Should Singapore Review Its Notorious Drugs Law?
-
i'm a free thinkerOriginally posted by pikamaster:What is your religion?
If you are Buddhist, the Dalai Lama has made countless statements and written manifestos agaisnt the Death penalty.
If you are Muslim, The Koran speaks strongly against the Death penalty, and that is in islamic Tradition.
If you are Hindu, there is a particular sutra that talks about preserving peoples' lives, and many Hindu scholars who ahve spoken out about teh Death penalty in India.
If you are atheist, I am sorry for you.
If you are a Free Thinker, use your conscience to guide you.
Hope you find your way,
the Pikamaster
P.S.: I am not trying to convert you or anything. SInc eI don't know your religion, I am just putting outwhat I found out about all the key religions in SIngapore. Of coruse, if you belong to the Temple of the Teapot, well...
and from what i see of this post
"If you are atheist, I am sorry for you."
i feel sorry for you if this is your view . if this is a view supported by your religion, give me Temple of the Teapot anytime -
i have a story, i'm not sure what you think of it, but here it goesOriginally posted by pikamaster:There is, i believe, another thread which i started to talk about the Death Penalty. Perhaps, I should resurrect that thread.
Your argument on the UDHR is invalid, since I have read it through about 30 times, and I can't find a single statement that provides for the Death Penalty. The statement you provide isn't adequate justification, unless you are saying that murderers aren't humans as well. ANyway, isn't killing murderers still murder, whoever does that? I've always wanted to ask supporters of DP this: Do they condone the murder of a murderer by the family of the victim, or by a friend fo the family acting on their behalf?
Anyway, the problem with the Drug trafficking Law is that when you preemptively arrest someone for trafficking at Changi Airport, technically there have been no victims yet since he hasn't sold his wares, so there is morally nothing to accuse him on except intent, making it like the situation in "Minority Report".
I urge you to think carefully.
the Pikamaster
once upon a time there was this farmer who lived on the outskirts of a city, and this farmer, he owns this small plot of land just enough to make a living to raise a family, and so he married a woman who gave birth to four sons , each of the sons grew up tall and strong, but the eldest , the second and the third son refused to work in the fields, the youngest son, instead toiled beside his father to provide for the family, years went by , the three older sons still did not went to the field to work, instead it was the father and the youngest son who toiled everyday
until one day , the father in his old age took a fall , and couldn't get up again. but someone has to work in the fields , if not the whole family would stave to death, the youngest son at this point got fed up with his brothers, and they had an arguement,he did not understand why he alone had to work in the fields while his brothers just lazed around , but in the end the youngest son still went off alone to the fields to tend to the crops, and the work load was almost unbearable, he had to provide for five other mouths, who would not be able or are unwilling to help
years went by , and the youngest son toyed with the thought of abandoning all work to live in the city, not because he wanted to go, but because he grew tired of toiling everyday to provide for people whom had never lifted a finger to help him ,he toyed with the idea everyday, of not going to the fields anymore, and just letting his brothers stave to death. but still, everymorning without fail,he would get up and go down to the fields before the first rays of sunlight touch the fields
now do you know the meaning of the story and why i wrote all this? and the connection with the topic?
if you don't get it, i can tell you,
to me the story has as much to do with the topic , as your religious\moral views have to do with the topic, if you still don't get it, its ok, neither do i -
Below Article 29 makes provisions for the law . Article 30 defines the usage of UDHR. It makes way for the law.Originally posted by pikamaster:There is, i believe, another thread which i started to talk about the Death Penalty. Perhaps, I should resurrect that thread.
Your argument on the UDHR is invalid, since I have read it through about 30 times, and I can't find a single statement that provides for the Death Penalty. The statement you provide isn't adequate justification, unless you are saying that murderers aren't humans as well. ANyway, isn't killing murderers still murder, whoever does that? I've always wanted to ask supporters of DP this: Do they condone the murder of a murderer by the family of the victim, or by a friend fo the family acting on their behalf?
