Story of a boy
Read it on TOC Facebook page.
Let Yong Vui Kong be rehabilitated under the Yellow Ribbon Project
Monday, 7 December 2009
The NOT IN OUR NAME: NO TO THE DEATH PENALTY campaign welcomes the encouraging decision by the High Court to grant a stay of execution to Yong Vui Kong, a 21-year-old convicted of drug trafficking.
We ask the authorities to grant this first-time offender a permanent reprieve from the death penalty, thereby offering Yong a chance at rehabilitation.
The mandatory death sentence was automatically imposed on Yong, a Malaysian, when he was found guilty of trafficking 47 grams of heroin in November last year. Under Singapore law, the death sentence is mandatory for offences involving more than 15 grams of heroin.
NOT IN OUR NAME: NO TO THE DEATH PENALTY campaign is deeply concerned about the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking cases, which does not allow judges any discretion to sentence prisoners like Yong Vui Kong to an alternative punishment. We urge that Yong be given a chance at rehabilitation under the Yellow Ribbon Project, and call for an end to the mandatory death penalty.
Yong was 19 years old when he was arrested. He has been in custody for more than two years. He had been working as a messenger for a man in Malaysia, who often asked him to collect money from debtors or deliver packages as “gifts” to people in Malaysia and Singapore.
Like many convicted felons, Yong comes from a broken family. After his parents divorced, he had to stop school and start working at 12 years old. Yong lived with his paternal grandfather in Sabah who regularly abused him. His mother, who worked as a dishwasher, suffers from severe depression and has been kept in the dark about her son’s impending execution, for fear she might not have been able to cope.
Yong travelled to KL and worked as an underpaid assistant at a Chinese restaurant where according to his brother, Yong Yun Leong, he was treated with scorn. Yong was lured into the false companionship of a gang and was used as a drug mule by syndicate bosses. He was able to earn more money than he had as a kitchen boy. Yong flew back to Sabah for his mother’s birthday on June 10, 2007, but on June 12 he was arrested in Singapore.
Yong Yun Leong believes that his brother had been aware that his transactions involved drugs. But he says he was tricked by his bosses into believing that he was not transporting death penalty quantities. While on death row, Yong has expressed deep remorse for his crime, and has become a devout Buddhist who shuns meat out of religious conviction.
We feel strongly that Yong deserves a second chance. He is only 21 and a first-time offender. Indeed Yong would benefit, as other convicted felons are doing, from the Yellow Ribbon rehabilitation scheme.
However the death sentence for drug trafficking means that no rehabilitation is possible and no mitigating circumstances can be considered.
A series of similarly desperate, young individuals from equally troubled contexts have been hanged of late. From the drug cases to which we had access, desperation is motivation for people to run foul of the law. The record speaks for itself: divorced, depressed and marijuana-dependent Shanmugam Murugesu, with twin teenage boys and an ailing mother in tow, took to being a marijuana mule for SGD $2,000.Twenty-two-year-old Australian Nguyen Tuong Van was trying to pay for his heroin addict twin’s legal fees. Nineteen-year-old Nigerian Amara Tochi dreamt of paying for his siblings’ education by working as a professional footballer. But on his way to Singapore, a “befriender” asked him to take a packet of African herbs with him. All three were hanged between 2005 and 2007.
The kingpins behind these cases have not been apprehended whilst many runners, who will be tempted for various reasons, continue to pay with the price with their lives. The mandatory sentence has been imposed on many lives but there is no clear empirical evidence that it is a deterrent to any crime in Singapore. There are numerous examples of countries in the world with low crime and low drug rates, and which do not have the death penalty. Drug problems need to be addressed at a level of need — why it is that people need to take drugs. Indeed it is hard to see how death penalty cannot become that no-nonsense, definitive solution to the horrific problem of drug addiction, if the deterrent value remains so unclear.
Meanwhile there is one clear reality: desperate breadwinners who chose the wrong path are hanged, and traumatized families become all the more dysfunctional as they deal with the brutality of a hanging. The mandatory death penalty discounts the dire sociological circumstances of such criminals and gives them no second chance — many of them had no chance at good and clean living in the first place.
Not in Our Name: No to the Death Penalty urge an end to the mandatory death penalty, as the court should be given the discretion to take all factors into consideration in cases where an individual’s life is at stake. We strongly believe that judges in Singapore should be given the option of meting out alternative punishments in capital cases and, most importantly, to weigh up between mercy and justice, which the current mandatory approach nullifies.
While lauding the court’s decision to stay the execution of Yong Vui Kong, we urge the authorities to extend this encouraging and compassionate development in the case, and grant that Yong’s death sentence be commuted to imprisonment, with a view to rehabilitation.
NOT IN OUR NAME: NO TO THE DEATH PENALTY is a campaign coalition of independent persons against the death penalty
This statement is issued with the support of MARUAH (SINGAPORE WORKING GROUP FOR ASEAN HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISM)
Media Contacts:
Michael Cheng
touchdesun@gmail.com
Benedict Jacob-Thambiah
benedictthambiah@yahoo.com
—–
Picture not from om>al statement.
—–
To OriginalResonance
“I do not seek affirmation. What I was deploring is the intellectual dishonesty displayed by a majority of TOCians.”
Intellectual Dishonesty?
The advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading yet still contradicts himself knowingly?
Are you saying that a majority of TOCians (which are anti govt) actually know that the actions and policies of the govt are extremely good and agree wholeheartedly with the PAP government but yet state the contrary?
How did you reach this conclusion? Or do you truely understand the meaning of the terms you are bandying around? Because i cannot understand what in the world you are writing about.
Can i hazard a guess? Is it because you feel whatever you write must be correct and whoever reads it must also agree. Yet what they reply is discordant to your views they are then intellectually dishonest by sticking to their wrong (read not your) views?
“Because empathy is intrinsic in human beings by virtue of mirror neurons. And I happen to consider myself a citizen of the world, blind to the levels of melanin in the skins of individuals.”
Truly a noble pursuit.
But didn’t you state earlier “Inviolability of life is a fallacy”? Empathy to my best knowledge is blurring the line between others and self and connecting in an emotional level. Yet you believe life is not sacrosanct (which has to include your own). If you do not value your life, how can you value other people’s lives as your own?
These are what i feel to be conflicting statements of yours.
Perhaps i lack your intellect or intellectualism. Would you be so kind as to empathize and explain it to me?
I believe there is a difference between petitioning against the death penalty for Yong Vui Kong and petitioning against the death penalty for all drug smugglers as a whole. Even if Yong is to be spared since he was a young first-time offender, I don’t think a similar pardon should be granted to drug mules out there who carry out their crime despite knowing full well the consequences. By this I mean the death penalty, but also the harming of human lives through the use of drugs. I hope this line can be drawn
Marcus @52
Absolutely right, every case is different and there should be proper investigations and trials. Court hearings are needed to decide on sentences or punishments. Eg if a powerful dictator were to bring along with him 500gms of illegal drugs to be ‘passed on’ to some small time peddlars, an appropriate sentencing is needed, yes, maybe death.
I wonder what the President himself has to say about this. When the petition was brought to him, did he not study the case and have a personal opinion and thought about it? He has the power to think what is best but of course his conclusion should be justified with reasons. It seems like he just ‘tai-chi’ the work and responsibility to the Cabinet. Whats the blooming point of having a President????
its been a long while since i posted. lol…. 8)
that much has been said about drugs, but can the same heavy rule of law apply to sellers of cigarettes to minors?
can someone tell me why cigarettes are sold openly? cigarettes got no drugs?
such a glaring example of double standards. uniquely S’pore?… :?
