By Andrew Loh
I have been wondering why the Singapore government has been reluctant to abolish the mandatory death penalty, or at least impose a moratorium on it. It is obvious to anyone familiar with how the MDP is practised in Singapore that there are serious flaws in it.
Lawyers have said so. The Law Society has said so. The international community has said so. (Most countries do not have or have abolished the MDP, including almost all Asian countries.) Even judges have implicitly express reservations about it.
So, why isn’t the government taking heed?
One reason is that of “face”. It is quite clear that in almost all of its public defence of the MDP, the government has adopted the “we are sovereign and we do not kow tow to pressure from others” attitude. Yet, this is not about national sovereignty for that is not in question. No country would stand for external pressure from others. Yet, many countries have abolished or imposed moratoriums on the MDP. Heck, even a draconian state like China has given its judges discretionary powers when it comes to the death penalty.
The issue is about fairness, mercy and humane-ness.
While we may want criminals to be punished and punished severely, we must not forget that the punishment must fit the crime – and the criminal. It is the same reason and principle why we have separate courts for minors – the juvenile courts. If the justice system does not have room for fairness and mercy, then we’re looking for revenge and not justice. We’re looking for vengeance and not punishment. And revenge and vengeance have no place in our laws or in our justice system.
If they do, then we’d be nothing more than beasts.
As for the deterrent argument, it is quite clear that the goverment has nothing to stand on. There are no studies which support such a claim.
And so, we are left with one thing – public opinion. As recently as Jan 2009, Law Minister Shanmugam has cited this as a reason why the government retains the MDP – that Singaporeans support it. But the minister misses the woods altogether. The issue is not the death penalty but the mandatory death penalty and how it is carried out in S’pore.
And there have been NO surveys or studies or research about whether Singaporeans support the mandatory death penalty.
All we have at the moment are assertions – assertions which are not substantiated in any concrete or meaningful way, data or studies.
So, why is the government burying its head in the sand?
My guess is pride – political pride. That we came from nothing, managed ourselves and brought ourselves to “first world” and no one is going to tell us how to run our country. Indeed, Lee Kuan Yew has said this several times.
But pride leads one to a fall, has it not been said?
When the world moves in one direction, we should pay heed and ask why and see if there is something there we could learn. It is fatal to hold on to pride and make up excuses to justify that pride.
Many countries have reversed their positions on the MDP. And all countries have pride. Yet, these countries perhaps placed a higher value on human life than national pride – especially when there are compelling reasons to do so.
And with the MDP in Singapore, there are indeed compelling reasons for us to re-look the legislation.
At the end of the day, are we a society which leaves no room for remorse, repentence and conversion? Are we so filled with pride and “face” that we are unable to have a heart as well?
Yes, Yong Vui Kong smuggled drugs. Yes, he is guilty.
Yet, now that he has been in jail for almost 3 years, he has changed. He now realises his failings. He asks for mercy. He wants to turn his life around.
He has been frightened. Nah, terrified.
He has turned to his god. He has turned to the Buddha. He reads the scriptures. He prays. He counsels his fellow death row friends. He lives and adheres to prison rules.
The guards are amazed. His counselor is amazed. His lawyer is amazed. His sisters and brothers are all amazed at the transformation.
“Being in his presence is like being in the presence of an enlightened being,” one of them says.
Remorse, repentence, conversion. Aren’t these the things we teach our children when they have done serious wrongs?
Is there no value in these?
Is there no room for these?
If the Singapore government is holding on to the MDP because of national pride, then I say I do not want to be a Singaporean.
For that is not me. It should not be us.
For when I see someone being remorseful and repents for what he has done, there must be room in my heart for forgiveness.
And that is how I want my country to be.
Especially when the person in question is a boy.
A boy.
_________________________________________________
Related posts:
- Room for more, but at what cost?
- 4-room flat sold for record $653,000
- M Ravi: Death penalty should not be dispensed ‘in an automated, robotic, spasmodic approach’
- Discretion to the judges – judgment reserved
- Judges reserve judgement in Yong’s mandatory death penalty appeal
Dear Andrew
And in Vongs case we both have physical evidence and testimony . Or are u trying to say errrr Reggie framed Vong in some form of conspiracy ?
