Maid’s Execution in Singapore

* Mary Rajkumar (“The Killing of Flor Contemplacion,” Commentary, April 13) is entitled to her views on the case, but she omitted important points which your readers should know. Contemplacion was granted full due process of law. Her case was heard twice in the High Court, which found her guilty, and she made two appeals to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the conviction. At no time, before, during or after her trial, did Contemplacion ever suggest that someone else had been responsible for the murders for which she had been convicted.

Contemplacion was represented by two counsel at the first High Court trial. She chose to remain silent at the first trial, even after the implications of remaining silent were fully explained to her by the judge and her own counsel. The court found her guilty and sentenced her to death. The second trial took place due to the initiative of the courts after a psychiatrist in private practice claimed that Contemplacion may have been suffering from some mental illness at the time of the offense.

At the reconvened trial, Contemplacion testified in her own defense and in the presence of her two counsel, she admitted to the killings and described in detail how she carried them out. She claimed diminished responsibility. After hearing expert evidence from both sides, the trial judge rejected the claim of diminished responsibility and convicted her of the murders. When Contemplacion’s appeal was heard, the three-judge Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence of diminished responsibility and upheld the trial judge’s decision to reject this defense.

Rajkumar stated that “some believed that she was falsely accused” and also referred to “new claims that she was falsely accused.” The Singapore government has, in detailed statements, rebutted these claims. Contemplacion had numerous opportunities to change her admission to both murders, but did not do so--neither to the Philippine Embassy officials who met with her nine times, nor to the Roman Catholic nun who visited her 68 times.

We claim no universal validity for Singapore’s approach to law and order, and the values we espouse. But we believe that tough laws enforced strictly and impartially will keep Singapore safe and relatively crime-free.

S. R. NATHAN

Singapore Ambassador, Washington