Capital Punishment in Singapore: A Critical Analysis of State Justifications From 2004 to 2018

Abstract

This article examines state justifications for capital punishment in Singapore. Singapore is a unique case study because capital punishment has largely been legitimised and justified by state officials. It illustrates how Singapore justifies capital punishment by analysing official discourse. Discussion will focus on the government’s narrative on capital punishment, which has been primarily directed against drug trafficking. Discussion will focus on Singapore’s death penalty regime and associated official discourse that seeks to justify state power to exercise such penalties, rather than the ethics and proportionality of capital punishment towards drug-related crimes. Critical analysis from a criminological perspective adds to the growing body of literature that seeks to conceptualise social and political phenomena in South-East Asia.

Impact of justice‐related dispositions on support for cyber vigilantism: The mediating effect of perceived severity of transgression

“…Hence, they may be more supportive of vigilantism as a traditional means of maintaining community safety and order. On the other hand, Singapore is known for its strict law enforcement (Yap & Tan, 2020) and tradition of punishing those who defy authorities (Asia Watch, 1989). Thus, legal authoritarians in Singapore may be more hesitant in supporting vigilante justice.…”

Between containment and crackdown in Geylang, Singapore: Urban crime control as the statecrafting of migrant exclusion

“…The PAP exerts a highly centralised political control of civil society activity and often reverts to the criminal justice system to discipline transgression and dissent (Rajah, 2012). Certain dimensions may usefully be described as ‘authoritarian’, encompassing high rates of imprisonment (Chok, 2018); sometimes extreme punishment for recreational drug use (Chok, 2018); use of capital and corporal punishment (Yap and Tan, 2020); strict control and censoring of political opposition; and a pervasive system of CPTED (Yuen, 2004). Governmental activities frequently harness ‘survivalist’ discourses constructing Singapore as small and fragile, justifying rigid control over the economy and legitimising the dispensation of political freedoms (Lim et al, 2014: 13): the message is that only with a ‘strong state’ and constant vigilance can the national interest be protected, guaranteeing Singapore’s ongoing stability.…”