The Court of Appeal today has rejected the appeal of Yong Vui Kong and declared that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional.
Yong had appealed against his death sentence for drug trafficking.
In a landmark ruling, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong affirmed the line of decisions passed in Ong Ah Chuan and Nguyen. He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which establishes that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, neither precluded ‘inhuman punishment’ nor did it embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty, as lawyer M Ravi had argued.
CJ Chan said that the rulings of certain Caribbean jurisdictions against the mandatory death penalty were concerned with murder cases, and as such had no direct application to the case at hand. Furthermore, he noted the lack of an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment in the Singapore Constitution.
CJ Chan mentioned that reading the constitutional proviso of Article 9 (1) to forbid ‘inhuman punishment’ would be an act of ‘legislating … new rights under the guise of interpreting’. He noted that the government had considered – and rejected – a proposed constitutional clause against inhuman punishment in 1969.
The court also did not find applicable the Indian Supreme Court ruling that declared the mandatory death penalty inconsistent with their constitutional equivalent of Article 9 (1). CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament. Affirming the decision of Ong Ah Chuan, the court believes that any law that conforms to the ‘clear’ principles of natural justice would suffice.
Primacy of domestic law
CJ Chan also declared that Article 9 (1) did not sufficiently encompass customary international law. The court reaffirmed that a rule of customary international law would only qualify as a valid local law in so far that it remains consistent with domestic statutes.
Thus, CJ Chan established that any change in customary international law or legal developments in foreign jurisdictions would have little bearing on the scope of Article 9 (1).
CJ Chan also found in favour of former Attorney-General Walter Woon’s arguments that in the absence of an ‘extensive and virtually uniform state practice’, there was consequently no customary international law against the mandatory death penalty.
CJ Chan furthermore rejected the argument that the 15g threshold of diamorphine that triggers the mandatory sentence was arbitrary, finding it as a valid classification since it constituted an intelligible and rational differencier.
As a parting remark, CJ Chan observed that Yong’s appeal have had mustered the most substantive constitutional arguments against the mandatory death penalty. As such, the rejection of this appeal would mean that ‘under Singapore law as it stands, further challenges in court [against the mandatory death penalty] have been foreclosed’.
‘Deepest disquiet’
Before the session adjourned, M Ravi registered his ‘deepest disquiet’ to the court over statements made by Law Minister K Shanmugam about the case in a dialogue session last weekend.
Speaking to reporters after the ruling, Ravi raised his concerns that the Law Minister’s ‘specific’ comments about Yong’s appeal would transgress sub judice laws prohibiting public opinions on cases awaiting judgment.
Even though a presidential pardon remains possible, Ravi noted that, in practice, it is the Cabinet that decides on the outcome of clemency pleas. He thus believes that the articulation of such statements by the Law Minister would deny Yong a fair clemency, as the process has already been ‘poisoned by biasness’.
Other than questioning the effects of the Law Minister’s comments on Yong’s case, Ravi plans to file a legal brief to highlight the defects of the clemency process. He said that process was ‘flawed’ by the denial of the accused to see the report and the involvement of the Attorney General’s Chambers in the clemency deliberation. Ravi asserted that consulting the AGC on the very same case that it has prosecuted would violate principles of natural justice, and thus deny Yong of a fair chance at clemency.
By: Khairulanwar Zaini
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
This is just so sad.
Time and time again the authorities have shown their lack of empathy and sympathy – treating every situation and case according to their rigid code of rules and conduct. Not just in this instance but even for the homeless and those lacking the luck and means to live the ideal singaporean lifestyle.
Is this the kind of place to live in where everything is run like clockwork without any human feeling? This is very sad indeed.
Then what in God’s name does Article 9 protect? What right does it enshrine?
sigh. this is what happens when you have all 3 arms of government in the control of a few.
I like what William Gibson says about Singapore: “Disneyland with the Death Penalty”
of course its always constitutional.
If it is not, Parliament can be convened
at any time to get the article changed and make it constitutional and in retropect terms too.
Expected verdict.Judiaciary and executive are twin brothers.
see you again 18 years later…
try to get into some rich woman’s stomach next time, okay?
this is sick!
CJ Chan foreclosure of the constitution, appointed himself as the chief executioner also.
1. Aren’t laws made for the FAIR and JUST benefit of citizens? But what citizens?
2. Isn’t the British laws we inherited and of which LKY was schooled in support that a person IS NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN TO BE! And also that admission of guilt for at least Murder 1 & 2 cases IS NOT ADMISSIBLE in courts as GUILT UNTIL “Convincing proof by indisputable evidence prove beyond the shadow of a doubt” before Murder 1 can be commuted. Reasons being someone may wish to take the “RAP” for a reason or reasons “best known to themselves”! Or, a in this case, a “miscarriage of justice” due to “no legal representation” which DEFINITELY INTRODUCES “Unknowns” during Police/ISA-CPIB interrogations?
THIS is EXACTLY WHY we can have political detainees locked away until they are “nearly forgotten”?
3. LKY abolished The dual systems of Judicial and Jury System on the premise that “No commoner who is untrained in “law” have the “With all” to decide in “Capital Punishment” cases. By that, he ELIMINATED the elements of “Common Sense” in our legal system to rely ENTIRELY on Constitutional Laws. In short, courts with academia can prefer to err on the side of caution for themselves and rely 100% on the law!
The BIG question now is, has LKY with his actual intention then to maximize his control of political opponents “inflicted” injustice into our legal system with “An Anomaly”? “A quirk” in our Capital Punishment arena at least?
I am no lawyer. But can LKY and his law minister now see that even commoners CAN see things that sometimes “escape” their legally trained minds? If patients can “stumble” or even stunt” their Medical Consultant Specialist, why it cannot happen in other professions too?
Am sure those “Legal Eagles” of the past century “WERE MORE HOLISTIC AND HONOURABLE OF HUMAN LIFE” in a less complex and “sophisticated” world than now where lies can be made so often till it is believed to be true as has been said on our land by you know who.
In a NUTshell……
How much of our Singapore laws have been made for the citizens to BE FOR THE BENEFIT of the laws instead?
Do we now have “Legal QUAGMIRES”? Any legal QUANDARIES then folks?
Sincerely,
no lawyer
The judge did his duty. No more no less.
Perhaps now what is needed is to get parliament to relook into the constitution and remove the word “mandatory”.
Fat hope Mic. The only relook would be to tighten the law further to prevent interpretations such as in this particular case.
In Singapore the law is to bullied the poor. In the previous case an Malay Man stole a cans of beer -sentence to 16year in prison under Chief Judge Yong Pong How.Previous court judge son caught consuming drug (Cocain) was pardon. Verdict he was a first time offender. So in this world there is no such -U call law.The Rich is the King. the poor is a bandit.
And his blood will be on Chan Sek Kiong’s hands forever.
CJ Chan did not want to read in “resonable” into Article 9(1) becuase it may conflict with Parliament’s intention? he said that? By the same token will the Court take Article 9(3) on the right to consult a lawyer as it is stated, without reading into it that the police should be allowed to finish questioning the accused before he can consult with a lawyer.
Death penalty, a trade-off
Saves ‘thousands of lives’ that may be ruined if drugs freely available: Minister
“He was replying to a resident during a dialogue session at Siglap South Community Centre who asked if there would be changes on this policy, in light of the case of Malaysian Yong Vui Kong.”
I wonder who was that idiotic resident who asked this question. By openly chellenging and embarassing the minister over this case, he has foolhardly hammered the last nail in Yong’s coffin rather than doing him justice.
One can not help but wonder whether this person really wanted to change the law or had more sinister intentions.
Besides, wouldn’t singaporeans have more bread n butter issues to deal with at hand? Why this question?
“CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament.”
CJ Chan appears to hold that parliament is above the Constitution. That cannot be true and he must be mistaken. I should remind that parliament, just as the cabinet, the elected president, all branches of the government are bound by the Constitution. Of course, the governmental violation of the Constitution over the past 45 years has been duly documented and justice on those counts has yet to see the light of day. But there’s always hope.
Only the People (as a collective, not individually) are above the Constitution in the sense that the People may collectively modify the inner core of the Constitution in a national referendum.
The constitutional argument was never really meant to work. The people who wrote the constitution are still around- so if there is any ambiguity, they can clarify and tighten it through parliament. And imo, Ravi seems to be stretching the interpretation of the constitution a little.
I think the main purpose of this is more about compassion and extending Yong’s life through a legal challenge.
YVK is guilty. The concern is not on the verdict but on the punishment.
I hope that the president/parliament can re-consider the decision on the appeal but it is unlikely to happen.
Hate to say this, I had expected this judgement given the make up of the Court.
That said, it does not imply I agree with the judgement.
Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah humping its moral high horse while holding a holy book for show-that’s Uniquely Singapore.
Just wonder if it is just a coincidence. Just barely a few days after the subject was brought up by the bugger JACK to Minister, the appeal result is reported to be revealed in a matter of days. If JACK is not a fictitious character, then he has indeed participate in an indirect role in the appeal result.
Ha ha ha hang that stupid criminal boy. Yes hang him. He deserves it!
Sucka!
=>Other than questioning the effects of the Law Minister’s comments on Yong’s case, Ravi plans to file a legal brief to highlight the defects of the clemency process. He said that process was ‘flawed’ by the denial of the accused to see the report and the involvement of the Attorney General’s Chambers in the clemency deliberation. Ravi asserted that consulting the AGC on the very same case that it has prosecuted would violate principles of natural justice, and thus deny Yong of a fair chance at clemency.<=
KEEP FIGHTING RAVI! WE'RE BEHIND YOU 100%!
Court of Appeal’s supposed holding that article 9(1) of the constituition does not forbid inhuman punishment is most unfortunate. Suppose a penal provisions says that that a person found guilty of theft is to have his limbs amputated and left to bleed to death that would not be ruled unconstitutional for to do so would, the CA says, be to legislate under guise of interpretating article 9(1). If so why make allow for the clear principles of natural justice to be applicable? What Court of Appeal appears to say is that if for instance the Misuse of Drugs Act should state that a person accused of trafficking shall not have the right to cross-examine prosecution witness nor be allowed to give evidence in his defence such a legal provision will nevertheless be held unconstitutional. So we go back to the question what the constitution means by ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty save in accordance’ with law. One can say that no civilized country will allow inhuman punishment as been in accord with the Law just as no civilized country will not allow an accused not been given a chance to cross examine the prosecution witness and denied a chance to give evidence in his defence.
This was the report in May 11, 2010 DPA:
Minister K Shanmugam was referring to the pending case of Malaysian Yong Vui Kong, 22, who was sentenced to death for smuggling about 47 grams of heroin in 2007, but challenged the constitutionality of the ruling.
Although Yong was young, it would send a wrong signal to let him go, Shanmugam said Sunday, the Straits Times newspaper reported.
“We are sending a signal to all the drug barons out there: Just make sure you choose a victim who is young, or a mother of a young child, and use them as the people to carry the drugs into Singapore,” the minister said.
Singapore’s Court of Appeal still has to decide on Yong’s fate
Why the Law Minister can comment in this case and the Oppositions cannot do likewise during last general election rallies on the NKF scandal? Why?
I have no sympathy if MM dies right now. If he can pass a law sentencing a 21 year old to death, why should I care if he dies tomorrow? Anyway, he has done nothing for Singapore for the past 20 years. So why waste money?
@Double Standard.
Double standards are all over the place here. Notice how the govt isn’t worried about 2 massive casinos spreading vice and gambling problems over our “vulnerable and small nation”, but to spare the life of 1 first-time drug offender would be to send the wrong signal and cause Singapore to be overrun with drugs.
This a damn shame and exposes the weakness and futility of our justice system.
When Australian Van Tuong Nguyen was sentenced to death, he was not spared by the law.Will Malaysian Yong Vui Kong be spared? This will contradict their decision for being double standard which is unlikely.His life and hope now lays in our President’s hand….
