Minister's Nazri Aziz speech at the abolition of death penalty event - 13/10/2011, KL

Speech by Dato' Seri Nazri Tan Sri Aziz, Minister in Prime Minister's Department, at the Public Seminar on the Abolition of Death Penalty on 13th October 2011 in Kuala Lumpur

Salutations and greetings

Moving ahead for a more humane world  

1.     First of all, I would like to thank the European Union Delegation to Malaysia and Ambassador His Excellency Mr. Vincent Piket for organising this very important public seminar on the abolition of death penalty in Malaysia.

2.     I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail and members of his Chamber. Let me also take this opportunity to thank my parliamentary colleagues and members of the civil society whose presence today gives this cause a semblance of bipartisan and society-wide support.

3.     His Excellency Mr. Piket called on me in June 2011 in Parliament House to request for my support for this occasion, to which I immediately and gladly consented, fully aware of the contentions surrounding the death penalty in Malaysia and internationally.

4.     I would like you to forgive me for being upfront and candid that I am NOT giving blanket support for the immediate abolition of death penalty in Malaysia. I am supporting this seminar because of the worthiness of the subject which requires rational consultation with the widest possible audience. It is also time for Malaysia to move ahead and not to take a backseat in the international discourse on human rights.    

Moving ahead

5.     Rethinking about the death penalty is part of the Government's effort to move ahead with the times for a more humane world. Prime Minister Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak has spoken about Malaysia as a model of moderation on the world stage at the United Nations last year, and the Government is embarking on reviewing outdated laws, such as the Internal Security Act and the various Emergency declarations, and to adopt new laws that comply with human rights principles. Reviewing the death penalty is in line with that direction.    

 

6.     The forum today is held in conjunction with the World Day Against the Death Penalty on 10^th October. The theme for this year's World Day focuses on “The Inhumanity of the Death Penalty”, highlighting the inhumane nature of death penalty from the potential flaws in sentencing to the physical and mental sufferings of inmates awaiting execution on death row.

7.     Therefore, the discussion on the abolition of death penalty is a noble cause and a very timely effort.  

Noble cause

8.     It is noble because, as men and women holding worldly power, our role is not to play god but to ensure that justice prevails in our societies. Our task in government is to find the most humane yet effective ways to uphold justice for our citizens and humankind in general. Taking away the lives of convicted criminals should be the last resort in the rarest instances and not a norm.

9.     Reviewing the death penalty is a timely effort. More than two thirds of the world's countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.

·        97 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes;

·        8 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes except

extraordinary crimes such as those committed in times of war;

·        34 countries are de facto abolitionists: the death penalty is still provided for in legislation but no executions have been carried out for at least ten years;

·        Hence, effectively, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty de jure or de facto. However, 58 countries and territories still uphold the death penalty but only 23 countries carried out executions in 2010.

10.                         Noting also that the last few decades of "Tough on Crime" thinking, especially in the United States but not exclusively, has not been effective in reducing crime.  The failure of the "Tough on Crime" movement taught us that it is necessary to take a more holistic view about crime and address the root causes of crime and not to just focus on punishment. Further, it is better to err on the caution then to execute an innocent person.

11.                        Towards this end, the Home Ministry has embarked on parole, social service and other alternative punishments. The next logical step is for us to examine the effectiveness of death penalty in curbing crime and ensuring justice for all, including victims of crime and the accused.  

Our agenda  

12.                         As I said earlier, I am not here to give blanket support for the abolition of the death penalty. The Government is committed to reevaluating, rethinking and reviewing the death penalty.  

13.                         In June 2011, the Malaysian Parliament held a roundtable on the death penalty attended by elected representatives, legal luminaries and members of the civil society. It is part of our modest attempt to begin the consultation process.

 

14.                        In the roundtable, the Attorney-General's Chamber made public for the first time its policy decision not to enact new law that carries the death penalty. The Chamber is also considering whether the death penalty should be abolished entirely or partially. There are also discussions about a middle path approach to remove the mandatory death sentence and return discretion to the judges. 

