Andrew Loh -
On 5 July, the lawyer for Malaysian Yong Vui Kong, paid a visit to Malaysia to seek help from the authorities there for his client. Yong Vui Kong is currently on death row in Singapore’s Changi Prison after having been found guilty of drug trafficking.
Mr Madasamy Ravi, Yong’s lawyer, has been fighting a battle the last nine months or so to have his client’s sentence commuted. He has so far successfully applied for two stays of execution for his client from the courts. His plea to the Court of Appeal on 15 March was finally dismissed and Yong’s sentence was upheld by the courts.
Mr Ravi’s trip to Kuala Lumpur was to urge the Malaysian government to intervene on Yong’s behalf on the basis that the Law Minister of Singapore, Mr K Shanmugam, has prejudiced Yong’s constitutional right to make an appeal for presidential clemency. The Law Minister had, one week before the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in May, referred to Yong Vui Kong by name when he made certain remarks in a public forum.
When asked by a member of the public about the death penalty, the Law Minister said: “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘We let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”
According to the then-Attorney General, Walter Woon, when making his submissions at the Court of Appeal in March, it is the Cabinet which decides on clemency petitions and not the president. He further emphasized that “the president has no discretion in this matter.”
This is the background to Mr Ravi’s visit to Kuala Lumpur and why he is seeking Malaysia’s help to save his client from being hanged.
The clemency process, he feels, has been compromised or prejudiced. The Law Minister is a member of the Cabinet which decides on clemency appeals (as the Attorney General explained). The Law Minister’s remarks – which effectively or potentially seals the fate of Yong Vui Kong even before Yong submits his clemency petition to the president – is what Mr Ravi takes issue with.
On his trip to KL, Mr Ravi met with the Foreign Minister, the Law Minister, the deputy foreign minister, leader of the opposition, Datuk Anwar Ibrahim, Mr Lim Kit Siang, Mr Tian Chua and several other Members of Parliament from all sides of the political spectrum.
Mr Ravi also held a press conference there.
All the main Malaysian media have picked up the issue, both in print and online.
Yet in Singapore, the media’s coverage has been scant.
The Straits Times carries a report by Agence France Presse (AFP) – on page A17 of the paper on 7 July, two days after the press conference in KL.
The Today paper also carried an AFP report – all five sentences of it – on page 26 of its 7 July edition.
The Straits Times did not even correct AFP’s mistake in saying that Yong was convicted of trafficking “42.27g” of heroin. The correct figure is 47.27g.
Neither of the two reports mentions Mr Ravi, nor his reasons for his trip to KL. Neither carries any pictures of the day’s event. There is also no mention of the Singapore Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugam, nor the Attorney General, Mr Walter Woon, and their earlier remarks which are the basis for Mr Ravi’s appeal to the Malaysian government.
In other words, the Straits Times and Today’s reports have avoided reporting on the reasons for this latest turn of events in the case of Yong Vui Kong.
One can only wonder why.
Singaporeans, it seems, are kept in the dark by our media on matters which are serious, important and which should be aired for public debate.
Instead, what we have here is a shameful covering up of issues which perhaps are potentially embarrassing to our government, especially our Law Minister and our former Attorney General – nevermind if a boy’s life hangs in the balance.
———
Read also:
Media’s silence on Yong Vui Kong a national shame – The Online Citizen Editorial.
Prejudicing a fair trial – Pritam Singh.
———
Here is the Straits Times report, buried on page 17:
Here is Today’s report, on page 26:
Here are some Malaysian newspaper reports:
Online reports:
Malaysia online reports:
Others:
It cannot be right…after all St is the Bestest world-class newspaper right?
Or to them it is no big deal, as Sillypore hangs a few people each week!
What else can you expect from a government mouthpiece like Straits Times? They even have ISD agents on the political desk editorial board.
Jack Neo’s scandal was more newsworthy than the embarrassing occupational flub made by a Ministerial Talent from the Pro Alien Minister.
There seems to be two standards to be considered by the SPH before any news item can be published.
First the measure of newsworthiness – from a scale of 1 to 10.
Second the measure of toxicity of the news – from a scale of 1 to 10.
Both to be measured as to whether each will be affecting the citizen more or that on the Pro Alien Party.
The obvious decision will be made if it leans too negatively against the Party.
S’poreans are not interested in the case, and this is one of those times local MSM reflects accurately the public mood.
Yes, the local press should have given more coverage to this issue.
Thank you for highlighting this issue to the rest of us.
I am really angry. The ST is really putting the blinkers on Singaporeans. Such important news and it gets scant mention the the NATIONAL newspaper. I did not even see the news on the bottom of A17. I hardly read the ST these days because I know I will either be misinformed or not informed at all.
Thank to all your wonderful people at onlinecitizen for removing the blinders and telling us the truth.
I salute you!
You dont have to get personal with the MSM. Besides when it comes to featuring what is worthy. This is an attitude that is also practiced by the blogging community.
The Online Citizen has for example placed in permanent many comments. For whatever reason. Isn’t that similar to what the MSM is doing right now?
And very recently we all saw first hand how a group of bloggers told the Singaporedaily, they no longer wanted to be featured in their daily aggregation of worthy reads. As they did not believe, they were fairly represented. As a result, they have gone their own way.
There again you have one group of bloggers taking issue with another group.
What you are highlighting is hardly a novelty
Another sensationalist headline from TOC.
To bury one’s head suggests that what they are doing is wrong.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that what the S’pore media is doing is wrong.
The media reports on news, and a decision has to be made on what’s newsworthy.
Unlike a real free press, Singapore media are not allowed to serve as the Fourth Estate.
Hence they can’t take a anti-death penalty stance, even if they wanted to.
So it’s not right to say they bury their heads.
One should note, however, that Yong is not the first to be hanged for drug offences, nor will he be the last.
The death penalty was not enacted yesterday.
In other words, the people have had many years to reflect on whether they support the mandatory death penalty.
And it appears the vast majority have no aversion to it.
The leading political parties also recognise that this is not an issue which has political traction. Hence you do not see SDA or WP going out on a limb for this case.
They are the two leading opposition parties in Singapore today because they have the best understanding of how voters feel.
And clearly, by their actions they have indicated they believe this is not an issue the majority of voters see as high concerns.
If even the leading opposition parties are not willing to take up this issue, how can you expect the media, which is constrained by the PAP, to do so?
ST is making it clean and light so that when comes National Day, the PAPPy will still be as “PURE” and “WHITE” as ST wanted them to look. Such that when the main guy stand on stage to address the National Day rally and hail all credits to himself and play down the effort of our people, he can easily call himself a saint deserving every bow and wow from lesser mortal. But remember, whatever that happened or written in the coming national event, take it with huge gallon of salt.
The only reason why ST would carry such news (in relation to its propaganda mission) is to educate people that drug trafficking = death. It can do this by following and publishing the news, and ending with an article to shows the death of the drug trafficker. In fact, should ST publicize the news, I would say that the ‘ending’ becomes inevitable due to the state’s need to be seen enforcing the law.
so 2 things:
1. Pple who read ST already knows it (drug trafficking = death), so there is no value to carrying the news.
2. Pple who genuinely oppose the death penalty are in a conundrum. On one hand they wish to save Vui, on the other hand they want it to be published on the MSM, but that would likely definite end any hopes of saving Vui.
So what about pple who want to save Vui and want ST to carry the news? to be honest, I don’t think they thought it through.
I know the outcomes are not out yet and Malaysia is pretty serious about the issue.
However, I am fearing for Ravi. If in the event of an unfavourable outcome. I hope Ravi takes it in his stride and goes on knowing that he has done his level best and most people are proud of his effort. I have never seen another lawyer put in so much of effort before. I hope he does not take it too personel.
Knowing Singapore, we have to be just prepared.
5 sentences is alot, this report is only 20 sentences long
Singapore’s law is fair and just.
Many letters that are unflattering to Govt are never published. The Forum Editor has to abide to certain rules set by the Govt., and the poor man has to follow, as his job and bonus are inticately tied to them.
The Taiwanese say the men here have no balls, I guess these foreigners mean Singaporean men have no guts.
Will someone please start an interactive ‘Straiten Times’ to rival the IST?
More likely the miw has no balls, or even a thing call “BRAIN”
Don’t blame them, someone created them, into monsters of the land.