Breaking News:
TOC has learned that the Attorney-General has filed an application to quash the stay of execution which the High Court granted to Yong Vui Kong on 2 December. The AG’s application will be heard on Tuesday, 8 Dec. DPP Jaswant Singh says the judge had no jurisdiction to hear the Criminal Motion on 2 Dec and that “the order of a stay of execution was wrong in law”. (You can join the Facebook group in support of Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi, here.)
Koh Yi Na
Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian who was due to hang this Friday for drug trafficking, has been granted a stay of execution.
At a High Court hearing today, Justice Woo Bih Li allowed the postponement of the 21-year-old’s execution, pending a hearing before the Court of Appeal to be held next Tuesday.
Yong had received the death sentence last November, after being found guilty of trafficking 47g of heroin in June 2007. He was 19 years old at the time of arrest.
His execution was scheduled to be carried out this Friday after his petition for clemency was rejected by the President on November 20.
Representing Yong, Mr M Ravi of LF Violet Netto, argued that executing Yong before his appeal was heard violated his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeal have yet to hear Yong’s case, as it was withdrawn by his previous counsel, who had been assigned by the State.
As the Court of Appeal is currently on vacation and unable to convene (see note below), Mr Ravi asked the High Court to grant a stay of execution for Yong, until his application for an extension of time and a full appeal can be heard.
After hearing arguments presented by both the defence and the prosecution, Justice Woo accepted Mr Ravi’s request.
The news came as a relief to two of Yong’s elder brothers who were present at the hearing. His mother, elder sister and brother, and a cousin arrived from Sabah today, but were not in time to attend today’s court session. They met Yong at the Changi Prison Link Centre later in afternoon.
Yong’s older brother, Yun Leong, told The Online Citizen that his mother had been unaware of Yong’s conviction and death sentence.
The 24-year-old, who currently works in Singapore, said in Mandarin: “We’ve kept this from her for almost three years. Because his execution date is coming soon, we felt that she needed to know.”
“My sister broke the news to her yesterday, but she only said that Vui Kong ran into trouble and is in jail in Singapore.
“My mother doesn’t know that he was involved in drug trafficking and had received a death sentence, and Vui Kong wanted to tell her himself,” he added.
Throughout most of the hearing, Yong sat with his head bowed, speaking only occasionally to his interpreter and the police officers who accompanied him. He showed little emotion and only nodded when the interpreter explained the judge’s decision to him. But he broke down after the judge granted a stay of execution.
According to Yun Leong, Yong’s conversion to Buddhism whilst in prison helped him to come to terms with his sentence. He had earlier instructed his state-assigned lawyer to withdraw his appeal because he “knew he was guilty and wanted to get it over with”.
He later applied for a stay of execution in order to allow himself the time to speak to his mother for the last time, and for his final appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
Yong, sixth of seven children, was raised in Sandakan, Sabah. His parents divorced when he was three, leaving his mother to raise him. She worked as a dishwasher during his childhood, while the family lived with his paternal grandfather in his palm oil estate.
As a child, he was made to work in the estate, and was frequently abused by his grandfather. After turning 10, he began taking on odd jobs to supplement his family’s income. Unable to cope with the demands of education and work, he dropped out of school two years later.
At 15, he left for Kota Kinabalu to work for two months, where he saved up for a plane ticket to Kuala Lumpur. There, he worked as an apprentice cook at a Chinese restaurant, where he was often underpaid and discriminated against due to his being from Sabah.
According to his brother, Yong then got involved with friends in secret societies, and fell under the influence of drug syndicates who used him as a drug mule to transport illegal substances across the border to Singapore.
Yun Leong added that Yong had been aware that the packages he received contained drugs, but he was assured by his superiors that these drugs were of an insufficient quantity to warrant the death penalty.
On June 10, 2007, Yong flew back to Sabah from Johor to celebrate his mother’s birthday. Two days later, he was arrested near the Meritus Mandarin Hotel in Singapore.
According to Yong’s petition for clemency that was submitted to the President, the trial judge, Justice Choo Han Teck, had called both the defence and prosecution into chambers before the commencement of the trial and noted Yong’s relatively young age at the time of the offence.
Justice Choo then asked the Prosecution to consider reducing the capital charge to a non-capital one. The prosecution declined.
Yong thus received a mandatory death penalty upon his conviction for trafficking heroin under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Note: M Ravi told the judge he had been told this by the registrar but the DPP claimed instead that the registrar had told him the Court of Appeal is avalaible. It is thus unclear if the judges are indeed on vacation. However, the one-week stay of execution perhaps confirms that they are.
—-
Picture from Yawning Bread: Another teenager caught, set to hang
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
To Tan Cheng Hua on December 4th, 2009 1.13 am:
Re: “HERE IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE ASKING FOR FROM THE GOVT…We should first be asking for a moratorium on the death penalty. Moratorium means “hold on”, “wait”, “time-out”. Suspended. No killing during this period.”
The UN has also issued a moratarium on all executions in its member countries; I believe this was only last year.
Singapore remains in defiance of this.
But coming on the heels of the same government’s introduction of the one-day cooling-off period at elections – purportedly for us to become rational enough again after our temporary madness so that we will vote the PAP – I wonder why the government cannot observe a moratarium when:
1. it is legally provided for; and,
2. for them to cool off from their own madness – let’s have a full society-wide debate and look at the issue rationally during the period of the moratarium.
