Who’s at fault?
Posted in Social Commentary by mathialee on May 31, 2009
Fascinating case — who’s at fault here?
Man cheats workers here, man blackmails workers here. In order to stop being blackmailed, workers run away. But before they run away, they tie the man up to prevent him from calling the police. If the police gets them, they will be jailed & caned for being illegal immigrants, even though they were cheated by that man.
The workers call the man’s girlfriend to tell her that they saw he’s been tied up. She thinks its a ploy he’s doing to get her back because they quarreled a few days before. She tells the caller to go call the police himmself.
The next day (3rd day of being tied up) she goes to his flat, but realises she forgot her keys. She leaves after no one answers the door. The next day she returns with the keys, to find his body.
The workers are arrested, punished for being illegal immigrants and for killing the man.
4 years’ jail for 4 —- Workers tied, gagged landlord; to silence him
Weekend • May 30, 2009 by Ong Dai Lin (dailin@mediacorp.com.sg)
Weekend • May 30, 2009 by Ong Dai Lin (dailin@mediacorp.com.sg)
Who’s at fault??? Morality wise, not what’s legal
———————————-
What if the 4 were a family of Jews — parents, 2 young kids? And the man was a Nazi supporter blackmailing them & threatening to expose their identities as jews? And they tied them up to get away before the Nazis killed them (say this was during the WWII era)? Whose fault is it then, that the guy died?
What if the 4 men were theives? And they tied up the man who was blackmailing them in order to get away? Whose fault is it then?
[ After note : Do read the comments, especially the one raised by Siong which I think raised 2 very interesting points. I've explained in my comment back to Siong, why those are 2 very interesting points to think about ]
29 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
I think the difference between the thieve scenario and the Jews scenario is that the thieve were wrong and they were trying to cover up their wrong doing. The Jews on the other hand were victims and they were trying to prevent/defend themselves from further victimisation from unfair laws.
Which is why we instinctively have more sympathy for the Jews, if they were caught and punished for the death, but not if the theives were caught and punished for the death.
Which applies to our foreign worker case, I wonder.
I am never one to believe that I should administer justice on my own. I am a christian and the bible tells us that Revenge belongs to the Lord and over the years, I have come to realise why we should let justice be administered by people meant to administer them. It becomes too tiring for me if I am thinking about the injustice I suffered or other people suffered and think of ways to redress that justice. Its fine to help stand up for people but another thing to deal out your private sentence.
In this case, I would sympathise with the foreign workers but I wished they knew who to run to look for help or the authorities should do more to ensure these groups of people knew where to look for help. But they have taken the way out of dealing their own justice and as much as sympathetic I feel, they will and should be punished by the law.
Thanks Siong
What you said really made me think
Because I’ve always thought i was against making judgements on people, especially when we don’t know the full story behind.
And i always believed in not imposing personal private religious values on the wider society
So to hear you challenging me on both these points really makes me sit up and think.
On this issue, I feel that no matter what religion you are, it’s really about having a sense of basic justice
And just because we are Christian (I am too), and we believe in not being judgemental (my belief too), it’s not an excuse to close our eyes and be blind to injustice. I actually believe it is immoral and against human decency to do nothing to address an injustice, when it is in our power to do so, and i think if you want a biblical ref for it, my fav verses are Proverbs 31: 8,9
I think what happens when Christians decide to just “let justice be administered by people meant to administer them” you might actually give power abusers a free reign over things. Eg. the Christian church’s inaction with the Nazi. Eg. the way the Catholic church turned a blind eye to the sexual/child abuses commited by clergy.
But that said, I totally disagreed with the actions of Thio Su Mein and company.
I’m still thinking, and trying to figure out what the difference is between these different examples of Christian inaction, or Christian action, and why I think one way in one instance, but not in another. I’m trying to figure it out, and hopefully get to hear more & different views from different readers = )
I think what I was trying to say, with regards to the foreign worker case, is that the law is the one at fault here. I think this particular law was an unjust law, and I think the way the State system treats the FW is really unjust, and that gives an opportunity for crooks to thrive and legally bully the FW. That was the difference i was trying to bring up with the thieves vs Jews example.
When you say that you feel they should be punished by the law, you are assuming that the law is a fair and just one —- but is it really?
Is a law that punishes the victims of fraud, rather than the fraudster, a fair and just one?
