On Sunday, more than 150 people turned up at Speakers’ Corner to support the petition for clemency for death row inmate, 19-year old Malaysian Yong Vui Kong.
Despite the drizzle, both young and old were there to add their signatures to the call for clemency. The event was organized by the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty campaigners (SADPC) and The Online Citizen (TOC).
A total of about 150 signatures were collected and these will be added to the Malaysian campaigners’ petition which will be forwarded to the president of Singapore later this month.
Sunday’s event at Hong Lim Park was a marked improvement over the last event in 2009 – also in support of clemency for Yong – which saw some 40 people turn up.
Organisers were heartened by the turn-out on Sunday.
TOC’s chief editor, Andrew Loh, spoke on what the event was about. “Today is not about Vui Kong’s guilt. Today is not about whether the death penalty is right or needed,” he told the crowd in his speech. “Today is about mercy.” He urged for Vui Kong to be shown clemency despite what he had done – trafficking in 47.27g of heroin into Singapore in 2007.
“Vui Kong was just 19 when he committed the offence. His first offence,” Andrew said. He feels that at that age, such a person – who is also illiterate and comes from a poor family – would make mistakes, just like any other person of that age.
He argued that a justice system must also allow for mercy. “We are not here to talk about the legal process or Yong’s guilt. That has already been decided by the courts,” he said. “Do we have room for repentence, for conversion? Should our justice system not allow for these?”
“Hanging drug mules is not going to solve the problem. The drug barons and the drug lords – who live in their castles with their millions – will just find the next gullible, naïve and ignorant young person to do their dirty deeds. And we will hang the next young boy, and the next one, and the next one – while those who’re truly responsible get away.”
Andrew also asked the mainstream media in Singapore to report the story of Vui Kong so as to enable greater public debate on the issue. “Our media reports are so mechanical. Drug trafficker. Found guilty. Sentenced to death. Full stop.”
“Japan just two days ago is putting the death penalty to a public debate,” Andrew said. “We should be doing the same. There is nothing wrong about talking about the death penalty,” he said. “If we are going to hang young boys, and the state will hang them in our names, we should know what the issues are. The media has a responsibility to let people know what these issues are and to allow debate on it.”
The lawyer for Vui Kong, M Ravi also addressed the crowd. He gave an update on Vui Kong’s case and took the opportunity to question the mainstream media’s character assassination of him during previous cases which he was involved in. “What is the purpose of this character assassination?” he asked. The media, he said, had mentioned his mother’s personal problems and his personal circumstances. He questions the motive for the media doing this.
Ravi, who a week ago was in Sabah to lend support to the campaign there, showed the audience some of the personal belongings of Vui Kong – such as his school books when Vui Kong was in primary school. “His mother has kept all these,” he explains.
He also spoke of the earlier event in 2009, also at Speakers’ Corner, where about 40 people took a group picture showing support for Vui Kong. “He stared at the picture for 20 minutes,” Ravi said, referring to Vui Kong’s reaction when Ravi visited him and showed him the picture. “He looked at each one in the picture and tried to remember their names.” Prison rules did not allow Vui Kong to keep the picture, which he desperately wanted to. “Vui Kong then wrote letters to express his gratitude to each one of the people in the picture,” Ravi told the crowd. However, prison rules again did not allow these letters to be sent to them. (See here: A day for compassion.)
The event on Sunday culminated in a group photo of the participants.
Vui Kong’s brothers – Yun Leong and Yun Chong – were also at Speakers’ Corner. Also there to lend their support were Dr Chee Soon Juan, Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, and Mr Alan Shadrake, author of the book on death penalty cases, Once A Jolly Hangman.
The campaigners are planning a second photo project called The Anti-Mandatory Death Penalty Photo Project. You can take a picture of yourself expressing support for clemency for Vui Kong and upload it on this Facebook page.
You can also sign the online petition here. It has garnered almost 13,000 signatures so far.
All of these will be sent to the president before 26 August, the deadline for submission of the clemency petition.
Read also: Give Vui Kong a second chance by Rachel Zeng.
Here are some more pictures from Sunday’s event.
wui,
Do we then, also deserve death for not thinking thoroughly our actions everyday?
That’s a rather flimsy analogy/comparison if you don’t mind me saying. Is trafficking in drugs so much an everyday affair in Sabah that warrants such comparison? What kind of place do you imagine Sabah to be?
lobo76,
How did you spin what I said to a different meaning?
I was asking, if I think correctly that was where you are trying to quote me, what are the motivations or intentions of drug mules? What is their crime… or rather what are the reasons for an action or actions to be considered a crime, a serious crime?
So, in that regard, in comparison, one action which is not an everyday affair.. which, according to the idea behind the law, is that it destroys many lives mindlessly and that perpetrators of that action, whether intentionally or unintentionally, must be punish by death.
I ask then, what we do everyday, if I may repeat, many things we do each day, do destroy lives .. and even worse, without thoughts or regard.
So, which is worse?
What kind of place do I imagine Sabah to be? What kind of impression am I giving you? That Sabah is a cowboy town of some sort? Did I give you some kind of indication that I think negatively of Sabah?? If so, you are sorely mistaken.. or that you are just being patronizing.
I have not imagine what kind of place Sabah is before you even ask me that question, but since you did, I will have to imagine. I think it is a laid back place with friendly people, with small towns and villages.. with perhaps one simple city centre…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGF2oEtfIEc
Balanced CNN report on the death penalty. TOC accuses of ST of being biased on this story, failing to see the irony in its own bias.
Why can’t anyone just show us both sides?
are there only two sides, neo chen?
wui,
I think your interpretation of the idea of the law is flawed. The MDP, imo, assumes that it was done intentionally. MDP is but the action (punishment) AFTER that is judged.
The only unintentional part comes from the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), which is the problematic law, that assumes intention even on the unintentional.
Now that I have clarified my position on that the IDEA of the law is for the intentional perpetrator only, maybe you can understand why i thought your comparison to be flimsy.
p.s I am stumped by why people seemed to be okay with the MDA which implies guilt until proven innocent, and keep on wasting their effort on the DP which is a just punishment IF the party was indeed guilty.
lobo76,
yes.. at 14.99 grams.. it might be unintentional, and at 15 grams, it definitely must be intentional.
How this law has been sold (or told) to the general public was the explanation I had given in my posts. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Hmm.. ok.. meat companies need meat to make money. And meat needs tons of grains, which could feed millions, to produce. And grains need tons of water, which could save millions, to produce. The millions suffer and die everyday almost directly through this commerce. Now, the meat companies need to sell these meat, they need agents to send it worldwide as well. So, if my fridge has X amount of meat, my position should be the same as someone carrying X amount of drugs to warrant an assumption of guilt.
Many of us are saddened by why so many seemed to be okay with many of the laws here.
Anyway, I hope you know where I am coming from.
wui,
Let me see if I got this right.
