Talk:Van Tuong Nguyen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Lie within a Crime

26,000 hits of heroin comes out to 65 hits per gram. Do some basic research people. The number of hits per gram of heroin is anywhere from 5 to 20, depending on purity. That's 2,000 to 8,000 hits per gram. How many people does that affect? Certainly not 2,000 to 8,000, as most drug addicts shoot up two or three times a day. That's 800 to 3,200 heroin sessions. And drug addicts don't have one session per year, otherwise we'd call them "moderate" drug users.

Van Tuong Nguyen's crime would have adversely affected the lives of anywhere from six to 67 heroin users. Certainly a far cry from demolishing the lives of tens of thousands of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.101.232 (talk • contribs)

Those six to 67 users must have been quite rich. --Vsion 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The 26,000 number comes from Abdullah Tarmugi, the Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore. It is clearly indicated in the article as being a quote from that person. Evil Monkey - Hello 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:209.121.101.232 assumed 5 to 20 hits per gram, which seems very heavy to me. I believe the norm is more like 5 to 20 mg per dose. If we take the figure of 15mg heroin per dose, then it work out to be around 26,000 doses, which is Tarmugi's figure. --Vsion 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether the maths are correct or not, the quote is attributable to a real person as Evil Monkey suggests above, and is valid for inclusion in the article. Whether or not the maths behind the quote make any sense is not for us to judge. -- Longhair 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore's links to Drug Lords

This is one thing that has been totally ignored in every article. Heres a few links to start it off:

Singapore's Blood Money http://www.singapore-window.org/1020naus.htm

The Burma-Singapore Axis: Globalizing the Heroin Trade http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/BurmaSingapore_Drugs.html

These are very important issues Mattrix18 04:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those are important issues, but on an article about drugs in Singapore in general, not on an article about one particular person convicted under Singapore's drug laws. Evil Monkey - Hello 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fiction #6: "Singapore connives with drug lords": This is an old falsehood propagated by Dr Chee Soon Juan. He has alleged that the Singapore Government had invested in projects in Myanmar that supported the drug trade. When this first surfaced in 1996, the Singapore Government explained its investment in the Myanmar Fund was completely open and above board. The Fund held straightforward commercial investments in hotels and companies. Other investors in the Fund included Coutts & Co, an old British bank, and the Swiss Bank Corporation. The Singapore Government offered to set up a Commission of Inquiry so that Dr Chee could produce evidence to prove his wild allegations. Unfortunately, Dr Chee never took up the offer.. [1] [2]

Have you done your homework, Mattrix18?--Huaiwei 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues not yet covered in article

Pleas for Clemency from UN and their response
Pleas for Clemency from the Pope and their response
Proposal by some Australian politicians for economic sanctions
Coverage of the issue by Singapore media
Dissent in Australian parliament about pleas for clemency
~~The firm resolve of the Singapore Parliament to make an example of this case as a warning to others~~Softgrow 05:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The acceptance by international travellers of the laws of any country they are visiting

Text listed below covers these issues but needs work

One Australian newspaper (News Ltd Group) reported that Singapore has so far ignored pleas for clemency from Australian Prime Minister John Howard, UN officials, Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. An Australian Parliamentarian Kevin Rudd (a member of the Opposition) was quoted as saying Singapore's attitude to the issue has been to tell Australians to "...go jump in the lake..."

The Singapore Government owns Singapore's leading newspaper the Strait Times. It is understood editorial content in this paper is regulated by the government. There has been little news about this issue in the Singaporean case, perhaps due to government interference, or perhaps it is not an issue to most Sinagporeans. However, in Australia, this case has received much publicity. Although the Australian Government may not impose ecoomic or political sanctions against the Siganporean Government, it has no control over activities of its private citizens, who may choose not to engage or conduct in commercial relationships or go on personal vacations to the island city.

If this issue causes economic ramifications for Singapore it will pose a problem for Singapore whose economy relies primarily on trade, with no natural resources of its own and limited space. In recent years, traditional rival Malaysia has become increasingly comptetive with the opening of its international airport on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur (the capital) to rival that of Singapore's Changi airport and an ever increasingly competitive port system. Australians unhappy with Singapore's conduct over the issue may choose to go to Malaysia to conduct their business.

It is uncertain of the effects, if any, this issue will have on Singaporean interests in Australia. Singapore's utility company Singapore Power, who owns assets in Australia SPAusnet is currently in the process of a 49% initial public offering (IPO). One of Singapore's telecommunication companies Singtel owns Australian telecommunications provider Optus. Singapore Airlines has been lobbying for the Australian Governments opening of domestic flights to international carriers, with opposition from Australian airline Qantas. A large proportion of international students in Australia are also from Singapore.

I am not sure who wrote this entire unsigned commentary, but I cant resist commenting:

...reported that Singapore has so far ignored pleas for clemency... It has long been proven that the so-called "contemp" on the Singapore side was hardly true, the only reasoning behind it being that Singapore is still upholding the sentencing. If the Aussie media continue to dismiss the Singapore government's insistance that it has indeed reviewed the matter extensively, and to only consider clemency as reflective of Singapore's "consideration" of Australia's views, then obviously Singapore is going to appear to be as stoic and "bloodthirsty" as allerged if he is still going to be hanged.

...There has been little news about this issue in the Singaporean case... Says who? I am pretty sure I knew about this case long ago via the "government-controlled" Singapore media, and yes, there are lots of public opinion about it too. Do you have proof that Singaporeans at large are indifferent over the issue? Indeed if we are, it is perhaps due to the fact that we dont give two hoots about who is calling for a reversal of a sentencing universally applied to anyone. Australia? The United States? China? So?

...private citizens, who may choose not to engage or conduct in commercial relationships or go on personal vacations to the island city... Is this view representative of the majority of Australians? I was reading comments made by Australians in the Australian press, yes, and actually, I noticed a much higher number of those who believe he should be hanged compared to those who dont.

...If this issue causes economic ramifications for Singapore it will pose a problem for Singapore... Singapore is indeed dependent on world trade, but how much trade is affected between itself and Australia? And Singapore's main rivals in the international aviation business is not Malaysia, but Bangkok, and as far afield as Dubai. If Australians would like to go to Malaysia instead to do their business, they will have to convince even their airline Qantas to resume flights to Kuala Lumpur, a route both Qantas and British Airways dropped in favour of consolidating their operations via Singapore to compete with SIA on the Kangaroo route.

...It is uncertain of the effects, if any, this issue will have on Singaporean interests in Australia... We dont deny this, but only if some factions in Australia acts on their believes. It is apprant that the majority in both countries still get on with their lifes as per normal, and hardly found it feasible to allow this issue to affect their economic and social interests.--Huaiwei 16:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This was the original text of this talk page, way back when it consisted only of material that needed to be worked on. First version — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. I would love to have a reply from the author. :D--Huaiwei 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Other topics: His relation with his twin brother is worth mentioning, I read he often took care of his brother. What about his employment? Wasn't he a sales representative or something, therefore had a regular job. 69.234.62.72 09:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd line.

The line: It seem that the blood of Nguyen was on the hands of the Cambodian suppliers because they did not instruct Nguyen to remove all metallic objects to prevent it from setting off the alarm.

Should be either clarified to show that the suppliers where not concerned enough to advise Van on removing all metal objects so as not to undergo a search, or removed entirely. The message; however, sounds more of an assumption rather than something genuinely reported.

Also, although I'm sure the suppliers couldn't give two hoots about Nguyen, I'm quite sure they cared a great deal about their 300g of heroin so either they did advise him, it didn't occur to them that it would be necessary or someone screwed up majorly and forgot to advise him. Either way, it's kind of irrelevant... 203.118.185.213 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support background

I'm not sure the section Support background is encyclopedic. Sounds more like speculation. Shall we remove it? Cnwb 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Already have. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Australia's most famous Nguyen?

--220.238.245.138 11:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Not at all, nothing more than a drug mule who would have been responsible for hundreds of deaths had he not been caught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.43.87 (talk • contribs)

Australia's most infamous Nguyen, then? Certainly the most well known. Anyway, "nothing more than a drug mule who would have been responsible for hundreds of deaths had he not been caught." that is true but all of those junkies deserve probably deserve to die for being so stupid.--220.238.103.41 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem is that there simply aren't hundreds of heroin related deaths in australia each year. That imported heroin would have been cut with other things (like sugar) and then sold in tiny little packets. Seems ridiculous to claim that those 4 kilos could have caused "hundreds" of deaths. Even the Herald Sun has stopped reporting the number heroin deaths so far this year as the figure is so much lower than the road toll figures that used acompany it. 131.172.4.44 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think amounts of deaths caused would even be that high or the people killed would even matter.--58.104.11.118 03:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

is it possible this kid is a USA citizen?

describing him as a "vietnamese australian" may obscure a more complex personal history and identity. it's possible that awareness of some other facts would tend to increase pressure for clemency.

"a recent article in the australian press reported the following:", News Corporation, November 29, 2005.

Nguyen's trial in Singapore heard his relationship with his stepfather was strained.

"My stepfather beat my brother and I quite often," Nguyen's statement said.

He revealed that he met his biological father just one month before his last overseas trip in December, 2002.

"I did not know who my father was until November this year (2002)," he said in his statement. "He came from America to look for my brother and I."

Although it's interesting, it doesn't imply that he's a U.S. citizen, only that his biological father may have become one. 71.195.201.244 05:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

the quote does imply that he might be a USA citizen. the question is whether his father was a USA citizen at the time that Nguyen Van Tuong was born. (see USA citizenship) this quote - "He came from America to look for my brother and I" suggests that this is a possibility that ought to be looked into at the very least.

He was born in a refugee camp; one would presume that both parents were refugees at the time, and therefore his father was probably not a citizen of the USA at the time... Staphylococcus, 09:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless he born into wedlock (which doesn't appear to be the case), he would not be a citizen, regardless of his father's US citizenship. INA § 101(b) Taco325i 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian Sentiment

I believe that Australian sentiment isn't reflected in this article. From what I have gathered, even though this gent is obviously not Australian, the feelings on the death penalty imposed on an immigrant to Australia has sent a massive anti-singaporian rage through the populace, with some going to extreme measures such as threatening violence against embassies, in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that pleas for clemency are being ignored.

Furthermore the media seem focused on the fact that Singapore won't aknowledge the International Court, yet although Australia is moving for an 11th hour challenge through the IIC Singapore will not say directly what it's responses have been, that being they do not aknowledge the international court.

Unfortunately I am politically blind when it comes to this and don't see what the issue is about that, but the media spin is that it's barbaric and underhanded that they 1) don't aknowledge this body and 2) are too scared to publically say they don't due to the fact international pressure will be on them not only top abide by international law, but to cessate brutal punishment for crimes. 211.30.72.208 13:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

this gent is obviously not Australian... I thought he is Australian. Cnwb 05:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What "international law" did Singapore breach for Australia to be able to bring it before the international court?--Huaiwei 16:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore doesn't accept compulsary jurisdiction of the ICJ so the only way it could go to the ICJ is if Singapore agrees. Singapore have used the ICJ, for example in terretorial disputed with Singapore however it's a well established fact that Singapore does not accept compulsary juristiction (nor does the USA). There is no reason for Singapore to make a comment on whether they would agree to take the case to the ICJ, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't since there is no reason but since Australia hasn't even bothered to ask them, why should they? Also, I believe it isn't just Singapore and the USA which don't accept compulsary jurisdiction of the ICJ, I'm pretty sure Australia also remove their provisions after they realised it would enabled East Timor to go to the ICJ to have their terretorial claims heard... Besides, as Huai says, it's highly unlikely the ICJ would rule against Singapore even if it were to be brought before the ICJ. 203.118.185.213 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I wasent suggesting that the ICJ in all likelihood will rule in favour of Singapore. I am pretty curious to know on what charge the Australians are bringing Singapore to the ICJ for. "Unlawful application of the death penalty which Australia does not use"?--Huaiwei 20:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

He was an Australian. It is very racist to say otherwise. I am sick of people saying that if someone is not white then they are somehow less Australian than I am (I am a caucasian Australia for the record). Get your facts right. Dankru 04:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Also, for the record, I am fairly sure the appeal would have been based on the fact that he co-operated with the police in their inquiries. The Singaporean constitution has provisions for clemency to be granted when the convict provides assistance to investigators. This is something which Nguyen has been documented as doing. There needs to be some incentive or why would someone on death row co-operate? They truly have nothing to lose. I think international law has similar provisions which would be grounds for an appeal. If Singapore refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ then it would have made it a bit tricky for them in the future had they wished to make use of it. As it happens, this is a moot point - the Australian government did not even try to use the ICJ and a young Australian is dead.

