Blogcritics Comments on Minister of Death

Comment by from melbourne, australia on Minister of Death

Sat, 2 Dec 2006 03:34:33 EST

thankyou deeply. today is one year anniversary of van's hanging, but even a year on, his story still strikes a chord in my heart. your blog has restored my faith in the goodness of others. thankyou.

Comment by Amy on Minister of Death

Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:57:21 EST

I am a Singh, which means we belong to a very religious group called the Sikhs. Mr. Dharsan Singh has tarnished the Sikh's name "Singh". If he so calls himself a sikh than he should have not landed in a job like this. Sikhs believe in honest living and by killing or taking ones life is not Honest living. Sikhism does not preach on Barbaric, brutal, cruel and degrading and inhuman acts. Darshan singhs tells his prisioners (like as if they are his victims - trapped) telling the media that they struggle like chickens and fish out of water) -which means his victims suffered in his hands. Our religion is a very respectable one. I read that Darshan Singh did this because of bread and butter. He could have gone to his local temple and did some voluntary work there and act free holy food that is prepared in our Temples everyday. He did not have to take this post and degrade our Sikh religion.

Comment by Australians on Minister of Death

Sun, 4 Dec 2005 16:16:26 EST

Dave I think you have missed the point that I was trying to make about the way we value life and whose life we really value.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Minister of Death

Sun, 4 Dec 2005 04:59:48 EST

IMO the problem here is less the existence of the death penalty than its application to Heroin smuggling. The insanity of worldwide drug prohibition laws is amply demonstrated by these cases. Dave

Comment by Australians on Minister of Death

Sun, 4 Dec 2005 04:26:11 EST

The hypocrisy of it all What I find even more amazing is the way in which Australians ignore the plight of victims of crime, even those who are murdered; unless of course the murderer is from another country, then he/she (the murderer) is barbaric, evil, or a terrorist. Otherwise the victims and their families are left to fight their own battles. The public don't have a 5 min silence for these victims, the churches don't ring bells in memory of the victims, and the media seldom mention them; but even worse no one cares until the criminal gets out and attacks them, then we are back to square one again and the new victim is just another statistic. As I said, we are self serving Australian ass-holes.

Comment by Victor Plenty on Minister of Death

Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:13:01 EST

No, you aren't.

Comment by Australians4Australians on Minister of Death

Sat, 3 Dec 2005 19:55:32 EST

Aren't we Australians hypocrites? We Australian's condemn the death penalty only when other nations execute one of our own. Why? Because we are ass-holes. Don't you believe me? Then read the following: On 16 February 2003 the Australian PM said in a Sunday morning television interview that the Bali bombers "should be dealt with in accordance with Indonesian law. ...and if [the death penalty] is what the law of Indonesia provides, well, that is how things should proceed. There won't be any protest from Australia". In early March 2003 the PM told US television that he would welcome the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden. "I think everybody would", Mr Howard said. In response to these comments: "Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia would not intervene if bin Laden was to be executed. 'I personally have never supported the death penalty but in the case of Osama bin Laden, I don't think that too many tears would be shed if he was executed, bearing in mind all the people he's responsible for killing." See I told you! Now why don't we want the lives Bali bombers spared? Because they are not Australian. See we are ass-holes. Now read this: JOHN Howard has denied it is hypocritical to seek clemency for Australians facing the death penalty abroad, but not to oppose it for deposed Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein. The Prime Minister, disturbed by the death of Nguyen Tuong Van, has promised Canberra will campaign for clemency should any of the Bali Nine be condemned to death in Indonesia. Mr Howard said yesterday his opposition to capital punishment did not extend to Saddam, the former Iraq dictator on trial in Baghdad for genocide. "It's not hypocritical, it's just human," he told Melbourne radio after Van's execution yesterday morning. "You bring your own subjective judgment about the quality of the behaviour involved in the action that has led to the imposition of the death penalty." While reluctant to speak on the fate of the nine Australians facing heroin charges in Bali, Mr Howard guaranteed support for other Australians sentenced to death in foreign countries. "Clearly, if people in the future are sentenced to death, Australian citizens, we will advocate clemency," he said. How about this one: Three more Australians are reported to be on death row in Asia following the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore on Friday. The Sunday Telegraph newspaper says Mai Cong Thanh, 46, from Melbourne, and Nguyen Van Chinh, 45, from NSW, are facing death in Vietnam after being convicted of conspiring to smuggle heroin into Australia. The other Australian, Henry Chhin, is in jail in China after being arrested in May last year and convicted last March of trying to send 270 grams of methamphetamine to Australia. It says they lost their appeals against the death sentence earlier this year, and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer is supporting calls for clemency. The paper says that in the past Vietnam has commuted the death sentences of several Australians after pleas by the Australian government. As I said, we are self serving Australian ass-holes.

