Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Death Penalty in Singapore: in Decline but Still Too Soon for Optimism

Asian Journal of Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Singapore is one of the few countries in the world which still imposes the death penalty for certain criminal offences. Until recently, it was the mandatory sentence for murder, drug trafficking and use of firearms—and it is these three offences which comprise nearly all of the executions in Singapore. This article examines the use, historical origins and recent legislative and judicial developments in the death penalty in Singapore. While the number of executions has fallen to very low levels in recent years and changes to the law relating to the mandatory death penalty in murder and drug offences have been made, it is the opinion of the author that the death penalty will continue to be used in Singapore in the foreseeable future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The description “theme park with the death sentence” found in Clammer (1997, p. 142) probably owes its origin to Gibson (1993). Universal Studios Singapore, which opened on 18 March 2010, is part of a group of attractions which includes a casino, so another apt description of Singapore could be the “casino with the death penalty (which is used less often now)”.

  2. “Actively retentionist” means that it had carried out at least one judicial execution within the past 10 years and had not subsequently declared a permanent moratorium on executions.

  3. Zimring and Johnson (2010, pp. 103–104) estimate that Asia where 60 % of the world’s population lives accounts for 85 to 95 % of the world’s executions.

  4. The jury system was first restricted in 1960 to only capital offences and finally abolished in 1970 for all offences (Phang 1983). One of the superstitious beliefs meant that a pregnant woman would not sentence a person to death for fear that her unborn child will be cursed. For overseas studies on the willingness to impose the death penalty, see Hester and Smith (1973) (juries are less likely to convict if the sentence is mandatory death) and Hans et al. (2015) (judges are more willing than juries to impose the death sentence).

  5. In a report by Gallahue et al. (2012), it was noted that there were at the time 33 countries with the death penalty for drug offences, where it was the mandatory sentence in 13 of these countries. Some of these countries, however, are de facto abolitionist (such as Brunei) so the actual number that that carry out the death penalty for drug offences is less.

  6. Where the mandatory death penalty applies, the judge has no choice, once the elements of the offence are proven, in imposing the death sentence. Extenuating circumstances which are not relevant to the elements of the offence, such as the age or mental capacity of the offender, his or her family situation and the circumstances leading up to the offence, cannot be considered.

  7. Challenges to the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty in Singapore have been unsuccessful; see Thio (2004), Hor (2004, 2006a and 2014), Lim (2005), McDermott (2010), Tey (2010), Lee (2011) and Novak (2014a). The Singapore Court of Appeal most recently analysed the arguments in Yong Vui Kong v PP (2010).

  8. Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act 2007 and Radiation Protection (Amendment) Act 2014 (not yet in force), respectively

  9. In an offence providing for a discretionary death penalty, often the choice given is either the death penalty or imprisonment for a fixed term or for life. If imprisonment is imposed, there may be an option to impose caning or fine as well, and sometimes the minimum number of strokes of the cane is also stipulated. For some offences, it is not an easy matter to decide if the offence carries a mandatory or discretionary death sentence in the abstract—it is mandatory only if certain conditions are satisfied (for example, the mandatory death penalty applies if the person, while committing or attempting to commit piracy, murders or attempts to murder another person, or endangers the life of another person. In other cases of piracy, imprisonment for life with caning of not less than 12 strokes applies: Penal Code, s 130B).

  10. Information was not available for the years marked with an dash “–”. Note that the figures give the number of executions and not convictions for capital offences; however, given that the power of clemency is hardly used in Singapore, the two numbers are virtually the same. The majority of persons executed have been Singaporeans and not foreigners: Singaporeans comprised 64 % of those executed between 1993 and 2003 (Ministry of Home Affairs 2004) and 68 % between 2004 and 2010 (Teo 2011). The breakdown of Singaporeans vs foreigners by type of capital crime is not known. Only the data from 1991 onwards are from official sources. Data from 1981 to 1990 is from Johnson (2013) who attributes the figures to Amnesty International reports and not official sources which may well under-estimate the true number of executions during this period since the statistics are usually compiled from media reports.

  11. The result of the review was that “[i]t reaffirmed the relevance of the death penalty for all offences to which it currently applies” except that the death penalty will be made discretionary for some types of murder and for drug traffickers who fit “specific, tightly-defined conditions” (Teo 2012a). The lack of executions in 2010 is anecdotally due to the constitutional challenge of the mandatory death penalty brought in Yong Vui Kong v PP (2010).

  12. The authorities are very likely to have classified all offences causing death to be cases of “murder”. For example, the cases of Panya Martmontree v PP (1995) and Prasong Bunsom v PP (1995) which involved gang robbery-cum-murder under Penal Code, s 396 (for which they were sentenced to the death penalty) have not been classified separately.

