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

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

You are the people’s servants, please remember this

Adrian Ng I had mixed feelings as I looked at the results…

国际知名媒体人联署 呼吁我国政府撤回《防假消息法》

27名国内外知名媒体人,包括《砂拉越報告》主编克莱尔与《新叙事》(NewNaratif)总编辑韓俐穎,发表联合声明,质疑我国政府推行的《防假消息法》,反而会阻碍媒体人追寻事实真相。与其一味通过“恶法”,倒不如用真诚有理据的交流讨论,来打击假新闻。 《防止网络假消息籍网络操纵法》在本月1日提呈国会一读。在本月19日,本地已有一群本土主流和网络媒体人,担忧新法将进一步侵害言论自由,打击媒体从业员的工作。他们也认为,政府理应更积极与媒体从业员联手抗衡假消息。 有关联合声明将提呈给通讯及新闻部长易华仁所发出的文告。声明指出,《防假消息法》草案“缺乏考量实际操作层面”。特别是媒体人在追踪报导下,真相往往是随着事件进展,才会逐渐展露的。 媒体追踪报导逐渐揭开真相 “在多数的情况下,对事件持有相互矛盾的报导是常态。只有在多元的观点与报导下,真相才会逐渐清晰,”文告说道。 文告也强调,在无法辨识何谓恶意誤導与无心之失的情况下,防假消息法形同带来不必要的繁琐负担,即使是对于那些秉持真诚進行報導的记者。最终,此法只会掣肘寻求精确资讯的编采工作。 只要事实无法被核实,媒体机构无法让报导出街,特别是在政府无法即时回应媒体咨询的新加坡,情况尤为如此。 虽然此前我国律政部长尚穆根一再强调,法案只会针对假消息,而不是个人意见,但文告里也提到重点,说明政府对于“事实的陈述”与“意见”并未作出清楚的说明。 “评论人经常引用事实来支持他们的立场,而记者的解读与事实的陈述,可能会和部长的理解产生矛盾。”文告强调。 媒体人也提出忧虑,指法案赋予部长相当大的权限,也有可能被滥用。 媒体人促请新加坡政府撤回该法案,并建议与其使用“恶法”,倒不如用“真诚和有理据的讨论”来打击假消息。 其他参与联署的记者也包括:…

Cartoon Press: Hospital Bed Crunch

Post by Cartoon Press. The ST report, titled “Hospitals facing severe bed…

Subsidies cannot solve problems: MM Lee

“I read the newspapers and the simplest thing is to write and say, subsidise. Rice, oil, bus fares, even putting seat belts on school buses. That is the surest way to go downhill”, says MM Lee about S’poreans asking the government for more subsidies to deal with inflation. Do you agree with MM Lee? Share your views here.