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.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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.
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.