On March 4, 2015, in Kong v. Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal ruled [3] that caning as administered in Singapore does not constitute torture. Yong Vui Kong was convicted in 2013 of drug trafficking and sentenced to “life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane” as prescribed in Singapore’s amended 2012 Misuse of Drugs Act. Kong appealed [4] the sentence on various grounds, including that caning was a form of torture under international and common law, and particularly under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [5] (Art. 15(1)) to which Singapore is party. The Court acknowledged evidence that the prohibition against torture had become a peremptory norm in international law and indicated that Singapore, though not party to the Convention Against Torture [6] and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, “endorsed the view that torture is wrong and that no one should be subjected to it.” The Court, however, found “no international consensus that the use of caning as part of a regulated regime of punishment with appropriate medical safeguards constitutes torture.” Moreover, reasoning that “a court operating in the domestic system is obliged to apply domestic legislation in the event of an irreconcilable conflict between it and international law,” the Court found the use of judicial corporal punishment acceptable.