NOTICE: The following
article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to
violate their copyright. I will give some information on them. I would like to
wish Singapore a Happy 2013 National Day! So, I will post a message from Deputy
Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean as statement about the changes in the mandatory death
penalty
PAGE
TITLE:
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore
ARTICLE
TITLE:
DPM Teo's statement about the changes in the
mandatory death penalty
DATE: Monday 9 July 2012
AUTHOR: Teo Chee Hean
AUTHOR
INFORMATION: Teo Chee Hean (simplified Chinese: 张志贤; traditional Chinese: 張志賢; pinyin: Zhāng Zhìxián; Tiuⁿ Chì-hiân; born
27 December 1954) is a Singaporean politician. A member of the governing
People's Action Party (PAP), he is currently the country's Deputy Prime
Minister, Minister for Home Affairs, Co-ordinating Minister for National
Security and Minister-in-charge of the Civil Service. He has previously served
as the Minister for Defence (2003–11), Minister for Education (1997–2003) and
Minister for the Environment (1996–97). He has been a Member of Parliament (MP)
since 1992. Prior to entering politics, Teo was a Rear-Admiral (RADM) in the
Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), and served as Singapore's Chief of Navy from
1991-92.
URL: http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120709-0000115/DPM-Teos-statement-about-the-changes-in-the-mandatory-death-penalty
(Dead Link)
 |
|
Teo Chee Hean
|
 |
|
|
DPM Teo's statement about the changes in the mandatory death penalty
Updated 06:02 PM Jul 09, 2012
SINGAPORE - Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for
Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean made the following speech today about the changes in
the mandatory death penalty in parliament today. The speech, titled
"enhancing our drug control framework and review of the death
penalty", is shown in full below.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make this
Statement.
The death penalty has been an important part of our
criminal justice system for a very long time, similar to the position in a
number of other countries. Singaporeans understand that the death penalty has
been an effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment for very serious
offences, and largely support it. As part of our penal framework, it has
contributed to keeping crime and the drug situation under control.
The Government regularly reviews the efficacy of
our criminal justice system, including our penal laws and the applicable
sanctions. This is to ensure that our laws keep pace with the evolving
operational landscape and societal changes. In December 2010, the Ministry of
Home Affairs commenced studies relating to the application of the death penalty
in our laws. In July 2011, based on the studies, we started a general review of
the drug situation and the death penalty as it applied to all our laws. All
executions that have come due since the review started have been deferred.
The review came to a number of conclusions. It
reaffirmed the relevance of the death penalty for all the offences to which it
currently applies. Today, drug traffickers make up the majority of offenders
who face capital punishment. For drug traffickers, we concluded that the
mandatory death penalty should continue to apply in most circumstances.
However, where two specific, tightly-defined conditions are met, which I will
explain later, the death penalty will still apply but it will now be at the
discretion of the courts. The review also concluded that we should retain the
death penalty in our penal laws today, except that for certain types of
homicides, it should no longer be mandatory but be at the discretion of the
courts. The Minister for Law will speak about that in his Statement later.
Strengthening our Zero-Tolerance Approach to Drugs
Let me start by providing an assessment of the
illegal drug situation in Singapore. Illegal drugs are not a new problem in
Singapore nor in our region. We have grappled with this problem for many years,
and have long taken strict and tough measures to curb this menace. The drug
abuse landscape has changed, from opium to heroin, and now to newer
psychoactive substances such as "Ice" and "Ecstasy". But
the fundamental issues have not changed. Drug abuse affects not only the
addicts, but also their families and loved ones. The human cost to individuals
and society is very high. Those who trade in illegal drugs are still attracted
by the huge financial gains to be made, and deterring them requires the
strictest enforcement coupled with the severest of penalties.
We have long taken a "zero-tolerance"
approach against drug abuse. We deal with the drug problem comprehensively by
tackling both the demand and supply factors.
Curbing Demand
To curb demand, we start with educating the young
about the deleterious and dangerous effects of drug abuse, and the penalties
they face if they abuse drugs. This is to deter them from picking up the drug
habit and being subsequently enslaved by it. We treat drug consumption as a
serious offence. Young abusers are sent to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre,
where they undergo programmes to overcome their addictions. The spartan
environment also acts as a deterrent against re-offending. In 1998, we
introduced the "Long-Term" imprisonment regime, under which repeat
drug abusers receive longer prison sentences to break the cycle of addiction.
This also prevents repeat drug abusers from influencing others in the
community, especially the young, and stops them from contributing to the drug
demand and supply eco-system in Singapore.
Because of our firm stand against drug use, we have
seen an improvement in the drug situation in Singapore. At the height of the
heroin problem in 1994, 208 drug abusers per 100,000 of our resident population
were arrested. Last year, the number fell to 86. But this is still a high
number. As at the end of last year, drug offenders made up almost two-thirds
(66 per cent) of the locals in our prisons. About four out of five (79 per cent
) of the local prison population had drug antecedents.
