Solidarity Vigil – No To Death Penalty Draws Crowd of 130
Solidarity Vigil – No To Death Penalty which took place in Hotel Asia on 7 November attracted approximately 130 people. The forum which started at 7pm and lasted for two and a half hours touched on the various perspectives and issues concerning the death penalty in Singapore.
The first speaker, Alex Au, gay activist and social commentator, spoke about the lack of conclusive evidence on the relationship between death penalty and deterrence. He added that some pro-death penalty Singaporeans reactions’ towards death penalty criticisms leaned towards illogical petty nationalism – the argument that Singapore is unique and that we do not need outsiders to tell us what we should do.
Mr J.B Jeyeratnam, veteran lawyer and Opposition politician, focused on the trial and investigation process in Singapore. He raised the question of the timeframe given to a defendant before given access to legal counsel; as well as the situation in which police statements are being made. He suggested the possibility of returning to jury trials which will make citizens responsible administrators to the justice system.
Opposition Politician and Secretary General of Singapore Democratic Party, Dr Chee Soon Juan, took over the stage by questioning the PAP government’s involvement with the Burmese military drug lords. He urged the local media to investigate stories on the Government Investment Corporation’s (GIC) investments on these Burmese businesses. He ended his speech by motivating the participants to confront their fears, network and build solidarity in the anti-death penalty movement.
Human rights Lawyer, M Ravi, took to the stage and criticized the Singapore and Australia government for serious miscarriage of justice done to Ngyuen under the constitution of both countries. He highlighted the conflict of interest inherent in the plea for clemency system since the President acts on the advice of the attorney general, the prosecutor. He also urged the Howard government to lodge a complaint to the International Court of Justice against the Singapore Judiciary. The results of the International court has a binding effect on Singapore since it is a signatory to the Declaration of Human Rights.
Anthony Yeo, Clinical Director of Counselling and Care Centre, talked about the harrowing effects it has on close families of those sentenced to death while Brother Michael Broughton, a member of the Council of Interreligious organization provided an insight on how the catholic church is still reluctant on speaking out against the death penalty.
The last speaker is Madam Letchumi Murugesu, Mother of Shanmugam. She broke down in the middle of her speech as she related her personal story of the execution of her son, in which a similar forum had been held this year to campaign against his death sentence.
After a robust question and answer section, the forum ended with the Reach Out Campaign and a one minute silence vigil.
Reach Out Campaign encourages its supporters to write words of blessings and encouragement with a tracing of their hand on a piece of paper. They can deliver it directly to Ngyuen by faxing to: Condemned Prisoner C856 Nguyen Tuong Van, Fax: 65469208 or mailing to: Condemned Prisoner C856 Nguyen Tuong Van, Cluster Registry, Changi Prison, 982 Upper Changi Road, Singapore 507709. You can also show your support by signing an online petition at www.stophanging.com
Other related links:
Think Centre – Solidarity Vigil: No to Death Penalty
Yawning Bread – Stop Hanging People - Arguments Against the Death Penalty
Charles Tan, Channel News Asia - Shouldn’t jury trials make for a comeback – Arguments for a jury system
M Ravi, published in SDP website - Lawyer Calls for Campaign to Stop Execution of Australian
Jacob George's blog, Omeka Na Huria, which is closely tracking developments concerning the appeal for Van's life
Network Against Prohibition (Australia)
Amnesty International Australia
This is one of those rare instances when ST publish a reader's view that questioned the views of our leaders...
=========
Letters from an ST reader to the Forum
Press- Freedom ranking: Why need for concern
Leong Chee Tung
Straits Times 6 November 2005
Finally, Singapore has done atrociously in an international ranking – coming in 140th out of 167 countries in a press-freedom index constructed by media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, , behind such bastions of freedom as Russia (138th), Sudan (133rd) and Afghanistan (125th).
More interesting is the official response: Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong downplays the significance and methodology of the survey, while highlighting other survey in which Singapore has done well (“SM to media: Use freedom responsibly”; ST, Nov 1).
He notes that the index is only a subjective measure, “computed through the prism of Western liberals”, while implicitly acknowledging that indices like the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic freedom is based on hard, solid facts.
However, such “hard” indices are also constructed through the filter of the liberal Western “prism” : some value judgements have to be used in deciding the criteria for the 10 broad factors of economic freedom in the Heritage Foundation’s index, for example.
Each index should be regarded in its own right, and even though the factors taken into consideration for the press-freedom index may be considered subjective and arbitary, it still stands that Singapore, judged on the same bases as neighbouring countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, fell far short of even the regional standard.
Slightly more disturbing is SM’s remark: “It has not been proven that having more press freedom would result in a clean and efficient government or economic freedom and prosperity.”
Underlying this statement is the assumption that, first, Singapore values an uncorrupt government and its wealth more than freedom of the press; and second, that having a freer press might infringe on the efficiency of the government or the economy.
While the government is free to choose its own “core values” for Singapore, this choice might also be questioned. Part of the responsibility of a free press is to act as a check and balance to the incumbent government, especially in the absence of a strong opposition. Just because the benefits of having a free press are intangible does not mean that they are non-existent.
And perhaps, like courtesy and racial tolerance, freedom of the press may be valuable as an end in itself, even while they can be useful to society.
Perhaps it is time to rethink the tired old official party line of OB markers and social expediency as a rationale for ignoring the non-economic aspects of development.
