The Court of Appeal will be delivering its judgement this Friday, 14 May, on Yong Vui Kong’s appeal. The hearing will take place at 11am.
It has been two months since Yong made his appeal on 15 March. He is appealing against the death sentence which was imposed on him in 2007 when he was caught with 47g of diamorphine. He was found guilty of drug trafficking and was given the mandatory death penalty.
Originally scheduled to hang on 4 December last year, his lawyer, Mr Madasamy Ravi, persuaded the court that Yong had not had his appeal heard, as was his right under the Constitution. The court agreed and granted Yong a hearing on 15 March. In that hearing, Mr Madasamy argued that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional, citing many judicial decisions in other jurisdictions all over the world.
On Sunday, 9 May, Law Minister K Shanmugam defended the Singapore government’s position on the issue. According to the Straits Times, the minister “believes this stand has saved thousands of lives… The penalty applies to a crimes [sic] such as murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking, and Mr Shanmugam believes it has had a deterrent effect, and sent a clear signal to drug barons on Singapore’s position.”
The Online Citizen has been campaigning for a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty since Yong’s case came to light.
You can read the articles and view the videos here: Campaign for a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty.
By Andrew Loh
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
“Mr Shanmugam believes it has had a deterrent effect, and sent a clear signal to drug barons on Singapore’s position”
How does one measure the deterrent effect? How does he compare with only one method so far? He is an educated man but his statement is totally non-academic.
It would only send a clear signal to the drug barons if he executes the barons too, Stupid!
can understand that it is not an easy decision. If govt has to be sympathetic, then we can expect younger kids, esp. from broken or poorer families to be used for the drug mission. Unless Shake Head and all shakers can help rid the sources of all evils?
Many other cities are besieged by drug related crimes, that we, as Singaporeans are mercifully spared from, by and large due to the PAP’s (ahem, I meant govt’s) tough stance on drug trafficking. While this bodes well for society at large, what about the plight of the families that are losing their son’s for a handful of white powder. Well, in my family, most of my uncles are life long drug addicts. One severely arthritic 65 yr old uncle barely escaped the gallows more than a decade ago. Recently, the asshole was caught again for trafficking marijuana. My whole family is on tenterhooks awaiting the verdict. While, I’m no supporter of the death penalty, but consider this, drug traffickers rarely reform and the drug addicts they support almost never do.
Also consider, the widespread social ramifications, if we were to loosen our anti-drug stance. If I’m not mistaken Omega is the currently the largest drug cartel in town. Their modus operandi is to recruit young, poor malay boys advertising an “easy way to make money”. For many of these socially marginalized malay boys the imminent threat of the death penalty is the only thing keeping them from joining Omega.
i hope the government of singapore show some compassion in this case, a 10 or 20 yrs jails term is enought to frighten off people. pls show the world we are not govern by a ” Stone heart ” no feeling garment, but a human being with heart make of fresh that make us human.
heaven and earth will cry if he were to hang.God bless the boy.
That boy is a fiend. If they do commutes his death sentence, I hope they replace it with twenty lashes of the rotan and life imprisonment.
I am against the mandatory death penalty, that dosen’t mean I need to be soft on crime, and scum like Vui Kong.
I believe the death penalty can be retained but the judge be given the right to “judge” each case based on the facts and circumstances.
Just like murder might be commuted to manslaughter, so drug trafficking might also be possible to be commuted to a lesser charge depending on the case.
So its because of case-by-case, that is why they will send more vui kongs, each with equally a sob story and the drug barons will tell them “don’t worry, u got a sob story, u wun have the death penalty, if u get jailed i will take care of ur family til u come out”
vui kong knows what he was carrying, he knows that it is wrong, even his brother admits that he is lured by wealth n power.
As SingaSingaporean says, they all have sob stories, then what?
Personally, I support MDP and everything about this, except the Drug Act part where it makes it so that the person with the drug is automatically guilty, and the onus is on him/her to prove their own innocence.
I think it should be the prosecutors job to prove they intend to traffic drugs, and once proven, Death to follow ‘mandatorily’, regardless of sob story.