Anyway, the problem with the Drug trafficking Law is that when you preemptively arrest someone for trafficking at Changi Airport, technically there have been no victims yet since he hasn't sold his wares, so there is morally nothing to accuse him on except intent, making it like the situation in "Minority Report".
I urge you to think carefully.
the Pikamaster
If my argument is invalid , then jails are invalid too.
I condone vigilante behaviour. A murderer is not a murderer unless the law proves him to be . A suspect is always presumed innocent until proven guilty in the due process of law. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a defence. Once proven guilty , the sentence will be up to the state. They can appeal against the judgement.
UDHR
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Lazerlord you are entitled to your personal beliefs, and so is everyone here. I respect your beliefs and I urge you to respect whatever opposing beliefs that others have shown. -
Originally posted by fymk:I condone vigilante behaviour. A murderer is not a murderer unless the law proves him to be . A suspect is always presumed innocent until proven guilty in the due process of law. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a defence. Once proven guilty , the sentence will be up to the state. They can appeal against the judgement.
Lazerlord you are entitled to your personal beliefs, and so is everyone here. I respect your beliefs and I urge you to respect whatever opposing beliefs that others have shown.Article 30
fymk,
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
I salute you for your openness.
I understand, from other threads in this forum, that Gazelle is one of the more anti-PAP guys in this forum, but then I stick tot eh creed, "even the idiot has something to teach us."
I have read the UDHR before and I know articles 29 and 30 well, although I of course am inclined toward articles 6 and 7, since I am a student. Article 30 states clearly that "nothing in [the UDHR] may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person to... perform any act aimed at destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth wherein" and Right to Life is clearly stated as part of the UDHR, thus article 30 effectively bars one from using Article 29.2 to support the Death Penalty, since the Death Penalty is an action by the State to remove the Right to Life of a human person.
The State has the role of moral custodian of Society. As Confucius once said, "a leader must rule with benevolence, and lead by example." I have a theory that the Death Penalty actually increases the possibility of intent for murder, even while on the surface deterring the actual act from occurring. Crouching behind Legal Codes doesn't make the action any more legal or moral: Hitler passed laws to condone the Holocaust, so the Holocaust was legal in germany at that time. My point is that the State cannot act as a morla custodian if it does not practice what it preaches.
Article 29 exists, as far as I understand, to enable Governments to handle crime in their countries. its text is, according to the official version:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
As 29.2 states in the official version, the purpose must be to "secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others." the Death penalty fails to provide these:
a) there is nothing to secure since the victim's life is already taken, and there is no proof that the murderer is going to kill the victim's family members without provocation. For Drug Trafficking, it si even worse since there is no proof that victims have even been existent. Jail and confiscation fo the possession (drugs) is sufficient.
b) the Death Penalty violates article 12, since the enaction of it will tarnish the reputation of the Accused' family, especially in Asian countries like SIngapore. Remember, we are a Chinese society, and it is tradition to have guilt by Association, whether or not we utilise Western legal codes officially. Thus, the Death penalty does not secureRespect for the rigths for the Accused' family.
c) In the event that a mistake is made, it is irreversible.
I hope you understand my position on this matter.
As a side note, there is an American advocacy group against the Death Penalty that is made up of murder victims' families. Let me ask you, if such a group can exist, what does that tell you about the Penalty?
