Yawning Bread. March 2006

No escaping the death penalty

    

  

 
As if to taunt all those who argued against the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van last year, Singapore has recently had a spate of killings. Since capital punishment is mandatory once the accused is found guilty of premeditated murder, many of these cases will lead to the death row.

Will the anti-capital punishment people stand up against hanging murderers? If so, are distinctions to be made between the various kinds of murders, with some justifying hanging while others do not? Or is the campaign against capital punishment only limited to drug offences?

These are thorny questions which abolitionists need to address, each in his own mind. It was easy to come together in the case of Nguyen, a foolish young man who was little more than a drug mule. He didn't commit murder. It will be much harder to have coherent voices in murder cases. Yet, to be credible, everyone who speaks up against capital punishment needs to define what exactly his position is. There is no escape.

All the cases I am mentioning below have not yet come to trial and so we should not presume the guilt of anyone mentioned. It's not even clear if the killings were premeditated. However, they serve to illustrate the range of scenarios in which lives are taken and I hope to provoke some thought as to where you think the line should be drawn.

There was the murder of Lim Hock Soon recently. A one-eyed man rushed into his apartment at dawn just when the victim's daughter was about to go to school. The family was tied up and then Lim was shot 5 times. Lim apparently was involved in loan-sharking and perhaps illegal gambling. The one-eyed accused, Tan Chor Jin, too had underworld connections. It appeared to be a planned murder to settle scores.

Are you in favour of the death penalty for such crimes?

Another case that came into the news was that of Professor Lee Kok Leong's murder in December 1993 (See the 1998 article Straits Times' coverage of the Prof Lee murder trial) Finally, after 13 years, the third man has been found. Lee Chez Kee, alias Kim Beh, is alleged to have gained entry into the gay victim's home on the pretext of perhaps being sexually available. The professor was tied up and killed.

Are you in favour of the death penalty for crimes like this?

In June last year, Leong Siew Chor, aged 50, was charged with the murder of Lin Hong Mei, 22. Leong was her supervisor at work and it is alleged they had an affair. Somehow, she was killed and her body parts were dumped into the Kallang River. Possibly, this could have been a crime of passion. Capital punishment? 

2-year-old Nur Asyura Mohamed Fauzi was found dead less than a week ago. Her naked body was stuffed in a crevice under a road bridge. Police believe she had been killed at home and her stepfather Mohamed Ali Johari has been charged with murder. We don't yet know any details of the circumstances; perhaps it wasn't premeditated.

Like the Huang Na case where at appeal, one of the 3 judges expressed misgivings about how the trial judge concluded that Took Leng How deliberately took the girl's life, sometimes forensic evidence may be open to question and there will be no witnesses. Do we hang?

I don't expect any unanimity as to where to draw the line. Some may say, hang them all once a life has been taken, and many still think that there's nothing wrong with hanging smalltime drug mules either. Others would make finer distinctions, reserving capital punishment for what they consider the more heinous crimes. Either way, I would encourage everyone to at least think through your reasons and settle on some general principles for yourself. In order to have a reasoned debate, people must first have reasoned opinions.

* * * * *

One of the things that worries me about capital punishment is the assumption that the justice system is inerrant. First of all, as the dissenting opinion in Took's appeal indicates, we are faced with the question, how can mere majority opinion be inerrant? 

You may argue that a justice system does not have to be inerrant to impose the death penalty. It only needs to reach reasonably considered verdicts. But is it not morally questionable to impose an irreversible penalty based on fallible, even if reasonable judgments?

Singapore likes to pride itself on a sound justice system, but a recent case truly makes me wonder.

Constance Chee has been found guilty of manslaughter for causing the death of 4-year-old Sindee Neo. Chee had had an affair with Sindee's father, and one night, Chee went to the Neo home to confront him for turning his back on her (there was also disagreement over $40,000 that Chee had given Neo before; she obviously wanted it repaid since the affair had gone sour).

At some point in the altercation, Chee seized the girl and soon after, Sindee Neo was found dead at the foot of the block of flats where the family lived. Chee was found to have been instrumental in causing the girl to fall though the court had some doubt if Constance Chee actually threw the girl over the parapet. Thus, she escaped the murder charge, being found guilty of manslaughter instead.

Chee was spared the hangman's rope. Now the question would be how long a jail term should she serve? 

