Andrew Loh
Yong Vui Kong’s death sentence “should stand”, the Principal Private Secretary (PPS) to President Nathan said in a letter from the Istana. In a one-sentence response to the petition for clemency for Yong, which was sent to the President a month ago by members of the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC), the President’s PPS said:
“I am directed to refer to the petition for clemency of Yong Vui Kong and to inform you that the President, after due consideration of the petition and on advice of the Cabinet, has decided that the sentence of death should stand.”
Yong, a Malaysian and who was 19 when he was arrested, was sentenced to death in January 2009 for trafficking 47g of heroin into Singapore in June 2008. He was convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act which carries a mandatory death sentence for anyone caught trafficking more than 15gm of heroin, 30gm of cocaine or 500gm of cannabis.
All three of Yong’s appeals have now been rejected.
In a statement in response to the President’s rejection of the appeal, members of the SADPC say Yong is expected to be hanged the week after next. Yong has also agreed to donate his organs, the SADPC statement says.
Yong’s lawyer, Mr M Ravi, faced some difficulties with the Singapore Prison Service in gaining access to his client last week. However, his application to see Yong has now been approved and he is expected to visit Yong in the forthcoming week.
Singapore has one of the highest rates of State-sanctioned executions in the world. Anti-Death Penalty campaigners and Human Rights activists, both here and abroad, have highlighted the shortcomings in the law and in the procedures in determining guilt.
The Singapore government, however, has always stood by its stand that capital punishment is a deterrent, for example, to drug traffickers.
—–
The following is a statement from the SADPC.
The President has responded to the petition for clemency of Yong Vui Kong sent in by the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) through his Principal Private Secretary Mr Tan Eng Beng.
“I am directed to refer to the petition for clemency of Yong Vui Kong and to inform you that the President, after due consideration of the petition and on the advice of the Cabinet, has decided that the sentence of death should stand.”
According to the date stated on the letter, the statement was issued on 20 November 2009. M Ravi, lawyer for Yong and co-campaigner of the SADPC, received the letter on 26 November 2009.
Yong has also signed a document agreeing to donate his organs.
Although no date has been fixed yet, he is expected to hang the week after next.
M Ravi has been allowed to talk to his client and will do so in the week to come. Further legal action to save Yong in this short amount of time, is being planned. Let’s all hope for the best.
Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign
singaporeantideathpenalty@gmail.com
——
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
[i]To further reiterate my answer to you, let it be known that I will stick to facts and evidences, and not speculations, rumours, personal opinions or hypothesis which cannot be proven nor substantiated. [/i]
cannot be proven nor substantiated? personal opinions?
whoa! you are indeed from the famiLLEE of leekuanyew
rumours..ha ha ha
i am LAUGHIN OUT LOUD rollin on the floor as well
Dear Mavis,
Thank you for your patience. I shall now answer the 3 questions you have directed at me. (Your questions are in bold.)
1) Are you agreeing that Yong Vui Kong’s crime is a small matter despite knowing full well that what he did would harm and ruin the lives of many people in Singapore?
No.
2) What would you tell the loved ones of those whose life had been totally ruined and destroyed by drugs, bought about precisely because of the ease of accessing illegal drugs through drug traffickers like Yong Vui Kong?
I would offer them my condolences.
3) What do you think if we rescind the death penalty, and Singapore is therefore seriously infested with drugs bought in by traffickers who know that they can now get away with just jail sentences? Will this situation be OK for you? Or are you concerned only about rescinding the death penalty but had never thought of the consequences to our society?
Clearly, Mavis, this is hypothetical and speculative. I thought you were saying you would only go on facts?
Thank you.
Now, lets move on. I shall proceed to point out the flaws (as I see them and hopefully also, present factual back-ups for them) in the system in my next post.
Thank you. Lets move on to the issue at hand – the system and the application of the death penalty itself in Singapore.
Dear Mavis,
Lets start with the issue of PRESUMPTION OF GUILT provided in the Law. The following is an extract from the Misuse Of Drugs Act concerning the trafficking of contravene drugs.
[Bold emphases are mine].
