by Kirsten Han
The pardon process has been “so irreversibly tainted”, human rights lawyer M Ravi asserted, that Yong Vui Kong should be granted an indefinite stay of execution.
Mr Ravi was making his submissions on the behalf of his client before the Court of Appeal on Monday morning. He was appealing a High Court ruling handed down last August that the president has no discretion in the clemency process, and that the power lies with the Cabinet.
He also raised the issue of apparent bias in the context of comments made by Law Minister Shanmugam in May 2010.
The courtroom was packed, with extra benches provided to accommodate the members of the public.
M Ravi with his legal team outside the Supreme Court.
At the beginning of the proceedings, Mr Ravi unexpected asked that Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong disqualify himself from the case as there would be a conflict of interest.
CJ Chan had been an Attorney-General from the years 1992 to 2006. In 2005, President S R Nathan was reported by the press to say that he had the power to grant pardons and had to follow the advise of the Cabinet. As the Attorney-General at that time, CJ Chan ought to have advised President Nathan as to his position on the issue. Therefore, he could be seen as an interested party in the proceedings, and there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) responded that the hearing was concerned specifically with Yong’s application, and that there would be no conflict of interest, hence no need for CJ Chan to recuse.
Justice V K Rajah asked Mr Ravi if he was making a real application, of if it was just “a stunt”. Mr Ravi replied that it was a serious issue that he had to raise. He stated that by implying he was pulling off a stunt, Justice Rajah was displaying prejudice against him, and should therefore also disqualify himself from the bench.
After a brief discussion, the Court of Appeal denied Mr Ravi’s application.
“The President has just become a postal boy.”
Mr Ravi argued that a “doctrine of legitimate expectation” had been created in the minds of the public that the President was the one who had the discretion to decide upon clemency petitions. He explained that this expectation had been created through numerous past newspaper reports of granted pardons, where the credit was attributed to Presidents such as Devan Nair, Wee Kim Wee and Ong Teng Cheong.
Mr Abdullah, speaking on behalf of the AGC, countered that legitimate expectation should “emanate from someone with actual ostensible authority”, and not simply newspaper reports. He went on to say that reporters would frame their story in a way comprehensible to the layperson, and could not be taken as an authority on such issues.
Mr Ravi responded to that argument by pointing out that major newspapers such as The Straits Times is closely linked to the government, and that therefore its contents would have been authorised by the government. Thus, newspaper articles that appeared in The Straits Times can also be considered to have some authority.
“If you don’t have independent press you have to face this squarely,” Mr Ravi said.
He pointed out that the AGC had already admitted to the existence of such an expectation when the former Attorney-General Walter Woon made the comment that “in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy” during his submissions before the Court of Appeal in March 2010.
“If in theory it is the President then I submit that you follow it in practice,” said Mr Ravi.
He went on to say that if the Cabinet is the one that wields the power in clemency decisions, the “President has just become a postal boy”, conveying the final decision without having a say in the matter.
Mr Ravi also asserted that legitimate expectation had been created in the fact that the President is the one who signs the warrants of execution, as well as granting reprieves. The President is also able to grant clemency in non-death penalty cases. This then, Mr Ravi argued, has created the legitimate expectation that the President is able to grant clemency when it comes to death penalty cases.
However, Mr Abdullah said that there was no difficulty in interpreting Article 22(P) of the Singapore Constitution. “Article 22(P) is plain and therefore it is very clear the President must act on advice of the Cabinet,” he said.
General policy, or a specific case?
Mr Ravi also asserted that the comments made by Law Minister Mr K Shanmugam had breached the rule of apparent bias in his client’s case.
On the 9th of May 2010, Mr Shanmugam responded to a question posed by a constituent about the death penalty, and mentioned Yong Vui Kong by name. He was quoted by the TODAY newspaper as saying, “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say, ‘We let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”
As Law Minister and a key member of the Cabinet, Mr Shanmugam’s comments had created a reasonable apprehension that Yong’s clemency appeal had been prejudiced, Mr Ravi claimed. Therefore, if the power to decide on clemency petitions rests with the Cabinet instead of the President, Yong’s case has already been prejudged by at least one member of the executive.
Things were further aggravated, Mr Ravi asserted, when the Home Affairs Ministry also entered the fray to clarify Mr Shanmugam’s statements. By entering their comments into the issue, the pardon process had been tainted by bias, and the whole Cabinet should thus be disqualified from making a decision, Mr Ravi said.