If this law wasn’t in place, would it be possible to blackmail them in the first place?
If the law was unfair and the law victimises them, as humans, as people, do they not have that right to protect themselves?
I think in our case, everybody involved was a victim of the law. The fraudster was a victim because he died as a consequence of trying to make money from a legal loophole, the girlfriend lost someone she loved even though she could have believed the phone call, the FW lost their freedom and livelihoods even though all they wanted was to make a living, and protect themselves, but they were ignorant about how they should do so. Even the judge was a victim of the law because of his/her obligation to uphold the law, despite it being a bad one. Who then is responsible for bad laws? The lawmakers? Or the electorate who allows these people to be lawmakers? What if , after having allowed these lawmakers to be the lawmakers, they changed the law to make it illegal/really difficult for the electorate to replace them as lawmakers? What if the electorate has to break the law to rectify their mistake?
I’m posting some of my Facebook comments here to add to the discussion:
====================================
Bastard landlord. He took advantage of the FW’s plight. I continue to curse him even though he is dead
===================================
sad, tragic. i don’t like this. but i’m baffled at the judge’s comment; “went beyond the immediate need to keep him quiet and immobile” are they supposed to say to him; “shut up and sit down”?
=====================================
but, wouldn’t it be mind boggling for the thieves to call
the girlfriend? so nice? there’s a story there too
==========================================
Erm, I’m pretty certain that the government of Singapore is not in the midst of a holocaust of indics.
- The tenants elected to operate outside the law and, consequently, found themselves being blackmailed. That’s presumably pretty common and a direct, predictable consequence of a choice that they freely made.
- They then proceeded to murder their blackmailer (rendering the guy incapable of looking after himself and then failing to take effective measures to ensure his safety seems like murder to me; the judge was being pretty lenient; the half-hearted measure with the girlfriend was presumably what tipped the balance to culpable manslaughter)….
- They then elected to remain in the jurisdiction in which they were (a) residing and working illegally and (b) had murdered someone.
Does a [just] legal system have an obligation to treat stupidity as a mitigating circumstance?
The landlord isn’t exactly someone I’d invite to a party either…
Oh:
- your thieves murdered to cover their crime
- your Jews killed in self-defence
Moral vs. legal:
- illegal workers: moral and legal end up at the same place
- thieves: likewise
- jews: different places at the time! Fortunately the world sorted itself out, removed the perpetrators of the holocaust and retrospectively corrected the legal analysis of your scenario
==============================================
My reply to that last comment:
I’ll like to make a factual correction on 3 of your points, and perhaps you could then tell me if that changes your position
“The tenents ELECTED to operate outside the law”
No they didn’t ELECT to. They paid money to the agent to get work in Singapore, but on arrival found that they were cheated and made illegal immigrants instead. On top of that, they were blackmailed & threatened to have their illegal immigrant status exposed — meaning a jail and caning sentence, irregardless of whether they were cheated.
The fact that they called the girlfriend showed they never intended for him to be dead. They couldn’t reasonably be expected to go free him themselves, given that they wanted to get away from his blackmail. They couldn’t reasonably be expected to be responsible for his girlfriend not checking up on her boyfriend just because they quarrelled.
They didn’t ELECT to remain in this jurisdiction because , if they had tried to return to their home country, 1. They would be arrested for being illegal immigrants at the immigration checkpoint. 2. They entered huge debts to come here, and they might be killed by the illegal lenders back in their home country.
Seriously , I’m curious to know how you would have handled the situation if you were a foreign worker in their shoes? Maybe your solution will save thousands who are/might be in their plight?
I am inclined to agree with the judge’s decision that the “manner which they tied him up “went beyond the immediate need to keep him quiet and immobile”. Then again, my opinion may be shaped by my vested interested, because I have tenants myself.
If the 4 workers had only needed some time to escape before the landlord raises the alarm, they could tie his arms so that he can eventually wriggle his arms free, or leave his face unmasked so that he can slowly spit out his mouth gag & shout for help, etc. No need to be so super-secured (even use bedsheet to cover his gagged face) that the landlord cannot free himself enough to get help.
That they were blackmailed by the landlord and that they called his girlfriend to check on him can only be mitigating factors at best. They put someone’s life totally dependent on another’s rescue, so they are responsible to ensure that the rescue takes place in time.
However, I feel that our justice and legal system has failed in that there is no mention of any investigation done to bring the agent that cheated these workers to face the law. Afterall, the workers’ culpable homicide and immigration offences do not cancel out the crimes whereby they were the victims. The workers’ have a right (IMHO, but honestly I do NOT know about the legalities involved) to recover their money cheated by the agents and the blackmail sum from estate of their victim.
Was there anything done to provide justice to the workers in the crimes whereby they are the victims? Or is everything swept under-the-carpet once they are convicted of crimes whereby they are the offenders? Why should that be?
Let me first assume that the Today article is all factual.
First off, a landlord will ask for employment passes (etc) to make sure tenants are not illegal immigrants. The penalty for renting to illegal immigrants is quite severe. In this case 3 of the workers entered Singapore without a valid pass, while 1 had a valid pass but expired.
Therefore the workers know for themselves they are considered “illegal immigrants”.
Thereafter the landlord found out that they are illegal immigrants.
The 3 workers were cheated by agents (“dumped them after they arrived in Singapore”), yet they did not report to the police or relevant authorities. Why?
Have they been overcomed by greed – that Singapore is a land of opportunities?
That 1 worker is an overstayer, clearly flouting the law.
The landlord, being greedy, takes a risk by flouting the law (on renting to illegal immigrants) and also blackmailing the workers.
If the landlord had reported to the police as he had threatened, he would have been hauled to court as well.
————————————–
Who’s at fault? The workers AND the landlord. Too bad the landlord lost his life.
In this case, why look for black and white when everything is black?
————————————–
Before criticising Singapore laws and the court….
Have any of you considered that if the landlord had been alive, the court would have been fair and he would receive his just sentencing?
And by the way, “For entering Singapore illegally, the punishment is a jail term of up to six months and a minimum of three strokes of the cane.”
“For their immigration offences, they each received jail terms ranging from one to three months, as well as three to six strokes of the cane.”
Fair? Considering that the landlord died? It’s as if they are punished ONLY for their immigration offences.
If the 3 workers, who were cheated and entered Singapore without valid passes, had reported to the authorities immediately, then they would not have been considered “illegal immigrants”.
Opps… I forgot. “They were each sentenced to four years in jail for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.” Haha. Well, landlord died.
This issue set me thinking…
Are the agents locals? If they are locals, and since the 3 workers did not have valid passes, then these agents will be considered smugglers. Quite heavy penalties for them.
Probably the police would have tried digging information out from the 3 workers.
If the agents are not locals. Is there any practical solutions to stop this inhumane practice?
If you’re from a Bangladesh village, illiterate, sole-bread winner earning SGD80 a month, and you loaned $8000 from a loanshark to pay for your agent fees to come to Singapore because the agent said construction work pays SGD800 a month here, and when you arrive in Singapore to find that you’ve been cheated, and the only 2 option is 1. Work illegally and risk going to jail, or 2. Go to the police, get sent home, and risk getting killed by loan shark, what will you do?
It’s easy to type on blogs, is it easy to LIVE with that decision?
As for these fraudster agents, all you have to do is google for “human trafficking singapore construction”
TOC and Yawning bread does excellent coverage on this issue.
These are international trafficking rings — no different from 18th century slave traders.
Yes, the question to ask is , why does singapore have such laws? Why doesn’t Singapore do anything concrete about this situation? This is not isolated, it is COMMON. That’s the horrifying part of it.
“It’s easy to type on blogs, is it easy to LIVE with that decision?”
->Do you have a better solution?
“Why does singapore have such laws? Why doesn’t Singapore do anything concrete about this situation?”
-> What changes in the laws do you propose?
How do you propose to help, on a mass scale, the Bangladeshi, illiterate, workers who earn SGD80 a month back in Bangladesh?
If they are doing well back home, would they come to Singapore or get smuggled anywhere else in the world?
It’s easy to type on blogs “Who’s at fault?” Is it easy to propose practical solutions?
Well, CM, honestly, there are, but I’m not prepared to write all this down here at this point of time.
For anyone who’s interested in details of the situation, I would highly recommend either
1. Joining TWC2, HOME & learn from their researches / resources
2. Join AWARE Cedaw Sub comm, Human Trafficking group.
Especially with TWC2, if you feel like you have no time to volunteer but want to learn anyway, just being on their mailing list is useful enough, and you can evaluate the info they send out for yourself. Don’t let me impose my views on you.
Morality-wise
Both are wrong. Both intentions and consequences are important. As such, good intentions can never completely nullify a ill consequence, and vice versa (minimal ill results cannot neglect the ill intention).
As for the tracing who is the one really at fault. There is no answer because it is a chicken and egg problem.
No single person can be completely at fault for anything. Because in this world, everything is irrevocable connected to one and other – it impossible to be entirely separated from the rest of the world. It is hard to draw the line, to trace where it first started (how far should we go to determine the origin of the fault?).
Hence, I believe both intentions and consequences should be the judge of right and wrong. And in the case of the workers, yes they are wrong, not because they killed a man, but because they made a wrong choice that resulted in the death of a person. (Unlike accident, which is beyond control, this is a case of failure to think over the possible risks in the decision). I don’t mean I condemn them, I just mean it is still wrong, although I can empathize that sometimes you fail to think properly when under stressed.
Morally, they would still committed a wrong. But is something forgivable by most, except perhaps the family of the dead.
As you sow so shall you reap
But where comes the seeds?
And who made the hoe?
But where is the field?
And how is the weather?
As I sow so shall I reap.
But am I ever one and all?
Similarly for the thieves and jews. Both have done wrong. But the thieves more so than the jews, by virtue that the thieves victims do not contribute to the result of the whole situation.
the jews are wrong?!? What wrong have they done?!?
where is the crime in standing up to murderers masquerading as legitimate rulers?
would all our war heros who fought against the japanese for our freedom also be criminals for killing those who sought to kill us?
Hi Mathia, firstly, I would like to say that your writings and opinions are great reads and make for great interaction and discussion. I may not necessarily agree with everything you write but hey, life’s better when people discussed with an open mind.
I have to qualify that when I state I am a christian and quoting Revenge belongs to the Lord, it was not meant to say that it guided my behaviour and opinions towards ‘justice’. But over the slightly over 30 years I have lived, I began to understand why perhaps leaving the administration of justice to others would be better, at least for me.
Do not get me wrong. We are people with a sense of justice and values have taught us a certain sense of right and wrong. We have our individual sense of justice and yardsticks, influenced perhaps by our upbringing, surroundings, society, friends, spiritua beliefs, education etc….
So its always natural when something that seems wrong to us or when someone does something ‘wrong’ to us, we spring onto our feet and want to ‘do’ something to redress that injustice. Just like in this case, the foerign workers have suffered a grave injustice and felt the need to ‘do’ something about it.
It is the same when the indian students in Melbourne go onto the streets to protest because they felt that the attack on the indian students constitute racism, a grave injustice and felt compelled to ‘do’ something about it.
All these are not ‘wrong’. It is just natural. The indian students protest may be legal and legit and a natural response, the FW’s response too is legit, a natural response but unfortunately deemed illegal.
Which brings the next issue of your point of whether the law is just. I, have never thought that the law is just. In fact, the law in any country, is as “loopy” (if there is such a word) as it can be. You see murderers being set free. You see rapists been given short sentences. Oh what injustice.
However, I also recognise that just as physical laws govern the physical universe, there has to be laws that govern the society. Granted, it is not perfect and not fully just, but hey, I would dare to say, that it will never be perfectly just, ever.
And perhaps thus resulting in activists and people who found passion in fighting for a certain cause, who again felt the need to ‘do’ something to fight for the justice for the cause they believed in. And I admire these people. They found the strength to go all out to challenge the norms, the authorities, traditions etc…. and i feel that these should be encouraged. The world can only be better when there are groups of people acting as balances and checks and giving voices to those who are unheard like the FW.
Then why the hell, Siong, do you feel that justice should be administered by those meant to administer it? fighting for justice and administering justice is different. You do not right a wrong with another wrong. In this case, I feel that the FW is trying to redress their injustice but in the course of it, committed a wrong. Imagine how the world would be if everyone were to take revenge just because that person has done a wrong towards them. How bad it would be if I destroy me neighbours’ bonsai because he was stealing my slippers. How bad it would be if I were to set fire to his car because he has been scratching mine. Of course, these examples sound absurd but I hope you get what I mean.
