Statement by Ambassador Chew Tai Soo Permanent Representative of the Republic of Singapore

Proposing a motion for no action to draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.32 Under Agenda Item 100 (e): "Capital Punishment" at the third committee of the 49th session of the United Nations General Assembly - New York, 7 December 1994

Mr. Chairman,

My delegation would like to propose a motion under rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure for no action to be taken on resolution A/C.3/49/L.32, entitled "Capital Punishment".

Mr. Chairman,

My delegation is proposing the motion for no action on L.32 for a number of reasons. First, item 100 (e) has been thoroughly debated in this Committee from 16 November. The debate has made it abundantly clear that no consensus exists on the issue of capital punishment. This being the case, action on L. 32 would not serve any purpose whatsoever.

Second, whatever the outcome, a vote on L.32 would only widen the division between the two sides. Supporters of the abolition of capital punishment have acceded to the "Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty". This of course is their sovereign right. The title of that Protocol shows clearly that there is no consensus on the abolition of the death penalty. Otherwise it would not have the word "optional" in its title. The drafters of that Protocol had wisely understood that any attempt to impose their views on the death penalty on the other members of the United Nations would have led to opposition and division. On the other hand, the adoption of L.32 would result in just such a situation. In short, L. 32 is divisive.

Third, capital punishment is not a human rights issue. In fact the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly recognises the right of governments to impose the death penalty for serious crimes. The draft resolution in L.32, however, attempts to impute that capital punishment violates human rights even though none of the human rights instruments has characterised capital punishment as an infringement or violation of human rights.

Fourth, it is the sovereign right of governments to determine the legal measures and penalties which are appropriate in their countries to combat serious crimes. The Charter of the United Nations states categorically in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". L.32 as presently drafted goes some way towards dictating a particular set of values and system of justice from countries which have abolished capital punishment on those which have not. In the process, the co-sponsors may be unwittingly infringing the sovereign right of other countries. This I am sure is not the intention of the co-sponsors of L.32, as all member states of the United Nations do adhere, at least publicly, to the principle of the sovereign equality of member states and the sovereign right of member states on matters which are within their domestic jurisdction.

Mr. Chairman,

For the above reasons, my delegation strongly urges all member states, whether they have retained capital punishment or abolished it, to vote in favour of the motion for no action on draft resolution L.32.