Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore's state controlled newspaper Straits Time's online edition of October 22, 2009 has this story, "Loan shark runner jailed". It is the sad story of another instance of this dictatorship's weird punishing laws where a 16 year old girl is being sent to prison for 4 years, because she spray painted a door of a government apartment and attempted to cause a fire to it even though no fire actually occurred.
She did this to a debtor who had owed some money to a loan shark; for a small amount of cash. According to this state controlled newspaper, just as all the newspapers in the island are, loan sharks are becoming a major police problem due to their rise in number occasioned by the economic depression and joblessness in the island. The government's attorney, according to his argument in court, has felt it necessary to send a "unequivocally strong deterrent signal to such youths that they will not be treated lightly because of their age or their clean records"! And the judge agreeing, then decides to send this 16 year old girl, who had no previous criminal record whatsoever, to prison for 4 years.
Let me say this very clearly. Any legal system that sends a 16 year old girl to prison for 4 years simply for vandalizing an apartment door with paint, no matter how serious a police problem there is, is not first world, as claimed by Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's life term dictator. It is not even third world. It is barbaric, worse than the Middle Ages!
And not just that. This is very bad law and very bad jurisprudence. And that is why, despite whatever nonsense Singapore's Minister for Law, Lee Kuan Yew's handpicked K Shanmugam might say, this is hardly London, Paris or Rome. It is not even Kinshasa, the Congo! It is worse than that.
Let me tell you what any first year law student would say. A more severe punishment can be used in cases when a particular crime is rampant, so as to send a deterrent message. On the other hand you also consider the offense itself. Since this is a minor offense, any way you look at it (remember no one was hurt), sending a person to a long prison sentence is simply wrong.
Second, you try to avoid prison sentences, even short ones to juveniles, like this 16year old girl. We never know, this girl might turn out to be a jewel, another Madeline Albright or Golda Meir. You don't want to spoil it by destroying her chances with a long prison sentence, as surely this 4 year prison sentence would do. And I am sure you know what it would do to her. She would come out after 4 years a broken woman, broken in both mind and spirit, a woman who would in all probability be of no further use to society.
Recall, they send me to prison for 3 months to a Singapore jail last year for criticizing the corrupted judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean. But that is not going to affect me, either mentally or otherwise. I am old enough to see through this stupidity. But what about this 16 year old girl. She may have made this mistake at the spur of an unthinking moment. What right does this dictatorship have to destroy her mind and her spirit and any possibly of redemption permanently with this 4 year prison sentence.
In the law of sentencing, you not only think of deterrence. You also look at the crime itself, how serious it is. And what consequences this would have on the defendant. In Singapore on the other hand, all Lee Kuan Yew's corrupt judges know is to simply increase sentences whenever a particular crime is on the rise. This sort of sentencing does not take into account the social psychological and societal consequences. This is simply a wrong system of justice and inimical to Singapore's welfare and development. Instead of nurturing and encouraging the weaker sections of the community, you are simply destroying their spirit entirely.
The punishment should fit the crime, no matter how compelling the argument for severity. In this case it does not. It once again shows proves the observations made by the International Bar Association in their 72 page report on Singapore, that it has a flawed legal system. And no matter how much this man K Shanmugam tries to say that it has the rule of law, we can see how silly his argument is.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Gopalan, you revealed a soft side of you in this blog post.
Thank you for speaking up! You'll prevail, i'm sure.
It is NOT a case of "simply for vandalizing an apartment door with paint". That's taking things out of context.
The context here is illegal money-lenders harassing innocent families with young children - families who own no money but whose address was wrongly used by the real debtors. Such harassment include repeatedly pounding on the door in the middle of the night every night for months, spray painting not just the victim's front door, but also the doors of the victim's numerous neighbours both on the upper and lower floors as well as on the same floor again and again several times a week for months, chaining and locking up the front door thus creating a very dangerous fire hazard several times a week for months, spray-paint or running sharp objects against the cars of the victims as well as his neighbours' cars, pushing pregnant woman down the stairs causing miscarriage in one reported case last year.
Entire neighbourhood is terrorized. Children are intimidated and living in constant fear. This is gangsterism! In the United States, these is no such thing - this girl will be shot dead by homeowners for tresspass on the front pouch and that's within the legal rights of the homeowners to do that. Thus, such gangsterism occur in Singapore only, not in usa.
For years, the government has not done anything. Election is now coming. It is now finally doing something, which citizens had wanted it to do for a long long time.
Had this girl been a man in his 30s, he would have been charged with all the crimes I said above, since he indeed comitted all these crimes, and received 10 years jail and 6 strokes of the cane. But because this bastard bitch girl (who has terrorize the entire neighbourhood with her gang) is a juvenile, they chose to charge her on only spray-painting, even though she was involved in much more than that
You are out of touch with this country - citizens have been living in fear of these illegal money-lenders and their runners for a long long time - teenage mother-f**kers (that's not too much to call these people that - they caused miscarriage of an ininocent woman in at least one case as mentioned above) who think that they have immunity just because they are teenagers. We are now applauding the govt for finally doing something!
If PAP still refuse to take action against this f**king gangsters who terrorize entire neighbourhood, it can forget about winning the votes of the people. This is even more basic than bread-and-butter issue: this is about personal safety - a safe place to raise a family without fear of continuous harrassment in the middle of the night for months just because the previous owner of the apartment own some money to these money-lending bastards!
This particular commentor has said a lot, how much of it is true, we do not know. In any case, if any of that was done, she should have been arrested long ago and charged for it. Or she should be charged for each of those accusations now. Not to wait months or years and then say, she has done this and that and the other in the past. And if so, why is she not being charged for them?
This writer is looking for vengence. The law is not vengence. The writer conveniently says she did all this, but she is charged only for the vandalism and receives 4 years imprisonment!
The law does not work the way this man says it should. You are punished for the particualr charge, not for something you are not charged with.
At the end, this 16 year old girl with no prior conviction is convicted for vandalim and sent to jail for 4 years. That simply is wrong. Completely wrong.
I leave others to argue this.
This writer is going a little overboard with his rant. If life in the HDB heartlands were truly on the unbearable scale he paints, the local police - there is a police post and CCTV practically everywhere you look as befits a police state - would soon put a stop to it.
There is indeed some low-level petty harassment by loan-sharks but it is very much a hit-and-run affair because loan-sharking is illegal and carries with it the usual Singaporean Draconian punishments. Quite often the borrower unable to repay his loan plays the victim and reports the loan-shark to the authorities in order to get himself off the hook.
Oddly enough, the writer mentions damage to the victim's car. Huh? Due to the staggering taxes laid upon vehicle ownership in that benighted island, cars in Singapore are far and away the costliest to buy and run (at least 200% more) in the whole wide world. There are simply NO cheap and cheerful ancient bangers for anyone to run on a shoestring budget like there are in other parts of the world. Any person who can afford such an expensive luxury isn't likely to be needing the services of a small-time loan-shark anytime soon.
Loan-sharks are aptly-named vile creatures who prey on society's weak and vulnerable and they deserve every punishment they get but we shouldn't forget that it does require two hands to clap. That 4-year sentence imposed on a 16-year old juvenile is totally out of line in this day and age. It is, however, not unexpected in a nation that practices rule by, not of, law. As the notorious Lee Kuan Yew crony and ex-Chief Justice Yong 'Hang 'em, flog 'em' Pung How said proudly at a legal conference many years ago, "I no longer dispense justice, I dispense retribution".
Apologies for another looong comment. Personally, I think ...
A 16yo should be in a Children's court since no murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, arson causing death, and culpable driving causing death occurred.
She cannot be identified to the public.
In sentencing juveniles, the primary goal is the rehabilitation of young offenders.
In such a case, it may be in the best interests of the child to defer sentencing to allow her to take steps to address the issues that led to her offending behaviour. She should participate in a group conference.
>GROUP CONFERENCE<
The primary aim of a group conference is to help the young person avoid further or more serious offending. The group conferencing process attempts to strengthen the young person’s family and community supports and identifies ways of restoring the harm associated with the offending behaviour.
A group conference is attended by:
- a convenor
- the young person
- their family
- a police officer
- the young person’s legal rep.
- the victim of the crime or their rep may also attend (along with any significant others.)
At the conference the participants discuss the circumstances surrounding the offending behaviour & will agree on what needs to be done about the harm caused by the offence. An outcome plan will be prepared at the end of the conference setting out the agreements that were made. The convenor then writes a report which explains what happened in the conference, and this is presented to the Children’s Court judge/magistrate.
Recommendations from the conference could include:
- assistance and support for the young person in such areas as education, skill development, employment and counselling, and
- ways of dealing with the offence. This could mean that the young person apologises, pays for all or part of the damage, or makes a donation.
When deciding on an appropriate sentence, the judge/magistrate will take into account the contents of the group conference outcome plan.
>SENTENCING<
If the Children's Court finds a young person guilty of an offence, the Court may:
without conviction,
- dismiss the charge
- dismiss the charge & order the young person to give an undertaking
- order the young person to give an accountable undertaking
- place the child on a good behaviour bond
with or without conviction,
- impose a fine
- place the child on probation
- release the child on a youth supervision order
convict the child
- and make a youth attendance order
- and order that the child be detained in a youth residential centre, or
- and order that the child be detained in a youth training centre
On finding a young person guilty of an offence, the Court must consider what penalty to impose as an appropriate sentence for committing the offence. In making this decision the Court may consider:
- whether the child has been found guilty of any offence in the past
- any report, submission or evidence given on behalf of the child
- any victim impact statement
and MUST consider:
- the child’s family relationship
- the contents of any other report requested by the Court
- the suitability of the sentence to the child
- the need to protect the community
This process, to me, is what makes an advanced country. I am willing to pay more taxes to ensure such a system is in place.
i agree. the punishment is too harsh. a child that young should be rehabilitated and not condemned.
Update on this from Straits Times today:
Apparently NO lawyer was representing the girl in the trial and some lawyers have now stepped forward to defend her.
My 2 cents: How on earth can a teenager be tried without a lawyer?
Here the full article:
Teen loan-shark runner appeals
By Selina Lum
A LAWYER has stepped in to help a 16-year-old girl appeal against a four-year sentence for loan- shark-related crimes. Mr Shriniwas Rai has taken on the case of Nur Azilah Ithnin for free.
In August, the teenager had pleaded guilty before a Community Court to seven of 13 charges of harassing debtors, mischief by fire and attempted mischief.
Two unlicensed moneylenders paid her between $40 and $200 to harass alleged debtors by setting fire to their belongings in June.
The court had postponed sentencing then, pending probation and reformative training reports. The girl was then unrepresented.
On Oct 22, it handed down the four-year term, after noting the number of charges against Nur Azilah. The prosecution had pressed for a deterrent sentence.
Senior lawyers Mohamed Noor Marican and Subhas Anandan are supporting Mr Rai, as they believe the sentence was 'manifestly excessive'.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_450355.html
On the other hand you also consider the offense itself. Since this is a minor offense, any way you look at it (remember no one was hurt), sending a person to a long prison sentence is simply wrong.
No one was hurt because she had not been exposed to a chance to hurt anyone or she intentionaly decide not to cause any direct harm to anyone?
Splashing paint on someone's door out of fun is a minor offense. Splashing paint at someone's doors with a warning/threatening intention is not a minor offence. It seems minor in this case because no one happened to be hurt.
Second, you try to avoid prison sentences, even short ones to juveniles, like this 16year old girl. We never know, this girl might turn out to be a jewel, another Madeline Albright or Golda Meir. You don't want to spoil it by destroying her chances with a long prison sentence, as surely this 4 year prison sentence would do. And I am sure you know what it would do to her. She would come out after 4 years a broken woman, broken in both mind and spirit, a woman who would in all probability be of no further use to society.
That is simply why juveniles are being made used of to commit crimes.
What you are stating is the potential of her turning over a new leaf. There is equal potential of her turning into an influential figure in the loanshark ring.
But what about this 16 year old girl. She may have made this mistake at the spur of an unthinking moment. What right does this dictatorship have to destroy her mind and her spirit and any possibly of redemption permanently with this 4 year prison sentence.
All mistakes are made at the spur of the moment.
There are many ex-convicts who learned their lessons, turned over a new leaf with remarkable personal achievements.
Whether the 4 years prison life is going to make her better or worst is dependable on her.
To all detractors and illogical people:
At 16 years of age, we can only fault her for being too naive and innocently trusting.
Why jail her for 4 years? Shouldn't educating all teenagers on the consequences they face if they resort to crime be the deterrent instead? The harsh punishment cannot be logically argued to be the deterrent!
Teenagers are young and they do not have a steady head on their shoulders; they have not seen the world. They are hot blooded, irrational and have a need to figure out their identity. They want to fit in. They are curious about everything, and they are mischievous. What's the point of sending them to jail? Shouldn't education, instead, be used to help them understand issues and help them make the right choices?
Yes, there are issues and social problems behind loan sharking. So educate them about it!
Post a Comment