2024年5月8日，新加坡內政部長尚穆根先生在國會發布新加坡國家禁毒政策的部長聲明，聲明主要涵蓋四個方面，本文重點闡述毒品的危害深遠，新加坡立法以解決死刑犯濫用法庭程序的問題。

以下內容為新加坡眼根據國會英文資料翻譯整理：

現在，我要談談有些人企圖破壞我們的做法。我們的方法證據確鑿。人們可以看到世界各地正在發生的事情，這就是為什麼我花了一些時間逐個解釋一些國家--第一世界國家、南美洲國家、美國國家和本地區國家。

儘管如此，近年來，仍有一小撮人試圖用關於毒販和死刑的錯誤信息誤導公眾。他們試圖通過展示不公平的刑事司法制度對毒販不利的形象來喚起人們的同情。他們發布毒販童年的視頻、圖片和故事，分享對其家庭成員的採訪。他有一個兄弟；他有一個姐妹；他有一個孩子；他有一個童年。並把毒販描繪成不幸環境的受害者--他沒有錢，所以他販賣毒品。

但他們忽略了案件的事實。他們忽略了毒販對受害者造成的傷害。他們美化了毒販。他們不為受害者發聲，不為被毒品奪去或毀掉的生命數量發聲，也不為毒販販賣毒品的初衷--賺錢--發聲。受害者還有妻子、姐妹、孩子和父母。這些人也都會受到傷害。

如果你面臨經濟困難，如果你需要錢，那就去找份工作。你不必為了賺錢而販毒。

剛才，我講述了一些國外濫用毒品的故事。在新加坡，我們也看到了令人震驚的故事。去年年初，一名男子因與自己 17 歲的女兒分享甲基苯丙胺（冰毒）而被判亂倫罪。女兒依賴他來維持毒癮，幾個月來一直沒有說出真相。

在去年的另一起案件中，一名 31 歲的男子，他吸食了各種毒品，並在吸毒後開車，將租來的車撞向一輛公交車，自殺身亡；還撞傷了公交車上的其他 7 名乘客。

下一張幻燈片顯示的是一個犯罪現場的照片，一名男子在服用迷幻藥（LSD）後，殘忍地刺死了自己的母親，並用拳頭打死了自己的祖母。吸毒並非沒有受害者，所有這些都是被某些人美化的販毒者造成的。

下一張幻燈片展示了一個令人心碎的案例，受害者還沒有發出自己的聲音，生命就被奪走了。這是一具兩歲半女童的遺體。她被自己的親生父親毆打致死，而父親是一名冰毒吸食者。為了掩蓋自己的罪行，這名男子燒毀了屍體，並將其藏在鍋里以掩蓋其罪行。

多項研究表明，毒品的危害對下一代影響深遠。竹腳婦女兒童醫院最近的一項文獻綜述發現，孕婦吸毒會對胎兒造成嚴重危害。她們的孩子出生後可能會有先天缺陷，如呼吸窘迫綜合症或腦部發育不全。新生兒還可能出現藥物戒斷症狀，增加患病風險，甚至導致嬰兒死亡。

社會和家庭發展部 2020 年的一項研究發現，父母犯有毒品罪的兒童將來不幸觸犯刑事司法制度的可能性是其他兒童的五倍。

但是，在那些反對死刑的人的演講和文章中，通常都看不到這些事實和圖片。取而代之的是毫無根據的指控、片面的說法和半真半假的事實。這些毫無根據的指控也是針對等待死刑的囚犯--我稱他們為PACP。這些指控使人們對法律程序產生懷疑。他們對定罪和判刑表示懷疑。

例如，去年（2023 年）5 月，《防止網絡虛假信息和網絡操縱法案》（POFMA）針對 10 個社交媒體帖子和兩篇在線文章發出指示，因為它們包含有關法院判處的死刑的虛假陳述。Transformative Justice Collective、The Online Citizen Asia、Andrew Loh、Kirsten Han 和 M Ravi 這五方繼續發表虛假聲明，聲稱一名PACP在記錄陳述時被拒絕提供翻譯。儘管法院明確表示正好相反，但這是對刑事司法系統的公然、虛假攻擊。

