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 (Geylang?).

8...

I realize it is pointless to continue though I still can't believe an intelligent moderate like you would support the death penalty for drug mules and not the drug lords.

Hi NoName,

I still can't believe an intelligent moderate like you would support the death penalty for drug mules and not the drug lords

No lah, KTM isn't saying we shouldn't hang the drug lords. If we can get our hands on them, let's hang 'em all! But hor, talk is cheap. Just highlighting that it's not so easy to catch drug lords lah. If you think it's easy, you catch one and show the KTM. :-)

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

Suppose you are right. Do you think this drug lord is STUPID and will walk into CNB and have us hang him? The reason why he dares waltz into Singapore is precisely because he's all prepared. Do you think he's going to be carrying the 15g of heroin? Then again, perhaps CNB was just sleeping that day...... Not sure what's your point.

My question to you is this: are you saying the minefield has no effect? If it has at least some deterrence effect, why should we dismantle it? Why don't we just have more of everything, i.e. we should have minefields AND more scanners, and more sentries in order to secure the borders.... aren't we supposed to be kiasu?

KTM,

Just on the presumptions issue. You are right, it's trading off one error for another: whether we should say there's no way in hell this fella isn't a drug trafficker if he carries 20g, or if we should say well we can't be absolutely sure he's a drug trafficker even though he's carrying 20g.

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really help, that's true. It just begs the question of what it takes to prove something. Well the legal standard isn't 'on the balance of probabilities', as ben has pointed out, it's beyond reasonable doubt. That means you are very, very sure it's true, and there isn't any reasonable explanation for the accused's actions. (Eg. there's another fella carrying the exact same bag you did and HE'S the drug trafficker not you, you just suay suay picked up his bag that's all)

What's that mean in this context? Nothing. Because the law on drugs doesn't come under the usual 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, because of the presumption that you are trafficking drugs if you carry 20g or more. So the gahmen doesn't have to prove that you're a drug trafficker anymore, they just have to show you carry 20g. Fair anot? I dunno. I think it's a bit arbitrary, but it does make the gahmen's job a hell lot easier since they don't have to bother with the pesky 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard in ordinary crimes anymore. Shiok eh.

My problem with it is that the gahmen's job shouldn't be so easy when it comes to capital crimes. I mean, seriously, it's one thing to catch a person with some goods in his jacket and fine him for shoplifting even if you're not completely sure he didn't just forget to pay. (Not a perfect example, I know) It's another to hang a man. Shouldn't there be a firmer justification for hanging somebody than a mere presumption? I mean, yes, it's inconceivable for there to be any other reasonable explanation for this fella's actions. But generally, it makes the prosecution's case a little too easy don't you think?

My 2c.

Dear KTM

1. As a responsible member of the international community, we should have at least detained an alleged drug lord. Or denied entry.

2. Land mines are banned for a good reason (there is plenty of research material out there). As one of the only 10(or 11)countries still manufacturing mines, we are in familiar company. North Korea. russia. cuba. iran. Ring a bell? No?

Sadly, it seems the likes of whyBeGay is right. We are one ugly nation.

jx,

You have made a fair point. Under the present standards, it might be possible for someone who just "picked up" the drugs to be presumed a trafficker under the law. But 20g is not little, little it might seem. That's about 1,000 doses and is worth some USD$30,000 on the streets.

The logic of the current law is probably the following: given that a person is caught with 1,000 doses of a Class 'A' controlled drug, there is an extremely high probability that he is a trafficker. The only other possibilities are that he was tricked into carrying the drug, he was framed, or that he picked up the bag by mistake.

The first possibility is most likely. If some underworld fella wants to frame someone, no point spending USD$30,000 worth of drugs to do it. Also, you dun leave USD$30,000 worth of drugs lying around for people to just "pick up".

In regards to the first, the current stand is quite clear. As long as the courier vaguely knows that he/she is smuggling something illegal (regardless of whether he knows exactly which controlled drug he/she is carrying), we hang (and for good reason). The only plausible defence is absolutely no knowledge or claims to have "thought that it was something else and that something is legal". Tochi eventually tried the latter approach, but by initially making the false allegation that the CNB planted the drug on him, he probably did himself in.

The point of this post is not that the present system is perfect. The point is that notwithstanding all the soppy write-ups on the case, the law (on this case in particular) is actually quite open and shut. People are all muddled by the death penalty and are so keen to prove their case that the death penalty is wrong, they quote parts of the judgement out of context.

There may be a need to re-examine the current presumptions, but Tochi is not a case that demonstrates an urgent need to do so. Perhaps if the KTM gets caught with 20g of heroin on his head because some bird shit on him, we'd have a better case.

Finally, perhaps we should have some faith in the prosecutors and in the courts and give them the benefit of doubt that if they discover something fishy in the case that doesn't sit well with them, the case will not proceed to conviction and thereby hanging? As someone highlighted earlier, prosecutors are in a position to reduce the charges and so can the judges (kinda).

NoName,

1. As a responsible member of the international community, we should have at least detained an alleged drug lord. Or denied entry.

This is actually an unfounded statement. Firstly, do you have actual facts that we had an alleged drug lord in town? Or is it some gossip? Secondly, it is precisely because we a responsible member of the international community, we cannot anyhow lock people up. What's very likely is that we probably didn't have enough evidence to lock him up.

Denying entry is a possibility, but it's quite likely that we "slipped up". Eh, our borders are relatively open and most tourists dun need to get visas beforehand. A drug lord appears at the checkpoint and fills up a immigration form, how is the immigration officer supposed to know. You will say there's a blacklist --- what makes you think that the drug lord will use his real name or a real passport?

It is true that the KTM is being speculative here, but that's exactly what you were doing in making that remark. The KTM is not in the business of defending the Garmen, CNB or ICA BTW.

2. Land mines are banned for a good reason (there is plenty of research material out there). As one of the only 10(or 11)countries still manufacturing mines, we are in familiar company. North Korea. russia. cuba. iran. Ring a bell? No?

Interesting point, but wholy irrelevant to the present discussion.

Sadly, it seems the likes of whyBeGay is right. We are one ugly nation

wbg is most definitely right, we are one ugly nation.

Dear NoName

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

can u please give more information on this? I strongly doubt that anything of the sort actually happened.

KTM - I don't believe that there was such a drug lord.

KTM,

Yes, indeed the current case doesn't present any compelling reason to re-examine the law. That we can agree on.

A few quick points (again) -

No, the judge does not have sentencing discretion for trafficking. Under the MDA, once a certain threshold ( x grams for x drug ) has been crossed, the penalty upon conviction is prescribed to be death. The Second Schedule doesn't say 'Death or 10 years', or 'Death or life imprisonment', it's death. This means that even if the judge somehow sympathizes with the accused, lan lan must sentence to death. The only way out of this, as was stated in the Nguyen case, is a presidential pardon.

That's an extralegal method of mitigation, and the gahmen has stated before that they're satisfied with having this escape mechanism to prevent gross miscarriages of justice. Fair enough. But know that the legal system itself has no such possibility of mitigation. Most other crimes would have a discretionary sentencing element, like 10-20 years, or 20 years or life imprisonment. This particular crime doesn't. How fair is that? I dunno.

Trust the prosecution? Sure. But you've got to remember, I'm not sure where this came up before in the blogosphere, that the prosecution's got to do their job as well. They'd have to prosecute cases if there's clear evidence of a crime, no matter how pitiful the accused's situation might be. That's not usually a problem, since the presence of clear evidence most often shows that there has indeed been a crime committed. But in this particular context, we come back to the context of 20g (or however much is required for the death penalty to be applied for that particular drug). That means that instead of the usual pile of testimonies and CSI-esque forensic data, you have simply the 20g of whatever.

Would the prosecution consider other factors? Would they think ohh today got kan a lot of birds flying overhead shitting heroin, maybe this dude just suay suay kena some on his way to work. Yes they should. But they'd probably still prosecute anyway, afterall the only evidence they need to find is the 20g what. Then your defense would have the burden of showing that oh actually your honour there were how many birds flying overhead that day and for some unknown reason they were shitting heroin and my client here is mr. kan suay blah blah blah.

Of course that works as well lah. But the point here is still that the prosecution's job is too easy. The defense doesn't usually have to bear the burden of proving the dude isn't guilty. Of course the gahmen does this because the war on drugs is really important, it's better to have a clear rule, it's important to take such forceful measures against cunning defense lawyers, etc. etc. All true, but fair?

Yes the system isn't perfect, but that's no reason to accept the imperfections.

KTM,

I realized I repeated some of the points already made above. My bad.

jx,

Yes, indeed the current case doesn't present any compelling reason to re-examine the law. That we can agree on.

Thanks for your comments. I am glad we can agree on something, but even if we just agree to disagree, it's fine too. In any case, the KTM would like to take this chance to clarify what he said earlier. The KTM doesn't mean to say that "there's no compelling need to change the law". Some people believe that the law as it stands is broken and therefore, to them, there is a compelling reason to change the law. The KTM's point is: "if the law is broken, then it was broken before Tochi happened and Tochi's case did nothing to add or subtract from its brokenness. This is not a case of a miscarriage of justice as some have claimed." That's what the KTM said (or had intended to say) in more precise terms.

No, the judge does not have sentencing discretion for trafficking.

True, the KTM's point is that it's possible for the judge to work with the prosecution to reduce the changes. Happens relatively often for murder charges.

They'd have to prosecute cases if there's clear evidence of a crime, no matter how pitiful the accused's situation might be.

The Public Prosecutor has this thing call "Prosecutorial discretion" which actually gives him some leeway. The PP can decide whether or not to prosecute and if he decides to go ahead, on what charges to prosecute. An accused can be prosecuted on several different charges for the same act, each of which attracts a different penalty. In this light, the DPPs have some control over the outcome depending on how they conduct the prosecution.

There is an intrinsic problem with the statement you made. You seem to suggest that people who commit crimes should not be prosecuted if they are in pitiable circumstances. That cannot be, going down that path will mess up the equity in the system.

Would the prosecution consider other factors? Would they think ohh today got kan a lot of birds flying overhead shitting heroin, maybe this dude just suay suay kena some on his way to work. Yes they should. But they'd probably still prosecute anyway, afterall the only evidence they need to find is the 20g what.

You don't sound like you are a lawyer and you are probably making sweeping statements that you cannot substantiate. :-) Defence attorneys may say similar things, but they will say it differently.

Since everyone seems to think that the DPP has an easy job, people forget that it's quite possible also for DPPs to find themselves prosecuting a fella that "everyone" knows is guilty, but they (the Police/CNB) have a hard time finding enough evidence. There are also prosecution witnesses who turn hostile.

Be careful what you ask for, and forget not that the DPPs actually work FOR US. They are trying to put the crooks away to keep our children safe. :-)

Dear KTM,

If you agreed that each individual should be responsible for their actions, what are your views on enacting an law to hang all the drug addicts to end the drug problem once and for all?

at82,

Interesting question. One must distinguish between the drug trafficker and the drug offender. The drug trafficker is an enemy of the State because his/her actions will cause ruin to the lives of hundreds or thousands. The drug offender on the other hand is messing with his own life and probably that of his family and loved ones.

The principle here is that if a person causes mass destruction, then the State has reason to step in; if the person cause misery to himself, then it's his own problem. In fact, the KTM would argue that it is his right!

As an aside, the KTM is of the view that suicide should not be illegal. If however, people attempt suicide in such a way as to threaten the lives or well-being of others (as in jump from building - 'cos might squeesh someone walking below. Which is more dangerous? Falling flower pot or human body?) or disrupts the good order of society (as in jump onto MRT track), then they can conceivably be prosecuted for reckless endangerment or for being a public nuisance respectively (if they dun die). Again, the principle here is consistent: each man is responsible for his own live and can do whatever he wants (as long as he dun kar chow other people in what he chooses to do).

Same principle with seat belts. KTM sees no reason why people should be fined for not wearing seat belts. If they want to die, why should we stop them? Child seats are different however, because children conceivably cannot protect themselves. Therefore okay to fine adults for not making sure the children are belted in. I hope this clarifies the KTM's position.

Dear KTM

I suppose the links between Burmese drug lords and Singapore can never be proven. Unless your little reporter friend Aaron is curious enough to explore OB territory.

And land mines have absolutely nothing to do with this article other than , together with your latest comment, other than to show your rather clinical views.

Well, intellectual heavy-weights like yourself and the merry band of brothers at the intelligent Singaporean have spoken loudly and clearly on behalf of Singaporeans that justice have indeed been served.

In a couple more days, its going to be Tochi-who ...

The analogy of the war on drugs is central to the author's argument, he clearly states that neither the drug penalty or politics is the main contention of the post.
The argument asks us to view the case of the defendant through the imagery of a war, one where there are no prisoners and where the lives of loved ones are in mortal danger.

The analogy of the war more or less reflects the strong policy-orientated aspect of KTM's argument (despite the fact it does not touch on politics) - in which the fuzzy morality of fellow bloggers seems in his view to be detrimental in understanding what really is a question about mortality. The use of Foot soldiers and suicide bombers, minefields and the killing of the enemy are images liberally applied throughout the argument. Afterall he claims the drug laws are not about justice,fairness or the rule of law (something I believe the government may beg to differ in public), but of the harsh realites of the battlefield.
"[Misuse of Drugs Act] 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."

In a mish-mash of analagies used in the article and its replies, the defendant may be seen as an enemy fighter (perhaps the image to be conjured of is that of an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber), who does not care about his life and whose purpose is to cause destruction in our community (Of course to be fair to the facts of this particular case, SIngapore nor its people were the end-point of the "payload"), he was hit by a mine and hence it was his on fault in entering what was a clearly marked militarized zone on his way to wherever he meant to go ( when he was caught before he could deliver the drugs and then after a judicial process was duly publicly executed) . The author clearly states that regardless of the particulars of the enemy combatant, the lives of his community and loved ones are at stake, the KTM would not hesistate the shoot the enemy in the head to protect them.
" Until the drug lords give up on trying to send their drugs to Singapore, the war will continue --- and every foot soldier that they send our way, we will destroy, for they are the enemies of the State."
This is the policy of a nation in the grips of a war without quarter from either side. It is as he reminds Kitana - its either you are with us or you are with them.

The policy reasons are ominpresent in a reading of this article - from knocking down the need for a higher burden of proof, to a dismissal of defences raised in this particular case and to the assertion there can be no middle ground. For example if the defendant had succeeded he would have created a precedent in Singapore's common law (see the original article on the Brutal Truth). That legal lacuna to the author is of greater importance than the particulars or specific mitigating factors of that person. In other words if Tochi had succeeded, he would have been like Ulysses in finding a way through the gates of Troy. He is, let us not forget, an enemy combatant, a disguised suicide bomber. In otehr words, to the author - to let one man go for such reasons, is to only invite more to come. The policy would have failed as it could no longer be applied "equally", afterall a minefield is only sucessful if it covers as much area as possible. The insistence on mitigating factors may result in the failure of that particular policy to be applied to all (men,women,young,old,white,black, competent and incapacitated) regardless of specifics. That to the author is truly the "greater traversity of justice", it is afterall what he means by "equality" in that excerpt. The moat must catch all the sappers, the radar must detect all aircraft, the trench must stop all enemy advance. Perhaps from this imagery of a merciless enemy and imminent threat that those on the opposing side of the issue can understand the reasons why perhaps they feel that the law seems to impute guilt before innocence. Why there is a preference for Type 2 rather than Type 1 error.Why the author sees the justice of the recent execution within the framework of a hypothesis called the "Run Over by a Truck Test". The probability of being hit accidentally by a truck must always be significantly higher than the probability of intentionally killing a man for a crime he did not commit.

I believe the author is slightly disingenuous when after emphasizing in a long tirade against other bloggers that the law is based on a policy, and that policy is to be intepreted in the context of war imagery, he goes on to say:
"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."

Disclaimer: I do not in any way claim to refute the findings of the court on the facts of the case, as the author has pointed out, none of us has the authority of the Cheif Justice and any critical unfounded assertion may be taken as to impugn on the integrity of the judiciary system. Furthermore, given that one is neither omnipresent nor at the scene of the crime, one is supremely underqualified to determine the Ultimate guilt or innocence of the defendant. Afterall as the author has rightly pointed out, to decide on a human life is not easy or done without soul-searching. The judges decide in their capacity as judges restrained and ordained by the law and not as unprincipled executioners. If justice is defined as the outcome when the judiciary dilligently follows the statutory instructions of the parliament and applies them honestly to the facts of the case to the best of their ability, then let it be not be said that justice has not been served.

The drug laws relevance to this (or any) case and to why there was a conviction, unlike what the author implies in his reply to ben, is more than just wether there was trafficking or not. The laws speak of and describe what would consitute the neccessary criteria for trafficking (and hence informs possible defences and prevents the assertion of others - eg. Its only 21 gms rather than 50 gms), it sets out to guide the judiciary in how to apply the burden of proof or balance or probability in a case which is not immediately straightforward, it defines that the penalty if convicted is to be a mandatory death sentence. It sets this out as clearly as what a good piece of legislation is required to do, it does not leave the judges handwringing for more parliamentary, common law or statutory guidance. The law expressly and specifically sets out what is meant to be guilty.
s.18 clearly states that the courts assume a presumption of knowledge and possession of the controlled drug when one is possesing the said controlled drug, keys to a container or a loaction which has drugs, a document which refers to the delivery of the said drugs and such presumption cannot be overturned by proof that one has no physical possession of the drug. Schedule 5 states the punishments to be meted out for the quantity of the illegal substances.
Guilt is of utmost importance, but it is guilt as specifically set out by an Act which the author expressly states as being informed by policy. The question of deterence may be irrelevant with the charge of trafficking but not to the law which sets out what it means to be defined as a drug trafficker, the presumption of guilt as one, the burden of proof to defend against the charge, and finally the subsequent punishment meted out as one.

Of course no one would publicly be against a policy against the drug trade, the controversy is over what kind of policies should be pursued and such a question leads to how effective these policies are. However the evidence for whether current policies of deterrence really work remains open to question and fierce debate to both sides.
Accepting that drug abuse exist in Singapore, and that current law enforcement may not be able to catch even a large proportion of the traffickers (9 out of 10?), the author insists that the laws are effective given the low prevalence of drug abuse in Singapore, and challenges us to find countries with similar track records. "The problem with Singapore is that we are too darn good at keeping the drug problem under control. So much so that some people really live under the illusion that we are a Disneyland."
The justification is that the death of the drug mule tilts the cost of drug trafficking more towards to cost-ineffective scale given that the drug trade is an economic and not an "emotional" crime. Others argue that the very arguments the author forwards works against his conclusion, that if a drug problem exists and that a majority of the drug trafficking industry goes unscathed, then the policy may not be rather effective. The author will rebut with the metaphor of the umbrella - that even if one gets wet in a rainstorm, it is smarter to still use your umbrella. A full-proof perfect solution can never be found, even a mdoerately effective one, but that doesnt mean we should throw away all our tools in the toolbox. Afterall, we would prefer diplomacy in the analogy of an imminent war, but we are not taking the military option off the table. Of course there will be more arguments on the fact that perhaps what one holding is not really an umbrella - it could be a soggy newspaper, a larger golf umbrella, a raincoat, a leaky tarp or perhaps one should just remain beneath the bus shelter.

Afterall it is difficult justifying positions based on analogies.

Which brings me back to the the original point, that on the analogy of a war without quarter. By utilising the idea of total war, the author persuades us to understand the supposed underlying policy of deterrence through the perspective of a merciless battle. Perhaps the enemy soldiers are not truly to blame for the war but the Generals are in the bunkers and they are sending one battalion after another to batter our defences and to take away our lives and posessions. Perhaps only someone as irrational as a suicide bomber who straps himself with explosives would choose to go willingly to their deaths and hence stand culpable and are presumed guilty of ill intent. Our defences (minefields and sentires) may sometimes catch an innocent once in a while in the crossfire, but without them our own innocent communities will be the ones caught in the much bloodier inferno. Our legal system are like soldiers in combat, they have a duty to follow the orders of their state and their commander, they are not bloodthirsty men. The enemy is heartless and cunning, mercy is a weakness when the enemy shows none and cares not even for his own infantry. To stand against this seige, we must remain resilient and vigilant. If the enemy sees we are resolved to repel his attacks with all the resources we can muster, if our barricades are littered with the broken bodies of the initial failed assaults, if they themselevs find we give no quarter, then they might think twice.

"We have a right to protect our people. If we have to hang a couple of Australians, Nigerians and even some of our own people to do so, so be it. May it be known to all that drugs are not welcome here, and if people get executed for trafficking, their blood is on their own hands (or perhaps that of the drug lords they work for)."

We will not be moved.

But the analogy of war loses some meaning because afterall it depends on how you frame it. The war you are fighting in would determine how you are fighting it - Are we speaking of a medieval war with conventional tactics or a guerilla one with flexible tactical and moral imperatives? Are the detained traffickers to be seen as captured prisoners of wars to be tried at a military tribunal in Nuremberg or are they an imminent threat of a charging infantry unit in the Battle of Manassas? Is there a possibility of total military victory like the 2nd World War or will the war be fought on a less military front like the current struggle against terrorism? Are our defensive deterrence to be seen as the Maginot line or are there no clear battlefronts as in urban combat? Are those men standing together in the corner, symphatizers or civilians? If you find one of the two analogies as weak - it shows the difficulty of analogies as justification.

I am quite sure many nations and political groups trumpted their causes with the same call to a vigorous defense, a desperate life and death struggle against an unclean, immoral, decadent, barbaric and unprincipled invader. The truth of whether they are right or wrong depends on the situation, but the rhethoric they use is less about justification than it is about persuasion. Perhaps the best analogy on the war on drugs is that of the war on drugs. Drug mules are better seen in their own context than as enemy suicide bombers. Laws remain conceptually clearer as laws rather than as a method of trench warfare. The need to prevent the negative effects of drugs on our community and its people as a good by itself rather than a call to arms to defend the Imperial throne with the lives every man, woman and child. The War on Drugs is no less and no more the war on drugs. The question is not whether you are with us or not but rather whether th policies work. The policies we implement must be on their own merits and effectivness rather than on the merits of a persuasive but perhaps slighlty loaded analogy. In answering the perceived unjustified comments of bloggers who go to far in potraying the defendant as a completely innocent victim, there is no need to create a different kind of perception with its own presumptions.

The law, our policies and justice itself will be better served by it.

Hi Kira,

Thanks for your most thoughtful comments. Before the KTM responds, would you mind clarifying what you think KTM is arguing for? In other words, perhaps articulate what you understand to be the KTM's intention in writing this article? No lah, KTM is not asking you to be a mind-reader :-P. Since you referred to the "KTM's argument" several times, you would undoubtedly have come to some conclusion about this matter and the KTM is curious to understand more precisely your interpretation of the KTM's position and intent.:-)

The KTM is unable to understand why you criticized the KTM for "being disingenuious" in the following para:
I believe the author is slightly disingenuous when after emphasizing in a long tirade against other bloggers that the law is based on a policy, and that policy is to be intepreted in the context of war imagery, he goes on to say:
"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."
Your clarification would be much appreciated.

Warmest Regards.

No worries, the thread is long and there are many points and counter-points to consider, many of them constantly enlarging the scope of the discussion. I assume that your introduction keeps the ambit, at least of the article, to issues not relating to either the politics of the decision or to the heated debate relating to capital punishment. Its merely an assumption (and a conservative one at that), that you only seek to uphold the integrity of the judiciary in response to the volleys of criticism leveled at it. You defend through elucidating the policies the government has taken primarily through the analogy of a war. That is all I can can with surety say, you are right that I do not possess any skills of mind-reading. If there was something more to your intention, than I must humbly say I did not pick it up.

It was not a criticism but merely an observation. Perhaps the word is too harsh, I merely point out that it may not be so simple to separate the law in the way you do so.

[Completely irrelevant comment deleted by Site Admin]

Kira,

Thanks for your clarification.

It was not a criticism but merely an observation. Perhaps the word is too harsh, I merely point out that it may not be so simple to separate the law in the way you do so
So sorry, but the KTM still doesn't quite understand why you say that the KTM is disgenuious because he made that statement on "guilt". Criticism is not a problem. Even harsh criticism is also not a problem. It's all part and parcel of robust debate. The problem is that that KTM doesn't understand enough about the nature of the charge to file his defence. :-P

KTM,

Yes I'm beginning to make sweeping statements about the prosecution, again, my bad. I did not mean to suggest in any way that the good folks at the DPP office are acting in any manner that is not for the benefit of our society at large. I am also not saying that the DPP will bring charges just because they can. Much less am I arguing that there isn't an element of prosecutor's discretion, as you call it. No. Not at all.

I was merely bringing up possibilities of abuse.

What I am saying is this.

1)

In this light, the DPPs have some control over the outcome depending on how they conduct the prosecution. Exactly. They should have some control, but the extent of control they have here doesn't seem fair. The judge's hands are tied on the sentencing issue. The problem I have with this process is that it seems too much discretionary power is in the hands of the DPP, whereas the judge's ability to judge, seem to be limited. The advantages of giving the judge more leeway is that well, it's his job, he (or she) has to exercise his (or her) discretion and judge. The prosecution's primary job is to bring cases up to the judge, not to decide the merits of each case, but to make what they believe is the best case against the defendant.

You suggest that the judge could consult with the DPP regarding which charge to bring. Well, they aren't exactly in cahoots you know. Although I am not denying that it happens, it doesn't seem to be within a judge's job description to advise the DPP on which charge to bring, neither does it appear within the DPP's job description to listen to the judge on this issue either. It could happen informally, who knows.

You draw a parallel to murder/culpable homicide. Ok let's talk about that then. Let's say you have DPP Tan facing a murder/culpable homicide case. He can decide to prosecute under murder or under culpable homicide. One has the mandatory death penalty one doesn't. He chooses murder for whatever reason. He then has to go on to prove that there was indeed murder. Once he shows that to the judge's satisfaction, the judge will have to sentence the poor fella to death. Ok.

Now you have DPP Tan facing a trafficking/possession(an example of a lesser charge) case. He can decide to prosecute under either charge. One, again, has the mandatory death penalty one doesn't. He chooses trafficking for whatever reason. He now only has to show that the accused had 20g in his possession. And then hang. My problem with this is that compared to the burden of proof required in a murder case, a prosecutorial case consisting of showing 20g of possession seems almost too easy.

You may disagree of course. Yes 20g would probably mean trafficking. But still, shouldn't the prosecution have to put in more effort to kill a guy?
I don't know .
And because the burden of proof is so much lighter in a trafficking case, shouldn't the judge be allowed more sentencing discretion to prevent a miscarriage of justice? Either discretionary sentencing or a higher burden of proof for trafficking would be something I'm more comfortable with.

2)

When I said the prosecution has to prosecute when there is clear evidence of a crime, no matter how pitiful the accused's situation is, I meant it.
I am not generalizing about whether the prosecution should or should not take into account the accused's situation. That's just.. not my concern.

3)

For all the good that DPPs do, they still hold a lot of power, especially in the Singapore system. I am not suggesting there is an abuse of that power, in fact, I think our prosecutors are probably doing a very, very good job. Still, that does not obviate the need for judges to have some element of discretion in sentencing for such trafficking offences.

The DPP DOES have an easy job. Why is that a problem? It's a problem because the state has a monopoly on the legitimate killing of people. So they sure as hell should be careful about it.

I look forward to your reply as always.

Hello KTM.

Just an irrelevant comment, but I wanted to ask: are you going for the NUS DSC Freedom of Speech seminar (http://www.nusdsc.com/programsheet.php) this Saturday? =)

Lalala.

Kitana,

To reply you, he's not going. I tried until my fingers cramped from typing. Maybe if a girl asks, he might. :)

Since you're going, let's meet up during the seminar?

NoName said,
Sadly, it seems the likes of whyBeGay is right. We are one ugly nation.

What do you mean?

Apologies to KTM or ben if i get some of this worng - there aretoo many points inthis excahnge to adequately cover and many remain vague and scape my complete understanding.

Actually my initial post wasnt on this point but Perhaps it might be more instructive to return to the exchange with ben regarding the question of guilt and presumption.

The exchange began with ben arguing for perhaps a higher level of proof for the law, basically i surmise to shift the burden of proof away from the drug mule. You then replied by breaking the issue into two separate areas.

"here 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".

You then give a description of trafficking which is rather straightforward. After that comes to your description of how and why presumption of guilt works.
"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....It's a war and it's a policy "

Its a little hard to get at but I assume on reading closely that you feel that once trafficking is proved through s.17, the defense of not knowing one is carrying should not be entertained and this is because of policy reasons. As a response to ben's initial comments, you seem to be saying that the standard of proof is clearly that of the amount carried, I do believe that ben was arguing not on a change of the quantitative amount but that of a presumption of guilt within the s.17 clause (given that the presumption shifts the burden of proof to a higher standard for the defendant.)

ben goes on to accuse you of simplifying the issue but perhaps he maybe widening the ambit of the argument by bringing in the death penalty into an exchange that hadnt touched on it. He says this because all you require s.17 of doing is provide guidance for an evidence amounting to guilt, however he feels you do not tackle the presumption of guilt that is also stated at the end of s.17

He next argues that given that there is a serious (mortal) concequence to a ruling of guilt, the presumptions entailed with finding someone guilty are of far more import. To ben, the probability of an error compunded with the seriousness of the consequence of guilt, leads him to believe the moral thing is to opt for Type 1 error.
Afterall if policy informs the statute (and presumably the clause on s.17), than he feels the policy is then too strict, if its cheif aim is deterrence. This I believe is in response to your earlier comments against raising the defense of ignorance. (which is then related to the beginning of the debate on standard of proof.)

"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....It's a war and it's a policy ""

Returning back to your reply, you handily reply that you see simplification as a tool necessary to understand complex problems. You then argue that preference for Type 1 error does not mean less Type 2 error, which he later doesn't dispute as its a matter of opinion.

The next argument is directly relating to that of guilt and its presumptions.
This is where you say:
"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?"

I said you were being disingenuous because of the chronology of the exchange. Ben argues first for a higher standard (in a general principles of law way. Your argument against that is that once guilt is proved by s.17, that certain defenses should be knocked down because of policy concerns (an argument based on an intepretation of statutes and its policy requirements). Ben argues about your reading on s.17 - that s.17 involves not only a evidence-based approach but that it also involves certain principles of law since it presumes culpability( without eg. lets just say applicable mens rea)(This is an argument based on an interpretation of teh clause in particular). He goes on to back up his argument with a nod to policy (which in your main article is mainly of deterrence and he rightly or wrongly imputes it in here too as the policy that informs the act). Hence he tries to answer your (policy/statute argument with one of his own ). You deal cogently with the policy question by saying that he is saying Type 1 or Type 2 but the real problem comes down to the argument on the reading of s.17.

Your reiterate that guilt is important ( I beleive ben would have done better if he explicitly made it clear he was talking about presumption of guilt.)You then accuse him of using policy of deterrence question to discuss the particualr case of the defendant, Afterall under s.17 he is guilty on the facts of the case. The problem I had with your argument is that I never saw in ben's argument, a relevant requirement that it had to be on the particulars of this case. Its focus has always been on the general principles of law - eg. the presumption of guilt, standard of proof etc.. and he only brought up policy concerns because you had brought it up in response to why there shouldn't be a higher standard of proof.

It cannot be that the presumption of guilt works only after guilt has been ascertained (hence the question on defenses may be moot if we are dealign with presumption as ben said - but not the burden/standard of proof), it must work before guilt is imputed. If we follow from the above argument that the exchange had narrowed from standard of proof to a question of presumption of guilt (which creates and is related to the standard of proof) and that if you defended the initial lower standard of proof through policy reasons, it maybe a little unfair (but rhethorically brilliant)to cut the ground under ben after you have invited him to duel there.

But regardless of that - the question remains unanswered - how should we view s.17. Perhaps there actually is little disagreement between you and ben. Ben is concerned about the presumption of guilt purely on posession on the said amount without equivalent mens rea, you dont see any problem with imputing guilt in you straightforward example - it may just be a matter of preference. However the two disputed readings of s.17 remain.

I sought to get further guidance by reading the act.
S.17 is about presuming trafficking if one poseses a certain amount of drugs. You feel that this is pretty straightforward and undebatable - if you ahve a certain amount - you shuld be presumed to be a trafficker. ben argues otherwise, that presumption of guilt is a debatable principle of law. However if possession provides the presumption of trafficking, than s.18 provides us with a presumption of possession. And that presumption is not solely as your straightforward though accurate description of how it works to be:

"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."

Actually you dont have to be moving the stuff around or carry it - nor doy ou need to sell it or pass it to someone else. Possession does not need to mean physical possession.

s.18 (3) The presumptions provided for in this section shall not be rebutted by proof that the accused never had physical possession of the controlled drug.

18. --

(1) Any person who is proved to have had in his possession or custody or under his control --

(a) anything containing a controlled drug;

(b) the keys of anything containing a controlled drug;

(c) the keys of any place or premises or any part thereof in which a controlled drug is found; or

(d) a document of title relating to a controlled drug or any other document intended for the delivery of a controlled drug,

shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that drug in his possession.

(2) Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug.

The ambit of the law clearly stated is much larger than your description of it - possession also entails presumed knowldge of the "nature of the drug". That is why on the balance of things I had to say ben has a valid point in raising presumption as a principal of law and hence the policy concerns that inform it. for if the presumption of possession is wide and also entails both presumption of knowledge as well as trafficking - and that if trafficking is presumed than guilt is also presumed which leads to the death penalty - then it is only fair that ben should be allowed to finish his case on what he thinks of the presumption of guilt and the policy for the construction of the law in this way.

I hope this clarifies the matter to a point where you can vociferously rebut me. :)

Dear NoName,

I suppose the links between Burmese drug lords and Singapore can never be proven. Unless your little reporter friend Aaron is curious enough to explore OB territory.

You may wish to be careful what you say. This statement that you made is getting really close to the OB markers. If your name is CSJ and you shout this at the PM during a walkabout, you are quite likely to find a lawyer (or worse, the Police) knocking on your door.

You earlier accused the Government of not apprehending a drug lord who came a-visiting and the KTM took you at face value. William asked you for proof and you have not responded. The KTM will now ask you what proof you have that there are links between the Singapore Government and the Burmese drug lords?

Little Aaron may be a little clueless at times, but he is not STUPID like you seem to imply. :-)

And land mines have absolutely nothing to do with this article other than, together with your latest comment, other than to show your rather clinical views.

Aiyoh, this is not the first time you've read the KTM's posts right? How much emotion have you seen the KTM exhibit in his past posts? Even his rants are pretty clinical. He's a condemned case. :-P

intellectual heavy-weights like yourself and the merry band of brothers at the intelligent Singaporean have spoken loudly and clearly on behalf of Singaporeans that justice have indeed been served.

You meant to say Singapore Angle and not Intelligent Singaporean right? In any case, the KTM speaks only for himself and there is non consensus on the death penalty among the writers of Singapore Angle if you're curious to know. :-) In any case, the KTM is not an "intellectual heavy-weight" by a long shot. :-P He's only a "longwinded blabbermouth" so as always, people really don't have to take his views too seriously.

jx,

Thanks for your comments. From your comments, it seems that you are not familiar with how the criminal justice system works, but the KTM is not the lawyer around here and so he will defer to the *real* lawyers (perhaps Kira?) to respond to you.

The DPP DOES have an easy job. Why is that a problem? It's a problem because the state has a monopoly on the legitimate killing of people. So they sure as hell should be careful about it.

This statement has two parts. For part one, the KTM doesn't agree with you that the DPPs have an easy job. Under the present regime, with its presumptions, perhaps there a lower burden of proof than before, but to say that it is easy job, it might perhaps be an overstatement. Neither of us are DPPs, and so our views mean squat. You can try asking a DPP is he has an easy job. :-)

As for the second part where you said the State should be more careful because it has a "monopoly on legitimate killing", the KTM believes that it is quite a fair statement. I think that you are echoing the views of many of the other readers here. The KTM's point earlier is that "what you are suggesting is a tradeoff between Type 1 and Type 2 errors". Most precisely, the question is "how sure should we be before we convict". Different people have different thresholds for what is acceptable. Aaron once said to the KTM once that he thinks it is unacceptable to risk executing an "innocent man", ever. The KTM has his "Run Over By Truck" test. :-) So who is right?

Kitana,

Thanks for asking. Nope, the KTM will not be going. That's a place for high-powered intellectuals and academics, not for some kay poh hawker. Aaron's theory that the KTM will go if ask by a cute chick is wrong BTW. :-P

And after you see the KTM's response to Kira (akan datang), you will realize how much time the KTM has wasted on this post and why he needs to catch up on his KT frying on Saturday. :-P

If you're going, I hope you have a good time. Perhaps you can blog about it when you get back. :-)

Warmest Regards.

I just want to state that I am not the person who used the pseudonym "whysupport", whatever he/she wrote to get it deleted.

NoName,

I am not a reporter. I am just a temporary wannabe. In anycase, how did I end up in the gunfire between you and KTM? Sigh.. I become civilian casualty.

Kitana,

Since the 美人计failed, I have no other bright ideas anymore.

Kira,

I went to get Panadol Extra after reading your entries. After relieving the pain, I realise that you've been making many sharp observations in the exchange between Ben, Kitana and KTM, but what is your personal stand and recommendations in the war on drugs? It will be interesting to read, and I don't mind swallowing a few more Panadol Extras.

Aaron,

Do not worry, I neither want to bore or hurt you with a long exegesis on the war of drugs. Plus, like you, writing and going through the threads has also inspired me to get several bottles of pain medication. I have stressed that there are far too many points to cover in this thread, and just the sharp short retorts between ben and the original poster has gotten my head spinning.

I would like to say that I am totally inadequate in describing the policies that will bring the war on drugs to a satisfactory end. If Homer was mentioning Lotus eaters in the Odyssey, and Egyptian papyrus mentions pharmakon, and Ancient Indian texts speak of soma, it may very well be that the use and abuse of drugs (legal, mystical and illegal) will continue far into the future of humanity, even when Singapore is finally reclaimed (? purely speculative :)) by the ocean that surrounds it. The drug trade has outlasted civilizations. Or perhaps using KTM's analogy - this war may never end.

My personal stand i think is quite clear on the particulars of the case. I am a supporter of the death penalty and I think the judiciary acted to the very best of their ability.
The death penalty however is not a clear-cut position by itself - it depends on how and why it is applied. And I must admit much of that remains open to debate and may eventually lead to incommensurable differences.
Hence like any other poster here - I cannot be considered innately neutral because of my own personal bias in this particular case. However I am trying to the best of my ability to be balanced in this issue and perhaps not let my own views get in the way of a cogent debate.

Kira,

Thank you for the clarification. A renown blogger recently accused the KTM of being "long-winded". Seems like the KTM finally found his match. :-)

On the use of Analogies

First, the KTM must give you some credit for attempting to paraphrase and summarize the KTM's argument. The KTM must say that while many of the things you said were quite accurate, it was quite disingenuous of you to embellish the KTM's analogies in an attempt to show the inherent "difficulty of analogies as justification". :-) Honestly, the KTM cannot claim credit for the suicide bomber analogy. The only mention that the KTM made about suicide bombing was in gist to Kitana, the rest of the colourful imagery is all yours.
The KTM actually thought of using suicide bombers as an analogy, but decided against it for the following reason: suicide bomber often do "know what they are doing", while the same cannot be said of drug mules and foot soldiers.

In interpreting the KTM's motivations, you said KTM was seeking "to uphold the integrity of the judiciary in response to the volleys of criticism leveled at it". That's partially true. :-) The KTM is not sure that he was trying "to uphold the integrity of the judiciary" per se, but he was most certainly unhappy with some of the nonsense that some fellas who know jack have been spouting, and he felt that it was important to examine the true facts of the Tochi case. If the KTM somehow managed to "uphold the integrity of the judiciary", maybe you can nominate the KTM to the CJ for a medal or something? :-)

Next, while it is true that the KTM doesn't have any violent objections to the present regime, neither is that the KTM attempting to "defend the policies of the government" as you say. He is merely proposing a framework for understanding the situation that we have today through the use of his war analogies. There is no need to use analogies to defend policy. :-P

It turns out that most people are not lawyers and talking about s17 or s18, presumption and mens rea doesn't help them understand what's going on. Analogies, like parables, are helpful to many (or so the KTM believes) for understanding the world. What's important in analogies however is that they must be relatively appropriate and shouldn't be way out in lalaland. Notice the KTM didn't do a "Saving Private Ryan" and only went as far as he needed to promote understanding. In this light, you have done the KTM a huge disservice by embellishing his analogies in order to support your own argument. But that's okay, you are entitled to do so. :-)

On the Effectiveness of the Death Penalty as a Deterrent: Arguing with Common Sense and Not Analogies

The question is not whether you are with us or not but rather whether the policies work.

Hehe. :-P The KTM must admit that the "you are either with us or against us" remark was somewhat unnecessary, but the KTM thinks it's good to turn up the heat on some of the youngsters and see how they react under pressure. :-)

The KTM agrees with Kira that it is important for us to understand whether the current drug policy works, but how?

The policies we implement must be on their own merits and effectivness rather than on the merits of a persuasive but perhaps slighlty loaded analogy.

This is another disingenuous statement. The KTM didn't try to justify the effectiveness of the existing policy using his war analogies. The KTM admitted that there were "gaps in the mindfield" and some of the fella are most definitely able to make their way in.

The justification of the deterrence effect has to do with the fact that in general, people are afraid of death. By playing on this fear, we will likely disqualify lots of people from attending the Drug Mule Boot Camp (Singapore Edition). How much more logic do you need?

Of course there will be more arguments on the fact that perhaps what one holding is not really an umbrella - it could be a soggy newspaper, a larger golf umbrella, a raincoat, a leaky tarp or perhaps one should just remain beneath the bus shelter

Remind the KTM about the arguments again? While the KTM has no numbers to prove that the death penalty is an umbrella, the KTM is pretty sure Kira doesn't have any figures to prove that it's a leaky tarp either. Reason is very simple: the drug mules who successfully sneak though wouldn't come register with Kira (or the Police) and the fella who were turned off drug trafficking (at least to Singapore) because of the death penalty wouldn't be writing to the Forum Page to lodge an official complaint. :-P

None of the "evidence" that has been put forth against the deterrence effect of the death penalty (the KTM is quite familiar with the report that the death penalty hasn't deterred murderers yada yada ...) is anywhere as compelling to the KTM as the fear of death.
The justification is that the death of the drug mule tilts the cost of drug trafficking more towards to cost-ineffective scale given that the drug trade is an economic and not an "emotional" crime.

This is a misrepresentation of the KMT's position; you will never catch the KTM spouting something like that. The KTM never said anything about tilting the cost to cost-ineffective scale. That's impossible. The KTM only said that it's quite clear that the death penalty doesn't make it easier for drug lords to recruit drug mules and conceivably increases their costs. Since the KTM is not a drug lord and hasn't tried recruiting drug mules, he has no idea what is the differential in market price between a drug mule for Singapore and one for say the US. Many have claimed that it is easy to recruit drug mules. They might just be right. But the KTM wonders: how do they know? They tried before izzit? :-P

Just one more analogy for kicks: it is a fact that condoms are not 100% effective for preventing pregnancy or AIDs -- but people use them anyway right? The KTM only anyhow humtum the figure 9 out of 10 people not getting court. He really doesn't know how many drug traffickers successfully manage to slip in. You know meh? Suppose the KTM claims that CNB is really effective and catches 95% of the drug traffickers (at which you will probably claim "like that need deterrence for what", so let me pre-empt you first :-P), then does it mean that the policy is extremely effective? Of course not right? At the end of the day, people should wake up their idea and realize that the success rate of CNB at catching the drug traffickers tells us NOTHING about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrence.

On Understanding Law and the World at Large

"Laws remain conceptually clearer as laws rather than as a method of trench warfare.... In answering the perceived unjustified comments of bloggers who go to far in potraying the defendant as a completely innocent victim, there is no need to create a different kind of perception with its own presumptions. The law, our policies and justice itself will be better served by it. "

The KTM pleads not guilty. :-) First of all, your claim that "laws remain clearer as laws" is highly contentious. This is not an article in some law review and most of the people who are reading this article have no idea what the law is about and are unlikely to understand what is going on if you simply throw your s17 and s18 at them. How many people do you think understood your response to the KTM on "guilt"? The KTM for one pleads stupidity on that count and will admit that he is not sure he understood what you were trying to say, though valiantly, he will still try to address your response below.

The KTM cannot disagree with you that if analogies are too wacky, they serve only to confuse and are unhelpful. In this case, the KTM was relatively tame in his analogies and Kira was the one who threw in all the embellishments that mutated the analogies presented into warped forms.

May the KTM throw in yet another analogy for illustration purposes: it's like the KTM was carrying a live cat and you come around, strangle the cat and then call SPCA. When when SPCA comes, you force the poor KTM to "eat dead cat". :-P KTM feels quite misrepresented leh.

Law is best left to the experts. What the layman should try to understand is WHY the world is the way it is. The KTM maintains that analogies, appropriately chosen, are often helpful.

"But the analogy of war loses some meaning because afterall it depends on how you frame it".

This is actually a very good point. What the KTM has offered is a simple model to explain why things are the way they are. The model is probably imperfect, but it does fit the reality that we see today. It is good that you highlighted all these questions about the assumptions on the model. The KTM has no answers for your question and needs not provide any. Readers are free to decide for themselves if they want to use the KTM's model as a basis for understanding the current situation. If upon thinking about the questions you highlighted, they come to different conclusions, that's fine too --- as long as the reasoning employed is sound.

On Guilt

First, some minor clarifications:

"You then argue that preference for Type 1 error does not mean less Type 2 error, which he later doesn't dispute as its a matter of opinion".

The KTM didn't argue for a preference for Type 1 error. The KTM was merely highlighting that in shifting the burden of proof to a higher standard for the PP, Ben is suggesting a tradeoff between Type 1 and Type 2 errors. This is an aside, but it is a FACT that reducing the probability of Type 1 errors will increase the probability of Type 2 errors in general.

Possession does not need to mean physical possession.

The KTM actually knows this lah, but was trying to "simplify the argument" since Tochi was carrying the stuff. :-)

I assume on reading closely that you feel that once trafficking is proved through s.17, the defense of not knowing one is carrying should not be entertained and this is because of policy reasons. As a response to ben's initial comments, you seem to be saying that the standard of proof is clearly that of the amount carried, I do believe that ben was arguing not on a change of the quantitative amount but that of a presumption of guilt within the s.17 clause (given that the presumption shifts the burden of proof to a higher standard for the defendant.) ... He says this because all you require s.17 of doing is provide guidance for an evidence amounting to guilt, however he feels you do not tackle the presumption of guilt that is also stated at the end of s.17 ... To ben, the probability of an error compunded with the seriousness of the consequence of guilt, leads him to believe the moral thing is to opt for Type 1 error

The KTM respects Ben's views on the presumption of guilt and agrees with what you put forth above. The KTM however still fails to understand how he has been disingenuous. :-) What the KTM meant to say, but which he probably didn't articulate clearly is that while Ben may not agree with the presumptions, it doesn't therefore mean that Tochi was not "guilty". He was found guilty.

Again, it is important to look at this issue in two parts: (i) legislation of the law; and (ii) execution of the law. If there's something immoral about the presumptions, then they should be fixed by amending the law, not by criticizing the execution of those laws. The KTM still doesn't quite understand why Kitana thinks that Justice Kan might not have decided the case just as Parliament intended.

Let's take a step back and look that the case again. What we have here is a young 18-year-old boy who was persuaded to carry drugs to Singapore because of some promises (officially it is recorded as US$2,000, but there are some reports that he was promised he could play soccer in Singapore --- truthfully, we will never know, but it is possible that he was "misled"). What we do know however is that he probably did know that he was carrying something bad or illegal to Singapore (even if he didn't know it was actually heroin). People forget that the judge did get to examine the witness in person to determine if he was trying an innocent country boy or whether he knew what he was doing, even if he didn't know EXACTLY what he was carrying. Let's ask ourselves a very simple question: given the facts of the case, was he "trafficking drugs" (according to a layman's perspective and not s17 and s18)?

The KTM has reason to believe that given the facts presented, it is quite plausible for a layman to come to the conclusion that Tochi is guilty of trafficking (if people are able to factor away the death penalty part).

So the question is reduced to the following: we have a young boy with a sob story found guilty of drug trafficking, are we prepared to hang him or not?

As you know there are two camps: one thinks that the death penalty is no deterrence or is immoral, while the other camp believes in a tough stance against a drugs and doesn't want to see a humongous lobang torn out of the existing drug policy (Garmen of course thinks this way. They didn't make the laws for fun and the presumption clauses are obviously for the purpose of plugging "loopholes").

What does it does it do for this particular case to remove the presumptions and to have the DPPs pove possession and intent to traffick? Perhaps under a stricter regime, the DPPs will fail to prove their case (how to prove intent?), but does it mean that Tochi is "not guilty of trafficking" according to what we would intuitively believe given the facts? In such a situation, the KTM for one would be thinking,"the fella carries in enough heroin for use as BCG and he's not guilty of drug trafficking?" Would such a scenario make any sense?

Thanks for the Comments

It has been a real pleasure exchanging views with you, but we cannot do this too often lah. If the KTM responds to another one of two of your replies, his KT stall will seriously have to close shop because his KT will be all chow tar. :-) Okay, where did I put the Panadol Extra....

KTM,

Thanks for repeatedly pointing out that I am not familiar with the criminal justice system. I appreciate the criticism (I assume it's a criticism). Why you think I am not familiar with it is beyond me. Supposedly because I appear to misrepresent what the DPP's office does. Of course how you represented what the DPP's office does I will not comment on, since what I say presumably would not be taken into account. I daresay it's because the things I am saying appear to contradict your popular notions of what the DPP does. You suggest that I ask DPPs whether their job is easy or not. Don't have to lah, I see what them at work, and honestly, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

Well, Kira doesn't appear to be a lawyer. That part you can probably pick up from how he uses balance of probalities instead of beyond reasonable doubt, that's the standard in criminal law. Balance of probabilities is the standard in civil matters. But I digress.

Your main point I suppose is essentially this, that like many of the posters here, I am suggesting a trade-off for Type 1 against Type 2. Yes, you're correct. A lot of my points have been repeated, and I agree wholeheartedly with what a lot of people here have been saying. That said, I shan't bore you with any more of my apparently unwarranted comments. It's been fun.

L,

Long -winded? I accept the charge humbly sir.
Disingenuous? perhaps - it is an intelligent tactic of you to reverse the charge on me, afterall I did withdraw the use of the word earlier on in the exchange after your first response. I must only like yourself, now humbly attempt to defend myself from the charge.

Firstly let me deal with some of the lesser point

You clearly are the best judge of your own intentions. If you in 3rd person admit that "he was most certainly unhappy with some of the nonsense that some fellas who know jack have been spouting and in the public, he felt that it was important to examine the true facts of the Tochi case." then I cam only reiterate that I am unfortunately not a mind-reader. I was trying to get the layout and not the hidden intention of your argument. As for defending the policies or not of the government - I refer back to the previous point, it was your esteemed self which asked me about your intentions, I can only speculate and guess what your true intentions are.

You have me at a disadvantage sir.

Nonetheless it is good that we all know that the intention is to dismiss some of the less "founded" arguments against the facts of the case. But I think your argument does go further than that in both the article and subsequent posts - you make attempts to interprete the law as well as to rest its basis on policy concerns.

Now for the embellishment of analogies question:

I will deal with them one at a time
"The KTM actually thought of using suicide bombers as an analogy, but decided against it for the following reason: suicide bomber often do "know what they are doing", while the same cannot be said of drug mules and foot soldiers."
Yes but your analogy to Kitana was that they were not afraid of death - like drug mules - how can the drug mules be afraid of death if they do not know what they are doing?

" The KTM tried to justify the effectiveness of the existing policy using his war analogies. The KTM admitted that there were "gaps in the mindfield" and some of the fella are most definitely able to make their way in. The justification of the deterrence effect has to do with the fact that in general, people are afraid of death. By playing on this fear, we will likely disqualify lots of people from attending the Drug Mule Boot Camp (Singapore Edition). How much more logic do you need?"

Firstly I did not say that you were claiming there were no gaps in the minefield or that people do not get through. If anything I did say that you accept that there was a drug problem in Singapore and trafficking continues. You justified the deterrence effect on death - I had no problems with that. And I did accept that that was the conclusion of your argument. I never argued against the merits of that argument.

I think this is the kind of statement that the sentence you lifted from my conclusion was referring to:
"No, the KTM will still try to blow his brains out. Not that the KTM is a heartless prig. This is a war and the realities in a war are that until one side surrenders, you try to blow the other fella away (or risk getting blown away yourself)."

and
"Until the drug lords give up on trying to send their drugs to Singapore, the war will continue --- and every foot soldier that they send our way, we will destroy, for they are the enemies of the State."

That was what I meant by a loaded analogy.

Now for the umbrella argument,
"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? :-)"
This was my observation:
"with the metaphor of the umbrella - that even if one gets wet in a rainstorm, it is smarter to still use your umbrella. A full-proof perfect solution can never be found, even a mdoerately effective one, but that doesnt mean we should throw away all our tools in the toolbox. ... Of course there will be more arguments on the fact that perhaps what one holding is not really an umbrella - it could be a soggy newspaper, a larger golf umbrella, a raincoat, a leaky tarp or perhaps one should just remain beneath the bus shelter.Afterall it is difficult justifying positions based on analogies"

You used the umbrella argument but I never said that it implied a quantitative element. I did not in any way say it really is an umbrella or a soggy newspaper. In many ways I did agree that there is much evidentiary ambiguity on the point of deterrence. that was the whole point of that paragraph. The umbrella point to me was to show that if you argued it was an umbrella, there would be no doubt be people who would come up with a counter-argument and analogy and say it was leaky or broken. I was talking about analogies and I was not commenting on the strength or weakness of the argument or evidence of deterrence itself.

On th point of economic crime,
"For drug trafficking, it's a completely different animal. It belongs to a class that William calls "economic crime", i.e., "the drug dealer weighs risk and benefit. If there is a risk of mandatory capital punishment then that will be a difficult risk for him to accept. The drug dealer is less likely to take a risk and move his drugs to Singapore"."

This was my paraphrase:
"The justification is that the death of the drug mule tilts the cost of drug trafficking more towards to cost-ineffective scale given that the drug trade is an economic and not an "emotional" crime."

My paraphrase was that with the death penalty, the drug lord will know that the cost of getting a drug trafficker to go through Singapore is shifted to the point where the tactic is less effective (you may be right - this compound word is clumsy to use), He will do this because it is an economic crime.

This is your retort:
"This is a misrepresentation of the KMT's position; you will never catch the KTM spouting something like that. The KTM never said anything about tilting the cost to cost-ineffective scale. That's impossible. The KTM only said that it's quite clear that the death penalty doesn't make it easier for drug lords to recruit drug mules and conceivably increases their costs. Since the KTM is not a drug lord and hasn't tried recruiting drug mules, he has no idea what is the differential in market price between a drug mule for Singapore and one for say the US.Many have claimed that it is easy to recruit drug mules. They might just be right. But the KTM wonders: how do they know? They tried before izzit? :-P
"

You may say my paraphrasing was clumsy but I never said anything that it can be computed quantitatively, or assume that it is some kind of objective measure. I am making no claims on the differential between the US and Singpoare. I made no reference to how easy it may be to recruit drug mules.

As for the condom analogy - well its kinda like the umbrella isnt it?
Once again - I reiterate that my first post made no points of merit or demerit of linking catching drug traffickers to the effectiveness of deterrence. It was about the use of loaded analogies - particularly the use of a certain type of war analogy. I made no claims on deterrence.

Your final indictment,
"In this case, the KTM was relatively tame in his analogies and Kira was the one who threw in all the embellishments that mutated the analogies presented into warped forms.
May the KTM throw in yet another analogy for illustration purposes: it's like the KTM was carrying a live cat and you come around, strangle the cat and then call SPCA. When when SPCA comes, you force the poor KTM to "eat dead cat". :-P KTM feels quite misrepresented leh."

A strong assertion of malice on my part. I am slightly flabbergasted and find it hard to respond to that I believe you are questioning my intent. I think the best way is that you will be easily able to spot the analogies that offend you, perhaps you can deal with them in a seperate post. We can then argue on how my analogies reflect your analogies and why they may not do so. I dont exactly enjoy analogy v analogy arguments but I will do my best to defend myself.

Now to the 2nd part of the dispute
"laws remain clearer as laws" is highly contentious. This is not an article in some law review and most of the people who are reading this article have no idea what the law is about and are unlikely to understand what is going on if you simply throw your s17 and s18 at them."

I think the full sentence was :
"Laws remain conceptually clearer as laws rather than as a method of trench warfare."
Well I presume you mean to attack me by saying I am not 'talking to the people' :) You must understand that the sentence you have quoted was in the 1st argument. Specifically within the context of the conclusion of the 1st article that laws remain clearer without the use of loaded analogies. I did not seek to say laws explain themselves (although personally I think s.17 is particularly clearly written out - afterall you seem to understand it yourself. :)

As for how many people understood my points on presumption. If it was unclear, it was my fault in not explaining it cogently, as you charge me - I am long-winded.

"Law is best left to the experts. What the layman should try to understand is WHY the world is the way it is. The KTM maintains that analogies, appropriately chosen, are often helpful."

There is nothing really debatable in this assertion, only that my assertion was that the analogies used may not be all that appropriate and that perhaps people could understand the justice of the case better if the image of total war or a completely innocent victim were not to be utilised. It opens up a more balanced level of debate rather than arguing ourselves into increasingly intractable images. Its either Tochi was a martyr or he was a suicide bomber. All I saying perhaps its best to see Tochi as an alleged and then convicted drug mule.

On guilt:
"The KTM didn't argue for a preference for Type 1 error. The KTM was merely highlighting that in shifting the burden of proof to a higher standard for the PP, Ben is suggesting a tradeoff between Type 1 and Type 2 errors. This is an aside, but it is a FACT that reducing the probability of Type 1 errors will increase the probability of Type 2 errors in general"

If you look at what I said:
"You then argue that preference for Type 1 error does not mean less Type 2 error, which he later doesn't dispute as its a matter of opinion".
I did not say you preferred Type 1 error. I was saying that if you stated that if one prefers Type 1 error than it means that there will be more Type 2 error. Then I say ben agrees, it is a matter of opinion that he prefers Type1 error. I must say the sentence is unclear casue I was rushing through - this is not integral to my argument at all. I apologised if I inadvertantly didnt cover all the details on this.

Ok you go through the facts of the case - no controversy there on what you call the execution of the law. I think i have stated my position on this.
Now I think comes to the part which probably you really want to settle. The disingenuous part. (afterall you have used disingenuous against me 3 times and misrepresented anotehr few times- not to mention embellishment) :)

using your terminology - the debate between ben and you was on the legislation and not execution. First the question that ben poses:

Why cant the burden of proof be higher?

You divide the question in two like here between execution and legislation. And u say the execution is fine - guilt under the facts of the case is shown to be fufilled.
then you go on to say:

"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)."

I assume this is either an argument on defenses that can be raised or presumption of knowledge/guilt. Regardless of what it is, its a question about principles of law (legislation) and then you say it is influenced by policy.

ben retorts:
"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.
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."

Then this statement that has gotten us all worked up.
"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."

ben argues on principle (legislation) and then you retort with the facts of the case. (execution). He has the ground cut under him - his argument never depended on the facts of the case, merely an examination of the law. he didnt stand a chance. perhaps when you quoted him in isolation
"If you think that the guilt is not important, I am unsure of the deterrent value."
You might have thought he was confusing execution with legislation. He wasn't. If you look at the entire context, that sentence is related to this one.
"Presumptions are intricately tied in with the death penalty. IF the standard of proof is higher, we are assured the person is guilty"
ben argues that presumption of guilt is tied in with standard of proof to show guilt - he then says that it is important for policy - that of the death penalty as a deterrent. These are legislation questions.

Finally my reference on s.17 and s.18 was only to show that presumptions do figure greatly in the misuse of drug act and that ben was right in raising it as it is important - he did not raise some tangential jurisprudential point.

jx,

haha - you may not be quite right in your assertion.

"That is why on the balance of things I had to say ben has a valid point in raising presumption as a principal of law and hence the policy concerns that inform it." This is me - and its not on the law.
This is KTM and I think he is approaching it from a common sense angle and not a jurisprudential one
"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?"

jx,
If you are referring to
"it sets out to guide the judiciary in how to apply the burden of proof or balance or probability in a case which is not immediately straightforward, it defines that the penalty if convicted is to be a mandatory death sentence". Then you are right - i humbly apologize - I made a mistake here.
I should have stuck with burden of proof.

One more ammendment i seem to have missed out the didnt in this sentence
"The KTM (didn't) try to justify the effectiveness of the existing policy using his war analogies. The KTM admitted that there were "gaps in the mindfield" and some of the fella are most definitely able to make their way in." This would be a misrepresntation and imply a different meaning to the quote. My mistake once again

Oops. Solly ah solly. Type wrongly. I mean I not going tomorrow. Paiseh.

jx,

No offense intended. It just seemed to the KTM that you were making these generalizations that the KTM doesn't really agree with, nor is he in a position to refute ('cos he's not a DPP mah). If you see DPPs in daily work and perhaps you can seek their views on what you said. :-)

Your position that we should increase the burden of prove to reduce Type 1 error (i.e. innocent man found guilty) is taken. The KTM accepts and understands your position even though he personally doesn't think that there's any urgency or pressing need to do so.

Kitana,

Thanks for the clarification. But come to think about it, you quite cute cute. :-) If you're not going, then how come you ask if KTM is going? You were not thinking of doing one of those Titanic things were you? KTM go, you go?? :-P Hehe.

Take care and have a great weekend. :-P

Dear KTM

Ok. So can i say that you think it is ok for ppl to mess around with their lives but NOT ok for ppl to provide the means to let other ppl to mess up their own lives?

at82,

Hmmm, interesting point. You're probably right. Perhaps that's why we don't have Berettas, M16s and worse, nerve gas, on sale at Vivocity? :-P For all we know, people might just want a gun to shoot themselves or some people might just like to sniff nerve gas....

Unfortunately, it is true that the public at large expects the Garmen to "protect" them and their children.

Dear KTM

very interesting article. perhaps u might wanna have a look at it. :)

It is war. A war against drugs. In war, everthing goes baby. It is us against the monsters. This de-humanised enemy. It is war, in war we kill. In war, we hurt. In war, we destroy. It is war baby. ...

http://xenoboysg.blogspot.com/2007/02/anybody-wanna-drink-before-war.html

at82,

Thanks for the link.

Interesting? :-) Perhaps. If Kira is looking for an example where an analogy gets pushed overboard and becomes kinda wacky, he has his example. :-)

The word is moderation. :-P

I actually suspect it was the intention of xenoboy to push it overboard. I am not sure what the book was about (he mentions drugs once but it seems to be focused more on war.)If the book was mainly about war than its not an analogy of war used to explain it. Perhaps the overboard comments were a satire and not a framework to perceive the work? Cant comment more than that.

