Death Penalty Appeal
-
Well, the laws have been in practice for donkeys yrs, question as you like, pls do something that can really make some difference.Originally posted by pikamaster:1) ok, I get your position, and I agree with that in principle. But of course alot of the points u mentioned could be called into question in practice.
What is not relevant?Originally posted by pikamaster:2) Ermm, r u in the correct thread?
I agree, there is this Mr. Stan Forbes from Tasmania who wrote to the Forum page of ST, “Don’t let excellent drug laws be undermined.”, in which he concluded, “Do not be brow-beaten by a vocal minority in Australia (or any other country) into weakening your excellent drug laws.” Interesting to know what is the “vocal minority”, some teenagers or those not so educated?Originally posted by pikamaster:3) My impression seems to be that you are mixing up 2 different issues here. And also rmb, the Ozs are quite a diverse population, even within a single state. So some may understadn Singapore's laws, whilst others may not. It is worng to blanket-assume that al OZs are highly-educated and rich and so on.
Was Ngyuen fighting alone? Did the OZ High Commission here offered any help? Why didnÂ’t they bring in some top notch OZ lawyers here, if they canÂ’t defend him in court, they could give advice to the defense lawyer, or at least they could follow the whole court proceeding and highlight anything ambiguous or biased, and anything that were hidden from them. IsnÂ’t this a good opportunity to scrutinize and put the Singapore judicial system to a test? What were the positive actions taken to help this man, by the OZ and ppl like you?? just write something and expect ppl to believe that our Judges are biased, they donÂ’t know how to make analysis, the police can be wrong? We were not born yesterday.Originally posted by pikamaster:4) what is "necessary legal assistance"? The man convicted before him was refused the legal assistance he requested. ........extremely flimsy evidence if used in the presence of a foreign court. Remember my analogy of the valentines' day gift in my previous post?
400 kg of drug strapped round the body is a flimsy evidence? You forgot your glasses or you put on a pair of special glasses when you look at the matter.
Circumstances differ from case to case. I talked about this case. Ngyuen was found with 400 kg of illegal drug, not panadol, not cough mixture, and that is the hard evidence for his conviction. What hard evidence do you need??Originally posted by pikamaster:5) I'm talking about traffickers as a whole here, not just this particular case.
A honkee “extremely gullible”? pls explain. Nobody take just anybody as guilty, he is found guilty by the court of law, and whatever his ideology cannot be above the law of the land where he wants to practice his ideology. period.Originally posted by pikamaster:6) thx, I noe tt already. But I have an interesting question to ask you: if the latter happens to someone who is extremely gullible, (say a honkee), then do you think it just to take that person as guilty?
The judge didn't think so, the prosecutor smiling and the defending lawyer remains speechless.Originally posted by pikamaster:7) evidence of business calls, signed agreements, mysterious swiss bank accounts etc. But anyway, I just read a letter of clemency from ACADP which sorta mentioned he did have links with smuggling gangs.
But nonetheless, the fairness of the punishment can still be called into question, given his motive and the fact that he helped Australian police uncover captains of the drug smuggling ring he was working for. Refer to Think Centre for more details.
You brought up “ideological stand”, “because the Australian Government has a strong ideological stand agaisnt the death penalty. Of course, die-hards like you might not be able to understand properly the phrase "ideological stand". Yes, I don’t understand so I ask you, why ask robertteh?Originally posted by pikamaster:8 ) Law itself is determined by ideology of the government, so I don't see your logic. Btw, I believe robertteh discusses Democracy's relevance to Singapore in another thread, and many other threads do so besides. So you shouldn't be asking that question.
Hehehe, what MNC are you talking about? The Australian MNC or the Burmese MNC?Originally posted by pikamaster:9) Why not? Think in terms of an MNC for drug-trafficking; Corporate politics IS very dirty indeed.
Hahaha, blame it on the travel agencies who bought the flight that transit in Singapore, arrrhÂ…he thought he could enjoy the SIA inflight movie but forgot the flight transits in SingaporeÂ…Â…blame everybody, blame the metal detector, the security officerÂ….pathetic.Originally posted by pikamaster:10) I believe we have discussed this point before. We should be dealing with the demand, not the supply; the nice piece of logic wou have written here proves that. As for why it had to transit through Singapore - well, erpz, blame it on the flightplan of the individual airlines; note that Ngyuen did not take a private jet.
