This looks impressive, and something we (America) should copy.
Man, I can't help wishing that if we had to have a dictator why couldn't it be someone (mostly) reasonable like Lee Kwan Yew.
Man, I can't help wishing that if we had to have a dictator why couldn't it be someone (mostly) reasonable like Lee Kwan Yew.
In this regard, Singapore is a rather extreme outlier among developed countries – few of which retain the death penalty, and those which do largely restrict it in practice to murder. William Gibson's famous phrase, "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", is as true as it ever was.
So yeah, Lee Hsien Loong seems like a cool guy – wow, a Prime Minister who can write C++. But, remember Nagaenthran, and realise he's not actually cool at all, he's actually a rather terrible human being. Whatever the Prime Minister's formal role in decisions about executions, I don't think anyone doubts that he had the political influence (even if quietly, behind the scenes) to stop it going ahead, if he had wanted to.
He was Malaysian. The cops probably know who sent him and let the guys go in exchange for a shiny watch.
You actually think there is no discretionary enforcement of the law in Singapore? Like every other jurisdiction on earth, Singapore has prosecutorial discretion. [0] A handful of jurisdictions, such as Germany, traditionally reject prosecutorial jurisdiction in theory, but that theory belies the fact that even in Germany it has always been inescapable in practice–no prosecutor on this earth has the resources to prosecute every known crime in their jurisdiction, they always have to pick and choose which cases to prosecute and how much effort and resources to put into each prosecution, and there is always going to be an element of subjective judgement in that decision, which will inevitably be coloured by the prosecutors' beliefs/culture/politics/attitudes/biases.
And, is prosecutorial discretion in Singapore applied in a purely impartial and non-discriminatory way? Considering Singapore's lengthy and ongoing history of politically motivated prosecutions (see for example [1]), it is rather obvious that it isn't.
Most jurisdictions accept that factors like intellectual disability need to be taken into account as mitigating circumstances, frequently leading to more lenient punishment, and sentencing which focuses more on protection and rehabilitation than less on retribution and deterrence, compared to an offender with normal (or above-normal) intellectual capacity. The idea that intellectually disabled people ought to be treated with particular leniency is one supported by the United Nations, and even by the US Supreme Court (which held, in the 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, that executing the intellectually disabled is unconstitutional)–so extending them that leniency is hardly a "lie to cover for discretionary enforcement", nor a "pernicious type of corruption"
[0] https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/prosecutorial-...
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/singapore-fir...
My great uncle, at one point, was heroin addict who was trying to get his life together. After he came out of rehab, his old "friends" tracked him down to convince him to get back into the game. The first hit they gave him put his body into shock (he had been clean for weeks), and rather than call an ambulance they propped him up against a tree and left him to die.
I do agree that the most recent case was a bit different as the guy was clearly exploited, but is 1-2 executions a year really worse than tens of thousands of lives being destroyed by drugs?
Suppose the government sold pharmaceutical quality heroin to the general public. It could open premises where heroin was sold, for on-premises consumption only. The premises would have staff who were trained in safe administration of injections, resuscitation, administration of naltrexone, sharps management, etc. The government could operate these services on a non-profit basis, so the price of the heroin was the minimum required to pay for the drug itself, and the premises/staff/equipment/security/utilities/administration/etc. It could prohibit entry of minors, promote counselling and withdrawal services, etc.
What would be the likely outcome? Well, the black market would shrink dramatically – most addicts and long-term users would migrate to the government-provided service, since it would be cheaper and safer. Faced with the sudden competition, black market operators would likely shift to other lines of business (other drugs, or non-drug illegal businesses such as people trafficking or extortion). The number of deaths from heroin overdose would dramatically fall, since most users would be using heroin at these supervised premises. Pharmaceutical quality heroin would enable precise control over dosage which would eliminate many accidental overdoses; any overdoses remaining would receive prompt medical attention. With prompt medical attention, the odds of surviving a heroin overdose are actually very good. And, unlike illegal operators, it seems unlikely that a government-run service would try to push the substance on the public (and if that ever did happen, the solution would be to remove and punish the staff responsible for that, not abolish the service entirely.)
Long-term heroin addiction, if the substance is legally available at a low cost, pharmaceutical quality, and under medical supervision, is a relatively benign condition from a medical viewpoint. Sure, it does have some negative psychological consequences – such as dulling of thought and motivation and emotions – and it would be best for the addicts to (if they can) gradually wean themselves off it to overcome those negative psychological consequences. But, to be honest, in that respect it is actually not hugely different from many psychotropic drugs (such as antipsychotics and antidepressants) prescribed long-term to a significant percentage of the population. It is far more benign than alcohol, which is a far harsher substance on the body, with potential consequences as cirrhosis of the liver. Most of the negative long-term health consequences of heroin are due to its illegality – for example, many heroin addicts end up with cirrhosis of the liver much like many alcoholics do, but via a very different mechanism. Alcohol directly causes liver disease, heroin is a very benign substance as far as the liver is concerned. [0] Rather, heroin addicts end up with viral hepatitis from sharing needles, and then the hepatitis causes the cirrhosis. If heroin were legalised (in the way I've described), sharing needles would be eliminated, and then heroin addicts would be no more likely to have liver disease than the general population.
I can't see how one can justify the government killing people in cold blood in order to (allegedly) save lives, when there is something else the government could do which would likely save just as many (or even more) lives without killing anyone at all. Ultimately, since the majority of drugs deaths are caused, not by the inherent nature of the drug, but rather by the consequences of its (near-)total illegality, we should really blame for those deaths, not the drug traffickers, but rather governments and legislators, upon whose misguided policies drug traffickers rely for the existence of their businesses.
Sure, it'd be an improvement for the US, but it would still be around an order of magnitude more death (and God knows how much more harm) than the Singapore model.
Since what I am proposing is not the Nordic model as it actually exists, but rather something which goes a lot further, I don't see how overdose death rates from the Nordic countries have any relevance to evaluating it.
That's fair.
"but is 1-2 executions a year really worse than tens of thousands of lives being destroyed by drugs?"
If one of my children started destroying the lives of others on mass for profit, I'd probably consider taking them out myself.
> So yeah, Lee Hsien Loong seems like a cool guy – wow, a Prime Minister who can write C++.
Javajosh was admiring Lee Kwan Yew, the founding father of Singapore. You are talking about Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister.
I concede that I could have worded my comment better to avoid creating the impression that I was though.
Nagaenthran's lawyer disagreed with these assessments, but, unable to find a psych willing to certify Nagaenthran's intellectual disability, got so desperate that he signed an affidavit declaring himself convinced that Nagaenthran was intellectually disabled. The court rejected this affidavit after establishing that Nagaenthran's lawyer had no medical expertise and after he admitted that he was essentially 'speculating on what the appellant's mental age was'. Then the AG's office got a fourth medical assessment in 2021, which was blocked from submission to the court by Nagaenthran's lawyer, arguing that the 'appellant was interested in 'medical confidentiality'. At that point the court sort of threw up its hands and went 'you claim he's intellectually disabled but now you want to block medical reports on that exact issue, due to privacy reasons?'
Keep in mind that at this point, the case had been in Singapore's courts since 2010, and the various assessments and appeals had lasted more than a decade.
Nagaenthran's family, with the help of activists, requested appeals from both Malaysian's prime minister and a direct appeal to Singapore's president, who had the power to stay the execution by issuing a pardon. Singapore's president said she looked into it and was satisfied that the case was sound.
Finally, Nagaethran's family — again with the help of activists — filed a final appeal, arguing that the sentence was unconstitutional because Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who presided over Nagaenthran's previous failed appeals, was also the Attorney-General during his conviction.
At this point the panel of three judges threw the application out on the grounds that it was a 'calculated attempt' to diminish the finality of the court process. "No court in the world would allow an applicant to prolong matters ad infinitum" by filing such applications, said the judges. They'd been pushing such applications over the course of a full decade by that point, switching arguments three times.
Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/nagaenthran-dharma...
And read the full judgment: https://elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGCA_26
I'm sympathetic to the goals of the activists — they want to push a test case to repeal the death penalty. The problem is that it doesn't seem to be a particularly good test case. Nagaenthran had successfully stayed his execution multiple times over the past decade, and he had pretty decent legal representation throughout. (Notwithstanding the affidavit — which probably harmed his case more than it helped).
You may argue that Singapore is a 'rather extreme outlier among developed countries' — but its policies on drug enforcement is 100% consistent with just about every other country in its vicinity. In fact, had Nagaenthran been caught in his home country of Malaysia, he would be sentenced to death just the same, since Malaysia has pretty much the same laws on drug trafficking. The activists have been raising international awareness of the case, but Malaysia's government is pretty blase about the whole thing, since they have similar laws and a similar justice system, and Malaysian anti-narcotics officers have a long history of working with Singaporean anti-narcotics officers to stop the drug trade from trickling into their countries from the Golden Triangle to their north.
Edit to add: I was actually prepared to get angry over this case, but then I read the full judgment and now I think ... "hmm, this is a more complicated case than I thought."
> It is also not disputed that in subsequent post-trial proceedings for re-sentencing, he was assessed to have an IQ of 69. The trial judge found that the Plaintiff was not suffering from intellectual disability to any degree but accepted that he had borderline intellectual functioning.
Usually "intellectual disability" is defined as an IQ < 70, so that IQ test result would just put him in the intellectually disabled category, rather than the borderline category (which is 70–85).
Also, the psychiatrist Dr Ung's 2016 report – paragraph 18 of https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2017_SGHC_222 – stated that (my emphasis):
> 52. I am of the opinion that Mr Nagaenthran suffered from an abnormality of mind at the time of his arrest, namely: Severe Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD) [sic] Combined Type and Borderline Intellectual Functioning/ Mild Intellectual Disability
> 53. Psychological Assessment had revealed his Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (IQ) to be 66 to 74. This is in the range of Mild Intellectual Disability suggested in [the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 5th Ed, 2013) (“DSM-V”)].
> 54. Intellectual Disability requires the presence of functional disability as well and I am of the opinion that Mr Nagaenthran had functional disability in the conceptual domains and to a lesser extent in his social and practical domain
So we have a psychiatrist concluding that he was intellectually disabled (even if only "mildly" so), and met the DSM-5 criteria for both Severe ADHD and mild intellectual disability.
Given the reports concluding he was not intellectually disabled were procured by the government, one ought to question their independence. The only report produced independently of government concluded that he was. I think, to settle the question with sufficient confidence, one would really want someone respectable from overseas – such as a respected professor of psychiatry with a specialisation in intellectual disability – to review the case, but that was never sought. (I'm sure the Singaporean government could have arranged it if they had wanted to do so.)
> but its policies on drug enforcement is 100% consistent with just about every other country in its vicinity. In fact, had Nagaenthran been caught in his home country of Malaysia, he would be sentenced to death just the same, since Malaysia has pretty much the same laws on drug trafficking.
Malaysia currently has a moratorium on the death penalty, due to serious national debate (in which the government has been an active participant) on whether to abolish it, or at least significantly narrow its scope. That is a quite different situation from Singapore–unlike the Malaysian government, the Singaporean government has shown no signs of wanting to specifically encourage any public debate, or evolution of public opinion, on the topic.
> the High Court found that the appellant had borderline intellectual functioning; not that he was suffering from mild intellectual disability. This was conceded by the appellant’s own psychiatrist, Dr Ung Eng Khean (“Dr Ung”). Further, Dr Ung also accepted (see Nagaenthran (CM) at [76]) that borderline intellectual functioning is not a mental “disorder” as set out in the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 5th Ed, 2013). Further, in Nagaenthran (CA) (at [34]–[41]), we held that even assuming the appellant suffered from an abnormality of mind, any such abnormality did not substantially impair his mental responsibility, because he did not lose his ability to tell right from wrong.
I then think Nagaenthran's lawyer made a grievous concession:
> [The appellant’s counsel, Mr Thuraisingam] eventually conceded that this was a case of a poor assessment of the risks on the appellant’s part. But, as the Minister stated in Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Reports (14 November 2012) vol 89 … ‘[g]enuine cases of mental disability are recognised [under s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA], while, errors of judgment will not afford a defence’. To put it quite bluntly, this was the working of a criminal mind, weighing the risks and countervailing benefits associated with the criminal conduct in question. The appellant in the end took a calculated risk which, contrary to his expectations, materialised. Even if we accepted that his ability to assess risk was impaired, on no basis could this amount to an impairment of his mental responsibility for his acts. He fully knew and intended to act as he did. His alleged deficiency in assessing risks might have made him more prone to engage in risky behaviour; that, however, does not in any way diminish his culpability.
I'm not sure if your reading of 'intellectually disabled man' aligns with the court's reading, and I don't think it's as clear cut as "oh, Singapore executed a man with no mental responsibility over what he is doing, according to the rule of law there, and so LHL is evil"
> Malaysia currently has a moratorium on the death penalty, due to serious national debate (in which the government has been an active participant) on whether to abolish it, or at least significantly narrow its scope
You're right on the moratorium. 'Due to healthy debate' is a rather charitable reading, though. There's a depressing account of the entire moratorium in Chapter 45, 'Law Reform', from former AG Tommy Thomas's autobiography My Story: Justice in the Wilderness, which lays out the background machinations of the former administration's attempt to repeal the death penalty, which was ultimately a failure. The moratorium was implemented by the Prisons Board under the instructions of acting AG Engku Nor Faizah Engku Atek, and supported by Thomas. More surprisingly, (if Thomas is to be believed) the Prisons Board themselves had no objection to abolishing the death penalty! I won't try to summarise the complex political machinations here, but saying that 'strong National debate' is a factor for the moratorium would not be Tommy Thomas's reading of the situation. I don't expect the moratorium to last — though I pray that it will. But it's difficult to say which side might use it as a political football given the current state of Malaysian politics.
My overall point: using the moratorium on the death penalty as an example of Malaysia's 'enlightened approach' vs Singapore is grossly mistaken; it's more accurate to describe it as a political football used to score points against one's opponents (made complicated by the fact that there is quiet support for the penalty from both the conservative Malay power base as well as the conservative Chinese political power base, on both sides of the parliament, as Thomas found out the hard way). I say that the chapter is depressing because 'national debate' seems to have very little to do with it.
> More surprisingly, (if Thomas is to be believed) the Prisons Board themselves had no objection to abolishing the death penalty!
That's actually not surprising at all. If you look at the experience in most European countries – and also Australia, Canada and New Zealand – often the prison bureaucracy was a strong proponent of abolition. The staff of prisons often find they dislike killing prisoners, it eats at their conscience, and even many who support the death penalty turn into opponents when it becomes their job to play part in implementing it. It is easy to support killing people when they are nameless abstractions such as "murderers" or "terrorists" or "drug traffickers", much harder when they are specific individuals with names and faces and personalities, whom you see and talk to every day. Even if the executives aren't seeing the condemned every day, the perspective of their indirect reports who do often trickles up to them (and some of them will have risen through the ranks from that position). To some extent, part of the reason why the US has kept the death penalty while the UK/Canada/Australia/NZ/Ireland/etc have abolished it, is that in the Commonwealth governments have historically tended to be much more responsive to the demands and wishes of bureaucratic elites than in the US, especially when those demands/wishes conflict with the majority of popular opinion.
The European and Commonwealth model of abolition has generally been that governments need to lead public opinion rather than waiting for it. The former Malaysian government was attempting the same approach, even if it didn't work out quite as well for them – maybe unsurprising given the significant political and cultural differences between Malaysia and those other countries in which it has been quite successful – but I'm not sure if they should be criticised for trying. (Maybe moving too fast on this issue hastened their demise, and they should have waited to act until their position was more secure; but maybe their demise was inevitable no matter what they did on this issue.) If the Singaporean government tried to lead public opinion toward abolition, it is possible they might have much more success than was had in Malaysia – but they do not appear to be interested in trying.
I have a gut feeling that if we started comparing both the usa and singapore, the latter would appear cumulatively better.
The first genuinely feel they know what is best for the country and how to best govern it. They might still enrich themselves and their cronies in the process of course.
The second are primarily out to enrich themselves and their cronies. The country exists to support this selfish goal.
Of course this is not black and white, but rather a spectrum but various historical figures seem to strongly lean to one side or the other.
The only reason the PAP is still in power is because Singaporeans don't want to get rid of them.
If the PAP torpedoed the entire economy because of some stupid beliefs of the leader, they would be quickly and quietly removed.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Singaporean_general_elect...
Actually, when we frame things that way, it almost makes me feel like democracy is primarily designed to provide a certain amount of slowness in government; enough to spot corruption coming and head it off. Maybe corruption always eventually wins, just more slowly in democracies. Kinda feels that way lately.
In all cases, the key to success with illiberal government seems to be self-restraint. When the war ends, you give up power. Or in general, when the object is achieved, you give up power. I've not followed Singapore's timeline since I read the book, so maybe they've backslid? Maybe its a psuedo monarchy run my Yew's ancestors? If so, that's a failure. Hopefully they can figure out how to pick leaders in a rational way - like an aptitude test.