Dr. Damien Kingsbury is the Director of International and Community Development at Deakin University.
Here, in part, is his comment on the Van Nguyen discussion and debate in reation to the death penalty in Singapore -
"Because of its quasi-state sanctioned trade in drugs, as well as its
consistently appalling human rights record and military dictatorship, Burma is
shunned by most of the world. But Singapore does not shun Burma, and is after
China its second largest foreign investor, trading partner and military
hardware supplier.
The Burmese military – which is also the government - is deeply involved in the
country's heroin trade, through direct ownership of growing and refining and
through massive kick-backs from heroin warlords. Heroin funds around half of
Burma's economy.
In that the Burmese government has recently limited opium production, it has
largely been in areas it does not receive profits from. And much heroin
production has been replaced by production of amphetamines.
Most Singaporean investment in and support for Burma is through official
government contracts, in particular through the Singapore Investment
Corporation and state owned armaments industry. That is, Singapore directly
supports the Burmese military government that is deeply engaged in the
production of heroin and other drugs. But Burmese drug lords are not executed
in Singapore. Rather, they are feted as important businessmen.
Beyond this official hypocrisy, there are two principles concerning the death
sentence generally and in Singapore in particular.
In Singapore, the death sentence is mandatory for possession of as little as 15
grams of heroin. This means there can be no possible reason for the sentence to
be limited, thus taking away the power of the courts to actually judge. If my
family was held hostage under threat of murder, to be released only in return
for carrying a half an ounce of heroin, this could not modify my death sentence
under Singaporean law.
In principle, mandatory sentencing limits and often denies justice.
The second principle concerns the right of the state to kill people. Apart from
Singapore, all of Australia's Southeast Asian neighbors claim the right to
kill, as does the United States, China and many other countries. The question
is, though, for what offences can the state take life?
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, one might ask Singapore – and others – would you
execute a person for heroin smuggling (or murder, or whatever).
Answer: Yes, we would.
Question: Would you execute a person for the Singaporean crime of chewing gum?
Answer: What do you take us for, murderers?
Response: We have already established what you are. We are now just haggling
over your reasons".
Need anything more be said?
Here, in part, is his comment on the Van Nguyen discussion and debate in reation to the death penalty in Singapore -
"Because of its quasi-state sanctioned trade in drugs, as well as its
consistently appalling human rights record and military dictatorship, Burma is
shunned by most of the world. But Singapore does not shun Burma, and is after
China its second largest foreign investor, trading partner and military
hardware supplier.
The Burmese military – which is also the government - is deeply involved in the
country's heroin trade, through direct ownership of growing and refining and
through massive kick-backs from heroin warlords. Heroin funds around half of
Burma's economy.
In that the Burmese government has recently limited opium production, it has
largely been in areas it does not receive profits from. And much heroin
production has been replaced by production of amphetamines.
Most Singaporean investment in and support for Burma is through official
government contracts, in particular through the Singapore Investment
Corporation and state owned armaments industry. That is, Singapore directly
supports the Burmese military government that is deeply engaged in the
production of heroin and other drugs. But Burmese drug lords are not executed
in Singapore. Rather, they are feted as important businessmen.
Beyond this official hypocrisy, there are two principles concerning the death
sentence generally and in Singapore in particular.
In Singapore, the death sentence is mandatory for possession of as little as 15
grams of heroin. This means there can be no possible reason for the sentence to
be limited, thus taking away the power of the courts to actually judge. If my
family was held hostage under threat of murder, to be released only in return
for carrying a half an ounce of heroin, this could not modify my death sentence
under Singaporean law.
In principle, mandatory sentencing limits and often denies justice.
The second principle concerns the right of the state to kill people. Apart from
Singapore, all of Australia's Southeast Asian neighbors claim the right to
kill, as does the United States, China and many other countries. The question
is, though, for what offences can the state take life?
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, one might ask Singapore – and others – would you
execute a person for heroin smuggling (or murder, or whatever).
Answer: Yes, we would.
Question: Would you execute a person for the Singaporean crime of chewing gum?
Answer: What do you take us for, murderers?
Response: We have already established what you are. We are now just haggling
over your reasons".
Need anything more be said?
Comments