7 Nov 2005

Solidarity Event - NO to The Death Penalty

The following material was originally posted at The Think Centre by by Sinapan Samydorai.

Solidarity event for Nguyen Tuong Van and others like him on death row, and in remembrance of those hanged like Shanmugam. Monday, November 7th, Hotel Asia from 7 to 11 pm. All concerned persons are invited. Please come and show your solidarity.


SOLIDARITY EVENT FOR NGUYEN TUONG VAN & OTHERS LIKE HIM and in remembrance of those hanged like Shanmugam.

MONDAY, 7TH NOVEMBER 2005, 7-11 pm
HOTEL ASIA,
Scotts Road (Beside Newton MRT)


This event is convened by an independent, non-partisan, non affiliated group of Singaporeans with concerns about Death Penalty practices in Singapore & elsewhere.

SHOW YOUR CONCERN FOR NGUYEN TUONG VAN & ALL THE HUNDREDS OF OTHERS LIKE HIM and in remembrance of those hanged.


HANGED 13 MAY 2005
Shanmugam, S/O Murugesu, (his friends called him Sam) National Jet Ski Champion. Beloved son. Father of twin boys. Accused of peddling marijuana. His impoverished, abandoned family will never recover.










TO HANG NOVEMBER 2005
Van Tuong Nguyen, no previous criminal record, born in a refugee camp in Thailand, moved to Australia mother and twin brother when six months old. Van told investigating officers he had agreed to carry a packet of heroin in order to pay off debts owed by his twin brother. He said he did not know how much he was being paid for the trip. It was his first trip outside Australia. He was such an amateur he ran through Changi airport

DON'T LET THIS "SOFT SPOKEN SOUL" DIE
Before he was executed Shanmugam said to his lawyer of Nguyen Tuong Van: "All the inmates on death row agree on this if one of us is to be saved we are glad that it will be this boy - he is such a polite soft spoken soul".

How long will such small-fry desperate beings be hanged in Singapore while fat-cat drug lords go free? If this inhumane practice is really a deterrent, how come we after 40 years of executions STILL have the HIGHEST PER CAPITA EXECUTION RATE IN THE WORLD with the greatest known proportion of these executions small-time drug mules like Shanmugam and Tuong Van?


SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
* Madam Letchumi Murugesu, Mother of Shanmugam Murugesu
* Alex Au, Social Commentator, Yawning Bread
* Anthony Yeo, Clinical Director, Counseling & Care Centre
* M. Ravi Human Rights Lawyer
* Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General, Singapore Democratic Party





-----------------------------------------

Send Urgent Appeal
Nguyen Tuong Van faces imminent death by hanging

Sign Petition Calling for Moratorium on the death penalty


Think Centre urges the Singapore government to impose a moratorium on executions, with a view to complete abolition, in line with the April 2005 UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) resolution on the question of the death penalty; and the UNCHR urges states which still maintain the death penalty not to impose it as a mandatory sentence, or for crimes without lethal or extremely grave consequences.

29 comments:

mister k said...

people do remember shanmugam...

phishy_ said...

despite all its criticisms, i'm still for the death penalty. Different countries have different ways and laws for dealing with things. The death penalty has been very efficient so far in curbing drug trafficking. When a person traffics drugs, he is in fact promoting the use of drugs and destroying other people's lives. It doesn't matter if he's a fat cat or a small time trafficker. If Singapore manages to scare small time traffickers into bypassing this country then there would be less drugs.
In any case, the law is not all that inflexible. the death penalty doesn't apply to those caught using drugs, or those holding it for personal consumption.
Call me heartless if you want, but i believe it's ok to hang more shanmugams or nguyen tuong vans if it means sending a message to all future drug traffickers out there.

Think Singaporean said...

Sorry, a differing view from phisy. A life imprisonment is just as bad as death penalty because these convicts are unable to communicate with outsiders,except their family members, and therefore, unable to engage in the smuggling/consumption of drugs at all. In this way, there is no way they could harm others too. At least it gives them a chance to repent and turn over a new leaf while they are still in the prison. Especially so, when they do receive visits from their parents and family members, they could truly experience and see how much love and care they have for them. This sort of family bonding will certainly propel them to deeply repent and wanting to change over a new leaf. At the same time, they could also receive counselling from kind-hearted or religious volunteers too. In this way, it helps them to work out more positive thoughts, actions and activities that could indirectly benefit the society. It is proven there are many drug addicts have turned over a new leaf and later, when released, had actually helped and encouraged other addicts to quit and give them a helping hand and become good citizens and ultimately be able to benefit the society at large! Therefore, in my opinion, for these ex-convicts, once turned over a leaf, are indeed the best people to understand and to communicate, who in turn, could effectively advocate and promote their messages to others out there because they had gone through the rough times. Hence, counselling, love, care and compassion are the good ways or perhaps, a better way to change the attitudes and minds of these people.

clyde said...

