30/03/2026

MONDAY | MAR 30, 2026

11

COMMENT by Kua Kia Soong

Death penalty for genocide? T HERE was a time when opposing the death penalty felt like the last clean line one could draw in a the Japanese military programme that conducted live human

Death penalty I do not arrive at this position with comfort, I remain opposed to the death penalty in ordinary criminal justice. I do not trust states to wield such power fairly or consistently. I know too well how often it falls on the marginalised, the voiceless and the expendable. The drug mules executed in Malaysia and Singapore ad nauseum is the sickest example of this injustice. But the architects of large-scale destruction – those who order bombings that level cities, who authorise policies that predictably annihilate civilians, who operate above the law precisely because of their power – occupy a different moral universe. To treat them as ordinary criminals is to diminish the gravity of their crimes. The post-war generation believed they had drawn a permanent line at Nuremberg. History suggests something harsher: that the line was never universal – only selectively enforced. From the laboratories of Unit 731 to the courtrooms of the Nuremberg trials, to the contested battlefields of today, one truth persists: justice has never been blind; it has always been shaped by power. The question is whether we continue to accept that or whether we are prepared to confront what justice would actually require – even if the answer unsettles everything we once believed. KuaKia Soong is a former MP and director of Suaram. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

accountability will come. But what does “accountability” mean when the worst conceivable crimes are met, at most, with a prison sentence? Anyhow, the present imperial hegemon has just demonstrated before the whole world that he does not give a damn about international law. Retreat from Nuremberg After World War II, the architects of the Nuremberg Trials did not equivocate. They understood that aggressive war, mass extermination and the deliberate targeting of civilians were not just crimes; they were crimes that shattered the moral architecture of civilisation. And so, some of those found responsible were executed. This was not bloodlust; it was a declaration: there exists a threshold beyond which crimes are so vast, so systematic, that they demand the ultimate sanction. Today, that threshold has vanished. The International Criminal Court – the supposed heir to Nuremberg – has no death penalty. Its harshest sentence is life imprisonment, as codified in the Rome Statute. The reasoning is familiar: human rights, the sanctity of life, the risk of error and the fear of politicisation. All valid, all principled and yet, in the face of mass death, they begin to sound like evasions. Unit 731 History offers a brutal comparison – one that should unsettle any easy moral certainty. Consider Unit 731, These risks compound one another. Heat accelerates water loss. Dry conditions fuel fires. Fires generate haze, which in turn amplifies health burdens. Shift to proactive action Malaysia must move decisively from crisis response to risk prevention and early intervention. This requires a coordinated leadership and public participation. For government and authorities: 0 Implement early-stage water conservation measures, not just emergency rationing 0 Enforce strict, zero-tolerance policies on open burning, especially in high-risk areas 0 Expand heatwave action plans, including public cooling strategies and worker protections 0 Strengthen early warning systems for water levels, heat indices and air quality 0 Accelerate long-term investments in water resilience, including diversification of supply and demand management For society, businesses and communities: 0 Adopt daily water-saving practices as

for erosion. What we have, in effect, is a grotesque inversion: The state claims the right to kill in war but the law refuses to contemplate the ultimate penalty for those who order such killing. This is not moral consistency; it is moral asymmetry. So, the forbidden question returns: If orchestrating the mass killing of civilians does not merit the ultimate punishment, what does? To ask this is not to abandon humanism lightly; it is to confront its limits under extreme conditions. Because there is another moral intuition – older and more visceral than abolitionism – that justice must, at some point, be proportionate to the crime. That there are acts so egregious that anything less than the severest penalty feels like complicity. This was the intuition that animated Nuremberg. It is the intuition that many now feel stirring again. History offers ample warning: it can be abused by victors, it can become an instrument of revenge and it can foreclose the possibility of error or redemption. But refusing to reopen it carries its own danger: the normalisation of impunity at scale. A world in which men like Shir Ishii can evade justice entirely while others are executed, is not a world of principle; it is a world of convenience. A world in which contemporary architects of large-scale destruction face, at most, imprisonment – if they are ever tried at all – is a world quietly adjusting to atrocity.

