Terence Lee
Kenneth Jeyaretnam spells out his party’s stance towards the death penalty. He also calls on the government to release the new electoral boundaries early.
Singapore’s newest political party will be putting out an open letter calling for drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong’s death sentence to be reduced, said Kenneth Jeyaretnam at the party’s discussion session on the economy held last Saturday.
That was before the 20-year-old Malaysian boy’s hearing on Tuesday at the Court of Appeal, where it was decided that Yong’s execution would be delayed by up to a month or more, pending an appeal where the merits of the case would be heard.
No time frame, however, had been set for the open letter to be released.
Before this, none of the other opposition parties in Singapore have officially spoke out against Yong’s death sentence. The closest party to do so would be the Singapore Democrat Party, which featured a video interview with Ravi Madasamy, who is Yong’s lawyer, as well as an article by ejected news correspondent Ben Bland condemning the death penalty.
When asked by The Online Citizen why the Reform Party had not spoken out earlier, he explained that there are already enough organisations that have issued statements condemning Yong’s impending execution.
Mr Jeyaretnam added: “Based on what I was told, I think the anti-death penalty campaign is trying to, because of the way the NGO’s in Singapore operate, steer clear of asking opposition parties in Singapore to say anything.”
Nonetheless, the party leader articulated his organisation’s stand against the death penalty.
“Certainly for drug trafficking it is not a capital crime and [the death penalty] doesn’t solve anything. A lot of these people are poorly educated, fairly desperate. It may not deter them because their family will still benefit. So I don’t really see much use or purpose for it,” he said.
He hopes to see the striking down of the death penalty punishment for drug trafficking as the first stage to an “eventual abolition or moratorium of the death penalty.”
He added: “Personally I’m against the death penalty and I believe that the state shouldn’t be taking lives. It’s barbaric.”
Reform party calls on govt to release electoral boundary changes early
On another matter, the party is also calling on the government to release early the new constituency boundaries which stemmed from the announced electoral changes during the President’s Address in May, said a press release today.
It was mentioned in Parliament then that the number of Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) will be increased from 9 to 12 while number of Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs) would drop.
This announcement is in fact the latest in a series – the party had previously called for the Elections Department to be removed from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) such that the Department will have political independence.
The party had also called for new boundaries to be released at least six months before the next election so as to give them “the barest minimum time to prepare.”
The government has not responded so far.
Meanwhile, the party will continue its efforts to reach out to citizens. It is organising a walkabout this Sunday in the Hong Kah and Chua Chu Kang constituency.
They will be visiting Block 143, Teck Whye Lane starting from 8am, and will be covering the food centre market and shops.
#52 addressed to mice, not myself. Blur me! hahahaa
Singapore has low crime and the death penalty. Why stop the death penalty? Does anyone really thinks crime will be even lower if there is no death penalty?
Hang drug trafficker Vui!
Rachel Zeng
post #52 on December 13th, 2009 12.44 pm
hmmm, who is to say that people who champion causes in their own free time do it for altruistic reasons alone. anyway, why not let your work do the talking for you (& others like you) instead?
which questions of yours did i answer with more criticisms?
is it the following from my post #13 on December 11th, 2009 1.15am?
quoting myself:
////how you are associated with SADPC will likely be viewed with suspicion than a stamp of approval.////
highlighting working or personal connection itself is a double edge sword, just look for examples of posts that speaks positively of MIW or PAP.
////when a “why” is raised, it gives rise to a “why not” rebuttal.////
like the above mentioned it does little to convince critics.
i think you need to evaluate how you go about engaging critcs. sarcasm is not the way. as of now, you are still like when you were 14? :P no wonder you “catch no ball” what i have been trying to say. lol…
Mice,
Legitimate questions were raised but you have attacked the young lady there with an attitude that is so difficult to withstand. Being a professor for over 20 years, I have never stopped telling my students to ask, ask and ask! All the who, what, where, whys. I do not think that her questions are amusing but I find your attitude amusing.
By your indication that she was being sarcastic when she mentioned “… like when I was 14?” tells me that you are so out to win this discussion that you mistook lighthearted humour for sarcasm. Honestly she has been quite diplomatic towards your patronising remarks. You have obviously been nitpicking each and every word that she uses. What is the point?
Discuss, for the sake of discussion. Not for the sake of winning or losing.
That’s all I have to say after following this for the past few days.
Rachel,
It is a waste of time giving him the attention. By the way good luck for the campaign, I am anonymously supporting all of you in my own ways.
Professor from Taiwan
post #56 on December 14th, 2009 2.08 pm
can you quote sentences those you deemed were my attacks? i did not mistook her lighthearted humour for sarcasm, she said so herself (that it was such) if you have read her replies, so how can i have mistaken? as for me “nitpicking each & every word” she uses i guess its not just me. afterall, in an online forum if not words what else is there? tone of her voice, hand gestures, body language…? lol…
you can start a discussion by quoting my sentences (which to you seem like an attack) to start a discussion, rather then out out nowhere & in your 1st post you already seem to have chosen who’s side you’re on?
////… you have attacked the young lady there with an attitude that is so difficult to withstand.////
i dun get what you mean, its a rather vague. please do explain further. thanks, professor.