Misuse of Drugs Act, Chp 185, Part III, (17)
Presumption concerning trafficking
17. Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than —
(a) 100 grammes of opium;
(b) 3 grammes of morphine;
(c) 2 grammes of diamorphine;
(d) 15 grammes of cannabis;
(e) 30 grammes of cannabis mixture;
(f) 10 grammes of cannabis resin;
(g) 3 grammes of cocaine;
(h) 25 grammes of methamphetamine;
(ha) 113 grammes of ketamine; or
(i) 10 grammes of any or any combination of the following:
(i) N, α-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine;
(ii) α-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine; or
(iii) N-ethyl-α−methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine,
whether or not contained in any substance, extract, preparation or mixture, shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose.
[38/89;40/93; 20/98;2/2006]
Presumption of possession and knowledge of controlled drugs
18. —(1) Any person who is proved to have had in his possession or custody or under his control —
(a) anything containing a controlled drug;
(b) the keys of anything containing a controlled drug;
(c) the keys of any place or premises or any part thereof in which a controlled drug is found; or
(d) a document of title relating to a controlled drug or any other document intended for the delivery of a controlled drug,
shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that drug in his possession.
(2) Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug.
(3) The presumptions provided for in this section shall not be rebutted by proof that the accused never had physical possession of the controlled drug.
(4) Where one of 2 or more persons with the knowledge and consent of the rest has any controlled drug in his possession, it shall be deemed to be in the possession of each and all of them.
Dear Mavis, please take some time to think of the various consequences of the provisions before we move forward.
Take a day or two.
Thank you.
No wonder the Press-sit-dent has so many illnesses!
Put too many people to death, right?
Retribution may be slow to come but it will surely come. Have NO doubt about it.
When the subjects request for mercy and mercy is not forthcoming, then when the time for you to pray for mercy, would mercy come your way?
Merciless Gahmen and merciless Press-sit-dent do not deserve the kindness of the citizens. When the time comes for action, Singaporeans, please remember to give the just deserts to the merciless.
Come, come.
We are here to present our views, not beat each other over the head with them. Please, Singaporeans, if we go on like this in the forums, the government will have good grounds to dismiss plurality online, offline and in parliament, as merely conducive to quarrels and disputes and word-wrangling.
Let’s demonstrate that we are capable of coming together with different opinions and then, parting amicably, without name calling or dismissing dissenting views out of hand.
84) lobo76 on November 29th, 2009 1.01 am
YET, there is support for the death sentence. In fact, I am wondering if you are appealing to the ‘nature’ of the people here in TOC to do exactly that (oppose govt values) and ironically, asking us NOT to think.
-
apologies if i did not make myself clear enough. my previous post was directed at Mavis, not the general public in TOC. i do not get what you mean in your aforemention statement, but nonetheless the values i was refering to in this specific case meant death for the drug runner yong, not the death penalty per se.
to mavis “What do you think if we rescind the death penalty, and Singapore is therefore seriously infested with drugs bought in by traffickers who know that they can now get away with just jail sentences? Will this situation be OK for you? Or are you concerned only about rescinding the death penalty but had never thought of the consequences to our society?”
LOLOLOLOLOL…
you know Singapore allows PRs and foreigners with local convictions of serious crimes to remain in Singapore, why don’t you also campaign for their removal as well?
the fact that singapore is infested with PRs and foreigner Ex-convicts does not seem to bother you in the least, as compared to the activists’ efforts to commute death sentence of a drug mule.
which brings about more dire “consequences to the society”? allowing PR and foreign EX-CONVICTS in mainstream society, or commuting drug mules’ sentence to life imprisonment with no parole?
Tan Cheng Hua, you rock!
That’s a compliment by the way.
One more for interested readers although it is an old one:
Was innocent man hanged due to legal procedure?
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2187
Now before anyone here calls this off as wild accusations and speculations, let me tell you that this article was produced by Today (Online) years ago. It was also published on the Straits Times if I am not wrong. This speaks alot about the flawed system that we have.
Which is more dangerous, a flawed and rigid system of law and legal procedure that can also send an innocent man to the gallows, or drug mules bringing drugs through the customs? I leave it for all of you to decide.
And just to add on to the debate/ discussion on drug abuse…
When we equate drug traffickers to murderers and saying that they are the cause of broken families and ruined lives, we also have to think about our education on drugs and drug abuse. In general, we have been rather successful so far with that. There is also this thing called choice. Don’t tell me that everyone who sees a bag of heroin will just use it without second thoughts about consequences. Drug consumption is a choice. When there is no demand, there will be no supply. Don’t put the blame solely on drug mules. They are just part of the system and cycle of the drug trade and abuse. In fact sometimes (as shown in history) they have been used to bring drugs into our country unknowingly (for example, Amara Tochi).
I still think that yes, we can be all out against drugs but we need not do that by advocating FOR the death penalty to be used. Won’t make one less righteous or morally superior by advocating for rehabilitation instead of saying “Kill that drug mule”.
Does everyone not have a problem with the presumption clause in the law?
I think anyone with a decent healthy state of conscience would stop and think about these provisions before dismissing them.
Let me give a little illustration, to make the provisions more real.
Say, for example: That you are caught with a small packet of heroin in your bag. It is neatly-wrapped and you can’t see what’s inside.
Once the police decides that you are presumed to know about the presence of the package, and presumed to know that it is heroin, it is then you who must provide proof to rebut the police’s case.
The onus falls to you.
You must defend your innocence.
While the police only has to presume your guilt.
Nevermind that the package could have been dropped into your bag as you cleared customs in say, Bangkok.
It is quite a scary thought. Isn’t it? That you may be sent to death – based on a presumption.
Food for thought.
Indeed. I always approach Singapore customs at all points of entry with some trepidation, to the extent of always checking all clothing pockets, and compartments of hand luggage on approach, to make sure no one has slipped in something additional.
I am still undecided as to the correct (read: life-saving) course of action should a dreaded packet of “stuff” appear.
Dear Tan Cheng Hua,
You have to understand, some people believe in treating the symptoms, over and over again…instead of treating the cause to make symptoms will cease to reoccur…which in some chinese friend’s word 治表不治本? hope i get that phrase right…
and it is very common for people to appear here and declare that their views are fact while those who oppose them are views based on assumptions….
Yamamoto,
Indeed you are right. I suspect this is because of the emotive nature of the issue. When emotions get in the way, people react quite irrationally.
This is why I would like Mavis to leave her emotions aside (as displayed in the tone and words she has used) and just focus on the system and its provisions in the law.
This way, we can look at the issue dispassionately – and rationally.
I await her response to the issue of presumption.
As others have pointed out, in the meantime Singapore continues to trade with and support countries like Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea.
This comes from simply being pragmatic to the point of having no principles and values. Sad
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above:
Silent post in protest against the state MURDERING a young man who had in his possession a substance which should not be illegal in the first place.
Peace to Mr Yong and his family
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iKDAhN_hl4
Not I black heart, I hope one day one of our minsters’ sons / daughters will kena sabotage by a crazy fellow who inserts packets of 15.1 gm of heroin into people’s bags for fun.
Only such incident will make Singapore top-brains think harder.
ApApA,
If that happen as you wish to see, those top guys will find another “scapegoat” to go to the scaffold instead.
Better to kick him into jail and let him wash toilets until he is as old as LKY,
Brothers and Sisters
Lively exchange. I think post #82 says it best…
I used to support the death penalty for drug trafficking but now I am not sure that it works.
For those of us on this blog that is vehemently supportive of the death sentence, will you be just as supportive If the accused is someone you know?
Things are never black or white nor are they always simply right or wrong. Why do people take drugs despite knowing the harm it causes? THe fact that Yong is not the first and unfortunately, may not be the last trafficker, shows that the law isnt working as a deterrent it was intended.
A long jail term for traffickers is probably a better solution while going after the masterminds.
In any war, top strategists would plan to win the war without fighting.
But if conflict is inevitable, then the top strategists would plan to capture or destroy the leaders instead of their foot-soldiers of the opposing force.
The 3rd rate type of strategists aim to destroy the enemy’s soldiers, armies.
While the worst type of strategists (which is no strategist at all) tries to kill those who happens to get into their bases, either being planted by their leaders or strayed in by mistake.
The way the Singapore’s Anti-Narcotic Strategy is being implemented makes one concludes that it simply has no strategy whatsoever. Its meritocratic boast and its so-called pragmatic ‘wisdom’ merely make use of unprincipled, unethical, immoral and unjust means to get anything done in order to satisfy its current desire. The end justifies the means, so to speak. This kind of modus operandi is that of the dark side.
