singapore No.1 in EXECUTIONS
-
wonderful. the slippery road fallacy. as always, pple like you who defend the Death penalty resort to fallacious (and usually propagandistic) modes of language. All what you have been talking above is basically generalizations- you are a Cassandra.
UN? ha, do you know what the UN is doing right now? judging from past records which country did you see turning rich and powerful due to the UN? all they do is ask for money to support their officials who only know how to play tennis at 5 star hotels and the rest of the money is used to dump aid anyhow w\o making full use of it
and i've even heard of un officials who were suppose to stop human smuggling, helping the smugglers instead of stopping them
this is what the UN is ,a sprawling, bureaucracy-choked morass
UDHR? thats why you get protests with michael fay's situation ,even though that dic.khead got what he deserved
human rights can only go up to a certain extent, and not to the point where it goes beyond the individual and spilling all over the place
today you'll have people going for no executions, tomorrow gay marriages, next polygamy's ok, guns ok,this is all human nature its never going to change, you'll never have everything , when you let a man go, its not the man himself thats the problem,its the people who noticed what happened, i'm sure you would realised what would have happened if people actually get the idea that they can do it, can you imagine the floodgates that would open if we actually get rid of the death penalty?
UN is not always successful, but that is not because fo its staff. you try saying what you said above to mr Sergei's family and you'll get sued for defamation most surely! the reason why the UN is not successful si because member states like USA thuink they are far too powerful and control the UN. Let me ask you, is Kofi Annan a bad man? Annan comes from Africa, a continent that suffers alot. As for UDHR, it has helped to alert people of plights others suffered under the communists in Cuba or China. i m not going to go below your level and start arguing about Michael Fay, but i m sure you should know what a rotan is like, right?
the disapproving pikamaster -
YES, I PRETTY WELL AM!!!!!!!!Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:the angered pikamaster<<----- i think he's angry?
-
defamation?Originally posted by pikamaster:wonderful. the slippery road fallacy. as always, pple like you who defend the Death penalty resort to fallacious (and usually propagandistic) modes of language. All what you have been talking above is basically generalizations- you are a Cassandra.
UN is not always successful, but that is not because fo its staff. you try saying what you said above to mr Sergei's family and you'll get sued for defamation most surely! the reason why the UN is not successful si because member states like USA thuink they are far too powerful and control the UN. Let me ask you, is Kofi Annan a bad man? Annan comes from Africa, a continent that suffers alot. As for UDHR, it has helped to alert people of plights others suffered under the communists in Cuba or China. i m not going to go below your level and start arguing about Michael Fay, but i m sure you should know what a rotan is like, right?
the disapproving pikamaster if so? how many people in this world are they going to sue?
the reason why the UN is not successful is because member states like USA think they are far too powerful and control the UN?
do you know why the USA is able to do that? its because the UN is weak!let me ask you, what has the UN done so far to punish countries who go against it? sanctions?ha! it has only made a joke out of the UN!
is Kofi Annan a bad man? he is a politician and a bureaucrat
As for UDHR, it has helped to alert people of plights others suffered under the communists in Cuba or China. ? and how are they doing it? all the care is their own interests, have they ever thought of the impact of what they're doing?one thing leads to another, but their thoughts are to forced a govt to sumit to their will because their way is "right" and right now that is your reasoning, because you think your way is right you are going to force your way though without considering what you are doing except that you believe what you are doing is "good" for us and that is a good enough reason for you
not going to go below my level and argue about michael fay?
