NationStates Jolt Archive

what do you guys think........

SINGAPORE - Singapore executed a 25-year-old Australian on Friday for drug trafficking, despite numerous appeals from the Australian government

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_as/singapore_execution

Moral of the story:


East Asian nations don't fuck around with Drugs.

I think what I've always thought - Singapore is teh suck. You won't catch me there any decade soon.

what do you guys think........
I think that I am glad that this shit is over with. Now that he's dead, maybe we can move on to other things?

what do you guys think........
His crime is overwhelming stupidity. His punishment is fitting.

Their laws, their business.

Maybe now Singapore will start putting down the export of Child Prostution and Local Drugs. And is it Singapore or Milysasia that has a choke hold on the Sapphire and Ruby business using criminal tactics?

That it's Singaporean law and equally apply the law to everyone. The idiot should have known just how hard the authorities come down on drugs. If you have even the smallest amount over a ridulously low amount then you are considered to be dealing, and if you have below then it's automatic life explusion from the island. I suppose the guy was unlucky not to get life expulsion from Singapore which some foreingers get instead. But if he didn't know the law then he was an idiot, if he did then he's and idiot.

But, anyway, if you like clean streets then Singapore is the place to be.

what do you guys think........



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_as/singapore_execution

Ever heard of the Opium Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars)?

I've already expressed my opinions on this. Suffice it to say that I find the support for his death sickening.

Their laws, their business.
Agreed, despite the fact I see this as kinda authoritarian....

Poor dude... And kill someone for drug, it's, like, whoa?!
Don't you think?

Do I agree with the law? Certainly not.

Do I agree with him being treated just like anyone else would in Singapore? Yes. And therefore I was against all the various attempts to get him special treatment, while god knows how many Singaporeans are also waiting for their death.

So do I agree with him being executed in Singapore? Well, let's just say that I didn't really care all that much.

Good for them! I hope people will think twice before doing something stupd. If only other countries came as hard on drug trafficking and consumption as those guys, instead of giving money to the Colombian government to persecute farmers and natives!

Poor dude... And kill someone for drug, it's, like, whoa?!
Don't you think?Well they, the singaporeans, claim that drug dealing ruins lives. So they were just going 'an eye for an eye' and ruining his life.

Moral: Don't traffic drugs. Now I think I'll should go watch the film The Midnight Express tonight.

I've already expressed my opinions on this. Suffice it to say that I find the support for his death sickening.
I support them not bending to other nation's moral notions and having the guts to apply their own law.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty (often too good for the criminal, and not really a solution to the root causes), but I'm in favour of harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and applying it even if others don't agree with it.

This is overreacting on Singapores part. I used to think Singapore was a nice place to visit. Now, though, I see that it is just a brutal nation with insane laws. It bans alot of sexual practices, executes the highest amount of people per-capita in the world, and is a de facto one-party state.

This is overreacting on Singapores part. I used to think Singapore was a nice place to visit. Now, though, I see that it is just a brutal nation with insane laws. It bans alot of sexual practices, executes the highest amount of people per-capita in the world, and is a de facto one-party state.
There are signs everywhere as soon as you get off the plain anouncing posession of drugs will get you the death penalty.

Well they, the singaporeans, claim that drug dealing ruins lives. So they were just going 'an eye for an eye' and ruining his life.
As said Ghandi,
- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Or at least I think it's Ghandi...

I support them not bending to other nation's moral notions and having the guts to apply their own law.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty (often too good for the criminal, and not really a solution to the root causes), but I'm in favour of harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and applying it even if others don't agree with it.

What really gets me are the people, particularly over here where we have no capital punishment, who say things like "You do the crime, you face the punishment!" when if a proposal to make drug related offences a capital offence arose, they would shy away from it.

This is overreacting on Singapores part. I used to think Singapore was a nice place to visit. Now, though, I see that it is just a brutal nation with insane laws. It bans alot of sexual practices, executes the highest amount of people per-capita in the world, and is a de facto one-party state.

How is it an over-reaction? Nguyen got just what other drug traffickers would have got if they broke the law in Singapore.

What really gets me are the people, particularly over here where we have no capital punishment, who say things like "You do the crime, you face the punishment!" when if a proposal to make drug related offences a capital offence arose, they would shy away from it.
The latter has nothing to do with the former.

What really gets me are the people, particularly over here where we have no capital punishment, who say things like "You do the crime, you face the punishment!" when if a proposal to make drug related offences a capital offence arose, they would shy away from it.

Are these the same people that wanted the death penalty for those responsible for the Bali bombings?

There are signs everywhere as soon as you get off the plain anouncing posession of drugs will get you the death penalty.

I wasn't referring to this execution in particular, I was referring to the law in general (my bad, I see). Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right.

I wasn't referring to this execution in particular, I was referring to the law in general (my bad, I see). Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right.
Not trafficing illegal drugs in Singapore doesn't seem like too much to ask. He didn't get the death penalty for selling stuffed teddy bears.

As said Ghandi,
- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Or at least I think it's Ghandi...
Oooh, I like that quote.

But yeah, i was just trying to explain Singapore's position. I agree with neither the death penalty nor the criminalisation of drugs. But apart from that I hear you get some great beach cafes and prawns the size of your head... well not quite that large. Prawns in the UK suck.

The latter has nothing to do with the former.

I think it has everything to do with it. If you support the same happening in your country, fine. I will disagree with that, but I will also recognise it as a legitimate opinion. If you don't, but gloat over his death and say he deserved it, you are a hypocrite.

To attack the sovereignity argument: if I have no right to express my distaste over Mr. Nguyen's execution, then nobody has any right to comment on such things as the status of women in Islamic countries, or perhaps the gross violations of human rights that occur in North Korea. Different kettles of fish, yes, but the essence is no different.


Are these the same people that wanted the death penalty for those responsible for the Bali bombings?

Yep, exactly.

What really gets me are the people, particularly over here where we have no capital punishment, who say things like "You do the crime, you face the punishment!" when if a proposal to make drug related offences a capital offence arose, they would shy away from it.
But maybe they would agree if applied to something they consider bad enough, like infanticide, rape, or skinning kitties.

It's where you draw the line. For Singapore drug offenses fall into that category and one's got to respect that.

As said Ghandi,
- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I've always wanted to go into the Seeing Eye Dog business.

I've always wanted to go into the Seeing Eye Dog business.

duse, whats up with your profile?

Not trafficing illegal drugs in Singapore doesn't seem like too much to ask. He didn't get the death penalty for selling stuffed teddy bears.

Locking them up in prison for 30 years would be better. Or extraditing him to Australia to face trial there. You don't have to use one of the most barbaric methods of execution on them. I mean, if you're going to execute someone, at least just give them the needle. Or at least shoot them. Hanging is just a god-awful punishment. I remember another country that would hang people for crimes about this serious; it was called Afghanistan under the Taliban.

what do you guys think........
If you can't stand the heat, stay the frack out of the kitchen. ( shrug )

But maybe they would agree if applied to something they consider bad enough, like infanticide, rape, or skinning kitties.

Even so, if they don't support the death penalty for drug related offences, then they're still hypocrites.

It's where you draw the line. For Singapore drug offenses fall into that category and one's got to respect that.

I disagree, I have every right to express my distaste.

Locking them up in prison for 30 years would be better. Or extraditing him to Australia to face trial there. You don't have to use one of the most barbaric methods of execution on them. I mean, if you're going to execute someone, at least just give them the needle. Or at least shoot them. Hanging is just a god-awful punishment. I remember another country that would hang people for crimes about this serious; it was called Afghanistan under the Taliban.
I think you miss the point of signs everywhere saying drug trafficing = death penalty.

There are signs everywhere as soon as you get off the plain anouncing posession of drugs will get you the death penalty.
Not just that. The whole plane was given a leaflet telling drug trafficing is a capital crime... AND 'amnesty bins' were provided for the disposal of food or prohibited items (such as 400 grams of smack) before arriving to the customs. The people really deserve it when smuggling drugs into Singo (well, death penalty is wrong... but...).

Locking them up in prison for 30 years would be better. Or extraditing him to Australia to face trial there. You don't have to use one of the most barbaric methods of execution on them. I mean, if you're going to execute someone, at least just give them the needle. Or at least shoot them. Hanging is just a god-awful punishment. I remember another country that would hang people for crimes about this serious; it was called Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Why would you extradite him to Austrailia? He commited the crime in Singapore? He his subject to their laws.

To attack the sovereignity argument: if I have no right to express my distaste over Mr. Nguyen's execution, then nobody has any right to comment on such things as the status of women in Islamic countries, or perhaps the gross violations of human rights that occur in North Korea. Different kettles of fish, yes, but the essence is no different.
It's totally different. An Islamic woman can't help being a woman. Human rights are considered basic and essential to everybody, and governments have agreed to protect them. Trafficking drugs is neither something you can't help, nor a basic human right.

I think what I've always thought - Singapore is teh suck. You won't catch me there any decade soon.

I was thinking the same thing.

I disagree, I have every right to express my distaste.
I meant as a tourist in Singapore or as a foreign government. As a private citizen you have every right to hold an opinion about Singapore and express it.

You can even ask your government to not associate with Singapore until they change their law, but that doesn't mean that Singapore doesn't have the ultimate right to decide what to do.

Which I think wasn't the point, but still :)

I think you miss the point of signs everywhere saying drug trafficing = death penalty.

Reminds me of the signs in Nazi Germany that talked about how Jews = thieves who want to eat your babies.

Reminds me of the signs in Nazi Germany that talked about how Jews = thieves who want to eat your babies.
I invoke the spirit of Godwin. Go Godwin, smite my enemies with though zombie logic.

I invoke the spirit of Godwin. Go Godwin, smite my enemies with though zombie logic.

OH SWEET JESUS NO!

How could I have done it!?! No! NOOOOOO!!!

But really though, just because it's law doesn't mean it's right.

*prepares noose to hang himself over commiting the greatest crime a forum-user can ever commit)

It's totally different. An Islamic woman can't help being a woman. Human rights are considered basic and essential to everybody, and governments have agreed to protect them. Trafficking drugs is neither something you can't help, nor a basic human right.

From my perspective, however, I see the death penalty (particularly barbaric methods such as hanging) as a breach of human rights, hence the comparison. You are free to disagree, of course, but that is my position.

Reminds me of the signs in Nazi Germany that talked about how Jews = thieves who want to eat your babies.

Yeah they are exactly the same. :rolleyes:

Yeah they are exactly the same. :rolleyes:

Not exactly the same, but my point is, governments aren't infallable. Just because something is put on a poster doesn't mean it's right. (and I mean right in the moral sense, not in the legal sense)

Well I'm Singaporean. Me myself and whole lot of locals here support the govenment on the decision. Its really a big issue and a lot of people feel that the Australians, especially the opposition is really making a big hoo-ha over this issue. One person even went to forge the singapore's ambassador to australia signature to certidy that he did say blah blah blah. If you ask me,He knew that singapore takes a really hard stance on drugs and he was stupid enough to have a transit in singapore instead of other airports like bangkok or kuala lumpur. Even on the airplane, every airline will announce that singapore carries the drug panelty for drug smuggeling even in small amounts before landing. Lets not forget that the amount he was holding was enough to supply a lot of people. You only get hanged here if you commit murder or if you are caught smuggeling drugs. I agree, singapore really have some absurd laws but the drug smuggeling one is not one those. If this law was not in place, singapore would not have one of the lowest rates of drug takers in the world. By having this law, smuggelers are told to think twice before entering the country's airport or road check points. The really helps to protect the citizens. Lol this may sound a bit off-topic but ever since the Michael Fay incident, singapore did not have a really good reputation and I guess thats why a lot of forigners think that singapore is a barbaric country that canes people for everything and is a nanny state and so on.

Moral: Don't traffic drugs. Now I think I'll should go watch the film The Midnight Express tonight.

Especially when you have to fill out a visa to enter the country and at the top of the visa it says

Drug trafficking means death!

Ever heard of the Opium Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars)?

yes I have..... i just wanted to see what NS general thought.
personal i think that this and the opium war(s) have little to do with eachother.......
:)

From my perspective, however, I see the death penalty (particularly barbaric methods such as hanging) as a breach of human rights, hence the comparison. You are free to disagree, of course, but that is my position.
I agree on the death penalty thing, not so much that I consider it a breach of human right, but not the best of methods either.

This whole thing reminds me of all the US and European citizens doing time in Mexico for having been found in posession of drugs or firearms because "this is not a crime in my country." That position is just stupid and deserves all the punishment it gets.

Well I'm Singaporean. Me myself and whole lot of locals here support the govenment on the decision. Its really a big issue and a lot of people feel that the Australians, especially the opposition is really making a big hoo-ha over this issue. One person even went to forge the singapore's ambassador to australia signature to certidy that he did say blah blah blah. If you ask me,He knew that singapore takes a really hard stance on drugs and he was stupid enough to have a transit in singapore instead of other airports like bangkok or kuala lumpur. Even on the airplane, every airline will announce that singapore carries the drug panelty for drug smuggeling even in small amounts before landing. Lets not forget that the amount he was holding was enough to supply a lot of people. You only get hanged here if you commit murder or if you are caught smuggeling drugs. I agree, singapore really have some absurd laws but the drug smuggeling one is not one those. If this law was not in place, singapore would not have one of the lowest rates of drug takers in the world. By having this law, smuggelers are told to think twice before entering the country's airport or road check points. The really helps to protect the citizens. Lol this may sound a bit off-topic but ever since the Michael Fay incident, singapore did not have a really good reputation and I guess thats why a lot of forigners think that singapore is a barbaric country that canes people for everything and is a nanny state and so on.


I went to Singapore several times while I was in the US Navy. While I disagree w/ the severity of some of its laws, I will say it was one of the more pleasant shore leaves I had.

If the law wasn't announced blatantly at every port and even used as a tourist attraction ( I have a T-shirt of various enalties) I might have a little sympathy. Since it is, I don't.

Especially when you have to fill out a visa to enter the country and at the top of the visa it says

Drug trafficking means death!

Maybe it's not clear enough that trafficking in illeagl drugs would be a BAD idea. Whether it is right or not doesn't change the fact that that guy had to have known the risk and he did it anyway.

yes I have..... i just wanted to see what NS general thought.
personal i think that this and the opium war(s) have little to do with eachother.......
:)

I think they do, the Chinese went to war when Westerners tried to introduce and legalise drugs in their country from imperialistic motives. Obviously Singapore is different from China, but Singapore's reaction to the introduction and trafficking of drugs resembles that of China back in the day.

If it's a legal matter, no, but the philisophical and political connections are obvious.

I think they do, the Chinese went to war when Westerners tried to introduce and legalise drugs in their country from imperialistic motives. Obviously Singapore is different from China, but Singapore's reaction to the introduction and trafficking of drugs resembles that of China back in the day.

If it's a legal matter, no, but the philisophical and political connections are obvious.
weasterners did not introduce drugs the china, poppies are native to asia, and the chinese had/have been using drugs for thousands of years

weasterners did not introduce drugs the china, poppies are native to asia, and the chinese had/have been using drugs for thousands of years
Western "medicine" is not comparable to Eastern "medicine." Unless you mean those poppies were being turned into a drug close to heroine, your argument has no support.

weasterners did not introduce drugs the china, poppies are native to asia, and the chinese had/have been using drugs for thousands of years

"The British began manufacturing opium in India in significant quantities starting in the mid-18th century, learning the art from the Mughal state, which had traded in opium since at least the reign of Akbar (1556-1605), and began an illegal trade of opium for silver in southern China. The British saw the potential profit in the opium trade (previously dominated by the Dutch-controlled Jakarta) when they conquered Bengal in 1764. Profits approached 400 per cent, and poppies grew almost anywhere.

British exports of opium skyrocketed from an estimated 15 tons in 1730, to 75 tons in 1773, shipped in over two thousand "chests", each containing 140 pounds (~64 kg) of opium."

They were primarily responsible for it's production and trafficking prior to the war. By introduction, I mean they introduced a strong market for the substance, while prior it was illegal due to imperial decrees.

The punishment's way too harsh, but if he was gonna deal drugs, he should've known better than to do it in Singapore.

Now I am against the death penalty. But I am also against drug dealing. I am glad to hear that the nation of Singapore has the lowest drug trafficking rates in the world. It might be because of the death penalty or not. I don't know.

But everyone who complains, and that is what you are doing, for this Australian man who was executed for drug trafficking. it is not your right to judge. It is Singaporian sovereignty, it does not need Western 'imperialist' responses to tell it what to do.

I ask you why should this Australian man receive a lower sentence or sent back to Australia when Singaporians are executed for drug trafficking? I don't see any reason they have got families just like him they are stuck in situations, it is his own damn fault.

So stop with this "Colonialist, Imperialist' tyrant that it was not fair for this one poor man. Singapore does not complain about the Capital Punishment system in America where Innocent people were executed, and this Australian was surely not innocent.

So stop with the complaining, it is Singapore's sovereignty to do what they want with criminals.

Should have been the same in Indonesia with that woman from Australia who was convicted for drug smuggling. She should have received the full sentence as well which was death. Shows how racist Australians really are to other Asian peoples and their cultures and institutions.

I get the feeling that's somewhere I'll never go.
Not that I'd ever transport drugs while on vacation, but I've heard of people having stuff stashed in their luggage by baggage handlers and getting in shit for that. Not the sort of chance I want to take.

Exactly. Australia has no right to interfer with other countries laws. Funny how they complain about human rights in other countries when Australia was indeed the exact same country who turned away a whole boatload of refugees some of whom ended up dying.

Dakini if you are talking about that women who got arrested and she claimed the drugs were planted on her remember that she acted shocked when the guard asked to inspect her bag and intially refused him it and that it happened in Indonesia not Singapore.

Exactly, and with the woman in Indonesia, if to Australians, the word of a security guard (because he is not white) is not enough proof, the European tourists behind her when the security guards were asking to search her bag saw that she was acting suspicious so she was a drug dealer so any mumbo gumbo defense for her was crap so she should have received the death penalty as well.

Poor dude... And kill someone for drug, it's, like, whoa?!
Don't you think?Yes it is...thats why we should all support the Front-Runner in the upcoming Bolivian elections.

He wants to kick the DEA out of his country.

I support Singapore's decision, and I'd support it if the U.S. did the same thing.

Now I am against the death penalty. But I am also against drug dealing. I am glad to hear that the nation of Singapore has the lowest drug trafficking rates in the world. It might be because of the death penalty or not. I don't know.

But everyone who complains, and that is what you are doing, for this Australian man who was executed for drug trafficking. it is not your right to judge. It is Singaporian sovereignty, it does not need Western 'imperialist' responses to tell it what to do.

I ask you why should this Australian man receive a lower sentence or sent back to Australia when Singaporians are executed for drug trafficking? I don't see any reason they have got families just like him they are stuck in situations, it is his own damn fault.

So stop with this "Colonialist, Imperialist' tyrant that it was not fair for this one poor man. Singapore does not complain about the Capital Punishment system in America where Innocent people were executed, and this Australian was surely not innocent.

So stop with the complaining, it is Singapore's sovereignty to do what they want with criminals.

Should have been the same in Indonesia with that woman from Australia who was convicted for drug smuggling. She should have received the full sentence as well which was death. Shows how racist Australians really are to other Asian peoples and their cultures and institutions.

I don't think it's necessarily a racist reaction. It may be for some, but I'm equally disgusted by the fact that the USA exercises the death penalty. Yes it is Singapore's decision as to what they do with their convicted criminals, but I still believe it's wrong to execute people. I'm allowed to freely hold & speak my beliefs. To say it's racist is a gross generalisation & oversimplification of the situation.

goddamn but do i hate those fascists. though it is sad that it takes the punishment of foreigners to remind people that these bastards exist and do shit like this.

goddamn but do i hate those fascists. though it is sad that it takes the punishment of foreigners to remind people that these bastards exist and do shit like this.

What? Execution of convicted criminals is considered facists now? And its a crime of action, not a crime of nature, so none of that "oppression of demographic" bit. If I plaster warning signs all over my electric fence warning about it, I very much doubt any judge would convict me for manslaughter if you fried yourself on it.

You've done a crime, you do the time, or swing from a line. Either way, you're supposed to respect a nations laws when you visit it. Particularly one with big warning signs all over the place.

Or maybe you just would rather that there be no such things as laws and enforcement hmm?

You've done a crime, you do the time, or swing from a line. Either way, you're supposed to respect a nations laws when you visit it. Particularly one with big warning signs all over the place.

Yes, you should respect the laws of the countries that you visit. I still don't agree with the punishment in this case.

Or maybe you just would rather that there be no such things as laws and enforcement hmm?

No, but I would rather there was no death penalty.

No, but I would rather there was no death penalty.

Well, you're free to disagree with the laws of a place, but there really isn't the grounds for objection when the law is being carried out regardless of the punishment being delivered. Particularly since the crime here is one of action.

You could argue for the laws to be changed, but you can't tell them to make exceptions for the law just because the person happens to be a citizen to a different country.

Well, you're free to disagree with the laws of a place, but there really isn't the grounds for objection when the law is being carried out regardless of the punishment being delivered. Particularly since the crime here is one of action.

You could argue for the laws to be changed, but you can't tell them to make exceptions for the law just because the person happens to be a citizen to a different country.

That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't think his life should have been spared because he was an Australian. I think he shouldn't have been killed because I'm against the death penalty. I think Singapore should abolish the death penalth entirely. I don't think any nation, whether it's Singapore, the USA, China, Afghanistan, etc should execute anyone.

Either way, you're supposed to respect a nations laws when you visit it. Particularly one with big warning signs all over the place.

Or maybe you just would rather that there be no such things as laws and enforcement hmm?

are you aware of how singapore is run? it's essentially a fascist state. just because they put up signs informing you that they are fascists, doesn't mean that they are right to do anything, ever. there is no such thing as fascist justice.

what do you guys think........



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_as/singapore_execution
Disgusting. It's ludicrous that people are even detained for drug use/sale, let alone executing them.

Of course, the legal system in Singapore is infamously disgusting, so anybody who's stupid enough to go there at this point is just setting themselves up for pain. I don't like to blame the victim, but really...they have laws against CHEWING GUM. Why would anybody want to go to a country that's run like a Junior High School?

Of course, the legal system in Singapore is infamously disgusting, so anybody who's stupid enough to go there at this point is just setting themselves up for pain. I don't like to blame the victim, but really...they have laws against CHEWING GUM. Why would anybody want to go to a country that's run like a Junior High School?

agreed. but stupidity on the part of the victim certainly doesn't excuse the fascists. especially since these laws are enforced on the inhabitants too.

on the plus side, just being homosexual is no longer punishable by life in prison. acting homosexual can be though. goddamn but do i hate those fascists.

agreed. but stupidity on the part of the victim certainly doesn't excuse the fascists. especially since these laws are enforced on the inhabitants too.

on the plus side, just being homosexual is no longer punishable by life in prison. acting homosexual can be though. goddamn but do i hate those fascists.

What, if you fawn like Christopher Lowell, you go to prison?

What, if you fawn like Christopher Lowell, you go to prison?

a couple years ago maybe. but they're liberalizing their sex laws now. these days it's mostly if you fall for a bit of police entrapment about asking somebody to have the gay sex, kissing, or just touching somebody's butt. happy times are here at last!

He should have known better, but execution is a disproportionate punishment for the crime. But Singapore is renowned the world over for having insane laws.

This sort of thing is why I make a point to avoid traveling to police states.

are you aware of how singapore is run? they are a democracy..are they not?

they are a democracy..are they not?

depends. does merely having elections make a state democratic? what if opposition parties are all but banned and making statements that say or imply that the ruling party isn't the best and most awesomest thing ever are punishable offenses?

depends.I was under the impression that:
No Country is Asia is more Democratic than Singapore...With the few exeptions of Japan, Iran...maybe South Korea?

I guess I am asking for a Yes or No answer...If you can answer...
Is singapore a Democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Singapore

Well, the CIA world factbook says it's a parliamentary republic. So no, it's not. A democracy requires direct election of the Head of Government via popular vote.

No Country is Asia is more Democratic than Singapore...With the few exeptions of Japan, Iran...maybe South Korea?

I guess I am asking for a Yes or No answer...If you can answer...
Is singapore a Democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore

I'll field this one.

In a word; No. Singapore pretends to be a democracy (in the style of various European and American democracies), but it is essentially what amounts to a de facto one-party police state. Any elections are just a farce for keeping up appearances, nothing more.

Well, the CIA world factbook says it's a parliamentary republic. So no, it's not. A democracy requires direct election of the Head of Government via popular vote.Oh yeah?

What does the CIA says about Egypt... a democracy?
And about Afhganistan and Iraq?

Democracies too?

If the CIA says so it must be true :rolleyes:

Despite the sarcasm, the CIA is correct in this case. Singapore is not a Democracy- it is a Parlamentary Republic where members of parlament elect the Head of Government. America isn't a Democracy either, it's a republic as well, as is Egypt.

I'll field this one.

In a word; No. Singapore pretends to be a democracy (in the style of various European and American democracies), but it is essentially what amounts to a de facto one-party police state. Any elections are just a farce for keeping up appearances, nothing more.Only one party gets most of the votes...But

It has been the case with Japan...and other Democracies...over long periods of times...

i do not have a problem with a party being extrmely popular...problem is fraud...

and there is not fraud...(no tricked up vote counts...no ghost voters...no GOP voting machines)...is there?

Only one party gets most of the votes...But

It has been the case with Japan...and other Democracies...over long periods of times...

Sure, but even in the cases of other nations where one party gets most of the votes, those parties usually don't go around doing everything they can get away with to crush any legitimate opposition. I don't know much about Japanese politics, but I'm fairly familiar with Singapore's. Familiar enough to know that the PAP will do whatever it can to hinder and remove dissidents and opposition parties through whatever tactics, underhanded or otherwise, are necessary. Singaporan democracy is a myth. Most Singaporans don't care, however, because they are happy with the status quo, which is their right, I suppose. I imagine they'll be in for a rude shock if they ever decide they want a change, though.

Despite the sarcasm, the CIA is correct in this case. Singapore is not a Democracy- it is a Parlamentary Republic where members of parlament elect the Head of Government. America isn't a Democracy either, it's a republic as well, as is Egypt.the Govs od the US and Egypt are less democratic than Singapore...

If the CIA says Egypt "republican" gov was elected in a democratic way...they migth as well say that about North-Korea, Lybia or China.

I was under the impression that:
No Country is Asia is more Democratic than Singapore...With the few exeptions of Japan, Iran...maybe South Korea?

your impression is rather wrong. it ranks lower in freedom house's list (http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2005/tables.htm) than even indonesia and malaysia. (singapore gets a 5 on political freedom, malaysia gets a 4, indonesia gets a 3, with 1 being free and 7 being myanmar)

the Govs od the US and Egypt are less democratic than Singapore...

If the CIA says Egypt "republican" gov was elected in a democratic way...they migth as well say that about North-Korea, Lybia or China.

What does Egypt or the US have to do with Singapore executing an Australian drug smuggler?

What does Egypt or the US have to do with Singapore executing an Australian drug smuggler?I do not like to babysit...So read the posts

what do you guys think........


First of all, what happens internally in Singapore is their business and nobody else's.

Secondly, if you go into another country and break their laws, you're going to have to live (or in this case, die) with the consequences.

This is a case of someone deliberately creating his own personal catastrophe. I don't feel sorry for him in the least.

This is overreacting on Singapores part. I used to think Singapore was a nice place to visit. Now, though, I see that it is just a brutal nation with insane laws. It bans alot of sexual practices, executes the highest amount of people per-capita in the world, and is a de facto one-party state.


Name me one country that allows Drug Trafficking over it's borders... the guy was 25... he should have known that it's a no no to do anywhere at all.I'm sure the lonely planet guide to singpore would have that in bold @ the front somewhere that you could get executed for it.:headbang:

Simply put the i guess that Singpore feels that drugs ruins it's people, and wishes to deter people from from bringing the crap there.

My house is Drugfree and if my flatmates bring their freinds that wish to light up drugs, they know i will throw them out of the house... if my flat was a soverign nation.. i would do more than just that.
Thats cos i dont like drugs.

First of all, what happens internally in Singapore is their business and nobody else's.

this is the line of thought that encourages the stalins of the world to commit democide.

this is the line of thought that encourages the stalins of the world to commit democide.

Likewise, what happens internally in this country (USA) is none of Singapore's business, nor is it the business of any other country.

Well, they call Singapore a Republic as well, which is a rather loose interpretation.

Disgusting. It's ludicrous that people are even detained for drug use/sale, let alone executing them.

Of course, the legal system in Singapore is infamously disgusting, so anybody who's stupid enough to go there at this point is just setting themselves up for pain. I don't like to blame the victim, but really...they have laws against CHEWING GUM. Why would anybody want to go to a country that's run like a Junior High School?

You mean like the USA or Canada?

Saturday September 18, 2004
The Guardian (http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1307367,00.html)

Every perfumier's nightmare has become reality in Halifax, Nova Scotia. By instituting a policy of "no scents makes good sense", discouraging the wearing of cosmetic fragrances in municipal offices, libraries, hospitals, classrooms, courts and buses, the Canadian city has given official recognition to the suffering of hundreds of "fragrance-sensitive" citizens.

And it's not the only one. Santa Cruz, in California, has banned fragrances from public meetings. In neighbouring Marin County, patrons of the area's restaurants can now choose to eat their meals in a fragrance-free section.

And how about "progressive" San Francisco?

Dumb California Laws (http://www.ahajokes.com/laws005.html)
San Francisco
# Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street.

# Prohibits elephants from strolling down Market Street unless they are on a leash.

# It is illegal to pile horse manure more than six feet high on a street corner.

# It is illegal to wipe one's car with used underwear.

And these are not all laws from hundreds of years ago...:(

Likewise, what happens internally in this country (USA) is none of Singapore's business, nor is it the business of any other country.

was this actually intended as a reply to what i said?

I do not like to babysit...So read the posts
It's a rhetorical question - i.e., I already know the answer.

It's a more subtle way of saying your post was waaaay off topic...

Can you go an entire thread and not post a slam on the US? ;)

Ok for the record, chewing gum in NOT BANNED in singapore!!! It's just that you are not allowed to import it into the country so its perfectly legal to chew gum in the country. That's the major loophole in that law. Hack I always bring back boxes of gum whenever I visit a foreign country!

On the topic of demorcracy, Singapore is not really one I guess. Its headed by a main party that runs the country BUT we do have a president and there are elections running for people wanting to become presidents. Anyone can become the president as long as you dont have a police record. They must not be affiliated to any political party and it is the president who has the last decision on the enactment or the repealing of a law. The president of singapore really keeps a low profile I guess. Whenever he visits a country, it is just for deplomatic reasons. So in a small way it is a demorcracy. However for the PAP, the locals here are extremely satisfied and happy wth the PAP even though with all the restictions. They see it as because of all these laws, singapore is one of the cleanest and safest cities in the world. Its because of the PAP that led singapore to its sucess. The opposition do control some seats in the parliament but the people are not confident in them running the country.

are you aware of how singapore is run?

Quite. Let us just say that I am very familiar with the workings of Singapore, or at least on the administrative side.


it's essentially a fascist state.

Not exactly. Broadly taken in, fascism could be used to describe every authoritan government to ever exist. Under the more definitive terminology, it is a state that controls all aspects of life, that being political, economical, social and cultural. The Singaporean government, to the best of my knowledge, controls neither the economical nor cultural aspects of her citizens, a relatively simple feat since most of the people are of Chinese ethnicity.

It is true that Singapore has a number of repressive laws used to quell discontent as well as prosecute those who would wish to forment discontent, but it doesn't quite mean that it is fascists. Additionally, there is very little in the government actions that is used to appeal to nationalistic sentiment, an important requirement for fascists states.

So Singapore can be said to be heavily regulated, which is quite true, but facsists? It fails to meet the requirements.


just because they put up signs informing you that they are fascists, doesn't mean that they are right to do anything, ever. there is no such thing as fascist justice.

Is there? By your definition, Singapore is facsist. So that would mean that under any law that a crime could be prosecuted for there would be called injustice? By this logical extension, it would be not only legally acceptable, but unpunishable to export drugs, murder, steal or commit any number of crimes that Singapore would normally punish a convict for, in any country that wishes to be free from the term "fascist"

You sir, describe anarchy.

Can you go an entire thread and not post a slam on the US? ;)Yes I can...but its not going to be cheap... :cool:

The US Gov has e-mailed me...they want me to stop slamming Bush & Co for a while...they offered me a "consultation" fee to stop...:D

They better bid higher...living expenses are not cheap... I will not stop until I see the cash envelope :p

As an Australian I am appalled that we have lately gotten into the trend of telling other nations how to deal with criminals in their counry (Schapelle Corby, Bali Nine, Van Nguyen ect). The height of arrogance IMHO. While I don't agree with the death penalty it is not my place to impose laws on foreign countries and to pass judgement on them for ruling themselves.

So Singapore can be said to be heavily regulated, which is quite true, but facsists? It fails to meet the requirements.

as i see it, it's near enough as makes no difference to what i was saying. but yeah, that's why i said 'essentially'.

Is there? By your definition, Singapore is facsist. So that would mean that under any law that a crime could be prosecuted for there would be called injustice? By this logical extension, it would be not only legally acceptable, but unpunishable to export drugs, murder, steal or commit any number of crimes that Singapore would normally punish a convict for, in any country that wishes to be free from the term "fascist"

You sir, describe anarchy.

my general point is that authoritarian states are illegitimate, and therefore cannot legitimately administer justice. actions that are wrong (which is a different discussion altogether) are still wrong there, but the singaporean justice system has no legitimate right to enforce rules against them. authoritarian legal systems have the same status as kkk lynchings - i don't care if the lynchee actually did commit something i would consider a crime, they still have a legitimate right of resistance against the kkk and we hold a responsibility to help them if we can.

of course, i actually am a libertarian socialist, so ymmv.

as i see it, it's near enough as makes no difference to what i was saying. but yeah, that's why i said 'essentially'.

No. There are key differences between the current government of Singapore and a fascist state under the common understanding. It is not 'essentially' a fascist state. Else if this were the case, every other country in existence which employs laws could be deemed fascist.


my general point is that authoritarian states are illegitimate, and therefore cannot legitimately administer justice.

Irrelevant point. That is the same as stating Singapore is an illegitimate nation. A nation is recognized by the actions of its citizens and the nations of the world, of which Singapore is. Furthermore, the formation of the Singaporean government was neither through coup de tat or any form of civil insurrection. Its formation and subsequent development was entirely within existing legal frameworks and so far as is commonly known, free from abuse of power that often results from corruption.


actions that are wrong (which is a different discussion altogether) are still wrong there, but the singaporean justice system has no legitimate right to enforce rules against them.

Were this the case, you would then proscribe complete outlawry in Singapore since it has no legitimate right to enforce rules by your standing. If this were so, I then propose that you intend that no other nation has any right whatsoever to enforce any rules at all.

Again, you proscibe anarchy.

Singapore's legitimate right to enforce rules stems from its legitimacy as a nation. Am I correct in stating that you see Singapore as an illegitimate nation and thus by your words, should not exist?


authoritarian legal systems have the same status as kkk lynchings - i don't care if the lynchee actually did commit something i would consider a crime, they still have a legitimate right of resistance against the kkk and we hold a responsibility to help them if we can.

An impropable link. KKK lynchings required no evidence of guilt nor did they operate under any legal framework of the nation that they resided in. Authoritarian legal systems on the other hand, operate on a national level and require proof of guilt, as well as provide the accused avenues of which he or she can defend themselves against the charges set against them.

To link KKK lynchings which were of themselves illegal acts, to legal acts which follow the letter of the law in a court where the accused has the means to defend himself is nothing more than absurd.

Additionally, you state, responsibility to help them. Responsibility how? To ignore the rights and sovereignity of a nation to set their own laws and thus dictate your own? To ensure that any non-citizen of such laws are free from any jurisdiction of the courts and punishments that would befall them when caught for crimes merely because you disagree with the government in question? That is nothing more than an arrogance that would see the borders of every nation remain closed for all eternity


of course, i actually am a libertarian socialist, so ymmv.

And a libertarian socialist would sooner live in a world without laws and submit to the law of the jungle (of which is the ultimate conclusion of anarchy) than a structured society?

Ok listen, I live in Singapore.

I wish to clarify certain things.

1) Singapore is a republic, dominated by one party.
2) While it may seem like a one-party state, this is by vote of the people.
3) However, the ruling party has been known and rumoured to make decisions in order to maintain their dominant position, (redrawing of electoral boundaries)
4) It is true that certain Singaporeans feel that Singapore could do with more political freedom.
5) However, in other areas, Singaporeans generally enjoy much freedom and are happy with the status quo.

I also wish to state that while certain laws of ours may seem "barbaric" or "against human rights", Singapore is not, repeat not, a Western Nation.

Western nations have always been eager to change Eastern nations, introduce laws, etc. However, what you do not realise is that your laws do not fit our conditions.

Such laws in Western nations have been so heavily abused, can you really blame other nations for not wanting to adopt such laws?

Drug trafficking is a crime. It destroys lives, and the dealer gains money for it. While you say that the death penalty infringes on the criminal's rights, I ask you this: What about those whose lives are destroyed by these drugs?

The Singapore government has opted for the heaviest punishment possible to stop the drug trade. It has been immensely effective. Drugs do not run rampant on our streets. Dealers know our laws. They choose to disobey them, and in doing so they forfeit their rights by infringing on our rights.

So for those who're going on vacation, Singapore is not a bad place, seriously. Tourists can come here without having to worry about getting mugged in broad daylight, enjoy the sights, the food etc. We are a safe, secure country. Our laws ensure that we remain one.

So for those who're going on vacation, Singapore is not a bad place, seriously. Tourists can come here without having to worry about getting mugged in broad daylight, enjoy the sights, the food etc. We are a safe, secure country. Our laws ensure that we remain one.
That is all well and good, but ignorance says they will be executed immediately for being a foreigner in Singapore. :rolleyes:

Look quit the crap.
Its bad enough someone would try to smuggle Drugs into any country let alone Singapore.
Especially when you think about their Laws, everyone should know that is what they do to peddlers seal with it.

