Why Nguyen must die
Singapore's decision to execute Nguyen Tuong Van for drug
trafficking is correct and responsible.
ALTHOUGH opinions in Australia are not unanimous, many Australians
strongly oppose Singapore's decision not to commute the death
sentence on Mr Nguyen Tuong Van for drug trafficking. I respect
these views, which spring from a deep sense of human compassion.
However, the outcry has also made it difficult to separate fact
from fiction.
Fiction No. 1: Singapore has breached international law.
There is no international agreement to abolish the death penalty.
Capital punishment remains part of the criminal justice systems of
76 countries, including in the United States, where it is practised
in 38 states.
We respect Australia's sovereign choice not to have capital
punishment. We hope Australia will likewise respect Singapore's
sovereign choice to impose the death penalty for the most serious
crimes, including drug trafficking. The overwhelming majority of
Singaporeans support this.
Fiction No. 2: The death penalty has not deterred drug
trafficking.
This logic is flawed. The death penalty has not completely
eliminated drug trafficking, but it has certainly deterred drug
trafficking. Since the introduction of tough anti-drug laws in the
mid-1970s, drug trafficking and drug abuse in Singapore have come
down significantly. Potential traffickers know that, once arrested,
they face the full weight of the law.
Fiction No. 3: Mr Nguyen is an unsuspecting victim
Mr Nguyen may not be a hardened criminal, but he is not an
unsuspecting victim either. He knew what he was doing and the
penalty if he was caught. Had he succeeded, he would have made a
lot of money. If we let off a convicted courier because of age,
financial difficulties or distressed family background, it will
only make it easier for drug traffickers to recruit more "mules",
with the assurance that they will escape the death penalty.
Fiction No 4: The punishment does not fit crime.
Mr Nguyen was caught with 396 grams of pure heroin, enough for
26,000 "hits", with a street value of more than $A1 million.
Yes, he was transiting Singapore, and not smuggling drugs into the
country, but Singapore simply cannot afford to allow itself to
become a transit hub for illicit drugs in the region.
Fiction No. 5: Mr Nguyen can testify against Mr Bigs.
All drug syndicates assume that some of their couriers will get
caught. They never let the couriers know enough to incriminate
themselves. The information that Mr Nguyen provided to the
Singapore authorities was of limited value, and was, in fact,
intended to mislead and delay the investigation.
Fiction No. 6: Singapore connives with drug lords.
This is an old falsehood propagated by Dr Chee Soon Juan (Singapore
opposition leader). He has alleged that the Singapore Government
had invested in projects in Myanmar (Burma) that supported the drug
trade. When this first surfaced in 1996, the Singapore Government
explained that its investment in the Myanmar Fund was completely
open and above board. The fund held straightforward commercial
investments in hotels and companies. Other investors in the fund
included Coutts & Co, an old British bank, and the Swiss Bank
Corporation. The Singapore Government offered to set up a
commission of inquiry so Dr Chee could produce evidence to prove
his wild allegations. Unfortunately, Dr Chee never took up the
offer.
Fiction No. 7: Singapore has treated Australia with contempt.
Singapore highly values good relations with Australia and with
Australian leaders. We share a common belief in the sanctity of the
law. The Singapore cabinet deliberated at length on Mr Nguyen's
clemency petition. It considered all relevant factors, including Mr
Nguyen's personal circumstances, and the many public and private
appeals from Australian leaders. Unfortunately, finally the cabinet
decided that it could not justify making an exception for Mr
Nguyen. It had to treat Mr Nguyen consistently with similar past
cases, and apply the law equally to Singaporeans and
foreigners.
Singapore's leaders have taken pains to explain our decision to
Australian leaders, both in writing and in person. Singapore's
Foreign Minister had also informed Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer confidentially in advance of when the family would be
notified of the execution date, and explained to Mr Downer that
that the family should be the first to learn of the execution date.
So when Singapore's Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, met Prime
Minister John Howard in Busan, he could not inform Mr Howard of the
execution date either. Mr Lee did not know that the letter of
notification had by mistake already been delivered to Mrs Kim
Nguyen, one day early. Once Mr Lee discovered what had happened, he
promptly apologised to Mr Howard.
Australians who oppose the death sentence on Mr Nguyen will not
agree with everything I have said. But I hope they will accept that
the Singapore Government has a responsibility to protect the many
lives that would otherwise be blighted and destroyed by the drug
syndicates, and to prevent Singapore from becoming a conduit for
illicit drugs in the region. We are all touched by the pain and
anguish of Mr Nguyen's mother, but if we waver in our firm position
against drug trafficking, many more families will be
shattered.
Joseph K. H. Koh is Singapore high commissioner in Australia.
This picture may lead to a lot of interpretation
siah...I interprete it as Aussie view it as the Lee's empire...
