Tuong Van Nguyen
You only need to read the Singaporean papers to see why there is no hope for Tuong Van Nguyen. The best example is Janice Seah.
Nguyen, 25, had foolishly agreed to act as a mule to carry nearly 400g of heroin through Singapore to pay off his twin brother’s gambling debts. This is what moves many Aussies.
He has been dubbed ‘The Good Twin’ and ‘The Baby on Death Row’ by the Australian press, who, in their support and sympathy for him, have pulled out all the stops to get his death sentence commuted.
They think mitigating circumstances are in his favour.
Will it make any difference to his sentence?
Most definitely not.
If Nguyen had committed his crime in Australia, a story like his could have led to a reduced sentence from a liberal judge.
But as every Singaporean here I have spoken to knows, it’s a very different story back in the Republic.
We understand the reasons Singapore cannot commute Nguyen’s sentence no matter how much they may want to.
It’s become the classic battle between making exceptions and enforcing the law.
Singapore cannot afford to ignore the drug menace and the danger of becoming a drug transit hub.
It also cannot have double standards.
But Aussies just can’t understand why we can’t make an exception in this case.
And this is where my view from the fence might come in useful. Australians tend to mete out justice by emotion. A sob story here, tears there, a wheelchair and oxygen tank thrown into the mix, and you can bet that no matter what the evidence, the sentence will rarely fit the crime.
Singapore too makes allowances for mitigating circumstance, but when it comes to drugs, you’d have a better chance of nudging the Rock of Gibraltar.
So in many ways, it is culture clash, a different experience, a different way of doing things.
The letters to the editor (from Singapeans) have a similar message. Pauline Ooi Chen Ni wrote:
AUSTRALIA, in indulging in mob hysterics (and maybe a false sense of moral superiority), has chosen to ignore Singapore’s sovereignty and the laws governing our land and people.
Continuing to champion a convicted drug smuggler, and not acknowledging his crime and the harm his act would have brought to (Australian) society, reveal much of the sorry state of law and order, and sense of social responsibility, in Australia.
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?
And Ace Kindred Cheong wrote:
LIKE many others, I feel sad for Australian national Nguyen Tuong Van who faces the gallows for drug trafficking. However, I believe the sentence is necessary to prevent the spread of such crimes here.
I say this even though I do not believe in the death sentence for every serious crime.
But the law against drug trafficking has to be the most severe for it to be a deterrent. Drugs destroy millions of young lives every year all over the world.
I have travelled far and wide since young and I have seen how easy it is to buy drugs in other countries. I have seen many addicts who consume the drugs in the open.
It is not an easy task for the Singapore Government to eradicate drug abuse or even trafficking, even with its tough laws.
People, including arriving foreigners, still get caught now and then.
What more if we make concessions to the mandatory death penalty for traffickers?
For these reasons, I think Singapore’s tough stand is the only reliable way to keep this heinous crime in check here.