  13. Unfortunately, Singapore is not a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and there are also difficulties in determining what crimes meet “the most serious crimes” standard (Hor 2004). The Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984, gives a bit more guidance by stating: “(1) In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.” Schabas (2008, p. 21) has opined that “[t]he Safeguards may be said to constitute an authoritative development of the content of article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. … it is also arguable that they constitute a statement of norms of customary international law … applicable even to States that have not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.

  14. Until abolished by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 which replaced it with mandatory life imprisonment.

  15. Between 1900 and 1949 in England and Wales, 45.7 % of those sentenced to death had their sentences commuted. Even when the cases of women, those whose conviction was quashed, and those who were subsequently certified to be insane are eliminated, 39 % had their death sentences commuted (Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1953, pp. 13 and 326)).

  16. The number of death sentences commuted by the colonial Governor before independence is not known.

  17. In the event that the arm was not involved in a scheduled offence, a presumption was introduced in 1993 such that the person is presumed to have used or attempted to use the arm with the intention to cause physical injury. The burden of proving to the contrary is on the accused.

  18. The legislation actually refers to “diamorphine” which is heroin in its pure form.

  19. Under the present scheme, the presumption of trafficking applies to a person found in possession of, for example, 2 g of diamorphine, 15 g of cannabis, 3 g of cocaine, 25 g of methamphetamine, and so on (Misuse of Drugs Act: s 17). Other presumptions in the present law include a person found in possession of anything containing a controlled drug such as keys to a vehicle or room where controlled drugs are found is presumed to be in possession of the drugs (Misuse of Drugs Act: section 18(1)), and anyone proved or presumed to have a controlled drug in their possession is presumed to know the nature of the drug (Misuse of Drugs Act: section 18(2)).

  20. The death penalty presently applies to trafficking/import/export of more than 30 g of morphine, 15 g of diamorphine, 30 g of cocaine, 500 g of cannabis, 1,000 g of cannabis mixture, 200 g of cannabis resin and 250 g of methamphetamine and to the manufacture of the following drugs (and their salt or ester): morphine, diamorphine, cocaine and methamphetamine (Misuse of Drugs Act: ss 5, 6, 7, Second Schedule). The threshold of 15 g of diamorphine—apparently considering its typical purity level of 2.3 % in the drugs trafficked—is equivalent to 2,200 straws of heroin, which is said to be enough to feed the addiction of more than 300 abusers for a week (Teo 2012a).

  21. The same claims were repeated in Singapore’s report for the Universal Periodic Review by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011 (Singapore 2011: para 120).

  22. The statistics for 1991 to 1996 were taken from Singapore Police Singapore Police Force (2001), for 1997 to 2003 from Singapore Police Force (2007) and for 2004 to 2013 from Singapore Police Force (2013). Discrepancies in the statistics could be due to changes in the population estimates and calculation of crimes recorded. The crime rate is calculated based on reports of seizable offences (crimes for which the police may make an arrest without a warrant of arrest) made to the police per 100,000 population (comprising Singapore residents and foreigners staying in Singapore for at least 1 year) for that year.

  23. Wong (1994) also attribute the increase in 1993 to successes in arresting members of major drug syndicates. However, this alone cannot explain the change in numbers: in 1994 and 1995, there were also increases in the numbers executed for murder as compared to previous years.

  24. Sceptics may argue that despite Singapore’s statements to the contrary, its stance could have changed owing to international pressure, but there is no evidence of this.

  25. Lee Kuan Yew continued to serve in the cabinet, first as Senior Minister from 1990 to 2004 and then as Minister Mentor from 2004 to 2011. He passed away on 23 March 2015 at the age of 91.

  26. The People’s Action Party received 60.1 % of the overall votes in the 2011 General Election, its lowest level of support since Singapore’s independence. In the 2011 Presidential Election, Tony Tan, who formerly served as Deputy Prime Minister, won with 35.20 % of the votes and a margin of 0.35 % over his nearest rival. However, in the 2015 General Election on 11 September 2015, there was a dramatic swing back to the ruling party which won 69.9 % of the popular vote.

  27. The Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, denied that the change in the law for murder and drug offences was aimed at attracting more votes for the ruling party (Au Yong 2012).

  28. There is no information available on the number of executions before 1981 in Singapore, but it is highly unlikely to be different from the 1980s.

  29. See Hor (2014) at pp. 161–162 for a description of other case law developments which impact on the likelihood of a judge convicting a person of a capital offence.

  30. This is Singapore’s primary drug enforcement agency which was set up in 1971.

  31. See also the increase in the drugs seized in the Drug Situation Reports available on CNB’s website. The dip between 2003 and 2006 in the number of drug abusers arrested is explained by the decision to classify “Subutex” as a poison rather than a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Subutex was introduced in 2002 as a form of treatment to relieve withdrawal symptoms of those who quit heroin. However, heroin addicts soon discovered that by mixing it with other drugs, they could achieve the same high they got from heroin. Those who abused Subutex during this period were not tracked by the CNB statistics. Furthermore, there was a mistake in the computation of statistics which led to under-reporting of arrests (Tham 2011). Figures on the number of drug traffickers are not publicly available. However, it can be assumed that there is a close correlation between drug abuse/quantity of drugs seized and drug trafficking since these controlled drugs are not grown or manufactured locally. But note that with the increase in the Singapore population over the years, the actual rate of drug abusers per 100,000 resident population has decreased (Teo 2012a), even though the absolute numbers have increased.

