Tang jailed for a day and fined in kidney—for—sale case
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20080904/tap-569-tang-jailed-day-fined-kidney-for-231650b.html

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s retail magnate Tang Wee Sung, 55, was jailed for one day on Wednesday and fined a total of S$17,000 for agreeing to buy a kidney illegally and lying to the Commissioner of Oaths

About 10 family members and his lawyer were present when he was freed.
Tang had pleaded guilty to two of three charges a week ago. The first charge was for agreeing to buy a kidney for about S$300,000 and the other, for lying to the Commissioner of Oaths.
The third charge — of lying to the Mount Elizabeth Hospital’s Transplant Ethics Committee — was taken into consideration during sentencing.

For the past weeks, Tang’s walk to the courts had been deliberate due to his medical condition. It was no different earlier Wednesday, and his deteriorating health from end—stage renal failure was one reason why the district judge did not give him a long jail term.

In fact, Tang asked to be seated in the middle of the sentencing because of his poor health.
District Judge Ng Peng Hong explained why one day in jail would be sufficient for Tang. First, his ill health — Tang is undergoing daily dialysis and his health could be further aggravated in jail.
District Judge Ng said: "Incarceration itself would most likely have very much harsher consequences for him than what is intended for the ordinary offender."

But he stressed that Tang’s offences are "serious in nature" and the sentence should reflect that.
The judge added that the "weight of culpability in this case lies not with the desperate and dying, but more with the dealers or middlemen who seek to profit from the desperation of the poor as well as the desperation of the terminally ill."

So he said "the need for retributive justice should be reserved for the middlemen and not for the desperately and terminally ill."

Last Wednesday, Tang’s lawyer Cavinder Bull urged the judge to impose a fine for the organ—trading charge. For the second charge of lying to the Commissioner of Oaths, Mr Bull said at most a one—day jail sentence would be appropriate.

Mr Bull laid out factors to convince the judge why Tang should not go to jail. He said Tang was driven by pure desperation to commit the offence as he suffers not just from end—stage renal failure but other medical problems such as diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Mr Bull said Tang also had no intention to exploit the poor and socially disadvantaged and that he never received a kidney in the end.

On the prosecution’s part, it had called for a fine of S$10,000 for the first charge and a "very short" jail sentence for the second.

On Wednesday, Mr Bull described the judgement as a "learned" one. "I guess from the defence point of view, we’re very gratified that he (judge) has accepted our submissions on judicial mercy as has been defined by the High Court," he added.

Mr Bull went on to say: "It’s still a conviction, he (Tang) is going into prison and that takes its toll on him. He obviously is going to be relieved that it’s (jail term) not longer than what he (would have) gotten, but I would not underestimate the impact of the sentence on him."
Mr Bull also called the decision a fair one and has no plans to file any appeals.

Tang’s family and friends, a total of about 50 of them, packed the courtroom for the 45—minute sentencing. When they came out, some were seen wiping away their tears.
Reactions were mixed on whether Tang should even have been sent to jail for one day.
Dr Jannie Tay, president of Singapore Retailers Association, said: "For the last three years, he was very sick, and was waiting for this (kidney) match. And finally it happened, he’s just being caught at the wrong time.

"He’s done everything he could, he’s been a good man, he’s not hurt anyone, he thought that was the right process and even (a) one—day sentence, he should never have gotten (it)."
Keith Chua, a childhood friend of Tang, said: "We’re relieved that the court has been merciful in addressing the case. Even though it may seem like a short sentence of one day, knowing his condition, we still remain concerned for him."

The two Indonesian men involved in the kidney—for—sale case were sentenced to jail and fined on July 3.

Sulaiman Damanik, 26, who agreed to sell his kidney to Tang was sentenced to two weeks in jail and fined S$1,000. As he could not pay the fine, he was jailed for another one week.
The middleman, Wang Chin Sing — who brokered the deal between Tang and Sulaiman — will be sentenced on Friday.

