Death penalty a great deterrent to crime, argues panel speaker

KUCHING: The federal government ought to retain the death penalty as its ‘last line of defence’ in terms of being a deterrent to crime.

Moreover, Malaysia has yet to reach the level of maturity – be it in social, educational or economic aspects – when it comes to considering the abolishment of the death penalty.

This was pointed out by chartered accountant Tay Chze Cheng during a talk on ‘Controversy on Abolishing the Death Penalty’ at a restaurant here yesterday, organised by the Federation of Chinese Associations of Kuching, Samarahan and Serian Divisions.

The session was moderated by Teo Kwang Hock, while the other speaker was former Repok assemblyman Datuk David Teng, who is a lawyer by profession.

In his argument, Tay concurred with Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) president and former federal minister Datuk Seri Wee Ka Siong, who recently said that the government should not make its move to abolish the death penalty without enlightening Malaysians on the need to do so.

“It appears that Wee Ka Siong plays a more effective role as the opposition. He has queried that if the death penalty could not serve as a deterrent to crime, how Malaysia is going to reduce crimes if the death penalty were to be abolished,” he said.

Citing recent news reports, Tay said the estimated cost in managing those placed on death row was RM40 per inmate per day.

It is stated that there are 1,281 individuals on death row in Malaysia. Of the total, 300 are convicted for murder.

In this regard, he said the Malaysian government would have to spend around RM430,000 per death row inmate per year.

“This is calculated based on a period of 30 years, which brings the total expenditure to over RM500 million (for 1,281 death row inmates). Such cost is much higher than the execution, which costs about RM2,800 per inmate.

“As an accountant, I’d tell you that going for execution is more beneficial,” he said.

Nevertheless, Tay also said the federal government should let Malaysians decide whether to retain the death penalty or have it abolished.

“It is more imperative for the government to work on practising discretionary death penalty, and give full independence to the judiciary system.”

Later, the organiser carried out a voting session during the talk, involving 146 members of the floor. The outcome of the voting showed that 130 voted against the abolishment of the death penalty, while 14 supported the move.

Two votes were considered spoilt votes.