Singaporean Arrogance
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne, oz
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icebreaker,
There are plenty of Singapore nationals in Australian Jails at the moment for drug importations ..just ask any one of our fine customs officers next time you see one.
It ain't all a one way street .
That said , as a paramedic who deals with the ultimate outcome of the condemned Aussie's attemted drug importation , I have no sympathy for him.
His brother is a convicted thug who severed the hamstring with a of a teenager ( with a machete) in a racially motivated attack on a young lad of Pacific Island origin. This has been revealed by a radio journalist who interviewed the victim of the attack.
It was also revealed that the brother was not just a former heroin user , he was also a dealer .
This fine pair of Australian citizens deserve everything they get.
There are plenty of Singapore nationals in Australian Jails at the moment for drug importations ..just ask any one of our fine customs officers next time you see one.
It ain't all a one way street .
That said , as a paramedic who deals with the ultimate outcome of the condemned Aussie's attemted drug importation , I have no sympathy for him.
His brother is a convicted thug who severed the hamstring with a of a teenager ( with a machete) in a racially motivated attack on a young lad of Pacific Island origin. This has been revealed by a radio journalist who interviewed the victim of the attack.
It was also revealed that the brother was not just a former heroin user , he was also a dealer .
This fine pair of Australian citizens deserve everything they get.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We need to put emotion to one side for a moment here and look at this issue coldly and logically; compassion, sympathy, deservedness, etc. actually have nothing at all to do with it.
There is no doubt Nguyen broke Singaporean law and must therefore submit to it. However as he pleaded guilty, that is not really the issue. The issue is the safety of the death penalty itself and there have been enough incorrect executions around the world for someone to say ‘let’s just hold the horses here for a moment’.
The one major issue standing against the death penalty is its finality. That is, if a conviction is proven to be unsafe at a future date, it’s a touch hard to reverse the sentence. The problem is that the world over, there has been a worrying number of capital sentences carried out where, years later, the conviction has been proven to have been ‘unsafe’. That is, the prosecution evidence, when held up to scrutiny, has been shown wanting. We have all, at some time, held firm beliefs which have been shown to be less than sustainable, but we have believed them nonetheless. Prosecutors, in good faith, may hold the same belief in all their cases. But just as advances like DNA technology have made it easier to prosecute in many instances, so have such advances shown that some convictions were flawed.
The pay-back to the executed in such instances? Re-burial in ‘hallowed ground’. Great, that makes it so much better.
Some cases will have incontrovertible evidence of guilt and the accused (as in this case) may indeed plead guilty. However, the ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument applies: for something as final as capital punishment, unless there is a blanket ‘no’, then over time populist politics will dictate that the number of offences which have a capital sanction will increase. Before long, the net has widened and the risk of unsafe convictions increases. Don’t believe me? Then read your history books; it’s happened before and indeed happens in some jurisdictions still.
This is not ‘bleeding heart’; this is just pure logic.
Moreover, in the instant case, Singapore law does allow for clemency if the accused ‘fesses up smartly and co-operates. Nguyen has done this. If he is executed, what signal does this send to someone else contemplating being a mule for desperate reasons? If one is already in that position, chances are they’ve already thought about the possibility of being nabbed. So rather than put them off, this is actually more likely to make them take an in-for-a-penny, in-for-a-pound line and increase the amount they’re carrying. So if they get through, the problem is greater. Exercise clemency, and you send the message that whilst we reserve the right to stretch your neck, we realise that you are a pawn and if you help us nab the big fish, we may not exercise that right. Also, reduce what you carry and that’ll help you (so if the overlord wants to move a whole kilo, he’s going to have to use more mules, increasing his risk of detection). So in deciding to execute Nguyen, the Singapore authorities (whilst making a statement) are actually making it harder for themselves to achieve their goal of preventing drug trafficking. That is, the next mule, rather than offer any help, will just think “Sod it, you’re going to kill me anyway, so why should I waste my last days helping you?” Again, it’s just pure logic.
