I don't think the law should be fixed according to one motion
without considering every other factor. A law may be a law, but
throughout history, how many times have the court need to adjust
their laws upon understanding of a changing situation. Were the
laws of countries of the past really right???
Were the laws back in England in history in killing people they
called "witches" really right???
The stir up motion here is that: Are the authorities really aware
of the situation as in what is really happening on the grounds,
rather than thinking of the "Nation's Security" all the time. Does
anyone really believe that handing over one man to the Australian
government will really affect the country, and next moment the
country is filled with druggies all over the place?
When implementing laws so strict, people are unhappy. The question
is, does creating unhappiness really solve anything???
The only thing everyone knows here is that they can't do this or
that or else they get sentence here or sentence there. How is that
cause and effect due to the law actually making a difference now,
rather it's making people feel they need to follow guidelines in
life to live life properly? How much difference is that when Mao
Zedong burn all books of education in order to restrict China's
understanding of the world and close it's market??
How does denial and deprivation really help anything or anyone in
particular???
What i believe these laws have not perceive is that Singapore
should not be just a place to live in, but rather also a place to
grow in...
And growing up includes mistakes and viewpoint differences that is
always subjective whether it is right or wrong. If those mistakes
cannot be forgiven, then we might as well forget about the "Yellow
Ribbon" or anything else, cause why do we have to advertise it on
TV and next moment kill someone like that???
And the worse case of it all is that we are so centralise about we
Singaporeans that we forgot that foreigners are also human, be it
killing a Singaporean or killing a foreigner, it is a life that we
are killing. Why the different clauses to these terms???
In US, the case to legalise Marijuana is still pending as more
investigations are found that the "drug" is actually good for
health in certain ways and previous acclamations of it's "harmful
effects" have since recently been proven wrong and found the result
as base on previous test were in fact bias. Now, if this "drug" is
actually proven helpful to health rather than harmful, then what is
actually right and what is actually wrong???
Moreover, Singapore law has already sentence anyone who consumes
drugs here, but why sentence those who consume abroad??? And if
people are taking it for fun and entertainment, isn't the penalty
too high and unjustified?? Why are laws made to set examples to
restrict other causes, why can't laws be more justified according
to the actual crime done? If punishing one man can really help
others from commiting crimes, then it's really a "lowly" viewpoint
coming from the government about Singaporeans that Singaporeans are
not independent mentally and we cannot think for ourselves...
In fact, all the restrictions are aimed upon us with all the TV
ads, but obviously, many people are already aware of the "harmful"
effects of things, but still choose to smoke, drink etc.... Why
must there be those constant education anymore???
It is this little point in life called life choosing, like choosing
our own roads and having our own choices that is in fact necessary
for life growth, so why must the government take all these away
with implementing more harsh laws???
I believe if they take away these laws, Singaporeans can still
think for themselves, some mistakes made but they will learn from
it, and in result, they truly achieve something within in terms of
maturity more than following rules.
