Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.
Singapore last week hanged Tangaraju Suppiah, who was convicted in 2017 of “abetting by engaging in a conspiracy to traffic” 1,017.9 grams (35.9 ounces) of cannabis, which carries the death sentence in the island republic. The execution took place despite international calls, including by British tycoon Richard Branson, for Singapore to grant him clemency.
There is a growing consensus across the globe that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
About two months ago, on February 28, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held its biennial high-level panel discussion on the death penalty and the focus this year was on limiting the death penalty to the most serious crimes. In the discussion, many speakers said that the right to life was inviolable, asserting that capital punishment was a human rights issue, and not just a matter of criminal justice, and that all states should therefore pursue the path towards full abolition of the death penalty.
One speaker, however, pointedly asked how a state could legislate against the death penalty when public opinion was in favour of it.
Another speaker noted that there was no consensus on the universal abolition of capital punishment, nor even consensus on what constituted the “most serious crimes” for the death penalty. Moreover, international law does not prohibit capital punishment.
Not surprisingly, some other speakers called for respect for cultural differences and religious beliefs, asserting that all states have the right to determine their own legislation.
It is clear countries hold differing but legitimate views on the subject.
In his concluding remarks, Malaysia’s permanent representative to the UN, Ahmad Faisal bin Muhamad, was right to say that despite the different views and experiences, it was encouraging that states had come together to learn from one another.
The UNHRC should therefore continue to facilitate dialogue on the subject, aimed at bridging differences.
This is what anti-death penalty organisations and individuals like Branson should do as well.
Mohamad Hafiz Bin Hassan, lecturer, Faculty of Law, Multimedia University, Malaysia
Desperate call for maturity as war drums beat on
Kristin Huang’s report on the reaction of an influential Chinese newspaper to Japan’s increased militarisation makes for disturbing reading as international tensions continue to rise in Europe and our Indo-Pacific region (“Japan’s offensive military posture to have ‘serious impact’ on stability in the region”, May 1).
Dangerously, across the world the focus is very much on preparation for war rather than on securing global peace.
The one glimmer of hope in this gloomy trend is that China, much more than the West, is taking the initiative in seeking to broker a peace between Russia and Ukraine. It’s a belated move rightly welcomed by the European Commission.
Both China and the West have so far been tardy in their efforts to end this barbarous conflict by negotiation. We in the West – and China – must cast aside our respective propagandist perceptions of this war and wake up to the reality of international conflict and how to resolve it.
Throughout history, it has never been the case that all the good was on one side and all the bad on the other. Considerable maturity and flexibility are now needed on all sides if the dreadful carnage in Ukraine is to be ended and a war over Taiwan avoided.
Terry Hewton, Adelaide, Australia
Equality watchdog should be more open to potential cases
In light of the Audit Commission’s report calling on the Equal Opportunities Commission to improve customer satisfaction with its services, we believe the city’s equality watchdog should review its mechanism for dealing with potential cases of discrimination.
While working on a public policy project at Baptist University, we found that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department uses mainly Chinese in its social media posts, even though non-Chinese speakers account for more than 8 per cent of the city’s population. The department believes it is sufficient for non-Chinese speakers to refer to its bilingual press releases and websites via the hyperlinks provided in the social media posts.
This practice potentially discriminates against linguistic minorities in Hong Kong. As such, we referred the case to the Equal Opportunities Commission. But instead of following up, the commission asked us to provide evidence that we had directly suffered because of the department’s policy.
It was disappointing that the commission did not consider the broader context.
We urge the Legislative Council to work with the commission to issue guidelines for all government departments regarding language use on social media, to prevent discrimination against linguistic minorities in Hong Kong.
Fung Yuen-ki and Lam Wai-yee, Kowloon Tong