MANDATORY death sentences? Fuck off Singapore.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Atticus Finch

I have no objection to Singapore being sovereign within its territory, and recognize its right to set its own laws. This has gone without saying in my previous posts, as has the fact that I’m making value judgements. My opinion is that the death penalty in any circumstances is unacceptable, mandatory sentencing antithetical to justice and to practical law enforcement (which I see you approximately agree with), and that Australia has failed in its obligations towards one of its citizens.

How has Australia failed in it’s obligations? Or, what obligations does Australia have? Why do you use the word “save”, instead of “bend the law”? The only person that Australia is “saving” Van from is himself. Your argument is basically that you think the DP is immoral, and that it should not be applied to Van. There is no legal argument there, it is simply an appeal to principle.

So, let’s bring in the other competing principles, like State sovereignty, not using economic/political coersion to subvert justice, respect for trade and a country’s reputation as a “clean” port, respect for the state’s right to impose criminal sanctions on their jurisdiction etc.

I notice that earlier, some other poster, as well as many talking heads, have asked for Australia to use economic or political sanctions. Does that mean that you believe in “might makes right”? That the US should force democracy on Iraq, perhaps, because they are economically and politically superior? That suddenly, this is a problem, because one of “our” people has breached the law? It’s okay for those other chinks to be put to death, but this is OUR chink, dammit, and the law is NOW wrong/immoral? Again, that OUR guy should get special treatment?

I think that the Australian government has done all it should. Provided a defence, pleaded for clemency. And Indonesia was clearly different - the case was much weaker, the evidence more circumstancial, and there were suspicions of airport handlers who essentially “framed” her. Indonesian prisons aren’t exactly the best place to be, either. I won’t deny that it was also because she was an attractive, white girl, of course, at least that much is obvious. But legally, her case was also much stronger. In this case, he’s pretty much admitted his guilt - what else is there to do?

The only thing left is to either plead for clemency, or violate state sovereignty. And I would be VERY dissappointed if state sovereignty was not respected, especially in this case, where the law was clearly stated, known, and due process given. This would smack of double standards, and if strongarm tactics were used, imperialism.

Your point being? When did I say it wasn’t?

@Atticus Finch

I pit the Commonwealth Government for not doing anything like their best to save one of their own citizens.

Which one? “Save”? From who? From WHAT?

[The_Mad_Hermit]

Time to break Godwin’s law.

It may be legal in Singapore to execute a drug dealer, but does that make it right?

Nazi Germany executed “enemies of the state” as a matter of course. They were also guilty of a crime- worshipping as a Jew was made illegal.

Why is tbis case different?

[Tabby_Cat]

@Gangster Octopus

This reminds me of all those threads bemoaning all the times those non-Australians were put to death due to draconian Singaporean drug laws. Makes, sense, since it is the law that is wrong, right?

But for some strange reason, when I do a search I can’t find any of them. Did I dream it?

Incidentally, there was a thread once, where a doper’s cow-orker was sentenced to time and caning for possession of pot, narrowly escaping the death penalty because he got stiffed and what he thought was pot was not totally pot.

Co-working going to prison in Singapore

[Weirddave]

@The Mad Hermit

Time to break Godwin’s law.

It may be legal in Singapore to execute a drug dealer, but does that make it right?

Nazi Germany executed “enemies of the state” as a matter of course. They were also guilty of a crime- worshipping as a Jew was made illegal.

Why is tbis case different?

Well, right off the top of my head, because smuggling drugs is a choice that an individual makes, and being Jewish (or black, or gay, etc…) is not? Think the two are just a tiny bit different?

[Ice_Wolf]

I have always opposed the death penalty, and I do so in this case as well. It is being used as a deterrant – and likely will simply serve to raise the risk level for drug trafficking, but not actually deter. It didn’t in this case, did it?