Drug Barons are pro at manipulating mules. They don’t need to think twice before sending one to its death. They can always get new ignorant ones. These potential mules to be won’t know anything unless Shanmugam brings a loudspeaker to their home town to tell them about Singapore’s laws on drug trafficking.
The minister claimed that the death sentence saves thousands of lives. Really? What is the total amount of drugs that those hung attempted to traffick. Can this amount satisfy the consumption by thousands of addicts?
So while the state hangs these drug mules every year, are kilograms of drugs slipping through to feed the thousands of addicts.
Here’s a simple Math.
Total weight of drugs consumed by addicts every year = A
Total weight of drugs attempted to be trafficked by these drug mules arrested and sentenced to death every year = B
A divide by 100 x B = the % of drugs that these comdemned men attempted to traffick versus the total amount that slipped through.
My question is, are we hanging these people to solve just a small part of the problem? I do not know because I do not have the figures but it would be good if the Minister can provide that.
To Winston Cheng.
You might have passed your math but failed in your logic. Look at the big picture here.
The most dangerous thing about the volume of the drug found is how many people could potentially get their first “hit” and hence get addicted to the drug. Try this:
Total amount of drugs discovered = A
Amount needed for one initial “hit” = B
A divided by B = total number of potential first timers who end up being addicted FOR LIFE on the drug.
That’s where the “thousands” come from.
Lets not forget the fact that the new addicts would likely in turn turn to trafficing to support their habit, hence multiplying the effect when more new addicts are created. Yes, Thousands, and even more.
I think the law minister has already prepared the ground for the upholding of the sentence.
No matter what, I think Messrs Ravi and team has already done his best and all he can.
I also think the TOC has done an excellent job reporting on the issue and hope they can continue with their work in an objective manner as they have done.
Sham’s comments which was reported in the MSM was in reply to a question posed to him by a citizen, who cited Vui Kong’s case as an example.
-
What Sham should have done, as a top lawyer, was to put the question on hold until the appeal by Vui Kong had been heard.
-
Instead, he chose to answer the question by taking a stand, a stand which he attributes to that of the government, and in so doing has inevitably, or will inevitably sway the judgment that is to come.
I would have post a question to Shamugam what if Yong Vui Kong is his son and what if his children and wife were caught being discovered that their luggage was packed with drugs they weren’t aware of.
How does he sleep at night for saying that taking innocent life is right.
Winston Cheng, Danielseah, SingaSingaporean and the like-minded,
-
We can have all the mathematical equations we can have but the fact remains that these are just runners, the ones who get sentenced to death, that is.
-
If, going by the mathematical permutations provided by some, each suggesting that death is warranted, then may I ask that you channel a little bit of that energy which inspires you to come up with such equations, to that which may be more meaningful in the fight against drug-trafficking; namely, to take the fight to the drug lords.
-
It is because the government is not able to tackle the drug lords, some of which are in high and mighty places, mind you, that it has taken to taking out the small timers, in the hope that it would at least appease the public, who think they are being protected adequately by such a gesture.
-
As long as the drug lords are around, everyone else is in danger – you, me, our children, our childrens’ children.
-
The ones you help to send to death today could just be the same ones you send to death tomorrow; and; the ones of tomorrow could be your very own children.
-
Let us demand that every government take up the challenge to go after the drug lords and not the small timer.
-
Let us tell OUR government to stop associating with drug-producing countries, to stop doing business with them. Let us make demands of OUR government right her right now, so that we can then TRULY have a better future that is safe for our children.
-
For the small timer, punish them if we must. A good way to go about it is to mete out punishment in the manner described by Mic Mic. I too am against the death penalty but I also believe we mustn’t be soft on those who entice death, whether they are in full knowledge that they are toying with death or not.
-
Let us go after those who sell death instead of those who toys with it.
