.....

hey karen thanks for your comments, but these are just some of my random thoughts about what you mentioned.

Drugs are harmful. I'm not discounting the serious problem of drug addiction and the harrowing effects it has on the addict and the addict's family; I'm also not saying that drug traffickers should go scot-free and unpunished.

All I'm saying is, the crime does not warrant such a final and extreme form of punishment, because death is irrevocable and you can never be 100% sure that you got the right person; that I can't see any humane reasons against life imprisonment for the syndicate Kings and a reasonable jail term for the Pawns; and that, simply put, the death penalty is immoral.

Can a lame excuse of "oh, it's because we have to protect Singapore society from the evils of drug consumption!" possibly or even remotely suffice to dull such pain, one that I, or anyone reading this right now for that matter, can't even begin to fully comprehend?

We can sit back and say, "Well, her son committed a crime and thus he had to pay the price", tell ourselves comforting brain-washing half-truths that clumsily string together random phrases such as "deterrence" and "public policy" and "the good of society", but at the end of the day the issue isn't whether or not punishment should be escaped; it's the legitimacy of the punishment meted out to the offender, and how that punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime.

Secondly, you mentioned that capital punishment is necessary to deter more people from committing the same crime. I believe that I have touched on this point earlier on in my previous posts. But nonetheless, I will repeat again.

The good that supposedly results from the deterrence of future crime is too speculative and uncertain.

Or, let's boil it down to simple statistics. Doesn't the fact that Singapore has the highest rate of execution per capita bother anyone? What about the fact that a large percentage of these executions were meted out on drug offenders? What does that say about the "deterrence" value of this retarded punishment?

Detractors may argue that the high execution rate is due to the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system in the state.

My answer to the above argument is than could they please kindly explain why the majority of the execution is for the trafficking of drugs?

If the judicial system is really doing their job well, shouldn’t the proportion of execution be evened out for other sort of crime like murder and other crimes that warrant the death penalty?

Whilst saying the above, is it than fair for me to say it’s easier for the judiciary to convict drug offenders due to the law of our state?

If I am not wrong, the constitution explicitly states that you have the right to an attorney (okay I couldn't phrase it any way else) and you only see your lawyer six weeks after your arrest.

However in Singapore less than 10% of all accused criminals have access to legal representation. Could you than explain this?

I hate to say this but maybe I am spoiled by American legal dramas and idealistic theories of fairness and justice, when the very moral authority upon which the state justifies its imposition of the death penalty on drug traffickers is called into question, when the mere fact that only one very, very learned and expert and god-like judge decides whether or not one should live or die, when the Court of Appeal isn't really the Court of Appeal but the Court to go to if you want your sentence toughened, when the trial process seems to be in total disregard for the sanctity of human life leave me even more disappointed at our current judiciary.

Btw what you mentioned Karen are one-off cases. I don’t believe in generalization. It doesn’t mean that if for 1 case there is a state appointed counsel means that all future cases will deserve a similar treatment.

And I have also checked with some people in the legal profession, the legal aid bureau isn’t exactly free of charge as what many of us would like to believe. At the end of the day, the defendant still has to pay for certain court charges and administrative charges which will run to the thousands depending on the duration of the court case and the resources needed for the evidences. At the end of the day, many of them would rather do without the legal assistance. So tell me than, does the law punishes the poor for being poor?

The death penalty is already mandated for such drug cases and therefore the accused has been robbed of any right to plead that his relative lack of moral blameworthiness should mitigate his sentence.

Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (‘MDA’) says, "Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug."

An accompanying case put into simpler terms what that convoluted sentence was trying to say, Shan Kai Weng v PP, and I quote: "The position under our law, therefore, is that possession is proven once the accused knows of the existence of the thing itself."

So basically if you're carrying a bottle of capsules thinking it's your vitamin C for your aging and defective eyes and it turns out that the powder inside said capsules are actually cocaine you'd be hanged for possession which the law assumes to be for purposes of trafficking.

I quote from Dr Thio (NUS law lecturer) ‘Once the crime is proven, the judge has no discretion to hear mitigation pleas. There is only the plea of clemency left.’

