Transit passenger hanged in Singapore

Transit passenger Nguyen was hanged by Singapore for a drug offence.
The offence was pretty serious--Nguyen was carrying $800,000 worth of
heroin--and no doubt deserves punishment.

But something about the case bothers me. Nguyen was a transit passenger
in Singapore. He never intended to enter the nation of Singapore
(except that the international airport is within the boundaries of
Singapore), and the drugs he was carrying was not intended for
distribution in Singapore. Nguyen was never a threat to the citizens of
Singapore.

Singapore should have just handed over Nguyen to Australia. I agree
that Foreigners and citizens should be treated alike, but foreigners
who were merely transiting, and never intended to enter a country
should probably be treated a little differently. International law and
norms should be considered, not just the nation's own laws.

There are countries in this world where it is illegal for a woman to
expose her hair, or limbs, or travel without a male escort. How would
you like to transit through one of those countries, and then be thrown
in jail for not covering your hair and/or limbs?

And there are countries in this world where it is illegal (or was until
very recently) to chew gum. How would you like to be fined $100 for
chewing gum while transiting through that country?

And what if you didn't even intend to transit through this country?
What if your airplane made an emergency stop in the country?

openwound wrote:
> But something about the case bothers me. Nguyen was a transit passenger
> in Singapore. He never intended to enter the nation of Singapore
> (except that the international airport is within the boundaries of
> Singapore), and the drugs he was carrying was not intended for
> distribution in Singapore.


Many countries in the asia/pacific have instituted draconian punishement
for any drug transport to prevent their city from becoming a popular
drug smuggling hub.

As soon as a city becomes a known drug smuggling hub, passengers
transiting through it will be given less rapid customs treatment in
their arrival cities. So large transit hubs such as Singapore and
Bangkok, as well as countries such as Fiji have very harsh treatment for
drug smugglers and make damned sure the world knows about it whenever
someone is caught to send a strong signal that their airport is not good
for drug smuggling.

Every backpacker needs to watch "Bangkok Hilton" s TV series with Nicole
Kidman before going on a trip.



Death penalty is not condoned by the world. Some backward countries
still perform it and it is tolerated because one of those countries has
a veto on the UN security council so nothing can be done to force those
countries to stop it. In this specific case though, that act served its
purpose of warning the world that Singapore is not to be used as drug
smuggling hub since the whole world heard about it. In other countries,
death penalty is routine and doesn't get much media attention so it
serves little purpose as a deterrant.



One would have to check ICAO treaties with regards to legal rights of
passengers while in transit and expected legal process by the country in
which the airport is located. Technically, the passenger hasn't entered
the country. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were specific
treatment for drug smuggling/possession.

openwound wrote:

> Transit passenger Nguyen was hanged by Singapore for a drug offence.
> The offence was pretty serious--Nguyen was carrying $800,000 worth of
> heroin--and no doubt deserves punishment.

This guy new what he was doing... they even warn you on the plane
"please remember the harsh penalties for drug offences in Singapore". He
had 4 hours to flush the heroin but decided to go ahead and board the
Qantas flight to Australia.

Craig Welch wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:03:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <frankfmatthews@houston.> wrote:
>
>
>>He was a drug user who knowingly took a banned substance into Singapore.
>
>
> On what do you base your assertion that he was a drug *user*?
>

I suppose that it was instead possible that he was a dealer instead of a
user. Does that help?

In article <aCskf.22835$Au1.5573@tornado.texas.>, Frank F.
Matthews <frankfmatthews@houston.> wrote:

€ Craig Welch wrote:
€
€ > On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:03:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
€ > <frankfmatthews@houston.> wrote:
€ >
€ >
€ >>He was a drug user who knowingly took a banned substance into Singapore.
€ >
€ >
€ > On what do you base your assertion that he was a drug *user*?
€ >
€
€ I suppose that it was instead possible that he was a dealer instead of a
€ user. Does that help?
€
€

He was neither. He was working as a drug mule to pay off his brother's
gambling debts. In all liklihood, he was set up as a decoy by the gang
that recruited him so that a larger shipment would get through.

"openwound" <openwound5000@> wrote in message
news:1133590328.965567.41120@o13g2000cwo. ...
> Transit passenger Nguyen was hanged by Singapore for a drug offence.
> The offence was pretty serious--Nguyen was carrying $800,000 worth of
> heroin--and no doubt deserves punishment.
>
> But something about the case bothers me. Nguyen was a transit passenger
> in Singapore. He never intended to enter the nation of Singapore
> (except that the international airport is within the boundaries of
> Singapore), and the drugs he was carrying was not intended for
> distribution in Singapore. Nguyen was never a threat to the citizens of
> Singapore.

Whether he intended to bring drugs to SIN or not is sort of a moot point -
he's a Darwin Award winner for sure.

re: Just for the damne record and my (in)sanity

The chewing gum thing is an extended joke, n'est-ce pas?

If so, touche, because I sort of initially bit/chewed.

In ba.general Robert Cohen <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote:

....

> Irrelevant perhaps, but furthermore: Maybe they (the Singaporian
> establishment) shouldn't have been liberated in WW II by Australia
> etal (weren't they?).

I believe Singapore was still in Japanese hands at the time of
the surrender (8/15/45) and was peacefully occupied by Allied troops
after that.

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote ...
> In ba.general Robert Cohen <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Irrelevant perhaps, but furthermore: Maybe they (the Singaporian
>> establishment) shouldn't have been liberated in WW II by Australia
>> etal (weren't they?).
>
> I believe Singapore was still in Japanese hands at the time of
> the surrender (8/15/45) and was peacefully occupied by Allied troops
> after that.
>

With a thousand or so years of experience with the downside of narcotics
usage, located near unto a center for poppy-cropping, and having something
of a rep for severe punishment for criminal offenses, Singapore's treatment
of drug smugglers and dealers is predictable, may seem pretty harsh, but
certainly seems to reduce the use of drugs among a populace where opium use
and addiction were quite open, widespread and destructive.

TMO