Drug traffickers didn’t traffic drugs to kill people. They simply are after the money/profit. Same as Meat Company. They only want profit, and didn’t intentionally kill the millions as you alleged that they do.
If I got it right, I have to say it is a terrible analogy/example. First, grain and water used for feeding animals may not be suitable for human consumption. i.e there is no millions who lost sleep over that food. Second, if the grain and water were indeed suitable for human consumption, there are other barriers such as transportation of those food. i.e those millions STILL die. There are probably more points to be made, but the idea is the Meat Company will not definitely 100% kill the millions.
Now, let’s look at Drugs, these NON prescription drugs. They WILL be consumed by drug addicts, which WILL result in lives destroyed and/or lost. In fact, that is it’s ONLY purpose, to be consumed by addicts. It’s not even dual purpose like nuclear technology. Imo, it is impossible to say that there is no intentional to kill, if you intentionally traffic drugs.
@Lobo76
President Obama dabbled in drugs when he was in college. Last I checked, he’s still alive, all his faculties are intact… oh wait, he’s even won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Seriously, your hysteria doesn’t help the debate. Yes, drugs are bad, yes they can destroy lives. But so can alcohol. So can nicotine. So can casinos, for that matter.
No trafficker should go unpunished. But, mandatory death? Really?
Lynn,
…the only one having hysteria may be you. Is this an attempt to associate negative emotion/behaviour to me, just to discredit my post? In any case, I am very calm when I typed what I typed. ;)
All the CAPs are just for emphasis. I could used html codes to bold or italicized, but my feeling is that wordpress doesn’t like them, with the result being my posts ending up in a moderation queue that lasts for a long time.
and yes. really.
wui
However many sides there are, there are certianly more than one. However, TOC wants to make it seem as if anybody who is not on their side is heartless and they are the only reasonable ones.
Also, are you sure millions die everyday from meat production?
Last I checked , roughly 150,000 people die worlwide everyday – from all causes.
lobo76,
No, you got it wrong.
I really don’t think you know the intentions or understand the callousness of meat companies (or in fact many different industries).
No you got it wrong.
The grain and water used for feeding the animals or the industries are easily suitable for human consumption. The last time I check… we can still eat for example… corn.
You got it wrong.
There are millions of people who do lose sleep over that food, and died for it.
You got it wrong.
Barriers? They got the grains and water to those cows that we eat didn’t they? Sounds simplistic? Well, because it is. It is only policies and big money players making it complicated.
You got it wrong.
Drugs do not kill people 100%.
Yes, let’s talk about drugs.
Even if you are that one dimensional drug lord or mule that so many like to perceive them as.. you don’t want your addicts to die do you? I don’t need to spell the reasons out to you do I?
Funny how we view the rich and famous.. when they take drugs. What are your thoughts? That their lives are destroyed?? Funny how it only affects the average joe with average mentality.. or the poor jane with no education or money. Are you so naive as to think the CEOs, the managers, the top players, the movers and shakers, the many many rich and famous, never taken drugs? What has it done to them? Are they all suicidal? Are they all stealing, robbing? Are their families.. in high percentages, destroyed?
The only purpose for drugs is what??? What do you know about the original purpose of MDMA.. or it’s street name ecstasy? What do you know about the properties of cannabis? Do you know how many ‘well-adjusted’ high flyers in the commercial industry take cocaine regularly?
Sure, it is impossible to say there is no intention to kill if you intentionally traffic drugs.. it is impossible to say a lot of things. It is also impossible to say that there is an intention to kill.
Which is why I am against the death penalty, let alone the Mandatory one.. because once dead, there is no recourse.
Anyway, do you think we are just idealists here? Do you stop and think, perhaps, some of us are pretty smart and responsible, who look at why this or that is done, or should be done and who have done thorough research on whatever subject we might champion? Do you not think that some of us might have been pro death penalty supporters before as well? Do you perhaps like to wonder why we have changed? Let me tell you, most did not go soft and emotional. For every policy, every law enact, every action proposed, there must not only be good, very good reasons behind them, there must be thoroughly researched evidence to back them, and they must be open for all to see and judge and debate.
neo chen,
Yes, there are certainly more than one side.. thank you.
Yes, I think I can agree on that one.. that TOC wants to make it seem as if anybody who is not on their side is heartless and they are the only reasonable one.
But perhaps we can put ourselves on their side for a while. If they cannot convince the majority that what they stand on this issue is the right one, someone and more people are going to be hung.
If they are wrong about what they stand, there are still many many ways to help those who are affected by drugs. We humans are very clever, I am sure we can think of better solutions than death as a threat. Singapore for one, does not have many points of entry, so even if this supposedly amazing deterrent were to be lifted, and that the presumed higher number of drug traffic happens.. Do you think we will see more drugs here? How so? Unless the securities at the entry points become complacent and relaxed, no?
So do you think we have little drugs here because of our deterrent or because of our ‘ever efficient’ checks at entry points? You don’t see a lot of firecrackers here in Singapore do you? How about chewing gum? Do you wonder why we still hang more people than most if it is such a good deterrent?
Do you think it will be too late for families and individual lives then? Why would people take drugs in the first place? Are drugs really the cause of suffering? Or could it be ignorance and poverty?
Sometimes I wonder, if the death penalty is lifted while life imprisonment is retained.. what would drug mules think. Would they go, “Hey, a life time is the jails of Singapore is so so much better than death”.. now I have more incentive and less deterred to do the deed. Personally, I don’t think so. The penalty does not matter.
Ask this, why would anyone still do it if death is such a fantastic deterrent? Because they are stupid? Perhaps. (but we should not hang people just because they are stupid). Why would they take such risks that seemed so ridiculous dumb to us? Because they don’t value their lives?
Nobody has experience death before (heart stopping doesn’t count). Death is surreal. But almost everyone can imagine what is like to be cut, to be trapped, to be beaten.
Imagine you are being robbed with a gun to your head. Or look at a drawing of the same scenario. Or watch a movie with that scenario. Tell me, does your heart pulsate a bit harder, are you feeling cold sweat? Unlikely, because it is surreal. BUT, if you do experience it.. with a real gun to your head, the most unimaginable fear will probably consume you. So, what I am trying to say is this… for all the forewarnings by this government of ours, for all the convicted and hung being made examples before, the supposed ‘justice’ is surreal to most.. which is why these “one dimensional, evil doers” keep coming.
Time is not on their side… and certainly not on those awaiting their unnatural death.
I am sorry if I got the numbers wrong about the deaths. But it doesn’t miss my point. Yes, they die from all causes.. and what are they (obviously I am asking you to name all of them), and do they have something in common? I was only using the meat company as an example.
neo chen,
sorry, I went off with what I want to describe with the gun to head situation. What I want to show is this, unless the threat is actually facing you, in front of you. Words, pictures, advertisements, movies.. are not going to make you feel that bad. Maybe for a short moment (which is why the silly pictures on cigarette boxes do not work, whoever came out with the idea has the same one dimensional creativity as many of our supposedly top minds).