While the Long-Term sentencing regime has proven
effective in suppressing the drug problem in Singapore in the last 14 years,
some 3,000 such repeat offenders are being released when they complete their
Long-Term prison sentences between 2012 and 2014. We will work with them to
help them stay off drugs, but some of them will be tempted to return to drugs.
We may thus see a worsening of the drug abuse
situation in Singapore over the next few years. The potential problems from
this development cannot be taken lightly.
We also face a new challenge in the changing
mindsets of the younger generation. In other countries, especially certain
Western countries, taking drugs is seen as a lifestyle choice. We are not
immune to these influences.
Some amongst our young take synthetic psychoactive
drugs to lose weight, as an escape from the stresses of daily life, or simply
because their friends do so, not realising that they are gambling with their
lives.
While the number of new abusers arrested in
Singapore dropped by 17 per cent from 2010 to 2011, new youth abusers below the
age of 20 arrested increased from 155 in 2010 to 225 in 2011 - a jump of 45 per
cent. In particular, those aged 16 and below have shown the largest increase,
with 64 arrested in 2011 compared to 15 in 2007.
Many countries have given up the fight to suppress
demand. Instead, they advocate "harm reduction" measures. They try to
reduce the collateral harmful effects of drug abuse by supplying free clean
needles for addicts to inject themselves. This is meant to reduce transmission
of dangerous diseases such as HIV or Hepatitis when addicts share contaminated
needles.
However, this does not get to the root of the
problem, and may actually facilitate drug consumption instead of stamping out
drug use and reducing the intrinsic harm of drug abuse to individuals and
society.
An inter-ministry Taskforce on Drugs, led by
Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs Mr Masagos Zulkifli, was
formed in October 2011 to review the drug abuse situation. The Taskforce
completed its work in April this year, recommending a comprehensive approach to
tackle the drug situation. The recommendations covered targeted prevention,
strong deterrence and enforcement, upstream intervention for young abusers,
rehabilitation and supervision to prevent relapse, and active engagement of
families and the community to support the fight against drugs.
We must continue to reinforce the message that
drugs are harmful and make every effort to deter drug taking. On this front, we
will introduce more intervention measures for young abusers, and improve
rehabilitation and supervision for inmates released from long-term imprisonment
to help them stay away from drugs. In addition to the current urine supervision
regime, there will also be compulsory aftercare and a supervision regime
comprising electronic monitoring with curfew hours, counselling and casework.
Restricting Supply
To restrict supply, we have adopted a highly
deterrent posture against drug trafficking. In 1975, we introduced the death
penalty as a punishment for drug trafficking. Under our laws, anyone who
traffics drugs is liable for the death penalty, from syndicate leaders, to
distributors, to couriers who transport drugs, and pushers who sell drugs, as
long as the quantity of drugs involved is above the stipulated thresholds.
The weight element is often misunderstood by the
public and the media. For example, the mandatory death penalty threshold for
heroin is 15g of pure diamorphine, which is often portrayed as the weight of a
few 50-cent coins. In fact, in street form in Singapore, at a typical purity
level of 2.3 per cent, 15g of pure diamorphine is equivalent to some 2,200
straws of heroin worth S$66,000, based on each straw having a gross weight of
about 0.3g and street price of about S$30. This quantity is enough to feed the
addiction of more than 300 abusers for a week. In such cases, the death penalty
is imposed, given the harm caused by these drug traffickers, and the numbers of
lives they destroy.
Rigorous and effective enforcement coupled with severe
penalties have allowed us to stay on top of the situation. Within Singapore,
our strategy of vigorous and swift enforcement efforts against local syndicates
operating inland has suppressed them. Traffickers consciously traffic amounts
below the capital thresholds, which means the syndicates need to make more
frequent runs using more couriers. This has inhibited drug supply and pushed up
the street price of illicit drugs in Singapore, deterring drug abuse. This is a
significant achievement given our close proximity to source countries.
Singapore has also avoided being used as a drug
transhipment point despite our excellent transport connectivity to the region,
and the large number of people, about 500,000 travellers, who enter or pass
through Singapore daily.
However, we have to adapt our strategy and approach
as drug trafficking syndicates change the way they operate. In recent years, by
making use of improvements in communications technology, syndicates supplying
drugs to Singapore have responded to the increased risks of apprehension by
moving off-shore, with their leaders controlling their operations remotely. The
higher-ups in the syndicates try to avoid direct contact with the drugs. They
employ others to transport the drugs into and within Singapore to minimise the
risks to themselves.
They will consciously target and exploit vulnerable
groups to do the high-risk work for them, while remaining behind the scenes.