Another interesting point is the comments from the Singaporean Speaker. He claims to be a representative of the people and therefore is charged with their protection. However no-one is claiming that Nguyen was going to sell the drugs in Singapore - they were always destined for Australia. The Singapore government do not represent Australians - I certainly never had a chance to vote for them. So it irks me when they claimed to be carrying out the sentence "to protect the lives of the people" As far as I know they have no such obligations towards Australian citizens. - Zarboki 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the initial poster was asking why Australian sentiment isn't being touched on in any way, there has been a major swing in relations between these two countries over this matter and that should, for all intents and purposes, be touched on in the article. The ICJ debate has no relevance with the primary question asked here. Jachin 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Singapore Media

Are there any ways of getting more articles from the Straits Times (main Singapore Newspaper) or other Singapore base media? All of the references are from Australian media. The website of the Straits Times gives some free articles but not much. Softgrow 06:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You can try http://www.channelnewsasia.com/ , but there's not much there that wasn't reported by the Australian media. --Vsion 07:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

and http://www.todayonline.com , hope that helps. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Migating factors

Has anyone seen an editorial or whatever with comments on the migating factors? I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the irony in the migating factors are that he needed the money to pay of loansharks for his twin brother, a former heroin addict who got in debt defending drug and burglary charges (I guess the burglaries were to feed his drug habbit). At the very least, it suggests Nguyen is extremely selfish to fail to consider the effects the heroin he was muling would have on people just like his brother since he surely must have known how devastating it can be. Also, why did the brother need to get in 30k debt? Surely Australia has a decent legal aide system? 203.118.185.213 20:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess you've never dealt with the Australian legal aid system, then. And you are speculating. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely a big mitigating factor is that Van Nguyen was caught in the airport area between immigration and the plane gate. Adherence to a nation's laws should not be necessary for people in transit who are merely awaiting a connecting flight. Only after the traveller passes through passport control / immigration post should the traveller be required to abide by the country's laws. Auswide 13:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So one can disregard laws and kill people, or steal their luggage, or rape folks before one gets through immigration? It doesn't work that way. Perhaps the folks Van was smuggling for could've paid a few more dollars for a plane ticket that connects through an airport not in Singapore, but I'm sure those folks could care less whether Van lived or died. They are almost certainly only upset at losing their cocaine. --BrownHornet21 21:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE TO EDITORS: Do not edit until confirmation

Editors, please do not edit the article to past tense until there is official confirmation of the execution taking place and Nguyen's death. --Peter McGinley 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It should at least acknowledge that 6am has now passed Astrokey44 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this article, with the following notes. 'Edit warring. An offical source is required to confirm death, though it's likely hanging has occured. This is going to go on all day. Wait for word from Singapore'. We know it's likely, just wait for official confirmation of death rather than revert the article back and forth all day please. -- Longhair 22:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

can you please put a note on the Van Nguyen page itself about this - put the sentence you wrote above on the first paragraph of the main page, because otherwise wikipedia is out of date - "he faces execution by hanging at 6 am" should not be there because its now 6.50AM. singapore time. I dont see the need for protection either, reverts maybe, but current events arent usually protected are they? Astrokey44 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. It doesn't matter if it's out of date by a few hours. An abundance of reverts could also disguise vandalism. The JPS 23:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore executed a 25-year-old Australian on Friday for drug trafficking, after he had a "beautiful last visit" with his family. Australia's leader protested the sentence, saying it would damage ties.

Nguyen Tuong Van was hanged before dawn as a dozen friends and supporters, dressed in black, kept an overnight vigil outside the maximum-security prison. His twin brother, Nguyen Khoa, was dressed in white.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Nguyen's execution would damage relations between the two countries

Confirmation of the execution - OFFICIAL

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17435507-23109,00.html

The execution and death of Nguyen has now been officially confirmed by the Singapore government. --Peter McGinley 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected. -- Longhair 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Another article that states that it is official http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bells-toll-for-nguyen/2005/12/01/1133422073898.html (Gabriel Lye) Posted: 2nd December, 2005 11:30am AEDT

Do we need this template on the article? This article is not about an event in the Australian legal system. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

His only link to the template is to the criminals section. The template isn't necessary and isn't entirely representative. -- Longhair 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nguyen died becasue of England's opium war 150 years ago.

What wikipedia does not take into account is that Asia was ruined by the industrial-scale drug trade conducted by imperialist states and especially the british empire in the 1800's. Remember the opium wars and the fall of the mighty chinese empire for that reason. Australia was a part of the same imperialist empire which did that great crime against humanity.

Therefore it is perfectly understandable that all asian countries take draconian measures against drugs in order to prevent them from falling prey to imperialist powers once again. Nguyen's relatives should blame the kingdom of England, because London has never apologized for the opium war, nor did London pay reparations. Harsh stance against drugs is a valid anti-colonialism measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

What wikipedia does not take into account is... This article is about a specific case. Wikipedia does include articles on the Opium Wars, and the history of most Asian nations. It's not Wikipedia's role to editorialise or speculate on the connections between the Imperial history of Asia and Van Tuong Nguyen. Cnwb 09:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What poppy-cock. Japan never apologised for war-crimes, does this make racism against Japanese OK? I don't think so. Draconian measures are just that: draconian. You can't use the Opium Wars as an excuse for state sanctioned killing. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So mind explaining to use why it was noted many Australians support the execution of the Bali bombers by the Indon authorities? State sanctioned killing, no?--Huaiwei 12:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say...That every country has their own interests? ;) - Mailer Diablo 18:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but I find it extra heartening to know that Malaysia, in particular, has spoken up in support for Singapore's actions to defend its interests, as much as they would have for theirs:

"Both our countries have got the death penalty, Other countries may not consider it appropriate but these are laws within our own countries," Syed Hamid said. [3].--Huaiwei 18:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading the above racially vilifying slur writ by the unregistered cowardly POV pusher, I have grave misgivings for the future of Wikipedia if such barbaric thoughts are in the minds of editors of our project. I really do. That left a sour taste in my mouth. Jachin 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It cuts both ways. The fact that this entire episode blows up into a major issue is in itself intrinsically racist.--Huaiwei 03:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you summed it up in your statement of Malaysia supporting Singapore in the matter. At the end of the day, in some countries it is still socially acceptable to flog, behead, stone and do other acts that us civilised humans find abhorrent. We must show patience and wait for the rest of the world to climb slowly out of their self-imposed dark age and join the rest of the enlightened. Jachin 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Meanwhile, I hope my country does not go the way of the "self-proclaimed enlightened ones" who deem it civil to tell others how to sweep their houses, and who consider it perfectly acceptable to berate others and roll off racists remarks when things arent done in the way they would have liked.--Huaiwei 08:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To be practical, forget about the waiting, pretend that day will never come. Instead, we should, like what the Rt Hon. John Howard did, tell those misguided drug couriers, especially from the civilised enlightened world: "Don't carry drugs in Asia! Don't even think about it!", or "Use the America route, instead." If they think those dark-age society will become enlightened, they will take the risk and become martyrs. --Vsion 08:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So an Austalian of Vietnamese ancestry is executed in Singapore and it is somehow due to a 19th century war fought between England and China - I think that's reaching just a bit. MK2 08:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Many Asians do remember that event and are acutely aware that drugs had brought down a nation and caused long-term misery to an entire population. This partly explains the wide popular support in Asia for the harsh penalty against drug trafficking. Of course, Austrialia was not involved in that event and the original posting was wrong in this respect. --Vsion 09:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Most Chinese do also remember the fact that Hong Kong was a colony for years simply because of Opium as well. Efforts by the Chinese to eradicate the ills of the drug on the populance became an excuse to invade the country. Today, the Indo-Chinese region continue to be a major producer of the world's poisons, no thanks to the European colonisers who began the cultivation of these crops there for the sake of their global exploits. Asian countries today continue to suffer from its ill effects, and responsible countries continue to take measures to prevent their proliferation not just within their countries but also beyond to the rest of the world, for the drug trade grows exponentially and it wont be long before its effects comes back to hunt Asia. The great irony that it is also the so-called "civilised west" who take issue with stiff penalties on drug abuse and drug trafficking in Asia isnt lost amongst Asians.--Huaiwei 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a East/West divide issue, nor is the issue historical grievances of post-colonial nations. Don't we Chinese have compassion as they do in the West? What about ren (仁) espoused so strongly by Confucius? Mandatory sentencing is substituting our natural ren for cold dead words in a statute. Yeu Ninje 04:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We probably hope it was not, but cultural clashes of this nature often enforces this view. The Chinese are not devoid of compassion so to speak. However, the Chinese are also known to remember past grievance as well for years, decades, or even centuries on. And I dont think this quality is perculiar only to the Chinese?--Huaiwei 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hearing Lee Hsien Loong talk about "rule of law" in Germany reminded me that that is probably the argument the legalists of tyrannical Qin would have made had they been running Singapore. It seems you've forgotten the lessons of Chinese history and hung on to merely the grievances. Yeu Ninje 19:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you equate the Republic of Singapore with the state of Qin based simply on Lee's views on the "rule of law"? If you could draw parallels between the two, please list them out here systematically and we shall debate on them point by point. Woe to Singapore if we are going in the direction of Qin, and I am mildly amused why no one rang the alarm bells long before until you came along.--Huaiwei 05:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Did I equate Singapore with Qin? If you read what I've written, you'll see that I'm saying that Lee Hsien Loong's ideas about the rule of law are akin to the legalist tradition of Qin, as opposed to the Confucian tradition. I'm glad your misreading caused you mild amusement. Yeu Ninje 21:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Straying off topic

From the most recent version: In 2001, according to Austrialian Beureau of Statistics, there were 1,038 drug-induced deaths registered in Austrialia.... I feel this kind of comment is beginnng to stray off-topic. Of course it's related, but this article isn't about the drug problem in Australia, nor is it a justification for arguments either way on the Van Nguyen debate. Cnwb 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the material. I too agree that drug stats in Australia are not relevant for an article about one individual. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it too much information about just one criminal? This article goes into such a great detail about some convict. Sections Letters, Vigils. Article becomes to look like websites trying to play on sentimental feelings of housewifes, not like encyclopedic article. This is just a routine legal matter, and article makes a big deal of it.

A routine legal matter is a parking violation, not an execution. Legal matter? Certainly. Routine? Hardly. exolon 20:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Routine as far as over 70 countries on this planet is concerned, that is.--Huaiwei 03:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  - This is technically a routine matter: crime committed, tried and punished as prescribed by law and as applied to many others too. If you think the law is wrong this is your POV, Wikipedia should not reflect any POVs, only facts.
    - In the end there are no true, absolute facts, only POV's.
Maybe it's a bit less routine than parking violation, but still not a reason to write a soup-article about it.
It's because "Van Tuong Nguyen" is now a household name in Australia...--58.104.11.118 03:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It was a routine matter until it became an international issue and a requestioning of capital punishment in Australia. This article has every right to be in this encyclopaedia, and should focus particularly on the significance of the verdict and the reactions, rather than on his life and achievements, for example. --Stevage 03:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
This article's direction is POV-motivated. It could very well talked about dangers that drugs carry, statistics of how many deaths caused by them. And that Singapore enjoys lowes crime rates due to these kind of laws. I propose to cut down POV-motivated developments and just make it informative. No need for Vigils, Leters, Funeral sections.
- Knock it off, hypocrite. Take your lack of compassion and jingoism to a place where somebody actually gives a damn.
  - Well wikipedia has no place for self-righteous hypocrites either.--Huaiwei 07:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    - In that case, it was nice seeing you here. The attitudes of you Singaporeans here and regarding this matter show that truth as well as manners are not on your side. You brutes will defend anything done by your country or countrymen.--69.231.237.71 07:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Oh really? What kind of "truth" do you abide by, considering the tonnes of inaccuracies swimming around in the "free media" even as we speak? Perhaps you might ask yourself who erroneously concluded that Darshan Singh was sacked, until the Singapore authorities had to correct the speculation?" Which paper insisted on talking about the Burmese drug trade, even after corrections has been sent to the Aussie press (and which a paper delibrately changed the title to incite a different meaning although promising to publish the entire letter in full and unaltered)? Who goes around spreading rumours that Singapore is not taking the Aussie government seriously, when it has long tried to do all it can to handle the issue deplomatically and with tact? It is ironic, that for all the so-called "free press" of the liberal world, it is the hard facts presented in Singaporean papers which end up far more credible and trustworthy. Meanwhile, what makes you think we brutes will "defend anything done by your country or countrymen"? That would have made life so easy for us Singaporeans here, but no, I see more deviance and disagreements than anything you can ever imagine. I dont even agree that the PAP folks should be dressed in white all the time. Do you care to comment?--Huaiwei 08:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the pro-murder Singaporeans are here to POV push en masse. This is a joke, seriously. Your country may sanction federal brainwashing of your people, the rest of the world find your actions and your attitudes before, during and after this state sanctioned murder to be animalistic and barbaric. If you can't accept that, that is an issue for you to deal with, don't come here to a NPOV medium and start POV pushing. Jachin 07:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

While, so who exactly constitutes the "rest of the world", unless Australia somehow constitutes it alone? Even then, we are talking about less than half of the Australian population who actually condemns the capital sentence, with more Australians believing he should be hanged. Surely they arent the subject of the Singapore government's brainwashing mechanisms as well? Whatever the case, quit assuming your view is the only acceptable view for "civlised individuals", because you dont define what civility is. For every person who opposes the death sentence in "civilised Australia", there is another who supports it. Deal with it.--Huaiwei 07:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Steal a man's life and his dignity too by denying him a hug with his mother? The world is watching and almost nobody outside of your country's standing with it. Now here goes your country again with suppression of free speech [4]. Those who give up liberty for freedom deserve neither!

Hug with his mother? The Chinese would call it 得寸进尺 (de cun jin chi), literally "gain an inch, ask for a foot". It is plain clear rules exists prohibiting any form of physical contact, and this rule exists for the mental welfare of both the person to be executed and his loved ones. The same rule applies in many other countries who practise capital punishment. Given the personal request made, Singapore has decided to make a rare exception and allow them to hold hands. You guys demand a hug next? So what happens if we allowed a hug? You still arent satisfied and want them to have time in bed together? And I find it extremely ironic how you quoted an article and called it an example of free speech suppression, when it turns out the paper referred to none other then a report carried in the "government-controlled" Singaporean media? If you may give them the benefit of the doubt, do you think the government acted in this way to "suppress freedom of expression" per say, or more so to avoid causing discomfort to viewers, the same way Americans avoided depicting terrorism in their flims in the wake of September 11?--Huaiwei 08:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I do hope the world is watching closely, especially the drugs mules, and hope they remember. It would be the best if we can remind the public at least once every year: Anyone who carry drugs in Asia will lose their life and dignity. --Vsion 08:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To suggest that the mother and son would want "to have time in bed together" is just the sort of insensitivity that makes people all around the world angry at Singaporeans. All the Nguyen family asked for was a hug. There's no reason whatsoever to suggest that their demands were insatiable. Yet the Singaporean government couldn't even grant them that, on the pretext of upholding the rule of law. Truly a country without an ounce of compassion. Yeu Ninje 03:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Countries whose politicians are unable to take a tough stance against drugs, but instead outsource their drugs problem management to other "countries without an ounce of compassion", so that they themselves can stand on high ground. How much sympathy does the compassionate country wish give to the Bali Nine after sending them to the butcher? 69.234.62.72 04:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And to suggest that my comment is somehow representative of all Singaporeans is in itself equally insensitive and ridiculously sweeping, to say the least. I am personally disturbed by the Australian press's obviously attempts to play up the matter by demanding one concession after another, and to refuse acknowledging any reconciliary actions on Singapore's part, or simply dismissing them as "clinical reactions". How does this reflect Singaporean sentiments in general? So Singapore is nothing more than a roboting society full of unfeeling citizens with no voice of their own? How very sensitive an assumption, er?

And talking about sensitivity, to reduce the issue to merely about a "hugging request" hardly takes into account the fact that physical contact is usually not condoned as it emotionally destabilises both the convicted and his family. Similar laws like this exists for many other countries with capital punishment, and it was actually enforced by more "civilised" societies to reduce the emotional trauma brought about by the process for all sides. That you consider Singapore's "refusal to allow a hug" as completely devoid of compassion when the prohibition was there precisely for the emotional interests of both parties leaves me wondering just how spectacularly naive your comments are. So a hug is considered "compassionate", while a handshake isnt. I am just curious if you are even aware, that body hugs arent considered proper public behavior in many conservative Asian countries, in the meantime? Sensitivity? Are you in the moral position to bring up this issue at all?--Huaiwei 17:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hugging emotionally destabilises both the convicted and his family? So what happens when you hang the convicted - what does that do to the convicted and their family? If you want to assert that these no-hugging laws exist in other "civilised" societies, please state specifically what societies. Similarly, please state where body bugs between mother and son are considered inappropriate. I'm not reducing any issue to a "hugging request". Certainly Singapore has territorial sovereignty and need not bend its laws to the pressure of other states, but that doesn't mean a non-citizen can't criticise any particular aspect of its policy. Yeu Ninje 19:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the United States of America civilised enough a society for you, for they too disallow physical contact between the convicted and his family, albeit not neccesary for the same reasons? The US, for example, outlaws physical contact due to security concerns. Singapore publicly stated it does the same to contain the emotional feelings of all those concerned. Contained, yes, not prevent. So what if the conviction itself is already an emotional trauma, for if not, would the death penalty be effective as a deterrent at all?