Yes, I support your call.
102) Arthur
It depend on how you see the world…some people just blame others for their own misfortune…and seldom accept the fact that they are at fault too…it takes 2 hands to clap, so if the abuser doesn’t provide the second hand, how will the clap occur?
And do read, I think people here never absolve D.T from any responsibilities, it is simply your assumption based on your perception…but what people here wants to say to those who totally blame it on D.T is that the D.A is pretty much at fault…
People will go….the blah blah take drugs because of them…hello…did they use a knife to force them to take drugs? stuff it down their throat..threaten them….or were the abuser tempted? and make the wrong choice….both are at fault…
if you are executing someone who really traffics a crazy amount of drugs, well understandable, i won’t even whine about it…
To Arthur on December 4th, 2009 1.41 am:
Re: “It is probably only in TOC where you can find outrageously irrational people blaming drug addicts for their own situation, but spare the drug traffickers from any responsibilities for their criminal intent…Gosh…what kind of world are we living in now?”
We live in a world that understands that the problems faced by those allegedly ruined by drug traffickers did not begin when people like Vui Kong passed the drugs to them; they were already predisposed to drug addiction before they knew Vui Kong existed.
I ask for help for them as well.
But I ask for Vui Kong to only be meted out the punishment that is proportional to his crime; I’m not exonerating him from his crime.
@102 Arthur: u r not getting the point of this debate, and the kind of dialogue U r engaging in is limiting and regressive: we, or at least most of us r trying to address a situation that is obviously troubling to many of us here, and i think we are trying to expand the horizons of our understanding that encompasses issues such as human & sovereign rights, state power, system & meanings of justice etc – which are not obvious to U.
Hi Robox,
Totally agree with you. From the article content, Yong Vui Kong is certainly a victim. As in all drug cases, the courts can’t simply sentence the ‘victim’ guilty until proven otherwise.
From our legal perspectives, the law actually punishes victims ‘innocently’ if and when insufficient ‘evidence’ is produced in courts.
I’m keeping vigil for this young chap, given his family background, and yes, he deserve a second chance and perhaps the authorities may consider sentencing him to life imprisonment instead and then extract info from him on who the drug syndicate is in order to mete out necessary action to the syndicate instead.
This is LKY’s First World, where laws are “what I write on a piece of paper” (Saddam Hussein).
All the glitter of skyscrapers does not make a country a first world. You can be all dressed up to impress but the game is up when nothing useful comes out of you. Spore is all dressed but nowhere to go. Correction, all dressed but heading to the rubbish dump. Any joy in this?
Arthur on December 4th, 2009 1.41 am said this:
Re: “It is probably only in TOC where you can find outrageously irrational people blaming drug addicts for their own situation…”
I suspect that by “irrational”, he only means “emotional”, and this is as good a time as any to address this typically extremist rhetoric of the fascist types.
Yes, the issue of the death penalty *IS* an emotional one: Does anyone here know anyone else – including themselves – who wasn’t emotionally affected by the death of someone close to them?
The issue of the death penalty had only better be an emotional issue; we lose our humanity otherwise when we think of human life as a clinical issue that affects no one emotionally.
(As a side note, I would like to say at this point that I find the posts in this thread discussing this issue in economic terms to be extremely offensive; human life CANNOT be measured in terms of dollars and cents. If it can, then please tell us what you – or better yet, your mother – are worth in terms of dollars and cents. Or stop.)
But back to my point: How can we – Abolitionists – be accused of being irrational when we are presenting our arguments based on the evidence we have from studies already conducted, and while the pro-murder* people have nothing to counter us with? Is there NO rationality in academic studies? If there isn’t, then why are wasting all our resources on the seemingly meaningless pursuit of academic studies?
No, I suspect that Arthur, like so many other like-minded people, thinks that being *emotional* is the opposite of being *rational*. When have fascists ever stopped taking all the nice names to falsely describe themselves leaving us with nothing nice to call ourselves?
He’s dead wrong!
The opposite of “rational” is *IRRATIONAL*, and not *EMOTIONAL*; you can be rational AND emotional at the same time but you can never be simultaneously rational AND irrational.
Tell us where we have been IRRATIONAL. I would appreciate your contribution to this debate better.
Footnote:
* Anecdotally, I have consistently found a strong correlation between the pro-murder camp and the pro-lifers in the debate on abortion – go figure their internal self-contradiction; I wonder if declaring and proving one’s religion should be made mandatory in this debate to ascertain if there are any vested interests.
Can a minor be hanged for an offence of drug trafficing?
Yes I mean minor or “child” in layman term.
“Yong had received the death sentence last November, after being found guilty of trafficking 47g of heroin in June 2007. He was 19 years old at the time of arrest.”
Note that in Singapore you are only considered an adult at age “21″…thus only at age 21 then you are allowed to vote, allowed to buy HDB flats, allow to start for free “erection”.
Can someone out there tell lawyer Ravi that Yong was still a “minor” in Singapore context and thus cannot be hanged. If Singapore hangs Yong it is like imaginging hanging a 8 year old boy who smuggles drugs.