Aiyo, obviously you have no idea about illegal drugs and their addictive nature, and got mixed up with tobacco and alcohol addiction. Tobacco is not illegal and it takes prolonged direct inhaling to be addictive and it may or may not kill. Illegal drugs such as Ecstasy pills, methamphetamines and don know what else are highly addictive, take one and you canÂ’t live without it, and without treatment, death is guaranteed. Death is an unpleasant side-effect?? CanÂ’t imagine anybody who views death as such can be serious in fighting to save life.Originally posted by pikamaster:11) Osama directly ....... and they cannot be held responsible for it. Drug traffickers are emrely MLMs.
Osama promised his ppl martyrdom, drug lords offer money. Both with the same result, ppl got killed. If the different ways of taking life are regarded as a business, death is merely "an unpleasant side effect", I have nothing to say.Originally posted by pikamaster:Osama, however, does not necessarily supply the bombs; he doesn't sell them. ...... they do not have fanatical followers the same way Al Quaeda has.
Talking about freedom of choice in the context of drug addiction is simply ignorant of the problem of drug addiction. I pity your children.Originally posted by pikamaster:12) Why don't you shoot your own child instead, sicne after all s/he has the choice whether to buy the drug or not. After all, the peddler is not the one who consumes the drug; it is your child who does. -
What we have has been in practice for yrs. The main frame of the british common laws system remains, and singaporeans are well informed about the death penalty here and we know that nothing is perfect and there are rooms for improvement, we are certainly just looking for another alternative to satisfy some "liberals", take in system because it is used in oz. we want to see what are the better alternative. In the meantime, everybody is expected to respect the existing laws. period.Originally posted by LazerLordz:So in the interim, just because we dont have a rich heritage of legal and constitutional freedoms doesn't mean we have to be barbaric.
In the mean time, what are the OZ government doing? -
extracted from straits times forum.
THERE appears to be a push by some people in Australia to pressure the Singapore Government into sparing a convicted Australian drug trafficker the death penalty because Australia does not have such a penalty.
Don't let excellent drug laws be undermined
This argument is both false and arrogant as the smuggler was convicted beyond any doubt of his crime and under Singapore law must hang.
Do not be brow-beaten by a vocal minority in Australia (or any other country) into weakening your excellent drug laws.
Stan Forbes
Tasmania, Australia -
Man.. the drug traffickers are stupid. Dun need traffic so much.. just hook up with the dealers at the respective country ho liaw ma! he he
-
I totally agree with you. Small crime, or big crime, a crime is a crime. The law was never meant to please everyone in the first place. Moreover, Singapore has always been known to have harsh laws - the death penalty - for drug trafficking/ possession. He took the chance, now pay the price.Originally posted by ShutterBug:You people just can't see it.
You can never find fairness in LAW. It's intrumental, as much as a gun is.
The killing of an innocent man/woman/child/baby by a mad man, murderer, or blurglar, is no different from the killing by way of LAW a convicted criminal.
This topic of Death Penalty can go on in circles without end, as human LAW can never please everyone. -
The campaign to save the life of Melbourne man Nguyen Tuong Van has gathered pace, with a local priest to seek papal intervention and friends calling on Prime Minister John Howard to help save him.
Kelly Ng and Bronwyn Lew, flanked by friends of Nguyen's from high school, today launched the ``Reach Out'' campaign, based on a trace of Nguyen's hand that he sent to his mother while in prison in Singapore on drug trafficking charges.
"We would like the Prime Minister to ask all Australians to reach into their hearts and reach out to help Van by tracing their hands on a piece of paper and sending it to us so that we can show the President how much support we have here,'' Ms Lew said.
"We would also like Prime Minister John Howard to also trace his own hand on a piece of coloured paper because every hand counts,'' Ms Ng added.
The young women are asking members of the public to trace their own hands, write a message of support inside the trace and send it to them at a secure address. The tracings will be collected and displayed as a mural before being forwarded to the Singaporean government.
They said they chose hands as a symbol of Nguyen's desire to touch his friends and family while in prison. The picture of his own hand arrived last week, the day his mother returned from visiting him in Singapore's Changi prison.
"Everytime his mother goes over to visit him they are physically separated by a piece of glass and it hurts her so much to not be able to physically comfort her son,'' Ms Ng said.
"The last time she saw him Van actually held his hand up to the glass, trying to reach out to his mum and said 'Mum, hold my hand' and she in return put her hand up and said `I'll hold you forever'.
"And that to us is very significant because it says so much about how much he wants to be held and to be able to physically comfort him is all that we want to do.''
