This is yet another example of the way policies are made, firstly with no regard to constitutional freedoms, and secondly, made ad hoc for specific situations but cast broadly in a way that can later have all sorts of unintended consequences.

As citizens, we must be alert to such encroachments upon our civil freedoms. The specific circumstances when a new rule is promulgated may not concern us, but one day it may be used against something we are interested in. By then, the authorities may argue that the policy has been in place for a long time, and few people have ever demurred.

In this instance, the police were banning posters for a rock concert to raise awareness against capital punishment. The posters featured the face of Shanmugam Murugesu, who had been hanged on 13 May 2005 for drug trafficking.

Whether or not you have sympathy for Shanmugam, whether or not you disagree with capital punishment, you should be concerned with the new policy made ad hoc by the police, for tomorrow, they may say that opposition politicians who have been convicted by the courts for offences (selling their books at street corners without a permit, for example [1]) should not be "glorified" on posters and other publicity materials.

That would further infringe our already limited political freedoms.

Another day, someone whom people believe has been wrongly convicted, cannot be "glorified" either by any group campaigning for a retrial. And that someone may well be you.

* * * * *

From www.thinkcentre.org, here is the background to Shanmugam's case (with slight editing for better clarity to non-Singaporean readers):

Shanmugram Murugesu, a Singaporean, 38, was arrested on the 29 August 2003 at Tuas Checkpoint [2]. A search was conducted on his motorcycle and was found to contain 6 packets of cannabis.

The 6 packets of cannabis contained 1,029.8 grams of cannabis, and 880.89 grams of cannabis mixture.

At the trial the prosecution proceeded on a capital charge of importing 1029.8 grams (nett) of cannabis under Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap. 185.

After the trial at the High Court in April 2004, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to suffer death. His appeal against conviction and sentence of death was heard in the Court of Appeal on 26 October 2004. The appeal was dismissed.

Shanmugum had served in the Singapore Armed Forces for 8 years and in other government sectors like the Singapore Sports Council for another 4 years. He had also represented Singapore in water sports events like the 1995 World Championship Jetski Finals in Lake Havasu, Arizona, USA.

Before his arrest, Shanmugram worked as a taxi driver and a free-lance window cleaner to support his sons and mother. He also contributed income to his sister and her 3 children. He did not have any previous conviction except for a minor traffic offence. After his divorce in 2002, he was awarded custody of his twin sons, now aged 14. After the divorce he had lost interest in life and became a victim of drug abuse.

Shanmugam came from a poor Indian Singaporean family and had a younger sister and 1 younger brother. His sister is divorced and has 3 children and his brother is a police officer attached to the Marine Police. He was in desperate financial circumstances, which led him to commit the offence. The financial burdens on him were heavy as he had to look after the financial needs of his sons, nieces, nephews and mother.

Many Singaporeans felt that the sentence was unwarranted by the circumstances. Senior lawyers too felt that the judge should have had the discretion to impose a more lenient sentence; there was at least one, maybe two such letters in the Straits Times. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the death sentence is prescribed once the amount of drugs in the arrested person's possession exceeds the equivalent of 30 grams of morphine. Many feel that this inflexibility does not serve justice. Others hold the opinion that capital punishment should be used only for the most heinous of crimes, or perhaps never.

* * * * *

Interestingly, in the same 5 August edition of 'Today', was a commentary by Charles Tan, a Singaporean consultant to a law firm, living in Perth, Australia, arguing that Singapore should bring back jury trials. Within his commentary [3], he gave a bit of history:

In Singapore, the jury system was abolished more than 30 years ago. Prior to this, the jury system was used to try accused persons charged with serious offences. Initially abolished for all cases except murder, even this was subsequently done away with, following a parliamentary select committee hearing.

Further on, he recalled that,

... when trial by jury was abolished in Singapore, one justification for doing so was that the public held to superstitious beliefs and a general reluctance to convict defendants facing the death penalty.

The argument went, a jury of peers would be inclined to either acquit the defendant, or convict him on a lesser charge.

So you see, even 30 years ago, Singaporeans were already uncomfortable with the notion of capital punishment. The government painted their reluctance as "superstition", suggesting I suppose, that jurors feared that the hanged convict could come back to haunt them.

But that, once again, is just a politically-motivated spin on an important point. Consider this: why would jurors fear the ghost of the convict unless they themselves felt that the act of sending a person to death was itself a wrong, deserving retribution?

Call it what you will, whether superstition or moral principle, there was evidently unease in public opinion about the death penalty, 30 years ago.

Of course, the government did not for a moment think that ordinary citizens could be right, when ordinary citizens differed from them. Of course they were convinced that they alone had the monopoly on wisdom, and everybody else was wrong, and so rather than review prescribed judicial penalties that might better suit the moral qualms of citizens (i.e. that prosecutors should ask for the death penalty less frequently), the government decided to sweep away an entire principle of justice – jury trials – to get the result they wanted.

The ends justified the means.

I can't help but see a little similarity with the issue of Shanmugam's face on the poster for an anti-capital punishment rock concert.

I said above that an ad hoc policy by the police made to obtain a specific result was cast in wide policy terms that violated a constitutional principle of free speech.

Thirty years ago, unhappy that they didn't get the capital convictions the government wanted in a few cases, a centuries-old principle of justice was swept away.

© Yawning Bread 

1. Opposition politican Chee Soon Juan was convicted in March 1999 for selling his book on the streets. He was found guilty of contravening the Environmental Public Health Act which required everyone selling anything in public places ("hawking" in Singapore speak) to have a licence from the Ministry of Health. Chee argued in his defence that selling books was hardly an issue of public health. He also said that bookstores in Singapore refused to stock his books (do we need to ask why?) compelling him to sell them personally. See story in Singapore Window.

   An even more respected opposition leader, J B Jeyaretnam, also has to sell his books at street corners. He has not been convicted for hawking books, but was convicted of speaking in public without a Public Entertainment Licence in 1990.
   Return to where you left off

2. The Tuas Checkpoint is located at one of the two bridges connecting Singapore with Malaysia.
   Return to where you left off
3. Commentary titled 12 honest citizens to decide your fate, 'Today', 5 Aug 2005, page 3.
   Return to where you left off