Locke
Good Morning all,
What is requires here is a vantage point where we can all see the MDP for what it has to be and not what it should be; many of us are like blind men feeling the proverbial elephant; is it such a wonder that we keep throwing out so many different POV’s?
The MDP as we see it is simply a product of necessity conceived solely for one objective, to combat the international drug trade – we are not stupid people, we will not even attempt to defend the indefensible as the MDP is by every practical definition a crude weapon of terror that can never be successfully squared off with morality and ethics – if some of you feel that you can do the impossible with just a few minutes of tear jerking videos and holding out placards in Hong lim park, go ahead – that is your prerogative.
But I say you are naïve to believe for one moment it is possible to successfully interdict the international drug trade with feel good rhetoric – this cannot be done; we are dealing with a feral enemy that is prepared to use everything at its disposal to get its contraband to our shores – they care two hoots about your rubber duck pie in the sky morality and ethics – when confronted against such an enemy that knows no moral bounds – there is can be no Geneva Conventions; no Marquis of Queensbury rules; no audi alteram partem etc – all there is at the end of the day is the reality that every civilization at some point when faced with such an enemy finds itself necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values? And a natural by product of this reasoning is the MDP – The rest is mere commentary.
If I came down hard on some of you; I do apologize.
Do have a great weekend.
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the Brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)
Hello, all fellow human beings,
Ahh. Going into the nitty gritty, the nuts and bolts of the MDP. Here we are, discoursing about morality, ethics, legality, etc. All caught up – when only one question is important. And so, I ask you:
Does a 19-year old boy deserve a second chance?
If you say “No”, then so be it.
If you say “Yes”, so be it also.
For in the end, that is the only question which we should be asking.
Everything else is noise.
SD has the same strong Utilitarian stand as our own big daddy (PAP), that is to say “ends justify the means.” Victory against the Drugs justifies a strong stand and in turn justifies the MDP. He would be right if deterrance is all there is to punishment.
Let’s look at the 4 components of punishment
1)retribution
2)compensation
3)reform
4)deterrance
Since 1) and 2) involves actual victims and this case only involves potential victims, they are irrelevant here. That leaves 3) and 4).
If victory (in a war against crime) is the only desired outcome, then only 4) is relevant.
Why not have a mandatory 10 year sentence (for instance) for all drink drivers exceeding a certain alcohol limit? That would certainly reduce the number of offenses and win the war against drink driving, so to speak. After all, drink driving can (and has often) result in potential deaths just like drug trafficking and everyone knows that alcohol and impair decision making even if some are too arrogant to admit it. That is because drink drivers have the capacity to reform and destroying their careers on the basis of an irresponsible act is too severe a punishment.
One can even push the argument further by stating that drink driving can potentially harm innocent victims while drug users are partly responsible for their own demise. Hitting someone who is obeying traffic rules is different from hitting someone who is jaywalking because in the latter case, the jaywalker is partially to blame.
So to categorically state that the MDP is imperative simply because “the enemy that is prepared to use everything at its disposal” appears to completely eliminate any human factor (such as the capacity of the drug trafficker to reform, his intentions and personal responsibility of drug users) from the equation. This also underestimates the other alternatives the govt has in order to take to fight this war effectively, such as educating our youths on drug abuse, improved drug detection at customs as well as collaborating with other countries to fight this war on a global level . The MDP for drug trafficking is overly harsh, overly simplistic, lazy and archaic and no longer befits a country like Singapore that is on the verge of achieving 1st world standard.
(changes made in bold)
Why not have a mandatory 10 year sentence (for instance) for all drink drivers exceeding a certain alcohol limit? That would certainly reduce the number of offenses and win the war against drink driving, so to speak. After all, drink driving can (and has often) result in potential deaths just like drug trafficking and everyone knows that alcohol can impair decision making even if some drinkers are too arrogant to admit it. But hardly anyone can agree with that. Why? That is because drink drivers have the capacity to reform and destroying their careers on the basis of an irresponsible act is too severe a punishment.
@ kixes (i)
i’m glad the comment is taken constructively. :)
About the presumption of guilt, versus the presumption of innocence- it all boils down to who should bear the burden of proof.
In the case of drug trafficking, one should remember this is in the context of already being caught with excessive amounts of drugs. Given that the plaintiff is already caught with excessive amounts of drugs on him, shouldn’t he be the one explaining why he has all the drugs on him? After all, he is being caught in the act of wrongdoing.
Of course, there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he has all that drugs on him. But he should be the one to explain it. Here, the role of the courts is to decide if it is a good explanation for having all that drugs on him.
What most people forget is these people are usually caught with excessive amounts of drugs on them. If you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar, obviously you have to explain yourself.
@ kixes (ii)
I have read the Tochi case before and I can see the main crux of your objection- which is more on the burden of proof. But in Yong’s case, guilt isn’t in question. The issue is more of how much compassion he deserves.
While both are death penalty drug cases, they are about different issues. In terms of advocacy, it might make sense to bring up Yong’s case since it is the most current one. But it does not illustrates with the legal controversies. It only illustrates that our system is non-compassionate. I think you probably know the difference since you chose to use Tochi’s case to support your point rather than Yong’s case.
The main message behind Yong’s case so far has been:
“He is guilty, but let’s be compassionate.”
Again, compassion is a subjective area.
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion on it.
I agree that it is good that we have a platform to discuss the issue.
But I think you will agree that it has moved beyond mere discussion to actively advocating its own favored position (in this case, its own standard of compassion).
@ Andrew
About judges’ discretion- yes, you are right. The big question is why should judges have lesser discretion in drug trafficking.
I think it’s pretty arbitrary- lawmaking falls under the legislature so they are the ones who set the punishment and the amount of discretion given to judges. In the case of drug trafficking, they made the decision to go extremely harsh by exacting the highest penalty and giving the least discretion.
While I may not agree with every decision they make, I do recognize they have a right to make those decisions. I guess that is the good thing of leaving lawmaking with legislature is that it makes it responsive to public opinion. If enough people are against it, they will change it. This leads to the big question- are there enough people against it?
I don’t know much about yong’s accomplice and what is he being charged for. There is practically nothing written about him to make any meaningful comparison. But I’m not sure using him as a comparison is a good idea- you might end up getting him hanged as well for the sake of fairness.
Abt TOC- Point taken. It is your blog and obviously you can take any position you wish. What I am saying is not everyone shares the same point of view. While having a healthy discussion of different views is fine, after a certain point, there is a difference between that and a constant barrage of the same message.
Of course, this is the Internet and everyone is free to vote with their feet. But as I have said before, I like TOC enough to give honest feedback.
@RW, I think there’s a difference between overtly advocating for a viewpoint (à la TOC) and covertly pushing a viewpoint on the pretext of objectivity (as the MSM is often accused of doing). At least TOC’s advocacy is transparent, so that one is free to accept or reject a viewpoint as just that — a viewpoint.
@Singaporedaddy, I’ve to disagree again. The government’s official rationale for the MDP is all-important because that’s the justification which counts in a democracy. If it were indeed true that the MDP were a tool in the ‘war against drugs’ used in derogation of constitutional liberties, then the government should make it plain, so that it remains accountable to the public. Indeed, this is how the U.S. / Israeli governments have conducted themselves in their respective campaigns against terror; both in domestic politics and at the UN, they have publicly classified terror suspects as “unlawful combatants” who are outside the basic safeguards of international humanitarian law (which would prohibit, e.g., extrajudicial killings without due process). If the Singapore government were to take the same line, then it must be prepared to argue (to the public and the international community) that drug traffickers are not entitled to benefit from constitutional / human rights protection. This has not, however, been the government’s argument, as you will note from the Yong Vui Kong, Nguyen Tuong Van and similar cases. Compare that to our Internal Security Act, which is justified as an explicit derogation from constitutional liberties in defence of Singapore’s security interests (cf. Art. 149 of the Constitution).
Lastly, the nature of the ‘enemy’ in the war against terror and the war against drugs differs in one important aspect. Palestinian terrorists, for example, aim deliberately and directly at the destruction of the Israeli state; their tactics of organized violence jeopardize the very foundations of peaceful society. Drug traffickers, however, are mainly concerned about expanding their consumer base; any attack on social stability here is only incidental. They therefore cannot be equated with terrorists or insurgents in terms of ideological objectives. Moreover, while the mass availability of drugs will have serious negative effects on Singapore’s productivity and prosperity, it hardly threatens our very survival as a nation — quite unlike terrorism.
how other countries achieve low drug abuse rate
1. legalizing of drugs
2. poor social control
If you’ve been to europe, you might vomit at how long they take to respond to an emergency call.