Singapore likes to use law to their advantage, they would say in Canada 18 years old is considered as an adult but then they should use the law on the level playing field as Canada do not hang or excecute drug offenders.
In LKY’s first world, so what if the AG hangs a minor? So what? I would go to the extent of saying so what if he hangs an innocent minor? Who is going to go after him? Who?
lobo76
You know what’s really sad reading your comments?
The views I, and many have presented are based on the findings of many people who have looked deeply into the whole drug situation and concluded that the death penalty is hardly an effective deterrent.
Can anything ever be interpreted in different ways? Unfortunately, yes, if you choose to. If you choose to pick at straws, then so be it.
I tend to stop debating after some time when it starts appearing ridiculous.
What’s truly sad though, is how it all seems like a fun little game to you, all the smart nudges, ‘heh-hehs” and “LOLs”. It seems, like one reader points out – so detached isn’t it?
Nevermind that it’s the sanctity of life we’re talking about.
(But then, I guess we’re expecting too much from someone who believes that terminating the life of a criminal is equivalent to showing compassion to the families of the victims of his crime.)
It is tragic enough that there are many people who are caught in this web and cycle of the drug trade. Ask yourself if we need to callously add another name to the cast of this tragedy.
Hi guys, just a bit of info about the law.
The age “divisions” were drawn in England (our ex colonial master) i think 200-300 years before, and it’s still generally accepted around the world today.
Anyone below the age of 16 is considered a child. You are subject to a lower standard of understanding, and in an old English case, a 15 year old girl was held not liable for poking her friend’s eye out with a ruler. (Mullins v Richards)
Anyone between the ages of 17 to 21 is considered to be of the “age of discretion”. Meaning you are held to the standard of a grown-up, BUT u don’t have the rights and privileges of an adult yet. Americans have this joke that between 17 to 21, you’re a “kidult”. The rights of a kid but the responsibility of an adult.
The law has to draw the line somewhere. For drugs, 15.00 grams is the line. The closer you are to the line, the more unfair it is. The most deserving person to hang will be the one with 14.99g and the least deserving to hang would be the one with 15.00g on the dot.
In the case of VuiKong, it might “seem” unfair, but always bear in mind that the line was drawn independantly, with no particular case or criminal in mind. That means the line is objective and impartial.
The AG is eager to execute Yong so that the case is closed, job done, no more dealing with us lot. Why want to trouble himself for someone of no consequence to him, someone as insignificant as Yong? Rightly or wrongly the AG still gets his pay, and still remains AG. Why bother? – So what if the drug lord cons and tries again with the next mule? We will just execute the next mule. So what if some big stock gets through? Those who abuse the drugs deserve it isn’t it?
If you argue for the execution, you are helping the authorities to skive their jobs. The police don’t have to investigate, the AG don’t have further work, the prison has one less to feed, and the Govt has no enemy of the rich and powerful (drug lords). The latter are the ones who got away scot free because of our ‘lazy’ system but the worst is, the supply continues to find its way into the country through successful mules or non-decoys.
Do you think the authorities really care? The execution is but a show that job is done. It achieves nothing.
112) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on December 4th, 2009 6.11 am
I tend to stop debating after some time when it starts appearing ridiculous.
I tend to get such excuses when I ask for things people simply can’t give good replies to.
100) Yamamoto on December 4th, 2009 1.32 am
but what if, the abuser influence and get other people hooked on drugs too? of course the magnitude is smaller and lesser…..but still….focusing on one and accidentally forgetting another aspect it just typical of us all…everything is too subjective aye?
Not really. It’s common to assume ‘all things being equal’ when making such equations, no? your ‘focusing on one’ is just an attempt to conflate things until you get your way.
does selling in a place with death penalty that regulates supply with constant demand, results in better profit…compared to a place whereby supply is not so regulated with constant demand… and of course after that, we have to look at the economy of scale.
I am a bit lost. Exactly what scenario you trying to convey?
How does one have a death penalty and then have regulated supply? My assumption of the ‘regulation of supply’ is to the drug abuser only. Correct me if I am wrong.
So the state gives death penalty, which likely means they are not likely to regulate the drug. Hence the regulation of the drugs can only be from drug lords. Do they really regulate supply? With a constant demand line, the more the supply the more profits they get…. why would they want less profits?
WRONG. With regards to your questions, they were the same questions you keep throwing over and over again despite repeated efforts made by many people to present facts and figures, here, and in previous articles.
There are many good articles Alex Au has written on his blog too, and I can see that you wouldn’t be a stranger to them if you can take his articles out of context to begin with.
What do we get from you in return? “That’s not good enough, that’s not good enough, that’s not good enough…” And you ask for the improbable – to ask drug mules on a scale of 1-5?!!!!!
At the end of the day, it is clear that you are unpersuadable. Which, is all fine and dandy.
But please do not add insult to matters of life and death with your clever quotes and flippancy.
The topic deserves better than that.
96) Petrus on December 4th, 2009 12.34 am
Goodness, just how did we actually make a criminal like Yong a angel, to that state of even claiming innocence on his behalf (and he entering heaven’s gate, common…)
My hypothesis is that pple are so anti govt here (which I am also one by the way) that any calls by anyone with the proper ‘excuse’ can get anyone to support them when it is a position that is in opposition to the govt. Some may truly agree, but there are likely some who don’t think, and simply go with the flow since it is a direction they want to go anyway.
117) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on December 4th, 2009 9.39 am
You realised it is you what who brought up that it is always myriad of factors that determine anything and everything. The ‘“That’s not good enough, that’s not good enough, that’s not good enough…” is exactly that.
Alex Au does write good articles but like all humans he is not perfect. To quote one person as a source of evidence seems to show that you only wished to pick up views from those who agree with you.
The only ‘evidence’ in this or the other threads is by Tan Cheng Hua but it is not about whether death penalty is effective, but that our application of the death penalty is governed by a flawed process.
If we can agree that there are many things that determine the drug rate, do you not suppose that a life is too important a thing to lose over a punitive measure that hasn’t been proven to work?
Look at the stats you happily show me again. I do believe it is very clear that it shows nations with death penalty do not necessarily have lower drug rates.
At the very most, as with many instances of debates, you can only insist that the stats swing both ways.
Which begets the question – should we exercise the choice to take lives over something inconclusive?
120) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on December 4th, 2009 10.02 am
What is conclusive, is that according to the last stats that were made available, we had one of the lowest drug abuse rates. Probably the only thing we both agree on thus far. Now, this (drug abuse rate) is something that has the potential to affect a lot of people’s lives.
Now, from my perspective, your evidence has been inconclusive so far. Remember that is was you who brought up the fact that corrrelation is no proof. Hence the lack of correlation would mean the same thing, especially with so many factors (something also brought up by you) in play.
So why would I want to change the status quo of something that has such a big repercussion on a lot of lives based on inconclusive evidence?
I think it’s just not the place of the state to kill anyone. Especially when there’s no evidence of the effectiveness of capital punishment. I think if you support the death penalty the burden of proof should be on you to show that it is indeed “better” for the state to kill these people.
So far it’s either conjecture or inconclusive statistics, and seriously, if this is good enough for you to send someone to the gallows, I pity you.
116) lobo76
Lobo, that can be said of you, can’t it?…focusing on your point and ignoring others, assuming that everything is equal is just another way to make sure that you get your way? conflating the issue aren’t you? mmm…seems like it…I try not to assume that everything is equal, since we are living in the real world, instead trying to see whether there is the other side to the coin… Mmm….guess what Joshua say is right aye….Joshua, give lobo the hug campaign man…
What i am trying to say is, with death penalty aka high entry barrier, supplies will be low/regulated since it is harder to bring in…and what happens when supplies is low with demand?
“With a constant demand line, the more the supply the more profits they get…. why would they want less profits? ”
see, here we go again Lobo. With a readily available supply and constant demand, yes the profit will be constant, which is good for them, what they want…however, as usual, it is subjective and our dear lobonator seems to ask one side that suits him, but not the other…now, the question will be, why they won’t want a bigger profit when it is staring them in the eye. in a place, whereby the supplies is low, payoff is huge at the expense of risk, this druglords will also want to reap a huge profit, since losing that heroin and mule doesn’t hurt them, and the return if it is successful is too appealing to turn a blind eye…
And Zefly, good to see you again
Lobo76, let me guess what Joshua’s reply will be…let’s see
Since it is inconclusive according to Joshua “I do believe it is very clear that it shows nations with death penalty do not necessarily have lower drug rates.”
“Now, this (drug abuse rate) is something that has the potential to affect a lot of people’s lives. ”
Based on both perception, either’s evidence has been inconclusive…and this will result in another cycle of the same question ask in a different way:
“Which begets the question – should we exercise the choice to take lives over something inconclusive? ”
or
“Which begets the question – should we exercise the choice to take lives over something inconclusive? ”
and here we go again
“So why would I want to change the status quo of something that has such a big repercussion on a lot of lives based on inconclusive evidence? ”
Then we’re looking at irreversibility of situations.
If you look at life as the capacity of a person to have self awareness, to be breathing, (nevermind the quality of life for the moment) – every person that has tasted drugs has the capacity to change. A second chance.
Yes, you may even argue that there are some cases where people do die when they consume drugs for the first time, but that is very rare. At any case, in any argument, in any stats, there is always a point, an exception you can pick at, and I hope you do us the favor by not going there.
So let’s agree that there is never a guarantee of death with drug abusers.
But a death sentence is a guarantee.
Lives RUINED and lives LOST are very different.
Now let’s look at the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ form of justice we love to have.
In an ‘eye for an eye’ system, if A kills B, then A gets the death sentence.
In ANY case of DIRECT death via drugs. Can it ever been shown who the drugs come from?
If it can’t, then the closest thing an ‘eye for an eye’ justice system can do, is to ‘ruin’ the drug mule’s life. By putting him away, making him lose his physical freedom. How long will depend on how much drugs he’s carrying.
And EVEN if you want to go into some mathematical formula – how do we calculate how the felon should pay for the potential lives ruined, let’s not forget even if he carries with him enough drugs that can POTENTIALLY ruin 100 lives.
That’s also 100 lives that can be potentially rehabiliated.
I dunno what calculator you use, but it doesn’t add up to justify one life lost forever.
