..good grief..!
I truly hope, this will all turn out positive.
The man is way too young, naive, & illiterate to deserve the gallows.
Lets all hope for the best…

The government should well know this;
Compassion, Grace, & Courtesy – all begins with THEM.
As much as the saying “Like father like son” goes, a people of a country will indelibly behave like their leaders.

It’s unfortunate that we hang so many drug mules. Wish we could get some of the big boys living off the lives of these kucing kurau!

..I’m not sure about “Better, Cheaper, & Faster” though…

Kudos for being at the forefront, TOC.

And RAVI – you deserve a hero’s salute for your untiring resolve, hardwork and personal sacrifices!

We owe you our deepest gratitude, really.

However, we musn’t forget that it will be another agonising 2-mth wait for Yong before appeal proceedings take place.

Let’s increase the rally awareness so that Ravi will get more resources from
would-be sympathisers.

We must also be there to offer mental and social support for Yong and his family.

For God’s sake! please pardon his hang, instead jail him for maximum peiod is good enough to destroy one’s future and livelihood. Atleast he has a second change to live and realise his mistake and share experience with public learning.

He is a young and naive first timer human being and i believe the law should consider changes on death penatly by hanging. Its human being we are dealing with unless is brutal and inhuman kind of hard core criminal that deserve the hanging penatly.

I am truly happy about this morning’s decision by the Court of Appeal, presided by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. The 3 judges, to their credit, grilled Deputy Public Prosecutor Jaswant Singh. They also questioned M Ravi.

In the end, I’ve to say the DPP seemed a little caught off-guard when the judges questioned him on Section 51, 54 and 57 of the Supreme Court Judicature (or whatever it is they called it). These provisions stated that the COA had authority to hear an appeal which have not been heard yet – and that it didn’t matter if the President had made a decision on a clemency appeal.

In the end, the judges decided that Vui Kong had the right to have his appeal heard.

A more detailed report will be on TOC soon.

CJ Chan took only a few minutes to deliver the court’s decision. He said he will give a more detailed explanation for the grounds of the decision at a later date.

We’re all happy for Vui Kong, as this means he will have more time to see his mother and family.

He was seen chatting with the policemen or guards who led him to court. They seemed quite friendly to him and he smiled at some times. Vui Kong looks so different from his pictures. Solemn at times, as he listened to the proceedings through an interpreter. Other times, he just sat quietly.

It was a day of relief for those who supported him.

Thanks to everyone who turned up.

And most of all, thanks to M Ravi for his persistence and his hard work.

Watch this SDP interview with M Ravi. Very good stuff! http://yoursdp.org/

TOC, why don’t you feature this?

We execute more people on a per capital basis than all other countries.
Thats one statistics our Govt should be proud of since they like to
be first in everything.
I wonder how we live with our conscience when we kill the mules
and small fries but lay out the red carpet for and name orchid hybrid after
the drug lords

Well done, Ravi, Andrew, TOC and every single one who blogged, commented, participated at speakers corner and attended the court case. Someone even put a comment in the COP15 blog (meeting of world leaders to discuss climate change in Copenhagen), I guess forcing the leader of Spore to call for the right thing to be done now that the world is watching, including all the leaders.

If enough people know about it (the things that are not quite right), it forces those in authority to act. In this case, the judges, who are now doing their jobs. I give them the benefit of the doubt that their hands were tied before but due to the publicity, power has been restored back to them.

Ravi, your good name will be edged in many people’s mind from now forth. To me, this beats all the power, silver and gold that some crave for.

Andrew Loh,
You really moved me with what you wrote about Vui Kong.The video was also very moving.

Well done, Defence Lawyer Mr Ravi, for your passion, hardworks and sincerity in doing your best for your client!

Well done, TOC for the coverage of this very important matter in our society, which the msm had deliberately sideline.

To The Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Court of Appeal,

Thank you very much for your actions. Your decision to allow the young man Yong Vui Kong’s appeal to be heard shows that justice should prevail over procedural rigidity in the rule of law. We hope that not only wisdom should prevail but at least for once in the history of our judiciary please show more compassion to the accused. It is time for the change that we as a nation badly needed for a very long time!