Phishy, the debate over the death penalty can be fought on two grounds.
1) That of compassion and the believe that everyone should have the right to life.
2) How efficient the death penalty really is as a deterent against crime/drug smuggling.

Point 2 is where I get the impression that many Singaporeans such as yourself have a very distorted view of. The statistics released by the government (available at amnesty international website) do NOT show any trend which would suggest that the the death penalty has effectively caused a reduction in drug-related crimes. The government and media are fond of flaunting this claim whenever they are coaxed into defending the death penalty. I ask you and any Singaporean alike to seriously consider this question:

If the death penalty was indeed so effective, then why does Singapore STILL maintain the world's highest execution rate per capita, majority of which are associated with drug traffickers?

LuckySingaporean said...

Yes I think we should expand death penalty to cigarette importers who cause people to die of lung cancer and families to suffer. I can't imagine a worst crime than cigarette importing.

Thank god we hang drug traffickers otherwise we will be ravaged by drugs like other countries that don't have the death penalty - Australia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, ....etc. Oh life in these countries must be terrible.

Think Singaporean said...

According to Buddha's teachings, we have to be aware of committing bad karma ("ing kuo") if one continues to be a sadist and always rejoice in others having short lives.

Think Singaporean said...

Likewise, if one helps to save others' lives, one will have long live.

Think Singaporean said...

Similarly, if one does and/or rejoices at others' good actions and good deeds, one will accumulate good karma. So, I truly hope we all, regardless of race, language or religion, could inculcate ethics and moral values.
This is the only way to having a good rebirth in our future lives. For those who do not believe in rebirths, however, will go to Heaven or whatever.

DK said...

I wish Australian, and the rest of the world can learn to respect every country rights to uphold their law and order.

If the law of the country say death to drug smuggling, then please respect it.

clyde said...

For once, I actually think Lucky Singaporean's parody humour rings quite true. I'm sure most people have had the slogan "drugs are bad" pounded into our heads since primary school. But tabacco and alcohol are technically recreational drugs just as much as marajuana is. Consider this;

1) Marajuana is is not any more addictive than alcohol or tabacco are, if not less so.
2) Marajuana is not anymore harmful to the human body as alcohol and tabacco is.
3) Its ability to act as a stimulant is generally not more "dangerous" than the effects of alcohol and nicotine as a depressant. "Dangerous" of course can be interpreted differently. Such as driving under influence for instance.

So why is marajuana not legal? The answer as is to most things, is money. Tabacco and alcohol are major industries and so are pharmaceutical companies. It's the only reason why they are allowed to peddle you drugs for almost every imaginable symptom, that may or may not do you more harm than good. While Singapore probably does take tight measures to ensure pharmaceutical drugs are safe, it still does not explain why the double standards for a drug like marajuana.

I'm not a pothead, if you were wondering. But it is interesting food for thought. Given that just because a drug less harmful than nicotine and alcohol was classified 'illegal', one should pay the price of death simply for carrying it.

And DK says:
"If the law of the country say death to drug smuggling, then please respect it. "

Respect? Or apathetic ignorance? If the world "respected" Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews, would that be the same thing? Respect is not part of the issue at all, except that for human life.

Think Singaporean said...

Well, to respect, however, does not necessary mean to bow your head and accept blindly "without love, compassion and wisdom". An analogy of a bird with a pair of wings : one side symbolises "quantative" = deterrence and another side symbolises "qualitative" = moral)

in which only with these 2 wings that could enable the bird to fly properly and steadily.

Think Singaporean said...

Furthermore, just as much as one wishes to have happiness and dislikes sufferings, so do others. Similarly, one's life is as precious as a jewel and treasures it dearly, others' lives are just as precious, thus they also treasure their lives dearly as much as we do. Thus, in my opinion, death penalty = killing is not a good act of deterence as it brings much pain and suffering to all parties concerned.

clyde said...

By the way, if anyone in Singapore is planning to attend the Solidarity Event, it might be nice if you could snap some shots of the event and submit them here, anonymously if you want to.

soci said...

"I wish Australian, and the rest of the world can learn to respect every country rights to uphold their law and order."

Sometimes a ruling party can not be expected to uphold the rule of law, sometimes a country will engineer the rule of law to reinforce draconian control. Then who would you turn to?

Welcome to the birth of the internet. All views are welcome.

soci said...

even better, can someone video the meeting and we can post it here.

strom said...

I think this blog is more of an anti-government gathering than a true human-rights/activist blog.

SO if you say the death penalty should be abolished and that a life imprisonment will "gives them a chance to repent and turn over a new leaf while they are still in the prison", are you also implying that the death penalty should not apply to murderers? I'm afraid the majority of S'poreans will not agree to that.

But anyway, why wasn't there any brouhaha when Mr Took Leng How was sentenced to hang or a petition to stop the hanging? Or perharps you guys were "choosing your convicts" as Mr Wang puts it so aptly. "Choosing your convicts" as in arising from a controversial situation in which the S'pore gov't is involved.

And you say human rights? When the muslim minority in SG was subjected to vile and atrocious abuse a while back on the internet, the main gripe among 'activists' like you was on how the gov't actually manage to find out the details of the seditious bloggers and arraign them, and not why they should be held accountable for their racist remarks.

Or maybe it's because you people are no more PAP haters than a champion of human rights? But then I say, if you can't respect the laws of our land, then I think maybe you should just pack up your bags, reside somewhere else, and blog from there.

Oh, you're already doing that.

soci said...

surely being "an anti-government" blog and "human-rights/activist blog", in a one party authoritarian state is the same thing. They are compatible not contradictory.

Think Singaporean said...

In reply to Strom, pls read the comments under "Capital Punishments".

As for the muslim case, honestly wasn't aware of the whole particular issue, so no comments. Anyway, it can be quite sensitive to discuss over racial matter publicly.

clyde said...

tsk tsk.. another unsatisfied Singabloodypore customer. Well strom, if you feel we hardly cover enough cases, you are more than welcome to submit your own articles.

strom said...

surely being "an anti-government" blog and "human-rights/activist blog", in a one party authoritarian state is the same thing. They are compatible not contradictory.

Surely not. I think you have a really serious hang-up on that "one party authoritarian state" term that you so parochially quote every now and then. It's contributing to your myopia. Get some lenses and be more subjective.

But for the benefit of your argument, "one party authoritarian state" it is then, and may I ask, do you really think that opposition parties - if they ever be in power - will abolish the death penalty altogether and start handing out placards for demostrations and free speech? Do you really think 'they' when in power will subscribe to your brand of democracy? The truth is, the majority of opposition leaders, maybe save for a few, are more like limelight activists than true politicians. They only surface to pound their self-righteous chests when a contentious issue crop up - internationally in the media - against the grain of their 'party policies' which in turn is really determined by how unpopular our gov't finds it; that's their only party agenda. Besides that, they don't really have anything to offer S'poreans.

I mean, you don't see them overzealous clowns playing their human rights bongo or initiating petitions when we hanged murderers, when we charged seditious bloggers, or when we have racism issues, do you? Oh, or maybe they didn't find it that worthwhile and that their human rights issues can take a holiday if it doesn't show up prominently on the local and international radar? I'm not the only observant one.

Politics is not a video game where you can reset everything and revert back to a saved point. And I do not want a subservient gov't that bows to other countries' pressure. Furthermore, why would anyone have to worry about our tough stance on drugs IF you are clean? Because you want to take that risk? If so, maybe you should re-evaluate what you want, or move elsewhere where they preach your language, where drugs are cool and hip, the crime rate is high, and guns are on sale at the local wal-mart. Lovely western-style democracy.

As for the muslim case, honestly wasn't aware of the whole particular issue, so no comments. Anyway, it can be quite sensitive to discuss over racial matter publicly.

Wasn't aware? So either you've been hibernating under some rock or - whoa! - were you under a gag order by the gov't? I think not, but says a lot, doesn't it? That you're hardly qualified to speak up in terms of human rights in SG when you're not nearly in touch with the said issues and choose to selectively blog about them. And what is so sensitive about rebuking the racist bloggers? Hey AI may even offer you a seat on their privy council if you did that!

tsk tsk.. another unsatisfied Singabloodypore customer. Well strom, if you feel we hardly cover enough cases, you are more than welcome to submit your own articles.

I think the human rights badges you're endorsing is too big for you, it's undermining your credibilty. Get something smaller. Or grow up a bit.

clyde said...

