‘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!
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. **
posted by theflyisneverdead at 11/18/2005 04:09:00 PM
1 Comments:
trafficking drugs/murdering/robbing/stealing - all these acts are morally wrong and thus they shd be punished. capital punishment is necessary to deter more ppl from committing the same crime. And capital punishment is more often than not, left for more serious crimes, which could/will/have lead to death of others.we do not have the right to put others to death, but do u think they have the right to do things which will bring others to death?
and the law doesn't punish the poor.ms sylvia lim once represented this thai who was accused of drug trafficking. and she wasn't hired 'coz this chap's got no $$.she was appointed by the state to defend him. the state recognises the fact that there are ppl who can't afford legal counsel as thus there's the legal aid bureau.and if u have no $$ to defend urself, u'll get the state-appointed counsel.
innocence is not an excuse. and Shan Wai Keong v PP, i think means that u are guilty when u know that u are carrying DRUGS. Like ms sylvia lim's case, the appellate court found that the accused did not know that the bag he was carrying contained drugs and he was acquitted, with CJ dissenting.
the law presumes ur guilt as you were carrying the drugs with u!cold-hard evidence is there unless u prove otherwise! It's like u carry a condom in ur bag and when we see it, we deem it as u know of its existence in ur bag. it's for u to argue otherwise, if u were really innocent.
Post a Comment
<< Home