So, imagine this, death now is very real to vui kong.. a million more times real than many of us. His death is not his deterrent. But what do you think he is going to do if given a second chance?
Neither will his death be any good deterrent to would be drug mules… unless he is hung publicly for all to see.. which is of course, barbaric and obscene.. but then again, why is that? I thought we approved it? I thought that would be indeed a real good deterrent? Or perhaps hanging itself is barbaric that doesn’t belong to the 21st century?
Neither is it a deterrent for you (i assume) and me, for we are fortunate enough to be able to make living from other means and we have plenty of choices. I hate it when someone tells me things like,” I won’t do it if I were him”.. of course not, because you are not him.
I used to laugh when I am in some western country doing my grocery shopping. Their packed chickens, fish, ducks.. do not have heads. I laughed because I thought that was such a hypocrisy. We like to pretend that blood is not in our hands.
Show it I say, like our chickens at our chicken rice stalls… we want to eat it, but we don’t want to do the dirty work ourselves, so it is bred and slaughtered on our behalf. At least we hang them out in full view although we eat them in full thoughtless conscience as well.
So, Neo Chen, what do you think Vic Kong will do if given a second chance? Would he be able to express much better than us or to would be drug pushers what it means by facing the gallows?
wui
animals can drink water straight from rivers and stuff. You telling me humans easily do the same? Then why there is flood, human get sick but animals seem to be fine (if they didn’t drown).
And if you think grain and water for a meat factory in say US, is easily transportable to some country where there is no transport infrastructure, you really need to wake up.
And you are Wrong.
I didn’t say drugs kill 100%. I said it ‘destroy and/or kill’. Destroy, fyi, is not equal to kill. There are worse fates than death. Why do you think people feel suicide is sometimes a way ‘out’?
And you are Wrong.
I specifically said NON prescription drugs. I even CAPS it for you, and you missed it…
and we shouldn’t miss the fact that the drugs carried by Yong was Heroin. not the ‘milder’ type of drugs you refer to.
And you are Right.
I don’t know about the high-flyers, whatever they do. Why care, when they can take a plane to whichever country they want to do whatever they want? My concern is for the average Joes or the piddling Davids. Not the mighty Goliaths.
wui
You ask a good question. And it got me thinking. What would he do if he was given a second chance?
If it were me, I would logically say I would have learnt my lesson, be thankful for the second chance and spend the rest of my years trying to be a good example.
But I also ask myself if that would help him make money. Is he going to make a good living at it? If we assume he entered the drug business out of desperation because he had no choices (i think you said something equivalent to this), what has changed to increase his number of life choices?
Perhaps, having been faced with the prospect of the death penalty, he would understand that if he ever got caught again, it would surely be the gallows for him.
So he will force himself to find something else to do, deterred by the death penalty.
I am not him so I cannot be sure, but it’s not completely clear cut to me.
lobo76,
But animals seem to be fine during flood.. if they didn’t drown?? Where did you get that from? What animals? Do you know why people and animals get sick during flood? Do you actually know the reason??
What kind of water do you think third world people are drinking?
I need to wake up? Why don’t you do a little research on what you think you know? Did you even read what I said.. even though I didn’t put them in caps? The barriers are politics and many other things that is way to long to mention here.. Why do you think there is no transport infrastructure in those areas??? Do you actually know where you get all your food from?
For my information, destroy is not kill? Sure, you didn’t say drugs kill 100%. But you said meat companies will not definitely 100% kill the millions. If you didn’t read between the lines, let me rephrase then… Drugs will not definitely kill the supposed millions too.
Ya, why do you think some people feel suicidal? You want to start naming all the reasons? Even if you do, I think you might not really grasp many of those reasons.
I did not miss your caps. YOu missed your own caps. And you missed the whole point entirely. The drugs I was talking here are non prescription as well. What do heroin do? And why do people take them? And what are the demographic of these addicts? Is heroin the cause?
Your concern? I think your concern is just to nip pick to win arguments. Hey, do you think the reason there is not much non prescription drugs in Singapore is because of the death penalty (or MDP), or because the points of entry are limited here and that we have highly motivated personnel to make sure drugs are not entering here?
We don’t have firecrackers, or serious chewing gum problems here now do we? No death penalty needed.
What hurt drug lords or mules most? Perhaps their pockets?
Please don’t tell me, I cannot compare chewing gum to heroin.
Understand the context before you shoot off.
“Yes, I think I can agree on that one.. that TOC wants to make it seem as if anybody who is not on their side is heartless and they are the only reasonable one.”
This is what someone wrote here. I agree. It is not a matter of whether VK is deserves to live or die. But I think everyone should be entitled to both sides of the story.
Had TOC managed both sides. Instead of trying to “make it seem.” TOC would have maybe 10 or 20 times the turn out last Sunday. Many such as I and quite a number of my friends was shocked in the last few days by new revelations concerning how this subject was unevenly handled. And it did not come from this site, but another.
Neo Chen,
Yes, he would be deterred by the death penalty, in that context. So, let us start by taking away the mandatory bit, which gives nobody any chance.
gis59,
this issue has been unevenly handled for the longest time.
First of all, only one heavy side of the story has been told to us since we started hanging people.
TOC doesn’t need to manage both side. As the other side, which is pro death penalty or even worse mandatory death penalty has been well trumpeted in papers, in articles, in documentaries by the ruling party as the ultimate solution for many many years, which many had bought in without finding out or able to find out conveniently.
TOC is running against time, so please do understand.
If your friends were shocked. Did they do something about it? Perhaps they should have turn up, listened, and maybe give a different opinion?
TOC and the Anti Death Penalty Group are trying to save a life here.. a life that they think and sincerely believe should not be sacrificed.
I applaud them as they did something they believe in. I applaud them to make serious, and real effort to try make a difference. I applaud them to stand up amongst the sea of apathy. I applaud them to swim courageously against the current.
So, don’t pick on them because you think they have a poor marketing strategy.
wui,
you seemed to realise about the barriers, but yet treat them as non-existent when it suits you (just so you can use your examples of meat company and whatnot). I have to say that your examples are some of the most irrelevant I have come across.
you seem to losing the plot… I can’t even relate some to the things you said that I said (coz I didn’t say them). Maybe it just suited you, so you say I said them…
on firecrackers and chewing gum. Consider their harmfulness (which is less, hence less heavy punishment) and their profitability (which is also less, hence less deterrence needed), and now use your brain and add these factors up, and think why death penalty wasn’t needed for those.
see? yet another not so good example/comparison.
gis59,
TOC is not unlike ST. It is driven by the people who runs it. These people have their viewpoints, and they put it up on their own site. I think it’s normal and nothing wrong with it.
For balanced/multiple viewpoints, I think the onus is on the individual to go to different sites run by different people, read up, and THEN make your own balanced take on the different issues.
lobo76,
my examples are indeed the most irrelevant if you don’t use your brain to get the context.
you can’t relate to them, because you didn’t use your brain.
Now, use your brain and go think.. actually.. don’t think.. please do some research on the many root causes of crimes.
Sure, to you I am using irrelevant examples and arguments to suit me. And to me, you stubbornly refuse to see other points of view.. or rather, you do not have the capacity to do so.
So, enough of trading insults. Perhaps you might like to stop (of course you can continue) using your oh so patronizing style.
Now, present the pro death penalty study and statistics conclusively to support your argument. Present a study or research or proof on how drugs do not get into the streets of Singapore… Present a conclusive proof that it is drugs, and not poverty or ignorance, that directly cause addicts to do crime. Present research on the demographics of your typical addict, and why so.
TOC from time to time, have presented so many case studies, researches, statistics, proofs. They also have frequently asked the other side to present their case.. without whims, without ‘i believe’, ‘I think’ reasons. TOC have questioned the lack of transparency in the death penalty, questioned the logic behind the refusal to provide information or studies to support pro death.
This is a serious issue. You can go on with your personal attacks and your “I think I am smarter than you” attitude. TOC and many of anti death penalty supporters here are trying to save one life here. One life at a time. And you? Pro death penalty supporters seemed to be thinking they are saving many lives.
Present your case if you support the death penalty, and I will try not to nit pick, or patronize you.
What would change the minds of Pro Death Penalty Supporters to be against it?
What would change the minds of Anti Death Penalty Supporters to be for it?
Dear Lobo and gls
I would like to state this as someone who was born in Penang, whose father was a Singaporean and who married my mother who came from a large family from a kampung near a tin mine on the railway line to Ipoh, and whose family still retains both business and personal relations in both Penang and Perak The Malaysians who read this are of course free to dispute it if my observations or facts as stated are wrong in anyway. Firstly I am for the for the death penalty secondly I find it hard to buy the story as portrayed on line by the The Online Citizen in Singapore lawyers and those supporting his case in my country.
I believe that they are entitled to claim that Vui Kong was a victim of poverty who had no choice and was thus a first time serious offendor and a minor criminal and thus entitled to mercy and clemency but I really wonder if they would support mercy and clemency claims if the other side was true, that yes he was poor, but no he did know what he was doing and yes poverty still does give you choices between easy money and hard work, and yes this was his first offence but his track record as listed in court and even his accounts of his life in Malaysia seem to indicate an escalating slope of severity of crimes.
We have hired a lot of Malaysians as business orientated family in Singapore and what has impressed me consistently is the hard work and integrity shown by those who have come out to be clerks, machine assistants, sales gals in Singapore. I have talked to many of them and what rings consistently true is the desire and responsibility to support a family mother and or siblings back in KL Malaysia, Kampung etc etc. They have reminded me of my mother who though she came from a poor background still managed to build her own business from scratch together with my father. My Uncles and Aunts from my mothers side remain in Malaysia, some have done well, some have done less well, moved up the social ladder, some have remained but at the end of it none despite a similar poverty stricken up bringing have become criminals in any way. Let’s look at Vui Kong, Many of us forget that of his brothers and sisters who were equally poverty stricken none of them have turned to drug trafficking or crime and yet for some reason its an excuse for Vui Kong’s choices in his case.
Poverty, fine everyone starts poor, but the clerks , admin assistants , etc sales gals I know work very hard save up and then give a better life to their parents and siblings in Malaysia. Even by TOC’s accounts they have moved from a hut in a plantation in Vui Kong’s youth to a neat little two room flat in a major town. It shows at the minimum some degree of economic improvement which we have to acknowledge.
Next the believe that Vui Kong did not know any better. I personally do not buy that because Anti Drug posters, advertisements on TV radio etc are plastered all over Malaysia. Does anyone really believe he never encountered anything to educate him to the contrary that what he was doing was wrong despite his youth ?
Vui Kong was never a serious criminal, he only collected debts and sold pirated DVDs. Suffice it to say by all accounts from Malaysian Newspapers Debt collectors in Malaysia are a lot lot worse than here in Singapore and the gradual increase from selling dvds, to debt collection, to drug trafficking sounds at least to me more like a criminal on a steadily escalating slope of offences
Locke Liberal
Hello Locke,
Ok, let’s say Vic Kong is what you have assumed. Let’s say he had ample of opportunities to go the ideal route that many of us would like most young people go. Let’s say he took the easy way out, the easy way to make money. Let’s paint him as someone whom most loathed in society.
I remember myself when I was a teenager. I remember many of my friends in those days. How they think, what they would do. Some of them are almost basically without conscience, nor have the concept of what is right or wrong, getting into all sorts of really bad business of life, never mind their family background. But never did once, did I think they deserve DEATH.
Ideally we want everyone to work hard, spend years climbing up social ladders in the good old fashion way. But do you think it is rare that people do want the easy way to life? Do you think everyone can think like those hardworking and honest people that you mentioned?
And if they don’t fall into that category of your ideal person, they should die? If if they don’t, you can only see one way development and a long list of negative impact for them?
You mentioned that Vui Kong was never a serious criminal.. And you can see how young people can be lured easily into easy money doing small time illegal business like selling dvds, collecting debts and so on. You can see how it can steadily escalate. You can see how a young person can get used to the life of ‘easy money’. So, do you think that because of all these factors, Vui Kong deserve to get his neck snapped at an age of 22?
Many of us do silly, stupid things.. and multiple mistakes throughout our lives even right till our last days….More so, when we were young and thoughtless. The ‘mistakes’ are viewed differently by different people, the severity of these ‘mistakes’ are also weighed differently by different people. So, do you think death as a punishment will improve society, and civilisation on the whole?
I think the death penalty is the easy way out to solve the drug problem.. or any other problems.
I know we view this different, Locke. But do you think there could be better solutions? Do you think we can come up with better deterrents?
Dear Wui
He was never a serious criminal till he started trafficking drugs and yes the first offense for which he was caught and charged was in all probability not his first for which there were others.
There are as always two sides to the equation and may against the death penalty for Vui would also be against the death penalty for murderers for pre mediated murder in Singapore etc etc etc.
For many against the death penalty, there would not be a crime serious enough under any circumstance to warrant the death penalty, for many the criminal is never a criminal, the murderer never a murderer deserving of death but an individual that can be reformed into an angel beneficial to society.
I humbly do not hold to that ” All Humanity is good ” liberal view and hold to the opposite, that ” Some humanity is so evil that it deserves the ultimate punishment which society can impose. In that I suppose the twain never meets
Locke
wui,
if asking you to think is a personal attack, well…
TOC has presented cases study, researches, etc? If so, I have not been convinced by any of them (i have been reading TOC for a long time now, and I cannot recall a single one that was convincing). They were all flawed in some way.