Marcus Lee
post #52 on December 8th, 2009 6.48 pm
i totally agree wih your post, but as far as activism go i guess proponents are just indifferent to such an obvious fact.
emotive pleas do not always have a “positive” outcome, & unfortunately Mr Yong Vui Kong is being made use of as a poster boy for their petition because his background suites their cause very well.
he was a pawn for drug suppliers, now finds himself a pawn again for this petition?..
mice is nice @ 54/55
Although I stand by my post and thank you for your support of it, I need to raise another point. Since I am somewhat acquainted with some writers down here, I can tell from blog posts and facebook notes that they are sincerely concerned about Mr Yong. Therefore, I wonder if “pawn” and “poster boy” are justified terms. You seem to suggest that they have a “cause”. I ask if there is any other hidden agenda other than the sincere aim of helping a fellow young person (The writers are young ppl, are they not)
Cigarettes, in my opinion, are different from drugs. It is possible to live a disease free life with cigarettes, although smoking is a risk factor for many diseases like atherosclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and peripheral vascular disease. However, drugs of abuse are highly addictive and have painful withdrawal symptoms. Being addictive, overdose is significantly possible and that causes death from respiratory depression, among other things
hi Marcus Lee
post #56 on December 8th, 2009 11.45 pm
thanks for your reply, & for highlighting that you are acquainted with some writers in here. you may not take too kindly to certain terms i have used, maybe because unlike you, i do not know the any writers? or do posters need to use politically correct terms? do you suggest it be so for all? i hope not though.
the writers can be of any age, there is no need to re-enforce a stereotype. even if all the writers you know are young. btw, please refrain from taking things too personally since not everyone knows the writers like you. if they are indeed sincere as you have claimed, they would be happy to engage critics & attempt to win them over, right?
eh, i do not really want to debate on how addictive smoking can be vs an individual’s will to quit smoking. as a non-smoker, its my impression that some people (smokers) do suffer from some form of withdrawal symtoms. no? drawing a parrallel, do you mean that death is a matter of the amount of dosage? if so wouldn’t an overdose of cigarettes kill as well?
Hey, building Casinos is just as bad and will also drive gamblers to death.
Should we hang the government?
44) Anon on December 8th, 2009 10.52 am
Hi Anon (44),
Maybe you have misunderstood me. You said,
“Why are you rewarding those who wish to take the easy money route out.”
No I am not rewarding those who wish to take the easy money route out. What I am saying is, the judiciary should also take into consideration that there might be circumstances that forces them to take the easy money route out. I am not saying they should go off scot free. I am saying that there are many factors that can come into considerations before sentencing. I am also saying that sending people to the gallows is not the solution. There are many other ways to punish, rehabilitate and allow for repentance.
“Are you not discouraging those who are willing to abide by society in the same poor environment to improve themselves.”
I am not encouraging anyone to commit crimes. Once again I have to reinforce that I am calling for no punishment. In fact, public education is very important and should play a major role in discouraging such crimes to take place. Why doesn’t the Singaporean government take a more international role in such advocacy and public education? It might be really beneficial because there are people in some parts of the world who do not know about the consequences of drug abuse and trafficking, until after they have done so themselves.
“Further, my guess, you have not been immersed in such environments where they are deemed the heroes because they have more money to spend.”
Maybe you can be more clear about what environments you are talking about. I grew up in a poor family and know what it is like to go hungry, to see parents working from day to night just to make ends meet but thanks to the guidance from people around me, I have not turned to ‘crooked’ means to be who I am now/ to earn a living. I can say so for many people around me who I grew up with.
“You have definitely forgotten and ignored those who still have to scrabble for a living but just saying poor victim.”
No I have not. That is why I say that we have to consider many other factors before deciding on how best to punish these criminals. (Correct me if I get your point wrong here.)
“He made a choice and if he was caught on his first run and most probably he would be 18, i would have more sympathy. However, this is his 6th run, so no, it just easy money and he would have continued.”
He was taught at a very young and impressionable age that heroin and cigarettes are the same and so there is nothing wrong. He has now express regret at what he had done so why can’t we let him live and repent?
“Further, in such drug abuse environments, you have not seen your friends and family being slowly turned into unfeeling automatons. Or your family being robbed of what little they have because of such drug addicts craze or need for drugs.”
