Oz Politics Blog

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.

John Brogden’s replacement for the New South Wales seat of Pittwater will be elected tomorrow. It looks like a very close race. At Centrebet this morning, independent candidate Alex McTaggart is the favourite on $1.65. The Liberal candidate, Paul Nicolaou, is not far behind on $2.10. Visit the Poll Bludger for more by-election news.

Update: The favourite won.

The possible transition from Howard to Costello has been an ongoing fascination this year. This morning on AM the Prime Minister used quite specific language when questioned about his future:

MATT BROWN: To finish on a domestic issue, on your leadership of the Liberal Party and currently the country, do you accept that you should decide on your future before the Treasurer delivers his next Budget?

JOHN HOWARD: I will do what I said I would do, in 2003 when I said I’d continue as leader of the party. I said that I’d remain leader of the party for as long as the party wanted me to, and it was in the best interests of the party that I should do so. And nothing has changed.

MATT BROWN: It remains in the best interests of the party?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, they are things that are assessed by the party and by me and I have a job to do, and I intend to go on doing it.

MATT BROWN: It can’t have escaped the attention of some of those in the party who would like to see a transition that you appear at the top of your game. You appear full of energy and you are still loving the job as much as ever?

JOHN HOWARD: Matt, the position on the leadership is as I’ve described it. Of course I’m fit and of course I’m committed. That’s what I owe the Australian people. They are entitled to have 200 per cent from me, while ever I’m in this job.

Just in case you missed it, Howard said, “I will do what I said I would do, in 2003 when I said I’d continue as leader of the party. I said that I’d remain leader of the party for as long as the party wanted me to, and it was in the best interests of the party that I should do so.”

I think there are (at least) two ways of interpreting the remark. The first is that Howard means what he says and says what he means. He is staying for the foreseeable future, and there is no transition plan in April, May or June 2006 (regardless of the rumours and speculations from team Costello).

This is bad news for the Costello push, as his supporters are in the minority in the party room. At some point Costello must decided whether he will (a) knuckle down and stay on as Treasurer for at least another three years, (b) mount a (probably unsuccessful) challenge and then move to the backbench to try and do a Keating, or (c) take the Paris option (ie. an ambassadorial positing, or the local alternatives such as being made a High Court Judge or the next Governor-General).

However, there is a second way to interpret Howard and Costello’s stick to the script remarks: they may have their own Kirribilli agreement. At some point between now and the next election, Howard will step down and Costello is the obvious heir apparent. With Howard and Costello sticking to the script and not answering the transition question, Howard is spared Tony Blair’s fate — being seen as a lame duck prime minister, serving his time before his retirement.

The problem with Kirribilli agreements is they have a history of being welched, largely because the prime minister of the day believes he is best placed to lead the party to victory at the next election.

I find this a hard one to judge. My inclination is that Howard intends to stay, and it is just stiff cheddar for Costello. If there really was a Kirribilli agreement, I suspect team Costello would not be speaking up dates in the second quarter of 2006. Still, Kirribilli agreements do not have a good history, and Costello may feel that subtle backgrounding is necessary to ensure prime ministerial compliance.

What do you think? Is there an agreement? Is Howard staying on to the next election or going?

Once a month we get two polls released on the same Tuesday. Today they are both singing from the same hymnal: Labor is well ahead in two party preferred terms.

• Newspoll: 54 to 46 per cent in Labor’s favour (last poll: 51/49)
• ACNielsen: 58 to 42 per cent in Labor’s favour (last poll 52/48)

For the primary votes …

• Labor — N: 42 per cent; ACN: 43 per cent
• Coalition — N: 39 per cent; ACN: 37 per cent

The pundits are also unanimous in their assessment: industrial relations reform is a problem for the Coalition.

Update: The usual graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.

It is worth noting that if the ACNielsen two-party preferred results were calculated on the same splits as occurred at the last election (rather than according to how people say they would vote), the headline result would have been 45 to 55 in Labor’s favour. At this point in the election cycle, Newspoll calculates its TTP prediction using the splits from the last election.

Also of note are the significantly different results from Newspoll’s better prime minister question and ACNielsen’s preferred prime minister question. Is this a case of (almost) preferring second best?

Finally, my apologies, I had accidently swapped the Newspoll and ACNielsen results in yesterday’s post. Now fixed.

Yesterday I was having a quiet drink with a Labor party faithful acquaintance who told me he had joined the ‘anyone but Beazley’ camp, a wry reference to the ABC — anyone but Crean — push that ended with the ascension of Mark Latham. We mused on the options: Wayne Swan, Stephen Smith, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd; and dismissed them in that order. A consensus of two: Rudd is Labor’s best hope at the moment. It is amazing what clarity a few drinks brings.

By coincidence, the Weekend Magazine with today’s Australian had a Matt Price in-depth story on Beazley (no link unfortunately). Cutting to the chase…

Hardly anyone believes Beazley will become prime minister. The numbers are extraordinarily tough; after Latham took Labor backwards, the ALP requires a not unprecedented, yet daunting, uniform swing of almost five per cent. The economy shows no sign of seriously slowing. John Howard may step down next year, then again he might not. Either way, senior Liberal strategists reckon they’ve got Beazley’s measure. His diving approval, they argue, confirms internal government polling that a majority of Australian’s who once admired Beazley neither like the Labor leader nor feel much inclined to vote for him.

Another coincidence? Last night when I was putting up the latest Morgan poll results I was looking at Beazley’s satisfaction and dissatisfaction polling. For three months now it has been typically poorer than Latham’s after the 2004 election defeat (Beazley is the red line in the following graphs from February 2005 — the Latham-Beazley transition point is most noticeable on the dissatisfaction graph).

While Beazley and Howard have similar dissatisfaction ratings, the recent satisfaction ratings suggest Beazley’s world has plenty of potential electoral enemies but too few close friends.

Is it time for anyone but Beazley? Perhaps after the Latham experiment there may be a feeling of once bitten twice shy in the Labor caucus. Nonetheless, if my acquaintance is anything to go by, I bet the question is being asked.