You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168
You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168

Talk:Capital punishment in Singapore

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lee Kuan Yew[edit source | edit]

I have removed from the article:

"Interestingly, Singapore's ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, despite being a staunch advocate of capital punishment, stated in the second volume of his memoirs that having been raised by a violent father, he could not stomache the thought of using the cane on his own children and found that a stern verbal rebuke was usually sufficient."

I wonder why this is a) "interesting" and b) relevant to the article on capital punishment. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I was shocked to think that this happened today to Van. I don't see what contribution this made to humanity or to being civilised.

I think the section removed above is both very interesting and very relevant. He does not condone corporal punishment in the home (or possibly school), and yet condones death by hanging. His views are those of a man who shaped Singapore's political stance on the right of a Government to kill, the ultimate in intimidation and violence, and to do this at the hightest rate per population than any other country. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garrison Roo (talk • contribs) .

Most countries in South East Asia and East Asia have capital punishment for drug trafficking which has wide public acceptance, due to the harmful social effect of drug abuse and proximity to Golden Triangle. This context is more relevant in understanding the laws and politics than how Lee Kuan Yew disciplined his children. --Vsion 04:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I dont see whats so shocking about his plight. He, as well as everyone else, knows what will happen to him should he be caught for drug trafficking anyway, so whats news? This aside, I similarly wonder what a political leader's personal views on how he brings up children can have on a nation's policies. He may be a highly influencial politician in Singapore, but he alone does not determine every policy or law.--Huaiwei 04:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

To 165.118.9.17 (Talk | Contributions): please stop reverting to the version with the above removed text, unless you can propose another reason for its retention on this page. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 05:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel the removed text is very relevent and speaks for itself, as has been noted above. I am interested to know why you feel it is necessary to delete it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.118.9.17 (talk • contribs) .

You have not noted replies by Huaiwei and Vsion, viz: Singapore has had capital punishment for a long time, even before LKY. And that one politician does not single-handedly decide policies in a country, not in SG at least. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 05:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

An anecdote that might be appropriate to this discussion. According to a History Channel documentary on English hangmen, one of them (can't remember exactly who now) couldn't kill chickens to eat, but could send people to the deaths on the gallows. Evil Monkey - Hello 05:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

(Response to 165.118.9.17, with edit conflict) I find it paradoxical that you think it is paradoxical with the way LKY discipline his children. The law is suppose to protect the weaker ones in society. The heavy punishment for drug trafficking serve to the protect potential drug addicts who are mostly minors and may make the misguided decisions to take drugs. Adult drug traffickers, on the other hand, are fully aware of the societal harms of their action and the harsh punishment they would face if caught. They, as adults, are responsible for their action. On this note, Lee's behavior is consistent. We may oppose capital punishment in principles, but please don't compare Van to a kid. --Vsion 06:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your responses. I see that my entry has resulted in some passionate response to this issue, as would be expected. Firstly, I did not suggest that Singapore has not had capital punishment for a long time; indeed, I acknowledged that it was originally introduced by the British.

Also, as a health care professional I can assure you I am well aware of the harm that illegal drugs cause to the world’s society. Neither did I specifically state that one politician is responsible for single-handedly deciding policy in Singapore. However, Lee Kuan Yew has, and still does, wield considerable authority and power in the Singapore government, and his opinions therefore carry an enormous influence on policy decision making. He is on record as supporting the use of capital punishment.

With all due respect, I still believe that it is hypocritical for Mr Lee to advocate the use of capital punishment and the rottan, whilst admitting that he could not bring himself to cane his own children.

To those who advocate the death penalty ( and I wish to point out that I am still personally undecided on the issue), think carefully about how you would feel if it were your own child going to the gallows.

P Kitchen Perth, Western Australia The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.118.9.17 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm... methinks this is not the place to divide ourselves over our opinions on the death penalty.
Even if the removed statement is true, I still would not consider it noteworthy to be included in the article — it is still just a statement on one politician, after all. And the article is not about him proper. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 08:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you are right. It is perhaps out of context. I did not intend to cause any offence. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

Sincerely PK The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.118.9.17 (talk • contribs) .