RW,
I understand your views and I appreciate them..;)
I also hope you understand that our coverage on the MDP is a campaign – and we have not shied away from saying so. And, as you would know, the nature of campaigns is to “fight” for our views to be taken. Thus, the extended coverage of the MDP which, by the way, has many aspects to it which is another reason for the extended coverage.
locke,
First, saying that the US has mandatory sentencing is different from saying that the US has mandatory sentencing which leads to the death sentence. Also, saying the US has mandatory sentencing is different from saying the US has mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking (which it has not, correct me if I am wrong.)
You have hit the nail on the head itself:
“There is mandatory sentencing in the US, note three strikes and you are out though just not death.”
So, you are actually comparing apples with oranges. Further, I am not sure if the US’ mandatory sentences process is the same as in S’pore. (This goes to the heart of our campaign – the flaws in it.)
Second, the US’ mandatory sentencing does not involve death. This is the all-important point and which makes all the difference – it is reversible. Death sentences, as in S’pore, are however irreversible.
Third, you said:
“In the US the testimony of a fellow criminal can also be used as proof , though they in the US have sought to tighten the process to ensure physical evidence and testimony goes hand in hand.”
Is that the case in S’pore? As far as I understand the MDA, the testimony of a fellow accused alone is enough for conviction or as proof of guilt.
We seem to be going round in circles here and I would like to bring it all back to one thing:
You say you support the removal of the “mandatory” part of the death sentence.
My question is: Why do you say that? What are your reasons?
nice observation by Andrew. well done.
it reminds me of people saying FTs are needed so they come in.
Its the Extent.
I fear many may not see this point clearly.
Andrew
We seem to be getting further and further away from the issue at hand. Firstly the MDA, where in the world does the MDA state specifically that the “testimony of a fellow accused is enough for conviction ” I append the entire MDA below because I can’t find it ?
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-185&doctitle=MISUSE+OF+DRUGS+ACT&date=latest&method=part/
Hi La Nausee,
“The government’s official rationale for the MDP is all-important because that’s the justification which counts in a democracy.”
Look here. If you want to premise an argument to annul the MDP based on “official rationale,” then we might as well pack our bags and continue this discussion with Alice in wonderland – you are not going to get very far.
Because predicating a case on “official rationale,” is like using your washing machine as a cement mixer – you are using the wrong equipment to a job; it may work for a while, but it lacks durability and resilience – so you will have a hard time seeing the case to its logical end.
If “official rationale,” as you mentioned is the gold standard of justifying a case or for that matter any case in a democracy – then can you please explain to me: how is it possible for a diplomat to plough down a pedestrian into roti prata and seriously injure two others, lie through his teeth and still manage to be tried in Romania! – it’s nonsense!
The way I see it; the only out of this hubris is to recognize the limits of morality and ethics when it comes to the MDP and to reclassify it as an extrajudicial assassination – this is to say the act of taking a human life is sanctioned as a matter of state policy as a part of an ongoing war against the drug trade – if we do this, I have no doubt it would pose a very interesting legal, diplomatic, political and moral dilemma – we may even be labeled a pariah state – but at least we would all be able to put this matter to rest as not only will our position be clear as day to the world, drug lords and their human mules; we would also have accomplished something that is rarely done in Singapore: calling a spade a spade.
SD
Andrew
Finally you seem set on the view that firstly it is wrong to cut deals or secondly it is wrong to cut deals in exchange for snitches and testimony. In Vongs case we have both testimony and physical evidence so what exactly is the problem here ?
Thanks
Locke
“The government’s official rationale for the MDP is all-important because that’s the justification which counts in a democracy.”
Appeal to authority. Anyone for chewing gum.
locke,
The Misuse of Drugs Act is specifically for drugs-related offences. (I apologise for the mistake in saying it is the MDA which makes that provision.) However, there are other Acts which relates to legal procedures and practices. One of these is the Evidence Act. Here is what Workers’ Party chairman, Sylvia Lim, wrote in 2004, in her article in The Hammer on the death penalty:
“Clearly, an accused person’s statement confessing to a crime is extremely incriminating, and, under our law, a confession alone without any other evidence is a good basis to convict someone. In fact, under our Evidence Act as interpreted by case law, a statement by a co-accused person which incriminates an accused may also alone be the basis of a conviction.”
