|
"'We must make exampies. By the sight of the fate inflicted on criminals, we must shock those who might otherwise beterupted to imitate them!' Well; in the first place we deny, the power of the example. We deny, that the sight of executions produces the desired effect. Far from edifying the common people, it demoralizes and ruins their feeling, injuring every virtue... If, notwithstanding all experience, you still hold to the theory of example, then give us back the Sixteenth Century; be in reality formidable: restore to us a variety of suffering; restore us, Farinacci; restore us the sworn torturers; restore us the gibbet, the wheel, the block, the rack, the thumb-screw, the live-burial vault, the burning cauldron; restore us in the streets of Paris, as the most open shop among the rest, the hideous stall of the executioner, constantly full of human flesh; give us back Montfaucon, its caves of bones, its beams, its crooks, its chains, its rows of skeletons; give us back, in its permanence and power, that gigantic outhouse of the Paris executioner! This indeed would be wholesale example, this would be punishment by death, well understood; this would be a system of [p. 25] execution in some proportion--which, while it is horrible, is also terrible!" - Victor Hugo, Preface, Last Day of A Condemned In less than eight hours, this young man will be dead: ![]() There is another picture I wanted to use, one which struck me greatly, but I can't seem to upload it -- photobucket.com has not been cooperative. It is of Amara Tochi standing in a foreign airport in front of a departure board showing a list of flights to and from Singapore. He wears a faded purple suit with white pants and looks faintly bewildered. But what really catches my eye are his shoes -- the shiniest pair of shoes I've ever seen. It seems like someone has spent hours on those shoes. And I keep thinking: Amara Tochi, all dressed up for death row. I find myself overwhelmed by a sense of sadness and waste. I tell myself: he's a stranger, and people die by the second, why should you care so much? And then the answer comes to me, again and again - I care because not enough do. We care because if we don't, who will? Is it not a highest form of tragedy to pass unmourned, to be surrounded, in the last hours, days, weeks, months, years of your existence, by no one who cares? And then to slip away at dawn, the faintest wraith, and to have the world turn tomorrow without you. The barest murmur, the smallest stir, and then it would have been as if Amara Tochi had never existed. And too many of us would rather pretend it to be so. Therefore, I mourn: I mourn because it is all there is left to do, with too few people left to do it. Those of you who are not familiar with the case: Amara Tochi is a man who will be hung tomorrow, at dawn, for the possession of diamorphine on his person. The Nigerian President has asked for clemency on his behalf to no avail. I wrote an article for The New Paper on the subject, but it was not published. I'm upset, not surprised. Here it is, below: On the 27th of November, 2004, Amara Tochi arrived at Changi Airport. A 19-year-old Nigerian, he hoped to play football for Singapore. First, however, he had to deliver some capsules to a man in Singapore. According to Tochi, his soccer manager, Smith, had asked him to deliver the capsules, which he claimed contained herbal medicine. Of course, the capsules did not contain medicine. Instead, they contained substantial amounts of diamorphine. And so, a hair's breadth from three years later, on the 26th of January, Tochi will not be playing football for our beloved country. Instead, he will be hung at the break of dawn. There will be some mention of it in the newspapers; those who know him will grieve; several letters of outrage will be written, and then the affair will slowly fade from public memory. He will have become just another young man sentenced to death in our city-state, internationally renowned for having the highest estimated per-capita executions in the world. The death sentence has been accepted by most of us as a part and parcel of being Singaporean. Journalist William Gibson once called us 'Disneyland with the death penalty'. For a country which exacts this penalty so often, we are remarkably, and blissfully, unaffected by it. Yet this particular case more than others caught my attention, for a simple reason: Amara Tochi was sentenced to death for drug trafficking. Yet he might not have even known that he possessed drugs on his person. In fact, Justice Kan noted in his findings that "there was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out on his own". That leads us to a troublesome and haunting question: can you be sentenced to death for drug trafficking without even knowing you were in possession of drugs? Curious as it seems, yes - and that is exactly what is happening here. Part III of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that anyone found in possession of more than a specified amount of a certain drug "shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose". If I were permitted to paraphrase this, it would resoundingly say: "Guilty until proven innocent." The death penalty itself is a practice which should be scrutinized. A life is not to be taken lightly - and some would argue, not at all. But assuming it is in place, then the question of how and when it is implemented becomes all the more crucial. Perhaps it is time to re-look that implementation. To be sure, it will make things harder for our judicial system to convict and sentence potential drug-traffickers. But then again, it should never be easy to kill a man. We can do very little for Amara Tochi now. In fact, he might have more to offer than we could ever offer him. In his death, he could make us take a good hard look at the mirror and ask ourselves a few long overdue questions. Early tomorrow morning I will observe one minute of silence for Amara Tochi. I hope you will, too, spare a thought for a newly-dead man.
|
| Term Papers December 7, 2009 03:20 PM PST I really like this blog, It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also get knowledge, from these type of blog, nice entry. Thanks | ||
| 無料逆援助交際掲示板 December 7, 2009 03:05 PM PST よろしくおねがいします。good good nice | ||
| schizo February 4, 2007 05:35 PM PST Gotta a very strong hunch this Facts guy also a mole. | ||
| schizo February 4, 2007 05:34 PM PST whybegay also uses wbg moniker elsewhere. | ||
| whynotgay February 4, 2007 04:20 PM PST whybegay could be a PAP man planted here to stalk Gayle. Therefore, Why Be Gayle? | ||
| whybegay February 2, 2007 12:06 AM PST Jason I based my point that man was still indistinguishable from the ape from ancient fossils. And I already wrote my point on the death sentence at SingaporeAngle. Perhaps you would like to read them there and find out the responses I got. curious, In the event that I come face to face with one of these Nigerians you mentioned, I would tell them to go find Smith for revenge, and if they want to change the death penalty in Singapore, they would have to come here to be citizens like us first, then complain to the government to change the law. Threatening to kill us won't serve any good purpose, it would only DETER us from them and their country. See, the person who threatened death already understood the deterrence effect of his own death penalty threat. Then he is no different from us, supporting the death penalty threat. But on one hand he says he does not support our death penalty threat, yet on the other hand he threatens to support and practise it? Does he support the death penalty threat or not? Perhaps he has already been convinced by Singapore of the death penalty? He sounds like a hypocrite, saying that others cannot practise the death penalty and only he can! He is just a hypocrite tyrant who does not realise what he is talking about, or what he is really thinking. He is just childish and immature to give out demands and threats that contradicts each other. | ||
| curious February 1, 2007 10:47 PM PST whybegay, Things seem to be hotting up at IS with at least on commenter giving warnings to Singaporeans to be careful especially when abroad. Revenged has been mentioned. Would you still maintain your stance on the Tochi case, that he deserved to hang, in the event you come face to face with one of these Nigerians? | ||
| jason February 1, 2007 06:14 PM PST Whybegay - You wrote : Do you realise that a million years ago, man was still indistinguishable from the ape? blablabla... You wrote as if you were born a million years ago and living during that time. Is not it true that you also base on assumption or by a book to pass this remark? Just a different book from Joker's maybe, be moderate to others ok? Just write your point regarding death sentence and see what is the response from others. | ||
| whybegay February 1, 2007 10:52 AM PST "Of course animal has soul but not eternal like man." This is yet another unwarranted assumption between animal and man. Do you realise that a million years ago, man was still indistinguishable from the ape? Well, if you are going to let a book give you default ideas of your own assumptions, then you are just going to assume till who knows what. You are merely picking and choosing ideals like candy based on your own preference without questioning their validity. Of course you assume it from the book. "If I can ask an animal today "do you have any law in your animal kingdom?" I believe the animal's answer is "We have only one law. We kill to eat and live"." Ask this to man a million or even a few thousand years ago, and he will give you the exact same answer. Maybe next time the planet would be dominated by apes and man perceive as the animal. Who knows? But of course you wouldn't allow it, because according to you, the book didn't state so. "I also agree that it is not wrong to support the death penalty with reasons given earlier. I did not recommend that death penalty be taken away totally, just that it has to be reviewed and be more carefully executed." If you are going to make simple judgments like that on policies that affect the global community's drug culture, without giving good reasons to justify them, then don't expect other similar well-wishers of the country and international community to show much mercy in scrutinising your demands for any agendas, no matter with how much good intentions they come with. This is their right and what people politics about. "My Bible knowledge is very little only,no offence if I got anything wrong but do remember that in this world, SA Tan holds a lot of power and he sets many rules and laws for many people.Many of these are deceptive though well painted and they need to be reviewed." You said they is someone with the likes of "satan", yet you make this inference from the Bible, a book you yourself claim to have very little knowledge of. How would others know whether this is a legitimate claim or simply paranoia if there is no proper train of logic in the inference? These discussion are not about the differences between animals and man, being vegetarian or about the death penalty, it is about how people perceive you reconciling all your different faiths, thoughts and ideals with reality. Your train of thoughts between religion, science and politics are broken and derailed under buckled tracks, you don't follow where you yourself is going, your destination, neither can others, thereby all the confusion and stress. If you don't fix the tracks, there is really nowhere you are going. I say this to your own benefit. Think carefully about it if you ever want to come back. Because the next time people may not show any mercy to your views, I know I won't, and you may not get such a sweet escape the next time. | ||
