The following is the unedited letter to the Straits Times by former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Calvin Cheng. You can read the edited version in the Straits Times here.
Dear Sir
I refer to the recent Parliamentary debate on the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs acts.
Several MPs and Ministers have referred to the plight of drug abusers in the debate; there has been also strong opinion voiced in the House that we should be compassionate towards the drug abusers and their families rather than the traffickers. The Law Minister argues that
"We hardly ever hear tears shed in public for these 200,000 who die. But we shed a lot of tears for everyone on the death row. Compassion is important, but context is also important."
It is indeed with regards to context and compassion that we should re-examine the crime of drug trafficking, but I however come to the opposite conclusion as the Law Minister.
First, let's look at the context. I would like to point out that the victims in drug offences are unique in the sense that unlike in many other crimes, there is a degree of culpability and consent on the side of the ‘victim’. Because of this, it is my contention that drug trafficking is not even a crime that deserves capital punishment.
Murder would not be murder if the victim consents – it would be assisted suicide. Robbery would not be robbery if the victim consents – it could be insurance fraud. The lack of consent is inherent in the very definition of rape. In drug offences however, the ‘victim’ makes a decision to abuse drugs – if this was not the case, there would not be efforts to counsel or rehabilitate the ‘victim’ of drug abuse. The families wrecked by drug abusers should thus also as much blame the drug abuser for inflicting pain on them, as the stranger who sold the drugs.
Second, let's look at how much compassion one should offer drug abusers. As much as it is true that some tears may be shed for some drug abusers, especially those who are driven to drugs by abject socio-economic conditions, there are just as many struggling individuals who remain drug-free. In addition, drug abusers in developed countries are increasingly well-to-do individuals who seek a temporary thrill from illicit substances. Compassion for such individuals would be completely misplaced.
The death penalty for drug trafficking seems then to be an extremely blunt and extreme measure for a crime where victims have a level of culpability and consent not present in other crimes. I do not doubt that there are increasing number of drug users around the world, but the solution cannot be the state-sanctioned killing of drug-couriers. This is a cop-out of an extremely complex socio-economic problem where the roots of drug abuse must be targeted,including poverty, social and familial dysfunction, psychological problems, and a lack of education on the addictive effects of drugs.
The death penalty can ever only be justified, if at all, for the most heinous of crimes. Drug-trafficking and drug-abuse are part of a larger, complex and deeply rooted global social problem, where the victims must share culpability with the perpetrators.
It is not genocide.