The following article was published here on TOC on 5 December 2009. We highlight it again as the points raised in it are pertinent and relevant still – 6 months after the article was first written.
Choo Zheng Xi/Editor-at-Large
Yong Vui Kong’s story will now be familiar with regular readers of The Online Citizen and the activist community, but alien to many Singaporeans who will go about their daily lives without batting an eyelid.
This is largely the fault of the mainstream media, which have completely failed in their duty to explain what Vui Kong’s case means for individual Singaporeans. This needs to change.
The justice system distinguishes between civil law and criminal law. Civil law is enforceable between individuals, whereas criminal law is enforced by the State. In the latter case, the State moves to punish acts deemed injurious to society. It acts on society’s behalf, through statutes passed by our elected representatives.
When the State brings its criminal jurisdiction to bear, it acts on behalf of you and me. If Vui Kong is hanged, he will be hanged in your name and mine.
Singapore’s head in the sand
The national media has given minimal attention to Vui Kong’s case and the obvious issues it raises about the fairness of the mandatory death penalty.
While the mainstream media is sometimes unfairly criticized for its conservative reporting and commentary, its’ see-no-evil attitude to glaring defects in our criminal justice system crosses the negligent into the realm of the unconscionable.
Forums and activities conducted by local anti-death penalty campaigners have gone unmentioned, and there is no national dialogue about the whether the mandatory death penalty is defensible.
Why has the national media not initiated a debate into a practice which the UN Special Rapporteur on arbitrary executions says is prohibited by “almost every judicial or quasi-judicial human rights body in the world”[1]?
Our national media has blatantly failed to highlight countries across the Commonwealth that have invalidated the mandatory death penalty. A strange silence for a press that delights in comparing Singapore to other countries when it comes to economic indicators.
Consider that as far back as 1983, the Supreme Court of India in Mithu v. State of Punjab held that “The legislature cannot make relevant circumstances irrelevant, deprive courts of their legitimate jurisdiction to exercise their discretion not to impose the death sentence in appropriate cases, compel them to shut their eyes to mitigating circumstances and inflict upon them the dubious and unconscionable duty of imposing a preordained sentence of death”.
Judgments from the Privy Council[2] (to which our Courts still cite as persuasive authority) to the Constitutional Court of South Africa[3], to the Inter-American Commission[4] and the Supreme Court of the United States of America have all disapproved of the mandatory death penalty in one form or another.
How can such worldwide opposition to the inhumanity of the mandatory death penalty across different legal cultures and jurisdictions be met with deafening silence in our mainstream press?
Excellent legal reporters like Ben Nadarajan and K C Vijayan have suddenly gone mute, just when their voices might really matter. The Online Citizen’s 18-year-old reporter Koh Yi Na put them to shame with her coverage of the recent High Court’s stay of execution.
Why it matters
Thanks to the mainstream media’s silence, the vast majority of Singaporeans haven’t been given an opportunity to debate whether or not we believe 19 year old Vui Kong should be put to death. Put to death without regard for his lack of a prior criminal record, his tragic family circumstances, the possibility that he can be reformed, or whether or not an alternative punishment might suffice.
Singaporeans need to be asked to weigh two competing visions of our criminal justice system and decide which best represents our values: a compassionate Singapore where a second-chance is possible and punishment fits both the crime and the criminal, or a zero tolerance one-size-fits-all system of vengeance.
The mainstream media has suppressed Vui Kong’s personal story of socialized corruption and eventual personal repentance, suppressed mention of his boyish frailty in the face of impending death, closed its eyes to his painful personal journey that ended on death row, a journey out of Sabah originally inspired by love for his mother.
The mainstream media has perpetuated precisely what the mandatory death penalty seeks to do: de-individualize those it condemns. Vui Kong is just another common criminal, to be treated with absolutely no difference from a seasoned drug trafficker with criminal convictions to his name.
Singaporeans need an opportunity to debate whether they feel this is just.
The answer matters because if the hangman places his noose around Vui Kong’s neck and forever separates him from his mother’s embrace, the State is acting in my name and yours.
