absurd black comedies and Nguyen’s hanging
I could hardly believe what I was reading. I got several links purloined off SingaporeAngle’s blog, here. It appears that Singapore’s hangman, recently ‘forced’ into retirement, is threatening to sue to Singapore government for wrongful dismissal. I.. I don’t know: I’ll allow you a few moments to let that sink in. Oh, and you can find the articles here and here.
Amid the debates and the storm of opinions from both countries, we have a situation where one man is making complaints about losing his job, which just so happens to be at the very heart of the controversy. Nguyen’s been hanged, now, but I’m hard-put to think my way through the absurdity: one man’s life hung (sic) on the balance, and the excutioner was having an argument about not being able to perform the execution. It’s worthy of a Monty Python skit, at the very least.
And in the executioner’s defence, he makes pointed suggestions about amateurs not being able to perform the job as quickly and cleanly as he does. I don’t know how to think about that; on the one hand, I’m sure there’re a host of practical reasons to allow more experienced people to execute others, but on the other hand, his running conversation with the media in the attempt to keep his job looks like the makings of an excellent black comedy.
It’s the matter of fact way in which Mr Darshan Singh makes his points that chills me to the bone. Some gems from Mr Darshan:
In the media interview, Mr Singh insisted that no one else in Singapore was trained to carry out the execution, and that an inexperienced hangman could make mistakes. “With me, (the prisoners) don’t struggle,” he said. If (the executioner is) a raw guy, they will struggle like chickens, like fish out of the water.”
Even Mr Nguyen’s barrister says something about this:
Nguyen’s barrister, Les Lasry, QC, said the thought of the hangman’s job being advertised — or enlisting an amateur — was “grotesque, absolutely grotesque … if it wasn’t so grotesque it would be laughable”.
I’m prompted to say something dramatic, here. I thought about restraining myself, but what the heck: the above is the new face of evil, my friends; innocent, beguiling and self-serving.
Nguyen’s brother also a convicted trafficker
Aussie court suppressed fact that he was a drug runner and given jail term for savage attack on teen
SYDNEY - THE brother of an Australian drug courier hanged in Singapore is a convicted drug trafficker and had been sentenced to jail for a savage samurai sword attack, but details of the case were suppressed due to fear that they could jeopardise clemency appeals.
KHOA’S CRIMINAL BACKGROUND was not publicised in Australia, in order to avoid jeopardising his twin brother’s plea for clemency in Singapore. — EPA
The Australian reported yesterday that Nguyen Tuong Van’s brother, Nguyen Khoa Dang, in 1998 repeatedly slashed a teenager with a samurai sword, seriously wounding the 17-year-old’s arm, buttock, ankle and left knee.
He was sentenced to three years in jail for the attack, which resulted in the victim requiring plastic surgery.
But County Court judge Meryl Sexton suspended the jail term because Khoa’s ‘personal situation…(had) become so traumatic because of (his) brother’s situation’, the newspaper reported.
The judge ordered that the sentence be suspended partly because his twin brother was awaiting execution in Singapore.
She also banned publication of case details while Australian officials repeatedly appealed to Singapore not to hang Nguyen, said The Australian.
Details of Khoa’s conviction could be published yesterday for the first time after Judge Sexton lifted a publication restriction imposed to avoid jeopardising Ngu- yen’s plea for clemency.
Khoa faced court in June last year, where he pleaded guilty to riotous assembly and recklessly causing serious injury.
In December 1998, Khoa was involved in a brawl between Asian and Islander youths in a park in the northern Melbourne suburb of Reservoir.
The prosecution alleged that Khoa armed himself with a samurai sword and struck Glen Kohu repeatedly, causing him serious injury.
The Australian reported Judge Sexton as saying that Kohu was confined to a wheelchair after the attack, forced to leave school and had since struggled to stay employed.
The trial took more than four years to reach the county court, partly because of concerns about the effect it would have on the Singapore trial of Nguyen, who was arrested in December 2002, according to The Australian.
In April 2003, Judge Sexton agreed to adjourn the case because of Nguyen’s trial in Singapore.
‘Amongst the reasons for my doing so which I can refer to was the effect on you of having your twin brother awaiting trial in Singapore for a capital offence,’ The Australian quoted her as saying.
Khoa is a convicted drug trafficker.
He had also previously served time for drug-trafficking offences and was released from prison in July 2002.
Nguyen claimed in his trial that he had been trying to smuggle heroin to pay for his brother’s mounting legal bills, partly incurred by the court case that followed Khoa’s involvement in the brawl.
The court heard that Khoa, now 25, left home against his mother’s wishes, abused drugs and alcohol and was a frequent customer of Melbourne’s Crown casino.
Nguyen’s arrest had resulted in ‘an increase in (the) level of (Khoa’s) maturity’ but he had relapsed into heroin use in 2003, possibly as a result of his brother’s arrest in Singapore, The Australian quoted Judge Sexton as saying.
Khoa was in Singapore last week for the execution of his brother.
Nguyen’s family left last night for Australia with his body.
Mr Lex Lasry, who has been the family spokesman, addressed the media although the family members kept mum at Changi Airport yesterday evening.
Asked about Khoa’s criminal record, Mr Lasry said he did not know about it and dismissed it as irrelevant.
‘I don’t have a view about it,’ he said.
‘I’ve got some views about Khoa and where he’s going from here and I don’t want to say anything about that.’
Comment by Lexx — Sunday, 4 December 2005 @ 1:54 pm
And what Mr Lex Lasry says is to the point: Khoa’s police record or the fact that he’s standing trial is of no relevance to Nguyen’s case except insofar as Nguyen’s reasons for acting as a courier.
The issue at hand, if at all now that it’s a moot point, is if the death penalty should be maintained in Singapore. If Singaporeans feel, collectively, that there’s nothing wrong with it, then Singapore will have to bear the consequences of its actions, good or bad.
I don’t think we should be misled by this newsbit anymore than other possible newsbits about implications, for example, that ‘lokapgal’ (the ‘ear-squat’ woman) could be a GRO. The abuse in the latter case is just wrong, and the ethical considerations of the death penalty must be argued through on its own basis.
Comment by xpyre — Sunday, 4 December 2005 @ 2:41 pm
Something has to be done about the arrogance of the Singaporean authoritarian government. Unfortunately, Australia is not a very strong country, and it’s leader seem clearly lacking in courage and forcefulness.
If a citizen of a powerful country is ever on death row in Singapore, I’d like to see the leader of that powerful country tell the Singaporean government unequivocally that if they carry out the execution, it will be treated as an act of war.
Then, if they were to go ahead and executed him anyway, I’d like to see two cruise missles launched taking out both the President and the Prime Minister of Singapore, followed by a warning to whomever replaces the eliminated leaders that another execution of one of their citizen will result in Singapore’s sovernty being completely revoked.
One can argue that Singapore has a sovereign right to execute drug smugglers, even when there are mitigating circumstances. In fact, one could even argue that Singapore has the sovereign right to execute those who chew gum. But, history has shown that a county’s sovereign rights only go so far as that country’s power. Throughout history, one country has constanty had its sovernty revoked by another. Furthermore, Nietzsche has asserted that there is no absolute good or evil, adn ultimately it’s power that determines what is right.
It’s time for Singapore’s sovernty to be revoked, and for some powerful country to plunder it. I don’t believe in boycotting product; I believe in kicking some ass.
Eric von Schonberg
Comment by Eric von Schonberg — Monday, 5 December 2005 @ 4:05 am
There have been instances where pressure from other governments have made the Singapore government more… inclined to acquiesce to their requests. However, as you have noted, the reality of the situation is that might often makes right.
I don’t think we can escape this aspect of realpolitik as much as we prefer to believe in the sanctity and efficacy of international institutions and bodies like the UN. I’m sure there are more refined arguments with respect to the relationship between state actors, but I think the crude fact to which this boils down to is that constant question: “What’s in it for me?”.
In the case of other countries pleading for clemency on behalf of possible criminals being tried in Singapore, I suppose it would be fair to say that this “What’s in it for me?” attitude will prevail. Again, however, this is true for all countries, I believe.
That being said, violence and cruise missiles only confirms the Singaporean way insofar as hanging is a barbaric act of violence, if not murder (also a loaded term). There’s quite a lot of anger out there about the whole issue. The unfortunate thing about all this is that countries which have the death penalty often refer to states in America (assumed to be the best example of a democracy in action) where the death penalty is still sanctioned.
In the end, the Singaporean people will have to decide if the death penalty has any purchase in their society. In that respect, we could ask several general questions about the power of the man in the street in Singapore to effect change, questions which go to the root of the way Singapore is governed. In this context, maybe this should be set aside for a later discussion. I find it difficult to be a bystander and comment on a country in which I’m not living.
Incidently, we too in Malaysia will have to contend with the death penalty in our country. I think what I’ve said above is equally applicable in our country, unfortunately.
Comment by xpyre — Monday, 5 December 2005 @ 3:52 pm