the pikamaster sincerely -
your reply is to the wrong post, so I am not obliged to answer.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:i have a story, i'm not sure what you think of it, but here it goes
once upon a time there was this farmer who lived on the outskirts of a city, and this farmer, he owns this small plot of land just enough to make a living to raise a family, and so he married a woman who gave birth to four sons , each of the sons grew up tall and strong, but the eldest , the second and the third son refused to work in the fields, the youngest son, instead toiled beside his father to provide for the family, years went by , the three older sons still did not went to the field to work, instead it was the father and the youngest son who toiled everyday
until one day , the father in his old age took a fall , and couldn't get up again. but someone has to work in the fields , if not the whole family would stave to death, the youngest son at this point got fed up with his brothers, and they had an arguement,he did not understand why he alone had to work in the fields while his brothers just lazed around , but in the end the youngest son still went off alone to the fields to tend to the crops, and the work load was almost unbearable, he had to provide for five other mouths, who would not be able or are unwilling to help
years went by , and the youngest son toyed with the thought of abandoning all work to live in the city, not because he wanted to go, but because he grew tired of toiling everyday to provide for people whom had never lifted a finger to help him ,he toyed with the idea everyday, of not going to the fields anymore, and just letting his brothers stave to death. but still, everymorning without fail,he would get up and go down to the fields before the first rays of sunlight touch the fields
now do you know the meaning of the story and why i wrote all this? and the connection with the topic?
if you don't get it, i can tell you,
to me the story has as much to do with the topic , as your religious\moral views have to do with the topic, if you still don't get it, its ok, neither do i -
My religion considers atheism a sin. I am Roman Catholic. but I still wish for everyone tor eflect on their consciences.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:i'm a free thinker
and from what i see of this post
"If you are atheist, I am sorry for you."
i feel sorry for you if this is your view . if this is a view supported by your religion, give me Temple of the Teapot anytime
*sigh*, i meant no offence. Why am I forever being misinterpreted?
the troubled pikamaster -
you were not misinterpreted, you were never misinterpretedOriginally posted by pikamaster:My religion considers atheism a sin. I am Roman Catholic. but I still wish for everyone tor eflect on their consciences.
*sigh*, i meant no offence. Why am I forever being misinterpreted?
the troubled pikamaster
you seem to have a habbit of denying your mistakes
no offense meant maybe, but the recipent feels offended -
my reply was not to the wrong post and you were never obliged to answer in the first placeOriginally posted by pikamaster:your reply is to the wrong post, so I am not obliged to answer. -
Originally posted by pikamaster:fymk,
I salute you for your openness.
I understand, from other threads in this forum, that Gazelle is one of the more anti-PAP guys in this forum, but then I stick tot eh creed, "even the idiot has something to teach us."
I have read the UDHR before and I know articles 29 and 30 well, although I of course am inclined toward articles 6 and 7, since I am a student. Article 30 states clearly that "nothing in [the UDHR] may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person to... perform any act aimed at destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth wherein" and Right to Life is clearly stated as part of the UDHR, thus article 30 effectively bars one from using Article 29.2 to support the Death Penalty, since the Death Penalty is an action by the State to remove the Right to Life of a human person.
The State has the role of moral custodian of Society. As Confucius once said, "a leader must rule with benevolence, and lead by example." I have a theory that the Death Penalty actually increases the possibility of intent for murder, even while on the surface deterring the actual act from occurring. Crouching behind Legal Codes doesn't make the action any more legal or moral: Hitler passed laws to condone the Holocaust, so the Holocaust was legal in germany at that time. My point is that the State cannot act as a morla custodian if it does not practice what it preaches.
Article 29 exists, as far as I understand, to enable Governments to handle crime in their countries. its text is, according to the official version:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
As 29.2 states in the official version, the purpose must be to "secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others." the Death penalty fails to provide these:
a) there is nothing to secure since the victim's life is already taken, and there is no proof that the murderer is going to kill the victim's family members without provocation. For Drug Trafficking, it si even worse since there is no proof that victims have even been existent. Jail and confiscation fo the possession (drugs) is sufficient.
b) the Death Penalty violates article 12, since the enaction of it will tarnish the reputation of the Accused' family, especially in Asian countries like SIngapore. Remember, we are a Chinese society, and it is tradition to have guilt by Association, whether or not we utilise Western legal codes officially. Thus, the Death penalty does not secureRespect for the rigths for the Accused' family.
c) In the event that a mistake is made, it is irreversible.
I hope you understand my position on this matter.
As a side note, there is an American advocacy group against the Death Penalty that is made up of murder victims' families. Let me ask you, if such a group can exist, what does that tell you about the Penalty?
I like this point that you made..
the pikamaster sincerely -
for the words highlighted in red, i believe my story has given an answer to pika regarding my views, though he might not get what i'm trying to sayOriginally posted by pikamaster:fymk,
I salute you for your openness.
I understand, from other threads in this forum, that Gazelle is one of the more anti-PAP guys in this forum, but then I stick tot eh creed, "even the idiot has something to teach us."
I have read the UDHR before and I know articles 29 and 30 well, although I of course am inclined toward articles 6 and 7, since I am a student. Article 30 states clearly that "nothing in [the UDHR] may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person to... perform any act aimed at destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth wherein" and Right to Life is clearly stated as part of the UDHR, thus article 30 effectively bars one from using Article 29.2 to support the Death Penalty, since the Death Penalty is an action by the State to remove the Right to Life of a human person.
The State has the role of moral custodian of Society. As Confucius once said, "a leader must rule with benevolence, and lead by example." I have a theory that the Death Penalty actually increases the possibility of intent for murder, even while on the surface deterring the actual act from occurring. Crouching behind Legal Codes doesn't make the action any more legal or moral: Hitler passed laws to condone the Holocaust, so the Holocaust was legal in germany at that time. My point is that the State cannot act as a morla custodian if it does not practice what it preaches.
Article 29 exists, as far as I understand, to enable Governments to handle crime in their countries. its text is, according to the official version:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
As 29.2 states in the official version, the purpose must be to "secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others." the Death penalty fails to provide these:
a) there is nothing to secure since the victim's life is already taken, and there is no proof that the murderer is going to kill the victim's family members without provocation. For Drug Trafficking, it si even worse since there is no proof that victims have even been existent. Jail and confiscation fo the possession (drugs) is sufficient.
b) the Death Penalty violates article 12, since the enaction of it will tarnish the reputation of the Accused' family, especially in Asian countries like SIngapore. Remember, we are a Chinese society, and it is tradition to have guilt by Association, whether or not we utilise Western legal codes officially. Thus, the Death penalty does not secureRespect for the rigths for the Accused' family.
c) In the event that a mistake is made, it is irreversible.
I hope you understand my position on this matter.
As a side note, there is an American advocacy group against the Death Penalty that is made up of murder victims' families. Let me ask you, if such a group can exist, what does that tell you about the Penalty?
I like this point that you made..
the pikamaster sincerely -
About american advocacy
Texas happens to be an american state who is extremely efficient in executing murderers.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-2002/vo18no11_fallacies.htm [/url]
' Thomas Aquinas noted in his Summa Theologica that "if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good." The death penalty for murderers, the Catholic ChurchÂ’s most famous theologian argued, was a form of retributive punishment. He explained that this "punishment may be considered as a medicine, not only healing the past sin, but also preserving from future sin." Though life may be taken from a murderer, he will be better off with the punishment because "spiritual goods are of the greatest consequence, while temporal goods are least important." '
- Thomas R. Eddlem -
In America, there are both states that execute murderers, and states who don't, so Texas isn't proof that Americans support the Death Penalty, if that is what you are trying to say.Originally posted by fymk:About american advocacy
Texas happens to be an american state who is extremely efficient in executing murderers.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-2002/vo18no11_fallacies.htm [/url]
Yes, and I know what St THomas Aquinas said, but then he was a rather petite conservative.
the pikamaster -
What I am trying to say : there are pros and cons for the death penalty. Supporters and anti death penalty activists. Moral ethics vs legal ethics. Human Rights of Criminals VS Rights of Law abiding citizens.Originally posted by pikamaster:In America, there are both states that execute murderers, and states who don't, so Texas isn't proof that Americans support the Death Penalty, if that is what you are trying to say.
