Joshua Chiang/
At a press conference inside the Malaysian Houses of Parliament today, human rights activist and lawyer for Yong Vui Kong Madasamy Ravi urged the Malaysian Parliament to take Yong Vui Kong’s case to the International Court of Justice.
Together with him were Malaysian MPs Nurul Azziza, Datok Chua Soon Bui (MP for Sabah) and Tian Chua.
In a press statement, Mr Ravi wrote that Yong “did not receive a fair trial given the fact that Chief Justice was in conflict of interest in proceeding to hear the case, despite a valid application to recuse him from hearing the case.”
Yong suffered the “the greatest injustice as a result.”
According to Mr Ravi, this would be his ”final attempt” to save Yong. He also claimed that there seemed to be quite alot of support amongst the members of Parliament in Malaysia.
Yong was sentenced to death in 2009 for drug trafficking in Singapore. He was 19 at the time of his arrest in 2007.
(The full press release can be read below)
———-
Memorandum
To: Yang Berhormat Dato’ Sri Anifah Hj Aman, Foreign Minister of Malaysia
Re: Malaysian sentenced to death in Singapore – Yong Vui Kong
Date: 15th June 2011
Yang Berhormat,
We wish to bring to your attention the case of Yong Vui Kong.
Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian citizen sentenced to death in Singapore for drug trafficking.Yong has exhausted his appeal and his sentence was upheld. Subsequent to the appeal,Yong is to file a petition for clemency to the President.
However, before Yong file such petition, the Law Minster had uttered the words that “Yong Vui Kong, he is young, but if we let him go, what is the signal we aresending?”
Yong’s lawyer filed an application for judicial review on the grounds that this statement had pre-judged and prejudiced Yong’s clemency petition, taking into account that the then Attorney General, Mr Walter Woon has confirmed in court that though the prerogative power lies with the President, it is actually the cabinet that decides. The High Court dismissed this application. Yong appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
At the hearing of the Court of Appeal, Yong’s lawyer made an application on 4th April 2011 for the Chief Justice, Mr Chan Sek Keong, to recuse/disqualify himself from hearing the appeal, premised on the grounds that:
-(a) this application, inter alia, requests the court to decide on whether the Presidentmust act on the advise of the cabinet on the matters relating to the President’s prerogative power on clemency;
(b) the Chief Justice who was the Attorney-General from 1992 to 2006, was in the position to advise and ought to have advised the President and/or the cabinetrelating to the President’s prerogative power on clemency during such period;
(c)thus there is a conflict of interest when the Chief Justice is to now decide on the matter which he had and/or ought to have advised the President and/or the cabinet about the clemency powers of the President
The Court of Appeal dismissed this application. It was recorded then that since the Court of Appeal is the apex court in Singapore, Yong does not have a redress to appeal on this dismissal.Yong has suffered the greatest injustice as a result. Thus Yong did not receive a fair trial given the fact that Chief Justice was in conflict of interest in proceeding to hear the case, despite a valid application to recuse him from hearing the case.
In view of this, Yong suffers a breach of customary international law in so far as a fair trial had been denied to him.
The Malaysian Government should take immediate steps to protect their citizen in a foreign land, especially when a life is at stake. Therefore, we humbly request that this matter be brought before the International Court of Justice for adjudication without further delay.
Yours Faithfully,
Yong Vun Leong (brother to Yong Vui Kong)
Mr M Ravi (counsel for Yong Vui Kong)
Save Vui Kong Campaign, Malaysia
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
Why death sentence for a 19 yrs old. If he is found guilty given a fair trail, then perhaps a longer jail term would seem appropriate. But his layer claimed that he has not been given a fair one. Best to abolish death sentence and caning as both seem inhumane.
@Robert
to summarize…you are actually talking about Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) and not MDP. MDP laws (which I am not sure if you lumped MDA inside, but it shouldn’t) doesn’t really do anything other than specify the punishment AFTER guilt/innocent has been established.
Lockeliberal,
If you read my posts again, you have not answered to my basis of asking for change.
I am not against death penalty for the drug lords and perpetrators.
I agree that if someone is found upon due process, he should be punished according to the law. I am not asking for relaxation on the use of death penalty.
So your postulation that any relaxation on punishment will give rise to increased drug trafficking is not relevant to my suggestion.
I am merely saying that before the judge condemn someone and sentence him to death, let the accused be entitled to justice.
Your view that the MDP laws have been deterrent is only based on your own selective assumption. What has not got to do with suggestion to entitle the accused to due process of justice.
Now let’s go back to the issue again – is not the current MDP drug law rather highly presumptuous depriving the accused to tender his defence on certain mitigating circumstances.
What will make drug lords and their syndicates decide to exploit our just administration of death-penalty drug laws where accused is given the benefit of due process of justice before condemning him to death.
