Lance D Johnson
Wed, 07 May 2025
Singapore's descent into medical tyranny
In a shocking move that tramples on fundamental human rights, Singapore has amended its Infectious Diseases Act (IDA)
to force medical procedures on its citizens under threat of
imprisonment. The amendments, enacted in 2023 and 2024, grant the
Director-General of Health unchecked power to mandate vaccines — even in the absence of an active outbreak — while stripping citizens of legal protections against government overreach.
Under
Sections 47, 65, and 67 of the IDA, Singaporeans who refuse
government-ordered vaccinations can be fined up to 10,000 (SGD) or
jailed for six months for a first "offense."
Repeat offenders face double the penalties, with fines up to 20,000 and a year behind bars. Worse yet, Section 67 absolves government officials of all liability, meaning citizens harmed by forced medical interventions have no legal recourse.
A direct assault on medical freedom and informed consent
The
amendments represent a blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code, which
established the principle of voluntary, informed consent after the
atrocities of Nazi medical experiments. The Singaporean government now
wields the power to force medical treatments on its people without accountability, echoing the darkest chapters of medical tyranny.
Dr.
Smith, a vocal critic of forced vaccination policies, condemned the
law: "Current disparate treatment runs rife across this nation,
spreading like wildfire. It demands in exchange for job security and
participation in society the injection of medical treatments that lack
both FDA approval and legal recourse when damaging side effects occur.
This is draconian at best and criminal at worst."
Singapore's
People's Power Party (PPP) has also raised alarms. PPP politician
Derrick Sim, a biotechnology and vaccine manufacturing expert, slammed
the law in an April 14 Facebook post: "Section 47, 65, and 67 of the
Infectious Disease Act were amended and in effect since 2023. If you choose not to go for vaccination
during the next pandemic, you will be deemed to commit an offense. You
will be criminalized. The penalty for first-time offense is 6 months
imprisonment or up to $10,000 fine, or both. Do you support this
ridiculous law?"
Alarming provisions highlighting threats to bodily autonomy, due process, and civil liberties
1. Forced Vaccination Under Threat of Imprisonment and Fines
Mandatory Compliance:
The law grants the Director-General of Health unchecked authority to
order any person or class of persons to undergo vaccination or medical
treatment during an outbreak (or even a suspected outbreak).
No
Right to Refusal: While the law claims that healthcare providers must
"explain" treatment, this is a hollow formality — force is explicitly
permitted if the individual does not comply.
Punitive Measures:
Non-compliance is punishable by fines up to
10,000(firstoffense)or10,000(firstoffense)or20,000 (repeat offense) and
imprisonment for 6-12 months.
2. Vague and Arbitrary Enforcement
No
Clear Definition of "Reckless Spread": The law states that recklessly
spreading a notifiable disease (e.g., refusing vaccination) could lead
to life imprisonment under Section 317 of the criminal code. However, it
does not define what constitutes "reckless" behavior, leaving room for
abuse and political persecution.
"Imminent Outbreak" Justifies
Coercion: The Director-General can mandate forced medical interventions
based on a subjective belief that an outbreak is "imminent," with no
requirement for concrete evidence.
3. Lack of Accountability for Authorities
Legal Immunity for Enforcers:
Section 67 shields government officials (including police and health
officers) from any personal liability, even if they act unlawfully, as
long as they claim to be acting in "good faith." This creates a license
for abuse with no consequences.
Magistrate's Court Bypasses Due
Process: Offenses under this law can be tried in a Magistrate's Court,
which can impose maximum penalties without standard legal safeguards,
effectively fast-tracking punishments.
4. Medical Tyranny and Loss of Bodily Autonomy
No
Exemptions for Conscience or Religion: The law does not appear to
recognize medical, religious, or conscientious objections, treating
refusal as a criminal act.
"Other Prophylaxis" Opens Door to
Broader Mandates: The vague term "other prophylaxis" could be
interpreted to include experimental drugs, forced quarantine, or other
invasive measures beyond just vaccines.
A dangerous precedent
Singapore's law sets a chilling precedent for governments worldwide. If
a nation can imprison citizens for refusing medical procedures, what
stops other regimes from following suit? The World Health Organization
(WHO) is already pushing for a global pandemic treaty that could enforce
similar mandates internationally, eroding medical sovereignty
worldwide.
History has shown that forced medical
interventions never end well. From Nazi Germany's experiments to
Tuskegee's unethical syphilis trials, governments that override bodily
autonomy always claim it's for the greater good — until the truth of
their crimes is exposed.
Will the world stand by as Singapore jails its own citizens for refusing harmful and ineffective vaccines?
Sources include:
LifesiteNews.com
SSO.AGC.gov
SSO.AGC.gov
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário