On Nguyen

This is an article that I'm moderately proud of, providing some form of economic analysis into what I think destroyed any hope of the grant of clemency in the case of Nguyen. Comments are most welcome and I hope I didn't write in a fashion which is not understandable to the layman or someone with too little a grasp of game theory and coordination - it's relatively simple at the level I'm writing at.

I thought I'd contribute my 2 cents' worth to the whole Nguyen debacle since it has more or less died down and I want to chronicle my thoughts on an issue which has finally brought Singapore to the very first item on the Google News.

As a backdrop, I'm not personally a big fan of the death penalty, perhaps a result of my slightly leftist social leanings (although I'm certainly an economic rightist and I find myself at odds reconciling the two at times). Still, I think the media coverage, particularly from Australian perspectives, have somewhat missed the point on the real issue, so here's what I really think.

1. Australia's views on Singapore laws are alright but it's not going to change a thing. For starters, Australia has no jurisdiction over Singapore. Laws are cultural- and custom-specific and while I think Australia and Australians have the right to express their opinions on the subject matter, the laws of any jurisdiction should be respected, especially in a democracy (yes, I know everyone's going to nitpick about this but Singapore is technically a democracy, albeit one not quite in spirit but in letter). Even if you argue that Singapore is not a 'real' democracy, I certainly don't see sufficient sentiment to suggest that this law is actually not part of the people's will and thus should be banished for eternity. I might personally not be a fan of this law but to me, it's pretty much a reflection of what people want and democracies reflect the people's will, not mine (however much stronger my case might be - which explains why I think stupidity is the failure of democracy). If you don't agree with the laws, here's a suggestion - don't bring drugs into Singapore. Transit or otherwise.

2. Is Singapore truly a friend of the drug lords in Burma? Well, accusations are flying back and forth and I think it's reasonable to suggest that until we see real evidence - if anybody can find me a website documenting that - then this is a point which really doesn't go anywhere. In any case, even if Singapore were supposedly a friend of the drug lords, until we see Singapore being actively used as a port-of-call for these druggies (as opposed to Singapore trading with the government of Burma), it's hardly in contradiction with the law of drug trafficking in Singapore (remember, a government's ultimate duty is to protect its people first).

3. I am of the opinion that the biggest problem we have with this legislation is not so much the fact that we still do hanging (come visit Virginia or Florida if you want to see folks who like capital punishment) but more the fact that the legislation comes with mandatory sentencing. I'm of the opinion that this eliminates the role of the judiciary in a system where the three branches of government are supposed to be distinct. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the meaning of our legislations and a proper legal system should have considerations such as mitigating circumstances, which often affects the degree of sentencing. Mandatory sentencing seems to suggest that our judiciary is either incapable or unwilling to make such decisions and I can't think of how that would be healthy for our judiciary.

4. The whole criticism that Singapore has no transparency in its legal system because the plea for clemency is at the discretion of the President is absolute nonsense. Any judiciary process has proper channels and these channels do not have unlimited appeals - there is a normal due process followed by a Court of Appeals to appeal your case. At this point, should you be proven guilty in both cases, your sentence is considered final. Any appeal to the President is in fact outside of the legal system and thus you can't complain about transparency in this aspect. However, I do admit that I am not sure if possession of over a certain amount of drugs results in a trial where you start as "guilty until proven innocent" and if that is the case, then perhaps that aspect of the legal system deserves criticism. Not the President exercising discretionary powers to grant someone clemency.

I'm happy to hear from legal experts about any of the specific points noted above because in all fairness, I do not claim a large level of expertise in these matters (although I broadly understand the principles). But honestly, let's not miss the point about Nguyen - he's a convicted criminal and he has been sentenced to die. Whether Singapore should keep the death penalty is an issue that Singapore itself must grapple with. Similarly, whether Singapore should have mandatory sentencing is the real issue it should wrestle with too, as opposed to whether Singapore's laws are "barbaric" and whether Australia should have trade sanctions with such a backwater lil' country.

In Gob's words - "C'mon!"