You are absolutely right: innocence is not an excuse, however if the law doesn’t give you a right to prove otherwise, than isn’t our law a bit over reaching? Isn’t it time for us to revise our MDA? How does our MDA evaluate against the substantive standards of fairness, humanity and proportionality that the ‘fundamentals rules of natural justice’?

We as fellow human beings are far from infallibility; what gives us the right to take away the life of another person, especially in drug trafficking cases, ESPECIALLY when the law presumes your guilt?

Another reason why I feel so strongly about this is because I personally know of a couple of ex drug offenders back during my involvement in the KBC prison ministry, who as a result of counseling and encouragement, have turned over a new leaf and been reintegrated into society.

They are now leading normal lives and having a free reign over their drug addiction. I sincerely believe with all my heart that rehabilitation is the only way to help these drug offenders rather than taking away their life for the crime they commit. Where is the logic about implementing the death penalty to a drug offender when we know that he is fully capable of change?

I am not trying to say we should argue for the sake of arguing, but there are just some things in life that is worth standing up for. We should start to be a thinking society and not believe any reasoning that is thrown our way .

I totally believe that we are capable to make a change as a society. All the talk about the yellow ribbon project to reintegrate ex offenders back to society, why than do we not even give a second chance to someone who we know is fully capable of change, a second chance at this game of life? How the death penalty does remotely meets the aim of deterrence when it cannot be proven? Isn’t it than true that everyone deserves a second chance? Think about it….


** DISCLAIMER: This law student accepts no responsibility for any misrepresentation in the above entry. All views expressed in the above entry are of those of the author and in no way of a malicious and slandering nature. All views are of a frank and open discussion. The writer acknowledges that the above facts may be subject to inconsistencies from the actual facts (if any) and is apologetic to any parties who take offence to his comments. Last but not least the writer has also consulted various publications and blogs for another alternative views concurrent and different from his views and may have included them for particular referencing. **

part time job....

it seemed really exciting promoting intel computers @ the sitex fair until i actually began doing it. utterly disappointing, I blame it in the genes. if only i was a bikini clad female model doing the cha-cha, shut up sex sells.

let me set the records clear once and for all, i sold a grand total of 1 VIPER computer (the lowest series of computers) …pathetic…very. actually it was pretty remarkable considering the fact that I barely spoke to the customer but than she know nuts about computers so who cares…

‘umm auntie very cheap, better than dell. you can go and check, we got 3 years warranty, they don’t have.’

‘i assure you all our specs are very good, we are the only agent authorized to sell intel motherboard’

‘1GB ram, 80GB harddisk drive, intel HT technology, ATI radeon graphics card chip'

'dbs/uob credit card 24 month intrest free, no money now still can pay later.'

honestly, I never felt so miserable repeating such badly scripted lines in my life.i was forced to speak in such atrocious and degrading english, its extremly embarassing esp so for a law student.but once you start you cant stop.

i found myself getting more excited as i spoke….phua chu kang would be so proud of me,at times I actually caught drips of my saliva flying onto the customer’s brochure.

‘thank you very much I come back again’.freakin’g piece of shit.

i know its politically incorrect to say this but it sucks being rejected, but hell yea to freedom.

i actually have to resort to selling computer games for a misery commission instead, 'war of the rings'. yea tell me about it, what the hell.it sounds extremely pirated but it still sold pretty well. final conclusion people are really very gullible ! or should congrats for being a real big time liar,

one thing that I learnt so far salesman are liars, they lie to sell, simple logic@ and the very fact that I am a bad sales man goes to show that I am contrary to that.

i hate it when my parents are right, i am a bad sales man. my dad even offered to pay me to stay @ home and do something more productive but damn did i want to prove them wrong, that would be taking the easy way out.i guess I was just unfortunate to be selling such lousy items.

besides I wasn’t there for the money, money was an incentive but not a driving factor-the main reason was that i was super bored and had nothing better to do.

but overall it was a good experience, got to know a couple of people… yasmin,charlene, goutham,janice, jian wei(*bitch*), stephen, GI boy….