  32. One of the persons on death row for murder succeeded in his appeal in the meantime: Prathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v PP (2012).

  33. An intention to kill was found in the following cases and the accused sentenced to death: Muhammad bin Kadar v PP (2014), despite him having a low IQ of 76 and dependent on dormicum (a sedative), and PP v Wang Zhijian (2014), despite him suffering from a recognised psychiatric condition known as “adjustment disorder”.

  34. Life imprisonment in Singapore means imprisonment for the duration of the natural life of the prisoner: Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah v PP (1997). Life imprisonment is also known as “life without parole” or “whole life tariff” in other jurisdictions. A person sentenced to life imprisonment may be considered for release after serving at least 20 years of his sentence: Prisons Act, s 50P.

  35. The maximum number of strokes of the cane which can be imposed is 24 (Criminal Procedure Code, s 328).

  36. At first sight, this appears to be in compliance with the requirement that capital punishment be restricted only to “intentional crimes with lethal … consequences” (Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty). It is however still a different matter where the death sentence is mandatory.

  37. The term “diminished responsibility” is not found in Misuse of Drugs Act, s 33B, but is used as a short form since the condition is exactly the same as the one known by that name in the Penal Code which lowers the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Penal Code, Exception 7 to s 300). This condition requires the person to be: “…suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions …”.

  38. See also PP v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim (2013) where it was found that the accused persons qualified as a “courier” even though they “had intended to keep the bundles of drugs for at least a short period of time before delivering or sending the bundles” (para 55). Hence, “incidental acts” of storing or safekeeping drugs did not disqualify them from the definition. The Singapore Court of Appeal in PP v Chum Tat Suan (2015) agreed with this view.

  39. The case of Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney General (2014) has also held that the decision of the prosecution may be challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality such as violating the protection against unequal treatment.

  40. See for example Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney General (2014); Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney General (2014).

  41. No information was given in the media report as to when the “new information” was provided or the nature of the “new information”.

  42. The court will not have the option of life imprisonment if the requisite criteria are not satisfied. For example, if the Public Prosecutor refuses to grant a certificate of substantive assistance, or if the offender is unable to satisfy the court that he suffers from diminished responsibility.

  43. Pao-Keerthi (2014) suggest that the following considerations may be relevant: (1) existence of similar antecedents and (2) amount of drugs involved.

  44. In non-violent acts which lead to death such as poisoning, the considerations will be different (PP v Kho Jabing 2015: para 46).

  45. All five judges who heard the case agreed with the test to be adopted. The dissent by two of the judges related to findings of fact made by the majority, namely, the number of times the deceased was struck, and the amount of force used.

  46. See also the statistics on the worsening drug situation in Fig. 3. The Singapore Court of Appeal in Yong Vui Kong (2010: para 118) realised that there was insufficient evidence either way on the deterrent effect of the death penalty: “… although there is room for arguing that there is insufficient evidence that the [mandatory death penalty] deters serious offences like murder, it can equally be said that there is insufficient evidence that the [mandatory death penalty] does not have such a deterrent effect. Surveys and statistical studies on this issue in one country can never be conclusive where another country is concerned”.

  47. Justice Lee Siu Kin, who gave the judgment in PP v Wang Wenfeng (2014), was also a member of the five-judge Singapore Court of Appeal in PP v Kho Jabing (2015). He did not refer to his views expressed in the earlier Singapore High Court case.

  48. If the defence of provocation found in the Penal Code, Exception 1 to s 300, had been satisfied, it would not have been a case of murder in the first place.

  49. The majority in PP v Kho Jabing (2015) held that the “blatant disregard for human life” threshold was crossed based on a finding that three or more blows were inflicted which caused extensive fractures to the deceased’s skull. On the other hand, the minority found that only two injuries to the head could be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and even then, there was doubt as to the severity of those injuries. The majority criticised the approach of the minority in scrutinising the evidence presented at the trial since the trial court’s decision had been affirmed by the Singapore Court of Appeal already. The present appeal is on the “re-sentencing” decision made after the sentencing scheme for murder was changed. In PP v Micheal Anak Garing (2015), the High Court judge also held that the threshold was crossed by the principal offender. He and his gang members set out to rob four persons in the early hours of the morning and one of the victims died from wounds inflicted with a machete. His wounds were so severe that his left palm was severed from his hand, his skull was fractured, a slash wound to the neck severed his jugular vein and a wound over his back was so deep that his shoulder blade was cracked.