A young nation that prefers to operate on the dark side is destined to collapse one day. It is only just a matter of time. When the full force of the Light comes, like the Sumatran Tsunami, it will totally sweep away the darkness once and for all, forever!
Only time will tell. But it is inevitable, as inevitable as the social divide!
He did not know that he was delivering drugs. He was told they were gifts and that the boxes should not be unwrapped.
Even if he was mistaken about the above, should he be hung for it? How will it make the world a better place that he be put to death? Singaporeans – your support for this system where the accused is presumed guilty means that his blood will be on your hands.
I think that it’s sad. Knowing that you can’t change for the better. Knowing that there’s no turning back. I really think the death sentence should be reconsidered. He’s only 19. He has his whole life ahead of him. Setting a day for him to die, the Singapore government is playing God. I say Rehab instead of death sentence. Killing is tyranny.
Tan Cheng Hua,
I totally agree with you about the issue of presumption of guilt. Perhaps the only way for some of those people here to understand the predicament of some of the hapless victims of this “presumption of guilt” policy that we practice here in Singapore is for them to experience it themselves. Remember, the “presumption of guilt” is not just limited to the drug trafficking Act.
I certainly have no wish for some unfortunate event to befall them but sometimes, that is the only way people come to understand what it is all about, when the misfortune has befallen them. Life’s best lessons are the ones that we learn the hard way.
Meanwhile, I will certainly pray for Yong Vui Kong.
Samaritan,
This part especially is quite astounding, if you think about it:
“(2) Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug.”
There are, as you can see, two presumptions i that one sentence.
If you’re presumed to have the drug in your possession, then you are – again – presumed to know the nature of the drug.
Now, when we talk about flaws, this is what we’re talking about. It is quite obvious to anyone, I would think, that this is a startling fact – two presumptions and a man can be sent to death based on these.
This was what Sylvia Lim was talking about – but sadly, ardent supporters of the death penalty such as Mavis, call this ” interpretation and hypothesis” and “personal interpretation”.
By no means are these such.
Mavis fails to see that this is the Law, in fact. In black and white and easily accessible to anyone who would bother to look.
I am waiting for Mavis’s response to the issue of presumption.
I hope she has not gone and buried her head in the sand.
We are taught from a young age that assumptions and presumptions are the worst forms of mistakes that we can achieve because it shows a patent reliance on less-than-whole facts and subjective opinion.
Everyone,
Latest:
The S’pore Prison Service, in a letter to Yong Vui Kong’s brother, says the death sentence passed on Yong Vui Kong will be carried out on 4 December 2009. TOC understands Vui Kong’s lawyer is making a last-ditch attempt to have the sentence set aside.
Tan Cheng Hua,
A number of years ago, I was unfortunate enough to have been “presumed guilty” of a technical breach of the law. Initially, I was confident that the case would be resolved quickly as I was sure I did not break the law in the matter that I had been involved in. The manner in which the whole process was conducted, from the day the investigation began until the day they cleared me was that I was presumed guilty from begining till the end. The stress was so much that I even began to think I was guilty. I would go for hours of interviews during which words would be put into my mouth. Had I not kept my wits about me, who knows what I might have “accidentally” confessed to.
My company spent a good deal of money on lawyers fees while my family and I suffered the anguish of being accused of somthing that I did not do. It was a truly traumatic episode. In the end, even after I was cleared of any wrong doing, I received no apology from the authorities for the less than pleasant manner in which they had treated me, nor was my company compensated in any way for the lawyers fees that they had incurred on my behalf. During that period, the investigating authority treated me like a common criminal. I will never forget that and do not wish that treatment upon anyone.
Like I mentioned earlier, perhaps people like Mavis have to go through that to understand what it feels like. Perhaps then, they might learn to be a bit more compassionate.
he was 19 years old. he wasnt as lucky as most of us given his upbringing .. but still who are we to decide as to who should live and who should die. i cannot help but feel sad that the end is so near for him. As a mother, sister and a daughter I wish things could be different Vui Kong. I truly believe that given the chance Yong Vui Kong is capable of reform….. I am almost certain most will feel the way I do if this boy was our brother, son and friend. Hate/Kill/Loathe the Sin but not the Sinner. My prayers are with his brother, mum and all his family.