fuc*k you, who did you think started this first? -
ever tried reading your own posts?Originally posted by pikamaster:wonderful. the slippery road fallacy. as always, pple like you who defend the Death penalty resort to fallacious (and usually propagandistic) modes of language. All what you have been talking above is basically generalizations- you are a Cassandra. -
Well, up to you to disagree with my views or feel angry aboout it. No use sitting down and start brawling like a baby saying how the world ill treated you. The first place, have you seen a drug addict? Have you even looked into their eyes? They are people without souls , people whose minds are just a deep void.I dealism is not everything. The idea of communism is idealism. The idea of an utopian society is idealism. But do they work? no. In everything, there must be a balance between idealism and pragmatism. And i fully disagree with your ideas. Anyway, no point feeling angry about it. It just make you look like a fool. You should know that there are bound to be disagreement over such a controvercial topic. So no point trying to sway people into embracing your ideas. Look, do you think that imposing one another's idea is freedom?If not, just sit back, relax and simply post your views. Don't try to be such a troll. If someone don't disagree with your ideas, just go along with it no need to generalise them or insult them.Originally posted by pikamaster:oh, hi MR MOderator. Juz because you happen to have such "low" ideals doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit. unlike cold pragmatists, idealists at least give pple sth to work towards. my ideas are not naive. Your perception of thing are. Seen the newest post by M9orapOpinion? I agree with him fully that secularism has turned us all into cold, hard moral pragmatists, with morals based upon $$$, under the ubiquitious disguise of "security".
the angered pikamaster -
Any humane person would not want to kill aother human.For leaders of the country,they should also set an example to the people by not having death penalty.There are many western countries have done so.S'pore has already become a advanced country.Why would we still want death penalty?
-
he angry liao, maybe he's going to thundershock usOriginally posted by CenturionMBT:Well, up to you to disagree with my views or feel angry aboout it. No use sitting down and start brawling like a baby saying how the world ill treated you. The first place, have you seen a drug addict? Have you even looked into their eyes? They are people without souls , people whose minds are just a deep void.I dealism is not everything. The idea of communism is idealism. The idea of an utopian society is idealism. But do they work? no. In everything, there must be a balance between idealism and pragmatism. And i fully disagree with your ideas. Anyway, no point feeling angry about it. It just make you look like a fool. You should know that there are bound to be disagreement over such a controvercial topic. So no point trying to sway people into embracing your ideas. Look, do you think that imposing one another's idea is freedom?If not, just sit back, relax and simply post your views. Don't try to be such a troll. If someone don't disagree with your ideas, just go along with it no need to generalise them or insult them. -
because not everyone is humane in this worldOriginally posted by PRP:Any humane person would not want to kill aother human.For leaders of the country,they should also set an example to the people by not having death penalty.There are many western countries have done so.S'pore has already become a advanced country.Why would we still want death penalty? -
i agree with you on ur point.Originally posted by PRP:Any humane person would not want to kill aother human.For leaders of the country,they should also set an example to the people by not having death penalty.There are many western countries have done so.S'pore has already become a advanced country.Why would we still want death penalty?
but, as you can see from this thread, there are hardliner legalists who don't believe in any compassion whatsoever, pple who buy the PAP's stance. so the answer to your question is very simple:
1) Singaporeans have been brainwashed into thinking that the West is totally decadent. go read the post in this thread where OldBreadStinks berates the UN excessively, callign it a weakling and balblabla and calling the UDHR (Universal Decalaration of Human Rights) a "bureaucratic morass" ans so on and so forth.
2) Singapore holds on to a very conservative qing-dynasty mindset, probably due to LKY having to have gone through the Emergency. and he seems to ahve instilled that in his son very well too, such that LHL is most likely going to be an exact likeness of his father and will keep Singapore the way it is. take my advice, never believe anyhting the state newspaper says, since it mostly talks propaganda.
the hopeful pikamaster
my personal motto- dare to disturb the universe! -
good to see that at least you try to be objective. Yes, i agree with you that communism is idealism and so is utopia. But my ideas are not mere idealism. Idealism comes in the form of huge generalizations- I gave concrete examples. Even if some of my suggestions mayseem impractical, they are not pure idealism.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Well, up to you to disagree with my views or feel angry aboout it. No use sitting down and start brawling like a baby saying how the world ill treated you. The first place, have you seen a drug addict? Have you even looked into their eyes? They are people without souls , people whose minds are just a deep void.I dealism is not everything. The idea of communism is idealism. The idea of an utopian society is idealism. But do they work? no. In everything, there must be a balance between idealism and pragmatism. And i fully disagree with your ideas. Anyway, no point feeling angry about it. It just make you look like a fool. You should know that there are bound to be disagreement over such a controvercial topic. So no point trying to sway people into embracing your ideas. Look, do you think that imposing one another's idea is freedom?If not, just sit back, relax and simply post your views. Don't try to be such a troll. If someone don't disagree with your ideas, just go along with it no need to generalise them or insult them.
