After some flip-flopping by the Malaysian Law Minister, parliamentarians will finally get to ask him about the case of Yong Vui Kong.
Yong, a 22-year old Malaysian, is in Singapore’s death row after having been convicted of drug trafficking in 2007.
Malaysian Member of Parliament, Tian Chua, has filed an “emergency motion” for the Malaysian Parliament to debate Yong’s case on Monday, 05 July.
The Online Citizen understands that the motion is supported by MPs from across the political spectrum, including the MCA from the ruling Barisan Nasional, PAS and PKR which is led by Anwar Ibrahim.
The motion seeks clarification from the Law Minister about his remarks that he was unaware of Yong’s case and also to urge the Malaysian government to request the Singapore government to commute Yong’s death sentence. Malaysia had, in 2007, successfully sought the same for another of its national who had been sentenced to death in China (see below).
Activists and human rights lawyers in the country say the Singapore Law Minister, K Shanmugam, and its then-Attorney General, Walter Woon, may have prejudiced the clemency process, which Yong is entitled to under Singapore’s Constitution, with their remarks in March and in April. (See here.)
In 2007, the Malaysian government pulled out all stops to save Umi Azlim Mohamad Lazim, a university science graduate from a poor Malay family of rice farmers, from being hanged in China. Lazim had admitted to carrying 2.9 kilograms of heroin in her luggage when she was arrested at China’s Shantou airport in 2007.
Her death sentence was eventually commuted to life imprisonment by the Chinese authorities.
Malaysians are asking if the government is practicing racism by not doing the same for Yong – a Chinese from Sabah.
The media in Malaysia is also starting to show interest in Yong’s case, after having initially ignored him totally. Independent news portal, Malaysiakini especially, has been reporting regularly about the case.
In Singapore, the local media still shun the case completely. There have been scant reports about the issues and problems raised by Yong’s lawyer, M Ravi.
The Malaysian Parliament is scheduled to debate the motion at 10am on Monday. A press conference by M Ravi is also scheduled to be held after the sitting.
The Online Citizen will bring you exclusive reports from Kuala Lumpur on Monday.
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
Dr M should not complain abt treatment of Malays here.
We are colour blind: we hang, flog everyone irrespective of colour or creed.
Malaysia should suspend the landswop deal, you’ll see our courts bend backwards.
Wan Lau .
1)it is wrong in term of” Mandatory” in any form of penalty.
Yes, I agree with the viewpoint that
Singapore’s Law Minister, K Shanmugam, and its then-Attorney General, Walter Woon, may have prejudiced the clemency process with the remarks they made, in March and April. These people are supposedly familiar with the law.
Would they deny that their remarks have no impact on the clemency process?
Dear RWKC
I would suggest you read the constitution in particular the following statues which clearly lays out where the President has discretions and where he has to take the advise of cabinet to decide whether whether the AG was constitutionally correct. whether one likes the end result or not. In which case the AGC was stating a constitutional fact and not prejudicing the clemency appeal process
Discharge and performance of functions of President
21. —(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.
(2) The President may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions:
(a) the appointment of the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 25;
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for a dissolution of Parliament;
(c) the withholding of assent to any Bill under Article *5A, 22E, 22H, 144 (2) or 148A;
*Article 5A was not in operation at the date of this Reprint.
Locke
Tks, Locke, for the input.
Will review as suggested.
M Ravi was unhappy on two counts: [1] comment by AG [2] comment by Law Minister.
If the President is obliged [with exceptions I am unfamiliar with at present] to act on instructions from the Cabinet or from a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, then the AG was merely stating a fact.
But what about the comment from the Law Minister? We cannot say with certainty what sort of directive the President would receive from the Cabinet or a Minister acting for the Cabinet. Leaving this aside, the fact is, the Law Minister’s comment was a clear indication to the President as to how he should react or to the kind of instruction to expect, from the Cabinet, should a clemency appeal be lodged. Hence it cannot be rationally argued that the Law Minister has not prejudiced Yong Vui Kong’s case for Presidential clemency. Remember, the clemency appeal was at the time still unpresented.
The general public is likely to be unaware of the functions and responsibilities of the President; most people may harbour the thought that in the clemency process one man – the President himself – is the final arbiter.
Your input has added to our knowledge. Tks.