  50. This was the disagreement between the majority and minority judges in PP v Kho Jabing (2015).

  51. In terms of trafficking, and the import and export of controlled drugs, the mandatory death penalty regime does not apply if additional criteria are satisfied (described in the text), namely if the person is a “courier” and has either obtained a certificate that he has substantively assisted in disrupting drug trafficking activities or is suffering from “diminished responsibility”. If these additional criteria are not satisfied, the mandatory death penalty regime for those caught with drugs above a certain limit applies. See for example PP v Mohd Jeefrey bin Jamil (2014) where the Prosecution admitted that the accused was a “courier” but did not issue a certificate of substantive assistance to him. He was sentenced to death by the court.

  52. There is only one offence of “murder” found in the Penal Code, s 300, but there are four different types of mens rea or mental fault of the accused person which come within this offence. The death penalty is mandatory only if death is caused with the intention to kill (section 300(a)) but is discretionary if it is committed with any of the three other forms of fault (for example, causing death with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death).

  53. However, specific provisions which create liability in such cases are included in the list. See for example Penal Code, ss 121, 132, 305 and 307.

  54. Misuse of Drugs Act, s 12. This provision applies to attempts to commit offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act too. See also Penal Code, ss 34, 109, 120B and 149.

  55. Theoretically, the President may commute a capital sentence to a term of imprisonment of any period. Until 1997, life imprisonment was taken to mean imprisonment for 20 years. With remission for good behaviour, an inmate can expect to be released after imprisonment for about 13 years. This was changed by the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah v PP (1997) (Abdul Nasir) which held that the hitherto practice was a misunderstanding of the law. For all offences committed after the court’s judgment on 20 August 1997, an order of life imprisonment henceforth meant imprisonment for the natural life of the inmate.

  56. “Life imprisonment” meant imprisonment for 20 years at the time.

  57. An interesting issue arose in this case. The murder was committed on 26 May 1996 and the President commuted the death sentence to “life imprisonment” on 28 April 1998. Did “life imprisonment” mean the natural life of the inmate since the commutation was after the date of the Abdul Nasir judgment (which held that “life imprisonment” meant imprisonment for the natural life of the inmate) or did it mean 20 years’ imprisonment (the hitherto understanding of what “life imprisonment” meant) since the offence was committed before the date of the Abdul Nasir judgment? The court in Abdul Nasir held that its judgment did not affect those serving their life sentences already. In this case, the High Court decided that benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused, especially where the Prisons Service had indicated that the sentence had been commuted to 20 years’ imprisonment: Mathavakannan s/o Kalimuthu v Attorney-General (2012).

  58. Lum (2014a, 2014b), Poh (2014), Hoe (2015), PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus (2014), PP v Wang Wenfeng (2014), PP v Mervin Singh (2011), PP v Leong Soy Yip (2009), PP v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim (2013), PP v Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam (2014), PP v V Shanmugam a/l Veloo (2015), Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v PP (2012), PP v Siva a/l Sannasi (2015), PP v Christeen d/o Jayamany (2015), PP v Yogaras Poongavanam (2015) and PP v Jafar Shatig bin Abdul Karim (2015).

  59. No explanation was given by the judge why the accused deserved 16 strokes of the cane instead of 15 (the minimum required by the law and which has been the sentence given in other cases).

References

  • Amnesty International (2004). Singapore: the death penaltya hidden toll of executions. Available online at < http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA36/001/2004/en/74c4cb33-d64e-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/asa360012004en.pdf >.

  • Amnesty International (2015a). Death sentences and executions 2014. London: Amnesty International Ltd.

  • Amnesty International (2015b). Death penalty 2015: the good and the bad. Available online at <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/07/death-penalty-2015-the-good-and-the-bad/>.

  • Amnesty International (2015c). India: execution of Yakub Memon cruel and inhuman. Available online at <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/india-execution-of-yakub-memon-cruel-and-inhuman/>.

  • Associated Press (2005). A list of death row inmates in Singapore who were granted clemency. The Straits Times (2 December).

  • Attorney-General’s Chambers (n.d.) Attorneys-general of Singapore. Available online at <https://www.agc.gov.sg/Who_We_Are/Our_History_/Previous_AttorneysGeneral_of_the_Republic_of_Singapore.aspx>.

  • Au Yong, J. (2012). Death penalty change not based on winning votes: Shanmugam. The Straits Times (4 August).

  • Berk, R. (2005). New claims about executions and general deterrence: déjà vu all over again? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 303–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Narcotics Bureau (various years). Drug situation report. Available online at <http://www.cnb.gov.sg >.

  • Chan, W. C. (2005). What’s wrong with section 300(c) murder. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 462–470.

  • Chen, S. (2014). Singapore’s new discretionary death penalty for drug couriers: Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 18, 260–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, S. C. (1973a). Misuse of Drugs Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (16 February).

  • Chua, S.C. (1973b). Arms Offences Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (30 November).

  • Chua, S. C. (1975). Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (20 November).