you ask me if i have seen a drug addict before. well, have you? actually, my mum has, and she tells me that they are pathetic characters with real dire situations that force them into what tehy become. they are possesed by a beast that won't go away. anyway, i read up much on drug addicts and have watched documentaries on them. i do not believe that they are people without souls. perhaps, some may have blocked off what is within them, agonizing memories or so. (Hey, not everyone is like Philip Lee!) Drugs are always a form of escape from other problems. ironically, they end up becoming a problem of their own class. and anyway, if it is impossible to reform a drug addict, then why does govt set up rehab centres?
and as for accepting others' arguments, yes i accept what they think. but i do not accept that their views are morally right. that is teh reason for my strong rebuttals. and at least i bother to rebut. U juz stand there and refuse to acknowledge my views. so much about me being a troll. look at the mirror and see who's the troll yourself!
the disgruntled pikamaster (with a moral duty)
the pikamaster -
so...wad fallacies exist in my posts, eh?Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:ever tried reading your own posts?
the curious pikamaster -
fallacies? none u're willing to accept anyway... a waste of my time to de-construct you really... but at least admit one thing: u are a product of what u've read.
and if u're willing to accept this much, go further and try to explore the possibility that your mode of thought is not the only one that deserves to exist.
amnesty international is playing a weak card and it doesn't take a genius to know it. the liberal approach towards law and punishment is a dead argument as far as i'm concerned. it does not reflect the complexities of reality, though they claim to pay lips service to it (by refusing to acknowledge that there's more than one approach towards law, order and punishment/reformation? i wonder how...). it refuses to acknowledge the deterret effect of capital punishment even though it is a very real factor, and it assumes that humans and humanity is intrinsically good, which is think is the ULTIMATE fallacy.
if u wanna keep pushing that card, u might as well be trying to revive buddhism in india...
and in case i haven't made myself clear (and i am sick to death of repeating myself) , drug addicts will only change if they choose to and that's what the drug rehab centres / halfway houses are for: in recognition of this fact and to facilitate them in making this choice.
should it surprise u that many go back to their old habits after they leave the centres? now, many DO want to change... but the psychological dependence justs gets the better of them... and its not something deterrent, or reformation can cure. a more tenable solution would be to prevent as much narcotics as we can from getting through in the first place!
we'll never have a drug free world... THAT's reality. the issue is, HOW will we manage it. by being soft on drugs and crime? i don't think so.
i won't even bother going into what is right, or wrong, or moral but only that if u want to change an entrenched system, u have to prove that your alternative is possesses tangible benefits, and not just a dream of civility that will not stand up to the harshness and brutality of our reality.
arguing that the capital punishment no longer works / no longer applies is not enough. it is necessary to PROVE that the alternative works better, or is more applicable.
and it would be foolish to assume that the alternative is perfect and without weaknesses as well. -
hi five!Originally posted by CX:fallacies? none u're willing to accept anyway... a waste of my time to de-construct you really... but at least admit one thing: u are a product of what u've read.
and if u're willing to accept this much, go further and try to explore the possibility that your mode of thought is not the only one that deserves to exist.
amnesty international is playing a weak card and it doesn't take a genius to know it. the liberal approach towards law and punishment is a dead argument as far as i'm concerned. it does not reflect the complexities of reality, though they claim to pay lips service to it (by refusing to acknowledge that there's more than one approach towards law, order and punishment/reformation? i wonder how...). it refuses to acknowledge the deterret effect of capital punishment even though it is a very real factor, and it assumes that humans and humanity is intrinsically good, which is think is the ULTIMATE fallacy.