However, while it is all well and good that countries put in a good word for their citizens when said citizens go out in the world and step into bear traps with their eyes wide open – Singapore has the “no ifs, no buts” mandatory sentencing for a reason. They are notorious for having strict, no nonsense regulations. And is Australia raising cain over the fate of others of its citizens elsewhere in Asian prisons due to drugs and other felonies? (Yes, there are New Zealanders in strife of their own making as well).

It is sad. Because of one son getting mixed up with loan sharks, and the other doing something extreme such as conveying heroin via Singapore, the mother will be burying one of her children. Hopefully this passes on a “Don’t Be So Stupid” message to Australian communities.

Going on trends, though – I don’t hold much hope for that.

[Atticus_Finch]

Which one? “Save”? From who? From WHAT?

What’s to understand? The Commonwealth Government has failed to do its best to save its own citizen, Van Nguyen, from being killed by the Singaporean government. By save I mean prevent the death penalty being used. Which one - don’t know what you mean - there’s only one citizen in question here - Van Nguyen. From who - the Singaporean government. From what - the death penalty.

@Tabby_Cat

How has Australia failed in it’s obligations? Or, what obligations does Australia have?

A government has an obligation to protect its citizens where at all possible. The Aussie government has not done enough, and hence failed.

Why do you use the word “save”, instead of “bend the law”? The only person that Australia is “saving” Van from is himself. Your argument is basically that you think the DP is immoral, and that it should not be applied to Van. There is no legal argument there, it is simply an appeal to principle.

I’m not saying he’s not guilty, there’s no legal argument in that sense. I believe that he should be punished, but merely that the punishment should be more lenient. There’s an excellent legal case for mitigation here.

So, let’s bring in the other competing principles, like State sovereignty, not using economic/political coersion to subvert justice, respect for trade and a country’s reputation as a “clean” port, respect for the state’s right to impose criminal sanctions on their jurisdiction etc.

Singapore’s reputation as a clean port is no concern to Australia, and should not be a consideration for us. Respect for their criminal jurisdiction / sovereignty should be taken into account, but I believe such concerns are overridden by the magnitude of the action Singapore plans to take. You’ve got to say that there must be such an override in some cases, otherwise we couldn’t impose sanctions on say, apartheid-era South Africa for complying with their own sovereign laws that discriminated against black people. It’s a question of degree, and I think that this is a case where such concerns must be overriden.

I notice that earlier, some other poster, as well as many talking heads, have asked for Australia to use economic or political sanctions. Does that mean that you believe in “might makes right”? That the US should force democracy on Iraq, perhaps, because they are economically and politically superior? That suddenly, this is a problem, because one of “our” people has breached the law? It’s okay for those other chinks to be put to death, but this is OUR chink, dammit, and the law is NOW wrong/immoral? Again, that OUR guy should get special treatment?

Fuck your strawman argument about Iraq and your implication that I’m a racist.

“Strongarm tactics”? “Imperialism”? “Might makes right”? Are we talking about a huge country browbeating a little one, or launching military attacks? No, we’re tallking about legitimate diplomatic action between rough economic equals, two wealthy and Westernised nations. We’re talking about one country standing up for the rights of one of its citizens to not be brutally and obscenely slaughtered. If that’s imperialism, then call me Stanford goddamn Raffles.

Re Corby - you don’t know what you’re talking about. Both Nguyen and Corby were caught with drugs in their immediate possession, no circumstantial evidence there, just red-handedness. Corby’s bullshit story was even less believeable than the standard “uh, someone else must have put those drugs in my pocket”. Even so, this is a side issue and I’m prepared to leave it here or argue about it in another thread.

[Foaming_Cleanser]

From the link supplied by TheLoadedDog.

Both the Burmese generals and drug lords have been able to take advantage of Singapore’s liberal banking laws and money laundering opportunities. In 1991, for eaxample, the slorc laundered $400 million through a Singapore bank which it used as a down payment for Chinese arms. Despite the large sum, Burma’s foreign exchange reserves registered no change either before or after the sale. With no laws to prevent money laundering, Singapore is widely reported to be a financial haven for Burma’s elite, including its two most notorious traffickers, Lo Hsing Han and Khun Sa (also known by his Chinese name Chang Qifu).

Recognize Singapore for what it is: a police state, as corrupt as any you care to name. Like every police state it has an overabundance of psychopaths at the top and no shortage of goons to keep the peasants in line. If thugs weren’t in power, it wouldn’t be a police state.

Despite its spin, Singapore doesn’t kill drug traffickers out of some high-and-mighty duty to protect its citizens. It kills them for the same reason Colombian drug lords and drug gangs anywhere do. It stops the competition.

[Weirddave]

OK, Atticus, we get that you’re outraged that this drug smuggler is going to be killed, in complete accordance with local laws and due process, because he’s an Australian citizen, and you’re ranting that the Australian government isn’t “doing enough” to prevent him from paying the consequences of his own actions. What, pray tell, would you have them do?

[Atticus_Finch]

@Weirddave

OK, Atticus, we get that you’re outraged that this drug smuggler is going to be killed, in complete accordance with local laws and due process, because he’s an Australian citizen, and you’re ranting that the Australian government isn’t “doing enough” to prevent him from paying the consequences of his own actions. What, pray tell, would you have them do?

Haven’t I already given examples?

• A personal appeal, PM to PM. Howard, our PM, is in the area and could do this face to face.
• A prisoner exchange program.
• An appeal to the ICJ.
• As a last resort, diplomatic / trade influences or sanctions.

Let’s face it, there are many things a government can do, the only question is the degree of motivation.

Surely you approximately agree, just given a question of degree? If a female US citizen were found guilty of some kind of crime of extra-marital sex in a court in, say, Sudan, and was sentenced to death by stoning, wouldn’t you want the US government to exert diplomatic pressure, if not send in the Marines?

[Clock]

@The Mad Hermit

Time to break Godwin’s law.

It may be legal in Singapore to execute a drug dealer, but does that make it right?

Nazi Germany executed “enemies of the state” as a matter of course. They were also guilty of a crime- worshipping as a Jew was made illegal.

Why is tbis case different?

To equate the legal system of Singapore with that [which posed as one] of Nazi Germany is ludicrous.

Yes it makes it right to execute persons who despite the numerous warnings displayed most everywhere on entering Singapore informing you that [COLOR=Red]xx[/COLOR]DEATH is the penalty for trafficking in drugs

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Sevastopol

Mandatory sentencing is a defilement of justice.

One can have little sympathy for a heroin smuggler and still think that mandatory sentancing is a crock, you know.

[Spoons]

@Atticus Finch

What’s to understand? The Commonwealth Government has failed to do its best…

I’ve been a bit confused by the usage of “Commonwealth” in this thread. It seems to me that Atticus and Tabby Cat are talking about two different Commonwealths:

Atticus is referring to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Tabby Cat is referring to the Commonwealth itself–that collection of nations that used to be the British Empire. You know, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc. etc.

Am I right?

[Tabby_Cat]

@Foaming Cleanser

From the link supplied by TheLoadedDog.Recognize Singapore for what it is: a police state, as corrupt as any you care to name. Like every police state it has an overabundance of psychopaths at the top and no shortage of goons to keep the peasants in line. If thugs weren’t in power, it wouldn’t be a police state.

Despite its spin, Singapore doesn’t kill drug traffickers out of some high-and-mighty duty to protect its citizens. It kills them for the same reason Colombian drug lords and drug gangs anywhere do. It stops the competition.

I am VERY skeptical about that article. While I am not in a position to take it apart totally, at the very least I can answer the money laundering allegation.

From the IMF: warning PDF

As well as Singapore being one of the founders of APG (incidentally, Australia is one as well)

The fact remains that Burma is still a member of Asean, and that engagement is part of getting Burma out of the drugs rut. As it is, Burma was almost expelled from Asean for not releasing Ang San Su Ki. Is that what you would call “bedfellows”? Perhaps we should re-consider the relationship South Korea has with North Korea - they’re trading, therefore the South is keeping Kim in power and killing millions of North Koreans by proxy.

And I take great offence in calling Singapore a police state. As anyone who has visited Singapore can tell you, it is no police state. Many dopers have even lived there, and while I must admit that sometimes the PAP does use some underhand means to stay in power, brutality is not part of it.

[neutron_star]

@Weirddave

Well, right off the top of my head, because smuggling drugs is a choice that an individual makes, and being Jewish (or black, or gay, etc…) is not? Think the two are just a tiny bit different?

One could always compare it to the Spanish Inquisition. Jewish people were given a choice to convert to Catholicism. Those who didn’t (or only pretended to) suffered the consequences.

@Johnny L.A.

(I’ve read Naked Lunch, and I would agree – though I’ve never used the stuff – with Burroughs that one should never use heroin even once)

I haven’t read Naked Lunch, but the implication there is that one could develop a habit from the very first use, and that just isn’t the case. In Junky, Borroughs writes that it takes months of daily use to develop a habit.

I’m sure that it happens quicker for some than others, and it’s certainly not something you want to get addicted to (then again, what is?), but the reality of the situation is that a large percentage of the populace simply isn’t very susceptible to opiate addiction.

Before the U.S. started enacting drug laws, heroin was available over-the-counter to anyone who asked for it, and somehow we managed to avoid becoming a nation of junkies. Even now, opiate-derived drugs are some of the most frequently prescribed medicines in the country, yet most people who use them for pain do not get addicted.

As far as sympathy towards the smuggler goes, I definitely have it, even if he did know the risks. I sympathize with anyone convicted of an unjust law.

[Atticus_Finch]

@Spoons

I’ve been a bit confused by the usage of “Commonwealth” in this thread. It seems to me that Atticus and Tabby Cat are talking about two different Commonwealths

It seems so. When I say “Commonwealth Government”, I’m talking about the government of the federated entity or commonwealth of Australia, specifically the Howard Liberal / National Government. There is no government for the loose group of nations known as the Commonwealth of Nations, the former British Empire, and that particular commonwealth has nothing much to do with this discussion. To avoid any confusion, I’ll just talk about the Australian Government.

[Charlie_Tan]

Actually, Singapore might properly be called fascist, which often works with the trappings of a democracy or republic. Having lived in Spain (post-Franco) I can assure you that the law abiding Spaniards regarded the Franco regime as generally benevolent, if a little oppressive at times.
The mixture of strong welfare state (which lets everyone have a job, free school for kids, health care, affordable housing) combined with a free market, is typical of fascism. And fascism tend to work. The free market provides the means to keep the citizens happy, as opposed to the communists system, which basically went under because no one wanted to buy Bulgarian shoes (or whatever P.J. O’Rourke said). People who are well fed, have mortgages, car payments and a job tend not to riot in the streets.

A country with 4.5 million people that have a standing army of 100.000 and a reserve of 350.000 might not have all that military to be ready in case Malaysia decides to invade, but to keep things in check in their own country. And a country where pornography, oral sex and homosexual sex are considered fellonies, and where bloggers who critisize the government are sent to jail for sedition, is not what I call democratic.

[Johnny_L.A]

@The Gaspode

And a country where pornography, oral sex and homosexual sex are considered fellonies…

Wait a tick. You mean it would be illegal for me to lick a clitoris in Singapore?

[even_sven]

I’m against the death penalty.

But I have no sympathy for people who go overseas and get involved in drugs. The degree of overseas idiocy I’ve seen is incredible- people asking their taxi driver from the airport for drugs, people selling drugs to other foreigners in high-profile places on a regular basis (Even India, who is loathe to convict anyone for anything, eventually had to arrest the Israelis that opened a pot brownie stand on an ancient ruin), and people lighting up in public in well trafficed places. I even saw one guy accept drugs from a policeman (turned out okay that time…but gah! What an idiot!) Do drugs at home if you must. But once you leave your country, you better be on your best behavior.

Everybody knows what happens to drug dealers in Singapore. And running drugs through Singapore isn’t something that happens without a lot of planning. It’s not even like a murder or something at home…this guy went out of his way to bring drugs in to a place where that could get him killed. He bought a plane ticket. He walked past all those big signs.

Tourism is the world’s largest industry. Once a nation gets a name as a place to take a vice-vacation, it’s hard to shake. Thailand has been trying for years and still the first thing that comes to mind is “sex with little kids.” No country wants to be the great place for Australians to do drugs.

[Tabby_Cat]

Short answer: Yes, but no one’s ever been charged. Well, not for oral/homosexual sex, at least. I actually read the case that established this, and it was… odd. (Well, actually the problem is that the Chief Justice Head Honcho is off his rocker. Everyone knows that, but nobody wants to tell him. As a lawyer, I hope SOMETHING gets done about him soon.) Not sure about the porn, but hey, who’s telling? Haven’t heard of anyone being busted for possession of porn, that’s for sure.
All that aside, I agree with the charge of fasicism, actually. It’s rather misunderstood, but Singapore does display many fascist tendencies. Heck, the right wing part of the US has many fascist tendencies, and Japan has so many fascist parties it’s practically a fascist democracy. The main aim of fasicism was the placing of the state above the self, and employing a totalitarian regime to support this. Often, the state controls industry as well. Clearly, Singapore falls within this definition, on all counts. However, so does practically the rest of Asia. It is a particularly Asian trait to have the nation above self, and for government to be totalitarian. Is this bad? I don’t know. In the case of Singapore, it certainly works. I think that anything else WOULDN’T work. Imagine if New York (Singapore is smaller than New York) was run democratically. Giuliani was probably somewhat fascist as well, and he certainly worked.
Communism was misguided - Marx imagined a time where the means of production could produce more than enough for everyone. Dunno what version of Communism China is running. Prolly a beta.

Problem 1 - Technology hasn’t arrived yet. If we had replicators, maybe we could be communist.
Problem 2 - Humans are greedy bastards.

About the dissidents, I only need to point you to Dr Chee Soon Juan, leader of the “Democratic party” to show you how UNpopular American style democracy is here. He’s still around, somewhere, but most people think that he’s a clown. In open elections, PAP won by a landslide. Part of this is due to the fact that the opposition is so incompetent, but there are people who genuinely think that the PAP is doing fine. I happen to be one of them - the PAP is keeping the economy up, standard of life is great, inflation is lower than in the UK (SHEESH guys, are you printing banana notes?!) and their policies don’t get in my way much.

Of couse, Singapore style fascism probably only works because we’re so small, and because we’re in such a good position such that monetary wealth isn’t a problem. In a larger area, I don’t think you could restrain discontent to this degree.

Hijack much?
Atticus, I agree with what you propose, up to coersion through sanctions. I think that no country should interfere with another country’s internal affairs. Think about Iraq - the problem is that you’re trying to force something on someone else, based on your economic or military power. It never works, because the people LIKE it that way.

If you’re talking about simply making an exception for your own countrymen, then you’re being hypocritical. Either you’re saying “DP is barbaric but I don’t care, as long as my guy is okay” or “We are better than you, so it shouldn’t apply to us”.

[TheLoadedDog]

@Tabby_Cat

If you’re talking about simply making an exception for your own countrymen, then you’re being hypocritical. Either you’re saying “DP is barbaric but I don’t care, as long as my guy is okay” or “We are better than you, so it shouldn’t apply to us”.

In this case, I think attitudes are mixed. On one hand, there is a feeling of “hey, one of us is going to be killed by those evil foreigners!!” To this extent, your criticism is valid. However, there are also people here (Foreign Minister Downer included) saying, “The death penalty is barbaric, and even if Nguyen dies, which he probably will, our pressure on Singapore over this case may acheive a greater good in the long term by promoting opposition to the DP in Singapore - for all people, locals and foreigners alike.”