australia to champion abolishing death penalty

nguyen's lawyer, julian mcmahon, is all fired up to take the cause of ending death penalty in a world crusade. the latest execution in the usa has made it more urgent for australia to stand up even to the usa to make it's stand on the issue stick. otherwise they will look funny if the fight is only for australians. what mcmahon said is that 'mandatory, premeditated state sanctioned killing is legally and morally repugnant.' in the case of death sentence for a drug trafficker, people's views differ. some are kinder and more agreeable with a little drug. to them it is no big deal to abuse oneself. some are more persistent to wipe out this scourge. it is understandable that some will want death and some will not want it. if premeditated killing by a state is so repugnant and must be stopped at all cost, what about premeditated murders? many murders, some very vicious, and gory, were premeditated, with the victim or victims butchered to a painful and horrifying death, pleading for mercy at the hands of cruel murderers. would these murderers also be spared the death penalty too? are we protecting the victims of gruesome crimes or should society protect the abominable murderers? should death penalty be abolished for all crimes?

are we putting our money in the right place?

$160 million for aljunied, $570 million for sembawang, $500 million for east coast town, $330 million for tampines. this is a cool $1.56 billion! and another $160 million for east coast park giving a total of $1.72 million. the moe financial assistance scheme for poor families stood at a handsome $1.5 million, or this is the amount it will spend this year to help needy students to pay for school fees and books. the conditions for students to qualify for such assistance is a mean $1,000 household income. for those with 1 or 2 children, the family must earn less than $900 to qualify. are we really that mean to our people and so lavish on plants and parks and bricks and mortars? don't our people deserve a little more? tharman said the ministry is reviewing the criteria and will try to extend more assistance to a bigger group of people. this is good news. but how wide is the net? can the govt be more generous to the lower income and allocate more funds for them? no one wants to be poor and depend on charity. and no one wants to stretch out the hand to beg. it would be good that the govt allocate a decent sum for this group of people so that more will benefit. a little generosity and magnanimity will be well received. how about $150 million, less than 10% of the $1.72 billion to be spent on landscaping and lifts? we have $500 million in the comcare fund. but because of the mean criteria set up by mean people, only a very small amount has been dispensed out and very few people really benefitted from it. and those who received them are receiving a miserable sum that they hardly could put a smile on their faces. this is an area that a rich nation can afford to be a little frivolous. we need to put our priorities right, change our priorities to make the poor less poor, put some smile into their faces. no need to waste $160 million into a park. a park at most deserves $60 million and the rest can be given to the people. and giving to the people does not mean being kept somewhere as savings for the future, to last another 10 or 20 years. the money is to help the people. then use it to help the people. be a bit more generous and kind. if the money cannot help the majority of the unfortunate for a year or two, at least offer them a decent meal for a few days. let them feel good for a few days is not that difficult with the $500 million fund. it seems that the thinking is that help means allowing the needy to have exactly a bowl of plain rice so that they need not die. then the rest is up to them. there is a time for charity, a time to give and a time to share, like christmas, where one can bring some cheers to those who need them. and when the country is able to help then why not bring a little cheer to the people's life?

sending the wrong message

in the whole episode of nguyen van tuong, singapore's stand and message is simple and clear. drug is harmful, not allowed in singapore. when you bring drugs here, you will be hanged. we upheld our laws with no regard to your nationality. once in our soil, all will be treated equally in the eyes of our law. so stay clear from our soil. we have balls. very hard and pricky balls. this is symbolised by our two durians, a national symbol of hard balls for the world to see. the message sent out by australia is quite different. drugs is no good, but not that bad either. and if you are an australian, even if you break another nation's law, the whole nation will be behind you. we will put pressure on the offended nation to bow to us. we will do everything to protect our citizens, right or wrong. so stand tall as an australian. other nations must respect our laws and values. after the episode ends, senses and reasons return. howard finally told the australians that drug is bad. and that they must not try to bring drugs into other countries that have tough laws. but he stop short of saying whether the whole govt machinery will still be mobilised to interfere into other countries sovereignity when an australian violates their laws. what message is australia sending to its people?

a small lesson to be learnt

singapore custom officials shall treat australians on transit a little kinder and avoid searching them. our laws are incompatible to theirs and if they are transit passengers it is best to leave them alone unless they did something obvious. the australians are more comfortable handling their own problems. and should they be tipped off about australians carrying drugs and returning home, it is best to treat such information as unreliable. in this way we can respect the rights of australians and their laws and also help by not creating problems for the two govts. i am sure the australians will appreciate our goodwill and pave the way for better relations. at times it is better to keep one eye shut. just imagine how much trouble we would have avoided if we did not apprehend nguyen.

american deceit

the declassification of secret documents in the usa has confirmed that the gulf of tongkin incident did not occur. it was a fabricated lie by the usa to justify its full scale bombing of north vietnam and the escalation of the vietnam war. the typical american apologists refused to admit guilt and claimed that another idiotic usa president johnson decided to attack north vietnam without knowing that the incident was a fake ala george bush and tony blair in their attack on iraq. can the world and the world body tolerate these acts of aggression from two superficially friendly and highly righteous countries without any admonishment? would the world and those who read the western media and staunchly vouched for the goodness of these two regimes still remain as stubbornly supportive and refused to reassess their positions? would vietnam have any recourse for war compensation and reparation against the usa and take the usa to court? the world has been conned by the west, especially the usa and britain for too long. would the third world mentality or the mentality of the once colonial people stand up and say shit to shit? or would they remain to live in the delusion and spin stories that the west wanted them to believe?