毒品危害严重！新加坡将对付死刑犯滥用法庭程序的问题

2024年5月8日，新加坡内政部长尚穆根先生在国会发布新加坡国家禁毒政策的部长声明，声明主要涵盖四个方面，本文重点阐述毒品的危害深远，新加坡立法以解决死刑犯滥用法庭程序的问题。

以下内容为新加坡眼根据国会英文资料翻译整理：

现在，我要谈谈有些人企图破坏我们的做法。我们的方法证据确凿。人们可以看到世界各地正在发生的事情，这就是为什么我花了一些时间逐个解释一些国家--第一世界国家、南美洲国家、美国国家和本地区国家。

尽管如此，近年来，仍有一小撮人试图用关于毒贩和死刑的错误信息误导公众。他们试图通过展示不公平的刑事司法制度对毒贩不利的形象来唤起人们的同情。他们发布毒贩童年的视频、图片和故事，分享对其家庭成员的采访。他有一个兄弟；他有一个姐妹；他有一个孩子；他有一个童年。并把毒贩描绘成不幸环境的受害者--他没有钱，所以他贩卖毒品。

但他们忽略了案件的事实。他们忽略了毒贩对受害者造成的伤害。他们美化了毒贩。他们不为受害者发声，不为被毒品夺去或毁掉的生命数量发声，也不为毒贩贩卖毒品的初衷--赚钱--发声。受害者还有妻子、姐妹、孩子和父母。这些人也都会受到伤害。

如果你面临经济困难，如果你需要钱，那就去找份工作。你不必为了赚钱而贩毒。

刚才，我讲述了一些国外滥用毒品的故事。在新加坡，我们也看到了令人震惊的故事。去年年初，一名男子因与自己 17 岁的女儿分享甲基苯丙胺（冰毒）而被判乱伦罪。女儿依赖他来维持毒瘾，几个月来一直没有说出真相。

在去年的另一起案件中，一名 31 岁的男子，他吸食了各种毒品，并在吸毒后开车，将租来的车撞向一辆公交车，自杀身亡；还撞伤了公交车上的其他 7 名乘客。

下一张幻灯片显示的是一个犯罪现场的照片，一名男子在服用迷幻药（LSD）后，残忍地刺死了自己的母亲，并用拳头打死了自己的祖母。吸毒并非没有受害者，所有这些都是被某些人美化的贩毒者造成的。

下一张幻灯片展示了一个令人心碎的案例，受害者还没有发出自己的声音，生命就被夺走了。这是一具两岁半女童的遗体。她被自己的亲生父亲殴打致死，而父亲是一名冰毒吸食者。为了掩盖自己的罪行，这名男子烧毁了尸体，并将其藏在锅里以掩盖其罪行。

多项研究表明，毒品的危害对下一代影响深远。竹脚妇女儿童医院最近的一项文献综述发现，孕妇吸毒会对胎儿造成严重危害。她们的孩子出生后可能会有先天缺陷，如呼吸窘迫综合症或脑部发育不全。新生儿还可能出现药物戒断症状，增加患病风险，甚至导致婴儿死亡。

社会和家庭发展部 2020 年的一项研究发现，父母犯有毒品罪的儿童将来不幸触犯刑事司法制度的可能性是其他儿童的五倍。

但是，在那些反对死刑的人的演讲和文章中，通常都看不到这些事实和图片。取而代之的是毫无根据的指控、片面的说法和半真半假的事实。这些毫无根据的指控也是针对等待死刑的囚犯--我称他们为PACP。这些指控使人们对法律程序产生怀疑。他们对定罪和判刑表示怀疑。

例如，去年（2023 年）5 月，《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法案》（POFMA）针对 10 个社交媒体帖子和两篇在线文章发出指示，因为它们包含有关法院判处的死刑的虚假陈述。Transformative Justice Collective、The Online Citizen Asia、Andrew Loh、Kirsten Han 和 M Ravi 这五方继续发表虚假声明，声称一名PACP在记录陈述时被拒绝提供翻译。尽管法院明确表示正好相反，但这是对刑事司法系统的公然、虚假攻击。

其中一些积极分子曾帮助被定罪的贩毒者提出毫无根据的法律申请。申请通常是在最后一刻提交的，而那些帮助提交这些申请的人往往躲在PACP及其家人的背后。在一个案件中，有七份上诉后申请，都被法庭驳回，因为它们都没有法律依据。在实质性上诉被驳回后，又接连提出了 7 项没有依据的申请。在第七次上诉后申请中，通讯员的电子邮件地址 - kirstenhan@hey.com - 是由一名家庭成员提供给法庭的。

这显然不属于该家庭，而可能属于一个反死刑活动人士。法院驳回了这一申请，称这是一项明目张胆、伪装不当的申请，目的是扰乱判决的执行。换句话说，这是对程序的明显滥用。

如果拥有名为 Kirsten Han 的电子邮件账户的人参与其中，她就是在帮助滥用程序。

根据法庭的说法，你可以看出协助申请的人想要做什么。

由于今天有许多这样的申请，我们有一些PACP，尽管他们的案件十多年前就已判决，但他们的判决尚未执行。

伊斯坎达尔.本.拉赫马特（Iskandar bin Rahmat）就是这样一位 PACP。他不是一名毒贩，但他的申请在某种程度上说明了我的观点。他杀害了一对父子，残忍地谋杀。我想人们会记得他们是"高文双重谋杀案"--一名67 岁的父亲和 一名42 岁的儿子。事实上，其中一名受害者甚至被拖着沿着上实龙岗路走了将近一公里。他这么做是为了钱。2015 年 12 月 4 日，他被高庭判处死刑。七年前的 2017 年 2 月，他的上诉被上诉法院驳回。从那时起，他已经提出了九次申请。[请参阅 "内政部长的澄清"，官方报告，2024 年 5 月 8 日，第 95 卷，第 136 期，书面声明更正部分内容。］ 其中一些申请仍在进行中，我对法院正在审理的申请不作任何评论。那些已经处理过的案件都被驳回了。很明显，这些案件没有法律依据，而且滥用了诉讼程序。

因此，为了更好地处理这种情况，更好地处理死囚在临刑前最后一刻提出的无理申请，国会通过了一项法案，即《死刑案件上诉后申请法》，简称 PACC。该法案将在几周内很快生效。该法案旨在保障司法和法治。它引入了新的要求，以减少诉讼可能出现的延误。

例如，如果PACP已被上诉法院维持原判，那么他或她将被要求申请许可提出 PACC申请。根据简化后的程序，只有上诉法院可以审理该申请并批准暂缓执行。作为申请的一部分，当事人必须说明申请的理由以及没有及早提出申请的原因。

但是，即使在该法律生效之前，36 名PACP也曾于去年9月提出上诉后申请，质疑该法律的合宪性。该申请最近被上诉法院驳回。PACP没有资格提出这样的质疑，提出质疑的事实只能说明PACP滥用了法院的程序。

就在法院驳回上诉的一天之后，36 名PACP（其中 34 人是先前提出上诉后申请的相同当事方）提出了另一项上诉后申请，现在所依据的是其他事项。

我不对这些当前申请的是非曲直发表评论。我对无理申请、滥用程序以及所有其他类似意见的评论，仅适用于已被法院裁定并驳回的申请。我所依据的是法院本身的说法。

在所有上诉和赦免途径都已用尽后，有大批 PACP 联合向法院提交申请，这已不是第一次。在过去几年中，至少有另外五份此类联合申请，每份申请涉及 10 多名 PACP。《死刑案件上诉后申请法》生效后将处理许多此类申请。

我们现正考虑还需要做些什么来确保这项新法案能够得到适当支持。如有必要，我们将向国会汇报。我希望向各位议员和新加坡人民明确表示：请放心，我们将采取一切必要措施，确保解决这种滥用程序的问题。

以下是英文质询内容：

I will now move on to deal with attempts by some to undermine our approach. The evidence for our approach is compelling. People can see what is happening around the world, which is why I took some time to explain country by country some of the countries– first-world; South America; the US; this region.

Despite that, in recent years, there has been a small group of people who attempt to mislead the public with misinformation on drug traffickers and the death penalty. They seek to evoke sympathy by presenting an image of an unfair criminal justice system stacked against drug traffickers. They publish videos, pictures, stories from the traffickers' childhood, sharing interviews with family members. He has got a brother; he has got a sister; he has a child; he had a childhood. Poor guy. And portraying the trafficker as a victim of unfortunate circumstances. He did not have money and therefore, he trafficked in drugs.

But they leave out the facts of the cases. They leave out the accounting of the harms caused to the victims of the traffickers. They glorify the trafficker.They do not give any voice to the victims, the number of lives lost or wrecked by drugs; and the reason the traffickers were trafficking the drugs in the first place, which is to make money. The victims also have wives, sisters, children, parents. All of these people will also suffer.

If you face financial difficulties, if you need money, get a job. You do not have to traffic in drugs to make money.

Earlier, I recounted some stories of drug abuse overseas. We have seen shocking stories in Singapore too. Early last year, a man was convicted of committing incest with his 17-year-old daughter after sharing methamphetamine (meth) with her. She became reliant on him for sustaining her addiction and did not come forward with the truth for months.

In another case last year, a 31-year-old man: he had consumed various drugs, went on to drive under the influence of drugs, crashed his rental car into a public bus, killed himself; injured seven other passengers in the bus.

The next slide shows photos of a crime scene, where a man who was under the influence of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), brutally stabbed his own mother and punched his grandmother to death. Drug abuse is not victimless and all of these are caused by the drug traffickers, whom people glorify.