Yamamoto…
wahahahahahah! Sorry i din give you the pleasure of proving you right.
126) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
Damn, but it is ok…it has been some time Zefly…I think what lobo wants is just a huggggg
the calculation is very simple, differentiate heroin with no respect to human life and you get 15g.
Yamamoto,
I think what he needs is to win.
To be fair, I don’t really mind. He’s not the person I’m trying to convince.
123) Yamamoto on December 4th, 2009 10.23 am
What i am trying to say is, with death penalty aka high entry barrier, supplies will be low/regulated since it is harder to bring in…and what happens when supplies is low with demand?
Suppliers can charge a high price, which (all things being equal) would mean extraordinary profits.
However, as I have mentioned, the only conclusive part thus far is that drug rate in Singapore is low. So while your theory is correct, reality has for some inconclusive reason, proven that it isn’t. For if is, we should be seeing a horde of mules coming to die.
On the other hand, if my theory of (all things being equal) no death penalty equal higher drug trafficking also holds true, reality has yet to disprove it.
So there you have it
- Your theory true + reality false = conclusion: theory wrong.
- (if) my theory true + reality unknown = conclusion unknown. Potential ‘damage’ of theory being right is big. So why should I take the risk?
125) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on December 4th, 2009 10.38 am
Then we’re looking at irreversibility of situations.
No.. that’s what you (and some others) are looking at, not me. From the irreversibly point of view, you are correct.
The analogy i can come up with may be not the best but anyway…
A general sends his army to fight. Statistically, it is nigh impossible not to have casualties (which is as you said, irreversible). Does the general then not fight?
(assumption: enemy is evil and all diplomatic options has been exhausted)
Yes, you may even argue that there are some cases where people do die when they consume drugs for the first time, but that is very rare.
no need. I can point out that drug addicts may commit crimes to get money for their next fix. Crimes which may result in the lost of other lives (robbery, murder, etc). Crimes that would perpetuate the drug cycle (they become mules themselves), eventually resulting in other people’s death.
if the drug trade increase due to lack of deterrence, it seems impossible that someone will not die… which as you said, is pretty irreversible.
Lives RUINED and lives LOST are very different.
Personally, I view them as equal. If living is suffering then death is preferable. I hold more value on Lives Ruined than you, it seems.
If it can’t, then the closest thing an ‘eye for an eye’ justice system can do, is to ‘ruin’ the drug mule’s life. By putting him away, making him lose his physical freedom. How long will depend on how much drugs he’s carrying.
That would mean ignoring the ‘message’ part to other mules. Unfortunately, I do not think lives should be consider in isolation.
129) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on December 4th, 2009 11.25 am
I think what he needs is to win.
To be honest, I have ‘lost’ before on forums, and I have no issues admitting to the ‘winner’ that he was right. However, if that is the way you need to convince yourself to I am not reasonable so as to reassure yourself that your evidence is conclusive ….
“Personally, I view them as equal. If living is suffering then death is preferable. I hold more value on Lives Ruined than you, it seems.”
And this where I can say there is no need to debate anymore, if that’s your premise.
As mentioned, it is always sad when lives are ruined. Whenever there is suffering.
But the examples of many people past and present have shown, as long as there is life, there is a chance. To get beyond the suffering.
We keep seeing examples of people truimphing over personal tragedies. Learning from past mistakes. Ex drug mules becoming counsellors, lending spiritual support to others in need.
Even a person who has repented but serving life imprisonment can do a lot of good for his fellow inmates.
People who recognize that due to fate or past actions, you may not be able to help being where you are, but you are able to determine your reaction to it.
You are able to get a second chance to redefine the meaning of your life.
Even the most incorrigible person can change.
Taking his life takes that away.
Lobo,
“Suppliers can charge a high price, which (all things being equal) would mean extraordinary profits.”
That is assuming that the drug trade is a monopoly…however, in such a lucrative market which may yield high profit and supplies can be easily delivered, i guess those people want an equal share of the pie, and when that happens, you have competition that may drive prices down…
“So while your theory is correct, reality has for some inconclusive reason, proven that it isn’t. ”
No Lobo, reality has not proven it either way. How do you know, you don’t…my favorite quote from you. Why is this so, that is simply because you assume that in the ideal reality, if drug lords send more supplies this way, it will equate to more mules getting the noose. However, that is an assumption, which doesn’t prove me right or wrong. The assumption is based on your perception that more people get caught and punish, then people who manage to get away….but who are we to know….does the drug lords publish an annual report of how many mules go through successfully vis-a-vis unsuccessfully.
So here it goes again….your reality disprove others’ theories, while it doesn’t disprove your theory…what an ideal state…but it occurs for me too
A quote from you
- Your theory true + reality false = conclusion: theory wrong: Actually reality is unknown, just that dear Lobo assume that it is false, and so he say it is false thus he states theory is wrong. But Lobo, since you say reality is false, are there any proves? Since you like to use this phrase, let me return it to you: How do you know? You don’t”
- (if) my theory true + reality unknown = conclusion unknown. Potential ‘damage’ of theory being right is big. So why should I take the risk?
