11 May 2005

"Law Not Intended For The Safety And Well-Being of Its People"

The Epoch Times

Since the current Singaporean government was established, nobody has ever heard of anyone winning a lawsuit against the government.

Likewise, we might question whether the government is looking out for its people by mandating that all materials distributed in public be pre-approved by the News Publication Bureau. In Singapore's subway stations, people frequently distribute various advertisements and fliers. People receive advertisements and promotions in their mailboxes every day. Not all these fliers are approved. Does the News Publication Bureau really intend to check every single handout?

A few years ago when conducting an investigation of Falun Gong at subway stations, my bag was searched by police. In my bag, they found a single CD that contained facts about the practice and its unjust persecution and accused me of owning a CD not approved by the News Publication Bureau. Actually, pornography and pirate CDs are everywhere in Singapore, including some stores. But has any store been closed down? The police have not investigated stores for this purpose. Does it seem reasonable, then, to pinpoint a single free CD downloaded from the Internet? This is absurd. Because of this CD, I received warning from the Police Department and Immigration Department. They threatened to cancel my student visa. I still have the warning letter.

Singapore's law is apparently not intended for the safety and well-being of its people. Unlike in democratic countries, where laws serve the people, the laws issued by a dictatorial government intend to maintain its dictatorship. Over time, such irresponsible treatment can ruin a country and its people.


A quote from the following article...

7 comments:

Hecate said...

Ethics and morality in lawmaking is important. But what we are looking at here is not just a question of ethical and human rights issues.

The greater issue at hand is the bilateral ties between China and Singapore. China, places great emphasis against the Falungong, were Singapore be found to be acting in opposition of China's policies, then what would the result be?

Perhaps one can say that it's not like we've not gotten into trouble with other states for our laws and legal decision, but I think compared to the other cases, this carries a much higher political meaning.

Jean-Luc Picard said...

I cannot understand such comments. Will hecate be as willing to put aside the issue of human rights if they were her rights that were being sacrificed for the sake of a "greater issue"?

Why stop at Falungong? There are certainly many other groups that China "places great emphasis against". Why doesn't Singapore just ban them all as well? Think of how much it will help bilateral ties!

Jowie said...

how about spanking U.S guy for vandalising? And how about hanging a Vietnamese guy? Both are done even through intervention by foreign authorities.

And ya, certainly that isn't the only concern for China. If so, Then how about the western countries which have quite a big No. of FALUNGONG members.

To me, it just seems kinda obvious that the authorities are simply trying to stop this with other reasons of persecution. But alike the caustic.soda case, the information had spread even faster than it would.

Anyway, I feel that religion shouldn't get too much involved with politics. This time it seems that they are into it but suppose its more of a human right issue. :D

Anonymous said...

Hey , I think that being a Singaporean myself , it hurts to hear such comments like "dictatorial" goverment. Yes, in a certain sense, i do believe that the goverment should not intervene with religious activities. However, i feel that as China had appealed to crack down on them, we should at least respect Singapore's goverment's decision as to respond to the appeal or not. In this case, I really hope that you do not get overly offended over this issue.

Jean-Luc Picard said...

My point again.

If you were a member of some group your very own government decides to crack down on, acceding to a foreign country's appeal, would you still be so respectful?

redrown said...

As long as your are a conformist, someone who knows what boundaries not to tread upon, your interests will be safeguarded, because your interests are ultimately the State's interests.

That is why the ability to empathise with unorthodox positions is so elusive.

Anonymous said...

So when do the ethical issues come in? Would YOU bear the punishment yourself for this greater good then? Men are men, not potatoes. Thats fatal optimism hecate.