experimentation in occupied China. Under the command of Shir Ishii, prisoners were dissected alive, infected with plague and cholera, frozen to study frostbite and used to test weapons. These were not aberrations; they were policy. And yet Ishii was never tried. Neither were many of his colleagues. Instead, they were granted immunity in exchange for their data by the United States. Contrast this with the fate of Nazi figures prosecuted in the wake of Nuremberg: Karl Brandt was executed for his role in the euthanasia programme; Rudolf Hoss was executed for overseeing mass extermination. Others faced similar sentences for crimes that, in structure and intent, mirrored those of Unit 731. So, what separates those who hang from those who walk free is not the magnitude of their crimes; it is power, timing and who writes the verdict. Selective humanity Let us be honest about what has happened. The international system has not merely abolished the death penalty; it has done so selectively while tolerating a world in which powerful states and their allies exercise a de facto licence to kill. Thousands of civilians can die under aerial bombardment, political leaders can be assassinated without trial and entire populations can be subjected to collective punishment. And yet the language of a “rules-based order” persists, as though repetition could compensate

compromised world. I held that line. As a humanist, I believed the state must never claim the moral right to take a life – not even in punishment. To do so was to mimic the violence it purported to judge. The principle was simple, austere and – until recently – unshakeable. During the 80s, I even challenged a Buddhist leader in a panel discussion on the death penalty when he was prepared to “render unto Caesar, the death penalty that is Caesar’s”. When principle meets rubble Then came Gaza. It is one thing to oppose capital punishment in the abstract language of law reform. It is another to watch entire neighbourhoods reduced to dust, hospitals flattened, families erased in seconds and to be told – calmly, bureaucratically – that this is “self defence”. It is one thing to speak of restraint when violence is hypothetical. It is another when it is livestreamed. The sustained destruction in Gaza, the extension of violence into the West Bank and Lebanon, the normalisation of targeted assassinations across borders – from Iran to elsewhere – have not merely shocked the conscience. They have exposed a deeper obscenity: the gap between the scale of the crime and the timidity of its legal consequences. We are told that international law exists. That institutions exist. That El Nino alters regional weather patterns, typically bringing reduced rainfall, prolonged dry conditions and higher temperatures to Malaysia. These effects are now converging in ways that threaten water security, public health and environmental stability. Yet, our collective response – across institutions and society – remains largely reactive. We respond to fires after they ignite, conserve water only when shortages become critical and issue health advisories after heatwaves intensify. This approach is no longer adequate. Understanding the risks The current conditions are not isolated events but interconnected risks: 0 Water stress: Lower rainfall is reducing inflows into dams and rivers, increasing the likelihood of supply disruptions and deteriorating water quality. 0 Extreme heat: Prolonged high temperatures raise the risk of heat exhaustion, heatstroke and chronic dehydration – particularly among vulnerable groups.

LETTERS letters@thesundaily.com

National call to act on heat, water stress and haze risks ACROSS Malaysia, the warning signs are no longer subtle. Declining reservoir levels, intensifying heat and recurring fire outbreaks point to a system under growing strain – driven in part by the current El Nino phenomenon. 0 Fire and haze: Dry vegetation and peatlands create ideal conditions for fires, which can quickly escalate into transboundary haze episodes affecting air quality and visibility. a norm, not a response to crisis 0 Avoid all forms of open burning and fire-risk activities

0 Protect personal and community health by minimising exposure to extreme heat and haze 0 Support and comply with public advisories and environmental regulations The health implications are immediate and serious. Heat-related illnesses, respiratory conditions linked to haze and risks associated with reduced water quality demand heightened awareness and early protective action. Prevention at the community level is as critical as policy at the national level. This period of El Niño should be treated as a stress test of national preparedness. The question is no longer whether these conditions will occur but whether we are willing to act early enough to reduce their impact. A reactive posture carries rising costs – to health, to the economy and to the environment. A proactive approach, by contrast, offers resilience. The time to act is before the next threshold is crossed. K. R. Punithan Secretary Klang Consumer Association

Heat-related illnesses, respiratory conditions linked to haze and risks associated with reduced water quality demand heightened awareness and early protective action. – SUNPIC