For those espousing a religious ‘eye-for-an-eye’ argument, it has been suggested that giving a convicted lifer a number of years to sit in his cell, contemplating what he plans to say to his Maker with increasing trepidation (before the inevitable meeting we will all have), is possibly a greater punishment than hurrying that meeting up. Think about John 15:13 and replace ‘friend’ with ‘brother’.
There is no doubt Nguyen broke Singaporean law and must therefore submit to it. However as he pleaded guilty, that is not really the issue. The issue is the safety of the death penalty itself and there have been enough incorrect executions around the world for someone to say ‘let’s just hold the horses here for a moment’.
The one major issue standing against the death penalty is its finality. That is, if a conviction is proven to be unsafe at a future date, it’s a touch hard to reverse the sentence. The problem is that the world over, there has been a worrying number of capital sentences carried out where, years later, the conviction has been proven to have been ‘unsafe’. That is, the prosecution evidence, when held up to scrutiny, has been shown wanting. We have all, at some time, held firm beliefs which have been shown to be less than sustainable, but we have believed them nonetheless. Prosecutors, in good faith, may hold the same belief in all their cases. But just as advances like DNA technology have made it easier to prosecute in many instances, so have such advances shown that some convictions were flawed.
The pay-back to the executed in such instances? Re-burial in ‘hallowed ground’. Great, that makes it so much better.
Some cases will have incontrovertible evidence of guilt and the accused (as in this case) may indeed plead guilty. However, the ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument applies: for something as final as capital punishment, unless there is a blanket ‘no’, then over time populist politics will dictate that the number of offences which have a capital sanction will increase. Before long, the net has widened and the risk of unsafe convictions increases. Don’t believe me? Then read your history books; it’s happened before and indeed happens in some jurisdictions still.
This is not ‘bleeding heart’; this is just pure logic.
Moreover, in the instant case, Singapore law does allow for clemency if the accused ‘fesses up smartly and co-operates. Nguyen has done this. If he is executed, what signal does this send to someone else contemplating being a mule for desperate reasons? If one is already in that position, chances are they’ve already thought about the possibility of being nabbed. So rather than put them off, this is actually more likely to make them take an in-for-a-penny, in-for-a-pound line and increase the amount they’re carrying. So if they get through, the problem is greater. Exercise clemency, and you send the message that whilst we reserve the right to stretch your neck, we realise that you are a pawn and if you help us nab the big fish, we may not exercise that right. Also, reduce what you carry and that’ll help you (so if the overlord wants to move a whole kilo, he’s going to have to use more mules, increasing his risk of detection). So in deciding to execute Nguyen, the Singapore authorities (whilst making a statement) are actually making it harder for themselves to achieve their goal of preventing drug trafficking. That is, the next mule, rather than offer any help, will just think “Sod it, you’re going to kill me anyway, so why should I waste my last days helping you?” Again, it’s just pure logic.
For those espousing a religious ‘eye-for-an-eye’ argument, it has been suggested that giving a convicted lifer a number of years to sit in his cell, contemplating what he plans to say to his Maker with increasing trepidation (before the inevitable meeting we will all have), is possibly a greater punishment than hurrying that meeting up. Think about John 15:13 and replace ‘friend’ with ‘brother’.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 22nd Nov 2005 at 11:04.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
The death penalty is a finality, used in Singapore according to THEIR laws.
We have, it is told above, some Singaporians in our penal system for similar offences to our current Darwin Award winner.
How would we react if the Singapore Government told us/our Government to EXECUTE them as it is their way.???
You play in other sand pits, you are under the local rules.
As for being a deterant, this one wont do it again that's for sure.
Members of my family work in the Juvinile system of the Justice Dept, max security stuff, you can see the results of the use of the drugs so any way to slow or reduce the availability of this disaster to life is fine by me.
