SINGAPORE, Sept 2 — Will Singapore’s death penalty go the way of Section 377A, as public attitudes towards it shifts? Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam tackled this and other questions related to capital punishment in an interview with a Malaysian television station which aired on Thursday evening (Sept 1).

Mr Shanmugam was being interviewed on the Malaysian news organisation Astro Awani’s Consider This programme, a transcript of which was shared with Singapore media outlets.

In the 25-minute video interview, Ms Melisa Idris, the assistant vice president and editor of Astro Awani, quizzed the minister about Singapore’s continued use of the death penalty, amidst what she says is international concern over the frequency of executions happening in Singapore this year.

The Consider This programme has previously interviewed analysts and experts to comment on a range of topics such as the political ongoings within Malaysia, as well as social and environmental issues, among others.

The following is an edited version of how Mr Shanmugam responded to the questions.

On the death penalty

Ms Melisa: In recent decades, there seems to be a clear trend away from capital punishment. I think more than 70 per cent of the world’s countries have either abolished the death penalty, in law or in practice. Do you see Singapore’s harsh drug policies eventually going the same way (or) shifting too?

Mr Shanmugam: Melisa, first, in terms of countries. China, India, the United States — the three largest countries by population, and together, 40 per cent of the world’s population — have the death penalty.

I think we need to try and accept that a significant part of the world does impose the death penalty, (and has) the death penalty on the books.

Second, when you say Singapore’s “harsh” penalties, I think you have got to understand the framework.

If you look at our laws, our position on the death penalty is quite clear. We have it because it has been an effective deterrent for us, and it has saved lives in Singapore.

Looking at the death penalty for drug trafficking — after the mandatory death penalty was introduced for opium in 1990, there was a 66 per cent reduction in the average weight of opium trafficked into Singapore.

In the 1990s, we were arresting about 6,000 drug abusers in Singapore per year. Now, we are arresting half that number, or about 3,000, even though our population has grown, and even though Singapore’s wealth has grown and people can pay more.

That is 3,000 abusers per year saved from the effect of drugs, and countless more — family members, relatives, children.

So, what would happen if we shifted away to a softer approach to drugs? You don’t have to guess.

On international criticism

Ms Melisa: I want to ask you about the international chorus of criticism over Singapore’s use of the death penalty. Why is it that we are seeing such a backlash? Most recently, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Office, the International Commission of Jurists — those are among the few who are criticising Singapore, in particular, over its continued executions.

Mr Shanmugam: The UN has got different organisations, so some parts of it say well, you shouldn’t apply the death penalty for drug trafficking, and in fact, you shouldn’t have the death penalty at all.

But do you see the same “chorus of criticism” when the United States executes people?

I think we need to look at what is the basis for the criticism, what are they saying?

Look at countries like in Latin America. The Financial Times carried an article recently (that) 18 out of the 21 mainland countries now have lost control because of drugs. Organised crime has taken over, their countries are a major source of transit, and big problems — kidnappings, crime.

Now, who is looking at the lives of these people? Have you seen the UN Human Rights Office talk about the lives that have been lost in the US, or in other countries in Latin America and Asia? What about that? Do we not have compassion for the victims?

On reputation

Ms Melisa: You don’t think that the international reputation of Singapore has suffered over the executions?

Mr Shanmugam: Well, tell me, has it suffered? From the flight to quality, or people coming in here in the thousands? And the investment flow, and the deal flow? Singapore’s reputation has never been stronger.

On support for death penalty

Ms Melisa: Are the majority of Singaporeans persuaded by the Government’s justification for the continued use of capital punishment?

Mr Shanmugam: In Singapore, our most recent survey in 2021 (found that) seven in 10 people say they support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and nearly 80 per cent support the mandatory death penalty for murder.

Why do they support it? Because more than 80 per cent believe that the death penalty had deterred these offences in Singapore. The data speaks for itself.

Ms Melisa: What is the Government’s approach to those working against the death penalty, especially if that effort is coming from across the Causeway?

Mr Shanmugam: Our effort is to explain to people why we have the penalty. Any penalty can only be justified if you can explain it rationally as to why you have it.

Within Singapore, our task as (with) any government, if we believe that it is the right thing to do, is to persuade our people, including the 20 to 30 per cent (who do not support the death penalty), that we are doing the right thing.

Of course, if there is a different view that is in the majority, ultimately, that will prevail, and the laws will have to change to reflect the majority viewpoint.

But, if you are in the government and you believe that something is right, whether it’s (the) majority viewpoint or minority viewpoint, you explain your position, and then you decide whether morally, you are prepared to stay on, even though you think the steps that are going to be taken are going to be against public interest.

Ms Melisa: Singapore recently repealed Section 377A of the Penal Code, the law that criminalises sex between men, and this is because public attitudes had “shifted appreciably”. Would that be the same for the death penalty — that the Government might reconsider its stand if public attitudes change significantly?

Mr Shanmugam: First of all, it won’t be quite accurate to say that the Section 377A repeal was announced by the Singapore Government simply because public attitudes have shifted. There is a question of whether Section 377A raises public order issues.

With the death penalty, the issues are slightly different. It’s not quite everyday morality. It’s bound with...philosophical questions which have real life consequences, like can you put someone to capital punishment, even if you’re convinced that a larger number of lives will be saved?

Now, the point that (I’m)...making to you is that a larger number of lives would be saved.

But supposing elections were fought, and a party puts up on its platform that they’re going to abolish the death penalty, and they win — that is their manifesto...(and) they are duty bound to the electorate to go and abolish the death penalty.

So, public opinion does matter. But if you ask me...I will say it is my duty to continue to try and persuade Singaporeans that having the death penalty works as a serious deterrent, and it keeps Singapore safe.

On cannabis availability in Thailand

Ms Melisa: Thailand (is) the first country in Asia to legalise cannabis. How (do) you see this impacting the drug situation in the region, (and) how it might impact Singapore?

Mr Shanmugam: On (June 9 this year), the government of Thailand... decriminalised the sale of cannabis. Within a week, cannabis was everywhere — in drinks, in food, in toothpaste and cookies. The government had to then try to rein in the effects.

But once it’s in cookies, and once it’s in soft drinks, and once it’s in toothpaste – how do you protect breastfeeding mothers? How do you protect pregnant women? How do you protect young children? How do you police this? So, there are difficulties in controlling once you do this.

Would it be a problem? I think the freer availability of cannabis in Thailand, to which a lot of Singaporeans go and from where a lot of tourists come to Singapore, is going to present more challenges. I’m sure it will.

On Malaysia abolishing the death sentence

Ms Melisa: Malaysia is planning to abolish mandatory death sentencing, returning discretionary power completely to judges for sentencing capital crimes. Is that something that Singapore would consider?

Mr Shanmugam: There is a good reason why we have the mandatory death penalty. It’s a matter of policy. We (the Singapore Government) have decided that once a certain threshold is crossed, in order to have the deterrent effect, people must know that the mandatory death penalty will apply.

If we remove that, the deterrent effect of the death penalty will be substantially reduced.

We are not likely to change simply because Malaysia changes. We will change when we think that the deterrent effect is no longer there, for example, or the conditions are different, and you need to adopt a different approach to have that deterrence — TODAY