EXPLANATION OF VOTE BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ON THE RESOLUTION “MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY”, THIRD COMMITTEE 11 NOVEMBER 2022

1 Thank you, Mr Chairman.

2 Singapore is gratified that the amendment we had proposed has now been incorporated. The message to the proponents is unmistakable: this paragraph cannot be deleted.

3 The amendment has fixed a basic flaw. However, the draft resolution contains many other flaws and contradictions.

4 Firstly, if we reaffirm that all countries have a sovereign right to determine their own legal systems, in OP1, then surely it is contradictory to express in OP2 that the exercise of this very sovereign right is a source of deep concern. This is a legal and political contradiction that must be addressed. Some of us had proposed the deletion of OP2 in the informal consultations, but our proposals were ignored, dismissed, denied.

5 Secondly, this resolution has made no reference to the rights of victims and the rights of their families. The resolution ignores the challenge faced by many countries in dealing with serious and violent crimes, including crimes related to drug trafficking and drug cartels in many countries. This is a serious weakness of this resolution.

6 Thirdly, and most importantly, this resolution is not founded on international law. The fact is that international law does not prohibit the use of the death penalty. In fact, Article 6.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically provides for its use for the most serious crimes, in accordance with due process of law. This fact must be acknowledged from the beginning, but the resolution does not do so. The proponents did not give us a fair hearing.

7 In summary, this resolution represents the views and vision of a group of countries who are seeking to impose their views on other countries, who are seeking to export one model of society to the rest of the world, who are not listening and hearing, let alone with empathy. This resolution is divisive because it ignores the diversity of criminal justice systems around the world.

8 We have done our best to engage with the proponents, but they have not taken our concerns seriously. This resolution is ultimately one-sided in nature, and the proponents have adopted a take-it-or-leave-it approach, and that is not a recipe for a dialogue.

9 We ask the proponents to review their approach, and to make an effort to respect the diversity of legal systems. And we remain ready to talk to the proponents. I repeat, we remain ready, provided they engage us on a basis of mutual respect and sovereign equality, as defined in the Charter. Please do not dismiss, deny, denigrate our views. We are here as representatives of sovereign equals, and we are ready to engage on a dialogue.

10 For all the reasons I have explained, Singapore will vote NO on the resolution.

11 Thank you.

.    .    .    .    .