I find the law minister’s comment on the death penalty to be highly speculative and insensitive. Justice is not only about hitting the guilty hard..its also about showing compassion and mercy. The minister talks abut detterence but he has no figures to prve his claim. All he says that it may have saved thousands of lives. A convenient reply. It is very hard to find any empirical evidence that our societal security is strengthened by the use of capital punishment. Countries that have wielded the death penalty with vigor have crime rates as high or higher than countries that have never authorised the death penalty. Despite many efforts to do so, it has proven almost impossible to quantify the efficacy of capital punishment. …
David
Remember not too ago, a VIP’s son (I forgot his name, can someone furnish his name on TOC) was caught for drug consumption and charge in court, release on bail and imagine the court did not impound his passport,( got a feeling the court did it on purpose on higher instruction), he just absconded to Australia. How fair is the judiciary system here if under executive influence ??
If I am not wrong he was the son of a former NMP. Can someone remember his name?
On Sunday, 9 May, Law Minister K Shanmugam defended the Singapore government’s position on the issue. According to the Straits Times, the minister “believes this stand has saved thousands of lives… The penalty applies to a crimes [sic] such as murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking, and Mr Shanmugam believes it has had a deterrent effect, and sent a clear signal to drug barons on Singapore’s position.”
>> Don’t need to wait for Friday. The Law Minister already passed the verdict and the judge(s) will just execute the order. Case closed.
David,
Your point seems to be more relevant to the Misuse of Drugs Act, rather than MDP.
Vui Kong is NOT innocent.
He is guilty as hell.
And it was not the first time he brought drugs into Singapore.
Sorry Vui Kong, you reap what you sow.
If there should be any change to the law, it must NEVER be made for your benefit. You are scum, and I don’t care if you loved your mum, you became a buddhist, or if you learnt English in prison. whether you die or not is immaterial.
To all the above who are asking how we would feel if the person being sentenced was related to us.
Let me throw the first stone and say that yes, I’m selfish.
I’m more worried that some of those drugs harming/killing someone related to me. Heck, I’m worried about it turning someone into a druggie who could potentially hurt/rob someone I know just to finance their habit.
If it is wrong to value the life of an innocent over the life of someone who committed a crime knowing full well he/she is harming others, knowing that being caught leads to capital punishment, all for their own selfish gain, so be it.
Wah! scary man! How come all the Seventy-Sixers think alike?
Gemami,
Let us demand that every government take up the challenge to go after the drug lords and not the small timer.
Agreed. Lets buy some UAVs, and shoot missiles up the drug baron’s a55.
what the heck, let’s invade the country(s) which shelters these drug barons. Then we install a new govt which will enforce drug trade. ‘Democratically’ elected one (which will be our puppet). Our ‘defense’ budget is don’t play play one, ok!
p.s I would suggest sanctions first, but I doubt we can make a dent in those country’s GDP…
If someone could invent a “turn off” gene switch for drug addiction, they’d make a bundle.
I wonder.. Will the same people who support the MDP, also support labelling drug trafficking a clear and present danger to our national security too?
The writing is on the wall. The Appeal Court comprises judges who are reasonable people who can decide for the general good of the society.
Without a doubt, the MDP is a great deterrent against drug trafficking.
Whether it is the drug lords or the runners, all in the supply-chain of drug trafficking will face MDP when caught.
True, every case has its sad circumstances. But by and large, if all could agree that MDP is a deterrent, then we would have less arguments here.
If there is something i concede, it would probably be that I could agree to take the M away from DP and let the trial judge decide. But to me, that is not a major issue as the focus remain that the punishment must be severe enough to act as a deterrent
Ah, Lobo, Lobo,
-
Sometimes I wonder whether ‘extremism’ is all that you possess.
-
I agree, the circumstances may look overly hopeless. Indeed, we may eventually have to resort to the kind of confrontation you mentioned. But before we get there, perhaps we may want to consider some other viable avenues.
-
Let’s start with the drug mules. You catch them , you kill them – by sentencing them to death. What hope do you have of catching his bosses? None.
-
You catch the trafficker, you also kill him.
-
You catch the supplier, you kill him too.
-
You catch the manufacturer, he is just as dead.