I have but do not wish to elaborate here. :)
“So, yes, target the tops but at the same time, make sure those who wish to partake of such easy life pay a price. As the saying goes, do not do the crime if you can not do the time/penalty.”
I agree but you see, the “big boss” operating the syndicate in Singapore is now under detention without trial under the “Secret Societies Act”. The Malaysian boss is nowhere to be found and I am not sure if the Singaporean Government is assisting in his arrest. Probably not. However why should the “big boss” be given a life sentence when Yong, a small runner whose biggest mistake is his naivety that led to the said crime, be hanged for working under him? So the mastermind stays alive and the runner goes to the gallows? How does that work?
Kindly enlighten me please.
“Are you saying that a majority of TOCians (which are anti govt) actually know that the actions and policies of the govt are extremely good and agree wholeheartedly with the PAP government but yet state the contrary?”
>I’m saying that a majority of TOCians resort to knee-jerk, emotional responses towards every action from the ruling party without ever explaining their case cogently and objectively. We’re talking about the very same people who’ve accepted their progress packages whilst decrying the efforts of the government. The gist of it all is that the incumbent party have done good before, whether through accident or design. It would be sheer dishonesty for anyone to claim otherwise.
“But didn’t you state earlier “Inviolability of life is a fallacy”? Empathy to my best knowledge is blurring the line between others and self and connecting in an emotional level. Yet you believe life is not sacrosanct (which has to include your own). If you do not value your life, how can you value other people’s lives as your own?”
>Inviolability of life is a fallacy. Empathy is the propensity in humans to “step into the shoes of others”, so to speak. Fulfilling propensities can be gratifying. I’m an ethical egoist and a hedonistic one at that. Which is why when I express sympathy, I do so with gratification in mind and out of my own discretion and volition and never with a sense of duty. Satisfying my needs is my duty. When I proclaimed that life is not sacred, I was actually referring to the lives of others. My life, however, is dear to me for the reason that I’m predisposed by nature to be motivated by pleasure and dissuaded by pain. This is my naturalistic take on life, sans the rigid naturalistic fallacies perpetuated by other hedonists with lesser prudence than me. The world would be a better place if everyone is as driven and selfish as me but I’m too selfish to bother about converting people.
“Hey, building Casinos is just as bad and will also drive gamblers to death.
Should we hang the government?”
>Abolishing the dealth penalty for drugs will not produce revenue in the region of billions as casinos would. Neither will it produce better citizens.
OriginalResonance
Actually you hit the nail on the head this time. It is all about money, money, money. Yong, with only 47 gms of illegal drugs, is sentenced to death to appease people like yourself. Basically, he is the Govt’s pawn. It is possible that tons of illegal drugs have been entering Spore with no consequence. If the multi-billion dollar investors in Spore are the people behind these drugs, would the authorities dare go after them?
On one hand I feel for Yong, I really do. There’s no need to expound further on the pro-Yong/anti-mandatory argument as that has been done to death here on TOC and there is no need to preach to the converted.
Yet, I can’t help feeling that, like what mice is nice has mentioned, Yong is being used as a poster boy for all the bleeding heart liberals out there. Just look at the emotive videos and reports…casually dropping in snippets like how Yong ‘bantered’ with the police officers in the courtroom…little things like that to sway the human emotion. Glorifying Yong and positioning him as a potential martyr for the anti-PAP cause is almost as bad as the nation-building agenda of the Straits Times that everyone here condemns.
I’ve noticed that when commenters have brought up the point that it was reported in ST an accomplice of Yong testified that he had received drugs from Yong on more than one occasion, some here simply rebutted with the usual anti ST tirades.
I am also against the abolishing of the death penalty. Yes, the mandatory penalty should go as it is rigid and allows no room for mitigating factors, but abolishing the penalty altogether will allow murderers or incorrigible drug mules to get off the hook too easily. Life imprisonment would also be a waste of taxpayer’s money.
Now let the thumbs down commence =)
The State directly kills people in order to show people that “the indirect cause of death due to sale of harmful drugs” is wrong.
@60
Brilliance is found in the sentence “The gist of it all is that the incumbent party have done good before, whether through accident or design”
And to top it off, “It would be sheer dishonesty for anyone to claim otherwise.”
I can see how you get riled up when people fail to take into account the credit deserved by the incumbent party. I am beginning to understand that we should think ONLY about the good done before. Consideration for
(i) events handled badly in the past,
(ii) events that are going to be turn out bad in the future
(iii) events that are currently resolved badly
(iv) events that are currently being resolved with good result
(v) events that are going turn out good.
is not entirely important. Though I am not sure how does one get acclaim for stumbling upon a good resolution through accident, but nevertheless we have to celebrate it.
Do remember the good, and when something bad happens, it is just a freak accident, one that occurs with a frequency of < 50 years. Please contra the goodwill from the storage of which the credit is stored.
I can also empathize with your peeve, the one where you had stated "TOCians resort to knee-jerk, emotional responses towards every action from the ruling party without ever explaining their case cogently and objectively". The evidence that you presented was resounding in its silence! The argument which you put forth was literally cogent and objective! It helped matters as you had already penned cogent and objective.
Here comes the part where I am curious, sympathy and empathy, those words that you equivocate, are the both of them interchangeable? I can understand if you had to express sympathy it could be done without empathy, eg I can show you sympathy but do not feel the least bit empathetic to your peeve. Conveyance of the meaning is constrained by the medium of communication; the language.
Also there are some comments which I find it quite insightful, "Satisfying my needs is my duty", through to "life is not sacred" bearing in mind that you mentioned hedonistic. How can you claim to be a hedonist and yet reject outright the excesses that come with that mentality? Are you saying that your needs are ones that are pleasurable and that you will go all out and continue your pursuit of gratification to the levels that are suitable? In addition to that, if the pleasure you seek was to be found by violating life, you would do so, even on the expense of human life?
I can see how you are pleasuring yourself, the establishment of one's enjoyment on the plight of a man awaiting appeal. But why stop there, since your claim that others' lives are not sacred. The benchmark for hedonistic levels are so high it is right that you term yourself an ethical egoist. You are indeed special OR, but isn't ethical a superfluous term as an egoist? Being overly concerned with yourself, there is no need to conform to a set of ethics, even those set by a group of egoists (if there is one).
Of course, it should be that you are such a sterling example of an individual.
Rarely has it been the case where you aren't able to convey your conviction so well.
There is also the cogent and objectiveness that was sorely lacking in which you had pointed out about others comments. Those were really the majority of TOCians evidently who were opposing for opposing sake.
I would like to finally add, that those one sentenced statements are so intelligenter,
moving and decidedly thought inspiring it usually brings with it the core values that becomes apparent when we dissect it thoroughly. Also to those statements we can exclude you from it, that you are so special when you generalize you are not contrasted with it. Mostly we who are of this common upbringing are not able to idealize the greater picture that you are able to peruse. In it the microscopical latent purpose of us is nothing more than pleasurable tools for you to use at the end of the day.
Rachel
Further, TAKE NOTE this is his 6TH RUN with 47 GMs of pure heroin and if street version most probably a 1-2kg bag of sugar equivalent as purity is only 1 parts in 20 or more
What punishment would you profer?
Hard labour for life (eg working in tough conditions) with 24 strokes of the cane?
In addition, no possibility of parole?
Why should the peoples use their hard earned tax dollars to support such a criminal who has taken the easy money route.
I rather it be used to support the poor and destitute children or youth in Singapore or those starving overseas to give them a opportunity to make good.
Please note he is not illiterate.
So you stated that he was taught that there was no difference between drugs and cigarettes. Codswallop, even in Malaysia, it is highlighted daily and in the scandal sheets, the same death penalties which I am sure he must have read.
Frankly, you are rewarding him and other future mules, as the chances of them being caught if based on his runs is 1 in 6. At the least, the death sentence deters those who are willing to think.
For the big boss in Singapore, all ill gotten gains would be confiscated and from his POV would be a living death.
