7th Commentary - Capital Punishment

This commentary is on the article "96% of S'poreans back the death penalty" and other related articles, dated 12th February, 2006.

There has been much debate over the issue of capital punishment; whether it should be abolished or not. This issue was highlighted over the issue of the hanging of the Australian drug courier. Australia has abolished the capital punishment, and the Australian government had tried to stop the Singaporean government from hanging their citizen. However, as we all know, the sentence was not overturned, and the man was hanged.

People who reject capital punishment usually bring up two main points of contention against the death penalty - life should not be used as a tool of punishment, and that innocents could get killed by accident.

About the first point. Life, as we know, is precious, and should not be wasted. To end someone's life as a form of punishment would seem to be very harsh. However, as the death penalty is only mandatory for the most horrible of crimes, and the maximum sentence for several other severe crimes, it would mean that the criminal who is being sentenced to death would have committed a crime that was very serious.

The existence of the death penalty would thus be a deterrent to others; people would now think twice before committing such crimes again. This is the view shared by many Singaporeans, as shown in the article.

the death penalty could also be a form of solace for the families of the victims of crimes such as murder, as the ending of the murderer's life may help to lessen the grief over the death of the victim.

On the second main point raised, I believe that in our local context, the police force and other related agencies are competent enough to do a thorough investigation of the cases before coming to a conclusion. The courts of Singapore are also very efficient and precise in their judgment. This is even more true when it comes to cases involving capital punishment - the courts know that their decision could be a difference between life and death for the person. I believe that they would also have thought of the risk of mistakes. Furthermore, Singapore is known to have very little corruption - this means that it is quite unlikely that the jury or other involved parties would accept bribes. Thus the risk of killing an innocent by the death penalty is greatly reduced , at least for Singapore. However, we must still admit that the possibility, although very remote, is still there.

My opinion on this issue is that the death penalty should remain, but there should be even more additional precautions to reduce the already-tiny possibility of killing an innocent by mistake. However, I do feel that the death penalty should be used as little as possible, as this is one punishment that is utterly irreversible.

Other than the debate over the existence of the death penalty, the types of crimes punishable by death is another area of discussion. Currently, crimes like murder and the smuggling of large quantities of drugs are punishable by death. Now, many people want to add new crimes to the list, most probably in light of recent situations. The planning and the carrying out of terrorist attacks are probably the two most prominent ones. These crimes are indeed horrible, as they involve the possibility of the mass killing of a large number of innocent people. In my opinion, these crimes are just like murder, just amplified by many times, and thus should rightly have a mandatory death sentence.

However, it must be noted that the death penalty may also not be a useful deterrent against terrorists, as some of them would want to die t become matyrs. In this case, a life sentence may be more appropriate.

In my opinion, the death penalty should be implemented as the maximum sentence for terrorists, thus allowing the possibility of other actions.

On the point of abolishing the death penalty, it is my opinion that it should not be abolished, unless over 60% of Singaporeans wish it to be so. We do not need to follow the example of others in this; As a sovereign state, Singapore should chose what is felt to be right for the people, not comply to everything others say. Of course, we must never totally ignore external factors either.

In conclusion, I would support the death penalty as well, but I also want to see it used justifiably, and not for any minor issue.

6th Commentary - Freedom of Speech?

The question posed to us is, “How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?”

My overall view in this is that freedom of speech would allow many things, but within a responsible limit. Things that could cause hatred between people should not be allowed, even under the freedom of speech.

First, I shall make reference to the recent controversy over the publications of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

To me, I feel that it is the right of newspapers to express freedom of speech, and print whatever they may wish to, but they also need to remember that they need to be responsible for whatever they publish, and any of the problems that may arise. As with the case of the controversial cartoons, the newspaper had the right to publish what they wanted. They however, did not seem to realize the furore that such publications could cause. What they did could also have affected the arguments for religious freedom.

As it is widely known that the Muslims frown upon any depictions of the Prophet, the newspaper already committed a grave oversight. However, that was not the only problem – Several of the cartoons actually showed the Prophet as a terrorist. This would of course offend the Muslims very greatly. Protests would definitely be expected. But as we know, word of the cartoons was spread around the globe by a group of Danish imams, causing widespread chaos and even violent protests in certain countries. Other European newspapers then republished the cartoons to show solidarity behind the original paper, and to support the freedom of speech. This would be an even grater mistake. Relations between the West and the Muslim world have become very tense because of these events, and they show how the mere printing of a set of cartoons can cause global unrest and tensions between groups of people.

Next, on a more local context, there have recently been the cases of racist bloggers being jailed.

Similarly to the issue of the controversial cartoons, the remarks are offending to others. These postings cannot be tolerated, as they could harm the peaceful coexistence of the races in Singapore. In some contexts, the remarks could be seen as inciting hatred. Thus, the bloggers had to be taught to respect the other races.

From these two cases, one can see that freedom of speech does not really allow a person to say of publish anything he or she wants. The limit to the freedom speech is the responsibility of the individual.

5th Commentary - The Abortion Issue

This commentary is on the three articles on the issue of the abortion law.

The first article, entitled "Time to review abortion law", are the comments of Mr. Teo Chun Sang, who felt that abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy should be allowed if the unborn child is found to have major disabilities. The two other articles, one by Mr. Seto Hann Hoi ("Tighter laws needed to protect foetuses") and the other by Mr. Felix Ser ("Man with cerebral palsy offended by letter") were responses that were against what Mr. Teo had proposed in his letter.

It is my view that abortion should continue to be allowed under the current abortion law, only if the foetus has major disabilities or there is a grave risk to the life of the mother, but remain illegal after the 24th week, no matter what the issue is.

My first point about abortion being allowed for limited reasons is to stop people whose babies have no problems from aborting them. If these people did not want the child due to reasons like being too young, or because it was caused due to rape, they should give the baby up for adoption instead of thinking about aborting them. However, if doctors have found out that the baby would have major disabilities or that having the baby could be very dangerous for the mother, the choice of abortion should thus remain open, but only as a last option. It is my view that the decision should belong to the parents of the child, and not other people. After all, the child belonged to the parents, not some anti-abortion organization. The parents would have the right to make the decision, as they would be the ones raising the child, and it is their lives that would feel the greatest impact, economic or otherwise. However, they should still consider other options first, like adoption, as doing so is more humane. The baby should also be given a chance to live, as Mr. Ser states in his letter " A person wit severe physical disability can be of good intellect...… A child with Down's syndrome can still learn how to draw well and contribute his physical labour." But in the end it is the parents who must decide.

The option of abortion should however remain limited to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, as the baby is not as developed yet. The limit would also prevent people from choosing to have last minute abortions. Furthermore, it is known that a late stage abortion is much more risky to the life of the mother than an early stage abortion. Thus, the limit would prevent such dangers. The 24th week limit would also help strike a balance between the two groups of people – the pro-choice and the pro-life. This would also allow the current abortion law to remain more or less in effect.

A total ban is not feasible, as sometimes, it may be better for the mother to abort if having a child was likely to kill her. Although some people say that life begins at conception, and they prefer a total ban on abortions, I feel that even if it was so, the parents still held the responsibility of caring for the child, and so should decide if an abortion was the right choice, or not. Furthermore, it would be much safer for people to go for proper abortions than illegal ones done by uncertified doctors, which could cause the death of the mother if things were not done properly.

In conclusion, I feel that the abortion law should be tightened a little to allow abortions for babies with severe disabilities or if there was a grave threat to the mother's life, but continue to be limited to the 24th week of pregnancy. But overall, the choice remains with the parents, as they are the ones who have the responsibility, not other people.