  • Clammer, J. (1997). Framing the other: criminality, social exclusion and social engineering in developing Singapore. Social Policy and Administration, 31(5), 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Cole, E., Durlauf, S., Fagan, J., & Nagin, D. (2009). Model uncertainty and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 7, 335–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell Law School (2011). Death penalty worldwide. Available online at < http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=Singapore#f56-4>.

  • Department of Statistics. (2014). Population trends 2014. Singapore: Department of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economic and Social Council (2009). Capital punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. E/2010/10. Available online at < http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V09/892/56/PDF/V0989256.pdf?OpenElement>.

  • Gallahue, P., Gunawan, R., Rahman, F., El Mufti, K., Din, N. U., & Felten, R. (2012). The death penalty for drug offences: global overview 2012. London: International Harm Reduction Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, W. (1993). Disneyland with the death penalty. Wired. September/October issue.

  • Hans, V. P., Blume, J. H., Eisenberg, T., Hritz, A. C., Johnson, S. L., Royer, C. E., & Wells, M. T. (2015). The death penalty: should the judge or the jury decide who dies? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12, 70–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, J.A. (1883a). Penal Code Amendment Bill. In: Short Hand Report of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits Settlements (28 February), 3.

  • Harwood, J.A. (1883b). Penal Code Amendment Bill. In: Short Hand Report of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits Settlements (14 March), 13.

  • Hester, R. K., & Smith, R. E. (1973). Effects of a mandatory death penalty on the decisions of simulated jurors as a function of heinousness of the crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1, 319–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoe, Pei Shan (2014). Some criminals ‘deserve default death sentence’. The Straits Times (18 May).

  • Hoe, Pei Shan (2015). 2 death-row traffickers get life term instead. The Straits Times (21 April).

  • Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: a worldwide perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hor, M. (2004). The death penalty in Singapore and International Law. Singapore Yearbook of International Law, 8, 105–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hor, M. (2006a). Death, drugs, murder and the constitution. In: K. S. Teo (ed). Developments in Singapore law between 2001 and 2005. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law, 499–539.

  • Hor, M. (2006b). Managing mens rea in Singapore. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 18, 314–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hor, Michael (2014). Singapore’s death penalty: the beginning of the end? In: Roger Hood and Surya Deva (eds). Confronting capital punishment in Asia: human rights, politics and public opinion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 141–169

  • Jayakumar, S. (1993). Arms Offences (Amendment) Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (30 August).

  • Johnson, D. T. (2013). The jolly hangman, the jailed journalist, and the decline of Singapore’s death penalty. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8, 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. T., & Zimring, F. E. (2009). The next frontier: national development, political change and the death penalty in Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world to first—the Singapore story: 1965–2000 (volume 2). Singapore: Times Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. T.-T. (2011). The mandatory death penalty and a sparsely worded constitution. Law Quarterly Review, 127, 192–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C.L. (2005). The constitution and the reception of customary international law: Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 218–233.

  • Low, F. & Tham, Y. C. (2012). Fewer criminals sent to the gallows. The Straits Times (1 March).

  • Lum, S. (2014a). Trafficker on death row spared gallows. The Straits Times (27 May).

  • Lum, S. (2014b). Malaysian drug trafficker escapes death penalty under amended laws. The Straits Times (28 October).

  • McDermott, Y. (2010). Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and the mandatory death penalty for drug offences in Singapore: a dead end for constitutional challenge? International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy, 1, 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Home Affairs (2004). The Singapore government’s response to Amnesty International’s report “Singaporethe death penalty: a hidden toll of Executions”. Available online at <http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74>.

  • Neo, C. C. (2014). Guidelines developed to ‘ensure best use’ of data from drug couriers. Today (3 October).

  • Novak, A. (2014a). The global decline of the mandatory death penalty. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, A. (2014b). The future of the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia and Singapore. The Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1, 303–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oehlers, A., & Tarulevicz, N. (2005). Capital punishment and the culture of developmentalism in Singapore. In A. Sarat & C. Boulanger (eds.), The cultural lives of capital punishment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pao-Keerthi, P. P. Y. (2014). Looking beyond prospective guidance. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 26, 520–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phang, A. B. L. (1983). Jury trial in Singapore and Malaysia: the unmaking of a legal institution. Malaya Law Review, 25, 50–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poh, I. (2014). Drug courier escapes gallows due to mental state. The Straits Times (4 March).

  • Ramraj, V. V. (2000). Murder without an intention to kill. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 560–589.

  • Royal Commission on Capital Punishment. (1953). Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949–1953: report. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas, W. A. (2008). The United Nations and abolition of the death penalty. In: Jon Yorke (ed.) Against the death penalty. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 9–41

  • Scott, K. (2010). Why did China reform its death penalty? Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, 19, 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanmugam, K. (2012a). Changes to the application of the mandatory death penalty to homicide offences. Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (9 July).

  • Shanmugam, K. (2012b). Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (14 November).

  • Shanmugam, K. (2012c). Criminal procedure code (Amendment) Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, 14 November.

