The person calling themselves Isabell Collins is one of the right wing mentally ill who was probably under the treatment of the real Isabell Collins, who is a mental health expert. Don't pay too much attention to the Australian right wing, mentally ill ones.

Whenever someone is arrested with a certian amount of drugs, it is usually refined in the lab, and only the pure drugs are taken into consideration during the framing of a charge. Do you really expect the drugs sold on the market to be 100% pure?

Trackback from War on Drugs [xlx]:

Drugs destroy lives.

I know because I have spoken to drug addicts. I have seen them suffer from withdrawal symptoms. I have seen how they lost control of their own lives and let drugs take control of them....

Well, strange, some people seem to picture Van as some sort of...martyr.
(P.S, I like pie)

Trackback from twin stars:

In light of the recent events surrounding the hanging of the Vietnamese drug trafficker, Putfile has decided to abstain connections from Singapore domains with effect from 2nd December 2005. If you think Putfile was wrong, you can always dish out yo......

Sieteocho, you are SO ignorant and brainwashed by the Singapore govt.

dirty brit facing firing squad in vietnam for porking a 12 year old girl:

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/eo/20051121/113262150000.html

quick! petition for clemency! and after he is released from prison and is unemployable, hire him as your babysitter! oh oh oh ho sei liao!

if u think he has no chance of being rehabilitated and could be a repeat offender after all the caning and squatting in jail cell, THEN just give him life imprisonment will do, no need to execute him what. I know executing him might save $ for the taxpayer lah, if $ is all u r concerned about then just say so. Don't try to take the moral high ground.

But if you wanna talk about moral principles, i think he also dun deserve to be executed. Only case where some1 might deserve to die is if he is a cold blooded murderer or terrorist bomber. U might be justified in taking revenge by forfeiting his life in dat case, if it is not against your spiritual beliefs and you are okay with the inhumane punishment of dealth penalty and you are sure you arrested the correct guilty terrorist because death is an irreversible punishment.

you also cannot compare the rehabilitation of this 'repeat sex offender' and a '1st time drug trafficker'. Nyugen is a 25yr old, no previous criminal record, shown true remorse, has vouched to turn over a new leaf. Prime candidate for rehabilitation. Will become useful for society again. He did it for greed and stupidity and now he realises his mistake. Why hang a man when he is down? Singapore society can learn to be more forgiving and compassionate. That will be progress for our nation.

thats why the mandatory death penalty law should be changed.

Either get rid of the death penalty for drug trafficking

OR

if u blindly believe in the scary deterrence effect of death, keep it but give the judges discretion for mitigating circumstances. Get rid of the mandatory nature.

then we would not be 'pardoning from death', but serving justice.

I'm with you on this.

I'm not for killing lives in the name of law, except in the case of "a life for a life" i.e. murder.

It should not be the case that just because it has been done like this (sentencing people to death for drugs offence), it must be done the same way eternally. That would suck.

As a case in point, I remember MOE refused to change its policy of letting primary-school leaving pupils select their secondary schools before the results were released. In the old practice, pupils selected their schools in August or September, before they sat their exam. The problem with this system is that pupils had no idea of what their actual performance might be so the could not make informed choices.

If I'm not wrong, one of MOE's points was that the system had worked so they were reluctant to change. But it came under public fire (including the Straitstimes Editorial), who wrote tothe forums to argue for a post-exam selection of secondary schools.

In the end, the MOE backed down from its position so now pupils make the selection after the exam results are released.

Socially, exaggeration is often whimsical. But when a government dramatically inflates numbers to help justify a death sentence, the integrity of both the trial and its governing body becomes questionable. In this case, the government is Singapore, the trial was for Van Tuong Nguyen, and the bloated number is 26,000.

Press from around the world quotes Abdullah Tarmugi, the Speaker of Singapore Parliament, in writing about the potential consequences of Van's actions, "almost 400 grams of pure heroin, enough for more than 26,000 doses."

But how was 26,000 doses (or "hits") derived?

It turns out that what constitutes a hit of heroin is not an easy thing to count. There are dozens of factors to consider; contact your local Needle Exchange for a comprehensive list. However, after collecting statistics from over a dozen sources (including police reports, narcotics web sites, health information, and workers from needle exchanges), the number of hits from a gram of pure heroin averages out to little more than 14.

Van Tuong Nguyen trafficked 396.2 grams of heroin into Singapore. This is approximately 5,600 doses.

The numbers 5,600 and 26,000 are obviously incongruous, as are reports that 400 grams of heroin would "ruin 26,000 lives". In fact, 400 grams of heroin would not come close to ruining even 5,600 lives. Rather, the heroin would most likely supply people already abusing it. With a little more research, we can estimate how many lives would be adversely affected by 400 grams of heroin during one year:

As many as 67, and as few as 6.

Van Tuong Nguyen would not have sent 26,000 people to their deaths from 400 grams of heroin. Nor would the lives of 26,000 people have been ruined. Far more likely is that six people would get a year's worth of hits. And for this he must hang?

Call it dreadful, call it dense, call it incomprehensible ... but do not call it justice.

Sincerely,
Dave Jarvis

But jeez.. where were you on this when others were sentenced on the same charges?

We sorely missed you, pal.

it is never too late to change. Nyugen's case has struck a chord in many of us. He was 22 years old when arrested, same age as I am now. Anyone will a ounce of justice and compassionate will feel for him.

So fuck you if you think just because people have been hanged before for drug trafficking, it is justified to continue with it, and more people cannot wake up to the horrible truth. More people are going to be sentenced on the same charges, it is time to speak up against the death penalty.

But I just wonder why you think more people are going to be sentenced on the same charges - if they're clean - and if your age has any bearing on the case.

Till then, keep your fucking bitch on the leash before it learns to walk the talk.

Can anyone comment on the number of drug-related deaths in Singapore?

When was the last time any Singaporean died from drug overdose? I'm trying to recall if I have read of any in the papers (surely it would be highly publicised in SG) but I can't remember any cases.

people died from drug overdose,drug taking and HIV due to drug everyday.it is not published anywhere coz dis is common in life and these people are not missed as community thinks that they asked for it and they deserved it! BUT think abt it,if there is no trafficker,there will be no ADDICT!

if the metal detectors go off, you are searched.

also, according to beowulf, who speaks from personal experience, if the drug-sniffing dogs bark, you are subject to a full body search, including a body cavity search.

Does the heroin package trip off the metal detectors?

What if Nguyen did not carry any metallic objects on him, would the detector have sounded and would he have been searched or arrested?

Is everyone passing through at Changi Airport or Causeway subjected to inspection by the drug-sniffing dogs ?

I've yet to address the question of Nyugen being caught for bringing the drugs into a transit lounge. This is a strange thing and not at all black and white. It is Singapore soil, barely metres away from Singapore customs area.

Now if you were a narcotics officer, what would you think? Would you look at his airplane ticket, and say, it's all right, he's going somewhere else, these drugs are not bound for Singapore? Wouldn't that be incredibly complacent?

So the only controversial part is which court of law he gets tried in. Try him in Australia? Very iffy. Then people could just use this as a potential loophole in the future: pretend that you're bringing it in in transit, then if you get caught, say that you were going to bring it elsewhere. If you don't, then pass it to a second mule. Second mule has the more dangerous job, obviously.

Try him in Singapore? Not very fair. Try him in Australia? He hasn't reached there yet, so you try him there for !@#$?. Try him in Cambodia? Moot point, because he'll probably also lose his head.

I don't want to say yes or no, so we'll use fuzzy logic here. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being "Nyugen didn't transport drugs into Singapore" and 10 being "Nyugen transported drugs into Singapore" I would give his situation an 7 or a 8. And not only because these are my lucky numbers.

Is the human rights situation in Singapore as dire as some critics say? Amnesty International's black-and-white approach misses the mark because it does not take into account what may be called the Singapore model of criminal justice

This is for those who don't read The Straits Times regularly. Related to this Nguyen Tuong Van case, there's a piece of writing in the Straits Times today about due process and criminal justice in Singapore. It introduces Finnis' method of analysing a scenario and applies it to how Singapore presumes guilt and sets mandatory sentences for drug trafficking. It can be found on Page 34 of the main section of The Straits Times of Friday, 25 November 2005.

The editorial beside the abovementioned article, "Execution of a drug runner", is also about the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van and its responses.

if i may add, I hope Rockson can translate what the cock ST editor wrote, i think he purposely write until very cheem to confuse people. Singapor Finnis, lah

I think this discussion is getting very emotionally charged. We are Singaporeans and we find the Aussie interference in our decision to hang this drug trafficker unpleasant. Many of us ask if the Aussies think they are better than us, or if they think they are fit to lecture us on human rights etc. These are all fair points.

But I think at the heart of the matter, the question we should be asking is if we, as Singaporeans, want our government to engage in state-sponsored murder?

Do we, as the people of Singapore, want to other people to be killed in our names by our government? Whether it's for drugs, or for murder, is that what we want as a society?

". We are Singaporeans and we find the Aussie interference in our decision to hang this drug trafficker unpleasant. Many of us ask if the Aussies think they are better than us, or if they think they are fit to lecture us on human rights etc. These are all fair points."

I'm a naturalized Canadian. I was born in Malaysia and migrated to Canada when I was 16. What I'm seeing here is, after living in Canada for 18 yrs, the different way of thinking between asians and caucasions. Caucasions has passionate heart. They care about their citizens and they believe in second chance. Whereas asians loved to be in control as the breadwinner in the house gets all the saying ; exercise punishments or teachers where they canned students if they find they students are wrong.

One thing I find it funny is, Singapore claims they are democratic country but it seems
to me the people in Singapore has no saying. Why won't the singapore government take a poll whether the country should still support death penalty. Let the people of singapore decide. More and more states in US are phasing out death penalty. Maybe it's about time people valued other people's life. Maybe it's time for the government to re-evaluate the law. For Nguyen case, I don't think he deserves a death sentence.

But I think at the heart of the matter, the question we should be asking is if we, as Singaporeans, want our government to engage in state-sponsored murder?

There's no state-sponsored murder, pal. No one's invading any country here, just applying the laws of their land. The 'Liberation of Iraq' and the Holocaust, those are state-sponsored murders, go read up on 'em if you dig the term so much.

So you see, the heart of the matter also happens to be the 'by-product' of the irresponsible Australian Government planting the seeds of drug miseducation and fertilizing their own poppy-infested backyards with their immigrants taking - not the rewards - but the risk. It was just waiting to happen.

But suddenly we've become a "rogue chinese state" according to their former PM, Gough Whitlam, now that we're about to deal with something they've never before paid any attention to; before that, we were a really important strategic partner. So who's the hypocritical one here?

I don't see the difference. If you think the 'Liberation of Iraq' is wrong, then how is Singapore taking a human life any different? It's still state-sponsored murder to me.

The world is basically divided in two halves, one that's abolished the death penalty and the other half that still sanctions it. Which half do we want to belong to?

Personally, I don't want Singapore to take lives and kill in my name.

Yeah, and think about whether all this anti- Singaporean jingoism was meant to be serious. Politicians, and I mean real politicians, the ones out there which actually have to win votes, instead of those who conveniently walk over their constituencies every 4/5 years, don't always say what they mean and often it's also not what the Australians mean but instead what they think the Australians want to hear. So it's an act and similarly we'll put up the same wayang by blasting them back and just hope that the storm boils over, we can still walk away with our sovereignty intact.

The taking of a life for a criminal offence. But at the same time if you give somebody life imprisonment you're also ruining his life, and you have to ask yourself, is that really so different from execution? Why is it that we can accept life imprisonment, but not the death penalty?

If nothing else, the death penalty is final. So if you make a mistake... too bad.

If life imprisonment is so bad, why don't we have it?

simi 'jingoism"?

machiam jingle bells, si erm si ah?

grow up leh!
so old already still christmas this chrismas that.
mommy giving you a new pair of diapers this christmas is it ah?

Jingo bells, jingo bells, jingo all the way....

Can we have somebody else to impersonate me instead? This guy is too lame for my liking. Can the authorities look into this?

so much for your claims to freedom of speech and expression, hmm?
you are just another wannabe tyrant, like the pathetic opposition in sinkapore, comprang comprang about violations to their human rights only, but if they ever get to power, will make pol pot look like a saint

you are as transparent as a torn condom

Yeah, but freedom from drugs is also freedom and human rights too what...
You guys are all forgetting that when you get a person hooked on hard drugs, you've taken away all his human rights.

Wise pol pot, you haven't taken away his right to choose. Or his right to life.

When a person is hooked on hard drugs, he's lost the right to choose not to take drugs, isn't it? He loses his right to a normal functional life.

No pol pot, he hasn't. You just assume he has.

You lose the freedom not to take another hit, vs you don't have the right not to take another hit.

You tell me if there's a meaningful difference.

I'm for human rights, but I'm championing the human rights of those whose lives would be ruined by the drugs.

the meaningul difference is that the right not to take another hit remains for the drug user.

Yes, the freedom not to take another hit is curtailed by his addiction, but he exercised his right to take drugs in the first place, so he is merely facing the consequences of his actions.

Similarly, the drug trafficker has exercised his right to carry drugs, he should face the consequences of his actions.

But because of the mandatory death penalty, he no longer has the freedom to live, the right to have another chance at life like the drug user has.

the difference is meaningful.

But that drug user would have to go through hell just to get that right to be free from drugs, isn't it? And you're forgetting that getting yourself on hard drugs is not rational behaviour, and is sometimes forced upon the user, which means getting hooked wasn't a free choice in the first place.

The drug user can be a hero and fight his way out of addiction, but I'd rather not he get into this situation where he needs to be a hero. This "freedom" to take hard drugs is not a meaningful one. It's like the freedom to be robbed, murdered, tortured.

Many drug users never get that another chance at life. Not everybody recovers, so for some of them it's as good as murder or a life sentence. It's like a magic bullet where if you fire it into 10 people, 2 or 3 will die.

If removing the death penalty on drug traffickers would have no effect on the amount of hard drugs circulating in Singapore then we won't need the death penalty. But I'm not willing to take that risk, so somebody else will have to advocate it.

Forced upon the user? Right. I have an evil plot to inject people with drugs... Smoking is not a rational behavior too actually. Nor is gambling. But we give people the right to be irrational.

If someone wants to be robbed, murdered or tortured, I say go ahead, as long as it's a choice made by an informed adult. Then again, I support the right to death also.

But I'm not willing to take that risk, so somebody else will have to advocate it.
If people were not willing to take risks, women would still be chattel, blacks would still be slaves and abortion would still be illegal.

I guess you've never heard of crime syndicates forcibly getting their members hooked on hard drugs in order to make them do their bidding?

It happened to Nguyen Tuong Van himself too.

And I was not talking about the freedom to be robbed, murdered, tortured, in the unlikely case that your reading comprehension has failed you. I was talking about the right to rob, murder and torture other people. These rights should not exist.

I'd have taken the risk for causes I believe in, by the way. Speaking out in support of something as politically incorrect as the death penalty is in itself a risk.

these 'rights' of people to rob, murder and torture other people do not exist. They should not and DO NOT exist. These 'rights' you mention are legal fiction. We do not defend these rights. It is just a fact that humans have the freedom to choose between different courses of actions. We cannot stop them from choosing to kill.

Very good. Similarly we should deny people the "right" to traffic and distribute hard drugs, and the "right" to be addicted to these hard drugs.

so what are u saying? we are punishing people for trafficking drugs. We are putting the drug abusers in rehabilitation centers and failing which send them to jail on the 2rd conviction. no one is defending the right to commit crime.

Erm whose side are you on? If you're one of those who are saying that current drug policies make sense then we shouldn't be crossing swords with each other.

By your own admission, right NOW the SE Asia countries that have the death penalty are supplying the majority of drug traffickers within the region.

Think carefully, what does this say about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a public/general deterrence?

Trackback from The case of Nguyen Tuong Van:

Let's say that if Singapore is to give in, what kind of message is it sending? An infringement of a country's sovereign right? That we can also request Australia to let our criminals there off lightly?...

The Australian Government doesn't murder people like the Singaporean Regime. You can be guaranteed that no Singaporeans will be sentenced to be hanged in Australia.

Yeah man. It's just that we can't really guarantee that you'd be treated like a human being if you're one of our aborigines. Sorry.

The situation with the Aborigines is so complex and fraught. There have been many significant initiatives and some progress on the issue. And huge amounts of resources are still being devoted to find a lasting solution. This glib statement just establishes ignorance.

Yeah but statements on Singapores' human rights records also establishes ignorance as well. Like for like, you know what I mean?

And you're going to tell me that all those human rights abuses of aborigines didn't happen? I just want to quash the notion that "Singapore has a problem with human rights and Australia is as clean as a whistle".

"They used to do wrong things so we are also justified in doing wrong things"

What is wrong with this statement?

"Zimbabwe sends thugs to beat up MDC members, so we can do the same to our opposition!"