Can someone explain the concept of “sanctity of life” to me? I’m rather obtuse when it comes to metaphysics.

I agree that our judges should be given the discretion to decide whether a person should be allowed to live or be hanged. It is wrong to let the prosecution decide who lives and who dies. I call for the return of judicial powers to our judges.

A zero-tolerance policy disregards the reality that not everyone traffics drugs for the same reasons. Worst than 15+ grams of heroin is the arbitrary legality; licensed bystanding. Mandatory sentencing is one-size-fits-all justice. Which is no justice at all.

2) teo soh lung on December 7th, 2009 3.38 pm

actually, I would rather have a jury than to get yet more powers to the Judge…

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.

TOC

If you are willing to state that all such calls would automatically result in a special tax to fund the victims of drug abuse and families and crimes commited by drug addicts imposed on those who support such abolishment of crimes.
Those who support dire penalties would be able to support such a call.

Regards

This situation is completely unconscionable and indefensible: Yong Vui Kong faces the noose while Than Shwe has an orchid, our national flower, named after him! Who is the bigger drug menace?

It is known for a long time that the military junta in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) is in cahoots with the drug lords. In some cases, they may even be the same persons. The Singapore government is complicit in the whole affair by offering education, healthcare and other niceties to the Myanmar military elites and their families. Most of all, the Singapore banks are facilitating the laundering of the drug monies. It is drug money; it is blood money. The People of Singapore do not care for such monies.

Do read the briefing document Burma and Transnational Crime dated 2008, prepared for the US Congress and the references therein
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/104715.pdf .
Search for Singapore within the document.

Has the death penalty for drug trafficking serve as a deterrence? More importantly, has the drug problem in Singapore abated as a result? A resounding NO! Any reported drop in heroin abuse is rapidly picked by an increase in the abuse of methamphetamine and other designer drugs. In the entire 44 years of nationhood, Singapore has not prosecuted nor executed a single senior member of the drug syndicates. There is no reason why the whole approach should not be reviewed.

If the Singapore government is interested in solving the drug problem at all, it MUST participate in the efforts to get rid of the junta (it is an illegal government to begin with) and the drug lords. Anything else, including the mandatory death sentence for drug traffickers, is hypocritical and meaningless. Meanwhile, the government does NOT have the moral authority to impose the death penalty when its own hands are bloodied. Certainly not in our names.

Anon,

Your question should be addressed to the group which issued the statement.

TOC did not issue the statement.

I call for a halt on Mandatory Death Penalty for drug mules. The Drug lords are in no short supply of Young & Gullible and/or Poor & Desperate people to recruit as their mules. Spore will just keep hanging them and the drug lords will promptly recruit new mules to replace the dead ones.

Dear Anon, isn’t it better to lower tax by killing ALL prisoners? After all it costs a sum of money to feed, clothe and house people in land scarce Singapore.

Since when the State start paying out to victims of non-drug related crimes such as rape and murder?

I am really conflicted on this one.

On one hand, I do agree with the “sanctity of life” and judicial killing is no different from a criminal murder to me.

On the other hand, even in a country with such draconian laws against narcotics, drug abuse remain prevalent in Singapore. I suppose the ideal solution would be to reduce the severity fo the sentence, but to catch many more of these drug peddlars.

If we are serious about drug interdiction, we should be doing more cross-border cooperation to nab or strike at places of origin for these drugs, e.g stationing our CNB chaps abroad as how the US posts their DEA folks in nations who are nodes in drug trafficking to attempt to pre-empt and collect intelligence on movements of the larger syndicates.

There should be constraints like in all things. A good system and method does not ignore the constraints but will seek to address the problem (like stemming drugs) within the boundaries or we call it human rules.

Some insist that take away death penalty and drug trade will flourish in SG. If the death penalty is so effective and best, why not apply it to all sorts of crimes? Actaully even the people who shout for Yong’s execution know why – Killing people is the most horrible thing one can do and it is definitely wrong! It is even more wrong when they execute the wrong person or the criminal is one who does not deserve to die or who deserves a second chance. In all the executions that had been carried out in this world, I believe there had been cases that were mis-judged.

I would like to add that it is WRONG to execute one particular criminal, Yong, period. There is no way this can be right.

Guys,

Judges are humans, they err like any other kuku out there. Therefore, do not ever be disillusioned by common-saying that ‘Law is always fair’.

I was sentenced to imprisonment some time back. The jail term was 4 times heavier than that of a preceding case. Could the Judge make an error? So my lawyer wrote in for an appeal.

Knowingly that I had requested to serve the sentence while filing for an appeal, the judge did not even bother to prepare the Grounds Of Judgement during the sentencing date. He was taking his own sweet time.

Subsequently the Judge took almost 5 months to get the GOJ ready for my lawyer’s review, and the admin people at the Court advised me be ready to wait for 3 months for the Court to arrange an hearing date for the appeal, not including another few months to sum up the entire process of appeal.

5months + 3 months + … ?!

A first world judicial system and fair judge? I really doubt it.

Layola @12

Not only that, if there is a first case of trafficker leading the boss to be punished, it will send a message to other bosses doing the same thing.

Its like if it is illegal to sell cigarettes to to under 16s, the seller gets into trouble for selling it, so we get very careful vendors paying attention to the law. The responsibility should be put on the people in control, not the kids or vulnerable people. The latter group are people who are lower IQ, have no guardians, poor or powerless.

I am in agreement about the inherent injustice of the mandatory death penalty and fully support its abolishment. However, i am fundamentally opposed to replacing it with the discretionary death penalty. America’s experiences with attempting to perfect the mechanisms of death by creating a myriad of rules to govern when and how someone deserves to be killed by the state has only led to widespread arbitrariness and injustice. Getting killed under such a system is “Like a bolt of lightning” and repugnant to the principles of fairness that are supposed to govern our legal system.

I therefore think that the abolitionist movement in Singapore should aim for a more ambitious goal – the end of the death penalty altogether. It is a difficult goal, but once it succeeds its results are permanent. There are few abolitionist countries that have felt the political necessity to re-impose the death penalty, no matter how ingrained it previously had been.

NO to Death Penalty for drug offenders!

However, outright murderers should continue to face the gallows.

“America’s experiences with attempting to perfect the mechanisms of death by creating a myriad of rules to govern when and how someone deserves to be killed by the state has only led to widespread arbitrariness and injustice”

It is a step too far; a convicted serial murderer can be released to commit murder again, or commit murder again whilst in confinement. For people with no hope of rehabilitation, how does one justify the existence of a continual threat to society or even other inmates / prison guards? What about justice to the relatives of murder victims? I agree that learned judges should be asking these questions, not laymen like myself; however in Singapore’s political environment, are there independent judges that would question the validity and locus standi of the Singaporean government’s laws? Moreover in developed countries, scientific census would be used to determine community standards in determining the aptness to the severity of the punishment.

In neighboring countries with more “mature” democracies, political sideshows determine the government that enact laws, rather than issues such as this. I pray that the Singapore government will never be elected in that fashion.

Organized crime remains a blight to many countries, but I am unsure as to how Singapore managed to clamp down without using the death penalty. Credit to where credit is due to PAP.

Human Rights does not exist here in SG.
And so long as LKY is alive, I doubt this appeal to end Mandatory Death Sentence will pull through,
Let me remind you, this is NOT our Singapore… it is HIS.

Firstly, I feel that the mandatory death sentence was drafted into the penal code for offences like: Murder in the Penal Code, Use/attempt to use firearms under the AOA and Trafficking of drugs under the MDA because the government feels that judges are also humans. Hence, it was done to prevent accused persons to ‘enjoy’ a lighter sentence because of compassion and/or compelling mitigation by defence counsel.

Secondly, Drug trafficking in Singapore is a strict liability offence. Sections 17 and 18 of the MDA were crafted in favour of the prosecution.

S.17 presumes any drug in possession of the accused were for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved otherwise.

S.18 states that the accused who is proved to have had drugs in his possession shall be presumed to have known the nature of that drug, unless it is proved otherwise.

Therefore, the onerous burden of proving either one lies squarely on the accused persons, and I’ve seen for myself in court that it is almost inevitable that the prosecution always wins.

Only if the issue of capital punishment is brought to parliament for discussion can a fresh bill be passed to remove the mandatory death sentence. Until then, our judges’ hands are tied.

I say Crap to all this…
the problem is we DON’T have an Obama.

November 2007

Singapore’s ambassador to the UN, Vanu Gopala Menon said:

“My delegation would like to remind this committee that capital punishment is not prohibited under international law. Yet it is clear that the sponsors of this draft resolution have decided that there can only be one view on capital punishment, and that only one set of choices should be respected… [the death penalty] is an important component of the administration of law and our justice system, and is imposed only for the most serious crimes and serves as a deterrent.