Nguyen, 25, was arrested in Singapore on December 12, 2002 as he was preparing to board a flight from Singapore to Melbourne. He was found with two packets of heroin, totalling 396 grams, and was sentenced to hang under Singapore's strict mandatory sentencing laws.
His appeal for clemency was rejected by Singapore's president S.R. Nathan last week.
His Melbourne-based lawyers Lex Lasry QC and Julian McMahon said all legal avenues to commute Nguyen's sentence have now been exhausted.
Ms Ng and Ms Lew asked people to send in hands of support to: The Reach Out Campaign, c/o Howells, 205 William Street, Melbourne 3000.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/community-unites-to-save-nguyen/2005/10/28/1130400338533.html -
If the drugs were brought into Victoria successfully, would Mr Forbes have demanded the execution of the drug runners?Originally posted by dragg:extracted from straits times forum.
THERE appears to be a push by some people in Australia to pressure the Singapore Government into sparing a convicted Australian drug trafficker the death penalty because Australia does not have such a penalty.
Don't let excellent drug laws be undermined
This argument is both false and arrogant as the smuggler was convicted beyond any doubt of his crime and under Singapore law must hang.
Do not be brow-beaten by a vocal minority in Australia (or any other country) into weakening your excellent drug laws.
Stan Forbes
Tasmania, Australia -
Though i don't support death penalty, i find Australia’s position on it rather hypocritical. After the Bali bombing didn't Mr Howard said, the Bali bombers “should be dealt with in accordance with Indonesian law. …and if [the death penalty] is what the law of Indonesia provides, well, that is how things should proceed. There won’t be any protest from Australia.”?
-
You probably don't understand the nature of Australia and the Australian government. I am pretty certain that the common Australian may have agreed with the essence of what Mr Howard said, but not the details. And IMHO, many Australians do not really like Mr Howard. Mr Howard represents the Australian GOVERNMENT and only a section btw. Mr Downer and the Governor of Victoria, when pleading for clemency for Ngyuen, repesent the Aussie PEOPLE. Unlike down here, where people are forced to think like the government, in Australia and the West, Citizens tend to disagree with their government on many counts and display their disagreement.Originally posted by pearlie27:Though i don't support death penalty, i find Australia’s position on it rather hypocritical. After the Bali bombing didn't Mr Howard said, the Bali bombers “should be dealt with in accordance with Indonesian law. …and if [the death penalty] is what the law of Indonesia provides, well, that is how things should proceed. There won’t be any protest from Australia.”? -
our govt has rejected the appeal again.
-
SGDiehard,
1) I am doing something - saying we should change these laws.
2) Not very much irrelevant, but more ... err ... confused.
We are, after all, in this thread, discussing whether the death penalty is the valid punishment for drug trafficking. So saying that we are not debating this is kind of inaccurate, huh?
3) Stan Forbes' letter self-contradicts. His stand is pretty inconsistent, although it appears to be consistent. But usually, vocal minority indicates some other ppl?
4) perhaps, you should look more carefully at our law regarding foreign counsels.
5) 400 kg of drugs is not flimsy evidence for drug possession, but is flimsy evidence for drug trafficking. Nonetheless, by the accused own offered aid to the Australian Police, he was a trafficker. So let's stop talking abt this case. period. ok?
6) No comment. (Please look at the entire post before making such tautologies.)
7) Check Amnesty International's report "Singapore: A Hidden Toll of Executions".
8 ) The judge could have made a mistake, the prosecutor was probably smiling because the legal system is biased toward the prosecution, and the defending lawyer remains speechless because he is simply overwhelmed by the odds unfairly stacked against him. Seriously, if the pleas by the AHC are ignored, well hmm... what do u expect the defense counsel to do? He has done his best job after all, but the country prefers efficiency of dispensing cases to seeking to deal proper justice. Our government is simply snamoured by all things cruel. So much for building a gracious and compassionate society!
9) You misunderstood me: I meant, go refer to the thread started by robertteh that discusses the democratic ideology. And no, I'm not a die-hard. hey, I changed my stance from retentionist to abolitionist after all...
10) Burmese MNC.
11) I am baffled by your logic here. Oh, I see it now; But why are you so frenetic over the word "blame"?
12) Well, I'm giving you the perception of the druglords, not my perception. Once again, you can question this, but remember: it's not my opinion, so don't pin it on me. And duh, the druglords wouldn't be interested in saving lives; they're only interested in making money. And I specifically mentioned that that line was an excuse used by tobacco companies and druglords and they supporters. Please don't misquote me.
