Andrew Loh –
Malaysia’s “de facto Law Minister”, Mohd Nazri Aziz, says he is not aware of Yong Vui Kong’s case, Malaysian news portal Malaysiakini reported yesterday.
“Nazri (left), who is a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, claimed that it was the first time he had heard about Yong. When details were given, Nazri simply said that Malaysia will not interfere in its neighbour’s legal processes,” Malaysiakini said.
Yong, a 22-year old Malaysian, is currently in Singapore’s Changi Prison’s death row. He was arrested in 2007 for trafficking 47g of heroin from Malaysia into Singapore. He was to be hanged on 4 December last year. His lawyer, Mr Madasamy Ravi, successfully obtained a stay of execution two days before Yong’s scheduled execution. Mr Ravi later made a challenge in the Singapore Court of Appeal (CA) against the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty. The CA dismissed this appeal on 14 May.
Mr Ravi is shocked by the Malaysian minister’s nonchalant attitude towards the case and is urging the Malaysian government to take the case up with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the grounds that the Singapore government has compromised Yong’s constitutional rights to a presidential hearing on his clemency appeal, which Mr Ravi is planning to submit to the president shortly.
Singapore’s Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugam, had publicly commented on Yong case one week before the Court of Appeal was to hand down its decision on Yong’s appeal on 14 May. The minister had said, “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘We let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” This remark by the Law Minister, who is a member of the Singapore Cabinet, potentially seals Yong’s fate since, according to the Attorney General of Singapore, “although in theory it’s the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, it is the Cabinet who makes the decision”.
“The key issue surrounding the matter was the fact that Yong was denied the clemency process when it was filed in December last year,” said Mr Ravi.
“The denial of due process to a helpless Malaysian citizen who is facing imminent death in a few weeks, calls for immediate attention from the Malaysian government to file a complaint at the International Court of Justice,” Mr Ravi told Malaysiakini. “Otherwise, what is the ICJ for then?”
The Malaysian minister in charge of Law, Nazri Aziz, “claimed that it was the first time he had heard about Yong”, reported Malaysiakini.
To this, Mr Ravi said, “The minister (Nazri) is sending a dangerous signal to the Singaporean government for treating Yong’s case in a brazen manner.”
He urged the minister to study details of his press conference on June 10 at the Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur where he had listed the legal issues of the case.
Mr Ravi repeated his call, which he had made at the abovementioned press conference, on the Malaysian government to file a “complaint at the ICJ and obtained a stay of Yong’s execution until the ICJ decided whether he is being unlawfully punished under the Singapore Constitution and other local laws.”
Meanwhile, Mr Ravi has filed an application with the Singapore courts for a Judicial Review regarding Yong’s clemency appeal and constitutional matters pertaining to the case.
Activists of a anti-death penalty group reported that the Singapore courts have granted a waiver to the $20,000 security deposit which is required under the law in filing such an application.
The Online Citizen understands that Yong has until August to file his clemency appeal to the president.
In Singapore, the mainstream media continue to avoid reporting the details of Yong’s case or the issues raised by Mr Ravi.
————
Pictures from Malaysiakini.
Read also: Lawyer urges Malaysian government to intervene in death row case.
And: Counsel holds out hope for youth on death row in Singapore by the Inter Press Service.
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
Ravi has pass that limit to reach a level of personal OBSESSION/ATTENTION.
So what if the Malaysian Government intervene? It will only be the pot calling the kettle black. Besides, if they (Malaysian Government) really intervene, it will only be a propaganda when the elections come.
It is sad that the process of justice in Singapore can be compromised by the taken for granted political processes.
Was it not a case of re-interpreting the laws to conveniently ‘white-wash’ the unlawful acts of the PAP Ministers for contravening the Election Bye-Laws during the 1996 General Elections ?
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
When the Singapore Law can be shamelessly bent to protect the key PAP Ministers, will the same be bent for an unknown person on a drug related charge ?
Sadly, Yong Vui Kong is a Malaysian, and a Sawarakian – an unknown from the backwaters of a Malaysian State that this Malaysian Minister does not depend on for his re-election.
Looking at the developments from a political angle:
To begin with, i think Ravi has a weak case in terms of the due process. But if one were to think through the whole ICJ process, one will realise that Ravi has already lost and is no longer pursuing a legal strategy. Instead, he is pursuing a political one.
The fact of the matter is- even if Malaysia were to take up the issue and go to ICJ, Singapore needs to consent and allow ICJ to arbitrate. Meaning BOTH parties need to be willing to go to ICJ. Singapore will never do that, so even if Msia takes up the case, it will never reach the ICJ.
What Ravi is doing is use the “court of public opinion”. Having failed to mobilize sufficient number of singaporeans to pressure the govt, he is hoping to mobilize Malaysians to pressure their govt, to pressure Singapore on a bilateral basis.
Msia realises that the ICJ thing is just a illusion and there is no real way it will work. Msia also realises that if they go down this path, they will on the hook for Yong’s outcome and will be forced to use its own political leverage on a bilateral basis with Singapore. Given the ongoing negotiations between Sg and Msia on various issues, they will probably prefer not to use their cards on this issue. Hence, the default stance- “we will not interfere in our neighbour’s legal process”- a safe sidestepping of the issue.