if u wanna keep pushing that card, u might as well be trying to revive buddhism in india...
and in case i haven't made myself clear (and i am sick to death of repeating myself) , drug addicts will only change if they choose to and that's what the drug rehab centres / halfway houses are for: in recognition of this fact and to facilitate them in making this choice.
should it surprise u that many go back to their old habits after they leave the centres? now, many DO want to change... but the psychological dependence justs gets the better of them... and its not something deterrent, or reformation can cure. a more tenable solution would be to prevent as much narcotics as we can from getting through in the first place!
we'll never have a drug free world... THAT's reality. the issue is, HOW will we manage it. by being soft on drugs and crime? i don't think so.
i won't even bother going into what is right, or wrong, or moral but only that if u want to change an entrenched system, u have to prove that your alternative is possesses tangible benefits, and not just a dream of civility that will not stand up to the harshness and brutality of our reality.
arguing that the capital punishment no longer works / no longer applies is not enough. it is necessary to PROVE that the alternative works better, or is more applicable.
and it would be foolish to assume that the alternative is perfect and without weaknesses as well.
-
unbrainwashed, eh?Originally posted by pikamaster:but, as you can see from this thread, there are hardliner legalists who don't believe in any compassion whatsoever, pple who buy the PAP's stance. so the answer to your question is very simple:
1) Singaporeans have been brainwashed into thinking that the West is totally decadent. go read the post in this thread where OldBreadStinks berates the UN excessively, callign it a weakling and balblabla and calling the UDHR (Universal Decalaration of Human Rights) a "bureaucratic morass" ans so on and so forth.
2) Singapore holds on to a very conservative qing-dynasty mindset, probably due to LKY having to have gone through the Emergency. and he seems to ahve instilled that in his son very well too, such that LHL is most likely going to be an exact likeness of his father and will keep Singapore the way it is. take my advice, never believe anyhting the state newspaper says, since it mostly talks propaganda.
the UN was a good idea. but it has become just another giant bureacracy, oldbread isn't exactly that far off about UN members just idling in their hotels playing tennis while being paid big bucks.
before calling others brainwashed, it might do some good to read your thoughts. -
hehe. again, fully evading the question. the psot-hoc fallacy: how do you know whether i will accept what you say are my fallacies if you dun even list them to me?Or are you saying my post is fallacious?Originally posted by CX:fallacies? none u're willing to accept anyway... a waste of my time to de-construct you really... but at least admit one thing: u are a product of what u've read.
and if u're willing to accept this much, go further and try to explore the possibility that your mode of thought is not the only one that deserves to exist.
amnesty international is playing a weak card and it doesn't take a genius to know it. the liberal approach towards law and punishment is a dead argument as far as i'm concerned. it does not reflect the complexities of reality, though they claim to pay lips service to it (by refusing to acknowledge that there's more than one approach towards law, order and punishment/reformation? i wonder how...). it refuses to acknowledge the deterret effect of capital punishment even though it is a very real factor, and it assumes that humans and humanity is intrinsically good, which is think is the ULTIMATE fallacy.
if u wanna keep pushing that card, u might as well be trying to revive buddhism in india...
and in case i haven't made myself clear (and i am sick to death of repeating myself) , drug addicts will only change if they choose to and that's what the drug rehab centres / halfway houses are for: in recognition of this fact and to facilitate them in making this choice.
should it surprise u that many go back to their old habits after they leave the centres? now, many DO want to change... but the psychological dependence justs gets the better of them... and its not something deterrent, or reformation can cure. a more tenable solution would be to prevent as much narcotics as we can from getting through in the first place!
we'll never have a drug free world... THAT's reality. the issue is, HOW will we manage it. by being soft on drugs and crime? i don't think so.
i won't even bother going into what is right, or wrong, or moral but only that if u want to change an entrenched system, u have to prove that your alternative is possesses tangible benefits, and not just a dream of civility that will not stand up to the harshness and brutality of our reality.
arguing that the capital punishment no longer works / no longer applies is not enough. it is necessary to PROVE that the alternative works better, or is more applicable.
and it would be foolish to assume that the alternative is perfect and without weaknesses as well.
