Letters | Consensus on death penalty must be reached through dialogue
- Readers discuss the international reaction to the hanging in Singapore of a man convicted of a drug offence, nations’ failure to prioritise peace, and the Hong Kong equality watchdog’s sensitivity to potential discrimination
There is a growing consensus across the globe that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
About two months ago, on February 28, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held its biennial high-level panel discussion on the death penalty and the focus this year was on limiting the death penalty to the most serious crimes. In the discussion, many speakers said that the right to life was inviolable, asserting that capital punishment was a human rights issue, and not just a matter of criminal justice, and that all states should therefore pursue the path towards full abolition of the death penalty.
One speaker, however, pointedly asked how a state could legislate against the death penalty when public opinion was in favour of it.
Another speaker noted that there was no consensus on the universal abolition of capital punishment, nor even consensus on what constituted the “most serious crimes” for the death penalty. Moreover, international law does not prohibit capital punishment.
Not surprisingly, some other speakers called for respect for cultural differences and religious beliefs, asserting that all states have the right to determine their own legislation.
It is clear countries hold differing but legitimate views on the subject.
In his concluding remarks, Malaysia’s permanent representative to the UN, Ahmad Faisal bin Muhamad, was right to say that despite the different views and experiences, it was encouraging that states had come together to learn from one another.
The UNHRC should therefore continue to facilitate dialogue on the subject, aimed at bridging differences.
This is what anti-death penalty organisations and individuals like Branson should do as well.
Mohamad Hafiz Bin Hassan, lecturer, Faculty of Law, Multimedia University, Malaysia
Desperate call for maturity as war drums beat on
Dangerously, across the world the focus is very much on preparation for war rather than on securing global peace.
Both China and the West have so far been tardy in their efforts to end this barbarous conflict by negotiation. We in the West – and China – must cast aside our respective propagandist perceptions of this war and wake up to the reality of international conflict and how to resolve it.
Throughout history, it has never been the case that all the good was on one side and all the bad on the other. Considerable maturity and flexibility are now needed on all sides if the dreadful carnage in Ukraine is to be ended and a war over Taiwan avoided.
Terry Hewton, Adelaide, Australia
Equality watchdog should be more open to potential cases
While working on a public policy project at Baptist University, we found that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department uses mainly Chinese in its social media posts, even though non-Chinese speakers account for more than 8 per cent of the city’s population. The department believes it is sufficient for non-Chinese speakers to refer to its bilingual press releases and websites via the hyperlinks provided in the social media posts.
This practice potentially discriminates against linguistic minorities in Hong Kong. As such, we referred the case to the Equal Opportunities Commission. But instead of following up, the commission asked us to provide evidence that we had directly suffered because of the department’s policy.
It was disappointing that the commission did not consider the broader context.
We urge the Legislative Council to work with the commission to issue guidelines for all government departments regarding language use on social media, to prevent discrimination against linguistic minorities in Hong Kong.
Fung Yuen-ki and Lam Wai-yee, Kowloon Tong
