Wong Chun Han -
The Supreme Court reserved judgement Wednesday in a hearing on the pardon process for Malaysian death row convict Yong Vui Kong, who is asking for his execution to be stayed on the grounds that he had been denied a fair clemency process.
The 22-year-old – sentenced to death in 2008 for drug trafficking – was asking the High Court to grant a judicial review on his clemency process, which he claimed had been prejudiced by the actions of a Cabinet minister.
If the High Court finds in Yong’s favour, another hearing will be arranged – allowing the court to review his claims that his clemency process had been tainted.
In Wednesday’s hearing, which was closed to the public, Yong’s lawyer M Ravi presented arguments in an attempt to persuade Justice Steven Chong that his client has valid grounds to file for a judicial review.
Ravi told the judge that public comments made by Law Minister K Shanmugam and his ministry in May had prejudiced his client’s clemency plea even before it had been filed.
Yong was awaiting the outcome of his appeal which he made in March when Law Minister K Shanmugam spoke publicly on his case on May 9.
Shanmugam, responding to a question at a public dialogue session, had said that to pardon Yong would be “sending a signal to all drug barons out there” that they should choose as drug mules people who are “young or a mother of a young child”. ““Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” the minister had said.
The Ministry of Law later issued a statement saying the minister had “reiterated the policy and philosophy behind the death penalty and why Singapore adopted a tough stance.”
The Court of Appeal subsequently quashed Yong’s appeal, announcing its judgement five days after the comments.
In his court submissions, Ravi cited as context the timing of the comments, the influence and importance of the Law Minister in the Cabinet, the lack of contrarian views from other Cabinet members, and the rebuffing of Yong’s earlier clemency plea.
Given these circumstances, he argued that it was “reasonable inference that [Shanmugam’s] remarks reflect the views of [the] Cabinet and that [the] Cabinet intends to reject [Yong’s] clemency petition even before it has been filed.”
This represents a “usurpation of the Elected President’s clemency powers” and “a de facto preemptive exercise by [the] Cabinet of the Elected President’s Constitutional prerogative,” he said in his submissions.
As such the “constitutional process for handling [Yong’s] clemency petition has been irreversibly tainted to the prejudice of [Yong],” he said.
Senior state counsel David Chong, responding for the Attorney General, argued that the High Court was not in a position to grant a judicial review to Yong.
The clemency process was not subject to judicial review, he said, citing two cases in Malaysia that provided precedent on the matter.
In those cases the Malaysian courts found that the clemency process was not reviewable, he said.
However, he conceded that there have been no similar cases in Singapore that could provide legal precedence.
In response, Ravi cited cases in England, India and South Africa in which judges ruled the clemency process to be reviewable by the judiciary. He also clarified the Malaysian cases raised by Chong, citing differences between them and his client’s case.
Chong also argued that under Article 22P of the Singapore Constitution, the President has no discretion in deciding the outcome of a plea for pardon.
In addition, Article 22K grants the President immunity from most types of legal proceedings, which therefore makes Yong’s case unreviewable, he said.
Ravi argued in response that if the Cabinet is the effective decision maker in the granting of pardon – as then-Attorney General Walter Woon had asserted in March – then the judiciary would have the authority to review Cabinet actions for bias.
The lack of such an authority would represent a breach of natural justice, he said.
It is unclear when the High Court would announce its ruling on the case, but Justice Chong said he would try to expedite the judgement, following a marathon six-and-a-half-hour-long hearing in chambers.
On a related note, the Malaysian government, The Online Citizen understands, has written to the Singapore government on the matter of granting clemency to Yong. On 5 July, the Malaysian Foreign Minister had promised to “do everything possible within our powers or diplomatic means” to seek clemency for Yong.
Yong’s family has also written to the president. (See The Star Online report.)
—————
Download Mr M Ravi’s submissions here.
Download the Attorney General’s submissions here.
Dear Shanmugam, u know what would be a stronger message to the drug barons? Actually NABBING other drug barons instead of the small fries…
s….29 July 2010
Dear Shanmugam, u know what would be a stronger message to the drug barons? Actually NABBING other drug barons instead of the small fries…
———
Heaven forbid. That would qualify as ACTUAL work then. No no no. LOL..:D
“Chong also argued that under Article 22P of the Singapore Constitution, the President has no discretion in deciding the outcome of a plea for pardon.
In addition, Article 22K grants the President immunity from most types of legal proceedings, which therefore makes Yong’s case unreviewable, he said.”
.
.
It is amazing that the Senior State Counsel will interprete Article 22P in the manner that he did.
If the President has no authority to have any discretion in the outcome of a plea for pardon, then Article 22P should be more explicit with its wordings to indicate this fact in less ambiguous way.
It is disingenious to claim that – Article 22K granting President immunity from most types of legal proceedings – should be interpreted to mean that he cannot intervene in any legal proceedings.
Clearly the wordings in Article 22K is to PROTECT the President by giving him IMMUNITY from legal proceedings – and does not prevent him from intervening in the legal process.
Has the State become bankrupt in their legal position and now resort to interpreting the Constitution in their preferred twisted ways ?
Does Singaporeans have any protection from the dominance of the Politicians from a monolithic Pro Alien Party – that insist to dominate and usurp the separate powers of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary – and now even the powers of the Elected President ?
Hmmm….
Inflexibility = decisions made should not be discussed again + Period.
“Chong also argued that under Article 22P of the Singapore Constitution, the President has no discretion in deciding the outcome of a plea for pardon.”
I wish the Law Society, if it’s worth it’s salt, can have the moral and legal obligation to clarify it’s position on this statement.
The president of S’pore is a puppet only, he is being paid handsomely by the ruling party but has to take the rap for the incapable ministers’ decisions.
Is this not the proof of the real gist of Articles 22K & P? Common sense and a keen mind alone can reason this out.
No need to be a Law Minister “beating around the bush”! Like what he said of SMRT as a private company and yet is designated as a “Protected Place” by his PAP GAHmen? In his own JUST ONE breathe, he had spewed fire to burn up his own argument and so poured scorn on PAP’s credibility. Didn’t even realized his PAP GAGAHmen (Includes himself) didn’t even have Codes and Standards for such safety surveillance, preventive and rescue procedures for action during severest emergencies. And so CAN’T see to it SMRT & SBS Transit implement proper Safety Measures! after all his DPM & MHA even said afterward that PAPPY GAHmen cannot be responsible for all safety measure in Singapore! DIDN’T PROMOTE FEROCIOUSLY THE PAP ARE “TOP” TALENTED – LEAD BY A TOPEREST TALENT WITH 87 YRS OF LEARNING AND EXPERIENCE?
SO it HAD to be rebutted in parliament:
“You (the PAP) say the President has the 2nd key. But the lock of that key has been changed. So what’s the use of that key?”
- Worker’s Party General Secretary Low Thia Khiang on amendment bills for “The Elected President Bill”. Not his exact word but meaning is carried.
LHL, WKS, Shamugam, Raymond Lim, LHH MBT and not forgetting their leader are most irrational and irritatingly ticklish laughable from their “floating” lofty heights swaying in the winds!
A bunch of cartoon characters that don’t even make smart joke like Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, etc and Mr. Goofer who came out of his bruning house and down the street screaming “Conflagration! Conflagration! My house is on Conflagration”! No one help as no one understood that his house WAS ACTUALLY OF
FIRE!!! Ha ha “toperest talenteres talentereREST”! Good riddance to bad rubbish as school children love to say
Atobe
Just as Ravi tries and argues every fine line to support his case, so the AGC will argue every line and legal detail to dismiss his.
Ravi is arguing for there to be a judicial review, the AGC is arguing against. Ravi will argue the constitution for his case just as the AGC is entitled to argue the constitution for his. In this there is no right or wrong, the AGC and Ravi will interpret statues and language to their best advantage. What Ravi is doing well the AGC is likewise entitled
The line’s of the legal battle and reasoning are clear. Ravi is arguing for a legal review, the AGG seeks to dismiss it out of hand without going to an in depth constitutional face off over which is primary, article 21 vs 22 p.
Locke
The world now know that our president is there and paid so highly just to sign paper when the government instructed him to do.
Why do we need a president then? It is time to abolish this post, save money, save time, no need to be ushered by the government to go for meaningless presidential election when the person that is supposedly elected by the people cannot represent the very people whom ‘elected’ him. Incidentally, this president was indeed elected but not by the people, it is the govt that elected him.
Anyone has any strong objection to this view?
Dear all,
A quick walk through commonwealth institutions and the royal perogative will be in order. A ceremonial head of state i.e queen. governer genneral etc all have to take the advise of the governments they lead. They rarely rarely dissent and only on the most serious constitutional issues. Singapore being part of the commonwealth and with a strong british monarchial tradition follows this rule, with a ceremonial SIngaporean President replacing the queen.
Now what we have here is an elected president with very circumscribed powers designed only to have limited discretion and authority. We certainly do not have the french model whereby power and authority is split between the President and the Prime Minister but neither do have the traditional ceremonial model where the Prime Minister has all the say.
Thus comes the issues of Sect 21 of the constitution and 22p with regards to clemency pleas.
Locke
They could have make it much more simple.
Instead of wasting so much public funds just for 3 redundant posts of President, SM & MM as if each of them wants a share so badly, why not just merge them into one and just called it PP for Permanent President to suit the only Qualified one ?
I’m sure the other 2 is no match for the only Qualified one.
This thought comes to my mind:
The judge who is paid million bucks says he can only sentence Yong dies. The million dollar minister represents the cabinet of million dollar men think he cannot don’t die, even the multi-million president must follow the cabinet decision that Yong should die.
Poor Ravi, who is not paid million, is trying to keep Yong breathing one day a time. Yong now has million of questions flashing across his mind.
Singaporeans ask: Is million dollar worth more than life and conscience?
Quote from above: Shanmugam, responding to a question at a public dialogue session, had said that to pardon Yong would be “sending a signal to all drug barons out there” that they should choose as drug mules people who are “young or a mother of a young child”. ““Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” the minister had said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that by sending this guy to his death, it would be the ultimate message for drug lords to select more mules who are young, or a mother of a child, or of little intelligence, or even of that of a child (who is just under 18?) so that they can conceal themselves better behind such persons.
Since Singapore has such a tough judical system, she should also be smart enough to see who is guilty & who is indeed innocent, isn’t it?
Please, fellow Singaporean judges & those who have the power to decide his life & death, do not send someone who is innocent or has been made used of to the gallows. The world has eyes and Singapore may not recover from such mistakes for a long time.
Law is not the same as Justice.
Having a set of Law does not mean that you will be serve justice. Singapore Judiciary had never been independant. The whole world know that. So do not pretend that our Judiciary is independant.
One idiot comsumes some illegal drugs can be pardon because he claim that he is not aware of what he is consuming. All because his parents are well connected to the ruling party.
Wake up Singaporean. Stop fooling yourself and behave like a ignorant donkey.
I wish the Law Society, if it’s worth it’s salt, can have the moral and legal obligation to clarify it’s position on this statement. – Baby Boomer
The Law Society’s power to comment on legislation was curtailed by You Know Who. They may comment by invitation of the government only.