Offense of not, you views reflect a common perception that Lee views somehow have extensive influence on Singaporean policies to the point that it is supposedly a reflection of himself. I would like to stress for the record, that there has been countless cases in which things didnt go the way he would have liked. Younger ministers do handle issues with or without his blessings. Irregardless of how the press likes to put it, Singapore is not an extreme example of North Korea.
Meanwhile, you state "he is on record as supporting the use of capital punishment.". I would like examples to demonstrate this. Also, do you have evidence to show his view is not reflective of general opinions in Singapore?--Huaiwei 12:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The worst thing is that in the case of Nguyen, Singapore authorities do not believe in rehabilitation, but only vengeance and in Mr. Lee's case, it is extremely hypocritical would do something to another man's child which he would not do to his own. God Bless Nguyen's family.--69.231.237.71 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not about vengeance, deterence is the main reason behind the harsh punishment. If you don't get the reason correct, you are just torturing yourself mentally. Wonder why 47% of Austrialians support the execution? For your own sake, even if you oppose the dealth penalty, please try to understand the situation. --Vsion 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Singapore shows hardly any mercy for drug traffickers, that is true. But to equate that to the general impression that Singapore does not believe in rehabilitation, and to say it is hypocritical in relation to how Lee deals with his children is at best a clumsy pairing exercise. Lee is not responsible for every case which ends with a death sentence here, you think far too highly of him.--Huaiwei 07:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore's decision in regard to this case is certainly understandable, given it's well publicised laws on drug trafficking; the question is, is it morally right? I think we could be arguing for eternity on the pros and cons regarding this issue. Lee has stated in his own memoirs his support for capital punishment. As for evidence regarding the views of the Singapore population regarding this issue, I have none. However, even if they were opposed to the decision, i find it highly unlikely it would have influenced the Sg govt. to change it's mind. On that point, Lee has also expressed in his memoirs his low opinion of public opinion polls, and I again I would find it unlikely that the current PM would hold a different view.

PK West Aust.

Debate on this issue has spilled over to the Hanging page, with a non-NPOV section added on Singapore.155.69.5.235 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

execution procedure[edit source | edit]

Some sources claim it would be allowed for the condemned to wear their own clothes when they are led to the gallows except of foot gear so that the doomed men and women have to hang with bare (or stockinged?) feet. Is this true fact? If yes, what is the reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.200.34.50 (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Law Society review[edit source | edit]

The Law Society of Singapore has set up a committee to review death penalty in Singapore [1]. Is this a significant development? I only have access to the online news reports, so I wonder if your guys have any comment or special insight on this. --Vsion 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that it should be mentioned in the article. The review might not change anything, but if for nothing else, it does show that they at least study the alternatives. Bjelleklang - talk 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?[edit source | edit]

I don't think that this article has a very neutral view on capital punishment in Singapore.

Many people think that execution is disgusting and post that on the article but isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a weblog for you to post your views? Plus, why target Singapore? If execution is so horrible, go to the execution page.

Lee Kuan Yew has nothing to do with this. How does a leader's method in raising his children relate to capital punishment of people that are over 18 (and not pregnant) and have committed serious crimes? Maybe to others drug dealing doesn't affect you but the Singaporean government probably thinks differently.

Sure, it is really harsh to take one's life, but is it nesscesary to critisize LKY or SG? Wikipedia's here to give facts, not rally on human rights. This just isn't the right place.

