I am aware that there are many Australians who were supportive of Van Nguyen’s execution. It is easy for people to be unforgiving and to loathe those who they believe by their actions perpetuate the misery of drug abuse. But we must never allow such feelings to cause us to lose sight of our humanity. I cannot therefore agree with those who support capital punishment. Putting aside all the moral and legal arguments that militate against the use of capital punishment, for me personally it is a simple case of a profound belief that no human being has the right to take the life of another under any circumstances. I particularly derive this conviction from my own Christian faith, which preaches the sanctity and dignity of life and the power of forgiveness and mercy. I know this to be an absolute truth applicable in all circumstances without exception.
Particularly indefensible, therefore, is the case of Singapore and, might I say, the other 74 countries in the world—including the United States, which I understand has just hanged its 1,000th prisoner—who retain and employ the use of capital punishment. State sanctioned or judicial killing is immoral and senseless because it is wilfully employed and sanctioned by governments, some of which claim to uphold the highest standards of democracy and are at the forefront of defending human rights violations in places other than their own backyards.
Singapore in particular must answer to the claims put forward by many that there is an inherent contradiction between their hardline stand on punishment for drug smugglers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, their alleged tolerance of Burmese businesses operating out of Singapore and, indeed, of known Burmese drug lords frequently moving into and out of Singapore. If these allegations are true then the government of Singapore are guilty of gross hypocrisy and double standards, making their mandatory «death» «penalty» regime even more outrageous and indecent and a perfect example of why the fear of capital punishment will never succeed in eradicating drug abuse or obstructing the global movement of narcotics. It appears that the big players are rarely caught and punished, and it also appears that some may even enjoy the hospitality and tolerance of governments who purport to be tough on drugs.
The execution of Van Nguyen and the issue of capital punishment will continue to confront and to challenge our civility both as individuals and as a nation for some time to come, particularly as we await the fate of other Australians facing «death» «penalties» abroad, including the Bali nine. We are a democratic country that long ago abolished capital punishment because we realised it to be barbaric and inhumane. We believe in the rehabilitation of those who transgress and commit crimes, and we are a fair-minded people who believe in the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. As such, I would like to support Amnesty International’s growing global campaign calling for the end of the «death» «penalty» . I would also like to welcome and support former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser’s calls, and those of Nguyen’s lawyer, Lex Lasry, for Australia to become an advocate for the abolition of capital punishment.
However, it is not enough to run such a campaign only at a people-to-people level, even though history does teach us that the drive for change always begins at the grassroots and is then followed by politicians and governments; such a campaign should also transact at a government-to-government level. There are ways that this could be done and we, as a parliament, should be exploring them. I know there have been many calls, in particular from the public, for the government to link the issue of human rights with trade. That in itself, I understand and acknowledge, is a difficult issue; nevertheless, it is one that may need to be considered.
As I said earlier, I did not know Van Nguyen, but he was a young man who had much to live for. He made a mistake for which, unfortunately, he paid with his life. Common human decency, however, tells us that this young man’s punishment far outweighed the severity of his crime. His «death was therefore senseless and cruel. Although it should serve as a warning to other young Australians, unfortunately it will not, such is the cold reality of the lucrative world of drug merchandising. For me and other Australians, the Van Nguyen tragedy serves not only to remind us of the fragility of human life but more importantly to reaffirm the need to uphold the sanctity and the dignity of human life. We have a duty and particular governments have a duty to preserve, protect and, indeed, uphold every human being’s inherent right to life. Capital punishment is a violation of that right and we must fight for its abolition.
In conclusion, on Friday many Australians expressed their grief in many ways. A former university professor of mine sent an email to me and no doubt to other people. It is a poem written by a very prominent Greek poet, CP Cavafy. It is about a young man who was executed by hanging and is headed ‘27 June 1906, 2 pm’. I would like to dedicate this poem to the memory of Van Nguyen. It reads:
When the Christians brought him to the gallows,
that seventeen-year-old guileless boy,
his mother, grovelling and writhing
in the dust nearby
under the fierce midday sun,
now whined and howled like a wolf, like a wild beast,
and now, exhausted by her martyrdom, lamented:
‘Just seventeen years is all you lived for me, my child.’