Sylvia goes further:
“This goes against the position in other jurisdictions which have consistently warned themselves against relying on accomplice’s statements; after all, if one is in a sinking ship, it is human instinct to drag others down as well.”
And she also says:
“While I do believe our criminal justice system has commendable aspects, an examination of its operation will show that, in our overwhelming desire to be tough on crime, our system has evolved into one where fairness to the accused person has taken significant knocks. It is my personal belief that wrongful convictions are entirely possible.”
locke,
“Finally you seem set on the view that firstly it is wrong to cut deals or secondly it is wrong to cut deals in exchange for snitches and testimony. In Vongs case we have both testimony and physical evidence so what exactly is the problem here ?”
Again, why are you harping on Vui Kong’s guilt? I have repeatedly told you that there is no question of this. Vui Kong is guilty. I have said so several times.
What is your problem?
Now, here’s my thing: It (cutting deals) seems inconsistent with the “mandatory” part of the MDP. Indeed, it makes a joke of it – that while we trumpet the “deterrence” argument and thus makes the DP mandatory, at the same time we do not flinch from making deals with those whom we say deserves the death penalty – and a mandatory one at that!
Don’t you see the hypocrisy?
@Another Singaporean — wrong. I didn’t say the government’s official rationale is correct; I said that it is more significant than any single citizen’s viewpoint, because that official rationale (as advanced by a democratically-elected government) purports to represent society as a whole. And in any case, the whole point of democracy is that it is an “appeal to authority” — specifically, the law-making authority of a majority of free, equal citizens, or their representatives in Parliament.
@Singaporedaddy, I agree with you; if the government did believe the MDP was a form of extrajudicial killing against drug traffickers hellbent on destroying Singapore, then it should state this openly for the benefit of public scrutiny/debate. (I have my doubts whether the public would be comfortable in saying that drug traffickers should be denied even basic protections like the presumption of innocence and the right to life.) Transparency in law/policy-making is still a minimum procedural condition even if we refuse to follow prevailing human rights practices as a matter of substance.
@lockeliberal, the point Andrew was referring to on the confession of a co-accused being sufficient for one’s conviction is not a point specific to drugs offences and the MDP, but applies to the criminal law more generally: see s. 30 of the Evidence Act, and the case of Lee Chez Kee (which was a murder case involving three accomplices). But anyway, I think the issue is not whether Yong was guilty, but what level of proof we should demand of the prosecution in drug trafficking cases generally, given that the MDP is in play.
And locke, you did not answer my question:
You say you support the removal of the “mandatory” part of the death sentence.
My question is: Why do you say that? What are your reasons?
Locke,
Let me put it simply (talking about making deals): Lets imagine this scenario (which is not all impossible or improbable):
1. The death sentence is MANDATORY for trafficking
2. Reggie Gwee was caught with Vui Kong
3. Prosecutor pressures Reggie to finger Vui Kong
4. Reggie cuts deal with prosecutor – “I finger him, you take away death sentence or capital charge”
4. Vui Kong is charged with capital offence and is convicted and sentenced to death for trafficking above the statutory limit
5. Reggie is charged with non-capital crime
6. Reggie gets away with 22 years jail term
Now, a deal with the prosecutor would imply that Reggie would have been charged with capital offence otherwise, right? My question is:
What then does “mandatory” mean?
What then does “deterrence” mean?
As you said, we already had testimony and evidence of Vui Kong’s guilt. So, why make the deal with Reggie?
Unless of course the law gives weight to such testimony from a co-accused – which it does.
I hope you understand what I am getting at.
The “deterrence” argument is made a joke of if the authorities makes deals with those who traffick in drugs above the prescribed limits. If this is how arbitrary the “mandatory” death penalty is practised, then perhaps we should re-look it seriously. At the moment, it is more like “tikam tikam” – and the prosecutor (not the courts or the judges) holds your life in his hands.