If Ravi wants to get Msia to use some of its precious leverage on Singapore, he will raise the issue’s importance quite abit- maybe to the level of the Hindef issue, for politicians to take notice. That, of course, will require alot of mobilizing. It may be possible for the advancement of community rights etc. but for a single individual who was found guilty of a crime, I am not too sure how much support that will be able to mobilize.
Still, i think it’s admirable he is trying..
i wish him best of luck.
Isn’t this just so convenient.
We have here two LAW ministers:
Singapore Law Minister prejudices the clemency appeal by making a public remark DIRECTLY mentioning Yong Vui Kong BY NAME! And doing so one week before the court of appeal handed down its judgement.
Malaysian Law Minister lagi best: “I don’t know anything about Yong Vui Kong!”
Now, someone please tell me we can, should and must go hang a young boy in spite of this.
Tell me.
Cheng Hua
Ravi’s points are really a bit weak with regards to the constituion though he is I believe trying his best with regards to every legal loophole even when created the loopholes to begin with.
1. Firstly the exact words in the constitution ” are the cabinet advises the President about pardons and clemency appeals.”
2. However if you take the parts of the constitution which state clearly, ” The President has the discretion” on other issues
3. Then clearly the constitution lays out when the President can act independently and when the President has to take the advise of cabinet.
4. In theory advise means that the President can ignore it if he choses but that would be a serious constitutional test of the system. If we look at other commonwealth jurisdictions of queen and cabinet, advise usually is taken to mean as “follows the direction” in all cases except the most severe issues. Vong would not count as one.
5. Shamunagan might have pre empted the process but again the cabinet has gone through the process once when Vong’s first appeal was rejected so technically unless Ravi brings something new to the final clemency appeal, it will in all probability be rejected. Shamugan if it ever when to court would probably say his statement was based on the first appeal and he is awaiting the second appeal.
6. Clemency appeals have nothing to do with legal appeals. Legal appeals are by definition based on law, Clemency appeals are unless based on new evidence of innocence usually based on non legal points much as bought out by TOC, how he is a changed man, how young he was, how he regrets etc etc etc
7. In so far as the courts are independent then the Minister is entitled to his point of view on law and how it applies to any case. It would only be prejudicial if one can proof that the Minister affects or controls the judgement of the court with regards to the case at hand. Note how all the elected attorny generals in the US all declare the criminals to be guilty and how defense lawyers reiterate their clients innocence, its a time honored point and counter point
8.
Locke
Mr Locke,
That is your perspective, your interpretation, your view.
What should be happening are official views, official explanations.
You can have your views, of course. Just as everyone and anyone does.
But that does not make it official, neither is it representative of official views.
What I am asking for are views from various parties – Law Society, President, cabinet, etc.
All of whom, you will notice, have been totally silent.
Dear Max
If he has chosen to file a case on the points however weak he has raised, then the AG will defend and state the governments position in court. that should be the cabinet’s official position or the government.
The president should of course have no view as it is because he is the final person to whom the clemency plea will be directed
The law society has its concerns with regards to the mandatory death penalty , but whether or not it has a view on the specific issues raised by Ravi will still be seen.
regards
Locke
Regardless of the monstrosity, I salute Ravi. He has gone way above and beyond to try and save a human life based on plausible discretionary compassion. God be with him.
Judging from the circus on Anwar’s case, Ravi should have had known better that all clowns come from the same HQ Clowns centre. :P
Lockeliberal,
-
Thanks for laying the cards out on the table for readers like myself. You make a lot of sense in all your seven points to Cheng Hua – but I wonder what’s in pt #8? ;>
It seems that many choose to focus on Vui Kong’s death penalty only but conveniently ignored the great harms that he had done to the well-being of our society and family just to satisfy his own personal greed…WHY?
Is Vui Kong’s life worth more than those lives he had ruined and destroy?
@Zhou: “…ignored the great harms that he had done to the well-being of our society and family just to satisfy his own personal greed…WHY?”
Oh wow, what you said can be applied to just about everybody in society, even you…I am sure you have some greed in you, right?
I am not be surprised by the MY minister’s attitude. A convicted drug trafficker will in general circumstance not attract much sympathy. In any case, expending political capital may end up being seen as ineffective (as happened to Howard).
In all the debate above, have we forgotten that a young man’s life is at stake.
He was merely a drug mule. He comes from a broken family; his mother is schizophrenic. Surely he deserves more compassion from everyone.
What is wrong with giving him life imprisonment and when he has served the required time (20 years?) he can return as a contributing member of society.
I salute Ravi for trying his best and whatever the outcome, he deserves our respect for his efforts.
I wish more lawyers have his sense of justice and perseverance.
How can he said he didn’t aware of his own citizen Yong’s case? He is not serving for his own people. He is serving for the money?
Dear Francis,
I believe that the story of Jesus and the thief on the day of his execution best illustrates another viewpoint
“”And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
Locke
Malaysia boleh?