Kirsten Han /
The Court of Appeal, made up of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges VK Rajah and Andrew Phang, have unanimously dismissed Yong Vui Kong’s appeal.
Yong was appealing for a judicial review of the President’s powers in the clemency process and of Law Minister K Shanmugam’s comments.
Shanmugam’s Comments
At a community event in May 2010, Mr Shanmugam responded to a constituent’s question about the mandatory death penalty by saying that it was “a trade-off” for Singapore’s “safety and security”.
“If Yong escapes the death penalty, drug barons will think the signal is that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared and can be used as drug mules, argued Mr Shanmugam.”
– TODAY, 10 May 2010
In his judgement, CJ Chan supported High Court Judge Steven Chong’s ruling that Mr Shanmugam’s statements “did not constitute apparent bias (amounting to predetermination)”.
He asserted that the Law Minister’s statements merely reflected “the legislative policy” of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and that “youthfulness is… not in itself a ground for granting clemency.”
Image from The Straits Times
The President’s Powers
In the course of the hearing on the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty, then-Attorney General Walter Woon said that “[a]lthough in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision.”
This statement prompted Yong’s lawyer Mr M Ravi to take out an application for a judicial review of the President’s powers in August 2010. High Court Judge Steven Chong turned down the application. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal today.
In a joint summary judgement with Justice Rajah, Justice Phang stated that “the terms of Article 22P [of Singapore’s Constitution] make it clear that the President has no discretion as to how the clemency power should be exercised in a particular case.”
“The President may only exercise the clemency power in favour of an offender in circumstances where the Cabinet has advised him to do so,” he added
CJ Chan also upheld Judge Chong’s ruling that the offender seeking clemency does not have the right to see the Article 22P(2) materials submitted to the Cabinet for them to decide on how they should advise the President.
Article 22P(2) materials include the report of the judge who tried the case, the report of the Chief Justice or presiding judge of the appellate court and the opinion of the Attorney General on the judge’s reports.
Yong's lawyer M Ravi
Following the verdict, Ravi expressed his disappointment. “It’s no longer the President’s clemency; it’s the Cabinet’s clemency,” he said. “So I don’t understand why the President’s office is still in existence, if he doesn’t have any work to do.”
He urged the Malaysian government to take the case to the International Court of Justice and said that he would be filing a complaint with the Human Rights Council, before the Universal Periodic Review of Singapore’s human rights record.
Members of Singapore’s civil society have also expressed their disappointment with the verdict.
“The judgement has come back in a way that makes us question what is the value of 22P, and what is the value of the choice that the President has,” said Ms Braema Mathi, President of human rights NGO MARUAH. “That is the whole thing that I find really disheartening. He holds the highest level, so where is the space for him to assert his choice?”
Yong's brother Yun Leong with M Ravi
Yong’s older brother, Yong Yun Leong, told the media that despite losing this appeal, he would not be giving up the fight for his brother’s life.
“Both Vui Kong and I hope that Vui Kong’s story will remind young people not to be misled by drug syndicates,” he added.
Yong will now be given three months to file his clemency petition.
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
Our “elected” president exists for existential sake, and to unlock our reserves ‘in circumstances where the Cabinet has advised him to do so’. Little wonder, this president never got a single vote. Must be the mandate of heaven (predestined).
“If Yong escapes the death penalty, drug barons will think the signal is that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared and can be used as drug mules, argued Mr Shanmugam.”
well mr shanmugan.. what makes you think that the drug barons care about the mules? they only care that about the $.
marionette？！？！！！！
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-president-s-annual-salary-tops-s-4-2-million-.html
Also suck us dry.
could there be a little bit more info about the clemency petition, and what else more can be done to save vui kong? and to repeal the mandatory death penalty?
This case make a mockery out of the Law Society. How can these lawyers in the society not know that the President is in fact, toothless. And what use is there talking about presidential clemency?
Frankly, I am not too concerned about the outcome of the appeal. It is a foregone conclusion that the result will be what is it now. However I am very worried about the shits that were being uncovered by this saga.