15.                        The participants of the roundtable passed a resolution calling on the Government to impose moratorium on death penalty while a thorough review is being conducted. The Government is considering all views being presented in the said roundtable as well as today's public seminar.

16.                         In conclusion, I commend the European Union Delegation to Malaysia for its effort in organising this landmark seminar and reiterate the Malaysian Government's commitment to move ahead with time to bring forward a more humane world.

The End

Note:- In his speech, there were additions and elaborations, but the above is essentially the main points that were made. Speech was delivered at Abolition of Death Penalty Event - 13/10/2011, 2pm, KL Convention Centre 

The Attorney General unfortunately did not attend.

  

EU for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia

Public event to Promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur, 13 October 2011, 3pm-6pm
Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre
 

Welcoming remarks by H.E. Vincent Piket
Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the EU to Malaysia
 

Yang Berhormat Dato' Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department
Yang Berhormat Senator Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang, President of the Senate

Yang Amat Arif Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Raus Sharif, President of the Court of Appeal
Honourable Dato’ Hashim Yusof, Judge in the Federal Court
Datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department
Lord Alf Dubs of the UK House of Lords and Member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty
Honorable Justice Nico Tuijn, Vice-President of the Court of Appeals of Den Bosch, the Netherlands
Professor Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee, Vice President of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Mr. Tony Woon, Secretary-General of the Malaysian Bar
Excellencies, representatives of the Malaysian government
Excellencies, Ambassadors, High Commissioners and representatives of the diplomatic corps
Distinguished guests from Academia, the law profession, civil society organizations and the general public
Members of the Media

I am pleased to welcome you at this "Public event to promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia". With today's seminar the Delegation of the European Union, the Bar Council and the National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) are marking the International Day against the Death Penalty.

We see this seminar not as an isolated event, but as the start of a campaign. In it we hope to engage with the Malaysian Government, with both houses of Parliament, with the law enforcement bodies and the judiciary, with civil society and with the general public. I am grateful to the Honourable Minister Dato' Seri Nazri Aziz for his support to participate in this debate. I am also grateful for the engagement shown by many members of both sides of parliament, including members of the Malaysia-EU Inter-Parliamentary Caucus.

The European Union holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty. The ban on capital punishment is enshrined in the EU’s founding treaty. Today, none of the 27 EU Member State practises the death penalty. Its abolition is a pre-condition for new Member States to join the European Union.

The abolition of the death penalty worldwide is one of the main objectives of the EU’s human rights policy. Where the death penalty still exists, the EU calls for its use to be progressively restricted and we insist on it being carried out according to minimum standards. The EU uses all its available tools of diplomacy and cooperation to work towards the abolition of the death sentence. In 2011 we have granted EUR 8 million (RM 34 million) to civil society organisations around the world working to that end.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
 

The number of countries that are abolitionist in law or in practice has gone up over the past decade, rising from 108 in 2001 to 139 now. These countries are located on all continents of the world: Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and Africa. They include developed countries as well as developing countries. And they include countries with differing majority religions – Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity. From that, I conclude that the abolition of the death penalty is a value that transcends borders: geographic, economic, and spiritual.

At the same time, 58 countries worldwide still have the death penalty. In 2010 23 countries are known to have carried out executions. And, the Asia-Pacific region accounts for the highest number of executions in the world.

However, there are also positive developments in Asia. Cambodia, Hong Kong, Nepal, Philippines and Timor Leste have abolished the death penalty. Mongolia announced a moratorium. Brunei has not carried out an execution since 1957; South Korea since 1997. No execution has ever taken place in Lao PDR. For the second consecutive year, no executions were recorded in Indonesia in 2010. And no executions happened in Thailand in 2010.

Ladies and gentlemen,
 

Malaysia still has the death penalty. In 2010, there were 114 death sentences. There was one execution reported. And there are 744 persons on death row.