Body hugs between parents and their children in public are considered inappriopriate in traditional East Asian culture for centuries, a social behavior frowned upon the older the children gets. Obviously in contemporary East Asia, with increased influences from other cultures, things has changed tremendously. It is no longer uncommon to see couples kissing in public, but that said, does it mean it is considered acceptable to all, and hence a part of East Asian culture? In Singapore's context, where there is a largely conservative populance yet one deeply entrenced in global cultures, body hugging continues to be considered far too passionate, although not neccesarily frowned upon. Each society has its own cultural norms, and I speak from the quasi-conservative Singaporean perspective. Do you have an issue with my view, or that of my society's social norms?

And again I am left to question: Who is stopping anyone from voicing objections over how Singapore governs itself? You reserve the right to criticise, so surely I am entitled to the right to counter-criticise?--Huaiwei 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking the example of the US, it has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrence.
See for example Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty. I don't think Nguyen would have being more or less likely to traffick drugs had the penalty being life imprisonment rather than death.

I don't have an issue with your views about hugging. If you don't want to hug your mother, that's your choice. Even if your assertion about parents and children hugging in "traditional East Asian culture" were true, by your own admission, contemporary East Asia is subject to a range of influences and Singapore is "deeply entrenched in global cultures". I'm sure not all Singaporeans agree with you, yet alone the rest of the Asia-Pacific region. So why do you seek to impose your conservative views on others? Even in my country, China, that bastion of conservative and puritanical East Asian culture, a final hug between family members would not be frowned upon.

You can certainly counter-criticise. I've never attempted to gag you. Yeu Ninje 21:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trash

Boat people trash like this Nguyen tuong Van are hardly worthy of appearing on wikipedia. We must not allow this biography of his to appear alongside other Vietnamese expatriots, as he- and the likes of him- does not deserve it. May he, and other "viet kieu" marijuana and drug dealers disappear into embarassing history. He is an embarassment to our communities overseas! We "Viet Kieu" must be proud of our accomplishments; but we must allow erase the shameful elements in our community. It is the only way of survival for the Vietnamese people overseas. User:Le Anh-Huy

Wikipedia covers the good, the bad and the ugly of the world. Someone being "shameful" isn't, and never will be a grounds for deletion. Half of the articles would probably disappear overnight as we start deleting Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot… Evil Monkey - Hello 05:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I presume, Evil Monkey, that you aren't actually grouping yourself with Hitler or Pol Pot, although it certainly looks like it... [[Sam Korn]] 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I am an Evil Monkey :-) Evil Monkey - Hello 22:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How He Died

Van would have died within a 1/4 of a milisecond after he fell as he would have reached the end of his rope and with it his spinal cord would have being severed by the enormous force. Van would go into immediate medical shock(unconsciousness) from there he'd die from strangulation as he'd be deprived of oxygen. - there exists the possibility that he might have involuntarily released his bowels, urinated and vomitted as his muscles relaxed upon death.

- death time(determined to be the time when his heart stops): 8-13minutes. Van was pronouced dead at 9.17am (AEST) which indicates he likely died about 8-10minutes into the execution. Though once again I stress that van would have lost all consciousness within 0.25 seconds of the trapdoor openning.

- Van would have likely felt an instant(measured in miliseconds) of pain as nervous reactions travel close to the speed of light.

- bruising/abrasion/cuts to the area where the noose was located is likely.

Nice story. Citations please? Either way, what a horrific and animalistic way to die. Only third world countries (or non-third world countries with equally inhumane stone-age mentalities) would enforce such abhorrent acts. Jachin 07:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha...how very animatic. You knew he felt a tinch of pain? You tried it before? Death by hanging is actually considered one of the fastest and painless methods of execution, and is certainly far less inhumane than practically all other methods. Meanwhile, I didnt know the United States and Japan are "non-third world countries with inhumane stone-age mentalities"--Huaiwei 07:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we try it on you and hear your report afterwards? You sound just like your President Mr. Lee. If it was someone you knew up for execution, I'm pretty sure you would be singing a different song. And don't give me that BS line about the Singapore justice system being omnipotent and executing only people who "deserve it."--69.231.237.71 08:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to name the three people executed in the US by the long-drop hanging method since 1977 - Billy Bailey, Westley Allan Dodd, Charles Campbell. Hanging is still available as a method of execution in Washington by choice and New Hampshire if lethal injection is found to be impratical. And as Huaiwei states, hanging is still used in Japan where executions are carried out relatively regularly. Evil Monkey - Hello 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

As for a citation - The process of judicial hanging, Delaware hanging protocol. Evil Monkey - Hello 07:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

- obviously those who of you who questioned my 'how did he die' section didn't read it properly, i frequently used the word 'mite'. Implying according to basic logic and known medical science, we can infer these conclusions, though they are yet to be confirmed obviously.

- think about it this way, we know that our nervous system responds close to the spped of light, even with 1/4 of a second he'd have felt something before he died.

- also i completely condemn the death sentence, its barbaric in every form, hanging in my opinion one of the worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesadistic (talk • contribs)

In other words, your text was based merely on personal speculation, and fueled by your personal opinion on the matter. I dont think your commentary deserved much deliberation from now on then.--Huaiwei 08:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In other words you better go out and read some of the scientific journals on the medical effects of hanging and so on before you say anymore. If you can find medical journals quoting me to be wrong on the assesment, your welcomed to change it. You've being nothing but critical and unhelpful to say the least, not to mention inciting negativity and undeserved controversy. If you want to be an e-thug, theres plenty of forums to do so, you of all should know that well enough.

Thats fuuny. Why am I made out to be an e-thug, when all I am doing is voicing my POV in response to yours? As far as anti-capital punishment adovacates are concerned, anyone who happens to oppose their views are inherently being "critical", "unhelpful", and basically a bully? If you may simply refer to the references provided by Evil Monkey, my statements where actually supported. Could you provided any reference to back up what you say?--Huaiwei 15:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Was the cause of death examined by a postmortem examination?
Some sources claim in singapore it would be allowed to the condemned to wear their own clothing during their execution (probably except of foot gear, as mentioned below). Is this true? It is alto mentioned, that the doomed men and women have to hang with bare feet. Is this also a true fact? If yes, what is the reason for this?

I can't seem to delete something...

I was going to delete something on the article, but I can't seem to find it on the edit page, why is that? I was going to delete this...

"i love you van..you will always be in my heart i hope you go to heaven. You didnt deserve this..you had your whoel life ahead of you i cried so much for you van you are an insparation to me you showed great honour i love you darling love Terri-Lea xoxo xoxo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.126.118.74 (talk • contribs)

Someone probably got there before you. --Last Malthusian 23:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

WMA File of American Media reaction from The Michael Savage Show

I deleted this link as it is horribly biased and, generally, an inaccurate POV. However, if people do disagree (and provide a reason) then feel free to put the link back. dr.alf 14:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL! TAG IN PLACE!

This article is extremely POV to the fact that Van Nyugen shouldn't die. He is a convicted drug dealer found in possession of 300g of Herion, with a large street value. He was fully aware of his actions and consequences in the Singaporian Legal System, thus he must face the implications of being found guilty. No doubt about it, you break the law, you get the punishment, he should have thought of that before being so stupid and careless.

I've put the NPOV tag up for now. Someone please make this less POV.

If you're going to tag a front-page article as POV you need to be far more specific about which sections you find POV and how, not just "this article demonstrates such and such a POV, this POV is wrong, here is the POV which is correct". Giving your own POV in particular and admitting that it's opposite to the article's supposed POV doesn't demonstrate particularly good faith in adding the tag. --Last Malthusian 18:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It was mentioned above: Vigils section is inappropriate. Only people who try using the article as forum against death penalty would find this appropriate and this is POV. Letters section is not appropriate, same reason. Funeral section is again relevant only if above-mentioned POV is taken.

I've removed the NPOV tag. The same author has applied the same tag to the following pages [5]

# 03:40, 4 December 2005 (hist) (diff) George W. Bush
# 03:13, 4 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Van Tuong Nguyen
# 03:12, 4 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Sexual intercourse
# 03:09, 4 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Foreplay
# 03:08, 4 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Oral sex

The other pages have similarly reverted the change.Softgrow 21:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to raise an eyebrow, but it does indeed look like vandalism, or at least an unhealthy pattern. It would probably be good if this article made more clear that this is not really an article about a drug smuggler, but rather an article about the public debate over international capital punishment that suddenly arose. There seems to be concern from some people that too much space is being dedicted to a convicted criminal. --Stevage 22:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes the article could be improved, by people tackling the things on the todo list at the top. The dissent (from Wilson Tuckey and others) isn't yet mentioned at all (along with the issue of trade sanctions), and other issues are a bit thin. I will chase up references and fill in the gaps over time (unless someone else does :-> )Softgrow 01:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As per Stevage's comment. How about an article Australian response to capital punishment? Same issue will be faced during the Bali Nine's trial. 69.234.62.72 03:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but a better first topic might be Capital Punishment in Australia which could look at the history of it, its eventual abolition, Australian overseas and diplomatic work in the area. This would feat neatly in Category:Capital punishment by country. Softgrow 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You link to categories (and images) like so [[:Category:Capital punishment by country]]. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Related?

Is he related to Dat Nguyen of the Dallas Cowboys?

I don't know, but Nguyen is a common vietnamese surname, with about 40% of the population. 69.234.62.72 10:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is even a Dr Nguyen Tuong Van who runs the intensive care unit at the Centre for Tropical Diseases in Hanoi and has treated 41 victims of H5N1. [6] Evil Monkey - Hello 20:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems a disambiguation notice is necessary. — Insta ntnood 21:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

lol! Are you going to write articles for every Van Tuong Nguyen you know?--Huaiwei 03:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the medical doctor notable enough? — Insta ntnood 08:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, again I ask...are you going to write the article? Secondly, more or less notable than this Nguyen?--Huaiwei 13:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not as notable, but notable enough. — Insta ntnood 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So if he is notable enough, where is the article?--Huaiwei 14:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is everything notable enough to have its own article already has one? — Insta ntnood 14:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow man, got to love these anonymous asshat posters. OMG IS OJ SIMPSON RELATED TO HOMER SIMPSON? Jachin 23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

ahahah "asshat". terrific. Taco325i 23:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

WELL??? Is OJ related to Homer or not? Dont keep me waiting. I cant take the suspense.

[shakes magic 8ball] ... "All signs point to yes." Jachin 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not some MSN chatroom. Simpsons are not related. Please make your discussions elesewhere. Thank You. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 15:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate information?

I'm a bit suprised that this article makes no reference to the actual court transcript and relies entirely on media articles. One of the things I'm uncertain about is contained in this excerpt taken from Public Prosecutor vs Van Tuong Nguyen:

Sometime in October this year, I was in need of money. I had to pay a debt which I took to pay for my twin brother, Khoa Nguyen, lawyer fees. I owed about A$20,000 to A$25,000 in total to a friend. My friend is Jonathan Lim, Australia Chinese. He did not press me for payment but I knew he needed the money. There was also an A$12,000 loan which my twin brother took that I needed to repay on his behalf. He only had until the end of this year to pay up that loan. I did not intend to let my twin brother know that I am paying his debt. I had managed only to repay about A$4,000 for a period of 8 to 10 months already but that was just enough to cover for the interests incurred. The A$4,000 was my earnings from my job as a sales marketing executive. My brother’s lawyer’s fees were as a result of one drug case and one affray case he got into about 3 years ago. Since then my brother had been in debts. I had been helping him in the repayment of loans for the entire three years.

Due to the broken english it is difficult to tell what Van actually meant. Did he himself borrow A$20,000 to assist with his brother's case or was this his own personal debt? Was the other A$12,000 simply his brother's portion of the debt for legal fees resulting in a drug case and an affray (public brawling?) case? If the debt was indeed a case of Van taking out A$20k-$25k to pay for his brother's legal fees and his brother taking out another A$12k for the same purpose then the total debt was actually between A$32k-A$37k

In regards to being under duress the article is a bit vague about this. In the current article it states:

In his police statement, he admitted that he knew he was transporting heroin but added that he had feared for the safety of his family and that prevented him from backing away from the assignment.

