Feb 2, 2007

A Small Kind of Joy

As some of you may know, Mr Wang was once a Deputy Public Prosecutor. Mr Wang wants to tell you that during his time as DPP, he never hanged anyone. Mr Wang handled many kinds of cases - sexual offences, corruption, family violence, drug consumption etc - but not murder and not drug trafficking.

Mr Wang, however, remembers one colleague who spent most of his time working on capital cases. In terms of actual numbers, there aren't that many capital cases, but each of them take a lot of preparation and analysis. So CY was always a busy man.

I noticed that CY had a certain habit. Once in a while, back from the courts in the evenings, he would close and lock his office door. Then, from inside, he would tape blank paper over the little glass panel on the door (so that no one could look in). This was a bit strange, but I never bothered to ask why he did it.

One evening, I had something to discuss with CY. I walked to his office. The door was closed and he had blocked out the glass panel. I didn't know what he was doing or how long he'd been inside, but I urgently needed to discuss my matter with him. So I raised my hand to knock.

Just then, another colleague, W, happened to walk by in the corridor. He shook his head and frowned. W said, "Don't disturb CY now."

I said, "I wonder what the hell he's doing inside?"

W gave me a strange look and said, "He's praying."

I said, "Huh?"

W said, "CY won his case today. So he needs ... well, you know, he needs to talk to God, lah."

Just then, the door opened and CY came out. He didn't say hi. He quickly walked past us. In that moment, I saw that his eyes were a little red and watery. It looked like CY, a big, grown man, had been crying, and he didn't want us to see.

That day I found out that CY was a Christian. And whenever he locked himself in his office, it meant that he had won a case. Someone had been sentenced to die. And so CY would pray.

For whose soul? My guess is - his own.


In the past week, Singapore's bloggers
have said so much about the execution of Amara Tochi. This time I myself have said nothing. What else can I say, that I have not already said before?

To me, every execution is a tragedy. But I do find a small kind of joy in the recent blogospheric debates. Some people care, after all. Who knows? Perhaps we are now taking our first baby steps towards a different kind of country. A different kind of Singapore - one with respect for human life.


Anonymous said...

Matthew 19:16-26. It is so much more difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Being a commoner has made it easier for me to let go of my civil service job when I had to compromise my beliefs and values. It's difficult for an "accomplished" person to let go of worldly trappings for the sake of his conscience.

~[z][x]~ said...

hmm.. sentencing criminals to death = "worldly trappings"?

Anonymous said...

I am surpised at CY's reaction. Just as a soldier has to fire a gun, a prosecutor should have his conscience clear when he puts the guilty away. He needs only to shed a tear if the victim died without justice being served. Unless, of course, he knew in his heart of hearts that the defendant was actually innocent, but fallen out of political favour and had to be destroyed. Even so, he's only an instrument of policy, only the policy makers need to account for their souls at the day of reckoning. The bible may say "Thou shall not kill", but it also says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s". If the system is evil, why be a component of it? Even if the economic benefits are substantial.

Anonymous said...

The hangman will say, "But it is not my responsibility, I only carry out the judge's sentence."

The judge will say, "But it is not my responsibility, I only apply the law."

The DPP will say, "But it is not my responsibility, I only present the police evidence."

The police officer will say, "But it is not my responsibility, I only investigate crimes."

The MP will say, "But it is not my responsibility, the law was passed by my predecessors."

The ex-MP will say, "But it is not my responsibility, the party whip was not lifted, so I had to vote for this law."

The Minister will say, "But it is not my responsibility, the people elected me, and my decision reflects what the people want."

And the people will say, "We are just ordinary people, it is not us who need to account for this at the day of reckoning."

And so all of us are innocent, yet all of us are guilty.

Anonymous said...

Time to bring back the jury system? If Singaporeans are "matured enough to accept the casino", surely we are matured enough to decide whether to hang?

Anonymous said...

Mr Wang, you are obviously not a Christian. If you are, you'd have guessed that CY was more likely praying for the soul of the condemned prisoner.

Anonymous said...


A man may have been guilty and correctly sentenced according to the law, but if the law and the punishment are unjust, your conscience should also be pricked if you had a part to play in rendering the judgement and sentence.