Today I venture the opinion that, while Malaysia is a retentionist country, and while reportedly public opinion favours capital punishment, there is a change of mood and atmosphere. A simple indicator is that the number of death sentences far exceeds the number of executions. In 2010 a large number of death sentences were pardoned or commuted. Influential and high-level personalities have spoken out against the death penalty. The Honourable Minister is among them and I salute him for his courage doing so.
 

Last June, Parliament set up an informal, bipartisan group to promote abolition. At its inaugural meeting, the bi-partisan group called for a moratorium on the death penalty. Such a move would create some important opportunities. It would make it possible to disprove the thesis that, if you abolish the death penalty, your crime rate goes up. It would give an opening to a review of the penal code, for examining if the crimes now punishable with death are really so serious that they warrant death. It would create space for awareness raising among the public, to show that nonlife penalties that have an equally deterrent and retributive force as does life.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
 

Each year on 10 October, the world marks the Day against the Death Penalty. Let us stop and think for a minute about the death penalty concretely.
 

Somewhere in a prison in Malaysia a woman in her early twenties is awaiting trial. This woman, a single mother with a three-year-old child, was naive, irresponsible and plain stupid when agreeing to carry into Malaysia a bag that her new-found boyfriend had given her. The bag turned out to contain an amount of hard drugs.

If found guilty, the young woman deserves to be punished, there is no doubt. But, I am asking those in favour of the death penalty, does the young woman deserve to be executed, as is the mandatory penalty for drug trafficking? Does her child deserve a life burdened with the memory of her dead mother hanging from the gallows? Would those is favour of the death penalty as an abstract notion still be in favour if the young woman was their mother, their child, their sister, their friend? Would they be willing to carry out the execution? And what if, in whatever way, there had been a miscarriage of justice and the young woman was executed innocent?
 

“Death has no appeal.” Under that motto the three co-organisers of today’s seminar hope to contribute to a public debate involving the government, parliament, law enforcement and the judiciary, academics and civil society and the general public. The abolition of the death penalty will be a challenging, but rewarding process, and it may involve several intermediate steps. It is a sovereign process for Malaysia to pursue, but in this process the EU countries hope to be your partner.

Thank you for your attention.

* This welcoming address was copied from PDF format, and I thank H.E. Vincent Piket for making available a copy of his speech, which is published here as part of our struggle for the abolition of the death penalty here in Malaysia and elsewhere.

See earlier related post:- Abolition of Death Penalty Event - 13/10/2011, 2pm, KL Convention Centre

Why we should put an end to the death penalty (TheSunDaily, 18/10/2011)

Why we should put an end to the death penalty

18 October 2011 - 05:08am

Kua Kia Soong

IT IS truly admirable that Malaysians oppose the inoperable hudud law for its dehumanising forms of punishment, but I am surprised that these same people do not likewise vehemently oppose the death penalty that has existed in our system for so long.

On July 20, 1986, I presented a paper entitled “The Quality and Equality of Mercy” at a Bar Council seminar (subsequently published in Insaf) soon after the hangings of Sim Kie Chon, Barlow and Chambers.

The government’s response to foreign criticism was to point to their double standards and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s characteristic response was: “I don’t accept all this accusation of being barbaric ... We learnt all this from them (Westerners).”

The deputy home minister at the time was quoted in Time magazine on Aug 5, 1985 as saying: “The problem with the hanging process is that we’ve got to go through the ritual of appeal. That can take two years. I wish the Pardons Board would make faster decisions so that we can start hanging them … We plan to hang a person every week.” The Attorney-General’s Chambers even urged the mass media to “play up executions” as a deterrent. (Malay Mail, Aug 18, 1983).

Every feudal and pre-feudal social system – Chinese, Malay, Indian, Arab or European – has had penal systems involving the grossest cruelty imaginable.

Punishment is an ancient response to wrongdoing. Throughout history, both the forms of punishment and the rationale for using them have changed markedly. Sociological studies have shown that penal systems everywhere are largely based on tradition, untested assumptions and inferences based on inadequate data.

The English penal system is usually cited for obvious reasons. During 18th century England, death was decreed for several hundred specific offences, particularly those against property, including shooting a rabbit, stealing a handkerchief and damaging a public building. From the outset, therefore, the law incorporated class and political considerations.

