Australia treating Nguyen like a martyr

last SG · 2005-12-01T18:00:35+00:00

Lawyer Julian McMahon has emerged from an emotional visit to Changi prison. Mr McMahon says his client is completely rehabilitated and the execution is a te...

dragg SG

extracted from ST forum.

Nguyen pushed drugs despite twin's addiction

AS AN American who has accepted my country's use of the death penalty to punish murderers, I hope to offer a relatively objective view of the controversy over Singapore's execution of Australian heroin trafficker Nguyen Tuong Van.

I find the mandatory death sentence for the non-violent crime of drug trafficking to be incredibly harsh. I therefore would expect Australia to plead for clemency, and I support its efforts in doing so. Yet, I do not think that disputing the death penalty should devolve into attacks on Singapore.

Some Australian clemency sentiments have morphed into unfair and witless attacks on Singapore: Official calls for trade bans; threats of long-term resentment; a union's talk of refusing to service Singapore Airlines planes at Australian airports; and even the insulting characterisation of Singapore as a 'rogue Chinese port city'.

These attacks on Singapore lack the perspective of Nguyen's culpability and forget that Singapore did not instigate the present controversy - rather, Singapore is reacting to a crime with good-faith application of its long-established laws.

Have some Australians forgotten that Nguyen carried out an activity whose only possible outcome would be to harm the people of Australia? The country is his adopted homeland, it is the place that welcomed and supported his family fleeing Vietnam.

What makes his crime even more egregious is that he knew, first-hand, the harm that heroin can inflict on a family because his twin brother Khoa was an addict - yet he sought out the trafficking job, knowing full well that he would facilitate the pain of drugs he experienced upon other families.

Compare Nguyen's intended harm to Australia with Singapore's law enforcement: Looking at it with emotional detachment, Singapore's mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, if anything, helps Australia.

By deterring traffickers from going through Singapore, a major transit point between heroin-growing regions and Australia, drug suppliers would have a much more difficult time distributing their poisons.

Singapore did not start the controversy, Nguyen did. Singapore has had its death penalty on the books for the past few decades. The country is enforcing the death penalty on Nguyen just as it had for hundreds of other criminals. This is nothing new.

Yet only now are some Australians attacking Singapore at a fever pitch-when the law is being enforced against an Australian.

Warren K. Woo
California, USA

wallabyBob SG

As for this...

Well I just hope you never make a stupid mistake Simon.

BadzMaro SG

Laughing

adios Nguyen..
lets hope he dies fast with his neck bone cracked.. dun want to see those failed attempts n he slowly suffocates to death look on the bright side...mmm... gee.. cant think of any.. lol

LazerLordz SG

RIP to the fellow.If he has repented, he will find salvation.

Anyway, it is interesting to note that the Misuse of Drugs Act has no heading in the law that says

" Be it enacted by the President with the advice and consent of the Parliament of Singapore, as follows."

Under Article 60 of our Constitution, any law to be deemed valid in Singapore is required to have this header.

Every statute enacted by Parliament is required to have this header and it is highly debatable whether this law, without an authorising header, is actually even Constitutional.It's important that this issue be addressed, because we have been arresting and executing people under a law that does not even have a header that should basically empower the Act.

Quite a few other laws also lack this header.Can anyone well-versed in law explain why this so?

Also see

Article 60 Singapore's Constitution
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1999-REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE%0a&date=latest&method=part&segid=931158660-001483#931158660-001899
Misuse of Drugs Act
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=2001-REVED-185&doctitle=MISUSE%20OF%20DRUGS%20ACT%0a&date=latest&method=part&segid=997496625-000004#997496625-000004
Lawyer who attempted to use this evidence to block the hanging,
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17435230%255E421,00.html

Croaking_Toad SG

Is that supposed to be funny??? Rolling Eyes

It's sad to see a young life put to an end. It's also sad to see why he did it in the first place.

But knowing very well the consequences of his actions, is not forgivable. I do not understand why the Australians can't see why the death sentence was imposed for drug offenses. For them, maybe a wrecked family is a normal thing.

Countries such as Singapore imposed the mandatory death sentence mainly as a deterent. However, some idiots still try their luck. Never, did we proclaim that the population here is drug-free. But certainly it's much better than in countries where drug related problems are viewed with a closed eye.

