Singapore sentence 20yr old to hang

last SG · 2009-01-03T16:07:57+00:00

Point taken, but the question remains - where do you draw the line on (sub)cultures that should be accepted and/or legalised, with consistency?P.S. You do re...

Shotgun SG

Because without a trial, then it is not justice.

Even if it may seem that the man's guilt is obvious, you still need a trial to determine unambiguously that he truly is guilty. For all you know he may well have left his luggage unlocked and unattended for a while and some shady fella may slip drugs into the luggage. The trial process is there to determine whether or not that is the case.

That's the whole purpose of the trial - to truly determine the guilt or innocence of a person. So if someone chucked a pack of cannabis into your luggage, at least the trial gives you the chance to fight back on that defence!

So dude, what is justice? Sorry to get philosophical, but this is an important question.

What is justice when the punishment when the guilt has already been determined? There were precedent cases where the Judge was not totally convinced that the trafficker was truly aware that he was trafficking drugs but was hanged anyway because the "law" demanded it. In these cases, ambiguity of guilt = guilt. Not innoncence. That is justice?

Only one thing can save a person's ass when it comes to this. That is, for CNB to testify that the "purity" of the drugs carried is considered to be below the requirements for the death penalty.

Gedanken SG

Shotgun, what do law and justice have to do with each other?

Shotgun SG

Shotgun, what do law and justice have to do with each other?

You asking me that in terms of philosophy or what?

Off the top of my head, ideally speaking, the legal system should be one that serves the cause of Justice. Then that leaves only the matter interpreting Justice. The Laws should then reflect such an understanding of what Justice is, in that society.

There is a problem with the current drug laws that reverses the "innoncent until proven guilty". This to me is a double standard. It is not "fair" that trafficking cases should be met with the "guilty until proven innoncent" standard, resulting in a mandatory death penalty, regardless of circumstance.

I guess what I'm saying is that, we don't achieve Justice by just being Kantian about laws. The laws themselves ought to be fair, and not holding double standards on people. Justice cannot hold one set of scales for one type of case, and another set of scales for another type. There is something fundamentally wrong with a mandatory death penalty, coupled with a guitly until proven innoncent approach.

Gedanken SG

Forget philosophy, Shotgun. Let's talk reality here.

I'm not sure how many lawyers you know, but if you knew a few you could well realise that they're not the brightest creatures at the best of times. As such, courts tend to operate by a "bullshit baffles brains" policy. As H L Mencken once said, "A court of law is a place in which Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot would be treated as equals - with betting odds slightly in favour of Judas".

That being the case, I'd recommend saving a lot of heartbreak by not trying to find and justify any association whatsoever between law and justice. To be blunt, they're simply not smart enough to be capable of handling justice. What they're reduced to is a wiggling about in a straightjacket comprising of a rigid set of rules dressed up in the pomp of the legal profession.

In this case, it comes down to answering a simple question: "Was this fellow found with a sufficient quantity of drugs for the death sentence to be passed?", and the answer is yes. Beyond that, asking a judge or a lawyer to contemplate anything to do with the case is as good as asking a housefly to perform algebra.

viciouskitty74 SG

In this case, it comes down to answering a simple question: "Was this fellow found with a sufficient quantity of drugs for the death sentence to be passed?", and the answer is yes.

Beyond that, asking a judge or a lawyer to contemplate anything to do with the case is as good as asking a housefly to perform algebra.

Sigh......think the above was lost of those who are 'speaking out' here or hoping to ignore this portion.

viciouskitty74 SG

The laws themselves ought to be fair, and not holding double standards on people. Justice cannot hold one set of scales for one type of case, and another set of scales for another type. There is something fundamentally wrong with a mandatory death penalty, coupled with a guitly until proven innoncent approach.

You are confusing Humanity with Justice. Or what has to be placed on the scales with.

What you are describing is putting humanity on a scale against a penalty for death.

And Justice is holding the scale weighing it out.

And since Justice is blind. And it weights out evenly for Justice. Whats errrmmm......bunching up your panties for?

Gedanken SG

Sigh......think the above was lost of those who are 'speaking out' here or hoping to ignore this portion.

Well VK, as a cop you'd probably have firsthand knowledge about how dumb the system really is. Unfortunately, television tends to portray courts as places where thinking actually takes place.

viciouskitty74 SG

Oei oei.....dont mention hobbies!

skythewood SG

You are a dumbass narrow minded cunt man.

