In principle, I am against things like Internal Security Acts. If a state has a case, they should make it a point of putting the bugger on trial and having evidence presented. However, in the age of mass terrorism, I guess we have to accept that things like this may be necessary.

However, there has to be a limit to how long the state can hold some one. Indefinitely should not be the answer. If you take the example of Mas Selamat, they were holding the bugger for two-years. Surely, in those two-years they could have found enough evidence to put him on trial – but then again, I suppose the world more fun when he walked out of a secured detention facility.

I feel that TOC IS Mainstream and this is to me.
As I dun buy the news, no money, Blogs like this are Mainstream to me.

Mainstream, just a word, a description.

When the EXECUTIVE(RULER/GOVERNMENT) SETS THE LAWS for the Judiciary to enforce, how could Justice prevail when and if the Executive abuses Human Rights?

No Human Rights equal no JUSTICE and when there is no justice in a country the Judiciary in it can never be independent of the Executive(which legislates the Laws).

patriot

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!

So it is important that the rule of law is being exercise in any environment or country. Singapore is no different. We are often being told that Singapore is very unique and that we need stability more than liberty and freedom. These are fear tactics used to silent anyone from questioning the ruling party.

The law should be above the political governance.at all time. This, I felt, will put any political leader on their toes because they are also subjected to the law and they cannot escape the net of justice if they commit any crime, just like everyone.

The recent outburst of MM LKY’s statement that even if an opposition party is to be chosen to govern Singapore in the future, they will not be able to control major government ministries and departments; they will not be able to touch the International reserves as they will not have the president support. THIS IS OUTRIGHT disrespecting Justice, fairness, human rights and democracy. Shame on PAP.

You can have all the rules/laws in place like say for a football match, But the referee and linesmen can influence the outcome, not forgetting the referee’s decision is final. So you see it is easy to fix the outcome if you have a compliant referee, backup with compliant linesmen. The good thing is that FIFA can ban such a referee but in the case of a compliant judiciary, there is no international body to ban the kangaroo judge.

I hope this rings a bell for you when you look at the way elections system, judiciary, walkover for PrataNathan, voting pattern in parliament, etc are fixed.
Of course I expect you to figure out by “you know who”. LOL

Laws are set by those in power, and while Law *can* reflect the accepted definition of morality, ethics and justice as defined in the hearts of a population, it is not necessarily so – it all depends on how those in power are one with those they rule over.

Take the Burmese Junta as a example. Recently they convicted democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi for “breaching house arrest conditions”; even though it was due to an uninvited guest who committed the infringement without her will. Judgment was passed in a court of law, which found her guilty. It was said to be made under Rule of Law. But is it just? (could she have prevented it?) Is it moral (does the public agree with it?) and ethical (is the judgment not-political in nature instead of for the protection of the people – which should be the basis of laws – for the good of the people it was written for)

An even more hard-hitting example would be that of the Taliban during their rule from 1996-2001. Their treatment of their people and how they punish offenses are certainly cringeworthy – but they are doing it as part of the law they set down. It is even noted that there is relative peace within the country during their period of rule, compared to the fighting before and after their regime. But while it was good for the Taliban, was it good for the people? We note that after their rule was broken, many felt more liberated, and acted as such, even despite the increased violence from the in-fighting. So once again, can their law, and indeed, the rule of law in their country be considered moral, ethical and just?

Having gained your own understanding from these examples, I leave you to consider the situation in other countries such as our own.

am i right to assume :

Law

1. is Rule Based.
2. can be changed thru repealing.
3. is set by a person if not a group of persons.
?

But is law = morality?
Is law = ethics?

can someone enlighten?

‘Even Anwar attempted to circumvent the court’s power in his hey days. Who is he to declare for fair judiciaries now? ‘

ANWAR HAS REPENT LA! WHO ARE YOU TO LINK HIS PRESENT ACTIONS TO HIS PAST! I am now working in Malaysia and I know it from sources close to me. You wrote like the lawless, undemocratic LKY regime out to distort and mislead our poor singaporeans! I think you are paid to write this! Reveal yourself.

Even Anwar attempted to circumvent the court’s power in his hey days. Who is he to declare for fair judiciaries now?

I do not believe the judiciary acts fairly in quite a number of cases. In some cases, convicted criminals can get reduced sentences simply because of unsubstantiated “mitigating” factors during appeal.

Bring back Yung Pong How, at least he is not a softie when dealing with criminals.

Check this out http://www.apill4life.blogspot.com.

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/special-feature/631-csjs-closing-submissions-for-contempt-of-judiciary-2006

They ignore or even PUI on their own heroes and then adore their counterparts in other countries, near or far.

Injustice is right here at home. You don’t need to look elsewhere.

Example: Maruah protested for Burma at the Speakers’ Corner.

Who cares about being ‘mainstream’ when that is clearly a steeplejacked word to descibe an a class of people who consider themselves to holier, and mightier than thou?

‘Mainstream’ is a value judgement and loaded with emotion; it’s coinage does not conform to the system of using the objective criteria from political science to determine CENTRISM, which so happens also to be the political position that the MAJORITY in freed-up polities supports.

I don’t care if Singanews wants to declare itself to be mainstream. Let’s see if they do the *centrist* thing instead and attack the PAP government for its non-adherence to constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the attendant rationality in legislative processes and law enforcement.

Good for you TOC for taking a centrist position!