He pleaded guilty to five charges related to this case. The charges include how 44—year—old Wang had coached Tang and Sulaiman to lie to the Commissioner of Oaths and the hospital’s Ethics Committee.
___________________________________________________________________

An issue which has been recently brought up in the news would be that of organ trading, and its place in Singapore. Mr. Tang Wee Sung, a prominent Singaporean businessman, was arrested and charged for illegal organ trading. This refers to the outlawed practice of ‘buying’ and ‘selling’ a person’s organs, under the guise of organ donation. There is a multitude of varying opinions on the issue at hand, ranging from strong approval to calls for it to remain illegal.

According to a recent survey, most young Singaporeans actually disapprove of this practice. They claim that it was “just not right” to buy and sell parts of the human body, even though this may have led to a greater number of lives saved. Out of the approximately three hundred people who were surveyed, seven in ten expressed this opinion.

Personally, I feel that this reaction is unjustified. We, as individuals, have to do what we can to spare our fellow human beings from prolonged pain, and more so death, even if the methods we have to undertake are as "unethical" as organ trading. There are many times when conducting an organ trade would be beneficial for both the parties, the donor and the recipient. Not only does the recipient have his condition alleviated, but the donor also often receives a handsome payment. In fact, an article from The Straits Times showed how many men in an Indonesian village had resorted to selling their organs in order to escape the poverty cycle. By selling their superfluous organs, such as a parts of their liver or a kidney, they had enough money to use as capital in a business and were then able to benefit financially, thus bringing about a higher standard of living in the area.

In addition, another criticism of the majority’s viewpoint would be that it is far too idealistic and sentimental. To quote someone speaking on this topic, “most people who oppose organ trading probably have not had any similar experience” of the plight the sufferers of organ failure have to endure till their last breaths. They are willing to let patients suffer unnecessary pain, just because they have no relatives who can donate an organ. On an emotional level, I urge everyone who opposes organ trading to empathize with the patients who truly need it. It is naïve to think that saving a human life is less important than what is “just right”, given the practical solution offered by the selling of organs. We must not allow these so-called “ethical issues” to cloud our judgment and deter us from saving more lives.

Of course, organ selling might have some drawbacks. In such a system, the poor patients may be marginalized because the organs go to the highest bidder. Those who cannot afford to pay the costly price of an organ could be left behind, unable to find a replacement organ. Additionally, there may be health risks which allow diseases or conditions to be passed from donor to recipient, especially if there are unscrupulous sellers out there.

However, these arguments are precisely why we should legalize organ trading. These arguments are applicable only because organ trading is illegal. Currently, because organ trading is illegal, it is dangerously unregulated, with shady deals transpiring between donors and recipients. This is precisely what allows the unscrupulous sellers to cheat the desperate patients, and also the reason behind the high sums behind the transactions. If organ selling is legalized, the government could act as an effective third party to ensure everything goes smoothly and is above board. Also, it could help to regulate and subsidize the price of the organs, in order to ensure that the poorer patients would not lose out due to lack of financial resources. With an effective system of checks and balances to prevent any form of abuse, organ trading would be able to proceed smoothly and the people who genuinely need the organs would be able to reap the benefits. We can clearly see how organ trading would benefit us practically, through a greater amount of human lives saved, and economically, with organ trading being a viable source of income for those with lower income. It brings about social benefits as well by enabling those without family or friends to relieve their conditions through the buying of organs.

Therefore, I strongly urge all Singaporeans who oppose organ trading to get off their ethical high horses. Insisting that we outlaw organ trading because it is “just not right” would be tantamount to depriving many people of their health and chances of attaining a better quality of life, for the sake of one's naïve view of the world. We can all see how it would bring about greater benefit than harm, so there is no reason why legalization of it should be prohibited. As I have earlier mentioned, we cannot allow a pompous view of ethics to overrule our better sense and stop us from being practical.

It is rather obvious that legalizing organ trading is in fact, the best step forward for all of us.

To Mrs Seow: My sincere apologies Mrs Seow for the late submission, I had posted the essay on my social studies blog instead of this English Blog, misunderstood the instructions.