For more details on the status of Vui Kong’s case, see TOC’s report on the stay of execution granted by the High Court here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/high-court-grants-rare-stay-of-execution-appeal/. The Court of Appeal will be hearing Vui Kong’s appeal this coming Tuesday at 10 am.
[1] Philip Alston, Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, 20 January 2007
[2] See Reyes v The Queen, [2002] 2 App. Cas. 284 (P.C.), and Queen v Hughes [2002] 2 App. Cas. 259 (P.C.)
[3] See State v. Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391
[4] See Downer and Tracey v Jamaica, where the Inter-American Commission held, after looking at common law jurisdictions and human rights authorities, that “a common precept has developed whereby the exercise of guided discretion by sentencing authorities is considered to be a condition sine qua non to the rational, humane and fair imposition of capital punishment” and incompatible with provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights.
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
Since when did I claim that death penalty is an effective deterrent? I was defending my support for the stealing of food from the starving neighbour when I interpretated your anecdote as an endorsement for altruism with the reward of not starving your neighbour through your actions. Hardly a reward or motivation for me. I’m an ethical egoist. But I digress. Crux of the matter is that I didn’t even mention a thing about the dealth penalty.
103) Ω李 on December 7th, 2009 6.30 pm
“Hey man the Singapore MSM at least reported this. ”
Are you sure Ω李?
Malaysia need not report on this case as much as singapore MSM need to report it as this case is in Singapore. Even if sg MSM reports it, its only expected they do so.
To everyone who’s taking shots at Malaysiakini for not reporting on Yong’s case, here you go: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/119173
Hi Zheng Xi
:) Yes, the book is teaching “Justice ( in this case, the law ) should be tempered with mercy”.
However, you don’t see the judge over-ruling the law just because to extract “a pound of flesh” is downright cruel?
Believe me, my heart goes out to Vui Kong but you don’t change the law ( as extreme, unfair, unmerciful, heartless as it may seem ) as and when you like.
If the law can change, what gives the assurance it will not be changed for any other cases?
True, pity his youthful age but age is no defense for crimes committed. What about the “lives” of families broken by addiction to drugs? Who is to give them their “justice”?
Hi neutral,
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that Vui Kong shouldn’t be punished. The issue here is the proportionality of punishment, and having a debate over whether or not an alternative punishment would be preferable to a mandatory death penalty.
The problem with the mandatory death penalty is that it doesn’t allow judges the discretion to consider the circumstances in which the crime was committed in deciding on punishment, hence its disrepute in almost every legal jurisdiction in the world. The law regularly makes distinctions based on the circumstances of the criminal, that is what mitigation is for.
I personally agree that there are crimes so heinous that they might mandate the death penalty, I am not a complete abolitionist. But Yong Vui Kong cannot be sentenced the same way as a hardened serial killer. That is inimical to justice.
Those people drugs trafficking ruin their Family, How about those Goverment selling Arms to the Junta for killing their own Citizen and ruin many Family. Ther’s no different.
that poor boy … pity .. but i think its going to be a dead end for him .. there is no ambiguity over his deeds under our laws .. he must die for it .. simply because the drugs he carry causes death to others ..
Perhaps too, after his death, we will start to debate on our laws .. laws are constantly rewritten .. better and better i hope .. and sometimes .. it is rewritten in blood .. but it will, perhaps, come too late for him ..
I used to be a teacher at a low end sec school .. where the majority of my students are of the malay community, mostly of dysfunctional families (can we have the editor start a post on how we can help them plz? i sincerely would like to hear the views from our online singaporeans)
I had a male malay student by the name of HJ belonging to this group, i still remembered how i painstaking taught him in Science, moltivated him towards his studies and it emerged that he cleared his N levels good enough to enter higher nitec.
Yet a month ago, i received news that he died of drug overdose in combination with alcohol. He has been struggling between life and death for weeks in the hospital, amidst visible pain and agony ..
Perhaps some would say it was his mistake, or even mine, for not educating him well on the dangers of drug abuse.
Regardless, it was a heart wrenching to receive the news.. So much efforts .. such a tragic loss of life ..
*sorry editor, i re read my post and corrected some errors
Hey neutral,
I remember you… Have a nick call “neutral” but often posted comments that are not so neutral…
Firstly, we need to determine whether such a law is applicable in the first place. We have murderer walking away with a jail term, so what makes you think drug trafficking must be warranted with a death penalty? In fact, I think majority of the countries don’t practise that! So, why is Spore’s law so unique and special? Should it remain to be so just because it used to be so, or should we review and revise as and when it is appropraite?
I suppose, this case is the perfect example for the media to report, for the garment to reaccess this vintage law. Instead of mandatory death sentence, why not make it to be a case by case basis?
No one argues that this is not a crime and he should be let off scot free… but the argument is… is the punishment too harsh?
Remember, this young man (who was only 19 when caught) was just being make use of by the drug syndicates… Our law will end up killing many young and ignorant people… while the syndicates continue to be left off the hook… and they will continue to do what they have been doing… and we will end up killing even more people.
Are all these killing neccessary? Is there a better way to deal with this issue?
I hope you think over them carefully… before readily jumping to the tune of the media and garment again.
It is easy to send a person to hang in the gallows
Even easier to reject a pardon by a mere letter
I suggest that those who do, should go watch the hanging in person
Face up to what you did. And see the taking away of a human life with your blood-stained hands.
Maybe their thoughts might change.
It is even easier to send a pig to the abattoir. It’s gruesome though to witness the slaughter of a pig. Therefore we should stop eating pork.
OriginalResonance @114
This is why I stopped eating meat. Even my 10 yr old decided to become a vegetarian because he does not want animals to be slaughtered for our enjoyment.
It is precisely why it is wrong to punish Yong with death. People like yourself want him dead just to appease yourself, no other reason for it. We thought the Roman gladiators have long gone.
Did you inform your 10 year old that plants feel pain too? Or did you inculcate the values of superficiality to him i.e plants don’t express pain saliently, so it’s ok to eat them?
Hi Zheng Xi
thanks for taking the time and your thought provoking replies :)
hmm…just a thought, how about if the case was about “a 40+ year old man with starving wife, parents, in-laws and 3 kids to support “.
Will age be against him or for him?
But it is not to say that i disagree completely with you. Perhaps the mandatory death penalty should still stand but like now, there should always be an avenue for appeal? And if things should be found otherwise, a more fitting sentence should be administered?
cc: Say no to nonsense
It seems that anyone who has differing opinions is “with the media and with the govt”. – perhaps this is the reason why a cooling off period is being proposed.
SUB JUDICE, somebody should go look this up. Might explain the MSM silence. Am surprised that the TOC writer didn’t take that into account
Hey Neutral,
“It seems that anyone who has differing opinions is “with the media and with the govt”. – perhaps this is the reason why a cooling off period is being proposed.”
That is not what I think… In no way did I suggest that.
Your tunes are too distinctly similar to media and garment… that is why I link them together. At the same time, from what I saw of your other articles… you are definitely far from neutral IMO.
However, if I am wrong in my analysis that you are acting neutral when you are not, my apology for my misconception about you.
Hi friends,
This topic is hotly debated in “Black & White”, a popular Malaysian blog. Please visit,
http://blackandwhite999.blogspot.com/2009/12/news-that-wont-attract-attentionyong.html
Quote, “This is largely the fault of the mainstream media, which have completely failed in their duty to explain what Vui Kong’s case means for individual Singaporeans. This needs to change.”
I totally agree!
The Singapore Mainstream Media will only snitch on the daily lives of ordinary and helpless Singaporeans, who will be easy meat to be spied on for sensational stories.
Will Singapore Reporters have the passion and the drive to dig at the truth – to discover the Singapore version of news that equal the ‘Watergate Scandal’ that brought down the Nixon Presidency ?
It will be a miracle if the Singapore Reporters will be empowered to chase so many stories that are relevant to the National Interests, and hold the PAP Government responsible.
Instead, the Reporters are kept on a tight leash by the PAP appointees that sit on the various layers of editorial management and authorised to write only sensational news pertaining to the lives of ordinary Singaporeans.
The other more tempting subject of news will be the Alternative Political Parties, which the leash are let loose so as to discredit the Alternative Political Parties further.
You need to know the evil of DRUGS and the people involved and the families that suffers owing to this evil that creeps into their lives .May it be traffickers,or drug lords the death penalty is too good.