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/droi/singapore_en.pdf
This is sickening to the guts.
We do not need to be reminded that the Constitution is airtight when it comes to rule of the law to be able to kill a drugtraffiker via mandatory-default.
Why then do we need judges if not for the possibility of considering circumstantial evidence for compassionate prison-rehab?
Just get the police to make sure the heroine loot is 15kg or more and just shoot the carrier without trial.
We don’t need the charade of having a democratic society.
sick,sick,sick singapore.
whoever got the power to hang this boy, i suggest you also got the guts to go and press the button to end his life. yes, after all, you have given the final judgement to hang him. yes, i support our gov is very strict on drugs, but in this case we should have shown some mercy for this boy, even a life sentance will make his mother knew on her knee and cry in tears..but our judge decide to hang him instead, heart made of stone…
There is NO law here.. only Dictatorshiop.
God Rest this young man’s soul.
I am VERY VERY SAD..!!!
Still Living like rulled under british.
Wakeup, we need our own constitution
Stranger, the resident is not a plant. His intention was to ask on the explanation on the death penalty, because TOC would not dare to publish his comments, TOC also mentioned that they cannot get a reply from govt, and he simply wanted to get an official reply to show TOC. This was the only chance. However, he was unaware that the verdict is on friday, as it was only announced on monday.
Now leesjuanpat, stranger and name, if you would have taken a more proactive approach instead. Lets see how hypocritical you are 2 months after the hanging of Yong. It happened to Van, and then you guys lose steam. You guys should also get up your lazy bums, be a real person and go down to challenge instead of hiding behind anonymity. Don’t blame the problem on someone who dared to come out and speak where you lie cowardly and lazily behind a computer. Instead of just criticizing, why werent you there that day?
And no, he did not want to change the law, he never claim he did.
In short, TOC and all the apathetic commenters hiding behind the screen also had blood on his hands. Don’t deny that you do not. Your apathy, your cowardice all caused this.
How do I know? I was the one who asked the question and I dare to stand out as a real person.
Time and conditions changes and system need to change……
In the past such decisions will be deem necessary…..
In the present such decisions will be deem taking the easy out (if continuing from the past and not adapting this) to solve the problem….
Take the difficult but necessary way now… solve the problem at its source…
I think it will be tough for the court to overturn any such penalty against drug traffickers unless there is a overthrow of the current regime.
The ruling has served them well and they will not simply throw it away.
Thats the reason why when a government is in power for too long it is difficult for anything to change.
Foreigners coming in our country must take note not to take any drygs or worse traffick in it. The penalty is death.
A life is sacred and if need be get another “stay of execution” until the “government is in power for too long” or the current regime is balanced or changed.
Gilbert, I do not follow your logic. Are you saying the court is subservient to the government then?
-
If any court finds it hard to overturn a conviction, or, to make a decision based on grounds of humanity, or of magnanimity, or of wisdom – rather than by the letter of the law, or under the influence of politicians – then what hope for justice does any of us have?
-
I do understand that when a government has been in power for too long there is a tendency for it to become arrogant, authoritarian and a dictatorship. But these are no reasons for the people to resign themselves to being continually bullied.
-
Finally, the death penalty is not reserved for foreigners only.
-
Sgporean,
-
The fault is not yours. If a citizen cannot ask questions when he wants to, then we will be in deeper trouble. There is no crime for a citizen to ask valid questions, anywhere, anytime.
-
The fault lies with the law minister, being caught out by such a question, and then, forgetting that the case was still under appeal, went ahead to answer it in such a manner that is clearly construed to give dictate to the court.
-
This is the crime he is guilty of, and being the law minister, this is a telling blunder which he has to be accountable for.
-
Double Standard has made a very astute observation. Let us hear what the government has to say with the double standard we are now seeing with regards to the situation here and the NKF saga.
Many of you have forgotten about German Julia Bohl and Singaporean Dinesh Singh Bhatia.
Julia escaped the death penalty on the basis that a chemist’s analysis determined that the actual amount of drug she trafficked in was actually much less than the amount requiring the death penalty. Did the Singapore courts bow under German pressure? That a chemist analysis was needed? Do the police do this for every drug trafficker caught?
Also, Dinesh (who is the son of Ex-NMP Dr Kanwaljit Soin and former High Court Judge Amarjeet Singh) was caught in a high society drug bust in October 2004 for taking cocaine and ecstasy got off with a light sentence of 4 months.
He served his remaining sentence at home wearing an electronic tag.What is more interesting in this case is:
1. The prosecution accepted that the consumption was a one-off incident!
2. Dinesh’s lawyer was none other than Mr Shanmugam!
Tough stance on serious crimes saves lives: Minister
RUBBISH!
@Sgporean 15 May 2010
“You guys should also get up your lazy bums, be a real person and go down to challenge instead of hiding behind anonymity.”
Well, we have a vote and we will use it. Till then, everything else outside the speaker’s corner is ilLEEgal, isn’t it?
@NewFrontier 15 May 2010
Not forgetting the Australian reporter who was spared the cane too
The bottom line is – History has shown that once the PAP has made a decision on such criminals albeit a very public one, it is very unlikely they will change it. The only way around it is to ‘strike pre-emptively’, in the case laywers must aggressively take action as SOON as possible and not wait until the verdict is out, and appeal.
NewFrontier
Thanks for showing what is called ‘Justice in S’pore’. Justice is who you know and who your parents are. And for this german girl Julia, maybe ‘high level pressure’ on LHL to release her which was ‘highly classified’. So a wayang was on to release Julia with Lab. test and what not.
I never forget the Dinesh Singh Bhatia case. Need we say more. I thought he jump bail and left for Australia.
Too bad, Yong Vui Kong is a tiny insignificant fly to be swapped away easily……that is mankind in a world of ‘MANKIND’.
New Frontier,
-
Dinesh Bhatia actually got 12 months in the original sentence which was later reduced by four months upon appeal. He is the son of not only
-
The High Court judge at that time, VK Rajah, reasoned that “the district judge erred by not tailoring the sentence to fit the offender and failed to attach adequate weight and merit to all the relevant mitigating factors”.
-
Why can’t the exercise the same discretion for Yong’s case?
-
VK Rajah further reasoned that he believed Bhatia was unlike some of the others nabbed in the bust, is not an addict and took the drugs on the spur of the moment.
-
So what do you think the sentence ‘the others nabbed in the bust’ would get?
-
Others caught in the drug bust include former Singapore Tatler magazine editor Nigel Simmonds, who was jailed for two years and chef Francois Mermilliod, who was imprisoned for a year. Penelope Pang, daughter of beauty pageant organiser Errol Pang, was jailed for 11 months.
-
http://www.paraphernalia.com/pnews_view.php?id=00000583&o=100
-
None of them was sentenced to die.
I believe the reason they were able to escape death was the way ‘possession’ of drugs was interpreted. If you place all the drugs busted that evening, there is no doubt that the combined weight would have sent all who were caught to death.
-
But when it was apportioned out to every individual caught, the weight is distributed among them which lowered the gravity of the crime because each would then be in possession of an amount below that which would have otherwise given them the death sentence.
-
I believe there were many behind the scenes activities involving people in high places which allowed for the soft sentencing of the high profile group caught that evening.
One cannot decide on another’s life termination on the basis that this will help save many other lives when this life is not the main problem cause unless when one is presented a situation that can facilitate the eradication of the main problem cause but requiring the sacrifice your own life, one will do so without hesitation and second thoughts.
Otherwise second thoughts must be given for this decision.
HE DESERVE IT
GO TO HELL YOU TRAFFICKER
GO TO HELL ALL OF THEN
Everything is always constitutional for
this Govt. If it is not, they will convene the rubber stamped Parliament,amend the Article and make it
constitutional.
And in retropectives terms too.
Since when did the Govt lose a case on
constitutional matter:?”
expected judgement.
same as i did not strike toto yesterday.