Nature advocates that no one person is similar to another. We have different characteristics, different needs and desires, values, aspirations, and ideals. These very individual needs would definitely have the potential to contradict with one another across peoples of a different society. For example, an elder might want a simple environment to live in, while a technically savvy youth would prefer a more gadget-filled and high-tech society. Given this ever-present conflict between individuals, there would always be some need, or the potential for some need, for one party to give in, to relent, surely bringing about some form of discontent, no matter how big or small. These needs can cause conflict, and hence no compromise can truly eliminate discontent within any society.

“Democracy creates stability.”

In considering this statement, it is essential that its terms are defined, so as to ease a closer examination and assessment of the statement at hand. Democracy is a state where absolute power is vested in the hands of the people, and proposes equality of all men. We have to bear in mind though, that how democracy is viewed and has been practised has progressed over the years, and there is no one definition that can encapsulate the entire meaning of it. The term “stability” here is a state a society is in, where there is minimal discontent and unrest, and no presence of potential conflict.

Discontent among people gives rise to conflict. And for a society to be stable, free from any form of potential conflict, there has to be the elimination of as much discontent within the society as possible. Flipping through any historical textbook would show the countless examples of the past, like in Ancient China where emperors were overthrown when the commoners felt that they were unfairly treated by their incompetent government, giving rise to many rebellions. Such is the power of the potential conflict stemming from discontent among the people.

Democracy offers the option of voting, and thrives on active citizen participation. Such participation arises when there is a need for it, be it during an election where representatives of the people are required or more obviously in demonstrations where there is the voicing of concerns. Democracy does propose the equality of all men, but in the case of voting, the needs of the minority will always be compromised, leading to discontent within a section of the society. This discontent, especially so amongst a large number of people, has the potential to bring about large-scale conflicts, and ultimately, instability. I personally feel that this reduced attention paid to the minority is unfair, and can be deemed a form of discrimination. The nature of voting dictates that the majority wins, hence it is important how the society treats minority views in the process. Minority views should be recognized, and accommodated, not dismissed. However in the case of democracy, the views of the minority are rarely considered, and there is a failure to accommodate everyone. This tension between the majority and minority groups is inevitable, even more so in the case of democracy.
Deviating viewpoints and ways of thinking create factions in societies that ultimately go against each other. Democracy does just that. It provides a platform for deviating ways of thinking among people, where you have political parties competing against each other, and when the people of a society are made to vote it is highly unlikely every single individual makes the same decision. This is definitely not stability, but rather a constant struggle for power in the houses of parliament in democracies. The society is divided based on the number of political parties there are, and not only do these parties compete against each other, the people of the society have to make their decisions on the deserving party of their sacred votes. Societies are split up because of this. Take a look at Malaysia where the UMNO is full of internal disagreement, and cracks in the government are beginning to show. If there is conflict within the ruling body, how is it possible for the people to be free of discontent? The country and society can never be stable this way, which is exactly the result of democracy: the catalyst for individual views and expressions.
In today’s world, democracy is practised widely and if we take into consideration the amount of discontent generated from other political systems from the past, democracy can be said to be the most stable amongst the existing systems. However, although democracy may perhaps be the best way to deal with the conflicts and discontent within a society, it certainly does not mean that democracy creates stability, which is the issue at hand. As much as democracy is the optimal way to settle for a compromise and generate the least amount of discontent, stability is not created. In fact, the existence of a flawless system does not exist, and no system can create stability, based on the sole fact that humans are different, and it is almost impossible to derive a method to eliminate discontent. The individuality in a democratic society merely makes it harder for discontent to be minimalised. With the divisions among political parties which are a must for any form of election to go on, democracy in this case just breeds more tension between different sections within the society, be it the majority against minority situation, or the scenario where the society is divided based on the followers of the different political parties.

This presence of such individuality in a society can inevitably create instability, and democracy produces a diversity of individual expression. It does not create stability, but instead offers a compromise. To every compromise, there will still be discontent, and always the presence of potential conflict, from which instability emerges. Democracy is not the sole creator of stability, it hinges on a myriad of other factors as well.

For a country like Singapore that has been stabilized by authoritative figures such as Lee Kuan Yew, stability was not obtained based on democracy alone. It also required the close inspection of the economical and political circumstances, which led to the making of key decisions by the country’s rulers. This demonstrates that stability is not derived from democracy alone, but also a myriad of other factors. Therefore, it would not only be incorrect, but also impossible for democracy to be deemed the creator of social stability.