  • Shanmugam, K. (2013). Legal changes about ‘protecting our society’. The Straits Times (26 October).

  • Singapore (2011). National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SGP/1.

  • Singapore Police Force. (2001). Annual report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Police Force. (2007). Annual report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Police Force. (2013). Annual report. Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Prison Service (2012). Annual statistics release. Available online at: <http://www.sps.gov.sg/ >.

  • Singapore Prison Service (2013). Annual statistics release. Available online at: <http://www.sps.gov.sg/ >.

  • Singapore Prison Service (2014). Annual statistics release. Available online at: <http://www.sps.gov.sg/ >.

  • Singapore Prison Service (2015). Annual statistics release. Available online at: <http://www.sps.gov.sg/ >.

  • Sornarajah, M. (1994). The definition of murder under the Penal Code. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1–28.

  • Straits Times (1992). First brush with crime nearly sent mum to gallows. The Straits Times (25 March).

  • Straits Times (2001). Death trafficker was given second chance but she blew it. The Straits Times (22 November).

  • Teo, C. H. (2011). Written answer to parliamentary question on judicial executions from 2004 to 2010. Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (21 October).

  • Teo, C. H. (2012a). Enhancing our drug control framework and review of the death penalty. Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (9 July).

  • Teo, C. H. (2012b). Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (12 November).

  • Tey, T. H. (2010). Death penalty Singapore-style: clinical and carefree. Common Law World Review, 39, 315–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tham, Y. C. (2011). The subutex effect. The Straits Times (24 September).

  • Tham, Y. C. (2012). Spared death on appeal. The Straits Times (1 March).

  • Tham, Y. C. (2014). Two drug traffickers hanged. The Straits Times (19 July).

  • Thio, L. A. (2004). The death penalty as cruel and inhuman punishment before the Singapore high court? Customary human rights norms, constitutional formalism and the supremacy of domestic law in PP v Nguyen Tuong Van. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 4, 213–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, E. C. F. (2012). Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill (second reading). Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (12 November).

  • United Nations (2013). Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Report of the Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns. A/HRC/23/47/Add.5.

  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (n.d.). Homicide counts and rates, time series 2000–2012. Available online at < http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html>.

  • Vijayan, K.C. (2009). Keep death penalty but allow leeway. The Straits Times (11 October).

  • Wong, K. S. (1994). Death sentences. Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (23 May).

  • Wong, K. S. (2001). Written answers to questions: number of persons hanged. Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (12 January).

  • Zimring, F. E., Fagan, J., & Johnson, D. T. (2010). Executions, deterrence and homicide: a tale of two cities. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah v PP (1997). Singapore Law Reports (Reissue), 2, 842.

  • Amran bin Eusuff v PP (2002). Singapore Court of Appeal, 20.

  • Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney General (2014). Singapore Law Reports, 3, 1141.

  • Choa Joo Liang v PP (2005). Singapore Court of Appeal, 15.

  • Chou Kooi Pang v PP (1998). Singapore Law Reports (Reissue), 3, 205.

  • Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v PP (2012). Singapore Law Reports, 2, 903.

  • Mathavakannan s/o Kalimuthu v Attorney-General (2012). Singapore Law Reports, 2, 537.

  • Mohamad Kunjo s/o Ramalan v PP (1979). Appeal Cases, 1, 135.

  • Muhammad bin Kadar v PP (2014). Singapore Law Reports, 4, 954.

  • Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney General (2014). Singapore Law Reports, 4, 773.

  • Panya Martmontree v PP (1995). Singapore Law Reports (Reissue), 2, 806.

  • PP v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim (2013). Singapore Law Reports, 3, 734.

  • PP v Christeen d/o Jayamany (2015). Singapore High Court, 126.

  • PP v Chum Tat Suan (2015). Singapore Law Reports, 1, 834.

  • PP v Fabian Adiu Edwn (2009). Criminal Case No. 40 of 2009.

  • PP v Gopinath Nair Remadevi (2011). Criminal Case No. 40 of 2011.

  • PP v Jafar Shatig bin Abdul Karim (2015). Singapore High Court, 189.

  • PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus (2014). Singapore High Court, 4.

  • PP v Kho Jabing (2015). Singapore Court of Appeal, 01.

  • PP v Leong Soy Yip (2009). Singapore High Court, 221.

  • PP v Mervin Singh (2011). Singapore High Court, 222.

  • PP v Micheal Anak Garing (2015). Singapore High Court, 107.

  • PP v Mohd Jeefrey bin Jamil (2014). Singapore High Court, 255.

  • PP v Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam (2014). Singapore High Court, 231.

  • PP v Rozman bin Jusoh (1995). Singapore Law Reports (Reissue), 2, 879.

  • PP v Siva a/l Sannasi (2015). Singapore High Court, 73.

  • PP v V Shanmugam a/l Veloo (2015). Singapore High Court, 33.

  • PP v Wang Wenfeng (2014). Singapore Law Reports, 2, 636.

