EXPLANATION OF VOTE AFTER THE VOTE BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ON DRAFT RESOLUTION XII UNDER AGENDA ITEM 68 (B), “MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY”, PLENARY MEETING OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 15 DECEMBER 2022

1 Thank you very much, Mr President.

2 I am taking the floor to deliver an explanation of Singapore’s vote on draft resolution XII, which was adopted under agenda item 68 (b), entitled “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty”.

3 Singapore voted against the moratorium resolution and I wish to place on the record of the General Assembly the position of my delegation.

4 Firstly, this resolution is not consistent with the provisions of international law. It is a well-known fact that Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly allows for the use of the death penalty for the most serious crimes, and in accordance with due process of law. The moratorium resolution has unfortunately not acknowledged this important and relevant point. The letter and spirit of the moratorium resolution is not only one-sided; it is not at all consistent with the provisions of international law.

5 Secondly, this resolution has made no reference to the rights of victims and the rights of their families. The resolution ignores the reality faced by many countries around the world in dealing with rising rates of violent crimes, including crimes related to gangs, gun violence, drug trafficking and drug cartels. We regard the omission of the rights of victims and the rights of their families to be a serious flaw in this resolution.

6 Thirdly, this resolution seeks to impose the views and values of one group of countries on the rest of the world. To put it plainly, this resolution seeks to export a particular model of society to the rest of the world. The resolution does not acknowledge or respect the diversity of legal and criminal justice systems around the world. It takes a one-size-fits-all approach, by seeking to impose a moratorium on the rest of the international community.

Mr President,

7 What is most unfortunate about this resolution is that it betrays an attitude of arrogance and an attitude of cultural superiority. In the course of informal negotiations, the proponents of this resolution adopted a take-it-or-leave-it approach. It is not surprising that many countries from different regions of the world have voted against this resolution today. The results of the vote today send a clear and unmistakable message, that there is no international consensus on the notion of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

Mr President

8 I take this opportunity to place on record and to express the deep disappointment of many delegations with the approach taken by the proponents to disregard and disrespect the working methods of the United Nations. For many years now, the proponents have continued the approach of arbitrarily deleting the paragraph on sovereignty even though this paragraph has been adopted by a majority of UN members since 2016.This year, operative paragraph one was adopted once again by the highest ever number of votes, and the message to the proponents is very clear: that operative paragraph one has a clear place in the moratorium resolution, and it is absolutely necessary to reaffirm the sovereign rights of all countries to determine their own legal systems when one is advocating the notion of a moratorium. This is a principle that must be acknowledged and accepted by the proponents and it is not something the proponents should dismiss, deny or delete.

9 Given the history of disregard and disrespect that the proponents have shown for the views of the majority, the question legitimately arises: will the proponents once again delete operative paragraph one when the resolution is considered in 2024? Will they once again disregard and dismiss the views of a majority of members? We really do not understand why the proponents insist on deleting an operative paragraph that has been repeatedly adopted by a majority of UN members. I have to say that this approach shows no respect, no respect at all, for the multilateral rules-based system, and it shows no respect for the working methods of the United Nations.

10 I call on the proponents of this resolution to reflect carefully on the approach they have adopted to this resolution. I ask them to abandon their attitude of arrogance and cultural superiority. We are here present in this General Assembly as representatives of sovereign equals. I ask them to show respect for the principle of sovereignty, which is the basis of all we do at the United Nations. Most importantly, I ask the proponents to listen carefully to the diversity of positions and views of UN members on this issue and I urge the proponents not to export their model and not to impose their views on the rest of the international community.

Mr President,

11 In these challenging times, we should seek to reinforce the multilateral system by working together to strengthen the rule of international law, and the principle of sovereignty. We should promote dialogue not division, unity not uniformity, respect not recrimination. This resolution misses the mark on every one of these counts. That is why Singapore voted NO on this legally flawed and misguided resolution.

12 But let me end with an expression of hope. It is my hope that the proponents will change their approach to this resolution. The ball is in their court.

13 I thank you.

. . . . .