Would be interesting to see what the layperson of Australia thinks of the death sentence for drug offences. Would also be interesting to know their feelings if someone in their family was involved in drugs. How would they handle such situation?

Chin Eng SG

Australia is a beautiful country with wonderful people.

They condone the young fooling around with drugs, becoming addicts, and drug mules. And when caught, the countrymen will be up in arms and demand that the other country change their law to suit their countrymen's mentality of the world.

And when the other country does not change its ruling, they will make a hero and martyr of the criminal.

I don't really care if Aussies change their minds about Singapore because my opinion of the these Aussies is of an all time low.

No wonder so many drug couriers in the region are Australians!

Nelstar SG

Yeah, now even teachers from Australia are bringing drugs.

Well done Australia!

Laughing

fudgester SG

What a disgusting piece of so-called humour. I am highly revolted by this piece of crap which you posted.

Poking fun at the execution of a person is not a joke, regardless of the fact that Nguyen is a drug trafficker. You may feel safe and empowered saying all this while hiding behind that computer screen of yours.... well, try telling that to Nguyen's loved ones in the face.

Bet you don't have the gonads to do that. So please do humanity a favour and shut up.

ditzy SG

Who's talking about theirs? Its ours, Singapore's one we're talking about. Laughing

ditzy SG

I was hoping for a rally or something so I can take the morning off due to bad traffic. Laughing

Weirdo80 SG

Ugh, reading these forums really shows the horrible side of Singaporeans. No compassion, joking about death. Makes me sick to the stomach and damned ashamed to be called a Singaporean.

People are not pissed off about the hanging so much as being dulan about the lack of compassion that this horrible speck in the ocean has.

I tell you, someday all this will come back and bite Singapore. What makes it even worse is the fact that I spent 2.5 yrs serving the regime that funds Burmese drug lords. And here the politicians are, trying to be all high and mighty while stuffing their coffers with drug money. Sickening!

Chin Eng SG

Compassion is a misunderstood word.

What is compassion? Convert the sentence to prison term? The law was made first, to change it is to make a mockery of our judicial system.

Compassion should have started at home - NYT's home. He has decided to put his family in this predicament.

I am sure we feel for his mother, and especially his twin brother who is the cause of NYT's situation, but that does not and cannot change the law.

Burmese drug money? Allegations made by Burmese oppositions? or our favourite opposition "leader"?

Weirdo80 SG

The following paragraph references "Jean Tan", who was the First Secretary of the Singapore embassy in Washington D.C. This

The Singapore government's response again confirms the fact that the
government, through the GIC and the Myanmar Fund, was doing business
with legendary drug trafficker Lo Hsing Han of Burma. Indeed, the rush
in August to shut down the Myanmar Fund--only one aspect of a
complicated web of investments with Lo and Burma's
narco-dictatorship--is a clear indication that something is very wrong.
(As we noted in our article, Lo and his company Asia World are under
investigation by narcotics officials in several countries.)

Beyond this, Jean Tan's specific criticisms do not address the
substance of our article. Nowhere did we say that the GIC?s use of
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. as a custodian was "sinister or secret." The
newsworthy point is that a major U.S. financial institution had
business ties to a known heroin dealer.

Furthermore, Tan's assertion that the GIC was merely a "passive
investor" is belied by the fund?s own documents, one of which says that
the GIC is a "core shareholder" and as such has a representative on the
investment committee of the fund. "The committee will determine whether
investment proposals are viable and whether they should be approved for
investment by the Fund" says the 1994 document. (As manager of the
GIC since 1991, Eddie Taw Cheng Kong was the GIC representative on the
fund investment committee until very recently. Taw was sentenced in
May to nine years in jail and a $2.4 million fine for accepting bribes
from companies whose shares were purchased by the GIC.)

Tan's statement on Dr. Chee Soon Juan's refusal to set up a commission
is misleading. Dr. Chee was not a member of Parliament and thus would
have been excluded from the commission. His colleagues in Parliament
were afraid of lawsuits and other repercussions. Dr. Chee had already
been the target of a government defamation law suit and was forced to
sell his house and borrow heavily to avoid bankruptcy. Amnesty
International says that Singapore's leaders are systematically
?resorting to defamation suits as a politically-motivated tactic to
silence critical views and curb opposition activity."