To the Prosecutor,

Please show some flexibility and compassion instead of following rigidly according to the dictates of your superior or following to rigidly to the procedures. A life is at stake. No matter whether it is a low-life or something else, we as learned human beings should consider thoroughly before we put someone to death. A person on death row when executed is not killed by the prison executioner but killed by the hands of the prosecutor, who acts for the State (and the State is not the government but the People of Singapore). The executioner is only following the orders of those who ordered him to be killed. The blood of those killed are therefore on the hands of those who ordered them to be killed, not on those of the executioner.

Under our existing laws for drug trafficking, the Prosecutor, therefore, holds the initial key to life and death, not the Judges, nor the President. Please remember that all the time.

Without prejudice,

Commoner

Glad to hear that the young chap is fine and, in the foreseeable future, able to lead a life.

Hurray! Kudos! Congratulations!

This will show the world that here in Singapore don’t mess with the 300 Spartans of the anti death penalty lobby!

May you never stop your endeavour in all future cases. I am very, very proud of you!

It is not over yet so everyone, please continue to pray for Yong Vui Kong. May the judges presiding at the Court of Appeal show some compassion to this boy.

I hold my breath for now, & really hope this will lead to a more logical & human sentence for Vui Kong and that death is not doggedly pursued all because of one control freak.

Is just a show. wait till the end , it come back the same verdict. Let’s wait and see.

I’ll be eager to open the Straits Times tomorrow to see whether or not this landmark Court of Appeal decision is reported, and how it is reported. If there is no report in ST tomorrow, then the silence will speak volumes.

Prata man……

we can open a few tables for you…. only if you can pardon the poor boy…but shit you didn’t …did you…for all the bloody millions…why can’t you even spare a young boys life………

One more thing…..AG chambers…..don’t know where to put their face…apparently, I read that they said that it was out of jurisdiction for the High Court to give a stay….

Now must see how the stupid media tries to cover up the idiots…..Good on you Ravi…well done.

I hope someone somewhere made a mistake to at least give a chance to this boy albeit he did what he did…..a sentence of 15 years , should be enough.

If only he was German.

Malaysians are very strange people, they would much rather beg for mercy and forgiveness for an 85 year old UNREPENTANT Communist terrorist who was and is still not affiliated to China in any way, literally masterminded thousands of murders, of which the families of the victims have not forgiven him and give the guy lots of free press both in mainstream and alternative press.

When it comes to a 21 year old drug trafficker facing the death penalty by Singapore, none of THEIR MSM (English, BM or Chinese from what I can tell) and only a single article in Malaysiakini appears. On the blog pages of ALL the politicians of the major political parties (including the “multiracial” democratic socialist one), nada.

Mr Yong I am sorry your plight will not win votes or can be used as a political tool in Malaysia, thus you are left to your fate by your countrymen. As much as I would like to believe this reprieve will lead to a jail sentence, when the mandatory death sentence remains, it will be difficult to see how the judges can commute your sentence.

“If only he was German.”

You mean if he was a citizen of any other country, he would have at least the NGOs of his country if not the government asking for clemency.

I wonder what the President himself has to say about this. When the petition was brought to him, did he not study the case and have a personal opinion and thought about it? He has the power to think what is best and of course his conclusion should be justified with reasons. Thats why the peition was brought to him and not the Cabinet. It seems like he just ‘tai-chi’ the work and responsibility to the Cabinet. Whats the blooming point of having a President????

And how did the Cabinet go about deciding the matter? Did every single member of the Cabinet take the trouble to read every word of Yong’s case before casting their votes (assuming there is referendum)?

Thirdly, it means the Cabinet which consists of partisan members, can override the judges who are supposedly non-partisan.

What a shamble!!! And there are people who actually uphold this shamble supposedly for the good of the people and the country.

Justice and care should be placed above the hard and fast rules that’re laid in the books. By understanding the background story, it is very obvious that if he is to be hanged, there is no justice served, no matter what and how people may be able to make the press sound to be on their side.

Let the people be the judge, in cases like these, and not the high court. It will reflect the humanity and the heart of a nation, its people’s wishes.

If he should be hanged, I would despise the country forever, even if she is my homeland. If she does not care, then she does not deserve my care, and my efforts.

Yang @17

Of course its a show, everything they do is a show esp things that are not money spinning. But alas, the World is watching this show and the World is not going to accept any nonsense.

Its a wise decision and the best move by the judges. Good job guys.

If the prosecutors cannot go after the big boys, don’t fry the little ones! What a lousy excuse to hang the runners.

if the runners deserve the ultimate punishment, how then should the bosses be punished? Double or tripple hanging? Eg if a powerful dictator who got powerful through drug trades, brings along with him 5 kg of illegal drugs to be pushed out on Spore streets, hanging him is only equivalent to Yong’s punishment. Is there a sense of proportion?

#22
I wonder what the President himself has to say about this. When the petition was brought to him, did he not study the case and have a personal opinion and thought about it?…..

S’pore president is a FAT, Unelected, well paid Puppet. By the way, his age is 85 plus. He would rather take his afternoon nap than reading his case. At most, he will toss the coin & decide on that.

S’pore govt is not going to spend money to provide free meals for the gallow criminals.

Mr. Yong is a Malaysian. What gain does S’pore govt have, to spare his life?
The First Water Agreement with Malaysia is expiring in 2011 & Malaysia is unlikely to extend it.

Mas Salamat will be in Malaysia for the next 2 years.
Singapore Air Force is Not allow into Malaysia airspace since Mahathir era.
S’pore Lost out more than gain.

If Mr. Yong is Indonesian then the story is different.
S’pore need sand, natural gas, water, natural resources, etc from Indonesia in years to come……

Even the Indonesian or recent Philippines maid convicted of murder, they were jailed instead.

yes judge woo did not make a mistake last week.

the dpp last time say not right.

there are many negative news about sdp and dr chee as well last time.

but i wonder how come good people like mr chan and mr ravi still join them?

i think this may be due to the fact that sdp share same vision with them

and maybe they are the ones who really know the exact truth behind all the “negative news” which commom people like us never know.

salute to all the people who has sacrific so much because of sg politics.

as mr ravi mentioned he wake up and ask himself what he has done and he know he have at least done what should be done.

i admit i will not take their road not because can earn a lot or earn little,

but i guess it because of family.

if i am a person with no wife or children i will follow their road.

not easy to find your wife and children to support you if you take the road.

salute them again.

remember that winning this is still a matter of technicality, that he deserves to have an appeal before he is executed. I believe this is as far a leeway as Yong is going to get because he has already admitted to drug trafficking. The mandatory death sentence means that mitigating factors do not contribute to his appeal. So what grounds could he successfully appeal on? The only way that he will not get hanged is if some evidence comes in to prove that he wasn’t trafficking in the first place, and has been lying about it since his arrest. The only good thing is that he has been given more time to spend with his family. There is no way the gov is going to turn on the current laws unless there is an uprising, which is frankly not going to take place out of compassion for one man.

In my opinion (as a law noob),

Unless
(1) AG chamber withdraw the charge,
(2) Defense counsel M Ravi managed to find a way to show that mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional or non-compliance to international convention (which I’m not aware of),
(3) The president pardons Vui Kong, or
(4) The parliament amended the relevant law,
VK will still be hanged after Court of Appeal hears the case, because the law did not give the judges discretion to decide if VK should or should not be hanged.

It is only unfortunated the rule of law becomes such an @sshole…

A beautiful outcome to the emotional rollercoaster, undoubtedly, for those who has stood by Yong. Congratulations to all involved.

And congratulations also to the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the land, for those who do not know. Sensible judgement.

The family and Yong breathes a little easier, for now at least.

Back to the argument and please allow me to just briefly touch on the point about deterrence. I have a huge problem with this argument, besides the fact – yes, FACT – that it is a false, unproved, irrational, emotional argument.

Yet here is one to consider:

The argument deterrence is saying that one must die for the crimes of others – crimes which are yet to be committed, or which will never be committed (or so the deterrence proponents hope).

Now, the question is:

Should one such as Yong Vui Kong pay for the crimes which are not committed?

Which part of the law says this is allowed?

Isn’t the law suppose to be about punishment for crimes which have been committed????