To all the bleeding hearts, think of your family member under the influence of this stuff, dribbling, pissing, pooing all over your house, stealing from you, your family, friends and the public at large to satisfy the curse.
We are what we chose to be, drug carriers know the risks and let the Bar$tard swing, and if you want to enhance the gene pool, his sodding brother can do the descent thing and join him.
We have, it is told above, some Singaporians in our penal system for similar offences to our current Darwin Award winner.
How would we react if the Singapore Government told us/our Government to EXECUTE them as it is their way.???
You play in other sand pits, you are under the local rules.
As for being a deterant, this one wont do it again that's for sure.
Members of my family work in the Juvinile system of the Justice Dept, max security stuff, you can see the results of the use of the drugs so any way to slow or reduce the availability of this disaster to life is fine by me.
To all the bleeding hearts, think of your family member under the influence of this stuff, dribbling, pissing, pooing all over your house, stealing from you, your family, friends and the public at large to satisfy the curse.
We are what we chose to be, drug carriers know the risks and let the Bar$tard swing, and if you want to enhance the gene pool, his sodding brother can do the descent thing and join him.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret,
That's not the point here.
As a leftie, liberal tree-hugger, I abhor the death penalty, it's arbitrary nature, and in some cases the laws under which it is imposed.
But Australia doesn't raise much of an issue with the death penalty being employed in countries like Indonesia or Singapore, unless of course it is an Australian being executed. Then the vitriol!
Much like the recent Indonesian case, the banging on about human rights (while being one of the few countries not to condemn Guantanamo Bay) is hypocritical.
The original post seemed to exemplify that. Australia would do well to deal with its own dirty laundry.
That's not the point here.
As a leftie, liberal tree-hugger, I abhor the death penalty, it's arbitrary nature, and in some cases the laws under which it is imposed.
But Australia doesn't raise much of an issue with the death penalty being employed in countries like Indonesia or Singapore, unless of course it is an Australian being executed. Then the vitriol!
Much like the recent Indonesian case, the banging on about human rights (while being one of the few countries not to condemn Guantanamo Bay) is hypocritical.
The original post seemed to exemplify that. Australia would do well to deal with its own dirty laundry.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
We will have stopped him from doing any more damage, maybe slowed down a few others.
As the majority of crime is committed by people who have committed before, one less is a start.
We should get a few of the minor offenders to watch, might slow them down as well.
In case you have missed my point, I DONT LIKE DRUGGIES, THEIR PUSHERS OR DEALERS, I have seen the damage.
I am not all that fussed about people who screw up other peoples lives, we can do that ourselves.
As the majority of crime is committed by people who have committed before, one less is a start.
We should get a few of the minor offenders to watch, might slow them down as well.
In case you have missed my point, I DONT LIKE DRUGGIES, THEIR PUSHERS OR DEALERS, I have seen the damage.
I am not all that fussed about people who screw up other peoples lives, we can do that ourselves.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who feels saddened beyond belief by the pleasure that some people seem to be getting from the impending death of another human being? Is this what we have become? Yes he did the wrong thing, I don't think anyone is arguing this, yes so much heroin on the streets would destroy more lives than I can imagine, but I believe that capital punishment is stooping to the criminals level.
To those of you saying that if it was a family member of yours you would accept what is happening, shame on you. Life is not about 'An Eye for an Eye'. I thought as adult human beings we were above that.
I know I can't change your views, but as I've already said it just makes me feel incredibly sad.
To those of you saying that if it was a family member of yours you would accept what is happening, shame on you. Life is not about 'An Eye for an Eye'. I thought as adult human beings we were above that.
I know I can't change your views, but as I've already said it just makes me feel incredibly sad.
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
against the death penalty
I think it is important to remember that these SE Asian countries have a significant problem with drugs, that is it is not going to go away of its own accord.
As we all probably know drugs are a major "low risk" cashflow for organised crime, lets face it, the criminals are not doing the time, its dupes like Van N and so forth, so its really a case of throw-aways, a volume based strategy.