--Deon 13:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe to others drug dealing doesn't affect you but the Singaporean government probably thinks differently. So life is definitely cheap in Singapore, isn't it?--203.218.46.202 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly a lack of neutrality. There should be information on why the death penalty has not be abolished, whether the death penalty has served its purpose etc. Both sides of the story should be presented. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.
Perhaps as a veteran Wikipedian and a fine, legally trained mind, you could make a positive contribution, Chensiyuan, by providing a bit of balance and sourcing some of the "pro" points of view? Alice 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I make plenty of positive contributions to WP. I have thousands of pages on my watchlist that I have to look after, and many other featured articles to write. Since you're a noob, it should be said that the onus is not on me to remedy defects. When I do have the opportunity however I would swing by again. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes Chen's not going to fix everything he sees or he'll be dead exhausted by now. He's just calling a spade a spade and from what I can see in this article it is not a balanced representation of the state of affairs. Manderiko (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that {{topheavy}} more accurately reflects the problem Chensiyuan and others have with the article than {{NPOV}}. The problem with covering the pro side of the argument is that there is not much available that is specific to Singapore. The government does not comment on it, nor does there appear to be much public opinion available. Evil Monkey - Hello 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
True, though I wouldn't characterise it purely as lacking "pro" arguments. Cheers. Chensiyuan (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim "Singapore has one of the lowest prevalence of drug abuse worldwide. Over two decades, the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds, from over 6,000 in the early 1990s to about 2,000 in 2011.[17]" cites a pro-death penalty Singaporean blogger who does not back up the assertion with citations to any official figures. If the claim is to be made, it should be to these rather than this unauthortiative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.172.84 (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC) I've added a couple of countervailing opinions on this to balance the claim.

judicial system's role[edit source | edit]

Regarding this sentence in the article:

After conviction and sentencing, the sentenced has one appeal to the Court of Appeal of Singapore, after which, the judicial system plays no further part.

I'm wondering, can't the Chief Justice issue a stay of execution at the last minute? Court of Appeal can always reverse its earlier judgment, right? This probably never happened before, but "plays no further part" implies that judicial system could not intervene even if it wants to. Can someone clarify? Perhaps a similar question is: Besides the President, who else can issue a stay in execution? --Vsion (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the answer; perhaps "after which, the judicial system plays no further part" can be removed... otherwise it is a positive assertion that is not completely founded. Chensiyuan (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The government's view[edit source | edit]

Found some links which I might incorp later:

  • http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1519531.htm
  • http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8062
  • "Certain of us may hold the view that the death penalty should be abolished. But in a survey done two years ago, reported in the Straits Times, 95% of Singaporeans feel that the death penalty should stay. This is something which has helped us to be safe and secure all these years and it is only reserved for a very few select offences." -- Ho Peng Kee, 11th Parliament, Session 1, Vol. 83, 23/10/07.
  • "There is no international consensus on abolition of the death penalty. Key international instruments that apply to countries with wide divergences in cultures and values do not proscribe the use of the death penalty in their texts. For example, even the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that the death sentence “may be imposed only for the most serious crimes”. On the two occasions, in 1999 and 1994, that the European Union attempted to get the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution that called for a moratorium on the death penalty with the view towards its abolition, these attempts failed. This was because a large majority of UN member states disapproved of the EU’s attempt to impose their views and systems on the rest of the world. AI refers to the resolutions adopted in the UN Commission on Human Rights that encourage states to stop executions. However, AI failed to say that on at least seven occasions, a significant number of countries disassociated themselves from those resolutions. In 2003, 63 countries, or one-third of the UN’s membership, disassociated themselves.
AI accuses Singapore of “running counter to the worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty”. But whether a country should retain or abolish capital punishment is a question for each country to decide, taking into account its own circumstances. Every country has the sovereign right to decide on its own judicial system. We do not live in a homogeneous world. Within certain universally agreed broad parameters, international norms call for the respect of differences of views and beliefs. Singapore does not seek to impose its views on others. We only ask that others do not impose their views on us.
Singapore weighs the right to life of the convicted against the rights of victims and the right of the community to live in peace and security. Taking into account our national circumstances, we have made a considered decision to retain the death penalty. It has worked for us, making Singapore one of the safest places in the world to live and work in.
Singapore recognises that the death penalty is a severe penalty and cannot be remedied in the event of any mistake in its application. That is why we use it only for very serious crimes. In its efforts to campaign and press its agenda against the death penalty in Singapore, AI has deliberately misrepresented or distorted the facts concerning the death penalty in Singapore. We cite only the following two examples “Majority of those executed are foreigners”: AI’s allegation that the total percentage of foreign nationals executed in recent years ‘is very high’, and that out of 174 executions recorded by Amnesty International from press reports between 1993 and 2003, ‘the number of foreigners is more than half ’. This is completely false. Singaporeans, and not foreigners, were the majority of those executed “Is mostly the poor, least educated, and vulnerable people who are executed”: AI also alleges that the death penalty has been disproportionately imposed on the poorest, least educated and most vulnerable members of society. This is also not true. Of those executed from 1993 to 2003, 95% were above 21 years of age, and 80% had received formal education. About 80% of those who had been sentenced to capital punishment had employment before their convictions" -- MHA response to AI "Hidden Toll" report, 30 Jan 2004, excerpted from Simon Tay, "Singapore: Review of Major Policy Statements", 2004 8 SYBIL 219 at 233-234. Chensiyuan (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
All excellent stuff for balance! Thanks for making a positive contribution! Alice 08:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yw, although I can't promise to effect the changes ASAP... incrementally maybe lol. Chensiyuan (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent job, improved the article substantially. --Vsion (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw[edit source | edit]

