10 Dec 2005

‘Asians don’t hug’

‘Asians don’t hug’
Eric Ellis

Singapore

No one outside Singapore’s steel-trap judiciary knows for sure whether Darshan Singh hanged Nguyen Tuong Van, of Melbourne, in Changi on Friday 2 December. A week earlier, Darshan said he’d been sacked as chief hangman after a series of embarrassingly gruesome articles had appeared about him in the Australian press. But his masters insist he wasn’t sacked. The confusion was not what you’d expect in Singapore, a place that is in most things obsessively efficient. But we do know that 72-year-old Darshan has seen off about 850 criminals in his 40 years as hangman. He is something of a world champion at this particular discipline.

One detail about Darshan that especially worried Australians when it was reported down under, was that he had toasted his 500th victim with a bottle of Chivas Regal with jailhouse colleagues. He is clearly a man who takes pride in his job, and sees no reason for sentimentality or false modesty. ‘With me,’ he says, ‘the prisoners don’t struggle. I know the real way. If it’s a raw guy, they will struggle like chickens, like fish out of the water.’

Darshan may well be a monster, but he has been a loyal servant of Harry Lee Kuan Yew, Asia’s self-styled Philosopher-King, across whose autobiography Margaret Thatcher scrawled ‘He Was Never Wrong’. Many Australians would take issue with Lady Thatcher. They certainly do with Lee. For months before the execution of Nguyen, debate raged in Australia about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment. But in Singapore’s state-controlled bubble, the hanging barely registered a blip. Nguyen was one of the 30–40 criminals Singapore admits to killing every year.

No one is suggesting Nguyen wasn’t guilty. In December 2002 the then 22-year-old, born in a Thai refugee camp to a Vietnamese mother fleeing communism, was caught in Changi airport on his way from Cambodia to Australia with 396g, or 14oz, of pure heroin. It was his first trip abroad. He said he was only trying to clear the gangland debts of his twin brother, a heroin addict. The Singapore police said that the heroin, which Nguyen carried strapped to his body, was enough for 26,000 hits, though Australians estimated it was only enough for 6,000 hits. Whatever the case, he had more than 15g of heroin, which is the level at which the death sentence is mandatory in Singapore.

It was all very shocking to those not familiar with Singapore. It’s such a nice, clean, sterile place. When Australians realised that Singapore challenged Iran for the world record in per capita executions, there were calls for boycotts of Singapore Airlines and of Optus, which is Australia’s second-biggest telecom provider and is owned by the Singapore government. Australians were not sufficiently outraged, however, actually to change their mobile subscription from Optus to the lumbering Australian-owned Telstra. That would have involved far too much inconvenience and frustration.

Singapore can survive the outrage, anyway. As prime minister from 1959 to 1990, Lee was a close ally of both Australia and America in the Cold War, and more recently, as Senior Minister, he has earned the admiration of both Canberra and Washington by helping to drive Islamic terrorists from Singapore. In five times seeking clemency for Nguyen, John Howard dogwhistled to the abolitionist half of his electorate, who praised his humanity. Singapore dogwhistled back, praising Howard for his ‘polite’ protest. That’s when Nguyen was doomed.

Not all Australians were against the hanging. Some, especially in the ‘Deep North’, have long wondered why Australian justice can’t be more like Singapore’s. A Darwin pensioner, Keith Sauerwald, offered to fill in for Darshan if the hangman was dismissed.

Darshan himself, meanwhile, has threatened to sue the prison service for wrongful dismissal. If he does sue — and of course he will only be able to sue if he has indeed been sacked — he will be the rare bird who challenges Singapore’s unwritten ‘social contract’ with the Lees, under which compliant Singaporeans essentially agree to eschew high-minded things like democracy and human rights in return for never-ending wealth. Foreign investors like this arrangement too, and love it that mostly Chinese Singapore isn’t Indonesia — sprawling, poor and Islamic. No other nation in ‘difficult’ Asia gives as good an impression of San Diego as Singapore; Singapore Inc delivers skilled labour and superb infrastructure, and its illiberality is among its chief corporate attractions. This is Disneyland with the death penalty, the only shopping centre with a seat in the UN, a real-life Truman Show, Asia Lite — the clichés about Singapore tend to ring true.