Blog Commentary 1

Title:
Two more arrested in China over celebrity sex photos
Date:
01 Mar 2008 1703 hrs (GMT + 8hrs)
BEIJING : Two Chinese men have been held in police custody for five days for posting explicit photographs of Hong Kong celebrities on the Internet, state media said Saturday.
The two men from central Hunan province were detained for circulating the photographs of actor and singer Edison Chen apparently having sex with a number of Hong Kong starlets, Xinhua news agency said.
The arrests are the latest in a case that has caused a sensation in Hong Kong, where the pictures were downloaded and distributed after Chen's laptop was taken to a computer shop for repairs, earlier reports have said.
Xinhua said the two men were arrested after police found more than 10 graphic images in an online post which attracted more than 100,000 hits.
The pair had 400 of the explicit images, out of a reported total of more than 1,300, and had invited friends to their home to see them, it said.
Previously, 11 people had been detained by police in relation to the photos, the report said, adding that producing, copying or circulating pornographic products, even without a profit motive, is illegal in China.
The photos of Chen and at least seven women -- including Cantopop singer Gillian Chung, actress Cecilia Cheung and former actress Bobo Chan -- began appearing in January.
Last month, Chen publicly admitted he had taken the pictures, apologised and announced his retirement from the local entertainment scene.
Police in both Hong Kong and Taiwan have also detained people on suspicion of possessing and distributing the photographs.
- AFP/ir

__________________________________________________________________

When any one of your bad boy heartthrob actors steals the headlines with shocking news, a public uproar spanning several days is always guaranteed. Now bring into the picture seven other mesmerizing actresses whom everyone has seen in various drama serials and what you end up with is one out-of-proportioned controversy rocking the entertainment scene.

The recent saga involving Hong Kong actor Edison Chen and several other big-name actresses has sparked off an extremely controversial debate of some sort revolving around an endless stream of topics, e.g. who, among those involved in the public collage of intimate photos, had suffered the most.

The sudden leak of photos portraying Chen and at least seven other female celebrities came as a shock to many, and gave rise to widespread illegal sales of the pictures. The police faced an uphill task in their bid to prevent the circulation of photos, especially within the black market.

From this issue alone, many questions have been raised as to why Chen would have done such a thing, to indulge in taking photos of his sexual adventures. The answer is simple, yet unconvincing; he enjoyed (probably not anymore) his experiences, and merely wanted to encapsulate these memories in their digital form for reminiscence in the future, or could even have played the part of metaphorical trophies from his conquests. The bitter aftermath of having to share them with the rest of the world though, perhaps never crossed his mind until chaos struck.

What this entire episode reveals, is the implicit trust these ladies had in Chen, who were in full knowledge of their private photos being taken. We are not referring to innocent, ignorant teenage girls here, but instead mature celebrities who are well familiar with the complexity and relationships that arise in this movie industry. One may wonder just what it is that allows a young woman to be willingly photographed in such a manner. Did they not ever once imagine the possibility, no matter how remote, of their photos being manipulated or exploited if they were to accidentally fall into the wrong hands?

The several female celebrities must have undergone immense nerve-wrecking moments, anticipating if their photos would show up, after seeing fellow compatriots suffer the unfortunate fate of having their very own nights of rendezvous appear on millions of peoples’ monitors – with some constantly ogling, while others in utter disbelief.

In retrospect, I hope this can serve to emphasize on how one’s private digital data can be so easily exposed and circulated. With the increasing popularity of blogs, an area where many post pictures of photos of themselves and others, users of such technology, especially youths, will be more conscious of the constant risk of similar situations occurring in the this technologically savvy generation we have today. Also, it has highlighted the measures that should be taken to safeguard one’s personal data storage, and not end up like Chen.

Ladies who allow their partners to take compromising photos of themselves I feel, should not be so naïve as to believe that these pictures will be restricted to the eyes of their partners alone, as relationships may not last, and these pictures may just be revealed in that momentary lack of judgement.