Second Fallacy: poisoning the well. juz because u dun seem to succeed, u start talking that AI has a "weak argument", without realizing that the majority of countries in the world have abolished the Death penalty. in fact, the whole of Europe and the EU hs criticised SIngapore repeatedly. Even the USA Foreign office cannot prevent itself from emntioning that Singapore is the Capital fo teh Death penalty. Even the Australian Foreign Minister made a comment on that in 1998, so where does that leave you? adn you have oproven to me once again that you are a Freudian. Only Freudians and Qin-dynasty-type legalists think that humans are intrinsically evil. There is NO RELIGION in this world that believes such a fallacy, i tell you.
then, u contradict yourself, which shows the weakness in your argument. first of all, u say that Drug Addicts do not want to change, then you say they do. and then you use the flimsy argument of psychological dependence to support it.
then, funnily you talk about the detterents not being possible to stop this situation and we should prevent the drugs from coming in the first place! which is ironically, exactly what i have been trying to prove to you, to which you repeatedly claimed that Detterrents were essential!
nad now, i'll give you the ultimate reason that supports my supposed "fallacy": LOVE. Forgiveness is love, and in our mechanically destroyed society, that is the one thing that is lacking. Lack of Love is what causes most addicts to go on drugs in the first place and to crime as well. whether it is love by teh state, by teh schools, by the family, or by the corporate bosses. if LOVE in society would increase, all ills would decrease.
if you want statistics, the total crime rate for drugs in New Zealand is 1 per 1000, and this is from New Zealand's official crime statistics. New Zealand does not practive teh Death penalty at all. Yes, i say that statistic is from the NZ GOVT, not AI!!
If only the world had more love...
the pikamaster -
you need to get john titor's time machine.Originally posted by pikamaster:If only the world had more love...
the pikamaster
the 70s is your world. -
XOriginally posted by oldbreadstinks:hi five! 
-
There's a very clear difference between a "safe" system and a "just" system. It would be illogical to use the fact that we have a relatively safe system to justify the fact that we do not have a just one.Originally posted by CX:why is it "justice" to you? and why don't we have any? were u the victim of a gov't sponsored abduction? we u brutally beaten and left for dead in a ditch? did u find yourself framed for a crime u didn't commit upon your return? did u find yourself placed before a compliant court and convicted based on facricated evidence? were u hanged as a result???
this place isn't perfect, but do people think before they make sweeping judgements like the one above, or do they just say it because its fun to diss everything about this country?
but u know what's real? security. u don't get mugged when u go out, you don't have to worry about pple noticing that u're wearing an expensive watch, u don't have to pay off thugs to operate a business (haha... well, ok... income tax... but thats not quite the same...)
And of course, if we do not have a just system, what do we have in the end? What's to stop them for throwing a ton of vaguely justified policies or destroying you via litigation in the name of the law?
While I may not have come into brush with our country's human rights violations, I dare you to say that we have a system that's even vaguely commited towards prociding equality, fairness and justice to their political opponents, let alone their people.
Of course, we could easily say that such total control is acceptable if security is what this way of rule gives us, the very same reason many limpid Germans gave for their sheeplike commitment to the Nazi party and turning a blind eye to their other activities. Of course you might like to point that the Party and the Nazis are two different things in character, but the point remains the same, they both have virtually absolute control and are free to implement their will.
Justice is not arbitary, it is a basic right to all human beings, deny that and you can JUSTify anything. -
take off your sig, makes u look like a walking agitprop, unless of course u r really one...there seems to be nth at ur site, anyway...Originally posted by nismoS132:you need to get john titor's time machine.
the 70s is your world. -
then, of course Freudians like CX and Oldbreadstinks think of human rights as some big,fat, stinking morass? how sad really...i pity SIngapore's "compassionate" society.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There's a very clear difference between a "safe" system and a "just" system. It would be illogical to use the fact that we have a relatively safe system to justify the fact that we do not have a just one.
And of course, if we do not have a just system, what do we have in the end? What's to stop them for throwing a ton of vaguely justified policies or destroying you via litigation in the name of the law?
While I may not have come into brush with our country's human rights violations, I dare you to say that we have a system that's even vaguely commited towards prociding equality, fairness and justice to their political opponents, let alone their people.
Of course, we could easily say that such total control is acceptable if security is what this way of rule gives us, the very same reason many limpid Germans gave for their sheeplike commitment to the Nazi party and turning a blind eye to their other activities. Of course you might like to point that the Party and the Nazis are two different things in character, but the point remains the same, they both have virtually absolute control and are free to implement their will.
Justice is not arbitary, it is a basic right to all human beings, deny that and you can JUSTify anything.
the sad pikamaster -
3 things i hate most in an open discussion:
1) to repeat myself becaues dense, stubborn pple refuse to get it.
2) to be misquoted and misunderstood through a clear misreading of my points, stemming from the dense filter of a simple mind.
3) personal attacks.
that dolt has raised some points and i have, over the past few days, addressed them point by point.
and the dolt has consistently revealed itself to be a stubborn, intransigient, prig in all the replies, selectively answering points that suited it's ends, ignoring others that clearly threatened it's arguments.
i see no point in furthering a discussion with one so ignorant, closed minded and ill-bred in the manners of a civilised discussion.
as far as i'm concerned, the pika-creature can shove its pointed tail up its orifice. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
i don't disagree, but "safe" for whom, and "just" for whom? that's my issue... "safe" for criminals isn't safe for law-abiding citizens, and "just" for a crook that got away with a technicality isn't "just" to the victims.
There's a very clear difference between a "safe" system and a "just" system. It would be illogical to use the fact that we have a relatively safe system to justify the fact that we do not have a just one.And of course, if we do not have a just system, what do we have in the end? What's to stop them for throwing a ton of vaguely justified policies or destroying you via litigation in the name of the law?
that IS possible, and indeed, it has been done. but i don't think the death penalty was ever an issue in all this.While I may not have come into brush with our country's human rights violations, I dare you to say that we have a system that's even vaguely commited towards prociding equality, fairness and justice to their political opponents, let alone their people.
we have a long way to go in promoting political plurality, but i do believe that as far as criminal justice is concerned, the interests of the people, in terms of equality, fairness and justice DO come first.Of course, we could easily say that such total control is acceptable if security is what this way of rule gives us, ... they both have virtually absolute control and are free to implement their will.
and again, though i'm no pro-gov't stooge, i don't see how we can accuse anyone of something that they have not done. thats not "fair", or "just" now is it?
in defamation suits, yes. with regards to political opponents, yes. the govt ought to be ashamed but in criminal cases? is there a precedent?Justice is not arbitary, it is a basic right to all human beings, deny that and you can JUSTify anything.
i'm not advocating arbitrary justice. i'm advocating strictly enforced, no-nonsense justice.
do human beings have any intrinsic rights inalienable to them other than their core bodily functions? all other so called "rights" are socially constructed. i don't think its helpful to see justice in terms of 'human rights'. it is more in terms of institutions, which grants those rights and at the same time, enforces the rules against those who do not respect these rights.
while i agree that it is important that checks must exist in these institutions to ensure that such rights are uphelp, i don't see it in the extreme light that u do because i do not see it in terms of a narrow pillar that everything rests on. its not just about rights.
in theory, with the current monopoly on power, the gov't can pretty much do anything and everything it wants... but it can't... because various interests have to be balanced, a sense of stability and normalcy has to be maintained and foreign perceptions have to be managed. a big wayang? but of course. what isn't?
hitler could pull it off not because he disregarded "justice", but because he disregarded institutionalised procedures. emergency law allowed him to do everything. sh|t-happens when institutions are bypassed, corrupted, or collapsed.
can we picture that for Sg? in terms of policies, yes. in terms of criminal justice? no, i don't think so. -
I have no beef with a no-nonsense system that implements the law strictly and effectively. However in many cases, it is apparent Singapore law is sheer overkill. Note the case of those sheltering illegal immigrant unwittingly, and ended up going to jail more on the basis of "I'm sorry that's the law" then if they had actually commited any offence.