I am going to say I have plenty of life experiences but the few times when I explored places like Chiangmai doing some community work over there, I have realised one thing “That people who have hope will not get pushed over the edge”. In those villages where people with sickness are waiting to die because the government are not giving money to build hospitals, the local governments are only interested to build up their coffers instead of helping the needy. These are such grave injustices and needless to say, there are plenty of rights groups fighting for these people. And these people can oh so easily decided to take justice into their own hands. There are robbers who rob so that they can survive. Some sold away their children. Some took to peddling illegal stuff. But as I reach out to these people and for that short time I spend with the community workers there, I realised what these workers were doing, not to assist them with fighting for their own justice, but to let them know that even when the whole world is against them, these people can always come to them, they will not be left alone.
I know I may sound all noble but it has always been my wish to reach out to people like the FW and let them know, that whatever shit they go through, there are people who can help them. And they can always trust and and placed their hope that there are people who will not leave them alone. And perhaps when people truly know that someone is out there for them, they will never be pushed into a situation when they feel the need to dish out their own punishment. And perhaps in this FW case, maybe they would not have felt the need to ‘punish’ the landlord by themselves.
Apologies for the long ‘eassy’ haha. Hope it does not look like gibberish. Just trying very hard to inked down my thoughts.
Cheers!
Curious… How do you define wrong, if the Nazi supporter firmly believes in Nazism and that to him, he is doing the right thing?
Are all the Japanese troops demons, non-human beings?
Did they participate in WW2 with the belief that they are doing the wrong things and yet do it anyway?
There are no heroes in war. Suppose you are a soldier with the Allied Forces. The war had ended… Victory… People call you a hero… Now look into the eyes of the families of those you killed.
Feeling Heroic? I think not.
Did you do the right thing? No.
Did you do the wrong thing then? No.
You only did what was necessary. It was disgusting, cruel, horrific… But necessary.
The Jews can do what they need to survive, including killing the Nazi. Likewise the stauch believer of Nazism. To say the Jews/Nazis are right/wrong is making a judgement.
Siong,
Totally agree with you on “fighting for justice and administering justice is different”.
I wonder how many activists don’t understand this simple logic and end up wasting efforts on the wrong issues.
It is also great to hear of “alternative” methods of solving issues like what the community workers do. I’m sure they will achieve much more than activists whose approach involves the standard/traditional “fighting for a certain cause”. Why does it always have to be “fighting”?
The actions of the late construction boss Lion Tiong Kiu is very commendable, especially the way he treat foreign workers.
Not sure whether he “championed/fought” in the public domain for better treatment of foreign workers. But he sure made a good example by treating his own workers right without the need for legislation/regulation.
mathia <<
Well, it really depends on how we wanna define wrong. I define it as moral responsibility. If your actions result in something that you felt responsible for, then obviously it is not a good think (when I say responsible I meant in a negative manner).
Justifiable wrong does not make it a right. As long as there is a reason to feel guilty, then it is usually a wrong deed. The only question is the extent.
If we agree that taking a life is wrong, regardless of the intent or situation, then the Jews are wrong. They have committed the same error as the thieves, and the workers. They have not taken due care.
However, the wrong is not as great as the other 2 situations because they did not bring about the circumstance, and they may be in a more stressful state as compared to the 2 other cases.
For example, in self defense I killed a person. I might have done correctly in protecting myself. However in a more spiritual moral sense, I have done wrong because I have deprive another of his life. As in, I am still morally responsible for his death, no matter the justification. And more so to his family and friends for depriving them of a son, a brother, and a friend.
But this is just my personal value system. I rather recognize that I've chosen to put my life above another, instead of excusing my decision that he deserves it, or I have no choice. I don't see it as right or wrong, but as what I chose to do, and it result in death. And regardless whether if it is intentional or otherwise, it is still a moral wrong.
And yes, those who fought in the wars have committed wrongs.
However, note that my perception of wrong may be a little different from norm. It is abit hard to explain. Just say, I believe more in intent, actions and consequences rather than right or wrong. My wrong can simply means, bad intention, action or consequences. Bad intention is based on the intent to have bad consequence (regardless if the consequence really happens or otherwise). Bad action is based on the bad consequence of the action (regardless whether if the consequence is intended or otherwise). And obviously the greatest wrong is when both the intention and actions are bad.
In the case of self-defense, when I say bad consequences, it meant that a life is lost. And it does not meant that a life is saved is wrong or bad. It is a good consequence that a life is save. But simultaneously, it is also a bad consequence because a life is taken.
