂ’s trial, his parents told the court that he was mentally unstable, meaning he could not be held accountable for wilful murder. However, the trial judge threw out his defence and sentenced him to death. This brought about an immediate appeal from his lawyers.
The appeal was unsuccessful, being defeated 2-1 by the Court of Appeal. The dissenting voice, Justice Ting-chiu Kan, felt there were not enough grounds to support a murder conviction. To him, the case looked more like culpable homicide instead. To some members of the public, Justice Kan’s assessment tallied with theirs. On the whole, the case looked like it was full of holes, as there were many questions the trial did not answer. Therefore a vocal minority thought it more of a manslaughter case instead. They started comparing his case with that involving four army instructors whose actions directly resulted in a trainee’s death. That was clearly a case of manslaughter, but the four got off lightly. This group of people felt legal reform was overdue, as it gave the impression that two sets of laws were in operation – one for the elites and another for the common people.
On the whole, a majority thought the courts were right. They also applauded the police for a job well done, as it did not take them long to crack the case. Few wanted to comment on the possibility that the trial judge could have made a mistake or that the Director of Public Prosecutions had way too much power. In general, Singaporeans are a passive lot, and do not question the decisions made by those in power. They take great pride in their supposedly efficient institutions, even if what goes on beneath the surface makes your hair curl. It does not matter if the suspect goes to court guilty until proven innocent, when it ought to be the opposite.
This incident shows that even in a justice system thought to be highly efficient, holes do exist. Hence there are pitfalls in having a mandatory death penalty. Even the chief justice once commented that his hands were tied when it came to sentencing matters, as he was responsible to Parliament. The possibility of having an Andrew Mallard-type of incident is even higher under such circumstances. Yet there is no urgency for judicial review. Worse, the ill-informed public fears that voting in an abolitionist party into power may worsen the drug problem, as the country executes drug couriers regularly.
It is possible that Singapore might be having an Andrew Mallard case on its hands right now. However, Leng-how Took is not going to be as lucky as Mallard even if his own conviction is equally misplaced. It is unlikely Took will ever see freedom in the way Mallard has. The President of Singapore does not appear close to be issuing any amnesty for Took, a father of two. In fact, Singapore may well have thousands of Andrew Mallards, but few know about them. No surprise considering Singapore has the 148th freest press in the world. At least in Perth we get to hear about the Crime and Corruption Commission going after the investigators in the Mallard case.
No doubt most interviewees are comfortable with the justice system as a whole, they think there is room for improvement where sentencing and human rights are concerned. They also feel that the war on terror has been bad for human rights. The world is now like what George Orwell described in 1984 or the film Minority Report. A large number of Australians also feel uneasy about capital punishment. One even said that the state should not sink to the level of serial killers. With regards to Van Ngyuen, it would have been better for the authorities in Melbourne to decide his fate, since he was carrying drugs meant for the Victorian market.
Quite a few interviewees also feel that the UN is right about calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. To them, what the US troops did to the detainees put them in the same league as the Taliban. As for Benjamin Franklin’s statement that “those who trade liberty for security deserve neither”, many do not quite understand its real meaning. However, what happened post 9-11 has shown that “liberty” is being sacrificed for “security” little by little.
In short, it is still the war on terror that is the biggest threat to human rights. But then again, maybe those who spread kill innocents in the name of God are the ones who are jealous of the liberty we have and are bent on destroying it. As for the justice system, it still depends on the national context when it comes to safeguarding human rights. In this area, the abolitionist states tend to fare better.