Examining the death penalty in Singapore
Singapore retains the use of capital punishment for the most severe crimes in the city-state. Is it still relevant today?
A triple murder that shocked the nation
On 29 December 1971, 10 men between the age of 16 and 34, robbed and murdered 3 men — Ngo Cheng Poh, 55; Ang Boon Chai, 57; and Leong Chin Woo, 51.
The 10 perpetrators were:
- David Chou Hock Heng, 34
- Andrew Chou Hock Guan, 25
- Augustine Ang Cheng Siong, 25
- Peter Lim Swee Guan, 24
- Stephen Francis, 20
- Alex Yau Hean Thye, 19
- Richard James, 18
- Nagalingam Konesekaram, 18
- Ringo Lee Chiew Chwee, 16
- Stephen Lee Hock Khoon, 16
Andrew Chou was an air cargo supervisor with Air Vietnam and in early 1971, he was approached to smuggle gold bars as he had access to high-security areas. This marked his venture in the gold bars smuggling business but soon, things went south and he lost the trust of the syndicates he had been working with. He had lost a large sum of money and frustrated by his loss, he hatched a plan to rob and murder Ngo Cheng Poh, a gold bar smuggler with who he had done business, and his associates.
Chou recruited his elder brother, two of his friends and six other men to carry out the robbery and murder. Following a routine gold bars drop-off by Ngo and his associates and Chou’s house, the ten men murdered the three men in Chou’s house and their bodies were disposed in thick bushes at Lembah Bedok.
Within a day, the bodies were found and the robbers-cum-murderers were subsequently arrested for their involvement in the crime. Of the ten, one admitted to his involvement in the crime. Augustine Ang claimed that the Chou brothers were the mastermind and revealed the details of the crime to the police. He was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, detained indefinitely without a trial and became the prosecutor’s witness.
A year later, on 29 December 1972, all nine men were convicted of murder. Seven of them were sentenced to death while Ringo Lee Chiew Chwee and Stephen Lee Hock Khoon were detained at the President’s pleasure as they were only 16 at the time of the crime.
Despite appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in London and a petition to former President Benjamin Sheares for clemency, the sentencings were upheld. The seven men were hanged on 28 February 1975.
The other three men had been released between the late 1980s and 1990s.
NB: Singapore’s Judicial Committee Act of 1966 enabled the Privy Council in London to continue its role as Singapore’s final court of appeal. This arrangement ceased to exist in 1994 as the Court of Appeal of Singapore formally assumed its role as the final appellate court of the island nation.
A global trend towards abolishment
The death penalty, reserved for the most heinous of crimes, has been around in Singapore since the colonial era. While the United Kingdom gradually reduced the number of crimes punishable by death in the 1950s and subsequently abolished capital punishment in 1998, Singapore, which gained self-governance from the UK in 1959, kept the practice and is still used till today.
Globally, the trend is moving towards the abolishment of the death sentence. Data from Amnesty International revealed that in 2020, 109 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes and worldwide execution numbers totalled 483+, compared to 91 countries (that had abolished the death penalty completely) and 1253+ executions in 2007. Singapore remains one of the 55 countries that retain the use of the death penalty.
To many in the international human rights community, the death penalty is a barbaric and inhumane form of punishment. The UN Human Rights Office argued against the death penalty by pointing out the risk of executing innocent people and the apparent lack of evidence that the death penalty actually lowers crime rates.
“The death penalty has no place in the 21st century.”
— UN Secretary-General António Guterres
Yet, the death penalty is not necessarily controversial in Singapore. It is a topic rarely talked about and generally accepted as a punishment for the most serious crimes in the island nation.
Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide?
Last year, MP for Seng Kang GRC Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, raised a parliamentary question for the Minister for Home Affairs Mr K Shanmugam:
To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been any systematic study by the Ministry as to the deterrent effect of a life sentence relative to the death penalty; and (b) whether the study has been conducted in cases where the reasoning capacity of the perpetrator may have been compromised such as by mental illness or addiction.
In Minister Shanmugan’s reply, he quoted several figures from surveys conducted in 2019 and 2018. Quoting a 2019 survey on the imposition of capital punishment conducted with 2000 residents, about 70% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment as a deterrent against using firearms, committing murder and drug trafficking. Similarly, a survey was conducted in 2018 with non-Singaporeans that frequently travelled to Singapore (and are consequently subjected to obey Singapore’s laws frequently). 76% believed that the death penalty is more effective in discouraging people from committing serious offences as compared to life imprisonment.
Seemingly, most Singaporeans do not oppose the use of capital punishment for serious offences. Singaporeans generally believe in its purpose as a strong deterrent and the notion that people who commit heinous crimes deserve the punishment meted to them, not dissimilar to the idea of retribution or karma. In addition, there is also the belief that there is nothing to fear if one obeys the law and does not commit any crimes. Basically, the death sentence should not concern you if you have done nothing wrong.
