a) Not many people actually know the limits even law students. Many will need to refer to the act, and don’t expect laymen to know either. In actual drug trafficking cases, that could itself make it difficult to identify a drug abuser vs a trafficker. It does drive home the message that the limits itself are artificial.

b) As a suggestion, the TOC should compile the interview findings and publish a wip paper on this. This can form a very useful survey to identify what are Singaporeans’ perspectives on the issue from the ground. It would be interesting to see lawyer’s personal opinions & perspectives as well eg law society president etc. A few lawyers (beyond Messrs Ravi) do conduct prosecution & defenses in such cases (names can be found from reported law cases). The TOC can perhaps write to Amnesty/HRW to obtain funds to conduct such research and send out surveys. Orgs like amnesty/hrw might not get a response whereas TOC may.

“What is your view in terms of whether and how the United States should engage Singapore on these other issues?”

Ambassador : “My view is the United States must engage Singapore on these issues. You identified the area where, quite candidly, Singapore needs the most improvement if it were to live up to the ambitions Americans have for democracy. Make no mistake, currently Singapore is not a multi-party democracy, and I intend, if confirmed, to use public diplomacy to work towards greater press freedoms, greater freedom of assembly and ultimately, more political space for opposition parties in Singapore to strengthen Singapore into a multi-party democracy.”

I all the while thought that the alternative mindset people are alleging without basis. But now, the American Ambassador has also shared similar view about singapore.

I feel ashamed.

So, intellectuals, what say you? You are our future pillar you know?

TOC, how about an interview with singapore youths, post-65′ers and civil servants regarding this comment?

Social pressure to reflect the change in the public expectations is a more effective strategy, as law can and will evolve.

according to a statistic i read yrs ago, it is actually ‘cheaper’ to put a person under life sentence than putting a person to death. i forgotten the link, anyone can provide?
————————————–

I cannot be sure what information you’ve read, but I believe that the statistics might be American because I’ve read roughly the same thing.

The reason it costs more to put someone to death than imposing the life sentence in the USA is because the convict spends a very long time (we’re talking decades) on death row and appeals his sentence over and over again. The legal costs of the State hearing and defending against the appeals is extremely high. Perhaps the convicts do not fight so hard if it’s a life sentence.

This situation does not exist in Singapore. AFAIK, the legal procedure for a capital offence is the same as that for a life imprisonment offence. One trial in the High Court and one appeal in the Court of Appeal. And that’s the end of it, any convict only goes through the courts once and hangs pretty quickly after everything (including clemency) fails. As such, I think it’s highly probable that the death penalty would be cheaper than life imprisonment in Singapore because our legal process is more conclusive and efficient.

Can lawyers comment on this? You so intellect wor. stedi lah.

From what I understand from the word “trafficking”, it has to do with trading, dealing, buying or selling. If a drug addict is in possession of those controlled drugs, he/she shall be presumed to possess them for the purpose of drug trafficking unless proven otherwise.

And usually, drug addicts don’t sell/trade the drugs, they consume the drugs so perhaps the law in Singapore takes a discretion in those cases. I believe an invididual will have to be proven guilty of selling/trading the drugs for the gain of profit, then only the mandatory death penalty will apply. I’m not a lawyer, but I guess this is how I would intepret the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Any lawyers out there feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Thank you.

If at the very least the “mandatory” requirement of the act was removed there might be more of a chance for judges to make their own decisions about the appropriate punishment, making sure it fits the crime.

1. they said something like the judge cannot use his power / wisdom to set a lower penalty depending on the case and situation that the crime was committed as long as the verdict is guilty. There is no discretion, in this aspect, according to them.

Manslaugter : Aye.
Drugs , few grams : Nay.

Thats Mae, Hosei.

its OK, we can afford so long as any of these accused are not related to anyone within the elites members or party, the rest of you are just digits to them, lost a dozen, just replenish with new citizens, whats the problem.

Hmm…No personal comments abt whether this penalty is justifiable on murder cases (i have mixed emotions abt murder and death sentence), but what if new evidences are later found that the ‘murderer’ is actually… being wrongly accused of murdering another (aft the person has been hanged), what then?

according to a statistic i read yrs ago, it is actually ‘cheaper’ to put a person under life sentence than putting a person to death. i forgotten the link, anyone can provide?