Posted on 02/28/2013 7:43:39 AM PST by blam
There's nothing unconstitutional about imposing the death penalty on felons.
In what most US conservatives would consider a golden age, we used to hang people for stealing livestock.
If a US cabinet secretary was supposed to be visiting a secure location and that location had actually been broken into and festooned with decorations, there would definitely be an investigation here as well.
And the police were apparently telling the students that if they marched or demonstrated in matching t-shirts it would be considered a protest without a permit.
That definitely sounds overly strict, but it also is a lie by the students that it was not a political protest - since the white elephant symbol is a well-known political protest symbol in Singapore and has been worn and used in plenty of permitted protest marches and demonstrations.
I don’t know. Certainly in the case of harder drugs I would certainly consider it. I don’t even care about pot, they can legalize that for all I care. But drugs like Meth or heroin should be dealt with in the most harsh manner. But if you truly want to win the “War on Drugs” that indeed is what it would take to do it, otherwise it’s a complete waste of time and money.
"posted around the closed station" - where's the break-in?
"The government [of Singapore] has broad powers to limit citizens' rights and to handicap political opposition, which it used. Caning is an allowable punishment for numerous offenses. The following human rights problems were reported: preventive detention, executive influence over the judiciary, infringement of citizens' privacy rights, restriction of speech and press freedom and the practice of self-censorship by journalists, restriction of freedom of assembly and freedom of association, some restriction of freedom of religion, and some trafficking in persons." - State Department, March 6, 2007 (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78790.htm)
Agreed.
But drugs like Meth or heroin should be dealt with in the most harsh manner.
Drug policy doesn't operate in a vacuum; what works in a tightly-controlled regime like Singapore (see post #84) is by no means guaranteed to work in our Land of the Free.
That wasn’t the comparison you were making that I was talking about.
I am pro-choice when it comes to meth dealers and other drug dealers. They should be given a choice of hanging or firing squad. Guillotine if they really want it and their doctor OKs it
The station was closed.
Caning is an allowable punishment for numerous offenses.
Good.
preventive detention
In the US this is known as "civil commitment."
executive influence over the judiciary
In the US, the executive not only influences the federal judiciary, it directly appoints friends of the administration to the federal judiciary. Though I'm sure Sonia Sotomayor would never let her adoring love of President Obama influence her rulings.
infringement of citizens' privacy rights
In the US, we call them "warrantless wiretaps."
restriction of speech
In the US we call these "gag orders."
and press freedom
Too vague a claim to be meaningful. Preventing photography of returning war dead from Iraq was considered an infringement on "press freedom" here, for example.
the practice of self-censorship by journalists
Is that when the US press decides to report only good things about President Obama and only bad things about President Bush? Is that what is meant by "self-censorship"?
Should there be a law against not saying things you would like to say? How would it be enforced?
restriction of freedom of assembly and freedom of association
In the US these are called "free speech zones" and "parade permits."
some restriction of freedom of religion
That's incredibly vague, but it probably refers to the Singaporean government's refusal to allow mosques to use ear-splitting amplification for their calls to prayer and its forbidding of Muslims (and others, but only Muslims did this) to let their congregations spill out into the streets during worship.
and some trafficking in persons
Well, we know that no sex trafficking ever occurs in the United States at all, ever, because it's illegal here. It's also illegal in Singapore, but sometimes Singaporeans break this law, even though no American ever has.
Yes! Execute the drug dealer after a fair trial. Marijuana dealers you exile for 10 years...now that might cut off your supply so I get the anxiety. When does your medical marijuana card expire?
Then read the report, to which I linked, for details. Or just keep shaking the pompoms for Singapore.
The report is equally vague - while it concedes that Singapore does not actually engage in press censorship, it opines that Singapore's laws contain provisions that could lead to press censorship.
So do our laws, and the laws of pretty much any nation.
No concrete examples are given.
Or just keep shaking the pompoms for Singapore.
You are desperately googling around trying to find anything that looks like supporting evidence for your thesis that Singapore is a bad place.
It seems like you are shaking the pompoms for Singapore's Workers' Party.
Face it: Singapore is a modern, wealthy country with first class amenities and facilities and a flexible and forward-looking economy.
Its culture may be too staid and foreign for your tastes, but your urge to paint it as either a totalitarian dictatorship or a "Third World ****hole" are doomed to fail, because both of those things are unfair allegations.
From the report:
Government leaders historically have used court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics
Law enforcement agencies, including the Internal Security Department and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Board, have extensive networks for gathering information and conducting surveillance and highly sophisticated capabilities to monitor telephone and other private conversations. No court warrants are required for such operations. The law permits government monitoring of Internet use.
While the ISA has not been invoked in recent years against political opponents of the government, political opposition and criticism remained restricted by the government’s authority to define these powers broadly.
Two companies, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) and MediaCorp, own all general circulation newspapers in the four official languages—English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. MediaCorp is wholly owned by the government investment company.
Government-linked companies and organizations operated all domestic broadcast television channels and almost all radio stations.
Banned publications consisted primarily of sexually oriented materials but also included some religious and political publications.
The law permits government monitoring of Internet use, and the government closely monitored Internet activities such as blogs and podcasts as sources of political dissent, including before the May election. On April 3, MICA prohibited the use of podcasts and videocasts as campaign tools during the election period.
Most associations, societies, clubs, religious groups, and other organizations with more than 10 members are required to register with the government under the Societies Act. [...] The government has absolute discretion in applying criteria to register or dissolve societies.
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) gives the government the power to restrain leaders and members of religious groups and institutions from carrying out political activities, “exciting disaffection against” the government
Under the Societies Act, the government deregistered and banned meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1972 and in 1982 dissolved the Unification Church. While the government did not outlaw the profession or propagation of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and does not arrest members merely for being believers, the result of deregistration was to make meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses illegal. The community numbered approximately 2,000 in the country, and members of Jehovah’s Witnesses continued to refuse to perform national military service. The government also banned all written materials published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publishing affiliates, the International Bible Students Association and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. A person in possession of banned literature can be fined up to $1,140 (S$2,000), and for holding a meeting, the fine can be as high as $2,280 (S$4,000). In August one member of Jehovah’s Witnesses was charged with three counts of importation of banned literature. He was convicted on two counts and fined $3,420 (S$6,000).
The Films Act bans political films and recorded televised programs
Remind you of any other countries you know?
While the ISA has not been invoked in recent years against political opponents of the government
That's interesting.
Two companies, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) and MediaCorp, own all general circulation newspapers
So two companies own the print media for a market of 5 million. In the US, it's more like four for 300 million people.
Government-linked companies and organizations operated all domestic broadcast television channels and almost all radio stations.
So, basically just like the UK.
Banned publications consisted primarily of sexually oriented materials but also included some religious and political publications.
Kind of the way Germany bans racialist publications or Scientologist publications?
On April 3, MICA prohibited the use of podcasts and videocasts as campaign tools during the election period.
Campaign laws limiting free speech? Good thing we don't have those, right Senator McCain?
Most associations, societies, clubs, religious groups, and other organizations with more than 10 members are required to register with the government under the Societies Act. [...] The government has absolute discretion in applying criteria to register or dissolve societies.
A law that is never enforced.
While the government did not outlaw the profession or propagation of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and does not arrest members merely for being believers, the result of deregistration was to make meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses illegal.
And yet the JWs exist and meet and grow in number in Singapore.
While no one can conscionably agree with this policy, this is a typical story for the JWs and is a repeat of their experiences in WWII and Korea in the United States. Singapore has required military service (like the US' peacetime draft in the 1950s), and JWs refuse - of course - to either do military service or alternative service in lieu of combat service.
So, basically, Singapore is guilty of all the things that the US government is currently guilty of - or of things that the US government was guilty of before the 1960s.
So two companies own the print media for a market of 5 million. In the US, it's more like four for 300 million people.
What a dishonest omission. For shame. Since you're willing to lie by omission to defend Singapore, I'm done here.
Response: If meth is the cause than I advocate harder penalties such as whipping as whites no better.
Comment: On the other hand I suspect there is a little selection of whites to "balance the scales."
Agreed. The only interesting part of town is Newton's Circus or a few yards along Boat Quay Rd between S Bridge Rd and the Esplanade. The rest is sterile & boring. Aside from the crime there is little difference in housing between Singapore and any public housing development in Brooklyn. And forget about owning a car.
Wideawake is probably either the ambassador from Singapore or is located there and has his postings scanned by the government of Singapore. I suspect that it is frowned upon to criticize the government of Singapore, if not illegal, so don’t worry about his cheerleading, it may be just for the censors reading his posts.
Why the interest in the skin color of criminals. I always approve of putting criminals who pose a danger to others in prison for a LONG time. I have never heard of a death penalty that I didn’t find 100% appropriate without any reference to skin color. Hillary put it best: “What difference does it make?”
I don't see any meaningful difference between a Singaporean newspaper being officially owned by the Republic of Singapore and the New York Times being unofficially owned by the Democratic Party.
Very few people agonize over the UK government owning the BBC.
Should the government own the media? Of course not.
Do they own the media in the UK and Singapore? In large part, yes.
Do they own the media, in large part, in the US? They sure do, whenever a Democrat is in office.
Putting aside the fact that it is extremely rude not to ping someone when you are discussing them, what is your logic here?
That I joined FR 14 years ago as an agent of the government of Singapore and quietly bided my time and waited to comment on Singapore until now?
While I completely understand that you do not have the candlepower to actually address my posts rationally, your comment is not any the less pathetic for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.