其中一些積極分子曾幫助被定罪的販毒者提出毫無根據的法律申請。申請通常是在最後一刻提交的，而那些幫助提交這些申請的人往往躲在PACP及其家人的背後。在一個案件中，有七份上訴後申請，都被法庭駁回，因為它們都沒有法律依據。在實質性上訴被駁回後，又接連提出了 7 項沒有依據的申請。在第七次上訴後申請中，通訊員的電子郵件地址 - kirstenhan@hey.com - 是由一名家庭成員提供給法庭的。

這顯然不屬於該家庭，而可能屬於一個反死刑活動人士。法院駁回了這一申請，稱這是一項明目張膽、偽裝不當的申請，目的是擾亂判決的執行。換句話說，這是對程序的明顯濫用。

如果擁有名為 Kirsten Han 的電子郵件帳戶的人參與其中，她就是在幫助濫用程序。

根據法庭的說法，你可以看出協助申請的人想要做什麼。

由於今天有許多這樣的申請，我們有一些PACP，儘管他們的案件十多年前就已判決，但他們的判決尚未執行。

伊斯坎達爾.本.拉赫馬特（Iskandar bin Rahmat）就是這樣一位 PACP。他不是一名毒販，但他的申請在某種程度上說明了我的觀點。他殺害了一對父子，殘忍地謀殺。我想人們會記得他們是"高文雙重謀殺案"--一名67 歲的父親和 一名42 歲的兒子。事實上，其中一名受害者甚至被拖著沿著上實龍崗路走了將近一公里。他這麼做是為了錢。2015 年 12 月 4 日，他被高庭判處死刑。七年前的 2017 年 2 月，他的上訴被上訴法院駁回。從那時起，他已經提出了九次申請。[請參閱 "內政部長的澄清"，官方報告，2024 年 5 月 8 日，第 95 卷，第 136 期，書面聲明更正部分內容。］ 其中一些申請仍在進行中，我對法院正在審理的申請不作任何評論。那些已經處理過的案件都被駁回了。很明顯，這些案件沒有法律依據，而且濫用了訴訟程序。

未完待续,请点击[下一页]继续阅读

{nextpage}

因此，為了更好地處理這種情況，更好地處理死囚在臨刑前最後一刻提出的無理申請，國會通過了一項法案，即《死刑案件上訴後申請法》，簡稱 PACC。該法案將在幾周內很快生效。該法案旨在保障司法和法治。它引入了新的要求，以減少訴訟可能出現的延誤。

例如，如果PACP已被上訴法院維持原判，那麼他或她將被要求申請許可提出 PACC申請。根據簡化後的程序，只有上訴法院可以審理該申請並批准暫緩執行。作為申請的一部分，當事人必須說明申請的理由以及沒有及早提出申請的原因。

但是，即使在該法律生效之前，36 名PACP也曾於去年9月提出上訴後申請，質疑該法律的合憲性。該申請最近被上訴法院駁回。PACP沒有資格提出這樣的質疑，提出質疑的事實只能說明PACP濫用了法院的程序。

就在法院駁回上訴的一天之後，36 名PACP（其中 34 人是先前提出上訴後申請的相同當事方）提出了另一項上訴後申請，現在所依據的是其他事項。

我不對這些當前申請的是非曲直發表評論。我對無理申請、濫用程序以及所有其他類似意見的評論，僅適用於已被法院裁定並駁回的申請。我所依據的是法院本身的說法。

在所有上訴和赦免途徑都已用盡後，有大批 PACP 聯合向法院提交申請，這已不是第一次。在過去幾年中，至少有另外五份此類聯合申請，每份申請涉及 10 多名 PACP。《死刑案件上訴後申請法》生效後將處理許多此類申請。

我們現正考慮還需要做些什麼來確保這項新法案能夠得到適當支持。如有必要，我們將向國會彙報。我希望向各位議員和新加坡人民明確表示：請放心，我們將採取一切必要措施，確保解決這種濫用程序的問題。

以下是英文質詢內容：

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.

未完待续,请点击[下一页]继续阅读

{nextpage}

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.

未完待续,请点击[下一页]继续阅读

{nextpage}

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.

未完待续,请点击[下一页]继续阅读

{nextpage}

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.

HQ丨編輯

HQ丨編審

新加坡國會丨來源