Comparative studies have shown that historically, the penalty as a judicial punishment has been seen to bear unequally and unjustly on the poor, minorities and oppressed groups in society.

Progressively, the impetus for change was provided by the humanitarian and working class movements. Eighteen century Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Voltaire provided the philosophical basis for reforms. There soon developed a more humanitarian outlook on crime and punishment and the emergence of humanist values.

A more humanitarian approach led to a concern for rehabilitation of “deviants” based on the personal worth of each human being. Thus, in the modern state and under international human rights standards, the judicial system is intended to protect the individual against the state. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits all forms of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

Consequently in 1908, hanging of children less than 16 years of age was abolished in Britain. Today, most countries forbid its use on offenders under 18. Capital punishment for murder offences has been abolished in Britain since 1965. Although the issue has been brought up periodically in the House of Commons, it has always been defeated. Today, most of Europe has abolished the death penalty.

In the US, the death penalty was stopped by the Supreme Court in 1972 but was reintroduced in 1977. By the 1970s, capital punishment had been abolished as a statutory punishment in about one quarter of the world’s nations.

The judicial taking of life has been described as “the most pre-meditated and most diabolical of murders”. It is basically a relic of the primitive drive for revenge and merely passes the responsibility to the judge or jury who are supposed to be acting on our behalf.

Executions dehumanise society and undermine the common values upon which the full and free development of human society is based in all cultures. The value of human life is lessened once a state, in avowing the defence of its citizens, resorts to inhuman and degrading forms of punishment.

Perhaps the most popular misconception is that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to crime for there is little evidence to show this. According to a British Home Office Research Unit study undertaken in the 80s, over the previous decade, the increase in murders in various categories had been insignificant. This was despite the fact there was a war in Northern Ireland.

Another strong argument against capital punishment is that it entails irrevocable miscarriages of justice. In Britain, if the law on hanging had not changed in 1964, at least six men would have been hanged for offences they did not commit. Astro watchers would have seen the film Hurricane about the former US boxer who spent more than 20 years in jail for a murder he did not commit. If he had been hanged soon after his conviction, his death would have been on the nation’s conscience forever.

No legal system is infallible, and miscarriages of justice usually take time to surface.

The vulnerability of all criminal justice systems to discrimination must be taken into account. There are also human factors involved, particularly political expediency, discretion and public opinion especially in the granting of clemency. The decision to disallow the former Communist Party of Malaysia leader Chin Peng from visiting his ancestors’ graves is a clear example of these factors in play.

Worldwide comparative studies undertaken by Amnesty International have further shown that the wealthy, politically well-connected and members of dominant racial and religious groups are far less likely to be sentenced to death than the poor, supporters of the Opposition and members of minority groups.

The Pardons Board is meant to be the last resort for the condemned when the judiciary has decided their fate. Under Article 42 (5) of the Federal Constitution, it comprises the AG, the prime minister or chief minister, and three others appointed by the Ruler or the Yang di-Pertua Negri. The board tenders advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who acts on it to commute or not to commute the death sentence.

Thus, the board is supposed to be capable of showing that human capacity for mercy or clemency. Former culture minister Mokhtar Hashim was pardoned after he had been convicted of murder. In the case of Sim, Barlows and Chambers, the board exercised its prerogative to refuse clemency on the ground that it was “not justiciable”. The undue haste to execute the three was absolutely unnecessary especially when there were complaints that all legal avenues to save their lives had not been fully exhausted.

The incongruity of the fate of Mokhtar and Sim led to public demands for a review of the criteria by which the A-G recommends commutation of the death sentence. The desirability of the A-G’s presence on the Pardons Board was also questioned as it is the A-G who institutes a prosecution and seeks the death sentence.

It would be fairer for the board to be made up of members seen to be independent and impartial, made up of the widest possible cross-section of society and representative of all classes and ethnic communities. A sizeable majority should be needed if the death sentence is to be upheld.