| joker January 31, 2007 05:29 PM PST Whybegay, Of course animal has soul but not eternal like man. I also agree that it is not wrong to support the death penalty with reasons given earlier. I did not recommend that death penalty be taken away totally, just that it has to be reviewed and be more carefully executed. If I can ask an animal today "do you have any law in your animal kingdom?" I believe the animal's answer is "We have only one law. We kill to eat and live".Well, to animal, I also apply the same law, but I will never kill an animal or a man unless I have a very good reason. Of course if we go on like this.... you gonna ask me what about animals who are vegetarians... Joker has not much energy left lah. I am a simple jungle people,talk jungle language only. You surely find me out of place to be in this blog.. OK lah, just ponder over my views will do. My Bible knowledge is very little only,no offence if I got anything wrong but do remember that in this world, SA Tan holds a lot of power and he sets many rules and laws for many people.Many of these are deceptive though well painted and they need to be reviewed. From your comment, I agree that this is not my place...better go back to the jungle now and not reply you again. Jungle people are simple people and you will not understand me. I wil be off from this blog now, lest i got to go search for stress balls!! Bye now - wow wow... meow meow.. grrrr.. | ||
| simpleminded January 31, 2007 05:08 PM PST I am simple-minded because I do not agree with whybegay. | ||
| whybegay January 31, 2007 04:38 PM PST The Bible has its laws but we don't just live by the limits of laws but to live beyond the rules meant for dissuading primal criminals. If the Bible says thou shall not kill, it does not mean people should not honour life for what it is. Feel free then to disregard animal life just because the Bible did not instruct to honor it. The Bible says that man is not capable of taking away souls, only life. So that leaves us with just life to be dealt with. Killing animals would inflict as much suffering as killing a man. Go watch these videos from the site. http://www.peta.org/ and then convince us that animals and pets don't deserve to live, they are grown just for food. If the Bible did not say animals have souls, is it true that they really don't have souls because the Bible did not mention it? Sure, continue to be wilfully ignorant. If people want to preserve life, then preserve all life including animals, instead of continuing to allow the carcass of something dead appear on one's table, eating it while saying that one does not support the death penalty to take away life, still with the blood in one's mouth. Doing so is just being seen as wilfully ignorant of life and not realising what one is saying. It would cause people to suspect the person of being a hypocritical armchair dictator practising differing standards, and to disregard anything said as serious. A person who eats meat is supporting the taking away of life even though the person may not have the heart to kill the animals. I said that I currently support the death penalty but I never said that I would kill a person in the execution room. I'm open to be convinced otherwise, with a good clear argument that can convinve us that a person's life is to be considered over the lives he would threaten, instead of judging by simple over-assuming talk that only works on simple people. And most importantly of all, recommending to take away the death penalty based on a single case. This is simple thinking. So long now with simplistics and simple people who are wilfully ignorant to see the full picture. I'm off to the real world where problems are not as simple as they look. I only deal with thoughts and behaviours of people not the person, if people think otherwise then that's just too sad and too pathetic, and the person is really not meant to discuss serious politics, but as sniping ambush attackers. | ||
| wow January 31, 2007 02:48 PM PST Name/Joker, It seems you know the Bible better than whybegay! | ||
| wow January 31, 2007 02:46 PM PST This is a must-watch video on the drug problem if you seriously are concerned and want to solve it and not just be a political bootlicker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0 | ||
| Name January 31, 2007 11:09 AM PST Wah lao oi, Whybegay, you again. Dont make me a preacher lah. I know a little Bible knowledge only. Anyway,the Bible says that God created man from dust of the earth and He breathed into him and man became a LIVING soul.God is spirit and He is eternal.Man received the breath of life and the living soul never die. You go to heaven if your sin is forgiven through repentance oterwise go to hell and meet up with those criminals lah,drunken friends also a lot hanging out there you know? I personallyt believe that man is special and so is woman.God used Adam (the name of the first man on earth)'s rib to create Eve,the woman and I assume that woman is also special.I assume that when Adam woke up and see another new man created by God, he must be very kan cheong and must have exclaimed "Wo !! Man !!!, so this one is called "Woman". But this is just my assumption. As for animals, God did mention that He created all other creatures,but isnt that enough? Dont expect God to record every hair for us lah. Go and learn the ten commandment by heart first before you ask so much detail. I still cant recite the ten commandment you know? And you are right in one thing, if I assume God created animals and man can eat anything except that some sort of apple, then it means man can eat man too!! That is why there are lots of killing but man's meat is not so tasty,so they only burn or burry them or leave them to rot,lucky man. Dont lah, how am I going to prove this and that. I am so old already.. not sure how long more to live... where got time to champion the cause anymore? Let the government base on its own assumption and make whatever law without considering others' view lah, do what they want. Oh dear, I am so lor so, so late for work already. God bless you.Got to go.... | ||
| whybegay January 30, 2007 09:46 PM PST Joker you said, "Ok, I know that God made man according to His image and unlike animal, man is a living soul." Firstly, can you explain why is man's "soul" different from animals' "soul". Are you saying that animals' souls are dead but they are still alive? These are really big assumptions that needs explaining before others can be convinced of them. you also said, "God also allowed the first man and woman to eat anything except that apple. There is therefore a difference between animal and man." However, I fail to see how the difference between animal and man is due to God allowing the first man and woman to eat anything except that apple, because there is no mentioning of animals in the picture at all. you also said, "I may be convinced to a certain extent that for a criminal who KILLed anyone, he should be sentenced to death, but not so cruel type lah. Dont need to be as cruel as that criminal lah,lest we are just the same as him. But in a case where the so called criminal cannot be 100 pct proven and if it is not one who kill or may kill others, I recommend at the worst, life sentence. My advise : Be it alive or be it dead, dont be so quick to hang his head. Give a criminal a reasonable period of time to be imprisoned first and hear the Word of God. He then can have a chance to mend his ways,if not - join the others like him in hell lah." Unfortunately, the reality is that laws are drafted based on social needs and pressures in a democracy, not just on what you recommend. There is no use saying what you WANT without convincing people with a STRONG argument and resolving society's pressures and support for the death penalty. (The lifespan of a person is based on God's will. He creates man and he knows when we will die. Whether a life is terminated by an act of God or by man, it's already decided by God's plan. Therefore even if a man is killed by another man, it is still part of God's will and his plan that it should happen.) You cannot simply state that man is different from animal just because you say so, you have to prove it with convincing facts. How about if I say that woman's soul is not as deserving as man's soul based on a verse I quote out of context from the Bible? I can also easily assume like you that animals' and man's live are the same. I can also easily assume like you that man and animal are similar. If you cannot disprove me or prove your own words, then your assumption that the lives of man and animal are different don't hold much weight. You can ask to review the death penalty a thousand times but without a case with better alternatives that can resolve currrent social demands, people will not listen to differing demands that could easily undermine the whole country. | ||
| L January 30, 2007 09:32 PM PST Your grammar, Gayle: The word is "hang" NOT "hung". | ||
| PJ January 30, 2007 07:32 PM PST Aaron you said, "To presume that a person in possession of more than 15 grams of heroin IS trafficking drugs is like presuming a person in possession of a few cases of vodka is addicted to alcohol." Isn't it frightening that our so-called first world society is still so primitive? If a gal is raped and a man is somehow picked up in the vicinity, he would be charged and convicted on the grounds that he has the equipment to commit such a crime. (Unless by sheer stroke of luck he has medical proof that his tool doesnt work). | ||
| Joker January 30, 2007 07:10 PM PST Wah lao oi, your Bible knowledge is so chim.Looks like I got to read my Bible more often now,got to buck up first before I reply. Ok, I know that God made man according to His image and unlike animal, man is a living soul.God also allowed the first man and woman to eat anything except that apple. There is therefore a difference between animal and man. If u gonna invite me for beef steak, I will surely go. Frankly, I rather dont become a judge, especially in Singapore, incase I make a mistake and kill an innocent man. But if I am a judge, I will not be trigger happy. I may be convinced to a certain extent that for a criminal who KILLed anyone, he should be sentenced to death, but not so cruel type lah. Dont need to be as cruel as that criminal lah,lest we are just the same as him. But in a case where the so called criminal cannot be 100 pct proven and if it is not one who kill or may kill others, I recommend at the worst, life sentence. My advise : Be it alive or be it dead, dont be so quick to hang his head. Give a criminal a reasonable period of time to be imprisoned first and hear the Word of God. He then can have a chance to mend his ways,if not - join the others like him in hell lah. A man may be an animal but an animal is not a man.I eat meat but I dont eat man. So review our death penalty. Dont ever end up eating man (criminal) like eating animal. Joke aside, this is a serious joke from Joker for everyone. Have a good day. | ||
| whybegay January 30, 2007 02:20 AM PST Joker, You said, "I agree that Death penalty is still not 100% effective as a deterrent, people still continue extreme crimes because they don't fear death. - If this is so, then the more we dont need death penalty in our law." But the death penalty is still effective as a deterrent which you also agree with. Unless you can come up with a more effective deterrent than the death penalty and convince the necessary people, it would not be easy to remove it. "murderers are still more evil than the death penalty.- Absolutely true. This is where only God can change the heart of wicked man. So why death penalty?" But what if some wicked with hardened hearts don't believe in God? The Bible says that not all people are corrigible. "It is better to imprison them for life,impart them with the Word of God and ask God to change their hearts. Only God can change the heart of man, bring justice or take away a person's life.He can also set prisoners free." Again I will say, but what if some wicked with hardened hearts don't believe in God? The Bible says that not all people are corrigible. I know that Death is nothing as Life is but an illusion. The Bible says, 1CO 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." But until the end comes, mundane laws have to be dealt on the mundane ways of man. Not everyone believes in a higher intelligence nor respects it. Honestly, if you want to dispose of the death penalty, maybe you should start with encouraging everyone to be vegetarian, playing less RPG violent games and scrape off the Military Service because that is where death and guns are trivialised. These are all factors to respecting life and death. But not many people would listen to such ideals because they are not willing to give up old habits. Can you talk about respecting life to a nation of greedy meat-eaters? Are you a flesh and blood meat-eater yourself? Do you support the killing of animals for your own consumption and benefit? Are animals' lives as important as human lives? Sad to say, you have to overcome your own desires before you can expect others to overcome theirs, otherwise its all just wishful thinking of a fantasy world. Until you can do that, many people would continue to link the lives of animals to that of extreme criminals, they would think that both must be killed to satisfy their hunger for meat or for justice. They would continue to support the death penalty. | ||