Likewise, s soldier may have been authorised by the law of his country to shoot and kill, but if the cause of war is unjust, I don't how the soldier can have a clear conscience following the orders of his commander or the State.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous February 2, 2007 5:02 PM

I think CY was praying for forgiveness from God because, as a Christian, he probably felt his conscience being pricked.

There is no use praying for the soul of the dead if he wasn't already a Christian before being hanged. One has to accept Christ before dying in order to enter the kingdom of God. One couldn't possibly rest in peace in hell no matter how many prayers are said and that knowledge could have moved CY even more to tears, knowing he had a part in it.

Anonymous said...

"But I do find a small kind of joy...Some people care, after all. Who knows? Perhaps we are now taking our first baby steps towards a different kind of country. "

Yes, through this outcry in the blogosphere and also many others in the closet, I see this as that all-important glimpse of hope that one day, the "evil and its folly" in this land shall be removed if not eradicated; and with all turning to and realising our humble needs to hold one-another of higher regard than himself/herself. That day, then can this land be fit to proclaim herself to be a firstworld country with firstworld standard.

Until then, may every little bit of well-checked and conscientious outcry or cries-in-the-closet be not despised but instead be valued upon to the changing and building of a better life, community and a nation of blessing in this place we call home.

And also, may mercy be learnt or steps taken to practise mercy during this period so that all who need it then shall receive it, and uh..uh.. they would realise that all these outcries are real and effective and not just simply foolish and gullible rants that serve no purpose ...

~[z][x]~ said...

Anon 6:05..

...I see this as that all-important glimpse of hope that one day, the "evil and its folly" in this land shall be removed if not eradicated; and with all turning to and realising our humble needs to hold one-another of higher regard than himself/herself. That day, then can this land be fit to proclaim herself to be a firstworld country with firstworld standard.

Your proclamation inspires me, and I'm just curious, but is there a land that you know of that has reached or is closed to reaching this "firstworld standard" you speak of?

Anonymous said...

All the countries in the EU, for a start. Death sentence is completely abolished there.

russell1200 said...

"There is no use praying for the soul of the dead if he wasn't already a Christian before being hanged".

There are many Christian interpretations of the path to heaven. Not all are as you describe, and not all Christians believe in Hell. Some Christian's have even more proscribed beliefs, and it is likely that you would not fit within their view of the correct path. You may not believe these groups with differing interpretations are Christians, but that is not going to be relevant to them.

The commandment to not kill is more accurately interpreted as "do not murder." The execution of criminals is not generally considered murder.

Anonymous said...

Seems like the Pope wouldn't agree with you - even if the criminal was Saddam Hussein. Oh, but I forgot - you probably wouldn't consider the Pope a Christian. Even though he reads the same Bible as you.

Anonymous said...


The Bible says that there is hell and Jesus is the only way to salvation. References include the following:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And Mark 9:43-47 not only mention but also describe hell.

And Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God in heaven. John 14:6 - I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Regarding murder or killing, if we dwell in semantics, there will be no end. So why don't we look at the command to love.

Matthew 5:44 tells Christians to love their enemies. Not only parents, family, friends, strangers but even enemies. Is killing a person therefore an exhibition of such love?

Whether the motive is right or wrong, God will know and judge, but the act of killing cannot be right.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous February 2, 2007 10:25 PM

The Pope is a Catholic and the Catholic Bible is different from the Christian (Protestant) Bible.

I am quoting from the Christian Bible, that which I believe. Others can believe what they wish. And I hope the discussion will not degenerate into one of personal attacks.

russell1200 said...


I am familiar with the text you site. But there are something like 34,000 Christian organizations in the world today. Even within the fundamentalist protestants(believing in literal interpretation) there have been and continue to be major disagreement on even basic theological: for instance Calvin versus Luther at the very start of the reformation.

The Catholic bible does not differ greatly from the various protestant versions of the bible. It is not the root of their theological differences.

You are welcome to believe what you want, but to site your particular views (based on selective text and a cultural context) as authoritative displays a large amount of hubris.

