Australia considers taking S'pore to int'l court

last SG · 2005-11-21T15:36:47+00:00

for greater national security and interest, the OB markers have to be removed. we have a rule of law, let not some unspoken marker govern our society, if th...

Rexdriver SG

To the extent that they do not have the death penalty, they are more civilised. But look, this is not about Singapore v Australia.

Rexdriver SG

If that is how analogies can be drawn, then much can be said about alcohol, cigarettes and women generally.

Typhoon SG

What gave you any impression? At the end of the day the dispute was neither legal (the Aussies never protested his conviction or call our judicial process into question) nor moral (where are the protests over Amrozi? And if opposed to mandatory sentencing for trafficking, where are the protests for Shanmugam and the hundreds of Singaporeans executed for this crime?)

The issue, as with Leslie and Corby, was nothing less than the Australians trying to save one of their own on the grounds that Australians are immune to the laws of other countries.

Rexdriver SG

I think you answered your questions in your second paragraph. If Australia protested over Shanmugam, that's pretty much interfering with our affairs 'cos they had no vested interest in that case. But in this case, Australia had a legitimate reason to take issue because it was their business to protect their own against a barbaric law (that is my view, not just echoing what has been said).

As for Australians being immune to the laws of other countries... where did you get that from?

Typhoon SG

Sorry, no legtimacy here either. Babaric or not, law is law- if they suspected that due process had not been given to Nguyen, they may have had a case of an unfair sentencing (as they did with Corby) but any attempt to interfere is extraterritoriality no matter how they try to disguise it.

Do you think that Singaporeans are rejoicing over the death of Nguyen? Most of us (and indeed most Australians who supported the execution) were motivated by Australia's blatant attempts to impose their values onto other nations. Unsurprising given what the resident Aussie in this thread has demonstrated those values to be.

We saw how well they could apply their pressure against a weak foe (Indonesia.) When they tried it with us, it hardened the resolve of the MIW and Singaporeans to see Nguyen hang. The issue was never anything but political from the start.

That is my view, also echoing what has been said. Wink

Erwin_Rommel SG

Hi,

"China, Malaysia and Indonesia are not high on the list of enlightened countries" How about USA? Please don't make any exception if you want to condemn all countries using the death penalty.

"Criminals are human beings too"
To me, a hardcore criminal deserve no sympathy. They are not human beings at all, so they are depried of the rights to live in this world.

"Why vindicate our own faults by reference to others?"
What faults are you referring to? The death penalty itself? To see how "barbaric" we are and what trend the Sg government are following, we need comparison. So we compare with other countries. Strangely enough, there are still countries that practise death penalty. So if you wish to label Singapore as barbaric, by all means but please do lebal other countries that practise death penalty.

"Drug traffickers do not harm your drug addicted loved ones - your loved ones harm themselves"

If the source of drugs from drug traffickers is reduced, would the probability of your loved ones taking drugs be reduced? Is the rights of allowing a human being taking drugs more important, or (government) removing that right for the sake of potential drug addicts more important?

"There are varying degrees of criminality"
Of course. Singapore don't hang rapists or frauds, etc.

"Be careful not to let the government propaganda, which makes running the country easy for them, be used as a tool to deprive you of your individual rights"

They deprive me of living in a potentially full-of-drug environment (considering the fact that Singapore is a convenient stop for would-be drug traffickers) and I need to thank them, though I am not a fervent PAP supporter.

The government took away our rights to free-speech, etc when the PAP took over power. Their economy-first, society-above-society has helped transformed Singapore from third-world to first. If you want to know the effects of human rights and democracy for third-world countries, please do take a look at the Phillipnes and India.

Now Singapore has progressed rapidly. It is gradually allowing us more rights. Slowly but surely. Cool Cool

elindra SG

A little out of context here. There is so much talk about human rights and freedom of speech. However these come with heavy responsibility on the individual and they must be able to think and act maturely to exercise these rights.

In my own opinion, I think a lot of individuals in Singapore are not ready for it. Last thing anyone wants to see is total chaos.

Erwin_Rommel SG

Hi Pikamaster

Tht's why I say, I don't support some of their policies. Atually I do find that you are the most rational so far. I also believe that the current education needs an overhaul and more emphasis should be placed on arts and creativity. Of course. it's out of topic to discuss all these in this thread. And I hope its just a debate, not a flaming war.

j_lu86 SG

Originally posted by Typhoon:

Sorry, no legtimacy here either. Babaric or not, [b]law is law- if they suspected that due process had not been given to Nguyen, they may have had a case of an unfair sentencing (as they did with Corby) but any attempt to interfere is extraterritoriality no matter how they try to disguise it.

Do you think that Singaporeans are rejoicing over the death of Nguyen? Most of us (and indeed most Australians who supported the execution) were motivated by Australia's blatant attempts to impose their values onto other nations. Unsurprising given what the resident Aussie in this thread has demonstrated those values to be.

We saw how well they could apply their pressure against a weak foe (Indonesia.) When they tried it with us, it hardened the resolve of the MIW and Singaporeans to see Nguyen hang. The issue was never anything but political from the start.
[/b]

You say the Law is the Law. Well it's the law of your country right, what makes it right if it's only the Law of your country.