The next slide shows a heartbreaking case where a life was taken even before the victim had any voice of her own. The remains of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl. She was assaulted to death by her own father, who was a meth abuser. The man burnt the body and hid it in a pot to conceal his crime.

Several studies have shown that the harms of drugs are far-reaching into the next generation. A recent literature review by the KK Women's and Children's Hospital, found that drug abuse by pregnant women can cause serious harms to the foetus. Their babies could be born with congenital defects, such as respiratory distress syndrome or smaller brain matter. The newborns may also suffer from drug withdrawal, increased risk of disease and even infant death.

A 2020 study by the Ministry of Social and Family Development found that children whose parents had committed drug offences, were five times more likely than other children to unfortunately come into contact with the criminal justice system in the future.

But these facts and images are usually missing from the speeches, posts of those who campaign against the death penalty. Instead, there are baseless allegations, one-sided claims and half-truths. These baseless allegations are also made in relation to prisoners awaiting capital punishment– I will call them PACPs. They cast doubt on the process, the legal process. They cast doubt on the convictions and the sentences.

For instance, in May 2023 last year, Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, or POFMA, directions were issued against 10 social media posts and two online articles for containing false statements about a capital sentence meted out by the Courts. Five parties– Transformative Justice Collective, The Online Citizen Asia, Andrew Loh, Kirsten Han, M Ravi– continued to make false statements alleging that a PACP was denied an interpreter during the recording of his statement. This, despite the Court's clear statement to the contrary– a blatant, false attack on the criminal justice system.

Some of these activists have helped to file unmeritorious legal applications on behalf of convicted drug traffickers. Applications are often filed at the last minute and those who help with these applications often hide behind the PACPs and their families. In one case, there were seven post-appeal applications, all dismissed by the Courts because they were all without merit. Seven, one after the other, no basis, after the substantive appeal was dismissed. In the seventh post-appeal application, the correspondent's email address– kirstenhan@hey.com– was provided by a family member to the Court.

This obviously does not belong to the family, but to perhaps an anti-death penalty activist. The Court dismissed that application, said it was a blatant and ill-disguised application to disrupt the carrying out of the sentence.In other words, a clear abuse of the process.

The person, with the email account by the name of Kirsten Han, if she was involved, was helping in the abuse of process.

Based on what the Court said, you can see what the persons who were assisting in the applications were trying to do.

As a result of many such applications today, we have PACPs whose sentences have not been carried out, despite their cases being decided more than a decade ago.

One such PACP is Iskandar bin Rahmat. He is not a drug trafficker, but his applications are somewhat illustrative of the point I am making. He killed a father and son – brutal murders. I think people remember them as the “Kovan double murder case” – a 67-year-old father and a 42-year-old son. In fact, one of the victims was even dragged almost one kilometre along Upper Serangoon Road. And he did it for money. He was sentenced to capital punishment on 4 December 2015 by the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in February 2017, seven years ago. Since then, he has filed nine applications. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs", Official Report, 08 May 2024, Vol 95, Issue 136, Correction By Written Statement section.]Some of them are still ongoing and I make no comment whatsoever about those which are currently before the Courts. Those that have been dealt with, have all been dismissed. And quite clearly, unmeritorious and an abuse of process.

So, to deal better with this situation, to deal better with unmeritorious applications being filed at the very last minute before capital punishment is carried out, this House passed an Act, the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act, or PACC. That Act will come into force very soon, within a few weeks. The Act will seek to safeguard the administration of justice and the rule of law. It introduces new requirements to reduce potential delays to proceedings.

For example, if the PACP had already had his or her sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal, then he or she will be required to apply for permission to make a PACC application. There will be a streamlined procedure under which only the Court of Appeal may hear PACC applications and grant a stay of execution. As part of the application, the person will be required to state the grounds of the application and the reasons for not filing the application earlier.

But even before the law has come into force, a post-appeal application was filed by 36 PACPs in September last year to challenge the constitutionality of that law. The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal recently. The Court of Appeal said the PACPs had no standing to bring such a challenge and the fact that such a challenge has been brought at all, spoke only to the PACPs' abuse of the process of the Courts.

Just one day after the appeal was dismissed by the Courts, 36 PACPs, of whom 34 were the same parties involved in earlier post-appeal applications, filed another post-appeal application, relying now on some other matter. I make no comment on the merits of those current applications. My comments about unmeritorious applications, abuse of process, all other similar comments, apply only to applications which have been determined by the Courts and dismissed. And I rely on what the Courts themselves have said.

This is not the first time that large groups of PACPs have jointly filed applications to the Court, after all avenues of appeal and clemency have been exhausted. In the past few years, there were at least five other such jointly filed applications, each involving more than 10 PACPs. The PACC Act, when it comes into force, will deal with many such applications.

We are now considering, what else needs to be done to make sure that this new legislation can be properly supported. We will come back to the House, if necessary. And I wish to make it clear to Members and Singaporeans: be assured, we will take all necessary steps to ensure that this sort of abuse of process is dealt with.