-
Why not, hypothetically, turn them into ‘secret agents’? Pay them if you must so that they would want to help you nab the kingpins. How do we pay them? How much would it be that would be attractive enough?
-
Simple, SPARE THEM THEIR LIVES.
-
We may not see any hope of drug mules leading anyone to the drug kingpins but what the mules can do is to provide leads to the traffickers. From the traffickers, progress can then be made toward the supplier, and from the supplier to the manufacturer and then the owner – the big one.
-
If we are able to tackle and stamp the flow each step of the way in the drug supply chain, soon the big guns would have no one to turn to, to manufacture the drugs, to supply it, to sell it and to move it.
-
Fact is, this is too troublesome and each step of the way is fraught with all kinds of danger to the enforcer. No one wants to be hero. The narcotic officer is fearful for his life and rightfully so. The police chief is fearful for his life and rightfully so too.
-
The Minister too is fearful for his life. Now is this right? The government as a whole do not think they could win the war against the drug barons. They give up even before they even dare to try.
-
That’s the way it is with the war against drugs. We have allowed the kingpins to grow stronger and stronger by the day by behaving cowardly, and now we believe cannot fight them even with a whole army.
-
Does it mean we give up the fight and settle for catching the small timer? Looks like we have already given up and settled for this.
gemami – you could probably approach a Hollywood director and tell them to make a movie out of this! Ha Ha!
gemami 12 May 2010
Sometimes I wonder whether ‘extremism’ is all that you possess.
Extremism (in speech and/or writing) is very good for shocking and driving home a point. … also in provoking a response. ;)
My point being that there are sovereignty issues involved. Many people tend to be very flighty about those.
-
Why not, hypothetically, turn them into ‘secret agents’?
Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it. First the argument was that they were naive and poor people who were duped into becoming a mule, and now they are suddenly smart enough to become secret agents? Secret agents that can work independently to gather physical evidence? (simple ‘leads’ are not enough). Without which, we have no hope to make cross-nation follow ups (short of an invasion)
You have to bear in mind that we also don’t have time to train them, even if they are innately intelligent. There can’t be a gap in time from when they were mules, and then going back to work undercover. If they were naive when they were ‘muling’, we’d have to send them back ‘naive’ to do secret agent work.
-
Fact is, this is too troublesome and each step of the way is fraught with all kinds of danger to the enforcer.
I do not think it is ‘danger’ that is stopping the govt. Troublesome is right on the mark though. It is, callous as it may sound, a simple issue of effort vs result. Sovereignty issues are too tricky. If one lead points to malaysia, do you want to negotiate Water issues alongside the repatriation of a suspected trafficker? Not to mention that most drug ‘source’ may be in poor countries, where the govt is corrupt.
-
Does it mean we give up the fight and settle for catching the small timer?
The ‘fight’ is to reduce drug problems in Singapore. Fact is, I do not believe ANY societal problems can be solved 100%. The same with drugs. We can only reduce it. We are not fighting an all out war against drug lords.
Moreover, did you think that by catching the drug lord, everything will be fine and dainty? Who is to say that their ‘lieutenants’ will not simply promote himself? All the infrastructure is there after all.
If by catching small timers we will this fight, so be it.
Lobo76,
-
It’s not as naïve as you think it is but to save my breath as well as not to impose myself further on readers, I have decided to throw my reply into the wastebin. There is too much Hollywood in it, as pointed out by Joe.
-
I would like to touch on one of your point, that which deals with the fight against the drug problem in Singapore. How are we going to fight the problem if we continue to kill off every opportunity for fact-gathering, the best opportunity presented to us each time a drug runner is caught?
-
Some have already resigned themselves to their fate the day they decided to tamper with drugs. These are prepared to die even as they make a last ditch attempt to save themselves. In the end, you kill them and the story ends with their death.
-
But, if you keep them alive, keep them in prison for a long time, with the option for release with information leading to the capture of the drug bosses, then there is hope that these may suddenly come to realize that it might be better to supply information which they might otherwise have brought with them to their graves.
-
We cannot simply kill them off, leaving us with no hope ever of making progress to identifying the big fish and to bring them to justice.