Nazi Germany had laws, too. Laws such as boycotting jewish stores, and beating up jewish students, and kicking jewish people out of the house. They are still laws, and they where a internationally recognized country.

So maybe the law could i'm just saying could have a teeny weeny tiny itty bitty fault in it?

Rexdriver SG

Yep. Look up on the concept of the Rule of Law. Read up on jurisprudence a bit. And have a little understanding about Constitutional Law. These are areas of the Law that try to prevent an abuse of the Law. Not that they are necessarily applicable to the issue at hand, but it will put to perspective your thinking that the law on paper is necessarily the Law.

Anyway, the fact is that the law can be changed and in this case it should be changed. Deterrence is an overused rationale in Singapore with no studies whatsoever to show that it necessarily achieves anything in each particular case. You should go to Court and see how often the Prosecutor calls for a deterrent sentences for all kinds of crime.

Typhoon SG

Exactly. So, pray tell, what makes Australian law the holy grail of legal jurisprudence? Mr. Green

Barringthe fact that the issue was never about law to begin with, let's humour you. Australia is unique in being the only nation in the region to protest death sentences on the grounds of morality. At least Indonesia and the Phillipines are honest about it- when we hang one of theirs, they tell us that they are unhappy because we are hanging one of theirs. Australia claims high ground and fabricates an elaborate tale of love for human rights and similar such rubbish, all in the name of the lofty crusade of 'opposing the death penalty', while tacitly supporting its use in areas beneficial to themselves.

What makes it right? Its Australian. Mr. Green

Careful with the Nazi comparisons there- if your mate Howard gets his way, you could be seeing something not too disimilar:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1519504.htm

Have you been reading, or have been too high to do so? It was never about law, otherwise the enlightened Australian nation would have rushed to the ICJ instead of hopping on one foot. It was nationalism, pure and simple. Australia attempted to force its will onto another country, and failed spectacularly.

Typhoon SG

For once, you are right. Nothing in the above paragraph has any relevance to the situation. True, the Constitution protects the fundamental rights of the individual- one of which is that no person can be "deprived of his life or personal liberty." However, in the very same sentence, comes "save in accordance with law. " While the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution is not the only one- and this is stated explictly in the same section:

Nothing in the Constitution contradicts the Misuse of Drugs Act in any way. Which if I recall correctly is printed on paper. Mr. Green

Keep in mind that at the end of the day, deterrence is a secondary concern- the purpose of the whole thing, unless I'm wrong, is punishment. Deterrence is merely a welcome side effect., and is neither primary objective or intent of the judicial process.

Nelstar SG

Argument. Tsk, poor English.

Cord not Chord. Tsk, very poor English.

Perhaps you probably haven't seen people forced on drugs and naive to think they wanted drugs.

Laughing

dragg SG

extracted from ST forum.

He, for one, will be boycotting Republic

I WRITE in relation to the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van on Friday.

Studies show that there is no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrence against crime. Furthermore, it is twice as expensive to administer the death penalty as it is to offer life without parole.

The death penalty is simply barbaric and unnecessary in the year 2005. It is also racially and socio-economically biased.

The Australian Greens have rightly called on the Federal Government to suspend any military involvement with Singapore on Australian soil.

Personally, I will be boycotting products made by or associated with your country and will not consider visiting Singapore until the death-penalty legislation is amended.

Mark Hilder
New South Wales, Australia

dragg SG

extracted from ST forum.

Thanks for doing Australia's dirty work, Singapore

THANKS from the majority of Australians to the Government of Singapore for doing our dirty work and dealing with the drug smuggler Nguyen Tuong Van. While most Australians do not favour the death penalty they do not support the media-led frenzy to save this criminal.

Thanks for doing Australia's dirty work, Singapore

More seriously, they do not support the attempt to interfere with the proper legal processes of any country. I am ashamed of the attempts by the Australian media and some Australian politicians to corrupt the legal processes of Singapore.

Jon Hinwood
Victoria, Australia

HOW many lives would Australia have lost if Nguyen Tuong Van had succeeded in smuggling in the 26,000 doses of heroin?

And how many young people will be saved by the fact that Nguyen's execution, in providing so strong a disincentive to drug runners, helps make misery and death a bit harder to purchase on the streets of Sydney?

Just one life saved would be a fair trade for Nguyen's; two such lives would represent a premium.

Ron Goodden
Georgia, USA

elindra SG

Anyone knows how is this calculated?

ditzy SG

The fact still stands that if you don't like something, don't use it. Laughing Same goes for places and services.

ditzy SG

No death penalty = more civilised. Hmmmmmm, ok..... Laughing

pikamaster SG

You're the one who is hilarious. Note that even the abolitionists here are opposing you.... Rolling Eyes

Rexdriver SG

Originally posted by Typhoon:

Keep in mind that at the end of the day, deterrence is a secondary concern- the purpose of the whole thing, unless I'm wrong, is [b]punishment. Deterrence is merely a welcome side effect., and is neither primary objective or intent of the judicial process.[/b]

Deterrence is the only justification for the death penalty for drug trafficking. The punishment imposed is not retributive because the drug trafficker has not outright killed anyone. And PLEASE, do not tell me about how thousands could have died from drugs because I'm frankly very tired of putting across the very simple point that a drug trafficker does not murder.

« Previous Page Next Page »