Tangaraju Suppiah's Scheduled Execution for Possession of Cannabis Sparks Outrage from Amnesty International
The scheduled execution of Tangaraju Suppiah, a Singaporean man, for conspiring to smuggle one kilogram of cannabis, has reignited the debate over the country's use of the death penalty for drug offences. Singapore has some of the world's toughest anti-narcotics laws and remains one of the few countries that retain capital punishment for drug trafficking. Despite mounting pressure from human rights groups to abolish the death penalty, Singapore insists that it is an effective deterrent against drug trafficking. This article provides a critical analysis of Singapore's controversial use of the death penalty for drug offences, with a particular focus on Tangaraju Suppiah's case.
Tangaraju Suppiah was convicted in 2017 of "abetting by engaging in a conspiracy to traffic" 1,017.9 grams of cannabis, twice the minimum volume that merits the death sentence in Singapore. He was sentenced to death in 2018, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. Tangaraju's family received a notice from the prisons department that he would be sent to the gallows on Wednesday, prompting Amnesty International to condemn the decision as "extremely cruel."
The case has sparked outrage from human rights groups who argue that the use of the death penalty for drug offences is a violation of international law and incompatible with the fundamental principles of human rights. In many parts of the world, including neighbouring Thailand, cannabis has been decriminalised, and authorities have abandoned prison sentences. Amnesty International has been mounting pressure on Singapore to abolish the death penalty for drug offences.
The Singaporean government argues that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against drug trafficking, a claim that has been widely disputed by human rights groups and the United Nations. The United Nations has stated that the death penalty has not proven to be an effective deterrent globally and is incompatible with international human rights law, which only permits capital punishment for the most serious crimes.
One of the most controversial aspects of Singapore's use of the death penalty is the strict application of the law. In Tangaraju's case, he was convicted of "abetting by engaging in a conspiracy to traffic" cannabis, despite never actually handling the drugs. This strict interpretation of the law means that anyone who abets the commission of a crime under the law shall also be guilty of that offence and liable to the same punishment, as stated by High Court judge Hoo Sheau Peng.
Tangaraju's case also raises questions about due process and access to legal counsel. He was questioned by the police without legal counsel and claimed that he was denied a Tamil interpreter. These issues raise concerns about the fairness of the trial and the adequacy of legal representation.