Yes, and I know what St THomas Aquinas said, but then he was a rather petite conservative.
the pikamaster
I am just a devil's advocate. Providing spiritual and moral arguments that support the death penalty vs the spiritual and moral arguments that don't (which are unfortunately more) . I follow the legal ethics which support the death penalty, bearing in mind legal ethics are separate from morality itself. -
Is dealth penalty the best solution to the problem? I dont think so.Originally posted by fymk:What I am trying to say : there are pros and cons for the death penalty. Supporters and anti death penalty activists. Moral ethics vs legal ethics. Human Rights of Criminals VS Rights of Law abiding citizens.
I am just a devil's advocate. Providing spiritual and moral arguments that support the death penalty vs the spiritual and moral arguments that don't (which are unfortunately more) . I follow the legal ethics which support the death penalty, bearing in mind legal ethics are separate from morality itself.
I believe the best way is to deter drug trafficking is to prevent drugs from getting into this country. Shouldnt our custom department be blame for their inability to keep drugs out of Singapore? Are they doing enough? Can anybody question the authority?
No drugs = No trafficking. -
I think the customs is doing the best that they can to keep drugs out. Sniffer dogs, x ray etc. Or shall we request for CT scans of every single passenger entering singapore to rule out swallowed drug packets? . You have to think further beyond blaming our customs officers who are working as hard as they can.Originally posted by Gazelle:Is dealth penalty the best solution to the problem? I dont think so.
I believe the best way is to deter drug trafficking is to prevent drugs from getting into this country. Shouldnt our custom department be blame for their inability to keep drugs out of Singapore? Are they doing enough? Can anybody question the authority?
No drugs = No trafficking.
The thing is can anyone question other countries for their global participation in the illicit drug trade etc netherlands (for legalising some illegal drugs) , afghanistan (heroin capital) , the golden triangle ( i.e. myanmar , thailand ). Some countries even open injecting rooms ( as in germany and australia) for heroin addicts. -
There is no alternative way to eliminate mind altering drugs. The death penalty stands to deter drug traffickers from entering singapore .
Even if you legalise them , there will be people who sort more to get high. It is detrimental to the health of the affected individuals.
In my line of work in australia , I have seen a heroin addict who had to undergo surgery and no amount of safe limits of morphine could act to control his pain - the doctors couldn't give him an overdose - he was left screaming in pain.
I have seen a family devastated that their daughter ,who overdosed on heroin, turned into a vegetable after the doctors tried to save her. I seen the end result of someone who took cannabis and got hit by cars in the highway while she thought she was flying. My colleague was even threatened by a drug addict whom we refused to accede to his request of increasing his morphine . He attempted to stab us with a bloody needle he had - and he had hepatitis c .
All young vulnerable people who got hooked on drugs when they were teenagers. Their drug addiction inflicts pain and suffering to those around them.
Are drug traffickers worthy of the death penalty?
Emotional judgement will tell me yes.
Legal ethics in Singapore will tell me yes.
From a moral high view it is a yes.
We seek to protect the community from drugs which kills or destroy the fabric of society. Practically , we don't really have a choice because drug traffickers will still return to their ways of trafficking drugs. Drug trafficking is a lucrative trade - these drug traffickers earn alot for it because of the risks they chose to take. The death penalty in singapore is to discourage them from entering singapore with the intention to disrupt our small society.
The point of the Death Penalty is to Deter. It is not seeking to kill any tom dick or harry. It is just telling drug traffickers to keep out or bear the brunt of the consequences. [/quote] -
If a person is carrying a bomb under their clothes, technically there have been no victims yet since he hasn't detonated the bomb, so there is morally nothing to accuse him on except intent.Originally posted by pikamaster:Anyway, the problem with the Drug trafficking Law is that when you preemptively arrest someone for trafficking at Changi Airport, technically there have been no victims yet since he hasn't sold his wares, so there is morally nothing to accuse him on except intent, making it like the situation in "Minority Report".
I urge you to think carefully.
I urge you to think carefully
-
Before you start accusing me for putting the blame on our custom officers, I would like you to take a trip down to Changi airport T1 and 2, and count the number of passengers being search or stop when entering Singapore. I am a regular traveler myself and my guess would be about 1% at most. Is this what you refer as doing our best? And have anyone ever see sniff dogs at the airport before? I think there is a major loophole in our airport that allows drug to enter freely. All you need is for someone to hand carry the drugs and it will have a 99% chance of passing through our Singapore custom.Originally posted by fymk:I think the customs is doing the best that they can to keep drugs out. Sniffer dogs, x ray etc. Or shall we request for CT scans of every single passenger entering singapore to rule out swallowed drug packets? . You have to think further beyond blaming our customs officers who are working as hard as they can.
The thing is can anyone question other countries for their global participation in the illicit drug trade etc netherlands (for legalising some illegal drugs) , afghanistan (heroin capital) , the golden triangle ( i.e. myanmar , thailand ). Some countries even open injecting rooms ( as in germany and australia) for heroin addicts.
1kg of pure heroine will be good enough to get 66 “innocent” people who are mostly desperate for money executed.Therefore, I don’t think it is unfair to demand our Singapore custom to beef up their checks so that drugs are keep out of the country. I believe it is the smugglers that need death sentence, and not drug traffickers. -
Since 1991, more than 400 people have been hanged in Singapore and mostly for drugs offences. Can I know how many Australians were directly killed by the influence of drugs in Australia.Originally posted by fymk:There is no alternative way to eliminate mind altering drugs. The death penalty stands to deter drug traffickers from entering singapore .
Even if you legalise them , there will be people who sort more to get high. It is detrimental to the health of the affected individuals.
In my line of work in australia , I have seen a heroin addict who had to undergo surgery and no amount of safe limits of morphine could act to control his pain - the doctors couldn't give him an overdose - he was left screaming in pain.
I have seen a family devastated that their daughter ,who overdosed on heroin, turned into a vegetable after the doctors tried to save her. I seen the end result of someone who took cannabis and got hit by cars in the highway while she thought she was flying. My colleague was even threatened by a drug addict whom we refused to accede to his request of increasing his morphine . He attempted to stab us with a bloody needle he had - and he had hepatitis c .
All young vulnerable people who got hooked on drugs when they were teenagers. Their drug addiction inflicts pain and suffering to those around them.
Are drug traffickers worthy of the death penalty?
Emotional judgement will tell me yes.
Legal ethics in Singapore will tell me yes.
From a moral high view it is a yes.
We seek to protect the community from drugs which kills or destroy the fabric of society. Practically , we don't really have a choice because drug traffickers will still return to their ways of trafficking drugs. Drug trafficking is a lucrative trade - these drug traffickers earn alot for it because of the risks they chose to take. The death penalty in singapore is to discourage them from entering singapore with the intention to disrupt our small society.
The point of the Death Penalty is to Deter. It is not seeking to kill any tom dick or harry. It is just telling drug traffickers to keep out or bear the brunt of the consequences. [/quote]
Did you know that Singapore Changi Airpot is the most popular transit point for drugs dealers? Which also means that the death sentence law is just not effective to deter smuggles from coming into singapore. -
Before you start accusing me for putting the blame on our custom officers, I would like you to take a trip down to Changi airport T1 and 2, and count the number of passengers being search or stop when entering Singapore. I am a regular traveler myself and my guess would be about 1% at most. Is this what you refer as doing our best? And have anyone ever see sniff dogs at the airport before? I think there is a major loophole in our airport that allows drug to enter freely. All you need is for someone to hand carry the drugs and it will have a 99% chance of passing through our Singapore custom.
