The following article was published here on TOC on 5 December 2009. We highlight it again as the points raised in it are pertinent and relevant still – 6 months after the article was first written.
Choo Zheng Xi/Editor-at-Large
Yong Vui Kong’s story will now be familiar with regular readers of The Online Citizen and the activist community, but alien to many Singaporeans who will go about their daily lives without batting an eyelid.
This is largely the fault of the mainstream media, which have completely failed in their duty to explain what Vui Kong’s case means for individual Singaporeans. This needs to change.
The justice system distinguishes between civil law and criminal law. Civil law is enforceable between individuals, whereas criminal law is enforced by the State. In the latter case, the State moves to punish acts deemed injurious to society. It acts on society’s behalf, through statutes passed by our elected representatives.
When the State brings its criminal jurisdiction to bear, it acts on behalf of you and me. If Vui Kong is hanged, he will be hanged in your name and mine.
Singapore’s head in the sand
The national media has given minimal attention to Vui Kong’s case and the obvious issues it raises about the fairness of the mandatory death penalty.
While the mainstream media is sometimes unfairly criticized for its conservative reporting and commentary, its’ see-no-evil attitude to glaring defects in our criminal justice system crosses the negligent into the realm of the unconscionable.
Forums and activities conducted by local anti-death penalty campaigners have gone unmentioned, and there is no national dialogue about the whether the mandatory death penalty is defensible.
Why has the national media not initiated a debate into a practice which the UN Special Rapporteur on arbitrary executions says is prohibited by “almost every judicial or quasi-judicial human rights body in the world”[1]?
Our national media has blatantly failed to highlight countries across the Commonwealth that have invalidated the mandatory death penalty. A strange silence for a press that delights in comparing Singapore to other countries when it comes to economic indicators.
Consider that as far back as 1983, the Supreme Court of India in Mithu v. State of Punjab held that “The legislature cannot make relevant circumstances irrelevant, deprive courts of their legitimate jurisdiction to exercise their discretion not to impose the death sentence in appropriate cases, compel them to shut their eyes to mitigating circumstances and inflict upon them the dubious and unconscionable duty of imposing a preordained sentence of death”.
Judgments from the Privy Council[2] (to which our Courts still cite as persuasive authority) to the Constitutional Court of South Africa[3], to the Inter-American Commission[4] and the Supreme Court of the United States of America have all disapproved of the mandatory death penalty in one form or another.
How can such worldwide opposition to the inhumanity of the mandatory death penalty across different legal cultures and jurisdictions be met with deafening silence in our mainstream press?
Excellent legal reporters like Ben Nadarajan and K C Vijayan have suddenly gone mute, just when their voices might really matter. The Online Citizen’s 18-year-old reporter Koh Yi Na put them to shame with her coverage of the recent High Court’s stay of execution.
Why it matters
Thanks to the mainstream media’s silence, the vast majority of Singaporeans haven’t been given an opportunity to debate whether or not we believe 19 year old Vui Kong should be put to death. Put to death without regard for his lack of a prior criminal record, his tragic family circumstances, the possibility that he can be reformed, or whether or not an alternative punishment might suffice.
Singaporeans need to be asked to weigh two competing visions of our criminal justice system and decide which best represents our values: a compassionate Singapore where a second-chance is possible and punishment fits both the crime and the criminal, or a zero tolerance one-size-fits-all system of vengeance.
The mainstream media has suppressed Vui Kong’s personal story of socialized corruption and eventual personal repentance, suppressed mention of his boyish frailty in the face of impending death, closed its eyes to his painful personal journey that ended on death row, a journey out of Sabah originally inspired by love for his mother.
The mainstream media has perpetuated precisely what the mandatory death penalty seeks to do: de-individualize those it condemns. Vui Kong is just another common criminal, to be treated with absolutely no difference from a seasoned drug trafficker with criminal convictions to his name.
Singaporeans need an opportunity to debate whether they feel this is just.
The answer matters because if the hangman places his noose around Vui Kong’s neck and forever separates him from his mother’s embrace, the State is acting in my name and yours.
For more details on the status of Vui Kong’s case, see TOC’s report on the stay of execution granted by the High Court here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/high-court-grants-rare-stay-of-execution-appeal/. The Court of Appeal will be hearing Vui Kong’s appeal this coming Tuesday at 10 am.
[1] Philip Alston, Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, 20 January 2007
[2] See Reyes v The Queen, [2002] 2 App. Cas. 284 (P.C.), and Queen v Hughes [2002] 2 App. Cas. 259 (P.C.)
