By Wong Chun Han
The Court of Appeal reserved judgement today in the case of convicted Malaysian drug mule Yong Vui Kong, who has challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence he received.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong told a packed courthouse, after a two-and-a-half-hour-long hearing, that the Court would retire to consider the case and announce its decision at a later date.
Yong, who was sentenced to death in November 2008 for trafficking 47 grammes of heroin, will have his execution stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
M Ravi, representing 21-year-old Yong, argued the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death penalty on the grounds that it does not allow judges to sentence criminals with punishments proportionate to their crimes and individual circumstances.
He told appeal judges CJ Chan and Justices Andrew Phang and V K Rajah that this denial of judicial discretion in capital cases amounted to inhuman punishment.
The mandatory death penalty thus violates customary international law forbidding the use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, as stated in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Such a violation means the mandatory death penalty falls foul of Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law”, Ravi argued.
The Court thus ought to exercise it powers of constitutional adjudication and rule the mandatory death penalty as unconstitutional, he added.
Clarifying that he was against the mandatory imposition of the death penalty and not the death penalty per se, Ravi concluded: “Kill if you must, but not in an automated, robotic, spasmodic and reactionary manner.”
Attorney-General Walter Woon, responding for the prosecution, challenged Ravi’s arguments, saying that the removal of the mandatory death penalty is a political issue rather than a legal one, its retention or otherwise was a matter for Parliament to decide.
He also challenged Ravi’s argument that the deprivation of judicial discretion in sentencing amounted to inhuman punishment, since the same logic ought to then apply to all mandatory penalties.
The mandatory death penalty, AG Woon said, also remains permissible under both common and customary international law.
No rule of customary international law denounces the use of the mandatory death penalty, he claimed, as the punishment is being applied by 31 countries – including China and India. Its use was not deemed objectionable by world powers such as the United States and Britain under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for much of the 20th century.
Ravi countered these arguments, noting that the current situation – where only the Court has no discretion in deciding the punishment in capital cases – is untenable. In contrast, the prosecution has discretion over whether to press charges for a capital case while the President exercises clemency powers.
Given that the law makes assumptions on criminal culpability, vis-à-vis ages of majority for example, providing discretion in sentencing would allow the Court to investigate these assumptions through the considering of individual circumstances.
Ravi also clarified that China and India in fact operate discretionary death penalties, and refuted AG Woon’s suggestion that Asian countries have resisted European attempts to create a new legal custom, given that many Asian countries do not impose mandatory death penalties.
Hong Kong has no death penalty, while China, India and Japan do not have the mandatory death penalty, and South Korea and Taiwan have held moratoriums on executions, he said.
Southeast Asian nations have also made overtures with regards to the protection of human rights since signing the Asean charter, Ravi added.
Ravi was aided by three London lawyers, including international human rights law expert Edward Fitzgerald QC of Doughty Street Chambers, who helped research the case. All four are working on a pro bono basis.
No date has been set for the Court’s decision, which is expected within the next three weeks.
________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
It is hypocritical to dismiss the appeal while we provide an aussie gal who repeatly abused drugs with an organ transplant.
Case in point Pastor Rony and the three racist youths. However what happens when the aussie gal goes back and Singaporeans have “moved on”. What will happen then? Will people forget? The CS should make a judgement soon.
Surely the aus gal would have in her possession enough drugs to warrant the death penalty under Sg law.
she is a foreigner from ang mo country wat.
ang mo dua ki. wat to do.
pardon my bo tak chek-ness.
AG Walter Woon argued that the removal of the mandatory death penalty is a political issue not a legal one. It should be left to parliament to decide.
Is he trying to say that the political dominance of the PAP in parliament will definitely decide otherwise. With all the ‘thistles’ blowing with the wind, nothing will change.
The judiciary should be independent to decide and not to be compliant to the rule of PAP.
We have seen the unfair verdict when all past opposition members were all convicted
by the judges under the influence of ’executive order’ of the ruling system. Luckily those cases were not deathrow cases.
Yong Vui Kong case is a life that is at stake, so the judges must uphold the integrity of the court
to deliver an independent judgement beholden to no one.
Justice must be seen to be carried out with the greatest imparialty and true independence.
To take human life is political suicide. Is our kangaroo independent in this case is for all to see in subsequent judgements. PAP should not act as god, they are just a bunch of expensive good-for-nothing human beings thinking they can made law to suppress the people.
The drug dealer is young. Perhaps he was fooled by big druglords to carry the drugs. I hope the judge will find in his heart to give him a chance. If he did, perhaps this young man will turn his life around and help others. I am not saying that he should be set free by any means. He should be rehabilitated and be given an education while in jail and you never know he could make a huge difference in this world by doing good deeds and by going to schools and telling students that drugs are evil and not to mix with the wrong crowd. By putting him to death, Singapore is once again showing the world how barbaric we are.
I do notice that whitess are given special treatment . However, the perpetrators of such ignorance are Asian people. I see filipinos, chinese from mainland china and hong kong, chinese from malaysia, east indians treating whites better than the teat their own kind. no doubt about that
One law for lee and the ellites,, one law for us.
@ MLC
wah… say until like that. later ISD come and take u away how?
Thanks TOC for the coverage on Yong’s case. However, it is unlikely that the courts would have any power to pardon Yong. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is either the death penalty or acquittal – such is the tyranny.
http://inhisblood.blogspot.com/2010/03/bleak-take-of-court-of-appeal-and-yong.html
Hope the Appeal Court judges are not influenced by “executive power” after consultation to deliver the verdict at a later date.
Compassion is the highest order of understanding of life’s second chance. Please let Yong Vui Kong
a second chance to redeem his misdeeds. A young life can be rehabilitated.
Thank you M Ravi and the lawyers who work pro bono on this case.
We need many more people with passions like them to improve the society and to change the world for the better!
I heard that Ravi trounced the AG at yesterday’s appeal and earned the praises of the Chief Justice. His knowledge of constitutional law and the application and effect or non effect of dealth penalty as a deterrence worldwide impressed the judges. He was able to rebut the arguments of the AG with his sound knowledge of the law and facts. Let’s hope the judges will be merciful and have the courage to do what is right.
Paul, if Ravi succeeds in arguing against the constitutionality of the death penalty, then the provisions in the MDA are negated as bad law.
If a person who has been detained can turn to the right of habeas corpus to question his arrest/sentence in court, shouldn’t the same spirit protecting his right to liberty be extended to give all due protection to his right to live?
Mandatory Death Penalty is unconstitutional.
The mandatory death penalty thus violates customary international law forbidding the use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, as stated in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
& who’s gonna arrest the government violating the universal declaration of human rights? I ask for a fair supervisor to supervise the government.
The problem is, there is no International Law for Cruelty to Humans & Denial of their Rights, that can penetrate the Sovereignty of any country.
M Ravi is a good man who has drawn a lot of flak for standing up for what he believes in. We need more lawyers like him.
“‘Such a violation means the mandatory death penalty falls foul of Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law”, Ravi argued.”‘
The same can be said about ISD’s right to imprison and torture without trial.
Sadly I am not optimistic about Yong Vui Kong’s situation. If the law is not changed in parliament, the judges will have no choice but to follow it.
Abolish capital punishment in Singapore today.