My original point was that the bible is a very problematic tool to bring into political discussions because it is open to many interpretations.

Jimmy Mun said...

Mr Wang,

you could have said something about Tochi's age. He is technically a minor when he committed the crime, too young to vote, too young to watch people have sex in the theatres, too young to be a party in most contracts. Given his age and the inability by the prosecution to prove his awareness that he was carrying capital punishment drugs, SR Nathan should have tried harder to earn his money and squeeze PMO for a clemency.

"If you are, you'd have guessed that CY was more likely praying for the soul of the condemned prisoner."

That was a very cold blooded thing to say. I hope it was not written by a Christian. As much as I support the death penalty, I do not deny it bloodies my hands, even if I am just a passive element in the whole process. There are too many cold blooded MLM salesmen calling themselves Christians these days.

I believe Hell probably exists, but must it be populated by anybody at all? Who has the right to judge that anyone, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler, is so evil beyond redemption, so evil that God cannot forgive them? Who can be sure that such "condemned men" werent suffering mental illnesses that destroyed their ability to have a conscience?

At the same time, I am amazed by how arrogant some false Christians are in their certainty that they will be heaven bound. Heaven is for those without a trace of sin. Nobody alive can claim to be without sin, not even those who time their conversion to perfection at the moment of death. If you dont believe in a purgatory for sin, then we are all going to hell.

For those so fond of quoting the Bible, have you ever pondered that your version of the Bible could have something lost in translation? I'm sure being fervent and pious Christians, you are all scholars of ancient Aramaic and watched "The Passion of Christ" without subtitles. It is with such confidence that you take the English interpretation of the Bible so literally because you are absolutely sure the translation means what it was written in Aramaic 2000 years ago.

And that is assuming the canonical books of the Bible, chosen and preserved by the Catholic hierarchy was the right selection. If the Catholics are corrupt, then the alternatives ought to be more correct. You know. Gospel of Judas. Gospel of Thomas. Jesus got married, had kids. Did you know that the Roman Emperor Constantine I was the chief driving force in standardising Christianity and creating the canonical Bible? If there was a Roman corruption in the Catholic Church, the Bible is it.

Anonymous said...

building on the Constantine argument,

Constantine I was able to stabilise Christianity (inclusive of Catholicism) in the Roman Empire because he claimed to have had a revelation. He claimed to discover the 'true' cross at Golgotha...

Constantine's revelation became legend. It was believed that the revelation would be a sign of holy protection for his empire. This view also opened the way for the rationalisation of war - to purge the world of the impious under the authority of the cross.

War and killing was seen as a moral act - it was perceived as opening a way for those slain to know eternal truth and God.

So was that right? Killing people so that they will posthumously 'accept God' - or will you denounce it as yet another corruption which shows the righteousness of your Protestant faith?

There is no ONE translation of the Bible - i'm sure you have heard of the Vulgate as well. I thought your interpretation, conscience, would be that. CONSCIENCE. Something beyond words. Instead, you choose to interpret the interpreted.

And, by the way, you sound pretty convinced that you'll be up there reciting your virtues. heh.

Anonymous said...

Like I have said, people can believe what they wish. Just as they are airing their views and beliefs, also based on historical events, I am articulating mine based on the scriptures that I read because I believe it is the authoritative guide for me as a Christian.

At least I am taking a stand instead of saying there are so many versions and none is absolutely correct. Am I belittling the Catholic bible? Fine if you say there is pergatory, even better if you quote some sources for that information. Isn't that more convincing than telling me that my Bible is trash?

I am here to exchange perspectives, not to pick fights. Having people taking offence just because I voice my perspectives that do not gel with theirs, and being labelled with adjectives based on superficial assumptions is certainly something I am not here for. Did I criticise or label anyone? Did I say other religions or beliefs are trash or something? Why are some people only attacking my views and judging me instead of offering their views and stating their stand clearly?

It is easier to criticise than substantiate one's views or make a stand and give reasons for it. Political or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I cannot speak about CY, but I do know there are some DPP who relishes sending people to the gallow.

In fact, so much so that they will unfairly amend charges at the last minute to ensure such hanging occurs!

Anonymous said...

anon of 4:02 pm,
' And the people will say, "We are just ordinary people, it is not us who need to account for this at the day of reckoning." '

I disagree. A country's (esp a democractic one) citizens are responsible for the actions of the government they voted.

Eg. people who voted for Bush have Iraqi children's blood on their hands.

Eg. The japs who supported their government with goods, sons, prayers etc during world war II, has the blood of our ancestors on their hands. The "victims" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no innocent victims. Serve them right!

Eg. The singaporean voters who supported death penalty and who continue to vote for a government who insist on zero welfare, they are the one who indirectly hanged this poor boy, and they are the one who forced people to jump onto MRT tracks. They are guilty, not even as acomplice, but master-minds, since if they all voted for a govt who has always been open abt such policies.

Jimmy Mun said...

1) If a runaway train is about to kill 100 people, and if all you can do is switch a lever to change the rail to kill 1 person instead, will you do so?

If the answer is yes, then you are not totally against killing, or the death penalty, if you are 100% certain that it deters the capital crime.

2) If the said runaway train has an emergency braking system that will reduce the likelihood of killing the 100 people to 80%, but if you switch the rails, you will kill that 1 person for sure (ie. if you switch the lever, there is a 20% chance the person died for nothing), will you still switch the lever?

3) If that one person you may kill by switching the lever is your loved one, while you dont know any of the 100 people, will you choose to do nothing?

Anonymous said...

“Millions of innocent people have been sacrificed! While you the leaders of the Party, got rich at the people’s expense! You’ve amassed incredible wealth! You’ve stolen estates, built castles for yourselves and betrayed and oppressed your own people! Our ideals, our morals, our beliefs, our soul … you’ve dragged through the mud! Your never-ending greed for power …”

General Wilhelm Burgdorf (1895 – 1945)
German Wehrmacht

Mr Jherek said...

I noted your failure to blog on the this subject, and thought well they were africans and who cares anyway might be the attitude.

There are sins of omission and sins of comission, the former applies to you. A failure to protest means effectively you are condoning the actions of the state, you are collaborating with the regime.

Harsh no doubt.

Anonymous said...


"Heaven is for those without a trace of sin."

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean and provide some references? For instance, which religion's doctrine is it and what happens to sinful human beings?

Jimmy Mun said...

Many people believe that the Christian concept of sin is an evil deed. It is not necessarily wrong, but incomplete; sin is a breakdown in relationship with God.

Many misguided souls see the Christian God as a God of Wrath, nitpicking with all the evil deeds we accumulate in our lives. This may be necessary for some, but for most of us, the brokenness lies within ourselves. We are angry with God for all the "bad luck" we have in our lives, and more often than not, we know it when we commit evil, and we have trouble forgiving ourselves. But mostly, we are angry with other people we had to live with, and we cannot let go of their transgressions.

Most Christians agree that there is no further "spiritual conversion" possible after you enter Heaven; either you are fit for Heaven or you are not.

For most Protestants and offshoot Churches (and the offshoots of the offshoots who forgot how they all link back to the Catholic Church), they only believe in two states after death: Heaven and Hell, because both were explicitly mentioned in the Bible. If you happen to be unfit for Heaven, then you are going to burn for eternity in Hell. Such Protestants tend to believe that baptism guarantees sainthood, and that is why they are very very eager to baptise non-believers.

Catholics believe in a middle ground after death: a Purgatory for sin. An afterlife gym to work away all the sins to ready one for Heaven. Is it mentioned explicitly in the Bible? No. But it seem reasonable that it was implied, because I believe in a God of infinite compassion, not a God of vengeful hatred. Catholics believe that baptism is just the start of a journey, a seal to stop you from going to Hell, but if you cant reconcile with God, you can still spend quite a while in Purgatory. And that is why Catholics pray for the dead, for those who are stuck in Purgatory. But it is also _my_ belief that conversion has to come from within oneself, not from incessant nagging from others, so praying is really more useful as a meditating tool for the living than the dead.

Catholics also believe that not having baptised doesnt bar you from Heaven. That is why Catholics tend not to be pushy about baptism for non-believers.

This is way off topic already...

Anonymous said...

The consequence of any action that makes the doer feels happy is certainly a positive action. However, if the action is a negative one, it obviously would make the doer feels bad or unhappy.

Therefore, execution, being an act of killing, is indeed certainly not a good action.

Then, in the first place, why then does he want to impose such law?

CY has the liberty and the authority to establish such such "barbaric" law, he similarly could abolish it in order to stop "tormenting" oneself as well as the victims and the victims' loved ones and family members from suffering like this.

le radical galoisien said...

Former DPP must mean former member of the establishment, right?

How pro-establishment would you say, mr wang, are the members of the Singapore justice system? How did you as DPP come to wary of the government?

expat@large said...

Just popping in to say hi.

That's what I love about the Religious, the way you can quote whatever you like, ignore what you don't, or say it was all mis-translation anyway when you are counter-quoted into a corner, and then go on and kill who you want to, clear up your consciences with a few prayers or a trip to confession, and get ready to kill again...

p.s. However I do love dabbling in Church history, like an ex-smoker. The books that became the New Testament of the Bible were written in Greek not Aramaic, so watching "The Passion of (The) Christ" won't take you any closer. What became the Catholic Bible was a Latin translation by St Jerome, I believe - "The Vulgate". St Augustine could not read Greek so he followed Jerome's text which resulted in some wierd and unfortunate errors in his theology, like the concept of 'original sin' - scholars acknowledge that this whole concept really *was* based on a mistranslation!

Constantine's "conversion" was a farce, a political move. He set up Constantinople after his conversion - as a pagan city!

Anonymous said...


Credit to you for the sharp observation. I would like to think there is hope. But what are the chances?

And to avoid further misunderstanding, I assumed that CY was a protestant because all the Catholics I know refer themselves to as Roman Catholics, not Christians. In fact, some tell me that Christians are not saved because the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.

Anonymous said...

jimmy mun,

Are you also jummy?

To clarify from the Protestant perspective, Christians baptize not because it is the way to salvation. No, a person receives salvation the moment he repents and receives Christ into his life.

Baptism is a public confession/testimony of one's faith.

And to whoever made jibes at my moniker, my conscience is clear before God because I personally think it is more cruel to lead a person to think that he still has chances to go to heaven after death because from the Protestant perspective, that is not possible if he has already heard and rejected the gospel.

Jimmy Mun said...


Dang, I realised that I was a little loose about the Greek/Aramaic part, but I thought I could get away with it.

Anyway, my point is not that my Bible is more correct than anybody else. I think all Bibles can have inherent mistakes or misrepresentations. Was Jesus winking when he said this? Was his fingers crossed when he said that? I hope I am not the only Christian to see the funny angle in "Jesus curses the fig tree"(Mark 11:12-14). God gave us a big brain and a big heart. We should use it instead of following the Bible, literally, blindly.

I never liked the idea of "Original Sin", personally. The Catholic Church may deny it, but the Church seems to imply that sex is a dirty thing because it spreads the "original sin". That is why the really "good" people, like priests and nuns, are celibate. I personally think it is not very healthy at all.

And I never claimed that the Catholic Church was free from Roman corruption. Or free from a whole series of corrupt popes. But is there enough of Jesus left worth pursuing? I think there is.

Anonymous said...

I too look forward to the day where we can have the legal system in the west where murderers, drug pushers, and rapists can have multiple appeals- and then perhaps spend a few years in a good jail with plenty of exercise, education, food, etc.. so that we can rehabilitate them. So what if we have to increase personal income tax to 45%. Remember its the fault of society - not the individual!

Jimmy Mun said...

"some tell me that Christians are not saved because the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church."

If a Catholic told you that, he/she is old school. After the Second Vatican Council that took place from 1962 - 1965, the Church's stand had been that it was wrong to claim a monopoly to salvation. The word Catholic really means universal, and every Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist is welcome in God's Kingdom.

If you grew up surrounded by corrupt Christians that lead you to reject the faith, I do not see why you should bear the consequences due to the sins of others.

Anyway, even if Christians are right, we are all in for a big surprise when we die. Every depiction of Jesus I have seen is that of a white man. Can you accept a Jesus who looks more like Osama Bin Laden?

