As the Director for Corporate Communications says over here:
In fact, he would not have been of any interest to CNB otherwise; it was his drug abuse which led CNB to investigate him in the first place.
When Yeo was asked if he had any drugs, he volunteered to take drugs to the hotel where he was subsequently arrested with Ecstasy, ‘Ice’ and Ketamine.
Yeo was, therefore, not a law-abiding person enticed into committing an offence by CNB.
I think I’ve seen this in the movies before. It’s called “Minority Report”. Or “1984″.
The more interesting part however, is the justification for pre-Crime tactics.
Drug abuse is a serious threat. The battle against drugs in Singapore faces a new challenge - even as we succeeded in addressing the serious heroin problem of the past, today we face a growing potential problem of synthetic-drug abuse.
A majority of those arrested for synthetic-drug abuse are first-time offenders. One of the concerns this trend raises is the mentality of certain segments of our society who think that synthetic drugs are ’soft’ drugs which should be tolerated as they are acceptable as part of a modern ‘cool’ lifestyle. This is a dangerous attitude which we must not allow to take root in our society.
Ok, dear Director for Corporate Communications of Home Affairs, since you say drug abuse is a serious threat, tell me who the threat is directed against. Is it you? No one’s forcing you to take drugs. Is it your family members? No one is forcing your family to take drugs either. Or the average Singaporean? No one’s forcing anyone else to take drugs.
The question is, some guy decides to take drugs, regardless of whether it is cool or not, or whatever the prevailing attitude society takes with regards to self-destructive behaviour, where does the harm actually occur?
It starts to get quite amusing when even people in government have to bend over backwards to come up with something that doesn’t even bear any semblance of logic to justify stupid policies. This reminds me of the time some dude said “we identify them and label them as White Horse SO THAT they don’t get special privileges”. Right…
18 Comments
Therefore online surveillance is necessary for law enforcement
Therefore the rotan is necessary for law enforcement
The death penalty is necessary for law enforcement
Therefore torture is necessary for law enforcement
Therefore gulags are necessary for law enforcement
Therefore concentration camps are necessary for law enforcement
Your views on this matter are overly simplistic.
I agree with you that each man has the right to self-destruct.
However, the crux of the problem with drug abuse is not only about the individual. It affects the people around them, the family members and the society at large.
Oftentimes the family members will not know that a person is abusing drugs, as in the case of Adrian Yeo. Drugs can cause irrepairable damage to the body and if these addicts become vegetables, they will become a burden to their families and to the State.
Some addicts will also turn to crime to support their drug habits. That’s MHA’s problem too, which is why they are reacting.
Your White Horse comment is valid.
All of us (who had some dealings with this issue) remember the W.H. stamp on the documents folders. Ha ha.
I must have been sleeping ( cos I really don’t recall being told) when they briefed us that the stamp was there to ensure that we ignore it! ha ha
It is just like asking one not to picture a “pink elephant” in your mind!
Another incident: One PAP candidate ( minister I think) was found inside the polling area during one GE. There was a valid complaint against him ( he could have been disQ!). The AG ( ? or some legal eagle) concluded that altho the law does not allow candidates to be nearer than ? metres from the said location, it does not explicit state that he cannot be “in” it!!! ha ha ha! Who says they cannot think out of the box? Really creative.
Please visit my blog (http://nofearsingapore.blogspot.com) Best wishes
KTMan:
I disagree with you that my views are simplistic.
You say that drug abusers cause a burden on those around them and the State. The thing is, there are already laws which govern such problems.
For instance, if the person robs or steal to feed the drug habit, there are criminal laws which deal with such behaviour. In domestic disputes, where there is violence or harm to one party, criminal laws can also deal with such behaviour. I can’t see how these people will burden the State though. Its not as if the State will give them money to feed the habit or place them in rehabilitative care.
The most important thing you have not answered though, is when a drug user has plenty of cash to afford the habit, and is not likely to harm others in doing so, why should the State step in?
Dear Han,
You have posed a very good question. I believe that the reason why MHA has opted to deal with the problem at the root and not when the crimes take place is because IT’S BETTER loh.
Crime prevention is always a better policy.
Wait till some family of yours gets robbed by a drug addict and hurt in the process and you tell me that our criminal laws are sufficient.
If you got better ideas on how to handle pre-empt violent domestic disputes, I believe that MHA be keen to hear your ideas.
Your question on the rich drug abuser is a good one. Remember the rich high-society cocaine snorter dude? Why did the CNB go after him even though he probably didn’t need to turn to crime to support his habit? Equality before the law.
Since we have a taken a stand of zero-tolerance for drugs, then it must be that regardless of whether a drug abuser is rich or poor, he must be treated equally.
KTMan:
I agree that prevention of course is the better policy. The question is however, where to draw the line. If the police can actually encourage, or even give you incentives to do something which can get you thrown in jail for the purpose of preventing crimes, where is the line drawn then?
Secondly, I think you must also consider this issue from another perspective. The basis for my argument is this. Of all the possessions in the world that a person can have, the single most indisputable thing that one owns is one’s body. And I firmly believe that no one has a right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body.
The important question is this: if the State can tell you whether you can take drugs or not, then what is there to stop them from deciding what other things they can or cannot do with your body? Such as suicide (which is illegal in Singapore)? Or sexual orientation (homosexuality is also effectively illegal in Singapore)? And perhaps one day, should any one of our policy-makers be a religious fundamentalist, abortion will also become illegal, or any other thing that offends the moral sensibilities of conservative people.
KTMan:
I realise I forgot to address an important point you brought up.
I think you are mistaken when you view the problem as one of “equality before the law” when talking about people who do not need to harm others to feed a drug habit.
Think of the issue this way. You mention that the rationale for criminalizing drug consumption is that the likely harms that could arise out of that consumption is so great that the police should prevent that consumption from happenning at all. Thus, you are describing an operation of the law whereby people who consume drugs are presumed to be likely to harm others. Fair enough.
But your explanation for rich people who do not need to harm others in order to feed their drug habit is unsatisfactory. Your claim is that they should be “equal” before the law. That however does not answer my question. My question is not whether rich people should be free from laws that everyone else obeys. My question is, how can it be that the law punishes people who have not harmed other people, and are not likely to harm other people at all?
In fact, your rationale that “equality before the law” is clearly conflicting with your justification for preventative police action. How can “preventative” punishments be effective when the people being punished are not likely to harm any one else at all?
Hello Han,
Nope, I have not confused the concept of “equality before the law”. When I said equality before the law, I meant in the enforcement of the law. Basically, if the CNB decided to catch the poor drug abusers, then it must also catch the rich, gay and medically-trained drug abusers, in the same even-handed way.
Yeah, I agree with you that it’s not at all clear where to draw the line.
That’s what public policy is mostly about — drawing the line between the protection of the individual’s rights and the so-called “good” of the many. 
I dun have to tell you how the Singapore Garmen tends to like to draw the line do I?
Personally (and I’m speaking as an individual expressing his personal preference), I think the current line on drugs is good. As for the line on homosexuality, I think we should leave what happens behind close doors that doesn’t involve drugs out of the law.
I respect your views about the individual’s right to self-destruction like I mentioned earlier and I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just trying to bring some balance to this discussion.
KTMan:
Hey no worries, I know its all in the spirit of a good discussion.
The only thing is, you might think that whatever happens behind close doors, as long as there is no one being forced to do what they don’t want to do, should be left out of the law. But the thing is, not everyone thinks like you. There are many people who like to use the same arguments used to justify drug consumption laws to tell other people that they also cannot do other things to their own bodies.
The reason why I have my position is because I believe that morality should be left out of the law altogether. The law should exist only to protect people from harms which they did not consent to. The problem is, I believe that a significant factor in our lawmaking process has little to do with harm prevention or minimisation, but more with morality
just trolling
but i’m surprised the seat belt argument hasn’t popped up yet
On a serious note.
It must be clear that the issue of harm, and consent to harm, are subjective beliefs. Not that i’m disagreeing about it, but even still judges and indeed legislators are creative in justifying criminalising ‘consensual’ behaviour. ie. factors vitiating consent.
Further more one might consider that among libertarians, there exists a great spectrum as to the opinion of how important self and self rights are.
To complicate matters, one might want to consider how rights to self are derived (ie. often viewed as natural rights), and thus impacting on how absolute such rights are. ie. Locke v Nozick etc etc etc.
Dear Han,
Cannot lah. How can morality be left out of the law?
How then do you justify that it’s a crime to steal from others? What is the difference between Jean Valjean steal bread (Les Misérables) and a monopolist (think Microsoft)?
This is what I believe. I believe that there is a law above all laws (sorry I sound like Aslan :-)), and that is: the law exists to protect the society and to uphold justice. I’ve never been impressed by those who quibble over the word of the law and yet fail to see forest from the trees.
What is justice? I believe that if we will just look within ourselves, it’s something that we know by instinct — and our instincts about justice are intricately linked to our values and sense of morality.
KTMan:
Very simple. When you steal from someone, you do 2 things: firstly you deprive them of their property without their consent, and secondly you impose a cost upon them by depriving them of their property without compensation.