“We have proper legal safeguards in place to prevent any miscarriage of justice.”

I would like to know what these “safeguards” are.

[...] Calling for an end to the mandatory death penalty. — 5h ago via Google Reader Organised Chaos+/- anglican bands blog borderlands career cat [...]

Singapore’s ambassador to the UN, Vanu Gopala Menon said:

“We have proper legal safeguards in place to prevent any miscarriage of justice.”

Mr Vanu should be hanged for incompetence, ignorance and pure stupidity. Let me explain.

There are virtually no safeguards. Putting on a hat which says “Ambassador to the United Nations” doesn’t make you automatically intelligent.

Mr Vanu should do his homework too.

What safeguards are there when:

1. At the point of arrest, you’re not allowed to have access to a lawyer.

2. When in remand, you’re not allowed to have a lawyer.

3. When in remand, the police can detain you for as long as they want, at times as long as 2 months – and during this period you’re denied access to a lawyer, family and friends.

4. The burden of proof is entirely on the accused.

5. All the prosecution needs to make (AND NOT EVEN PROVE) is to PRESUME that you are guilty.

6. And once presumed as guilty, the onus is on the defendant to disprove the charge (this practice is against all international law).

7. The judges have no discretionary power to take mitigating factors into considerations. NO ROOM AT ALL.

8. The judge’s role is simply one of determining whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Nothing else.

9. Power is given to the prosecution to decide whether to charge the accused with a capital charge or not. This means, the prosecution has the power (given how the law is constructed) to determine if the accused live or dies, which should be the power of the judge.

Now, Mr Vanu, where are the safeguards for each and every one of these preposterous provisions?

Where, Vanu?

no death penalty

it’s uncivilised…come on even bill clinton made mistake !!!

I am sure there are those in Govt who equally share concerns over the mandatory death sentence so let’s not turn a non-political issue into a political one. Some people choose to do it nevertheless though but wouldn’t that merely harden the govt’s line? Why take the risk when its not necessary?

The merits of discretionary powers for judges in drug cases should be and is sufficient to stand on its own.

Our (Singapore) judges are intelligent enough to understand and implement parliament’s intention on drug policies. These cases are non-political in nature and the outcome of discretionary sentencing does not reflect on the govt. Mandatory death sentences, on the other hand, do.

A mandatory death sentence becomes the problem of the state rather than the judiciary hence creating inter-state friction when convicts are foreigners. This may lead to inconvenient treatments that create questions of how fair or hypocritical the laws really are.

The numerical limits defining when a person deserves to die is artificial and inconsistent between difering countries and even time. Judges who try people every day are in a better position to determine what is truly bad at that point in time rather than parliament that meets only ever so often and whose laws take a much longer process to change or update, if at all.

The process, despite the good intention of parliament, is an issue of the many shades of grey rather than the black and white it is intended to be. 14.99 vs 15 grams. Street value of diamorphine vs actual amount of heroin trafficked. Knowledge vs no knowledge. User vs Trafficker. All shades of grey which has to be categorised in black and white for the courts which can only be one result if any of the mis-steps are incorrect.

Doing drugs is wrong. Trafficking in drugs is worse and perhaps there are instances where death is deserved. In some instances, it can even be the equivalent of murder, as lives are lost.

According to the MHA, “mandatory death sentences are prescribed when the crime is so serious that the death penalty is warranted for the commission of the offence, when made out, under any circumstances.”

My view – The requirement for mandatory death penalty must require a higher level of scrutiny than just merely the death penalty.

Further MHA states: “This sends a strong signal to would-be offenders, to deter them from committing crimes such as murder and offences involving firearms, which would severely compromise the safety and security of Singapore. In the case of drug trafficking, the death penalty has deterred major drug syndicates from establishing themselves in Singapore.”

My view – No system is or should ever be without review. What applies in the past may not necessarily apply in the future.

We must also continually ask ourselves whether the process is currently efficient. Cases are determined by the AGC to be brought up to the judges. In other words, the AGC has to play a judges role to decide what cases to bring up whereas I feel that the judges are in a better position to decide which cases should be judged accordingly. There in lies the rub.

The Singapore Government should rightly make no apologies for a tough stance on law and order. However, the process must necessarily stand the rigour of scrutiny.

What further creates questions on the process is the shackling of the presidential role in that the President must necessarily follow the recommendations of a small group of parliamentarians in deciding clemency. If parliament holds final say, shouldn’t the appeal be made to parliament instead rather than a president who has to take orders from another higher body?

Perhaps I am wrong in the above and would happily suffer any corrections.

A definite NO from me.

Yellow Ribbon unlock the second prison,
Death ends the Yellow Ribbon of hope.
Why bring out a cause of life, a second chance
But ends it with the ribbon hanging by the neck.

A life is at stake for the court to deliberate
Which the President with all his might,
Lose his executive power to decide.

A life is hanging in the balance,
We plead for his death sentence
To commute to life imprisonment.
And bring forth the true cause
Of the Yellow Ribbon.

Dedicated to saving Yong Vui Kong.

I agree with lim that the Singapore Government should continue to maintain a tough stance on law and order. While the death penalty for mere runners such as Vui Kong is perhaps too heinous for the crime, such runners should not be allowed to get away scot-free no matter how “sad” their personal life stories are. The fact remains that if they have the courage to carry out drug trafficking, they should also know that being caught entails a severe punishment. Admittedly, the temptation of easy money is tangible especially for these poverty stricken individuals and their families. However, we must not allow a drug influx to occur in Singapore and destroy the lives of many more people just out of “compassion” to drug runners.
A harsh deterrent sentence should be imposed in place of the death penalty to limit the spread or influence of drugs in SG. Yet such a move comes at a risk that Singapore may be seen to have lowered its restrictions and tough stance on drugs. A key issue here is how the judiciary can exercise discretion and compassion in sentencing drug runners such as Vui Kong, and yet uphold the fact that Singapore’s laws on drug trafficking are not to be trifled with.

Allow me to reiterate my point, as this is most impt. So impt that I would challenge anyone who supports the death penalty to support this.

Effectively, the power is taken away from the judge, so much so that it is the prosecution (ie, govt) which literally makes sure that when a man is found guilty, he dies.

Why do I say this?

Consider:

1. The law says drug trafficking above certain prescribed limit-amount gets you death. No two ways about it.

2. All the prosecution needs to do is to PRESUME that you are trafficking.

3. Your co-accused’s statement against you can be taken as proof and guilt on your part. (This is why Vui Kong’s co-accused, who turned against him, got 22 years imprisonment and not the death penalty.)

4. The judge cannot consider mitigating factors.

5. Once the judge finds you guilty HE MUST SENTENCE YOU TO DEATH. There is no other choice. NONE.

So, it is like this:

The govt makes so damn cocksure that once you’re found guilty, you die.

The judge is just there to lend such a sentence legitimacy – while both his hands (and mouth) are tied and shut tight.

This CLEARLY is a ridiculous way to mete out “justice” !!

Now, those who support the mandatory death penalty, come come. Come and tell me the process, procedure, provisions and the law is just !

Technically speaking, its plausible that one day this could end.
Change is a factor of Time.
Mortality is also a factor of Time.
When the timing is right, Change Can Come.

Everyone who commits a crime has a sad story. There are prostitutes who comes from broken family, rapist who were abused as a child. psycho who probably got tortured when they are childrens. That does not mean we should not punish them or should be lenient. The more important question here would be what kind of punishment should be given? Hanging? Jail? or should we just slap these traffickers with a fine?

Ho Wei Pin,

That is why we have judges, no?

That is why we have judges to determine who’s story is genuine and if so, to show compassion.

In the mandatory death penalty law, judges have this power taken away from them.

*God, how many times does one have to say this?

Many drug mules were scapegoats either without their knowledge, desperate for quick money or were naive enough to believe that they were not doing anything seriously wrong.

Drug taking is a choice, nobody can force another to consume drugs. With demand, comes supply. Obviously all of us are aware about the the consequences of drug abuse but some still choose to take that route. We give them chances to rehabilitate, why not the drug mules too?

Same thing, no?

Honestly is drug trafficking really such a heinous crime that traffickers (usually mules) have to be hanged?

Not everyone knows the consequences of bringing drugs into Singapore. Some may not know that an amount as small as 15 grams will land them in the noose. We are not really that well known in some parts of the world (yes even in certain parts of Malaysia) so don’t assume that everyone who comes through our customs know what they are in for.