Still, this hanging has undoubtedly tarnished Singapore’s glossy veneer. For one thing, it was conducted with almost unbelievable cruelty. Nguyen’s mother pleaded with the Lees for a last hug of her boy. They refused, but on the day before he died they relented somewhat and, as a favour to Howard, she was allowed to squeeze her condemned son’s hand and ruffle his hair through his cell bars. And Singapore is hypocritical as well as cruel. The city state hangs wretched first offenders like Nguyen but then plays Switzerland to Burma’s money-laundering druglords and mollycoddles big business: the chairman of the government committee convened to oversee corporate governance sat on more than 50 company boards.

Singapore insists, meanwhile, that it’s Asia’s ‘arts hub’, but what kind of arts hub insists that playwrights — and there aren’t many in Singapore — must submit their scripts for approval to an Orwellian ‘media development authority’? Free speech is as badly treated on the street as it is in the theatre. Those who take their soap boxes to Singapore’s ‘Speakers’ Corner’ must pre-register with the state, and gatherings of concerned citizens — the few that actually take place — are photographed by government spooks.

True, there are elections in Singapore, but ballots are numbered and votes can be traced. The last two parliamentary polls were won by Lee’s People’s Action Party long before polling day because more than half the seats weren’t contested, and the PAP controls all but two of Singapore’s 84 parliamentary seats. President S.R. Nathan secured his second term in August when the government-appointed presidential elections committee ruled his three opponents ineligible. The Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, is Lee Kuan Yew’s eldest son. Members of the Lee family run Singapore’s biggest public company, its two leading government investment agencies and the finance ministry.

The press is tame. The Straits Times, started long before Somerset Maugham went out East, rivals Pravda for its obsequious adherence to the party line. I once asked the editor-in-chief, Cheong Yip Seng, about rumours that his newsroom was studded with former members of Singapore’s secret police. He gleefully named them. ‘Why not?’ Cheong beamed. ‘These guys have good analytical minds ...they are all kindred spirits.’

When the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders recently placed Singapore 140th of 167 on the world press freedom index, it was Cheong’s paper they were reading and quite possibly the columnist Andy Ho, who a week before Nguyen was hanged wrote a long-winded essay supporting capital punishment. When one enterprising Aussie television hack asked Ho for an on-camera hug in lieu of the one his government had denied Nguyen’s mother, Ho uncomfortably provided one, with the qualifier that ‘Asians don’t hug’.


Eric Ellis is South East Asia correspondent of Fortune and of the Australian weekly The Bulletin.

23 comments:

Dave said...

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 was executed?

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

Anonymous said...

I believe that Van was 'murdered' by cruel, inhuman barbarics who are also hypocritical about the drugs trade. There has been evidence that SG deal with the Burmese drug lords, yet, they kill off the little guys like Van. He was a beautiful soul and he deserved to live.

Jon said...

The number of doses is really irrelevant as the government knows the death sentence is really about public communication (see earlier article) rather than justifying an eye-for-an-eye death. '26,000' is just a crude attempt to gain public support. Apart from being irrelevant, it is also a highly subjective number as dave points out. It's somewhat irresponsible reporting to the general public that knows little about drugs and are happy to simply accept the facts they are given. This is why you should NEVER JUST ONLY read the ST.

Anonymous said...

anon 4.10pm. I too like you believe that Van was a beautiful soul... in the months leading up to his execution. When people stare death in the face they do change completely, and I am glad he embraced God, and God embraced him at the very end. His expereince isn't unusual... It is the experience of many death row inmates. Whether he would have changed completely without the death penalty hanging over him is another matter, which no one can tell.

Anonymous said...

think singaporean, you don't seem to understand anything. I only said that when he faced death did he change as a person, as so many other deathrow inmates change. But when not facing death would these people change? I am not so arrogant as you to say yes or no, because the answer is that one just doesn't know. Don't put words in peoples' mouths, OK.

Anonymous said...

The detailed description of the drug situation in Oz in the Sunday Times was quite an eye-opener, at least for me. It also puts into perspective as to why Aussies were so divided over the Nguyen issue, and why the very large Viet Aussie community was not more vocal against the execution. There is a place for sentimentality and compassion, but there is also a place for sober realities. I will continue to support capital punishment for drug offences. I just do not want Singapore, despite its many flaws, to go the way of Oz.

