[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

May 15



SINGAPORE:

Imminent executions in Singapore and Indonesia must be halted


We the undersigned, human rights organizations, and concerned human rights 
defenders condemn the imminent executions of Kho Jabing in Singapore and at 
least 15 individuals which apparently includes, 4 Chinese nationals, 2 
Nigerians, 2 Zimbabweans, 1 Senegalese, 1 Pakistani and 5 Indonesian nationals 
in Indonesia. We call on the authorities of the 2 countries to halt the 
impending executions.

On 12 May 2016, the family of Kho Jabing, a Malaysian national on death row in 
Singapore, received a letter from the Singapore Prisons informing them that Kho 
Jabing would be executed on 20 May 2016. Kho Jabing was convicted of murder in 
2011. Of particular concern is the fact that there was a lack of unanimity in 
sentencing Kho Jabing to death, which demonstrates that reasonable doubt exists 
as to whether Kho Jabing deserved the death penalty.

As regards the imminent executions that will be taking place in Indonesia, 
Indonesia would contravene her own international obligations under the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Right by executing these 
individuals.

The Association of South East Asian Nations Member States (???ASEAN???), 
including Singapore and Indonesia, have continuously emphasized the importance 
of the rule of law and the protection of rights. The death penalty therefore 
stands out as an aberration.

In December 2014, the United Nations General Assembly adopted its latest 
resolutions calling on all States to adopt a moratorium on the use of the death 
penalty, with a view towards abolition. A record number of 117 Member States 
supported the Resolution. Regrettably, Indonesia abstained and Singapore voted 
against the Resolution. The ASEAN Member States must use the opportunity 
presented by this Resolution to align themselves with the global movement 
towards abolition.

Singapore has recently undergone its second Universal Periodic Review in 
January 2016. The continued use of the death penalty was one of the key 
highlights of the review, with Singapore receiving over 30 recommendations 
related to the death penalty, including recommendations to abolish the death 
penalty.

In 2015, Indonesia, a United Nations Human Rights Council Member until 2017, 
executed 14 individuals convicted of drug-related offences amid strong 
international opposition. The imminent executions would further damage 
Indonesia's human rights record and erode her standing in the international 
community.

The death penalty has no place in the 21st Century. Not only is there a real 
possibility of wrongful executions, it deprives inmates of their life and 
dignity, and creates new classes of victims. We strongly urge the governments 
of Singapore and Indonesia to halt the upcoming executions, immediately impose 
a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and take meaningful steps towards 
its eventual abolition.

List of Signatories:

Anti-Death Penalty Network Asia (ADPAN)

Center for Prisoner's Rights Japan (CPR)

Community Action Network (CAN, Singapore)

Free Community Church (Singapore)

Function 8 (Singapore)

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Maruah (Singapore)

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

Journey of Hope

Legal Aid Community (LBH Masyarakat, Indonesia)

Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights (MVFHR)

Ocean

Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia (The Indonesian Center for Law and 
Policy Studies)

Reprieve Australia

Sayoni (Singapore)

Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP)

The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS, Indonesia)

The Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK, Indonesia)

The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR, Indonesia)

The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy of Indonesia (ELSAM)

The National Human Rights Society, Malaysia (HAKAM)

Think Centre Singapore

We Believe in Second Chances (WBSC, Singapore)

(source: wordpress.com)





*****************

Questionable validity of the Court of Appeal in resentencing of death for Kho 
Jabing


MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) in a letter to the press, 
states that the questionable validity of the Court of Appeal that re-sentenced 
Kho Jabing to death is enough reason for immediate stay of execution of Kho 
Jabing that has been scheduled for Friday 20 May 2016

It states that the Justice Andrew Phang should not have sat on the 2 Court of 
Appeal as such a judge who had previously heard and determined a case involving 
the same accused person reasonably would not satisfy the conditions of an 
independent and impartial tribunal.

It also noted that when Kho's case was sent to the High Court for re-sentencing 
by the Court of Appeal, the judge that heard and considered the re-sentencing 
was not the High Court judge that originally heard and convicted Kho Jabing. 
This is considered to be most prejudicial to Kho Jabing as elements in the 
trial, including demeanour can never be properly or comprehensively captured in 
any Notes of Evidence/Proceedings and/or Judgments.

MADPET states that the only remedy to ensure that justice is really done is a 
re-trial or a new trial, not merely a 're-sentencing' exercise. In light of the 
amendment, a new trial is needed to ensure relevant evidence and submissions 
are before the court.

Below is the full letter by Charles Hector, MADPET about its question on the 
validity of the Court of Appeal on Kho Jabing's case and MADPET's call for the 
commutation of the death sentence of Kho Jabing and all others currently on 
death row in Singapore for murder.

MADPET is worried that Kho Jabing may be executed based on a possibly tainted 
or invalid Court of Appeal judgment, which reversed the High Court decision 
that commuted the death sentence to imprisonment and caning.

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TAINTED AND/OR VOID

Having perused the relevant judgments, MADPET discovered that one of the 5 
judges, who reportedly sat in the coram of this Court of Appeal (Criminal 
Appeal No 6 of 2013) that send Kho Jabing to the gallows again, also did sit as 
judge in an earlier court case concerning Kho Jabing, being Criminal Appeal No 
18 of 2010. The coram in the 2013 case was Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon 
Leong JA, Woo Bih Li J, Lee Seiu Kin J and Chan Seng Onn J, whilst the coram 
for the 2010 case was Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and V K 
Rajah JA, and as can be seen Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA was in the coram of 
both Appeals.

Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, 'Everyone is 
entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and 
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of 
any criminal charge against him.' This necessarily implies that the judges must 
be independent, impartial and unbiased, and as such a judge who had previously 
heard and determined a case involving the same accused person reasonably would 
not satisfy these important conditions, more so when the earlier Appeal in 
which Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA was involved in was also the appeal against 
conviction for the very same offence.

As such, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA should never have been included in the 
coram of the Court of Appeal that heard the appeal by the prosecution against 
the decision of the High Court that re-sentenced Kho Jabing to imprisonment and 
caning. Even, if Andrew Phang was appointed, the said Judge should have 
appropriately recused himself on the basis that he was previously involved in a 
case involving Kho Jabing. The relevant Court of Appeal judgment, which is 
available to the public, never disclosed, that this point was even considered 
by that Court. We recall the important principle that "justice should not only 
be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done".

The presence of Andrew Phang in the coram of the Court of Appeal, that 
overturned the re-sentencing High Court's decision, and re-sentenced Kho Jabing 
to death, would possibly make that entire judgment invalid or 'void', and thus 
restoring the High Court judgment that commuted the death sentence to 
imprisonment.

Alternatively, even if Andrew Phang's vote is not to be taken into 
consideration, the result would be a 2-2 decision, and as such again, the 
prosecution's Appeal would have failed, and the High Court's decision will not 
have been overturned, and Kho Jabing would be facing imprisonment and caning - 
not death.

PREJUDICED WHEN RE-SENTENCING HIGH COURT JUDGE WAS DIFFERENT

Another concern with regard the Kho Jabing's case, was that when the case was 
sent to the High Court for re-sentencing, the judge that heard and considered 
the re-sentencing was not the High Court judge that originally heard and 
convicted Kho Jabing.

Singapore Parliament, wisely appreciated the importance that it be the same 
judge, possibly because that judge may have recalled elements in the trial, 
including demeanour, which at the end of the day can never be properly or 
comprehensively captured in any Notes of Evidence/Proceedings and/or Judgments. 
In the Kho Jabing???s case, the original trial judge had retired, and hence 
another judge heard the re-sentencing case. This fact, in itself, was most 
prejudicial to Kho Jabing.

Further, even if the re-sentencing judge had been the same judge, noting the 
lapse of time plus the fact the many other cases would have come before the 
same judge, the question would be whether it was even reasonably possible for 
the original judge in the Court of First Instance to effectively recall from 
memory aspects of the said case that was not fully and clearly stated in 
his/her written records.

RE-TRIAL NEEDED AFTER AMENDMENT TO ENSURE JUSTICE

Justice demands that, unless there is a re-trial, the death sentence of Kho 
Jabing and all others before the amendment came into force should now be 
commuted. The risk of miscarriage of justice, especially in cases where the 
death sentence is retained, is just too high to be acceptable.

We see from the re-sentencing judgments of both the High Court, and the Court 
of Appeal, the struggle the judges concerned had to undergo in order to 
establish relevant facts that have now become relevant following the amendment, 
that were really not relevant or not as relevant before the coming into force 
of the new amendments.

