Nguyen Tuong Van - Australia cannot stand idly by

Singapore has executed hundreds of convicted prisoners over the past few years. All these executions were no doubt every bit as tragic, as would be killing Mr Nguyen, yet there was no pressure by Australia to provide clemency to any of these prisoners.

Despite this, we must still continue to make the strongest possible representations to save the life of Mr Nguyen. This can only be done in an atmosphere of rational exchange aimed at advancing the interests of both nations. Insults don’t work - they tend to make people even more entrenched in their position. The prime minister is right that “megaphone” diplomacy is impotent in the international arena. The hanging of Brian Chambers and Kevin Barlow for drug trafficking by Malaysia several years ago shows that.

Diplomacy in this regard involves an element of seeing things from Singapore’s perspective and finding common ground.

This involves acknowledging that we share with Singapore an unyielding desire to eradicate the illicit drug problem and a recognition that drugs cause death and personal destruction to users and other members of the community.

However, at the same time the drug problem must be approached in a manner that is likely to be effective and respects moral values that transcend all cultures.

Although common sense would indicate that executing drug traffickers would deter people from selling drugs, wide-ranging empirical evidence conclusively rebuts this proposition. Countries with capital punishment don’t have lower levels of serious crime and when countries abolish the death penalty, the crime rate does not increase. The greatest deterrent to wrongdoing is not the size of the penalty but the perceived risk of detection. Thus, it must be pointed out the citizens of Singapore are no safer from drugs (trafficking) as a result of capital punishment.

Moreover, a fundamental sentencing principle that should underpin all sentencing systems is the principle of proportionality. This prescribes that the harshness of the penalty should match the severity of the offence. This is violated when the most severe form punishment is imposed for offences which do not constitute the most heinous forms of offending. Drug-trafficking is bad, but clearly crimes such as murder and homicide are far more serious.

Finally it needs to be impressed on the Singapore Government that we all share a common morality and ultimately are unified by a desire to maximise human flourishing where each individual's interest counts equally. The most important interest recognised in this universal moral code is the right to life - violation of this right makes all other rights devoid of meaning. The right to life can only be violated where there is a compelling reason to do so (such as self defence). This is not the situation in the case of capital punishment. No benefit is derived from killing wrongdoers.

Acknowledgement of this will enable Singapore to act as a moral beacon to the many other countries in South-East Asia that execute criminals. A failure to endorse these universal truths is likely to be a source of considerable regret for the government of Singapore in the foreseeable future.

Nguyen’s best chance of a reprieve rests with the Australian Government’s capacity to engage the Singapore Government along such lines. If Australia fails in this exercise, such a cruel blow must not discourage it from continuing to make such representations. We should not wait until the next Australian is placed on death row. All lives count equally - irrespective of where a person happens to be born.