I believe the multi million x-ray machine tat was bought is capable of detecting drugs. I can be sure that 100% your belongings have to go through the machine to check for any firearms and drugs. If you talk about stop and search for a higher proportion of people, do you really think it will be value added ? The whole queuing time and manpower needed will be enormous. I believe throughout the world, the authorities will conduct a sample checking. This can already put fear into the heart of potential drug trafficker.
A similar scenario is the strip searching of soldiers after shooting. Out of a whole company, only 1 or 2 soldiers get to be strip search. However this will already safely deter the people from smuggling a bullet.1kg of pure heroine will be good enough to get 66 “innocent” people who are mostly desperate for money executed.Therefore, I don’t think it is unfair to demand our Singapore custom to beef up their checks so that drugs are keep out of the country. I believe it is the smugglers that need death sentence, and not drug traffickers.
Drug smugglers are termed as drug traffickers in singapore. It just meant that if you carry drug more than a specified weight, you are labeled as a drug trafficker. Drug trafficking is also used to stop people from distributing drugs internally after the drug has successfully been smuggled in. They too deserve the death penalty.Since 1991, more than 400 people have been hanged in Singapore and mostly for drugs offences. Can I know how many Australians were directly killed by the influence of drugs in Australia.
For 14 years, there are only 400 people who had died for drug trafficking. The number of people whose life was ruined in singapore is surely more than that. You just have to look at the number of drugs addicts in Singapore to know the implications of drugs. In 1989 alone, there were already 20,000 heroin drug addicts in Singapore.Did you know that Singapore Changi Airpot is the most popular transit point for drugs dealers? Which also means that the death sentence law is just not effective to deter smuggles from coming into singapore.
I am not very sure where do you get the facts about singapore being the most popular transit point but I do know a potential reason for it. The reason is because the other western countries will not check the people from singapore that closely when they had reached. They have the impression that singapore is keeping a very good control of drug trafficking, that is why they will conduct a less stringent check on them when they arrived. Another possible reason is that singapore is well connected by air to western countries.
If one wants to remove the death penalty for drug traffickers, they are just being kind to the drug traffickers and cruel to his potential victims. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
Sniffer dogs I think are in the restricted part of the airport sniffing baggages as they go through the conveyor belt . why do u think we have to wait for our baggages.
Before you start accusing me for putting the blame on our custom officers, I would like you to take a trip down to Changi airport T1 and 2, and count the number of passengers being search or stop when entering Singapore. I am a regular traveler myself and my guess would be about 1% at most. Is this what you refer as doing our best? And have anyone ever see sniff dogs at the airport before? I think there is a major loophole in our airport that allows drug to enter freely. All you need is for someone to hand carry the drugs and it will have a 99% chance of passing through our Singapore custom.
1kg of pure heroine will be good enough to get 66 “innocent” people who are mostly desperate for money executed.Therefore, I don’t think it is unfair to demand our Singapore custom to beef up their checks so that drugs are keep out of the country. I believe it is the smugglers that need death sentence, and not drug traffickers.
Note illicit drugs traffickers and illicit drug smugglers are quite the same .
Smugglers are defined as someone who imports or exports without paying duties
Traffickers are defined as someone who promotes or exchanges goods or services for money .
Drug traffickers run on the above principles
In Singapore :
Possessing a certain quantity of illicit drug is evidence of trafficking. Possession means you had control of that quantity, the offender is deemed to be a trafficker , which results in the death penalty.
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf66f306f503e529a5ca25697e0017661feddb1bf8e48095a5ca256b11001dbbd9!OpenDocument
Since 1991, more than 400 people have been hanged in Singapore and mostly for drugs offences. Can I know how many Australians were directly killed by the influence of drugs in Australia.
have fun with the statistics...those are only 2001 which is the most current
Singapore is an international hub . People transit through to go to and fro the pacific side. Singapore is concerned with drugs coming into Singapore for the protection of her community ...not what is really leaving singapore (unless they suspect a potential terrorist act) , which bear no consequences on her community. Unfortunately sometimes a foreign idiot will get caught while leaving , then he get hanged. Well , that's too bad...no next time for him/her.
