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.
_________________________________________________
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
locke,
“Michael’s inability to get certain information does not mean that the information specific to a case is not available.”
I think that’s facetious. You are ignoring what he is saying – and he is the president of the Law Society. Are you saying that he is ignorant? That what he says is not true? In short, are you agreeing with Law Minister Shanmugam?
Dear Andrew.
His reporting was to detailed to have been drawn solely from the press. I am not ignoring what Micheal is saying but rather declaring that the two issues are distinct and seperate and that you can have the detailed information necessary to construct a legal case for innocence or non innocence.
Locke
locke,
Please read Tochi’s case again. If you still feel that way after reading it, so be it.
I won’t argue with you anymore.
While everyone here seems to be preoccupied with compassion, mercy etc. No a single person here has highlighted the corrosive effects of drugs and how it may even be the solvent that can destroy our society.
Neither has anyone highlighted how the supply of drugs have been successfully curbed by the MDP to the extent Singapore is very different from let’s say New York, Sydney or even London, where drugs are not only freely avaliable, but they are also cheap. So let us all not kid ourselves for one moment, the MDP is a moribund horse drawn buggy that isn’t effective.
Granted it’s crude and even repulsive; might even be just two rungs higher than the Spanish Inquisition; but my point is as a deterrent it is EFFECTIVE in sending out the message loud and clear to drug lords and dumb mules - do not mess around with us, we mean business and if you test us you will die!
Unfortunately the West do not have the stomach to make those calculations? That is why they like to criticise us for having the MDP – but when it comes to the question of why their streets are filled with cheap and widely avaliable drugs, it seems they dont seem inclined to explain or suggest a solution - Could it be because the law makers there are so open minded (that I suspect their brains are spilling out) they dont seem to realize the good of the many will always outweight the needs of a few?
I for one have absolutely no illusions on this matter and do not believe for one moment a drug free environment can be had on the cheap.
SD
I had much in an earlier post a year ago, argue in TOC for death penatly per se and also advocated its use in drug trafficking offences.
I still maintain my position. The issue now is mandatory DP (regardless of anykind of situations) or DP (depending on the merits of each case).
Chang the story of Vong to one in which the drug trafficker is a rich and powerful gangster (who owns 5 rich properties, drive luxiourious cars, have a history of other criminal offences such as extortion, prostitution, corruption, have 4 mistresses, run nightclubs, possibly sporting tatooes all over his body) and the sympathy for the drug trafficker will disappear.
Half the people who were sympathetic to Vong would probably cry “YEah, hang the bugger”..
Funny how those cities mentioned are not doing worse than us.
It is very easy to take cold comfort in the belief; I am right because of A, B and C reason. And yet disregard the practical necessity of what it takes to wage war – yes, I call it war, bc that is precisely what the war on drugs is, it is war against an enemy that will not hesitate to resort to any means to accomplish their mission even resorting to the ignorant and young.
Against this back drop, its naive to assume – that you can for one moment discuss the merits of dismantling the MDP without correspondingly discussing what its wider rammifications may be on the drug trade.
As for international condemnation – I say, its like chasing a rainbow – do you really believe when Mossad hands a sealed executive order to the Temasad, the execution arm of the state of Israel; they even give two hoots about what the UN has to say? No, they dont, because at some point every society needs to confront the realities of what it means to wage war against an enemy that is prepared to do anything and everything to destroy her.
The war on drugs is not so different. War makes us all animals. There is no such thing as civilized war – it doesnt exist.
SD
Dear Devil
Just walk the streets, read the newspapers, Live as a student in any of these cities and then decide whether drugs and crime are inter connected. Is the MDP or for that matter the DP worth the price for a safer street ? Thats a decision for everyone to decide.
I for one would not mine taking the M out of the DP but the DP must in my view stay.
Locke
@ lockeliberal
Agreed, DP must stay. The due process of law, judging and sentencing will decide whether death penalty is deserved or not. Where it is deserved, may i suggest the slow death of gas chamber or lethal injection or castration ……. lol !
@lockeliberal,
“Just walk the streets, read the newspapers, Live as a student in any of these cities and then decide whether drugs and crime are inter connected.”