He was 19………
The death penalty for any crime is harsh. Having it for countless of years but druglords still manage to get the drugs to where they want and filling their pockets with money, proved that such penalty is not working. These runners are usually stuck between having to earn money to take care of their family/daily basic necessities. Most of them are lowly educated or don’t even have the money to go to school due to their poor background. What the government should do when they do catch a runner is to get more information of the druglords and go after them and also provide counseling and protection for the runners. A positive and progressive country should and will do so and accept that human rights should be met in the 20th century. a problem is not solved if the root of the problem is not removed!
The sad fact is most 19 years old always think they could get away from it. If they were well informed, they would not have taken such a risk. For the older readers of TOC, we all know that when we were young we do silly things but not neccessary drug trafficing. For a poor uneducated boy, it just easy money. The laws need to change to take into account more fact regarding the accused. The prosecution had its easy and if I remember correctly this law had been around for a long time and it had not stopped drug trafficing into Singapore.The law of supply and demand is in operation here. Less drug mean more profit for the drug lords and more profitable for them. Going after the big boys e.g the source should be the main aim but equally the mules must be stopped. Using the mules to track back to the drug laords is easily said then done as most mules do not have a chance to meet any one of importance in a drug syndicate.
Very fortunate for the Lim Foo Seng guy, who only bought about 14g of the drug from Yong. Another gram more, and he may also have had to swing. Incidentally, I think The Straits Times should really endeavour to obtain a more detailed weightage, rather than an approximation, since it is a capital case and every gram counts.
47g less 14g. That still leaves 33g. The third guy, Reggie Gwee, must have taken less than 15g from Yong as well, or he, too, as one can see from the prison sentence imposed.
Therefore, Yong would have had 18g left after his first two contacts. That guy very lucky, never got around to meeting up. Or was Yong going to go back across the border with the remaining 18g or so?
Hmm………
It is a barbaric act to hang a person who committed crimes. At the least , life sentence is more compassionate. He should be given a 2nd chance no matter how wrong is the crime considering his age and unpleasant family background.
The mastermind of the drugs should be hanged and eradicated instead as they make used of people with money and who does not like money(only moron does) to help them to deliver drugs.
They are the one who is still enjoying themselves while others got hanged because of their intelligence of using $$$ on them.
There will be more to come if the root of the master mind continues to get away scot-free and only a uprooted tree will die.
To those who support the death sentence for drug mules, you should call for extension of the death sentence to drug lords. Then only will I take you for real. Only this will make the drug lords think thrice about making use of the vulnerable young, poor and uneducated.
The arrested drug mule should be offered the chance to pin the masterminder. Afterall he is going to die, he WILL give the names and if he is misled, all the more he WILL double-cross the bosses. Do we have a lazy drug squad or what?
Wouldn’t life sentence be good enough a deterence?
I think it’s very very sad that a life can be so easily lost to decision makers in Sg who rarely exist in the same social realm as the bulk of the population. Is this what most Singaporeans would want? If it is, I’ll readily give up my citizenship, beg Malaysia to take me. I can live with petty corruption, but not inhumane practices.
Samaritan,
Thank you for sharing your personal experiences. Indeed, it is unfortunate what you had to go through.
I do not wish the same on Mavis. This is because one must not wish what is bad on someone else, though that may seem like the best way for them to “learn”.
Nonetheless, I am disappointed that Mavis has not returned to engage in this discussion. It tells me several things about her:
1. She doesn’t want to know. She simply doesn’t.
2. Her ego is bruised in learning that there are indeed flaws in the system, contrary to her vehement denial and defence.
3. Her support for the death penalty could be based on several things: ignorance, personal experiences, or just plainly (blindly) trusting in the system.
Whichever her reasons are, she, I would say, is one of blind support – which, unfortunately, is what most S’poreans have for the death penalty.
I will come to that in my next posting.
In 2001, the Think Centre conducted an online poll with the question:
“Do you support the death penalty in Singapore?”
The results?
“83% OF SINGAPOREANS SUPPORT DEATH PENALTY
On first glance, you would think that that means S’poreans support the death penalty but what actually they believe in could be that they support their idea of the death penalty. Or more accurately, they support the idea of the death penalty according to what they have been told the death penalty is.
