Report by Channel Newsasia:
SINGAPORE: Law Minister K Shanmugam said Singapore’s constitutional provision for presidential pardons is similar to what’s practised in countries like the UK, Australia and Malaysia.
He was responding to media queries on the case of convicted drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong.
In 2008, the High Court sentenced Yong to the death penalty for trafficking around 47g of heroin.
On Friday, a High Court judge squashed a petition by defence lawyer M Ravi to review the clemency process, saying that under the constitution, the power to grant pardons lies solely with the Cabinet.
In court, Mr Ravi had also argued that comments made by the minister in May had prejudiced the case.
Asked to respond, Mr Shanmugam said he had been “misrepresented”.
“There have been many misrepresentations about what I said. Those were repeated several times and continued even after Ministry of Law issued a clarification. Some people seem to have difficulties with the facts even after the clarification was issued, and the High Court has dealt with it,” he said.
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
how’s this: “Yong didn’t know how harmful the drug can be, afterall its weighs less than the amount of flour needed to bake a 500g cake.”
In the otehr discussion, I conceded that Steven Chong’s interpretation of Article 22P does in fact resonate with the letter of the law.
However, relevant to thsi discussion, not much so far has been said about the the other ruling he made regarding K Shanmugam’s public statements which he ruled as not being prejudicial to Vui Kong’s clemency process.
Singaporeans now need to be fully concious that under the common law system this ruling has now become part of the Constitution. This now means that any member of the government, whether politician or judge, can now make public statements about any case that is still under consideration.
This is a reversal of established convention, and not only practised in Singapore but worldwide, out of consideration for the powerful not wielding pressure on cases still to be decided upon.
Can anyone recall any case where the judiciary rule against the Govt on any
law or the Constitution?
Our courts have the tendency to interpret
the laws according to the Govt wishes.
The recent Appeal Court ruling about the
courts not wanting to confront Parliament
seems to confirm that.
Wonder who do the people go to if Parliament were to pass an unjust Act
We have not only an incompetent law minister but he is also a liar! God save singapore!
Dear Steve
If you read Steve Chong’s judgement he stated that the comments would have potentially been prejudicial if there had been no first APPEAL. The fact remains that there was a first appeal and the only reason that there is a second appeal is due to the work of Ravi
Locke
It is accidental that he has a law degree and practized law – that role is long gone dead!
Now he is a REAL politician saddled with a law portfolio where the legal landscape is bereft of law lah. ie rule of law!
The intelligent ones know lah, no need to elaborate and crack one’s puny brain.
Law Minister K. Shenanigans!
rofl… XD