The case against the death penalty was best summed up by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, a British High Court judge in the sixties: “Can we be sure that the utter and irrevocable finality of the death sentence can always be matched by positive certainty of guilt? In no country, with the fairest system of law, with the most humane and conscientious judiciary do I feel that we can be satisfied of that.”

Dr Kua Kia Soong is a director of human rights organisation Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram). - The Sun Daily, 18/10/2011,

Abolish the death penalty now - Malaysian Bar

Press release: Abolish the death penalty now

Thursday, 13 October 2011 05:23pm
10 October 2011 marked the World Day Against the Death Penalty.  The trend worldwide has been to abolish the death penalty, as the execution of human beings by the State serves as an “example of barbarity” to society and legitimises the taking of human life.  Malaysia is one of the 32 remaining countries in the world that still provide for the death penalty for drug-related offences.  Out of these 32, 13 have the mandatory death penalty.  Malaysia is one of them.  In all Commonwealth countries except Malaysia and Singapore, the mandatory death penalty has been declared to be a “cruel and unusual punishment.”  The Malaysian Bar advocates for the abolition of the death penalty in the belief that every individual has an inherent right to life.  This right is absolute, universal and inalienable, irrespective of any crimes that may have been committed.  There is no empirical proof that the death penalty is effective in deterring heinous crime.  In fact, drug-related offences and addiction have been on the rise in Malaysia since the 1983 amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which brought in the mandatory death penalty. We also know that the vast majority of arrests for drug trafficking is usually of low-ranking “drug mules” who are the most visible and easy to apprehend.  In other words, while policymakers hope that the death penalty serves as a deterrent, the reality is that the majority of these arrests of “minor offenders” would not impact the scale or profitability of the drug market. It is well-acknowledged that no legal system in the world is foolproof or error-free.  The opportunity to right a wrong is, however, not available if the death sentence on a person has been carried out; in such event we, as a society, will be collectively responsible for having sent an innocent man or woman to the gallows.  We should take no risks to subject a person to death, as the execution of the death sentence is irreversible. The death penalty has no place in any society that values human rights, justice and mercy.  The Malaysian Bar has organised today’s public forum, together with the European Union Delegation to Malaysia and the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM), to hear the diverse views on this highly critical matter.  Two of our Members have also produced a short documentary focusing on the death penalty.  It is our sincere hope that the proceedings of this public forum as well as the documentary will further contribute to the debate on this issue in Malaysia.  The Malaysian Bar reiterates its call on the Malaysian Government to immediately abolish the death penalty, and for an immediate moratorium on its use pending its abolition. Lim Chee Wee President Malaysian Bar 13 October 2011 - Malaysian Bar Website

SUHAKAM - Death Penalty is a Grave Violation of Human Rights

PRESS STATEMENT

DEATH PENALTY IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) views with great concern the continued presence of the death penalty as a form of punishment in our statute books. The Commission maintains that the death penalty, although regulated and carried out only after compliance with the legal process, and the exhaustion of all the rights to appeal and the right to pardon, is a grave violation of human rights, in particular, the right of a person to life and the right not to be subject to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that are emphasised under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 

The Commission welcomes the Honourable Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak’s recognition and respect of basic human rights and individual rights and the balance between these rights and the rules of law within the nation’s Parliamentary democratic system. Whilst the Commission welcomes the Government’s commitment made through the Universal Periodic Review report on Malaysia to abolish the death penalty in relation to children, it also wishes to call upon the Government to review the relevance and effectiveness of the capital punishment and to join the other 140 UN member states to completely abolish death penalty. In the interim, it urges the Government to consider a moratorium on the death sentence or to commute the sentences to life imprisonment especially for those who have been on death row for more than five years. In addition, the Commission also calls upon the Government to consider adopting the International Standard Minimum Rules for treatment of Prisoners, to ensure the well being of the prisoners on death row as well as all the other prisoners.

- END -

“HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”

PROFESSOR DATUK DR KHAW LAKE TEE
Vice Chairman
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) 

13 October 2011