EXPLANATION OF VOTE BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ON DRAFT RESOLUTION XIV UNDER AGENDA ITEM 71(B), “MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY”, PLENARY, 17 DECEMBER 2024

1          Thank you very much, Mr President.

2          I am taking the floor to deliver an explanation of Singapore’s vote on draft resolution XIV, which was adopted under agenda item 71(b), entitled “Moratorium on the use of the Death penalty”.

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

4         First, the text of this resolution is not consistent with international law.  It is unfortunate that the resolution has failed to acknowledge and recognise Article 6.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which expressly allows for the use of the death penalty for “the most serious crimes” and in “accordance with the law”. The fact is that nothing under international law prohibits the use of the death penalty as part of due process, with judicial safeguards. Every country has the sovereign right to determine its own criminal justice system, considering its own circumstances and in line with its international law obligations. This resolution is an example of legislative over-reach, because it seeks to constrain what is clearly permitted under international law. This resolution is also disturbing because it seeks to override the legislation and undermine the constitution of many sovereign nations.

5         Second, this resolution remains fundamentally flawed and imbalanced. During various rounds of informal consultations, many countries, including Singapore, pointed out that this resolution ignores the rights of victims and the rights of their families. This resolution conveniently disregards the reality of many countries facing violent crimes, including gang-related crimes, gun violence, drug trafficking and the presence of drug cartels. We regard the omission of the rights of victims and the rights of the families to be a serious flaw in the resolution.

6         Third, this resolution seeks to impose the views and values of one group of countries on the rest of the world. The reality is that the death penalty is embedded in the legislation and constitutions of many countries. The proponents of the resolution have unfortunately chosen to disregard the diversity of legal and criminal justice systems around the world. This goes against the very spirit of the United Nations, which is based on mutual respect and understanding. It is also contradictory to call on Member States to implement a moratorium on the use of a legitimate legal penalty on the one hand, and on the other hand having reaffirmed the sovereign right of countries to determine their own legal systems in OP1 of the same resolution. This aspect of the resolution needs to be resolved. We are therefore not surprised that many countries from different regions of the world have voted against this resolution today. The results send a clear message that there is no consensus on the very idea of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

Mr President,

7          We would like to place on record our disappointment with the approach taken to this resolution. The proponents of this resolution have repeatedly deleted the first Operative Paragraph on sovereignty. This Operative Paragraph has been adopted by a majority of UN members in 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022. This year, Operative Paragraph one was adopted once again by the highest number of votes in the Third Committee, and it is an integral part of the resolution. 

8          In closing, I urge the proponents of the resolution to review their approach to this resolution, when it is considered again in two years’ time. I ask them to take on the views of a majority of UN members, who have repeatedly made it clear that the text of Operative Paragraph one is an integral and necessary part of the entire resolution. The ball is in their court. Singapore stands ready to engage constructively with the proponents, on the basis of respect for the views of the majority of UN members.

9          Thank you very much.

.  .  .  .  .