13) You obviously don't get my point: Osama is not conducting a business, but the druglords are. And again, like in the previous paragraph, you misquote me. Can you please read carefully before you quote?
14) I'm not ignorant of the problem. I am just trying to point out to you: if your/my child (if I have one in the future anyway) chooses to buy drugs, he will still buy drugs no matter how many drug peddlars you shoot dead. So why should you perform a repetitive action which is totally ineffective in solving the problem? Perhaps, a better alternative is to find out what is causing the child to consume drugs, and correct that problem. Then s/he would not take drugs, and you could save money on purchasing illegal guns to shoot people who may be in as dire a state as your child, or possibly even worse.
Oh man, now *I* pity YOUR child.
the (sad) pikamaster -
One way or another.Laws never stay forever.How many more must die before some form of real legal reform takes place?
Nothing that is accepted 100 years ago has an automatic right to exist today.Norms change, societies change, civilisations change, to assume that things will stay the way they are is pure arrogance and BS.Period.
Educate and inform the people around you about the vagarities of the death penalty and the culture of assumption in determining guilt.
Give the powers back to the judge and let's not sentence a person based on a legal procedure which has no human face to be debated or argued against. -
This question was asked many times before death penalty was a law in 1975. The difference is, then our parents were asking "how many innocent ppl must die before law are changed to protect the ppl"?Originally posted by LazerLordz:How many more must die before some form of real legal reform takes place?.
Today, you are asking " how many more (drug traffickers, murders) must die, before real legal reform takes place"? You speaking for the drug lords?
For 30 yrs, the subject of death penalty must has been discussed as and when a foreigner was involved, but it stays because the ppl of Singapore believe that it serves its purpose, or that it should be abolished only when replaced by a better system, probably after an overhaul of the whole judicial system. We don change for the sake of changing.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Nothing that is accepted 100 years ago has an automatic right to exist today.Norms change, societies change, civilisations change, to assume that things will stay the way they are is pure arrogance and BS.Period.
To demand us to change just because OZ donÂ’t believe in death penalty, or because the abolitionists, or the Amnesty International say so, is truly arrogant. period.
To speak about the rights of the murderers and drug traffickers and the “vagarities of the death penalty” while ignoring the plight of the victims is simply B S. period.
donÂ’t you think you should put your effort in educating and informing the people around you about danger of drug abuses, the law and moral obligations about stopping drug trafficking, and leave the assumption of guilt to the court of law?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Educate and inform the people around you about the vagarities of the death penalty and the culture of assumption in determining guilt.
The power is with the judge now, is it not? what he needs is the respect for his judgement. IsnÂ’t a legal procedure with no face attached (everybody is the same regardless of yr skin color, yr nationality, Â….) a fairer and unbiased trial?.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Give the powers back to the judge and let's not sentence a person based on a legal procedure which has no human face to be debated or argued against. -
u mean 400g or 400kg?Originally posted by pikamaster:5) 400 kg of drugs is not flimsy evidence for drug possession, but is flimsy evidence for drug trafficking. Nonetheless, by the accused own offered aid to the Australian Police, he was a trafficker. So let's stop talking abt this case. period. ok?
400kg is very heavy, u know? -
The Cantonese says “hao soi tuo guo cha”, yr saliva more than yr tea. No wonder until today nothing happen.Originally posted by pikamaster:1) I am doing something - saying we should change these laws.
Oh, I thought you were questioning if Ngyuen is indeed guilty of drug trafficking, with yr statement like “400 g of drugs is flimsy evidence for drug trafficking….the judge could be making a mistake, …the unfairly stacked against the defending lawyer…” and you speak from the perspective of drug lords, and you highlighted the motives of the accused, I can only conclude that to you, drug trafficking is part of a business and Ngyuen is only a “presumed” trafficker and he is a trafficker only because “he offered aid to the Australian Police”. It is alright you ridicule our judicial system, but you have failed in proving why a convicted drug trafficker should not face death penalty, or have I missed out anything?2) …We are, after all, in this thread, discussing whether the death penalty is the valid punishment for drug trafficking. …3) Stan Forbes' letter self-contradicts. His stand is pretty inconsistent, although it appears to be consistent. But usually, vocal minority indicates some other ppl?
“They are pretty inconsistent, although it appears to be consistent.” What kind of argument is that?
Forbes did not contradict himself, he only spoke what you donÂ’t want to hear.
Another Australia spoke up today, Mr. Jonathan Ariel of New South Wales, said “Countless Australians have disgraced themselves in attacking Singapore…our most civilized neighboring state.”