Why should you take the risk? Well Lobo, since reality is unknown, that means it can go either way…and humans just love to think that their ideal reality occur, but how often does that occur? and so what if the potential is high, hello, the worse thing can happen at the worse time at the worse possible place…So why aren’t you taking the risk? well, cos to some people, taking drastic action to prevent an unknown/unwanted scenario from happening is worth the price, i guess…aka minority report style? Of course, been proactive is better, but been too proactive may lead to mistakes that can never be restore, since i think a broken neck can never be join back
So either way, both sides are speculation…and Lobo, such an ideal world that we exist in ain’t it…everything can be sum up in your formula, but please…take into account variable change… in this world, when are all things being equal?
129) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
Very true, let him win…since I am only playing a devil’s advocate…and sometimes you win by not winning right? ironical, yes, but true…
And i totally agree with 132nd post. Live ruins can be save, though hard it may be. Live lost, hell i am not a death god, so once gone is gone…If the sinners is repentant, he may do society some good, while taking life away from him ensures that he can’t seek penance by contributing to the society…
however, in some cases, the death penalty has to be applied
Lobo,
“I tend to get such excuses when I ask for things people simply can’t give good replies to. ”
To be truthful, in other’s perception, including myself, Joshua has given a very good and logical replies…and I have follow his post for quite some time too…and Joshua is someone who agrees to disagree, and I admire him since he ends off heated debate in a nice manner, the huggggz campaign
However, that’s your own perception that others’ replies aren’t good…he gave you a good reply, but since it is different from your view, of course you reject it as ain’t good…and maybe only those who align themselves with your perception are considered good
and dear Joshua knows better and to stop debating after some time when it starts appearing ridiculous. Since the other side will only agree to his view and reject all else…A one way traffic aye?
I can’t even understand how life can be reduced to something that’s expendable to ‘send a message’ to other drug mules.
In certain aspects of the things I do, I come across a lot of people who really makes you think – why the hell did you allow yourself to get cheated!!! you should have known waaaat…
But the consistency of such instances, and matching with their backgrounds – poverty, low education – makes you realize that what we commonly associate with rationality – the ability to balance pros and cons, risks, doing due dillgence before embarking on a course of action is remarkably different with people that come from much less less fortunate backgrounds.
In some cases, even if the message seem abundantly clear – and this is assuming the message reaches them to begin with – they do not necessarily ‘get it’.
The whole ‘sending a message as deterrant’ rationale crumbles when you realize that the messenger – that is, the law – is not really that active in making sure the recepients get the message until it is too late.
As with many cases, it seems the poor really get the wrong end of the stick.
The person who needs a hug the most isn’t even lobo.
Think about it. A person on death row isn’t even allowed to come into physical contact with loved ones.
And for god’s sake, if you really HAVE to kill someone, does it have to be by hanging? Even dogs that need to be put down get a more humane send off.
If we REALLY want to use death sentence as a deterrent message, I suggest we show videos of actual hangings on huge plasma TV screens at all custom checkpoints. And loop it 24/7. That way, EVERYONE who comes will get the message. Instantaneously.
Afterall we already have those ugly photos on the consequence of smoking on cigarette packs.
Oh wait. But that affects tourism…
133) Yamamoto on December 4th, 2009 1.02 pm
does the drug lords publish an annual report of how many mules go through successfully vis-a-vis unsuccessfully.
No. but the govt did publish a report on the number of abusers which is low. If the mules didn’t get caught, we’d have a high number of abusers… which we don’t. i.e nobody bothered to send huge number of mules or drug, despite you saying that it is a lucrative market.
since reality is unknown, that means it can go either way…
I agree. My point was that if it can go either way, will you choose the way where you have more to lose?
135) Yamamoto on December 4th, 2009 1.14 pm
well, to sum up this post… it’s (not trying to be rude) 废话
People naturally see what they agree with to be ‘good and logical’. Since you agree with his view, naturally his posts are such. Do you ever agree with views that are ‘bad and illogical’?
in other’s perception, including myself
However, that’s your own perception that others’ replies aren’t good
One of the things I always try to avoid doing is to pretend to know what others are thinking. So while you are right in that it is my own perception (could be classified as 废话 for unless I am someone’s secretary, which would i be doing the posting myself?) the other’s replies aren’t good, I don’t see how you can claim to know other people’s perception.
132) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on December 4th, 2009 12.31 pm
And this where I can say there is no need to debate anymore, if that’s your premise.
The ‘debate’ for me, wasn’t really to win. It’s simply to show that there are different views out there (one of which is mine). Especially when people start claiming themselves to be the ‘silent majority’ without any basis.
We keep seeing examples of people truimphing over personal tragedies. Learning from past mistakes. Ex drug mules becoming counsellors, lending spiritual support to others in need.
Are you perhaps referring to ex drug abusers and not mules?
I have only seen one post giving credit to Justice Woo Boh Li by 51) FDFB on December 3rd, 2009 12.01 pm. Hence, I would like to add the following:
His (Justice Woo) ability to reconsider alternative views actually gave me some hope in Singapore judiciary system in terms of its’ capacity for mercy; i.e. slow things down a bit, listen to alternate views, and not rush into making a decision or just follow the book. It’s a healthy sign I would say that there are sane people in there; then just robots blindly following the book (i.e. aren’t we being taught that we need to be kind to others – look at the bible).