I have totally lost respect for this highest institution of the country. As for the Law Society, what reason is there for their existence? It is not contributing to the betterment of the country…. and talking about justice? Justice my foot!
I hope he doesn’t give up and fight till his last breath.
by the way, any know what wrong with TR website? it’s down….
I’m really confused by the decision arrived at by the Court of Appeal, and the wording of Article 22P(2). 22P(2) states: “(2) Where any offender has been condemned to death by the sentence of any court and in the event of an appeal such sentence has been confirmed by the appellate court, the President shall cause the reports which are made to him by the Judge who tried the case and the Chief Justice or other presiding Judge of the appellate court to be forwarded to the Attorney-General with instructions that, after the Attorney-General has given his opinion thereon, the reports shall be sent, together with the Attorney-General’s opinion, to the Cabinet so that the Cabinet may advise the President on the exercise of the power conferred on him by clause (1). ”
Looking at this from a linguistics perspective, the key decision making agent here is the “President”: First, it is he who “shall cause the reports…” triggering off a sequence of administrative events cumulating with the AG’s opinion going to the Cabinet. Secondly, the Cabinet can only “ADVICE” the President on the exercise of the power of grant of pardon. The Cabinet cannot “INSTRUCT” the President. Likewise in 22P(1), it starts with “The President, as occasion shall arise, may on the ADVICE of the Cabinet”. He can take the advice, or he can ignore it (hence “MAY”). It is not an INSTRUCTION (ie “The President… MUST on the INSTRUCTION of the Cabinet…”). In law, such legal terms as “may”, “advice” have serious consequences, hence legal documents are always carefully drafted so that every word counts. So why are “may” and “advice” in the Constitution now intepreted as the Cabinet “must” and “instruct” the President?
Criticalist, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, the President is required to act in accordance with the Cabinet’s advice. As stated in art. 21(1) of the Constitution:
21. —(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.
It is sad to see a young live going to end. But if every tracker is getting away, Singapore will be filled with drugs.
A lot of Australians I know had told me that drugs had become so common because of the lax laws. A lot of young Australians tried for fun initially but got stuck. Now many Australians are not sure anymore if the lax laws is a good thing.
Sometimes in life, don’t wait until you are caught then you start to repent, it is too late. Every drug dealer will give excuses and hope to get awsy.
Hope Vui Kong’s death will be a stark reminder to everybody that MISTAKES PAYS, you don’t get away with it every time!
Remember Ong Teng Cheong case. It is exactly the same issue with the constitution that he seek to defend. Prof Woon was the president legal adviser I believed.
Subsequently, see what happened to both.. Very sick indeed.
The Office of the President is an insulting artifice; exists to present a facade for constitutional recourse. But none exists.
It functions, at best, as an adjunctive organ to Cabinet; at worst, is totally subservient to it. It’s pure window dressing, to endorse by rubber-stamping the whims of Cabinet. It’s an obsequious martinet, dancing to the tunes of its Master.
SAorry the word not has been ommited from has … mentioned the name of the accused/convicted…
The Constitution is fairly clear about what rights the President has and it is evident from Art 21(1) that this is not a personal discretion (the Constitution has very very few cases where the President has absolute discretion… there always seems to be some kind of condition, if not PCMR it’s CPA etc). As a law student I personally could not see how Ravi could successfully argue that the President actually has personal discretion here – but of course stranger things have happened in the courts. Personally, I thought it was game over when he failed to convince the court to include inhuman punishment and CIL into the meaning of law in art 9(1).
You can’t really fault the Court of Appeal for the current ruling. As judges, they have no choice but to uphold the clear words of the Constitution. You do not want a time when say the Opposition comes into power and then end up facing an entrenched judiciary more concerned about ideology than the law (which is what you sometimes see in other countries). In my opinion, the Elected Presidency was a completely flawed idea. There should be a second legislative chamber that handles what the President does. The President should just be a ceremonial office instead of the current not here not there situation.
Sorry i slipped into legalese there. CIL = customary international law
The case has no merit and the way forward is clear. Urging others to bring outside pressure to bear will not achieve anything.
the lesson for everyone here is – don’t EVER mess with S’pore, man.