The AGC disagreed, saying that Mr Shanmugam had not prejudiced Yong’s case, and that he had just been commenting on the Singapore government’s general drug policy. Mr Abdullah claimed that the Law Minister was “not purporting to decide on Yong Vui Kong’s case” when he responded to the question.
Mr Abdullah said that there was “nothing to indicate that the Minister had closed his mind in any way, and that there was therefore no breach by the Minister in answering the question at the dialogue session.
However, upon questioning by Justice Andrew Phang, Mr Abdullah agreed that the courts are entitled to interfere in a case if there is evidence of it being prejudged. He also clarified that such an interference would only be appropriate in extreme situations.
Mr Ravi then responded that his case was “extreme enough”, as it is a mandatory death sentence case that concerns the life of a man. He thus urged the Court of Appeal to interfere in the case as the government had already compromised themselves by getting involved before Yong’s clemency petition had been filed.
Mr Ravi went further to criticise President S R Nathan’s lack of action. President Nathan had neither convened a Constitutional Tribunal to determine his powers in clemency issues, nor made any comment on the High Court’s ruling or Mr Shanmugam’s comments.
“He’s being paid $4 million for what?” Mr Ravi exclaimed.
Yong's two older brothers, Yong Yun Chong (L) and Yong Yun Leong (R).
Throughout the court’s proceedings, Yong Vui Kong sat quietly in the dock with his head bowed, listening to his court interpreter.
When the court adjourned for fifteen minutes halfway through the morning, his brother Yong Yun Leong held up a birthday banner signed by supporters of the We Believe In Second Chances campaign in Singapore. Yong smiled, pressed his palms together and bowed in thanks, but was unable to examine the banner for longer as court security asked that the banner be kept away.
After hearing both sides, the judges reserved judgement. The date for a verdict has not been announced.
————
Other reading:
The Straits Times: No ruling yet on trafficker’s appeal
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
Good points raised by Ravi and credit is due to him though I sometimes think he play to the gallery.
If President Nathan is reading this, I hope he grants Yong Vui Kong a pardon before he steps down as President.
He will be remembered in our history books as a President who truly feels for people and not acts according to cabinet decisions as we all know it.
If PM Lee can forgive Wong Kan Seng for his grave mistake in the Mas Selamat fiasco(which we Singaporeans cannot), I believe President Nathan can do so for Yong too.
“He’s being paid $4 million for what?” Mr Ravi exclaimed.
Maybe Mr Ravi could find the answer in “Why Am I Here”? :)
The outcome of the judgement should not surprise anybody. I am not holding my breath.
Voice recording of court proceedings and “illegal activities” (“illegal” as defined by the authorities)are already being banned. The next logical step would be to ban online blog postings about legal proceedings.
Anything that is detrimental to the PAP shoud be banned.
The court is supporting the ministers, supporting the ST. The law & court is so skewed that I wonder if the whole system is so partisan when deciding whether a man should live or die. So the pappy silent slogan of “you die your business” indeed hold some truth after reading what has transpired in the court room.
May our beloved President grant Yong a pardon! Give Yong a chance in this life to repent and believe in Jesus Christ that he might be saved. Every life is precious to Christ.
How in the world is Sham commenting on ‘general drug policy’ when he named a specific name???
Anyway, I have to thank Abdullah for pointing out that newspaper reports (aka ST and other SPH publications) do NOT reflect legitimate expectations. This should be emphasize when GE comes around!
This whole episode shows that the Courts rank lower than the Cabinet.
Maybe the next step for Ravi is to fight the case of the “kangaroo courts”?
Having watched the case myself, I came to TOC looking forward to its coverage of the case. I was disappointed, however, to find that the report has not been entirely objective.
After all, it fails to report on Mr. Ravi’s totally unbecoming court demeanour, threatening the bench, continually interrupting the judges, interrupting the opposing counsel in his submissions, taking contradictory positions on the law, refusing to answer questions (at one point refusing to admit that there was a textual difference between the 1957 Constitution and the 1965 Constitution – which is just a question of fact).
Whatever merit there was in his application for disqualification was dispelled by the manner he did it. From the perspective of a public observer, threatening the bench, I was just not persuaded the moment he started raising his voice and avoiding questions. He took questions so personally it was as if he had something to hide.
Further, it was just plain rude to surprise the AGC with an application that Mr. Ravi did not inform them of. So much for the rhetoric of due process and fairness he keeps going on about.
I admit heartily that there was merit in his substantive arguments, which was well researched. I am disappointed by the manner of his delivery, which was all over the shop and sometimes inconsistent. Unfortunately, I was left wondering if the bench would have been tested by the legal argument more if Yong had gotten a better lawyer. Hopefully the written submissions will give the judges food for thought.
Having watched the case myself, I came to TOC looking forward to its coverage of the case. I was disappointed, however, to find that the report has not been entirely objective.
After all, it fails to report on Mr. Ravi’s totally unbecoming court demeanour, threatening the bench, continually interrupting the judges, interrupting the opposing counsel in his submissions, taking contradictory positions on the law, refusing to answer questions (at one point refusing to admit that there was a textual difference between the 1957 Constitution and the 1965 Constitution – which is just a question of fact).
Whatever merit there was in his application for disqualification was dispelled by the manner he did it. From the perspective of a public observer, I was just not persuaded the moment he started raising his voice, threatening the bench and avoiding questions. He took questions so personally it was as if he had something to hide.
Further, it was just plain rude to surprise the AGC with an application that Mr. Ravi did not inform them of. So much for the rhetoric of due process and fairness he keeps going on about.
I admit heartily that there was merit in his substantive arguments, which was well researched. I am disappointed by the manner of his delivery, which was all over the shop and sometimes inconsistent. Unfortunately, I was left wondering if the bench would have been tested by the legal argument more if Yong had gotten a better lawyer. Hopefully the written submissions will give the judges food for thought.
maybe, you guys should organize a “Picnic for a Cause” at the Istana Open House this coming Lunar New Year.
bring banners, images and let our President see. Speak to him personally.
Why do I sense that the way this whole thing is being argued out, it has become more than just about Vui Kong. I mean the hyper politicization of the whole clemency process, will it serve Vui Kong’s cause any good?
@temujin – all good litigators play to the gallery to some extent
@apologetics
It seems like politics is in the way of justice. Thus it has to be clarified in court.
Good job Ravi.
This whole episode is going on like a John Grisham novel but sadly a boy’s life is hanging in the balance.
If I am paid $4m just to rubber stamp documnets and be a postal boy, why not?
The easiest job in the world for an old puppet man. Much better and easier than the elderly man who collects cardboard
on the streets.
To Popcorn
That is the whole idea of PAPy style, to pay you millions in exchange that you must not no the reason. So after 10 years as head of state, that fat old man still ask “WHY AM I HERE!”. Similarly, the other minitoots were paid handsome in exchange for being a parrot, if you proved otherwise, you are chief grumbler, daft or duds so to speak in tongue of LKY. Any bloggers, forums who dared to divulge the truth will risk being gazzetted. However ST, Mediacorp who are parrots of the ruling party will be spared. Unforunately, the court believed under such systems,created by PAPy is “fair” and “just”. This episode brings evidence to the next level.
‘PRESIDENT’S PARDON’ SHOULD BE RENAMED ‘CABINET’S PARDON’.
The above commentator has hit the bull’s eye. Just like we may as well change the Chinese New Year to the Spring Festival,
here we may as well change the President’s Pardon to be the Cabinet’s Pardon, the hypocrisy is affecting a man’s life and death. MM Lee has taught us well to be brutally frank and direct to the point, no beating about the bush,
PAP.
I have said this before but it may be worth saying again.
Article 22P of the Constitution cannot the final word on this issue due to the existence of Article 21. The inherent conflict between Articles 21 and 22P is subtle, and it is undesirable to leave the issue unresolved. Everything should lead back to the fundamentals of “separation of powers” and “check and balance”.
We are reminded that the People elect the president and the parliament to be the People’s representatives, but do not elect the cabinet. The latter is decided by the ruling political party. To deny the People’s representatives to do the job that they have been elected to do is to defy the will of the People.
Therefore, it becomes imperative for Nathan to convene the Constitutional court as provided by Article 100 without delay to address this conflict. If the Constitution is defective, then it should be amended by a referendum.
Hear, hear..Steve Wu & Observer.
I am truly concerned for Yong VK, & I pray sincerely for him to be given a 2nd chance. But if Observer was correct in what he/she witnessed Ravi do in court, this only serves as a DISSERVICE to Vui Kong. Its Vui Kong’s life at stake here, for crying out loud! and Ravi should keep his theatrics to himself.
He can argue his case forcefully & logically using substantive legal arguments – and deliver these with legal professionalism in order to give Vui Kong the best chance in this appeal.
Really, while Ravi may have good intentions.. he should know how to conduct himself, n subvert his ego for the best interest of his client facing a capital sentence.
One by One
good litigators in a JURY system play to the gallery… since its the jury that decides..Not in Sg.
What referentum. In Singapore’s brand of democracy, everything just goes through Parliament sitting, everyone says aye, aye, and the law is passed smoonthly without much fanfare, irrespective of Article 21, or 22P, or whatever Article that is created.
Should there be a referentem necessary, it definitely should be one on whether we should allow casinos on our small Island.
See what happened? We, the people who elected the MPs to form the Cabinet in Parliament, are not even consulted, on a matter that affects our society on a sin business as gambling.
This lawyer power…
M Ravi has made very good arguments but the problem is the gov will be even more agitated and that means death!
We are dealing with highly egoistic elite and no way they will admit errors especially with the line of argument from M Ravi. There is no soft landing for government, and this smells trouble.
For VK’s sake, admit mistake and plead leniency, show extreme remorse and kuotow to the government will have a better chance of success
No man should decide whether another man should live or die. It is god’s decision and even than, god is love. However, it is every man’s responsibility to save a life, if within his capability to do so. If a person think someone’s life is cheap and deserved to be taken, than someday he will be fed by the own beast in him.
hope the next guy that take over president Nathan can perform can emulate President Ong, hope there will be a contest this time around
If the President wields no power and authority to grant pardons…then remove that process completely so that the President NEED NOT be the FOOL one more time.
If the Cabinet which include Shamugam is the sole authority on Mandatory Death Penalty cases why hear Court Cases at all….just let Shamugam and his colleagues hear the case then send the guy to the Gallows….
The Courts and Judges are redundant like the President…utterly useless and redundant
TOC’s coverage on M. Ravi is one of the very few reasons to keep logging onto this site.
@Bobby Tan
i think you are confused by Ravi.
The courts already looked at evidence and found him guilty.
The fact he was caught with the drugs, plus other testimony that he was aware also shows he is guilty.
the question is whether the president/cabinet should overide the ruling based on compassion. Whether u ask president or cabinet, you will get the same answer- no. Is their job to say yes to every clemency petition?
in clemency petition, it’s really up to whether the person is moved or not. in this case, none of them are.
To prettyplace
I do agree that politics is indeed in the way of justice and yes it is necessary to speak truth to power!
However, a young man’s life is on the line and his life or death will be determined by this process.
As all of us have seen over the years, when the hegemony of those who wield power is challenged, this administration will relentlessly thump it’s fist down, reinforcing precedence to preserve that hegemony. We have witnessed this with the gazetting of TOC as a political entity.
Given their modus operandi, is it wise to stake a young man’s life over such a fight which can’t be won? At least not in the present climate where most people within the electorate are apathetic to his cause?
I do not think it is necessarily the wrong thing to do, but is it the wisest move?
Refer to Affidavit of Mohammed Alias Abdullah ‘plaintiff’ Vs. Attorney General & MUIS ‘defendants’. Who will be show @ YouTube and will be published for the sake of religious truth to the court the fact lead MUIS if you’d like, please refer to the M.RAVI MESSRSL L.F. VIOLET NETTO call office @ 65337433 Ref: MR.6124.11.. Wish I hope the truth about the issue of 152 cases to the Awakened state again..?
IN THE HIGH COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Originating Summons No. 81 / 2011 / X
In the matter of the Maintenance of Religions Harmony Act (Cap. 167A)
And
In the matter of remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in his book “Hard Truths to keep Singapore going” and republished in the local media.
And
In the matter of Article 9, 12, 14, 15, 152 and 153 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore
And
In the Matter of Universal Declaration of Human Rights ASEAN Human Rights Commission and ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights.
Between
Mohammed Alias Abdullah
NRIC No. S7223210 J
‘Plaintiff’
And
Attorney General
&
MUIS ( Majlis Ugama Islamic Singapura)
“Defendants”
Every Asian and Non-Asian Go Here Now! http://lilyevangelene.blogspot.com/2011/03/breaking-news-23-year-old-yong-vui-kong.html