Where is KTM hiding? Liberals should hunt him down and ask him why does he use the imagery of war and violence when we are talking about justice, fairness and the rule of law?

I am of 2 minds about this death penalty thing.

When people speak of the rule of law, we have great respect for things like presumption of innocence. That might or might not be strictly said to be the case in Singapore. The case law say that it is quite all right that for provisions regulation drug offence to presume such knowledge (because modern legislation etc) and things are changing a bit somewhat in other countries so due to Human Rights in UK, and Charter in Canada, but we, being Singapore and stuff, 'have a right to protect our own people.'

The English and Canadians are not ? Of course they are. Its just that most of those bloody heroin producers are very near us and not as near the English and Canadians so its very easy for us to be an excellent and lucrative market for heroin and in the long run, even as an export center.

But then why can't we make the standard of proof higher? Why do we have to shift it to the 'drug' mule? If you are not a cigarette mule, KTM, and you found yourself with cigarette at Changi Aiport, do you think you can convince me you are, on the balance of probabilities, that you are not smuggling cigarettes? What if you were 19 and illiterate?

Just pay the fine lar, I will say.

How do I actually know whether you are innocent or not?

To say there is no 'folly' might be simply because there is folly but you did not know. Something like a computer debugging program that misses an error? But I don't know anything about computers.

But a dead man cannot come back to say, 'actually i am really innocent' - he said that when he was alive, and the court did not believe him.

Hello KTM! Okay, I read the article liao, but I only commenting on certain points in brief, coz a bit late at night, and I got headache, and I got early class tomorrow (so if I got some parts wrong, sorry ah. Please point out to me).

Okay, firstly, you say tt death penalty has greater deterrent effect on drug trafficking cases than on murder cases. The only studies tt show tt death penalty not really a deterrent are US studies on murder, and murders are mainly crimes of passion. That I agree with you. I also think death penalty for murders which are mainly crimes of passion also not deterrent. Then you say tt drug trafficking is an economic crime, and involves the rational weighing of pros and cons, so the death penalty as a con is a better deterrent. I agree that drug trafficking is an economic crime, but whether the death penalty can actually be a better deterrent remains to be seen.

Unfortunately, Singapore has no studies on the effects on the death penalty. We suay lah; the only studies we can rely on are US studies on murder cases. But anyway I was thinking to myself, I think to traffick or not to traffick drug is a completely rational economic decision - but only for people who have something to lose. Say the syndicates. If I were a part of a syndicate (upper levels lah) I'd think about this all the time. But then, syndicates being extremely rational, don't even want to risk Singapore. So they will naturally send their drug mules through Singapore instead. And it's a perfectly good idea because they honestly don't care for their mules, and they can sacrifice as many as they want. No problem to them, coz lives are cheap. Besides, I hear (not from official sources) that Singapore is an excellent transit stop from drugs flowing between certain parts of South East Asia and other parts of the world, because so long as your drugs can get through the challenge that is Singapore, they can get through anywhere! So this is how I suppose drug syndicates might think. Death penalty is a deterrent - against their personal involvement in the trafficking of drugs.

But never mind. Now we turn to the mules. I am particularly interested in Nguyen Tuong Van. I bet that as he was on that plane to Singapore, they must have played tt announcement very clearly for him, the one tt said tt if you traffick more than 15 g of heroin into Singapore, you must hang. I bet he heard it loud and clear. But he still took his chances. You see, I think it was because he was desperate. His family was at the mercy of the syndicates, and he had nothing to lose, subjectively speaking, because he was prepared to sacrifice his own life to save his brother. And tt he did. He sacrificed his own life for his brother - but hence also showing tt in this case, awareness of the death penalty wasn't actually a deterrent. That is the thing about drug mules. I'm not sure who most drug mules are, but I gather tt drug mules are usually people in incredibly dire straits. They could have a family member in trouble like Nguyen, or so extremely poor like Tochi, that they will risk anything, their lives even, for tt one chance. For such desperation cases, how much of a deterrent the death penalty can be against drug mules, is quite questionable.

I do admit tt the drug rate in Singapore might be lower now than it was before. But then, this could be due to many causes. I mean, crime rate has dropped on a whole, robbery, thefts, juvenile delinquency; and yet these 3 offences do not also attract a death penalty. I honestly think tt proper death penalty studies ought to be drawn between drug trafficking and its trends over time before we can draw a conclusive causal link.

As for the enforcement measures, we can only speculate tt for every Tochi tt might have been caught, there might have been 10 more tt did not. As far as I know, CNB has been vigilant on its crackdown on drugs. The greatest loophole there is in this system is in the airport transit lounge where people do not have to go through immigration and so on (which is where syndicates love to have their exchanges), but the drugs in the transit lounge are as the word suggests, transitting to another country, but are not coming into Singapore. For much else of Singapore, CNB, police , intelligence and the various home team units have been working hard to eliminate drug problems (I know this sounds like a plug, but from what I have been told, this is true). I am thus more inclined to think tt a low drug rate can be attributed as much to enforcement as to the knowledge of the death penalty as a deterrent (altho unfortunately due to sensitivity of information I don't have any hard evidence to support this).

Lastly, KTM makes the statement tt while Tochi might not have known tt what he was carrying was heroin exactly, it was obvious tt he knew tt he was doing something wrong (I think by wrong, he means illegal). And tt justified why Kan J pronounced him guilty. But personally, I can't agree with this statement. The s 18 presumption of knowledge clause of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that the defendant is presumed to have knowledge of the nature of the drug tt he possesses. It specifically states "nature of the drug", meaning tt Tochi must know tt he is in possession of heroin. Simply knowing tt he is doing something wrong or illegal cannot be enough to satisfy this burden. What if Tochi merely believed tt he were in possession of stolen goods? Or illegally-obtained raw materials used to make Viagra? Or an African herb tt is banned in Singapore because it looks like chye sim but when fried in char kway teow, will give the customer diarrhoea? You see, knowledge of possession of all of the above will make Tochi guilty of committing an offence or of doing something illegal, but it will not make him guilty of trafficking heroin. And this is key, because the difference between a mere offence and trafficking heroin is life and death.

Tochi's intention was imputed on him by circumstantial evidence; circumstantial evidence tt could also have been attributed to other factors. While such evidence may have been admitted before in the Sunny Ang murder case where the victim's body was missing, to date this is the one and only case tt convicts a person based solely on circumstantial evidence, because the courts are extremely wary of using this evidence, given tt they can as easily be attributed to other causes as well.

So yes, these are the few points I have. Okay, headache very bad liao. I better go and sleep. =)

ben,

Why the imagery of war? 'cos that's exactly what Misuse of Drugs Act is about. It is not about justice, fairness and the rule of law; it is about the rules of engagement for a war that rages on without the average Singaporean citizen realizing that it is there.

I say again, this entry is not about the death penalty. People who want to debate about the death penalty per se, please refer to SN's earlier entry instead.

But then why can't we make the standard of proof higher?

Let's not confuse things. There are two issues at stake: first, we need to determine if the accused is guilty of "trafficking the drug" and if guilty, we have to decide on the punishment (turns out that in Singapore, judges only need to do half the job).

Let's start with first principles. What should trafficking mean? To a layman (like the KTM), trafficking is very simple. It means bringing drugs into the country or transporting the drugs within the country for the purpose of distribution or sale. Fair enough?

Therefore, the determine if the accused is guilty of trafficking, we only have to determine if (i) the accused is moving the stuff around, i.e. carrying it, and (ii) going to sell it or pass it to someone else to sell it. The "for-sale" part is taken care of by the 15 g rule, since 15 g is about 1,000 (!) doses.

So we find someone with 15 g of stuff on him. What excuse could he possibly have? Only one can get him off the hook and that is, he has not idea where the stuff came from or that he was carrying it. If not, he's clearly "trafficking".

Why shouldn't carrying but not knowing what the stuff was be an excuse? 'cos it's a matter of policy. We do want to hang these fellas. Not out of malice or sadistic pleasure I must emphasize, but out of policy. Doesn't matter if he's 19 or 91. Doesn't matter if he's male or she's female. Doesn't matter if he's blind. It's a war and it's a policy (for the reasons I had already explained in the main post).

Question: what do you think of the "KTM Gets Run Over by a Truck" test?

Kitana,

Quick question: are you afraid of death? You are? Too bad, you dun qualify. You are not? Congratulations, you hereby qualify for (i) Al-Qaeda Suicide Bomber training camp; (ii) Drug Mule Boot Camp; and (iii) Singapore Idol (logic: if you are not afraid of being hanged, you probably wouldn't worry about looking stupid in front of the whole nation). Pick your poison.

Question: do we have drugs in Singapore? The answer unfortunately is yes. What this also means is that there are definitely those who may not be unafraid of death, but who are willing to take the gamble.

However, for every man (or woman) who is unafraid of death, there are hopefully are 10 others who ARE AFRAID of death. Do we want to make it easy for drug lords to recruit drug mules? Hopefully the drug mules will ask for not US$2,000 but US$200,000 for each delivery. We are seriously not in the business of helping the drug lords save on labour (or transportation) costs. :-)

The s 18 presumption of knowledge clause of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that the defendant is presumed to have knowledge of the nature of the drug tt he possesses. It specifically states "nature of the drug", meaning tt Tochi must know tt he is in possession of heroin.

Dearie, let's not quibble over the word of the law can? The intent of the law is clearly as the KTM has described. Justice Kan is basically an executor of the law as prescribed by Parliament. Do you honestly believe that you know better than Justice Kan how "nature of the drug" should be interpreted?

BTW, why has no one addressed some of the negative inferences against Tochi: (i) he tried to frame CNB and he lied, (ii) he has fake visa and endorsements in his passport; and (iii) he didn't wait for the Police to turn up at the hotel? Arguing against the death penalty is one thing; an accusation of miscarriage of justice is a completely different matter.

There will always be desperate cases driven by circumstances to act as drug couriers. If we pity them, who is going to pity our children when the 48,000 doses of heroin appears on our streets? Whose side are you on? Our side or theirs? :-)

When you grow up and become a police officer, you will catch some crooks and help keep our streets safe.... and you will probably feel pretty good about yourself. Until one day, you realize that because you helped to put this fella away, you caused a family to go into hardship and breakup 'cos the convicted felon was the sole breadwinner.

You will start to ask yourself if there's justice 'cos you're not only punishing the criminal, but you are also "punishing" the family, who are "innocent"! So how? How are you going to reconcile? Let's face it, it's hard, because you are human. If one day you cannot take it, maybe apply for transfer to Traffic Police or stay at home and being a tai-tai loh.

Or if you get bored playing "police and thief", perhaps apply for a secondment to the Legal Service and play magistrate for a couple of years. Then you will have the power to decide on whether the accused who come before you are guilty as charged, and if so, how to punish them.

Do you think that after a while at the job, it gets easy? Every person that you put away has a face and every person has a family. Which judge wants to convict the wrong person or dish out the "wrong" sentence? Esp. the death penalty where like ben says, you make a mistake, cannot fix. Sending people to jail or to the gallows is not like frying kway teow.

Dear KTM,

Interesting article. I find your pointing out of the two "facts" very interesting and to some extent, compelling on the case at hand.

Just a point of clarification. You say that there is "Security of tenure" for the judges in Singapore. I think that's partly the picture. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1969, and various subsequent acts ensured judicial independence and integrity by providing for the inviolability of judges in the exercise of their duties and for safeguards on their tenure.

However in our constitution too,
Article 98: Tenure of Office and Remuneration of Judges of Supreme Court

1. Subject to this article, a Judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years or such later time not being later than 6 months after he attains that age, as the President may approve.

Thus, if a judge is over the age of 65, he or she is subjected to renewable appointments by the government. Thus, while there might be "security in tenure", it is not a lifetime appointment.

I will stand corrected if countervailing arguments are presented.

Wayne,

Thanks for your kind words.

You are absolutely correct on the Constitution. However, as it turns out, 65 is already pretty good compared to the rest of us mere mortals who are not sure we can keep our jobs past 40. Note also that except for the Honourable the Chief Justice, it is quite exceptional for Judges to be re-appointed past their retirement age. Therefore, the theory that the Judges will "tow the line" in order to get re-appointed past 65 is quite a weak one by most counts.

If there's a problem with "security of tenure", it's with the Judicial Commissioner scheme, but the KTM was told that UK has it too. :-)

Since economists around the world are remembering the late Milton Friedman, I guess no discussion on drugs and its enforcement would be complete without presenting his very unique views on it.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm

I can't post this comment on HC's article that came up just before yours so I might as well put it here since the two pieces are related.

Thanks HC for pointing out the context of the well known quote. Even after reading it, I still can't get away from the fact that he is still under the "presumed guilty unless proven innocence" system.

Type 1 error vs type 2 error: I guess Singapore's justice system is comfortable with the "Rather hang an innocent person than set the guilty free"

Since the press is not leading any serious debate on this issue, I guess we deserve the Singapore we get.

KTM

Well said and thanks for the research reviewed on that particular case. Having been mugged twice and hassled at times in my travels and seen the devastating effects on friends and "family".

I am all for it providing it meets the following reasonable person test:-
a) is the deterrent continously announced.
b) is the country known for enforcement
c) is it well publicised the penalties both verbally and written.
d) is the country judicial system independent for the cases stated.

Based on the facts on the cases, there is no merit other than age.
Please note that US$2,000 is a lot of money in Nigeria (enough to contract a killer if you wish to know),so to me.
Nigeria is not exactly the safest place in the world so kids do grow uop fast. So the judgement is in order.

In addition, since there is tenure till 65, it is acceptable for the contractual renewal as you do not want judges who become senile or incapacitated in office.

Hello KTM.

I'm thinking that a mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking will be a deterrent to potential mules but not so much for drug lords wanting to use Singapore as a point of exchange or to bringing it in Singapore. The only thing that would be a deterrent in this case is does enough of the drug lord's drugs get seized such that it becomes unprofitable to use Singapore as a transit point or to bring it in. The fact that Singapore still has drugs and there are people attempting to use Singapore as an exchange point shows that it still must be profitable for them to do so even if the mules know about the death penalty and thus ask for a higher fee in taking the risk. In any case, even if the mules know about the death penalty, that doesn't mean they have a higher bargaining power and will increase the cost to the drug lord for transportation because I'm thinking there are a lot of ways for drug lords to get low cost mules. Although I think a mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking does create an environment where there are less pushers that are easily accessible on the streets. Points of Sale decrease which means less ability to satisfy demand (or generate demand) so less supply needed.

The following reports appeared this week. Does the death penalty deter trafficking? Is the drug problem REALLY under control in Singapore? Has the drug rehab centres seen an increase or decrease in inmates?

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/1/28/apworld/20070128212456&sec=apworld

Singapore arrests 6 suspected drug traffickers

SINGAPORE (AP): Two Malaysians were among six suspected drug traffickers arrested in a weekend sting in which 1.4 kilograms (3.09 pounds) of heroin was seized, Singapore's anti-narcotics agency said.

The other suspects nabbed were a 55-year-old Chinese man, two Singaporean men, and one other person whose nationality was not declared, a statement on the Central Narcotics Bureau said late Saturday.

The statement did not identify the suspects.

The bureau said all six had been charged with trafficking in a controlled drug, but did not say if they faced the death penalty if convicted.

Singapore has some of the world's harshest drug laws, including a mandatory death penalty for anyone found guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams (0.5 ounces) of heroin.

The agency said the Malaysians, both 23, were drug couriers who tested positive for the sedative benzodiazepine.

Narcotics officers found two packets of heroin weighing a total of 900 grams (31.75 ounces) hidden in the undercarriage of a car one of the Malaysians was driving to Singapore, it said.

A packet of ketamine and 79 Ecstasy tablets were also retrieved from the car, it said.

The other Malaysian had ridden a motorcycle to the city-state and both were arrested when they met at a parking garage near the border, it said.

The other suspects were arrested at a "hideout'' in a simultaneous bust on Saturday and 500 grams (17.64 ounces) of heroin and various other drugs were seized, it said.

The total street value of the drugs was more than 430,000 Singapore dollars (US$280,000; euro217,000), the statement said.

The narcotics operation follows Singapore's execution on Friday of two Africans on drug trafficking charges despite pleas for clemency by Nigeria's president, the United Nations and human rights groups.

The city-state says the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent against a crime that ruins lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16765989/

Singapore drug cases jump 42 pct on Subutex abuse

Updated: 5:55 a.m. ET Jan. 23, 2007
SINGAPORE - Drug-abuse cases in Singapore soared last year, mainly because of a surge in the use of Subutex, a drug which was introduced to help wean drug addicts off heroin, Singapore's Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) said.

Singapore introduced Subutex as a prescription medication five years ago to help wean addicts off heroin. But the narcotics agency said that 30 percent of abusers caught were hooked on Subutex, which is sometimes mixed with a tranquiliser or other drugs to produce a high.

But in mid-August, the government reclassified Subutex as an illegal drug. Since then, authorities have arrested a total of 347 people for abusing the drug. In all, Singapore has arrested 1,127 users last year, up 42 percent from 793 in 2005, the CNB said in a statement.

"Overall, the local drug situation remains well contained, with drugs remaining scarce and prices high," a CNB official told Reuters on Tuesday, adding that Singapore maintains a "zero-tolerance policy" on drug abuse.

On Monday, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee told Parliament that Subutex abuse has "improved significantly" as the CNB seized just 79 tablets in December last year, out of a total of 2500 tablets seized after the government made Subutex illegal in mid-August.

[Note: Kitana has turned her comments into a substantial post - Siteowner]

Hi KTM,

I'll respond to your comments in part, but for this one, I refer you to the Parliamentary Debates to show tt the intent of Parliament is neither as you or I say it is, but rather what Parliament says it is.

1) During the Parliamentary sitting regarding the passing of the Misuse of Drugs Bill on 1973-02-16, while tough penalties were proposed for drug offences, the death penalty was not implemented. The Minister for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin) himself said:

"The Second Schedule to the Bill shows the various penalties for offences committed under the Bill. For unauthorised traffic in a Class A controlled drug, for example, morphine, opium, heroin, the maximum sentence is 20 years or $40,000 or both, and ten strokes of the rotan. The heaviest penalty will apply to those convicted of unauthorised trafficking in a Class A controlled drug to persons under the age of 18 years. For this offence a maximum penalty of 30 years or $50,000 or both, and 15 strokes of the rotan, and a minimum penalty of five years or $10,000 or both, and three strokes of the rotan have been provided. The existing law on dangerous drugs provides for the offence of trafficking, but there is no distinction as regards the age of the person to whom the drugs are sold. The penalties for the offence of trafficking in the existing law are $10,000 or five years, or both. These penalties are obviously totally inadequate as deterrents,

Government views the present situation with deep concern. To act as an effective deterrent, the punishment provided for an offence of this nature must be decidedly heavy. We have, therefore, expressly provided minimum penalties and the rotan for trafficking. However, we have not gone as far as some countries which impose the death penalty for drug trafficking. "

2) When the death penalty was finally considered at the 1975-11-20 Parliametary sitting, The guilt of the accused was to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. This essentially meant tt the legal burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove beyond the reasonable doubt, and it was sufficient for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt as his defence. This was to ensure tt innocent people were not unduly convicted.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson) brought up the necessity to prove guilt of an accused where the maximum penalty for a drug offence carried a death sentence, because "innocent people without their knowledge may he found in possession of drugs. These innocent victims may have been fixed, and this might even cost them their lives. So the question of benefit of the doubt should be carefully considered.

The accused could be guilty or innocent. Therefore, when the death sentence is introduced, care must be taken to see that innocent people are not convicted. Genuine drug pedlars could fix innocent people by placing drugs in their possession without their knowledge and then tip off the Central Narcotics Bureau for an investigation. Arid if a victim is unable to prove his innocence, he is in for trouble."

In reply, Mr Chua Sian Chin assured him: "First of all, let me assure the Member for Anson that if a person is innocent and that he is being framed by someone who tries to fix him by putting controlled drugs in his premises, he need not have any fear. There will first be a thorough investigation and if he is found innocent he will not be prosecuted. Even if he were prosecuted, there is the second line, which is the court. A court will not convict any person if it has a reasonable doubt that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. So I can assure the Member for Anson that persons found innocent will not be prosecuted and sentenced."

