injured), and rape. Singapore’s procedure for hanging condemned individuals is influenced by the methods practised previously in Great Britain. Capital punishment cases are heard by a single judge in the High Court of Singapore. After conviction and sentencing, the sentenced has one appeal to the Court of Appeal of Singapore. If the appeal fails, the final recourse is rested with the President of Singapore, who has the power to grant clemency on the advice of the Cabinet. Yet successful clemency applications are thought to be rare. Since 1965, the President’s clemency has only been granted six times and the last one was in May 1998, where Mathavakannan Kalimuthu received a pardon from President Ong Teng Cheong. This controversial law contributes to the nation’s reputation for its strict stance on crime and low priority in upholding human rights. Its stringent laws regarding drugs have been explained by the need for deterrence towards drug abuse and drug mules from using Singapore as a transit point for smuggling. In a 2010 interview with a UK newspaper Michael Teo, Singapore’s High Commissioner to the Court of St. James’s, launched a robust defence of Singapore’s drug laws: “According to the 2008 World Drug Report by the United Nations office on drugs and crime 8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates – such as heroin, opium and morphine – 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore. We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centres.”4 However, it has often been disputed as to whether the death penalty is an effective balance between crime control and violation of sanctity of human life. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime notes that Singapore remains a transit destination for drug traffickers in Asia, drug seizures continue to increase and heroin drug use within Singapore is continuing to rise.5 In light of criticisms, Singapore has reviewed their draconian drug laws regarding the mandatory death penalty in the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2012. 2. SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT OF MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT In November 2012, after much parliamentary debate, the government amended the Misuse of Drugs Act. When an accused is convicted of trafficking, importing or exporting drugs above a certain quantity, the Court is granted discretion to sentence the accused to life imprisonment with caning for drug offenders if the accused satisfied the conditions to be granted a Certificate of Substantive Assistance or suffered from such an abnormality of mind that it substantially impaired his mental responsibility for committing the offence. 3. CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIVE ASSISTANCE The relevant portion of the law lies in s33B (1) and (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In short, s33B (1) empowers the court with the option of sentencing the convict to imprisonment for 4 James Goyder, “Drug Addiction and Rehabilitation in Draconian Singapore” The Independent (23 May 2011) 5 UNODC Laboratory and Scientific Section Portals, “The Global Smart Programme: Singapore” <https://www.unodc.org/LSS/Page/NPS/GlobalSmart> last assessed 8 July 2015
89
life. In order to do so, however, the convict must satisfy two conditions provided in s33B (2), namely: (a) The person convicted proves, on a balance of probabilities, that his involvement in the offence under section 5(1) or 7 was restricted — to transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug; to offering to transport, send or deliver a controlled drug; to doing or offering to do any act preparatory to or for the purpose of his transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug; or to any combination of activities above; (b) The Public Prosecutor certifies to any court that, in his determination, the person has substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore. The first instance of a serving inmate on the death row to be issued the certificate is Yong Vui Kong. He was caught in 2007 in possession of 47.27g of heroin near the Meritus Mandarin Hotel by Central Narcotics Bureau officers. In 2009, Yong was sentenced by Justice Choo Han Teck to suffer death under s5(1a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). In September 2013, the Attorney General’s Chambers released a media statement stating that “the Public Prosecutor will certify to the High Court that Yong had substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within and outside Singapore.” Two main issues emerge, which this article will discuss. Firstly, the determinative factor whether a convict has rendered substantive assistance is the value of the information he is able to provide. Substantive assistance to the Bureau to disrupt drug trafficking activities would include the provision of information leading to the arrest or detention or prosecution of person involved in drug activity. Information that does not enhance the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Act will not suffice. Secondly, the issue of the certificate will be determined by the Public Prosecutor in his sole discretion. Sole discretion means that he is given complete autonomy in the decision process to issue the certificate. 4. EVALUATION OF NATURE OF SUBSTANTIVE ASSISTANCE It has been criticised that the criteria for “provision of information leading to arrest or detention or prosecution is inherently unfair and onerous to the convict.”6 Drug couriers are often on the lower rungs of the ladder in the larger hierarchy of illegal drug trade. Hence it is unrealistic for them to possess such information that would be of “substantive assistance” as leaders of these drug syndicates often take steps to restrict the flow of information to couriers.7 Moreover, revelation of such information would endanger family members and it is foolhardy to assume that the police can provide them with round-the-clock protection. As such, these stringent limits are to the detriment to the convict’s likelihood of escaping the noose. The limitations are indeed stringent and the “substantive assistance” test is not an easy criteria to pass. However, the Singapore government tries to justify why it should not be an easy one to pass. The point of the amendment is to relax the 6 Joshua Kow, “How substantive is substantive assistance?” Singapore Law Review (31 October 2013) 7 Ibid