-
The mules and the lowly foot soldiers cannot continue to foolishly die for the beneficiaries of their stupidity.
-
It is the duty of each government toward its citizens, to make safe the society their citizens live in. Right now, and as long as the drug lords are around, I do not feel safe for my children and for the future generation. Anyone could just be another victim of the drug trade.
-
This is the protection that we must demand from our government.
Gemami,
There is too much Hollywood in it, as pointed out by Joe.
That is an issue on the Internet?? (“,)
-
How are we going to fight the problem if we continue to kill off every opportunity for fact-gathering, the best opportunity presented to us each time a drug runner is caught?
1. ‘Mules and lowly foot soldiers’ are not likely to have critical information that can lead to drug lords, or even to any level of their command structure.
2. Even if useful information is given, it most likely leads overseas. What can be done then? (sovereignty issues…. again)
-
…and as long as the drug lords are around…
Well, sad to say, I think they are around to stay. You kill one, others will spring up in their place.
-
favourite part: analogies!
It’s like the rain. Weather… is akin like sovereignty issues. It is quite difficult to control/manage.
But, not impossible. During the Beijing Olympics, they did have artilleries standing by to shoot special rounds that burst rain clouds before they reach Beijing. It’s still not fullproof and I think rather over elaborate way of stopping rain. Not very effort effective by any measure.
And the rain will come again and again. Just as new drug lords will rise if you did managed to catch the old ones.
Do you not agree it is simply better to carry an umbrella (stop the mules)?
where is the court of appeal? Is it at the Subordinate Courts?
Lobo76,
-
I have to disagree with your pov. Every one in a chain of event, or a chain process, leads to something before that event or process. I believe there is a small step in it as opposed to ‘no step’.
-
The issue of ‘sovereignty’ can be handled in the same manner the entire world is coming together to tackle the terrorist issue.
-
The reason we think it is impossible to tackle the drug problem and even more impossible to go after the drug barons is because we think we must completely eradicate them but cannot. Such a mindset is a defeatist one which almost every government adopts and is guilty of.
-
If we approach the drug problem in the same manner we are approaching the worldwide terrorist problem, then I am very sure that we will make progress in one year more than what we have done in the past hundred years.
-
The similarities of the two problems are so identical. We know we cannot completely eradicate them. We know there are big, rich and powerful people behind them. We know they use mules and runners to enlist dumb people to support their cause and to willingly die supporting such causes.
-
Why then do we approach both problems differently?
-
In the case of drugs, we’d rather go after the runner and mules. In the case of terrorism, we are leaving no stones unturned going after those at the very top.
-
In the case of drugs, we kill them almost as soon as we catch them. In the case of the terrorist, we hold them in prison, feed them, and wait for them to run away from toilet windows and cause destruction all over again.
Gemami,
If you want to use terrorism as comparison, then why did you think my ‘suggestions’ of UAVs and invasion were extreme? They are real examples of what has been done to fight terrorism.
In the case of UAVs, even US has to be careful, because of sovereignty issues with Pakistan. Yes, THE United States of America, arguably the most powerful nation.. has to be careful when dealing with such issues. Do you supposed that any country will allow Singapore (a minnow nation by comparison) to send fighting forces to fight drug lords?
(of course, there is the alternative of sending assassins… like Israel)
-
Secondly, a mule is different from a (suicide) bomber. The latter has to be trained to make the bombs from OTS materials. They (even the dumb ones) are also likely to be indoctrinated. Both of which requires quite a bit of time and contact with other terrorists. This means the average (dumb) bomber do have intelligence worth getting, but the mule does not. Actually, the term ‘mule’ should have hinted at that. Why do you think we never labelled suicide bombers to be ‘mules’, but do so for drug runners?
-
Third, to do what we are doing for terrorism requires cooperation from many countries, all of which are ‘motivated’ to do something. Imagine if one country actively do something… what can it accomplish?
Until something really visible ‘moves’ the world to actively fight drugs (e.g 9/11), there is really nothing we can do effectively by ourselves.