[3] See State v. Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391
[4] See Downer and Tracey v Jamaica, where the Inter-American Commission held, after looking at common law jurisdictions and human rights authorities, that “a common precept has developed whereby the exercise of guided discretion by sentencing authorities is considered to be a condition sine qua non to the rational, humane and fair imposition of capital punishment” and incompatible with provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights.
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
p.s the same with what some of the MIW says really… who are always claiming that they have the ‘majority’ on their side.
First off I am against the death penalty for drug trafficking, when there is a good chance of rehabilitation and imprisonment is a far more apt punishment. I am not against the death penalty as the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes per se.
However the problem here is that Yong is a foreigner; I am not sure the Singaporean taxpayer should pay for his rehabilitation. I can imagine the hordes of foreigners over-flooding the local jails especially in land scarce Singapore. If Singapore has extradition treaties with other countries, it could ship them back to their home country to serve out their sentence.
IMHO, drug use is about demand and not supply. Curbing demand should be the number one priority of the government; one can never remove the supply.
“Hard” drugs such as heroin and cocaine are not as profitable in the long run as “party” drugs and the sale of “party” drugs are usually of a voluntary nature, not one borne out of addiction. Despite the assumption that there are diminishing profits for “hard” drugs and the very high risk and disincentive of the death penalty, still people smuggle them into Singapore and one would assume still continue to do so. I wonder who can afford the astronomical prices of these hard drugs.
To: RW (#47),
You said:
“Zhengxi’s article seems to suggest the lack of attention to the issue is because the public had no opportunity to debate the issue. But my contention is since it was published, readers read it and yet made no noise about it, maybe the problem isn’t the media but our opinion of public opinion.”
That’s a simplistic way of looking at it.
In Singapore, especially, public opinion is shaped by what is presented by the state-owned media. Remember this: The TV stations, the newspapers, the radio channels, each and every one of them is state-owned.
So, being state-owned, it means the govt has a vested interest. And in this state of vested interest, of course the govt wants the media to say what it wants it to say!
And in turn, what the media says affect public opinion.
So, this is why you do not see an outcry over the death penalty. The mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, especially.
No outcry because the media does not highlight the flaws in the system. Flaws which have been pointed out by lawyers, insinuated by judges, highlighted by activists, by the United Nations, by all sorts of people.
And when these are not brought to the public’s attention, of course the public will not know. And when they do not know, they may not be upset enough to cause a public outcry.
So, I agree with Zheng Xi’s piece.
The media is fundamentally at fault.
And indeed the media’s silence on these issues is akin to an act of violence against our conscience.
This is especially so when such a flawed system and laws are being used to put teenagers and even low IQ people to death.
It is indeed unconscionable.
To: #53,
You said:
“However the problem here is that Yong is a foreigner; I am not sure the Singaporean taxpayer should pay for his rehabilitation…”
Perhaps sometimes we should look beyond the narrow, and selfish, scope of being “Singaporean”, or “we vs them”, of “they” and “us”. Indeed, we should look beyond the narrow window of economics and the dollar sign.
And consider that we are all humans.
It exactly such consideration that is lacking in our current law on the death penalty – a lack of mercy and compassion, because we are looking at the dollar sign – how much it will cost the state and taxpayers if traffickers were given life sentences instead of a swift hanging.
It is this which makes us a cold-blooded, unfeeling, selfish, hypocritical “compassionate” and “gracious”, “first-world” society.
We want the shell but we do not want the substance.
It is sad when S’poreans start wondering if taxpayers should pay for the rehabilitation of foreigners caught in our flawed system.
It is very sad, indeed.
For they were caught and put to death by an unjust and flawed system.
Aren’t we then responsible for their rehabilitation?
Or do we want to just kill them?
Just kill them and get it over with?
INTERESTING NOTE:
Our foreign minister, George Yeo, has met the Burmese Prime Minister many times, both here and elsewhere.Burma is known as one of the top producers of drugs in the world. And it is also known that billions of dollars are generated by these drug lords for the Burmese junta.
The question thus is:
Knowing that Burma is one of the world’s top producers of narcotics, has George Yeo ever brought this up with the junta? And if he did, why are there virtually no news reports or govt statements about it?
Or is George Yeo too busy sucking up to the junta and too busy naming flowers in their honour?
Second question:
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong earlier this year visited Burma and met with top general Than Shwe.