Of course no one is denying that drug mules/ traffickers are not doing anything wrong. However sometimes it could well be a set up, like in the case of Amara Tochi. Even the Judge admitted that there was not enough evidence to show that Tochi knew about the drugs, yet he was hung. CJ Yong Pang How even admitted to lawyer M Ravi openly in Court that yes, even an innocent man can hang and Vignes Mourthi was hung.

Mandatory death penalty in Singapore is one of the worst thing ever to happen in the history of man. It does not take into considerations the family background, probability of a set up etc… as long as a certain amount of drugs are being brought pass the customs, the person with the luggage is a dead person whether or not s/he was aware that s/he is carrying drugs.

If anyone of you out there still wants the mandatory death sentence to stay then please make sure that you lock your bags with lots of padlocks when traveling back into Singapore because you’d never know who will make you a scapegoat by slipping some nice little packages into your bag. Then it will really be too late to regret the stand that you are now defending.

32) Ho Wei Pin on December 7th, 2009 10.23 pm

But you must always understand that under current law, as brought up by Tan Cheng Hua, the prosecutor can PRESUME that one is trafficking more than 15g of heroin, that poor fellow will be found guilty and be sentenced to death. No mitigations, no further questions whatsoever.

It is not a matter of maintaining law and order or not, but about the definition of the law on drug trafficking itself, which can wrongly end somebody’s life.

Can you imagine, if one lunatic was to drop a packet of heroin into your luggage when you’re on your way back or in Singapore? Dont tell me it won’t happen, as it could happen easily to any travellers except those who had people clearing their baggages at the customs, or those with bodyguards and diplomats.

Why did all pleas & petitions to the gov for humane treatment of people on any issue go completely ignored?

You do NOT kill someone for peddling drugs to make ends meet.

Hell, you do NOT kill anyone for ANY reason!

It probably could be justified even though it’s still probable if the criminal were a serial killer. Well, at least you can say you’re protecting the public from further harm from this serial killer.

Hey, stop killing people! Everyone has the right to live! What the hell is wrong with you? What’s the matter with your conscience? How do you even sleep at night?

He deserve a second chance!!

To all those advocating giving judges discretion to determine who deserves death, consider this: By what standards should judges make these decisions? I have not seen any standard that does not call for some kind of subjective interpretation.

IS the life of someone with a sad backstory/sympathetic relative worth more then one without? Or should a defendant’s fate hinge on how sympathetic his vicitm is? ANy criteris that youc an impose that attempts to distinguish between the same class of crimes is bound to be arbitrary and subjective.

This is further exacerbated when the power to make such a momentous decision is vested in the hands of a judge, who, regardless of his legal expertise is affected y his own biases based on class etc.

All these makes such a system incredibly uncertain and unfair on defendants. Getting killed by the state becomes some sorta lottery. That surely cannot be acceptable. Better to get rid of the death penalty entirely and substitute it with life imprisonment.

Mandatory death sentence is one of those “quick fix” solutions by our very brilliant and efficient PAP government to tackle “social problems.” They also hang those who commit murder, kidnapping and armed robbery.

To the pap, hanging a few criminals to maintain “social order” is good because:

–They earn credit for creating a “safe and low-crime” social environment;
–Being part of the rich, they stands to benefit from such “safe” environment;
–Being influencial, they know such harsh laws will not be applicable to them.

If compassionate presidents like Devan Nair or Ong Teng Cheong were still around, there was at least a slim chance that Yong could be spared the rope.

The only chance for Yong now is to bring the case to the attention of international community. Remember, PAP only kow-tow to ang moh.

Why are all those with favourable ratings perpetuating the same views? In TOC, logic is inferior to partisanship. Oppose PAP and you’ll be inundated with thumbs ups.

eh #40 OriginalResonance – wat talking u? Opposition partisanship is logical. Your leaps of logic and kena psycho by PAP opinions are more ilogical it seem.

See? I’m an anarchist but the moment I criticize the visceral bias from the opposition, I’m treated as a brainwashed subject of PAP. Dumb Singaporeans. Thankfully I won’t be here for long.

OriginalResonance,

One does not go to Serangoon Road and start speaking in Mandarin does he? Neither would one go to Chinatown and converse in Tamil. You know the reaction you will get.

Rachel

Why are you rewarding those who wish to take the easy money route out.

