Christians and the Death Penalty - Just not Mandatory

I have been asked, and I would try to answer, should Christians support the death penalty? I am no biblical expert or theologian, but it won't be too far to say that much of the diverse views within the Christian community towards the death penalty has to do with different instances when death was dealt as a punishment in the Old and New Testaments.

There are many instances in the Old Testament where we see death as a punishment for sins against God. Genesis examples include the flood of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah while in Exodus we witness the destruction of Egyptian army in the Red Sea.

In fact, capital punishment was instituted by God in the Jewish law code. HOWEVER, the principle of capital punishment even PREcedes the Old Testament law code where capital punishment is meted out when an act transgresses against the sacred life given by God, "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." (Gen 9:6)

The conflict comes about upon inspection of the New Testament where compassion, forgiveness and repentance are central themes to the Passion of Christ; where we are taught to "turn the other cheek" and "he who was without sin cast the first stone".

However, one must make the distinction that capital punishment was made in the image humans who are of God and created by God ["Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man."] and enacted before the Old Testament theocracy law code. The principle of capital punishment is not rooted in the Old Testament (and hence, some argue, should go because of the New Testament); rather the principle was based on the creation order. This ought to be the broader philosopy that should be considered.

Some would argue that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was arguing against the principle of an eye for eye. But in fact, he was speaking to each individual Christian on the issue of a personal desire for vengeance. He is not arguing against the right to rule of government but telling them that they should not try to overthrow the government and rather, love thy enemy as I have loved you, to turn the other cheek.

And for the case of the woman caught for adultery that was not stoned, Jesus did not teach that henceforth there should be no more punishments meted out to adulterers. Jesus was trying again to teach us that every stone should be measured and weighed and not just thrown for a blind adherrence to laws. Contextually, Jesus was also being watched by the Pharisees. If Jesus had asked for the woman to be stoned, then he would have broken the Roman law and a outright refusal to stone would mean that Jesus had broken the theocracy laws. Hence, Jesus avoided the conflict by asking he who had not sinned throw the first stone. We have also seen that Jesus and his disciples did not specifically refute the Old Testament established order of capital punishment but preached that we punish with compassion and much thought.

And it is not only the Old Testament that sanctions death penalty. Romans 13:1-7 wrote on the authority of a secular government and the authority to mete out certain punishments for the government does not bear the sword in vain. [Romans 13:4 "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."] There is a cause for capital punishment because of the sanctity of human life and because we are created in God's image.

What we Christians must be clear about is that not every adulterer must be stoned and not every murderer must have life taken away. Compassion, the agent of repentance and mitigation of the circumstances surrounding the crime must be considered just as Jesus Christ has always given sinners a chance to repent and enter the Kingdom of God. And judges as the highest authority of and on our laws must have the power, the authority and the moral obligation to weigh every crime and mete out varying punishments. In this spirit, I am against the mandatory death penalty and its entailed draconian nature cast upon our legislation.

Yong Vui Kong loses appeal - It's up to the politicians now

Yong Vui Kong’s appeal was denied as Singapore’s highest judicial authority, the Court of Appeal, declared the mandatory death penalty is constitutional. I have earlier written about the harshness of the mandatory death penalty here. I really hope that the judiciary, the government and the law fraternity won’t stop at this juncture in terms of reviewing the mandatory death penalty. The burden of judicial discretion or mitigation should not only be borne by the narcotics officers and public prosecutors but also be shared by the judges, who btw are the highest legal authority on this land.

On 14th May 10, “in a landmark ruling, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reaffirmed the line of decisions passed in Ong Ah Chuan and Nguyen. He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which establishes that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, neither precluded ‘inhuman punishment’ nor did it embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty…Furthermore, he noted the lack of an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment in the Singapore Constitution.”

Interesting, “the court also did not find applicable the Indian Supreme Court ruling that declared the mandatory death penalty inconsistent with their constitutional equivalent of Article 9 (1). CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament.”

With that I would think that CJ has put the ball into the politicians’ court or by saying that he meant that since Justices are appointed by the government of the day they should somewhat abide by their political view? In any event, it’s similar to what I have already said earlier that hope on the judges to rule in a controversial manner is mostly bleak – change has to come from the politicians.

Lastly, CJ sort drew down the curtain on the court’s role in the debate of the mandatory death penalty when he “observed that Yong’s appeal have had mustered the most substantive constitutional arguments against the mandatory death penalty. As such, the rejection of this appeal would mean that ‘under Singapore law as it stands, further challenges in court [against the mandatory death penalty] have been foreclosed.’”

