If you care to believe it, this blog tries to make a difference in the world by dedicating itself to the Democracy, Discussion, Freedom, and Furtherment of Comedy.

The author (mainly? sometimes??) talks about Singapore, but is into all things comedy and comical. And once even seriously entertained the notion of going into stand-up comedy full-time.

but not if the police make you do it...

face it, folks - that's just life in Singapore. (Ok, maybe not "make" - but as Jelts points out, "provoke"...)

I am suddenly reminded of what George Carlin says in "You Are All Diseased":

In prisons, before they give you a lethal injection, they swab your arm with alcohol!

this means that: the law is dead. ie. "not living."

Ok, anyway, rants aside (or rather, jokes aside, actually), here are some selected quotes from the abovementioned article...

selected quotes:

The decisions of Singapore courts on the issue of entrapment follow those of the British courts, on which our legal framework is based.

However, Britain's highest court also recently signalled a change of heart. In a landmark case involving one Spencer Grant Looseley, the House of Lords ruled that the courts should ensure the state does not 'oppress citizens'.

Looseley had been approached several times by an undercover police officer who tried to get him to sell dope.

Calling this a 'state-created' crime, Lord Nicholls said: 'It is simply not acceptable that the state, through its agents, should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so.'

Other countries like the United States and Canada also take the approach that if the entrapment is excessive, all evidence from it can be thrown out, thus weakening the prosecution's case considerably.

The problem, then, is defining what is excessive - which is not easy for the courts either.

Lord Nicholls offered this yardstick: Whatever is done to trap the suspect should be similar to what an ordinary person, whom the officer is impersonating, would normally do.

Thus, the inducement offered by the officer as bait should be 'consistent with the ordinary temptations and stratagems' a criminal usually faces.

(referring to Singapore)

Even if a court dismisses a case on grounds of excessive inducement, the authorities can always use the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which does not require an open court trial for certain types of detainees, he said.

(howww interesting. Abuses not included; accessories sold separately)

So if the courts won't deal with 'morality issues', who should?

Prof Chin felt this responsibility lies with the law enforcement agencies themselves. 'There must be more internal accountability in the law enforcement agencies, and supervision of such operations from a high level of authority,' he said.

uh??? i'm so thankful nobody ever thought to answer to the ordinary citizen - namely, me. At least this way, i can shirk all responsibility in running the country. All i have to do is just turn up for the polls every few years - and then just vote (if i ever get a chance to, seeing as how GRC boundaries keep on shifting here and there (they will put any self-respecting shape-shifter to shame!!!)) - and then everybody can just proceed to go on with doing whatever they've been doing all along. Just like it has always been in the past. Wooonderful.

I'm so grateful at least i get to vote (this seems to me like about the only time when the opinions of the citizens truly matter) - whereupon all responsibility towards me, the citizen, is duly discharged. For my convenience, of course.