I donÂ’t know about the vocal minority in Australia, but I do know who are the vocal minority in Singapore, those who think saying something is doing something.4) perhaps, you should look more carefully at our law regarding foreign counsels.
I canÂ’t read, please tell me.5)Â…. Nonetheless, by the accused own offered aid to the Australian Police, he was a traffickerÂ….
He was convicted the court of law in Singapore for trafficking, not because he offered to the Australian Police?6) No comment. (Please look at the entire post before making such tautologies.)
Why did you say that “someone (say a honkee) is extremely gullible, and is likely to be TAKEN as guilty” in Singapore? Surely you can explain what you said without using words like “tautologies” (belly qim, nin be lia bo).7) Check Amnesty International's report "Singapore: A Hidden Toll of Executions".
Long story, no time to read, what is yr point?9) Â….I'm not a die-hard. hey, I changed my stance from retentionist to abolitionist after all...
hehehehe, I changed from abolititionist to retentionistÂ….10) Burmese MNC.
Like that all rice farmers are CEO of MNC. If you are discussing drug trafficking in general, how can drug lords in Myanmar be responsible for the abuses of drugs such as ecstasy pills? HmmÂ….we are not talking about the same thing.11) I am baffled by your logic here. Oh, I see it now; But why are you so frenetic over the word "blame"?
HeheheÂ… blame everybody except himself for the crime he committed. Very normal for those who donÂ’t admit making mistakes.12) Well, I'm giving you the perception of the druglords, not my perception. Once again, you can question this, but remember: it's not my opinion,Â…
I din know that a drug lord talking through you. Why should I or anybody should care about what a drug lord says?? except when we want to go to war with him. Wrong channel.14) I'm not ignorant of the problem. I am just trying to point out to you: if your/my child (if I have one in the future anyway) chooses to buy drugs, he will still buy drugs no matter how many drug peddlars you shoot dead. Â…you could save money on purchasing illegal guns to shoot people who may be in as dire a state as your child, or possibly even worse.
A child will not buy drug if nobody peddle to him, he will not buy drug if he is not addicted to itÂ…. There are many reasons why a child, especially teenagers ended up in drug. Teaching only is useful for those who only speak, the greater responsibility of the parents and the society in general is to create an environment that is free from illegal drugs and drug abuses, making the availability of such drug difficult is one key and important measure.
Oh man, now *I* pity YOUR child.
Irresponsible are parents who say that “after all s/he has the choice whether to buy the drug or not.” Sad are those whose parents who think that “After all, the peddler is not the one who consumes the drug; it is your child who does.” Sounds familiar?
Why do you pity MY child??
Here is what LKY says, quoted by Mr. Jonathan Ariel from Australia, “In legislation, our priority is the security and well-being of the law-abiding citizens rather than the right of the criminal to be protected from incriminating evidence.” Not many ppl like LKY, and I certainly don’t like many of the things he did and said, but this one represents my position.
Have a drug free week end. -
Hmm, I was merely quoting what SGdiehard said.Originally posted by SnowFlag:u mean 400g or 400kg?
400kg is very heavy, u know? 
-
Sgdiehard,
(in reply to your last reply to my last post)
1) Do you rmb how old I am? (HINT: I'm not even in NS yet.) I am doing something else of course, in secret, (nopez, in case ur concerned, I'm not sleeping with my neighbour's wife :mrgreen
bit that's still WIP, and I wish to WIP too, for the moment. 
2) Have you missed out anything? only perhaps 50% of this whole thread and 70% of what we were discussing in the previous thread.
3) The appearances-are-deceiving-argument. But hmm... maybe I was thinking of another letter by some guy in NZ, also sent to one of our local newspapers. (Think that guy was from Masse Uni.) Or perhaps a more complete version was printed in the newspapers than is visble online. Anyway, since I'm referring to the online version, I can't find anything to say about Forbes' letter, because there is absolutely nothing to say about it. OMG, it contains absolutely no substance at all. What am I supposed to hear that is of any value?
Ariel's letter looks more substantial than Forbes', but if one looks carefully, is just as lacking in substance. The only piece of evidence Ariel uses to support his stand that many Australians have tarnished their country's name is a single quote from LKY. And that quote is pretty much what I would call flimsy evidence in an argumentative essay. The rest of the letter is a bunch of unjustified ad-hominems. Plus, he makes three factual errors:-
First, he claims that AI is "saying sweet little about the genocide in North Korea". In fact, AI devotes many Urgent Actions and reports to DPRK and joins the UN and other human rights organizations in issuing many condemnations of North Korea and appeals to teh international community for action. And all these are found on its website.