Comment by holler on Minister of Death

Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:06:58 EST

OH WHAT THE HECK! LET'S GET EVERYBODY HANGED FOR ALL THE THINGS THEY DO IN OBJECT TO WRECK HOMES (i.e. adultery as well) The technicalities should apply the same right? For God sake, Nguyen is only on transit via Singapore (correct me if i'm wrong). Shouldn't the law officials consider the 'real' damage as a fact that Nguyen caused? Which this is his first attempt to even carry the drugs! This case did NOT cause harm to anyone by fact; & to kill him = to kill an innocent man. It is sad.

Comment by holler on Minister of Death

Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:52:26 EST

Grizlock, u have a certain coldness in you that i hope there is a pack of drug will be secretly dropped into your bagpack while you were travelling & get hanged. MY POINT IS: What is Law without compassion?

Comment by vivid on Minister of Death

Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:20:38 EST

well Ana, for any other drug supplier caught, they will be bloody hanged also. That's all there is. Death.

Comment by Save Auassie Lifes on Minister of Death

Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:47:58 EST

Hello all First off, i am Singaporean. The majority of us support capital punishment. There will be an uproar if Van gets special treatment. For us heroin is the worst of all narcotic drug so not only did he traffic with a large amount but it is of the worst form. If the drug land into Australia, that is 26000 doses. The profit will fund other crimes, In fact drug profits are related to the more violent crimes. The doses will lead to more drug abuse and death. If succesful, this will lead to more destrroyed lifes. Undoubtedly Van will rise up the ranks and probably be a recruiter of more mules. I believe that this episode have prevented the ruin of more lifes in australia and the message must be brought home that aussie youths should not becomes pawns of Asian drug lords. Your drug culture is strong and you are a consumer of it and hence you don't sense the abhorence of the crime ... Asia hates it as it spwans so much death and misery. You hate it when Asia produces it. Kill this drug culture with a strong hand for your own sake. Note China was brought down in some sense by the opium additiction and the profits went to UK firms which were legal. I read somewhere the argument that capital punishment does not reduce the crime rate. Detection is the key. The person is right, consider when you come to Singapore, the announcements will tell you it is a capital offence to carry drugs, ... signboard will tell you its a capital offence ... this is where one truly gets nervous and you get detected by the non uniform police or uniform ones. They are trained to spot nervousness and conduct a search. But the law is the law to have effectiveness, the punishment has to be meted out though it is much hated and it is not this end that is wanted. Capital punishment is hideous. I will tell you sincerely that our government would wish that they need not hang Van or anybody. So please don't enter into our country with drugs. "Believe me your body will betray you ... it is very tough to control your body ... you will sweat and you will twitch and there are many eyes and cameras watching you and they want you to know it."

Comment by ana on Minister of Death

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:56:24 EST

Ok, i firstly watned to say that i respect everyones opinion here, and i hope that everyone can respect mine too. I myself have a cousin who is currently in jail serving a very long sentence for drug dealing, so i personally know how traumatic this is and the strain it has on famliy, however, my cousin is not on death row, and is not overseas about to be hanged. He is here, in australia, being punished for what he did, not being put to death. I understand the people who believe that the death penalty is wat they deserve, I understand why you would think that, and fair enough, thats your opinion. I just think that personally, we have no right to judge wether a person's soul should be condemned to life or death based on their actions ESPECIALLY if we dont know them and the full story (i.e. pretty much everyone except for Van's family and friends and the judges etc.) It is one thing to have an opinion and voice it, but to say things like 'hang the jerk' or stuff like that, i think that is just being immature. Im sure if that was your brother/cousin/or relative about to be hanged for a crime you would not be saying things like that and you would want the support of whoever you can get. But then again, i guess we will never know until we are put in a situation like that ourselves, which hopefully, none of us will experience. Yes, I know that those drugs affect innocent lives etc etc, and that is an extremely valid point, however, do you think that by hanging one drug dealer, it will reduce the people being affected? no, because they wil find other people to buy it from etc. its not like Van Nguyen was the main drug supplier to the entire nation of Singapore. But hey, im just one person with another opinion, wat do i know right?

Comment by Lawry on Minister of Death

Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:09:57 EST

Van is a smart chap. I do not, for a minute believe that he is not aware of the risk he is taking. This is not the same as learning from your mistakes. Drugs trafficking is not an ordinary "crime". See the big picture. Drugs have far-reaching implications. Broken families, increased robberies to feed the habit, increased crime, unsafe communities for YOUR kids, just to name a few. If a person has to be charged only when he carries out the "intended" crime, why then does Australia support pre-emptive strikes against Iraq for "preceived" terrorism ? Were there any Iraqis on board any of the 4 planes on 911 ? I don't remember any !

Comment by cici on Minister of Death

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:20:50 EST

Every one in our lives makes mistakes.. Agreed??? We somehow pretended to 'forget' our mistakes and move on, others took that on board and learnt as a lesson. Many of us have had the opportunities to gain an insight into our sins,and pretended to be as normal as possible. Nguyen Tuong Van is the same. He made a mistake,but why HANG HIM????Where is JUSTICE?Put it this way... why nailed on him but not others such the 'big guy'behind this scene???So by hanging him, does it helped to stop others drug's smuggler??? or it would increased the anger, frustration in Australian citizens in this regard?? If anyone who are currently reading this can 'silently'say to them self that"I HAVE NO SIN,I'VE NEVER COMMITTED ANY SUCH CRIME,I'VE NEVER MAKE ANY MISTAKES,I'VE NEVER LIED..."oh well guess what!! you are either have a multipersonality or some crazy jerk that full of denies and liar.Comeone everyone,DO SOMETHING to save this young man's live. Don't just sit there. Get your act together. Nguyen co-operated with the police and admitted the crime,he should NEVER serve the DEATH SENTENCE.

Comment by Linda Gag on Minister of Death

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:52:19 EST

I agree heroin ruins families and kills people. But this was the first time, NGUYEN TUONG VAN did heroin smuggle and he didn't give drugs to anyone before he got caught. So he DIDN'T kill anybody. Therefore, he deserves a second chance. In general, capital punishment is for someone who DID murder. A senior United Nations human rights official says the Australian Government has mishandled the appeal for clemency for Van Nguyen, who is on death row in Singapore. Professor Philip Alston, the chief adviser on the death penalty to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, says Australia should be aggressively lobbying Asian countries that apply the death penalty in drug cases. Professor Alston is a professor of law at New York University and the brother of the former Howard Government minister Richard Alston. He has also been lobbying the Singaporean Government over the case of the Melbourne man on behalf of the UN. He says that applying a mandatory element to the death penalty in drug cases is a contravention of international law. Professor Alston is critical of the Australian Government's approach to the Nguyen case, saying it is not enough for the Government to seek clemency in an individual case. "The appropriate approach which the Government should take, but has opted not to, is pressing not Singapore but a range of other countries in the region on the fact that they treat drug offences as being punishable by death, which is not appropriate under international law," he said. "Secondly, they classify these cases as requiring a mandatory or compulsory death penalty. So it doesn't matter what the individual circumstances of the case are, the court has no option, no matter how mitigating factors might be brought into case, except to say 'you must die', and that's if there's no further appeal, there's no further consideration. "That's not consistent with international law, there's a very strong body of that indicating that governments are not permitted to do that sort of thing. "Now the Australian Government has not been pushing these arguments at all, as far as I've seen, and while it's encouraging that they express regret, I think there is another step they need to take, and it's not just in one of these individual cases but it's going to affect an increasing number of Australians." Professor Alston says the Australian Government needs to raise the profile of its anti-death penalty argument in the Asian region.

Comment by Rabid Wombat on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:49:28 EST

Hey guys, I was thinking (for discussion sake)... If Mr. Singh is really the Singapore's Chief Executioner, do you think he should sue the journalist for exposing him? (Some articles did say his identity is a closely guarded secret.) If it is true, he could get into trouble (hell, even if it wasnt true, he could get into trouble), you know what I mean? Trouble in a sense that unsatisfied people will try to target him, true?

Comment by DJRadiohead on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:24:04 EST

Bennett, in the end you are right. The two camps have staked out their turf and reached the impasse. I do appreciate your thoughts and experiences on the subject. It's an interesting perspective and it asks some questions I had not really considered. Thanks for checking in.

Comment by Bennett on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:31:54 EST

Juvinile, and off topic, as usual.

Comment by Anthony Grande on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:58:36 EST

"Minister of Death" An abortion doctor???

Comment by Bennett on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:56:13 EST

Interesting post DJR, and the comments have been right in line with the two schools of thought. At one point in my life I held onto the belief that this one life was not all there was, in which case the death penalty is really nothing more than removing a player from the game for a little while. Now, I'm sure of nothing, other than the two classically unavoidable issues. I'm not sure where i read it, maybe Twain, taking issue with the concept that "life is precious". The gist of it was that "life is cheap, plentiful, and replaceable". That there are fewer things in this world as cheap as human life. I do realize that it's a sad position, but to rail against the execution of this young (guilty) man, while NOT railing with equal energy against the daily deaths of thousands of "innocent" children around the world, makes no sense. The thought of the thousands of premature, unfair and unnecessary deaths of innocent humans in our world is really too big for one person to deal with. Thus the desire for an escape into TV, sports, hobbies, alcohol, and (surprise) drugs. Of course the execution will have zero impact on the drug trade in Singapore. But I don't think that that's the intent of the law. I think the law ultimately recognizes that life is cheap, and that the death penalty is an efficient way to deal with those caught smuggling drugs. Poof, gone! All I can do now is hope that there is something more than this one life. For me, you, and for this young man caught in Singapore's web of death for smuggling.

Comment by DJRadiohead on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:26:22 EST

I believe what the research indicates (and I won't waste your time with citing it. You're firm in your convictions and I really am OK with that) that crime rates and murder rates won't be effected either way. The death penalty has no impact on crime is what the research suggests. I don't think the death penalty causes more crime. I don't believe for one second it is reducing crime. We do have something of a statistical comparison. The death penalty was at one time illegal in the U.S. I think we have seen more murders on a per capita basis since it was re-instituted. I don't blame the death penalty for that. There are a lot of statistical models and none of them will be perfect. Harsher penalties do little, in my view, to address the underlying reasons people commit crimes. The death penalty has been apart of countless societies throughout history and crimes are still committed. It doesn't stop crime.

Comment by Grizlock on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 03:40:32 EST

DJRadioHead, quoting from u, "unfortunately research I have read and studies that have been conducted suggest differently." --> Negative, infact it does not disprove my theory. For instance, quoting ur example, "The US has the death penalty and the murder rate here is much higher than in European countries without the death penalty, just to cite one example. There is a ton of research on this matter and the preponderance of it is on 'my' side, if you will. I can go get links and cite it if you wish." --> For this example, if u eliminate death penalty in US, u mean murder rate will decrease? or will it have a higher chance of increasing? Different countries = different societies = different crime rate, so I think the research can only prove so little. Its the same thing with stock market, those experts researched and expected certain shares to rise at least 10%, but it might drop instead. Therefore, researches and studies like that are only credible to a certain extend. Which ultimately DOES NOT disprove my arguement at all. You can show me links etc, but none will be as credible as things like US actually eliminating death sentence and have a real statistical comparison. Anyway, to add to my point, I think you should not even be using his case as an example to try abolish death sentence. What you ought to do is to try to educate future generations, maybe none will ever do drugs again and thereby no more death sentence for drug traffickers. For example, if a Foolish man purposely jumps into a pit with lions and got eaten, would u try to save him by taming(appealing) all the suppositely untamable lions (Singapore), so that in future, if a foolish man(Drug Traffickers) jumps in, he will not be eaten? Or to teach all future foolish men to understand that you cannot jump into the lion pit, and make them understand the consequences(Death Sentence)? I think we should all work on the latter example. Anyway, no insult or harm meant, just my point of view. I still insist he should be hanged.

Comment by Rabid Wombat on Minister of Death

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:28:23 EST

I highly doubt the lords will compensate them for it. I agree with you on putting a stop to crime, DJ. But I guess that if you just put everyone in jail, as what Grizlock says is true...more people will turn to crime. So, you got to put your foot down somewhere. Jail for most crimes and death for certain crimes. I guess S.E.Asia countries look at drugs as the mother of all evil. Drugs lead to addiction, HIV/AIDS, kidnapping and many other evils, whether you are doing it while you were high or doing it for the money (to buy/sell), it involves drugs. I guess thats why the stiff penalty. I agree with the death penalty on drugs. Drugs are bad and I see drugs as a catalyst for a chain of events. When people get hooked onto it, they'd do anything to get more.

Comment by DJRadiohead on Minister of Death

Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:59:31 EST

Grizlock, unfortunately research I have read and studies that have been conducted suggest differently. I understand you personally might feel that way but research and studies do not indicate the death penalty has the deterrent effect you indicate. Drug lords can compensate families for an executed drug runner just as easily they can compensate the families of a jailed drug runner. There have been many studies conducted. The US has the death penalty and the murder rate here is much higher than in European countries without the death penalty, just to cite one example. There is a ton of research on this matter and the preponderance of it is on 'my' side, if you will. I can go get links and cite it if you wish. The death penalty is harsher. There is a lack of credible evidence to suggest it is more effective. I respect your right to disagree with me on this point. I think there are two reasons to support the death penalty. Retribution and deterrence. I think most research indicated deterrence doesn't happen and I don't support retribution. I support stopping crime. That is supposed to be the goal. Killing people doesn't seem to be doing the trick. So let's not do it.

Comment by Grizlock on Minister of Death

Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:43:36 EST

DJRadioHead, you would think that life sentence would be a better option, but I disagree. Why? I believe that life sentence is considered a much lighter sentence than death penalty, encouraging more drug lords to find more scapgoats for their drugs transportation, as more scapgoats will risk it more willingly. For instance, if all else fails, they got caught, they will be jailed for life, but their families might be given a sum of money by drug lords or any promises they made to the scapgoats to improve the quality of life for their love ones etc... I believe there are many such cases which explains why many are even willing to take the risk on death penalty. Maybe for Nguyen's case, his twin brother's debts are cleared somehow I don't know. Its a difference between risking life or risking life sentence, which I think the latter will definitely encourage more drug related offenses. "I won't have to die, I can risk this, I might be able to get release when I get old (slim chance) etc etc..." Its DIFFERENT. Death sentence is still more effective. On another perspective, Death sentence isnt too bad just because it ends your life. Yes, on a public side like yourself, DJRadioHead, u might find hanging tough, taking a man's life. But have you ever thought of cases like Corby when she was sentenced to life imprisonment? Sometimes, death is easier for them than to spend forever in jail. So in other words, sometimes, not all times, death sentence is better than life imprisonment. Not to any human rights activists though ( as they are not the ones suffering under the mentality of "I will spend my entire life in this dump forever? I think its worse than death alone, I would rather die, but I cannot kill myself in here...etc.. etc.." ), they just have the motto similar to "Everyone should have a chance to life". Those being said, I rest my case.