For advertisement

Sample

5/11/2010

I support Shanmugam and the Govt's position

I have no issue with Shanmugam and the Govt's tough stand on the death penalty for drug trafficking and kidnapping. Everyone coming into Singapore must know that death is what they get if they play with drugs and kidnapping. The other crime that demands a death sentence is terrorism. The terrorists, the drug traffickers, the kidnappers, are not nice people playing with toys and water pistols. They are out to destroy lives. I can understand the little softness in a human bean to want to be kind. But make sure kindness is given to the right people. People who show kindness to the evil and wicked, the killers, including drug traffickers, are evil without knowing it. They think they are kind and all goodness without knowing that their kindness is going to cause more evil and more suffering. There must be zero tolerance for such crimes here. Period. Let the whole world knows that this is what we will do to such crimes and let those who know and still want to dabble with it here know, without a single doubt, that death will follow. Only then will this island be freed from such crimes, or at least minimal occurrence. The criminals who chose to commit such criminal acts came with their eyes open. They knew what they are in for. They chose to play with fire and they must know that they will be burnt by fire. PS. Any compromise or softness on this tough stand will only encourage more criminals to try their luck here. The people who are fighting for the cause of such criminals are encouraging more to come. They are in a way accomplices, advocates of such criminal acts.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I respect your view regarding the death penalty for drug offences. Many will agree with you. Lets now talk about manufacture of armaments which ultimately cause death just like drugs, but maybe on a larger scale. Should we close our eyes to that and not consider that a crime? Who do we send to the gallow for that?? Is Singapore in the business of armament manufacture? Hmmmmm........

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

When nations justify themselves that war is acceptable and legal, and they can go to war with another country, weapons become a necessary tool for countries to defend themselves. Until such a day when war is declared evil and unacceptable, countries will need to have defensive weapons for their own protection.

Selling defensive weapons under such justification seems justifiable. You may want to lead to the issue of selling mines. Just because mines are banned by some jokers who decided against them does not make other weapons more pleasant and less cruel. Even an aircraft, a naval ship, a tank are just as destructive as mines or bombs dropping from the air. In fact they are offensive weapons while mines are defensive weapons.

Countries lay mines to tell the enemies not to come. If the enemies choose to come, just like drug traffickers, knowing that the mines are there, who is to blame?

As long as countries think that war is a way to settle their disputes, selling defensive weapons is welcome by many countries. Or shall nations who have no weapons be left at the mercy of those with weapons to attack them?

Anonymous said...

The day when war is declared evil and unacceptable will never come.

Countries weak and without the weapons will welcome that, but those strong and powerful will resists that. In fact they would want war to sell their armaments. It is their chance to make plenty of money.

And some would want to be the superpower of the world that everyone looks up to.

That vision has not changed for thousands of years. Only the players change.

Anonymous said...

I think there is an unnecessary who-ha about this and red herrings fogging the issue. The problem is the "mandatory" death penalty,not the abolishment of it. Why can't the judges be allowed to exercise discretion, instead of having no choice. Surely not everything is black and white.

Anonymous said...

You are such a hypocrite Redbean, why did you bring up mines?? Is it because Singapore manufactures and export them? Well if that is the case then I hope you can justify the children with limbs blown off in Cambodia and Burma due to mines. Hope your conscience is clear on that issue. Defence of your country with mines?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Am I a hypocrite? No. I took my stand and I gave my reasons. You can agree or disagree with me. You have your stand and not necessary that I must agree with yours. But I would not stoop so low to call you a hypocrite just because I don't agree with you.

I raise the mines issue because I know that will be coming up next.

As for the question of mandatory death penalty and the lack of discretionary powers for the judge, let me give my take on it. I am not saying that my position is the official position. It is based on my perception that if we want the death penalty to be an effective deterrent, it must be firm enough, without exception, to keep every adventurer out completely.

Once the adventurers think that there is a chance that they may get away without being hanged, they may try their luck, then plea all kinds of sad stories.

I think the govt's stand is to make the death sentence as absolute as it can. No wishy washy compassionate reasons, no excuses. Caught, bang!

That is how it is meant to work. So all potential drug traffickers or mules or bag carriers or passengers or couriers or whatever, please don't come, please go somewhere if you must.

But if you come, you shall be hanged. No second thought, no second chance. Don't plea or ask for clemency. It shall not be given.

It is so easy for anyone, including a judge or the President to play the kind soul and pardon. And the net will be full of holes. The adventurers will be encouraged to come when there is money to be made. And the law enforcers will be chasing them day and night, all over the places.

Wally Buffet said...

Mr. Bean,

I think I have to disagree with you on this one. Yes, we should have the death penalty but judges should have the discretion on sentencing. Mitigation does not mean that the judges will accept every excuse that is being presented. That's what a court of law is all about. To listen, argue and come to the truth without its hands being tied. It is easy for a disinterested bystander, including the law makers who crafted the Misuse of Drugs Act to bay for blood. Wait until someone you know faces the hangman's noose and the cries of vengeance may be muted. For everything that happens in this world, there are two sides to the story. Yours and his.

auntielucia said...

I agree with Wally that if one of our loved ones or if oneself (by some damn misfortune) faces the mandatory death penalty, then those of us hawks on this penalty may sing another tune.

But the current arrangement is for the greater good of all.

"To listen, argue and come to the truth without its hands being tied" -- frankly, many things aren't black or white and all judges without having their hands tied wld be dithering till kingdom come. Kingpins behind the drug dealers/couriers may threaten the judges.

When it's mandatory, the kingpins wld need to threaten a bigger machinery: the govt. Think they don't have fire power to that extent.

So I say, keep the mandatory death penalty. Let the world continue to know that those who insist on committing crimes on the mandatory death list, that we will 'ang them high!

soojenn said...

Mr. Bean.... death sentence yes.. but the need for this to be mandatory, I probably think not unless you think ALL the judges in Singapore are useless and are not able to make discretionary decisions, and need this to mandatory

Anonymous said...

So Redbean, the next time you travel overseas and when you return make sure you check your bags in case someone slip something in without your knowledge. If it happens to be drugs and you are innocent but unable to prove your innocence, you will be sent to the gallow crying and screaming that the drugs have been planted on you. Can you imagine how you feel the the judge had no choice but to pass the mandatory sentence??? This is just one simple example, many other scenarios may also exist.

agongkia said...

Sorry Mr Bean
I dun quite agree with you.Like someone say,one fine day if someone plant some drug in your luggage for whatever reason,I wonder you would say the same thing .And how do you define terrorist.Who are the real terrorist?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi everyone, this is an issue that concerns everyone and I am glad that we can talk about it here rationally. There will be many who will be against the death penalty which is a fair position to take.

Just because someone has a different view does not make that person a hypocrite or a lunatic. Only the hypocrite or lunatic will think so. We all have different values and look at things differently and for such a big issue that affects lives, people we know or not know, it is expected that we will have a wide range of views on this.

I have just posted another article on this issue today.

Matilah_Singapura said...

For a so-called ace lawyer, this idiot comes off sounding like a bloody fool because he, especially as a minister, can't make a decent case for state execution except under doctrine of absolutism within the rubric of politics, the state and the functions of the state.

He confuses vice with crimes. As such a learned lawyer this fuckwit hasn't even managed to make a argument worthy of a lawyer of his so-called reputation.

Trying to rid the world of human nature's dark side by arguing for execution is applying that tired argument of "against human evil" all over again.

The death penalty should be limited to murder -- and only as a means of "balancing the scales of justice" i.e. REVENGE or avengence for the worst crime possible committed against a human life: the forced termination of it.

Go back to law school, you dumb motherfucker!

Anonymous said...

History has proven that minister's remarks are defacto "law" in Singapore.

For this reason, and the simple fact that our law minister is fully aware that an untainted due process is an accused person's right for a fair trial, law minister should rightly refrain from making comment on a case that is yet to run the full length of said due process.

By doing so, the minister has subverted the process of justice, corrupted due process and the tainted the professionalism of the legal system of our great nation.

Shame on you sir!

Matilah_Singapura said...

The dangers of staism and absolte territorial power:

http://completeliberty.libsyn.com/index.php?post_category=podcasts

Enjoy!