Anyone should be hanged just for the stupidity of trying to smuggle the drugs there in the first place in fact thinking about it should give you instant death.

International drug dealing = teh retarded

Look quit the crap.
Its bad enough someone would try to smuggle Drugs into any country let alone Singapore.
Especially when you think about their Laws, everyone should know that is what they do to peddlers seal with it.

Anyone should be hanged just for the stupidity of trying to smuggle the drugs there in the first place in fact thinking about it should give you instant death.

Hang someone for stupidity!?? I hope you're kidding.

Of course, I don't think anyone should be smuggling heroin, or any other drug. But really this story just made me feel sick. This guy is my age, and just reading about his last visit with his mother is tragic...horrible.

I think the death penalty is barbaric and lowers ourselves to the status of murderers.

It is a tragedy that the criminal (he committed a crime) was executed... I am not against the Death Penalty...But I think that the "War on Drugs" is flawed...
...
my general point is that authoritarian states are illegitimate, and therefore cannot legitimately administer justice.
a democratically elected Authoritarian Gov...has every moral right to set laws inside its borders...

That is the same as stating Singapore is an illegitimate nation.

no, more like saying it's state is an illegitimate ruling body.

A nation is recognized by the actions of its citizens and the nations of the world, of which Singapore is. Furthermore, the formation of the Singaporean government was neither through coup de tat or any form of civil insurrection. Its formation and subsequent development was entirely within existing legal frameworks and so far as is commonly known, free from abuse of power that often results from corruption.

doesn't matter. authoritarian states are illegitimate no matter how they are formed or who claims them to be legitimate. they are illegitimate by their very nature.

An impropable link. KKK lynchings required no evidence of guilt nor did they operate under any legal framework of the nation that they resided in. Authoritarian legal systems on the other hand, operate on a national level and require proof of guilt, as well as provide the accused avenues of which he or she can defend themselves against the charges set against them.

actually, kkk lynchings required evidence and operated under a de facto legal framework. it just wasn't a framework and set of standards for evidence that we would recognize as being fair or just. which is precisely my point.

a democratically elected Authoritarian Gov...has every moral right to set laws inside its borders...

ignoring the fact that singapore can't really count for much in the way of being democratic, i disagree. the fact that 50%+1 of the voting population is in favor of authoritarian bullshit does not in any way establish legitimacy of that authoritarian bullshit.

I've only read posts 1 - 30 and 90 - 110, so excuse me if I say anything already said.

Firstly - we are sovereign. Westerners should stop trying to force us to change our laws. Our laws are accepted by our populace. You saw how badly the Aussies tried to plead for clemency. Most, if not all, Singaporeans expected the death penalty the moment we heard about the case. It's clearly printed on immigration cards: WARNING, DEATH FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING.

Secondly - stop looking at things from an opinionated point of view, and instead, take a neutral one. This man was carrying enough heroin to provide thousands of doses to Australians. Do you really want to kill thousands of people or get them addicted onto drugs?

Thirdly - Singapore's government is indeed one-party. We do indeed have a lot of civil liberty restrictions. That does not make us a fascist state; indeed, would the US have trade dealings with one?

To quote Cogitation, think about it for a moment.

Thirdly - Singapore's government is indeed one-party. We do indeed have a lot of civil liberty restrictions. That does not make us a fascist state; indeed, would the US have trade dealings with one?

never stopped them before

I've only read posts 1 - 30 and 90 - 110, so excuse me if I say anything already said.

Firstly - we are sovereign. Westerners should stop trying to force us to change our laws. Our laws are accepted by our populace. You saw how badly the Aussies tried to plead for clemency. Most, if not all, Singaporeans expected the death penalty the moment we heard about the case. It's clearly printed on immigration cards: WARNING, DEATH FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING.

Secondly - stop looking at things from an opinionated point of view, and instead, take a neutral one. This man was carrying enough heroin to provide thousands of doses to Australians. Do you really want to kill thousands of people or get them addicted onto drugs?

Thirdly - Singapore's government is indeed one-party. We do indeed have a lot of civil liberty restrictions. That does not make us a fascist state; indeed, would the US have trade dealings with one?

To quote Cogitation, think about it for a moment.

1. Your third point undermines your first. We can reasonably question the legitimacy of your laws.

2. Don't be silly.

3. We have many times before.

never stopped them before

Why does it concern you so much that we've followed our laws and ended a man's life for breaking them? He KNEW what would happen to him if caught.

ignoring the fact that singapore can't really count for much in the way of being democratic, i disagree. the fact that 50%+1 of the voting population is in favor of authoritarian bullshit does not in any way establish legitimacy of that authoritarian bullshit.
You're right, but how many times have I heard you socialists throw the "but it's what the working man wants!" argument at me?

Your statements above seem to indicate some sort of objectively correct view of values and morals, which everybody knows can't possibly exist [yes, that was sarcasm]. You might want to watch out, or else you'll start sounding like me! :eek:

His crime is overwhelming stupidity. His punishment is fitting.



Thats a great way of looking at things; Lets all start killing stupid people!

Doesnt that seem even a little bit much to you?

Why does it concern you so much that we've followed our laws and ended a man's life for breaking them? He KNEW what would happen to him if caught.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."- Martin Luther King, Jr.

For Whom the Bell Tolls
by John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

doesn't matter. authoritarian states are illegitimate no matter how they are formed or who claims them to be legitimate. they are illegitimate by their very nature.

And what do you propose hmm? Toppling the state perhaps? Or let us simply look at it from another viewpoint. How would YOU deal with the issue of drug smuggling? Close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist?

Or is it because of the death penalty that you claim it to be fascist?


actually, kkk lynchings required evidence and operated under a de facto legal framework. it just wasn't a framework and set of standards for evidence that we would recognize as being fair or just. which is precisely my point.

KKK lynchings didn't require any evidence beyond the fact that the person to be hung was black and that they were not operating under whites as servants/slaves. They also did the same when they wanted to intimidate blacks from voting. What sort of legal framework or standard was that supposed to be? Additionally, you cannot really expect to convince me that the KKK operated within the bounds of law when they acted with words alone.

The KKK was/is a group of radicals whose sole purpose was to carry out their prejudices. The government of Singapore happens to be a regulatory body over a nation that is responsible for its citizens and the welfare of its nation.

The two, simply aren't the same.

And Cat-Tribe, you're a lawyer correct? What would your definition of justice have been then?

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."- Martin Luther King, Jr.

For Whom the Bell Tolls
by John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Says it all for me.

I'm sick to the teeth with all these redneck "kill 'em" attitudes.
The facts are that a bunch of unrepresentative swill from a police state decided to "kill" someone for breaking a law. Singapore is about as close to a democratic state as Tsarist Russia. Whether or not he was guilty is irrelevant. They killed someone.

As for the bullshit argument about the "thousands of lives" at risk potentially, because he was importing heroin, .... well what a crock of shit. What kills people as a result of being addicted to heroin is the lifestyle that they are forced to live to maintain their sanity. And, before all you dickheads decide to lambast me, my sister died as a result of heroin abuse. It and all other "recreational" drugs should, at least, be decriminalised. The black market would disappear overnight and the problem could be treated as it should; as a health issue.

The state murdering someone in the name of "justice" sickens me. And that applies to any crime. Of course, I expect some backlash from some citizens of that most undemocratic of democratic states, the USA.

Any society taking revenge only demeans the whole of humanity.

One party by vote of election, not force. A pragmatic government that takes steps to solve problems of society that may seem harsh but in truth are effective.

Look, I do not agree on every issue with my government, but it still I hate it when Westerners insist on labeling us as "fascists" just because we do not have the liberal freedoms that they have been known to abuse.

Drugs plague you because the money is worth the punishment. Your children show disrespect to both parents and teachers alike because parents refuse to discipline them. People walk the streets holding guns and still, people have the gall to criticise our policies.

An eye for an eye does not leave the whole world blind. If that is so, then the whole concept of punishment is invalid. A suitable punishment for a suitable crime.

Being ignorant does not get you hanged in Singapore. Breaking the law does. When you choose to break the law, you are choosing to give drugs to the poplace and destroy lives.

We have made it very clear that we do not tolerate drugs in our society. You choose to defy our laws, you pay the consequences, just as we would when we made our laws.

How naive can you be!!!? "One party by vote of election"!!!! Give me a break. You have one party because it suits the corporate powers of your country. The media is controlled by the party in power (argue with that) and the party in power is led by the son of the former megalomaniac, Lee Kwan Yu, who made a point of ridiculing Australia as "the poor white trash of Asia". Singapore is a family fiefdom.

For a start, Australia is the only country on the planet that occupies an entire continent. We are close to, but not part of Asia. I'm also sick to death of our conservative politicians saying that we must be attuned to the "Asian sensibilities". You don't give a damn about ours!

Join the bloody human race!!!!!

You and the other countries that practise the inhumane "punishment" known as capital punishment are vastly in the minority. You want to be part of the modern world? Then think of the human cost first, not your bloody economy!!

:headbang: :headbang:

One party by vote of election, not force. A pragmatic government that takes steps to solve problems of society that may seem harsh but in truth are effective.

Look, I do not agree on every issue with my government, but it still I hate it when Westerners insist on labeling us as "fascists" just because we do not have the liberal freedoms that they have been known to abuse.

Drugs plague you because the money is worth the punishment. Your children show disrespect to both parents and teachers alike because parents refuse to discipline them. People walk the streets holding guns and still, people have the gall to criticise our policies.

An eye for an eye does not leave the whole world blind. If that is so, then the whole concept of punishment is invalid. A suitable punishment for a suitable crime.

Being ignorant does not get you hanged in Singapore. Breaking the law does. When you choose to break the law, you are choosing to give drugs to the poplace and destroy lives.

We have made it very clear that we do not tolerate drugs in our society. You choose to defy our laws, you pay the consequences, just as we would when we made our laws.

So long as the trains run on time ....

Cat Tribe, I love it. You're right. Mussolini would love to rule Singapore.

For a start, Australia is the only country on the planet that occupies an entire continent. We are close to, but not part of Asia. I'm also sick to death of our conservative politicians saying that we must be attuned to the "Asian sensibilities". You don't give a damn about ours!

Economically and demographically speaking, Asia beats Australia. The population of Australia is about 20 million. Malaysia, a much smaller country, and only a small part of Asia, has about 5 million more people in it than Australia.

If you would like to cut Australia from the rest of the world, by all means, do so. Don't blame Asia when Australia starts to slide from lack of trading partners though. Or perhaps you would prefer it if Australia solely did business with the US alone.


Join the bloody human race!!!!!


I find it funny that you say that and yet refuse to allow any forms of integration for Australia with her neighbors. Likewise, the same happens when interaction occurs between Australia and Asia in so far as adaptation goes. But isolationist policies for Australia are all very fine by me. So long as you are willing to be isolated among Asia that is.

Economically and demographically speaking, Asia beats Australia. The population of Australia is about 20 million. Malaysia, a much smaller country, and only a small part of Asia, has about 5 million more people in it than Australia.

If you would like to cut Australia from the rest of the world, by all means, do so. Don't blame Asia when Australia starts to slide from lack of trading partners though. Or perhaps you would prefer it if Australia solely did business with the US alone.



I find it funny that you say that and yet refuse to allow any forms of integration for Australia with her neighbors. Likewise, the same happens when interaction occurs between Australia and Asia in so far as adaptation goes. But isolationist policies for Australia are all very fine by me. So long as you are willing to be isolated among Asia that is.


1. You obviously have no concept of Australia's economic position in the world. For example, New South Wales (one state) has a bigger economy than Indonesia and is comparable with Singapore.

2. Australia is unlikely to slide economically, especially with the current corporate-friendly government we have at the moment.

3. As for the US, they can get stuffed. The less we have to do with them, the better. Think of New Zealand. They gave them the arse years ago, and they're doing well.

1. You obviously have no concept of Australia's economic position in the world. For example, New South Wales (one state) has a bigger economy than Indonesia and is comparable with Singapore.

And the combined economies of the whole of Asia, as which I mentioned, is a fair bit larger than Australia. Let us take a look at the GDP for example.

Australia has a GDP of $ 611,700,000,000.

Singapore: $ 120,900,000,000
Malaysia: $ 229,300,000,000
Thailand: $ 524,800,000,000
Philippines: $ 430,600,000,000

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

My goodness. Only 4 of the Asian countries listed and already they surpass the GDP of Australia by more than twice the total. Now then. You were saying something about Australia's economic position in the world? Against single nations of Asia, it is stronger.

Against Asia as a whole, it is much, much weaker.


2. Australia is unlikely to slide economically, especially with the current corporate-friendly government we have at the moment.

An Australia without friendly trade ties to Asia WILL slide. Where do you think the bulk of Australian trade goes to?

For example, New South Wales (one state) has a bigger economy than Indonesia and is comparable with Singapore.

you realize of course, that you are comparing an entire state's economy to that of an island about 42km by 21km in size.

You and the other countries that practise the inhumane "punishment" known as capital punishment are vastly in the minority.

Just China alone constitutes more than a fifth of the world's population, not to mention India, so how are we in the minority? Doesn't the USA have capital punishment too?

Then think of the human cost first, not your bloody economy!!

So turning away refugees to die on a ship because they will increase unemployment and drain government funds is thinking of the human cost first?

Join the bloody human race!!!!!

I'm assuming you mean join the bloody Australians. No offense intended here, I've been to Australia lots of times, and its a lovely country with friendly people.

The media is controlled by the party in power (argue with that) and the party in power is led by the son of the former megalomaniac, Lee Kwan Yu, who made a point of ridiculing Australia as "the poor white trash of Asia".

I'm not gonna argue about the media thing, local productions and news is heavily censored in fear of what the government might do but that has never really been tested. However, we do have cable and hence CNN and all that jazz so any propaganda through local media is kinda pointless.

As for Lee Kuan Yew, he's really the reason why I believe in benevolent dictatorships. We were still mostly swamp and jungle 50 years ago and see where we are today (with almost no natural resources to speak of I might add, we even have to import WATER). I fear the day LKY dies and someone else less qualified tries to hold on to the power the government has now, then Singapore will be in for some deep shit.

You obviously have no concept of Australia's economic position in the world.

You do know that Hong Kong, Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea are all part of Asia right?

First time posting on any forum so I have no clue about forum decorum or proper quoting methods. Oh, and you'll probably guess it by now, I'm Singaporean.

I like their approach to law .....we told you not to do this .....you did it .......


We will do this now!



Clear , consince , no ambiguity !

I like their approach to law .....we told you not to do this .....you did it .......


We will do this now!



Clear , consince , no ambiguity !

Learn to spell and I might take some notice.

As for the rest of you state murder proponents; try and think of the advancement of humanity, not the regression. Capital punishment is NOT a deterrent. When public executions were held in England in the 16th and 17th centuries for such things as theft or even adultery, it was a picnic for pickpockets, who if caught, would be subject to the same punishment.

Grow up!!!

This is fast degenerating into a bash-the-Singapore-NSers-because-of-their-government thread, and should be ended.

As for the rest of you state murder proponents; try and think of the advancement of humanity, not the regression. Capital punishment is NOT a deterrent. When public executions were held in England in the 16th and 17th centuries for such things as theft or even adultery, it was a picnic for pickpockets, who if caught, would be subject to the same punishment.

Grow up!!!

No. I would thank you to grow up and not use straw men. What you describe was no more than providing opportunity for crime while meting out punishment. If public spectacles that allowed crime to occur should have been banished, logical extension of your argument would see to an end of advertising billboards, public speeches and other forms of attracting attention in public.

And if you cannot address the points I have listed, which I might add were in relation to your initial argument, then you have NO argument whatsoever.

Do mature a bit before you post next will you? Emotive arguments and straw men do nothing but tarnish ones image among reasonable adults.

Just learnt "straw men", have you? I answered your arguments. You just don't like the answers. As for growing up; I'm 51. If you'd bothered to read the earlier posts, you would have known that. Most of South East Asia suffers from the same "one party state" syndrome. Oz may not be perfect, but we're a damn sight better than most of the racist (yes, you read it right) dropkicks who run countries in Asia.

Just learnt "straw men", have you? I answered your arguments. You just don't like the answers.

Either jolt is not displaying your responses, or you are lying. Show me your answers to my points. Go ahead. I await your "evidence" of rebuttal.

In case you perhaps have had a case of absent-mindedness, I refer to my post which is #126 on this thread, which you have "claimed" to answer.


As for growing up; I'm 51.


Age does not equate maturity, as you so kindly have demonstrated.


If you'd bothered to read the earlier posts, you would have known that.


Yes, I am quite aware that you favor vituperation to actual arguments.


Most of South East Asia suffers from the same "one party state" syndrome. Oz may not be perfect, but we're a damn sight better than most of the racist (yes, you read it right) dropkicks who run countries in Asia.

The only real signs of racism being demonstrated so far in this thread, is from you. I have met some Australians, some nice, some not so nice. You sir, fall into the third category. Bitter.

Ah yes, if you fail again to address the points that I have raised, and instead, resort to, shall we say unflattering behaviour, I do think that it would hint strongly that your presence is more trollish in nature than for the virtues of debate.

I'm Australian. I'm caucasian and, according to you I am racist by birth. Well, all I can say is take a good HARD look at yourself and your country. Try and grasp the concept of a "global community". I know it would be hard for a young, indoctrinated pleb, such as yourself, but try comrade, try!

We westerners tend to make the mistake of assuming that things get better over time. Whatever policies we have now are better than how they were 100 years ago, by default.

Classical Chinese thought (particularly in Confucianism) puts a great deal of emphasis on the past. One ought to respect one's parents and ancestors above all else, and this extends to tradition and governing. Now I'm not saying that all Asians think this way, but I do know that Confucius was one of the more influencial philosophers in their history.

So just because a lot of European countries and their former colonies have decided to abolish the death penalty, it doesn't automatically mean it's "better." Just because we all enjoy multi-party democracies doesn't mean it's better. They're just different, and success should be measured by something more concrete, in which case I daresay the Singaporeans and heck, even the Chinese, may well be on an even keel with us.

Last Friday, a young man was murdered with the full approval of a nation's government. He was by no means the first, and I'm afraid to say that he won't be the last by a long reach.

His crimes are irrelevant. Certainly, the nature of his charges, the fact that he confessed at the earliest opportunity, demonstrated remorse and indeed co-operated fully with both the Singaporean authorities and the Australian Federal Police all make his sentence particularly tragic - but I personally wouldn't have cared if he had been a rapist, a serial killer, Saddam Hussein. It doesn't make the crime of his execution any less grave.

In most, if not every country in the world, the act of taking another human being's life is a crime - and it is no less so just because it is being conducted by a particular country's authorities and with the consent of that country's leadership. Call it execution, call it justice, call it whatever you want - but the fact remains that the death penalty is murder, an offence far more serious than that for which Van Tuong Nguyen was killed.

Of course Nguyen needed to be punished. He broke the law, and there had to be consequences. But not only was the punishment which he received grossly dispropportionate to the crime he committed, it was an abuse of his - and every human's - most fundamental right: The right to life.

I'm disgusted by the level of support Nguyen's murder has received among my fellow Australians particularly. People say his crime was stupidity - surely then diminishing the seriousness of what he did - and then concluding that the death penalty was therefore the right punishment! WTF?! If stupidity was a crime punishable by death, the world's population would drop in the space of a night by at least half.

It's as simple as this: The death penalty is murder. I know of no crime that could possibly be horrendous enough to deserve that.

RIP, Van.

I'm Australian. I'm caucasian and, according to you I am racist by birth. Well, all I can say is take a good HARD look at yourself and your country. Try and grasp the concept of a "global community". I know it would be hard for a young, indoctrinated pleb, such as yourself, but try comrade, try!

Your reasoning faculties have obviously not been functional for the period of this debate at the very least. Or you suffer from a form of dyslexia. Either way, nowhere have I stated that you were racist as a result of birth. It was a conclusion based upon your choice of wording. Attempting to play the race card is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to defend yourself by flinging false accusations.

Furthermore, you ignore ALL the points that I have raised. As such, I have no choice but to consider you a complete troll whose sole purpose on this thread is to vent your spleen regardless of the validity of the rebuttals. Until you have answered these rebuttals, further rants will be classed as irrelevant.

Have a nice day.

Well if think trafficing drugs is nothing immoral. Everybody uses drugs everyday. Its business and humand being is taking drugs since it excisted. ANd killing somebody just because there is a huge market for drugs and he wanted to earn a decend living is so stupid. I would decriminalize drugs and treat people who can't live without any drug ( weed, aspirin, heroin, coffeine, sugar, hamburgers,alcohol) like everybody else should be treated. Its a health problem and the war on drugs will never bee won anyway.Everybody should be educated about drugs and their harm. The governemt should tax everything and try to control it. So no life has to be destroyed. I care about everybody and we are just humand beings. Nobody but GOD can judge our actions so no governemt has the right to kill. Being in jail is hard enough. I bet , like in the US there were many innocent killed. So how can you like death penalty and think of the innocent people being killed just because there were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I bet alot of criminals use tourists to smuggle drugs . In Europe alot of cars and buses are stuffed with drugs and when the driver gets caughts its his fault. WOw very smart. And if I am tourist in singapore and somebody hides drugs in bag and i get cought i would be dead.....

As for the rest of you state murder proponents; try and think of the advancement of humanity, not the regression. Capital punishment is NOT a deterrent. When public executions were held in England in the 16th and 17th centuries for such things as theft or even adultery, it was a picnic for pickpockets, who if caught, would be subject to the same punishment.

Grow up!!!

No. I would thank you to grow up and not use straw men. What you describe was no more than providing opportunity for crime while meting out punishment. If public spectacles that allowed crime to occur should have been banished, logical extension of your argument would see to an end of advertising billboards, public speeches and other forms of attracting attention in public.

And if you cannot address the points I have listed, which I might add were in relation to your initial argument, then you have NO argument whatsoever.

Do mature a bit before you post next will you? Emotive arguments and straw men do nothing but tarnish ones image among reasonable adults.

I'm sorry but exactly were is this mythical logical extension. It seems to me he is pointing out that the death penalty didn't deter English pickpockets, so much so that they would pick pockets at the executions of other pickpockets. How can you see this as an arguement that anything that might cause a crowd should be outlawed? That's the kind of thinking that has people being executed for drug trafficking in your country.

Pickpocketing is a bad thing... crowds give pickpockets easy targets... therefore, make crowds illegal instead of doing more to catch pickpockets. Ridiculous.

People getting addicted to drugs is bad... some people take drugs because their life is shitty, and some get addicted... therefore, make it illegal for anyone, anywhere, for any reason to ever take drugs instead of trying to make peoples lives less shitty. Equally ludicris.

If I ask you to punch me in the face and then offer you $20 to do it, how can you be morally wrong for punching me in the face? I asked you to do it after all and therefore am a consenting adult. By the same logic, if I ask you for drugs and offer you money for them, how are you wrong for giving them to me? Assuming I am a consenting adult, who should be fully aware of any negative side-effects, and I choose to ignore them. It doesn't even begin to make sense.

That's the kind of thinking that has people being executed for drug trafficking in your country.

You will have to elaborate on that. Unless you infer it to mean that thinking the death penalty works to deter drug trafficking.

And if so, may I ask why, if you believe it does not work, there are so few drug cases in Singapore hmmm? Do you have a reasonable explanation for its success as a relatively drug free nation? Particularly in comparison to its less successful neighbours?

Certainly, corruption issues and border controls do play a role in the issue of enforcement, of which Singapore is reputated to be mostly free of the former and excellent on the latter. But that in itself does not mean very much when the means of enforcement lack in the areas of punishment. A highly efficient police force with a 1 day maximum jail term is hardly a deterrent at all.

A highly efficient police force with a death penalty however, is a much more significant deterrent.

As for the example of English pickpockets, using your rationale, I would point out that if the security during these hangings were much tighter, with offenders caught at a very high rate, there would be reduced future cases.

Deterrence after all, is an important aspect of law enforcement.


Pickpocketing is a bad thing... crowds give pickpockets easy targets... therefore, make crowds illegal instead of doing more to catch pickpockets. Ridiculous.

I used that example as a measure of its ridiculousness.


People getting addicted to drugs is bad... some people take drugs because their life is shitty, and some get addicted... therefore, make it illegal for anyone, anywhere, for any reason to ever take drugs instead of trying to make peoples lives less shitty. Equally ludicris.

And of course, peer pressure, escalation, falsehoods and other factors play no part in influencing the choice to take drugs hmmm? Designer drugs for example. I believe there are a few such as say, heroin and Ecstasy. And really, do you mean to tell me that there are those that take drugs but do not become addicted to them? How many of those people are there? 5? 10? A hundred? Compare that to how many that DO get addicted.

Shall we let all serial killers loose upon society because a few have changed?


If I ask you to punch me in the face and then offer you $20 to do it, how can you be morally wrong for punching me in the face?

You would still be morally wrong because battery, even paid battery, is considered an assault in most places, barring sporting events that is.


I asked you to do it after all and therefore am a consenting adult.

A man in Germany was convicted of cannibalism. He claimed it was another consenting adult he ate. He was still charged and judged guilty.


By the same logic, if I ask you for drugs and offer you money for them, how are you wrong for giving them to me? Assuming I am a consenting adult, who should be fully aware of any negative side-effects, and I choose to ignore them. It doesn't even begin to make sense.

Yes. The peddling of illicit goods, regardless of what it is, is illegal. Perhaps there should be no regulations regarding gun sales next. After all, even those used to commit crimes were purchased between two consenting adults in most cases. A gun smuggler, and a buyer.

Just a few thoughts from someone who is an imparital third party in this argument.


Flanagania, you made yourself look like a "racist" when you made the comment, "Join the Human Race." Do you remember that comment? Well every one else does and they don't really enjoy when someone rips on their home country. Now if you were to, i don't know, retract that comment you made to a nation that's GDP rivals your own, then i am sure that they will stop attempting to argue with you about what nation is better (which seems a little childish to me).

Learn to spell and I might take some notice.

As for the rest of you state murder proponents; try and think of the advancement of humanity, not the regression. Capital punishment is NOT a deterrent. When public executions were held in England in the 16th and 17th centuries for such things as theft or even adultery, it was a picnic for pickpockets, who if caught, would be subject to the same punishment.

Grow up!!!

I'm telling you right now to change the way you're debating. From what I've seen, the way you're debating is to semi-bait people who are on the other side of the debate by including small things such as this post, which I've bolded myself. Drop the attacks, and you'd do fine.

How naive can you be!!!? "One party by vote of election"!!!! Give me a break. You have one party because it suits the corporate powers of your country. The media is controlled by the party in power (argue with that) and the party in power is led by the son of the former megalomaniac, Lee Kwan Yu, who made a point of ridiculing Australia as "the poor white trash of Asia". Singapore is a family fiefdom.

For a start, Australia is the only country on the planet that occupies an entire continent. We are close to, but not part of Asia. I'm also sick to death of our conservative politicians saying that we must be attuned to the "Asian sensibilities". You don't give a damn about ours!

Join the bloody human race!!!!!

You and the other countries that practise the inhumane "punishment" known as capital punishment are vastly in the minority. You want to be part of the modern world? Then think of the human cost first, not your bloody economy!!

:headbang: :headbang:


Give me one time when an Asian country demanded that Australia change its laws or spare its citizens. Give me one time when an Asian country was not "attuned" to Australian sensibilities.

Capital punishment is a deterrent. How can you not say that others will not think twice about drug dealing now that they have seen what happens if you are caught?

It seems to me that there must be something wrong with Australia's attitude to drugs, because for some reason they keep getting caught over here. Now we have the Bali Nine who are facing the firing squad.

I suggest you question how your country deals with drugs before questioning our methods. Easterners have been taught from young that we commit crimes, we bear the consequences. If you don't like it, the simple way to avoid it is not to bring drugs into our country, a reasonable request if any.

And if you forgive me, I'm not very impressed with Western intellect right now. Some Australian wrote into our paper to say he was boycotting our products and that "it has been proven that it is twice as expensive to hang a person than give him life imprisonment without parole". I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.

I concede that perhaps mitigating circumstances should be taken into account regarding cases with the death penalty, but I do not believe that capital punishment should be removed altogether.

Give me one time when an Asian country demanded that Australia change its laws or spare its citizens. Give me one time when an Asian country was not "attuned" to Australian sensibilities.

Capital punishment is a deterrent. How can you not say that others will not think twice about drug dealing now that they have seen what happens if you are caught?

It seems to me that there must be something wrong with Australia's attitude to drugs, because for some reason they keep getting caught over here. Now we have the Bali Nine who are facing the firing squad.

I suggest you question how your country deals with drugs before questioning our methods. Easterners have been taught from young that we commit crimes, we bear the consequences. If you don't like it, the simple way to avoid it is not to bring drugs into our country, a reasonable request if any.

And if you forgive me, I'm not very impressed with Western intellect right now. Some Australian wrote into our paper to say he was boycotting our products and that "it has been proven that it is twice as expensive to hang a person than give him life imprisonment without parole". I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.

I concede that perhaps mitigating circumstances should be taken into account regarding cases with the death penalty, but I do not believe that capital punishment should be removed altogether.

1. Capital punishment is not a deterrent. Many studies show this. Criminals are deterred more by the likelihood they will be caught than by the severity of punishment.

2. I have heard the cost thing before. It usually includes the added costs of appeals for capital cases. That may apply more in the US or Australia than in Singapore. I don't know what sort of court system you have.

1. Capital punishment is not a deterrent. Many studies show this. Criminals are deterred more by the likelihood they will be caught than by the severity of punishment.

2. I have heard the cost thing before. It usually includes the added costs of appeals for capital cases. That may apply more in the US or Australia than in Singapore. I don't know what sort of court system you have.



Lets make a scenario. You are a person who is about to run drugs into Singapore. You hear about this case. You now know that if you get caught you will lose your life. Can you really tell me that that does not make a person think twice?

Singapore's crime rate speaks for itself.

Lets make a scenario. You are a person who is about to run drugs into Singapore. You hear about this case. You now know that if you get caught you will lose your life. Can you really tell me that that does not make a person think twice?

Why would it make you think more than if the punishment was life in prison?

Singapore's crime rate speaks for itself.

So does its lack of freedom and human dignity.

Why would it make you think more than if the punishment was life in prison?



So does its lack of freedom and human dignity.
Yah, i agree with cat tribe? My prayers go out to the guilty

I think what I've always thought - Singapore is teh suck. You won't catch me there any decade soon.

?? Why do you think this? It's like taunting a rattle snake. The rattle snake shakes his tail and says, "If you bite me, I'm going to bite you." Sure enough, he got killed and I laugh at him. It has been proven in history again and again, that the only way to solve a problem is to kill everything that opposes your morals and values. Hey, the Romans did it and it worked for 1200 years. Singapore is the most efficient country in the world. (correct me if I'm wrong on that). I show nothing but respect for Singapore.

?? Why do you think this? It's like taunting a rattle snake. The rattle snake shakes his tail and says, "If you bite me, I'm going to bite you." Sure enough, he got killed and I laugh at him. It has been proven in history again and again, that the only way to solve a problem is to kill everything that opposes your morals and values. Hey, the Romans did it and it worked for 1200 years. Singapore is the most efficient country in the world. (correct me if I'm wrong on that). I show nothing but respect for Singapore.

So you value efficiency over freedom?

But maybe they would agree if applied to something they consider bad enough, like infanticide, rape, or skinning kitties.

It's where you draw the line. For Singapore drug offenses fall into that category and one's got to respect that.

Why?

Let's be real here guys.

This guy was not transporting a little bit of dope

He was carrying over 400 grams (About a pound) of absolutely pure heroine. 40 miligrams of heroine is huge dose so this guy had enough heroine for 1000's maybe 10,000's of doses. Singapore dosen't have much of a drug problem (I lived there and still have right of abode there, my youngest daughter was born there) So this amount of heroine was probably being transhipped to somewhere else. Maybe your town and maybe it would have killed your firend or brother or sister.

What this guy tried to do was despicable.

Unlike some Asian countries the laws in Singapore are not vauge. Yes, they are strict, sometimes arbitrary and often harsh but they are published in three languages (English, Malay and Chinese)

He could have avoided this very easily

So you value efficiency over freedom?


Freedom of what? Freedom to run drugs openly and not get punished? Freedom for a man who hired a teenager to kill his wife not to be punished?

Again, idealistic views about freedom, but no practicality whatsoever. You believe in rehabilitation, but you dont realise that many killers, rapists, they get their rehab then come out and commit the exact crime again.

Have you ever been to Singapore? Ever spoken to its people? Many oppose the government on many issues, but to us, for foreigners to label us as murderers just because we support capital punishment is beyond belief.

Human dignity? Where is human diginity as youths take drugs due to peer pressure and otherwise? They get addicted, which would be fine if they were merely harming themselves, but no, to feed their addiction they kill and steal. Thats why we sought to remove the supply of illegal drugs entirely, because we cant hunt down every single person who takes drugs and rehabilitate them.

It is not a matter of freedom, but criminal justice. If we were committing genocide then by all means, but we are not.

Freedom of what? Freedom to run drugs openly and not get punished? Freedom for a man who hired a teenager to kill his wife not to be punished?

Again, idealistic views about freedom, but no practicality whatsoever. You believe in rehabilitation, but you dont realise that many killers, rapists, they get their rehab then come out and commit the exact crime again.

Have you ever been to Singapore? Ever spoken to its people? Many oppose the government on many issues, but to us, for foreigners to label us as murderers just because we support capital punishment is beyond belief.

Human dignity? Where is human diginity as youths take drugs due to peer pressure and otherwise? They get addicted, which would be fine if they were merely harming themselves, but no, to feed their addiction they kill and steal. Thats why we sought to remove the supply of illegal drugs entirely, because we cant hunt down every single person who takes drugs and rehabilitate them.

It is not a matter of freedom, but criminal justice. If we were committing genocide then by all means, but we are not.

Any criminal justice system with so little regard for rights is not about justice.

You apply your "justice" to those mere en route to somewhere else through your country. Here, the executed was en route from Cambodia to Australia. If only he'd got different flight plans.

Let's be real here guys.


Why is realism always used to excuse barbarism?

Any criminal justice system with so little regard for rights is not about justice.

You apply your "justice" to those mere en route to somewhere else through your country. Here, the executed was en route from Cambodia to Australia. If only he'd got different flight plans.

You would rather he distribute his 26,000 doses of heroin and kill or hurt at least 1,000 people in Melbourne or Sydney then.

Freedom of what? Freedom to run drugs openly and not get punished? Freedom for a man who hired a teenager to kill his wife not to be punished?

Again, idealistic views about freedom, but no practicality whatsoever. You believe in rehabilitation, but you dont realise that many killers, rapists, they get their rehab then come out and commit the exact crime again.

Have you ever been to Singapore? Ever spoken to its people? Many oppose the government on many issues, but to us, for foreigners to label us as murderers just because we support capital punishment is beyond belief.

Human dignity? Where is human diginity as youths take drugs due to peer pressure and otherwise? They get addicted, which would be fine if they were merely harming themselves, but no, to feed their addiction they kill and steal. Thats why we sought to remove the supply of illegal drugs entirely, because we cant hunt down every single person who takes drugs and rehabilitate them.

It is not a matter of freedom, but criminal justice. If we were committing genocide then by all means, but we are not.

Hear, hear.

Capital Punishment never works.

I would also ask

Where is the proof that capital punishment does not deter crime? This guy will certainly never run any more drugs.

I seen several posters say "Many studies show"

The true fact is, if you actually read the studies, that capital punishment is not a huge deterent to murderers. That is because murder is a crime of passion. This crime was committed with a competely different motivation. So to find out if capital punishment would deter the transportation of drugs you'd have have to seperate them from the crimes of passion like murder.

The "It didn't stop pickpockets" is also a red herring because that is a crime of oportunity and the chances getting caught were actually very low. Also the pickpockets of the time were probably just this side of starving. If the choice were steal and maybe get caught and hang or starve I might try stealing.

I would bet that in crimes of this nature, where there is planning, forethought and consideration of the risk then a knowledge that I would be hanged if caught would be a significant deterent

Not to mention the fact that the purpose of hanging this young man might not have been to deter crime but to punish him for his crimes already committed.

Please note. I prefer Hong Kong to Singapore but only because my wife's family live here.

Idle question: If you are so oppossed to capital punishment what should Australia have done? Invade Singapore?

So you value efficiency over freedom?

There are limited freedoms for every nation Cat-Tribe, even bastions of freedom have limitations on what is and what is not acceptable, as is the punishment for crimes.

Unless you have anarchy, which would be the most free form of government, since it is no government. :s

Is there a single nation out there that does not view drug smuggling as illegal? Not drug possession mind you, but actually bringing it within their borders. And there are punishments for violating the law. Singapore, like most of her neighbours, has the harshest punishments but is more efficient at catching offenders.

And also, you speak of rights. What rights should have been afforded to this person? The right to freely distribute drugs? The right to commit crimes and not be punished? The right to flagrantly violate laws? The right to what then? The right to life? Nebulous concepts, but not very practical when one deals with things like drug smuggling and how to stop it.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3155706.stm.

Death penalty for Bali bomber
One of the main suspects tried in connection with last year's Bali attacks has been sentenced to death.
Mukhlas, also known as Ali Gufron, was described by prosecutors as the co-ordinator of the nightclub bombings which killed 202 people.

The Indonesian court judges said the charges against him were "legally and convincingly proven", there were no mitigating circumstances and he deserved the maximum sentence of death by firing squad.

Where was the moral outrage over capital punishment for this man's crimes?

So? If the Bali Nine get shooting squad in Australia? Or the two Aussies in Vietnam? What would you do? Boycott them too and isolate yourselves?

Why is realism always used to excuse barbarism?

I consider those who opposse hanging this man despite the fact that he had had fair trial and was absolutely with not even a shadow of a doubt shown to to be purposely endangering the lives of 100's if not 1000's of people by tempting them to die a horrible death through a terrible adiction to be the true barbarians.

Freedom is something the West holds dearly. I cannot fault anyone for that.

Without freedom, Asia would never be anything like it is today. Our economy, society, all that would not have come about.

However, in giving people freedom, people also gain the right to abuse it. Hence, thats when we set down laws, both to protect the freedom of our people as well as punish those who infringe on the freedom of others or abuse their own freedom.

In the case of a killer, you have taken away another person's freedom to live, and so, does he not deserve to have his own freedom taken away? If not to punish him, then to prevent him from taking another person's freedom away?

In the case of a drug runner, is he not providing drug dealers with the tools necessary to commit their crimes? You then may retort that all suppliers of knives are then guilty of assisting murderers. But that is not true, drug runners know full well that what they do is illegal, and that countless others will have their lives affected by it.

It then becomes necessary to impose high penalties to discourage others from committing the same crime. Campaigns, information leaflets all do not have much effect, so no alternative is left.

It is not an infringement of human rights. Human rights dictate that a criminal not be tortured to obtain a confession, that he be given a fair trial, and that he be convicted only beyond all reasonable doubt.

Convicted drug runners like Nguyen all were given these rights and found guilty, and so were given their punishment.

Earlier someone compared us to Tsarist Russia, but we do not arrest and execute political opposers. Our government does not rule by fear, however, one-party it may be.

Perhaps it may be hard for some to accept my viewpoint, after all, we have been brought up in different environments and so have different worldviews. But some of you will have to accept the fact that different conditions require different measures, and your solution does not necessarily mean the best solution.

Freedom is something the West holds dearly. I cannot fault anyone for that.

Without freedom, Asia would never be anything like it is today. Our economy, society, all that would not have come about.

However, in giving people freedom, people also gain the right to abuse it. Hence, thats when we set down laws, both to protect the freedom of our people as well as punish those who infringe on the freedom of others or abuse their own freedom.

In the case of a killer, you have taken away another person's freedom to live, and so, does he not deserve to have his own freedom taken away? If not to punish him, then to prevent him from taking another person's freedom away?

In the case of a drug runner, is he not providing drug dealers with the tools necessary to commit their crimes? You then may retort that all suppliers of knives are then guilty of assisting murderers. But that is not true, drug runners know full well that what they do is illegal, and that countless others will have their lives affected by it.

It then becomes necessary to impose high penalties to discourage others from committing the same crime. Campaigns, information leaflets all do not have much effect, so no alternative is left.

It is not an infringement of human rights. Human rights dictate that a criminal not be tortured to obtain a confession, that he be given a fair trial, and that he be convicted only beyond all reasonable doubt.

Convicted drug runners like Nguyen all were given these rights and found guilty, and so were given their punishment.

Earlier someone compared us to Tsarist Russia, but we do not arrest and execute political opposers. Our government does not rule by fear, however, one-party it may be.

Perhaps it may be hard for some to accept my viewpoint, after all, we have been brought up in different environments and so have different worldviews. But some of you will have to accept the fact that different conditions require different measures, and your solution does not necessarily mean the best solution.

True; but at the same time, some of the rules are stupid; I can understand the strict drug laws, the strict punishment of those who litter; but punishing people who are gay? heterosexual and homosexual couples who have oral sex?

I mean, there is a line drawn where public order must be kept, and big bossy government starts - Singapore as a declining population, now the government can either sit around with a finger up its ass thinking that it can keep its little hermit kingdom 'uncorruptable' or can accept that maybe instead of having nanny state dictating every aspect of an individuals life, they allow people to make decisions, let them to either be successful or fall over and pick themselves up.

Oh, and I'm sorry, but, "You must be happy and celebrate 40 years of Singapore OR ELSE" rallies are hardly what I would call 'freeing up of society" - you may have alot of high trained engineers and technicians, but you have no soul to your nation - everything has been done at the expense of individual freedoms and areas that are not of direct economic benefit to the country.

Earlier someone compared us to Tsarist Russia, but we do not arrest and execute political opposers. Our government does not rule by fear, however, one-party it may be.


Your government may not arrest and execute political dissidents, but it does arrest and imprison them for 32 years without charge. Remember Chia Thye Poh? And it regularly uses spurious lawsuits to bankrupt possible political oppents, thus rendering them unable to hold public office. Remember Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam? Even Chee Soon Juan faced similar action only a few years ago.

The PAP is far too comfortable and attached to it's power. They don't want to let it go, and aren't afraid to do whatever it takes to keep it.

Simply put, screw Chee.

Note: Everyone here who condones or agree's with the punishment of death for the guy which was executed for transporting drugs are not human. You are pathetic and one day, as you stand before god, you will get what you deserve. Pies.

Note: Everyone here who condones or agree's with the punishment of death for the guy which was executed for transporting drugs are not human. You are pathetic and one day, as you stand before god, you will get what you deserve. Pies.

I smell a puppet.

Note: Everyone here who condones or agree's with the punishment of death for the guy which was executed for transporting drugs are not human. You are pathetic and one day, as you stand before god, you will get what you deserve. Pies.

fcf2? Is that you? Naah. Can't be

Note: Everyone here who condones or agree's with the punishment of death for the guy which was executed for transporting drugs are not human. You are pathetic and one day, as you stand before god, you will get what you deserve. Pies.

What I find funny, however, IIRC, these drugs were taken OUT of Singapore.

Simply put, screw Chee.

You might disagree with his political views, but that's no reason for the government to pull that sort of crap on him for voicing an opinion.

I mean... Speaking out against the government... in PUBLIC... without a PERMIT! Great gods, what's next? IT COULD LEAD TO ANARCHY AND CHEWING GUM!!!! :rolleyes:

We digress.

I was trying to defend capital punishment and rebutt people who refer to us as a fascist or totalitarian state.

I never denied that Singapore was dominated by one party, and I agree that the government does not always play fair politically. As for the Internal Security Act, I have not formulated an opinion on it yet as I have not examined it thoroughly.

Funny thing though this debate, I've always thought myself as critic of my government, yet I find myself defending my government's position regarding capital punishment. I guess you need to be flexible in politics.

Note: Everyone here who condones or agree's with the punishment of death for the guy which was executed for transporting drugs are not human. You are pathetic and one day, as you stand before god, you will get what you deserve. Pies.


But when I stand before Buddha, he'll tell me that good things happen to good people, while bad things happen to bad people.

Funny thing though this debate, I've always thought myself as critic of my government, yet I find myself defending my government's position regarding capital punishment. I guess you need to be flexible in politics.

I second that, I never thought I would be defending our hanging of Nguyen either.

PS - Did you hear? Devan Nair has died.

I feel sympathy for his family.
For him, I feel no sympathy at all.

He was bringing narcotics in to his ( and my ) home country, and he was caught in a jurisdiction with the death penalty. If he had not been smuggling narcotics through a country that applied the death penalty, he would be alive.

Would I prefer he was caught here and jailed rather than executed ? Of course. Would I rather he got away and someone else's sons died to a heroin overdose ? Of course not.

I have absolutely zero empathy for him getting executed for dealing drugs. If he was stupid enough to do drugs, then he's got to take the consequences. Simple as that.

Capital punishment is a deterrent. How can you not say that others will not think twice about drug dealing now that they have seen what happens if you are caught?

I can't say that I necessarily agree with you on this. Take Singapore, for instance. Over 420 people have been executed there since 1991 - mostly on drug charges. And it's still happening today.

The fact is that while there is still a demand for drugs, there will still be people willing to supply them - and there will always be others stupid, ignorant or desperate enough to carry drugs for those people. In fact, with the higher penalties looming, they could probably notch up their prices.

But it's more than that. Capital punishment does not serve justice. Sure, it can be an effective, if brutal, deterrant. And it does ensure the security of the public - when you kill a murderer, whatever the hypocrisy in that act, he's not going to be able to hurt anybody else.

But it makes no room for rehabilitation. The fundamental rights of the convicted are stripped away - rights which a nation's government should be striving to protect. To quote The West Wing, it should "[go] out of its way to protect even citizens that try to destroy it".

I'm not defending drug smuggling. Drugs are huge problem in today's society and anybody caught trafficking them clearly has to be punished - but fairly.

I believe that capital punishment is not only unjust, it is a crime. It's murder. There is no offence in the world that could make anybody deserving of that.

Van Nguyen committed a crime, yes. In an effort to help his twin brother, he did a dumb thing, and I agree whole-heartedly that he needed to be punished for that. But executing him? I can't see any justification.

How is murder any less of an atrocity just because it's committed with the approval of a nation's government?

okay I've read maybe four posts in this entire bukakke of retardness and gave up cause I was getting dumber by the minute.

Firstly as an Australian let me say it saddens me to lose any australian in another country but my sadness ends where his law breaking began.

He was found with enough heroin to cause the deaths of hundreds or the addictions of thousands of people. Quit fucking holding him up like a victim here people. HE SMUGGLED ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES IN SINGAPORE! SMUGGLING IS BAD! what I find here is a bunch of filthy hipocrits who dont know how to get their fucking thumbs out of their arses for longer than ten seconds to sprout fascist this fascist that OMFG ILLEGITIMATE LOVE CHILDREN MAKE BABIES IN IRAQ bullshit and realise some things.

1. He's been on fucking death row for YEARS let me say that again YEARS and NOBODY has even heard of him until Chapelle Corby got reamed in Indonesia.
2. If it wasnt for Chapelle Corby's trial He'd die a fucking unknown.
3. I hope his brother really thinks about the situation he put his own flesh and blood in because it's his fucking fault.
4. I hope the Singapore government is proud because I give them kudos for not bending over and being ass fucked by a foreign country. Those are their laws, it's THEIR right to enforce them he was stupid enough to be caught with the drugs on him so he suffers the damn penalty.

It's just like me being arrested for murder some where and not facing the same jail sentance cause it's classified as a different level in Australia. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING STUPID you broke the law of that country you suffer the full penalty.

He hung big fucking deal, how many other Australians have died in Singapore and nobody has said a damned thing? Van wasnt the first one to fucking die there. All of you pull your heads out of this media filled bubble and shut the fuck up and quit thinking of Van as a victim of an oppresive government and start thinking of him as a convicted felon who had justice bought down upon him.

Sure it was hard balled justice but hey it's justice none the less. We have no right sticking our nose into this man's affairs when we leave another hanging in fucking limbo in Guantanamo bay just because Van wasnt atively killing people...wait he was...by smuggling heroin he was aiding in kids dying from fucking over doses.

The guy is a mass murderer he deserved it.

Peace out.

--Mouth foam was here.--

You do know that Singapore regularly bends over and let's itself get ass fucked by foreign countries, right? The only reason this guy was executed and not given life in prison is because Australia doesn't have the sort of political clout that, say, Germany has when they pressured Singapore and had Julia Bohl let off. This was just a case of Singapore trying to prove that it isn't everyone's bitch. They did it by refusing to listen to a country that we all know IS everyone's bitch, which is no big achievement.

You will have to elaborate on that. Unless you infer it to mean that thinking the death penalty works to deter drug trafficking.

And if so, may I ask why, if you believe it does not work, there are so few drug cases in Singapore hmmm? Do you have a reasonable explanation for its success as a relatively drug free nation? Particularly in comparison to its less successful neighbours?

Certainly, corruption issues and border controls do play a role in the issue of enforcement, of which Singapore is reputated to be mostly free of the former and excellent on the latter. But that in itself does not mean very much when the means of enforcement lack in the areas of punishment. A highly efficient police force with a 1 day maximum jail term is hardly a deterrent at all.

Whether it works or not is hardly the point. The point is you're attacking the symptom of the problem not the problem itself. It may be successful, but any government that has to make a habit of killing people isn't doing a very good job. The correct way to go about it would be more like...

1. Legalize drugs.

2. Spend some of the money that you save on enforcement to start an anti-drug education campaign. (It works, the percentage of Americans who smoke cigarettes has dropped every year since the Surgeon General's Warning and other anti-tobacco education has been put in place).

3. Have a mandatory increase in sentence if you have drugs in your system when apprehended for a crime, say double or triple.

Message has been clearly sent. Dugs are bad for you, but you are an adult and can use them if you want. However, if you abuse this freedom by doing stupid shit (commiting crimes) because you can't control yourself when taking drugs then you will face harsher consequences than people who are not abusing this opportunity.

A highly efficient police force with a death penalty however, is a much more significant deterrent.

As for the example of English pickpockets, using your rationale, I would point out that if the security during these hangings were much tighter, with offenders caught at a very high rate, there would be reduced future cases.

Deterrence after all, is an important aspect of law enforcement.

Once again, the government killing people should be avoided whenever possible. The only two cases when the death penalty is appropriate are non-justifiable homocide (you've taken a life and thereby forfieted yours) and some if not all sex offenders, definitely pedophiles (if you're trying to have sex with 5 year olds something is broken inside of you, something we can never fix. The rest of society shouldn't be required to keep you alive when you will never be able to offer anything to society in return).

The threat of American prisons is enough to keep most people from commiting crimes. Since I imagine that prison in Singapore is worse than prison in America it should be no problem whatsoever to keep your population in check with that threat alone. Plus you have corporal punishment, which I'm not opposed to as long as it leaves no permanent damage. We don't even have that here, but I can't imagine most people are to quick to get the shit caned out of them. I must say though , I'd take three wacks from the cane instead of a year in jail any day. I wish I had that as an option to tell you the truth... As long as it was my option.

And of course, peer pressure, escalation, falsehoods and other factors play no part in influencing the choice to take drugs hmmm? Designer drugs for example. I believe there are a few such as say, heroin and Ecstasy. And really, do you mean to tell me that there are those that take drugs but do not become addicted to them? How many of those people are there? 5? 10? A hundred? Compare that to how many that DO get addicted.

Whatever reasons a person has for taking drugs don't change the fact that they made the decision. It's not the dealers fault that the person made a bad chose. Let's say I put you in a room with two doors and tell you that the one on your left leads to freedom and the one on your right leads to a spiked pit where you will die. How can you blame me if you're stupid enough to go to the right? You can't. You made the choice, same as someone who choses to use drugs.

It doesn't really matter if you're addicted to drugs or not. What matters is if you can still be a productive member of society. If you're including marijuana then I'd say around 75% of the people I know are functional drug-addicts, and if you include occasional use (not addicted) I'd say 90%. If you don't include marijuana, but include recreational and prescription drug abuse, I'd say a good 30% of the people I know are functional drug-addicts. These are people who I know through my jobs. They hold down jobs, they pay their bills (with at least as much success as the people I know who don't do drugs), and they don't rob and kill people to get thier drug money. Fact is most people who try drugs, either don't like them and never use them again (I know a few people like this), or only like them enough to use them occasionally (I know plenty of people like this).

Shall we let all serial killers loose upon society because a few have changed?

No. As I said above, if you kill someone, you should be killed. A Serial Killer certainly falls into the 'no reasonable hope for rehabilitation' catagory. though alternatively I'd be willing to send them to an island with no chance of parole, or some such. As long as it's cheap they can stay alive.

You would still be morally wrong because battery, even paid battery, is considered an assault in most places, barring sporting events that is.

And that would make you legally wrong, not morally. It's not morally wrong to break a law. It's against the law to speed, but it's not morally wrong to drive to fast. It's illegal to J-walk, but it's not morally wrong to cross a street outside of an intersection. I could go on, but I should hope the point has been made. Illegality does not prove imorallity.

A man in Germany was convicted of cannibalism. He claimed it was another consenting adult he ate. He was still charged and judged guilty.

Because he was guilty of the crime of cannibalism. Once again, just because he broke the law didn't make him morally wrong. If he had been able to produce signed, notorized (officially witnessed) documents stating that the person in fact was willing to be killed and eaten, then what he did should not have been illegal, because it wasn't wrong.

Yes. The peddling of illicit goods, regardless of what it is, is illegal. Perhaps there should be no regulations regarding gun sales next. After all, even those used to commit crimes were purchased between two consenting adults in most cases. A gun smuggler, and a buyer.

Not the same. There is no need for anyone with a legitamate (self-defence, sporting) purpose to posess a gun, to have to get it through illegitamate channels. You don't need an untraceable self-defence weapon. You don't need an untraceable hunting weapon. Unless you plan to use it for a crime, or you have already shown yourself to be a violent criminal (and therefore can't be trusted with a gun) you don't need an untraceable weapon bought on the street. Much the same, people with 'legitamate' uses for a drug should be allowed to purchase it freely. 'Legitamate', in this case, includes stress-relief and recreation. It does not include getting so high it doesn't scare you to go rob a store or commit any other crime. If you use them in such a manner you should be severely punished, just like if you commit a gun crime.

bold added by me for emphasis

I would also ask

Where is the proof that capital punishment does not deter crime? This guy will certainly never run any more drugs.

I seen several posters say "Many studies show"

The true fact is, if you actually read the studies, that capital punishment is not a huge deterent to murderers. That is because murder is a crime of passion. This crime was committed with a competely different motivation. So to find out if capital punishment would deter the transportation of drugs you'd have have to seperate them from the crimes of passion like murder.

The "It didn't stop pickpockets" is also a red herring because that is a crime of oportunity and the chances getting caught were actually very low. Also the pickpockets of the time were probably just this side of starving. If the choice were steal and maybe get caught and hang or starve I might try stealing.

I would bet that in crimes of this nature, where there is planning, forethought and consideration of the risk then a knowledge that I would be hanged if caught would be a significant deterent

Not to mention the fact that the purpose of hanging this young man might not have been to deter crime but to punish him for his crimes already committed.

Please note. I prefer Hong Kong to Singapore but only because my wife's family live here.

Idle question: If you are so oppossed to capital punishment what should Australia have done? Invade Singapore?

The second section of bold text answers the first. A few years in prison are just as much a deterant to most people as the death penalty. In fact many people value their freedom more than their life, for instance everyone who ever fought in a revolution.

As you say, it's a crime of opportunity. People will do it if they think they will get away with it. If they think they will get caught, they won't try. Singapore's 'highly efficient' (I've done no research so I take the various posters collective word) police force has a lot more to do with the lack of crime than the penalties. I'm sure that 99% of the people who won't go to Singapore with drugs on them, lest they be killed, wouldn't go with drugs on them if they thought they'd spend 20 years in jail. I'll tell you right now, I'd rather die than spend 20 years in jail. I wouldn't want to live knowing that I wasted the prime of my life behind bars. And that's not even taking into consideration that I'd have to start rebuilding from scratch at 45. That's more trouble than anything is worth. Fuck that, Kill me.

Whether it works or not is hardly the point. The point is you're attacking the symptom of the problem not the problem itself.

The problem is NOT the demand for drugs, but the people who manufacture them and profit from it. Unless Singapore starts pantomiming the US and kidnapping people outside of her borders, which I would not approve of, the closest way it can attack the problem is by shutting down the supply before it can fuel even more problems.


It may be successful, but any government that has to make a habit of killing people isn't doing a very good job.

You say successful in one hand and not a very good job in the other. By the standards of Singapore, it IS doing a good job.


1. Legalize drugs.


That would only worsen the situation. The idea is to have as few people on drugs as possible, not make it easier for them to take narcotics.


2. Spend some of the money that you save on enforcement to start an anti-drug education campaign. (It works, the percentage of Americans who smoke cigarettes has dropped every year since the Surgeon General's Warning and other anti-tobacco education has been put in place).

Singapore already has one. Obviously it doesn't work on foreign nationals who think they can beat the system by bringing in drugs on the sly.


3. Have a mandatory increase in sentence if you have drugs in your system when apprehended for a crime, say double or triple.

First you say legalize drugs. Then you say increase punishments for having drugs in your system. What a hypocritical proposal. Needless to say, its a bad idea.


Message has been clearly sent. Dugs are bad for you, but you are an adult and can use them if you want. However, if you abuse this freedom by doing stupid shit (commiting crimes) because you can't control yourself when taking drugs then you will face harsher consequences than people who are not abusing this opportunity.

No. Here I suspect is the key difference in our argument. You believe drugs do not harm people through their use. Sitting as it does right next to the Golden Triangle, Singapore has had plenty of experiences with drugs and their effects on people. All of it bad. Singapore has no reason whatsoever to provide a freedom to its people that would only ruin it.


Once again, the government killing people should be avoided whenever possible. The only two cases when the death penalty is appropriate are non-justifiable homocide (you've taken a life and thereby forfieted yours) and some if not all sex offenders, definitely pedophiles (if you're trying to have sex with 5 year olds something is broken inside of you, something we can never fix. The rest of society shouldn't be required to keep you alive when you will never be able to offer anything to society in return).

If you have no problem giving the death penalty to sexual deviants who prey on the young, then you should have no problem with the death penalty on those who distribute an addictive poison to society.


The threat of American prisons is enough to keep most people from commiting crimes. Since I imagine that prison in Singapore is worse than prison in America it should be no problem whatsoever to keep your population in check with that threat alone.

Singapore's neighbor, Malaysia, is reputed to have very harsh prisons, more so due to overcrowding problems. It has not stopped the crime rate from increasing at a high rate, what with the increased spate of snatch thefts, robberies and murders.

Harsh prisons are insufficient to prevent crime, even with an effective police force.


Plus you have corporal punishment, which I'm not opposed to as long as it leaves no permanent damage. We don't even have that here, but I can't imagine most people are to quick to get the shit caned out of them. I must say though , I'd take three wacks from the cane instead of a year in jail any day. I wish I had that as an option to tell you the truth... As long as it was my option.

Like most Asian nations that employ the cane in their justice system, Singaporean courts do not give you the option to choose your punishment most of the time. You get both jail and the cane. More for repeat offenders.


Whatever reasons a person has for taking drugs don't change the fact that they made the decision. It's not the dealers fault that the person made a bad chose. Let's say I put you in a room with two doors and tell you that the one on your left leads to freedom and the one on your right leads to a spiked pit where you will die. How can you blame me if you're stupid enough to go to the right? You can't. You made the choice, same as someone who choses to use drugs.

The dealer makes the supply of drugs possible. And your use of the spiked trap argument only bolsters mine. How can you blame the Singaporean government for the death penalty when it clearly has made it apparent that trafficking in them will result in the death penalty? You can't. The person who chooses to violate the laws made the choice, and as a result cannot blame the government when he dances in the air.


It doesn't really matter if you're addicted to drugs or not. What matters is if you can still be a productive member of society. If you're including marijuana then I'd say around 75% of the people I know are functional drug-addicts, and if you include occasional use (not addicted) I'd say 90%. If you don't include marijuana, but include recreational and prescription drug abuse, I'd say a good 30% of the people I know are functional drug-addicts. These are people who I know through my jobs. They hold down jobs, they pay their bills (with at least as much success as the people I know who don't do drugs), and they don't rob and kill people to get thier drug money. Fact is most people who try drugs, either don't like them and never use them again (I know a few people like this), or only like them enough to use them occasionally (I know plenty of people like this).

Your example is not valid. By your statements, it is apparent that the people you met are only the ones who are able to be the productive members of society. That in itself limits your ability to suitably judge the entire population base and how they would react to legalized drugs. Unless you have actually conducted a nationwide survey of drug users and their relation to productivity in society, or can produce research in that matter, your viewpoint cannot be taken to be an indicator of the whole.


No. As I said above, if you kill someone, you should be killed. A Serial Killer certainly falls into the 'no reasonable hope for rehabilitation' catagory. though alternatively I'd be willing to send them to an island with no chance of parole, or some such. As long as it's cheap they can stay alive.

Without the option for parole or appeals, the death penalty is cheaper. Drug abuse situations would in your viewpoint, as far as I understand, would also fall into "no reasonable hope" category. Far more effective to catch and hang the traffickers of narcotics than to allow it and sieve through the population as the crimes happen.


And that would make you legally wrong, not morally. It's not morally wrong to break a law. It's against the law to speed, but it's not morally wrong to drive to fast. It's illegal to J-walk, but it's not morally wrong to cross a street outside of an intersection. I could go on, but I should hope the point has been made. Illegality does not prove imorallity.

It is not morally wrong to speed, nor morally wrong to be drunk. But the danger you pose when driving and doing either of the two are the reasons for the laws that impose fines and more when caught. If we were to follow your reasoning to its logical extension, there wouldn't be any safety standards in the construction of buildings either that would prevent them from being giant fire hazards or fragile wrecks.

Furthermore, it is not morally wrong for me to manufacture deadly diseases within my home. But it is certainly hideously illegal to do so. Morality can only go so far in ensuring that society functions as it does. Morality without legality would throw us back in a time before Hammarrubi, and all the unpleasantness that went with it.


Because he was guilty of the crime of cannibalism. Once again, just because he broke the law didn't make him morally wrong. If he had been able to produce signed, notorized (officially witnessed) documents stating that the person in fact was willing to be killed and eaten, then what he did should not have been illegal, because it wasn't wrong.

With or without permission, murder is still considered to be illegal in any country. Both persons were recognized by the states as persons whose right to life were protected by the legal framework within the country. The only time when 3rd party assisted suicide is allowed is via euthanesia and only by medical professionals in certain countries. Germany so far as I know, has nothing of that sort in their laws.


'Legitamate', in this case, includes stress-relief and recreation. It does not include getting so high it doesn't scare you to go rob a store or commit any other crime. If you use them in such a manner you should be severely punished, just like if you commit a gun crime.

So basically what you are saying is that you should make it easier for people to commit crimes and punish them when caught? Make no mistake, if you legalize drugs and relax the harsh stance to it, there WILL be an increase of drug abuse and drug related crimes. It can hardly go anywhere else. Furthermore, there is nothing, nothing save the threat of being caught again, that will prevent convicted criminals from repeating their crimes. For every reformed drug abuser and smuggler, how many more went right back to their trade? I think the ratio is much bigger than you think.

The idea behind legal punishments is to deter crime. When you have repeat offenders, it obviously doesn't work.