I could say the same thing about gambling, alcohol, smoking (organised crime make money from smuggling cigarettes). Somehow people forget the more compelling roles played by social deprivation and poverty.
The idea that drugs are inherently dangerous and more of a social threat than other vices like gambling and prostitution is a myth perpetuated by the media and governments. That there must be a war on drugs is another myth that builds on from that. The war on drugs fuels crime – just as Prohibition did – but no one is willing to admit it.
Banning drugs makes it profitable – it props up the black market. It makes it a lucrative business for criminal organisations, the economics of the black market and price inelasticity of the product keeps street prices up and drive addicts into debt (just as gambling does, but no one talks about hanging illegal gambling den owners).
As for those who may claim that drugs are inherently ‘evil’ because they kill – that is not true. Drugs in themselves rarely kill people, despite what the myth might claim. Impurities in the product – another problem arising due to underhand profiteering means employed by dealers – does kill, however. Diseases contracted from poor hygiene practices – AIDS, hepatitis, etc – does kill. Crime fuelled by habit and debt – debt driven up by the black market – does kill.
When drugs do “kill” or destroy lives, they do in the way that gambling, alcoholism or prostitution does – crime driven by debt due to prohibition, crime driven by profitability due to prohibition, diseases. But without any clear principled justification, people want to hang drug mules (not even drug lords), but not pimps, bootleg liquor salesmen, gambling den owners, loansharks, triad soldiers, etc.
Do read this collection of articles on the issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/davies/0,,962250,00.html
Let the punishment fit the crime
I support the DP as well. There are alot more youngster out there running drugs due to ignorance and circumstances. If Yong was a 32 year old adult when he was caught, and he gave the same reasons, he’d receive much less sympathy as well.
But IMO, due to his age, and for the sake of being humane, I say instead of the DP, give him something less painful. Some other stuffs like Joe suggested. I would personally prefer life sentencing instead, since he’s a young un, but nothing lesser, because it’s a message to the world, we don’t take kindly to drugs.
Let us catch any one dealing in drugs, and we’ll make sure your life stays ruined forever, or half of that, or three quarter of your lifespan. I’m a sadist, and I’m fine as long as their lives stay ruined, it’s the price you pay for the possibility of ruining the life of others.
@ lockeliberal
I was responding to Singaporedaddy. He was saying that MDP is successful in curbing drug abuse. But that’s just his claim. Hence, I similarly stated a claim out of thin air. Anyway what does anything have to do with whether drugs or crime is interconnected?
Like you, I am not anti-DP (for now — I am still contemplating if killing somebody is the best punishment for this kind of act). I am more concerned on who gets to decide the punishment. I also think it is not right to kill some innocent people so that all the guilty can be punished. To me, flexibility in letting the judges decide on DP will minimise the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Especially in those borderline cases.
Myths die hard
Mar 19, 2010 14:56
The idea that drugs are inherently dangerous and more of a social threat than other vices like gambling and prostitution is a myth perpetuated by the media and governments.
If I forced you to go gambling, or visit a prostitute, what are the chances that you will become addicted? Compare that to the chances of you getting addicted if I forcefully inject a dose of heroine into your blood. Now consider again, if drugs are more dangerous than the other vices you’ve brought up as comparison.
Addiction is addiction. Try telling people whose lives are destroyed by gambling or prostitution that their lives aren’t worth as much as those destroyed by drugs.
The state sanctions gambling and prostitution – it guarantees its place in society, it is compliant in its retention, it helps propagate addiction. Ease of entering addiction depends on types of drugs as well – it is not flat across the board.
I say hang the drug lords in the most painful and cruel way. For the runner (aged 18 and below), give them jail sentences. For the drug addicts, sentence them to 2 years of listening to the Singapore national athemn sung to them incessantly for 8 hours every day by William Hung.
Then justice would have been purposefuly served. Agreed ?
“As for international condemnation – I say, its like chasing a rainbow – do you really believe when Mossad hands a sealed executive order to the Temasad, the execution arm of the state of Israel; they even give two hoots about what the UN has to say? No, they dont, because at some point every society needs to confront the realities of what it means to wage war against an enemy that is prepared to do anything and everything to destroy her.”