Footnotes are way too long atm. It doesn't make sense to have footnotes > body text. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also it is copyright violation the way those texts are copied into the article. Fair use is valid only if reviewing or making criticism on these texts or sources, which is not the case here. If the materials are available online, we don't really need to reproduce the exact quotes over here.--Vsion (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cya[edit source | edit]

Ok I've tried to balance things a little (by incorporating the refs I listed above) and I won't keep this page on my watchlist any longer. That also means I won't swing by again for a long time (can't stay too long in some places in WP). To all those interested in making this a better page, all I can say is:

  • Report the facts -- if it is an allegation, opinion or rumour, that should be stated categorically.
  • Do not push a POV, subtly or otherwise. There's a place for hammering home that liberal or conservative streak and WP isn't the place for this. An issue that can polarise the world so greatly often means both camps are right and wrong in some ways. While that does not preclude the existence of an objective truth, as far as WP is concerned, verifiability, not truth. But again, balance, not POV.
  • If you're not Singaporean, it's best to learn the real situation from people who've been here or better still, people who live here. A healthy sample size is recommended lol.
  • If you're Singaporean, hand on your heart and count your blessings. Our criminal justice system deserves a fair portrayal in what is an encyclopedia, no less. So long. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Would just like to thank you. Your {{NPOV}} tag and {{cite}}s have caused a flurry of edits that I think have improved the article. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The annual rate for executions per 100,000 that the article gives for the period from 1994-1999 (13.83/100,000) apparently should be that rate per million, or 1.383/100,000. Even at that, the legal execution rate per capita for the general population of Singapore during that period was at least as high as the MURDER rate in most Western European countries and many U. S. states during that period. Simply amazing. 107.133.158.129 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate reading of the law?[edit source | edit]

I've looked at schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs act and I can't find where it says that traffiking in more than 30 grams of morphine will lead to the death penalty? The Act specifically says that it must be 30 grams of morphine MIXED with another controlled drug. The only way morphine on its own can attract death is if you're manufacturing it, and then it's any amount of morphine, not 30 grams. Am I reading it right?

Also, s 132 of the Penal code makes clear that mutiny in general won't be punishable with death. It's specifically "abetment of mutiny if mutiny is the consequence thereof". I can't see where mutiny in general leads to death? Mookrit (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines[edit source | edit]

Singapore Airlines announces, and I quote, "There are severe penalties for the carriage of drugs and other prohibited items into Singapore." The death penalty is not explicitly mentioned. Jpatokal (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory Death Penalty[edit source | edit]

it's a little of my personal beef specifically against MANDATORY death penalty - but whether i hate this idea or not, shouldn't an article on Capital Punishment in Singapore include mentions of how it is often Mandatory and closed to mitigation? the fact - if i'm not mistaken - is that no judge can consider mitigating the death penalty for Mandatory death sentences; even if there are strong mitigating circumstances, such as coercion or insanity. the only recourse in such cases is the precious amnesty of the president - which IS noted in the article. Alveolate (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit source | edit]

I can't be bothered to continue with trying to sort out the edits by two ISP's of 20-29 June, but someone should check them out carefully. In both cases the previous text was not ideal, but is now probably worse in the other direction. One of them is astonishingly bad-tempered, and has a remarkable grip on WP vocabulary for an ISP apparently only editing for 10 days. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit source | edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capital punishment in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit source | edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capital punishment in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit source | edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Capital punishment in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit source | edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capital punishment in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit source | edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capital punishment in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)