Generally, it should be for a life term, or if there are more mitigating circumstances, 10 years. In a hearing on 3 March 2006, the court heard that Constance Chee was also suffering from schizophrenia, which could be a consideration, diminishing her responsibility further. But at the hearing, there was a twist. Based on news reports, I gather the judge said that if her family was unable to care for her after treatment, then he might impose a longer sentence so that the state could care for her.

Straits Times:

Her sentencing, which was to have taken place yesterday, was postponed for her lawyer to check on her family support if she is let out of jail and ordered to go on medication for her schizophrenia.

Further on,

This twist came about yesterday when prosecution and defence argued over whether Chee would be better off staying in prison for a long time, or if supervised medication would turn her around quickly.

While the prosecution did not ask for a life sentence but an 'appropriate' one, it highlighted several cases of life imprisonment imposed on manslaughter offenders over the years.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Wong Kok Weng noted that psychiatrist Stephen Phang was of the view that she be 'kept in conditions of security where she may continually receive psychiatric treatment'.

But Mr Anandan [counsel for defence] argued that if she was sentenced to life in jail, but is cured, she would be stuck behind bars for the rest of her life, and this would be unfair.

-- Straits Times, 4 March 2006, Ex-air
hostess may escape life in prison

 
ChannelNewsAsia reported what the psychiatrist told the court:

Dr Phang said: "For all cases of schizophrenia, it is said one-third will be completely cured after a year of drug treatment, another one-third will have relapses and be in and out of hospital, and another one-third will have a downward slide. Chee falls in the last category."

He said Chee has begun to show early symptoms, including social withdrawal.

To be cured, she needs long-term supervised medical treatment and could not be entrusted to complete permanent treatment by herself, said Dr Phang.

Justice V K Rajah then asked the defence to prepare a detailed report on who will care for Chee after she serves time.

-- ChannelNewsAsia, 3 March 2006. 

 
From 'Today' newspaper,

Justice Rajah wanted to know what the future might hold for Chee, 37, and whether, on her release, her family would provide her adequate supervision and medical care.

.
"I'm reluctant to give a sentence until the family has been consulted ... The fact remains that she is an intelligent woman and I'm anxious not to punish her unreasonably," he said.

-- 'Today' newspaper, 4 March 2005,
Who'll care for Chee?

Does anyone think this approach very dodgy? Was the judge suggesting that if Chee had a family coming forward, he wouldn't "punish her unreasonably", but if no one came forward, he would do so? Good grief! The sentence should be appropriate for the crime; it should have nothing to do with the family situation of Constance Chee. If on release from jail, she still needs to be committed to a mental health institution, then separate committal hearings can be held, but that would be a purely medical decision and not a judicial sentence.

It's shocking that something quite so fundamental is as confused as this in Singapore. Yet you tell me our judicial system can be trusted to impose the death penalty because they're so darn good, their verdicts are safe?

© Yawning Bread 

 
Singapore Airlines denied Australia-US routes

Last month, the Australian government decided against awarding Singapore Airlines traffic rights between Australia and the United States.

Canberra said its decision had nothing to do with the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van.

That's facile.

It may be true up to a point, in that it wasn't as if the John Howard government had decided to grant the rights, but then reconsidered after Nguyen was hanged, but it cannot be true that the hanging had no impact on the final shape of the decision. Nope, Singapore didn't escape the death penalty either.

In a sense, Singapore Airlines had won its argument, for its case was that the Australian consumer would benefit with more competition on the trans-pacific route. The fact that Canberra indicated that it would consider allowing Virgin Pacific to compete against Qantas suggests that the point about competition got through.

Yet, it would be Virgin Pacific, not Singapore Airlines. Why? Well. firstly, it might preserve jobs for Australians, but also, Howard would have calculated the political cost of awarding Singapore Airlines the rights. 

Given the uproar over the hanging, it was politically impossible to do so. It would be bad enough to antagonise the job-protectionists with a decision in favour of Singapore, it would be mad to cause offence to the large human rights lobby as well.

Again and again, Singapore politicians seem quite blind to Politics 101 as operating in other countries. They are so used to running a technocratic administrative state, they seem to think others operate on the same lines too, giving scant regard to public opinion.

Howard is a consummate politician. Many may not like his policies, but he is very good at judging the public mood.

The Singapore government on the other hand, seems very good at winning a battle (the competition argument) and losing the war (the traffic rights).

 

Footnotes

  1. See also the article Four murders

Addenda

None