I note that Glenn and Barns suggest that given AI has a policy of not engaging in consumer boycotts, they could just engage in "Flooding the company with millions of messages urging it to lobby its Singaporean owners about Van Nugyen". Yes they could, although more likely tens of thousands rather than millions. And ultimately, it might lead the Optus to ask the Singaporean Government to change their mind.

Or, they could ensure that the tens of thousands of letters that are sent go directly to the people who could have made the decision to save Van Tuong Nguyen's life, the Singaporean cabinet.

This act, a humble act asking those who have the power to prevent grave abuse of human rights, is something that AI members do regularly. They have been doing it for over 40 years, and it has influenced countless numbers of decision makers. It does so because it respects the person to whom it is addressed, and it calls on them to recognise the harm that their action or inaction is leading to, and to uphold the international human rights that we all share.

I can understand that this might be frustrating, and not be forceful or have enough realpolitik for Glenn and Barnes. But contrary to what they say, AI does it over and over not because it doesn't work, but because it does. I wrote letters to the Singaporean Cabinet, and I felt sad when I heard he had died, but I have also written letters on AI cases all over the world, and have send the prisoners be released, the death sentence be commuted. Tensig Rinpoche, Lee Chi Quang, Mandouh Habib, and the list goes on.

Howard Glenn is welcome to trial alternative models, and Rights Australia can take up the strategies that Amnesty International will not. And I think, if he actually thought they would be successful, he'd concentrate on doing this, and let the results speak for themselves. This is certainly what I would urge him to do. Otherwise, it just looks like sour grapes

I wonder what is behind the sense of superiority that compels Greg Barns to manifest his ignorance time and time again when writing his opinionated pieces.

Regarding Amnesty and its `failure` to stop the Singaporean Government from executing an Australian citizen, this unfair allegation comes from an ignorance of Asian societies` legalistic thinking. I live in Japan, not Singapore, but Asian countries share similar social attitudes to laws, and drugs, hard or soft.

When I first learnt about Nguyen`s arrest (and I follow the news through the media of Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, China and other countries) I felt despair for him. The legalistic approach is very much in effect in Asia - unlike Australian and other western societies that consider the reasons for crimes.

`Follow the rules` is heard in Japan and throughout Asia - this even extended to the young Japanese man beheaded in Iraq. The overwhelming opinion in the Japanese media/community was: `Yes, it`s kawaiso (unfortunate) but he was told not to go to Iraq. He didn`t follow the rules.` Like it or not, this reflects the Asian values that Japanese hold in common with their neighbours.

From the start it was clear that unless the Singaporean Government felt inclined to do Australia a favour and return Nguyen, he would die by the death penalty. Amnesty could have done little more, especially as Nguyen said the heroin was to pay off his brother`s drug debts.

From the Asian perspective, particularly Singapore`s and Malysia`s, Nguyen`s crime was compounded by his readiness to inflict his brother`s misery (26,000 doses as the Asian media repeatedly mentioned)on other addicts. Far from extenuating him, those circumstances sealed his fate.

Ultimately it was irrelevant what Amnesty, those of us who oppose the barbarous cycle of the death penalty, and other Governments thought. A campaign turning up the heat on Optus would have achieved nil. The Singapore Government only saw the legalities of the situation.

Those who profess to be concerned about Australia`s image in Asia need to familiarise themselves with the different world-views that operate here, especially that in relation to drug trafficking.

When the fight for human rights employs any available strategy to save a human life it retains its integrity and virtue what ever the outcome. When it selectively looks for short cuts it cuts short human lives eventually. The humanist would not agree with AI's approach. The ethicist will always find a way to rationise shortcomings. The pragmatist would demand that AI defend its approach. But Nguyen Tuong Van's death and the numerous deaths from the illicit drug industry is an indictment on us all.

worldoflight

What are you suggesting exactly? That we all just 'follow the rules' no matter how ineffectual and inhumane they might be? And that groups like Amnesty just give up the fight and acquiesce to governments like that of Singapore's? I don't think so.

You don't have to live in Asia to know these governments are totally unyielding, but surely it doesn't mean you just lie down and give in to them. We have to let them know, as Amnesty does so consistently, that what they are doing is wrong, don't you agree?

You are very critical of Greg Barnes but in many ways the rest of your post actually supports the point he was making. If these governments won't listen to pleas appealing to their humanity, perhaps the only way to get through to them is through applying economic pressure.