Are you not discouraging those who are willing to abide by society in the same poor environment to improve 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.

You have definitely forgotten and ignored those who still have to scrabble for a living but just saying poor victim.

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.

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.

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.

Regards

“One does not go to Serangoon Road and start speaking in Mandarin does he? Neither would one go to Chinatown and converse in Tamil. You know the reaction you will get. ”

I’m just shocked that I went to Chinatown and all I hear is broken Mandarin. Surely Singaporeans and TOC have higher standards? Proving that your enemy is wrong does not make you right.

8/12/09

I strongly advocate the continuance of the Mandatory Death Sentence for Drugs Trafficking to be maintained at all costs and no so called second change being given to this Vong as he knew what he was carrying and had been delivering “gifts” to clients in Malaysia and Singapore. No mercies must be shown to such people like Vong and we must always remain firm on this and if not, we are welcoming more such people like Vong, to smuggle drugs into Singapore and subsequently destroy our Singapore society.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

i dont really have a definite stand on this, sorry.

but Andrew, perhaps sometimes Justice needs to be weighed together with a bit of mercy ..
no ambiguity! just a bit of mercy … it will augur well for the society as a whole really…

This is getting so old…some people really need to be put away for good. Look at all those hit and run ‘incidents’, serial rapist and whatnot, I would say the death penalty is not being carried out to its fullest effect. China even executes for corruption, I daresay it is a much cheaper solution compared to handing out peanuts!

“All objectivity derive from cultural relativism.”
“Inviolability of life is a fallacy.” (OriginalResonance quotes from TOC editorial)

I can see the sensible view there. Where would it be possible to read up on original zen state quotes like those? OriginalResonance used to quote paragraphs from a movie, just so to prove a point. In those postings, it was so relevant that I could almost understand the important message he wanted to convey. Lately his views seems to be showing that if someone were to torture OR, till the point OR is killed, OR can understand that objectively, since in his culture, there is no known idea of sanctity of life.

Later on in one of his inspired rebuttals, eg “proving your enemy wrong does not make you right” is such a revelation. The insight provided by him is sufficient to compare him with (孔夫子)Confucius’ distant cousin, (孔夫熊)Confusion,

At his zenith, I am sure OR has fully convinced us of the huge disparity of proficiencies of mandarin spoken in Chinatown. However I am still curious if he has shown up that fact, that of one trying to get himself understood in Chinatown whilst conversing in Tamil. I thought it best to do so to point out that there is a hindu temple along pagoda street, if I recall it correctly. Within Chinatown, one can speak tamil to another, but I digress.

@40, 42
The logic of OR is infallible. The resounding nuances of impeccable opposition criticism! Here is why;
Being opposition = being anti ruling party.
Criticise = being anti
Criticise opposition = being anti opposition
So guys, just because OR is anti anti ruling party, does not mean that OR is for the ruling party! It just means OR’s views are running contrary to the anti establishment views. It is merely coincidental that the ruling party shares OR views too. Do not begrudge OR this view.
OR might change his mind and be critical of those who criticise the opposition, but do not be fooled, OR is still not for the opposition. Again, take note of the coincidence of the opposition sharing similar end points.

Here I am curious, for one to have confessed to being anarchist, why is OR so bothered by the popularity (or unpopularity) of the votes given to OR’s comments? And if OR is unconvinced and will be leaving Singapore soon, why then should OR bother with commenting on the current state to which soonish, OR will have no claim upon?

Lastly, please give his views and comments some thumbs up. OR deserves that much.

a rousing comment, curious citizen – a much-desired thumbs up for Original Resonance. and a hug. where’s the hug button?

Here I am curious, for one to have confessed to being anarchist, why is OR so bothered by the popularity (or unpopularity) of the votes given to OR’s comments?
>I do not seek affirmation. What I was deploring is the intellectual dishonesty displayed by a majority of TOCians.

And if OR is unconvinced and will be leaving Singapore soon, why then should OR bother with commenting on the current state to which soonish, OR will have no claim upon?
>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.

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…

[...] Of Yong Vui Kong – Singabloodypore: Hung: A Briefing on Singapore’s Death Penalty – TOC: Calling for an end to the mandatory death penalty – Cavalierio: Reflections on the guillotine [Recommended] – Blowin’ In The Wind: The heart of [...]

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

[...] http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/calling-for-an-end-to-the-mandatory-death-penalty/ [...]

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.