The local authorities do what they can, they are not God or the superhero USA
The laws were stated clearly and definitely announced, so why should this not so innocent runner get away scot free from the predetermined penalty. He is not innocent, he is guily of the crime.
Further, you may deem him naive but definitely as 6th time runner, over at least a period of a year, he is not to any reaonable logical thought . It was just easy money .
I am sure if he agreed to turn over his bosses upfront , he would be considered or appealed by that is how drug enforcers would also like to go after the big bosses or even a drug addict who is doing it to support his habit.
He is definitely not a naive poster child of drug running mule who was tricked. I definitely do not buy the poor victim idea
Regards
Anon (#65),
You said:
“Further, TAKE NOTE this is his 6TH RUN with 47 GMs of pure heroin..”
Now, here is where we have to exercise discretion, especially when we read the wonderful and utterly credible, internationally-renowned and completely professional reports from Singapore’s local media.
One can only commit an offence if it comes to the attention of the police or the courts.
So, yes. It was Yong’s first offence.
And one should not be clairvoyant and assume that he must have committed other offences prior.
Ahhh.. but you would say that he ran drugs six times before, referring again to our wonderful media reports.
True.
But…
If you recall, reading our wonderful media reports, that these six occasions were mentioned by Yong’s co-accused, who, wonderfully again, received 22 years sentence and not death.
Now, lets go back to the law, and the law says: A statement of guilt by a co-accused, in drug trafficking cases, can be used as evidence of guilt.
AH HA!!
Now, you get the picture.
The co-accused said Yong ran drugs on six other occasions – he said this in detention, obviously, and obviously again, must have struck a deal with the prosecution, else how did he end up getting 22 years while Yong is getting death.
So, coming full circle…
Did Yong really run drugs on six other occasions?
Honestly , looking at the questions and the fact that the police and prosecution had no evidence of this except the statement of Yong’s co-accused, one would really have to give Yong the benefit of the doubt and say yes, this was Yong’s very first offence.
But then this is a moot point, as far as the law is concerned.
Why?
Because even if it was his first offence, the law says that the judge has no right, no power, no room to take this into consideration.
So yes. Moot point, really.
“I’m saying that a majority of TOCians resort to knee-jerk, emotional responses towards every action from the ruling party without ever explaining their case cogently and objectively. We’re talking about the very same people who’ve accepted their progress packages whilst decrying the efforts of the government. The gist of it all is that the incumbent party have done good before, whether through accident or design. It would be sheer dishonesty for anyone to claim otherwise.”
First of all, you posted this here so i shall take the context to be of this thread.
Do i need to praise the government first before i disagree with any of their policies?
Shall every posting be of this calibre – “I’m extremely grateful for my progress package but —– (goes on to give evidence about the demerits of the mandatory death penalty)?
You want to talk about not explaining cogently and objectively, i point you to this comment ->
“A jury? You mean like the American idol? Where the runner-up always outsell the winner? I’ll introduce a new word to you: ochlocracy. ”
The context of the argument of (2) and (4) is the merits of a Bench Trial vs a Trial by Jury. I’ll ignore the part whereby there is a total lack of explanation on why you define a trial by jury to be an ochlocracy. What i find interesting is that you – a self declared anarchist – actually embrace the idea of a bench trial. Which goes against all anarchist leanings. You actually prefer that the state has more power?
Even more interesting is that later on, you declared yourself to be an egoist. I assume you are adept in the works of Max Stimer? Long story short – with accords to the law, the statement is (Might makes Right). Do i really need to go on about the definition of an ochlocracy?
Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Also, can i ask if it’s alright to state an opinion in such a forum as TOC. Or would that be considered a “knee-jerk, emotional respoinse”?