@Singaporedaddy, I agree with you; if the government did believe the MDP was a form of extrajudicial killing against drug traffickers hellbent on destroying Singapore, then it should state this openly for the benefit of public scrutiny/debate.
OK. At least we have reached some form of understanding on what I consider to be a very complex subject. As always the privilege is mine; if I came across as tough; do forgive – I want you to understand this La Naussee. I enjoyed our tete de tete immensely and you did bring up some thought provoking issues that I really found hard to warp my head around. Thank you.
The Brotherhood will be convening a meeting with the Confederation of Guilds comprising of all the underground gamers in Munich – We shall all be away for a while.
SD (Internet Liaison Officer of the Brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)
Dear Andrew
Ok glad we cleared up the misconception about it being in the MDA. Firstly the Evidence Act and the provisions within cover everything from murder to drugs to etc etc etc etc, secondly within the cases specific to drug trafficking, I have yet to read about a conviction based on soley”fingering” without corrobarrating eveidence.
Even in the US where cases of proven injustice was done because of confessions without secondary evidence they proved the injustice first before the reform occurred.
Locke
Dear Andrew
I am afraid that the deal was struck so that his testimony and the physical evidence would seal an air tight capital punishment case. True Vong has to prove that he did not have knowledge, but then again if as a prosecutor you can present overwhelming evidence to secure a death conviction why would you not cut a deal ? Secondly if the case was built around Reggie;s testimony ALONE without any other evidence, YOU would be the first to scream about how Vong was innocent , miscarriage of justice etc and not only poor Vong who deserves compassion and a chance at reform.
Andrew as an anti death penalty proponent you would never believe in the deterrence argument to begin with. Suffice it to say cutting deals is part of the process of securing convictions in NON capital cases as well as capital cases in the US.
Deterrence well some would say that an accomplice versus the actual evil doer etc if the actual evil doer is caught based on snitch testimony from the accomplice then deterrence has been accomplished by ensuring that overall the CRIME is punnished.
Locke
“And in any case, the whole point of democracy is that it is an “appeal to authority” — specifically, the law-making authority of a majority of free, equal citizens, or their representatives in Parliament.”
Only if what you have mentioned is true in true spirit and practice. Any one for cooling off period. Is there any mechanism(s) to ensure the action taken by the law-making authority constantly reflects the viewpoint of the majority of free & equal citizens. Surely, the representatives cannot be omni-privy to the aspiration and wishes of all the people at any one point of time and space even though they may have been voted in by them.
Talking about equality, you need to constantly earn it by fighting and lobbying for it. It is in human nature, why would you give away some advantage if you can have it easy. Our authorities are not so special as you would want us to believe.
” I said that it is more significant than any single citizen’s viewpoint,”
It is the rule of the games however the good process could be hijacked. Crisis has shown that a minority influential & powerful few could destroy much bigger institutions affecting the majority. Rule of the games generally apply but as some poster has mentioned, a spade is still a spade and we must be willing to say so.
Once a line is drawn, you are standing either on the right or the left of it. A single citizens’ (could also be 100 or even 10,000 people) viewpoint have to fall under the same fate, either the left or right of it. By calling a spade a spade, don’t you think these collective viewpoints are precisely working for the line to be redrawn.
Some believe the meet-the-people sessions, some believe in writing in, some believe in NGOs and some believe in street protests to affect changes. Rhetorically, which is more effective and why it is so ? Or why it is not so ?
locke,
” I have yet to read about a conviction based on soley”fingering” without corrobarrating eveidence.”
That is not the point, is it? The point is that such “fingering” is given weight to. If not, why would Reggie Gwee receive 22 years and not death? Such weightage makes it possible for drug traffickers to strike deals with the prosecutor which, again, makes a mockery of the mandatory death penalty.
locke,
On your second posting, my stance against the mandatory death penalty is based on many factors – mostly flaws in the law and the legal system.
It is not based on being anti-death for the sake of it.
And to be clear, I am against the MANDATORY death penalty.
I am not, at this moment, against the death penalty per se.
So, please do not put words into my mouth or make my beliefs out of thin air.
And locke,
For the third time, I ask you:
You say you support the removal of the “mandatory” part of the death sentence.
My question is: Why do you say that? What are your reasons?
