Singapore's deadly war on drugs
The city-state's insistence on executing drug mules raises eyebrows.
The execution of a suspected drug trafficker on the 26th of March 2003 illustrates the reality that the Singapore criminal justice system is still governed by extremely draconian laws concerning the sale and use of illicit narcotics. Accused of facilitating the trafficking of over one kilogram of cannabis, Tangaraju Suppiah was put to death by the Singaporean authorities despite repeated appeals for clemency by his immediate family members.
Commenting on the case, Phil Robertson, the deputy director of a human rights organization, condemned Singapore’s refusal to do away with the harsh punishments that its courts typically impose on those found guilty of either consuming or importing this particular drug. He unfavorably contrasted Singapore’s hardline stance with the gradually evolving policies in other parts of the world that have been characterized by a progressive shift towards the decriminalization of cannabis use.
The truth of his statement is evinced by the decision of the United Nations affiliated Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in 2020 to remove cannabis from the list of strictly outlawed ‘‘Schedule A’’ drugs. This is a landmark policy change that has paved the way for further research into the potential medicinal properties of cannabis.
The softening global attitude towards cannabis use has been pilloried by the Singaporean authorities. Speaking on behalf of the government, Law Minister K. Shanmugam insisted that the move by the CND to reclassify cannabis was engineered by an insidious cartel of pharmaceutical companies eager to profit off the anticipated sale of cannabis derived products.
In defense of Singapore’s refusal to revoke its blanket ban on the use of cannabis derivatives, he listed the harms associated with cannabis use, noting a recent finding by the British medical journal known as the Lancet that long term cannabis users were more susceptible to developing psychosis. He also claimed that a well-established corpus of medical literature has demonstrated that cannabis is an addictive substance that inflicts great harm on its users.
Nevertheless, the minister’s rationale fails to hold up when it is taken in account that alcohol is legally available to consumers in Singapore. Medical research has demonstrated that in terms of the long-term health damage inflicted by constant use, all the existing evidence indicates that alcohol is a more harmful drug than cannabis.
Pancreatitis, cardiovascular damage and liver failure are some of the chronic and potentially life-threatening maladies associated with alcohol abuse. And while it is certainly true that cannabis use can be potentially addictive, the same applies to alcohol consumption as well. Alcohol consumption also inflicts a significant social burden as evidenced by the reality that alcohol related harm costs public health services in Britain an average of 3.5 billion per annum.
It is puzzling then that Mr. Shanmugam insists on adopting a harsh stance that completely proscribes the use of cannabis while choosing to ignore the reality that more harmful alternatives are sold openly in Singapore. Given the grievous medical problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption, its consumption and sale should also be prohibited in line with the government’s self-proclaimed agenda to protect its citizens from inherently dangerous vices.
Moreover, the minister’s denunciation of cannabis use also seems to overlook the growing body of medical evidence which demonstrates that cannabis possesses palliative and even curative medical qualities when administered by licensed medical practitioners.
Anyone who has ever enrolled in an introductory course on political philosophy will immediately recognize that the Singaporean government’s policies towards cannabis use smacks of legal paternalism.
As defined by the academic philosopher Paul Smith, legal paternalism is a particular ideology that legitimizes a state’s efforts to prohibit its citizens from engaging in voluntary self-harm and accordingly often manifests itself in legislation that bans the use of drugs.
However, as Smith points out, by circumscribing the personal freedom of individuals, the state undermines the autonomy of rational adults by treating them like children that lack the necessary maturity to make their own independent decisions.
When viewed in this light, the coercive attitude displayed by the Singaporean authorities towards both the sellers and consumers of cannabis raises the question as to the sort of limits if any, that the government will respect when it comes to regulating the private conduct of its citizens.
This sort of aggressive moral policing aimed at preventing individual agents from employing their personal judgement when it comes to acting in their own bests interests is better suited to religious theocracies such as Iran than a state like Singapore which seeks to portray itself as a modern, cosmopolitan nation.
Furthermore, the moral stance displayed by the Singaporean government in its righteous denunciation of drug traffickers is somewhat undermined by the fact that it has collaborated in commercial undertakings with regional drug kingpins.
The news media in neighboring Malaysia has emphasized the fact that the Singaporean authorities have previously participated in a joint commercial venture with an infrastructure conglomerate owned by the late Lo Hsing Han, a notorious drug lord who had close ties with the ruling junta in Myanmar.
Blacklisted by the U.S authorities for his involvement in the illegal narcotics trade, Lo and his Singaporean wife were allowed to operate various companies based in Singapore. In allowing powerful drug syndicates to operate on its soil with impunity while simultaneously executing lowly mules like Suppiah, Singapore has demonstrated a decided lack of sincerity in its professed dedication towards combating the scourge of illegal drugs.
Ultimately, all states should heed the iconic 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill who exhorted governments to refrain from interfering with the decisions undertaken by the individual citizen provided that his/ her actions did not infringe upon the fundamental rights of other agents. Provided that drug dealers supply their wares to adult consumers without any cognitive impairments who have not been coerced or manipulated into making the choice to use cannabis, there can be no moral justification for inflicting the capital punishment on the former.
By executing suspected cannabis traffickers such as Suppiah, the Singapore government has proven itself to be guilty of the most heinous rights violation by depriving its victims of the right to life itself.