Since you consider morality and ethics dispensable. What then is the point of talking about justice. If what you say is so clinical to be true. Then why even have judges? Why not just out source the whole judicial process to a computer? The reason why we dont do that is because the human is the most flexible link in the chain.
Another thing. You speak as if you support what the Israelites did in Dubai recently. Your tone even suggest you condone such a course of action.
Very disappointed
The objective of MDP is to deter the rest from committing the same crime thus Yong Vui Kong is the victim of the process. Singapore can continue to hang thousand of drug runner like Yong Vui Kong but the drug lords will always able to find thousand of runners to replace. Without getting rid of drug plantation and the drug lord, our MDP on drug trafficking won’t be effective.
Dear Devil
For me personally as I stated to Andrew removing M out of the DP and improving the process is something I can buy into. The issue for me at hand is I find age and youth not an excuse for Vong in any form. The legal age in the US is 18 as well where one can be liable for a capital crime, the fact that he was 18 plus three months or three days does not matter and in that I like the precision of the law and justice. Thus if the M is out of the DP and Vong gets of scot free then he leaves on a technicality.
Part of the reason I suspected that the DPP did not take his youth into account was testimony which had not been refuted that when he was caught at over 18 years it was not his first trip into SG with drugs but rather his fourth as a mule.
Locke
Dear Face
Great lets start a war, bomb burma, how about Afghanistan, lets invade and end the drugs evil once and for all ! Errr oops sorry the US is already in Afghanistan and turning a blind eye to the opium there ? darnnnnnnn.
Locke
Myths die hard
Mar 19, 2010 15:49
Addiction is addiction. Try telling people whose lives are destroyed by gambling or prostitution that their lives aren’t worth as much as those destroyed by drugs.
Addiction is a form of obsession. And people can be obsess with nearly anything. Obsess enough, and lives will be destroyed. Does it matter if I am into Hello Kitty or drugs then? Do you see the difference?
There are simply things that can be healthy in moderate amount…. maybe even prostitution. But not drugs when they are not prescribed. They are inherently (more) dangerous. I do not think that to be a myth as you have put forth.
@Locke,
I think you’re confused. Taking the M out of the DP doesn’t mean Yong will get off scot free. It merely means judges will have the right to weigh all the evidence and consider his personal circumstances before meting out punishment that fits the crime and the criminal. It could be a lengthy jail term, or life in prison, or death. The point is, judges shouldn’t only have one option open to them.
FaceTheFact
Mar 19, 2010 16:25
Without getting rid of drug plantation and the drug lord, our MDP on drug trafficking won’t be effective.
Not really. It may not be fully effective, but I think it effective nonetheless. It’s not unlike the ‘when the buying stops, the killing stops too’ campaign for endangered animals. When there is no one left to traffick, so what if there are still plantations producing drugs?
Lobo76-
“Compare that to the chances of you getting addicted if I forcefully inject a dose of heroine into your blood.”
How do you fit a heroine into a syringe?
Dear lockeliberal,
I am kind of divided on what Vong deserves. This emphasizes to me how difficult it is to decide on punishment. Especially one that should benefit society as a whole.
More importantly, you seem to imply that the prosecutor has more control over the punishment for drug traffickers. Do you think this should be the case? Or should we leave it to the judges to mete out the right punishment? Who will be the more neutral and trained one to decide on such issues?
Dear Lynn
Some legal eagle better check my reasoning here. but I thought that in appealing to ruling the punishment illegal etc he overturns the conviction as well ?
Locke
Singaporedaddy says if we don’t abolish the mda then we will all be taking heroin. Well I got news for u Mr big shot liason officer. Firstly what has morality and ethics got to do drug avaliability? The mda is the mda. If it is to be a olished there should only be one condition to the decision. Is it civilized or barbaric?
@Locke,
Yong is appealing the sentence, not the conviction.
Note: MDP, not MDA. I don’t like the MDA.
locke,
“Part of the reason I suspected that the DPP did not take his youth into account was testimony which had not been refuted that when he was caught at over 18 years it was not his first trip into SG with drugs but rather his fourth as a mule.’
Some have said it is his sixth. Some others say it is his 10th. Whatever the number – 4, 6, or 10 – it does make you wonder what the police had been doing, doesn’t it? But this is beside the point.
