Or you sure the law has anything to do with it? As far as people have existed, being rich has always been more advantageous that being poor.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Law favours the rich, & not the poor
- Thread starter JohnTT
- Start date
Singapore is presently considering legalising organ trading. If it realises, you may see even more RICH Indos at Mount Elizabeth Hospital, queueing up for organs, & lorries of POOR banglads queueing up to sell their organs.
Maybe got organ bidding too.... :(
I dont think they will make it such that POOR people can just sell their organs. Singapore still have to be diplomatic towards human rights or else the US migth just send a couple of tomahawks and flaten temasek.
I am sure they will put in so many regulations it will take the lawyers 10 years to figure out anything.
But the law to begin with is FAIR. just that singaporeans dont know their basic human rights. and the RICH can always change the facts with money. hence the perception of the law favouring them.
Well not exactly. But the rich can employ a panel of lawyer to fight for them, whereas the poor cannot even afford a lawyer even in some cases, they wrong wrongth (liek civil case against big corpate bullies)
eErotica696969669696969
There will be no organ bidding... only COE for organs
Actually I should not be laughing because it might just happen. :(The law in practically all countries favours the rich. The rich can afford the most expensive and therefore the most capable legal minds to represent their interest. Its not the same for the poor and straight away you see the imbalance. Its truly an anamoly.
If one takes a sample of all cases, I am sure that those drawing a lesser or lower income tend to plead gulity.
In Singapore, especially where the previous CJ was concerned surprises ran across the whole spectrum of society including the legal fraternity. For some reason he also gave the strong impression that the right of appeal should not be part of the legal safety mechanism. It came to a stage where even if the client wanted to appeal, his lawyers were reluctant as they too faced quite hostile reaction.
The other issue was the courts and chamber dealing with politically related litigation such as the lee family law suits, NFK defamation suits, past AG's interpretation of polling station law. It was however good to see that there are indeed people with spines such as Rajendran and Michael Khoo.
Generally, the local system has done well compared to many other countries. My slant is that it had to perform credibily in the commercial world to bring in investment and commerce.
It would have been good if a select panel picked the Bench and the AG.
If one takes a sample of all cases, I am sure that those drawing a lesser or lower income tend to plead gulity.
In Singapore, especially where the previous CJ was concerned surprises ran across the whole spectrum of society including the legal fraternity. For some reason he also gave the strong impression that the right of appeal should not be part of the legal safety mechanism. It came to a stage where even if the client wanted to appeal, his lawyers were reluctant as they too faced quite hostile reaction.
The other issue was the courts and chamber dealing with politically related litigation such as the lee family law suits, NFK defamation suits, past AG's interpretation of polling station law. It was however good to see that there are indeed people with spines such as Rajendran and Michael Khoo.
Generally, the local system has done well compared to many other countries. My slant is that it had to perform credibily in the commercial world to bring in investment and commerce.
It would have been good if a select panel picked the Bench and the AG.
Since bibical times, the law has always favored the rich.
P
pkcom
Guest
i agree
cos the poor have no money to get lawyer
cos the poor have no money to get lawyer
PAP must be gone so as to achieve justice, equality and happiness for our nation. For 40 over years, we have not seen the true meaning of equality nor justice applies equality in court. Happiness? too remote for peasants to feel it because all our monies have been bankrupt by the Lee family....and our CPF is no longer there for us to retire gracefully. There is still hope to see opposition parties coming into power in 2011 and that is where I still see light at the end of a long dark tunnel
Biblical times got rule of law meh?
Absolutely!! Gahmen made litigation so bloody expensive that you simply surrender when sued as defending any lawsuit however strong you defence may be can bankrupt you... even if you win, your legal fees will be so huge that if made no difference if you had lost. AND to sue the rich and/or powerful is absolutely out of the question: he who wins either has deeper pocket or strong connections. SO CAN SINGAPOREANS EXPECT JUSTICE FROM OUR EXISTING LAWS & THE WAY THEY ARE ADMINISTERED??
Similar threads