Chee still had the courage to speak out, but his questions (in a
letter to the Prime Minister and The Straits Times) remain unanswered
by the ruling elite: Is Lo Hsing Han allowed to move freely in and out
of Singapore, for example? Has the government investigated the
background of Lo's son Steven Law, who has been denied a U.S. visa on
suspicion of drug trafficking? Will the government state clearly that
Burma?s junta is not helping or turning a blind eye to drugtrafficking?

Although the Myanmar Fund is now undergoing liquidation, these
investments represented only a small part of Singapore's total
investment in Burma. The US government has reported that more than half
of Singapore's $1 billion-plus investment in Burma is tied to Lo Hsing
Han and his family.

Dennis Bernstein and Leslie Kean (they are Americans, not Australians)

Chin Eng SG

Is Lo Hsing Han allowed to move freely in and out of Singapore, for example?
Unless Lo Hsing Han is an escape convict or a wanted criminal in his country of origin there is no reason to prevent him from entering Singapore. If he did what he did out of Singapore, what can immigration do?
Has the government investigated the background of Lo's son Steven Law, who has been denied a U.S. visa on suspicion of drug trafficking?
The fact that Steven Law was denied a US visa is immaterial. Do we act according to US's judgement, and if we do, what is the world's view on us?
Will the government state clearly that Burma's junta is not helping or turning a blind eye to drugtrafficking?
I believe enough was stated by the Singapore government, whether others believe or accept or not is not the issue.

As far as I can tell, this particular story stems from a very narrow scope of reporting. A search for this story in the Internet, seems to state the the original source was the same. Example: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/BurmaSingapore_Drugs.html

Also Chee Soon Juan has shown to be a person with very little credibility. Outward the image of an oppressed opposition seem to work wonders with foreign politicians, but in reality, we all know what kind of person he really is. It would be good if the accusations come from Low Khia Thiang or Chiam See Tong.

LazerLordz SG

There is never smoke without fire.The truth is that, even Lo Hsing Han aside, the government has very close ties to the junta even to the extent of miltary sales, and this to a dictatorial regime that uses oppression on its citizens, is highly suspect.

Chin Eng SG

In a way, this statement is not far from the truth. I do not believe that there is ONE government in the world that is totally untainted some way or other. On the same tone, I believe each individual is a hypocrite one time or other.

The issue at hand is: the rationale for the tough drug law is for drugs LANDING on our borders, in which case NYT is guilty of doing. The law, as well as the punishment, is clear to him and anyone else reaching here.

The moment the argument shifts to issues like compassion, those who did not sin..., second chance, mother issue, alleged Burmese connection, then there is really no end lah. That being the case, no need law lor!

The murky issue with Burma may have to do with ASEAN trade agreement. Arms sales? Like all businesses, we sell to whoever want to pay. On the same note, when we buy weapons, Malaysia also kowpeh.

We are probably NOT the only country dealing with Burma. If I want to nitpick, I'd say that Malaysia is also involved because Kuok Singapore (not sure of the actual name) owns by Robert Kuok who is a Malaysian (I believe).

It is enough to say that the reports quoted were very old, unless something newer and more solid comes around, there is very little purpose in harping on old allegations.

LazerLordz SG

You have a point.I'm only outlining the fact that the Burmese connections stretches way beyond the current ASEAN FTA spirit.It stretches back to the beginning of the 1970s, with Israeli involvement in the selfsame military and surveillance equipment support from them.

It's all business,I'm sure.But it's still highly suspect.

Think from another point of view, some factions always benefit when issues are forgotten or hushed up.

I see Singapore being more pro-active on the Burma issue, and that is a good step forward.No point letting that nation drag ASEAN down.Someone has to stand up at one point and let them know that fact.

Chin Eng SG

Well said, Laz... Laughing

I am just unhappy that when folks try to prove a point, all they can dig up is something that was written way back in 1998. It would be helpful is there are more substantial data to support such allegations.

wallabyBob SG

It is enough to say that the reports quoted were very old, unless something newer and more solid comes around, there is very little purpose in harping on old allegations.

Well, I think Singapore can expect some very serious scrutiny for quite a while.

And not before time.

the Bear SG

may i ask something?

what about the view of mandatory 25 to life in some US states for the "three strikes" law?

you could get done for shoplifting and get 25 to life

« Previous Page Next Page »