The following is my
answer to a Quora question: “Are human rights violations in
Singapore related to political activities, or drugs-related crimes?”
What do you mean by human rights violations? If your definition of these violations are according
to Amnesty International, then they have no credibility. Amnesty International has its own agenda, and
their own values which they push on others.
For example, Amnesty International considers the death
penalty for serious crimes to be a human rights violations. They emphasise the right of the criminal, the
murderer, the kidnapper, the terrorist, to live, but they discount the rights
of the victims, the murdered, the violated, the terrorised, to have justice. There is no justice there. Why should the rights of criminals matter more
than the rights of the law abiding to a safe environment and freedom from fear?
Another example, Amnesty International claims that
Singapore does not have freedom of speech. But their idea of freedom of speech includes the
freedom to slander and libel, the freedom of hate speech, and the denigration
of other races and religions. There is
no such thing as freedom of speech without responsibility.
Singapore’s laws is strict. And the benefit is low crime, and environment
where people have no fear of darkened alleys, of random violence and the
terrors of the criminal class. It is a
form of social engineering that if we hang enough murderers, enough drug
traffickers, enough kidnappers, that others would learn. If our safety, our peace of mind means
violating the rights of criminals, I am all for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to share our thoughts. Once approved, your comments will be poster.