Following a recent spat of child rapes in Malaysia there are calls for the death penalty for rapists of children. One most horrendous case was of a school bus driver raping a 10-year-old girl.
The Malaysian Home Minister said that the death penalty may not deter future rapists.
Now, which law or which punishment can stop people from committing offences or crimes? The things to consider are if it can reduce the number of such crimes and whether the punishment fits the crime.
The death penalty also cannot stop people trafficking drugs or committing murders. But it makes would-be offenders think thrice and the punishment fits.
I believe most people who oppose the death penalty are kind folks whose reasons are based on religious or moral grounds. They do not wish to see another life taken no matter what despicable things the criminal did even if it happened to their own families. But I think all this is misplaced compassion.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Litter bugs and Caning
Punishments for foreigner litter bugs
For low-skilled foreigner litter bugs, I think a fine is a better deterrent than a CWO. These workers are already doing the menial jobs which have low wages. A CWO means they sacrifice some of their free time but a fine would make them feel the pinch more.
On the other hand, for professional foreign workers with high pay, a CWO would have a greater deterrent effect. (In case you do not know, CWO stands for corrective work order - for example sending litter bugs to clean up a certain place.)
Caning of criminals
Some people don't like the caning of criminals. They say it is inhuman, archaic, etc. But these reasons are not good enough for us to do away with caning. I believe caning is a deterrent. Putting aside the deterrent effect, people who committed certain sex acts or violent robberies that caused grievous harm to others should be caned.
For low-skilled foreigner litter bugs, I think a fine is a better deterrent than a CWO. These workers are already doing the menial jobs which have low wages. A CWO means they sacrifice some of their free time but a fine would make them feel the pinch more.
On the other hand, for professional foreign workers with high pay, a CWO would have a greater deterrent effect. (In case you do not know, CWO stands for corrective work order - for example sending litter bugs to clean up a certain place.)
Caning of criminals
Some people don't like the caning of criminals. They say it is inhuman, archaic, etc. But these reasons are not good enough for us to do away with caning. I believe caning is a deterrent. Putting aside the deterrent effect, people who committed certain sex acts or violent robberies that caused grievous harm to others should be caned.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Election changes
I think the opposition parties are paranoid about election changes. Every time the Government makes changes regarding election matter, they think only of the negative - the PAP is scheming against them and any change will always be to their disadvantage.
Let us look at recent changes:
The cooling-off day is neutral. It is not to any party’s disadvantage if it has confidence in itself and has been doing the right thing during the campaign period.
The increase in the seats for NCMP is to the oppositions’ advantage.
When we vote in a parliamentary election, we are choosing the Government. So we pick the party we have faith in; a party that we think can take good care of the Country. In the last election, probably this was what 60 plus percent of the voters who voted for the PAP thought. They wanted the PAP to run the Country.
Does it mean that the 30 plus % of the voters want the oppositions to govern the Country? I would say not all of them. These voters can be divided into two groups, A and B. Group A probably want the oppositions to be the Government whereas Group B only want some opposition MPs or they are sympathetic to oppositions and so want to give them a chance.
If you look at it this way, the percentage of voters who actually support the PAP in running the Country could be about 80%.
Now, if the NCMPs do well in parliament, more opposition candidates will be voted directly into parliament in future elections. There will be less and less NCMPs. The oppositions will also be able to attract better people and things will improve for them.
If the NCMPs do not perform well, things will remain much the same. People in Group B will still want some opposition MPs or are still willing to give them a chance.
Let us look at recent changes:
The cooling-off day is neutral. It is not to any party’s disadvantage if it has confidence in itself and has been doing the right thing during the campaign period.
The increase in the seats for NCMP is to the oppositions’ advantage.
When we vote in a parliamentary election, we are choosing the Government. So we pick the party we have faith in; a party that we think can take good care of the Country. In the last election, probably this was what 60 plus percent of the voters who voted for the PAP thought. They wanted the PAP to run the Country.
Does it mean that the 30 plus % of the voters want the oppositions to govern the Country? I would say not all of them. These voters can be divided into two groups, A and B. Group A probably want the oppositions to be the Government whereas Group B only want some opposition MPs or they are sympathetic to oppositions and so want to give them a chance.
If you look at it this way, the percentage of voters who actually support the PAP in running the Country could be about 80%.
Now, if the NCMPs do well in parliament, more opposition candidates will be voted directly into parliament in future elections. There will be less and less NCMPs. The oppositions will also be able to attract better people and things will improve for them.
If the NCMPs do not perform well, things will remain much the same. People in Group B will still want some opposition MPs or are still willing to give them a chance.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
let's keep it this way
Some days ago I was behind a rubbish truck. I followed it for about 30 metres before there was space for overtaking. There were two foreign workers doing the hard work.
This is one of the foreign workers doing upgrading work in my neighbourhood.
As you know, there are also many other jobs which Singaporeans do not want to do.
No, I'm not going to say that Singaporeans are lazy, choosy and cannot endure hardship. Looking at it from another angle, isn't it fortunate that we don't need to do the tough jobs like the two I mentioned above. Shouldn't we try to keep it this way so that our children, grand-children, ... need not do these jobs too.