The only result that I am convinced by, is that with all the factors currently inherent in Singapore (good education, death penalty,etc), drug related crimes are low. Unless there is a research based on a city state that is near identical to Singapore (include cultural factors), otherwise it is not valid to me. After all, I am sure tat if I pointed out that Mexico which abolished death penalty and it’s high drug related deaths, you can point out tonnes of reasons why it shouldn’t be used for comparison right?
However, I am relatively sure the above ‘study’ is impossible to do. How to find a city state that is the same as Singapore and willing to experiment on its citizens? So the next best ‘study’ I will settle on, is some kind of survey. This survey will be done on people who are likely to become mules to Singapore (maybe include mules that were caught). It will check on whether they know of the DP, and how it will affect their choice to become a mule. If say, more than half will become a mule regardless of the DP, then I will conceit that DP is useless.
lobo76,
there is a civil way of asking someone to think twice or thoroughly… “Use your brain” is not one of them. If you think that is not a personal attack, then may I ask you to use your brain and think (I don’t know what other organs can we use to do just that) if you are honest that.
Since you are relatively sure your criteria to make you change your stand is ‘impossible’. Why point it out?
Ok, so, if there is a case study that you will ‘settle’ on, you will change your mind? I am glad about that. I hope the authorities would take the same line… and do that survey before hanging anyone.
By the way, I don’t think DP is useless. I think it is not only not the best (or even good) solution, it is a barbaric one.
“if you are honest that” = if you are honest about the statement that it is not a personal attack.
well, to ask for mercy is to ask someone to use their heart to think, metaphorically speaking of course. Hence to ‘use your brain’ can be seen as asking you to be objective. =)
tbh, some anti-death people as people who in their rush to do what is ‘right’, skipped a few steps in their thinking process. It is too easy to take the high moral ground, and much harder to actually take the lower ground if one believes it to be ‘right’. With that in mind, who do you think has done more ‘thinking’ with their brain?
if you had ask someone to use their heart to think, it can be deemed to be a personal attack or a pleading. But come on lobo, please don’t tell me you were not trying to be rude when you asked me to use my brain to think.
In fact, let us not argue about this.
Now, I agree with you that some anti death people do skip many steps when arguing for their case. Both camps are taking the moral high ground.
Are you seriously asking me who I think has done more thinking with their brain?
You said you are not convinced with all the stats, studies, and researches that TOC had presented. But you are convinced that all the factors inherent in Singapore are due.. or rather linked to good education (also highly debatable), death penalty etc. Please tell me, which study or research or stats backed these factors to be directly linked.
Do you have an explanation why the government refuse to produce the data, or the studies, or the research to back what they so strongly defend? Do you wonder why time and time again they refused interviews? Because they don’t believe they need to answer anyone? Or?
If their position is so strong, and they strongly believe what they do… what is there to hide? Or perhaps you don’t feel they are hiding anything at all.
How you are convinced… you don’t find the way you have linked them, weak? You don’t think you too, perhaps, have skipped a number of steps?
The case study that you said might change your mind.. or stand. Now, are you satisfied that the government has not done one before hanging anyone?
Lobo76,
Perhaps, the government have been skipping a number of steps as well?
Dear Wui
The studies commentaries as presented by the TOC are from all those who disagree with the death penalty to begin with.
That said those studies that say the death penalty does not work disagrees substantially with the studies that says it does
The TOC argues that the evidence is one sided in favor of those against the death penalty whilst perhaps a fairer comment would be that its disputed and even then a case can be made that the dispute over the death penalty has made the process so long drawn out so as to fundamentally alter is perception as the ultimate punishment.
The author of Freakanomics in one of his books states bluntly that the death penalty has lost its appeal as a criminal deterrent because statistically the criminal has a higher chance of surviving and living on death row then if he had continued his life of crime on the streets.
The problem with many of the studies both for and against in this debate is that they take whole states with DP and compared them with whole states who do not have the DP.
For those who have been in the US and seen the vastness of the country, they would appreciate the wide variance in crime inherent between countryside, city and suburbs between a state and let alone across differing states because of the differing proportions between the two.
Firstly what does deterrence mean to you in terms of the death penalty ? If even one gram of heroin, ice, etc is sold on Singapore streets does it mean deterrence has failed ? Some from the TOC have quote the Malaysian Justice MInister saying the DP has not deterred drug trafficking in his country, but then again those who have been to the country are know fully how corrupt the police force is. Is it a fair comparison to compare an efficient country wtih a decent police force with the DP for drugs and a less efficient country with a well not so decent police force with ?
What is a fact ? Well national police forces across the world from the US to the UK acknowledge and state bluntly that drugs drives crime of all sorts,
How prevalent or easily available is drugs in Singapore versus other major cosmopolitian cities like New York Boston, London or HK ?
Firstly how does one even quantify or survey the ease of drug availability ? How does one quantify that across Singapore, New York and say even London ?
Does hard to get mean impossible to get ? Is “hard to get” versus ” easy to get” make a difference to a society ?
Perhaps at the end of the day some studies are impossible to well quantify ? But perhaps at the end of the day for those of us who have studied and been abroad.
The difference between a drug free street and a drug riddled street, the difference between “easy to get” for your children versus ” ” Hard to get ” for your children makes all the difference which statistics cannot measure. and that difference is worth making the DP an offense fro drugs
Locke
I must be charged and arrested as a wife beater. I must be charged and arrested as a violent man. I must be charged and arrested as a killer. I must be charged and arrested for murder. I must be charged and arrested for destroying families. I must be charged and arrested for many problems I, intentionally or unintentionally, caused for doing what I do, did. I must be evil.
But hey, I am lucky, because what I do is legal.
I sell alcohol. I sell alcohol, which comes in different names and different packaging, for many many years. And not only have I help many alcoholics continue their addiction, I must have help create many more alcoholics along the way. I am still profiteering from my trade. And my suppliers must be charged and arrested with me.
Although we did not force anyone to drink, technically. We created an environment for them. But they do have a choice to ingest or not to ingest. Some do abuse my product frequently. If my customers become my friends, I will care for their health, a little. If not, many of my customers and regulars come and go… and I need them to continue liking what I sell.
This alcohol that I sell, it makes people go high, which may lead or not lead to many things. If you take this product that I sell regularly, in time, you will need to take more to get the same high, which in turn will help my business.
This high, we have many names for it… Tipsy, drunk, sick, cloud nine, happy times, save the world mode, etc. Some people have adverse reaction to it, which is not that good for my trade. Some become very vocal, some become violent, some become emotional, some get into accidents, (and there must be some who died due to these accidents) etc. I provide them all.
I am lucky because society on the whole view me kindly. Most do not blame me or my fellow evil doers, nor my alcohol lords who provide me with endless of this evil product.
Most do not equate my product to drugs although I do also sell hard and soft alcohol.
Some tell me that alcohol do not kill as many, destroy as many, hurt as many. I don’t know.. my conscience is beginning to bug me. I don’t know… a killer who kills 10 is less evil than a killer who kills 20? I don’t know.. to me a killer is a killer. To make myself feel better, I hire many people to sell this product for me. Many of them are young and impressionable, and they do like what I pay them.
But here, where drugs are low, alcohol rules… so I don’t know. I think I must have destroyed much more than drug pushers here.
You worry too much, say my cigarettes selling mates. You worry too much, say my foreign bookie pals. You worry too much say my acquaintances who are basically pimps.
But at least we have rules here, good rules.. because some places you can sell my product for only 12 hours, some for 18, some for 21 and some for all 24. I was told by the authorities, because this product affects people differently at different locations, and different times. Some places can only sell alcohol that are considered soft.
Others like me, are licensed, to sell more what is considered much more dangerous stuff… and we all know, if you keep taking those soft stuff, eventually you might start to try stronger products. We know, I know.
I know I am lucky. Because what I do is legal. I keep telling myself, I am just a seller and my buyers do have a choice.
Dear Lobo76 & Locke
I have been following the discussion with some interest but cant help but feel that its gone off-track. Can I try to persuade both of you (and anyone else who continues to believe in the mandatory death penalty in Singapore)?
The issue as I see it is whether you agree that the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply in Singapore for drug offences?
My response – NO.
There is a huge difference between ‘mandatory death’ and simply the death penalty. When an offence is deemed mandatory, the judiciary has no recourse to alternative forms of punishments. All it takes is for someone to be caught with a certain quantity of drugs (as defined in MDA) and the presumption is guilt. This is contrary to natural justice which demands that we presume innocence until proven guilty. The threshold is kept low as the objective was to eradicate drugs. Here is why this is no longer relevant in TODAY’s context.
(1) In the early days of our development, people were relatively uneducated or unaware of its harmful effects but today we cannot hold the same to be true. Every child / citizen in Singapore is aware of the drug menace just as we are aware today of the threat of terrorism. Yet, as a society we are prepared to rehabilitate terrorists under the ISA – even though we belive that they are a walking, talking time bomb. We would not want our children to associate with terrorist any more than we would want them to associate to drug addicts or traffickers. So why the different attitudes apart from it being historical. Its time to change our views. Remember, the issue is whether the punishment should be mandatory? If the judges believe or can be made to believe that the trafficker can be rehabilitated, why shouldn’t they be given the powers to grant the trafficker a second chance? The trafficker has not killed anyone just like the terrorist? Better still, why not detain them under ISA indefinitely until they are rehabilitated. Why do we judge drug traffickers differently from terrorists? Remember the presumption….why? why? why?
(2) The mandatory death penalty has NOT led to the eradication of the drug menace in Singapore. Instead people turn to new forms of drugs which fall outside of the MDA Act or just look for cleverer ways of getting it into Singapore. The mules are easy targets and sending the mules to their death does not stop the drug trade. Under our current laws, the police do NOT need to prove that these mules have indeed been trafficking (a term which suggests that they have done it more than once). All it takes is mere possession and the presumption of guilt is immediately assumed. It is the mule who will need to prove that he did not know that what he/she had in his/her possession was indeed drugs. The profile of all these mules (including YVK) are all the same – they reflect poverty, lack of awarness, they are generally uneducated etc. Even if they knew they were carrying drugs, it is highly questionable whether they know the difference between each type of drug, its level of purity or its market value. We dont call them mules for nothing. Do they really deserve the mandatory death? Are they beyond rehabilitation? Are they any different from the terrorists currently under detention?
The issue I have with our laws TODAY is that while the mandatory death penalty has not been shown to eradicate the drug problem we continue to maintain that the death penalty should be mandatory. This punishment clearly does not serve its purpose. Should we not try something different?
(3) The fact that our judges have no discretion but to continue to send the mules to their gallows only shows the weakness in our system. If we can agree that most of the mules invariably undertake this risk because they face some form of financial hardship, surely it is time that our judicial system acknowledges that the mule’s circumstances, background, education etc should add weight as mitigating factors. We should let the judges decide – and they can only exercise their discretion if the punishment is NOT MANDATORY.
Here something for you to really think about – even if you continue to support the mandatory death penalty, can there be any room for politics in the decision making process?
If the rule of law is to prevail in Singapore – surely there must be independance between judiciary and the executive? But can we honestly say this in light of the argument presented by the Attorney General that it is the Cabinet that makes the final call?
This is a very fine line……I no longer support the mandatory death penalty as I do NOT see any room for politics at all.
Wui
Drug addiction is a differing kettle of fish from gambling and alcohol addiction. Societies world wide have come to that conclusion and make certain sin’s allowable and certain sin’s not. The fact that in Singapore drugs carry the highest punishment does not alter the fact that drugs globally are illegal and carry heavy criminal consequences.
What we are discussing is the consequence in particular for Vong whether it should be deaf or life, I cannot buy your logic that just because the SG gov like others around the world allows alcohol or drugs it strips them of the moral authority to impose punishment for drugs.
thanks
locke
Dear No
I believe in another discussion with Wui, I pointed out that those who support the DP with an M or without an M will point out that the aim of the DP for drug trafficking is not the total erradication of the drug menance but that of hindering the availability of drugs in our society. In that Singapore has largely succeeded.
Drugs are available yes, but the difference between easy availability on the streets and schools and available with much difficulty is a difference which I believe makes the DP or MDP worth paying.
I am all for designing a better mousetrap or a process for the mouse trap, but many in the MDP campaign are for complete removal of the DP and the Mouse Trap in any form thus I cannot bring myself to support the campaign in any form.
The removal of the presumption of guilt is something I can support though the MDP would remain.
Lets just say that the terrorist under the ISA might have the intent but as it is has not gone very far down the road of doing the deed. I.E planning scheming etc, if they have been caught with fire arms they would have faced the MDP.
Vui was not caught for planning to traffick drugs, he was caught for trafficking drugs world of difference between the two.
As to your argument that financial hardship is an excuse for crime, my own personal experiences indicate that its never an excuse as much as liberals seek. Please see my beliefs as stated to Wui about crime and poverty and why I believe poverty cannot be a justification for crime.
As to the fact that the Cabinet makes the final call. PLease understand that even as we debate about 21 versus 22p of the constitution and the fine wording of the constitution. PLease understand the relevance of the ” royal perogative” under commonwealth law and how a head of state replaced the queen under that perogative with the cabinet advising the Queen or head of state.
At best we have some grey areas constitutionally because our president is elected with limited powers but if we study its constitutional begainings and how it was meant to replace the queen , then we see that from the very begaining the Cabinet and the PM was the one with the authority.
