Should Singapore Review Its Notorious Drugs Law?
-
Everybody, read these:
These are from Amnesty International's report, which our government strongly discredited, most likely to protect itself. But if you read these case studies and don't see the fault of the judiciary, then you truely lack compassion, and I am very sad for all of you.
Executed for selling cannabis: Rozman Jusoh from Malaysia
Rozman Jusoh, a 24-year-old labourer from Malaysia, was arrested allegedly after trying to sell 1.04 kg of cannabis to an undercover officer of the Central Narcotics Bureau. In March 1995 he was acquitted of the capital offence of drug trafficking after the trial judge found him to have "sub-normal intelligence, with an IQ of 74." Instead he was found guilty of the lesser offence of drug possession and sentenced to a prison term. After the prosecution filed an appeal, the appeal judge sentenced him to death, stating, "He was educationally sub-normal but that does not absolve him from his criminal deeds."(23) In an interview with SingaporeÂ’s New Paper his mother said, "When someoneÂ’s talking to him, he would merely smile or look at you blankly. I donÂ’t know how he ever made it through to Secondary 3 in school." She said that the family had planned to enrol him in religious classes and steer him back to the "right path" once he was released from prison. Rozman Jusoh was hanged in April 1996.
Shop assistant executed for drug trafficking: Poon Yuen-chung from Hong Kong
Poon Yuen-chung, a shop assistant from Hong Kong, was only 18 years old when she and her 17-year-old friend, Lam Hoi-ka were arrested at Changi Airport, Singapore, after arriving from Bangkok. The two girls had gone on holiday to Bangkok after telling their parents they were going on a local camping trip. Airport officials found heroin hidden in a secret compartment in their luggage. Both girls denied any prior knowledge of the drugs and said they had been befriended by a Chinese couple in Bangkok who had taken them out to dinner and on sightseeing tours, and later bought suitcases for them. "My sister is a simple and naïve girl who can do foolish things sometimes", Poon Yuen-chung’s sister later told the Sunday Morning Post, a Hong Kong newspaper. Despite appeals for clemency, Poon Yuen-chung was executed in April 1995. Her friend Lam Hoi-ka, however, was sentenced to life imprisonment as she was under 18 at the time of the offence.
Drug addict executed: Zulfikar Bin Mustaffah
Zulfikar Bin Mustaffah, aged 32, an unemployed Singaporean, was sentenced to death in November 2000 after being arrested in possession of a package containing approximately 70 grams of heroin. He had allegedly agreed to deliver the package to a man he did not know, but claimed that he was unaware of the contents. Addicted to drugs since the age of 14, Zulfikar Bin Mustaffah dropped out of school at 15 and had spent most of his life in drug rehabilitation centres or in detention. Because drug addicts are treated as criminals in Singapore, Zulfikar had a criminal record, making it very difficult for him to find work. During a sitting of parliament in July 2001, the then parliamentarian J.B. Jeyaretnam, called for a parliamentary debate on the case, saying, "It is a known fact that someone who is given to drug taking over a period of time will have his mental faculties affected, his power to think carefully and to rationalise. He becomes weak-minded and particularly [...] vulnerable to people who try to use him or exploit him."(24) Zulfikar Bin Mustaffah was hanged in September 2001.
Executed after denying involvement in a cannabis case: Thiru Selvam
Thiru Selvam, a 28-year-old Singaporean father of two young children, was arrested after a friend of his was found in possession of approximately 800 grams of cannabis. The friend reportedly told the police that the drugs belonged to Thiru Selvam. At his trial the judge is said to have told him that if he confessed he would be sentenced to 25 years in prison and 24 strokes of the cane. However Thiru Selvam reportedly refused to confess and claimed he was innocent. He was sentenced to death in September 2000, while his friend was given a 25-year prison term.
Thiru SelvamÂ’s mother died when he was a baby. His father remarried but began drinking heavily and died when Thiru Selvam was only 16. He began using drugs when he was 14 years old and was admitted to a drug rehabilitation centre the following year. Thiru Selvam was hanged in September 2001.
Executed after an unfair trial: Vignes s/o Mourthi(25) from Malaysia
Vignes s/o Mourthi, a 23-year-old Malaysian national, grew up in a poor family and received only basic education. He was arrested while carrying a plastic bag containing approximately 27 grams of heroin. At his trial he stated that he had been asked by an old family friend, Moorthy A/L Angappan, to carry the bag from Malaysia to Singapore, where he travelled every day for work. He insisted he was unaware of the bagÂ’s contents.
Amnesty International is concerned about a number of alleged irregularities during the trial proceedings. The judge refused to adjourn the trial hearing to grant Vignes s/o MourthiÂ’s request to appoint a new lawyer, following his complaint that he was inadequately represented. His conviction appears to have been based largely on a written record, provided by the prosecution, of an incriminating conversation which allegedly took place between him and an officer of the Central Narcotics Bureau. Vignes s/o Mourth denied the conversation took place. The court however deemed the evidence to be admissible despite the fact that no date had been recorded on it and neither Vignes s/o Mourthi nor his lawyer were aware of its existence before it was produced in court.
Following rejection by the President of Vignes s/o MourthiÂ’s appeal for clemency, his new lawyer, convinced of his innocence, lodged a motion for a re-trial on the grounds that there had been a miscarriage of justice and that he had not received a fair trial. Two similar motions lodged by him were rejected. On 25 September 2003, Chief Justice Yong Pung How dismissed his final appeal for a re-trial on the basis that the case could not be reopened as it had already been dealt with by the courts. He reportedly told the lawyer, "You can say he is an innocent man, but as far as the law is concerned, he has been found guilty and convicted. You better say goodbye to him, thatÂ’s all you can do."(26) Vignes s/o Mourthi and Moorthy A/L Angappan were hanged the following morning at dawn. In a distressing scene following the execution, distraught family members reportedly climbed onto the hearse carrying VignesÂ’ body and pummelled his chest, trying to revive him.(27)
the hopeful pikamaster
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa360012004 -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
I am sympathetic. However if I am to play the devil's advocate , my points will be :
Everybody, read these:
These are from Amnesty International's report, which our government strongly discredited, most likely to protect itself. But if you read these case studies and don't see the fault of the judiciary, then you truely lack compassion, and I am very sad for all of you.
the hopeful pikamaster
The guy with the IQ of 74 . The law judge him to be aware of right and wrong. Therefore he is liable for his actions. Furthermore he was selling cannabis , which means he knew what he was doing. Low IQ doesn't mean decreased cupability especially if the person knew what they were doing.
The girl from hongkong - sad but didn't her parents teach her not to accept candy from a stranger? If someone offers to buy me a luggage - I would be hesitant to accept since I only knew them for a few days. It is more of a he says she says which doesn't provide defence . Imagine if she goes into USA with a timebomb and says she doesn't know about it - they would detain her under the patriot act and let her rot in guantanamo bay without a trial.
Drug addicts executed - so it's the judicial system who forced them into drugs amd make him weakminded? I beg your pardon - that is no excuse.
He claims it is not his and his friend framed him etc......the blood is not on the judicial system but on his friend's hand. What type of friend to have .
Unfortunate cases. I haven't heard two sides of the fences nor seen court transcripts . Would be good if I can access those like amnesty can. -
at least singapore better than malaysia. singapore bother to scan and to track down drug dealers and takers and punish them. malaysia, put the sign big big "ALL Drug offenders face the DEATH panalty", then can't be bothered with scanning incoming goods or people.
-
But we have hanged our fair share of drug traffickers too.Originally posted by branzzz:at least singapore better than malaysia. singapore bother to scan and to track down drug dealers and takers and punish them. malaysia, put the sign big big "ALL Drug offenders face the DEATH panalty", then can't be bothered with scanning incoming goods or people.
However, Vignes Moorthy could have been tortured into making a "confession", though.
Off topic: Tok Leng How may be just a fall guy in Huang Na case. The real culprits may be miles away by now. -
read though all, was begining to feel sorry for them till i read the words "Amnesty International"Originally posted by pikamaster:Everybody, read these:
These are from Amnesty International's report, which our government strongly discredited, most likely to protect itself. But if you read these case studies and don't see the fault of the judiciary, then you truely lack compassion, and I am very sad for all of you.
the hopeful pikamaster
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa360012004
thats when all feelings of sympathy disappeared, sorry but Amnesty International's just not an organisation that i trust , same goes for the UN -
SO waht org do you trust? You mean, you'd rather trust our government, which clearly cannot be objective toward itself, as opposed to a nonpartisan organization that has actually won the Nobel Peace Prize as well? Or perhaps you don't trust the Nobel Society as well?Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:read though all, was begining to feel sorry for them till i read the words "Amnesty International"
thats when all feelings of sympathy disappeared, sorry but Amnesty International's just not an organisation that i trust , same goes for the UN
the puzzled pikamaster -
There's nothing wrong with Playing the Devil's Advocate, but don't overplay the role.Originally posted by fymk:I am sympathetic. However if I am to play the devil's advocate , my points will be :
The guy with the IQ of 74 . The law judge him to be aware of right and wrong. Therefore he is liable for his actions. Furthermore he was selling cannabis , which means he knew what he was doing. Low IQ doesn't mean decreased cupability especially if the person knew what they were doing.
The girl from hongkong - sad but didn't her parents teach her not to accept candy from a stranger? If someone offers to buy me a luggage - I would be hesitant to accept since I only knew them for a few days. It is more of a he says she says which doesn't provide defence . Imagine if she goes into USA with a timebomb and says she doesn't know about it - they would detain her under the patriot act and let her rot in guantanamo bay without a trial.