“Deterrence well some would say that an accomplice versus the actual evil doer etc if the actual evil doer is caught based on snitch testimony from the accomplice then deterrence has been accomplished by ensuring that overall the CRIME is punnished.”
Reggie Gwee was not just an accomplice. He was a trafficker as well.
That was why he was charged for trafficking.
Please be clear.
1. A hardcore brother-in-law that cheats,steal,lie,and if need be kill to get his fix
2.Three cousins from age 16 to current. DHC is their 2nd home
3. A friend that crash his car while under the influence of heroin & alcohol at age 35
All these I see and witness personally.MDA-DA, sent them to a remote island and rot or jail them and throw away the key whatever.Just remove these scums and their kind may it be Lords,traffickers,mules or whatever.
The heartache and misery for the families of children under this CURSE is beyond writing and debating.
Dear Andrew
You can’t have ur cake and eat it. Of course fingering is given weight here in the US in the UK, How much weight and whether there is other evidence to support it or it is the sole source of evidence and for what specific crime is the issue at hand. You can’t just apply it blindly and generally without looking into the specifics as to how it has affected the MDP and MDP cases in particular.
As I stated if Reggie did not do any fingering, or if for that matter there was only physical evidence and Vong did another Tochi, you and TOC would probably be screaming his innocence from the rafters, as it is because of both Physical Evidence and Reggie all you can scream is compassion reform and remorse.
I am against the M in the MDP because I believe in giving judges the discretion and the chance defense and prosecution to argue their respective cases for sentencing. Of course to the extent that I believe in this I also believe that it does not apply to Vong who I view as a repeated offender who was caught only after how many trips etc and who is now pleading mercy after the fact.
Locke
I really enjoyed the exchange between Le Nausee and SD. Sparks and fire is what I like most. The harder it burns the better. See you all in Germany.
Andrew
Let me lay out for clear scenarios and you and the readers can decide accordingly, all with deals and snitch with supporting other physical evidence
a. Non capital punishment, deal is made to secure a snitch and a conviction whom the prosecution defines as a bigger fish for a long jail; term. Does that mean justice is not served ? Does it make “mockery” out of justice, does it make a mockery of the criminal jail sentence
b. Mandatory sentencing three strikes and u are out life imprisonment without parole, deal is made to secure a snitch and a conviction whom the prosecution defines as a bigger fish. Does it mean justice was not served ? Does it make a mockery out of justice out of life imprisonment without parole ?
C. Capital punishment, deal is made to secure a snitch and a conviction whom the prosecution views as more liable, or bears greater guilt, Does that mean justice is not served, does it make mockery out of the DP
d. MDP, deal is made to secure a snitch etc etc same as A B C …..Does it mean justice is not served does it make a mockery out of the MDP ?
I guess in some form to me doing a deal is part of justice. The law will forever be imperfect with flaws and will always be a process of improvement, ethics, procedures. The fact that deals are cut made etc because of human nature and its interaction with an absolute law will be something I can accept from A to D but which you cannot seem to accept.
Locke
locke,
I think I will reply to your latest post after you have replied to my question – which I am asking for the fourth time:
You say you support the removal of the “mandatory” part of the death sentence.
My question is: Why do you say that? What are your reasons?
locke,
For now, my take is very simple, regarding the issue of making deals.
If you wanna make deals with drug traffickers, then don’t make the death sentence mandatory.
Whatever deals to be made between lawyers,judges in chambers or at coffeshop,just get rid of these SCUMS.
Our home and Nation is in dire strait and need solutions,lets debate on that.The poor and less fortunate needs help,the middle class are stagnant and being overwhelm by FTs.HDB homes are beyond a newly wed couples reach.We have ministers with million dollar salaries that look and speak like Idiots on TV
How about THAT!!!!!
Andrew repeated as you might have missed
am against the M in the MDP because I believe in giving judges the discretion and the chance defense and prosecution to argue their respective cases for sentencing. Of course to the extent that I believe in this I also believe that it does not apply to Vong who I view as a repeated offender who was caught only after how many trips etc and who is now pleading mercy after the fact.
Locke
The MDP is too rigid. We are all in Munchen. Where are you people?
locke,
“…and who is now pleading mercy after the fact.’
You make it seem as though someone can plead for mercy before the fact. Kind of odd. Pleading for mercy is, by its nature, comes after the fact. So, nothing wrong in that. Further, in pleading for mercy, is there not a chance that he has repented? That he feels genuine remorse?
