Nguyen Tuong Van, Australian drug trafficker, was hanged as planned before dawn on Friday, despite pleas from Australian citizens opposed to the death penalty. His last photo from AFP on the BBC article is certainly much less flattering than all the Ozzie media ones. (With now characteristic speed and efficacy, Wikipedia now chronicles Nguyen’s case.)

I really do think Xenoboy really hit the nail on the head on this one. It took a personal appeal by Australian Prime Minister John Howard permission for mother and son to hold hands for one last time before execution. What made Australians think that making lots of noise would shame the Singapore government into clemency?

It is strange though, this issue of face. There’s something more to it; there appears to be a maturity issue here too. The response from the Singapore government has been almost exclusively an argument of sovereignty, but it really does come across as “You can say whatever you want, I’m going to do what I’m going to do because I can.” It’s almost as if our public image is one of early puberty and teenage rebelliousness.

What what is the real Singapore? Sue (Dutch Diary) says she knows: it’s not about the multinationals and shopping centers; it’s about the heartland. But who is the political scene representing? The money-spinning corporations, or the masses who are deluded into believing that living the high life is shopping on the second floor of Ngee Ann City and Paragon? Here’s something from the Head Honcho to chew on:

“When you have an argument, is this policy right or wrong? You can have 10 brilliant arguments on your side and somebody comes in and have 12 powerful arguments demolishing your 10. At the end of the day, the relatively uneducated, not very knowledgeable public says who do I believe and they say I think I believe this man because he has delivered. A leader must get into that position, then you can implement tough policies.”

I would bicker about whether a black/white true/false dichotomy is valid here, but I think going in that direction is really going to fall into the realm of epistemology. Unless people really want to hear more, I’ll just highlight what’s crossing my mind. First is Nietzsche’s Overman (Übermensch), who are able to rise above the peer pressure of social mentality. He claims that only Overmen can create their values independently of what society as a whole thinks, and in fact Overmen have to develop their own sense of morality, for “Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.”

The people crying that the death penalty is immoral would do well to think about these quotes from Nietzsche:

All Morals allow intentional injury in the case of necessity, that is, when it is a matter of self preservation.

All actions are still stupid; for the highest degree of human intelligence (knowledge) which can now be attained will assuredly be yet surpassed, and then, in a retrospect, all our actions and judgements will appear as limited and hasty as the actions and judgements of primitive wild peoples now appear limited and hasty to ourselves. To recognise this may be deeply painful, but consolation comes after: such pains are the pangs of birth. The butterfly wants to break through its chrysalis: it rends and tears it, and is then blinded and confused by the unaccustomed light, the kingdom of liberty. In such people who are capable of such sadness - and how few there are! - the first experiment made is to see whether mankind can change itself from a moral into a wise mankind.