Drug addicts executed - so it's the judicial system who forced them into drugs amd make him weakminded? I beg your pardon - that is no excuse.
He claims it is not his and his friend framed him etc......the blood is not on the judicial system but on his friend's hand. What type of friend to have .
Unfortunate cases. I haven't heard two sides of the fences nor seen court transcripts . Would be good if I can access those like amnesty can.
for drug addicts executed: Go read MHA's rebuttal. It claims that "all addicts go to rehabilitation". -
If we leave everything in the hands of GOD than we can do away with all our laws. Let the drug pushers, rapist and murderers do whatever they want. Wait till GOD deal with them. We are only HUMAN. We have no right to punish them.
-
Well I meant the drug addict who smuggles drugs in those scenarios u given. I apologise for that unclear statement.Originally posted by pikamaster:There's nothing wrong with Playing the Devil's Advocate, but don't overplay the role.
for drug addicts executed: Go read MHA's rebuttal. It claims that "all addicts go to rehabilitation". -
with that, some australian girl just got arrested in Bali for smuggling about 4kg of cannabis...
she may get the death sentence...
big news in melbourne...
well, we ain't the only ones with harsh laws... but the truth about drugs should be told... education instead of surpression and all that... -
I feel that there is nothing wrong with executing the people from the story. The guy with a low IQ of 74 made it to secondary 3. I believe Secondary 3 students, after being able to pass PSLE, are already smart enough to think properly. Secondly the girls "claim" that the luggage is given by the other friends. I guess in the end they cannot prove that claim and thus is found guilty. Otherwise everyone can come up with this argument that they were framed and this law will be ineffective.
Education do not work very well. Everyone knew the problem of drug abuse and buying pirated software yet there are still people who commit these crimes anyway. If education works, then we won't need policemen. -
I know drug abuse is wrong, but as for pirated software, it is a grey area. Some of us go for the bootleg edition because the real thing is just so ex. You cannot compare these 2 issues.Originally posted by Tian Mo:Education do not work very well. Everyone knew the problem of drug abuse and buying pirated software yet there are still people who commit these crimes anyway. If education works, then we won't need policemen. -
I know drug abuse is wrong, but as for pirated software, it is a grey area. Some of us go for the bootleg edition because the real thing is just so ex. You cannot compare these 2 issues
But it is still nevertheless politically wrong. We are really stealing the work of the software companies. (I am also a keen supporter of piracy software myself ) But the point is, even with education and brainwashing by media, people is still going to buy pirated software. Education can only do this much. If education works, no one will smokes too 
-
From what the parents said, it is clear that the guy with low IQ (and it's below 100) must have struggled a great deal with the school system, much mroe than his peers.Originally posted by Tian Mo:I feel that there is nothing wrong with executing the people from the story. The guy with a low IQ of 74 made it to secondary 3. I believe Secondary 3 students, after being able to pass PSLE, are already smart enough to think properly. Secondly the girls "claim" that the luggage is given by the other friends. I guess in the end they cannot prove that claim and thus is found guilty. Otherwise everyone can come up with this argument that they were framed and this law will be ineffective.
Education do not work very well. Everyone knew the problem of drug abuse and buying pirated software yet there are still people who commit these crimes anyway. If education works, then we won't need policemen.
The girls' claim probably was just dismissed by our "efficient" judiciary. it is noticeable that the judiciary didn't even bother to locate the CHinese couple; it is the job of the police to dig for facts after all. your "otherwise" is a slippery-slope argument, which in logic study is considered fallacious.
It also shows how much people here are willing to let themselves be brainwashed by the government (just like the press).
I feel really sad that nobody seems to regard social morality anymore and accept that waht is legally right is not always right morally, and morals supercede laws i.e. we are supposed to rebel against laws that are immoral.
the dissappointed pikamaster -
your nick seems to belie your character: some sneaky guard for our government. By religious doctrine, what you are saying is blasphemy; it is an insult of other people's religions, and you shouldn't say such things. *sigh*Originally posted by sgsentinel:If we leave everything in the hands of GOD than we can do away with all our laws. Let the drug pushers, rapist and murderers do whatever they want. Wait till GOD deal with them. We are only HUMAN. We have no right to punish them.
You know, you should take a more centrist stance, and avoid beign so ...errr...partisan.
the sad pikamaster -
Who are you to judge ?Originally posted by pikamaster:your nick seems to belie your character: some sneaky guard for our government. By religious doctrine, what you are saying is blasphemy; it is an insult of other people's religions, and you shouldn't say such things. *sigh*
You know, you should take a more centrist stance, and avoid beign so ...errr...partisan.
the sad pikamaster
Ppl who do not have the same religion as you are all sinners ?