ok, so what if i am a law student and cant pronounce 'Britannica'. no big deal! yea they were diggin'g me for my pronounciation.i went around saying 'britanaca'...oh hey you cant blame me, i dont read the bloody encyclopedia. i am not a freakin'g no life moron. i forgot that some tjc students also cant pronounce for crying out loud....*hint you know who you are *

we were so bored that we ended up playing truth or dare n the loser had to lie on the floor and let the crowd walk over him/her,i really salute charlene for that dare-you rocked,there was another dare that was already formulating in my mind. how about doing a lesbie thing with yas, yea its all so vivid in my mind. if only i can see it in real time.

and to yas, sorry about that stupid HP lap-top, that damn bastards…..

btw i bought my new HP laptop.wahoo.its running on AMD.in a sense i felt l;ike as if i have betrayed intel ...screw intel.you have to check out my new laptop./1.8 ghz,512kb,l2 cahce, 1GB rAM, 80 GB HDD, DVD R/W, 6 in 1 blue tooth integarated, biometric fingerprint sensor. this is really good stuff.

and guess how much i spent on this piece of bitch,,,,, $1795..........

not forgetting the freebies i received, a 4 port USB hub, a wireless mouse, a 3 year warranty top up for $99/- and a cannon picture camera, i almost baragined for an ipod nano but in the end I gave that up cause I had pay slightly more for it.

my mom would be so proud of me,you should have seen us bargaining. your eyes might not be able to take it,yea man it was nasty

i am now an 'unofficial' tech junkie, comex 2006 *i cant wait* ....i am so going to add this intel thing to my CV!

‘Fairness does not govern life and death.’-Mitch Albom ‘The five people you meet in Heaven’

PM Lee wrote, in his reply to Singapore’s firm stance against Drug Trafficking, "In this case (referring to Van’s case), it was a huge amount which was being trafficked-nearly 400g. If you work it out, its 26,000 doses of heroin on the street. Its an enormous amount in terms of the misery it can cause to addicts, their families, to the destruction of lives.’

The last I checked Van was on his way to Australia and landed in Singapore only because he had to change flights. And based on that, I think it’s pretty obvious that Van most probably had no intention to whatsoever deal the drugs in Singapore.

If the poor fellow does not even had the intention to deal with the drugs here, can you than please explain ‘ the enormous amount in terms of the misery it can cause to addicts, their families, to the destruction of lives’ to the people of Singapore?

I do not believe that it was parliament’s intent to send foreigner’s exporting drugs from Cambodia to Melbourne to the gallows, so is our current legislation overreaching? Is it high time for us to review our legislation (*MDA*)?

And come on, think deeper! What were his extreme reasons for trafficking drugs? Was it because of his ailing mum dying of cancer back home? Is it because he needs to pay off his gambling debts? Was it because he needs to buy medicine for his dying wife?

I hardly ever play the moral card, but I feel so strongly about the death penalty and if this means going against my general rule so be it. I am going to stick by my argument that it is inhuman and immoral and no one should ever be punished for his/her crime by the death penalty.

We must always have faith in people believing that rehabilitation should be the main form of punishment allowing them to be restored and reintegrated to society. Everyone makes mistakes, we make mistakes, they make mistakes, and who are we than to deprive an individual of their life based on a mistake?

I think I've mentioned this before, but I sincerely believe that this country's legal system punishes the poor for being poor.

Nguyen resorted to drug trafficking out of desperation, and Shanmugam wasn't exactly living in King Albert Park. I suppose the people that the two of them represent aren't worthy of legal protection? I suppose their lack of wealth makes them less-important citizens of Singapore? I hope that's not the case, because, boy, talk about unconstitutional! Isn't everyone supposed to be equal before the law?

More importantly: why are we hanging the pawn and letting the fucking king go scott-free? Where is the justice in that? In fact, how the fuck is that remotely fair?

As a prospective law student to be, I find that remotely disturbing. Perhaps I should start signing my transfer papers to medicine. At least in medicine, I can live off the state for as long as it lasts. Besides doctors earn more than lawyers…

This entry sucks…my english is horrible….god help me!

** DISCLAIMER: This law student accepts no responsibility for any misrepresentation in the above entry. All views expressed in the above entry are of those of the author and in no way of a malicious and slandering nature. All views are of a frank and open discussion. The writer acknowledges that the above facts may be subject to inconsistencies from the actual facts (if any) and is apologetic to any parties who take offence to his comments. Last but not least the writer has also consulted various publications and blogs for another alternative views concurrent and different from his views and may have included them for particular referencing. **

STOP KILLING LIVES……ITS MADNESS@@@

I see the death penalty as a barbaric, inhumane and thoughtless act without any due respect for the importance and the significance of a human life.