  • PP v Wang Zhijian (2014). Singapore Court of Appeal, 58.

  • PP v Yogaras Poongavanam (2015). Singapore High Court, 193.

  • Prasong Bunsom v PP (1995). Singapore Law Reports (Reissue), 3, 15.

  • Prathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v PP (2012). Singapore Law Reports, 4, 453.

  • Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General (2012). Singapore Law Reports, 2, 49.

  • Reyes v The Queen (2002). Appeal Cases, 2, 235.

  • Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General (2011). Singapore Law Reports, 2, 1189.

  • Yong Vui Kong v PP (2010). Singapore Law Reports, 3, 489.

Laws

  • Arms Offences (Amendment) Act 1993. Act No. 30 of 1993.

  • Arms Offences Act 1973. Act No. 61 of 1973.

  • Arms Offences Act (Chapter 14). 2008 Revised Edition.

  • Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1969. Act No. 17 of 1969.

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1992. Act No. 13 of 1992.

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2012. Act No. 33 of 2012.

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68). 2012 Revised Edition.

  • Hostage-Taking Act (Chapter 126C). 2011 Revised Edition.

  • Internal Security Act (Chapter 143). 1985 Revised Edition.

  • Kidnapping Act (Chapter 151). 1999 Revised Edition.

  • Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 1975. Act No. 49 of 1975.

  • Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 1989. Act No. 38 of 1989.

  • Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 1998. Act No. 20 of 1998.

  • Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012. Act No. 30 of 2012.

  • Misuse of Drugs Act 1973. Act No. 5 of 1973.

  • Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185). 2008 Revised Edition.

  • Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. Chapter 71. (UK).

  • Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance 1883. Ordinance No. 2 of 1883.

  • Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012. Act No. 32 of 2012.

  • Penal Code (Chapter 224). 2008 Revised Edition.

  • Penal Code. Ordinance No. 4 of 1871.

  • Prisons Act (Chapter 247). 2000 Revised Edition.

  • Radiation Protection (Amendment) Act 2014. Act No. 20 of 2014.

  • Radiation Protection Act (Chapter 262). 2008 Revised Edition.

  • Singapore Armed Forces Act (Chapter 295). 2000 Revised Edition.

  • Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act 2007. Act No. 50 of 2007.

  • Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act (Chapter 324A). 2008 Revised Edition.

International Instruments

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) (16 December 1966).

  • Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty. Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 (25 May 1984).

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly resolution 217A (III) (10 December 1948).

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Michael Hor, Ho Hock Lai, Damien Chng and the two annonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. All errors which remain are mine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wing-Cheong Chan.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Offences with the death penalty

There are altogether 25 offences which carry the death penalty in Singapore (one of which is not in force yet at the time of writing):

  1. 1.

    Using or attempting to use arms—Arms Offences Act, s 4

  2. 2.

    Using or attempting to use arms to commit scheduled offence—Arms Offences Act, s 4A

  3. 3.

    Punishment for accomplices—Arms Offences Act, s 5

  4. 4.

    Trafficking in arms—Arms Offences Act, s 6

  5. 5.

    Hostage-taking—Hostage-Taking Act, s 3

  6. 6.

    Offences relating to firearms, ammunition and explosives—Internal Security Act, s 58

  7. 7.

    Consorting with person carrying or having possession of fire arms or explosives—Internal Security Act, s 59

  8. 8.

    Abduction, wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement for ransom—Kidnapping Act, s 3

  9. 9.

    Trafficking in controlled drugs (above a certain quantity)—Misuse of Drugs Act, s 5Footnote 51

  10. 10.

    Manufacture of controlled drugs—Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6

  11. 11.

    Import and export of controlled drugs (above a certain quantity)—Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7

  12. 12.

    Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Government—Penal Code, s 121

  13. 13.

    Offences against the President’s person—Penal Code, s 121A

  14. 14.

    Piracy by law of nations—Penal Code, s 130B

  15. 15.

    Punishment for genocide—Penal Code, s 130E

  16. 16.

    Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof—Penal Code, s 132

  17. 17.

    Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of a capital offence—Penal Code, s 194

  18. 18.

    Punishment for murder—Penal Code, s 302Footnote 52

  19. 19.

    Abetment of suicide of child or insane person—Penal Code, s 305

  20. 20.

    Attempt to murder—Penal Code, s 307

  21. 21.

    Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder—Penal Code, s 364

  22. 22.

    Gang-robbery with murder—Penal Code, s 396

  23. 23.

    Acts against nuclear facilities—Radiation Protection Act, s 26DB (not in force yet)

  24. 24.

    Mutiny—Singapore Armed Forces Act, s 15

  25. 25.