Next, he calls Australian politicians "poor students". He makes the same mistake as you did: mixing up the POLITICIANS with the PEOPLE. It was his fellow Australians, after all, who pressured The Foreign Office into making its statement. Plus, a bishop a sydney wrote a letter to the Pope urging the Pope to condemn our government. A bishop is certainly no politician.
Finally, note how the scope of disgraceful foreigners is reduced from "countless Australians" to "our politicians". That is quite inconsistent, isn't it?
He labels people without justifying the labels: "spewed invective", "no shame", "do-gooders", "rent-a-crowd".
Laughably and shockingly, (depending on how you wish to look at it), Singapore is praised as Australia's most civilized Asian neighbour. It's shocking not because Singapore is not civilized, but because of the callous disregard Ariel shows the other Southeast Asian nations of Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillippines, Brunei, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos. His statement implies that all these societies are far less civilized than Australia.
Then, there is the issue of "not having a word for the potential victims". In both their official statements, Amnesty International and the Government of Australia expressed recognition that drug-trafficking was a serious problem which needed to be dealt with, and that drug-traffickers should not be expected to go free. In fact, the Government of Australia got Ngyuen to reveal information on teh syndicate he was working for. Why should the Australian government do this if it was not concerned about drug-trafficking. For its part, AI has published quite a number of reports calling for an end to drug production and that international parties should look into reducing the drug-trade.
Of course, I could comment that the line "any way they see fit" shows Ariel's ignorance of the presence of international humans rights laws and perhaps even the Geneva Convention, because the wider implication to what he says was used as a justification for the mass torture at Guantanamo Bay. But by now, I think you should have read enough evidence to convince you that Ariel's letter is quite worthless.
In fact, I am rather ashamed that the Straits Times would print such a letter in place of many other more substantial, rejected letters. To go this low for the sake of national interest is very sad indeed.
4) Foreign counsels are prohibited from beign involved in local cases.
5) ok, I think I may have lost my grammar here...
6) Alright, for your benefit, I shall elaborate out fully what is in the aprentheses, although I wish that next time you will be more subtle in your analytical skills:-
(Say honkee Poon Yen Yang, whose case is mentioned in Amnesty International's report "Singapore: a Hidden Toll of Executions")
I said your statement was a tautology because you would see the non-necessity of putting it down if you had known that there was a paragraph further down in my post that mentioned/described Amnesty International's report.
(continued on next post) -
(continued from previous post)
7) Refer to the Case Study on Poon Yuen Yang. But read the rest of the report too, when you have the time, so that you can understand the abolitionist-human-rights stand better, and get the facts fo the argument straight.
8 ) When and How?
9) Please read up on the opium farming industry and have you heard of something called "international exports"?
10) Don't you understand figurative language? And again, you misjudge the source - *I* was using the word "blame" to playfully indicate a reality to you. I didn't mean "blame" in a literal sense. Arrgh! I don't believe the court, the prosecution and the defence even considered flightpaths and the nature of international flights during the trial.
11) wth. This is the most nonsensical thing I have seen written on a discussion on the Death Penalty!!!:X If you want to deal with a problem, you look at all perceptions so that you can see which perceptions need to be changed to solve the problem. That is elementary psycholgy and human relations for you. OMG, which planet do you live on?
12) Let's put it this way ... I'm not going to buy a drug even if it was shoved in my face. And I'm pretty much a child, or a teenager anyway, so where goes your argument?
13) I'm not a parent. And please don't keep misquoting me.
14) Because you are teaching him that finding someone else to blame and dealing violently with that person is the best way to solve a problem. (And IMHO, private arms possession is illegal in Singapore. Breaking a law to stop the breaking of another law is still breaking the law.)
15) Actually, I would agree with LKY's statement in essence. I do respect him for what he has done for Singapore to make our country what it is today, and I will certainly speak out against those who try to erase his significance in our history, but nonetheless some of his mindsets are not cunducive to current development. As I said before, drug possession is very non-incriminating evidence for drug-trafficking.
Please read people's posts more carefully next time before writing any comments. In my case, look back at a few previous posts first as well.
the pikamaster -
SGdiehard,
(in reply to your last reply to LaserLordz)
1 & 2) Let me aid in Paraphrasing LaserLordz's language:-
"How many more people who could have been reformed had they been given the chance must die before legal reform takes place? Do we have to wait for the sentencing of an innocent before legal reform takes place?"
