THE contours of Singapore's legal framework and policy towards human rights are shaped and informed by State objectives and development goals. While our death penalty laws have been harshly criticised beyond our shores, Singapore's human rights are qualified by invoking "Asian values", in which community interests are prioritised over individual rights.
The courts in Singapore have consistently reaffirmed the constitutionality of our death penalty laws, signalling the importance of balancing the rights of the criminally accused against the community's right to live peacefully. It is a delicate balance between the need for strong deterrence and compassion in sentencing.
It is often easy to narrowly focus on the plight and rights of the individual, but such a stance boldly overlooks the broader implications should our death penalty laws were relaxed. As far as individual rights should be respected and not lightly encroached upon, Singaporeans should appreciate that our strict laws are a necessary deterrent and ensure that, for example, children cannot freely get drugs.
Therefore, the appeal to communal values is sound, as our society values the public good and support laws designed to serve communal interests in public morality, decency, order and health - some of which might, to a foreign observer, unduly restrict civil liberties.
It is evident to Singaporeans that our strict death penalty laws have certainly made Singapore among the safest places in the world to live in.
As such, we should be more cautious about stubbornly advocating for a rights-oriented society, as the trade-off between saving the life of an accused for the sake of a more "humane" punishment while possibly sacrificing many other potential lives is a serious reality. The right signal must be strongly sent out to the hardcore drug barons.
I for one am certain that the fight against drugs is definitely not a lost one, and this tough stance ensures our nation's sustainable future. (google news - 2/5/10)
The courts in Singapore have consistently reaffirmed the constitutionality of our death penalty laws, signalling the importance of balancing the rights of the criminally accused against the community's right to live peacefully. It is a delicate balance between the need for strong deterrence and compassion in sentencing.
It is often easy to narrowly focus on the plight and rights of the individual, but such a stance boldly overlooks the broader implications should our death penalty laws were relaxed. As far as individual rights should be respected and not lightly encroached upon, Singaporeans should appreciate that our strict laws are a necessary deterrent and ensure that, for example, children cannot freely get drugs.
Therefore, the appeal to communal values is sound, as our society values the public good and support laws designed to serve communal interests in public morality, decency, order and health - some of which might, to a foreign observer, unduly restrict civil liberties.
It is evident to Singaporeans that our strict death penalty laws have certainly made Singapore among the safest places in the world to live in.
As such, we should be more cautious about stubbornly advocating for a rights-oriented society, as the trade-off between saving the life of an accused for the sake of a more "humane" punishment while possibly sacrificing many other potential lives is a serious reality. The right signal must be strongly sent out to the hardcore drug barons.
I for one am certain that the fight against drugs is definitely not a lost one, and this tough stance ensures our nation's sustainable future. (google news - 2/5/10)
COMMENTS =)
In our opinion, having a death penalty sends a strong message. The parliament is effectively telling our court judges they do not have enough faith in them to exercise their discretion.
That said, it is our opinion that the current supreme court chair and table (panel) is more than capable of exercising their discretion, and any tries by the lawmakers to tie their hands ought to be unacceptable.
Be that as may be, deference to the legislature is never a not unhealthy thing.
That said, it is our opinion that the current supreme court chair and table (panel) is more than capable of exercising their discretion, and any tries by the lawmakers to tie their hands ought to be unacceptable.
Be that as may be, deference to the legislature is never a not unhealthy thing.
Done by: Luke JinHua, Ardy Kartolo, Leuven Kim, Keith Ho, Nathanael (10S23)