Our enforcement agencies, prosecutors and our courts have had to deal
increasingly with this new situation. The Attorney-General's Chambers has also
used its constitutional discretion prudently when deciding on the charges to be
framed; and a body of case law has also been built up through cases that have
come before the courts. We need to be cognisant of all these developments and
make the necessary adjustments both to our enforcement strategies and to our
legal framework.
We will put more resources into border checks and
enforcement to stop illicit drugs from entering Singapore. As recommended by
the Taskforce on Drugs, we will increase penalties for repeat traffickers, and
introduce new offences for those who sell to vulnerable groups and organise
drug parties.
We will step up enforcement efforts against
cross-border syndicates, investing more resources in technology and
intelligence. We will also strengthen partnerships with regional counterparts.
In this regard, I signed an MOU with the Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs
Dato' Seri Hishammuddin Hussein on 26 June 2012 to increase intelligence
sharing and operational coordination to intensify our co-operation in the fight
against cross-border drug crimes.
Refining the Death Penalty Regime
This is the backdrop to the review of the death
penalty in our laws. Since 1975, the death penalty has been the mandatory
punishment for trafficking more than a specified amount of illegal drugs. This
strict punishment was necessary because of the seriousness of the drug
situation, and large financial rewards which traffickers hope to reap if they
are not caught. Our approach has been effective in reducing the drug problem in
Singapore, at a time when other Southeast Asian countries have seen their drug
problems worsen significantly.
Today, while our drug situation has improved, it
still remains a serious threat. Looking ahead, we therefore need to maintain
severe penalties for drug trafficking, including the death penalty. However,
our society's norms and expectations are changing. While there is a broad
acceptance that we should be tough on drugs and crime, there is also increased
expectation that where appropriate, more sentencing discretion should be vested
in the courts.
Therefore, we will maintain the mandatory death
penalty for drug traffickers, in most circumstances. In particular, the
mandatory death penalty will continue to apply to all those who manufacture or
traffic in drugs - the kingpins, producers, distributors, retailers - and also
those who fund, organize or abet these activities. By their actions in the drug
trade, these offenders destroy many lives. They know they are dealing with
drugs and the consequences of their actions if they are caught and convicted.
However, when two specific, tightly-defined
conditions are both met, we propose to make the death penalty for trafficking
no longer mandatory, but to be imposed at the discretion of the courts. First,
the trafficker must have only played the role of courier, and must not have
been involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of
drugs. Second, discretion will only apply if having satisfied this first
requirement, either the trafficker has cooperated with the Central Narcotics
Bureau in a substantive way, or he has a mental disability which substantially
impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act.
We propose to change the law such that when these
conditions are met, the courts will have the discretion either to sentence the
trafficker to death, or alternatively to pass a sentence of life imprisonment
with caning.
The reasons for making the changes are as follows:
(a) Co-operation
As I have earlier stated, the drug menace is
growing internationally. We need to find more ways of targeting those who are
higher up in the drug syndicates, compared with the couriers. If the couriers
give us substantive co-operation leading to concrete outcomes, such as the
dismantling of syndicates or the arrest or prosecution of syndicate members,
that will help us in our broader enforcement effort.
(b) Mental Disability
We also propose to give the courts the discretion
to spare a drug courier from the death penalty if he has a mental disability
which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act, and
instead sentence him to life imprisonment with caning. Currently, the AGC
exercises prosecutorial discretion in considering, amongst other things, the
extent of mental disability of persons, before deciding on the charges to be
brought. The AGC will still have prosecutorial discretion even after the law is
changed. However, the courts will now be legislatively vested with the
discretion to consider, if they find the accused guilty of trafficking, whether
the accused has a mental disability which is sufficient for the courts to
impose the lesser punishment of life imprisonment with caning, instead of the
death penalty.
Taken together, these provisions retain the strong
deterrent posture of our capital punishment regime, while providing for a more
calibrated sentencing framework when specific conditions are met. At the same
time, we are providing a framework for accused persons to assist our agencies
to target those who play more significant roles in drug syndicates. We will
discuss with stakeholders how the legal provisions can best be defined in order
to meet the objectives that I have laid out.
We will monitor how these changes impact and
influence the behaviour of the criminal organisations. If the situation
worsens, we will consider tightening the provisions, or making other changes.
30. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission for
copies of my speech to be distributed to Members, please?
Conclusion
The Government's duty is first and foremost to
provide a safe and secure living environment for Singaporeans to bring up their
families. We must be constantly vigilant, adapt our law enforcement strategies
and deterrence and punishment regime to remain ahead of criminals. We must do
what works for us, to achieve our objective of a safe and secure Singapore.
The changes announced today will sharpen our tools
and introduce more calibration into the legal framework against drug trafficking,
and put our system on a stronger footing for the future.
The Minister for Law will now speak on the changes
which we will making in respect of homicide offences, after which we will both
address any matters that Members may wish to raise.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment