Singapore executes convicted drug trafficker: Why are rights groups angry?

He appealed unsuccessfully to the country’s President for clemency, and his application for permission to review the decision of the Court of Appeal was rejected on February 23 this year.

What is Singapore’s law on capital punishment for drug trafficking?

The law mandates capital punishment for trafficking more than a specified quantity of narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, ketamine and cannabis.

The High Court in its judgment noted that “Under s 33(1) read with the Second Schedule to the MDA, the prescribed punishment for the offence is death”. The judge said that the court has the discretion to not impose the death penalty under certain circumstances, but those requirements were not met in Tangaraju’s case. “Therefore, I passed the mandatory death sentence on the accused,” he said in the order.

Section 33(1) of the MDA says that barring specific exceptions, the Second Schedule “has effect…with respect to the way in which offences…are punishable”. Under the Second Schedule, “unauthorised traffic in cannabis where the quantity is…more than 500 grammes” attracts the death penalty.

So why is there a controversy over the judgment?

It has been pointed out that no drugs were found on Tangaraju’s person or in his possession, and prosecutors only accused him of coordinating the alleged trafficking operation.

According to a statement by the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, Tangaraju was convicted of “abetting drug trafficking by engaging in a conspiracy to traffic” about 1 kg of cannabis from Malaysia to Singapore.

The prosecutors’ charge was based on the claim that two mobile phones used by the alleged courier of the contraband were linked to Tangaraju. Tangaraju denied this, saying only one of the two phones was his, but that he had lost it.

In a blog post titled ‘Why Tangaraju Suppiah doesn’t deserve to die’, published two days before the execution, British tycoon and anti-death penalty campaigner Sir Richard Branson wrote:

“Tangaraju was…not anywhere near these drugs at the time of his arrest. This was largely a circumstantial case that relied on inferences. Investigators and prosecutors acted on the fact that his mobile numbers were stored on the actual drug traffickers’ phone, interpreting phone records and text messages as “proof” of his involvement.

“Tangaraju’s alleged co-conspirator — who was actually caught in possession of the drugs — pleaded guilty to a non-capital offence. The other three people connected to the case were “discharged not amounting to an acquittal” by the prosecution. Tangaraju himself has maintained his innocence from the very beginning of his ordeal.”

Amnesty International pointed out that the conviction “relies mainly on statements from his police interrogation, taken without a lawyer and interpreter present, and the testimony of his two co-accused, one of which had his charges dismissed”.

Prior to the execution, the United Nations human rights body and the Geneva-based Global Commission on Drug Policy appealed to the Singapore government to not go ahead with the process, saying the death penalty for drug offences was disproportionate punishment and against international norms and standards.

What is Singapore’s defence of its policy?

Singapore has long argued that being tough on drugs is critical to keeping itself and its citizens safe and secure, and that capital punishment is important to discourage major drug syndicates from establishing bases in the country.

In September last year, the country’s Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam had quoted a survey by his Ministry that showed nearly 87% of Singaporeans supported the death penalty, and a separate survey among non-Singaporeans from parts of the region in which 83 per cent of respondents said the death penalty made people not want to traffic substantial amounts of drugs into Singapore.

“If I removed the death penalty, the flow of drugs into Singapore will be much higher. Your lives, your siblings’ lives, many other lives would be at risk. More people will die in Singapore if we removed the death penalty,” the Singapore-based broadcaster CNA had quoted Shanmugam as saying in a report published at the time.

Following Branson’s blog post, the Singapore government had pushed back strongly, saying the death penalty was “an essential component of Singapore’s criminal justice system”, that Branson’s claims were “patently untrue”, and that it was “regrettable that Mr Branson, in wanting to argue his case, should resort to purporting to know more about the case than Singapore’s Courts, which had examined the case thoroughly and comprehensively over a period of more than three years”.

Singapore’s policies on drugs and the death penalty were derived from its experience, and it would continue to do what was best for Singaporeans, the Ministry said. “Mr Branson is free to advocate his beliefs for his own countrymen, but he should respect Singaporeans’ choice,” it said.

In its statement, the CNB said, “Capital punishment is used only for the most serious crimes, such as the trafficking of significant quantities of drugs which cause very serious harm, not just to individual drug abusers, but also to their families and the wider society. Capital punishment is part of Singapore’s comprehensive harm prevention strategy which targets both drug demand and supply.”