Cheers mate :>

and you are a stupid asshole bleeding through your vagina.

Have a nice day Faggot

skythewood SG

Even more evidence to support the fact that you now almost nothing about that which you are so desperately arguing against (by arguing I mean posing rhetorical questions, which although shouldn't be considered a cohesive argument, is probably the closest you'll ever get). Please explain how marijuana destroys lives. It's non-addictive, has never directly killed anyone, does not incite violence and doesn't cause cancer. So how does it destroy lives?

Please learn at least something about the drug before blindly opposing it for god knows what reason.

your argument is that it does not kill anyone directly. Did my argument include it killing anyone directly? Get a grip on what the debate is about. Is the people high on drugs and jumping out of 20 storey buildings classified as dying from direct consumption of drugs?

Marijuana cost money and is addictive==> people need more of it over time==> you are stupid and cannot do your job properly ifyou are high==> you get fired==> you do harmful things to get money==>you introduce marijuana to other people.

the cycle goes on. Please learn about marijuana before posting. your blind support is making me sick.

angel7030 SG

and you are a stupid asshole bleeding through your vagina.

Have a nice day Faggot

OMgosh, this is becoming worst than death sentence.

kira.sg SG

He is old enough to get hang.

Man makes the law to protect the majority.

The law must be protected at all times.

Shotgun SG

Forget philosophy, Shotgun. Let's talk reality here.

Okay, in reality, does "possessing" the limit of items automatically constitute trafficking?

Even if a retard was carrying those drugs, the retard would have to hang according to these laws. That is if we are going by the book; the presumptions laid out in section 17.

Presumption concerning trafficking
17. Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than —

(a) 100 grammes of opium;

(b) ... etc

whether or not contained in any substance, extract, preparation or mixture, shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg

Shotgun SG

He is old enough to get hang.

Man makes the law to protect the majority.

The law must be protected at all times.

And who watches the watcher?

Now, I'm not against the Misuse of Drugs Act. I feel there is something wrong with the "presumptions" and the mandatory death penalty.

Gedanken SG

Okay, in reality, does "possessing" the limit of items automatically constitute trafficking?

Even if a retard was carrying those drugs, the retard would have to hang according to these laws. That is if we are going by the book; the presumptions laid out in section 17.

Presumption concerning trafficking
17. Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than —

(a) 100 grammes of opium;

(b) ... etc

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg

Precisely my point, Shotgun - they would hang the retard. Yes, they're that unimaginative.

Also, the presumption that possession is for the purpose of trafficking is by definition the presumption of guilt. It's there in black and white that the courts do not work upon the principle of innocent until proven guilty, so if you expect them to, you're only setting yourself up for heartbreak.

viciouskitty74 SG

And who watches the watcher?

Now, I'm not against the Misuse of Drugs Act. I feel there is something wrong with the "presumptions" and the mandatory death penalty.

Look, seriously, the normal civilians of the country is the watcher.

They can change laws and so on.

But not just by grumbling about it.

The changes just has to be brought up at any paliarment and its done.

But if there is still a majority of people that does not want it changed, then it will stay the same.

The thing is, you may talk loud, but if everyone else is not mumuring with you, then there is not enough voices that can make the change.

lionnoisy SG

Dunt say SG just hang small fly.

They also get big fish..Lawyer detained since Sept 2005!!

CNB officers trail him for months before nabbing him LAWYER. Edmund Wong Road bully. And now an accused international drug syndicate leader. As a criminal lawyer, Edmund Wong Sin Yee, 47, was supposed to help his clients stay out of jail. Today, he's the one who needs help. He's now in Changi Prison after being arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in September.

The shocker: CNB alleges that he is the leader of a drug syndicate dealing in ketamine with street value running into millions of dollars. Since his arrest, he has been held under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, a last-resort law which CNB has been using over the years to take drug syndicate bosses out of circulation. Many such criminals would otherwise get away scot-free as no one would dare testify against them in court.