Anonymous said...

Better not go the way of Oz. It seems that when 5000 youths engage in a racial riot in Cronulla over the weekend, that, it would seem, is a typical day downunder.

Anonymous said...

i pray that whoever supports the death penalty for trafficking will have drugs planted into his or her luggage and end up a scapegoat to get hanged!!! THEN they will know :)

Anonymous said...

Yup, Schappelle was framed, of course, and the drugs planted in her surf bag. But errr... there are now pictures of her with a well-known drug trafficker. The Indonesian authorities have requested the pictures: and the Indonesian prosecutors will press for the reinstatement of an extra five years to her sentence to make it the original 20 years. I think we can safely say that when she gets out of the Bali prison, she will not have her model looks anymore. I wonder whether she will then make a great human interest story for the Aussie papers. You know, age and wrinkles and all... At least she would be able to speak Bahasa. Not bad huh.

As for those travelling, anyone knows about simple precautions: always use a hardback lugguage; and, if possible, never get into a situation where you are required to check-in your lugguage. Always pare down your things to just the bare necessities and take it as a carry on.

Anyway, after that Sunday Times story of the drug-scene in Oz I think much of the region's Customs officers will pay special attention to travelling Aussies. :)

Anonymous said...

think singaporean, to oppose the law and not to allow it to take its course is arrogance.

Anonymous said...

Oh since when its considered arrogance? I suppose you assume that abiding and supporting the whatever law thrown at you is the best way to go then? The perfect Singaporean. :) PAP loves you.

Anonymous said...

Everybody loves Raymond... even the PAP :)

Anonymous said...

Anon 5.32, the govt would be very glad to send you to war because you don't oppose the law and would allow it to take its course is DEFINITELY NOT arrogance!

Anonymous said...

yea... all else is arrogance. So shut up and listen to the holy wise King. Long live the emperor!

Anonymous said...

Including you, anon 12.10, stop arguing!

Anonymous said...

It is good to have people on the right side of the law. For those who insist on being on the wrong side of the law, and continue to insist on being on the wrong side of it, that is pure arrogance, and the law should deal with them accordingly.

Anonymous said...

obeying the law and supporting something JUST BECAUSE it's the law r two different things. a person who does the latter is essentially BRAINLESS and should be executed.

Anonymous said...

Yet another person facing execution, this time in California, has said he has experienced redemption and is a totally reformed man. I have no doubt that what he says is true. But same old, same old... When someone is facing/staring death he/she changes completely, usually for the good. His appeals for clemency have however been dismissed by the California governor. If clemency was granted and his sentence commuted to life in imprinsonment, is there any guarantee he would not change back to what he was previously? No one knows the answer, and I believe not even the condemned man can konw for sure, although I am certain he will publicly give assurances and the guarantee that he had been forever changed. yeah, right!

Anonymous said...

A new Morgan poll in Australia conducted over 7-8 Dec, during the period of Nguyen's funeral, shows an even larger number of Aussies support his hanging. The figure was up 5% from 47% to 52% -- a majority now. Ooooooo so many Aussies will now suffer bad karma.... haha

Anonymous said...

Just heard they executed Tookie Williams at San Quentin Prison. Just like other death penalty cases, his lawyer said he was at peace. Same old, same old...

Anonymous said...

pls, we all know it's just cos he's not white...otherwise even a jail term (scorby or watzername's 20 years) would make them 99% anti-s'pore

Anonymous said...

think_singaporean From a prison cell, a convicted criminal is still able to do a lot of things, both within prison and also outside it -- through friends, family and lawyers he is in contact with. For example, he can give his criminal contacts outside the prison the names of prisoners soon to be released so they can be hired/employed by the criminal bosses to engage in major criminal activities. This is a very common phenomenon well known throughout the world's prison population. It's called the brotherhood of prisoners fraternity. And so, I am very doubtful of the so-called "merits" you suggest by commuting to a life sentence a prisoner who had been condemned to execution. And these prisonesr would do these things largely to help their families and also to ensure they have an easier time within prison (where other prisoners would be nice to them). People who commit serious crimes very rarely reform themselves: that is the general story. And so you will pardon me if I continue to condemn them.

Anonymous said...

i doubt he'll pardon u but rather continue to condemn u :)