Now, the question one needs to ask in polls like the one by Think Centre is:
Does the average S’porean really know what the death penalty is all about when:
1. There is no – or hardly – any public debate about it?
2. The mainstream media has shied away from taking a critical look at the law which provides for the death penalty?
In short, there is a shortage of information for the general public.
And when there is a shortage of information for the general public, how does one make an informed decision to support or not support the death penalty?
This is a critical question to ask when we conduct polls like the Think Centre one.
Here’s a test: Ask 10 of your relatives the following questions and see how many of them get them right:
1. Under which law are drug traffickers put to death?
2. Are you aware of the presumption clause/s in the law? Do you know what they mean?
3. Do suspected drug traffickers have access to immediate counsel?
4. True or false: The police is expected to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused indeed trafficked in drugs. Or is the onus on the accused to prove he did not traffick in drugs?
5. True or False: Judges have the power to consider mitigating factors for the accused.
These are basic questions which most S’poreans do not know the answers to.
I suspect, too, that Mavis do not know the answers to these simple – but critical – questions.
So, how can one honestly, sincerely and clearly, support or not support the death penalty – when basic information is not made known or disseminated to the average citizen?
Tan Cheng Hua,
“3. Her support for the death penalty could be based on several things: ignorance, personal experiences, or just plainly (blindly) trusting in the system.”
I suspect that this could also apply to quite a number of the 83% of supporters of the death penalty. Whatever it is, it is a reflection of how far our society here has to go towards being a more caring, gracious and compassionate one.
If this death penalty must proceed, let the whole hanging process be filmed in full graphic & gory detail and broadcast to the whole world, especially to vulnerable youths in Singapore. This will be the best deterrent to drug crime in my opinion.
commentator,
This is a such a degrading act and even the executioner must respect the dignity of those who are going to be executed. Besides, it is very unethical to do that.
Andrew, to your point that the rule of law has been applied…
I would argue that we should look into the spirit when the law was passed.
“To stop traficking”. Does this 19 year old boy look like a trafficker to you? hanging this boy will stop the true masterminds from continuing their activities, u think? there’ll always be another mule who’s willing to risk it. Does it put a dent on the heroin trade, with this boy’s death?
Back in the 60s and 70s, when we were building our nation, i can see how this law was important. But now we’re living in the 21st century. Things have changed. We should change.
Have we heard his story yet? His background? Was it premeditated? Did circumstances forced him to do it?
Living 3 years knowing that his days are numbered, is already enough torture. If you give him another chance to live, what do you think he will do?
Just like the contraband cigarettes. We struggle in stopping contraband from coming into Singapore, so what do we do? Punish our citizens who smoke contraband. Loansharking becoming a problem? Punish the people who borrow from them. Only in singapore this happens. Why? because the people who pass these laws addresses the symptoms, not the disease.
They dont have a feel about who are the desperate people who has to go to loansharks…they dont have a feel about smokers. Smokers are people too, even if they have a disgusting habit…smokers are people who vote too, you know.
There is just no heart in our system. and that is sad.
The blood is on the heads of those that wants this young fellow dead….inhumane to kill a 19 year boy…why not send him back to M’sia?
98) Yamamoto on November 29th, 2009 10.13 am
If 1 bullet doesn’t kill you, i will just fire more….until it does…cabish? now you are talking about ROI….lobo, how much does it cost to plant and produce drugs? and at how many times profit do they sell it? with that huge of a margin, even when a fail trafficker fails but some got through, they will still profit….
Your analogy is still flawed. Bullet can be (and is usually) cheap. You still have shown me the figures of how ‘cheap’ the model is. Besides, it seems your ‘cost’ is only restricted to ‘planting and producing’ drugs. I guess the runners are ‘free’, or the process of cultivating runners (e.g making their life worse than death) is also ‘free’.
Oh yes, if you are asking about cigarette awareness…
I wasn’t. Someone else brought it up to conflate the issue. It regular happens when they have NO POINTS on the issue itself, thus bringing in other issues to make comparison.
and lastly Lobo, are you Mavis? LoL…just to end it off, for people like you, who think that evil should be ban/reduce/whatever are really too idealistic…you cannot remove evil, but you can reduce its presence
No. I actually wanted TOC to have some kind of registration scheme so that we all have consistent nicks when posting.