I don't know the circumstances of Van N, and frankly I don't care too much for the theatrics surrounding his family and so forth, at the end of the day he made a decision to do it, he alone is responsible, there were no hostage parents, there were no hostage children, if he wanted money so bad he should have done like the rest of us and worked for it.
No Sympathy here, and no pressure from me on the Singers, they have laws, harsh and unpalatable they may be, but you takes your bets and you live by your choices. As a mate of mine in a very topical world wide organisation is fond of saying " mate if you are going to fcuk up, do it in the EU".
I do however think that capital punishment is wrong, as taildragger pointed out, there is an irreversable finality to it.
To have the australian govermnent make representations on Van N's behalf, and not on the behalf of Hicks , is just plain wrong, there is a significant message there, which we won't go into now as it's bedtime for this bonzo
As we all probably know drugs are a major "low risk" cashflow for organised crime, lets face it, the criminals are not doing the time, its dupes like Van N and so forth, so its really a case of throw-aways, a volume based strategy.
I don't know the circumstances of Van N, and frankly I don't care too much for the theatrics surrounding his family and so forth, at the end of the day he made a decision to do it, he alone is responsible, there were no hostage parents, there were no hostage children, if he wanted money so bad he should have done like the rest of us and worked for it.
No Sympathy here, and no pressure from me on the Singers, they have laws, harsh and unpalatable they may be, but you takes your bets and you live by your choices. As a mate of mine in a very topical world wide organisation is fond of saying " mate if you are going to fcuk up, do it in the EU".
I do however think that capital punishment is wrong, as taildragger pointed out, there is an irreversable finality to it.
To have the australian govermnent make representations on Van N's behalf, and not on the behalf of Hicks , is just plain wrong, there is a significant message there, which we won't go into now as it's bedtime for this bonzo
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: East of Clacton
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thought, that has me troubled here....
Firstly, you cannot help but know that Singapore has a hard line on those who import drugs. Not a secret. If you do import the vile stuff, you really do deserve all you get, I am afraid. Singapore has no wish to see her citizens drugged up, with all the attendant misery that causes, and a far better society it is for that, IMHO.
BUT....
I was under the naive impression that the law in Singapore was "the importation of controlled substances". This guy was in transit, and had no intention of importing drugs into Singapore. He was trying to import them into Australia. He did not try and enter Singapore. He was caught when he set off a security alarm at a boarding gate, and was hand frisked.
Under those terms, shouldn't the Singaporeans hand him over to the Australians, since it surely would be Australian law he was going to flout, not Singaporean law?
Just a thought...
Firstly, you cannot help but know that Singapore has a hard line on those who import drugs. Not a secret. If you do import the vile stuff, you really do deserve all you get, I am afraid. Singapore has no wish to see her citizens drugged up, with all the attendant misery that causes, and a far better society it is for that, IMHO.
BUT....
I was under the naive impression that the law in Singapore was "the importation of controlled substances". This guy was in transit, and had no intention of importing drugs into Singapore. He was trying to import them into Australia. He did not try and enter Singapore. He was caught when he set off a security alarm at a boarding gate, and was hand frisked.
Under those terms, shouldn't the Singaporeans hand him over to the Australians, since it surely would be Australian law he was going to flout, not Singaporean law?
Just a thought...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greybeard
We've been here before, but:
1. It is highly dubious to even claim the death penalty is stopping people committing the crime
2. Something like 30% of the population have taken "illicit substances" at some time in their life - do you really dislike 3 out of 10 people, purely on this basis? Your own profile states you like Beers - is that not also a drug? One responsible for as much carnage as heroin?
3. The pushers methods become even more dissagreeable the greater the penalty (and hence rewards) for supplying drugs.
4. There is an umlimited supply of poor sods like this bloke to be executed. The people higher up the food chain are probably free to continue their supply.
In case you have missed my point, I DONT LIKE DRUGGIES, THEIR PUSHERS OR DEALERS, I have seen the damage.