How is it that one can be sentenced to death so that crimes by other people are not or won’t be committed?

What nonsense!

our very stressful education system and highly competitive working environment have led numerous people to take their own lives!! Who shall be held accountable? Lives lost, families ruined forever. Who pays the price? Mistake from 40years ago they say and try to make it right. Here is one boy who has made a mistake.He too wants to make it right. He can be a model of filial piety. He can go to all the drug rehab centres tell his story and change lives. One life that may just make the difference to our youth.

Please bear with me as I’d like to say it one more time:

HOW IS IT THAT ONE CAN BE SENTENCED TO DEATH SO THAT CRIMES BY OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT OR WON’T BE COMMITTED?

Isn’t the law suppose to punish and only punish one for the crime that one has committed?

Isn’t punishment suppose to fit the crime?

HOW IS IT THAT ONE CAN BE PUNISHED FOR CRIMES ONE HAS NOT COMMITTED – which is what the deterrent argument is essentially saying???

Bollocks! Crap! Insane!

Utter hogwash this deterrent argument!

Incredible that people can agree with it so blindly.

Here is one who speaks in support of the death penalty but makes sense about the law. I agree with her – for now. I am in support of eventual abolition, by the way.

A comment posted on this blog: http://cavalierio.blogspot.com/2009/12/reflections-on-guillotine_07.html

Let me say, I prefer the death penalty to stay. There are simply some scums that need to be rid of in this world.

Cases like Yong should show the flexibility of mercy of laws. But yet it didnt. Our judical system has shown itself to be inflexible and cruel. It is detestable.

Does anyone want to know how insane the mandatory death penalty is?

Try this for size.

A judge, sitting in his esteemed chair, robed distinguishly, with his years of experience in law and in presiding over cases. Over the years, he’s learnt that each case is different, each circumstance leading to a crime is different. He knows, in his heart of hearts, that each criminal is different.

He knows the reasons why people commit crimes are different.

Today he presides over a young man, 19-years old. He hears the story of the young boy. He is sympathetic and is moved by the life circumstances of this young man who clearly was led astray by bad company and who comes from a poor, illiterate family.

The judge feels compassion, which is part of what justice is. He wants to punish the crime committed but he also knows the young man is not a hardened criminal. In fact, this is the young man’s first offence – ever.

This is the young man’s first offence ever in his entire life!

Yet, the judge, with a heavy heart, leans on forward from the bench and says:

“I am moved y your story and I believe you. I want to show compassion and show you mercy as I believe you are sincere in wanting to change. The guards in prison who guards you tell me so.

“But I am deeply sorry as though I am a human being and can feel for you, the law in this case treats me as a human machine – with power to only decide on one simple thing – whether you trafficked in drugs.

“And you have admitted that you trafficked in drugs.

“And so, I have to sent you to your death by hanging because I cannot do otherwise. I am not allowed to.

“I am sorry.”

Yet, the judge could also add this:

“However, in my judgement I shall say this for you: You do not deserve death but the law provides no alternative. It’s either death or freedom. Such is the law.

“But I recommend that when you make your clemency appeal to the president, I deeply, seriously and truly recommend that the President allows your clemency and commute your death sentence.”

Question:

Why has no judge made such recommendation in his judgement?

35) Tan Cheng Hua on December 8th, 2009 11.29 pm
This is the young man’s first offence ever in his entire life!

True…’ first offence’ as in being caught for the first time. Not really doing it for the first time though.

TO audrey on December 8th, 2009 10.22

there are grounds to appeal against the legally of the law other than just against a meted out sentence. in every democratic system with proclaimed fair elections, the three pillars of State made up of the Judiciary, the Legislative and the Executive are to ensure they do check and balances on one another, making sure there is separation of powers. though this does not seem to be much practiced in Sg, but that does not mean that our judiciary is absolved from delivering this function because we are protected by our constitution to have these three pillars of State checking on one another. it is common in other countries to see the judiciary taking up active roles in challenging the legislative on doubtful laws or questionable laws and there will be calls for reviews or reforms. that is in fact an extremely important role of the judiciary. in the book “the politicis of policy making in Sg” by prof ho khai leong, it states that the judges in Sg are seen to be performing much like technicians, delivering procedures according to technicalities where it should be otherwise.