I am so happy that Kira is defending my views! And I don't have to deal with KTM and the tediousness of war. Poor Xenoboy. So tedious. So difficult. So convenient. War.

The use of 'Common Sense' and 'Analogies' are very disturbing - while popular as a means to educate and elucidate concepts, these are somewhat rhetorical devices. Umbrella or not.

----------------

Some comments about the 7 KTM arguments - all over the place, very hard to find:
------------

But first, the 'context' (provided by Kitana's article) which accepts the possibility of both views:

What is Presumption? It is simply to presume something as true or valid unless proven otherwise.

In the Singapore law, for drug trafficking, one is presumed to be guilty if you hold above a certain amount of drugs (through a kicking in of 3 presumptions!). In order for you not to suffer the maximum penalty, you have to convince the judge that, on the balance of probabilities, you did not intend to traffic drugs.

This is of course a rather difficult case, since you have to overcome a burden on you. It was once not like this,

Previously, Mr Chua Siah Chin said,

"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." ( See Kitana's article for details)

Later on, Prof. S. Jayakumar said,

"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."

So there are two views, the later on the current one in Singapore, and with some modifications, the earlier one shared by UK and Canada.

Both views have been entertained by the current Government,and as KTM rightly pointed out, this is not a political debate. After all, any reasonable person might hazard, both positions have their advantages and disadvantages.

------------------------
The First Five

Sadly, those who prefer the current view as expressed in the law, like KTM offer explanations which include (and a terrible simplification of his views):

The Five KTM mandates:
1) This is a war ("When it comes to drugs, it is nothing less than a war out there")

2) I think he is guilty, whats the mater with you, you don't think he is guilty? I think he is jolly guilty no matter how I see it. (The Wig Example)

3) Some people are not experts talk a lot. (it is sad..and start spouting nonsense when they know jack about the law.)

4) This is working so why change it.

5) We have sovereignty (right to protect ourselves).

-----

Mandate 1) have been dealt with adequately as a rhetorical device, Mandate 3) is mere bigotry which ignores the fact even Newton became somewhat wrong. Mandate 5) is the reason why we are talking about it and not asking others for permission.

I think arguments 2 and 4 are the main contestable issues and are somewhat related.

When KTM thinks or feels that Tochi is guilty, he gives a lot of facts, which he considers indictment of one's guilt. He says things like fake visa, that he is lying etc. But he also knows that these extraneous facts are not required under the current system. So perhaps he might be persuaded that perhaps something is required more than possession under the Law.

Those facts he so carefully cited could go for a prosecution proving Tochi's case beyond a reasonable doubt, or on a balance of probabilities.

This is instead of Tochi needing to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was not a drug trafficker.

The reason for the law today appears to be borne out by the difficulty of proving intention to traffic drugs. This is clearly a very legitimate concern for any legislator who want to ensure that the guilty shall suffer penalties and not escape them because the prosecution fail to prove their guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, Tochi will have become a very very difficult case, and I am sure it is already a very difficult case to begin with. Whether our public service should shoulder this burden is a question we have to answer.

Why many reject this is because we don't think such a difficulty should overcome the fact that it is the maximum penalty we are concerned with here. We fear for the innocent. I think one should not confuse this for bleeding hearts however.

Besides there is a range of standards that one can go to if it is truly difficult. I find that a prosecution proving something on a balance of probabilities is more appropriate rather than making Tochi prove something on a balance of probabilities.

The truth is, on the balance probabilities, a person holding so much drugs is trafficking them. The thing is, why do we have to make Tochi prove otherwise when it is according to KTM, shouldn't be so hard for the judge to convict.
------------------------------

And Two More KTM mandate

Look at what is this...

KTM said,

"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. :-)"

This is the sixth argument. which goes. Nevertheless, A has reason to believe Fact B. On the balance of Probability, A therefore has reason for Fact B. What is this? Seriously? KTM!

Seventh Argument

"People are all muddled by the death penalty"

Civil action standard is balance of Probability. Why? Room of error greater. Why allowed? No threat to life and liberty. Only pay fine. So okay. Criminal offences usually beyond reasonable doubt. Why? Assurance of guilt. Goes to prison - not very fun to be rehabilitated for offence one did not commit.

Sending people to prison without proof of guilt damaging to integrity of justice. So its inter-related. Presumptions intricately tied with punishment.

Does Kira blog?

I think that if the death penalty is meant not for punishment, but for deterrent, then execution cases should be given wider publicity abroad. Yet the Singapore government does not release statistics, leaving Amnesty Internation to guess at our execution rate. I am therefore arguing for either of the following:

1. To inform the media each and every time someone is executed, and release annual statistics on use of the death penalty in Singapore. This will help achieve the "deterrent effect".

2. To scrap the death penalty, as it is now, usually, carried out in secrecy to help keep the rest of the world from seeing us as a murderous, barbaric regime.

We can't have it both ways. If we want a deterrent, then we need to be transparent. If we want to be "first-world" and avoid foreign criticism, then we should not have a death penalty for non-violent offences.

I think that if the death penalty is meant not for punishment, but for deterrent, then execution cases should be given wider publicity abroad. Yet the Singapore government does not release statistics, leaving Amnesty Internation to guess at our execution rate.

To play the devil's advocate here: I would disagree with the above. If there is too much publicity, it will become familiar and familiarity breeds contempt. Nothing is left to the imagination anymore. Rather, the present mix of coyness and transparency arguably generates more, not less fear. In addition, what publicity to do with execution, as opposed to the mundane but insistent warnings should, ideally (that is: Machiavellian-ideally) be provided by one's critics, for instance, the occasional media circus drummed up by the international (or not so international) press.

Kira,

Actually, "long-winded" wasn't a criticism. It was a term of endearment believe it or not. The KTM appreciates the thoroughness of your replies.

"Disingenuous? perhaps - it is an intelligent tactic of you to reverse the charge on me, afterall I did withdraw the use of the word earlier on in the exchange after your first response. I must only like yourself, now humbly attempt to defend myself from the charge"

"A strong assertion of malice on my part. I am slightly flabbergasted and find it hard to respond to that I believe you are questioning my intent"

A tactic? No lah, the KTM felt that Kira threw the kitchen sink at him and so he decided to throw it back and see if Kira is any good at juggling kitchen sinks. The KTM was pretty sure that Kira would do okay and wouldn't get a head concussion and so he's doing it just to watch a good show. :-)

The KTM did not impute any malice on the things that Kira said, and the KTM hopes that Kira would not impute any malice on him as well. We're just have a good robust, civil and polite exchange. This is a good thing. It demonstrates that good debate is possible on the blogosphere. :-)

To be honest, the KTM wasn't exactly on the defensive since he doesn't really have a personal stand to defend and he was only trying to illuminate and clarify some of the issues associated with the Tochi case, esp. the policy component. It seems to the KTM that there are no major disagreements between Kira and KTM. Where the disagreements arise, they are matters of opinion and not fact, so perhaps permit the KTM to attempt to summarize them below to bring closure to this debate:

1. Kira is of the opinion that analogies are not useful in helping to elucidate laws. KTM disagrees. This is clearly a matter of opinion. :-)

KTM was not pleased that Kira started embellishing his analogies by adding the suicide bomber and by adding sugar and spice: "the image to be conjured of is that of an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber" (nope, intention is only foot soldier), "This is the policy of a nation in the grips of a war without quarter from either side" (got say without quarter meh? :-)), "he would have been like Ulysses in finding a way through the gates of Troy" (Ulysses was some sort of a hero no? You trying to make Tochi a hero too?), "The moat must catch all the sappers, the radar must detect all aircraft, the trench must stop all enemy advance. Perhaps from this imagery of a merciless enemy and imminent threat that those on the opposing side of the issue can understand the reasons why perhaps they feel that the law seems to impute guilt before innocence" (since when was Tochi merciless? The enemy foot soldier sniping at the KTM merciless meh? Only trying to do his job what), "Its either Tochi was a martyr or he was a suicide bomber" (huh?? KTM is either a kway teow hawker or David Beckham in disguise. :-P), etc. etc. :-)

The point here is that KTM felt that Kira was embellishing his analogies (perhaps not consciously or on purpose) ever so slightly in such a way as to "discredit" them. :-) Actually, all's fair. KTM is only raising a minor objection here your Honour. Maybe the KTM was overly sensitive lah. :-P

Anyhow, no point dwelling on the merits of using analogies to illustrate the law. Kira has said his piece and the KTM has said his. We can let the readers decide for themselves.

2. On the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrence

Kira seemed to disagree that the death penalty is effective as a deterrent, but has not provided an evidence to counter the KTM's claim of "fear of death". The umbrella and condom analogies were employed to demonstrate the lack of logic with some of the purported evidence against the effectiveness of the death penalty, nothing more. Subsequently, it seems that Kira doesn't have any strong opinions on this and was only playing devil's advocate. May the KTM summarize his logic on why the death penalty is possibly a good deterrent:
(a) People are afraid of death
(b) The KTM agrees with Dan's statement that we should publicize, and I think we actually do quite on this count, thanks to folks like Tochi and Nguyen Tuong Van (Hui-Chieh's media circus idea was quite refreshing :-))
(c) Even if we improve our scanners, intelligence and techniques for catching the traffickers, there is no good reason why we should dismantle this extra level of protection. If we think that the problem is truly serious, why not throw everything, including the kitchen sink at it? Some say it's an overkill. Fair enough. Can someone prove that?

3. On the debate between ben and you was on the legislation and not execution. First the question that ben poses: Why cant the burden of proof be higher?

Absolutely, the KTM understands that ben was talking about legislation and not execution, but was it made clear? And Ben is absolutely right to argue that because the penalty is so nasty, it might be prudent for us to make the burden of proof on the part of the prosecution greater. Fair statement.

Problem was: this point was not expressed clearly and the death penalty was brought in manner, which according to the KTM muddles the issue. The KTM therefore suggested that the whole issue be partitioned clearly into stages: (i) legislation and (ii) execution of the law, and w.r.t. to (ii) to consider the issue in two parts: determination of guilt and thereafter punishment.

What seems to be an issue here is that some people are of the view that death is manifestly excessive for the "crime" at hand. In this case, people should argue for the abolishment of mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking, instead of arguing for a greater burden of proof, which might achieve the same net result (i.e. people not getting hanged), but doesn't address the "root" of the problem.

The KTM hopes that this sums up our discussion. Can we keep subsequent exchanges short? The KTM is truly impressed at Kira's speed of response given the length of the response. The KTM concedes defeat if he is to have a face off with Kira in terms of response speed + length. :-) We cannot keep going on like that or KTM's KT stall will definitely close shop. :-P

Okay, another Panadol Extra for the road.....

ben,

Some quick responses to your comments. Overall, you have made some good comments. You've always made sensible comments and at no point has the KTM ever thought you were spouting nonsense. Most of what the KTM has been doing is to bring about balance and perhaps some qualifications to the things you say. It is important not just to say the right things, but to say it in a manner that doesn't muddle up the issues. The issues are already complex enough for the layman as is.

Mandate 3) is mere bigotry which ignores the fact even Newton became somewhat wrong.

Bloggers are spouting nonsense constantly. Most of the nonsense out there is harmless nonsense. In this case however, the KTM is of the opinion that some have spoken about things that they do not understand in a way that slimes the judge and judicial system. People never bother to check their facts and think before they open their gaps (and the KTM is not referring to you, Kitana or YB when he says this BTW). Who are the bigots again?

2) I think he is guilty, whats the mater with you, you don't think he is guilty? I think he is jolly guilty no matter how I see it. (The Wig Example)

Actually, the facts as is (from reading the judgements) do not allow us to conclude if Tochi could have successfully been convicted if a higher burden of proof was placed on the prosecution, e.g. if the prosecution had to prove intention to traffick on balance of probabilities. While the KTM did highlight some negative inferences, it is not clear (at least to the KTM) whether or not they could be used by the DPPs to successfully argue such a case. We also do not know if the prosecution had more evidence up their sleeves that they didn't use because they didn't need to....

The point that the KTM was making is that from reading the judgements, it seemed to the KTM (and even Kira agrees) that the judge seemed to have done due diligence and there was no miscarriage of justice w.r.t criminal procedure. Whether the outcome (hanging of Tochi) was "moral and just" is a completely different issue that should be argued on the previous entry and not this one.

4) This is working so why change it.

That wasn't a point that the KTM was trying to make BTW. The point is that there are people out there who can live with the present system because in their view, it passes the "Run Over By Truck" test (with an appropriate value of epsilon, chosen by the individual). It's quite clear that from the discussions that the present system doesn't go well with some people and such individuals are most welcome to try to change it. They are just unlikely to get any support from those who agree with the KTM. Are people going to start claiming that because the KTM doesn't clamour for a change in regime, he is therefore "immoral"? :-)

Civil action standard is balance of Probability. Why? Room of error greater. Why allowed? No threat to life and liberty. Only pay fine. So okay. Criminal offences usually beyond reasonable doubt. Why? Assurance of guilt. Goes to prison - not very fun to be rehabilitated for offence one did not commit.

Sending people to prison without proof of guilt damaging to integrity of justice. So its inter-related. Presumptions intricately tied with punishment.

These are absolutely true statements. :-) Under the present system, guilt is proved with the assistance of presumptions. That doesn't mean that the fellas convicted are therefore less culpable or guilty. The KTM doesn't understand why these statements were used to respond to the KTM's comment that "people are muddled in their thinking because of the death penalty". Is ben is saying that because of these complexities, people ought to be muddled? Or is ben saying that people aren't muddled and it's the KTM's who's muddled in his thinking? Actually, it doesn't matter lah. If people want to think that they are not muddled and it's the KTM's who's all muddled, that's fine with the KTM also. Will not try to defend himself from this charge. :-)

We fear for the innocent. I think one should not confuse this for bleeding hearts however ... The truth is, on the balance probabilities, a person holding so much drugs is trafficking them. The thing is, why do we have to make Tochi prove otherwise when it is according to KTM, shouldn't be so hard for the judge to convict.

The KTM doesn't think that you're a bleeding heart by a long shot actually (hope you are not offended. :-P Apparently some people like to be viewed as "compassionate" bleeding hearts). You argue well. You make good points and you know what you are saying. The KTM believes that you will make an excellent lawyer. :-P

The KTM agrees with you that your intuitions that the prosecution might have succeeded in convicting Tochi. But this is all speculative of course. While we're in a mood for speculation, the KTM will venture to guess that it's going to be hard to get the law changed and the reason is the following: if you look at the latest amendment to s.18, what seems to have happened was simply the enactment of a laundry list of "plug the hole" rules. Kira says "policy that informs the law". KTM thinks "policy dictates (!) the law" (and before people hammer the KTM, may the KTM clarify that this is only an observation. The KTM is not claiming that policy SHOULD dictate the law). Our laws are not written for fun one 'cos it's really lei che to change the laws.

Also dunno why people keep thinking that it's easy to convict the drug traffickers. For cases like Tochi, maybe it's easy lah, but the KTM is pretty sure that there are more wily drug traffickers out there who really know their jobs (and the law) and unless people really have first-hand experience either prosecuting or getting prosecuted, why do they make such claims?

What is said in the word of the law is one thing. What really happens on the ground may not be exactly the same thing. Judges do not execute the law blindly -- and there's one thing they get to do that we don't. They actually get to interact with the accused and observe him/her in person. It takes more than just knowledge of the law to be a good judge. It takes wisdom. :-)

BTW, can the KTM humbly request that you dun use the word "mandate" on him? The KTM considers it a dirty word since he's nowhere close to a politician. Politicians need their mandate. KTM's only need their hum. :-)

I promised that I have simplified KTM views! And bigotry is probably a wrong way to describe those views - it is just a very large confidence of one's world view of the blogosphere? But I don't mean it as a personal attack. And I am guilty of purposefully using the word mandate because its a WAR! Its something we MUST do...okay...poor attempts of being ironic. I apologize.

As an aside, the accusation of another to have accused the justice system wrongly, or a decision as a travesty or that something is 'bordering on contempt of court' - is I think, a matter of perspective.

Some people believe that as long as the death penalty is applied, travesty is done to justice. I think that should an opinion is not contempt of court - I think this is a world-view that is commonly inaccurate, sometimes moralistic, but clearly within the range of acceptable opinion, no? I am not sure. However, thats as far as accusations should go, I do hope.

-
We are naturally working with suppositions if we ask the question What If. All death penalty cases are tough - it must be. While I personally tend to ignore questions of conscience when we talk about the law (which is for some rather valid), the need to prepare a case where the accused really smacks of guilt for public consumption, I feel, is imperative or else there will be a large outcry.

Who cared for Hussein in Singapore?

Anyhow, who is asking for a change in the Law? I am not sure a review is in order actually for presumptions (oops - I think in terms of priority, that is probably a bit off). I think a review in the mandatory death sentence is is order (like big order) - remember presumptions tied in with punishment. If they actually say no more mandatory death sentence, and let judge see the situation, as what KTM said, 'Judges do not execute the law blindly', then the situation will be better. In any case, the death penalty internationally speaking is less 'acceptable' than said presumptions.

So many people spilling so many words, can fill a whole book liao...

KTM,

I think I will deal with the analogies question first - the one of the suicide bomber. Actually from your exchange with Kitana it seems that you used suicide bomber and drug mule together ( I think everyone knows that prospective Singapore idols are the odd guys out here - I hope :) )
"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.
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."

from this excerpt, I felt is wasn't distortionary to use the image of a suicide bomber in describing your position. i think the most elaborated image I have of the suicide bomber is here:
"perhaps the image to be conjured of is that of an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber, who does not care about his life and whose purpose is to cause destruction in our community"
and then here
"Perhaps only someone as irrational as a suicide bomber who straps himself with explosives would choose to go willingly to their deaths and hence stand culpable and are presumed guilty of ill intent."
In both these cases of the analogy of the suicide bomber - I tried to stress the unafraid of death part - the stand culpable and guilty part is perhaps an unfair extrapolation. But I felt that point had merit to be raised cause it wasnt an embellishment of the analogy of the suicide bomber unafraid of death, but rather how those that knowingly take the risk must also pay the price (higehr standard of proof) if caught. If this is inconsistent with your argument. You have my apologies.
I think you say in your 2nd previous post (sorry, so many I also dont know how to label them) - that you eventually chose foot soldiers as a better analogy of a drug mule than a suicide bomber cause foot soldiers do not know what they are doing.

But in your previous analogy, if one is unafraid of death - one seems to qualify as a drug mule. But how does a drug mule then be unafraid of doing something that may result in death if he does not know what he is doing.

A foot soldier on the other hand may or may not be afraid of death but how does he not know what he is doing?
"Suppose the other fella is a 18 and a half year old upstart and doesn't know jack about anything. He just didn't have much of the an education and so signed on with the Army of the opposing side. The kid also has no idea what his country is fighting for. He is only a soldier and he was told to fight (and blow the KTM's brains out) and so he fights."

If the analogy of the foot soldier was to show he doesnt know what he does then it seems he does know that he must at least fight and harm us. Maybe he doesnt have an eduction, maybe he doesnt know the grand strategic scheme, the terrain or even the name of the state he is fighting for - but it is not completely out of the world to imagine a suicide bomber in the exact same position who is poorly educated and doesnt know what are the real intentions of his commanders or organisation or ideological leaders. Both know that they have to fight and that means harming us.

I must ardently stress that I am not here to pick a fight with you but I am trying to describe my difficulties in constructing my examples in a way that satisfies you. In other words - what is embellishment may be actually a difficulty in seeing how the analogies can flow easily with each other. I thought I was using suicide bomber accurately if i added that it was because he was unafraid of death.

On the "no quarter from either side" I was referring to this statement in the original article. "No, the KTM will still try to blow his brains out. Not that the KTM is a heartless prig. This is a war and the realities in a war are that until one side surrenders, you try to blow the other fella away (or risk getting blown away yourself)."

Ok on the Ulysses point you totally got me - you never mentioned any Greek hero. But I wasnt saying it was your analogy, i was using an analogy of my own devising to stress why if one man gets through more can come (through the legal lacuna).
If anybody is confused, I strenously state this is mine and not KTM's analogy - i was using it to clarify my own description of the legal lacuna. That being said i think KTM you hit a superb point - I actully never meant to say Tochi was a hero. It was not my intention at all ( I only just realised that Ulysses is considered an archetype of a hero!) The reason I used the Ulysses argument was it draws on the Trojan Horse.
Here is the full sentence:
"In other words if Tochi had succeeded, he would have been like Ulysses in finding a way through the gates of Troy."
Ulysses found a way to get into the gates of the Troy after a long siege where the Achaeans were at their wits end in how to enter the Trojan city. A small group of men were able to sneak through, through the slightly naive thinking of the Trojan populace, and they finally allowed the entire Greek army to enter and sack the city of Troy. It was the element of a lacuna and then its exploitation which I was trying to clarify using my own analogy of Ulysses. But despite the intention of my analogy, you are right that it was loaded by the fact that one could imply Ulysses was a hero and I am raising Tochi to that status. That never was my real intention at all! I hope you can see why I myself have fallen trap to my own unintentionally loaded analogy.

On this one: "Perhaps from this imagery of a merciless enemy and imminent threat that those on the opposing side of the issue can understand the reasons why perhaps they feel that the law seems to impute guilt before innocence" -
nope I dont think I was using that analogy specifically relating to Tochi, it actually tries to say that if people who disagree with the supposed policy, they may understand the sentiments of the position you advocate by understanding the analogies of war you are using. I dont think any statement I made in that sentence related directly to how merciful Tochi is or if he was sniping you. The sentence merely means if you disagree and cannot udnerstand, maybe you can get the idea of the feelings of the other side by examining the analogies they use.
This is where I get the imminent part - soldiers wanting to shoot you: "While the foot soldiers charge at you, you dun shoot ah? Crazy meh?"
And this is on the merciless enemy (death or victory) part "Until the drug lords give up on trying to send their drugs to Singapore, the war will continue --- and every foot soldier that they send our way, we will destroy, for they are the enemies of the State."
Actually on second reading - it is we who sound a little less merciful and nothing is said about how nice or evil the drug lords are. But I hope you agree with me when I say that by and large, it can be safely assumed that drug lords probably are just as if not more merciless than us. The merciless enemy I reiterate relates to the drug lords not Tochi.

Lastly,
""Its either Tochi was a martyr or he was a suicide bomber" (huh?? KTM is either a kway teow hawker or David Beckham in disguise. :-P), etc. etc. :-)"
erm... I think the full context was this:
"my assertion was that the analogies used may not be all that appropriate and that perhaps people could understand the justice of the case better if the image of total war or a completely innocent victim were not to be utilised. It opens up a more balanced level of debate rather than arguing ourselves into increasingly intractable images. Its either Tochi was a martyr or he was a suicide bomber. All I saying perhaps its best to see Tochi as an alleged and then convicted drug mule."

You can see the sentence is not a blank assertion, I am not saying Tochi Must be a suicide bomber or a Martyr. Instead I am asserting the opposite in the very next sentence. The assertion merely tries to illustrate the extremes of the loaded imagery. It was meant to induce incredulity that we can only make a choice between two very loaded views. I think you can see I wasn't embellishing anything.

"The point here is that KTM felt that Kira was embellishing his analogies (perhaps not consciously or on purpose) ever so slightly in such a way as to "discredit" them. :-) Actually, all's fair. KTM is only raising a minor objection here your Honour. Maybe the KTM was overly sensitive lah. :-P"

Thats what I am trying to say, it seems that interpretation of my own analogies tend to be a little different from what I thought them to be. I could have said you embellished Ulysses as being a hero ( I never hinted expressly in the sentence or context of the paragraph, furthermore if you look closely I say he is an enemy in the very next sentence, one that means to threaten us ) but I must be honest enough to say that that conclusion may be implied. My analogy failed me, and you merely interpreted it in a way in which it can be interpreted even though It was not my intention. I accept that, this analogy should be discredited not because it is completely in error but it is misleading. I am only misrepresented ,not by you, but by the alternative or extrapolated meanings of my analogy.

"Anyhow, no point dwelling on the merits of using analogies to illustrate the law. Kira has said his piece and the KTM has said his."

I hope we can do so - and that even if we disagree you can understand why I might need to defend myself in saying that i was not intentionally disingenuous or misrepresenting you as when you say

"it's like the KTM was carrying a live cat and you come around, strangle the cat and then call SPCA. When when SPCA comes, you force the poor KTM to "eat dead cat".

I am ok when a kitchen sink is thrown with a sly wink but your analogy made reference to me as some sort of cat-murderer, a fibber and a hypocrite, some kind of perverted deviant abuser of small animals as well as someone who is trying to give you indigestion sadistically by feeding you your own dead cat. I think you were throwing a slightly more loaded analogy than a kitchen sink. If i retort with my own analogy - it was more like an aircraft carrier. I can only hazard that a less loaded analogy that could have been used was that "Kira tends to make mountains out of mole hills." :)

Dont worry I was only merely shocked, in retrospective it was one of the more creative and evocative insults I have had the pleasure of receiving.
You do me the honour sir.

"Kira seemed to disagree that the death penalty is effective as a deterrent, but has not provided an evidence to counter the KTM's claim of "fear of death". The umbrella and condom analogies were employed to demonstrate the lack of logic with some of the purported evidence against the effectiveness of the death penalty, nothing more. Subsequently, it seems that Kira doesn't have any strong opinions on this and was only playing devil's advocate."

Ok first let me clarify my own position. I never ever touched on the specifics of fear of death as being an invalid argument about how effective death is as a deterrent. No problem there. I think you misunderstand my position - that paragraph was descriptive of the debate on how or whether we can determine if the policy is effective.
This is my intro to the para:
"The controversy is over what kind of policies should be pursued and such a question leads to how effective these policies are. However the evidence for whether current policies of deterrence really work remains open to question and fierce debate to both sides." I didnt say I disagree, I said there are people who disagree on both sides.

Then I bring up some of your arguments and also show how your critics try to interprete them. Finally I bring up your umbrella argument to show how you are defending your position from the rebuttal that since drug problem/trafficking still exists here it is not effective. I say this:
"
The author will rebut with the metaphor of the umbrella - that even if one gets wet in a rainstorm, it is smarter to still use your umbrella. A full-proof perfect solution can never be found, even a mdoerately effective one, but that doesnt mean we should throw away all our tools in the toolbox."

I hope you can see I have not even begun to criticise your argument on the death penalty. I lastly say that no doubt critics will come out with other analogies - that umbrella conveys a pretty decent level of cover, whereas people will say the analogy that will fit more is more like a soggy newspaper - less cover. These are all qualitative analogies.

If i read your new 3 step argument correctly, you do not require that the level of effectiveness the death penalty needs to be of a certain level - merely that it is effective as a deterrent.

"(a) People are afraid of death
(b) The KTM agrees with Dan's statement that we should publicize, and I think we actually do quite on this count, thanks to folks like Tochi and Nguyen Tuong Van (Hui-Chieh's media circus idea was quite refreshing :-))
(c) Even if we improve our scanners, intelligence and techniques for catching the traffickers, there is no good reason why we should dismantle this extra level of protection. If we think that the problem is truly serious, why not throw everything, including the kitchen sink at it? Some say it's an overkill. Fair enough. Can someone prove that?"

the problem perhaps is that there may be two ways of understanding this analogy on umbrellas or condos.

the first is that your argument on umbrella/condom is to illustrate the principle that even if its not perfect we should still use it if it helps us. Fine. its impossible to argue with that assertion esp if u are talking about umbrellas in the rain.

But the analogy of an umbrella seems to imply an assertion not just that of the principle itself. Its definitely less loaded than the war analogy but it also implies a pretty high level of protection. maybe i give you an even stronger example: you used another example in lieu of the umbrella to backup your point - condoms - yet the level of protection on method use of condoms is about 98% - thats not 100% but it sure is not 53% either . Your analogy does not only just illustrate your principle of having extra protection, if condom/umbrella are taken together they seem to imply a pretty high level of effectiveness.

Afterall you yourself said:
"While the KTM has no numbers to prove that the death penalty is an umbrella, the KTM is pretty sure Kira doesn't have any figures to prove that it's a leaky tarp either. Reason is very simple: the drug mules who successfully sneak though wouldn't come register with Kira (or the Police) and the fella who were turned off drug trafficking (at least to Singapore) because of the death penalty wouldn't be writing to the Forum Page to lodge an official complaint. :-P"

Thats why I brought up all the tarp, newspaper, bus shelter stuff to show there may be things that afford you protection but with different levels of protection. We both agree that there is a similarity in terms of the principle of extra protection. In your analogy - it must not matter at all if it is a soggy newspaper or an umbrella or a kitchen sink. You yourself say that - its impossible to prove overkill, so you would rather throw everything in. yet why do you then do we keep arguing against the analogies i used?
We dont need figures - it doesnt matter if the analogy is that of a soggy newspaper, magazine, raincoat or an umbrella. They may have different levls of protection but they all afford a level of protection. It is conceivable that we might use a mouse pad or a plastic bag in a rainstorm - they definitelyare not perfect but they at least are helpful. It must not matter if its a condom in a rainstorm or an umbrella in the bedroom ( - as long as it affords a level of protection. if u accuse me of embellishment here - i say this is my analogy and not yours and it illustrates that it is plausible that they both are able to afford protection though they may not be perfect in those given situations) That would be the 2nd reading of the analogy.

I will agree with the coherency of the 2nd reading but not with the first reading - the analogy must not imply any certain level of effectiveness but accepts that there must be effectiveness regardless of how effective it is.

I will keep the last point brief since I have already touched on it twice.

You will see I expressly agree with you on the ben's slight vagueness on the penalty and guilt in my 2nd argument.

Your revised argument currently:
"The KTM therefore suggested that the whole issue be partitioned clearly into stages: (i) legislation and (ii) execution of the law, and w.r.t. to (ii) to consider the issue in two parts: determination of guilt and thereafter punishment"

and the original argument
"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)."

You can see that in the original arguments that you and ben were debating over - there was no legislation aspect for him to fall back on in your original schema. In debating the legislation he was touching (albeit haphazardly at first) on the policy, how the legislation informs presumption and mandatory punishment and even some procedural claims. so when you cut him on the third retort on policy because there was no policy concerns on the to the (ii) execution of Tochi - I think he had no recourse to fall back on (i) as it did not belong in your initial schema.
i think the new schema is an improvement and should help facilitate further discussion. We seem to be achieving some clarity in the way we are discusing the points in the new schema or to debate about the schema itself. I promised to keep it brief so i will keep the other points to myself.

Lastly, let us make a gentleman's wager. If you disagree on any of my points - you just have to type disagree - no need for elaborations so you and I need not keep forcing ourselves to run round the same hedgerow - if you think we reached some sort of compromise - lets just type compromise and if you think we have settled anything - just type settled in the equivalent place. If you feel you need to clarify or elaborate on any point do so but also allow me to answer me in full so we both are satisfied we got a fair hearing.

Personally I think we are settled on many points on the "execution" of the law. On the Analogies perhaps we disagree and on the umbrella I think we may have to disagree too. As on the final point on the debate with ben, i hope to settle on a fair compromise that the new schema is a revised and stronger basis with which thr argument should now proceed.

Lastly on whether KTM is disingenuous - let me say it is settled - you are definitely not.

Kind regards

ben,

no worries, was only defending the point that you could argue about presumptions in the earlier exchange, I believe KTM has now upped the ante with a revised plan. I wish you the best of luck in the critical endeavor.

No I do not have a blog. Iam impressed with the bloggers here - its high maintenance work.

I look forward to reading your arguments.

Dear KTM

Eh, why would I get a visit from the police?
To the best of my knowledge,the alleged links between Singapore and the burmese drug lords(i was referring to the alleged narco-dictatorship) has never been provened. (Lazy example here->http://www.authorama.com/world-2000-e-25.html , see transnational issues)
Though it would be interesting if someone actually tried. Aaron is indeed a smart boy. IQ of 138 I believe. Does that mean he is not going undercover to find out more? *shucks* :-p

You and your brotherhood at Singapore Angle(my mistake) are plenty smart\articulate and could have been a powerful voice for mercy. but sadly for me, seems like you folks are quite firmly in the "hang them" camp.

I may not be too bright but I still believe that the death penalty is wrong.

ben,

Well said. Dun worry, the KTM takes no offence in what you said. You are most certainly gracious in apologizing when no apology was necessary. Thanks again for your comments.

Warmest Regards.

Kira,

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

The KTM will hereby retract his comments that you were disingenuous. To be honest, the KTM was simply curious to see how you would react. :-) The KTM is convinced that you are honourable and aboveboard and apologizes if he had gone somewhat overboard in the heat of the exchange.

It is truly an honour to have had this exchange. The KTM looks forward to hearing your views again on his future posts (but hopes that you can keep your comments somewhat shorter, if possible). :-)

The cat thingy wasn't meant as an insult. "Eat dead cat" is slang in Cantonese for the rather unpleasant experience for being held responsible for something that is not one's fault. :-)

Take care and have a good weekend.

Dear NoName,

To the best of my knowledge,the alleged links between Singapore and the burmese drug lords(i was referring to the alleged narco-dictatorship) has never been provened. (Lazy example here->http://www.authorama.com/world-2000-e-25.html , see transnational issues)

Whether you will get a visit by the Police is not something that the KTM will know. Neither is it the KTM's problem. You are currently skirting around the OB markers and KTM was simply alerting you to be careful about what you say.

The KTM is unclear what the link you provided to the CIA Factbook proves. Seems like it says that we have a drug transhipment problem and maybe indirectly supports the need for a tougher policy against drugs?

Not everyone at SA are pro-death. Even the KTM is not exactly pro-death. Truly, the KTM is neutral on the death penalty -- but he does support the current tough stance on drugs (and if Garmen wants to do away with death on all the other crimes including murder, that's fine with him -- though he's not inclined to champion it). This is the KTM's personal position and it is not representative of the SA's collective opinion (which doesn't exist BTW) by a long shot.

Warmest Regards.

William the Con and KTM,

It is indeed lonely to be a death penalty supporter and I am belatedly humbled by the eloquent arguments by the two of you. It is obvious both of you have legal training, unlike the high class machine repairman that is me.

It was foolish of me to have bought the Amnesty International's argument that Singapore has somehow the highest per capita execution rate and assumed it had something to do with our huge transit tourists/migrant population. Afterall, Tochi, Nelson, Took, Nguyen were all foreigners. I dont seem to recall any Singaporean other than Shanmugam in recent memory. I do not think that it was an accident that AI chose 1991 as the start point. There are lies, damn lies and statistics, they say.

I also agree with William that murderers are not deterred by death and they should not be hanged, but drug traffickers are enticed by money and death may work better against them.

In fact, I was so upset Saddam was hanged that I blogged about it.

I feel so unoriginal now, but I also agree that the death penalty bloodies our hands and if we can do without it, I will be the first one to jump forward to support, provided we have a convincing alternative. If most Singaporeans are against the death penalty, I also wouldnt bother to campaign for it. But most Singaporeans are for it.

1) If a runaway train is about to kill 100 people, and if all you can do is switch a lever to change the rail to kill 1 person instead, will you do so?

If the answer is yes, then you are not totally against killing, or the death penalty, if you are 100% certain that it serves some utilitarian function, like deterrence of future crimes.

2) If the said runaway train has a faulty emergency automatic braking system that will work only 10% of the time, but if you switch the rails, you will kill that 1 person for sure (ie. if you switch the lever, there is a 10% chance the person died for nothing), will you still switch the lever?

If yes, then you will probably find the risk of wrongful convictions acceptable, if it serves to save other lives.

3) If that one person you may kill by switching the lever is your loved one, while the 100 people are all convicted child molesters, will you still touch the lever?

Jimmy Mun,

1.) Classic consequentialist thought experiment
Problem is even if you accept killing (under this particular circumstance)
it does not mean prima facie that you are for the death penalty (given that one hasn't specified its exact context - it doesn not follow that
that if you prefer to sacrifice one life for more than one you Must be a supporter of the death penalty) and even if you agree with the death penalty - you may not agree that deterrence is or should be the only sufficient reason for the death penalty.

Though the example here is straightforward - the 'calculus' involved for determining the effect of deterrence of the death penalty may be slightly more difficult. It depends on what school of utilitarianism (and hence value) you are using and presupposes a what level of certainty of knowledge, we can have of consequences in the future.

I think KTM's almost deontological argument about the use of deterrence even if we might not know the exact level of deterrence might be the stronger argument for the death penalty - it does not require the calculation of the exact level for deterrence.

2.) I think that was the whole Type 1/ Type 2 debate - yes, i agree with you that it seems to be a matter of opinion though no certitude if we can for certain know if it is 10% or it is 90%.

3.) Classic Deontological counter-argument against the consequentialist one. In the example - it seems counter-intuitive (almost) to choose the 100 molesters - but once again it is determined by how one calculates using the utilitarian measure. If one can safely assume that utilitarians do not require perfect knowledge to make decisions and then try either to restrain the calculation to the given situation (just the 100 molesters adn my loved one) or the entire context of the situation (society as a whole). It then depends on the utilitarianism I am using.

I may or may not kill the 100 molesters in motive or rule based utilitarianism - depending on what motives or low-level rules are to be seen as most helpful in situations involving a runaway train, a faulty swith and a 1 - 100 sacrifice to be made. ( I can presume this opens up a whole new level of debate though)

Extreme negative utilitarianism means I should kill the 100 molesters - even if my loved one wasn't even in danger. Whereas in moderate negative utilitarianism - i might not since the suffering of the people is held in lower account than the existence of human life. But whether the molesters may take human life if they become more violent than opens another level of calculations to be made.

I think its far easier to support the death penalty without regards an appeal to hair-splitting calculations. As long as we accept that deterrence is a sufficient reason for the death penalty and that it perhaps also does mean we can accept a wrongful conviction once in a while.

first and foremost..

singapore government should screen those nigerians coming to singapore .....most of them are drug lords...

using singaporean women as their mules to traffick the drug on their behalf...

do we want to see more children become motherless at a tender age ,do we need these pest in singapore ,do we need to see more family cry as numbers of singaporean women being ruined by nigerian men rise tremendously....

maybe singapore govt should give this issue a gd thought .....