2) I wonder... the ppl of Singapore or the Government of Singapore who forces its will upon the people with the "Right" conferred upon it by the "Public Mandate"?
3) Me, LaserLordz, and other abolitonists here in these forums, are not asking Singapore to change its laws because "some foreigner" says so; we are asking Singapore to change its laws because we feel that it needs to be changed. We, especially me, are quoting the information found by these other parties, and using it to justify our stand. We are being humble in accepting others' criticisms
In contrast, no offence, but it is the retentionists like Forbes, Ariel, the guy from Massey Uni, and you, who are the arrogant ones adopting the our-law-is-holier-than-thou attitude.
4) We are not ignoring the plight of the victims. We are merely contending that whatever the severity of the victims' plight - even if it is death - it does not justify state killing through the Death Penalty.
5) Ya, by all means, put effort into educating people about teh dangers of drug abuse. But let's at the same time not be hypocritical - if we want to say that our courts practice presumption of innocent till proven guilty, let's make sure that that is indeed true. It is every citizen's responsibility to ensure that our state is functioning to the nation's benefit, and not merely for the benfit of the Ruling Party, ideologically or otherwise.
6) Whenever there is mandatory sentencing in place, the judge is deprived of the power to decide upon a suitable punishment. CJ himself admitted this fact after the conviction of Vignes Mourthi earlier in the year (before Ngyuen).
the (still abolitionist) pikamaster -
1) argued this before, if there is a wrong judgment, it is the flaws of the judicial system as a whole, wrongly putting a person in jail for life gives him no greater justice. Taking away the youth of a man is no diff from taking away his life.Originally posted by pikamaster:SGdiehard,
(in reply to your last reply to LaserLordz)
the (still abolitionist) pikamaster
Learn this, young man, treasure your youth, stay away from those involved in drug. If you need money, ask yr daddy, donÂ’t go peddle drug. If you have to peddle, stay away from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia.
2) Again, if you look at death penalty as a whole, it is not just singapore, many states of america have death penalty. Whether it is the ppl or the government, a law is a law. With democracy (as in america) or no democracy (as in singapore), the ppl elected the government and death penalty is not the reason why the ppl should do otherwise. Foreigners who don't respect the law, do not respect the government and do not respect the ppl. period.
3) We, the ordinary citizens of Singapore, including me, listen and respect what you, the abolitionists, said about death penalty, but do not consider the information you quoted fully relevant to our society and culture, nor are we convinced of your argument and justifications; we will continue to speak up against the abolition of death penalty and will support our government of Singapore, regardless of the parties in power, in enforcing this law with justice and equity to all who are living, visiting or in transit in the territory of Singapore.
Ppl like Forbes, Ariel, the guy from Massey Uni, are non Singaporean and are adopting the thy –law- is-holier- than- mine, and how can they be considered arrogant?
And we, the citizens of Singaporean, am only speaking out to retain the law of my country, to protect our present way of life and my children (if you have no children, then respect what your father is doing to protect you). For that, how can we be considered arrogant?
4) You have said yr point.
5) Indeed, “it is every citizen's responsibility to ensure that our state is functioning to the nation's benefit, and not merely for the benefits of the Ruling Party, ideologically or otherwise.” Abolitionists is a group of ideologists, are you not?
6) that is why I said a “legal procedure with no face attached (everybody is the same regardless of yr skin color, yr nationality, ….) a fairer and unbiased trial.”
will respond to the other long post when I have the time. -
The one argument that has no clear-cut answer is #6.Originally posted by pikamaster:SGdiehard,
(in reply to your last reply to LaserLordz)
1 & 2) Let me aid in Paraphrasing LaserLordz's language:-
"How many more people who could have been reformed had they been given the chance must die before legal reform takes place? Do we have to wait for the sentencing of an innocent before legal reform takes place?"
2) I wonder... the ppl of Singapore or the Government of Singapore who forces its will upon the people with the "Right" conferred upon it by the "Public Mandate"?
3) Me, LaserLordz, and other abolitonists here in these forums, are not asking Singapore to change its laws because "some foreigner" says so; we are asking Singapore to change its laws because we feel that it needs to be changed. We, especially me, are quoting the information found by these other parties, and using it to justify our stand. We are being humble in accepting others' criticisms
In contrast, no offence, but it is the retentionists like Forbes, Ariel, the guy from Massey Uni, and you, who are the arrogant ones adopting the our-law-is-holier-than-thou attitude.
4) We are not ignoring the plight of the victims. We are merely contending that whatever the severity of the victims' plight - even if it is death - it does not justify state killing through the Death Penalty.
5) Ya, by all means, put effort into educating people about teh dangers of drug abuse. But let's at the same time not be hypocritical - if we want to say that our courts practice presumption of innocent till proven guilty, let's make sure that that is indeed true. It is every citizen's responsibility to ensure that our state is functioning to the nation's benefit, and not merely for the benfit of the Ruling Party, ideologically or otherwise.
6) Whenever there is mandatory sentencing in place, the judge is deprived of the power to decide upon a suitable punishment. CJ himself admitted this fact after the conviction of Vignes Mourthi earlier in the year (before Ngyuen).
the (still abolitionist) pikamaster -
Sgdiehard,
*sigh*
(replying to your reply to my reply to your reply to LaserLordz)
1) Taking away the life of a man is much more serious than taking away his youth - at least in the latter situation, the man still has the chance of living out the remainder of his life as a useful and law-abiding citizen.
2) I know that.
3) America and Singapore are not the only countries in the world. Of course, there are other countries which still retain the death penalty in practice. But overall, there is an international trend of abolishing the death penalty in law and abolishing it in practice (2 different things).
I think you retentionists are confused about what respect of the law is. It means to adhere to the law when it is fair and just, not refraining from criticizing the law even when it is unjust. After all, Respect for the Law also entails respect for the principle of Law itself, and by criticizing unjust or unfair laws, one is adhering to that principle.
4) FYI, I am a local too.
Oh haha
your words sound so empty - what if another party comes into power and overturns the law? Will you support it then? And IMHO, most Singaporeans are apathetic, and hence do not bother about retentionism or abolitionism, or are afraid to speak up against the government, so don't try and commit a fallacy of Gross Generalization here, ok?
5) People like Forbes, Ariel and the Massey Uni guy adopt the Singapore POV, although they write in third-person (omniscient). Thus, they can be considered pseudo-Singaporeans with regards to this issue.
6) Please look deeper, and realize that you are trying to promote Singapore's model, or at least are supporting the government's promotion of the model, as the best in the world. Please don't retreat into Ad Misericordiam arguments.
7) good.
8 ) Well, I am certainly no member of the Ruling Party, and I doubt LaserLordz is...
9) Unbiased yes, but fairness is as much fairness of the law to the crime and the person standing accused as it is to teh many perpetrators of the same crime. This sentence may sound a little vague, so I shall illustrate with an example:-
Capital Punnishment's less serious counterpart is Corporal Punnishment, which by the way is considered internationally as cruel and degrading punishment, absenting a few detractors of course e.g. China, DPRK, M'sia, S'pore. But anyway, let's take Corporal Punishment, which is caning, as our example.
Let's say, a school legislates mandatory 6-stroke caning for thieves (unlikely to happen in real life, but for the purpose of this example, assume it happens). Now, we have 2 students brought before the discipline master/mistress for theft. One student has stolen things thrice and this third time, he has attempted to steal a teacher's laptop. The second student has only stolen things this once, and what he stole was a poker card from his classmate's wallet. How fair do you think it is for the school to "fairly" (in your usage of the word in your previous post) administer 6 strokes on both students?
aft) What I notice about retentionists - and the government worst of all - is that they adopt a very insular world-view, where what they do or wish to do is right. They refuse to accept criticism from other people, or even see what other people do. They fail to understand that their society and culture is not as unique (remember this?) as they think it is, and stubbornly refuse to learn from others.
Simply to say, even if abolitionists provided evidence directly relevant to personal situations, retentionists will reject it with the most spurious arguments e.g. "let the murderer/trafficker go free" (sound familiar?)
Ah well, I wait to see what reply you'll give next.
the pikamaster -
If I didn't care about Singapore, I would have walked the path of silent apathy and the consequential silent endorsement of the death penalty in our hearts.
To sound out alternatives is something beneficial, but if you wish to strike that out as impossible and anti-establishment, then you do not have the Republic's interest at heart. -
How true could that be indeed. It seems as if apathy is tantamount to some sort of treason.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If I didn't care about Singapore, I would have walked the path of silent apathy and the consequential silent endorsement of the death penalty in our hearts.
To sound out alternatives is something beneficial, but if you wish to strike that out as impossible and anti-establishment, then you do not have the Republic's interest at heart. -
Apathy is not as bad as those who constantly praise the government.
Government did what it did all these years and did not feel the need to change because they feel they have the support of people who angkat them who actually do not see the rights and wrongs except the benefits for themselves, like maintaining existing good positions or good deals