-
Which brings me to the next point. Terrorism is high impact and visible. Drugs are insidious but not overtly so. Drugs issues escalate slowly compared to terrorism.
-
Last but not least, drugs affects less (type of) people than terrorism. For the latter, it is EVERYBODY. A bomb on street X will kill anybody who happens to be that street.
Drugs is more selective. It targets addicts (and affects their family), people who are depressed, etc. There is a ‘select’ group that is more exposed to drug problems.
-
I think most, if not all the above, serves to answer your question of why both problems are approached differently?
To be honest, if we were to actively pursue drug lords, it would (or can) be independent of the execution of mules. i.e they are not mutually exclusive.
Basically, I am pointing that using the argument of going after drug lords is not really helping the case for staying the execution of mules.
Lobo76,
-
It can be, but, must it be?
gemami,
fyi, I have a long post awaiting moderation in answer to your one. =)
-
It can be, but, must it be?
Simply because it CAN be, means that you have to draw a strong connection between the two (MDP for mules and pursue of drug lords), else you can’t use one to argue for the other.
I don’t think ‘Must’ or not even comes into the equation…
Lobo76,
-
While I await your moderated post.
-
Let’s put the issue of punishment aside for the time being and see the crime for what it is worth.
-
The general consensus is that there is a hierarchy in the drug trade. We begin at the top with the Barons and his accomplices in his inner-circle, most of which are in high and mighty places. These are the ones who are directly involved in the drug production line. They are the ones who do not give a damn to whatever happens to society. They just want their dirty and blood-stained money.
-
The next group is those just outside the inner-circle. These trusted henchmen are handsomely provided for in both cash and kind. They too are motivated by the benefits they enjoy. They too do not give a damn to society except for the well being of their bosses, the Barons.
-
Then we have the traffickers, the ones who run the streets and make things happen. These are mainly taken care of by the henchmen in group two. They have to work for every cent they earn. They have to risk their lives to bring drugs to wherever it is wanted. They are the ones giving the police force the reason to employ policemen. They are distributer and coordinator.
-
And then we have the dumb ones, the courier, the mules. Very often, they are so dumb that they do not even realize that they are being used as drug mules.
-
These are just some very general views on the drug trade and the personnel involve in its different levels of operation.
-
Can we now ask ourselves what the crime is worth and what punishment is suitable for the four groups mentioned here?
-
The Baron & his accomplice: yes, they should die (even though I still do not think anyone has the right to take the life of another), for the trail of destruction they bring to the larger society.
-
Their henchmen: they should die too for being the middle-men between the top and the ground. They are the ones who make wickedness come alive.
-
The traffickers: I am divided. Some deserve to die while others who may be forced into it, do not. Take the example of those who borrow from loan sharks. When they are unable to pay up, they are forced to go splash paint on houses to clear their debts. Some are plain foolish, some because they are still young and not fully matured, some are compelled by life’s circumstances. The mitigating factor is just too varied for one punishment to fit all.
-
The mules: Certainly not, unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew exactly what they were doing before they were caught. More so with the very young ones, those who are deemed not old enough to watch RA movies especially. Same as with the traffickers, the mitigating factor is just too varied for one punishment to fit all.
Gemami,
You used the organisation structure as a spectrum in which to measure the ‘crime’. The other spectrum is simply the amount of drugs carried.
The latter being the one easily measurable and verifiable. The former is often hidden and somewhat subjective. If one drug group has only 4 tiers, and the other has 10, how is the 4th tier in each, ‘measured’ in important-ness?
So in response to matching the crime to the punishment, we do have it. It’s just tat the ceiling is rather low.
-
The mules: Certainly not, unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew exactly what they were doing before they were caught.
Irrelevant to MDP. Try Misuse of Drug Act.