| Joker January 29, 2007 11:18 PM PST Aiyoh, Laws are made for man and not man made for the Law lah. So dont play play with life n death OK. I agree that Death penalty is still not 100% effective as a deterrent, people still continue extreme crimes because they don't fear death. - If this is so, then the more we dont need death penalty in our law. .... murderers are still more evil than the death penalty.- Absolutely true. This is where only God can change the heart of wicked man. So why death penalty? .... they don't take it into concern. They also don't take Democracy into concern.. Has anyone considered this? ... If we do, then the more we dont need to apply death as a penalty lah. It is better to imprison them for life,impart them with the Word of God and ask God to change their hearts. Only God can change the heart of man, bring justice or take away a person's life.He can also set prisoners free. If there is an innocent man within a hundred to be convicted for murder and I dont know which is the innocent one, as a judge, I would prefer to set all free than to sentence a hundred to death. So what is death penalty? Isnt it better to consider "Thou shalt not Kill" especially in any case where it cant be proved that a man is 100pct guilty? Dont be trigger happy lah, lest a judge becomes a murderer instead like thieves catching policemen you know? Stones turn into carrot cake ah?huh? So we are all talking about whether Death sentence should be further be reviewed and be executed more carefully. Oh, for this - Your heart speaks for you. | ||
| whybegay January 29, 2007 08:54 PM PST Now that I have reviewed and read the full verdict I will clarify that I have changed my mind that Tochi knew he was carrying diamorphine. Now I think he was unaware that he was carrying diamorphine. He was a carrier who knew little or nothing about what he was truly carrying. However, my initial assumption that Tochi knew he was carrying diamorphine was due to many, many reasonable doubts on the case. Firstly, the big assumption was the big $2000 for 100 capsules. I have never known herbs to be so profitable. $2000 could be seen as alot of money to Tochi. So freaking much money for 100 capsules of herbs. Did Tochi not suspect anything suspicious about the large sum of money? The $2000 was described as though it totally would belong to Tochi as a profit, not as transaction that would in most part be given to Smith. But I am no way going to take all the blame for my initial misconceptions on Tochi because of the emotional stunt pulled by the blogosphere on the previous Ngugen drug trafficking case. Nyugen knew full well he was carrying illegal drugs yet so many bloggers made him look like a saint. He really deserved to die. So when bloggers write another emotional supporting case for another drug trafficking case of Tochi, it is so easy to assume that Nyguyen supporters is going to pull another Nyguyen stunt. It is so easy to assume that the person endorsed by such bloggers are guilty, so easy to assume "he did it". This was all the doing of the emotional bloggers on the previous Nyugen case, who made a truly guilty person seen like a saint through their political brainwashing and playing of emotions. I was throughly disgusted at the misplaced kindness shown on Nyugen. This Tochi episode has made me DISTRUST EVEN MORE the bloggers who played a part in the Nyugen brainwashing episode. Otherwise they could really make a real good point on Tochi's case. But they always let their emotions get the better of them, sensationalising issues instead of judging by the facts. Whoever they are, They can all go to hell, I hate them even more now. Moving onto Tochi's case, There was really alot and alot of reasonable doubts to the statements in the verdict. Tochi kept giving differing statments and lots of lousy bad lies. This alone could easily convince anyone that Tochi was suspiciously guilty. "When the officers arrived about 20 minutes later, they introduced themselves and brought him back to the reception area of the hotel where they questioned him. He told them that he had come from Dubai and that he had come to Singapore to get trials with football clubs in Singapore. He admitted that no arrangements had been made with any club, and that he intended to approach the football federation for assistance. He also told the officers that he did not enter Singapore because he was told that he needed to have $2000 to enter, and he did not have the money. He had expected his father to send him the money, but his father did not send it." (Trials in local football clubs within a couple of days? Seems a little rush? And the mentioning of the $2000 appeared again. $2000 to enter Singapore? Who has heard of it?) "When the first accused was asked if the capsules were chocolate he confirmed they were. When he was asked again if they were chocolate, he said they were actually herbs from Africa which tasted like chocolate, which gave strength when eaten, and he swallowed one capsule on his own. (He was later warded in hospital and induced to purge the capsule intact.)" "43 On the other hand, the first accused did not have a consistent belief in the contents of the capsules. When he was first asked if the capsules were chocolate he affirmed that they were, and then said that they were herbs which tasted like chocolate, and then that they were African herbs for stomach problems, when by his own evidence Smith had not informed him of the origin of the herbs, their taste or use." "46 Why was the US$2000 an issue? It was because the large sum promised should have raised suspicion. The first accused痴 evidence was that Smith was not a rich man. He did not have enough money to buy an air ticket for himself to go from Dubai to Indonesia to visit his sick friend. There must be a reason for Smith to offer him the large sum of US$2000 to deliver the capsules of herbs when he was already funding his passages to Dubai and to Singapore. The first accused knew that Smith was a man who would break the law as Smith had arranged for false visas and endorsements to be entered into the first accused痴 passport to facilitate his travels. He must have realised that Smith was offering him much more than was reasonable for putting him through the minor inconvenience of meeting up with Marshal at the airport terminal and handing the capsules to him. He should have asked to be shown and be assured of the contents before agreeing to deliver them, and he could have used the ample opportunities he had when he was in possession of the capsules to check them himself, but he did nothing." "48 I found that he had wilfully turned a blind eye on the contents of the capsules because he was tempted by the US$2000, which was a large sum to him. When Smith, who had befriended him and had appeared to help him get out of Pakistan, also offered him the US$2000, he did not want to ask any questions or check the capsules himself. Consequently, even if he may not have actual knowledge that he was carrying diamorphine, his ignorance did not exculpate him because it is well established that: [I]gnorance is a defence only when there is no reason for suspicion and no right and opportunity of examination" So it seems to me that Tochi was like a scapegoat who was used for his innocence/wilful ignorance for better opportunities in his life. Yes the $2000's side effect of wilful ignorance made him do it. But no one can deny that he was guilty of carrying illegal drugs based on wilful ignorance. Was Singapore the one who killed Tochi or was Smith+wilful ignorance that sent Tochi straight to his death? But, my stand on the death penalty is still not swayed although I would prefered a much more quick and painless death with lethal injection. Refer to comments I made on http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/01/the_death_penalty_questioning.html#more I said, "Laws in place are not created nor taken down based on whether they would be 100% or less effective as deterrent. They are put in place as the moral limits of a society to discourage people from committing disapprovable crimes. The implementation of the death penalty does not seek a quota or a number, it has nothing to do with statistics. When does the implementation of any law has? If a society has no crimes, does it mean it does not require a system of law? The law is the democratic voice of a society to deal with immoral criminals who cross the line. Democracy of a soceity has to be respected otherwise there would be obligarchy. If people don't wish to see criminals die from the death penalty, they can do at least do something by spreading the preventive measure by educating would-be criminals to not commit serious crimes, rather than just being the dictators of consequential actions of law. Or, vote for another political party that would not support the death penalty. Saying anything more is just ineffective and disrespectful towards democracy." And, "The punishment of Law is always seen as unfair to the criminals or to the outside observers, this is the deterrence of the Law. What the criminal does has to be deterred with something worse than the crime, a greater evil. This is to show that crimes do not deserve a fair consequence. Therefore don't do it. Death penalty is still not 100% effective as a deterrent, people still continue extreme crimes because they don't fear death. Death penalty is still not effective, murderers are still more evil than the death penalty. Murderers are more evil than the death penalty itself, they don't take it into concern. They also don't take Democracy into concern. Has anyone considered this? The Law or vote of democracy is not all out to kill people. It is the true criminals who seek their own consequences. Democracy has the obligation to protect its citizens, even if it means killing off immediate threats to society. The voice of Democracy has already spoken, if criminals continue their threats, it will get rid of them as it has promised its citizens of their safety. There is no compromise, no negotiations because a democratic promise is a democratic promise, it will always be kept to the full of Democracy." | ||
| gayle January 29, 2007 10:16 AM PST OK, I found your e-mail, Alex. Thanks very much. All- I'm posting a copy of the verdict here so we can all stop throwing around accusations of distorton and misrepresentation like free like that. In future if you think something has been misrepresented, I would appreciate if you would state why, quote from the verdict/the circumstances of the case, and stay away from mud slinging. Before I do that, let me address specifically the accusations of factual distortion. To the person who said Tochi intended to play for Dubai, not Singapore: "He told them that he had come from Dubai and that he had come to Singapore to get trials with football clubs in Singapore. He admitted that no arrangements had been made with any club, and that he intended to approach the football federation for assistance." That should pretty much explain things for you. He came here because there were better opportunities. I'm not "romanticising" the fact that he wanted to play football for us because he loved Singapore or nonsense like that. I'm sad because he had a dream and ambition for himself, and that was never realised. To the person who said he fully expected to be paid $2000 for the delivery, thereby implying that he knew they were drugs: yes and no. "He also told the officers that he did not enter Singapore because he was told that he needed to have $2000 to enter, and he did not have the money." It is possible that this is true; indeed, perhaps even probable -- why would someone hang around in a transit area with 727.02 grams of diamorphine for MORE THAN 24 HOURS if he didn't think he could enter Singapore, call Malachy's number and make the delivery elsewhere? I know if -I- were delivering heroin I would want to get as far away from the airport, as soon as possible. Tochi was convicted on "wilful blindness" -- basically, "you should have known better". Others have been prosecuted in such a fashion, e.g. Tan Kiam Peng (http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/supremecourt/51719.html). First of all I think that's rather highhanded; it's so obvious to ME that it's heroin therefore it should be equally obvious to YOU and if you didn't know you must have not known on purpose (rather a truism). Secondly, there is nothing in the misuse of drugs act that lays a burden on the accused to prove that he wilfully did not set out to discover if the goods were heroin or not. Thirdly and finally, EVEN IF Tochi suspected he might have been carrying heroin, or EVEN IF he KNEW he was carrying heroin, you really think hanging him is the just answer? I personally think not. That's a moral decision you have to make for yourself, but for me, I'm clear on the issue. Now, the verdict: Public Prosecutor v Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and Another [2005] SGHC 233 Back Information Suit No: CC 11/2005 Decision Date: 22 Dec 2005 Court: High Court Coram: Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel: Amarjit Singh and Chong Li Min (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the prosecution, Chandra Mohan s/o K Nair (Tan Rajah and Cheah) and Patrick Tan Tse Chia (Patrick Tan and Associates) for the first accused, N K Rajarh (N K Rajarh) and Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram (Allister Lim and Thrumurgan) for the second accused Related Documents: Academy Digest Reference Trace: Cases, Legislation and References Catchwords Criminal Law - Statutory Offences - Misuse of Drugs Act - Conspiracy to import controlled drugs - Abetment of importation - No presumption of knowledge raised - Whether knowledge of contents of capsules could be inferred - Sections 7, 12, 33 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) Criminal Law - Statutory Offences - Misuse of Drugs Act - Importing controlled drugs - Presumption of knowledge of nature of drugs - Accused arrested at airport with diamorphine in bag - Requisite knowledge of contents of capsules - Wilful blindness as to contents no defence - Sections 7, 33 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) Judgment 22 December 2005 Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 There are two accused persons and two charges in this case. The first accused, Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, was charged that he: on the 27th day of November 2004, at Changi Airport Terminal 2 Transit Lounge, Singapore, did import into Singapore a controlled drug specified in Class 羨 of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, 100 capsules containing not less than 727.02 grams of diamorphine, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and [he had] thereby committed an offence under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and punishable under section 33 of the said Act. 2 The second accused, Okeke Nelson Malachy, was charged that he: on or about the 27th day of November 2004, in Singapore and elsewhere, did engage with one Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi (Nigerian Passport No: A1622328) and one 鉄mith in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, to wit, to import into Singapore a controlled drug specified in Class 羨 of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, namely, 100 capsules containing not less than 727.02 grams of diamorphine, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, the said Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder imported the said drug into Singapore on the 27th day of November 2004 to be handed to [him], and [he had] thereby abetted the commission of the offence of importing the said controlled drug into Singapore by the said Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and thereby committed an offence under section 7 read with section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and punishable under section 33 of the said Act. 3 The person referred to as Smith was not apprehended. From the evidence, he was in Pakistan. The arrests 4 On 27 November 2004, at about 1.45pm, the first accused, a Nigerian national, flew into Singapore Changi Airport from Dubai. On 28 November, he went to the Ambassador Transit Hotel (鍍he hotel) at Terminal 2 and asked for a room but none was available. When a room became available, the supervisor of the hotel noticed that he had been in the transit area for more than 24 hours and was due to return to Dubai on 30 November. In compliance with set procedures, she informed the airport police about the first accused. The airport police did not respond immediately but subsequently despatched three officers to interview the first accused. 5 The first accused was told that the police were coming to interview him before he could check in. When he was told that, he went away from the reception area of the hotel to the other areas of the transit area. 6 When the officers arrived about 20 minutes later, they introduced themselves and brought him back to the reception area of the hotel where they questioned him. He told them that he had come from Dubai and that he had come to Singapore to get trials with football clubs in Singapore. He admitted that no arrangements had been made with any club, and that he intended to approach the football federation for assistance. He also told the officers that he did not enter Singapore because he was told that he needed to have $2000 to enter, and he did not have the money. He had expected his father to send him the money, but his father did not send it. 7 The officers decided to conduct a search, which was carried out at the shower counter to the rear of the reception area. The first accused brought with him to the counter area a dark blue Converse sling bag (鍍he blue bag) and a white 泥ubai Duty Free plastic bag (鍍he white plastic bag). 8 The officers said that many items were discovered when they searched the blue bag. The most significant of the items were a red bucket-shaped 溺altesers container, a pair of gloves and a pair of shoes. The 100 capsules which are the subject matter of the charges were found in the blue bag and in the Maltesers container, the gloves and the shoes. The capsules were securely wrapped in layers of aluminium foil, adhesive tape and plastic covering the core of powdery substance containing diamorphine. 9 When the first accused was asked if the capsules were chocolate he confirmed they were. When he was asked again if they were chocolate, he said they were actually herbs from Africa which tasted like chocolate, which gave strength when eaten, and he swallowed one capsule on his own. (He was later warded in hospital and induced to purge the capsule intact.) 10 The officers decided to cut open a capsule. When they suspected that the contents were drugs, they stopped the search and the Central Narcotics Bureau (鼎NB) was notified. At the same time, the first accused and his bags were moved from the shower counter to Room 302 (鍍he hotel room) of the hotel. 11 While he was at the hotel room, another police officer, Sergeant Tan Chun Siong (鉄gt Tan) came to see him to investigate him for overstaying. The first accused told him that he hoped to play football for a team in Singapore. He also told Sgt Tan that he was in the transit area to wait for an African national by the name of Marshal, and that he was to deliver the African herbs to Marshal at about 8.00pm in the transit area that day, and Marshal, who would be arriving from Indonesia, would hand US$2000 to him. He explained to Sgt Tan that this was arranged by his soccer manager whom he knew as Smith. Sgt Tan made contemporaneous jottings of the interview, including the words 鉄mith, 溺arshal and 2000 US. 12 Subsequently, when officers from the CNB arrived at the hotel room they opened one capsule which contents tested positive for controlled drugs. 13 Assistant Superintendent of Police Gary Chan Gin Choong (鄭SP Chan) of the CNB went to the hotel room. He questioned the first accused about the capsules, and was told that they were herbs from Africa for stomach problems. This was recorded in writing, and signed by the first accused. 14 Another CNB officer, Assistant Superintendent of Police Goh Boon Pin (鄭SP Goh) arrived at about 9.55pm and recorded a statement from the first accused in which he again stated that he would receive US$2000 for delivering the capsules. Another officer, Staff Sergeant Alan Yap Keng Chuan (鉄Sgt Yap) also stated that the first accused had referred to the US$2000 payment, although he did not make any note of it at that time. 15 The first accused told the officers that someone known as Smith had arranged for him to bring the capsules into Singapore, and he was to deliver them to another person known as Marshal, who would pay him US$2000. He was instructed to telephone Smith with the telephone in the hotel room. Three calls were made. The first was made at about 8.42pm. After speaking in a language the officers did not understand (which was Igbo according to the first accused), he told the officers he had asked Smith about the delivery and collection and Smith told him that Marshal痴 flight was delayed and told him to call back later. At about 10.16pm, the first accused called Smith again. After the call, he informed the officers that Smith had instructed him to meet Marshal at a caf near the hotel. The first accused also said that Marshal was a black man of big build, and that he could recognise him by his appearance and voice. At about 10.47pm, a third call was made by the first accused to Smith, and the first accused was informed that Marshal was at the Coffee Bean outlet near the hotel. 16 The Prosecution produced the call records from the hotel痴 telephone system, which showed that three calls were made from the hotel room on 28 November 2004 to Smith痴 telephone number 005923335216217 disclosed by the first accused, which was established to be a telephone number in Pakistan. 17 After he was arrested, the first accused痴 mobile phone was examined by Assistant Superintendent of Police Stanley Seah (鄭SP Seah) and was found to have Smith痴 telephone number on its 電ialled numbers registry and 途eceived numbers registry. 18 Officers were deployed to look for Marshal, and they spotted a man fitting his description moving about in the transit area. Staff Sergeant Aaron Ler Puay Soon (鉄Sgt Ler) used his own initiative to take two video clips with his mobile telephone of the person who eventually made his way to The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf caf in the transit area. 19 Another officer, Staff Sergeant Francis Heng Kia Chye (鉄Sgt Heng) was instructed by ASP Chan to take photographs of the person. SSgt Heng took three shots of him with a digital camera. The first accused was shown the shots, and confirmed that the person in the shots was Marshal. Subsequently when the second accused was brought into the hotel room, the first accused was asked whether that was Marshal and he nodded in affirmation. The items seized from the second accused 20 After the second accused was placed under arrest, his personal property was examined and seized. He was found to be travelling on a forged South African passport. Amongst the property, the following were relied on by the Prosecution as evidence in support of its case against him: (a) one Subscriber Identity Module (鉄IM) card recovered from mobile phone number 98657833 the second accused was carrying; (b) an application form for the purchase of that SIM card; (c) five other SIM cards recovered from his wallet; (d) a small telephone booklet recovered from the wallet; and (e) a laundry receipt recovered from the wallet. 