Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Thursday, 16 October 2008

Singapore sux

30/07/2008 9:48:00 AM.  | Tim Brunero
You wouldn’t mind so much if the rulers of Singapore were consistent.

If they were hard on drugs but also hard on, say, people who beat their servants to death.

Because I just don’t see how 18 years is a fair jail sentence for having a few hits of ice in your pocket and also for torturing and then kicking your servant to death.

Call me crazy, but I would have thought one was slightly worse than the other.  In fact, given you are executed if you traffic drugs – I would have thought killing someone with your own hands was kind of worthy of the death penalty.

But not so for those wacky Singaporeans.  Or the people at the top at least.

In 2002, a Singaporean man, Ng Hua Chye, kicked his Indonesian maid, Muawanatul, to death and he got 18 years and 12 strokes of the rattan.  To be more exact, what he’d actually done was poured hot water on the 22-year-old, jabbed her back with the handle of a hammer and burnt her lips with cigarettes.  Before kicking her to death.  The 47-year-old also denied the foreign servant food – so she went from 50 kgs to 36 kgs.

ABC journalist Peter Lloyd is facing the same sentence as this sicko.  For puffing on a pipe.

And in 2006, a Singaporean woman, Ngu Mei Mei, ordered her maid Yanti out a window to hang out washing – she fell to her death.  The punishment?  Two weeks jail.

In fact over 150 maids, most of whom are desperately poor migrants from neighbouring countries, have died since 1999.  

And what about these lashings with the rattan?  It’s like something out of the 18th century – next they’ll be putting people in the stocks.  And bear in mind this is not some South East Asian third-world backwater – its residents are amongst the richest in the world.  Put it this way - their average income is $49,700, America’s is $45,800 and Australia is way back on $36,300.

But for a rich nation the place is peculiarly barbarous.  I say that because it looks so clean and ordered – it’s like a cross between a hospital and a shopping centre.

But when you’re there you see strange stuff.  If you flick on the TV over breakfast you’re likely to see a heated debate on whether rapists should be castrated or simply jailed and whipped.  

Kind of a heavy debate to be having over your Weet-Bix.  But not for the Singaporeans – when I was there recently they were obviously loving it because a phone poll revealed 69 per cent favoured castration while 20 per cent were bleeding hearts who favoured jailing and whipping.

Anyway back to the maids.  

An interesting fact is that foreign maids are specifically exempted from the Employment Act that provides minimum days off and maximum weekly hours.  

In fact, a few years ago, a huge debate exploded over whether maids should be entitled to one day off a month.  Some maids are not even paid.  

And get this - in Singapore only certain people from the Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are permitted to take jobs as maids.  

So if the Singaporean government, which by the way is a virtual dictatorship, wants to crack down on stuff - why not start on employment law?

That might be a good idea - instead of scraping the barrel to find new, interesting and ridiculous laws to charge Peter Lloyd with.  A guy who wasn’t hurting anyone.

In fact The Straits Times reported today every three days a worker in Singapore loses a hand or a finger – usually in meat slicing machines, where safety guards have fallen off or have been removed.

Maybe that’s somewhere the trigger-happy nutters in charge of Singapore (who, by the way, execute more people per capita than any other in the world)  could point their draconian instincts.  

At least then they’d be consistent.

COMMENTS

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

right on tim - you've got it in one...

Posted by: Ian Ganderton, Nowra

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

If you were really interested in justice and fairness, in comparing Singapore to, say, the USA, you'd question fundamental tenets of law such as the suspension of habeus corpus, the use of torture to extract "confessions," and the "fairness" of locking up people for seven years (and counting) without a charge being laid.

Posted by: Bemused Reader, Canberra

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Tim I take your point it really does sound like Singapore have it wrong – however if you're going to go to another country and break the law then you should be prepared to take the penalty.

Posted by: Tony Blaa Blaa, London

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Let us get this straight: A country which is tough on drugs has a high average income compared to a country which has relatively lax drug laws (read: Australia).

Posted by: Vo Ice, Sydney

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

let's get it straight - singapore has no culture, they have no soul. it's is hospital of a nation. it is barbaric. we should all boycott this basket case of a sovereign state. everyone knows it.

Posted by: greg oldfield, five dock

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

I find your comparison ridiculous. Singapore has its own set of laws and please note that it is clearly printed on travel cards when one enters Singapore that it punished drug traffickers with death. For punishment related to maids, it depends on whether there is a motive to kill, or shear carelessness resulting in a fall. Anyway, the laws in Singapore are for Singapore to decide. You wish to critiscise, please clean up your own back yard first.

Posted by: Lenox Sim, Singapore

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Lenox in Australia we have freedom of speech. It means I can comment on whatever I damn well please. So I'll say it again - the laws and priorities of Singapore are topsy turvy. How can killing someone be less serious than involvement with drugs? You need to think about that - and the fact your country is rich because it mercilessly exploits the cheap labour from surrounding countries that flood in every day. Take a look at yourself mate. Tim out.

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Tim to have a crack at another countries laws especailally Singapore's drug laws then comparing a crime committed by a Singaporean national in Singapore ,to a YET to be convicted journo with a small amount of ice is a big call for mine. You'd better be careful the next time you have a stopover in Singapore Sux Timbo youv'e made some new enemies.

Posted by: slick 6, WA

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

What's the alternative slick? Cower behind my keyboard in the face of bullies running a dictatorship? That might others style, but it ain't mine.

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

My My Tim who lit a fire under your ass today Peter Lloyd ? If you were serious or more thoughtful ,Singapore Sux as a hook C'mon Tim very trashy . And its not about cowering behind your keyboard saying nothing ,how could you possibly hope to make a difference by insulting Singapores legal system and condoning drug trafficking?

Posted by: slick 6, WA

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

I hear ya slick - I suppose I'm just jumping headlong into the debate - i suppose it's one of the perks of living in a democracy. To be honest I'm sort of annoyed at the lack of consistency in their position. And it needs to be pointed out doesn't it? I mean I'm just sick of this 'he knew the penalties' argument. Just because everyone knows the Singaporeans are barbarians doesn't make it right.

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Please tell me Tim where Australians get an implicit rite to freedom of speech. the Yanks have an implicit rite to freedom of speech in their constitution, but as far as I know w have no such absolute rite. The closest we get to it is freedom of religion(section116) but I could be wrong. Enlighten Tim.

Posted by: Russell Jones, Toowomba

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. The law takes into account if there is an intention to kill. As for drugs, there again is a difference between a trafficker or a drug addict. One person who abused his maid to death does not imply that the whole country are maid abusers. I treat my maid like any ordinary person. You are obviously free to comment, but you lack the credibilty of knowing the cases well enough to give constructive criticism.

Posted by: Lenox Sim, Singapore

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

So you're saying it's OK to torture, starve and then 'accidently' kill someone? Come on, seriously. That guy got 18 years - and now this Aussie journo who didn't hurt a soul and had a few hits of a drug in his pocket because he was going through some personal trauma is gunna get the same sentence. Tell me Lenox how that's fair. Will the court take that into account?

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Why do you even need a maid? We get along pretty well without them here in Australia - but then I suppose we don't have impoverished neighbours to exploit.

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Tim you may have a point when comparing the punishments for different crimes in Singapore and your example of the case of Ng Hua Chye is valid. However by Australian standards 18 years and 10 strokes would be considered too harsh by our judiciary and the man would have probably got a much lighter sentence than that. Sure if Peter Lloyd receives the maximum sentence it will be out of balance. In the final analysis though it is preferable to have a strict legal system as the have in Singapore than what we have here-there is not enough protection for the innocent and vulnerable.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

You're not going to like this Des but in my view harsh legal systems don't solve anything. You have to have penalties sure but you also have to fix the root causes of crime. And is our system fair - how can Alan Bond who stole $1 billion get 2 years on a prison farm when recidivist house burglers get years and years and probably steal a grand total of a few hundred thousand over their whole careers?

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Tim you are contradicting yourself my friend-you seem to be saying that we don't want a harsh system (your words I was advocating a strict and consistent system) and then you say that the system was not harsh enough for Alan Bond. As far as your comments about finding the root cause of crime I am sure that Societies have been trying to do that from time immemorial but in the mean time we must have a legal system that protects the innocent-that is the first priority.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Des what i was trying to say to you is we have fundamental flaws with our legal system. In that if you are wealthy you have a better chance. Does that bother you? Do you think bondie got off lightly? It just worries me that people are mad keen to lock up some people but not others. Even though the damage they do is much greater.

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Yes Tim you seem to be echoing the simplistic Socialist lines about economic equality. The facts of the matter are that if the Judiciary were to apply the Law in a strict fashion then no one that deserved to be convicted and punished accordingly would get away. And don't forget that in our Country, if you pass the means test, you are entitled to legal aid.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

We will hang the murderer upon conviction that he plotted to kill, however, if the person is mentally ill and torture, he could be sentenced to life sentence. That is the difference. That journo is unlikely to be hanged for he did not bring enough to warrant mandatory capital punishment. His biggest mistake is selling it to another friend. Since he has some mental problems, the court is likely to be lenient to him. As for the maid, I employ the maid to care for my 85 year old mum.

Posted by: lenox sim, singapore

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Well fair enough. I just have real issue with this demonisation of drugs - and of excessive penalties for crimes. It's been shown not to work - say in England 200 years ago when the penalty for everything was death or stiff stiff custodial sentences. It simply does nothing to address the root cause of crime. It makes the rulers seem tough - but it doesn't solve anything. Sorry but beating people and killing people as Singapore does is nothing short of barbaric.

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Tim i'd be interested to read your thoughts on addressing the root causes of crime .

Posted by: slick 6, WA

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Top of the list are socio-economic factors. In other words environmental factors. There will be intrinsically bad people of course but with our jails mostly stuffed with the mentally ill and drug users it would seem to me these are policy areas we need to try a different approach on...

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

I agree that murder or manslaughter and drug possession and/or trafficking are not equal crimes. I hope Lloyd's sentence is minimal because there are other factors to consider. Having said that, Tim, it does seem as though the facts about crystalline methamphetamine have escaped this piece. Ice is a really dangerous drug, it increases agitation, violence and other dangerous behaviour more than most drugs (see MJA research: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_10_191107/bun10725_fm.html).

Posted by: Amy BG, Brisbane

Thursday, 31 July 2008

I hear you Amy - but no matter what he was carrying he would be getting this treatment...

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Yeah, it seems fundamentally wrong that he could get the same severity in his sentence as someone convicted or murder (or manslaughter), especially considering the circumstances of Peter Lloyd's case.

Posted by: Amy BG, Bradney-George

 

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Im an Australian expat who doesn't have a maid as I believe in cleaning up my own mess. But I am very glad the Singaporean governement has the stance it does with drug takers, sellers and distributors because never before have I lived in a country were I feel completely safe not only for myself but my children. Ask any expat with children what they like about Singapre and they will tell you it's safe. They have laws follow them and you are gauranteed a very happy time here.

Posted by: Simone Slowey, Singapore

 

Thursday, 31 July 2008

The life and vibrancy were sucked out of Singapore between about 1966 and 1995. What used to be a hugely enjoyable place to visit is like being in Sydney City Centre on a Sunday lunctime. Even their national Airline has turned from one of the best in the world to a shocker! We used to travel via Singapore but now the "R&R stop" is at the Dorset Regency nearl Imbi Plaza in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia, still a place to enjoy. If you ever get stuck in Singapore, just get on a bus to Johore Baru.

Posted by: graham whittaker, Townsville

 

Thursday, 31 July 2008

while I agree with your concerns tim, but having been to singapore many times, it can hardly be argued that an educated australian would not know the danger he was putting himself in. it is well known what the penaltys are in singapore. having said that, we are hardly one to criticise the illogical sentences handed down in other countries when in our own country killers can get as little as 6 yrs. 9 walk free for raping a 10 yr old, lets see what the parents of the starved baby twins get.

Posted by: susan lowe, gippsland

 

Friday, 01 August 2008

Tim, do all countries treat all crimes with the same severity? Of course not, a country is shaped by many factors and some treat certain offenses more heavily. . Just because Australia (I'm assuming you speak for Australia) views drugs as a minor offense does not mean that it is the one golden truth. Singapore has a zero tolerance attutide towards drugs. Just because they view it as seriously as Murder does not make them wrong.

Posted by: Alvin L., MN

 

Friday, 01 August 2008

he is facing 18yrs and a whack or 2 because he DEFIED their law. rather simple Tim. Do the crime pay the time. Same here same elsewhere. only the time differs and the level of hospitality changes. As for your dribble about the Singaporian Laws, thats easy too. If YOU dont like the Laws dont go there.Personlly, I'm sick to death about hearing of these fools who think they can do what they want, then cry out to us when caught. He should have known better, considering this area is his specialty.

Posted by: Nick Again, maryborough

 

Friday, 01 August 2008

Oh the hypocricy! Lee Kuan Yew supported Burma's regime to keep Aung San Suu Kyi locked up. In the '90's The Singaporean Govt were involved heavily in businesss with Burmese drug lords to the tune of $52 million in hotels. Lo Hsing Han, the druglord has a son living in Singapore married to a Singaporean woman running the (Buremese) Asia World Company. He has been declined a visa to travel to US due to his drug assoc. LAW? Yes, Steven Law. Hypocrite Singap govern. Supports Burma Heroin druglords

Posted by: graham whittaker, Townsville

 

Friday, 01 August 2008

Russell Jones, Toowomba there is in fact an implied right to political speech in this country (Nationwide News v Wills; Australian Capital Televisions v Cth; Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd; Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd; Lange v ABC). The theory is to have a democracy as designed in the Constitution there must be freedom to discuss issues that have political relevence. Arguably everything we do and say has political relevence so YES we do have freedom of speech!

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

 

Friday, 01 August 2008

Re the issue...if the journo is guilty, then he's an idiot. When you go to another country, you have to accept the laws of that country. Are Singapores laws inconsistant & hypocritical - probably, but as long as the Singapore people are happy who are we to sit in judgement. Given that we have NINE different jurisdictions in this country, each with its own laws (which do differ greatly), I don't think we are in any position to judge. We can't even agree as a nation what our laws should be!

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

 

Sunday, 10 August 2008

Compear to most countries. Singapore Pores do not were comdoms or have cerck ups I would not even thing of been with some one frone from there.

Posted by: Allison Double, Mildura

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Re:SGP's support of Burmese Drug Lords The Singaporean govt has no obligation to protect the lives/futures of the people who are consuming burmese drugs if they are not Singaporean citizens. If you believe otherwise you are being too idealistic. Their only responsibility is to the Singaporean people.

Posted by: Glenn Young, Massachusetts

 

Monday, 29 September 2008

Singapore sux because the people are so rude that I cannot tolerate it. If you live in Singapore, don't get influenced by their behaviour and Singlish.

Posted by: Wei Tan, Boon Lay