This inflexible, rigid, hamfisted way of applying the law makes for overkill of the hapless offender. While I'm not suggesting an American like ligitous system
That is the very system that can easily be abused for the lack of checks and measures. I have no idea why anybody would consider a system that is just to a criminal be unjust to the victim. Justice does not only refer to punishment for wrongdoing, but also to the vindication of those who are innocent. Would a strict system like we have be just dishing out excessive sentences on minor offenders? Or offenders who had no idea they broke the law under some ulu section? One wonders.
What exactly are the rights of a Singaporean as defined and promised by the consitution? Have we had free acess to any of these rights or are they just there for wayang?
However, the external checks and balances that keep the Party in check rarely fails to preventing them from unleashing all their dogs on the peasant Singaporean, consider the way the milk the Singaporean cow with little regard to their interests. How many times have the policies passed be in favour of Singapore inc. rather then Singaporeans? And one could argue that a benifit to Singapore inc. would also help her slaves/citizens, but how much of the pie that we had helped to bake had we really gotten? -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
i had earlier replied to a similar post by Atobe that addresses the issue of illegal immigrants as well and i do agree that it is overly harsh and mandatory sentances do need to be tweaked to be more flexible.
I have no beef with a no-nonsense system that implements the law strictly and effectively. However in many cases, it is apparent Singapore law is sheer overkill. Note the case of those sheltering illegal immigrant unwittingly, and ended up going to jail more on the basis of "I'm sorry that's the law" then if they had actually commited any offence.
This inflexible, rigid, hamfisted way of applying the law makes for overkill of the hapless offender. While I'm not suggesting an American like ligitous system
but is an offender ever hapless? checking the status of an immigrant before renting out your flat to them is just a mouse-click away. it won't do to accept ignorance as a plea.That is the very system that can easily be abused for the lack of checks and measures. I have no idea why anybody would consider a system that is just to a criminal be unjust to the victim. Justice does not only refer to punishment for wrongdoing, but also to the vindication of those who are innocent. Would a strict system like we have be just dishing out excessive sentences on minor offenders? Or offenders who had no idea they broke the law under some ulu section? One wonders.
are u saying "abused" hypothetically? or do u see a clear, tangible abuse?What exactly are the rights of a Singaporean as defined and promised by the consitution? Have we had free acess to any of these rights or are they just there for wayang?
u have them as long as the institutions uphold them. the whole situation, for want of a better metaphor, is a big wayang... but i'm a cynic so most things are wayang to me.However, the external checks and balances that keep the Party in check rarely fails to preventing them from unleashing all their dogs on the peasant Singaporean, consider the way the milk the Singaporean cow with little regard to their interests. How many times have the policies passed be in favour of Singapore inc. rather then Singaporeans? And one could argue that a benifit to Singapore inc. would also help her slaves/citizens, but how much of the pie that we had helped to bake had we really gotten?
thats an issue of politics. this isn't about politics, this is about crime and punishment.
your argument is better placed in a politics thread. -
Originally posted by CX:3 things i hate most in an open discussion:
1) to repeat myself becaues dense, stubborn pple refuse to get it.
2) to be misquoted and misunderstood through a clear misreading of my points, stemming from the dense filter of a simple mind.
3) personal attacks.
that dolt has raised some points and i have, over the past few days, addressed them point by point.
and the dolt has consistently revealed itself to be a stubborn, intransigient, prig in all the replies, selectively answering points that suited it's ends, ignoring others that clearly threatened it's arguments.
i see no point in furthering a discussion with one so ignorant, closed minded and ill-bred in the manners of a civilised discussion.
as far as i'm concerned, the pika-creature can shove its pointed tail up its orifice.
just what i wanted to say to the pika-creature but was afraid of offending him
since he has already started on insults on our sigs does that mean we can do the same?