Pls visit. http://www.jolly-kiddo.blogspot.com

Tks

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

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…

“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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 =)

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?