However, Singaporeans may not be well-informed on what the death penalty entails and how the judicial system works. In a 2016 survey by the School of Law at Institutional Knowledge (InK) at Singapore Management University, it was found that a significant portion of Singaporeans was unconcerned and uninformed about the death penalty in Singapore.
1500 Singapore citizens were surveyed. When asked about their level of interest or concern in the death penalty in Singapore, about 51% stated that they were not or not very interested or concerned. Similarly, when asked about their level of knowledge, about 62% of the respondents stated that they knew little or nothing about the death penalty in Singapore. This combination of uninterest and ignorance presented yet another conclusion in the study — Singaporeans are not as supportive of the death penalty as some may think. When presented with scenarios that could culminate in a death sentence being issued, the level of support for the decision was not as straightforward.
…There was a much lower support for the death penalty when respondents were faced with scenarios of cases — all of which would have merited the mandatory sentence under the current Singapore law — than the proportion who said they favoured it in the abstract…
…It would therefore be misleading to say, without qualifications, that there is majority support for the death penalty in Singapore.
— How strong is public support for the death penalty in Singapore?
by Wing-Cheong CHAN, Ern Ser TAN, Jack Tsen-Ta LEE and Braema MATHI
These statistics, in a way, allude to a certain sense of nonchalance towards something that does not affect their lives or occupy public discourse among Singaporeans. Yet, with a global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty, it is definitely worth examining the relevance of capital punishment in this island nation and ponder if there is a need to conform to international trends and pressures.
What are considered capital offences?
In other words, what crimes entail the possibility of receiving a death sentence once convicted. Referring to the Penal Code and Acts of Parliament, here are some of the crimes that warrant a death sentence
- Murder
- Drug trafficking
- Kidnapping for ransom or in order to commit murder
- Using or attempting to use firearms
- Abetment of suicide or attempted suicide of minor or person who lacks mental capacity
- Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof
- Waging, attempting to wage or abetting to wage war against the Government
- Giving or fabricating false evidence resulting in the conviction and execution of an innocent person for a capital crime
However, not all of these offences carry mandatory death sentences. A review of the mandatory death penalty for Singapore’s laws was conducted between July 2011 and July 2012. With this review, the death penalty was no longer mandatory for several capital offences and such sentences will be given based on the courts’ discretion. Offences such as murder, drug trafficking and usage of firearms remain largely subjected to mandatory death penalties.
For instance, while trafficking drugs beyond the legal weight threshold remains punishable by the mandatory death sentence, two specific conditions were laid out that allowed courts to decide between the death sentence or life imprisonment with caning
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.
— then-Deputy Prime Minister & Minister of Home Affairs Mr Teo Chee Hean, 9 Jul 2012
Similarly, while murder continues to be dealt with with the mandatory death sentence, courts were also given the discretion to decide between the gallows or life imprisonment depending on the degree of intention and the situation surrounding the crime.
But how are they carried out?
Following conviction and sentencing, the offender will have the option of appealing to the Court of Appeals. If the appeal fails or is not heard, the offender’s final option is to plead for Presidential clemency.
If neither option is successful or if the offender declines to appeal, the execution will proceed as planned. The date and time of the execution will not be made known to the convict. Executions are almost always carried out on a Friday at dawn. The only exception was the execution of Kho Jabing, who had a stay of execution following last-minute appeals until the afternoon of the same day.
Families of inmates on death row will be informed four days prior to the day of execution. This is to allow family members to make funeral arrangements. Duration of family visits for these last few days is extended up to four hours per visit. A final meal, subjected to the prison’s budget, is also prepared based on the inmates’ requests.
According to Section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code, “the sentence must direct that he must be hanged by the neck until he is dead”. In other words, inmates on death row are executed by hanging, using the long drop method. Only doctors and prison officers are allowed to watch the execution. However, priests or religious leaders can be allowed to be present to pray for the inmates upon request.
Verdict: Reasonable?
Based on the “what” and “how” of death sentences in Singapore, one can perhaps conclude the following:
- While the government remains inclined to retain the usage of the death penalty in Singapore, reviews had been conducted to improve the humanity of Singapore laws & the punishments that come with it. This presents a semblance of progress towards a more humane justice system, one that complies with the vision of international human rights organisations, whilst maintaining strict control over the security of the country.
- In general, Singaporeans are not fully aware and concern about the death penalty in Singapore. While surveys may reveal strong support for the death penalty, a deeper analysis reveals that such a conclusion may not necessarily be representative of what Singaporeans feel, especially when detailed context is provided in the form of anecdotes. This nonchalance may also be a result of Singaporeans’ faith in our judicial system.
However, activists will beg to differ.
An inhumane punishment regardless of context
The Singapore government has borne criticisms from numerous human rights organisations over the years with regard to the retention of the death penalty. This includes Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
“Singapore authorities must immediately halt plans to kill these men and put a stop to this recent wave of callous executions”…
…“This cruel and irreversible punishment has no place in any society, as more than two-thirds of the world’s countries have come to recognize.”
