Kings Of Convenience: Rule My World

A beautiful song and meaningful lyrics

You set yourself above
That all forgiving god
You claim that you believe in
Your kind is gonna fall
Your ship is sinking fast
And all your able men are leaving

Only someone
Who's morally
Superior can possibly
And honestly deserve
To rule my world

I talk before I think
You shoot before you know
Who's in your line of fire
So somehow we're the same
We're causing people pain

But I stand and take the blame
You scramble to the night

Only someone
Who's morally
Superior can possibly
And honestly deserve
Only someone
Who's morally
Superior can possibly
And honestly deserve

To rule my world (10x)

Explain me one more time
When they kill it's a crime
When you kill it is justice

A Bleak Take of the Court of Appeal and Yong Vui Kong

The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment after hearing arguments from Yong's lawyer M Ravi and the Attorney-General, Walter Woon. While Ravi's argument was based on the claim that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional as it strips the judges' judicial discretionary, Woon made it clear that the mandatory death penalty, regardless of its international non-practice, was constitutional and not whether it was desirable or not. Singapore is one of the fourteen countries that has the mandatory death penalty.

In fact, the key debate for the judges would be whether the courts have the authority to rewrite the Misuse of Drugs Act - which apparently they do not. The mission of the courts is essentially to carry out justice as laid down by the legislation/laws which is written by the parliament. As Woon argued, "the removal of the mandatory death penalty is a political issue rather than a legal one, its retention or otherwise was a matter for Parliament to decide." It appears that the judges' hands are tied and sparing Yong from the gallows would also mean that he is innocent of drug trafficking and would be a free man, there is simply no lesser punishment for drug trafficking in the Misuse of Drugs Act - such is the tyranny of the law. If the judges decide to acquit Yong, one can be sure of a clash between the legislature and judiciary arms.

While it is a noble cause to argue for the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty, and Yong's case would be a best example to demonstrate how cruel and indiscriminate the mandatory death penalty can be, the courts doesn't seem to be the place to effect some change. At the end of the day, what is needed is politicians to bring up the debate in parliament as civil society can only create the 'noise' and awareness but not change the legislation which judges are bounded by. Until then, it saddens me as I realise that Yong would likely be just another example.

TOC Articles

M Ravi: Death penalty should not be dispensed ‘in an automated, robotic, spasmodic approach'

Discretion to the judges – judgment reserved

Judges reserve judgement in Yong’s mandatory death penalty appeal

Jacob George's Blog

Singapore’s Court of Appeal reserves judgment in Vui Kong’s appeal hearing

Anti-Death Penalty in Spore

Yong Vui Kong's appeal is going before the Court of Appeal this March. It seems that Singapore cyberspace is pretty much silent on the issue except for The Online Citizen who have continued their coverage on the death penalty debate with some very thought-provoking articles. In my must-read list would be TOC's interview with Prof Michael Hor of NUS Law School and Law Society's President Michael Hwang's address in 2008.

These two legal heavyweights have brought up many interesting points in the death penalty debate, and specifically the debate on the mandatory death penalty in Singapore. I have said earlier that I would support a movement that removes the mandatory death penalty and I hope with this case and the coverage by TOC, the government would entertain the thought of a public debate on the issue.

Michael Hwang puts it most eloquently in his address to Law Society in 2008, "The extent to which an offender ought to be punished cannot be determined solely by the need to stamp out future repetitions of the same offence; there is a moral limit to the law’s power to make an offender an example for others to fear." It resonates as I read it because I can imagine someone receiving a heavier sentence as a deterrence but I cannot fathom a person dying to act as a deterrence; not to mention the many petty drug traffickers.

Michael Hor, on the other hand, points out succinctly the problematic mandatory death penalty:

Perhaps the most prominent aspect of a mandatory death penalty is the absence of a judicial discretion in relation to the most extraordinary sentence in our criminal law. The judge trying the case can only determine guilt or innocence, and once that is done, the death penalty automatically follows. This goes against the grain of modern penological thinking that the punishment ought to fit not only the crime, but the criminal. It means that the judge should have the power and the duty to take into account the personal circumstances of the offender.

But Michael Hor was also quick to point out that in Singapore's case, the prosecution and police does mitigate the eventual punishment meted out to offenders in terms of going for a reduced charge. But like Hor, I agree that there is no harm in also allowing the judge to be part of this mitigation process and in fact, it might provide greater transparency and oversight to the criminal law process in Singapore.

In tandem with the mandatory death penalty and the absence of discretion on the part of judges' sentencing, the legal process under the Misuse of Drugs Act contains presumptions which shifts the burden of proof to the accused. Hence, he is not granted the principle of innocence until proven guilty. He has to prove that he either did not know he was carrying drugs - failure to do so will, in the current system, most probably result in sentencing him to the gallows.

An eye for an eye, but Jesus shed his blood on the Cross at Calvary just so we can have a chance to repent.

Of Rony, GLBTs and Police

The second wave of criticisms against Rony Tan by the GLBT groups have somewhat abated but not completely dissipated. Thus far, we have perhaps seen the most vocal of both sides - an uneducated sermon on GLBT by Rony Tan has elicited a group of concerned individuals, numbering 85, to lodge a police report against Rony Tan. The group of concerned individuals were hoping for an apology from Rony Tan and, in the words of prominent director, Sun Koh, "send a message that gays and lesbians in Singapore will no longer stay silent when provoked by religious groups that actively promote disinformation.”

Before I write about how I, as a Christian, view homosexuality, let's just say that a police report against someone will hardly get the same person to apologise. A defensive stance is only a natural response. Wonder if anyone from the GLBT community sent a measured but strong-worded response to Rony Tan to dispel some of the ridiculous statements that he has made, just like what the NUS Buddhist Society had done earlier. Rony Tan can apologise all he wants, but it doesn't make a difference if he doesn't LEARN. There can thousands of police reports, but enforcement and punitive measures were never enlightened ways to educate the other.

http://www.nusbs.org.sg/blog/?p=774

With regards to Sun Koh's rallying cry that gay and lesbians WILL NO LONGER stay silent when provoked by religious groups, I will just like to say that we have seen during AWARE saga that they can have a voice in civil society too. Mistake me not, I am not a fan of the hijacking a secular organisation but neither am I a fan of portraying oneself as constantly being under seige. Vindictive actions, such a police reports, would only further polarise the Christian and GLBT communities with every action and reaction etched in common consciousness of each group.

For the Christian community, it has a mission to propogate and educate its flock on the right standards of moral behaviour, and this includes promoting the typical man-woman union. While doing so, we should not denigrate other religions or the sexual minority. Religious communities, as part of civil society, non-state opinion makers, would expect their message to spread to the wider public. While we argue with reason and maturity, we hope that others can share our point of view, if not, at least tolerate us, just as I would urge Christians to tolerate others.

In terms of arguing for the stay or abolishment of Section 377A, while some churches would like it to stay, I believe that it has no consequence whatsoever since it is not being used and politicians have assured that it will not be used to persecute the GLBTs. Would less people become GLBT due to the existence of such a law? I doubt it. Is it a Peanuts Linus' security blanket for the conservatives, regardless of religions? Perhaps. Maybe it's going to stay to placate both sides, an uncomfortable, bumpy, middle ground.

As Christians, the first lesson we were often taught were Adam and Eve, man and woman created by God, prone to sins and temptations. GLBTs were always the group that we Christians were mixed, confused and often ignorant about, unless one were to have close family/friends who were GLBT. It easy to label the sinner and cast the first stone, it's harder, and definitely more emotional draining, to understand, counsel and share. Perhaps, we must first understand that we might never share the good news with all GLBT, just as not every heterosexual person might be receptive to The Bible, but that shouldn't stop us from respecting their wishes just be around when they need us. And, I can't emphasis enough these days to share with respect and sensitivity. But ultimately, let us revisit the scriptures to see that there is enough of the blood and body of Jesus Christ to share with everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17