Andrew doggie Low shoot Worker's Party (again)!!!!!

Singapore's mandatory death penalty for capital crimes is well known. Increasingly, however, critics of the law have been more vocal in recent years. Awareness of the death penalty has grown, albeit rather slowly, among Singaporeans as campaigners against this particular law continue to seek its abolition.

Many Singaporeans, however, still do not or cannot make the distinction between the idea of the death penalty (DP) and that of the mandatory death penalty (MDP) in capital cases. The MDP provides that anyone who is found guilty of a capital crime must be sentenced to death.
Judges have no discretionary powers to mete out any other sentence.
For example, if one is found guilty of trafficking above the statutory threshold of a certain prohibited drug, the sentence is automatic death. That is the only and compulsory sentence the trial judge can and must mete out.

While some have called for the total abolition of the death penalty itself, others want the process by which the mandatory death penalty is exercised to be tightened or improved to prevent mistakes being made. This, they say, is important because in cases of death sentences, once a person is put to death, it is irreversible. Thus, all preventive measures must be taken before anyone is prescribed the ultimate punishment.

Perhaps it is this argument which will find more acceptability among the general public which seems to support the death penalty but may not necessarily support the mandatory death penalty.
The Singapore government, however, also seems to not want to change the law, despite calls for it to do so from many quarters, including the country's own Law Society, academics, activists (both local and international) and opposition parties such as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the Workers' Party (WP).

The WP, for example, has been calling for the system to be improved and indeed had called for mandatory sentences to be removed. It made the call in its election manifestos of 2006 and 2011. The party says mandatory sentences "take away the discretion of the judge to adjust a sentence to suit the individual case circumstances."

"Under the current system of mandatory sentences," the party said in 2006, "the real power to determine the offender's sentence shifts from the Courts to the prosecution who will decide which charge to proceed on to produce the appropriate sentence. This encourages plea-bargaining which makes justice less transparent as the exercise of prosecutorial discretion cannot be reviewed or appealed against." It repeated the call in its 2011 manifesto too.

The party also suggested that for capital cases, "the trial should be conducted by a tribunal of two judges whose decision to impose the death sentence must be unanimous. On appeal, the death sentence should be upheld only if it is confirmed unanimously by all three judges in the Court of Appeal."

These are not unreasonable or unrealistic propositions. Indeed, short of abolishing capital punishment itself, allowing judges discretionary powers is what ought to be done.
Activists and supporters of such changes to the law would hope that the WP, coming off a somewhat victorious general election in 2011, would pursue these suggestions in Parliament and see if the government will not consider them.

If nothing else, perhaps tabling these suggestions for debate in Parliament may bring the issue into the public sphere for a broader discussion, and create awareness of the matter. Singaporeans then may have a chance, finally, to engage in a deeper understanding of what the MDP entails, and its failings and dangers which were most profoundly highlighted in several cases so far.
Back in 1989, Zainal Kuning was accused and found guilty of the murder of a coffeeshop caretaker and subsequently sentenced to death. It was only by a stroke of pure luck that he was later found not guilty, even though he had already signed a confession to having committed the murder. He was only exonerated after a fellow inmate heard another inmate admitting to the crime.

And then there were the more recent cases of Ismil Kadar and Azman Sanwan.
Kadar, like Kuning before him, had confessed to the murder of Madam Tham Weng Kuen, 69, in her Boon Lay flat in 2005, and was sentenced to death. It was only in 2011 that his sentence was overturned by the courts which cited 'serious lapses' by police and prosecutors who handled the case. Kadar had been on death row awaiting death for 6 years.

Sanwan was convicted of trafficking in more than 1.5kg of cannabis, more than the statutory limit which would trigger the mandatory death sentence, in 2010 and sentenced to death. He was eventually acquitted by the Court of Appeal after it found that "key evidence against him was flawed."

Some have defended the system by saying that these cases show that the system is self-regulating, that it can and has detected flaws and failings. Otherwise, these three would have been executed.

But that is a lame argument, really. Take for example, the case of Kuning. His exoneration came about not because of any initial proactive investigations by the authorities. Instead, it was by pure chance that he came to know of the person who admitted to the crime, while both of them were in prison!

As for Kadar, it was through the sheer perseverance of his legal aid lawyer, who unstintingly believed in his innocence and stayed the course. The appeal judge said Kadar's "confessions were obtained 'in troubling circumstances' which appeared to be deliberate breaches in procedures rather than mere carelessness."

How many lawyers in Singapore would spend such an amount of time — six years — fighting a case for inmates on death row, even if they believed in their innocence?

Sanwan's conviction and eventual release is an important one to observe as Singapore executes many drug traffickers. The provisions under the Misuse of Drugs Act have raised serious questions of whether they are appropriate and fair.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to how much value we place in human life. It is not a popular position to take. Some dismiss such considerations for convicted criminals and believe that they should be dealt with as harshly as the law allows, even if it is to put these criminals to death.
Be that as it may, as a society which prides itself on being first world and having a legal and judicial system which it constantly boasts about, it is indeed time to do some soul searching and see if we cannot, at least, improve and tighten the process by which we take the lives of those we consider to have harmed or could potentially harm society.

When asked if the WP has changed its position as laid out in its latest manifesto about capital punishment, party chairman Sylvia Lim said the party's position remains the same.
It may not be a vote-winning issue to highlight, especially in this time when "more serious" concerns occupy the public consciousness.