OFFICERS STUNNED

In an exclusive interview with The New Paper on Sunday, seasoned CNB officers revealed how even they were stunned when they first heard that Wong, a former criminal lawyer, was allegedly the brains behind a new drug syndicate. He is said to have used even his former clients as his runners. Wong was a familiar face to some officers as he had on many occasions represented drug offenders. In April, this year, his name first appeared on CNB's radar. (continued)

Source: The Electric News Paper/Andre Yeo/26 December 2005/http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,99380,00.html

@@@@@@@@@@

'Allegaed drug lord loses appeal against detention' + by 'SELINA LUM'

Strait Times 22.02.2008

SG Court of Appeal upheld High Court decision in August 2007 to

extend his detention under

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/.

The order to detain him has been extended twice,for a year each time.

His lawyer include Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim and lawyer Dennis Chua.

lionnoisy SG

duty to deal with drugs activities OUTSIDE Singapore!!

pl read below.

In other countries,stupid Judges will release him!!

@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1Story20080221-50787.html

Disgraced lawyer loses appeal against detention   Selina Lum Thu, Feb 21, 2008
The Straits Times

A DISGRACED lawyer, detained indefinitely without trial under a ministerial order, on Thursday lost his final bid to be freed.

Since September 2005, Edmund Wong Sin Yee, 49, has been held under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which allows for those suspected of criminal activities to be detained without trial.

To order such detention, the Home Affairs Minister has to be satisfied that it is necessary 'in the interests of public safety, peace and good order'.

Wong was accused of being a leader in a drug syndicate that smuggled ketamine from Malaysia to Taiwan and from Malaysia to China through Hong Kong between early 2004 and April 2005.

The order to detain him has been extended twice, for 12-month periods each time.

Wong went to the High Court to challenge the detention but this was rejected by Justice Tan Lee Meng last September.

On Wednesday, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which gave its decision on Thursday to uphold the lower court's judgment.

Wong's instructed counsel, Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, had asked for his release on grounds that the detention order was unlawful.

Mr Yim argued that Wong's alleged activities were done outside Singapore but the Act applied only to crimes committed within the country.

He contended that Wong's Constitutional rights had been violated because he had not been told the grounds of his detention until 15 days later.

Mr Yim also argued that the detention was unreasonable because witnesses are available to testify against Wong in a proper trial.

'My client is happy to stand trial. He's happy to face charges and if convicted by a court of law... he's happy to serve his sentence,' Mr Yim said on Wednesday.

But the Court of Appeal rejected the arguments on Thursday.

Justice Andrew Phang, delivering the court's decision, agreed with Justice Tan's interpretation of the Act: that the threat to public safety, peace and good order did not necessarily have to result from criminal activities in Singapore.

The court also agreed that the detention order was valid even assuming Wong was not told of the grounds.

Finally, the court found no basis that the minister had exercised his discretion irrationally.

Wong, who is divorced with two children, is allowed to see immediate family members twice a month.

The next review of his detention order is expected to be in July next year.--EOQ

lionnoisy SG

b. Edmund Wong Sin Yee v Minister of Home Affairs – The applicant was
an alleged narcotics syndicate leader detained under the provisions of
the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap. 67). He fi led a
habeas corpus application to challenge his detention and its extension.
The Civil Division was successful in refuting his allegations by showing
that there had been evidence against him to justify his detention,
and that the Government’s decision to detain him was therefore not
unreasonable. In so doing, the Civil Division emphasised that the writ
of habeas corpus existed to allow detainees the opportunity to challenge
the legality of their detention, and was not supposed to be used as a
forum to invite the Courts to substitute the Government’s assessment
of the facts with their own.---EOQ

page 14

http://www.agc.gov.sg/aboutus/docs/AGC_Annual_Report_2006-2007.pdf

lionnoisy SG

In Feb 2008 Appeal to Court of Appeal,lawyers said Wong was more than happy

to be heard in court and let witness to testify!!

Lawyers said Wong was not happy that gavaman detain him without (open )

trial.

@@@@@@@@@@

No worry.President looks into each case for long detention!!

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/

This powerful Temporary laws has helped SG to fight against organised crimes for 50 years,as old as PAP!!Therefore,MP have to renew the act every 5 years.
This Act is just like ISA.Only closed door hearing.u can hire lawyers to help u during hearings.If u are so smart to get rich from crimes,this act can lock u up without open hearing and without witness risks for their lifes.The court can order to seize your assets!!But u can be assured that President of Republic of Singapore will look at each case!!

« Previous Page Next Page »