Boycott Singapore

fixer27 said:
And punishment should have a varying standard depending on the actions of the criminal who was convicted. The idea that .999999 of a pound of herion does not carry the same punishment as 1 pound of heroin does is absurd however.

When I'm driving 60 miles per hour down the highway, I'm good to go. If I accelerate to 61 it's a $40 ticket. That's also quite absurd, if I choose to look at it in this manner.

However, in defining what is and is not legal, and what is and is not punishable with a given sentence, it's important to define amounts. The line had to be drawn somewhere. In Singapore, it's 1 pound, and on WA's highways, it's 60 mph.

Danny, regarding the caning - that kid who got caned didn't vandalize any more vehicles in Singapore, did he?

Having perused the link that Howard provided, it seems that most convicts are geniunely terrified of being caned. How many convicts (and ex-convicts) in this country are terrified of going to jail?
 
Esav,

Good question.

I don't know. I suppose I see the problem (speaking of the illegal drug trade)
as being caused more by this type of governmental interference than prevented by it.

I am in no way denying the tragedy of those worldwide who misuse anything, but in a hopefully "big picture" sense, I understand that even the most innocuous things can be- and most frequently are- misused.

Singapore executes a drug mule. Some applaud, and some wring their hands.
Singapore has just shown that they take a hard line. Singapore has just also raised the financial incentive for anyone who actually delivers that same prohibited substance to the country. Self-defeating, in my view.

I am not unhappy about the application of the death penalty in some cases, but I think its use is poorly considered in this and similar situations. People can never be controlled through legislation of objects.

John
 
Thats libertarian.

I can't believe we had a bonafide intellectual discussion and I was too busy. Either that, or I've lost my intellectual bonafides, and now must wander the streets homeless and alone....



munk
 
Sorry about the Attacked! By Robots link, dudes. They are a rock 'n roll band featuring robots with a disdain for puny humans. If I wanted to offend you all, I would have linked to something in ogrish.com

As far as executing drug pushers, I would rather have the state do it than opposing drug gangs effecting drive bys in my neighborhood and me catching a stray bullet to the spine. Drug trafficking is a violent crime, and is the handmaiden of murder, rape, intimidation, and political corruption. The less of those scumbags on this earth, the better.
 
Spectre said:
I suppose I see the problem (speaking of the illegal drug trade) as being caused more by this type of governmental interference than prevented by it.
John, there's an interesting secondary problem here. It shows up even within a country like the US, where some areas claim guns bought elsewhere are misused in their jurisdiction, so gun control would have to be Federal to mean anything.

A viable alternative might be no gun control at all.

When one jurisdiction, like Singapore, treats certain actions more seriously than its neighbors do, what happens? In this case, they are demonstrably more successful in suppressing the drug trade. But to be more successful, their penalties have to be more outrageous, not just slightly harsher, than those neighbors.

Would no control of drugs be an improvement? They would then have a drug use situation, which they don't seem to have now.

The problem, typical of cross-cultural perceptions in so many situations, is that expectations differ in different communities. Imposing our ideas on our fellow citizens is hard enough. How can we understand what we're even asking when it comes to a community so obviously different?

What it means for me is that some places might be nice for the locals to live, but I wouldn't want to visit. I can't see that I myself would have anything to worry about in Singapore.
 
A speeding ticket is not a good analogy to the death penalty obviously.

The potential for harm cannot be that much different between .999 a pound and 1 pound, yet one can be given the death penalty for that picayune a difference. That is the difference between punishing an act (murder, rape etc) and punishing the possesion of a substance. It is much harder to show a specific harm to a specific person because of that particular substance being brought in by that particular person. So one is being punished for what potentially could happen not what did happen. That is the difference.



They followed there law and carried out what the law prescribed in a consistent manner with no exceptions for that they should be given credit. If a native Singaporean had committed the same crime and recieved the same punishment there would have been none of the outcry that there is now.
 
fixer27 said:
A speeding ticket is not a good analogy to the death penalty obviously.

The potential for harm cannot be that much different between .999 a pound and 1 pound, yet one can be given the death penalty for that picayune a difference. That is the difference between punishing an act (murder, rape etc) and punishing the possesion of a substance. It is much harder to show a specific harm to a specific person because of that particular substance being brought in by that particular person. So one is being punished for what potentially could happen not what did happen. That is the difference.

Fair enough about the speeding ticket.

You're right, the potential for harm can't be much different at all, but where is the line drawn? Singapore decided on one pound. It seems like a reasonable amount to me. If it was half a pound, or one ounce, or any other weight, we would still be having this very same discussion. The amount is not the issue here, is it?
 
I really don't have an outcry per se, and I don't care what nationality the deceased is from. I just disagree in principle.
 
Dave Rishar said:
Fair enough about the speeding ticket.

You're right, the potential for harm can't be much different at all, but where is the line drawn? Singapore decided on one pound. It seems like a reasonable amount to me. If it was half a pound, or one ounce, or any other weight, we would still be having this very same discussion. The amount is not the issue here, is it?


The amount is part of the problem. Any set amount will of course be arbitrary and always rounded to an even number upwards. The specific problem is that for possesing a substance a death penalty has been carried out. That is the law in Singapore so be it. The legal logic problem is that there is not a specific person who was harmed by that particular substance that the mule was transporting into the country. For a murder there is someone dead, ditto for a rape. There is identifiable victim who was harmed by specific actions carried out by the person who committed the crime. In this case the mere potential has led to the death penalty.

I am generally in favor of properly carried out death penalty, some crimes are so heinous that society should protect itself.

So INOW "Corpus Delecti"
 
Our attitudes and opinions are generally formed by our life experience , and our observations during that life experience.

In this present discussion it seems to be clear that there are at least two widely varying points of view.

Those who maintain that mandatory sentencing involving a capital penalty is justice, that the Singapore government is honourable and moral, that the possession and selling of some drugs of addiction is a crime that deserves to be punished by death have formed their opinions and attitudes as a result of their life experience.

It is not my place, nor my objective to attempt to alter the orientation of these people.

I entered this discussion with the objective of placing my own position in the matter on public record.

Perhaps regretably my own life experience precludes the possibility that I can take an objective view in this matter. Forty seven years of dealing with the governments and peoples of South East Asian countries, most of this time spent living in those countries, has removed any possibility that I can regard the philosophies that are held by these governments as in any way acceptable to my own value system.

My endorsement of Danny`s call to "Boycott Singapore" was not a call to attempt to change the attitudes of Singapore and its citizens, rather it was intended as encouragement to all those people who have a system of values similar to my own to turn their backs on Singapore and as far as possible exclude it from any future consideration. Simply let it sit there in the tropic sun and go to hell in its own way.
 
DannyinJapan said:
They need to be awakened to the realities of the modern world.
Hang a 25 year old for smuggling dope....
Their govt probably thinks they have shown the world some shining example of virtue..
Let's starve them a decade or two and see how righteous they are then..
main.asp


rogers.gif
 
some of you may think I am opposed to the death penalty.
Far from it.
I fully support the death penalty, when it is just.

World leaders begged Singapore to commute the sentence of a 25 year old, non-violent, first time offender and still they hung him.

When presidents, prime ministers and popes beg for clemency on behalf of a young man and a country ignores their pleas and hangs him anyway, they do it for a reason other than justice. They did it becasue they wanted to. That is why I want to boycott Singapore.
They are not good. Believe me, they have screwed themselves out of many good things. They have ruined their relationships with many large countries and, indeed, world religions.

Singapore didnt hang him for justice, they hung him to prove something to the world. The hung him because they feel insecure and wanted to show how big and tough they are. (Becasue they know they are not.)

Fine. Let them go back into the jungle and self righteously return to the ways of their grandfathers.
 
Bitterness makes for bad policy. If you hate them so much you can't think straight, you're only convincing yourself.

NOBODY begged for clemency. A few leaders made pro forma remonstrations because Van had become a cause celebre, and it didn't cost them anything if Singapore backed off a careful and successful policy.

I am reminded of the repeated instances of terrorists bombing Israeli marketplaces, of which we just got another example today. Israel clamps down on Palestinian Arab workers entering Israel, the world weeps for the poor unemployed Palestinians, Israel relents -- and another #)(^!%& suicide bomber follows the last one, sneaking in with the fruit-pickers.

Kill them all. Let those world religions pray for their polluted souls. How's THAT for bitterness?
 
I'll save my sympathy for those that are truly innocent. Everyone knows the penalties in Singapore for drugs, a few years ago it was a young Dutch national. Buh bye. There are many truly unfortunates in this world who deserve sympathy and help. Drug runners are not among them. I'll save my sympathy for others. YMMV.

Singapore has the right to enforce it's laws, more power to them. I couldn't care less what the rest of the world might think. I lived in SE Asia for a few years also, and loved it.

Makes me think that Singapore might be a nice **safe** place to take the family in a few years. Sounds good to me!
 
agh...Should probably try to explain my view since I went and opened my mouth now.

The way I see it is we can philosophize, ponder, and pontificate it all we want to, but the guy smuggled drugs into a country that considers it to be a capital offense. Furthermore, it doesn't seem that Singapore exactly makes that law a secret. He took his chances, got caught, and paid the price.

That being said, I don't personally feel the death penalty is appropriate unless the case involves direct violence towards another human being.

If the dude didn't consider or value his own life enough to refrain from smuggling drugs into a country that would execute him for it, why should I get all wrought up about it?

In my little ole hometown there is rape, murder, addiction, domestic abuse, homelessness, people without healthcare, hunger,orphans,stray animals, and many other things I could expend what little remains of my once bottomless well of compassion on. A drug smuggler hanged in Singapore is pretty low priority.
 
Runs With Scissors said:
Maybe Singapore should follow the US example of how to correctly fight the war on drugs...

What I was thinking.

Here I thought Singapore just took a very hard line on drug trafficing, and I learned here that it's all because they are a small, insecure little country with a need to "show" all the other nations just how tough they can be.

Maybe be should get them to stop the practice of caning, too.

Noah
 
Singapore accused

Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 December 2005, 08:22 GMT

Singapore accused of maid neglect
Girls waiting outside a Maids agency in a shopping mall in Singapore
Affluent Singaporeans often hire maids from abroad
Female migrant workers in Singapore face what amounts to forced labour due to a lack of legal protection, US-based rights campaigners say.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said domestic workers were overworked and frequently denied food, pay and social contact, as well as suffering physical abuse.

Singapore's government said the report "grossly exaggerates" the situation.

Maids working throughout South East Asia complain of abuse. HRW produced a similar report on Malaysia last year.

Some 150,000 women work as maids in Singapore, mainly from Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka.

The report paints a grim picture of young women trapped in apartment blocks, beaten, sometimes raped, killed or driven to suicide by their employers.

The authors of the report say they believe such abuse is widespread in Singapore. In the past six years, at least 147 domestic workers have died in the city state.

Excluded

The rights group interviewed 90 people and conducted case studies to compile its 128-page report, Maid to Order - Ending abuses against migrant domestic workers in Singapore.

HRW argues that by excluding maids from its Employment Act, Singapore is failing to comply with international law.

"A system that excludes a class of workers from labour protections, leaving them to work for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, for pitifully low wages is one that demands serious and meaningful reform," it says.

But Singapore's government denied it was exploiting the maids.

"On their own accord, FDWs [foreign domestic workers] choose to work in Singapore because of better conditions here compared to their home and other countries.

"Contrary to HRW's report, the majority of FDWs enjoy meaningful and safe employment in Singapore. An independent poll by Singapore Press Holdings in Dec 2003, revealed that over 80% of FDWs were happy to work in Singapore," the Ministry of Manpower said on its website.

Harsh conditions

One domestic worker cited in the report complained of overwork.

"Sometimes employers want the maid to clean until 2200 or midnight and to start working again at 0600," she said.

Another maid told HRW: "Sometimes there was not enough food... They bought food from outside, but not for me. When angry, [the employer] would throw my food in the rubbish... I was very scared. My employer told me, 'Tomorrow you have a punishment, no eating.'"

Foreign and domestic workers in Singapore at present have no right to any time off. As of next year, employers will be obliged to give them one day off a month or financial compensation.

But the report says the women should be given the same rights as other workers in Singapore.

The authors say Singapore is by no means the worst offender in the region, but they argue that this tightly controlled city state could improve conditions very easily, giving many thousands of vulnerable women greater control over their lives.
 
Back
Top