Who is idealistic? The one who wants to capture Drug Lords overseas or the one who wants to stop the flow locally?
113) Yamamoto on November 29th, 2009 5.11 pm
Dear Tan Cheng Hua,
You have to understand, some people believe in treating the symptoms, over and over again…instead of treating the cause to make symptoms will cease to reoccur…which in some chinese friend’s word 治表不治本? hope i get that phrase right…
What happens when the illness is an untreatable cancer?
btw, do you know you just described palliative care?
111) Tan Cheng Hua on November 29th, 2009 3.20 pm
Does everyone not have a problem with the presumption clause in the law?
I do. and If there is a call to change this part of the Law, I would of course support. Like what Samaritan mentions, this is NOT the only part where the presumption of guilt is inferred.
but that doesn’t mean I can’t support the death penalty at the same time. I do believe the punishment fits the crime.
If the petition is for the rejection of the presumption of guilt, I would support it. However, within our flawed system, if this is the best that can be done, I’d have to go with it.
lobo (#150),
“However, within our flawed system, if this is the best that can be done, I’d have to go with it.”
I can understand your stance.
So, the question is: Is this really the “best that can be done”, in your words? In my opinion, certainly not. For the following reasons:
1. There has been no meaningful debate from all sides in the mass media. Lawyers who are involved in such cases (from both sides) have not been given opportunities to relate their concerns to the public. And thus, we, the public, have not had the opportunity to hear what the alternatives are (whether there actually are or not is another matter. Point is that there have not been any meaningful debate involving all sides.)
2. In places like Hong Kong, Sweden, Mexico, and Finland, there are no such presumptions in their law, yet their rate of rate of prevalence of drug abuse is the same as S’pore’s. So, clearly, this is not “the best that can be done”. (See Alex Au’s report here: http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-508.htm)
3. It is also not “the best that can be done” because we are talking about capital punishment – irreversible capital punishment. And as such, the law must be as perfect as it. The very fact that presumption is in the law tells us several things, one of which is the implicit admission in the law that this “presumption” clause – if you want to call it that – is based on non-truth, or non-substantiation. In short, no evidence. It’s just a presumption. That’s what the word means – ordinarily and legally.
So, lobo, no. It’s not “the best that can be done.”
International standards applied everywhere in any meaningful democracy states that one is innocent until proven guilty.
And the burden of proof is not on the accused but on the one doing the accusing, ie the prosecution.
The “presumption” provision in S’pore law takes this completely away. Erases this.
The onus of guilt falls to the accused to disprove.
Now, this, in all conscience, is not “the best that can be done.”
Certainly not.
149) lobo76
It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black…, if you don’t stop the drug lord, and kill off the small flies, what makes you think it will stop the shipment? That’s why it is been too idealistic when people think that killing the troops will stop the shipment…hello…if 1 dies, i will send 10…that’s if i am the drug lord…and do you think killing off the majority of the fleas on a dog will reduce the problem?
Well, In fact, since I am not a drug lord, i won’t know the cost…and i never say that it is free, just that it is negligible when compared to the overall profit…and do you think labour cost in third world countries are expensive? but ask yourself this Lobo, just use a little of that grey cell…if it is not so profitable, why will they do it and make people take such risk? if it not so profitable, why pay and train the runners? you were the one who talk about ROI first, so if you are a business man, will you want to take such huge risk and run a business with low ROI? I hope not…but if you do, good luck to you…
“I wasn’t. Someone else brought it up to conflate the issue. It regular happens when they have NO POINTS on the issue itself, thus bringing in other issues to make comparison.”
Ahh…so I see, mr/miss lobo….so you feel that these issues are not related? perhaps you can use your little grey cell again, scroll to the top and check when people *like Mavis” start saying how drug kills people…that’s why cigarette was brought in since it is known that cigarettes kills in a magnitude way higher then drugs…thus, it is not brought up to conflate the issue….but it is brought up to show that using drug-cause-death as an excuse is not an excuse at all…
ahhh..but perhaps, i do understand it now…because other people share a different view from yours, Mr/Ms Lobo feels that they have no point….ahh…you see, that’s the difference, people recognise that you have a point and debate with you Lobo, but you reject and deny their point because it differs from yours….how sad….how sad…