Ok strom, since you seem to be putting your foot in your mouth, I'll help you take it out if you promise not to bite. and even though it's late, I'll do you the courtesy. Consider it goodwill.

And you say human rights? When the muslim minority in SG was subjected to vile and atrocious abuse a while back on the internet, the main gripe among 'activists' like you was on how the gov't actually manage to find out the details of the seditious bloggers and arraign them, and not why they should be held accountable for their racist remarks.

I applaud and revel in your ability to make segues from human rights and the death penalty to the seditious bloggers. Subjected to vile and atrocious abuse? I'm sorry, were muslims' rights to life or any other human right impinged upon when somebody decided to post racial slurs on his blog? I suggest you look up the definition of 'human rights' before you decide to throw that term around losely again in your arguments.

"But for the benefit of your argument, "one party authoritarian state" it is then, and may I ask, do you really think that opposition parties - if they ever be in power - will abolish the death penalty altogether and start handing out placards for demostrations and free speech? Do you really think 'they' when in power will subscribe to your brand of democracy? The truth is, the majority of opposition leaders, maybe save for a few, are more like limelight activists than true politicians."

A completely valid question to start of with. But then who are you to automatically assume that the SDP will not offer us a better shot at democracy? Trying to distinguish between "limelight activists" and politicians is futile. The only difference is one makes a career out of it. While one works behind a desk, the other takes to the street. Just because they work in different ways doesn't mean they aren't working towards the same goal.

I mean, you don't see them overzealous clowns playing their human rights bongo or initiating petitions when we hanged murderers, when we charged seditious bloggers, or when we have racism issues, do you?"

Ask yourself how much press freedom you think the SDP really has. Do you ever wonder why it is that strong views only seem to get publicly expressed through podcasts and the internet? I'm not going to pretend I'm a law student who has read all of SDP's policies and perhaps someone else can enlighten us. But whether or not they align with human rights, what they can offer us is a better shot at democracy, one in which people are more involved in decision-making processes.

Like many pro-death penalty Singaporeans, you are plagued with an inherent sense of nationalism. It's so easy for you to sit on your high horse and play judge. The bottomline "respect our laws or get lost to some western country" argument flows from ignorant mouths. Perhaps that's why almost 1 out 4 persons in Singapore are foreigners, and that's not even including permanent residents.

Admit that you are so hungry to believe that the PAP is the righteous and only party fit to do the job. You're just as quick to pass over the SDP as you are the people on death row. Without giving them a chance to prove themselves is already un-democratic in itself with no substantial proof except that they remain silent when activists are protesting. Your total ignorance to face any of the issues surrounding the death penalty tells me you are already set in your ways and nothing anybody can say will convince you otherwise. Admit that now and least I would respect you for honesty.

"tsk tsk.. another unsatisfied Singabloodypore customer. Well strom, if you feel we hardly cover enough cases, you are more than welcome to submit your own articles."

When I said you are welcome to submit your own articles, I was being serious. You can wear your big PAP badge on your beret for all I care. If not for human rights, we are at least about free expression...so long as you can maturely construct your arguments that is. So here's my challenge to you, why don't you walk the talk? This blog is composed by articles voluntarily submitted by contributors. There is no "rule" that says we have to align ourselves politically in any sense.

I never claimed to wear this human rights 'badge' with this associated credibility. But you certainly seem quite comfortable in your oversized self-righteous badge.

FYI: I don't wear badges. Badges are for teenage schoolgirls.

clyde said...

Just to add on the topic of the seditious bloggers:

The focus was on the way society had handled them and the way in which the Sedition Act was executed. Is it not possible to criticise government action while looking down on racism? And does this imply we condone racism?

Think Singaporean said...

Strom, by the fact that I'm a warm-blooded person who recognise the fact that there's the nature of universal love, care and compassion for each other, for which not only me but everyone has the right to speak up. And to speak up sensibly while respecting other races and religions is important as we are living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. If you still cannot see my point of view, that's too bad. By the way, to live as an ordinary and meaningful citizen is a contentment of my life. I wish to leave the high post for you. Thank you and best regards.

strom said...

I'm sorry, were muslims' rights to life or any other human right impinged upon when somebody decided to post racial slurs on his blog?

Hello dude, they were not just "racial slurs," there were enough hate and venom in their blogs to make a Nazi blush. So can you be sure a race crime would not be committed - and a live lost - if the authorities didn't immediately clamp down on those bloggers? Tell me which other state in this world besides ours has such protective laws for minorities that can be invoked immediately?

But whether or not they align with human rights, what they can offer us is a better shot at democracy, one in which people are more involved in decision-making processes.

Behold the bureaucracy in the US where unqualified cronies are placed in high offices. More involved in decision-making processes. Exactly more who? More people involved = May the wheels of administration turn damn slowly.

Without giving them a chance to prove themselves is already un-democratic in itself with no substantial proof except that they remain silent when activists are protesting. Your total ignorance to face any of the issues surrounding the death penalty tells me you are already set in your ways and nothing anybody can say will convince you otherwise. Admit that now and least I would respect you for honesty.

No substantial proof? Are you sure? Sorry Clyde, but I've read and re-read all articles possible regarding this case and none has Van Nguyen denying his guilt and involvement. Surely you're not going to tell me now that the police coerce him into admitting his guilt? And just to clarify, I'm not a peon of the gov't and I don't always agree with all their policies, but particularly on this matter I think it's shallow how you lot condemn people who support the death penalty in SG as pro-gov't/establishment partisans. Don't be so quick to dismiss common S'poreans as ignorant and nationalistic if your party has nothing in common with their utmost priorities.

The focus was on the way society had handled them and the way in which the Sedition Act was executed. Is it not possible to criticise government action while looking down on racism? And does this imply we condone racism?

Then I suggest you look further west to the US and read about their Patriot Act. Or try posting a murderous remark on the US Prez and wait for the Secret Service to bang down your doors, in S'pore. Oh, you mean even that paragon of democracy has Big Brother watching over the web in the name of security - and worldwide?

And where exactly did I say you condone racism? I'm saying you guys could have been more subjective instead of picking and ranting on your pet topics.

When I said you are welcome to submit your own articles, I was being serious. You can wear your big PAP badge on your beret for all I care. If not for human rights, we are at least about free expression...so long as you can maturely construct your arguments that is. So here's my challenge to you, why don't you walk the talk? This blog is composed by articles voluntarily submitted by contributors. There is no "rule" that says we have to align ourselves politically in any sense.

I never claimed to wear this human rights 'badge' with this associated credibility. But you certainly seem quite comfortable in your oversized self-righteous badge.

FYI: I don't wear badges. Badges are for teenage schoolgirls.


Ok, I take back what I said earlier. I didn't mean it as a slight.

clyde said...

Ok strom, try re-reading your arguments and think really hard about what you're saying:

"Hello dude, they were not just "racial slurs," there were enough hate and venom in their blogs to make a Nazi blush. So can you be sure a race crime would not be committed - and a live lost - if the authorities didn't immediately clamp down on those bloggers? Tell me which other state in this world besides ours has such protective laws for minorities that can be invoked immediately?"

Perhaps you can define the difference for me between "racial slurs" and "enough hate and venom to make a Nazi blush". I'm sure everyone would take to racial slurs with great distaste. But trying to quantify an "average" racial slur with the seditous bloggers' "hateful, venomous" slurs is pointless. All racism is and should be wrong in our eyes. But here's the really important question. When does a slur, a thought crime, cross over into one that impinges on human rights and should be considered an illegal crime? When should the law REALLY step in?

Racial slurs of the seditious bloggers (or any blogger) are of minimal threat albeit one that shouldn't be ignored entirely by society. It is only a result of the internet connection becoming more widespread to the less cerebrally-developed citizens of the Net. I highly suggest you read this past article before continuing:
http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/2005/10/social-disapproval-better-way-to-deal.html

I wasn't intending to focus on the Sedition issue, but my point is that you mention human rights and the death penalty and then try to completely link it to the seditious bloggers which is an entirely different issue.

But your argument bears resemblence to your stance on the death penalty. i.e. we should pre-emptively take down racist bloggers so they won't destroy the fabric of our society. Oh that's right, we are comparing 3 kids with too much time on their hands with the KKK, the Nazis' anti-semitic propaganda and home-grown British muslims propagating extremist views on the internet.

You assume this "threat" to the fabric of society. The inherent paranoia and flaw of every pro death penalty Singaporean.

No substantial proof? Are you sure? Sorry Clyde, but I've read and re-read all articles possible regarding this case and none has Van Nguyen denying his guilt and involvement. Surely you're not going to tell me now that the police coerce him into admitting his guilt?

You misunderstood my statement comparing your stance on death row convicts with denying the SDP the right to prove themselves. I am not saying Nguyen is innocent obviously. I am saying you have denied Nguyen his fair trial on YOUR own accord by refusing to tackle any of the issues surrounding the death penalty. Just the same way as you are quick to deny the SDP their fair trial. But then again, you certainly don't seem to hold any faith in democracy in the first place. Civil liberties and the right to choose are amongst the values held by democracy. People choose of course. Citizens of a democratic nation have a say in what laws are passed. Democracy is not about empowering one person or one ruling party. It is why terms like "authoritarian" and "nepotism" have been associated with Singapore. Your use of American politicians as an example is half true. Yes, Bush f'ed up big time. Yes I've read about the Patriot Act. But let me ask you, if America did adopt Singapore's style of governing, then they can throw free speech out the window. No matter how messed up they are, their civil liberties exceeds Singapore's by far. Democracy is not perfect strom. Everyone knows that. But it certainly opens doors to a free-er society. And there you are talking about human rights...

"And where exactly did I say you condone racism? I'm saying you guys could have been more subjective instead of picking and ranting on your pet topics."

Again, I maintain my challenge to you to contribute. But don't come in here labelling us with this duty on what to write or how to write. Everyone has a different opinion of what's objective enough and what is a "suitable" range of topics. Any topic within the realm of sociopolitical issues is up for discussion. You are free to say what you want to say, just as much as you are free to not say what you don't want to say.

Anonymous said...

OMG, strom is right in pointing out that "this blog is more of an anti-government gathering than a true human-rights/activist blog."

If the government does A, you will say B. If the government does B, you will say A is good.

Suppose the government were to abolish the death penalty for smuggling tomorrow, and legalise marijuana, you guys would start writing about how the Sg Gov doesn't protect its citizens against the harmful effects of drugs.

And if we hadn't punished racist bloggers, you'd have said that Singapore condones racism.

As you can see, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Also, if you want to talk about Van's and Shanmugam's case, drop references to the fact that they're young, have siblings, spouses and kids. The victims of drug abuse have relatives too. Stop bringing in the fact that Van was doing it for his brother. It's a pathetic attempt to make yourself seem sympathetic and humane. You neglect that drug abusers end up borrowing or stealing money to fund their habit,and get into debt too. Should their kin then be pardoned for their crimes because they need the money to get their siblings off the hook?

Sure, you can look at one measure "number of hangings per capita", and we suck at this ranking. How about looking at "number of drug-related deaths"? Who is to say which is more humane, to let drug smugglers live, and drug addicts die, or to put our image on the line and hang the ones who bring drugs on Singapore soil. He was in transit? Well, Singapore is obviously a transit point for many flight routes, are we to let Changi be a hub for illegal substances?

To end off, you guys sicken me. You're milking the plight of these 2 men for all its worth, and trying to pass off your entries as caring for the greater good of Singapore. You could have addressed the deeper issues of why young Asian immigrants in Australia have spiralled into drugs, and why a young Asian Australian would commit the ungrateful act of bringing drugs into the community which has housed him. But no, you choose to take the easy way out, skim the surface, try to save one or two lives, and ignore that many more lives HAVE EFFECTIVELY been saved by our act.

soci said...

This ia a blog which intends to discuss social and political issues related to Singapore and the South East Asia region. A blog which attempts to do so in a non-trivial manner treating opposing views with the respect they deserve. Non-violence, respect, communication, autonomy and equality are just some of the principles we wish to adhere to. Contributions are welcomed from all regardless of your political persuasion.

We do not speak with one voice.

pmckcon said...

FAO Anonymous
- define "drug"

People are able to be rehabilitated after committing heinous crimes, and they can become a benefit to the society afterwards. Killing them outright nixes this from the start. What's eerie is the fact that the authoritarian PAP is so hushhush concerning this situation.

Yeah, Bush is a royal fcukup, and American citizens are now waking up to this fact (finally). Democracy will ring true and many of his buddies will be voted out of office in the '06 elections.

FAO Strom
- have you traveled much outside of Singapore? And I don't mean JB or Bintan.

Anonymous said...

How about the pepertrators who were executed for terrorist acts, such as the Bali and Australia Bombing? Why didn't anyone protest against their execution? Do you think life sentences will be enough for the terrorists should they be excused from hanging?

For those (especially the Australians) who branded Singapore as "double standards", both terrorist bombing and drugs trafficking are out to harm people and destroy lives in a serious way. How drugs (and I don't mean tabacco and alcohol) destroys lives is well documented, so don't compare them with tabacco and alcohol. If you didn't protest against the execution of terrorists, please don't protest against the execution of Nyugen, however polite and soft spoken he is.