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
no one has the right to sentence anyone to death. NO MATTER what they did. It’s time to abolish the death penalty.
I think the key issue is this:
it is all about compassion or lack of compassion for the human kind. Does YVK and the likes, when out to make some money think with compassion about the ‘victims’ that will fall prey to the drugs that he and the likes are bringing in…. and I think one is right, that we cannot judge these actions of our fellow human beings, but how can such drug trafficking acts be discouraged strongly …is there an alternative… I guess if YVK and likes are ignorant of such capital laws… a life for many lives, an eye for an eye is the wrong way… how far can society accomodate… should they act when drugs overflow the streets… like in some countries….what do u think ?
There are only 3 country in the world having capital mandatory death sentence to drug trafickers….thailand…malaysia…singapore……..how come the rest of the world do not have such cruel law. Is canada, australia, new zealand, germany, and so on UNSAFE. SINGAPOREAN got a higher mentality living in developed status nation should ponder the drug bosses more responsible to punish to death or the mules, what happen drug rich powerful bosses? Does killing mules stop drug trafficking?
I have read the touching articles on Vui Kong’s complete change. He has turned to religion and has become a very pious and righteous human being while in jail. It’d be a shame to take away his life as he has turned over a new leaf.
PM LEE APOLOGISES TO WE ALL SINGAPOREAN FOR 5 YEARS GOVERNMENT MISTAKES DONE. SO TO ASK FOR A SECOND CHANCE TO BE ELECTED.
HOW ABOUT THE INNOCENT YONG VUI KONG ASKING FOR SECOND CHANCE FOR A LIFE.
WHY MUST WE KILL HUMAN THAT HAS NO NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT? WHY NEVER IN HISTORY SINGAPORE CATCHES THE RIGHT POWERFUL CULPRIT?
It is high time we review the effectiveness of mandatory death sentence. If you look at our societies today, crimes are still everywhere. Drugs are easily available as long as you know how to play smart. Moreover, you can’t stop people from taking drugs in Singapore. When there’s a desire there is always a way to get the drug.
Another point is that our mandatory death sentence seems to kill only the under privileged. Singapore has one of the highest death sentences per capita, of which the majority are poor people, grew up with the wrong companions, and often come from broken families. A few exceptional people who got away with the death sentence managed to because of their influential backgrounds. Julia Bohl and Mike McCrea are examples of such exceptional people.
The average Singaporean probably does not know about how our mandatory death sentence is carried out. We have no clue about the trials of the convicted. We only read in the papers about who and who is going to be put to death.
We need to abolish mandatory death sentence because it is not effective, hurtful, unhealthy, and inhumane. It is also an easy-way-out thing to do, as oppose to a long-term, sustainable solution to crimes.
Mandatory death sentence is analogy to amputating the limbs of a person that have been crushed by car accident, instead of trying to find ways to save the limbs first. As a doctor once told me, it is easier to amputate then to patch up the broken pieces. If the victim is poor, there go his limbs. If he is rich and influential, he lives on with his limbs.