Oh lastly, I'm sure George W Bush sleeps well every night. Everything he did, he did it for God. Clear conscience.

Anonymous said...

jimmy mun,

"Can you accept a Jesus who looks more like Osama Bin Laden?"

Why not? Does it matter how Jesus looks? Perhaps that is why a cross will suffice.

"Oh lastly, I'm sure George W Bush sleeps well every night. Everything he did, he did it for God. Clear conscience."

God sees what man fails to see. To me, it doesn't matter what man thinks but what God thinks.

Jimmy Mun said...

"Why not? Does it matter how Jesus looks? Perhaps that is why a cross will suffice."

It was just an example. What if he then introduces his wife, and kids, and then ask you why you ignored the "correct" versions of Gospels like Thomas and Judas and instead pursued the wrong ones placed into the Bible by that irritating Roman Constantine?

All I am saying is that our theology is full of guesswork and there is room for a lot of "oops" when we finally meet our maker.

Most Christians wont agree with me, of course. Their version of faith is always the most rightest correctest, because the Bible says so.

Anonymous said...

jimmy mun,

Do you realize that you are judging others through your self-righteous tinted glasses unconsciously?

Tell me exactly what is wrong with me sharing my views based on my beliefs? Aren't you also expressing you views based on yours? And do I criticize you for thinking you are the "rightest"?

Chill it man. It's not about who wins or lose or has the last say. It's an exchange of perspectives. If talking about religion means picking on others to make one look better, I am not surprised the government insists that we do not talk about religion.

Anthony said...

The capital punishment aspect was exactly what put me off signing up for civil service.

I had originally considered a career in Legal Aid, but the officers in charge told me I'd have to be a DPP first. When I asked about whether I'd be working on capital cases, they told me you might get one or two. Deal breaker for me.

Anonymous said...


Thumbs up!

We are making lots of enemies because of our arrogance. Latest may well be Nigeria.


Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Wang,

My note is not related to this particular article. I am merely using the comment facility to raise a matter which I find rather disquietening. I am referring to a recent ST report on how a Coast Guard boat clipped a cigarette smuggler's boat resulting in the death of one of the men on the latter.

It is obvious that the smuggler's death was a direct result of the Coast Guard ramming his boat.

The smuggler is a human being. His death cannot be simply assumed to be justified because he was committing an illegal act of attempting to smuggle cigarettes into Singapore.

I would have thought that the incident should be an automatic subject of an open inquiry/inquest, esp. when it involves members of our police. Does a refusal to heed the command of a law enforement officer of Singapore, gives the latter the right to take extreme actions, including that of causing death?

As a comparison, I recently read in the online NZ Herald about an off-duty NZ policeman who was hauled up and punished for driving while his blood acholol was above legal limit even though he was responding to a distress call from a citizen. It is quite clear that in the eyes of the law all are equal as far as the kiwis are concerned.

As an ex-DPP I would appreciate your views on the incident concerning the smuggler's death.
Under the circumstances, was it justifiable homicide? Do you agree that an inquiry is necessary? Don't the state have a duty to ensure that such cases are thoroughly investigated to ensure that our law enforcement officers do not take the law into their own hands in such circumstances, esp when it resulted in the tragic death of a human being?

By the way, I am not a human rights activists trying to cause trouble. I am very concerned that our laws and the people tasked to enforce them are grounded on sound and principled bases.

Yau said...

Hello Mr Wang,

Sometime back you were talking about marijuana. Have you read the latest reports on it?

This one from the Independent.


Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council, who backed our original campaign for cannabis to be decriminalised, has also changed his mind.

He said: "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't 10 years ago."

Many medical specialists agree that the debate has changed. Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis. "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting ill as a consequence of that."

"Society has seriously underestimated how dangerous cannabis really is," said Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties."

Maung SNZ, Cloud said...

I agree with your view that every execution is a tragedy. The implementation of the DP does not solve any problems at all - neither sides will win in the end.

I am also touched by CY's actions. He had to do his job and happened to win the case. The defendant was ordered to hang. Obviously, his conscience have bothered him. Thus, he at least prayed for the offender.