That means we need growth, a strong economy and a stable and well-managed Country that can attract talents and investment.
This is one of the foreign workers doing upgrading work in my neighbourhood.
As you know, there are also many other jobs which Singaporeans do not want to do.
No, I'm not going to say that Singaporeans are lazy, choosy and cannot endure hardship. Looking at it from another angle, isn't it fortunate that we don't need to do the tough jobs like the two I mentioned above. Shouldn't we try to keep it this way so that our children, grand-children, ... need not do these jobs too.
That means we need growth, a strong economy and a stable and well-managed Country that can attract talents and investment.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Voting age and Walkover
Voting age
On and off some people will bring up the issue of voting age - why not lower it to 18, they say. And their favourite reason is that because 18 is the age for NS call-up. If these youngsters are deemed mature or responsible enough to defend the Country, they should be allowed to vote.
Why should the voting age be linked to the call-up age? I feel that they would be more mature after NS, not when they start.
I believe 18 was chosen for NS mainly because of convenience. It is possible to lower the NS age to 16 or even 15. At that age the youths can also be trained to defend the Country. Suppose we had chosen 16 as the call-up age, are we going to suggest lowering the voting age to 16?
Or if we raise the NS age to 20, are we going to suggest the voting age be 20?
I think if we don’t have very good reasons, let's stick to 21.
Walkover
Some people think that if there is no opposition contesting in a constituency, the residents there should be allowed to vote to show whether they support the ruling party.
This is a waste of resources and the result doesn’t reflect the true view of the people.
The oppositions have enough members but they do not want to contest because they know they could not win.
Putting aside the anti-PAP and pro-PAP voters, the majority will vote for the better candidates in an election. If there are only PAP candidates, some of this majority will vote against the PAP as they might feel this is a way to pressurize the Government into putting off unpopular policies like raising fees.
And I believe many will not go to vote as they think it is meaningless.
On and off some people will bring up the issue of voting age - why not lower it to 18, they say. And their favourite reason is that because 18 is the age for NS call-up. If these youngsters are deemed mature or responsible enough to defend the Country, they should be allowed to vote.
Why should the voting age be linked to the call-up age? I feel that they would be more mature after NS, not when they start.
I believe 18 was chosen for NS mainly because of convenience. It is possible to lower the NS age to 16 or even 15. At that age the youths can also be trained to defend the Country. Suppose we had chosen 16 as the call-up age, are we going to suggest lowering the voting age to 16?
Or if we raise the NS age to 20, are we going to suggest the voting age be 20?
I think if we don’t have very good reasons, let's stick to 21.
Walkover
Some people think that if there is no opposition contesting in a constituency, the residents there should be allowed to vote to show whether they support the ruling party.
This is a waste of resources and the result doesn’t reflect the true view of the people.
The oppositions have enough members but they do not want to contest because they know they could not win.
Putting aside the anti-PAP and pro-PAP voters, the majority will vote for the better candidates in an election. If there are only PAP candidates, some of this majority will vote against the PAP as they might feel this is a way to pressurize the Government into putting off unpopular policies like raising fees.
And I believe many will not go to vote as they think it is meaningless.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Race and Football
Do away with race identity?
I do not think doing away with race identification would make us a better society or a more harmonious one. The colour of your skin is still the same and you still have the physical features associated with your race.
People will take advantage of the system. For example, a company may decide to hire only people of one race. And soon you will find that residents in some blocks of HDB flats belong to only one race.
World Cup
When SingTel got the rights for the EPL matches, football fans grumbled and complained because they thought they had to pay more. They said competition was bad and they wanted back monopoly.
Now that no one had yet got the rights to the World Cup matches, football fans grumbled again. They blamed SingTel and they criticized everyone including MDA and Singapore Pools for not helping them to pay for their hobby. But they never criticize FIFA, the main culprit.
Why not raise fund from football fans to help pay part of the cost demanded by FIFA. And, in four years time, they will have to raise more fund because FIFA would demand more.
Someone said fooball is a national passion. Football does not qualify to be a national passion. What percentage of Singaporeans are football fanatics? 50%? One million? If there are so many passionate football fans, I think SingTel would pay the amount as it could collect back the money from them.
I do not think doing away with race identification would make us a better society or a more harmonious one. The colour of your skin is still the same and you still have the physical features associated with your race.
People will take advantage of the system. For example, a company may decide to hire only people of one race. And soon you will find that residents in some blocks of HDB flats belong to only one race.
World Cup
When SingTel got the rights for the EPL matches, football fans grumbled and complained because they thought they had to pay more. They said competition was bad and they wanted back monopoly.
Now that no one had yet got the rights to the World Cup matches, football fans grumbled again. They blamed SingTel and they criticized everyone including MDA and Singapore Pools for not helping them to pay for their hobby. But they never criticize FIFA, the main culprit.
Why not raise fund from football fans to help pay part of the cost demanded by FIFA. And, in four years time, they will have to raise more fund because FIFA would demand more.
Someone said fooball is a national passion. Football does not qualify to be a national passion. What percentage of Singaporeans are football fanatics? 50%? One million? If there are so many passionate football fans, I think SingTel would pay the amount as it could collect back the money from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)