I am at a loss to see why you must draw the worse possible scenario in order to justify status quo which itself is highly presumptuous.
Lobo76,
I am not trying to suggest doing away with death sentence.
I am only suggesting that before an accused should be condemned to death, let him be entitled to due process of justice.
So there should not be any necessity to make any assumptions that relaxation will give rise to drug lords increasing supply of drug to this place.
Will the due process of justice really lead to such exploitation when in the first place whether MDP has proven its intended deterrence is at best questionable or subjective.
Dear Robert
I would like to state clearly that in so far as I have looked at the reasons for removing the M from the DP. I am more inclined to removing that M. However the case has not been made clearly by anyone on the side of the Anti DP or Anti MDP debate WHAT is to replace the removal of the M. If removed the MDP will become DP or ………………… and I would like for one for the debate about or what………………. to be clearly laid out.
The deterrent effect which I speak about will be the same for both the DP and the MDP , thus in that sense I am more comfortable with removing the M.
Locke
Lockeliberal 16 June 2011
The larger question which I ask is has it deterred drug trafficking to the extent that it reduces the availability and ease of availability of drugs in Singapore ? Again look at countries and experiences I would argue yes. Just ask anyone who has studied in the US about the ease of drug availability in a big city in UK and US versus SG and the answer is nearly unanimous.
International Policing has failed. It cannot worked or has not worked even with the Billions the US has thrown at the problem. The question rather is how do we protect Singapore and if it means an MDP or DP in some form then so be it because the alternative as proposed by Robert is nothing short of fantasy.
___________________________________________________
The whole world can implement MDP, and this will not deter drug trafficking. Why? Firstly, because there are many people intent on getting high on drugs, you can’t curb the demand. As long as there’s demand, there will be supply. The suppliers don’t give shit about MDP because it’s all or nothing to them, get caught and they die but most are already in a very desperate position to begin with, that’s why the get into drug traficking, so they don’t fear death. So I would say the lower availability of drugs in Singapore is not because of the MDP, but because there isn’t much of a market here for the drugs: most Singaporeans are not intent on getting high on drugs, and the traffickers don’t find this a profitable market.
MDP need not be the only way to protect Singapore from drugs. The major drug trafficking centres like Central America & Africa are en-route to final markets (US & Europe). These places tend to be labelled “failed states”. Singapore is a well-governed country; with a strong police, air force, navy & strict visa & immigration laws, drug traffickers will find it hard to get in the 1st place.
Lockeliberal,
Let’s us not assume MDP is the ultimate solution or that it has succeeded in detering drug trafficking. Anti drug has clearly pointed out there are other cogent reasons such as education and general strict enforcement of laws.
With this point which many have been debating settled, removing M from MDP is really not a big problem.
To fine-tune the DP, let the cut-off point not automatically trigger death but life sentence. Let the judge adduce on prior evidence of abetting and assisting in drug trafficking. With evidence established on the latter, grant judges power to impose death sentence. In the event the latter leads to uncovering of drug lords or syndicate, credit the accused with appropriate reduction of life sentence.
The crediting system will serve to expose the motives of the accused as well as the activities that lead to drug source and general control on supply and demand sides to clamp down more effectively on drug threats.
Dear Robert
How would u define life ? I would define life as life sentence whether one or three with no possibility of parole. He dies in prison, full stop. That can be legislated as law
With regards to prior evidence of abetting That is for a judges discretion and cannot be legislated in any way
If he had abetted in a previous crime and turn prosecutions witness in any form. The discretion lies not with the Judge but with the prosecutor with whom he has cut the deal and who recommends accordingly to the judge or reduces the charges accordingly.
In a system of adversorial justice, The lawyers and the Prosecutors cut the deal anywhere in the world. You are barking up legal fantasy here.
For example in Vong’s case he might finger his boss who handed him the drugs, but the discretion lies with the Prosecution wether his testimony is worth anything or even if they want to cut a deal with him in exchange for him fingering the boss.
Locke
Dear Anti
I disagree with you that it is entirely within the remit of demand and not supply. Ask anyone how bad its was when drugs were more easily available in the seventies which LED to the MDP as law to begin with.
Demand dried up and we had a population who do not demand because of a hard to get supply. Lets not kid oursleves that demand will not increase if we allow SUPPLY to easily be accessed as in the past
Locke
Dear Lockeliberal,
Past assumptions which are no longer working should be changed. As events have unfolded assumptions could turn out to be very wrong.
I will not go into technical details like how to put the main ideas in a more formal legalistic manner.
We should avoid getting into a situation where we are seen as being too harsh or inhuman with our laws.
In formalizing the details, we should not like before grant the prosecution too much power as in the past in deciding for itself, whether to bargain for credit or let someone off due to his turning prosecution witness.