A depressively sad reflective day.

Religion and the Public Space

Just yesterday, the newspapers reported on Mr. Wong Kan Seng's speech on increasing religiosity in Singapore. Mr. Wong was clearly concerned about religions encroaching onto what is known as the "neutral common space". I hope Mr. Wong understands that public space (or neutral common space) belongs to all Singaporeans and that hitherto, more often than not, we find that the strong government in Singapore does have a rather discerning influence on the conduct of affairs in public space and of the conduct of civil society.

Public space should not be completely devoid of religion as most Singaporeans do ascribe to a certain religion and one cannot simply dictate that since Singapore is a secular country and therefore all public debate should be 100% secular. 100% secularism is as extremist as any religion or ideology that is implemented or practiced in an extremist inflexible form.

Rather than to see religion as encroaching onto public space, one should recognize that religion and other non-state actors such as Chinese clans and ethnic based associations have always had a stake in public debate. The key here is to develop a certain level of matured debate and a system of engagement (not state sponsored of course) for inter-religious dialogue and public debate on sensitive matters. To ignore the religious component in any public debate would result in inefficient policies as they might run against the grain of religious beliefs (which the state of somewhat avoided but not completely).

The growing intolerance amongst religious groups that have been alluded to by Mr. Wong is perhaps an indication of the crippled civil society and the lack of non-state sponsored inter-religious interaction in Singapore. State orchestrated movements are often only half-potent due to lack of impetus and ownership from stakeholders (because the state owns the movement). Besides the highlighting the need for tolerance amongst religions, it is also important to note that there is also a need for the non-religious to be tolerant of the religious. Mega-churches that have amassed large amounts of money is an indication of their success and the religious service that they provide. Ultimately, the governance of finances in churches should be resolved by the churches themselves, in line with government regulations, and definitely with the agreement of church members. Some of the gloating and sneering that churches (mega and non-mega) have gotten in trouble with the government is another extension of religious intolerance.

As for the issue of proselytizing, I would agree that aggressive evangelism is unwise of multi-ethnic, multi-religious Singapore as such sensitivities when mishandled may escalate into unplesantries and even violence. However, to denounce proselytizing completely is tantamount to saying that there should be no exchange of thoughts and ideas. And we were just talking about mature religious dialogue in previous paragraphs?! =) Shouldn't a civil and mature society know how to politely say no to another and the other party to know how to accept a no graciously. To criticize all forms of proselytizing is also a form of intolerance.

Holy Friday but Only Human

On this Good and Holy Friday where the Son of God sacrificed his body and blood for our sins, I am not going to write about the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. although seminal to the Christian faith, but Peter's three denials of Jesus of Nazareth. The biblical record of Matthew Chapter 26 narrates that Jesus predicted Peter will deny him three times before roosters crow:

34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

This was after the Last Supper where Jesus had predicted that one of his disciples would betray him and asked them to eat his bread and drink his wine to symbolise Jesus' body and blood. After Jesus was betrayed by Judas and arrested, he was brought to the Caiaphas to be charged with blasphemy. Peter (and one other) was brave enough to follow Jesus at a distance and saw him being accused and assualted and threatened with death by the Sanhedrin. It was in the courtyard where Peter denies Jesus (Matthew 26):

69Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. "You also were with Jesus of Galilee," she said.

70But he denied it before them all. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said.

71Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, "This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth."

72He denied it again, with an oath: "I don't know the man!"

73After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away."

74Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed.

75Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.


Why did Peter deny Jesus? You could say that he was fearful of being persecuted and put to death like Jesus, even as most of the other disciples have fled when Jesus was arrested. You could also say that he was courageous only enough to follow Jesus to Caiaphas, but not brave enough to admit to his enemies that he was a disciple of Jesus of Gailee. Or you could thicken your skin and say that Peter was smart enough not to readily admit his association with Jesus for he has a mission to spread the Good News after Jesus' acension to Heaven.

Many of us, including me, would have done the same thing that Peter did in face of grave danger. How many of us are willing to die for a cause or a religion? Even though God calls us to be willing to suffer and die for him, for Truth, for Salvation.

Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matt. 5:11-12

Besides remembering the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ today, may we, as Christians, have the strength to be steadfast in our Faith and to spread the word of God when we encounter flasehoods or when we are challenged. May we have the courage to tell others that Jesus came and died for them!

For Remembrance of Lord Jesus Christ and enjoy the long weekend! =)