— Rachel Chhoa-Howard, Amnesty International’s Singapore Researcher.
The death penalty is an inhumane punishment. To quote Amnesty International, it violates the most fundamental human right — the right to life. Human rights organisations generally have two main arguments against the death penalty.
No turning back
Once the death penalty is carried out, there is no reverse course. In the unfortunate event that the executed was in fact innocent, even if his or her name was cleared, there is no consolation in that. Nothing can neutralise the emotional & psychological trauma experienced by the loved ones of the executed, be it monetary compensation or the conviction of the guilty party.
For example, the United States continues to have people wrongly convicted of crimes that they had not committed. Many studies have been conducted and the percentage ranges between 2–10%. The US continues to be ranked no. 1 for the number of people incarcerated. As of May 2021, the number of people incarcerated per 100,00 people was 639. Hence, putting these figures together paints a chilling image of what the death penalty in the US entails — there is always a non-zero chance of innocent people facing the gallows.
Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, life is a sacred thing — an inalienable right. Even under the worst circumstances or the worst crimes, death seems to be a punishment that is too extreme and unforgiving. Considering that, and the fact that humans and the judicial system are not infallible, a mistake made during the legal process will be too costly.
But is it not a form of deterrence as well?
The argument for the death penalty is that it is a strong deterrence against the worst crimes. The prospect of being arrested, convicted and hanged is deemed to be effective in preventing most would-offenders from committing capital offences. Yet, international human rights organisations claim that there is no strong evidence in showing that the death penalty actually lowers crime rates.
Singapore government’s response
In November 2020, a vote was called in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly for a moratorium on capital punishment. 120 member states voted in favour of the resolution while 39 voted against it. Singapore was one of the 39 member states.
The resolution called for member states to:
- To reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, including by considering removing the mandatory application of the death penalty
- To ensure that the death penalty is not applied on the basis of discriminatory laws or as a result of discriminatory or arbitrary application of the law
- To establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;
among many other clauses.
Instead, Singapore’s delegation introduced an amendment to the resolution which stated the following:
Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations
This was included in the resolution that was eventually passed. Singapore’s belief is that every country has the right to decide how its legal systems are run and hence, no external organisations should interfere in a country’s decision to retain the use of the death penalty. This is a recurring argument that Singapore’s government uses to defend its decision. In a written response by the government to an Amnesty International report in 2004, the government explicitly stated its stand against interference and the need to respect every country’s sovereign right to make its own decisions.
“Singapore does not seek to impose its views on others. We only ask that others do not impose their views on us.”
— The Singapore Government’s Response To Amnesty International’s Report “Singapore — The Death Penalty: A Hidden Toll Of Executions”
In response to claims by international organisations that there is no evidence showing the link between the death penalty and crime rates, Singapore’s government has plenty to show for. In a parliamentary reply by Home Affairs Minister Mr K Shanmugam to MP Assoc Prof Jamus Lim’s question (as mentioned above), he quoted several data that illustrated the fact that Singapore’s crime rate, especially for severe crimes, has fallen as a result of the introduction of the death penalty.
Incidences of firearms robbery were on the rise in the early days of independence. In 1973, the number of firearms robberies had peaked at 174. The number of cases fell over the years, from 106 in 1974 to a range between 3–18 in the 1980s. Between 2007 and 2019, there were 0 reported cases of firearms robbery. Mr Shanmugam attributes this trend to the introduction of the Arms Offences Act which included the death penalty for arms-related offences in 1973.
Similar trends can also be observed for drug trafficking and kidnapping cases in Singapore, according to the minister.
What should the sentence be?
The issue is controversial and uncontroversial at the same time.
It threads through issues of human rights, which should be guaranteed regardless of the crimes someone commits, but it is also a domestic decision and issue. If international organisations are committed to international laws and norms, then respect for a country’s sovereign right to make its own decisions should be accorded. International organisations like Amnesty or Human Rights Watch can write reports and condemn the actions of Singapore’s government, but seeking to influence a government’s policy-making process may seem repulsive.
On the other hand, Singaporean’s lack of concern and knowledge surrounding the death penalty makes it uncontroversial in a way. If the previous point were to be adhered to, one might expect that the next step is for local activists to rise up and demand changes. Yet, even with these voices, the conversation has rarely, or never, been picked up by other Singaporeans. Unlike issues such as race relations or LGBT rights, the death penalty seems like an issue that might not necessarily have an impact on the social fabric of the nation.
Both sides of the argument are sound in their own right. While the risks of the death penalty are too great while benefits are questionable, Singapore’s government has proven the converse. Similarly, while Singapore’s government remains deeply rooted in its role in protecting its people, human rights organisations will continue to denounce the death penalty as inhumane and barbaric. There seems to always be a rebuttal for every point made.
Evidently, there is no catalyst for a major shift in policy in the country. External push can be ignored while internal push is lacking. The government has no interest in banning the death penalty, and that will be something to watch as countries around the world continue to move towards abolishment.