To 58) Retribution on December 3rd, 2009 1.25 pm
I wouldn’t claim that I understand your plight; but there is other punishment beside killing a person in my opinion.
Let me illustrate my views – could be flawed, but I welcome comments.
For example, does the old law of cutting one hand when caught in a theft act cruel? Do you feel the brutality of such an act? So, who’s to judge that the theft does not deserve the cutting off of a hand or it’s effectiveness? Should the effectiveness of such an act be the sole judgment for passing such a law?
I personally, felt that cutting off one’s hand due to an act of theft is brutal. Why? The main reason I can think of is due to the fact that such crime rate has not reached an alarming rate/uncontrollable state and together with the maturity of the people to understand the brutality and consequence of such an act has resulted in the abolishment of such practice in today’s world.
Now, let’s think about drug trafficking. Does a drug mule, 19 years of age when the crime is committed, deserve a death sentence?
This is not an easy answer, nor should we rush to come to a conclusion. But personally speaking, there are other punishment other than death, and could be worst than death. However, death is irreversible, and if human have the capacity for humanity, shouldn’t we treasure life first then embrace death only when it’s absolutely necessary? Beside death sentence, is 30, 40, 50 years life imprisonment any lighter and not reach the same purpose in this case?
Nonetheless, cruelty and justice is a fine line; and you really need to look into each case, just like what Judge Woo has done. A broad stroke may not be the right solution in solving problem. Human capacity to “humanity” and “cruelty” has to apply in the right “context”.
Put it simply, there is “a time to kill”. But does this 19 year old guy deserve one?
For “58) Retribution” again, while you advocate retribution, ask yourself frankly; if the judge dished a 30, 40, 50 years imprisonment for a drug mule, wouldn’t this not be able to appease your anger/grief, other than death?
If death is your only answer, here is the ultimate test, are you at the same time, be able to look into the eye of Yong’s mother and tell her that her son deserve death and death only, in order for justice to be served?
I do not claim to the answer, however, you are the victim of drug trafficking, only you are in the appropriate position to answer the questions, and only Yong’s mother has the right to rebut your reply in this case.
I look forward for your views.
PS: What I would like to point out is that while our law has the ability to judge and kill; does it, at the same time, able to demonstrate that it has the capacity for mercy?
aren’t drug mules people too? You mean, there is something so special about them that they should be exempt from second chances?
139) lobo76
“No. but the govt did publish a report on the number of abusers which is low.”
Oh right, and since they publish that figures, it is the absolute truth? and reality? The figures only involves those in the light, but what about those in the dark? So just because the dear gahmen publish a figure, you will treat it as reality…great…i guess there are few abusers who are doing so in secrets right? all the drug abuser will come out and do a roll call…
“which we don’t. i.e nobody bothered to send huge number of mules or drug, despite you saying that it is a lucrative market. ”
How do you know that Lobo? you don’t right? do you go to the custom and try to keep track of who get through and who doesn’t? those who are caught became a statistic, while those who got through is a huge ?. Perhaps your assumption is based on high percentage of drug traffickers are caught, but sadly, without the other figure, we won’t know what came in at all. so another assumption. Just the opposite of mine…just because they are not caught, doesn’t mean there are none…and as for the figures of drug abuser, read the statement above.
“I agree. My point was that if it can go either way, will you choose the way where you have more to lose? ”
Well, ask the strategist, not me. But ain’t it surprising that some strategist are willing to lose more, in order to gain in another way? Moreover, it has not been proven either way, that death sentence results in lower DA rate, so taking a drastic action that involves a human life seems…too much…..but strangely, if these mules are sentence to concentration camp/hard labour etc, somehow I won’t feel that it is too much… and those are worse then death…
136) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on December 4th, 2009 1.19 pm
The whole ’sending a message as deterrant’ rationale crumbles when you realize that the messenger – that is, the law – is not really that active in making sure the recepients get the message until it is too late.
Not to be a cynic, but the human rights activists and pple like you are doing a damn fine job at the moment. With the law providing ups and downs (stay of execution and the challenging of that by the dpp) to generate more ‘excitement’ from you guys, I can’t really say it isn’t doing it’s best either.
And for god’s sake, if you really HAVE to kill someone, does it have to be by hanging? Even dogs that need to be put down get a more humane send off.
I have no knowledge of this…but I seem to recall some issues with the US’s way of lethal injection, whereas I haven’t read anything about hanging.
I want to answer your post on 138, but you sort of answered it yourself at the end…Frankly, I don’t mind. But with some much violence (worse than hanging) already on TV and stuff, what kind of effect do you think it will have?
“And for god’s sake, if you really HAVE to kill someone, does it have to be by hanging? Even dogs that need to be put down get a more humane send off. ”
Joshua, I don’t think there is a humane way of implementing the death sentence…lethal injection? Hanging is terrible, but at least in the modern world, there is no hang, drawn and quartered.
144) Yamamoto on December 4th, 2009 2.33 pm
So just because the dear gahmen publish a figure, you will treat it as reality…
no. if you were a regular of TOC, you won’t have assumed that.
but unless YOU are going to do a study, it is the only figure we have to work with. By the way, the UN sort of endorsed it coz well… they published it.
How do you know that Lobo? you don’t right?………
by the way…you are getting incoherent. The only impression I got from that jumble was that YOU know a lot. well, kindly enlighten us then.
But ain’t it surprising that some strategist are willing to lose more, in order to gain in another way?
No, but only if the other way has greater value. Something along the lines of loss leaders. i.e products that are priced below cost or very cheaply to attract crowds. In the end the shop earns greater value by having sales of other products.
So… what is this ‘another way’ that benefits Singapore citizens?
149) lobo76 on December 4th, 2009 2.52 pm
Well, go and check up, see how regular my posting is…but of course, that’s a waste of time. And the truth is, whatever figures they publish must always be taken with a giant pinch of salt?
“by the way…you are getting incoherent. The only impression I got from that jumble was that YOU know a lot. well, kindly enlighten us then.”
wrong Lobo76, I don’t know alot. So don’t put words into my mouth Just that in your previous post, that’s like your favorite catchphrase, and i decide to use it too…just to let you have a feel. Why do you think I keep using it even though it is so rude. Since you assume you know while others don’t. And for the matter of fact, look at above posting where I state that what i says are assumption, which means I don’t know the accurate info, which is way different from some people who think that their assumptions are correct and build on it.
“So… what is this ‘another way’ that benefits Singapore citizens? ”
Wuth regards to improving the current status quo Mr Lobo, Hey Lobo, I wasn’t thinking of improving it, but just maintain it at least… at least reduce the extent whereby the death penalty is carried out. Look at the Nigerian or those unknowing carriers. With regards to the death penalty, perhaps other form of severe punishment will be good…who wants to totally lose their freedom and stare at four walls? although staring at death is a good deterrence…
“I want to answer your post on 138, but you sort of answered it yourself at the end…Frankly, I don’t mind. But with some much violence (worse than hanging) already on TV and stuff, what kind of effect do you think it will have? ”
I guess you completely fail to grasp the irony.
It is your stand that deterrence is an effective measure.
We have pointed out that even, going with your wobbly logic and arguments, at most it is inconclusive.
The video example, is really to show how the people who use deterrence as justification do not really care about getting the message of deterrence across. You don’t ‘mind’ having videos of hanging, but worry about the ‘effect’ it will have.
“ooo! look we have enough violence on TV, showing real life violence would be bad for our kids, our reputation etc etc..’
And the very best thing is – despite all the harping on the lives of abusers, so many things seem to supercede the sanctity of life.
It seems that ‘effect’ of showing hanging videos at customs (which is suggested in sarcasm by the way) is even more important than that ONE drug mule – who may not have known about the draconian punishment – would be deterred, and save himself.
Maybe it’s a good thing you are using a nick. I can’t imagine how the people who know you may think about you after what’s been said.
We’re done talking.
“Joshua, I don’t think there is a humane way of implementing the death sentence…lethal injection? Hanging is terrible, but at least in the modern world, there is no hang, drawn and quartered. ”
Yamamoto,
the fundemental issue here is, if the rationale for dealth penalty is such that it is a deterrance, of what use is a deterrance if the actual ‘death’ and it’s bloody brutal, mostly hush-hush? Reduced to a headlines the next day?
I mean, hell, not that I am for it, but they used to conduct public executions in the past as means to ‘deter’ people from crime.
What do we have here? Hell, we are even shy to release actual facts and figures to show how many people were hung each year!
So what ‘deterence’ is it, you tell me. Oooooo, but it will scare the children if we make it too graphic…. um yah, and we have pictures of dead fetuses on cigarette packs.
We kill people. And yet we sanitize it all the time. It’s like one of those Pixar cartoons where you KNOW the bad guy dies, – and it’s usually a very terrible death – but it is only ‘suggested’.
This place is truly a Disneyland with Dealth Penalty.
148) Yamamoto on December 4th, 2009 3.12 pm
Well, go and check up, see how regular my posting is…but of course, that’s a waste of time. And the truth is, whatever figures they publish must always be taken with a giant pinch of salt?
of course. That’s the point I was trying to convey about being a regular of TOC. Quite a number of articles here criticizes figures published by the govt. The best ones were by Leong. i.e People here ALREADY tend to take the figures with a pinch of salt. To suggest otherwise hints at you being a not regular.
In any case, do you know why I consider him to be the best? coz he backs up his criticisms with countering stats published by the govt themselves or from somewhere who are considered reliable. In contrast, all I see you doing is questioning assumptions and saying that everyone don’t know everything (which while true, accomplishes nothing).
Fact is the figures for drug rate is the only one available. Unless you have other stats, it is the only one we can based our arguments upon.
I don’t know alot. So don’t put words into my mouth
I didn’t. I was deliberately careful in saying that it was my IMPRESSION that it was so. not that it IS so. Notice the difference?
Wuth regards to improving the current status quo Mr Lobo, Hey Lobo, I wasn’t thinking of improving it, but just maintain it at least…
But we ALL don’t know anything (as you have claimed).
So how are you maintaining something by changing something else? It’s not like you have proven by doing nothing (no change to death penalty), we would experience a deterioration of the situation. In fact, the usual way to maintain something is to change nothing. Which is sort of my position.
He’s too young to die..and he didn’t kill anyone. Let him go. If Ming Yi and TT Durai can be given second leases in life, why not Vui Yong?