1. It is highly dubious to even claim the death penalty is stopping people committing the crime
2. Something like 30% of the population have taken "illicit substances" at some time in their life - do you really dislike 3 out of 10 people, purely on this basis? Your own profile states you like Beers - is that not also a drug? One responsible for as much carnage as heroin?
3. The pushers methods become even more dissagreeable the greater the penalty (and hence rewards) for supplying drugs.
4. There is an umlimited supply of poor sods like this bloke to be executed. The people higher up the food chain are probably free to continue their supply.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave has it right; it is all about the rewards.
So long as the war on drugs continues, there will be money in it for the criminals. And where does this money come from? Why from us of course. We allow the governments to run massive enforcement arms with military and police resources, for which we pay. When huge profits can be made from such small amounts of powder, pills, or weeds, how does the criminal resist the chance we give him? We put huge investments in the legal, medical, and social support areas in a vain attempt to fight a war that cannot be won. It never has, and never will.
History shows us the futility of making drugs illegal by the attempt in the US in the 20s to do the same for alcohol. After eight years it was seen to be ineffective and was causing the criminals to become outrageously wealthy and many of those criminals of the time were able to move into legitimate businesses because of the profits of their crimes, and now run the US economy. Meanwhile it did nothing to stop people who wanted to drink from doing so.
The same is true now with drugs. All it can do is cause the price to rise and so the profit for the drug kingpins and the death and misery for the users, their families, and a general loss of wealth for all of us. Nobody should support such an illogical, proven to fail policy.
Sure drugs are bad, and they were around me when I was growing up, but apart from alcohol I did not use them simply because I knew they were bad for me. Because alcohol is regulated, even though I used it, I was not tempted to abuse it. Social pressures tend to make all of us aware of the dangers of drinking and smoking and at the same time offer counseling, medical and religious help to avoid or recover from abuse.
Youngsters today abuse all manner of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco but they abuse the hard drugs worse because they are relatively cheap, available, and are more attractive simply because they are illegal; something forbidden has an allure that the young mind cannot resist.
Ask a drug pusher what he thinks of legalising drugs (with the right controls) and he would be horrified at the idea.
So long as the war on drugs continues, there will be money in it for the criminals. And where does this money come from? Why from us of course. We allow the governments to run massive enforcement arms with military and police resources, for which we pay. When huge profits can be made from such small amounts of powder, pills, or weeds, how does the criminal resist the chance we give him? We put huge investments in the legal, medical, and social support areas in a vain attempt to fight a war that cannot be won. It never has, and never will.
History shows us the futility of making drugs illegal by the attempt in the US in the 20s to do the same for alcohol. After eight years it was seen to be ineffective and was causing the criminals to become outrageously wealthy and many of those criminals of the time were able to move into legitimate businesses because of the profits of their crimes, and now run the US economy. Meanwhile it did nothing to stop people who wanted to drink from doing so.
The same is true now with drugs. All it can do is cause the price to rise and so the profit for the drug kingpins and the death and misery for the users, their families, and a general loss of wealth for all of us. Nobody should support such an illogical, proven to fail policy.
Sure drugs are bad, and they were around me when I was growing up, but apart from alcohol I did not use them simply because I knew they were bad for me. Because alcohol is regulated, even though I used it, I was not tempted to abuse it. Social pressures tend to make all of us aware of the dangers of drinking and smoking and at the same time offer counseling, medical and religious help to avoid or recover from abuse.
Youngsters today abuse all manner of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco but they abuse the hard drugs worse because they are relatively cheap, available, and are more attractive simply because they are illegal; something forbidden has an allure that the young mind cannot resist.
Ask a drug pusher what he thinks of legalising drugs (with the right controls) and he would be horrified at the idea.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boofhead,
You sound pissed off that one of your mules got caught.
Hey whilst your at it, let's legalize home invasion. I know that legalizing armed robbery would quell my thirst for it!