Did GCT raise the issue of drug production with Than Shwe?
As far as news reports go, there was nothing mentioned about this at all.
So the question is:
Why are we not doing more to ask the junta to stop production of narcotics or at least to let them know of our concerns? Why are our senior ministers not doing this when they have such “close” personal relationships and contact with the very top people responsible for a major part of the world’s drugs production?
Why do our ministers prefer to kill small-time traffickers than to raise the concern with the drug lords themselves, at least?
Why?
“Aren’t we then responsible for their rehabilitation? Or do we want to just kill them?
Just kill them and get it over with?”
Please read the rest of my comment. I mentioned something about extradition. If Singapore was not so intransigent on international norms of extraditions even among it’s allies.
Should Singaporeans rehabilitate these foreigners, give them citizenship to make use of said rehabilitation or return them to their home countries after rehabilitation? Can you imagine the fiscal cost for doing so for a de-facto refugee program which ENCOURAGES drug trafficking?
The only viable solution is a non mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking regardless of nationality and EXTRADITION.
“Why are we not doing more to ask the junta to stop production of narcotics or at least to let them know of our concerns? Why are our senior ministers not doing this when they have such “close” personal relationships and contact with the very top people responsible for a major part of the world’s drugs production?”
I dont understand why Singapore should have a close relationship with Burma in the first place. Not as if Burma is a primary source of trade.
As to ST giving minimal coverage, the mainstream media of Malaysia is eerily silent.
Absolutely NO MENTION at all whether be it in the Star etc. or the vaunted online mouthpiece of the “people” Malaysiakini.
Actually doesn’t it seem like the only way to abolish the death penalty is to vote out the PAP government?
This case does not seem to affect citizens.
It does not hurt their pockets.
It is not their business.
Thus, i wonder would singaporeans in general attend this about human rights.
If I do not attend, am i expecting singaporeans in general would attend?
I feel sad for the family of mr Vong as I wonder how would he be Rehabilitated if he were to be Executed?
At least passersby at Hong Lim would be able to know something about this case which , as i heard, and i do not buy the news due to poverty, this execution case was not reported in the MSM of singapura.
But expect rain. bring a lolly. Would the CNA MSM show up there like the other time when there was a petition for transport or something where people scared to sign the petition after seeing video cameras and reporters there on the scene surprising the people?
If the Malaysians (especially of the same ethnicity and the opposition party) dont even care one of their own is about to be executed in Singapore, why should we? How come no Malaysian is even aware of Mr Yong Vui Kong? Where is Malaysiakini, Shin Min, NST, the Star etc. and their pool of reporters?
Remember Mr Nguyen Tuong Van? He is a Vietnamese immigrant, yet the Australian government had done all it could for a wayward citizen.
The main human rights story in Malaysian media whether be it MSM or online is about a Malay transgendered woman who is facing deportation from UK. Nice to see where their priorities lie.
And Mr George wants the Singaporean online media to emulate Malaysia. Nevertheless if it were to do so, TOC would see a spike in readership and generate a nice steady income.
Dear Cheng Hua
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
Interesting read and yes the article was bought to my attention by Zheng Xi himself. Frankly I feel the arguments and rationale put forth by the Anti Death Penalty people are a about 99 cents short of a dollar.
Cheng Hua , Do u see the US in bed with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Everyone hobnobs with or closes blind eye when dealing with foreign affairs and suspected drug lords
They need better poster boys, someone whose guilt can be in doubt and who can be proven innocent, not plead economic circumstances as an excuse or mitigating plea for Vietnamese and Malaysians.
How many people out there will be willing not only to protest which is easy but go forth and reopened convicted cases in the search for innocence for people on death row to bring doubt and change to the present system as a first step ?
Locke
I am surprised that the Democratic Action Party (DAP) of Malaysia have kept so silent on this issue.
They have always been at the forefront of protecting Malaysia’s marginalized minorities and their human rights. Surely Mr Lim Kit Siang has enough clout and popularity to save this young man, unless he doesn’t want to. Or at the very least register some kind of protest to the Singaporean embassy.
It is very sad that the Malaysian public will ever know that Mr Yong ever existed.
Why can’t we put ourselves in the shoes of Yong, his siblings or even his mother. Just imagine the fear, despair, the suffering and sadness if we happen to face the same destiny as them. Why can’t we be a humane society and spare the young chap his life and give him a chance to repent.