Re-sentencing was needed, after Singapore amended the law concerning murder 
vide Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012), which effectively 
resulted in the ???repeal and re-enactment of section 302'. The law before the 
amendment provided only the mandatory death penalty for murder (section 302). 
Now after the amendment came into effect, not only was there now discretion of 
the court with regard sentencing - death penalty or imprisonment with caning, 
but also a consideration of other matters including mental capacity.

As such, reasonably re-sentencing simply based on the evidence adduced and 
submissions made in the original trial is not possible and most dangerous - 
there should rightly be a new trial or re-trial.

The presentation of the case, be it by the prosecution and/or the defence, 
would reasonably be very different following the amendments. This was a 
concern, which was also acknowledged and/or admitted by the Court of Appeal 
that heard the re-sentencing Appeal, which amongst others said, 'Admittedly, as 
that court [referring to Court of First Instance]was dealing with the 
pre-amendment position, there was no reason for it to assess the savagery (or 
otherwise) of the Respondent's actions; put simply, it was merely making its 
findings of fact based on the evidence and submissions raised by the counsel 
concerned'.

As such, the only remedy to ensure that justice is really done is a re-trial or 
a new trial, not merely a 're-sentencing' exercise. In light of the amendment, 
a new trial is needed to ensure relevant evidence and submissions are before 
the court.

As such, in the absence of a re-trial or new trial, MADPET calls for the 
commutation of the death sentence of Kho Jabing and all others currently on 
death row in Singapore for murder.

The Singapore government, President, Attorney General/Public Prosecutor and/or 
the Judiciary can and must take note of these serious concerns, irrespective of 
whether there is any application in court by Kho Jabing, and immediately stay 
the planned execution of Kho Jabing in the interest of justice.

MADPET, in light of the matters raised above, amongst others, the questionable 
validity of Court of Appeal that reversed the High Court decision and 
re-sentenced Kho Jabing to death, call for an immediate stay of execution of 
Kho Jabing, which is now allegedly scheduled for this coming Friday(20/5/2016).

MADPET also urges Singapore to adhere to the 5 United Nations General Assembly 
Resolutions, the first being in 2007 and the fifth being on 2014, whereby the 
support has obviously grown over the years, calling for the abolition of the 
death penalty, and for a moratorium pending abolition.

(source: theonlinecitizen.com)

*********************

Guilty As Charged: Dance hostess Mimi Wong murdered her Japanese lover's 
wife----She was the 1st woman to get the death penalty in Singapore. Her 
husband also went to the gallows for the murder


This story was first published in July 2015 in an e-book titled Guilty As 
Charged: 25 Crimes That Have Shaken Singapore Since 1965. A collaboration 
between The Straits Times and the Singapore Police Force, the e-book appeared 
in The Straits Times Star E-books app. (Warning: Some content in these stories 
may be disturbing for some individuals.)

The case of Mimi Wong (1970)

It was the night of Christmas 1969. Japanese mechanical engineer Hiroshi 
Watanabe decided it was time for his wife Ayako to meet Mimi Wong Weng Siu, the 
dance hostess who had been his lover in Singapore for the last 3 years. Mrs 
Watanabe, 33, had flown into Singapore with their 3 young children only 2 days 
before, to live with her husband here.

That Christmas night, Mr Watanabe drove his family to Wong's house at Everitt 
Road.

It took some persuading from the Japanese to convince 31-year-old Wong to meet 
his wife. She was angry and abused him. But after he spoke to her alone for 30 
minutes, she finally relented.

Along with Wong's servant and her daughter by a Hong Kong businessman, they all 
went out for dinner in his car. Wong also gave her lover's children sweets.

6 days later, on New Year's Eve, Wong even went to a party hosted by the 
Watanabes at their Jalan Seaview semi-detached house.

But behind the pretence, Wong was writhing in jealousy.

She was convinced that her affair with Mr Watanabe, who had been assigned to 
Singapore 3 years earlier to work on a reclamation project in the eastern part 
of the island, would fizzle out now that his wife was in town.

Her hatred was fuelled by Mrs Watanabe allegedly calling her a prostitute at 
the New Year's Eve party. On the evening of Jan 6, Wong returned to the Jalan 
Seaview home, with her estranged husband, 37-year-old Sim Woh Kum, a sweeper in 
financial difficulty. And they murdered Mrs Watanabe.