I should know I have family and friends that succumb to drugs and the agony for their FAMILIES is beyond DESCRIPTION.
It is said that if good men do nothing, evil prevails.
It has also been said in the past whether, if the Singapore govt became irrational, good men will step up. Whether the media will exercise its responsibility and speak up.
Here we have a classic example of just such a scenario.
If one has been following Yong’s case, one would know the numerous questions and issues it has thrown up.
Yet, where is the media?
Why is our media letting the govt get away with it by burying its (the media) head in the sand?
Hear no evil? Speak no evil?
And let a boy be murdered in spite of all the questions raised?
Yes, when good men (in the media) do nothing, evil prevails.
addicts take drugs becos they want to, not just becos they are available. People gamble cos they want to, not becos the casinos tells you do. Take personal responsibility. Warped!
Refers ‘saiber’ above: sub judice rule must not be used to curb the freedom of speech and expression. It has to be tempered with the right of free speech. The rule of sub judice should not apply where the case is heard before superior courts (high court, court of appeal etc) because judges in these higher courts are assumed to be experienced enough NOT TO BE SWAYED by public opinions for and against the merits of the case! If they are so persuaded by public opinion, then they should recuse themselves from hearing the case!!
to the person signing off with the omega sign who quoted the case of the transexual–Malaysian NGOs together with the Malaysian Bar Subcom on Human Rights did take some kind of protest including requesting UK to grant her asylum in view of Malaysia govt’s intended persecution of her. This was also in malaysiakini. A case of selecting new reports?
“It is even easier to send a pig to the abattoir. It’s gruesome though to witness the slaughter of a pig. Therefore we should stop eating pork.”
That is a real slippery slope argument. You are comparing a human to an poultry animal. By following that argument, why don’t we start killing our fellow humans and consume them like pork.
What ever it is, it is a fact that human lives are treated differently from the lives of poultry. You can’t just say. Oh we kill pork. So it’s fine to kill humans.
apologies for this deluge..continuation on sub judice 101
That rule was created for a jury trial. Lee Kuan Yew threw out the jury trial decades ago and with that shut diwn newspapers and put journos under preventive detention if I remember my reading..for questioning god (read: LKY and govt policy)
So Singapore has no leg to stand on by using sub judice as censorship of free speech.
DRUGS are ILLEGAL whereas,Casinos,4Ds,TOTO,FOOTBALL & Horseracing is LEGAL there lies the DIFFERENCE.
apologies..bear with me.
I saw a mailout of a book launch by Amnesty Intl Malaysia for next week in Malaysia. I think this book might shed more light on Singapore’s death penalty.
“Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock by Alan Shadrake.
From in-depth interviews with Darshan Singh, Singapore’s chief executioner for nearly fifty years, to meticulously researched accounts of numerous high profile cases, Once a Jolly Hangman reveals the cruelty and imprudence of an entire judicial system. At the same time he displays a touching empathy with the anguish of the victims and their families. This important book should be required reading for human rights activists everywhere
Alan Shadrake is a renowned veteran investigative journalist and author whose 50-year career has taken him around the world. His appetite for unearthing the facts and presenting unpalatable truths remains undiminished. “
Is championing a convicted drug felon slightly beyond SPH’s ambit?
Objective reporting (ie the news) should be the first requirement of any newspaper.
Note even ToC has not reported all death penalty cases. It would not be consistent to expect SPH to do so. SPH did publish 1-2 articles on this.
We should not confuse with subjective reporting (ie the views) which ToC has more than enough such articles to compensate.
We should take a step back and see how effective this law is. Ask pertinent questions like
Has this been effective in measurable terms like has the cases of drug trafficking reduced in the number of years it has been in place? Not just collectively but also on year by year basis.
Has drug addiction reduced by these laws?
Is the law adequet in not just punishing the mules but also reaching further, the bosses, the manufacturer of the drugs, the wholesalers, etc
Only when all these questions are answered then we can say do we need this law or we don’t
Breaking News malaysiakini. Malaysian High Com will visit Yong today . June 18, 2010. This was seen to be pursuant to the publicity and concerned generated in the media in Malaysia.