When I say it is wrong, I do not necessarily judge the person, or feel that they should not have done it. But is more of a recognition that bad consequences have resulted from the actions. Whether should we do it or otherwise, it is a choice. Ideally, the best decision is when there are no bad consequences, and only good or neutral consequences. But in reality, is not always possible and it always boils down to choice, and fate (or luck, or random chance, whatever you wish to call it, factors that you have no control over).
I do not judge a person's choice. It is a personal decision – different pple values different things, and so the weight is different. What I judge is the actual consequences and the intent of the consequences. Is it acceptable or justifiable. So what the Jews did are wrong, but is something I felt acceptable and justifiable. However, it is still a wrong.
mathia << (repost cuz I think my comment got eaten up)
Well, it really depends on how we wanna define wrong. I define it as moral responsibility. If your actions result in something that you felt responsible for, then obviously it is not a good think (when I say responsible I meant in a negative manner).
Justifiable wrong does not make it a right. As long as there is a reason to feel guilty, then it is usually a wrong deed. The only question is the extent.
If we agree that taking a life is wrong, regardless of the intent or situation, then the Jews are wrong. They have committed the same error as the thieves, and the workers. They have not taken due care.
However, the wrong is not as great as the other 2 situations because they did not bring about the circumstance, and they may be in a more stressful state as compared to the 2 other cases.
For example, in self defense I killed a person. I might have done correctly in protecting myself. However in a more spiritual moral sense, I have done wrong because I have deprive another of his life. As in, I am still morally responsible for his death, no matter the justification. And more so to his family and friends for depriving them of a son, a brother, and a friend.
But this is just my personal value system. I rather recognize that I've chosen to put my life above another, instead of excusing my decision that he deserves it, or I have no choice. I don't see it as right or wrong, but as what I chose to do, and it result in death. And regardless whether if it is intentional or otherwise, it is still a moral wrong.
test test… is my comment eaten up??
Hi Mathia,
Seemed that my super long essay was eaten up by wordpress. So I have to type it out again. But I will give a summarized version instead.
My concept of right and wrong is a bit difference from norm, and is very much similar to Buddhist beliefs.
I do not feel that right and wrong are mutual exclusive. An action can be both right and wrong at the same time. Whether if it is right or/and wrong depends on the intentions and the consequences.
It is wrong, if the intentions of the consequences are bad, even if the consequences did not actually happened. E.g. You lied to your friend so that he/she might take the wrong path, and lose the race. However, due to unknown reasons, ur lie instead made him/her win. The result is positive, but the intent is negative. So you did wrong.
It is also wrong, if the intentions are good, but resulted in bad consequences. E.g. You thought that smoking is good for health, so u encouraged ur friend to smoke and resulted in his/her demises from lung cancer. You have done wrong, even though you meant good.
And for the last case, it is obvious the worst wrong is when both the intention and consequences are bad.
Of course, my example are pretty clear cut. However, there are always cases like the Jews which is less so. But instead of that, I will use a death resulting from self defense as example instead.
The intention is neutral or good. You wish to save a life, namely yours. The consequences are both good and bad. You saved a life, but you have also taken a life. Now this is the crux of the matter. You are right because you saved yourself. But you have also committed a wrong, because you took a life – u deprived another of his life, and his family/friends of a sibling, child, and friend.
A wrong is not negated by a right. And should not be so. Because it is a slippery slope to justify a wrong into a right because of circumstances. Instead, there should be recognition that a wrong has been committed regardless of justification.
However, a wrong also do not necessarily equate a castigation, that it should be punished. It is through evaluation of the whole incident, that we can decide if the wrong is acceptable and forgivable. When I say the Jews had done wrong, it is not a judgment, but a observation that bad consequences have arose from their actions.
In that sense, regardless of the justification. The Jews should be morally responsible for the death of the Nazi. Just as in the case of self defense, I should be responsible for the death of the person who assaulted me.
When I say responsible, I meant the recognition that I have committed a wrong against him and his family and friends. The recognition that I have chosen my life over his, instead of trying to excuse myself that I have no choice, or that he made me do it.
This is my personal value system.
Hi Thanks for all your long essays, especially Eterna2. I know how frustrating it is to have a nicely typed out long essay eaten up by wordpress!!! So thanks for taking the time to re-type.