Any decisions of such nature should be subject to transparency and accountability in the due legal process especially where it concerns human life.
Dear Robert
You seem willing to be able to indulge in creating an impractical legal fantasy which bears no resemblence to how a modern justice system works.
The prosecution decides because that it how the system is created and how it works even in the US and the UK. The prosecution cuts the deals because it is how an adversorial system works.
The judges judge base on the law and the facts and the interpretation of the law, and the defence defends
A judge cannot bargain on behalf of a defendant if he is to judge fairly on the law between the prosecution and the defense.
Locke
Dear Lockeliberal,
You have given your views on many matters and should have no doubt come to the realization that some of the existing laws like the MDP drug laws have been based on pure assumptions which as events unfolded have caused problems.
The traditional UK and US judiciary which you claimed to be followed by us is also an assumption. Let’s look at facts. One of the principal feature of US/UK system is its emphasis on justice for the accused. Our legal system could hardly to be said to be based on such a justice-centric model with the abolition of the jury system of fact finding obviously to suit the authoritarian rule.
I am not suggesting judges will be taking over the role of prosecution just because of expressing my view that the MDP drug laws need to be changed. I am not saying that prosecution’s roles as you stressed should be made transparent and accountable. The judges should be given the right to sentence with exercising of flexibility with due process of justice where under many laws this right is increasingly being curtailed. The taking away of judge’s right to exercise sentencing with flexibility is one example of such executive infringing into judiciary’s role. This is all I am suggesting. Does this suggestion in revamping our judiciary system amount to changing the so-called US/UK adversarial legal system? (even though you should know as of fact once the bedrock of justice is compromised by abolition of jury fact finding, for convenience of autocratic rule, it is quite ridiculous to assume we have such a US/UK model at all)
With the major issue settled as posted, all that need to be done is to amend the existing drug law to give judges the power to sentence appropriately with due process of justice. Why should such a change be not feasible and likely to change the current prosecution role. Where the existing system leaves such decision to the prosecution for convenience, why can’t appropriate procedural change be made to let the judge be involved in sentencing with prosecutor doing the supportive groundwork behind the scene. Why must the prosecution cling on to decide who shall face death and who to be released.
If the existing prosecutor make such decision at the front end, and not so transparent and accountable, it is time to make the prosecution’s decision transparent and accountable for the purpose of justice.
There is a need to review the existing legal system. If we have not been that objective, transparent and accountable, this is the time to review the systems and practices.
Nothing is cast in stone as evidenced in our abolition of the UK/US jury fact finding system.
It is about time as PM Lee has announced to look into necessary change where called for. He said there will be no sacred cow.
Please do not assume the worse case scenario to entrench in status quo based on past assumption.
Dear Robert
One can’t propose a legal idea without examining its ramifications in full or its impact. What exactly are you proposing ? For example if you replace the MDP with an alternative, what would the alternative be ? I would want it to be DP or life without parole, you might be inclined towards death or life without parole with a min of 30 years in prison etc etc etc. The variations matter.
Lets take Vui Kong case in detail. The fact that he fingered and offered to testify against his boss. Should that be taken into consideration into sentencing ? Should his youth be taken into account for his sentencing ?
Which punnishments the law dispenses will depend on the variation allowed under the law.
However what you failed to see is that the JUDGE cannot work together with the prosecution, fundamental justice and judcial tenets needs them to work independently or the laws of natural justice.
If the prosecution decides for example that Vui Kong’s information was not worth anything and there was no coorperation and no deal possible. I can’t see the Judge deciding otherwise and putting more weight on it then even the prosecution does. Its the same in the UK and the US wether under judge or a jury system , the judge will take into account the prosecutions and defence pleadings and weight the sentencing accordingly. but they cannot work together.
Locke
Dear Lockeliberal,
I have already informed you that I will not go into technical details how suggestions of mine can be formalized in a more legalistically appropriate manner.
The more important thing to remember that these suggestions of mine is feasible not from the detailed technical or procedural point of view.
It should be from the perspective of whether finally these suggestions will help to bring about a fairer system as compared with one which may be highly presumptuous creating problems of the kind we are discussing in various posts.
Adjustments can always be made to retain the structure of the current adversarial system.
If I have to spell out every option and possibility in detail, I will probably take over someone’s job.
Dear Robert
You can’t overturn a hundred years of legal tradition to fulfil what you think or how you think a legal system should perform. The details to matter in this case because what you propose destroys basic legal tenets and the functioning of any justice system. Your idea in attempting to correct an injustice have created more injustices.
Locke
Dear Lockeliberal, Investors
The world is changing. See, the citizens do not buy the goverment’s many self-serving policies calculated to serve the purpose and convenience of autocratic rule.
Change is the only way if ruling party is to survive another election.