p thoughts and notices

The protection of children is one of the most effective arguments used by authorities in order to justify the prohibition of drugs. While paraphernalia is all for preventing drugs from reaching children, it is becoming increasingly clear that legislators worldwide have, like many children, either lost some marbles on the playground; are suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder; or are firmly stuck in their Peter Pan complex.

A series of events that have recently occurred in Singapore, a country renowned for its conservative policies, illustrate the fundamental lack of common sense exhibited by government when dealing with drugs.

On November 27, 2004, Singapore’s high court sentenced Indonesian maid Sumyati Kariyo Dikromo to four years’ imprisonment for suffocating a 2-year old child. The constant bawling of the baby annoyed the maid so much that she decided to use her handkerchief to stifle the sounds. After the toddler finally fell asleep, she went back to her chores. 3 hours later, she was unable to wake up the child, whose body was cold and motionless. Initially charged with murder, she was eventually convicted of culpable homicide. As per news report, she could have been sentenced to a maximum of 10 years.

Meanwhile, in a vast operation targeting “high society” (and we do mean high!) non-violent drug users, the nice folks of the CNB arrested 23 people in a high profile bust conducted in October. One of the arrested criminals, Nigel Simmonds, is the 40 year old editor of high society magazine Singapore Tatler, where the fashion preferences, food habits and brand selection of the rich and famous are discussed on a monthly basis. Facing five counts of possession and consumption of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia, Mr. Simmonds was sentenced to 2 years in jail while reportedly facing a term of up to 10 years.

Now, paraphernalia would like to ask the following question: how can it be that possession of 0.48 grams of cocaine and admission of previous usage of methamphetamine by an individual with no previous “criminal” track record, holding a decent job, and who never harmed another individual can carry the same sentence as killing a child? While not murder, culpable homicide of an infant does appear to be a greater offense than snorting cocaine. For example, in Canada, the punishment for culpable homicide has no maximum, while possession of cocaine for consumption carry a maximum sentence of seven years.

While not necessarily comparing Canada to Singapore, the Canadian policy does seem more logical than Singapore’s. Surely, the punishment must somehow reflect the severity of the crime (not that paraphernalia thinks that drug should be illegal, but still!). Then again, the government of Singapore considers homosexual acts as a crime, while at the same time tolerating a gay pride” parade (confused yet?).

Lost in all paraphernalia's usual babble is the fact that Mr. Simmonds’s wife is four months pregnant and must now leave Singapore. While paraphernalia is certain that the law enforcement officials are feeling good about themselves, it does wonder who will now “protect” the unborn child of Mr. Simmonds? Family values indeed! As Billie Holiday sang, God bless the child that’s got his own!