Mr. President, why can’t we forgive him just once for his mistakes ? Why do we need to be so cruel ? You can still continue to enjoy your million dollar salary.
Why can’t we put ourselves in the shoes of those victims that Yong’s drugs had caused, their siblings or even their parents. Just imagine the fear, despair, the suffering and sadness if we happen to face the same destiny as them. Why can’t we be a rational society and and realized that this young chap had ruined many lifes and that he should be accountable for the crimes he had committed.
Mr. President, we’re glad you have uphold justice and ensure no future drug traffickers will dare to risk their life for quick money. It’s not about creulty but getting justice done, and we are glad that we have paid you million dollar salary precisely to uphold the integrity of Singapore’s law and order.
I can understand why a racist Malaysian BN government and their mouthpieces would not want to even try to save one of their minorities, but when DAP and gang, so-called democratic socialist activists don’t even mention Mr Yong or acknowledge his existence, much less appeal for clemency shreds to pieces any legitimacy that it has.
“35) Budamaxx1952 on December 5th, 2009 10.41 pm
Nowhere in the world is capital punishment applied for drugs trafficking (whether you sell 15 grams or a ton of dope) other than the “wonderful” confucian societies of china singapore hong kong
When these confucian lot get into power, all of them will act similarly–the value of a human life is almost nil
Tell me if the above 2 statements i made are wrong, and i will come and lick your feet for 2 hours
HK doesn’t HAVE the death penalty. Their legal system has more or less remained based on English Common law.
Indonesia and Malaysia also has the death penalty for drug trafficking. And they’re Muslim!
Hope your tongue isn’t too sticky.
With crime situation in Malaysia, I am afraid that the DAP as politicians will not be championing the abolition of the death penalty strongly. Some of them might believe in it, some of them might campaign for it but the parties as a whole will not make to much noise about it.
Locke
The point being about selective reporting is not just confined to ST. At the very least, Singaporeans are aware of such an incident if they read ST’s small articles carefully.
If Malaysiakini does not even publish A SINGLE WORD about Mr Yong’s fate at all, what kind of journalism is that? It is even worse than Utusan. It is up to some compassionate Singaporeans to speak out for one of THEIR citizens that committed the crime. So much for emulating Malaysiakini.
Therein lies the difference between Singaporean opposition and Malaysian opposition. I rest my case.
Malaysiakini’s coverage on Malaysian human rights:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/118792
“M’sian transsexual fighting deportation in UK to be punished
A Malaysian transsexual fighting deportation from Britain will be punished for bringing “great shame” on the country, Malaysian authorities said according to reports today.”
Malaysia Boleh.
54) Tan Cheng Hua on December 6th, 2009 12.05 pm
“No outcry because the media does not highlight the flaws in the system. Flaws which have been pointed out by lawyers, insinuated by judges, highlighted by activists, by the United Nations, by all sorts of people.
….
The media is fundamentally at fault.
And indeed the media’s silence on these issues is akin to an act of violence against our conscience.”
———————————
Somehow, I am disheartened by the way you read the situation.
You seem to suggest that it is not enough that mainstream media says a 19 year old is going to be sentence to death, the mainstream media SHOULD tell the general public it is wrong.
the difference is– it is not enough to give Singaporeans facts, we should interpret the facts for them, tell them it is wrong.
Shouldn’t people be able to form opinions on their own, knowing that a 19 yr old drug trafficker is sentenced to death?
If you believe in the public’s capacity to form opinions, the logical conclusion is they don’t care. But if you want to believe that everyone is against the death penalty, it is necessary to assume that the public is stupid, dependent on mass media- so we can exonerate and excuse the public for their silence.
ya lor, I read of this story first from TOC then followed it on newspapers :)
Just food for thought okay?
If you were to find out that your girlfriend or sister or daughter or wife or mother is hooked on drugs and is secretly prostituting herself to support their illicit drug habits. Would you still be so sympathetic?
If you were to find out that your boyfriend or brother or son or husband or father is hooked on drugs and is secretly prostituting himself to support his illicit drug habits. Would you still be feeling the same compassion?
If you were a hardcore junkie now? How would you see this issue? Lament the loss of another source of supply?
During the Tian An men incident, people from every city in the world were out on the street demonstrating their anger against the slaughter of students.
S’poreans too were out on the street—but it was in front of the Bank of China; withdrawing their savings.
That is what 50 years of mind control do to the populace—fearful, heartless,a-pap-thetic ,selfish.
Our retribution will come one day.
As an aside—the case for lowering the voting age to 19 has been made in this case—-old enough to face the death penalty; old enough to vote..
There are many prostitutes who DONT take drugs. Why conflate the sex trade and drug trade? Frankly it is very insulting to insinuate other people’s relatives will resort to prostitution because of drugs, maybe a personal story for Debonerman?
Hardcore junkies can always take the first cheap coach or airplane for a narco-holiday. If they can afford the super high prices of Sg street cocaine etc, what is stopping them from going to the source Burma directly or to some other place where they are more available?
And the Malaysian public has NO IDEA of the pending execution whatsover, much less “interpretation of the facts”. Fantastic. Logically who would give a damn? Someone is going to die tomorrow and it aint my friend/relative. Moreover the guy is a Malaysian drug mule and the Malaysians are very accommodating about it. The people who do give a care have no political agenda as there are absolutely NO political points to score, quite the contrary in fact.
I wonder what about people who are not cautious and leave their bags unattended while holidaying, since the burden of proof is on them. Someone earlier mentioned that the death penalty will deter the next trafficker, but they keep using the same line every time the next drug trafficker gets caught.
74) RW on December 6th, 2009 10.07 pm
You seem to suggest that it is not enough that mainstream media says a 19 year old is going to be sentence to death, the mainstream media SHOULD tell the general public it is wrong.
True. I brought up the Amanda Knox case as a parallel in the other thread I think. Basically, the Italian press were sort of the ones who ‘told’ the jury (as they were allowed to talk to their friends and read the newspapers, etc) who to convict.
Maybe Amanda Knox IS guilty..but I am quite disturbed at the powers of the press in that case.
In the end, it is a double edged sword Choo Zheng Xi is asking for. If he wants the press to have the ‘power’ to influence what he think is the ‘right’ things, there will come a times when they will influence the ‘wrong’ things …
at the moment, the MSM only influences ‘political’ issues that more or less directly involved the MIW (and I think more of us are getting wise with regards to that). I certainly do not wish that they have ‘power’ that tell people what they should think on other issues.
Putting ourselves into the shoes of drug addicts and victims of the drug trade does not exclusively mean we must support the death penalty.
Because we oppose hanging him and rather sentence him to imprisonment does not equate to a lack of empathy or understanding of the other side of the coin.
There are thousands of Vui Kong out there. As are thousands of drug addicts and their suffering families.
My heart goes to Vui Kong but did you ever consider, what will happen if you open this can of worms? The cartels will use those “Vui Kongs” out there to bring drugs into Singapore. Those “Vui Kongs” will agree, knowing that they will not die if caught, they will gain much if they succeed.
We should instead use Vui Kong’s sentence to educate the other “Vui Kongs” out there, to ensure that they do not follow the same path. Do not let his life be in vain.
I will suggest people read “The Merchant of Venice”.
The law is the law. You don’t brush aside the law just because you think it is morally correct / incorrect – that is lawlessness.
It is there for a reason ( excluding extreme places like i don’t know, somalia, etc? )
I think it’s a pity to hand him because there’s a difference between him knowing and not knowing what is the penalty for drug trafficking. If he knows and yet still do it then he really deserve it. But if he don’t know and yet do it, then maybe he deserve a second chance.
“We should instead use Vui Kong’s sentence to educate the other “Vui Kongs” out there, to ensure that they do not follow the same path. Do not let his life be in vain.”
They keep saying that drug trafficker after drug trafficker. Singapore police is not God. Who knows how many who DON’T get caught?
“But if he don’t know and yet do it, then maybe he deserve a second chance.”
Doesnt matter either way. Still a death sentence.
Hi neutral,
Have you actually read the Merchant of Venice? I happen to have taught it.
The point of it is that justice must be tempered by mercy, the mercy Antonio showed by allowing Shylock to keep his property. In fact, it proves precisely the opposite: Shylock’s straightjacket reliance on the black letter of the law in demanding a pound of flesh ultimate results in his downfall.
Zheng Xi
Merchant of Venice is like an ancient scripture. Irrelevant in the contemporary running of laws in a country, especially a small one. My two cents. Treat it as such.
I believe a life should be valued. And I believe a person should have a choice in his life or death situation.
But the question I keep asking myself each time I see a person hanged because of drug trafficking:
- Why do we care so much for this ONE person when there are MANY people who become outcasts and social ills because of the drug traffickings and abuses? Why?
The moment Vui Kong trafficked in drugs, be it 15g or 100g, he has just signed away his life. He knows it. And I’m sure he is aware of the risks.