    Terrorist bombing—Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act, s 3

This compilation does not include general provisions relating to attempt, abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit a capital offence, as well as joint liability for a capital offence committed by the principal offender.Footnote 53 Such offenders may also be subject to the death penalty. For example, a person who abets another to commit drug trafficking is liable to the punishment provided for the offence of drug trafficking itself, such that if the amount of drugs trafficked is above a certain quantity, the death penalty will apply.Footnote 54

Appendix 2

Death row inmates whose sentences were commuted

According to media reports, only six inmates on death row had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonmentFootnote 55 since Singapore’s independence in 1965 (Straits Times 1992, 2001; Associated Press 2005; Tham 2012). Their names, personal details and crimes for which they were convicted are as follows:

  1. 1.

    Mohamad Kunjo Ramalan, a 54 year old man who killed a friend during an argument when they were drunk. The Privy Council, Singapore’s highest court at the time, dismissed the appeal but recommended that the President consider exercising his prerogative of mercy (Mohamad Kunjo s/o Ramalan v PP 1979). His death sentence was commuted in 1978.

  2. 2.

    Bobby Chung Hua Watt, a 26 year old man who killed his brother-in-law while trying to mediate in his sister’s family problems. His death sentence was commuted in 1980.

  3. 3.

    Siti Aminah Jaafar, the first woman to be sentenced to death for drug trafficking in 1978 when she was only 18 years old. Her death sentence was commuted in 1982. She was released from jail in 1991 after spending 13 years in jailFootnote 56 but was subsequently detained at a drug rehabilitation centre at least three times and finally convicted of another drug offence and sentenced to imprisonment for 5½ years.

  4. 4.

    Koh Swee Beng, a 22 year old man who killed a man who assaulted his foster father. His death sentence was commuted in 1992.

  5. 5.

    Sim Ah Cheoh, a 47 year old woman who was sentenced to death for drug trafficking. Her death sentence was commuted in 1992. She was subsequently released on another appeal to the President because she was suffering from terminal cancer even though she still had 6 years of her imprisonment sentence remaining. She died 6 weeks after her release.

  6. 6.

    Mathavakannan Kalimuthu, a 19 year old man who, together with two others, took part in the killing of a gangster in a fight. His death sentence was commuted in 1998.Footnote 57

Of the six persons:

  • Four were convicted of murder and two for drug trafficking

  • Four were men and two women (coincidentally, both of the women were convicted of drug trafficking)

  • Four were relatively young at the time of offence (aged 18, 19, 22 and 26), while the other two were aged 47 and 54

Clemency process

Although clemency is officially granted by the President of Singapore, his duty in this respect is ceremonial in nature as he acts “on the advice of the Cabinet” and not in his personal discretion (Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General (2011)). Reports from the judge who tried the case and the presiding judge of the appellate court which confirmed the death sentence, as well as the Attorney-General’s opinion on these reports, are furnished to the Cabinet for deliberation (Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Article 22P). Information on the Cabinet discussion is not publicly available and even the inmate has no right to ask for the reports made in the clemency process (Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General (2011)). The possibility for judicial challenge is thus extremely limited.

There is no assurance that inmates who are young or particularly vulnerable will be considered favourably in their clemency petitions. This stance of the Singapore Government is exemplified by the case of Tong Chieng Mun in 1988 who was convicted of drug trafficking. She was found with heroin strapped to her body while in transit at Changi Airport. She was sentenced to death and hanged in 1995 despite being only a few months past her 18th birthday at the time of the offence (Vijayan 2009).

Appendix 3

A sample of sentencing decisions under the new lawFootnote 58

  1. 1.

    Murder under the Penal Code, s 300(c)

    • Fabian Adiu Edwin—life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane

    • Gopinathan Nair Remadevi—life imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane

    • Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus—life imprisonment and ten strokes of the cane

    • Wang Wenfeng—life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane

  2. 2.

    Drug couriers who have substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau

    • Yong Vui Kong (47.27 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • Subashkaran Pragasam (186.62 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • Yip Mun Hei (18.43 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim (72.50 g diamorphine (first charge); 14.99 g diamorphine (second charge))—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane (on the first charge)

    • Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam (75.41 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • V Shanmugam a/l Veloo (28.5 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • Siva a/l Sannasi (43.32 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • Cheong Chun Yin (2,726 g of diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • Christeen d/o Jayamany (44.96 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment (caning was not imposed as she is a female)

    • Yogaras Poongavanam (36.27 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane

    • Jafar Shatig bin Abdul Karim (56.17 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment and 16 strokes of the caneFootnote 59

  3. 3.

    Drug couriers who suffer from “diminished responsibility”

    • Dinesh Pillai Reja Retnam (major depressive disorder with some organic damage to the brain) (19.35 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment

    • Wilkinson a/l Primus (intellectually challenged and suffered from depression) (35.66 g diamorphine)—life imprisonment

    • Pang Siew Fum (major depressive disorder) (2,726 g of diamorphine)—life imprisonment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, WC. The Death Penalty in Singapore: in Decline but Still Too Soon for Optimism. Asian Criminology 11, 179–206 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-015-9226-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-015-9226-x

Keywords

Navigation