The office of the President HAS NO MERIT.
Lawyer,
Thanks for your clarification.
Would you please also enlighten us on the president’s power to guide the reserve? Is it correct to say that the parliament with 2/3 votes can remove the power of the president?
Thanks again in advance.
President Power
I don’t think you need a lawyer to tell you that 2/3 of parliament can change the Constitution at its whim, and that includes the President’s powers. Which is why we need opposition to break the 2/3 majority!
lobo76,
Thanks for waking me up.
Perhaps, first to change is the constitution can only be changed by a referendum?
The President, although just ancillary to the Cabinet, has a job to do. He has to hug babies, stand like a Dua Peck Kong at ceremonial duties, perpectually shaking hands at the door, and travel
round the world to be fetted and dined, and most importantly to rubber-stamp documents after subseviently saying aye aye to the Cabinet.
Everybody should know our Court has no jurisdiction power to make decisions on drug traffickers on death row, throughout the various trials, Judges have to keep looking over their shoulders for approval from the Govt.
Vui Kong is Oliver Twist?
http://theowlcritic.blogspot.com/2011/04/tyburn-tree-in-singapore.html
I’m quite appalled at the racist remarks here. “Black Dog”, “Dirty Black”, “Prata President”. Since this is a moderated site, I assume the moderators are fine with such comments. That in itself is disturbing.
Hi William, since the article went up I don’t think there has been any moderation yet. But thank you for point these comments out, they have since been removed.
@ Wake up
I have my own reservations about referendums, keeping in mind that a significant portion of the people who vote may not have the capacity to do the kind of thinking that is needed to make the right decision.
For example, I think the referendum in Switzerland(?) which ended with Muslims not allowed to build their minarets is just wrong.
For policies regarding tax rates, how many of us can read the full budget and understand all the financial implications? Yet, I have the choice to influence the decision for it?
i agree with freedom’s post.
a reasonable person reading that sentence will form an impression that Yong should not escape the death penalty because of the blah blah blah reason. because the minister used Yong as the example it was more of pinpointing the case rather than a policy that the minister was mentioning. and because the minister is the head of the law ministry, his comments will not be taken lightly by readers. bear in mind that all these was said and mentioned before the Appeal Court came to a verdict.
if the minister is referring to the policy in general, he should have stated that any person convicted of drug trafficking will result in facing the death penalty and not mentioning Yong at all who at that time has the possibility, however remote, that the Appeal Court may acquit him…
“The theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision.”
What is our President good for?
Not to mentioned that he even get a pay rise of 26%!!!
the law is more or less the law of the pap (since they form >2/3 majority and they can amend it any time the pap deems fit), how can the cabinet allow the clemency by going against their law? they will be slapping their face if they do so, rt?
how partial will it be for the cabinet to decide on the Yong’s clemency request with the law minister also sitting in that cabinet and whom has already decided that Yong should go to the gallows even before Yong gets the verdict from the Appeal Court?
Dear Mr SR Nathan,
How I wish I could do your job as it’s the easiest career in the whole damn world! Earning S$3.2 million a year doing nothing, just acknowledge whatever the cabinets or rather the Dictator & Nepotism Lee and his cronies tell you to do or what to say, you just penned your signature to it eh?? I think even President Bush would admire your job. It seems Singapore President is Cabinet=elect and NOT people elect… get that straight!!
Be Brave and face the hanging..
Just as you traffick drugs and earn your crooked $$$
See you no more
Vote them out and change the Constitution. That is the only way to do it.
Unfortunately, it might be too late for Vui Kong. Sad.
Thank you, moderator. By the way, it’s “Wiliam”, not “William”. Long story.
There isn’t any good grounds to spare him of the gallows.
He is not suffering from Down syndrome and had a normal mind. He problem is greed!
Every drug dealer will claim that they are gullible when caught, but will never mention how they spurt the ill gotten money lavishly on themselves.
He have to learn to pay for his mistake, just that this mistake will cost him his life.
A miracle would be that after the GE, a humane government would have taken over, & pardon all drug-offenders on death row. Seriously, that is what I truly want. & I believe I speak for everybody that believes in every living thing’s right to live.
It’s disturbing the current authorities are so hell-bent on murdering people for non-violent crimes. What can I do? I want to change this but I am powerless.
Demonstrations for every living thing’s right to live aren’t even allowed here (you most probably won’t get a permit for that here) & we who believe in living rights are clamped up all inside.
For people who are pro-death-penalty-for-drug-offenders, imagine you are the one arrested for a non-violent drug crime. Or worse, you got framed for one. You have to go through everyday knowing that you will be killed one day. That is terribly stressful & scary beyond words. Besides, there have been cases of wrongful executions. How can we bring the innocent back if he’s already being executed for a falsely-acquited crime a few years ago?
To all those people saying that Yong Vui Kong deserves his punishment –
Yes, but why does it have to be the death penalty? Why not just sentence him to life imprisonment?
Are you all just bloodthirsty barbarians so eager to see someone die?
So silly. Why dun make use of him to lure out the culprits. At least, with him, you can get a few more to jail or to the robe.
If you are truly concern about the citizens, I think you people out there should work harder to stop this drug syndicate.
Must always think before you actually put someone to death.
Yup, every teenager dream is to stay 20 years in prison. What is shamugan thinking?
Kuching
if you start throwing labels (bloodthirsty brabarians) about, then don’t complain when others paste a label (naive/self righteous) back onto you.
It would be a decent post if you just had the first 2 paras.
M Ravi says that he will urged the Malaysian government to take the case to the International Court of Justice and said that he would be filing a complaint with the Human Rights Council, before the Universal Periodic Review of Singapore’s human rights record.
Will he do similarly for the case of Atiqah now being condemned by the Malaysia courts to death, and urged Singapore government to take the case to the International Court of Justice and Ravi personally taking the case with the Human Rights Council, before the Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia’s human rights record?????
We await M Ravi’s response on Atiqah’s case and hope he will be a hero too for a fellow Singaporean!
see what happened to ong teng cheong when he actually did some work and wanted to know how much was in the reserves? it’s time for PAPa to retire and for a new government and a referendum to change the constitution. now.
Oh come on, the president fritters away his time and money sitting around at the turf club betting on horses, enjoying the best food, the best drinks and the best luxury while developing a heart attack. He has no time to help people like Vui.
Mr N is Mr L’s minion, he got no real power wan.
I am no lawyer but to me, one fucntion of criminal Laws must be to protect and provide security for those living within the land. It is meant to be good for the people. That being the case, those empowered to uphold the law of the land need also to exercise that power with great compassion and humanity bearing in mind that their action should result in a better and more humane society for those living in it. Are we better off when we extinguish the life of a young person whose life has barely begun? If a drunk driver who kills innocent pedestrians can get away with a fine and short jail term, why the compulsion to hang a young man who has yet to be shown to have killed anyone? Is it so difficult for those in power to set aside their legalism and give a young man a second chance? How worst off can we be as a society to make an exception on account of his age?
If we just wanted a ceremonial President as a ceremonial Head of State … just to sign documents and presides like Tua Pek Kong, why do we need to spend S$4.2 Million Dollars…. the so called Elected President is a complete waste of money as he end up is juz a ceremonial rubber stamp !
We might as well get back the Queen as our Head of State if we juz wanz a Ceremonial Head without real power….
The Queen will just charge a nominal tribute for that job like in Australia, New Zealand and Canada whereby the Queen still serves as a Ceremonial Head of State….
And the Queen will be a better Tua Pek Kong den our elected President as she oso had the Royal Aura ~~
Wow still stood on high ground with narrow mind with law. Heartless justice doesnt understand what does 2nd chance means. I thank god i am living in Canada. Our law is very reasonable and balance as long you dont kill someone. If Vui’s situation in Canada. he will be free in 6 months instead narrow mind death. My heart go to Vui’s family. Someone give him bear hug for me.
The judgement made not really surprising. This is to be expected.