While this statement is partly true, it neglects to address the fact that in the beginning he was under no illusions as to what he was about to do. Again from the same transcript:

Sometime in the first week of November, a male Chinese known to me as “Tan” contacted me. He asked me whether I was sure I would do something. I told him yes.

...

I had earlier asked him for help and told him that I needed quick money. His response to me at that time was he would see what he could do.

Sometime in mid November this year, I made a trip to Sydney following “Tan’s” instructions. When I arrived at Pacific International Hotel, one male Vietnamese “Sun” contacted me. He explained to me exactly what I am going to do and asked me if I am going to do it. He told me that I would be carrying a package from Cambodia to Singapore to Melbourne and possibly Sydney. He told me that the package contained “white”. I understood that as heroin. It could have been cocaine. But I do not know if it is heroin or cocaine. However I was quite certain that it contained drugs. I told “Sun” that I would do it.

It would appear that he was under no duress until he actually obtained the illicit substance from the person in Cambodia:

He then handed over the bag and warned me not to back out or chicken out again. I asked him if he were sure that the 2 plastic packets of heroin to be strapped to my back and he again warned me not to mess it up as someone would be watching over me.

While I have not been able to vouch for the authenticity of this document, if it is an accurate transcript of the legal proceedings then perhaps the article needs to be amended to remove this ambiguity and possible bias?

The article has contained references to the court judgement summarys (currently located in the External Links section) for some time. I've certainly used them for the arrest and the beginning of the trials section. I think you might be right about the amount owed as being about $35,000 not $25,000. I can't see any inconsistency though in the second paragraph of the Trials section with regards to bias.Softgrow 11:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Attack on Singapore Embassy

Can anyone in Canberra please confirm or provide sources to allegations that the Singaporean embassy was attacked with water balloons filled with red paint at approximately 9:12AM, Monday the 5th of December? An associate of mine who resides in Canberra saw a large group of young men hanging around the building, two of which began pelting it with red paint filled water balloons. I feel it's reflective of the Australian sentiment about the matter and therefore worthy of being brought into the article, however secondary confirmation is required. Jachin 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Name order

Hello,Mr. Teo.Shouldn't it be his name (Nguyen Tuong Van)?--Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 09:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh?--Huaiwei 09:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you got it all mixed up. According to official sources it is Van Tuong Nguyen. --Terenceong1992 10:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

His first name is Van Tuong, and second name is Nguyen. So Western style naming puts Van Tuong first. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore officials consistently use "Nguyen Tuong Van". For Australian officials and media, they use both "Nguyen Tuong Van" and "Van Tuong Nguyen", with usage almost split right in the middle (hmm ... sounds familiar?) --Vsion 12:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So should we rename the article accordingly?--Huaiwei 12:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. I'm confused now. So which is which. We should use the name that is used commonly. --Terenceong1992 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

On google, Van Tuong Nguyen = 96,500 hits [7] while Nguyen Tuong Van = 592,000 [8]. The difference seems significant enough to be renamed?--Huaiwei 13:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: the above appeared in my talk page, so I am bringing it here for wider discussion. There is a request to move this page to Nguyen Tuong Van. Any disagreements?--Huaiwei 09:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Many other "Nguyen Van Tuong"s are included in the above search. Although ethnically Vietnamese, Nguyen is an Australian. His name is most frequently used in English-language media in the order "Van Tuong Nguyen". This is consisted with the fact that he is addressed as Nguyen, his family name, in many different sources, instead of the second word of his given name, the conventions for Vietnamese people. (According to family name, Vietnamese people address each other with the second word of their given names, such as Mr Khai for Phan Van Khai.) — Insta ntnood 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you able to give verified and factual proof that "His name is most frequently used in English-language media in the order Van Tuong Nguyen"? That he is Australian is of entirely no consequence, for once again, you appear to believe Asians who move to the West are somehow compelled to rename themselves. Where is your evidence that this was so? The entire discussion over how his name is addressed is again inconsequential as well, for what we are concerned is how his full name is displayed.--Huaiwei 10:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you able to verify the "Nguyen Van Tuong" you've got in the Google test are all referring to him? My previous comment on the popularlity of that order in English-language media is based on what I've read. It's only my experience, and is hardly a scientific assessment. — Insta ntnood 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

How would you verify otherwise?--Huaiwei 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, names in non-Western style are written in Western style in the naturalised country by convention, applying to other Asian names as well. I have no source for this, but general usage in Australia would be "Van Tuong Nguyen" and he would be styled as "Mr Nguyen". --Scottie theNerd 10:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I flicked open a random article in the Herald Sun. The reporter screwed the names up big time, citing the mother's name as "Kim Nguyen" but referring to Van as "Nguyen Tuong Van" and his other relatives in the same syntax. That's as erratic is it can get. --Scottie theNerd 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

His name is Nguyễn Tường Vân, NOT Nguyễn Văn Tường. Văn is an extremely common male middle name, while Vân (cloud) is a fairly common female (rarely male) name. His middle name is Tường. If you're going to use the Vietnamese order, you might as well use the full diacritics, else stick to the Westernized name (I expect him to use the Western name in all official documentations in Australia). "Respecting" the name order while dropping the absolutely necessary diacritical marks is just unacceptable. DHN 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The evidence for Khoa being a convicted drug trafficker is rather thin and I would like to remove it from the article. There is one quoted one source, an opinion piece, I've found one other, Hinch. Under Victorian law the sentence for trafficking is up to 15 years. However the sentence for possession where you can't prove you weren't trafficking is up to 5 years.

DRUGS, POISONS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT 1981 - SECT 73

I fail to see how he is a trafficker when this would need to be heard in the County Court and the only evidence we have is two opinion pieces. I've read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability and dont think opinion pieces from tabloid newspapers are reliable as they have agendas to push.

I've waited three days now for any discussion and there being none, I've removed the following section now "and convicted heroin trafficker Herald Sun Opinion - Andrew Bolt - Drugs and death 23 November 2005"Softgrow 22:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives