A LOSE LOSE

SITUATION

I'm not a supporter of capital punishment.

I feel no pleasure or righteous satisfaction that Nguyen Tuong Van has been put to death by the state in Singapore.

But amid all the obvious emotion that this case has raised, I'd like to mention a few points I think may be relevant.

1. Did he know the terrible risk he was running - just from his personal viewpoint - let alone the viewpoint of the people whose lives might have been damaged by the "26,000 doses" of heroin the Singapore authorities said his package contained?

It's perfectly possible the Singapore authorities exaggerated the amount of "hits" that Nguyen's parcel could provide, but the grim fact remains that anyone caught with more than 15 grammes of heroin in Singapore faces a mandatory death sentence. A 30 second search on the internet reveals that chilling statistic.

Did he realise just what he was getting himself into? Perhaps not. At 22 (his age when caught in 2002) we all think we're going to live for ever, and that the world owes us a living.

But if he didn't take the trouble to spend 30 seconds of those 22 years inquiring about the personal risks, it's hard to argue against the idea he was the author of his own misfortune.

2. Should a sovereign state have the right to impose its will and its laws on the citizens of another state, even when the other state doesn't much like them?

If that sovereign state is chaotic and applies its rules haphazardly and capriciously, then probably no.
If that state is hard but consistent - ie shows no favouritism to one suspect over another and conducts a trial process according to international standards re presentation of evidence etc then probably yes.

3. So what's the problem with Singapore?

No one seems to bat an eyelid when China executes drug smugglers, because no outsiders expect very much from China in the way of human rights.

But because Singapore LOOKS like a first world country, with shiny shopping malls and polite, educated, citizens, we tend to assume its value systems will be the same as ours.

The trouble is, because Singapore's not a democracy, we don't really know what the beliefs of its citizens are. We only know what the Prime Minister and his People's Action Party (which has run the country for 40 years since independence) SAY their beliefs and values are.

There are reports that death penalty opponents inside the country were denied all access to the mainstream media in the run-up to Nguyen's execution.

And Amnesty International says the city state rarely gives information even about the number of people it executes, let alone their crimes.

4. What about the fact Singapore abolished juries in 1969 and uses only a single judge to try capital offence cases?

It matters, but people going to or passing through Singapore should know the rules and the risks, just as they should also know that possession of alcohol in Saudi Arabia (another prominent non-democracy) is punishable by flogging. It's never stopped the west buying Saudi oil. Don't put yourself in harm's way then complain afterwards when things go wrong that you've been visiting an uncivilised country, runs this argument.

5. What about the fact Amnesty says a disproportionate number of the estimated 400 people hanged in Singapore since 1991 are migrant workers from poor neighbouring countries?

It's deeply troubling. If Nguyen had held a Vietnamese passport rather than an Australian one, we may never even have heard about his crime, let alone his death. Does this mean the Singapore courts are fatally biased against non-Singapore citizens? Possibly.

6. Does this mean rich, powerful countries have the right to lecture and bully other countries just because one of their citizens gets themselves in deep trouble there?

Only if they're prepared to do the same every time a Filipino or Indonesian faces a walk to the gallows.

7. Is it possible western countries operate double standards when it comes to human rights?

If a resident of Singapore planted a bomb in one of our cities, wouldn't we call for the toughest possible punishment for them? It may be that to a Singaporean's mind, heroin is as dangerous as a bomb going off - perhaps more so in the long term, as addiction seems to create other social problems such as theft to fund the habit.

That's the problem with Singapore not being a democracy - we can't be sure what its people think.

8. Did the Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his government do all in their power to get the death sentence commuted to life imprisonment?

A difficult one. Politicians in democracies naturally tend to respond to public opinion - if only to save their own jobs.

Public opinion in Australia appears to have been divided on this case, and it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Nguyen's ethnicity (ie that he was of Vietnamese descent) might have had something to do with that.

If it had been pretty Michelle Leslie (the Australian model who recently served three months in an Indonesian jail for ecstasy possession) going to the gallows at dawn today, how much more fuss would there have been in Australia and around the world?

But then Michelle, bless her, was with Anindra Bakrie, son of Indonesia's economics minister, at the time of her arrest. And she knew how to play the game with the media, dressing up in a modest Islamic headscarf during her court appearances, even though she'd spent a good deal of her career modelling lingerie.

Singapore's court system doesn't allow TV cameras access. There's too much risk of emotional scenes being broadcast round the world.

Nguyen was carrying heroin, not a drug usually associated with the children of nice middle class Australians on holiday in Bali.

Howard and his advisers probably sensed the mixed signals in the public mood, and made a fairly cold and brutal calculation along the following lines:

Q. If we really press the Singaporeans will they back down?
A. Probably not.

Q. What do we have to gain by pressing the point anyway?
A. Not much, but it will play well with public opinion in Australia and around the world.

Q. Is public opinion at home strongly enough against Ngyuen being hanged that I risk losing my job over it?
A. No.

Q. What do we, Australia, have to lose by pressing the point and failing?
A. Loss of face internationally (especially with Australia's Asian neighbours), plus damage to business and goodwill with Singapore, an important trading partner.

Politics is brutal, and Nguyen just didn't have enough going for him. He was facing the justice system of a country where there's virtually no public scrutiny of decision-making and where the leaders don't worry too much about public opinion - at home or abroad.

Nguyen wasn't enough of a victim (who's going truly to love a heroin smuggler, apart from his mother?) he wasn't white enough and crucially and perhaps fatally, his plight was never going to cost John Howard his job.