You sound pissed off that one of your mules got caught.
Hey whilst your at it, let's legalize home invasion. I know that legalizing armed robbery would quell my thirst for it!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead, I would have to disagree with you..... I think it was Sweden which tried lgalisation about a decade ago and have now very strict drug laws because things got out of control.
I think you have to compare apples with apples here. Comparing prohibition in the US in the 30's to the possibility of legalising hard drugs would certainly not be the same.
The problem is that hard drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin and the like make the user so dangerous to society when they come down and need a fix that we could not allow it. Making it cheaper would not solve the problem and would certainly make things worse. Try NZ and Australia and look at some of the homicides over the past three years and the prevalence of violence linked to drug-abuse is huge.
You also need to separate what drugs you are talking about. The 30% figure would encompass cannabis and the "soft" drugs and only a very small proportion of society get involved in the harder drugs.
As for the drug which is responsible for the majority of drug-affected crime, well that would be alcohol.
I think it is simplistic to say that legalising and "controlling" drugs would solve the problems because how the hell could you do that? With a methamphetamine addict he may go on a binge for seven days without sleeping and psychosis sets in. The next thing is he thinks that ants are crawling up his arms and he tears his skin off. The next thing is he believes that his wife/mother/friend is the devil and kills her. Not dramatised but fact. I was in the Police for 10 years and how can you not try and stop that?
I think you have to compare apples with apples here. Comparing prohibition in the US in the 30's to the possibility of legalising hard drugs would certainly not be the same.
The problem is that hard drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin and the like make the user so dangerous to society when they come down and need a fix that we could not allow it. Making it cheaper would not solve the problem and would certainly make things worse. Try NZ and Australia and look at some of the homicides over the past three years and the prevalence of violence linked to drug-abuse is huge.
You also need to separate what drugs you are talking about. The 30% figure would encompass cannabis and the "soft" drugs and only a very small proportion of society get involved in the harder drugs.
As for the drug which is responsible for the majority of drug-affected crime, well that would be alcohol.
I think it is simplistic to say that legalising and "controlling" drugs would solve the problems because how the hell could you do that? With a methamphetamine addict he may go on a binge for seven days without sleeping and psychosis sets in. The next thing is he thinks that ants are crawling up his arms and he tears his skin off. The next thing is he believes that his wife/mother/friend is the devil and kills her. Not dramatised but fact. I was in the Police for 10 years and how can you not try and stop that?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whiteknuckles,
Good points, but it isn't clear cut.
Heroin was legal in the UK (Sherlock Holmes certainly enjoyed the odd syringe) until the 60s I think it was.
It has been commented on, that only once it was made illegal that it became 1) a problem (popular amongst down-and-outs), 2) laced with all kinds of things from cement to other pharmaceauticals, and 3) did the gang-land fraternity get involved.
There are usually a lot of onfounding facts that make direct cause and effect links in anything to do with drugs open to question. But clearly it is the gangs and thieves who are profiting, the users who are facing increased harm, and the police who have an increased workload - not to mention those on the receiving end of drug based crime (usually a users effort to fund their addiction, rather than psychosis).
Sweden does take a very strong line on drugs, and by and large it works for them very well. This might have a lot to do with the relative high living standard there though and general "obedient" society.
Certainly legalising "P" in New Zealand is not going to stop the axe murders and knifings, but elsewhere a more pragmatic approach can work. At the other end of the spectrum, Singapore is by and large one of the safest cities in the world....but there is a price.
Good points, but it isn't clear cut.
Heroin was legal in the UK (Sherlock Holmes certainly enjoyed the odd syringe) until the 60s I think it was.
It has been commented on, that only once it was made illegal that it became 1) a problem (popular amongst down-and-outs), 2) laced with all kinds of things from cement to other pharmaceauticals, and 3) did the gang-land fraternity get involved.
There are usually a lot of onfounding facts that make direct cause and effect links in anything to do with drugs open to question. But clearly it is the gangs and thieves who are profiting, the users who are facing increased harm, and the police who have an increased workload - not to mention those on the receiving end of drug based crime (usually a users effort to fund their addiction, rather than psychosis).
Sweden does take a very strong line on drugs, and by and large it works for them very well. This might have a lot to do with the relative high living standard there though and general "obedient" society.
Certainly legalising "P" in New Zealand is not going to stop the axe murders and knifings, but elsewhere a more pragmatic approach can work. At the other end of the spectrum, Singapore is by and large one of the safest cities in the world....but there is a price.
Guest
Posts: n/a
schlong hauler appears to be using this aviation forum to preach his views on capital punishment, cunningly using aviation as a smoke screen.
There are two opposing views, but in the end this dude is going to swing on the 2 December. Get used to it.
Get over it and lets get back to aviation subjects.
There are two opposing views, but in the end this dude is going to swing on the 2 December. Get used to it.
Get over it and lets get back to aviation subjects.
It's not just the death penalty which results in Singapore being largely crime free. Police there have considerable powers under the internal security act to detain people threatening good order. Hence you do not have firebrand Islamic clerics calling for jihad against westerners, they would be locked up and expelled. Note that in the west they would be claiming social security at the same time.
The courts deal effectively with criminals, being more concerned with "did he actually do it " rather than allowing the guilty to get off on a minor technicality (did the search warrant actually include the garage as it is seperate to the house rather than built in ?)
Sure free speach is limited, and rights aren't what you'd expect in the west, but the place is safe, clean and prosperous. You don't have Singaporean refugees escaping as people are free to travel as they please, and can afford to do it. Housing, health and education are of a high standard and there is virtually no unemployment.
Singapore has about got things right.
P.S. Can we please borrow Lee Kwan Yew ?
The courts deal effectively with criminals, being more concerned with "did he actually do it " rather than allowing the guilty to get off on a minor technicality (did the search warrant actually include the garage as it is seperate to the house rather than built in ?)
Sure free speach is limited, and rights aren't what you'd expect in the west, but the place is safe, clean and prosperous. You don't have Singaporean refugees escaping as people are free to travel as they please, and can afford to do it. Housing, health and education are of a high standard and there is virtually no unemployment.
Singapore has about got things right.
P.S. Can we please borrow Lee Kwan Yew ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Metroman, Singapore is indeed unique in a number of ways.
Like exporting democracy, exporting Lee Kwan Yew to Canberra will do bugger all for crime, housing and education. The rest of the ingrediants are missing.
Like exporting democracy, exporting Lee Kwan Yew to Canberra will do bugger all for crime, housing and education. The rest of the ingrediants are missing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original thread was to high light the difference and the ulterior motives of the Singaporean Government. The only thing that they understand is money. The fact that I mentioned Van Nguyen's plight was to emphasise a greater motive and the lack of any compromise and or humility by the Singaporean Government. Why would QF want to have any association with SQ (read Government) when all they would do is slowly screw us down and out. QF was instrumental in the original setup of Malayan Airways which was split to become Malaysian and Singapore Airlines. A fact which is easily forgotten. I suppose its to do with the size of the islands which we live on. The small one has a very big chip on its shoulder. NSW alone has an economy seven times that of Singapore and yet they want to call the shots. This is all about aviation and its iconic link to what we are as nations. The two airlines are both flag carriers and therefore reflect the policies of their respective governments. What is happening at Changi high lights our differences as Nations. By allowing SQ to operate over the Pacific will be seen as condoning Van Nguyen's hanging which is being widely condemned by the Australian Government and society. Read and listen to what is happening. This is becoming a huge political issue.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Real World (TRW)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By allowing SQ to operate over the Pacific will be seen as condoning Van Nguyen's hanging schlong hauler
Using that comparison of your's, does it mean that Australians also condone the inhumane torture and beheadings of Australians, by the Japanese, by allowing Japan Airlines to fly into Australia?