Frankly, I am quite sadden by your stance.
Here is a boy of 19 when he was caught. Having been in jail for some time, he has had time to think about it and has been terrified – but more importantly, by all accounts, have changed.
Yet, here we are – with all the flaws in the system (which anyone can see – including the president of the Law Society, lawyers who have fought capital cases such as Subhas Anandan, Law professors like Michael Hor, lawyers like Sylvia Lim, the international community, etc etc) – here we are still saying he should die.
I think yes age should be taken into consideration. Indeed, at the original trial, the trial judge had misgivings about charging Vui Kong with a capital charge and asked the prosecution if he would reduce the charge to a non-capital one.
What does that tell you?
And here you are calling for his death even when former Chief Justice has said, in court, that yes an innocent man can be hanged because of procedures.
Locke, perhaps you should know more about the mandatory death penalty.
I do not apologise for my feelings about it. Call me a bleeding heart, if you want, it doesn’t matter to me. But beyond being a bleeding heart, the concerns are not mine alone. They are echoed by professionals and academics who have experienced and studied the law on the MDP – both locally and internationally.
I will end this discussion here. For I do not feel and I do not intend to try and persuade you.
Just know that we only know truly how it feels when we face the same consequences ourselves. And when we do and we have, remember how terrified we were – and also remember that we may not have faced the death penalty.
Take some time to think.
Andrew,
like it was mentioned, would you had agree
Now there was a “discretionary” part . The discretion is by the convicted’s drugs that had carried. If he had com
The “mandatory” portion kicked into effect when he carried 15g or more. Now 15g may not be alot, but it can translate to several kilograms of street drugs. An overdose require just 100mg. Hospitals administer morphine by mcgs. Perhaps it was deemed that 15g was a “way of no return”, that the amount is far too great for mitigating factors to kick in.
la nausee – TOC is far from being objective. :) Why ban all the comments that they don’t want to here? I’m a victim of TOC’s censorship without reason.
Dear Andrew
How deep or problematic are the flaws and how do they APPLY to the specific case at hand ? You can’t scream flaws in one sentence, and Vong’s repentence remorse and the need for compassion in the next. The problem I find here is that the TOC seems perfectly happy to move away from perfectly good legal reasoning to remove the M from the DP but choses instead to write sob stories and make Vong a pretty poster “innocent” boy for removal of the mandatory DP. Remorse Compassion how Vong is now the living Buddha in Changi bears no resemblance thank god to the legal case presented by his lawyers on his behalf.
You admit directly that Vong is guilty yet find flaws in the way that he was found guilty by referring to “generalities” without addressing the specifics of the case, and when you do refer to specifics it is to construct possible scenarios which YOU find unfair but have no legal bearing on the case at hand.
The law is the law, 18 is 18, If he was over the age for 18 by one day he still should have been hung. In so much as age was an issue and the judge was concerned about his youth , if youth had a been a factor and allowed to have been a factor then international precedents would have been cited with regards to youth and in this the US Supreme Court has made 18 the legal cut of age for capital crime punishment. Something that would have been argued to death in sentencing and post appeal but we do not have precedents as cited in the US.
Locke
The Singapore government is gettin’ away with murder. Someone ought to put the brakes on their tyrannic ways. There the gov goes again, lying through their teeth about our views. “Singaporeans are proud to serve their country.” “Singaporean’s support the death penalty.” Oh yeah? why not give us a fair survey & see how we really think?
It’s also disturbing that in Singapore, suspects are presumed guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite from what’s right.
Death penalty should only be used if the criminal is way too dangerous to be left alive. In other words, in extreme situations. For example, if there’s a super mass murderer who could break outta jails whenever he’s arrested & continue murdering. That’s someone you could justify slaying to protect other people.
It’s hard to disassociate a country with its government. If clothes make a person, government makes a country. & right now, Singapore is stinky thanks to its government. It’s a disgrace to be a Singaporean thanks to the antics of the government.
Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion?
of course not. we practise asian values. i dont know wtf asian values is exactly but after so many years of living in an asian valued society, i think it means no human rights and strict societal control plus caning your buttocks for minor crimes like overstay your work visa.