so in this case, there are serious doubts about the law of Mandatory Death Sentence for Misuse of Drug cases as this is an automatic sentence which leaves no power to the judge to decide otherwise in view of mitigating circumstances. therefore, this law is highly questionable and flawed and we say this law is not legal, there is no legality in this law which has been meted out to Yong. Defence Counsel will appeal saying this law is unlawful and should not be applied. we will have to based on english case laws and international laws and pose questions like how come Sg having responded to the UDHR has not conformed to international standards, drug trafficking is not classified under henious crimes worldwide, etc etc. if the judiciary is convinced about the appeal and the denfence wins the appeal, then there will be a moratorium to the death penalty and all on death row convicted under this Act will have their execution stayed on until further review by the legislative branch.

35) Tan Cheng Hua on December 8th, 2009 11.29 pm

Basically the system you’re advocating is known as the Civil Law System, which is the legal system in USA.

Singapore, being a Commonwealth country, follows the Common Law System, which is follows the rule of Precedence. A decision of a “higher” court is binding on the “lower court”.

There’re pros and cons to each system of course.

The Civil Law System is more flexible, and allows for more discretion on the part of judges, and the weight of mitigating factors (that you mentioned about VK earlier) will affect the outcome of the case more.

The Common Law System is more predictable, so people know what the punishment is for each crime, and there’s more stability in the legal system.

The downside of course, is that the Common Law System is more rigid, so there is less room for compassion. The Civil Law System might produce some absurd results, as each decision is based on the personal discretion of each judge, and the skill of each lawyer.

So if you’re faced against a really powerful (or expensive) lawyer, he might actually be able to bring about a heavier sentence on you.

The system that you propose has actually been criticized in the US because it favours the rich and powerful, who can afford the bloody expensive and good lawyers to fight their case.

lobo76 (#36),

You said:
“True…’ first offence’ as in being caught for the first time. Not really doing it for the first time though.”

Now, here is where we have to exercise discretion, especially when we read the wonderful and utterly credible, internationally-renowned and completely professional reports from Singapore’s local media.

One can commit an offence if it comes to the attention of the police or the courts. So, yes. It was Yong’s first offence.

And one should not be clairvoyant and assume that he must have committed other offences prior.

Ahhh.. but you would say that he ran drugs six times before, referring again to our wonderful media reports.

True.

But…

If you recall, reading our wonderful media reports, that these six occasions were mentioned by Yong’s co-accused, who, wonderfully again, received 22 years sentence and not death.

Now, lets go back to the law, and the law says: A statement of guilt by a co-accused, in drug trafficking cases, can be used as evidence of guilt.

AH HA!!

Now, you get the picture.

The co-accused said Yong ran drugs on six other occasions – he said this in detention, obviously, and obviously again, must have struck a deal with the prosecution, else how did he end up getting 22 years while Yong is getting death.

So, coming full circle…

Did Yong really run drugs on six other occasions?

Honestly , looking at the questions and the fact that the police and prosecution had no evidence of this except the statement of Yong’s co-accused, one would really have to give Yong the benefit of the doubt and say yes, this was Yong’s very first offence.

But then this is a moot point, as far as the law is concerned.

Why?

Because even if it was his first offence, the law says that the judge has no right, no power, no room to take this into consideration.

So yes. Moot point, really.

XiiAoGeNgEnX ,

Granted that the rich and powerful can abuse the legal system. It happens, especially in Singapore.

However, that doesn’t mean judges should have no discretionary power. Otherwise, why would we need them? May as well just have DPPs and save a whole lot of money.

The millon $ question that I want to raise is why is the Public Prosecutor so eager to have Yong executed to the extent that it even dare to challenge the right of the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal.

In China, we know for a fact that common prisoners get executed so that their organs can be sold to the highest bidders. Do we actually need Yong’s organs so desperately to save some person similar in status to that CK Tangs man ?

If not, why the haste ? A human being’s life is at stake here and yet the impression that I get is that the Prosecutor is out to get the young man as if his organs are desperately needed ! Is this for real in Singapore ?