Is the law REALLY reason free from passion? - Aristotle.

Well no offense Aristotle, passion MUST and SHOULD be the key ingredient to the abolishment of the death penalty. We must always have faith in people believing that everyone deserves a second chance @ life.

I do not subscribe to the old school of thought where the aim of the death penalty is for

(i) Deterrence (*the greater good of society *)

(ii) Retributive (*an eye for any eye*) purposes.

Deterrence seems like an attractive theory to appease the general public.

‘Does the greater good- the deterrence of future offenders- not justifies the death penalty?’ Yet no respectable legal system in the world would buy into this reasoning because the good that supposedly results is too speculative and uncertain.

Can the Government please explain why Singapore still has one of the highest execution rates in the world relative to its population? What about the fact that a large percentage of these executions were meted out on drug offenders? What does that say about the "deterrence" value of this harsh punishment?

Detractors may argue that the high execution rate is due to the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system in the state. My answer to the above argument is than could they please kindly explain why the majority of the execution is for the trafficking of drugs? If the judicial system is really doing their job well, shouldn’t the proportion of execution be evened out for other sort of crime like murder and other crimes that warrant the death penalty?

Whilst saying the above, is it than fair for me to say it’s easier for the judiciary to convict drug offenders due to the law of our state?

Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (‘MDA’) says, "Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug."

An accompanying case put into simpler terms what that convoluted sentence was trying to say, Shan Kai Weng v PP, and I quote: "The position under our law, therefore, is that possession is proven once the accused knows of the existence of the thing itself."

So basically if you're carrying a bottle of capsules thinking it's your vitamin C for your aging and defective eyes and it turns out that the powder inside said capsules are actually cocaine you'd be hanged for possession which the law assumes to be for purposes of trafficking.

I always grew up believing that the law is fair and just. But in the above case, I honestly do not think that the crime warrants such a harsh and undignified death sentence.

Sure I should have be more prudent and check through my medications properly, but how can the law punish me for something that I have no knowledge of? How is it fair to punish me when I lack the ’mens reas’ of the crime? How is it fair when the ‘supposed crime’ I committed is so grossly disproportionate to the punishment meted out?

This also goes against the very nature of the constitution which states that no one may be deprived of his or her life ‘save in accordance with the law’- the law in this case is the MDA.

The laws of the land should be revised not the judgment. But changing the law is something the judiciary cannot do without exceeding its current mandate.

Think about this for a second. The courts determine guilt and pass sentences but Parliament, in deciding what elements constitute an offence (e.g.: not exceeding 15g for drug trafficking), ‘in a sense’ interferes with the finding of guilt’. Parliament affects sentencing as well.

How than can we keep the JUDICIARY independent of the executive and the legislature?

This boils down to the separation of power, where the ‘answer’ is a historical and blurred one.

Should the State be meting out capital punishment in the absence of proof that it works? Why does the State persist in this method and put the burden of proof on abolitionists?

Capital punishment raises troubling moral questions; it should be avoided unless there is proof that it brings such overwhelming efficacy as to override moral objections.

In other words, when there is doubt, desist.

Another common supposed aim is that of vengeance. There are lots of moral objections to retribution which I need not cover. Arguing retributive value for drug trafficking is quite a stretch. The simple guy will say, drugs kill people, so hang the evil person.

Take for example, a certain minister wrote, in his reply to Australia's plead for clemency on Nguyen Tuong Van's behalf, "We, on our part in Singapore, have a responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the scourge of drug addiction, which has destroyed many lives and inflicted great suffering on many families."

‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the evils of gambling addiction that will arise as a result of the casinos?'

‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the evils of tobacco and alcohol?'

‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from HIV+ people who go around infecting other innocent victims?’

‘What about the responsibility to protect the innocent and illiterate landlords who as a result of the law commit an offence of harboring illegal immigrants?’

I acknowledging the serious consequences and the damage that drug addiction causes for the addict and his loved ones and I am also not saying that the drug trafficker should go away scot-free but all I’m trying saying is that the crime does not befit and warrant the capital punishment.

The death penalty is IRREVOCABLE.

You can't bring back the dead, not even when new evidence surfaces later that proves the person's innocence.

Shouldn’t we than change and mainstream our aims of sentencing more to rehabilitative purposes?

We as fellow human beings are far from infallibility; what gives us the right to take away the life of another person, especially in drug trafficking cases, ESPECIALLY when the law presumes your guilt?

I am so fired up right now and I really feel like sending an email to the President on behalf of Van, knowing with all my heart that the death penalty should be abolished. I know one day this challenge would be fulfilled.

I FINALLY have a dream….



** DISCLAIMER: This law student to-be accepts no responsibility for any misrepresentation in the above entry. All views expressed in the above entry are of those of the writer and in no way of a malicious and slandering nature. All views are of a frank and open discussion. The writer acknowledges that the above facts may be subject to inconsistencies from the actual facts (if any). Last but not least the writer has also consulted various publications and blogs for another alternative views concurrent and different from his views and may have included them for particular referencing. **

TheFlyisdead v. ‘The Errant Drivers of the Republic’

Absolute shock and horror – Disbelief - Shattered "ideals’ from principles taught at the driving school - Action by plaintiff to recover sanity and regain the bountiful pleasures of driving - quantum of damages - whether intangible damages can be calculated in tangible terms - Whether practicality of the law can ever be extended to cover cases of emotional distress and hardship caused as a result of long term driving on the roads

Facts

The plaintiff is a 22-year-old p-plate driver. The defendant, conveniently termed "The Errant Drivers of the Republic", represents every single establishment that 1) drives like a tyrant; 2) never giving way to other drivers; 3) never flashing their signal lights early when switching lanes 4) using vulgar language and rude and disturbing gestures at other p-plate drivers; 5) stealing other drivers parking lot right under their nose and even having the cheek to smile at the supposed victim; 6) insidiously enforces conformity on all other drivers by forcing them to either give in or be taken advantage of.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for a lack of consideration to the inexperience of the p-plate driver and subsequent poor performance in driving due to the emotional distress that he suffered. As a student back in the driving school, the plaintiff had a very clear idea of how he wanted to drive with consideration and be a good and courteous driver without losing his temper and giving way to other drivers at every opportunity given in the hope that other drivers would also have similar intentions and put it into practice making driving a pleasure at all times.

As he entered the real world of driving, that 'clear idea' eventually became vague and confusing. The plaintiff contended that the defendant is liable for his perpetual angst; his petulantly lackadaisical attitude towards driving; and his recent loss of inspiration to drive. The plaintiff further submitted that he is suffering sleepless nights and lack of energy during the day due to the reoccurring nightmares of the errant drivers pursing him down the ECP/PIE/CTE.

The plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress and hardship caused as a result of the sleepless nights and lack of energy for other supposed activities that takes place at night. The Plaintiff is also claiming for the ‘lost ideals’ he once had for driving.

The trial judge found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. It was against this decision that the plaintiff appealed to the High Court.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

1) The court is of the opinion that the errant driver of the republic is good for everyone. It teaches every individual to fend for themselves on the road and not let other drivers take advantage of each other. For the plaintiff to bring an action against the defendant is going against the very nature of the reality of the road world.

2) The defendant in this case is a ill-defined one. It is unrealistic and impractical to allow the plaintiff to claim damages according to the definition of "the errant drivers of the republic" as set out in the Facts section. It is also against public policy, as it would be opening a legal floodgate of claims to which there would be no end, because so many idealistic individuals end up being utterly disappointed by this omniscient defendant. The plaintiff should not be given special treatment.

3) Even if such a claim is allowed, there is no way to calculate something as intangible as emotional distress and lost ideals in monetary terms.

4) It is not just highly unlikely, but downright impossible, for the law to be extended to cover damages in these areas. See floodgate argument in (2).



**DISCLAIMER: This is entirely a work of fiction written by an amateur law student to be and some legal terms may be confused with the actual terms used by the legal courts.The writer is not liable to any misrepresentation in the above entry. **

I Have a Dream...

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!


Extract from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "I Have a Dream"
delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.