“Inviolability of life is a fallacy. Empathy is the propensity in humans to “step into the shoes of others”, so to speak. Fulfilling propensities can be gratifying. I’m an ethical egoist and a hedonistic one at that. Which is why when I express sympathy, I do so with gratification in mind and out of my own discretion and volition and never with a sense of duty. Satisfying my needs is my duty. When I proclaimed that life is not sacred, I was actually referring to the lives of others. My life, however, is dear to me for the reason that I’m predisposed by nature to be motivated by pleasure and dissuaded by pain. This is my naturalistic take on life, sans the rigid naturalistic fallacies perpetuated by other hedonists with lesser prudence than me. The world would be a better place if everyone is as driven and selfish as me but I’m too selfish to bother about converting people.”
Can i distill the whole paragraph to 2 sentences?
1) Everyone’s life is not sacred
2) With the sole exception of mine
Wow.
Taking that to be true, the mandatory death penalty should be applied to everyone. Except in the case that it is applied to me. Then it should be abolished.
You have just solved all the problems of the world.
hey mice is nice @ 57
no hard feelings there =) just wanted to share with you an alternative viewpoint since I am acquainted with some writers.
” is death a matter of dosage?” In pharmacological terms, yes I suppose so. The more the poison, the more likely the chance you’ll die. If you smoke like a factory chimney, expect the grim reaper to visit you prematurely. However, if you were asking whether cigarette peddlers are equally deserving of the death sentence as drug peddlers, then this is another can of worms I admit I can’t give a complete answer to. IMO, govt is strict in the importing of cigarettes into S’pore, imposing a tax and what not. And like already mentioned, it’s possible to remain healthy despite smoking. Cigarettes and drugs of abuse are not in the same class. Please enlighten me
Folks need to wake up that you cannot do anything without political power. And right now, Singaporeans have no political power because we all handed them to PAP. As such, they can set whatever laws they like and care not a whit of what you said.
If you really want to do something, the first step is to vote in more opposition members into parliament, enough to balance against PAP.
THEN, we can talk about changing laws.
Right now, laws are being rubberstamped and there is nothing you or I can do about it.
Vote for changes.
Facts of the day:
A neutral can criticize one party in the political spectrum without favouring its direct opponent. The same goes for ideologies and philosophical positions.
No one is perfectly evil, wrong or bad. Not even Hitler.
An ochlocracy is simply mob rule or euphemistically known as “majority rule”. It’s not exclusively aligned with tyranny or “might is right” for “might” is not confined to just numbers.
Emotion is not untenable per se. Proclaiming to be “right” by virtue of logic and concurrently suspend argument and resorting to ad hominem is.
It’s ok to be biased. It’s ok to have an allegiance and indiscriminately protect it. It’s not ok however to express these sentiments in discourse or dialogue with someone who has a different view. Unless one has no desire to succeed in rhetoric.
“Codswallop, even in Malaysia, it is highlighted daily and in the scandal sheets, the same death penalties which I am sure he must have read.”
This is wrong. He is NOT mentioned anywhere in Malaysian news, except for a small article in Malaysiakini.
There is no daily page in the Malaysian news that say that drug trafficking in more than 15g of cocaine is a death penalty. So where is the so called deterrence and informed decision-making factor? This tactic as a deterrent only works on citizens from developed countries who protect their own.
“the chances of them being caught if based on his runs is 1 in 6. At the least, the death sentence deters those who are willing to think.”
So is a long jail sentence an equally effective deterrent. What about people with terminal illness, couldn’t they become drug traffickers as well? They would be the ideal rational candidates.
hi Marcus Lee
post #68 on December 9th, 2009 1.27 pm
ok, my words may be on the harsh & critical side of the fence. this i admit.
hmmm, if dosage itself plays a critical role in determining death, than maybe cigarette peddlers (legal or not) should be dealt with the same way i guess? keke, let’s not open that can of worms, lol…
i thought cigarettes do contain small amounts of drugs?
bottomline, stay away from cigarettes & drugs! 8)
Hi Anon (44)
“Further, TAKE NOTE this is his 6TH RUN with 47 GMs of pure heroin and if street version most probably a 1-2kg bag of sugar equivalent as purity is only 1 parts in 20 or more”
According to his written statements, he naively believe that heroin is not harmless and is equivalent to cigarettes. His raw naivety was apparently sincere according to the accounts of his legal counsels (Ravi is his third) and judging from the letters and statements he had written. I have seen some of the letters and have little doubt of it.