The killing was witnessed by her eldest daughter, 9-year-old schoolgirl Chieko.

She was the prosecution's star witness during the trial 10 months later.

: 'I saw blood on my mother's chest'

That night, Chieko said, her mother had tucked in the 3 siblings in a 1st-floor 
bedroom, which was joined to a large bathroom. Her father was working overtime 
at the reclamation site at the time.

As she lay awake on bed, Chieko heard voices, then footsteps on the ground 
floor.

Then she heard screams coming from the bathroom.

"They were screams of pain from my mother."

She went to the bathroom and found her mother sitting on the floor.

"The man was pulling my mother's left hand and Obasan was pulling her right 
hand." Obasan is Japanese for auntie - a name her father had suggested she call 
Wong.

"I saw blood on my mother's chest. I cried and Obasan covered my mouth with her 
hand. I stopped crying and she released me."

Her mother sustained 2 fatal stab wounds - 1 gashed the neck and the other 
penetrated her abdomen.

Chieko went back to the room to wake her 6-year-old brother, but he continued 
to sleep.

Then she saw Wong and Sim run down the stairs.

"My mother stood in the bathroom. She staggered a few paces and fell. I thought 
she was dead."

Her siblings were soon awake.

"All 3 of us stood outside the bathroom and cried. We were still crying there 
when Father got back."

When Mr Watanabe returned to the house, he was greeted by the wails of his 
children. He ran up and saw them standing outside the bathroom. Inside, he saw 
his wife, who was wearing a red dress, lying in a pool of blood.

Mr Watanabe asked Chieko what happened.

"My father asked me who did it. I replied: 'Obasan and a man whom I did not 
know'."

Sim was a stranger to Chieko, but she later picked him out from an 
identification parade as the man she saw struggling with her mother.

Sim's confession

Sim said that Wong first spoke to him about the plan to murder Mrs Watanabe on 
Jan 2, and offered him money.

On the night of Jan 6, they took a taxi to the victim's home. Wong had given 
Sim a tin half-filled with toilet-cleaning liquid. In her bag, she had a pair 
of gloves and a knife.

When Mrs Watanabe asked what she wanted, Wong told her that she had brought a 
workman to repair a broken toilet basin.

She let them in.

"I threw the liquid into the eyes of the woman," said Sim. "Wong stabbed her 
with a knife. The victim shouted - probably in pain - and covered her face with 
both palms while on the ground."

To keep Mrs Watanabe quiet, Sim covered her mouth but she bit his finger. That 
was also when Chieko saw him.

"After stabbing her (Mrs Watanabe) to death, Wong ran away. I chased her to the 
mouth of the road. We got a taxi..."

The next morning, Sim was arrested. Blood was found on a pair of trousers he 
had. It was found to be Type A, the same as that of the murdered woman.

During the trial, he also revealed his difficult relationship with Wong, with 
whom he had 2 sons. A year after their marriage, he said Wong assaulted his 
mother.

"This led my mother to dub her as 'empress daughter-in-law'",he said.

Sim never dared start a quarrel because "Wong would attempt to strike me".

"When I saw her in an aggressive mood, taking up a knife or stick, I would run 
for safety."

The 1 occasion when he was hit with a breadknife left a scar.

Their youngest son was less than 2 years old when Wong left him in 1963, before 
becoming a bar waitress. He said she would strut with her boyfriends in front 
of him.

"I advised her to refrain from such an action. I was hoping she would return to 
me."

'He killed her'

Wong put the blame for the death of Mrs Watanabe on her "greedy" husband.

After spending the morning and evening drinking, she said she went to the 
victim's home "just to slap her". It was not only because of what Mrs Watanabe 
had said about her, but also to give the woman another reason to complain to 
her husband. Wong said she wanted Mr Watanabe to end the affair.

She brought Sim along as protection, even though she hated him, because Mr 
Watanabe had told her most Japanese knew judo. She was afraid that this was 
true of Mrs Watanabe.

At the doorway of the children's bedroom, she slapped Mrs Watanabe. They were 
fighting in the bathroom when she claimed Sim threw the liquid at them.

"I asked Sim to run away but he refused."

She decided to leave and tripped down the stairs. It was only when she was 
outside that Sim joined her.

"If I had not been drinking that day, this incident would never have arisen," 
she said, insisting there was no way she could have stabbed Mrs Watanabe.

"I am only a woman and have also not the strength to stab her especially when 
she was biting my left finger and grabbing and scratching my right hand."

Wong also denied being a member of an all-woman secret society known as the Red 
Butterfly Gang - an accusation which had been made by Sim.

Testifying for the defence, psychiatrist Dr Wong Yip Chong said Wong had seemed 
prepared to be the "subordinate woman" in Mr Watanabe's life.

He said she tried to be nice to Mrs Watanabe, even sending her presents through 
Mr Watanabe.

But the wife "was not only downright ungrateful, but also insulting and 
humiliating to Wong", said the doctor.

This affected Wong, whom he said could have been suffering from a viral brain 
infection. She could have caught the Japanese encephalitis virus from Mr 
Watanabe, he added.

Worried husband

In court, Mr Watanabe described his lover as a "lady with a forceful 
temperament" and a "strong drinker who could hold her drinks".

While his wife disapproved of the affair, he said he could not end it suddenly.

"Wong had hinted to me on several occasions in angry tones that if I were to 
sever my ties with her, something drastic would befall me or any member of my 
family."

He admitted he was thinking of leaving her, and that she suspected this.

On the day of the murder, Mr Watanabe had dinner with Wong at their Everitt 
Road place at 7.30pm.

She asked him if he would be staying the night. He spurned her, saying he would 
be going home to his family.

He also said that after his wife's death, Wong, who had a flair for hysterics, 
saw him at the Criminal Investigation Department.

She knelt on the floor.

"She told me in English: 'I am sorry. Give me see your wife, can or not? That 
night I drunk. I love you true. You told me everything finished."

The verdict

After a trial lasting 26 days, Wong and Sim were convicted of murder and 
sentenced to death on Dec 7, 1970.

Wong became the 1st woman to receive the capital punishment from a Singapore 
court. Both showed no emotion.

After unsuccessful appeals - including one to President Benjamin Sheares - both 
went to the gallows at Changi Prison on Jul 27, 1973.

They were buried side by side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was Mimi Wong?

Police found that she was the daughter of her father's 2nd wife. She was just 
11 months old when he died.

At 14, she was already working as a packer.

She was 17 when she met Sim Woh Kum at a picnic. In 1958, when she was 19, they 
married.

A year later she gave birth to a son. In 1962, another son came.

Money was tight, and she had to do odd jobs in restaurants. Her husband lost 
his job after he was caught gambling.

She left him and became a dance hostess.

In 1966, she met Mr Hiroshi Watanabe. She claimed she got pregnant and he 
refused to give her money for an abortion, saying he had none. After she went 
to Penang for an abortion, Mr Watanabe continued the relationship.

During their affair, she met a Hong Kong businessman and fell head over heels 
for him. He took her to Hong Kong. Even so, she still continued to send Mr 
Watanabe love letters. When she got pregnant, her Hong Kong lover kicked her 
out.

She returned to Singapore and gave birth to a daughter. Mr Watanabe continued 
to visit her.

She worked as a social escort for a time to make ends meet.

In the middle of 1969, she became Mr Watanabe's mistress. He gave her $200 a 
month, and rented a room at Alexandra Road for her. A few months later, they 
moved to Everitt Road. She even hired a servant.

(source: straitstimes.com)






TAIWAN:

Execution does not get to the root of the problem


I do not know whether others with this same avocation might agree with me. I 
can tell you, however, that without a strong sense of emotion, I cannot offer 
words that are worth reading.

That is one of the lessons I've learned as a writer of a weekly column, the 
avocation I just mentioned. Only recently did I discover that the word 
"avocation" is connected to the notion of "distraction." An avocation is 
supposed to distract us as a hobby does, so that we can rest from our work and 
afterward throw ourselves into it with more gusto. I hope to return to this 
notion below.

I am asking myself how to drum up a few readable words for today. I mentioned 
strong emotions. Don't I have any strong emotions about recent local news? I 
do.

But this could be a very big order to deliver. Readers may not be receptive to 
my views today. I sense I will alienate many of you. I am truly sorry if that 
occurs.

I cannot imagine gobs of cheering Bauer fans leaping from behind bushes and 
rushing up to me with open arms and saying, "Good for you for expressing flat 
out, unvarnished, gut-felt aversion to what our legal system did to Cheng Chieh 
this week."

The truth is I've plenty of emotion about the execution of Cheng Chieh.

Revenge is Dehumanization

I am well aware that I am in a tiny minority (perhaps as small as 15 percent of 
the general population) opposed to the death penalty in Taiwan. And, yes, I 
know that numerous folks who consider themselves broad-minded, caring 
individuals, possibly even Biblically minded Christians (and remember we 
Catholics are Christians, too) with an espoused appreciation for the value and 
dignity of human life will insist that Cheng Chieh was nothing but a 
blood-thirsty monster, a psychopath, and a demon, all rolled into one. But Mr. 
Cheng still shared a common humanity with all the rest of us.

believe barbaric retribution for barbaric acts does no lasting good, nor brings 
any true healing for anyone. Capital punishment is not an expression of a 
society's will to punish, but to take bloody revenge. For me, revenge is always 
dehumanizing, always harmful in itself.

My cynical side wants to engage in banter. Mr. Cheng killed 4, seriously 
wounded 22, and traumatized millions. For heaven's sakes, the Ministry of 
Justice offered terrific rationale for shooting the man dead.

Don't you agree?

Now that this miscreant has been squished out of existence, our quality of life 
is immensely upgraded. We're riding in first class! We can breathe easily in 
public, and enjoy the benefits of a kind, secure, silk-lined society. Our MRT 
lines are safer now than the streets of heaven above.

And my, my, aren't you also proud of what we "the people" have done? We gave 
that animal exactly what it deserved, and boy, that sure satisfies our most 
blessed urges. He got his, all right, and we say, hurray!

Media said they had him lie face down and shot him 3 times through his back, 
the bullets smacking him in the old ticker. And not only that! A doctor 
attending Cheng supposedly took advantage of a last opportunity to scold him. 
Wow, that's my kind of doctor. That particular news item really warmed my 
heart.

Satire is so culturally related that I must defend myself here. Several 
paragraphs above, from "My cynical side" until "warmed my heart," is an attempt 
at satire. I mean no offense. I rely on intelligent editors and readers who are 
capable of grasping a literary strategy.

Here is a bit more: Imagine potentially violent criminals in Taiwan this week 
when they read the headlines, "MRT murderer executed." Can't you just close 
your eyes and see these guys shake in their boots? The threat of violence 
against them probably caused upset stomachs and migraine headaches. End of 
satire.

The name of the game, my friends, is distraction. Arguments about the death 
penalty distract us from devoting our efforts to educate young people on how to 
be parents. Our arguing distracts us from our desperate need to develop vastly 
more competent professional counselors who can reach out into society and 
pro-actively deal with aberrant behavior before it gets out of hand as it did 
with Cheng Chieh.

Our quarreling distracts us quite nicely, thank you, from our need to attack 
the roots of sickness and violence where they thrive, which is in our families 
and the emotionally impoverished pockets of our own neighborhoods.

(source: Father Daniel J. Bauer SVD is a priest and associate professor in the 
English Department at Fu Jen Catholic University; The China Post)






PHILIPPINES:

Duterte vows to bring back death penalty


Philippines President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has vowed to reintroduce capital 
punishment and give security forces permission to shoot to kill.

The controversial policies are the latest in a series from the soon-to-be 
leader, including bans on alcohol and smoking and a curfew for children.

He has also promised to turn the presidential palace into a hospital.

Mr Duterte was nicknamed "The Punisher" for his record as the crime-crushing 
mayor of the southern town of Davao.

More than 1,000 criminals were killed by security forces in Davao during Mr 
Duterte's stewardship.

Speaking at a press conference in the town, Mr Duterte, 71, said: "What I will 
do is to urge Congress to restore the death penalty by hanging."

He said permission to shoot to kill would be given for organised crime figures 
and people resisting arrest.

Mr Duterte courted controversy throughout his election campaign, threatening to 
kill drug dealers and dump them in Manila Bay.

He vowed to give himself and members of the security forces immunity from 
prosecution after leaving office, saying: "Pardon given to Rodrigo Duterte for 
the crime of multiple murder, signed Rodrigo Duterte."

Last month a video emerged showing the candidate joking about a Australian 
woman who was raped and murdered in Davao while he was mayor, saying she was so 
beautiful "the mayor should have been 1st".

In 2015, Human Rights Watch described Mr Duterte as the "death squad mayor" for 
his strong-arm tactics in Davao.

(source: BBC news)