The local anti-death penalty forum and Think Centre organised activites against the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van. There was a near-complete shut-out of Singapore campaigners from the newspaper.
Read Full Text:Trying hard to forestall the rot
In the weeks leading up to the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van, the Straits Times carried many news reports about the case. That was to be expected since there was plenty of news to report. Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downing made a number of appeals to the Singapore government and Singapore ministers replied. Other Australians, including two former prime ministers, issued statements against the impending execution. Rallies were held in Melbourne and Sydney.
Generally, in Straits Times' coverage, there was a playing up of the Singapore government's rebuttals and a highlighting of Howard's more moderate position compared to the sharper demands of the Australian media and the campaigners.
Most notably, there was a near-complete shut-out of Singapore campaigners from the newspaper. Although the anti-death penalty forum organised by Singaporeans and Think Centre in November was covered by the Australian and foreign media (including Reuters and AFP), it was completely ignored by the Straits Times.
The letters page also suggested bias in selection. There were far more letters in favour of carrying out the execution than against. Some of them were written by Australians. As I said to Radio New Zealand when I was interviewed for their Nine-to-noon program on 2 December 2005, it seemed very strange that while the Straits Times found letters from pro-hanging Australians to print, they couldn't find a single anti-hanging letter to print. This was even as lots of Australians were vociferously voicing their opinions down under. Did none of them write to the Straits Times, unlike their compatriots who favoured the death penalty? Or did the Straits Times trash all such letters?
Was the debate entirely in Australia? Were Singaporeans generally unanimous that capital punishment was justifiable? From the Straits Times' coverage, it would seem that Singaporeans either had no view to offer or were behind our government. But if one looked at the blogosphere, you'd see that many Singaporeans were, like Australians, either uncomfortable or downright against the death penalty.
How many, of course, is impossible to say. Singaporeans know full well that any attempt at taking an opinion poll on the matter would be seriously frowned on by the government. Even if someone wasn't afraid to pay for one, I doubt if any reputable polling organisation would want to take up the job, for fear of retribution from the government. Why, one might conceivably be charged under the Sedition Act for
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
... these being the exact (and very broad) words of the Sedition Act.
Nguyen Tuong Van was caught with nearly 400 grams of heroin in the transit lounge of Changi Airport. The Australian national was catching a flight to Melbourne. Under Singapore law, the penalty for this is a mandatory death sentence. He was hanged on 2 December 2005.
Sources and Relevant Links:
Yawningbread Trying hard to forestall the rot December 2005