“What punishment would you profer?
Hard labour for life (eg working in tough conditions) with 24 strokes of the cane?
In addition, no possibility of parole?”
Long imprisonment and rehabilitation, because I believe in rehabilitation and chance giving for a criminal to show repentance. For this, we need the social workers and the prison services to work hand in hand. Isn’t this the duty of social workers all over the world? Well if the government does not want to spend taxpayers’ money on this, then they can deport him back home, working with the Malaysian courts to ensure that he gets sentenced there. Why not? Also, if you prefer that our taxes goes to the poor in society, why don’t you also question the ministers about their skyhigh paycheck in time of recession?
“Please note he is not illiterate.”
He learned to read and write in proper during his time in prison, according to many sources close to him.
“Frankly, you are rewarding him and other future mules, as the chances of them being caught if based on his runs is 1 in 6. At the least, the death sentence deters those who are willing to think.”
I beg to differ. As mentioned before, do not assume that all drug mules are aware of the contents of whatever they are carrying (eg., in the case of Amara Tochi). Some of them are also not aware about the consequences of bringing drugs through our customs. In fact some people I have met when I was working in China (from various parts of the world) are surprised when told about the mandatory death penalty we have in Singapore and the amount of drugs that will lend one into such a sentence.
“For the big boss in Singapore, all ill gotten gains would be confiscated and from his POV would be a living death.
The local authorities do what they can, they are not God or the superhero USA”
Ok so it is ok for him to serve a prison sentence being the mastermind but not a drug mule he had made used of? The local authorities do what they can… yea by not allowing mitigation to take place (saves time on legal proceedings what). Yes they are not God, I agree so what gives them the right to kill anyone? (No, am not religious, just using your point here).
“The laws were stated clearly and definitely announced, so why should this not so innocent runner get away scot free from the predetermined penalty. He is not innocent, he is guily of the crime.”
Singaporeans may know the law but how sure are you that the rest of the world knows? Yes he is guilty of the crime indeed but why are you so against sparing his life so that he can repent and turn over a new leaf? (In fact he has done so in prison already as far as I have seen)
“I am sure if he agreed to turn over his bosses upfront , he would be considered or appealed by that is how drug enforcers would also like to go after the big bosses or even a drug addict who is doing it to support his habit.”
Sorry, under the mandatory death penalty, there is no such deal. That is why anti death penalty campaigners and groups in Singapore are especially focussed on calling for the end of the mandatory death penalty.
i think people on both side of the fence need to take a step back, a long pause before commenting. both sides are putting out points from their own presumptions & there is this invisible wall that is not helping either see without those presumptions.
by the way, why is there this fixation on the drug mule’s (Mr Yong Vui Kong) case in the name of a much broader campaign? what is the campaign’s name again, “No To Death Penalty” or “Save Yong Vui Kong”?
lol…
Rachel
All you have done is confirm the perception that at the end of the day, there is only emotional and not any real hard facts/evidence.
Further, you do not stick to the topic at hand but bring in the idea of ministerial salaries which has no relevance and I did not comment on it.
Lets agree to disagree.
For one, I glad that my family members can walk in the midst of the night and day safe and sound and any miscreants is punished to the full extent of the law.
Regards
I’ve considered dis issue & blogged abt dis. It wud be my honour to have you guys visiting my blog to leave tags.
Pls visit. http://www.jolly-kiddo.blogspot.com
Tks
What exactly is the problem and this clamouring for an end to the death penalty for drug trafficking? If you don’t want to hang at the end of a noose, then the simple solution is not to deal with drugs. It’s as simple as that.
What you people should be agitating for instead is for this law to be applied fairly so that everyone gets the same charges for the same drug offense so that even blue-eyed, blond haired girls are hung until death for drug trafficking just like the non-White plebians like Ah Kow, Ahmad or Muthusamy.