Over Half Stand Firm: Singapore’s Drug Offender Execution Gains 58% Support

The war on drugs in Asia has sparked heated debates within society, as countries employ different strategies ranging from leniency to severe measures. Singapore, in particular, has come under scrutiny for its iron fist against drugs.

Capital punishment in Singapore is imposed on individuals involved in significant drug trafficking, including cannabis, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine.

This approach has resulted in several executions, including that of Tangaraju Suppiah, a man convicted of attempting to traffic one kilogram of cannabis. The case has generated widespread controversy worldwide. Despite criticism, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs defends its comprehensive approach to combating drugs.

Suppiah’s execution, a 46-year-old Tamil man, has sparked a global outcry. Concerns have been raised regarding the validity of his conviction and the fairness of his legal representation. Appeals for clemency from his family, activists, and international organizations were ultimately rejected, with Singapore’s High Court emphasizing the strict interpretation of the law.

Critics argue that Singapore’s execution of drug offenders disproportionately targets low-level drug offenders while failing to deter high-level traffickers and organized crime networks effectively.

The act of executing someone for cannabis smuggling has been widely condemned as cruel and misguided. Nevertheless, the Singaporean government maintains that capital punishment is crucial to protect its citizens.

As opinion and international attention continue to mount, Singapore’s approach to drug-related issues faces intense scrutiny. In response to the controversy, Real Research conducted a survey to gauge public opinion on Singapore’s execution of drug offenders.

The survey revealed a mixed range of reactions among participants, reflecting the ongoing debate surrounding Singapore’s approach to tackling drug offenses.

Highlights:

• 57.52% of respondents support Singapore’s execution of drug offenders.
• Singapore’s decision to execute Suppiah was extremely justified, said 54.08%.
• 57.02% argued that Singapore should definitely reconsider its anti-narcotics laws.

According to the survey, the respondents were somewhat equally distributed when asked about their awareness of capital punishment related to drug offenses in Singapore. Specifically, the majority of 34.18% acknowledged that they knew that drug consumption, distribution, or possession is punishable by death in Singapore, and 32.93% were unaware of it. In comparison, 32.89% claimed they were vaguely aware.

Divergent Views on Singapore’s Execution of Drug Peddlers

According to Figure 1, most of the respondents (57.52%) showed their support for Singapore’s execution of drug offenders, remaining 42.48% were against the decision of Suppiah’s execution.

The respondents elaborated on their stance by reasoning why they were for and against the execution. The majority (36.14%) justified their stance by stating that different countries have varying methods of dealing with crime, which is acceptable.   

On the other hand, 17.96% asserted that capital punishment is the only way to curb the illicit narcotics supply chain. However, 15.8% were of the opinion that executing one drug peddler will not impact international trade worth billions every year.

Meanwhile, 30.1% of respondents showed anti-capital punishment sentiments. Particularly, 15.34% exclaimed that execution laws are outdated and suggested that Suppiah could have been sentenced to life imprisonment instead. This was closely followed by 14.76% who resonated with the opinion and condemned Singapore’s move saying executing drug offenders is a violation of human rights and is unethical.

Exploring the Stance on Singapore’s Capital Punishment

The survey further walked the respondents through the case of Suppiah and highlighted that his family and activists pleaded for clemency, arguing that he didn’t receive adequate legal counsel or a language interpreter during interrogation. Following this, when the respondent was asked if the execution was justified, a whopping 54.08% concluded that it was highly justified, leaving 29.23% to say that it was somewhat justified.

On the contrary, 12.48% didn’t echo the majority opinion and thought that it was somewhat justified. Notably, the issue that has raised many eyebrows and stirred up a storm among human rights activists for being unjustified had only 4.21% of respondents reiterating the same thought and stating that it was indeed highly unjustified.

The respondents were further asked about the benefits of enforcing zero-tolerance anti-narcotics laws like that of Singapore, to which most respondents (25.86%) opined that it protects vulnerable populations from narcotics-related exploitation and abuse. However, 19.34% argued that these anti-narcotics laws have no benefits.

16.84% of respondents believed that these laws reduce illegal narcotics trade and associated crime in the country, while 14.28% insisted that it prevents narcotics-related corruption and maintains government integrity. Another 12.25% reckoned that these strict laws promote social order and stability, and 11.43% considered that it might deter drug abuse and addiction.

The negative consequences of enforcing zero-tolerance anti-narcotics laws were also listed by the respondents in the survey. Such harsh laws like execution violate fundamental human rights and lead to brutal practice, according to 26.36%. However, 22.66% believed that there are no drawbacks to having such anti-narcotics laws.

But 50.98% stated various negative impacts of enforcing such strict laws in the country. In detail, 13.05% mentioned the ineffectiveness of these laws in reducing drug use and addiction in the countries which have adopted such laws, closely followed by 12.75% who think it’s disproportionate punishment for non-violent drug offenders.

Moreover, 12.67% reported that it incentivizes the black market and increases violent crime, whereas 12.51% highlighted that enforcing strict anti-narcotics laws contributes to the stigmatization of substance abuse.

Unveiling Singapore’s Zero-Tolerance Policy

Further on in the survey, the participants were asked if Singapore should reconsider its anti-narcotics laws in light of other countries adopting policies of cannabis decriminalization and regulation, coupled with using resulting revenues to support awareness, prevention, and harm reduction initiatives, to which a staggering majority of 57.02% agreed. Nonetheless, 28.12% were on the fence about this and stated that Singapore should reconsider its anti-narcotics laws.

On the flip side, 10.38% seemed unconvinced by the idea and thought the Southeast Asian city-state should probably not reconsider its anti-narcotics laws, and 4.48% resonated with that saying they should definitely not reconsider their laws.

Delving Into the Reasons

In another instance, the surveyed participants were asked for their opinion on why Singapore maintains such a strict anti-narcotics policy despite countries like Thailand decriminalizing cannabis usage. Even though respondents reported multiple reasons behind this, the majority (22.18%) suggested that the possible reason could be to maintain public safety and order.

The other segment of the population, precisely 16.5%, remained unsure. In the meantime, 15.92% acknowledged that this could be due to the ruling People’s Action Party’s belief in a zero-tolerance policy for the country’s stability and security. Another 15.82% gauged that this could be due to its proximity to the “Golden Triangle,” an area historically known for the narcotics trade.

The remaining 14.89% assessed the reason to be due to Trump and other global political figures supporting Singapore’s strict anti-narcotics policy, along with another 14.69% who argued that the zero-tolerance approach to drugs is rooted in Singapore’s history since it was colonized.

Navigating the Alternatives

Interestingly, when asked if there are any alternatives to capital punishment that the respondents believe could be more effective in addressing drug-related offenses, 22.36% seemed convinced that there weren’t any alternatives. However, 19.36% reckoned fines and monetary penalties could help; 16.88% suggested rehabilitation programs; 16.29% voted for probation without parole; 12.63% said community service might help; and 12.48 were of the opinion that probation and parole could curb the issue.

The survey ended with asking the respondents if they thought capital punishment is an effective deterrent for narcotics-related offenses, in the light of Singapore executing 11 people in the past year for narcotics-related offenses. The findings show that 35.46% of the respondents thought it was extremely effective, and 29.17% believed it was somewhat effective. 26.24% chose to stay neutral on the matter, 6.82% opined that it was somewhat ineffective, and 2.31% suggested it was extremely ineffective.