No activist speak up for the victims & families whose life got destroyed by drugs

[Green Light]

It is not up for me to determine whether he is innocent or not. The recent Hong Lim Park event, as I have said in some other thread, is not about believing whether Vui Kong is innocent or not. It is on the structure of the system we have here.

If you believe in Democracy, you will believe in separation of powers. But the system here is far from Democracy because the powers are totally concentrated to a few persons in the Cabinet. The law is set by them, their ministries administer the whole legal process and eventually, the last resort of clemency is done by them. This is illogical in a Democracy. I was there, to petition a change to this ill conceived system.

On the other hand, while many people think drug mules should be hung, but there should also be distinctions on the degree of the matter. Such discretionary powers should be left to the judges but at this moment, the judges are bounded by the Mandatory sentencing set by the ruling party. Thus, the discretionary powers should be shifted to the President but yet, the court has ruled that such discretionary powers still lies on the Cabinet who have set the law and administer it!

Thus, this is a matter of the system, not particularly on whether I think anyone should be hung or not, or that anyone is guilty as charged.

Goh Meng Seng

FYI The death penalty for being caught with heroin is 15 gm and Yong was caught with 47 grams. He claimed to have received the gift-wrapped packages from his boss and was ordered not to open them, however, note that his accomplice on the contrary claimed to have receive drugs from him 5 to 6 times last year. This has nothing to do with democracy, if is a law is a law, don't politicize

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

gms u r contradicting yourself. 1st you write long story as if u know some inside info. next u say its not up to u whether he is innocent or not.

in this case whatever is the story in red for? any relevance to this case? no relevance then say for ____

Balaji,

This case is an individual case. But it involves the whole legal system plus the clemency process.

It also involves the Mandatory nature of the law. If law is without the Mandatory nature, the judge may not sentence him to death even if he is found guilty, after taking his age, background reports and such into consideration.

This case also brought fore the flaws in the clemency process.

ON the other note, the possibility of the Mandatory Death Penalty could go wrong is very high due to the way the law is being structured. This is another area of concerns.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

FYI The death penalty for being caught with heroin is 15 gm and Yong was caught with 47 grams. He claimed to have received the gift-wrapped packages from his boss and was ordered not to open them, however, note that his accomplice on the contrary claimed to have receive drugs from him 5 to 6 times last year. This has nothing to do with democracy, if is a law is a law, don't politicize

The clemency process is totally flawed, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. This is the case in point. The law is totally flawed, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. His case only brings fore the flaws in the system, that is all.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[balajii]

so that grandmother story is really rubbish.

pls lah. what stick to car he don't know. u r losing creditability defending ppl like him.

 

[Tan Kim Kim]

GMS is unteachable! I seriously doubt he is serious in getting a seats in parliament..The problem with him is he like the PAP never admit his mistake and flaw and from his comment he believe he is smarter than them
Guys dun waste time on him..let him have his fun here lah

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

so that grandmother story is really rubbish.

pls lah. what stick to car he don't know. u r losing creditability defending ppl like him.

Balaji,

Seems that you didn't even read carefully what I wrote. Go and read again. That example is cited from Lucky Tan's blog post. I believe you didn't even bother to read as well. So be it.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[balajii]

Balaji,

Seems that you didn't even read carefully what I wrote. Go and read again. That example is cited from Lucky Tan's blog post. I believe you didn't even bother to read as well. So be it.

Goh Meng Seng

y should i read lucky tan's post? u r the 1 who quoted the case as if it has something to do here. later u turn quickly and say it is not for u to judge.

i understand that u are objecting death penalty in terms of technicality. but pls don't quote rubbish stories and irrelevant case. it will not help that idiot or yourself.

 

[Green Light]

The clemency process is totally flawed, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. This is the case in point. The law is totally flawed, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. His case only brings fore the flaws in the system, that is all.

Goh Meng Seng

Majority of Sinkies want this system in place, they vote for PAP becos this system works and give majority of them a safe and secure system. respect and listen to the voice of Singaporean isn't thise democracy about? The government should be booted up when Sinkies find these system flawed..lets face it no system is perfect

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Majority of Sinkies want this system in place, they vote for PAP becos this system works and give majority of them a safe and secure system. respect and listen to the voice of Singaporean isn't thise democracy about?

I can tell you, majority of Singaporeans don't really know the law in details, least having a definite "want" of this system. They only know they are ok for Death penalty for drug trafficking or murder but they didn't know there is a vast difference in having a Mandatory Death Penalty in effect and low level of proof that was needed for it. They don't know the vast implications of such system.

I have been talking to Singaporeans about this issue, on and off, as and when I can. But I have puzzled for a intelligent person like you, you doesn't seem to care whether the system is flawed and needed change for the better or not. Following the book the favorite past time of Singaporeans like you but sometimes, you must heed the advice of the rulers, think out of the box.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[silverfox@]

Balaji,

Seems that you didn't even read carefully what I wrote. Go and read again. That example is cited from Lucky Tan's blog post. I believe you didn't even bother to read as well. So be it.

Goh Meng Seng

Seriously I think you are just playing around with words like "mandatory", "system", "politics"

It is the truth he traffick in drugs. The courts passed the law. Going 1 big round is just to attack the govt. citing that the system is flawed, president does not have powers, etc.

If the courts ruled him guilty, sentenced him to death, does not want to overturn the verdict, why is there a need to bring politics into this issue?

Because of personal agenda against the ruling party and a drug trafficker has to be let off the gallows. It becomes very clear that are these people seriously wanting to help Vui Kong or just using Vui Kong as a stepping stone to achieve their motive of attacking the govt. Take politics out of this picture. There are other ways to do it.

I have a friend who died from drug abuse recently. I know you do not and you will never understand why. I am not for or against the death penalty, but if the courts mete any punishment on these drug traffickers, it's what they deserve for breaking up so many families and killing them indirectly. You can say drug abusers deserve it, so do drug traffickers. Pay the price, accept the punishment. Anyway you wouldn't understand.

If you have a daughter and your daughter was given drugs by pushers. She jumped off the building for drug abuse, then you come here and tell everyone whether these people should be given the right punishment for breaking up your family.

 

[Green Light]

I can tell you, majority of Singaporeans don't really know the law in details, least having a definite "want" of this system. They only know they are ok for Death penalty for drug trafficking or murder but they didn't know there is a vast difference in having a Mandatory Death Penalty in effect and low level of proof that was needed for it. They don't know the vast implications of such system.

I have been talking to Singaporeans about this issue, on and off, as and when I can. But I have puzzled for a intelligent person like you, you doesn't seem to care whether the system is flawed and needed change for the better or not. Following the book the favorite past time of Singaporeans like you but sometimes, you must heed the advice of the rulers, think out of the box.

Goh Meng Seng

Alright pls think of a effective way to tell Singaporean how you think the system is flawed! As for me no system is perfect, as long as it works for me. I wish your anti M penalty campaign a resounding success, good luck

 

[silverfox@]

Alright pls think of a effective way to tell Singaporean how you think the system is flawed! As for me no system is perfect, as long as it works for me. I wish your anti M penalty campaign a resounding success, good luck

If he is the ruling Prime Minister, I wonder how many drug traffickers will be set free.

 

[balajii]

teacher : ah tan why you today late for school?

kaypoh meng : teacher if you help a blind man cross the road, help old man carry his grocery home, help free a cat from a trap, will you be late?

teacher : u mean ah tan did all these?

kaypoh meng : i don't know teacher, i just telling a story. :p

teacher : :oIo:

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I am only interested in the system and it seems that people here are only interested to play God in determining whether a guy is guilty and deserved to be hung or not.

Personally, I take no interests in that. I am only interested to see whether the system is reasonable, fair and balanced. Obviously, it is not but people who are so engrossed in their belief of death penalty has gone beyond in their assumptions of the goodness of the system.

You have refused to ask yourself, do you really want to trust 3000 people 100% ALL the time? This is what Mandatory Death Penalty requires you. And this is in view of the skewed law being drafted which set very low level of proof for such serious ultimate punishment of taking one person's life!

I think you have to be totally honest and truthful to yourselves. You cannot just find solace that in this case he is guilty and so all must be well. Nope. The system is flawed, the law is flawed.

As whether one should "politicised" it. Put it this way, whether you like it or not, this is a political issue because the problems lie with legislation in parliament itself. It may not be a BIG ISSUE enough to win popular votes, but it is indeed a political issue needs to be resolved.

Seriously I think you are just playing around with words like "mandatory", "system", "politics"

It is the truth he traffick in drugs. The courts passed the law. Going 1 big round is just to attack the govt. citing that the system is flawed, president does not have powers, etc.

 

[silverfox@]

I am only interested in the system and it seems that people here are only interested to play God in determining whether a guy is guilty and deserved to be hung or not.

That's why I question your real intentions of fighting for Vui Kong.

Some fight for him because they don't want him to die.
Some like you fight for him, I mean fight the system because it gives some of you the opportunity to politicise this whole matter.

What is fair reasonable to you, will be unfair to others.

People here are not interested to play God. People here are trying to stop all the devil kids from turning a right into a wrong.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Silverfox,

May be you are really mistaken. I have not really presented myself of "fighting for Vui Kong" but rather the petition to review the system. This is two different thing altogether, although it is through Vui Kong's case, the problems and flaws of the system have been exposed.

What may be to you as "devil kids" are "angels" to others. There is no absolute right or wrong here, just how the good the system is. As I have said, it seems that nobody here is interested to discuss or debate about how the good or bad the system is, just want to say he should die he should die he should die or otherwise.

There is no questions about my real intentions. I am only looking for a better, fair, just and balanced system for Singapore, for my children and future generations.

Goh Meng Seng

That's why I question your real intentions of fighting for Vui Kong.

Some fight for him because they don't want him to die.
Some like you fight for him, I mean fight the system because it gives some of you the opportunity to politicise this whole matter.

What is fair reasonable to you, will be unfair to others.

People here are not interested to play God. People here are trying to stop all the devil kids from turning a right into a wrong.

 

[jw5]

Dear Silverfox,

May be you are really mistaken. I have not really presented myself of "fighting for Vui Kong" but rather the petition to review the system. This is two different thing altogether, although it is through Vui Kong's case, the problems and flaws of the system have been exposed.

What may be to you as "devil kids" are "angels" to others. There is no absolute right or wrong here, just how the good the system is. As I have said, it seems that nobody here is interested to discuss or debate about how the good or bad the system is, just want to say he should die he should die he should die or otherwise.

There is no questions about my real intentions. I am only looking for a better, fair, just and balanced system for Singapore, for my children and future generations.

Goh Meng Seng

I have 2 points to clarify / comment on.

1. For GMS or anyone who can clarify,
Are Yong, his family, friends and activists / supporters claiming that he's innocent, as in he wasn't aware he was trafficking drugs or that he's guility, but on grounds of compassion and leniency, should be spared the death penalty?

2. For GMS in particular,
You keep saying that you are against mandatory death penalty, especially for a person found guilty of drug trafficking. But you also talk about the low level of proof required and the evidence requirements.

Let's say in a case where there is a preponderance of evidence, e.g. the accused confesses, there is corraborating evidence from 10 witnesses unrelated to one another, he has been caught and sentenced before in other countries etc, would you support the death penalty?
I think what you are concerned about is the level of proof, the evidence requirements and the extent of the burden of proof that the prosecution has to produce to have a guilty verdict. Not so much with the sentencing or whether it should be mandatory death penalty upon a guilty verdict.

You should realise that judges being human, if the law is such that there is no mandatory death penalty for a guilty verdict, the vast majority of them will not impose the death penalty. And that would be the case even for murder and drug trafficking cases with overwhelming evidence of guilt.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

BTW, I am puzzled. You have made your stand before with regards to this case:

In a posting here (http://www.sammyboy.com/showpost.php?p=524863&postcount=16) you wrote:

"Drug traffickers should be hanged because the drugs they carry, kill and ruin the futures of many others. Families get broken up.

However for those who are very young when they deliver drugs, they could probably be given life imprisonment instead of death sentence."

But now, you turn around and say that

People here are not interested to play God. People here are trying to stop all the devil kids from turning a right into a wrong.

I guess playing of words really mean something different for you.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I have 2 points to clarify / comment on.

1. For GMS or anyone who can clarify,
Are Yong, his family, friends and activists / supporters claiming that he's innocent, as in he wasn't aware he was trafficking drugs or that he's guility, but on grounds of compassion and leniency, should be spared the death penalty?

2. For GMS in particular,
You keep saying that you are against mandatory death penalty, especially for a person found guilty of drug trafficking. But you also talk about the low level of proof required and the evidence requirements.

Let's say in a case where there is a preponderance of evidence, e.g. the accused confesses, there is corraborating evidence from 10 witnesses unrelated to one another, he has been caught and sentenced before in other countries etc, would you support the death penalty?
I think what you are concerned about is the level of proof, the evidence requirements and the extent of the burden of proof that the prosecution has to produce to have a guilty verdict. Not so much with the sentencing or whether it should be mandatory death penalty upon a guilty verdict.

You should realise that judges being human, if the law is such that there is no mandatory death penalty for a guilty verdict, the vast majority of them will not impose the death penalty. And that would be the case even for murder and drug trafficking cases with overwhelming evidence of guilt.

1. This is an individual case which only brings fore the flaws and problems of the system. Clemency is the last resort and it is based on mercy, not law. But the Clemency process has to be right in the first place.

2. Mandatory Death Penalty robs the discretionary powers of the Judges. Taking a person's life is a serious matter. Even as guilty person, Judges would have to depend on a lot more factors to make such grave sentences, instead of merely "guilty". For example, there may be other reasons a person is willing to plead guilty for such cases: he may be trying to help someone else to get off the hook for various reasons, be it personal, money or otherwise. Pleading guilty by accused itself, must be examined properly.

There may also be cases of police torture to extract confession... this is rare but not totally non-existence. On top of that, there are other various factors that should be taken into considerations as well, background checks, age etc.

Thus while the judge may feel that the accused may be guilty but the sentencing should reflect how much he believes in the evidences as well.

It is not up for me to say whether one is 100% guilty and whether he deserve death penalty or not. If the society feels that there is a need for Death Penalty in drug trafficking, fine, by all means, have that. However, Mandatory Death Penalty is totally another piece of cake altogether. It has changed the nature and spirit of the law. For example, if evidence shows that this is the Kingpin who has been the big player in drug dealings, fine, hung him by the law. But if he is just a small kid who has been made used of, then it would be better for the judge to use his discretion to decide whether he should be hung.

Whether the judges impose death penalty or not, you must let them use their discretion and wisdom to decide. Else, we only need a robot to be judges in all such cases.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Ramseth]

You should realise that judges being human, if the law is such that there is no mandatory death penalty for a guilty verdict, the vast majority of them will not impose the death penalty. And that would be the case even for murder and drug trafficking cases with overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The Cabinet and Parliament are also humans, aren't they? How come humans can pass mandatory death penalty laws and you expect judges also being humans can't pass a death sentence if it's justified?