gdp's Comments

the kent ridge common : Is the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking Justified?

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:57:37 +0000

Thanks for your comments Dissapointed Reader. I get your position better now. Perhaps if you mentioned all these points (at least in brief) in your original post instead of wasting that space to attack me, we would have come to some kind of understanding sooner. Let me just say at the outset that most of the things you say in points 1 and 3 are valid. I accept them, and I accept the weakness of my points there. For the other points, especially 2 and 4, I think you're again mistaken. Let me explain: 2) Its very strange that you quote me emphasising the need to show that DP is a superior deterrent, and then you talk instead about the proportionality requirement. Where you go wrong is when you say "empirically and i assume you agree, they are proportionately the same in its severity as a punishment for drug trafficking". First of all, I do not agree with you here. And how did you come to the conclusion that empirically, DP and life imprisonment are proportionately the same in severity? What are you using as a measure of severity? Degree of pain incurred by the criminal perhaps? If so, how did you get to conclude that a criminal who is subjected to the DP experiences the same degree of pain as the criminal who suffers life imprisonment? And anyway, this talk about the comparative degree of severity of these two punishments misses out my whole discussion of the proportionality requirement. However severe each of these punishments are comparatively, what we need to show is that the crime in question (drug trafficking) merits either and/or both of these punishments. Even if both punishments are just as severe, DP might not be a proportionate punishment for DT. I'm not claiming that it definitely isn't a proportionate punishment, but I'm just raising the importance of this matter. I discussed this in my article at length so I do not know why you ignored this entirely in your comment. We cannot pick DP over life imprisonment even if the former is more cost effective if it fails the proportionality requirement (don't ask me why here, just read that section of the article again). 4) I don't expect the government to risk people's lives to gather data. But the trouble is that the kind of data we can get from the US is not going to help our case. People under the influence of drugs might commit crimes, and they might commit crimes for the sake of obtaining drugs as your stats point out. But once again, what is of crucial interest is whether executing drug traffickers is going to reduce these figures. Of course the government is not going to risk its people's lives to gather data. But that does not mean that it can then conveniently assume that the DP deters, and deters more effectively than other punishments. If it cannot collect data, then it has no case for imposing DP on its people, unless it provides some alternate justification for it. Again remember that just because "In comparison with the US, we hardly have cases of drug related crimes", it does not show that we should keep the DP. Other punishments could be just as effective. And if they are, then we need to find some way to decide between them (cost-effectiveness, since the Singaporean government is highly pragmatic, might be one of them). If it is cost-effectiveness, then everything else I said from this point in my article comes into play. By the way, since we're on the subject, here's a link to an academic article which details the inconclusive nature of the empirical evidence for capital punishment (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1288113). It discusses thoroughly the credibility of the data collected and the problems it contains. It looks like the consensus view in academia at present is that evidence for the DP is inconclusive. Let me know if you have trouble obtaining the article. 5. Ok first thing is, I never claimed that the government is using the DP because its more cost-effective. I said that it might say this. I think it might because of its general pragmatic nature. Even if DP is no more effective than some alternate punishment, they might favour the former due to its cost-effectiveness. Second thing: I still don't see why the things you suggested are "actually the main contentions of the death penalty for drug trafficking". As I mentioned in a previous comment, my argument does not hinge on them, and so I have left them out. Even if everything you said in your first 4 points is right, it still does not show that I should discuss what you consider to be the relevant issues. Sure discussing these issues might give my article a more Singaporean flavour, but again, since my focus is to identify the justification of the DP for DT, they are tangential. On whether I have "stolen excerpts from a generic death penalty vs life imprisonment debate", I can say that I have not. I have attempted to logically and rigorously examine the government's present stance and the potential reasons it could use to defend itself. Please do not assume otherwise.

the kent ridge common : Is the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking Justified?

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:31:06 +0000

Hey all, Some of you have expressed dissatisfaction with my presentation of the government's deterrent based argument. For instance, Seriously? said, "the deterrent effect is essentially a deterrence TO THE CRIME OF DRUG TRAFFICKING, not to some funny extrapolation you have made". I acknowledge his/her point here. Perhaps in order to find out whether DP really deters, we simply need to find data about whether each execution reduced the amount of drug trafficking activity, rather than what harmful health effects drug consumption generates. This might be right. I'm willing to stand down on this. But let me point out something that follows even if now we simply focus on drug trafficking activity. It is STILL going to be difficult to show that the drug trafficking activity is being reduced by each execution. Here's why: in order to show this, we need to have data from a time when the DP for Drug Trafficking (DT) was not present and measure the amount of DT at this time. Then we need to compare it to the time after when the DP is introduced and measure the amount of DT then. How are we to get this data when Singapore has been having the DP for DT for such a long time (I don't know how long they've had this law for, please inform me if you do)? The other thing is that the government still has to show that DP is a superior deterrent to other punishments like life imprisonment in deterring drug trafficking activity. This is also going to be hard, since it would need to do a comparison of the deterrent effects of having some other punishment to that of DP. Its not clear how it would be able to obtain this data. Thus what I want to say is that even if we simply measure the amount of drug trafficking activity, nothing much changes. So beyond this part of my article (where I discuss the difficulties of getting empirical data), the rest of my arguments will be unaffected even with this change. I hope you can see this.

the kent ridge common : Is the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking Justified?

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:10:32 +0000

Victor was absolutely spot on with what he said in his reply. Here's why: 1) I never said that "the government should respond" to my arguments. I did say that their deterrence-based stand on the DP is weak. But I attempted to show why their stance is weak. And if you are disputing my empirical contention (that its difficult for the government to find data to support their deterrence-argument), then thats fine. But remember also that I considered what would happen if the government did have empirical evidence to support its stand. I considered this possibility. 2) "Just because it's a "blog" does not make it an excuse to be limited in its relevancy to current issues". You might be right, but when did Victor claim anything like this? He said that its ok to write in an informal style because its a blog. He didn't say that its ok to limit relevancy because its a blog. Don't misrepresent him. 3) "If this is a "challenge" to the government, then surely he must address all possible arguments the government might take, including those that i've mentioned" You need to think more clearly here. I challenged the government to show that the DP for drug trafficking (DF) is justified. I did not challenge the government to show that their policy of assuming the guilt of the drugs possessor until he proves himself innocent is justified. Even if the government changes their stance on this and assumes innocence rather than guilt, the DP for DF can still remain. For now the government can simply say, "okay you are innocent until proven guilty, but if we find you guilty, then we will hang you". So the presence of this this policy of guilt-until-proven-innocent has no bearing on what I am focused on. About the constitutional validity issue: that the DP is constitutionally valid just shows merely that, that it is valid. What I am interested in finding out, is whether that law is justified. I am interested in the philosophical justification for the law rather than the existence of the law itself. "fact that a person possessing drugs in Singapore will only be punished with caning and imprisonment under our Misuse of Drugs Act?" To this point of yours, I will say the same thing. This is not relevant to my discussion. This is a different law, the justification for which might or might not be the same as that for the DP for DT. Even if it is the same, this law is not my focus in this article. My focus once again, is the DP law for DT. And from what the government officially stated about this law, I started off my entire article. 3) Now I hope you do not think that I am not interested in all these other laws and policies that you have brought up. I am. But for me to tackle all of them, I need maybe 5 or 10 thousand words. I wanted to rigorously examine the government's justification for DP for DT, and that is what I attempted to do here. I can certainly write about these other issues, but this article will then become much lengthier than it already is.

the kent ridge common : Is the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking Justified?

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:42:02 +0000

Ok you went overboard there with that comment. I didn't expect my argument would be misrepresented in the way it has by you. So let me give you my reply: "Just because it is difficult to get such data does not mean that it isn't justified" You're right here. But think for a second. Since the government is saying that it possesses such data or that there is such data available (which backs up its imposition of the DP), the fact that it is difficult to get such data does mean that its stance is unjustified. Since its stance is built on its claim that there is such data, its needs to show this, and if not, its justification collapses. " Instead of analysing what data we do have empirically, you choose to criticize the lack of available data on an argument you created out of nothing" I didn't create this argument out of nothing. Let me again, in brief, show you how I got it. I quoted the government's claim that DP for drug trafficking is justified because of its deterrent effects. Then I said: the reason the government cares about deterring drug trafficking is because it obviously leads to societal harm/suffering. Hence, when we measure the successful deterrent effects of executing drug traffickers, we want to be measuring how much societal harm is averted by each execution. This is how I obtained this argument. Its not out of nothing (unless you have some very strange and unused conception of "nothing"). About you're last point. You presented a straw man of what I said. Again unnecessary. Never did I at any point doubt the MDA's intention to protect the public from drugs, nor claim that I don't believe that "people who are addicted to drugs will either die or suffer terribly". I challenge you to show me even one instance where I said what you claim I did. I was interested in showing that finding a strong negative correlation between the no. of people executed and the number of people saved from the ill effects of drug consumption is going to be difficult. THIS was my point. I'm not disputing that drug consumption is bad for its recipients. What I am disputing is that likelihood of showing that executing people is going to save or protect lives from drug-related harms. Before you come at me all guns blazing, consider a little more carefully what I have said, and try not to present a straw man of what my arguments/claims are. Maybe letting your hot head cool down for a few hours before writing anything might help.

the kent ridge common : Is the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking Justified?

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:38:02 +0000

Great response Victor. Thanks. I'm male btw.

the kent ridge common : Is the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking Justified?

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:52:52 +0000

Hi jammie, Here I was saying that because of the difficulty of finding evidence (of deaths/health damage from drug use), we at least don't have statistical data to say that executing drug traffickers DOES deter. This does not mean the death penalty does not deter. It just means that with what evidence we can gather, we cannot say that it does. So in effect, we will not be able to statistically tell whether it does deter or not. Now we need not at all conclude from all of this that illegal drug trafficking is harmless. Drug trafficking invariably causes at least some damage to society. But now, without empirical data, we have no reason for imposing the death penalty (for its deterrent effects). Since we cannot tell whether executing traffickers has the desired effect, we should in such a case give them life imprisonment or some other non-terminal punishment. Thats the point I was trying to make in effect: that without this data, the govt (since it upholds deterrence as the reason) has no cause to hang its drug traffickers. It therefore should impose some non-terminal punishment upon them.

the kent ridge common : Is the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking Justified?

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:42:03 +0000

Hey Rex, you're right the paragraphs are too long. I'm trying to break them up. I had the same impression that they would a hindrance. I'll do something about them.

the kent ridge common : What Should We Make of the Eating Alone Campaign?

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:24:44 +0000

I haven't seen people stigmatizing eating alone any more than before (which itself is in dispute). Not on the facebook page at least. From what I can gather, people seem to think that the whole campaign's objective is either pointless or that the campaigners are unnecessarily butting into people's private affairs. I don't think i've seen anyone saying something like, "man, eating alone is really bad, its ok and good to stare and denigrate those who wish to eat alone". You obviously very strongly think that people are. Where are you getting this idea from? The counter-campaign may seem like an attempt to accentuate stigma further, but if you read the creator's comments on the facebook page, he agrees that people should not be stigmatized for eating alone. So I don't understand how you can "detest" the campaign without any real evidence that it is indeed accentuating such stigma.

the kent ridge common : What Should We Make of the Eating Alone Campaign?

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:10:33 +0000

Hey Anon, I don't think you understood what I was saying in my reply correctly. I should have made it clearer in my comment, so my bad. I was saying that by criticising the counter-campaign which aims to challenge and trivialize the original 'Eating Alone in School' campaign, I am adopting a similar similar approach to someone who criticizes a counter-campaign which challenges and/or trivializes a campaign against bullying, or other such unjustified interpersonal actions. I was just trying to draw the parallel. So I don't understand why you're bringing in the example of campaign for presidential candidacy, and what it serves to show. Also, I did not say that I was rallying against bullying. I simply said that my approach is similar to that of someone who rallies against it. And why do you equate criticism with bullying? Why think that whenever we criticize someone, we are bullying them? That seems very odd. If I misunderstood you, please help me out on this.

the kent ridge common : To eat alone or not to eat?

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:17:30 +0000

Hey Jay, What you said in your first para is interesting. I'm just curious, why do you think its wrong to "give others the idea that you think its ok for others to think that you are a social awkward"? And why do you think that by eating alone, you are indeed giving others this idea? I ask because it does not seem at all clear that we are. Why not suppose that we are instead giving people the idea that we simply want to have a meal alone, wallowing away in our own thoughts or reading the paper? I'm curious to know what your reasons are.

the kent ridge common : What Should We Make of the Eating Alone Campaign?

