Originally Posted by Pauline Ooi (Singapore)

"It is impossible that Nguyen Tuong Van did not know about the strict Singapore laws governing his crime. When he agreed to be a drug courier, he had put aside his ethics and morals. He decided to take a gamble and, unfortunately, he lost.

Singaporeans live under the very same laws that convicted Nguyen. Are the Australian government and people suggesting that because he carried an Australian passport, he is therefore above our laws?

And that special consideration must be accorded him or we would be in 'contempt' of Australia?"

Originally Posted by John Fletcher (SA, Australia)

OVER the weekend Mr Kevin Rudd, Australian Labor Party spokesman on foreign affairs, weighed into the Nguyen Tuong Van debate in an interview intensely critical of Singapore's policy regarding execution of drug traffickers.

In doing so he has joined several other members of the Labor Party, notably the Victorian State Attorney-General who has spoken of judicial execution as being repugnant to all those who share his views. No doubt the Attorney-General is right. The death penalty is naturally repugnant to those who disagree with it. Such critics include sections of the Australian media, especially the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Green Party's Senator Brown and a number of churchmen.

Prime Minister John Howard has observed that the Nguyen case has stirred strong but not universal feelings in Australia. So what is going on? Is there really widespread opposition among ordinary Australians to the execution of Nguyen? Or is the Prime Minister right in saying that such opposition is not universal? I think he is.

Australia abolished the death penalty many years ago. Most Australians would probably oppose its re-introduction.

Then Prime Minister Bob Hawke notoriously condemned the execution of Australian drug couriers by Malaysia, seemingly unmindful of the fact that every state has both the right and obligation to formulate its own laws on this and, indeed, every issue.

There is a body of opinion in Australia, particularly strong among the media, that seems to believe that foreign laws should not apply to Australians who are convicted of breaking them. To any reasonable person this view is untenable.

Nguyen was convicted by a Singapore court of attempting to smuggle a substantial amount of heroin. He must have been aware that Singapore has a mandatory death penalty for such crimes.

It is said that since his arrest Nguyen has cooperated with the authorities. However, many Australians are sceptical of his motives.

The fact that he claims to have committed the offence to raise money for his brother is dismissed by the majority as irrelevant. Nguyen did it, he knew the penalty and got caught. That, for these critics of his behaviour, is the end of the matter.

There is also a widespread feeling that there is a degree of hypocrisy among some of those protesting against his sentence. It is generally accepted that trafficking in heroin contributes to the death of addicts, whether they live in Singapore, Australia or anywhere else. Regardless of the motives of those taking part in it, the drugs trade is a trade in death.

There is at the moment a convicted bomber, Amrozi, on death row in Bali for his part in the Bali bombings that killed so many Australians. He, too, chose to take part in a trade of death. However, those who are most critical of the Singapore authorities in the Nguyen case are silent when it comes to Amrozi.

The Victorian Attorney-General has not spoken out against the execution of that criminal. Perhaps he knows that to do so would run contrary to the opinions of the vast majority of Australians. The same media that now criticises Singapore is indignant that Amrozi is still alive.

Most Australians with whom I have discussed the Nguyen case are more moderate in their views. They believe that sovereign states have the right to make their own laws. They do not support calls for economic sanctions against Singapore.

They believe that the politicians who have spoken out are selective in their judgments - death for Amrozi because he killed Australians, leniency for Nguyen because he is an Australian.

To most Australians, this is nonsense. There is widespread sympathy for Nguyen's mother and family. But drug traffickers, as well as bombers, kill.

Originally Posted by Peter Lowe (Australia)

WITH regard to Singapore's decision to hang an Australian citizen because he was carrying drugs, please consider for a moment the following questions:

# Question 1: Who suffers after Dec 2 until the day that they die?

Answer: His mother, other members of his family and his friends, not the young man himself.

# Question 2: Who else is seriously offended by Singapore's actions?

Answer: Every citizen of Australia.

# Question 3: How do you think Singapore and its culture are regarded by the civilised world?

Answer: I will let you ponder that one yourself.

Originally Posted by red_rex

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent in cases like this.

Originally Posted by chee

i think the australian govt arnt doing enough...

johnny: "hey i was wondering if you could stop the execution of that van nguyen"
singas pm: "i'd prefer not to"
johnny: "ah k no probs"

Originally Posted by EvilCabbage

Er.. what business is it of ours in the first place?

If they tried telling us how to run our 'justice' system, we'd swiftly tell them to get screwed, right? How is this any different?

Originally Posted by chee

dying is the easy way out. lock him up.

Originally Posted by chee

its our right to prevent the death of people.