The impt point is where did the number come from? As far as I know, it came from the testimony or statement of Vui Kong’s friend, Reggie Gwee (22 years old) – the one who drove the car into S’pore. Vui Kong was not the driver.
Now, here’s the thing.
The MDA says that the testimony of an accomplice can be used as proof of guilt. This in spite of the obvious flaw here – someone in this position (like his accomplice) or situation may say anything to get himself off jail time or a lengthy sentence.
In the end, Gwee was (quite miraculously) charged with trafficking less than 15g of heroin and was given 22 years jail sentence.
This sounds like a deal was made – as Alex Au asked in this article:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/austin-day-1/
It is thus, in this and in several other cases, that the power of life or death is firmly with the public prosecutor.
This is, among many others, one of the most serious flaws in the system.
Which is why a moratorium is absolutely necessary to sort out all these flaws.
Good Evening,
“Firstly what has morality and ethics got to do drug avaliability?”
The short answer is a hell of alot. Let me put it another way can you broach obesity without discussing the corrosive effects of junk food? How about talking about faulty accelerator pedals without discussing what role microchips play in modern automobiles these days?
So tell me how can you possibly talk about even abolishing the MDP without even once touching on the subject of deterrence, zero tolerance or for that matter the broader rammifications of the drug trade?
I am sorry, but if you limit your discussion to only one blinkered area; then it’s a classic case of garbage in = garbage out.
This is why this essay and every single post here is nothing more than a gross simplification of a very complex problem.
My point is morality and ethics cannot be discussed in isolation; it should be given an exhaustive treatment – if you commit yourself to the former then it’s a no brainer - the MDP is wrong (period) – just like diplomatic assasinations carried out by Mossad – it is wrong (period). Cut and dried. End of discussion.
But if you want a sense of scale and perspective to let’s say any moral or ethical discussion – then I say go and do your homework – in the case of the Mossad killings – go and read about the Intifada, go back further to Yom Kippur and if possible reach out to even the Sixth day war and the period before the state of Isreal was born and even take in Nasser / Sadat et al - and dont be surprise, if you factor all these events into your calculations - even something that appears to be morally and ethically reprehensible such as the MDP can appear to be so sane and sensible that it may even present itself as the only workable option.
But if none of you even bother with the reading and think that you can just shoot from the hip; then dont expect me to agree with your perfidious faced happy rhetoric that sounds great because it just demonstrates your ignorance and laziness. I am very sorry, but that is our take on the MDP.
SD (Internet Liaison Officer of the Brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)
@Singaporedaddy
So tell me how can you possibly talk about even abolishing the MDP without even once touching on the subject of deterrence, zero tolerance or for that matter the broader rammifications of the drug trade?
What makes you think that making the death penalty is the only way to deter?
I am sorry, but if you limit your discussion to only one blinkered area; then it’s a classic case of garbage in = garbage out.
Thus far its you who have had a blinkered view of things with your rose tinted glasses.
This is why this essay and every single post here is nothing more than a gross simplification of a very complex problem.
I agree that the problem is complex, that is why we are arguing that the court makes a decision having reviewed all the facts on a case by case basis, taking into consideration a whole host of factors. Its you who have simplified the issue by steadfastly claiming that making the death penalty mandatory will rid us of the drug traffickers and mules.
Why are you discussing mossad in this commentary?
I am not an expert on the operations of the Mossad, but to what I know, they targeted and killed people who they thought were a threat to their national security. If we take that argument forward, then we should be hunting down the drug lords and assassinating them with our super police.
When we did catch a terrorist, who we later found out was handicapped, and who had confessed his terrorist links, he was held at the Presidents pleasure at Whitley, where apparently he was virtually able to scale a toilet wall and escape.
What does your ethical and moral ground say? Do u you think Mas Selamat or Vui Kong should have been executed.
Terrorism is a bigger threat to the society and world peace, yet we are able to arrest them and in 3 years able to reform them and release them into society. In that case why the mandatory death penalty for Vui Kong?
But if none of you even bother with the reading and think that you can just shoot from the hip; then dont expect me to agree with your perfidious faced happy rhetoric that sounds great because it just demonstrates your ignorance and laziness. I am very sorry, but that is our take on the MDP.
To hell with your take on the MDP, I would want to see you stand and fight for the MDP when a loved one of yours is the one facing the hangman. Everyone here is entitled to their views and who the heck do u think you are to call them ignorant and lazy.
Why are you discussing mossad in this commentary?
Because if you want to scale MDP, then then political assasination cannot be different from the the hangman’s noose - FYI all I was trying to do here is to frame this debate in a context so that you can gainfully make sense of it – as the illustration challenges every single aspect of your moralistic and ethical arguments with regards to the MDP - they only appear different because one is sanctioned by law; while the other is the product of necessity – but look closer; they cannot be so different – as what a covert assasination and the MDP are actually one of the same reality; they are both in every sense the clearest expression of the term ”practical necessity” i.e what needs to be done to deliver a pay out.
This I might add also manages to rubbish your simplistic logic on how this entire subject can even be discussed without even spending one sentence on what would be the final outcome if the MDP is annuled – that I consider a travesty as it’s akin to someone suggesting we should all decide to give up walking and take to wheel chairs because the wheel is kinetically more efficient than limbs - you did not even bother with crafting a sensible argument based on either axiomatic and orthodox lines of presenting a case – all you did was wail like a cry baby, this is not fair! - and following your outburst not only do I consider you ignorant and lazy, but it gives me no pleasure to inform you that you are also incapable of stringing an argument that can successfully influence thinking people.
As I said, unless you are able to project the pay outs, trade off’s and benefits along with sharing with us how annuling the MDP may even successfully interdict the international drug trade to deliver a better system than what is currently in place.
You do not have a chance in hell in even influencing any of the thinking folk here, not even one; all they will do is fold their arms and make teeth sucking sounds as they watch by; and another thing; next time you come down here; dont expect me to agree with you if you didnt even bother to do your reading, homework and research.
You have no idea how much I am holding back to save you from making a fool of yourself. As for you friends? Do you imagine for one moment that I will be can be cowered just because ten idiots decide to stand in one line and insist that the world is flat like a Pizza? – you have to be kidding me.
We encourage you to read broadly and widely – a brain is a terrible thing to waste.
SD
Dear Andrew
The fact that a deal may have been cut or that prosecutors have lee way to cut deals is nothing new both in the US and in the UK. The danger in the US and the UK is the use of such evidence without any other physical evidence or corrobaration which lead to prosecutorial and police excesses. However it is still part and parcel of a prosecutors tool in the US and not a flaw as you see it.
Was this the case with Yong ? Firstly he was caught with the drugs as a mule, secondly the snitch fingered him in his testimony about repeated pass trips as a mule. No one in the defense has denied that the trips took place, the only question being the motive of the trip and with passport records and such if the snitch had lied about the previous trips he would have been found out quite easily. Thirdly he was caught with a substantial amount of drugs and was thus convicted as a trafficker.
Locke
@Singaporedaddy, your allusion to Israel’s/Mossad’s war against terrorists is creative. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the Singapore government’s own justification for the MDP. First, the government does not think the MDP to be “morally and ethically reprehensible”. Instead, it thinks that the death penalty is a just, proportionate punishment for a certain group of drug traffickers. Second, the MDP is not characterized as an extra-legal measure taken in emergency situations akin to wartime, overriding the usual human/constitutional rights protection; instead, the government argues that the MDP is a perfectly legal measure even in these ordinary times.
Finally, as for what you call “[y]our take on the MDP”… Regardless whether one supports or opposes the MDP, you’d think one would have the basic decency, given the stakes involved, not to trivialize a serious political question with empty grandstanding on behalf of one’s imaginary friends and imaginary constituencies. Please take your puerile fantasy someplace else where it might actually have some sordid entertainment value.
“@Singaporedaddy, your allusion to Israel’s/Mossad’s war against terrorists is creative. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the Singapore government’s own justification for the MDP. First, the government does not think the MDP to be “morally and ethically reprehensible”. Instead, it thinks that the death penalty is a just, proportionate punishment for a certain group of drug traffickers.”
Understand this; there is no conceptual difference between the MDP and a covert assasination; the latter is an act sanctioned by both the legislative and executive powers vested in the Kneeset / the latter is just dressed up in the politically acceptable garb of the rule of law to legitimize and justify the act of taking a life – however, in both cases, be in no doubt - facts are considered along and a decision is made with one sole purpose to deliver a pay out - but the end result is remains palpably the same – when you talk about taking a life; it hardly makes any difference whether it is delivered by a military grade ordnance from a unmanned drone at 50,000 ft or at ground zero when the switch is thrown by a prison guard to electrify the chair.
Second, the MDP is not characterized as an extra-legal measure taken in emergency situations akin to wartime, overriding the usual human/constitutional rights protection; instead, the government argues that the MDP is a perfectly legal measure even in these ordinary times.
What our government chooses to argue is immaterial to me. The MDP is in every sense a terror weapon; as no one; not even the most emminently qualified jurist or for that matter Lord Denning has been able to succcessfully square off the taking of a human life with the hubris of morality and ethics – till this date, it remains a splinter in the eye of jurisprudence - As for your fairytale definition of an emergency and war; that is relative – if you consider a Katuysha rocket fired from the West bank by the Hezbollah can take out X, Y and Z number of kids in a playground in Tel Aviv – then I say, 50 grams of golden triangle 40% proof uncut heroine can just as well take out an entire HDB and a few more - under those circumstances; you dont need a declaration of war or for that draw the logical conclusion what we are dealing with here is a highly organized syndicate who are prepared to use every possible means to deliver their poison. If that is not war, then I really do not know what is war.
you’d think one would have the basic decency, given the stakes involved, not to trivialize a serious political question with empty grandstanding on behalf of one’s imaginary friends and imaginary constituencies. Please take your puerile fantasy someplace else where it might actually have some sordid entertainment value.
I would appreciate it if you do not get personal with me and my friends. It’s not my fault that you didnt bother with the reading, research and think before broaching what is obviously a very complex subject.
SD (Internet Liaison Officer of the Brotherhood)
Dear Locke,
Bomb Burma? Good idea but our gahmen has good relationship with them leh…..how?
Fact
@ Andrew
I disagree with the often repeated phrase that the “power lies in prosecutor, rather than the judge”. The judge has the final say whether he is guilty of not. If the prosecutor were to haul you or i to court for the fun of it, the judge can throw the case out. He is not a mindless puppet that rubber-stamps the prosecutor.
My basic point is judges still have their basic power of determining a person is guilty of not. Just that in GUILTY drug cases, they don’t have the ‘secondary powers’ of showing leniency. If he is not guilty, the question of leniency will not even arise.
Now the problem of ‘leniency’ is that it is considered more as a ‘luxury’ rather than a ‘right’. Sure, in cases such as mental incapacity or juvenile cases, leniency is given automatically. But Yong does not fall into those catagories. In his case, it really depends on individual’s subjective level of compassion and the circumstances.
As you can tell, there is a wide range of views. Some choose to focus on his sad life story, other choose to focus on the fact that he brought in three times the limit and did it multiple times already. Everyone is entitled to their own level of compassion.
What worries me is how hard TOC is pushing the anti-death penalty advocacy. By using TOC to shaft ‘anti-death penalty’ camp’s prescribed level of compassion on the rest of the people, even when people have made up their minds, it smacks of propaganda and brainwashing.
To me, it is no different from ST trying to create a conformity of views.
Just that in this case, it is to conform to the anti-death penalty people’s views.
As a footnote, I’ll like to say i do respect TOC for its level of journalism. Just that in this case, I disagree strongly with TOC’s approach. I hope this will be taken constructively.
One problem with the mandatory death penalty and the way it works with the Misuse of Drugs Act is this:
The Misuse of Drugs Act states that once found in possession of above the prescribed amount of drugs, there is a presumption of trafficking, unless it can be proved otherwise. This puts the burden of proof onto the defendant instead of the prosecutor, which is opposite to most other legal practices. In this way it is very difficult for the defendant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent, and therefore more often than not they are all declared guilty, and the judge has no choice but to put them to death. This “guilty until proven innocent” thing is troubling enough, but the mandatory death penalty makes it even worse.
Please refer to the case of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi; there was no direct evidence that he knew he was carrying drugs (and this was admitted by the Chief Justice), but because he was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. the CJ said “he should have known, and therefore he is guilty”) the judge had no choice but to sentence him to death. Removing the mandatory aspect of the sentencing would be one step forward towards giving offenders a fairer (and more compassionate) trial.
It is important for TOC to be vocal about the mandatory death penalty because there seems to be very little alternative spaces in which people can express themselves about this issue. The mainstream media certainly does not give it the airing it deserves. By pushing the issue on TOC we can at least make people think about it and provide a platform for them to express their opinions, whether for or against. We don’t delete the comments of those who are for the mandatory death penalty, but you must also understand that we feel very passionately about this topic, which would lead us to write comments in reply trying to explain our stance.
@RW (Sorry, didn’t see your footnote to after my previous comment was published.)
Thank you for your concern for TOC! :)
Maybe I was too hasty in making a deision about the mdp. You are right SD. I haven’t read alot beyond what I have discussed with my friends along with watching the documentary on Yong. But as the Buddha said killing is wrong
RW,
First, I think one has to be clear about what TOC is. TOC is not a “news website”, as many believe. We are a bunch of bloggers. And as such, we do campaign for causes – as we have done in the past, such as our campaign for better public transport and the homeless. So, this MDP focus is a TOC campaign. And as a campaign, we do “push” for our views, as all campaigns do. So, the question of comparing us to the ST is moot, really.
Secondly, your point about judges having the “final say” is only partly true, in this case. The question here is why should it only be “partly true”? Shouldn’t judges have the discretion to mete out punishment which fit the crime and the criminal?
Everyone, I believe, can agree that tying the judges’ hands, as in this case, is not right.
It goes against the universally-held principle that the punishment must fit the crime and the criminal.
In effect, Parliament has usurped the court’s prerogative to mete out sentences commensurate with the gravity of the crime and the criminal. And also, the prosecutor’s role in this is also in question. Why was Vui Kong charged with a capital offence while his accomplice was not? Why did Vui Kong receive the death sentence while his accomplice was given 22 years instead?
And in some other cases, why and how is it possible for someone to be charged with trafficking 14.99g of heroin, which is just 0.01g below the limit of 15g which would warrant the death sentence?
locke,
And his accomplice was charged with (miraculously) trafficking in “less than 15g” – when he was caught at the same time, same place, same car, as Vui Kong.
Making deals may be a practice worldwide, I agree. However, then what is “mandatory”? It looks more like it is “arbitrary” – that the application of the law is selective.
As I said, Vui Kong’s guilt is not in question. I do not know why you keep repeating this. My issue here is with the charged taken out against his friend, Reggie Gwee.
And locke,
You seem to have ignored the point I made.
Even if “making deals” is a practice elsewhere, the point remains, as I said earlier:
“The MDA says that the testimony of an accomplice can be used as proof of guilt. This in spite of the obvious flaw here – someone in this position (like his accomplice) or situation may say anything to get himself off jail time or a lengthy sentence.”
Can Kixes care to explain why comments and rebuttals by ‘Incredulous’ was removed?
I think we should all be thankful to SD for laying it out as it is. The truth hurts and in this case it makes my tummy churn like hell. Personally, I am against the MDP and I do not need any reason to believe it is of any worth more than a piece of chewing gum having lost its taste and purpose.
Unfortunately, SD has painted clearly for us the battle we have in our hands and unless we are able to understand the reasons for such a war, we cannot hope to counter it, we cannot ever dream of making any headway in our fight against the MDP.
Andrew
Deals are cut in exchange for testimony. Happens in the US for capital punishment cases to. If you can accept that deals are cut in the US…….what do you think deals are cut for, the right to an extra portion of fries during your sentence ?
There is mandatory sentencing in the US, note three strikes and you are out though just not death. You can be sure as hell that prosecutors will use the threat of mandatory sentencing to to strike deals and gain incriminating testimony.
Right not what you are in fact saying is that because of the mandatory death penalty deals cannot be struck and the prosecution should not have lee way to cut deals. What would your specific stand be with regards to cutting deals under a DP and not MDP ?
Locke
Dear Andrew
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.
How is the MDA that different in that regard ?
Locke