Then there must be billions of sinners around the world.
Hell must be getting crowded.
-
nobel prize?Originally posted by pikamaster:SO waht org do you trust? You mean, you'd rather trust our government, which clearly cannot be objective toward itself, as opposed to a nonpartisan organization that has actually won the Nobel Peace Prize as well? Or perhaps you don't trust the Nobel Society as well?
the puzzled pikamaster 
ever seen the names of the people who receive that award? -
And you think our morose judiciary is as white as a sheet?Yeah, maybe becuase the bleach to clean their hands of blood is from the same source that is used to bleach those shirts for the National Day parade.Legal rules are not always moral, that's why we need men of empathy and morals to be judges.And I would support Amnesty International over our so-called legal eagles.Vultures more likely.Which nation can sentence so many people to death?Karma exists.Men cannot hide behind papers and leather-bound volumes when Karma strikes.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:read though all, was begining to feel sorry for them till i read the words "Amnesty International"
thats when all feelings of sympathy disappeared, sorry but Amnesty International's just not an organisation that i trust , same goes for the UN -
actually i'm pretty anti pap and the current system, but somehow the responses i get from my posts seem to suggest that i'm a rabid pap fanOriginally posted by LazerLordz:And you think our morose judiciary is as white as a sheet?Yeah, maybe becuase the bleach to clean their hands of blood is from the same source that is used to bleach those shirts for the National Day parade.Legal rules are not always moral, that's why we need men of empathy and morals to be judges.And I would support Amnesty International over our so-called legal eagles.Vultures more likely.Which nation can sentence so many people to death?Karma exists.Men cannot hide behind papers and leather-bound volumes when Karma strikes.
just because i don't like the pap and their methods of doing things doesn't mean its bad for sg,
so while i may disagree with some things, unless there's a obvious better method, i don't see why i have to agree with an idea i don't like just for the sake of opposing -
To oppose is a free choice.If you do not even have it, the talk is moot.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:actually i'm pretty anti pap and the current system, but somehow the responses i get from my posts seem to suggest that i'm a rabid pap fan
just because i don't like the pap and their methods of doing things doesn't mean its bad for sg,
so while i may disagree with some things, unless there's a obvious better method, i don't see why i have to agree with an idea i don't like just for the sake of opposing -
point is, drugs harm people, they break up family lives, they enslave people.. i don't see what is this argument all about.
its like asking us, should the death penalty for murdering people be lifted? its just a moot question without any sense of logic at all. -
We cannot equate legal morality with social morality. There is no way of doing so when the law system is adversarial by nature.
Prosecutors and defence lawyers have to prove their cases. It is the nature of prosecutors to go all out to prove the criminal guilty while it is the burden of defence lawyers to ratify the innocence of their clients. Defence lawyers has to disprove every single possible evidence presented to prevent their clients' proof of guilt while the prosecution has to bring up every single possible evidence to prove the opposing party guilty. That is why we have the trial process.
The judge (or in some countries, juries) has to balance out all arguments and decide . -
Capital punishment should be abolished. After all, Scandinavian states did so before joining the EU (prerequisite). It is interesting to note that theyhave lower crime and corruption rates than many Asian countries (Japan and Singapore included).
I am of the opinion that some people on death row have been tortured into making false confessions. However, there is nobody to look into abuse of power by law enforcement agents. Even Malaysia has Suhakam to keep an eye on the police force to make sure suspects are not abused. -
Very true.We cannot stick to outdated notions that wielding a big stick will scare away the boogyman.More often than not, the one wielding the stick becomes the boogyman himself.Originally posted by iveco:Capital punishment should be abolished. After all, Scandinavian states did so before joining the EU (prerequisite). It is interesting to note that theyhave lower crime and corruption rates than many Asian countries (Japan and Singapore included).
I am of the opinion that some people on death row have been tortured into making false confessions. However, there is nobody to look into abuse of power by law enforcement agents. Even Malaysia has Suhakam to keep an eye on the police force to make sure suspects are not abused. -
Then perhaps it is time to reform the judiciary, otherwise where is the justice that the judiciary is supposed to uphold? Tear down those statues at teh facade of the Supremem Court!Originally posted by fymk:We cannot equate legal morality with social morality. There is no way of doing so when the law system is adversarial by nature.
Prosecutors and defence lawyers have to prove their cases. It is the nature of prosecutors to go all out to prove the criminal guilty while it is the burden of defence lawyers to ratify the innocence of their clients. Defence lawyers has to disprove every single possible evidence presented to prevent their clients' proof of guilt while the prosecution has to bring up every single possible evidence to prove the opposing party guilty. That is why we have the trial process.
The judge (or in some countries, juries) has to balance out all arguments and decide .
the desperate pikamaster