Did you know that Singapore Changi Airpot is the most popular transit point for drugs dealers? Which also means that the death sentence law is just not effective to deter smuggles from coming into singapore. -
<<>>
Wrong!!! They only scan for checked in luggage...each passenger are allow to carry up to about 26KG of hand carry luggage and these doesnt go through x-ray machine.
<<>>
Yes I think it is worth it, cause it will deter drug smugglers, there will be no drugs coming into Singapore, prices of drug will be out of reach to people and there will be no trafficker.
<<>>
Yes, sure it is good enough. But how come there are still people out there who have mangaged to keep some bullets as souvenier?
<<>>They have the impression that singapore is keeping a very good control of drug trafficking, that is why they will conduct a less stringent check on them when they arrived. Another possible reason is that singapore is well connected by air to western countries.
yeah...thats what you think, but unfortunately thats not the case. Please dont THINK, we are talking about lives here.
<<>>
No one in this world enjoy being a drug trafficker. And guess what, you dont make alot of money selling drugs in Singapore cuase the market it too small. The reason why people get suck into it is because the need the money for whatever reasons, not that they wanna get rich. I believe some of these traffickers deserve a second chance. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
You have to be kidding on 26kg handcarry. One passenger is allowed to carry no more than 20kg of checked in baggage for economy class. Handcarry is permitted to the extent of 7kg
<<>>
Wrong!!! They only scan for checked in luggage...each passenger are allow to carry up to about 26KG of hand carry luggage and these doesnt go through x-ray machine.
Haven't u heard of drug addicts committing acts of theft and bulgary to get money for their drugs?
<<>>
Yes I think it is worth it, cause it will deter drug smugglers, there will be no drugs coming into Singapore, prices of drug will be out of reach to people and there will be no trafficker.
They have one bullet ....no gun - no way to injure anyone. A drug smuggler has one packet of drugs which he can consume at his own risk or pass on to others to get a high.
<<>>
Yes, sure it is good enough. But how come there are still people out there who have mangaged to keep some bullets as souvenier?
What lives? The ones forfeited because they did not obey the laws of our nation or the ones lost and destroyed because of the drugs?
<<>>They have the impression that singapore is keeping a very good control of drug trafficking, that is why they will conduct a less stringent check on them when they arrived. Another possible reason is that singapore is well connected by air to western countries.
yeah...thats what you think, but unfortunately thats not the case. Please dont THINK, we are talking about lives here.
Yeah poor them ...they are so poor . They can earn an honest living slow as it might seem. They should avoid Singapore if they have drugs. Simple.
<<>>
No one in this world enjoy being a drug trafficker. And guess what, you dont make alot of money selling drugs in Singapore cuase the market it too small. The reason why people get suck into it is because the need the money for whatever reasons, not that they wanna get rich. I believe some of these traffickers deserve a second chance.
People enter Singapore- they obey singapore's laws and abide by it. If they don't . Singapore has a right to serve penalty upon an individual breaking its laws. So for all potential drug traffickers out there - find some other way of bypassing Singapore and Malaysia to get to your destination. -
Actually, Malaysia has a more tougher punishment
But they should constitude corporal punishment... -
There was a Vietnamese guy carrying drugs into ictoria via Changi. This guy was unlucky to set off the metal detectors. Since the drugs were never intended for our market, he should have been handed to the Authorities in Melbourne instead. At least he can still return to his computer shop after serving 30 years in jail.Originally posted by Gazelle:No one in this world enjoy being a drug trafficker. And guess what, you dont make alot of money selling drugs in Singapore cuase the market it too small. The reason why people get suck into it is because the need the money for whatever reasons, not that they wanna get rich. I believe some of these traffickers deserve a second chance.