Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2005 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
What they said ...
'The basic difference in our approach springs from our traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual. In criminal law legislation, our priority is the security and well being of law-abiding citizens rather than the rights of the criminal' Former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew
'It is never the real traffickers who are caught. The ones who are caught and hanged are often poor, desperate people, who are being made use of. By hanging them, we are helping to perpetuate the plan of the real traffickers who are very smart' A Singaporean lawyer, quoted in the New Paper, 17 June 2001
The issue at a glance
It is probable that Nguyen Tuong Van, 25, an Australian citizen of Vietnamese origin, will be executed on Friday November 25, 2005, in Singapore after the failure of various pleas for clemency. If it proceeds, the execution will be by hanging.
Nguyen would become the fourth Australian sentenced to death by Asian countries on drug charges. Brian Chambers and Kevin Barlow were hanged in Malaysia in 1986. Michael McAuliffe was hanged in Malaysia in 1993.
Nguyen was caught in transit at Singapore's Changi Airport in December, 2002, on a flight from Cambodia to Australia. Nguyen said he had the drugs because he was trying to raise money to clear debts incurred by his twin brother in Melbourne, Australia.
Nguyen was convicted on March 20, 2004 of trafficking 396 grams of heroin and sentenced to death. An appeal to the Singaporean High Court on October 20, 2004, failed.
Kim Nguyen (the convicted man's mother) fled Vietnam alone in a boat in 1980 and gave birth to her twin sons in a transit camp in Malaysia, before the three were accepted as refugees into Australia four months later.
The case has generated extensive debate within Australia about the appropriateness of the death penalty as a punishment for drug offenders. Singapore is reported to have the strictest anti-drug laws in the world and the harshest penalties. Singapore is also reported to have, relative to population, the highest rate of application of the death penalty in the world.
Background
The death penalty was used in Singapore during British colonial rule and remained after the country became an independent republic in 1965. The Singapore Penal Code provides for the death sentence for at least ten different offences.
Though the death penalty is prescribed for a wide range of offences, currently it is only being imposed for drug trafficking, murder and firearms offences, which all carry a mandatory death sentence [that is, the judge has no discretion to impose another penalty on anyone found guilty of any of these offences]. The crimes of attempted murder or endangering a person's life during an act of piracy and 'offences against the President's person' also carry a mandatory death sentence.
Singapore's Criminal Procedure Code states that the death penalty may not be imposed on pregnant women or offenders aged under 18 at the time of the offence.
Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with substantial on the spot fines for minor offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes. Singapore's media environment is also highly regulated. Censorship is common, internet access is regulated and private ownership of satellite dishes is not allowed.
Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act
The Act provides for a mandatory death penalty for at least 20 different offences. Anyone found guilty of trafficking, importing or exporting the following specified amounts of drugs faces a mandatory death sentence:
* more than 1,200 grams of opium,
* more than 30 grams of morphine,
* more than 15 grams of heroin, more than 30 grams of cocaine,
* more than 500 grams of cannabis,
* more than 1,000 grams of cannabis mixture,
* more than 200 grams of cannabis resin,
* more than 250 grams of methamphetamine.
The manufacture of the same drugs also carries the death penalty.
Internet Information
ThinkCentre.org is the internet portal of Think Centre, an independent non-governmental organisation in Singapore. The Centre aims to examine critically issues related to political development, democracy, rule of law, human rights and civil society in Singapore. The Centre is opposed to the city-states use of capital punishment.
It has devoted a portion of its site to a critique of the death penalty. A hypertext index of relevant articles runs down the left hand side of the page. The page can be found at http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2613
Singapore Window is a lobby group claiming as its aim the promotion of a just and participatory society in Singapore. It has an Internet site devoted to the discussion of social and political issues in Singapore.
On April 12, 2002, Singapore Window published an opinion piece by Amy Tan titled, 'Singapore death penalty shrouded in silence' The piece is critical of the application of the death penalty in Singapore. It can be found at http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020412re.htm
Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.
Amnesty International is opposed to capital punishment and its use in Singapore. On January 15, 2004 AI issued a detailed report criticising the operation of the death penalty in Singapore. The report is titled, 'Singapore. The death penalty: a hidden toll of executions' The report gives a detailed critique of both the manner in which capital punishment is applied in Singapore and its effects. It also includes a detailed commentary on Singapore's drug laws and where the burden of proof falls with regard to these drug laws.
The report can be found at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360012004?open&of=ENG-SGP
On January 30, 2004, Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs issued a detailed rebuttal of Amnesty International's critique of its drug laws and use of capital punishment.
This defence considers each of the claims made by AI and attempts to answer them. The two documents, taken in conjunction, make very valuable reading.
Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs defence of the city-state's use of capital punishment can be found at http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?artid=990&type=4&root=0&parent=0&cat=0
On October 27, 2005, Radio National's PM conducted interviews with Singapore's High Commissioner to Australia Joseph Koh and Nguyen Tuong Van's barrister, Lex Lasry.
A transcript of the interviews can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1492406.htm
Capital Punishment UK is a resource for the study of the death penalty in Britain. The site includes a detailed and valuable balancing of arguments for and against capital punishment. As part of this discussion it considers the use of the death penalty in Singapore and argues that it is only the certainty of its application that makes it an effective deterrent.
The discussion can be found at http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/thoughts.html
On October 26, 2005, The World Socialist Web Site published an article by Rick Kelly criticising the Australian Government for not having been sufficiently forceful in its representations on behalf of Nguyen Tuong Van.
The article, titled 'Howard government abandons Australian citizen sentenced to death in Singapore', can be found at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/hang-o26.shtml
Arguments in favour of Singapore continuing to impose the death penalty on drug offenders
1. Singapore has an established tradition of strict punishments
Although Singapore's laws are derived from British and British Indian laws, the Government has consistently rejected the wholesale adoption of Western democratic values, with former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew citing incompatibilities with 'Asian values'. Singapore's position is that there should not be a 'one-size-fits-all' model of a democracy.
Laws in Singapore are generally strict with harsh punishments such as caning and execution and a stringent censorship of the media including magazines, newspapers, movies and TV programmes. Pornography, oral sex, anal sex and homosexual intercourse are illegal in Singapore. Material that may cause race or religious disharmony are not tolerated in Singapore, even on the Internet.
In September 2005, three bloggers were charged with sedition for posting racist remarks, including two who were later fined and sentenced to imprisonment. Some offences can lead to heavy fines or caning, while murder and drug trafficking are grounds for execution by hanging.
Singapore argues that its legal system suits its purposes and its people and should not be subject to the attempted intervention of other nations or organisations.
2. Capital punishment is not seen as a human rights issue in Singapore
The Government of Singapore has consistently argued that the use of the death penalty is not essentially a question of human rights. Rather, it argues, it is a question of protecting the broader community.
'The basic difference in our approach springs from our traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual. In criminal law legislation, our priority is the security and well being of law-abiding citizens rather than the rights of the criminal to be protected from incriminating evidence.' Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in a speech.
In a letter addressed to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and circulated in 2001, the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Singapore to the United Nations stated: '...the death penalty is primarily a criminal justice issue, and therefore is a question for the sovereign jurisdiction of each country ... the right to life is not the only right, and ... it is the duty of societies and governments to decide how to balance competing rights against each other.'
3. Singapore's harsh penalties have resulted in a low crime rate
Singapore's low crime rates and general state of law and order has been held up as good reason to keep capital punishment.
Michael Hor, a law professor at the National University of Singapore, has stated, 'There is widespread belief amongst lawmakers and the public in Singapore that the death penalty has worked.'
Referring specifically to the effect of the death penalty on Singapore's drug offences, Singapore authorities have reported an overall decline in the number of drug abusers arrested between 1994 and 2001.
In the late 1970s there were about 20,000 heroin addicts. By 1989 this figure had fallen to around 9,000. In 1995 there were 7,700 drug addicts registered in rehabilitation centres.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has said that Singapore does not mete out the death penalty lightly, arguing the practice helps keep drugs out of the country.
The death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment as a punishment, a spokesperson said in response to queries from the Australian Associated Press. 'Hanging deters some prospective criminals who may not be deterred by the thought of imprisonment,' the same spokesperson added.
4. It is important to Singapore economically to be seen to be opposed to drug trafficking
Considered one of the cleanest, greenest cities in the world, Singapore is a popular tourist destination, receiving over eight million visitors a year. Singapore has an annual gross domestic product that competes with leading nations of Europe. It has the world's fourth most competitive economy, placing it ahead of the United States. The city-state also boasts a high standard of living, low unemployment, and a literacy rate of 98 percent. Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but just half the crime rate. These statistics help to account for high levels of foreign investment and also help to make it one of the world's most popular tourist destinations.
However, as a transportation and financial services hub, Singapore is vulnerable to being used as a transit point for Golden Triangle heroin and as a venue for money laundering. It is for this reason that the Singaporean Government claims that it is vital that its punishment regime operates effectively to restrict the development of such crime networks.
Without strict controls on the potential growth of drug-related crime, the Singaporean Government fears Singapore could lose its place as both a desirable tourist destination and a centre for secure foreign investment.
5. Abolishing capital punishment would give encouragement to international drug traffickers
A number of spokespeople for the Singapore Government and a number of commentators on the region have suggested that any liberalisation of Singapore's well-established anti-drug regime would be read as a green light by international drug barons.
Michael Hor, a law professor at the National University of Singapore, has stated, 'Abolition would send the wrong message to criminal actors who might interpret such [a] development as the government going soft on crime.'
The same view has been put by some Australian politicians. Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey has argued, 'If the Singaporean Government was to respect our request (for clemency), it would set a precedent. Every drug baron in the world would say, as long as we use an Aussie to go through Singapore . . . we'll be OK.'
6. Drug offenders in Singapore are aware of what the penalties are
One of the linchpins of Singapore's anti-drugs policy is that potential drug traffickers are aware that they will inevitably face execution if arrested and convicted. According to Singaporean Government spokespeople this certainty means that no drug trafficker executed in Singapore can claim unfairness. Any such person must have been well aware of the risks s/he was taking before attempting to traffic drugs in Singapore.
The Singaporean High Commissioner to Australia, Joseph Koh, has issued a strong defence of the decision against granting clemency in the Nguyen case. Mr Koh has stated, 'Our strict anti-drug laws send a clear message to drug syndicates not to conduct their criminal activities in Singapore or through Singapore. Our policy has been well-publicised and Mr Nguyen was well aware of it.'
Though he is opposed to capital punishment, a not dissimilar argument was put by the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard. Mr Howard stated in relation to the Nguyen case, 'People have to understand that when you go to another country and commit a crime against the laws of that country, you're punished according to the laws of that country.'
In response to Amnesty International claims that Singapore conducts its capital punishment regime in relative secret, the Singapore Government has issued a formal statement claiming, 'Singapore has one of the most fair and transparent legal systems in the world. All judicial decisions involving the death penalty are open to public scrutiny. All trials and appeals (including capital cases) are conducted in public. Indeed, the more newsworthy trials are routinely reported in the local and even international media.'
7. Singapore has a properly constituted legal system and capital punishment is only imposed after a formal trial
This point has been made in relation to Nguyen Tuong Van, the Australian national who is awaiting execution in Singapore for drug trafficking and whose most recent appeal for clemency has been rejected.
Singapore's high commissioner, Joseph Koh, noted the Australian had been dealt with fairly. 'He was given a fair hearing throughout the legal process and his appeal for clemency was carefully considered,' Mr Koh has claimed.
Singapore's legal and judicial system has consistently been rated highly in international and regional rankings for its integrity and transparency. In the 2003 Asian Intelligence Report of the Political and Economic Risks Consultancy (PERC), based on a survey of expatriates working in Asia, Singapore was ranked top in Asia for the overall integrity and quality of its legal system, a ranking it has held since 1998.
In the 2003 World Competitiveness Yearbook published by the Swiss-based International Institute for Management Development (IMD), Singapore's national legal framework was ranked first, followed by Finland and Hong Kong. Singapore has held this position between 1997-2000 and 2002-2003.
Similarly, Singapore's legal framework maintained its top ranking in the 2003 assessment of the Business Environment Risk Intelligence (BERI).
8. Drug trafficking is a serious crime which takes the lives of others
It has been argued that drug trafficking is an extremely serious crime which has the capacity to result in the loss of many human lives. On this basis, it has been claimed, it is appropriate that it be punished via the death penalty.
In a letter to Amnesty International written in 1997 by a Registrar of the Supreme Court of Singapore it was stated, 'You would no doubt appreciate the harm to society that is brought about by the activities of these drug traffickers whose actions, more often than not, lead to the indiscriminate loss of life. In that sense, they are no better than murderers and serial killers.'
A similar view has been put by some within Australia. Wilson Tuckey, a Liberal backbencher, has stated, 'I haven't got much pity at all for people who deliberately set about importing these drugs. I'm outraged to think that these people consider their life is valuable but not the lives of the people who might take the drugs they illegally bring into our country.'
Arguments against Singapore continuing to impose the death penalty on drug offenders
1. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. Many criminologists have argued that the best way to deter crime is to increase the certainty of detection, arrest and conviction.
A recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded that 'it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment'.
The same arguments have been put in relation to the supposed effectiveness of the death penalty as a means of deterring drug traffickers.
2. The death penalty is an excessive punishment to impose for drug trafficking
Among those who are supporters of the death penalty it is generally argued that the capital punishment should only be applied to those found guilty of the most serious crimes, normally crimes equivalent to the nature of the punishment given. Thus capital offences are frequently seen as those that involve the direct taking of the lives of others.
The United Nations does not support the death penalty, however, it has issued a protocol arguing that where it is applied it should only be for the most serious of crimes.
Safeguard 1 of the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1984, states: 'In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.'
There are those who argue that drug trafficking does not meet this requirement, especially as Singapore imposes the death penalty for the importation of marijuana, a drug which is not normally fatal.
3. The death penalty impacts disproportionately on the poor
Amnesty International has claimed that the death penalty is applied, in Singapore and elsewhere, in a way that punishes the poor and disadvantaged disproportionately.
Amnesty International has stated, 'Studies have shown that the death penalty is disproportionately imposed on the poorest, least educated and most vulnerable members of society. It takes the lives of offenders who might otherwise have been rehabilitated. Crime is often linked to other social problems such as poverty, drug abuse, unemployment and the disintegration of the family, problems which are not solved by executions.'
It has been claimed that rather than execute the poor and disadvantaged, the Singaporean Government and others should address the social disadvantage that has led to these people being willing to act as drug mules.
In an article published on The World Socialist Web Site, on 26 October, 2005, Rick Kelly wrote, 'Questions of unemployment, indebtedness, and poverty would similarly have to be engaged in order to explain why so many people, predominantly young and working class, are prepared to act as drug "mules" - taking extraordinary risks, usually for very little financial gain.
These social issues have been tragically evident in Nguyen's case ... Desperate for money, Nguyen agreed to act as a drug "mule" for a heroin syndicate. He had no prior criminal record.'
4. Those executed are not the principal agents involved in the drug trade
It has been claimed that typically the wrong people are executed when Singapore puts to death those it has apprehended trafficking drugs. According to this line of argument, it is generally the low grade carriers who are caught, not the suppliers or those in charge of the distribution networks.
It is argued that any number of expendable carriers can be executed without having any real impact on the drug trade as the principal agents will replace those who are killed.
A Singaporean lawyer, quoted in the New Paper, 17 June 2001, stated, 'It is never the real traffickers who are caught. The ones who are caught and hanged are often poor, desperate people, who are being made use of. By hanging them, we are helping to perpetuate the plan of the real traffickers who are very smart. They use people they can afford to lose to carry the drugs for them. So if we carry on with the death penalty, they will get away and the root of the problem is never really solved.'
5. Executing mules reduces the opportunity for further arrests and convictions
It has been frequently claimed that by executing the relatively minor drug carriers whom they generally capture, Singapore loses the opportunity to have these mules testify against the large operators who are responsible for the drug trade through this city-state.
Lex Lasry QC who represents Nguyen has claimed that his client has given detailed information about the heroin smuggling ring to the Australian Federal Police, who flew to Singapore to see him.
'He [Nguyen] is in a position, were he able to do it, to give evidence in any prosecution they [might have] brought,' Mr Lasry told ABC Radio. 'He would be the primary witness in the prosecution of any criminal conspiracy, of which he was a relatively minor part.'
Mr Lasry has said any chance of convicting the ring leaders would disappear with Nguyen's execution.
6. Many of those executed are foreign nationals who may be ill-equipped to defend themselves
The total percentage of those executed for drug offences in Singapore who are foreigners is believed to be very high. Of 174 executions recorded by Amnesty International from press reports between 1993 and 2003, the number of foreign nationals was 93.
However, foreign nationals facing the death penalty have additional obstacles limiting their right to a fair trial. For example, they may not always be familiar with the laws of the country where they are tried, and they may have difficulty understanding the charges against them or fully participating in the proceedings if facilities for interpretation are inadequate.
They are also, often, relatively poor and so may not have the level of resources required to mount a strong defence. Further, they are typically without a strong network of family and friends in Singapore.
Intervention by their governments may also be hampered either by their country's desire not to be seen to be interfering in the affairs of another state or by Singapore's reluctance to be seen to be bowing to outside pressure.
7. Capital punishment is mandatory and does not allow for mitigating circumstance
Mandatory death sentences deprive courts of the discretion to weigh the evidence in capital cases to allow for mitigating circumstances. Therefore, decisions can be made which are arbitrary and ignore the particular circumstances of the case.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has stated that the death penalty 'should under no circumstances be mandatory.' A mandatory death penalty can make it impossible for the court to take into account extenuating circumstances that might remove a particular offence from the category of most serious crimes.
It has been argued that there are extenuating circumstances in the case of the Australian citizen soon to be executed in Singapore. Nguyen has said he was acting as a drug mule between Cambodia and Australia in a bid to pay off debts incurred by his twin brother. His concern for his brother, his previously spotless criminal record and the difficulties of his earlier years as a refugee may all have acted as mitigating factors reducing the likelihood of the death penalty were Singaporean judges allowed to exercise discretion.
8. Singapore's drug laws put the onus of proof on the accused
Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused.
According to Clause 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, any person proved to have had in their possession more than specified quantities of drugs, is presumed to have that drug for the purpose of 'trafficking' unless the contrary can be proved.
Clause 18 states that anyone found in possession of the keys of anything containing a controlled drug or the keys of any premises where a controlled drug is found, is presumed to have had that drug in their possession.
Anyone proved or presumed to have a controlled drug in their possession is presumed to know the nature of the drug, unless the contrary can be proved.
Each of these provisions shifts the onus of proof onto the accused person. The prosecution does not have to prove that the accused was trafficking, or knew of the presence of a drug, rather the accused has to prove s/he did not.
Shifting the burden of proof onto the accused is generally regarded as inequitable as the state typically has far greater investigative resources at its disposal and so it is usually considered appropriate that the state demonstrate a person's guilt rather than that the accused have to prove his or her innocence.
In addition, under Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act, where one of two or more people, is in possession of a controlled drug, it is presumed to be in the possession of 'each and all of them'. Here again, the burden of proof is shifted onto the potentially innocent party to prove non-involvement.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has stated 'in proceedings leading to the imposition of capital punishment ... Defendants must be presumed innocent until their guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt ...' This is not the case for those accused of drug offences in Singapore.
Further implications
The position of Singapore and other of Australia's northern neighbours on capital punishment may have greater implications for Australia than it is likely to have for Singapore. Singapore appears very unlikely in the near to medium future to change its position on capital punishment, nor to limit the offences that attract this penalty.
The problem for the Australian Government is how to respond appropriately to the use of capital punishment in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia in particular.
Currently the Australian Government appears content to make formal representations to the governments concerned when Australian nationals face the death penalty. The Prime Minister, though apparently opposed to capital punishment within Australia, has repeatedly indicated that he respects the sovereignty of other states and their right to determine the penalties that apply within their jurisdictions. The position of the Australian Government appears to be that if Australian nationals break laws in other jurisdictions that see them facing the death penalty, this is regrettable but essentially the responsibility of the individuals concerned.
The issue is likely to generate significant controversy when the Bali nine are tried in Indonesia. There are a number of complicating factors here. One of these is that one of those accused is female and thus is likely to generate a high level of public interest and sympathy. There is also the fact that the Australian Federal Police has been condemned for apparently knowingly allowing the alleged drug mules to travel into a jurisdiction where they could suffer the death penalty and then co-operating with Indonesian authorities in their apprehension.
Australia is walking a very narrow line here as under Australian law it is not possible to extradite an Australian citizen to another jurisdiction where s/he is charged with an offence that attracts the death penalty.
Given Australia's desire to promote regional co-operation in the restriction of drug traffic and the apprehension of terrorists the different regional positions on capital punishment has the capacity to create problems.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this outline The Age
October 29, Insight section, page 9, comment by Alan Attwood, 'Bearing witness to the pointless brutality of capital punishment'.
October 26, page 16, letters (incl at least one supporting the death penalty in this case) under general heading, 'Drugs, death sentences and double standards'.
December 3, Insight section, page 8, editorial, 'State killing an affront to humanity and justice'.
December 3, Insight section, page 9, comment by Robert Richter, 'The great lie: not enough was done to save Nguyen'.
December 3, Insight section, page 9, comment (with cartoon) by Mark Baker, 'The death of reason'.
December 3, Insight section, page 4, analysis (with boxed information / statistics on executions throughout the world) by David Marr, 'Beyond the vigils'.
December 4, page 2, news item by Julia Medew, Steve Butcher, ''No politics, just celebration of a life'.
December 4, page 2, news item by Steve Butcher, 'End death penalty: Singapore nun'.
The Australian
October 25, page 12, comment by Phillip Adams, 'By our silence, we stand condemned'.
October 26, page 17, letters, incl, 'No Phillip, we should respect Singapore's judicial system'.
October 26, page 15, analysis (looks at Singapore's inheritance of hanging from the former colonial power) by Nick Cater, 'Macabre legacy'.
October 26, page 15, analysis (ref to Malaysian execution of Kevin Barlow and Brian Chambers - interview with their hangman) by Nick Cater, 'The hands that pulled the rope'.
October 29, page 8, news item (photo) by Davis and McKenna, 'Plea to PM: act to stop execution'.
October 29, page 29, comment (with statistics on executions in other countries around the world) by Cameron Stewart, 'Diplomacy left hanging in justice's execution'.
October 28, page 14, comment by Asad Latif, 'Don't ask Singapore to make an exception'.
October 28, page 1, news item (photo of Darshan Singh), 'Unmasked: the hangman who will send Aussie drug courier to "a better place"'.
Herald-Sun
December 3, page 26, editorial, 'Execution's grim lessons'
December 3, page 31, cartoon.
November 8, page 18, editorial, 'Don't hang Nguyen'.
November 7, page 22, comment by Paul Gray, 'Tightening the noose'. NOTE: Listed items may still be available on the Web. To search for them, cut and paste any headline into the search-box below (or type the headline in exactly) then click the search button. The search opens in a NEW WINDOW.
To make your search more accurate, put " around the pasted headline, as in "This is the headline"
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