As you can see, there is no need to consider morality at all. If you take something from someone because they GAVE it to you, or if they consent, or if you PAID them for it AND they consented, then can it be considered stealing? The reason why we punish people for stealing is precisely because they violate other people’s consent, and impose a cost upon them. Criminalising theft has nothing to do with morality, but more with preventing people from imposing costs upon each other.
And as for your scenario with jean valjean vs M$, I can’t see how is there a connection. Jean Valjean would have been guilty of theft under the law, but then there is a defence of necessity available to him (rarely used and rarely successful, but then again, who can use necessity as a defence for stealing bread when bread is so cheap?) as he was trying to get food for a sick baby. Microsoft, if anything, is guilty of breaches of antitrust issues, which is really a matter of economic policy rather than anything moral.
I disagree with you that justice is instinctive. People do lots of nasty shit by instinct. I’m sure homophobes and religious fundamentalists bomb and kill people because they truly subjectively believe that they are doing justice. Maybe you might want to ask them for their views?
I can tell you now you can give me any scenario and I can give you logical framework using my model of harm and consent as the basis of lawmaking. There is no need to involve morality, which varies and differs according to cultures, traditions and religion. To use morality as a basis of lawmaking is to invite disaster and to impose the values of those who are most conservative upon the rest who are not.
Dear Han,
You are absolutely right — given any scenario, you can come up with a logical framework using your model of harm and consent. That is what the KTM means by the letter of the law.
However, in my opinion, true justice requires one to transcend the letter (or word) of the law to embrace the spirit of the law.
Perhaps the KTM is talking nonsense. You will have to indulge him, since the KTM is NOT a lawyer by a long shot.
KTMan:
You are not talking nonsense. I am just trying to find out where you are coming from. And anyway, I was never engaging in this discussion as a “lawyer”. Our discussion is about the purpose of the law, and such a discussion should never be confined to just lawyers. I believe that since everyone in society is affected by the law, then it should be open to anyone to debate and discuss the purpose and effect of laws. Isn’t that what democracy is about?
Hello Han,
Talking about democracy, the KTM recently spouted some nonsense about democracy. Wanna take a look, return favour and leave me a comment or two?
KTM:
It’s interesting you draw the link between morality and the law.
Whilst i agree with everything you say about the ’spirit of the law’. Could i once again provide pts to ponder.
Hart in commenting on the issue “what is law”, observed and remarked that law and morality are separate, and when it coincided (ie. a lawful choice would be the moral choice), it was purely accidental. The reason he said so, was that by observing ‘rules’ and deciding which ‘rules’ were ‘laws’, it would be too stringent a test, and many laws we have today would not be ‘laws’ by that definition.
Also, another pt of discussion might be the issue of justice. If i posited that law and justice were separate - in the sense that justice could be determined by natural intuition (and hence perhaps by natural law). However many laws we have these days are not natural law derived, and thus laws do not necessarily mean justice is done. Furthermore, couldn’t justice be spilt into 2 stages, ie. formulation and arbitration. Just because a law is not just does not mean the application of the law is not just.
Sorry if i seem to be picking at fine hairs, ignoring the forest for the trees. But often when looking at the forest, we fail to see the difficulties of navigating the trees. It’s all in the interest of providing a balance evaluation.
Dear Ivan,
I’m sorry if I was unclear in my post above. Law and morality are indeed separate entities. When I say that law and morality cannot be separated, what I mean to say is that morality will somehow impact the APPLICATION of the law.
Law much like economics is really a reasoning tool. It is naive to think that a person who knows his law well, ‘cos he gets lots of As in law school and ends up with 1st Class Honours, will necessarily be a good judge.
Of course, a person who doesn’t know his law is unlikely to be a good judge. Nevertheless, while good law is a pre-requisite, a good dose of common sense (commonly called wisdom) is also required.
An interesting example is the recent McCrea case. Since McCrea was charged with only culpable homicide (maximum sentence of 10 years), there was a possibility that the outcome of the case would have completely messed up the criminal justice system, since his accomplish got 12(!) years. The judge however applied his law and managed to resolve a somewhat messy situation (arising from Singapore’s undertaking NOT to hang the fella).
Basically, how do you ensure that justice is done when the fella has “committed murder” and yet you cannot charge him for murder ‘cos you cannot hang him?
The judgement is not out, but I’m personally happy with the verdict. This is my reasoning: for murder, you get death (only one death sentence ‘cos you cannot die twice). Life is twenty years. There’s no reason why we should commute McCrea’s death sentence to a life sentence for nothing, so we levy a 20% tax. 20 x 1.2 = 24 years. Seems like a reasonably “just” result given the constraints to me. After you figure out that 24 years is good, you then use your law to justify your answer. 
haha. what more can i say but i concur with the learned KTM. the law in theory and the law in practice (ie. ‘justice’) are very different beings indeed.