However, with news reporting that "26 drug syndicates [are] busted every year" from 2000 to 2011, there is a real potential that many more may be put to death if the cases of trafficking grow.
One might therefore argue that it not a "less serious" matter than any other.

The WP did not indicate when it would pursue this issue, when asked. Lim only said that it will be made known if and when the party chooses to do so.

Andrew helms Doggie House as Chief Bitch. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011. He is also a paid by the People's Action Party.

Click to expand...

The Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is perhaps the ministry which gets the most flak. The reason is simple: it is at the frontline of providing aid to the needy. And any failings in doing this attract criticisms – some of which can be stinging.

MCYS looks after the most vulnerable groups in our society – the elderly, the poor, the sick, special children, the homeless, the unemployed, the abused, single mothers, disabled, the mentally ill, etc. And to do all these with a shortage of manpower. It is quite an unenviable task, especially given how in recent years, our society has fractured and has left some of our most needy folks behind.

I was a critic of the former MCYS Minister, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, and I still stand by my criticisms of him. Which is why I am glad that we now have a new minister in the ministry, and a new Minister of State in Halimah Yacob as well. The two of them this past year, have done very good work. I am aware of the criticisms of the minister, Chan Chun Sing. In particular, the “kee chiu” incident just before the General Election last year. But to keep bringing that up, and paint him as some sort of an “idiot”, would be rather unfair.

What is more important is the work that is done to help the needy, a group of people which we are concerned about.

In this past year, since assuming office, the two MCYS ministers have done, in my opinion, very good work indeed. If you have followed the new schemes, programmes and policies which have been introduced, you might feel the same as well. It is not that I am praising them just for the sake of it – but really, look at the work done. (Halimah Yacob, for example, was instrumental in getting the Government to introduce a mandatory day off for domestic workers, an issue which NGOs have fought for for several years. Halimah has also drawn praises from Ms Bridget Tan, especially. Bridget is the president and founder of HOME, an NGO which works with migrant workers.)

But most of the time, we may feel detached from what the needy requires, unless and until we experience it ourselves, or a loved one experiences it.

Earlier in March, the Ministry for National Development announced that it “is introducing a new scheme to implement elderly-friendly improvements to Housing and Development Board (HDB) homes.” Some of these improvements include slip-resistant floors and grab bars.

I’ve always known that grab bars, for example, are important for the elderly. In visiting some of these folks, it was quite evident that getting out of the bathroom, for example, is quite a task for them. Thus, grab bars are a simple but helpful inclusion in the home.

It became clearer to me when my 75-year old mom fell in the bathroom a couple of days ago, fractured her hips, and had to have surgery done to repair the injury. While her fall was not due entirely to slippery surfaces, it made me realise that she could fall in future due to wet floors, for example. Thus, it would be good if grab bars could be installed.

At times, it is the small, practical things which help the most – and which we miss.

It was thus with gladness that I read about the MND providing these enhancements. Also, MCYS is looking to install motion sensors in the homes of elderly folks. These will monitor and alert caregivers if the elderly person should slip and fall. This is especially important given that many elderly folks live alone. My mom fell while no one was at home. It was fortunate that she had brought her cell phone with her to the bathroom (a habit she has whenever no one is home). I shudder to think what could have happened if she had not, and was unable to move and call my sister. We had to wait about 30 mins for my sister to return with the keys in order to open the main door before we could reach her. Now we’re wiser – we’ll have another set of keys left with one of us who live nearer to mom. Sometimes, we do not expect the unexpected and we learn from it when it happens.

One of the things which I appreciate MCYS doing is getting right to the heart of matters, even to the practical, everyday challenges which the needy face. One of these is the delivery system for aid.

Many a time, we complain that it is no good having all these help schemes if no one knows about them, or if they’re so confusing that no one bothers to apply for them. I was thus glad that MCYS recognised this – it was among the first issues which both MCYS ministers highlighted in their first public statements after their appointments last year. MCYS has since announced several changes to make help more accessible to the needy:

1. Setting up 10 more Family Service Centres around the island. This will make help more easily and conveniently available to those who need it.

2. Enforce the “no-wrong-door” policy where anyone looking for help will not be turned away or re-directed to other departments. In short, no runaround.

3. Step-down healthcare centres will provide more services so that the needy will not have to go to different places to seek different needs.

4. Social workers will be trained to provide more comprehensive assessment of the needy so that help is rendered in a more comprehensive and holistic way.

I feel all these are really good initiatives and I applaud the ministry for these.

Certainly, there are many more challenges which will need to be addressed, and new ones will be thrown up as our population ages, and society’s expectations rise. MCYS, thus, has its work cut out for it. The Enabling Masterplan 2012-2016 addresses some of these.

Having interacted with the needy on the ground, in homes and in the flats, and even in areas where the homeless live, I understand the challenges and I also understand that rendering help can be a very complex matter.

In the meantime, I am glad that the two new MCYS ministers have identified the concerns, and have done much to address these.

While we expect the Government to provide help, we should also keep in mind that addressing the needs of such a wide range of people, each with different needs, is a tedious and huge task. By no means is it simple. Anyone who has ever tried to help the needy will tell you that it requires time, effort, dedication and even sacrifices to do so.

But with our society being increasingly stratified between the haves and haves-not, it is important that we all, each of us, do what we can to lend a hand. How our society turns out does not solely depend on the Government alone

Click to expand...