21 The SIM card in the mobile phone was sent to the Technology Crime Forensic Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, and was examined by Staff Sergeant Kelvin Yuen Khoong Wai (鉄Sgt Yuen) who found amongst the deleted messages two identical messages received on 28 November 2004 at 7:27:24pm and 7:27:44pm, both sent from telephone number 923335216217 (Smith痴 telephone number): 的 have been expecting ur call since what happen. 22 In the call tracing records of the mobile phone number 98657833 of 28 November 2004 the Prosecution obtained and produced, there was a record of an incoming call from telephone number 923335216217 at 10:58:43pm, and outgoing call to the same number at 11:14:19pm and an incoming call from the same number at 11:17:37pm. 23 From amongst the five SIM cards recovered from the wallet, SSgt Yuen retrieved the abbreviated dialling numbers including an entry, 泥ogo +923335216217. (According to the first accused, 泥ogo means tall, and was Smith痴 nickname.) 24 The small telephone booklet (intended for recording names and telephone numbers) had on its first page next to the word 哲ame the entry 溺.N. and next to the word 典el: the numbers 012585312. 25 The laundry receipt from The Landmark Hotel, Bangkok, dated 10 September 2004 had 溺arshal and 01-2585312 entered against 哲ame and 典el: respectively. The first accused痴 investigation statements 26 Four investigation statements were recorded from the first accused in the course of investigations which were admitted in evidence without objection from him. These four statements can be placed into two categories, the first two recorded on 1 and 2 December 2004 and the second two recorded on 7 and 17 February 2005. The division is made because the first accused stated in the third statement of 7 February 2005 that he wanted to tell the truth on the advice of members of the Nigeria High Commission who visited him. The implication was that where the contents of the first two statements and the contents of the last two statements differed, the versions in the last two statements were the truth. 27 In the first statement the first accused stated that he came into Singapore from Dubai with the blue bag and the white plastic bag, and that he had bought a container of Maltesers chocolates that he had put into the white plastic bag. However, he claimed that the police officers who interviewed him brought with them another white plastic bag, and that the capsules were contained in that bag, and that he swallowed one of the capsules at the insistence of the police officers. In the second statement, he said that he was instructed to call Smith when he was in the hotel room, and he called Smith and told him that he was with the police, and that he made another call to Smith when the police brought a black man into the hotel room whom he had not seen before. 28 When he declared that he was going to tell the truth in his third statement of 7 February 2005, he said that he went to Pakistan with the intention of travelling on to Dubai to play football there. After he arrived at Karachi he found that he could not get to Dubai from Pakistan. He remained in Karachi, where he subsequently met Smith. He told Smith of his intention to go to Dubai, and Smith agreed to help him. He travelled with Smith from Karachi to Kabul, Afghanistan and then to Dubai airport, but was unable to enter Dubai. At the airport, Smith asked him to deliver something in a bag to his friend, Marshal, in Singapore, who was sick. Smith showed him a photograph of Marshal and told him that Marshal would give him money to enter Singapore. Smith also gave him a plastic bag containing chocolates and sweets. 29 When he went to Changi Airport Terminal 2 as instructed by Smith, he did not see Marshal. He called Smith at telephone number 03335216217, and Smith told him to wait. While he was at the terminal, he opened his bag and the capsules spilled out, and he placed them in his gloves, socks, and the chocolate box where the police found them later. When the police questioned him about the capsules he swallowed one of them. 30 After he was brought to the hotel room, he called Smith to make arrangements to meet Marshal so that the officers could arrest Marshal. The officers showed him a digital photograph which he recognised to be Marshal from the photograph that he had seen previously, and Marshal was brought into the room. 31 In the fourth statement given on 17 February 2005, the first accused added that Smith had told him that he had intended to go to Indonesia to hand the capsules to Marshal, but as the first accused was going to Singapore, he could get Marshal to go to Singapore to collect the capsules as well as a book on herbs from him instead. Smith showed him two photographs of Marshal, one of him alone, and the other of him with Smith. 32 The first accused also elaborated that Smith had instructed him to go to Terminal 2. When he did not see Marshal there, he called Smith and Smith told him that Marshal had missed his flight and instructed him to check into the transit hotel. Smith also gave him Marshal痴 telephone number. He called Marshal, and Marshal told him that he had missed his flight, but he should be arriving in the evening. 33 The first accused added that after he was brought to the hotel room, he made three telephone calls to Smith and was told by Smith to wait for Marshal at the Coffee Bean caf. The case against the first accused 34 The Prosecution relied on the first accused痴 admissions that he knew he had the capsules in his possession; and that he had agreed with Smith to deliver the capsules to Marshal for a promised payment of US$2000. 35 The Prosecution relied on the presumption in s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) that he knew that the capsules contained diamorphine and the fact that wilful ignorance is not a defence. The case against the second accused 36 The Prosecution痴 case against him rested on the first accused痴 evidence on the arrangement for the capsules to be delivered to him. In addition to the first accused痴 evidence, the Prosecution also relied on the information from the SIM cards as evidence, of the relationship between Smith and the second accused, as well as the laundry receipt as evidence that the second accused was known as Marshal. The first accused痴 defence 37 At the trial, a considerable amount of time was spent on many matters, for example, the bag from which the capsules were recovered from, and the first accused痴 travels after leaving Nigeria up to his arrival in Singapore. When all the evidence was in, and the disputes were aired, the material facts and the disputed issues emerged. 38 It was not disputed that the first accused knew that he had the capsules with him when he entered Singapore. He admitted that he was in contact with Smith and the second accused and that there was an arrangement for him to deliver the capsules to the second accused. His defence was that he did not know that the capsules contained diamorphine and that he believed Smith that the capsules were herbs intended for Marshal who was sick. 39 His counsel laid stress on the fact that he was an 18-year-old from a rural village from Nigeria who had wanted to further his football career. He came to know Smith in Pakistan and Smith offered to help him go to Dubai and when that failed, to go to Singapore, to play football. Throughout the investigations, the first accused had maintained that he thought the capsules contained herbs, and had even swallowed one capsule which contained a potentially lethal quantity of diamorphine. 40 Counsel also emphasised that although the first accused had about 20 minutes from the time he was told that the police were coming to interview him to the time they came, and he had the opportunity to dispose of the capsules, he did not do it, nor did he make any serious attempt at concealing them. 41 All this, it was submitted, was consistent only with the first accused痴 belief that the capsules were herbs, and there was no fear of detection or need to resort to concealment. Evaluation of the case against the first accused 42 There was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out on his own. 43 On the other hand, the first accused did not have a consistent belief in the contents of the capsules. When he was first asked if the capsules were chocolate he affirmed that they were, and then said that they were herbs which tasted like chocolate, and then that they were African herbs for stomach problems, when by his own evidence Smith had not informed him of the origin of the herbs, their taste or use. 44 His position on the payment he was to receive for making the delivery was also unsatisfactory. When Sgt Tan interviewed him, Sgt Tan made a contemporaneous note of the promised US$2000. In his signed statement taken by ASP Goh, express reference was made to the US$2000. SSgt Yap also gave evidence that the sum of US$2000 was mentioned although SSgt Yap did not make a record of it in writing. 45 The first accused, however, denied in his defence that he had mentioned the figure and maintained that although he was promised a payment, no amount was mentioned. He had no plausible explanations for Sgt Tan痴 note and his own signed statement which made specific reference to US$2000. On the evidence before me, I accepted the Prosecution痴 assertion that the first accused was promised US$2000. 46 Why was the US$2000 an issue? It was because the large sum promised should have raised suspicion. The first accused痴 evidence was that Smith was not a rich man. He did not have enough money to buy an air ticket for himself to go from Dubai to Indonesia to visit his sick friend. There must be a reason for Smith to offer him the large sum of US$2000 to deliver the capsules of herbs when he was already funding his passages to Dubai and to Singapore. The first accused knew that Smith was a man who would break the law as Smith had arranged for false visas and endorsements to be entered into the first accused痴 passport to facilitate his travels. He must have realised that Smith was offering him much more than was reasonable for putting him through the minor inconvenience of meeting up with Marshal at the airport terminal and handing the capsules to him. He should have asked to be shown and be assured of the contents before agreeing to deliver them, and he could have used the ample opportunities he had when he was in possession of the capsules to check them himself, but he did nothing. 47 Counsel made much of the first accused痴 youth. The first accused was 18 years old at that time of arrest, but he was not a simple sheltered boy fresh out of his village. He had left school at the age of 14, and played football for a living in Nigeria and in Senegal. After returning home from Senegal, he was confident enough to go abroad again, and decided that he would not go back to Senegal, but would seek better prospects in Dubai instead. He was able to fend for himself when he was stranded in Pakistan and unable to travel on to Dubai. He was rich in life experiences for someone of 18 years. 48 I found that he had wilfully turned a blind eye on the contents of the capsules because he was tempted by the US$2000, which was a large sum to him. When Smith, who had befriended him and had appeared to help him get out of Pakistan, also offered him the US$2000, he did not want to ask any questions or check the capsules himself. Consequently, even if he may not have actual knowledge that he was carrying diamorphine, his ignorance did not exculpate him because it is well established that: [I]gnorance is a defence only when there is no reason for suspicion and no right and opportunity of examination Yeo Choon Huat v PP [1998] 1 SLR 217 at [22] and his defence cannot stand. He was therefore found guilty and convicted on the charge he faced. The second accused痴 defence 49 The second accused denied knowledge of Smith or the first accused, or that he was in communication with either of them and arranged with them to collect the drugs, and he also denied that he was known as Marshal. His defence was that he had come to Singapore to buy a used car to ship back to South Africa for his use. He offered explanations for the information extracted from his mobile phone, the SIM card, the laundry receipt and the telephone booklet, which I shall deal with. 50 It was difficult to follow and understand him at some parts of his defence. He would mumble and ramble, and would not focus on the questions put to him. It also did not help that his evidence-in-chief and his evidence during cross-examination went into many areas of little or no relevance to the issues before the court. By the end of the case, however, the issues and evidence were narrowed down and clarified. The evaluation of the second accused痴 defence 51 The first accused痴 evidence was that he was shown photographs of Marshal and that he had spoken with him. The first accused had told the officers that Marshal was a black man of big build, and that description fitted the second accused. The first accused claimed that Marshal was coming from Indonesia to meet him, and the second accused did come from Indonesia. The first accused said Marshal told him that he missed his flight, and the evidence showed that the second accused had been booked to fly to Singapore in the morning but had come on the evening flight. 52 The first accused would have been hard put to concoct these facts on his own. In the event, his evidence was corroborated by the records of the calls made between the second accused痴 mobile phone and Smith痴 telephone number on 28 November 2005 and the entry of 泥ogo and Smith痴 number in one of the SIM cards he was carrying, and the laundry receipt with the name 溺arshal he had with him. 53 The second accused put up explanations for the evidence against him. He said that he was stopped by the police at 10.58pm and was brought into the room at three or four minutes after 11.00pm, and the call from Smith came while he was watching a football game played in England and telecast live on television, and the time was shown on the television screen. Much time and energy was expended on this, although the mere fact that the call was received was significant on its own. If he did not know Smith, why was there a call from Smith of 38 seconds? 54 In any event, his reason for asserting that he was arrested before 10.58pm, which was based on the time shown on the screen was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. On the other hand, ASP Goh had recorded in his field book that the second accused was brought into the room at 11.33pm and the two video clips taken by SSgt Ler were recorded to be shot at 11.24pm and 11.25pm which SSgt Ler had not edited or transmitted from his mobile phone, and the times were confirmed by SSgt Yuen after he examined SSgt Ler痴 mobile phone. 55 The second accused claimed that the mobile phone did not belong to him, but to his friend, Joseph Marshal, who had lent it on 12 September 2004. However, he admitted that the SIM card in the mobile phone was his, and he had bought it on 23 July 2004 on a previous visit to Singapore. He could only venture that the messages from Smith痴 telephone number could have been there because he had lent the SIM card to three or four people. 56 As for the other SIM card found on him containing Smith痴 number and the name 泥ogo, he said that it did not belong to him, even though he had confirmed in a written statement he made on 2 December 2004 that the five loose SIM cards recovered from his wallet belonged to him. (He changed that in a subsequent statement on 7 February 2005 when he was told of the 泥ogo entry, and said that the card belonged to someone known as Emma.) This card belonged to his friend, Emma, who had taken a loan from him and had not repaid him as promised. He therefore took Emma痴 mobile phone and SIM card as security, but subsequently returned the mobile phone, but held on to the SIM card. Emma was not called as a defence witness. 57 He claimed Joseph Marshal was the person referred to in the laundry receipt as 溺arshal. Joseph Marshal had sent his laundry for cleaning and had handed him the laundry receipt with telephone number 01-2585312 written on it to collect the laundry for him. He gave contradictory accounts on the telephone number. In an investigation statement he said, 淘Joseph Marshal wrote my telephone number 01-2585312 on the receipt and that (t)he number 01-25385312 belonged to me, but in his defence in court he asserted that Joseph Marshal had written down Joseph Marshal痴 own number on the receipt. 58 The second accused claimed that the same telephone number recorded in the telephone booklet was Joseph Marshal痴 number. When the prosecutor suggested to him that the 溺.N. in the telephone booklet stood for his name, 溺alachy Nelson, he said for the first time that Joseph Marshal痴 full name was 笛oseph Marshal Njuko and 溺.N. stood for 溺arshal Njuko. He had up to that point referred to him only as 笛oseph Marshal in his investigations statements and his evidence-in-chief in court. It was not established that there is such a person by the name of Joseph Marshal or Joseph Marshal Njuko, as no one by either name was called as a defence witness. 59 The second accused was obviously anxious to distance himself from Smith and the first accused, and he was prepared to change and add to his evidence when he thought it suited him. When his evidence was examined it often lacked logic and consistency, and contradicted established facts as well as his own signed statements. He was not an unfortunate who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time as his counsel described him. He was someone trying to think up ways to explain away the evidence against him, and doing a poor job of it. 60 The fact that he did not have the US$2000 that the first accused had been promised and had only US$952 on him when he was arrested, was of no exceptional significance. Throughout his dealings with Smith and the second accused, there were changes and disappointments, eg, Smith痴 broken promise to get him into Dubai, and the second accused痴 delayed arrival at Singapore. The first accused may be faced with a reduced payment or a deferred payment if he made the delivery. 61 I found that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an arrangement between Smith and the two accused persons for the second accused to come to Singapore to collect the capsules from the first accused. 62 Although there was no direct evidence that the second accused knew that the capsules contained drugs, and there is no presumption of such knowledge raised against him, the knowledge can be inferred against him for several reasons. 63 He was the intended recipient of the capsules in the arrangement. Prima facie, they were intended for him, and he must know what they were. By his own evidence, he was his own man. He was 33 years old. He said he ran a garment retailing business in South Africa. He travelled far from South Africa and had come to South-East Asia to buy garments from Thailand and Indonesia to ship back to South Africa. If he was an unwitting participant in the scheme, it was for him to explain how he became caught up in that, but he did not do that. Instead, he lied, and denied that he had anything to do with Smith and the first accused. 64 In the circumstances, he was found guilty and was convicted on the charge he faced. ======================== | ||
| Facts January 28, 2007 06:05 PM PST Actual judgment's available on lawnet. You need to subscribe to use the site, but most lawyers have subscription. Try to get them to pass you a copy of the actual judgment. Second hand digests from unreliable bloggers like Alex is really not the way to go. | ||
| Inquirer January 28, 2007 05:44 PM PST Is there a copy of the judgement somewhere in the Internet? | ||
| Inquirer January 28, 2007 05:43 PM PST Facts Please, Where did you get your information? | ||
| Alex's Distortions January 28, 2007 04:54 PM PST You're the next off the blogoshpere alex. You're doubly guilty because you actually have the judgment and have decided to sentimentalise it. Your pretensions to be a citizen journo are greater than this 17 year old girl's, what with your blog's pseudo-academic footnotes and all. At least Gayle can claim ignorance. You really have no excuse. | ||
| gayle January 28, 2007 01:18 PM PST Hi Alex, no I didn't, I'll check again now though. | ||
| Yawning Bread January 28, 2007 11:26 AM PST Gayle, I emailed you a copy of the judgement 2 days ago, to your la_seule_raison address. Didn't you get it? | ||
| whybegay January 28, 2007 10:42 AM PST abc said, "I disapprove of the death penalty for drug trafficking, simply because it is a state of affairs crime." State of affairs now meets world affairs. Welcome to the doorstep of international law where the person tries to conquer the whole world with self-imposed state of affairs. Blatantly breaking the law of another country is a sign of great disrespect to the country's souvreignty and possibly others in the world. It is a sign of war and terrorism on a country. This is the reality and gravity of the matter. | ||
| gayle January 28, 2007 09:05 AM PST I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of the judgment but I can't. If someone can point it to me, I'd be grateful. If the facts are wrong, please quote directly from the judgment, and state precisely how this should affect the way we see the case. | ||
| abc January 28, 2007 02:03 AM PST More accurately, this shouldn't be a case of "guilty until proven innocent". It's rather what lawyers call a reversal of the burden of the proof; except that in this case it appears to be more than a evidential burden but a conclusive one. I disapprove of the death penalty for drug trafficking, simply because it is a state of affairs crime. | ||
| Name January 28, 2007 12:07 AM PST I pretty much agree with 40+ Singaporean. I too use to support death sentence for serious crimes. Besides those reasons cited by 40+ Singaporean, one recent event put me into thinking about hanging people... from, you guess what, the scene which we saw countless times over TV of Saddam being hanged. I just don't feel right about it, on top of disliking the scene where the execution was carried out. A life is too precious to be taken away, even if I know this man had done much evils. I began to doubt about death penalty and the process deriving to such sentence. Have they taken all the precautions to avoid misjudge? | ||
| sim chin boo January 27, 2007 10:55 PM PST Gayle, despite the shortcomings I mentioned in the earlier post, I wish to say the exercise of death penalty had not been taken lightly. Most executions are done years later after convictions and we know that accused are provided defense counsel and given opportunity to appeal for clemency. For foreign convicts, their respective governments are usually asked to intercede by family members. As you have noted yourself, the Nigerian President did just that and so did the Australian Leader when Nguyen was sentenced. Do weigh all these aspects into your consideration, it is also crucial that sympathy should not be misplaced. Wish you happiness. | ||
| whybegay January 27, 2007 09:46 PM PST Gayle, perhaps there is something else related you would like to be more concerned about. It feels strange that the death penalty is still implemented by hanging rather than a less traumatising and painless way through lethal injection. I think the organs of death-sentenced criminals could be used for transplants onto needy patients. Maybe not for foreign criminals who get sent back to their country, but more probable for local criminals who do not know that unless they specifically sign a consent form rejecting the usage of their organs after death, they can be harvested. The thing is that only organs that are untainted by drugs can be harvested. This could be a factor why the death penalty by hanging is still being carried on. Many people have described this method of death to be barbaric/disrespectful towards a dying human being. So maybe death-sentenced criminals don't really totally die, part of them lives on in others. Well, I believe the mind discriminates and sees worthiness as it sees fit, it also judges what people deserve and to what level are they deservable. For people who blatantly ignore their health and take poisonous substances such as drugs or take on unhealthy habits such as smoking or living an unhealthy lifestyle, they are just irresponsible towards their lives. There is no need to blame everything on the retailers for selling unhealthy substances. If a shop sells rat poison, it doesn't mean people should go all out to consume it. Maybe only people who don't want to live long would do so. And stupid people would continue shifting blame. Every substance is potentially poisonous by the amount of consumption. Only people who deliberately take unhealthy substances are being irresponsible towards their own lives. Therefore these irresponsible people would face their consequences brought on by their stubborness to positively change their unhealthy habits. I feel that people who fit this group and then get their organs damaged do not deserve new organs as much as people who got their healthy organs damaged in freak accidents. Why the need to give priority to people who don't care about living? Why give life-sustaining precious organs to want-to-die people? This is the same way I see criminals who commit serious crimes. They don't care about what they do with their lives and they don't care what their actions would affect other people. They live by self-imposed ignorance to support their greed. In the real world on a national scale, extreme crimes call for extreme punishments. How else to get the clear message of respecting people's lives into the minds of would-be extreme criminals who are so concerned only with themselves? If a person does not respect people's lives, he also does not respect his own life. Therefore people would not respect such a person's life as well. Tochi and the murderer of Huang Na, were what they were doing not the same thing? Disrespecting human live? There is only one life for each person. If a person threatens the precious lives of others through his own irresponsible actions, his live is already wasted and the remaining of what he has will be taken away from him. This is the brutal truth in the real world. I quote from http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-645.htm "The prosecution told the court that the capsules contained 727.02(!) grams of diamorphine. Since the total exceeded 15 grams, the prosecution was going to rely on the presumption that Tochi was trafficking. That is to say, they do not have to prove he was trafficking; it was for the defence to rebut the presumption." 727.02 grams of diamorphine is definitely alot of "15 grams". It is alot of "personal consumptions". It is equivalent to over 40,000 doses I heard? It is such a "HEAVY" lack of irresponsibility and disrespect towards human life to carry such things around to be later used. I speak this for Nguyen's case as well. But don't think Australia was all against the death penalty, they were 50-50 on the sentence. Half of them supported the death sentence, the other half did not support it. Even an australian man volunteered to perform the hanging himself, and another interviewed parent threatened to finish off drug traffickers herself should the drugs reaches her children. So coming back to death roll crinimals, are the "majority" part of their bodies merely "sacrificed" to give life to others? So they don't really totally die but live on in others? | ||
| soc January 27, 2007 08:00 PM PST Gayle, I think u r a hypocrite, u didnt write hard enough against capital punishment not like me Pls try harder. | ||
| Bertrand January 27, 2007 07:43 PM PST Brian Gothong Tan had a video installation in the Singapore Biennale, which depicts famous homegrown pornstar, Annabelle Chong, in the act saying in repetition, "The death penalty is immoral". Question is: Although the death penalty is immoral, is it a necessary evil? By and large, the answer has been 'yes', according to our S'pore government. How did LKY clear our streets from crime during early years of Singapore's independence? He used the military to round up gangsters and put them behind bars without giving them a fair trial. That's how gangsterism dissipated. To eradicate drug-related problems, our government decides that the death penalty is the solution. And with the same mechanical efficiency, we rid those convicted merely by the action; discounting any shred or inkling of proof that he may be a unwitting third party. See, anyone can feign ignorance, and more often than not, ignorance has been the convenient plea of those convicted. No one with some intelligence will attempt to run in Singapore, because the matter of fact is you can't hide in this small island. As much as people feel compassion for those sentenced to death for crimes, Singapore has to work like a machine -- cold, systematic and intolerant -- in order to keep our livelihood going. What keeps its engine going will be implemented. But, how sad it is that we live in such a society... | ||
| Is it true? January 27, 2007 06:53 PM PST Is it true that you've got the facts wrong Gayle? Please clarify. | ||
| Facts Please January 27, 2007 06:52 PM PST Point is we opponents of the death penalty have a duty to tell the truth, however gritty or uncomfortable it may be, and fight the death penalty on principle. Distorting facts to draw public sympathy will, in the long run, hurt our cause and our credibility. The foreign media doesn't seem to care about the truth (the BBC, like Gayle, doesn't seem to have even read the judgment), but we Singaporean critics of the system need the truth on our side to gain credibility with our people. Please see this dispassionately, look at the judgment, then come to a conclusion. Nietzsche said "he who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become one". In fighting the system and its alleged halftruths, Gayle, you've employed their tactics for the liberal cause. This puts our whole movement into disrepute. At the very least, please read the judgment and amend your inaccuracies. | ||
| Anonymous January 27, 2007 05:26 PM PST Strangely, the burden of proof falls on the accused when related to drug trafficking cases, so it seems reasonable to change the sentence to life imprisonment, lest there be any miscarriage of justice | ||
| sim chin boo January 27, 2007 02:56 PM PST No argument with the death penalty for it does serves the purpose of deterrent for heinous crimes such as murder, homicides link to robberies and drug traffickings. The last causes extensive damages to individuals, families and societies. So long as the death sentence is not used for political vendettas and full due diligence is accorded to the trial to ascertain the conviction, it can be an effective measure. However in the case of Amara as presented in Gayles' Blog, there were areas that should have been looked into. The least is to have his (Amara Tochi) manager Smith brought in for investigation. This I believed could be and should have been done, afterall the Nigerian President had asked the Singapore Authority for clemency. He (President) should have co-operated into the investigation and trial of Tochi by surrendering Smith (the initiator of the diamorphine). Secondly since the trial judge had doubt about the case, he and those hearing the appeal after him should have proceeded further into the investigation of the case until all avenues were exhausted. As the saying goes, justice must be seen especially when life is involved. Unless it is beyond the shadow of a doubt, death penalty shall not be justified. | ||
| Facts please January 27, 2007 11:23 AM PST Point is we opponents of the death penalty have a duty to tell the truth, however gritty or uncomfortable it may be, and fight the death penalty on principle. Distorting facts to draw public sympathy will, in the long run, hurt our cause and our credibility. The foreign media doesn't seem to care about the truth (the BBC, like Gayle, doesn't seem to have even read the judgment), but we Singaporean critics of the system need the truth on our side to gain credibility with our people. Please see this dispassionately, look at the judgment, then come to a conclusion. Nietzsche said "he who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become one". In fighting the system and its alleged halftruths, Gayle, you've employed their tactics for the liberal cause. This puts our whole movement into disrepute. At the very least, please read the judgment and amend your inaccuracies. | ||
| Pseudonymity January 27, 2007 11:13 AM PST What follows are excerpts from the recent statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Here's the link to the full statement: http://pseudonymity.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/un-rights-expert-calls-on-singapore-not-to-carry-out-execution/ 的t is a fundamental human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, Alston said. 典he standard accepted by the international community is that capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts. 鉄ingapore cannot reverse the burden and require a defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn稚 know that he was carrying drugs, Alston said. The trial judge appears to have accepted that Mr Tochi might not have realized that the capsules he was carrying contained heroin, stating that 甜t]here was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out on his own but that 妬gnorance did not exculpate him. He was convicted and sentenced to death. The appeal court rejected the trial court痴 suggestion that it was irrelevant whether Mr Tochi had knowledge of what he was carrying. Nevertheless, it upheld his conviction. 的n the case of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, the Government of Singapore has failed to ensure respect for the relevant legal safeguards. Under the circumstances, the execution should not proceed. 鉄ingapore痴 decision to make the death penalty mandatory keeps judges from considering all of the factors relevant to determining whether a death sentence would be permissible in a capital case, Alston said. A middle ground for those for or against the death penalty would be to make it not mandatory thus freeing up the judges to determine the appropriate sentence based on each case. This first step is at least a start instead of the routine business of state sponsored murder. | ||
| anibodi January 27, 2007 11:03 AM PST Observe here a miniute of SILENCE, please! May the soul of the young boy rest in peace. May the hearts of those who love to kill touch their own conscience and wake their own minds. Alas, what can a docile and fearful nation of people do to convince those who love to use fear as a means to control their people? Only when the root that created the machinery of fear is eradicated can there be a higher order of society - the order of real living instead of manic survival, the order of compassion instead of draconian laws, the order of humility instead of pride and vain glory, and the order of the cultured, educated and learned instead of the crude, demeaning and cunningly immoral disguised like wolves in sheep skins. Will that day arrive? | ||
| tickled January 27, 2007 06:23 AM PST I am really tickled by someone who is so fixated on the fact that Tochi could possibly had lied about the $2000. His amazing logic - he lied therefore he is guilty. Can anybody claim he has never lied before? So everyone of us is guilty of crime right? Especially when you have gone through hell and ended up in a strange land about to be interrogated by the police. Wouldn't you have panicked and possibly fumbled? If Tochi had indeed intentionally tried trafficking drugs, you think he would be that stupid to hang around when he was told that the police were coming? Wouldn't he at least have hidden or disposed of the drugs? Someone so fixated on facts to support his subjective opinion has forgotten that he too was twisting facts to his advantage and shouting really loudly. Talk about emotions. | ||
| Aaron January 27, 2007 01:39 AM PST My conscience tells me that it is plain wrong to take away a person's life without being proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has the intent to commit the crime. To presume that a person in possession of more than 15 grams of heroin IS trafficking drugs is like presuming a person in possession of a few cases of vodka is addicted to alcohol. Can a link be drawn so directly, and that the link holds true for all cases? It's not even about the case of Tochi. It's about a fundamental assumption in our law that is morally questionable, although I have to qualify that by the morals of some people, the assumption I'm questioning is not questionable at all. | ||
| whybeblindandstupid January 27, 2007 01:38 AM PST Tobacco companies knowingly churn out millions of cigarettes every day. The beloved facts indicate cigarettes take away the lives of citizens. Logic indicates, it is therefore seen as fair and just to take away the lives of the accomplices of death. | ||
| Facts please January 27, 2007 12:37 AM PST People, let me illuminate what's going on here. These bleeding heart liberals can't even get their facts right. I don't think it's sheer stupidity on their part, they're smarter than that. Gayle's got excellent grades, and is a world schools debator. In my humble opinion, ALL THESE FACTUAL INACCURACIES ARE INTENTIONAL. It suits her purposes to romanticise and pseudo-fictionalise the plight of a poor african youth, with no regard for the truth. WHY DOES SHE NOT LAUNCH INTO A DEFENSE OF TOSHI'S FELLOW DRUG MULE? Is it because he is so obviously irredeemably guilty? So instead of fighting the hard fights, Gayle and Bleeding Heart Crusaders decide to distort the HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT that is easier to twist: the case of AMARA TOSHI. I, as an anti death penalty believer, do not believe that the ends justify the means. STRETCH THE TRUTH FOR YOUR OWN SHALLOW PURPOSES TODAY, IN THE END, JUSTICE WILL SUFFER. | ||
| Facts please January 27, 2007 12:30 AM PST "Actually, the testimony he gave was that he thought he required $2000 for entry into Singapore, not for the drugs, and he also claimed not to know they were drugs at all." COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Read the judgement. Finding of fact that he initially said he thought it was for entry. Subsequent change of story to the fact that he expected to be paid $2000 upon delivery of the capsules to his meet up man, Marshal. Subsequent denial that he had ever mentioned money. ANYONE SPREADING MISINFORMATION ABOUT A SETTLED JUDGEMENT OF THE COURTS OF SINGAPORE ARE LIABLE TO BE CHARGED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. Bloody get your facts right before misrepresenting this guy's case and painting him like an angel. It really undermines any credibility you have if the best source you have is Alex Au, a second hand source which isn't even a well interpreted version of the ACTUAL CASE. CAN YOU GO AND READ IT AND THEN CORRECT THE GLARING INACCURACIES IN YOUR BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL POST!!!! | ||
| whybeheartless January 27, 2007 12:11 AM PST whybegay, the case is not conclusive. Even the Judge wasn't sure. So you think you are better than the Judge and know for sure Tochi was guilty. Clap, clap. Ok, let's say he is guilty. So you think drug traffickers deserve to die because they provide a means for others to kill themselves? Let's hope none of your loved ones will meet that fate. And are you saying those who take drugs voluntarily can blame the traffickers entirely for their self-inflicted plight? Your selfish mentality is a classic echo of the government's - I can do no wrong, it is always other people's fault. | ||
| whybegay January 26, 2007 11:39 PM PST This article by Alex Au tells the full story http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-645.htm Tochi knew he was carrying drugs in exchange for US$2000. The police had evidence for it. I don't think the death penalty is all out to kill people. It is meant as a last resort deterrent for serious crimes. It was never meant to be used on anyone. But if criminals blatantly cross the line, they are actually courting their own consequences. Drugs take away the lives of people, it is therefore seen as fair and just to take away the lives of the accomplices of death. | ||
| Sad January 26, 2007 08:14 PM PST Yes, heartbreaking to know that a courageous young man had come from afar to fulfill his dreams for a better life or to support his folks back home only to be exploited and killed for something he might not have willfully done. But I am glad to see a cross on his neck. What happened to manager who exploited him? | ||
| PJ January 26, 2007 08:12 PM PST To flabbergasted: It is a fact that some Singapore cars coming back from Malaysia were found with drugs under the carriage and other parts. Malaysian couriers had made use of S'pore cars to carry the drugs across the causeway and would then follow these cars to their car arks and remove the drugs after the owners have left the car. If you yourslef, by a stroke of luck, became the unwilling and unknowing victim and sent to the gallows, would you still hold that opinion and say "it's good for the majority"? | ||
| PJ January 26, 2007 08:08 PM PST What if the same drugs were found on a government minister? Would he be found guilty, too? Would the court also assume that he was trafficking, although he would definitely claim he had no knowledge of how the drug was found on him or in his baggage? | ||
| ly January 26, 2007 06:26 PM PST I would thought a 19 year old in our context is a minor and would not have fully understood right or wrong. At the time of offence in 2004, he was only 17? Compassion and Mercy...where oh where? | ||
| neveragain January 26, 2007 05:35 PM PST But isn't the premise and logic of the modern human rights movement or democracy, even, the protection of the minority n the weaker members of society? The majority, by virtue of being so, has no need of being protected, some might argue, as it has sufficient power to protect itself. | ||
| Law-abiding January 26, 2007 05:16 PM PST Mick, submission does not mean passive acceptance. We should abide by the law but at the same time be able to voice our concerns. Life is given by God. Who then has the right to take away? It is such cases as this that the faults in our systems are glaringly merciless. If Tochi is innocent, aren't we murderers then? This is despite a call from a prominent surgeon in Singapore to make the sale of organs legal. Reason? Because life is precious? Why then do we kill even when guilt is not proven? | ||
| Jol January 26, 2007 04:49 PM PST One word: Nguyen. | ||
| Flabbergasted January 26, 2007 02:58 PM PST The basic premise of the Singapore governments actions has always been this-the majority is by far more important than the minority. The basic use of the law if we can call it that is to protect the majority and if a few cases the intent of the law ie to punish genuine smugglers is not fulfilled so be it. The Government will always err to the side of safety for the majority. We can argue till the cow comes home if in the longer term this policy is good for the majority and Singapore as a whole. | ||
| Mick January 26, 2007 01:47 PM PST Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. | ||
| Milo Minderbinder January 26, 2007 12:43 PM PST It is the same if the scenario is: the death of a person performing a heroic act saving the lives of many. Only that this person would be remembered, spoken off, and written down in history books for his contributions. And in this unfortunate event, when Amara Tochi had no friends to seek help from, the media not providing enough voice of concern, and the person himself - reality bites - is not as dramatic as the previous case of family drama. When a person is almost alone and has to fend for himself in the world, the lack of a community - family, friends, or citizenship - is perhaps the only reference he needs badly to voice out for him. Is this not also a sort of Babel, where the voice of the victim, or those who tried to help him, are treated as noise in the eyes of the law; the symbolic figure swear allegiance to its own narcissitic image, of justice... | ||
| 40+ Singaporean January 26, 2007 10:49 AM PST Gayle, A good post. Indeed, we should take a long hard look at our state's implementation. I used to think that death penalty is correct for some crimes. Drug trafficking certainly ranks high on my list. Over the years though, with better understanding of our legal system, as well as accumulated experiences, I am beginning to question some of the fundamental aspects of our legal system and our use of it. While I have long realised that law is not always about justice and that the letter of the law will over ride any argument of justice in any form, this case really struck home the implications of how we do things. You have pointed out the fact that the judge could not find direct evidence that Tochi knew he was carrying drugs. The law, however, requires that he be able to prove otherwise. The onus is on him. Where else in other justice systems, the fundamental onus is to prove guilt, ours is usually one of proving innocence. The burden is placed squarely on the accused rather than the prosecution. This is true in many of our acts that I am somewhat familiar with. Illegal immigrants, foreign workers, harbouring of illegals etc all take this same approach. I attribute this to two things main traits of our government. In our government's quest for efficiency, it is prepared to avoid exceptions (because handling exceptions are inefficient) or ignore exceptions altogether. Secondly, our government review laws periodically, usually to tighten them so that any loopholes which were inadvertently left in the initial drafts are closed. I get the sense sometimes, that it is some form of measure of accomplishments or satisfactions for some civil servants when they are able to find and close any potential loop holes in our systems. One may argue that this is a good thing but I would say it is frequently not in the Singapore context. When the focus is on finding and closing any possible loopholes, it may be at the expense of the intent of the law. The fact that we are dealing with human beings are sometimes also lost in the process. Individuals are unique. Circumstances may be unique too. In this case, it sounds like even the judge had doubts if Tochi was actually aware. The relevant question is then 'Should someone who is unaware that he/she is carrying illegal drugs be convicted as a trafficker?' A have little doubt the AG chambers, in typical Singapore government fashion, will say that the law provided for this case but he has to prove that he did not know. I fully agree that it is a life and it is something not to be taken lightly. For a country which has a small population and is currently very concern about not having enough babies, we sure do not value life much, if our laws are anything to go by. Frequently in our policies, we treat human beings as no more than digits. We don't see the face, the person's grief, joy, history, family and everything else that go to making one an individual with unique experiences, needs and wants. As a country, in material terms, infrastructure, GDP or whatever other measures you care to use, we are approaching first world standards. As thinking, compassionate and gracious human beings and culture, where do we stand? | ||
| Leave a Comment: |