3) At the 1989-11-30 Parliamentary sitting, the Misuse of Drugs Act was clarified with regards to the s 17 presumption for the purposes of trafficking. At first instance, with the death penalty now imposed, this presumption was to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): "But one aspect of the clause, Sir, continues to bother me and that is the presumption clause. Mere possession by anyone of the drugs in this list above the stipulated amounts shall "until the contrary is proved, be presumed to traffic in that controlled drug." My concern is that such presumption may result in the death of people who merely possess such drugs for their own consumption or as a result of the drugs being planted by others on the person. While I can appreciate the difficulty of gathering evidence of trafficking, we cannot rule out the possibility of someone being put to death for a crime he did not commit. I hope the Minister can assure the House and our citizens that such a possibility, remote as it may be, will not happen. "

Prof S Jayakmumar (Minister of Home Affairs): "Mr Abdullah Tarmgui has raised two points. His concern was over the presumption clause and he said that a person could be wrongly convicted because the amount of drugs that he has may be for his personal consumption. This is most unlikely to be the case because the quantum that you find specified in the Schedule which would lead to the death penalty, is worked out with the Department of Scientific Services of the Ministry of Health so that the amount which is specified, let us take heroin, is based on thousand doses. If you take heroin, one dose for daily consumption, I am told, is 0.015 grammes. The amount stipulated is 15 grammes. That is a dosage of a thousand times. By no stretch of the imagination or logic can a person claim that that amount is for his personal consumption.

As for safeguards, I can assure him, first of all, that the amended presumption provision is an improvement over the previous presumption clause. Because section 17, as it stands, has two presumptions as it were worked into it. It says:

'Any person who is proved or presumed to have had in his possesion .... shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that controlled drug .... for the purpose of trafficking'.

We have in this approach moved away from that so that it must be proved that he had it in his possession, and then only a rebuttable presumption arises."

4) Unforunately at the 1993-11-10 Parliamentary sitting, Prof Jayakumar did an about-turn regarding the meaning of the word "presumption", because he acknowledged tt this would make it much easier for the prosecution to prove guilt (because without this presumption being read this way, it would be difficult for the prosecution to bring about convictions). Note: The mandatory death penalty as a consequence of this offence was not mentioned.

" To further explain, if the prosecution is able to produce evidence of how he had intended to traffic in that controlled drug, then there will not be a need for the prosecution to invoke the presumption at all. Furthermore, such a ruling is impractical in such cases, because in those cases the only evidence that the prosecution can prove is the act of possession by the accused of a controlled drug in excess of the quantity specified by section 17. It is therefore impossible for the prosecution to specify the manner in which the accused had intended to traffic the drugs in his possession. We will have to read the mind of the accused. For the prosecution in these circumstances to specify the intended mode of trafficking in the charge will be most arbitrary.

The Bill, therefore, gives effect to Parliament's intention in enacting the presumption in section 17 which has always been that when a person has been proved to be in possession of a controlled drug beyond a certain amount, he is presumed to possess the drug for the purpose of trafficking and should be dealt with as if he has committed the offence of trafficking in that drug. Once the presumption is invoked, there is no need to show the overt act of trafficking which he had intended to do. Consequently, there is also no need for the prosecution to specify the particulars of his intended act of trafficking in the charge.

To remove the uncertainty and practical difficulties caused by the case of Lee in applying the presumption, clause 3 of the Bill seeks to insert a new subsection (2) to section 5 of the Act to provide that a person who is in possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking commits the offence of trafficking in that drug. Correspondingly, clause 4 seeks to amend section 17 to provide that where a person is proved to be in possession of a controlled drug in excess of the quantity specified under the section, he is presumed to be in possession of the drug for the purpose of trafficking. The presumption is rebuttable by the accused showing that his possession of the drug was not for the purpose of trafficking but for some other purpose, eg, for his own consumption. To some extent, we are reverting to the wording in the Act before our 1989 amendment. "

General commentary: While the war on drugs may be said to constitute a deterrent effect, all Parliamentary sittings also acknowledged tt this was not a perfect system, and all other avenues had to be considered; such as education, parental and peer support, communal support and even the eradication of poverty or such problems to remove groups of at-risk people.

The presumption of knowledge was not explicitly mentioned or discussed in any of the sittings. I suppose this is why extrapolation is needed as regards their meaning. Regarding a presumption of knowledge regarding the "nature of the drug", I do not think tt I am imposing my own views on what this means. Nature of the drug should mean heroin, or at least a drug tt causes that degree of harm. This can not only be seen from a literal, but also a purposive reading. Kan J did not discuss what "nature of the drug" meant in his judgment, so perhaps we can only imagine what he really thinks. But if you referred to my reply to your comment on my blog, you would also realise tt the Court of Appeal, while upholding the original holding, did clarify tt the standard of knowledge applied by Kan J to Tochi could not constitute a legal duty (which I already mentioned and quoted from Michael Hor's article "Strict Liability: A Re-Examination"), and I also explained why he said so.

Finally, what we can aslo see from the different Parliamentary sittings, is that intention is not quite so clear. The death penalty was not originally seen as a deterrent, and when it was first implemented, it was obvious tt the prosecution was to prove an accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Later, the meanings of the presumption were changed (post-Ong Ah Chuan (UK House of Lords case), which was later rejected by other cases, especially as UK now embraces the ECHR) so as to make it easier for the prosecution to prove an accused's guilt. But this case was criticised and rejected as turning the fundamental right of presumption of innocence on its head because it shifts not just the evidential burden (which is what the legal presumptions are supposed to do), but also the legal burden to the accused, which has been criticised as being far too onerous and unfair to him (i.e. by academics such as Michael Hor, as well as courts in other jurisdictions such as Canada, the European Union, and any other country tt shows a fundamental respect for civil rights in a court of law).

Singapore is one of the few (if not, the only country I know), that keeps the legal burden of proof on the accused. The UK has done already done an-about turn on this. I am of the impression (but I might be wrong), that certain aspects of the law are not all considered at different Parliamentary sittings. The intentions have changed over the years, where different ministers have come into power and have their own views on policies. Perhaps, the discussion regarding a the reversing of the legal burden of proof onto the accused and the requirement of such a standard of proof, coupled with a mandatory death penalty, has not been discussed as a whole in Parliament. But the cases and criticisms by legal academics have shown tt there are problems which are being recognised.

My friend was working on a Law Society review of the mandatory death penalty, and she comes to the same conclusion tt we ought not to have one. You might see the war on drugs as a war, rather than anything to do with fairness and justice. On the contrary, I think any decent human being, when faced with having to deprive another individual of his life against his will, has to consider at the very least, his guilt. This was already intended to be so in the 1975 sitting. To see the war on drugs as a war alone isn't fair.

I do agree tt combating drugs and crime will not be an easy task. Many people will have their own reasons for turning to either. This is why it is important - no, essential - to prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I am prepared to send people to jail for the protection of society, but I cannot do so on a clear conscience if:

1) the protection of society is exaggerated
2) the person is not fundamentally guilty

If we simply want to send people to jail for a so-called greater good, then we no longer need any courts or any rule of law. We should simply apply the ISA and the emergency powers and detention clauses to everyone. I mean, why not? We'll have very clean and safe streets. If we apply a 1984-esque scenario to everyone, we'll have a non-existent crime rate.

So what's stopping us? Where do we draw the line?

I like your article. Although I do not agree with it, I think it is well-thought through. However, since you have titled this article The War On Drugs, I think tt you have left out the other (and what I, as well as Parliament consider) more important weapons in this war. The weapons of community support, of education, of the preservation of the family unit, of the war on poverty and the economic circumstances tt makes potential drug users turn to drugs as a source of escapism.

The law may be just one weapon, but it might not be enough against everyone, and it can and has been used perhaps too much.

I wholeheatedly support KTM's premise that the DEATH PENALTY is a deterrent for criminal behaviour, particularly the kind which will endanger the lives of others.

I call on KTM to support my call to extend the DEATH PENALTY for the following offences.

1. Activities related to Jemaah Islamiah and other terror-linked activities.
2. Trafficking of women and children for prostitution.
3. Drunk driving.
4. Possession of materials which may go into the building of explosives, the poisoning of reservoirs, the emmission of poisonous gases etc.
5. Illegal tobacco maufacturers.
6. Persistent and violent treatment, for a period of time, of workers, domestic maids or any such person.
7. Any persons who incites violence or civil disobedience which may lead to loss of lives.
8. Anyone guilty of corruption, bribery, extortion, embezzlement of over a million Sing dollars. (China has and uses the death penalty for such crimes)

Of course there are more to such a list. Readers are most welcome to add to them. We wish to live in a crime-free society. To this end, extending the death penalty to as many criminal acts as possible is the best way to achieve that.

Veron,

I don't mean to diss you (I'm personally not in favour of the death penalty), but the two examples you brought up to support your stand seems somewhat odd to me. You said:

Does the death penalty deter trafficking? Is the drug problem REALLY under control in Singapore? Has the drug rehab centres seen an increase or decrease in inmates?

Your first example was about 6 more people being nabbed for drug trafficking and using this, you question the effectiveness of the deterrant effect. Fair enough, the arrest of the 6 people might suggest that the deterrance effect wasn't strong enough. However, in the absence of more information, to conclude that the deterrance effect is ineffective might be premature because we don't know (and possibly will never know) how many people were deterred. Perhaps another 600 people were planning to bring heroin into Singapore this month, but they were scared of being caught and executed. This would mean 99% deterrance, which is actually quite effective, don't you think? Of course, it could also be said that only 6 people were intending to bring drugs into Singapore and therefore the law isn't effective. :(

The second example on Subutex is really odd in the context of the discussion on the war on drugs. The Subutex issue was not because people are trafficking it. The problem was because some GPs were lax in prescribing Subutex and did not properly follow their patient's conditions. Some GPs were investigated by the Singapore Medical Council for their failure to follow procedures in dispensing the drug. You really are talking about something that's totally unrelated to drug trafficking.

Of course, you are right to wonder if the drug situation is really under control. However, until there is sufficient evidence to prove causality, we can argue until the cows come home. By the way, since the GPs were negligent, should we also hang them? *just kidding*

KTM,

if Tochi did not know that he was carrying something that will lead to him being hung when caught, should he be subjected to the death penalty?
Should there not be a middle-ground, the equivalence of manslaughter in cases involving alleged murder?

'But common sense would tell us that for every Tochi that we catch, there are probably 10 Tochi's that we didn't manage to catch.'
Doesn't that show that the death penalty is utterly useless as a deterrent?
Then isn't improving our monitoring and detection capability a more effective strategy in our war against drugs?

I think KTM is simplifying the issue. Presumptions are intricately tied in with the death penalty. IF the standard of proof is higher, we are assured the person is guilty. If we are less sure, we should not hang a person. The room for error is greater. If you think that the guilt is not important, I am unsure of the deterrent value. Besides, I believe that your sense of justice is uncommon.

The use of presumptions are to ensure through a set of procedure checks that justice is not only done, but seen to be done. Under the current system, an innocent man can be hanged because of procedure - that he fails to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that he was not trafficking drug.

Besides, importantly, as Kitana described, "... I think any decent human being, when faced with having to deprive another individual of his life against his will, has to consider at the very least, his guilt."

I am optimistic. With a careful analysis of the way the presumptions work against the accused, with the shadow of the death penalty, many Singaporeans might (for various reason) feel that a man could only be hang because he is 'morally' culpable. I disagree that such an attitude is the right one - but I think Singaporeans are moral people.

From a deterrence perspective, We are aware of Singapore's context as compared to the other nations like Canada. We have very strict laws - the idea is that this is too strict. I am not saying get rid of the death penalty (although that is a possibility). The question is whether the very strictness of our laws (evinced through the use of such presumptions) required for our policy needs.

Regarding "KTM being Run Over by a Truck Test":

"The KTM's thesis: if the expected probability of an innocent man being wrongly convicted and hanged for drug trafficking is significantly lower than the probability of being run over by a truck when walking down the street, the present system is fine. The KTM happens to think that the present system is fine."

When KTM says fine, he says fine because justice/deterrence is mixed in a fine - balanced fashion? Perhaps it is merely instinctive. What is 'significantly lower' is hazardous. How much more significant? I think it is fine too but we don't know do we? The thesis is complicated.

For me, I am fine if we reduce the expected probability of an innocent man being wrongly convicted through procedure (requirement of a higher standard of proof) and if we reduce the expected probability of citizens from being run down by a truck. Both have their uses, one is to prevent innocent people from being hanged while preventing druggies and the other to prevent people from being run down, while allow truck drivers to drive along the road.

"The KTM would surmise that many of those who criticise our tough stand on drugs do not have close friends or family who fall prey to drugs. That's why it is easy to say that we should forgive and show mercy? Why are people siding with the crooks without sparing a thought for the victims?"

This is absolute rubbish.

KTM

Your article rocks... I like the "hit by a truck" test. It's a good analogy.

Maybe there is a little vagueness here of who is the victim and who is the criminal, or maybe both. Sometimes conscious criminals are seen also by some as victims, causing sentimental public support for desperate drug mules such as Nguyen. Tochi was also seen by some as just a victim of his circumstance, also causing sentimental public support for him. Maybe the true perception of a dangerous criminal is the one perceived as directly victimising others?

The Law only deals with the people it can get its hands on, whether they are victims of circumstance or conscious criminals. Does the balanced scale in the hands of the blind-folded Lady Justice implies equal punishment for perceived victims and criminals? Does she also show mercy and deliverance through her blindfolds? How does the Lady Justice really thinks? Is she really who we want her to be? Does she also possess the ability of foresight to exert deterrence?

The "KTM being Run by a Truck Test" can be formulated into the following mathematical manner:

If a suspected individual is convicted of drug trafficking has a probability:
P (an individual is guilty | A, B, C ...., Z)
higher than P(an individual can get run over by a truck driver | A, B, C....Z), then our present system in upholding the death penalty is safe.

So, the question really is what constitute the conditions A, B, C, .... Z. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Plead by Ignorance.
2. Plead by not knowing that you have the drugs in your baggage in the first case.
3. Plead by age (below 18), and not 19 and immaturity.
4. Plead by credibility of the individual. For example, if you are a member of parliament, a CEO, a person with high stature, it is unlikely that you want to do something so stupid.

Reading the proceedings really carefully in Singapore, only condition 2 and 4 are probable in helping you to convince the judge that you are innocent. So, by Bayes theorem, the probability is really very low, and will always be below the chance of being run over by a truck. Even if the cases of being run over by a truck is increasing, it does not mean that you can convict someone so easily in that situation. So, the test is really a non-starter, because no matter how we do it, the number is always lower.

The real problem is to determine the conditions where the suspected convict is innocent in the first place, and to me, only 2 and 4 have the chances of success, given that the punishment is mandatory.

Lastly, it is impossible to win the war on drugs, reminds me about the war on Terror and guess what, we are still asking, "Where's Osama Bin Laden?". The supply of soldiers is almost infinite, given the wealth gap between the developing and developed countries. Using death penalty to deter soldiers from trying to do that does not make economic sense, perhaps, they should consider a military option to take out the plantations which produces these drugs or a special forces operation to take out the drug lords.

YH, may I quote something:

'But common sense would tell us that for every Tochi that we catch, there are probably 10 Tochi's that we didn't manage to catch.'

Doesn't that show that the death penalty is utterly useless as a deterrent? Then isn't improving our monitoring and detection capability a more effective strategy in our war against drugs?

I think your reasoning is kinda weird. In talking about deterrence, we are not exactly looking at how many people we didn't catch (because they obviously are not deterred), but rather, how many people dropped the idea of trafficking drugs. We cannot know how much of an effect the death penalty has because people are obviously not going to come up and say "Hey I intended to traffick drugs but I heard about the death penalty so I changed my mind". The deterrence effect is merely speculative. In the context of Singapore, since we don't have a big drug problem and we execute people for drug trafficking, perhaps there is some correlation between the two and thus justification for the death penalty on drugs.

If you are interested to prove that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, you have 2 ways to prove it. One is to prove that there is indeed a link between the death penalty and drug trafficking rates. The other is to prove that there is no link between death penalty and drug trafficking rates (if we can reject the null hypothesis, we can then quite safely conclude that the hypothesis in question is correct). Either way, it's probably difficult to prove, so I suppose it all really depends on what you believe to be right.

Ultimately, while I am not a lawyer, I still think that we can have a range of punishments other than just a mandatory death penalty. Indeed we might have to be tough in the war on drugs, but perhaps we can create some room for the judges to decide on the most appropriate punishment, rather than just execution upon the verdict of guilt.

Taken from Yawning Bread archives, posted in Nov 2005.

Drug abuse prevalence and the death penalty

Country Year of data Drug abuse prevalence rate Death penalty in law Death penalty in practice
Russia 2001 2.1% Yes No
UK 2001 0.9% No No
USA 2000 0.6% Yes Yes
Thailand 2001 0.5% Yes Yes
New Zealand 2001 0.5% No No
Australia 2004 0.5% No No
France 1999 0.4% No No
Canada 2000 0.4% No No
Germany 2000 0.3% No No
Netherlands 2001 0.3% No No
Taiwan 2002 0.3% Yes Yes
Malaysia 2000 0.2% Yes Yes
China 2003 0.2% Yes Yes
Hong Kong 2002 0.2% No No
Mexico 2001 0.1% No No
Singapore 2002 0.1% Yes Yes
Japan 2002 0.1% Yes Yes (see yellow box)
Sweden 1998 0.1% No No
Finland 1999 0.1% No NoThe data for drug abuse prevalence rates are taken from the website of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The numbers are estimates of the percentage of a country's population, aged 15 – 64, who are hooked on opiate drugs (which includes heroin).

The columns on the right relating to the death penalty are from Amnesty International's website.

Singapore indeed has a low rate of drug abuse. Only about 0.1 percent of our population are considered to have so succumbed. But this is also the case for Finland, Sweden and Mexico. Yet these countries do not need the death penalty to enjoy the same low rates of drug abuse.

Hong Kong, a city much like Singapore also has a rather low rate: 0.2 percent of its population. In 2004, it reported about 14,000 drug cases, whereas Singapore had something slightly under 3,500 cases per annum for the last few years.

It may look as if Hong Kong has 4 times as many drug addicts as Singapore, but then Hong Kong has twice our population. Thus its prevalence rate is only twice ours. Hong Kong does not have the death penalty.

By the way, unlike the Hong Kong government, which publishes its up-to-date numbers openly on the internet, Singapore's data seems to stop at 2002. One wonders why.

Japan too has a 0.1 percent prevalence rate, and it does have the death penalty. However, as the yellow box explains, in practice it is only used for murder. Thus, in considering drug abuse or trafficking, Japan is actually a "no death penalty" country.

In any case, Japan only executes about 2 or 3 persons a year. The Singapore government is very coy about our own figures, but it did reveal in Parliament that we executed 340 persons between 1991 and 2000. Considering our small population, it is believed that Singapore has the highest per capita execution rate in the world!

Coming back to the point, let's look at the countries in the table with the death penalty.

Malaysia, like Singapore, makes hanging a mandatory sentence for trafficking in 15 grams or more of heroin or heroin-equivalent, and it carries out these sentences too. But from the table, you see it has a drug abuse prevalence rate of 0.2 percent, not quite different from Hong Kong.

For a feel of the real numbers of individuals, see this news story by the Associated Press, dated 2 June 2005. AP reported that in Malaysia,

Government statistics indicate there are 300,000 drug addicts, though activists have said the real figure is much higher since many addicts have eluded arrest.

This was actually a side bit of information. The main point of the story was how Malaysia was so alarmed by the situation and the high risk of spreading HIV through injecting drugs, a proposal to give out free syringes was being floated. Has the death penalty worked for them?

Thailand too has the death penalty for drug trafficking. UNODC reports that it has a drug abuse prevalence rate of 0.5 percent. A story in the newspaper, The Nation, dated 29 Nov 2001 said,

Thailand has almost 2.6 million drug abusers aged five to 68, including 2.4 million methamphetamine users, according to an official health survey.