Just a though/question here
your 2 kinds of wrong
“It is wrong, if the intentions of the consequences are bad, even if the consequences did not actually happened. E.g. You lied to your friend so that he/she might take the wrong path, and lose the race. However, due to unknown reasons, ur lie instead made him/her win. The result is positive, but the intent is negative. So you did wrong.
It is also wrong, if the intentions are good, but resulted in bad consequences. E.g. You thought that smoking is good for health, so u encouraged ur friend to smoke and resulted in his/her demises from lung cancer. You have done wrong, even though you meant good.”
The first sounds like a MORAL wrong to me , but the 2nd sounds like getting facts wrong. To me it’s 2 totally seperate issues, it’s just semantics —- the limitations of the english language that requires us to use the same vocab to describe 2 completely different things.
I don’t think there should be a moral responsibility to getting the facts wrong if you did your best to get the correct facts and you intended for the facts to be correct. Because human knowledge will always have limitations, and you can’t fault a person for not being a know-it-all. So how was the FW or the Jews to know that the girlfriend would react in that way?
If your neighbour called you to say that he saw through your window that your child playing with something dangerous in your home and that your maid is not doing her job (because he has no keys to your house , so he calls you to inform you), and if you decide that your neighbour is just lying to disrupt your work because you’ve always known your neighbour to be an asshole, and as a result, you decide not to go and check on your child and your child dies as a result, isn’t it your fault???
There must be recognition of the two types of wrongs – The moral type and the type where bad consequences happen.
In the case of the foreign workers, my opinion is that the sentencing is just.
The foreign workers are charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
If there is no recognition that the loss of life is unintentional, the foreign workers would have been charged with murder, this means death sentence here in SG.
Yet, we see that recognition, hence they are sentenced to only 4 years in jail.
If the debate is that “because human knowledge will always have limitations, and you can’t fault a person for not being a know-it-all”, then perhaps Temasek Holdings can hire you as a spokesperson to reason with the public.
There will be times when not-being-a-know-it-all is easily forgivable, yet there are times when it is not easily forgivable.
To argue that the foreign workers should not be punished for unintentional very bad consequences is commendable. However, when unintentional very bad consequences go unpunished, it leads to the abuse of using “unintentional” as an excuse to cover up for bad deeds. As a result, enforcement against certain crimes becomes an issue.
Once enforcement is lost, the innocent and the weak (less knowledgeable) suffer.
Once enforcement is lost, people will take the law into their own hands.
We do not live in a perfect world, the sentencing of the foreign workers serve two purposes – (1) to remind people to be mindful of their actions, (2) to prevent people (possibly landlord’s family) from taking matters into their own hands.
Eterna2: don’t ask me how, but i just found your essays in the spam bin!!!!
can we agree on these premises:
1. Everyone (let’s not talk about death-row people for now, to keep things simple) has a right to have their life protected.
2. It is the State’s responsibility, in an ideal situation. But should the State fail (not because it tried and failed, but because it did not even see the need to try) to protect your life, you have the moral right (not talking about legal right) to protect your own life
3. If the person who tried to take your life died as a result of you protecting your life against him, when the State failed you, then that is an act of self-defense rather than murder, which you should not be punished for.
If these 3 premises are acceptable, then it follows these FW should be acquited completely.
Because
1. The landlord was threatening to expose them as illegal immigrants. If they are exposed, they will be sent home, which would get them killed by loan sharks. The landlord was threatening them with an act that would result in their deaths
2. The State failed to protect them against the loansharks because the State has lousy laws where this is concerned.
3. The FW had to protect their own lives, and did so by temporarily restraining him, but unfortunately he died because the girlfriend didn’t believe.
That’s self-defence
Oh my… You seem to enjoy distortions and seem to be looking to blame.
Did the landlord know that the FW would be killed by loan sharks back home?
Did the landlord tried to take the lives of the FW directly?
If the landlord did not know that these FW will be killed by loan sharks back home, then there is no premise for self-defence.
By claiming self-defence, are you trying to fault the landlord for not being a know-it-all that the FW will be killed?
If person A lie to person B, and person B felt threatened that he would lose his life, is it justifiable that person B kills person A?
Self-defence only applies to direct aggression.
If going by your arguement, then on a bigger scale, the pre-emptive strikes by USA would be justifiable.
With regards to the State laws. Lousy laws is one thing, enforceable laws is another, resources for the enforcement of laws is yet another. A fair view should include resource and enforcement issues.
Why don’t you blame the United Nations for not doing enough to this inter-countries problem? The fact is resource and enforcement issues apply to the UN as well. As most people will know, the UN is a joke, but it is also the best hope we have on achieving human ideals.
CM: would suggest you look up the ref previously suggested before commenting on enforcement by UN / international bodies
Mathia,
Yup u summarized what I meant. The 2 wrongs are different. But I would also feel that both of them are wrong. Or in a more mathematically way, negative.
I meant, all actions results in either positive, neutral, or negative. In this case, the getting the facts wrong, resulted in something bad, is a negative, and not a neutral or positive, even if it is not really his/her fault.
As for the part on moral responsibility. I do not really meant as in it is ur fault that he died or that u shld take care of his family, etc. But more like an acknowledgment that u played a part in his death. A moral responsibility to recognize u have played a part in the consequences regardless of ur intention or control over it. I meant it would be dishonest to say u did not play a part in the death.
As for ur argument on the landlord and workers. I do feel that it is arguable that it is a form of self-defense. But in the case of self defense, it is not always valid. For example, when a person attacked u with a small paper cutter, and u defended urself. But in ur defense, u used an fireman axe, and that resulted in his death.
The self defense stand might not necessarily work, because of the disparity in weapon. If the court deemed that u have use unreasonable forces to defend urself, then u are still guilty of culpable homicide.
However, u can defend that there are no other weapons available to defend urself. And so on and so forth. So in a sense, self-defense is not a carpet excuse for killing the people who attacked u. Facts must be examined, to determine if u have reacted in a reasonable manner, and how much responsibility do u hold in the consequences.
So for the case of the worker. It is indeed a sad case, but the court have judged that they have acted unreasonably (not the normal meaning) – a reasonable man would have taken more care to ensure the landlord survives. But in my opinion, it is a very marginal thing. What they did is reasonable, but not strongly so (as in they could have done more – but obviously that is an oversight on their part).
UN decisions/resolutions are non-binding… except for those coming from the UN Security Council and those dealing with administrative and budgetary matters of the UN Secretariat. The UN General Assembly has no power to compel countries to act, except by moral suasion.
The issue of resources is an interesting point. Everybody says that the UN is important, but the fact is that it remains weak and underfunded, primarily because the biggest contributor (United States of America) is always late with its assessed payments, perpetually putting the UN at financial risk.
If the countries of the world want the UN to do more to help the world, they should 1) get the US to start paying up on time and in full; and 2) be prepared to pay more themselves.
I will copy a bit from wikipedia.
“In 2000 the United Nations adopted the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, also called the Palermo Convention, and two Palermo protocols…”.
The fact is, UN itself have different levels of priority, no different from any government.
And in terms of enforcement, UN has limited powers. Adopting Conventions, Protocols, give some pressure, condemn.
With lopsided funding from a few countries, it is easy to see how certain agendas have higher priority than others.
——————————————————————————-
The need for a new global plan of action was echoed by the majority of speakers and delegates. The United States, however, felt otherwise: “We believe that the U.N. is already effectively leading the fight against global trafficking.”
The U.S. representative’s concerns were that launching a global plan of action would strain the limited resources of the U.N. and, likewise, that the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC) “financial and personnel resources would be severely stretched if it were to undertake such a plan of action.”
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46844
—————————————————————————–
And guess what, the biggest contributor to UN funding is the US. Although US will not try ridiculous stunts, countries/NGOs still have to be mindful that should US make an excuse to reduce funding, many programs will be affected.
——————————————————————————
As far as I’m concerned, focus should center on solutions and actions.
I admire this Somaly Mam featured in yesterday’s Straits Times.
If you are going to wait for government action, it could be a long wait.
But to be fair, SG government did do a little bit.
http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/singapore
http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/singapore/best_practices
And to be fair, if the country of origin is not up to it, don’t put the blame solely on SG.
Do you often hear of SG pple kena con/kidnap/smuggled to some other countries?
It’s always the other way around, isn’t it?
For discussion sake, how about this? If legalizing prostitution allows for it to be tracked, regulated and controlled, why not legalize and regulate human trafficking (although you probably can’t call it trafficking anymore)?