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:11:06 +0000

Hey defennder, I see what you're saying but I don't think you're right. Why should the campaign be considered a joke if it concerns the happiness of those people who feel the pressure to not eat alone even though they want/have to? By running the campaign, the campaigners hope to alleviate the stress facing these people. Would you consider their distress at eating alone be considered a joke? If so, why? Please explain that to me. As for the counter-campaign, it certainly does seem like a humorous response, but when you read some of the comments by its creator on the facebook page, he seems serious. And even if it was just and nothing more than a humorous response, I'm still perfectly justified in critiquing it, simply because it attempts to downplay the importance and seriousness of the campaign its countering. This counter-campaign is designed to weaken the other, which the creator considers a stupid idea. My approach is no different from someone who critiques a humorous counter-campaign to one that rallies against bullying, or any other unjustified social pressure or stigma.

the kent ridge common : Disagreeing with Appiah

Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:00:37 +0000

Good article Choon Hwee. I agree with your critique of Appiah's point. Actually beyond cultural relativism, any kind of relativism or subjectivism is difficult to overcome. You and I might have grown up in the same society and with the same cultural values, but we might have radically different ideas about something. I'm not a subjectivist, nor a relativist, but I can see why so many, as you have nicely demonstrated, lean towards them. Nice, enjoyable piece to read Choon Hwee!

the kent ridge common : Why Singaporeans' fear of new immigrants is not 'irrational'

Wed, 5 May 2010 15:10:30 +0000

Hey Chris, Interesting article. However, I think you should refrain from making statements like "Singaporeans by and large are not xenophobic" especially when you're justification is not very strong. Just because Singapore is a country of immigrants who came to settle here and one where there is racial and religious diversity does not necessarily mean that Singaporeans aren't xenophobic towars non-Singaporeans. They could be fine with their own Chinese, Malays and Indians but they could be uncomfortable with non-Singaporeans (even non-Singaporean Chinese or Indians). You're argument does nothing to illustrate that they are indeed not xenophobic. Try and stay away from such claims.

the kent ridge common : Singaporeans who do not understand what 'mandatory' means

Tue, 2 Feb 2010 05:12:17 +0000

Nice piece Christopher, I'm not suprised at all by this finding, however inaccurate it may be as a representation of the views of most singaporeans. The term "mandatory" holds a legal definition that might be difficult for even many university students to pick up on. And picking up on the meaning of this term is crucial because it makes the Singaporean law's stance on drug trafficking seem all the more harsher. If the word in question is removed, then we might end up having less disagreement about the issue of capital punishment for drug trafficking. Understanding what is entailed by this term is crucial for a discussion of this issue.

the kent ridge common : Bankrupts (morally) need not apply

Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:51:18 +0000

On hindsight, I think I agree with you here Gahmen Slave. Nominated members inevitably have to handle large sums of money and are accountable for the monetary decisions they make on behalf of the community of people they represent. However there is still a point here that must be brought up; just because one is not a bankrupt/is financially sound does not neccessarily mean that he/she will not mishandle public money. And following from the converse situation, just because one is a bankrupt or is unable to handle his/her personal finances does not neccesarily mean that he/she will be unable to handle public money competently. Of course, it is more likely that he will falter here if he is bankrupt, but it is not obviously an absolute rule. I think that some other standard/barometer ought to be used to determine how capable one is at handling public money. Some people might falter at handling their own personal finances for whatever reasons but might be highly adept at handling public money when they are given more resources and help which they may lack in their personal situation.

the kent ridge common : Bankrupts (morally) need not apply

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:13:36 +0000

Great article Kelvin! I agree with you thoroughly in your assessment here. I dont see what being unable to pay one's creditor has to do with serving the public and one's country. Bankruptcy has to do with being unable to fulfill one's monetary obligations. But even a monetarily unreliable individual can have much to offer to society other than in monetary terms. The link is tenuous at best and non-existant at worst. Someone should make the association much more clear before insisting that bankrupts should not be allowed to run for elections. The principle here, is ultimately a political and social one, and should be dealt as such. Of course it is all the more despicable when defamation suits are used by the PAP to kill off opposition members' chance to run for elections. The whole issue seems to be taken axiomatically to me, which it absolutely is not.

the kent ridge common : Singaporization of American education and Americanization of Singapore education?

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:01:42 +0000

I agree with Brian that it seems rather convenient and ultimately reductive to say that American education is going to undergo an Americanisation. Of course, nation wide changes can be encouraged, but knowing the fragmented structure of America's political and adminstrative structure, it seems a little early to suggest that any such process is going to take place. Of course if it did happen, then the point is fairly valid. It would be interesting to see though how the American system incorporates Singaporean education values into its own egalitarian one. There is a great degree of randomness in the American system that is perhaps the direct result of its principle of egalitarianism and equal opportunity. How our Singaporean method is subsumed into it will be interesting to observe.