It is the latter that removed the ‘reasonable doubt’ part, not the former. And which I agree with you, that proving of reasonable should rest on the prosecutor, not the accused which should be innocent until proven guilty.
perhaps they should be given drug trafficking identity cards to shown which rank they are in the entire structure ?
sorry, i am not belittling your point but just think in reality, it is not as clear cut as that…
gemami,
your idea of pursuing the druglords themselves may be idealistic but it is naive. how do you intend the ‘army’ as you put it to take down these drug lords? but invading foreign territories? when you are thinking of such grandoise ideas you must b cognisant of the realities w/ regards sovereignty. it is difficult for sg to nip the problem in the bud becos of such restrictions. our police cannot anyhow go into malaysia to search for the suppliers or masterminds even if the mules are able to give concrete information. therefore in reality all we really can do is to stem the flow of such people attempting to bring such substances into our country.
lobo67,
in fact your idea of using UAVs to bomb the druglords is one that was used by the US in their bombing of the taliban’s poppy fields in afghanistan to prevent them from profiting from drugs to fund the war. but unless you tink we r the same as the US and the countries where the drug lords are hiding in are like afghanistan, den go ahead. unfortunately, e answer is tat we are not.
Lobo76, Pascal and Joe,
-
Look, I am not saying I have the ultimate solution to the drug trafficking problem. Neither am I trying to be too smart for the limited brain space in my head.
-
My point is a simple one, that there must be an option available other than the ‘catch-and-kill’ one we now employ. There must be some worth in every individual, even those of the drug peddling industry. You kill them, you end their worth and you inevitably prolonged the resolution of the drug problem.
-
There must be a way to get, for example, the mules, to rat on those who gave them the errand.
-
As for the issue of sovereignty, I am also not saying that we can over come this overnight. I did mentioned that the governments of the world have to come together to fight this as one, just like we are doing with terrorism.
-
Never mind whether the trail of destruction is more visible or immediate, the same knowledge we have that drugs is just as destructive suffices.
-
I do concede though, that perhaps, while we await the commitment of each government toward the war on drugs, the only option available to us is to deal with the runners on the ground. Still, it does not mean that we should go kill off all of them.
-
A life should be worth more than a message. No one has the right to judge another life worthless, so much so that it must be extinguished, else every criminal can also be deemed in the same light.
pascal,
The UAVs are recently used to kill around 14 taliban members in Pakistan. Somewhat in response to the car bomb that failed to go off in New York. Haven’t read that they were used to destroy poppy field in Afgan… other than a group on facebook that advocates this.
Also, US are reluctant to do so because they would destroy the farmers’ livelihood and drive them to become Taliban/Al Qaeda. This was recently mentioned when there was a mold outbreak, and some people accused the US of causing it. And in which they responded with the above rationale of NOT destroying poppy fields.
In any case, my point was to insinuate that it was gemami that advocates this, because he keeps wanting to go after drug lord.
gemami,
So, in the end, your argument boils down to your personal belief that a life has to worth something (more than a message).
Well, I am stumped as to how to argue against a belief that related to something that is utterly unmeasurable (worth of a life). It’s too subjective.
I’ll just summarize my pov.
- I need reasons to (want to) change status quo, not beliefs
- going after druglord is good,
> but independent/unrelated to status quo, and
> impractical atm due to sovereignty issues.
- my main contention is with the Misuse of Drugs Act. MDP, as far as I am concerned, is an equitable punishment.
lobo76,
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/21/afghanistan.poppy.strike/index.html
but i get your point
lobo i get it you are talking specifically about the use of UAVs while i was focusing more on the destruction of the fields in one territory by another country
I think a few of us have missed the point.
1. What we have is a govt. that see no viable alternatives to MDP.
2. Anti-MDP people are unable to offer viable alternatives to the drug smuggling/trafficking problem.
3. Short-sighted politicians who weigh in their opinions for their own interests.
It has been reported many times, that Singapore is a financial haven for foreign criminals and corrupt officials to stash their ill-gotten gains.
Our leaders will never sanction or go after the top-tier criminals/corrupt officials as it affects the billions of dollars their money earns for our banking/finance industry.
As long as our leaders have a vested interest in our banking and finance industry, they would not take any action at all against such top-tier criminals/corrupt officials.
That is why, we are ranked very low in terms of transparency.