I do support capital punishment for the good of the others. Again I stress I value life itself. But from the point of law, I see more good from that punishment than harm. If you have gone overseas, even in Australia, you would have hoped the government implemented such a capital punishment, if not caning.
One may argue what about human rights? I can ask when my house is broken into because someone had to fuel his drug addiction, where are my human rights because most of the time, you can’t find these culprits? Or even a senseless death because these drug abusers stabbed a loved one just for a few dollars sake. Where are my rights then?
A good answer is when you see Meng Tu by Daniel Wu, Andy Lau and Louis Khoo. This will give us a glimpse of what drugs can do. Especially to the victim’s families.
Vui Kong has turned over a new leaf. That much I do not doubt. Sometimes a crisis will force people to change. God bless his soul. And I am sorry if he had to pay for his crime.
As my Kaffein-nated blog underlining theme puts forth:
“To me, the opportunities that have passed us by sometimes don’t make U-turns. Just ask the father-to-be missing the birth of his new-born child; or the daughter reflecting on the times she could have made time for her mother while she was still alive; or the man who kept waiting for the right time to propose to his girlfriend. Moments are only fleeting. They are best treasured now.”
Sometimes we don’t have U-turns. For this I support the law. I have said again: The moment Vui Kong trafficked in drugs, be it 15g or 100g, he has just signed away his life. He knows it. And I’m sure he is aware of the risks.
I wish Vui Kong all the best.
Kaffein
Inviolability of life is a fallacy.
I am generally in support of the death penalty, particularly for cases such as murder.
But for Yong’s case, I think he should be given a chance to start anew partly because he’s so young, and probably ended up the way he did because of ignorance.
My parents’ house was broken into when I was a child (that’s right in Singapore) by a rational poor man who never got caught and didn’t appear to be a drug addict.
In fact violent crime is also correlated with alcohol.
Something for people to think about.
I hope all you opponents of the death penalty against “minors” will reflect on your stand when one of your loved ones is beaten up and killed by young gang members because of “mistaken identity”. Or becomes a link of the death trail that leads to sons and daughters being hooked on drugs and further on, leading to trafficking to sustain an ever increasing level of addiction.
What goes around do really comes around. I am heartless? I had a choice. I did not take it. I valued the consequenses it would have had on my family. If one is not brought up right, deprived of an education to absorb the right values and unable to make reasonably sound judgements, then he risked being weeshumined! What more when we are talking about being on the wrong side of dragonian laws!
That’s just the way it was, the way it is now and the way it ought to and will ever be.
All objectivity derive from cultural relativism.
Interesting. I just finished reading this book where the writer was in Cambodia. He met a Cambodian who shared with him how he survived under the Khmer Rouge. His brother was caught stealing food from an equally starving neighbor and summarily executed. His family was well educated by the way (but they had to hide the fact). Fully rational guy. If he stole from the neighbor he would have deprived said neighbor of food, and the neighbor could die from starvation.
Food for thought.
If he had starved to death, you won’t be able to read a book that got you waxing lyrical about. It’s always easy to step up to the pedestal with hindsight.
please read post more carefully. Brother stole food from neighbor cos family starving. Neighbor also starving. Brother caught. Executed by Khmer Rouge for stealing. Who’s right who’s wrong?
It’s always easy looking for quick fixes to very complicated problems.
First of all, I’m not ashamed of my pragmatism. And secondly, you did not present your point clearly. Instead of ending off with “food for thought”, it would be better if you just asked what you’re asking now i.e “who’s right who’s wrong”. Just some food for thought for you.
Oh I love pragmatism too because it produces results. Where’s the pragmatism in having a deterrence in place when studies after studies have revealed very little effect of death penalty on drug use? And are there any statistics that show overall volume of drugs trafficked into Singapore have dropped as a result of death penalty in recent years?
It’s always easy to be proud of irrationality which one mistakes as pragmatism.
Zheng Xi,
The MSM work hand in glove with the govt on many issues.
The day will not come when citizens of this red dot rise up in a popular mass uprising because the govt make sure the conditions for such an event does not occur.
The only way available is to fight a guerrilla war, a hit and run and concerted psychological warfare via every means available. Sensational is the keyword. Public embarrassment, the objective.
Hey man the Singapore MSM at least reported this.
The Malaysian MSM and alternative media totally blocked it out, so that the Malaysian public can continue to live in ignorant bliss.