Somehow i as a learned human fully disagree how the SINGAPORE government handle this case. It is just purely done out of favour of the LAW. Who create the law? HUMAN. However law has no feeling, no sympathy AND it is view very fair one sidely. SINGAPORE has forgotten its root how SINGAPORE became an independence state as TODAY. SINGAPORE gained independence from MALAYSIA through negotiation ,,,a negotiation of the educated minds and no law forcing SINGAPORE to depart from MALAYSIA. MALAYSIA just gave away SINGAPORE to be its own without prejudice BUT out of friendship through our great LEADERS of YESTERDAY. THEREFORE, no international law involved. JUST ON HUMAN FEELING and UNDERSTANDING.
SINGAPORE is a developed NATION with people of high mentality background. SINGAPORE government must set an example of good governance nation without discrimination, with rightful sympathy and uphold the nation flag who treasure human lives and not taking human life.
SO LAW has no feeling unto human..THIS IS very unkind and very cruel to use LAW to take a person life. LAW suppose to use as a way to balance view and not just one sided to the powerful only. Therefore law is made by human and LAW also needs to have sympathy.
As human we must remember, we must do good unto others who are innocent. Do not portray as such that by doing this sentence is perfection. In this world nobody is perfect.
I hope this message brings HOPE and GIVE life to this youngster YONG VUI KONG who from a poor broken family background, illiterate on common law, school dropout and is too naive and without good parental guidance in his life. HE DESERVES TO BE GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE.
YOUR RIGHT JUDGEMENT SAVES A LIFE.
I’m so glad I made the right decision to move out of Canada years ago!
The clear thing we see is yong vui kong is a victim……nabbed using interpol find those rich and powerful bosses in malaysia and singapore…not this innocent young kid……I believe all singaporean n world leaders with rastional mind will know who is right and wrong….
WE AS HUMAN MUST NEVER KILL INNOCENT VICTIM …….THE MORE SO IF YOU ARE GOVERNMENT CHOSEN BY PEOPLE……..IF WE KILLED INNOCENT VICTIM…HEAVEN WILL PUNISH THE WHOLE NATION ONE FINE DAY….REMEMBER JAPAN EARTHQUAKE NEVER WITNESS LIKE THIS EVER BEFORE…..THE MORE CRUEL DONE BY HUMAN……WHICHEVER NATION ALSO WILL GET THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEEP PAIN AND SUFFERING AS HUMAN HAS NO LOVE AND SELFISHNESS…….DO GOOD TO BEGET GOOD OR OTHERWISE WE SEE ANOTHER EPISODE IN COMING DAYS….
Every human got father and mother…do not be happy and laugh to see innocent human to be killed as WE ALL KNOW KIILING AND TAKING HUMAN life is totally against humanity. WE all having children too…just because the human made LAW said killing an innocent human as for the sake protecting 3.2 million population…AS the law goes not only ONE but many many will be killed. KILLING HUMAN having greatest repercusion in life….what happen if our own children being killed, are we rejoicing to see our children killed, definitely we be feeling the same suffering like YONG VUI KONG case. IF WE CONTINUE TO TAKE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, THEN WE CAN REST ASSURED, BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN ONE DAY TO THE WHOLE NATION….HUMAN NOWADAYS MODERNISE AND USING EVERYTHING BY LAW, NO FEELING, NO SYMPATHY, NO COMPASSION, BUT WE REMEMBER WHAT HAS HAPPEN SUDDENLY TO MANY COUNTRIES RECENTLY TO JAPAN, HUMAN FORGET EASILY,,,,IF HEAVEN PUNISH THE COUNTRY,, THE SUFFERING AND PAIN IS IMMEASURABLE,,,,DO GOOD BEGETS GOOD,,IF KILLING AN HUMAN REPRESENTED GOVERNMENT CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE, THE REPERCUSION ONE DAY IS LIKE DUST FLUNG AGAINST THE WIND…WE SHOULD NOT REGRET WHAT WE HAVE DONE…..HEAVEN LAW IS FAIR AND COMPASSIONATE…