This survey was conducted between June and September 2001 by 20,000 health officials, who visited all 70,000 villages in the country. It was the most intensive study of the drug problem undertaken to date.

What does all this show? It shows that Singapore is doing something right, in order that we enjoy a relatively drug-free environment, but the "something" is unlikely to be the death penalty. We're just grasping at it as an easy explanation, and because as a society we're great believers in being punitive, sometimes even to the point of brutal.

As Finland, Sweden and Japan show, it is possible to be as drug-free a society as we are today without the death penalty.

Even when we are doing something right, we don't even know (or want to know) what it is!

It bothers me how as a society that hopes to be a knowledge economy and a centre for research, we have this lazy habit of mind to rely on easy explanations when the evidence suggests otherwise. It worries me how we cling to dogma, just like the creationists do.

Are we killing people because it deters others or because we simply want to get them out of the way? Do we rely on the easy explanation because we have proof it works, or because we wish to avoid having to grapple with the uncertainties of truth and conscience?

Finland, Sweden and Mexico and Singapore have gotten it right in drugs, it seems. But everyone else, who doesn't have the death penalty, has significantly higher drug abuse rates.

I don't know what Finland, Sweden and Mexico do keep their drug abuse down. But the fact that it seem that a much higher majority of countries that do not use the death penalty as a deterrant for drugs have much higher drug abuse rates should be a plus for the effectiveness of the death penalty here in Singapore.

And.. umm.. nothing against Malaysia and Thailand, but their police aren't exactly know for their efficiency and reliability... somehow my guess is a drug trafficker is much more likely to be caught in Singapore than in Malaysia and Thailand.

Dear Coin

It seems to me that :
1. Countries w/o death sentence = bigger sample
2. In countries w harsh penalties, addicts and traffickers tries harder to be invisible.
3. Thailand is nearer(?) to the Golden Triangle and has a long and porus borders.

Dear KTM

Love your war analogy. War is an extension of politics, yes? And PA...*screeching sound of getting run over by truck just beside an OB marker*

But how about calling it: "WAR ON DRUGS: Killing Private Tochi"

A "battle" has the exciting gunfire stuff where we shoot each other. "War" is a much longer, more boring process. logistics and blahblah.

It may therefore be more accurate to describe Pte Tochi as maybe a child conscript who was captured as a member of the ration party that has been captured\surrendered. And then we shoot him. Hurray. We no brutal. We mighty heroes. O-e-O!!!

Anyone here voting to bomb the bl**dy poppy farmers and stopping drugs at the source? Surely there are some who are not under the protection of heavily armed druglords. We find those who can't shoot back and we use them for target practise :-)

BestGirl:

The data you cited proves that it is possible for some countries somewhere to be relatively drug free without the death penalty. Does it show that it is possible for Singapore--given the conditions specific to us, our region, our neighbourhood, and so on--to be relatively drug free without the death penalty?

I don't know. And nothing you've said remotely gives me a clue that that answer is anywhere near "yes". It is exactly like you say: we are doing something right, we don't even know what it is.

I take it that you, being the non dogmatic sort who doesn't rely on "easy explanations" or "cling to dogma", or have no problems "having to grapple with the uncertainties of truth and conscience" would agree, no?

That's why I'm surprised at your charge that "we" don't want to know, that we would rather go for the "easy explanations when the evidence suggests otherwise"--which suggests that you are convinced that you know the truth.

Bestgirl,

can you explain the correlation between death penalty and drug abuse prevalence?

Hello everyone,

Thanks for all your comments. The KTM is pretty overwhelmed by the large number of comments and has given up the idea of trying to respond to all of them. May the KTM ask for your kind indulgence.

Just one quick reply to those who claim that "the death penalty is unless as a deterrent because we still have a drug problem". The following is the KTM's response: the KTM is so glad that the monsoon season is over, since the rains were so heavy in the previous weeks. Even though the KTM carried an umbrella every where he went, he still got wet. By the above logic, since the KTM got wet, it means that umbrellas are completely ineffective and useless and we should all walk in the rain without umbrellas? :-)

Kitana,

Thanks for your kind comments and for taking the time to dig up all the Parliamentary proceedings. That's really good. The KTM truly appreciates that unlike many others, you kwai kwai do your homework before you speak. :-P

"what we can aslo see from the different Parliamentary sittings, is that intention is not quite so clear"

Hehe. Yes, it turns out that Parliament is not famous for being particularly coherent. :-) Also, Parliament in 1973 is not the same as Parliament in 2007. People change, circumstances change, and the values of society change. The only constant thing it seems is change. Therefore, for the judges to try to administer the law according to the intent of Parliament is somewhat of a moving target (aren't you beginning to sympathize with them already? :-P). Some will say that it's not the intent of Parliament today, but the intent of Parliament at the point when the legislation was enacted.... and we're back to th problem of figuring out what currently senile or dead people were thinking several decades ago. Okay, two words -- tough luck. :-P

The KTM has no intention of changing careers and becoming a mind reader and will not endeavour to try to guess at what Justice Kan thinks is the intent of Parliament (the KTM admits that it might perhaps have been somewhat of a stretch in his previous comment to imply that he knew the intent of Parliament. Apologies. The KTM is not the scion of an MP and most certainly not an MP, and neither has the KTM asked an MP about this question nor does the KTM have the abitity to read the minds of MPs, so he is completely unqualified to make a statement of such nature. :-)).

Nevertheless, the KTM has reason to believe that Justice Kan was indeed attempting to execute the law according to the spirit of the law as guided by his understanding of the intent of the Parliament. On the balance of probabilites, the KTM therefore has reason to believe that the intent of Parliament is closer to the KTM's interpretation of "nature of the drug" than yours. Of course, you have the right to claim, in view of the ambiguities, that you understand the law and intent of the law better than Justice Kan. :-)

Let's take a step back and may the KTM ask you to perhaps clarify your unhappiness with the existing law/procedure. As the mentioned earlier, there are two parts in the process (and the KTM fails to understand why Ben seems to like to muddle the two). First, we have to frame the charges and specify the required burden of proof; only thereafter, if the accused is found guilty as charged, then we worry about how to deal with him (If not guilty, then we acquit already. Why waste time? :-)).

Perhaps the KTM can try to paraphrase what he thinks you have a problem with. It seems that you might have a problem with both parts:
1. You believe that the current threshold required for conviction is too low, i.e. that a greater burden of proof should be placed on the prosecution.
2. You have a problem with the mandatory death penalty.
The KTM will not talk about point 2, since that's the baby for Speranza Nuova's earlier article. :-)

Now, let's examine the conviction of Iwuchkwu Amara Tochi. Given all the facts that have been revealed thus far (not forgetting the negative inferences that he lied, etc. etc.), was Tochi trafficking or was he not trafficking drugs? The KTM is beyond doubt that he was trafficking and he is reasonably sure that he can possibly even convince a jury of lay people in a court of law of this. The KTM will define "trafficking" as the "act of bringing in drugs to Singapore, even though he knew that it was a offence to do so". You have to admit that whether he knew about the death penalty is irrelevant at this stage. :-)

1. It was undisputed that Tochi had A VAST QUANTITY of drugs and inconceivable by a LONG shot they were for personal consumption; and
2. Tochi knew very well that it was an offence in Singapore to bring in the said "African herbs" (from negative inferences that (i) he tried to frame the CNB, (ii) he changed of statements, (iii) for not waiting for the Police to come to the hotel)
You should understand that even if he didn't understand the seriousness of the offence and the associated penalties, it makes no difference at this stage.

What's been the problem? People are all muddled by the death penalty. :-P Simple experiment: if the penalty for trafficking is a slap of the wrist, would you have changed your mind? If you want to be a lawyer, you have to train yourself to think more clearly about the issues. This Tochi case isn't even all that contentious in the KTM's opinion. In the KTM's mind, the Took Leng How/Huang Na case was significantly more contentious (as a digression, the KTM will say that he disagrees with Took's execution).

yh,

if Tochi did not know that he was carrying something that will lead to him being hung when caught, should he be subjected to the death penalty? Should there not be a middle-ground, the equivalence of manslaughter in cases involving alleged murder?

Yes. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground. If we do not hang Tochi, we would open up a pandora's box and give drug lords an reason to recruit footballer wannabes on a “dun ask dun tell” basis, as the KTM mentioned above.

ben,

I think KTM is simplifying the issue. Presumptions are intricately tied in with the death penalty. IF the standard of proof is higher, we are assured the person is guilty. If we are less sure, we should not hang a person. The room for error is greater.

Perhaps you are right that the KTM is simplifying the issue -- but you will understand soon enough that if you don't break up problems into their component parts and apply divide and conquer, problems often quickly become intractible.

You may wish to know that there are two ways to err. One is to convict an innocent man. The other is to acquit a guilty man. Do recognize that you are not arguing for less error, but actually the trading off of one error against another.

If you think that the guilt is not important, I am unsure of the deterrent value. Besides, I believe that your sense of justice is uncommon.

Since when did the KTM say that guilt is not important? Please dun confuse deterence with Tochi's case. The question of deterence is completely irrelevant w.r.t. the charge of trafficking. He was either trafficking or he was not.

As the KTM has explained to Kitana above, it seems to the KTM upon examining the evidence presented in the judgements that on the balance of probabilities, Tochi is guilty of trafficking a controlled Class 'A' drug under the Misuse of Drug Act. What's the difficulty or ambiguity?

Noname,

It may therefore be more accurate to describe Pte Tochi as maybe a child conscript who was captured as a member of the ration party that has been captured\surrendered. And then we shoot him. Hurray. We no brutal. We mighty heroes. O-e-O!!!

Actually hor, the saving private KTM story above was just for kicks and for explaining the difficulties in applying "mitigating circumstances". You want a war analogy, the KTM will give you a *REAL* war analogy. :-)

What's really happening this war on drugs is that we're holed up in a defensive posture and we've planted a vast minefield around ourselves. The problem is our borders are too expansive and we don't have enough sentries and bunker to cover the entire border, so even though it's marked "Danger: Minefield" everywhere, there are gaps.

The generals of the opposing army are chickens and wouldn't come anywhere near our minefield. The will send the Private Tochis, and the Tochis come and they get blown up. Our fault ah?

What some people are currently saying is that it's bad to use anti-personel mines (APMs). Let's use curry powder instead. When they come, you make them cough and then we can them as POWs and feed them for life. What a sweet thought? :-)

Others are claim that we should get rid of the minefield since it hasn't entirely been able to keep the enemy from slipping through. Are they thinking of a Berlin Wall, or one of those contraptions the Isreali's have in Gaza to keep the suicide bombers out?

Permit the KTM to state his views on this matter in an explicit and unambiguous way. The KTM is not convinced that we should substitute the APM with curry-powder mines. Do the APM's really work? We know we blow up some Private Tochi's even year, but we also know that some get through. Whatever the case, the KTM feels safer with the minefield up and running.

People can call the KTM selfish, but when it comes to deciding between the life of Private Tochi and the welfare of his children and his children's children, the KTM is unashamed to say that he would choose the latter any day, without hesitation.

For every private Tochi who gets blown up, the KTM will observe a moment of silence. What the KTM does not wish is to have to deal with is losing sleep over worrying that his children will fall prey to the scourge of drugs.

The KTM sleeps well at night surrounded by the minefield and likes to keep it that way. And of course, the KTM will also ensure that his kids have enough sense to stay away from the minefield themselves.

BL,

So, the test is really a non-starter, because no matter how we do it, the number is always lower.

The KTM does not agree with your analysis of the possible defences. Your proposed option 4 wouldn't work. If an elite gets charged, you will probably see him get hanged as an example to all (or perhaps he might get a small discount and be allowed to hang himself. By before you cry "special treatment", permit the KTM to explain the resulting savings to the public: if the fella hangs himself, we don't have to pay the public hangman his $400 hanging allowance and also we can avoid having to waste valuable court time to achieve the same ends.). :-P

Also, as people seem to be claiming and miscarriages of justice are common in our Courts, then it is not inconceivable that the test might come up positive. If you feel like being kind to the KTM and you dun want to run him over with a truck, perhaps substitute with 'dying in an airplane accident' or 'dying from bee sting'. :-P The *real* question is not the threshold probability but whether it is fair to say that the current procedures are actually okay not withstanding that there is a non-zero probability of zero episilon if we can prove that episilon

perhaps, they should consider a military option to take out the plantations which produces these drugs or a special forces operation to take out the drug lords.

Wah sei, scary man. You seem to be exhibiting a latent "George Bush/Dick Cheney streak". Can you imagine the SAF going into the "Gold Triangle" to fight drug lords? :-) Scully some private get caught and we have to do our own version of "Saving Private Tan Ah Kow". :-)

Do you think the SAF would want to go into the Burmese jungles to fight the drug lord armies? :-) Perhaps the KTM should cut back on this war analogy. Seems like it's giving you and Noname some illusions of grandeur about the SAF (were you watching Rambo?). :-P

Dear KTM

If I remember correctly,
1. mines have been mostly outlawed by the international community. Singapore being one of the few countries not to sign. Which says something about us.

2. Singapore actually have very few entry points.

3. There are other methods of deterrence. Better scanners. Better training. etc. The drug lords are more concerned about the drugs than the lives of the mules.

4. an alleged drug lord allegedly came to Singapore not so long ago. and he was pretty much unmolested by our diligent warriors against drugs.

6. The best defense against drugs is actually proper guidance from parents and teachers.

7. Gambling destroys lives and families too. But we are building 2 casinos. And alcohol (Tiger Beer?). Prostitution (Ge