Thanks
Locke
Written by Brian McCartan
Friday, 29 February 2008
The US goes after a shady Burmese “businessman” and turns up the heat on his Singapore links also
In an action that Burma watchers view as long overdue, the United States earlier this week slapped financial sanctions on wealthy Burmese businessman Lo Hsing Han, his US-educated son, Steven Law and Law’s wife, Cecilia Ng, a Singaporean businesswoman.
At least 10 Singaporean companies owned by Law’s wife have been targeted by the sanctions. Among other things, the sanctions point up the often-unhealthy way the Singaporean government chooses to ignore relationships between its financial community and unsavory Burmese businessmen. Because of the ties to Lo’s main corporate vehicle, Asia World Co. Ltd, the story also illustrates graphically the narco-state that Burma’s rulers have visited upon the world stage.
Asia World is targeted by sanctions also. And, included among the Singaporean companies owned by Ng is Golden Aaron Pte Ltd, which has been linked to the Chinese state-controlled oil and gas giant, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). Under the sanctions, any bank accounts and financial assets the individuals or their companies hold in the United States are frozen and Americans are forbidden from doing business with them.
Dear Singaporeans this article speaks volome and if ti is the gospel truth than the drog lords and the investment and dealings must be stopped immediately. Singaporeans do not need drug money and people associated to drugs. Peace N Love
Dear Liberal Locke
Thank you for your frank and fair comments.
If I understand you correctly, we do agree there is a difference between MDP and DP. However you suggest that the removal of presumption of guilt is something you would support but the MDP must stay. Thats a fair position to take however it assumes a high ethical standard in CNB, Police, Customs etc. The alternative is perhaps to maintain the presumption and remove the M. This then shifts the burden to the judiciary to apply itself fairly, with impartiality and with due regard to the mitigation of the accused. My preference is for the latter…
Let me tell you why removing the M is a much better position to hold in Singapore. Alan Shadrake in his book highlights the case of Vignes Mourti and how the courts relied on the conversation between the arresting officer and the accused to eventually determine guilt and to pronounce the MDP. The converstaion between the arresting officer and the accused was in Tamil, it was translated by the arresting officer on his return to Clementi Police Station and recorded in the police field book.
Nobody confirmed the accuracy of the translation nor the actual conversation – it was ultimately a case of the officer’s word against the word of the accused. The accused never signed any statement that suggested the accuracy of this conversation. Instead he signed statements which completely denied that he knew he had drugs in his possession.
I think you will agree that at minimum, we would expect the police (and everyone else in the criminal justice system) to be held to very high ethical standards irrespective of whether they had to prove the guilt of accused (your proposition) or if they presume the guilt of the accused. I say ‘very high’ ethical standards because this is MDP.
Here is what happened – the very next day after making the arrest (20st Sep 2001), this officer raped and sodomised a woman (21st Sep 2001) and she filed a report against the police officer on 22nd Sep 2001. For the next few months this officer and his close police colleague and friends tried to persuade / bribe her to drop the charges and they eventually succeeded. The case eventually came to light and both the arresting police officer and his police colleague were arrested and charged and convicted on 31st Mar 2005.
Now here are dates you need to note:
Vignes Mourti’s 1st Court of Appeal hearing was in 25th November 2002 and the Court upheld the guilty verdict based on the conversation recorded in the police field book which was not corroborated nor was the translation verified. The police officer credibility was assumed. The judgment by the court of 3 judges was issued on 22nd Jan 2003. The MDP had been served and Vignes was sentenced to hand on 26 Sep 2003.
If you read the Lawnet report on the case filed against the two police officers for corruption/bribery you will note that it was only heard in 2005. Here’s the clincher – the lawnet case report states very clearly that the 2nd police officer signed a statement on 20th Feb 2003 to implicate his colleague for this offence. This is 3 months after Vignes Mourti’s Court of Appeal hearing and 1 month after the judgment was released BUT WELL BEFORE HE WAS DUE TO BE HUNG.
Lawyer M Ravi took up the challenge of seeking presidential pardon (pro-bono)and filed a 2nd appeal which was heard by CJ Yong and 2 other CA judges on 25th September – a last minute effort to say his life – and it was turned down. Viges is a father of twin boys and both the kids and his mother fought hard to save his life but to no avail. The judiciary is not to be blamed as they were not aware of the facts. Neither did Lawyer M Ravi know that this police officer’s credibility was now highly questionable or he would certainly have made this known.
Can we honestly go to bed at night believing that this man was justly hung on the words of a police officer who had raped and sodomised a woman?
Our criminal justice system is not infallible as they are made up of humans. But if we can no longer rely on them to conduct themselves to the highest ethical standards, then its time for a change. The M must be dropped from the MDP. We MUST revert to the rule of law and let an independant judiciary function as independantly as it should in any democratic society. There is no room for politics to interfere in this process.
All it takes is one life.
——-
Read for yourself the following Lawnet Reports (ask for lawyer!)
(1) 1st Court of Appeal Case
Vignes s/o Mourthi and another v PP
[2003] SGCA 2
(2) 2nd Court of Appeal Case
Vignes s/o Mourthi v PP
[2003] SGCA 42
(3) The case against the Police Officers
PP v S Rajkumar and Another
[2005] SGDC 77
locke,
firstly, I hope we don’t use the word ‘sin’ to describe actions that are deemed unacceptable or acceptable in societies.
How do society ‘come to conclusions’ in the first place? There are no conclusions. What will be deem good (acceptable) or bad (unacceptable) will keep changing and rules will continue to be tweaked as societies progress in various directions.
There is still many parts of the world that will see what I do as pure evil. And not too long ago, even USA banned alcohol. Now, why some countries have abolished the death penalty for certain crime like drug crimes and some not? Why some countries have abolished death penalty all together? Why did they do it?
Sure drug addiction and alcohol addiction are different. But in principle they are but the same.
A knife death and a death by a gun shot wound is also different.. but yet they have the same context.
If you have a lot of money, and you choose to take a terrible drug like heroine… What happens?
If you have a lot of money, and you choose to take liver killing spirit… What happens?
By the way, I do sell alcohol.
Dear Say
The presumption of guilt and further improvements to the CPC which should in my view include not only handwritten but videotaped statements. In that you are clearer than Alan in his book on Justice in Singapore ( great read) which does not differentiate between the judges, the laws and the the prosecutors.
At the end of the day the debate between those for and against the death penalty also boils down to a cold calculation, if a demonstrably innocent percent is found guilty and put to death by the state, does it strengthen the argument for its abolition ? Or as you put it all it takes is one life………..
For that matter no criminal justice system is completely infalliable, they all have flaws in one form or the other and the hope lies in minimising but practically not erradicating mistakes. A falliable system also means the innocent being found guilty just as much as the guilty being found innocent.
How does then one justify a DP or for that matter an MDP in an imperfect system would be the next question ? Does one life the holy grail of many anti DP activists justify the removal of the DP or MDP ?
Firstly I would sign and support a petition seeking a judicial review or pardon Vignes, if a mistake of some form was made , then fairly it should be taken up debated and the system improved or if decided removed.
But personally for me all it does not take is “one life” . The age old cry of liberals “better for a hundred guilty men to go free” then for “one innocent men to die” just does not ring true for me
Locke
Dear Wui
Alochol , Gambling and Cigarettes are considered different from drugs for a very good reason, your analogy between a knife wound and a bullet wound being incorrect.
They are all addictive in various form’s but that is balanced off versus the damage they do to an individual, the pleasure derived and the costs to society at large of that addiction.
Perhaps it is human nature to become addicted to anything and everything :_)) and in a totally free society without laws we would be free to do anything or be addicted to anything but as it is humanity to progressed has organized it self and given up some of its absolute freedoms
I would give you an extrem example. cars are dangerous , we still have careless drivers and road accidents which kill and main innocent people despite the existence of traffic rules regulations and the police. Should we ban the use of cars in all form ?
Locke
Dear Lockeliberal,
Why do you think my analogy is incorrect? What are these good reasons that you have mentioned?
The drug trade is a very complex problem due to many reasons. The drugs themselves are very misunderstood.
What are drugs for? Clinical or original forms (or original idea of usage) are very different from Street forms. Why would there be street forms in the first place? Why would there be moonshine liquor?
In tribes, there are always some form of drugs… but the drugs do not destroy any tribes. Why is that? Is it because there is very little cost or non at all?
Why is the drug trade so profitable? Who are these people who love consuming drugs? Why do they do it? Why do they affect the rich and poor differently?
Why did the USA lift the ban on alcohol? Why are there many middle eastern countries still banning the same stuff? Religion? Or ignorance?
Have you been to Holland? Do you know that most people who do drugs there are not the Dutch? It’s usually the tourists. Why is that? Is Amsterdam a cowboy town? Far from it.
The countries that abolished the death penalty for drug use (or even the death penalty in it’s entirety), are there millions of lives and families being destroyed like how PAP has envisioned and preached? I thought we aspire to be like Switzerland?
Is there something these mature civilized nations do not know that our ruling party does? Did they stop the death penalty because of emotional reasons or did studies compel them to look into the hard facts of what death penalty does and does not do? Which are the nations who still adopt the death penalty? And what are they like? What type of citizenry do they possess?
I used the death by knife or gun, as a comparison to damage done by the addiction to alcohol or drugs.
You point out the danger of cars and the potential recklessness of some drivers… well.. that is precisely one of my points…. So instead of banning cars, what do we do? We educate. We educate people who use cars, and we educate people who do not use cars.
What happens when we raise prices of cigarettes? (and promote avoidance on it by really bad, corny and psychologically poor ads which really do not help the cause) What if we ban it? What do you think will happen?
Dear Locke
I admire your conviction in holding on to your views but I find it hard to accept that you are able to brush off one life as being a necessary / acceptable result of our criminal justice system. I hold you in much higher esteem – let me tell you why.
a. Vignes’s life probably has no relevance to you and so its easy for you to hold this position. But if he was your son or brother and TODAY you find out that the police officer whose testimony sent him to the gallows was a rapist – I dont think you would feel the same.
b. We agree that no criminal justice system is in fallible and that is why in some countries they rely on jurors while in ours we depend on our judges to apply themselves with impartiality. It is also precisely for these reasons that we take the responsibility of determining guilt away from the supporting characters (such as CNB, police etc) and require them to ‘prove beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused is guilty. Even when we say the presumtion is reversed, we ultimately expect the judiciary to apply itself to determine the truth and dispense with justice. But when you make an offence mandatory, the judiciary can no longer apply itself. The scales of justice are tipped in favour of the prosecution and there may be good reasons for this. But is this still relevant today?
c. The age old saying of liberals (that its better to set 100 guilty men free than to hang one innocent man) only applies as a moral compass for judges and jurors alike when they are faced with a difficult decision. This is not the case with Vignes – the judges were never in a position to determine his fate. The law had already pre-determined it. It is no wonder that it does not ring true for you!!
d. Its interesting that you would be prepared to sign a petition but surely you are not arguing that our criminal justice system should be swayed by either petitions or politics. Is that what you are arguing? No doubt signing a petition helps ease our conscience but I dont see how this can help Vignes.
Incidentally he has already been hung, if this was not already evident from the facts.
d. If all it does NOT take is one life, then how many? Where do you draw the line, Locke? How can you tell when we have crossed the line? This is where your argument fails for me.
I humbly beg to disagree – all it needs to take is one life to discredit the system we have had in place for years.
I do not expect to change your views, Locke. But if I have made you more aware, I have achieved my purpose – in that way if someone you know ever gets caught in our criminal justice system you will not have the luxury of saying, I did not know this could happen to him.
But if I have managed to change your mind, it will be nice to know.
Dear No
Vignes fate was determined by the evidence at hand. I would like to add the following points and this is where I believe Alan’s book fails badly with regards to the VIgnes case even though it formed a core portion of his argument.
When I first read about the Vignes case, it seemed to me clear cut, no other evidence at hand, the testimony of a crooked officer being the key factor. the testimony of course being critical. Btw I am unable to access the full lawnet reports but I will be happy to read them if you send them to me. However a detailed google search of Vignes case turned up a more complicated story , the details of which were left out whether deliberately by Alan or not. There was other evidence at hand or strong circumstantial , including the person who supplied him the drugs who was hanged with him. Of course a tainted piece of evidence from a police officer of dubious integrity was critical but there is a world of difference between it being critical without other evidence and it being critical with.
Legally one is entitled to have the case called into question based on one piece of tainted critical evidence, time honored legal tradition. But how much that would have affected the court case, and how much that affects subsequent fair analysis of the case is an issue that can be discussed,
The case of VIgnes being highlighted whether by Alan or in the discussion here on the TOC was I feel very much one sided in that sense in not providing a complete picture.
Your arguments have been reflected by many within the Anti Death Penalty camp. What if it was your brother being hanged ? He wants Vui Kong dead to even more ludicrous rants like his blood is on your hands.
There is a strong sense of “society dehumanizes the criminal so as to justify the state taking his life therefore one has to put a human face to the criminal and well make every one in that society feel or be responsible for a pointless death” being the rallying cry all leading to all it takes is one life argument.
I would being human feel differently if it struck a lot closer to home, but society or a justice system cannot be created run , or even adjusted because of one failure, one life or one accident.
Looking into detail at VIgnes I would argue that removal of presumption and a stricter CPC code, would provide greater safe guards if ever a vignes was to happen again.
Locke
When it involves the ‘elites’ we will definitely lose, they have all the money to win while we either support them or die going against them. For the case of Yong, S R Nathan could give him clemency but no, if he does that, he’s going against LHL and LKY, he doesn’t want to lose his rice bowl, that’ll be bad, in fact, he choose to carry their balls, well, I say we should support Alan Shadrake and M Ravi, let’s see if the people’s support will help.