~by: Damien Chng~
A Criminal Motion has been filed in the Court of Appeal today on behalf of Yong Vui Kong. The motion challenges the constitutionality of the prosecution’s decision to charge Vui Kong with a crime that attracts the mandatory death penalty while withdrawing previous charges made against Vui Kong’s ‘boss’, Chia Choon Leng.
In his affidavit, Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi, states that in acting in this manner, the Attorney-General has violated Vui Kong’s fundamental right to equal protection of the law enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Applying the standards set out by the Court in the recent case of Ramalingam Ravinthran vs PP, it is submitted by Mr Ravi, that ‘the Applicant is able to raise a prima facie case of a breach of Article 12(1).’
Chia has been identified by the Attorney-General’s chambers as the alleged mastermind behind the criminal enterprise that Yong was found to have been a part of. In reply to queries made by Mr Ravi, the Deputy Public Prosecutor confirmed that Chia had been arrested in connection with the trafficking syndicate that Vui Kong was a part of. Yong had also mentioned his name repeatedly to the police and to the court while accounting for his actions.
During the criminal trial in the High Court, it was found that Chia was the person who initially contacted Vui Kong, and subsequently provided him with the ‘gifts’ to deliver. The ‘gifts’ that Vui Kong was caught with was found to have contained the 47.27g of diamorphine, which he was sentenced to death for.
Chia however, remains uncharged and in executive detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Prosecution had informed the court that they had withdrawn charges against Chia due to a lack of evidence. However, Vui Kong, in his affidavit, states that, ‘ I do not recall having been asked by the Prosecutor to assist in relation to any difficulty of evidence perceived in relation to Chia.’
Such is the phenomenon created by the Mandatory Death Penalty, that despite being caught at about the same time as Vui Kong, in relation to the same criminal enterprise, third parties and parcel in question, the mastermind behind the criminal syndicate remains in detention while the courier that he recruited, who is young, naïve and in desperate need of money, is sentenced to death. This cries out for explanation as it goes against the very notion of justice.
Vui Kong, in his affidavit, writes that, ‘My complaint is that if the Attorney-General felt unable to prosecute Chia in the circumstances, he should have felt unable to prosecute me and my prosecution (for a capital offence) on those same facts can only be described as a treatment which is not equal within the meaning of Article 12(1).’
He further states that, ‘I do not understand how it can be possible for the Attorney-General to prosecute me in such circumstances given that on all the evidence before him, he is unable to prosecute Mr Chia the mastermind.’
According to Mr Ravi, ‘The evidence on record is sufficient to rebut the presumption of constitutionality with regards to the A-G’s decision to prosecute the Applicant for a capital offence while not prosecuting a more culpable party at all’. One such reason is ‘ the lack of any apparent reason for the Attorney-General’s decision other than a difficulty of evidence which is itself difficult to follow given the evidence against Chia’.
Another would be that, ‘it is contrary to any notion of justice that (all other things being equal) a less culpable offender should be charged with a more serious offence (and subjected to a more serious punishment) while a more culpable offender is not prosecuted at all when both are involved in the same criminal enterprise, especially when the punishment of a less culpable offender is death.’
In addition, Ravi also points to the fact that the courts intervention, ‘would serve an additional purpose in this case by reminding the Attorney-General of the legislative priority intended to be given as between categories of offenders under the Act.’
He cites the speech made by the then Law Minister, Mr Chua Sian Chin, who said that, ‘The death penalty will also be imposed for the unauthorized import, export or trafficking of more than 30g of morphine or more than 15g of heroin…It is not intended to sentence petty morphine and heroin peddlers to death’.
Ravi adds that the purposes of the Act, ‘is to target the masterminds behind the drug trafficking enterprises, not the low-level ‘peddlers' recruited, forced or misled to traffic the drugs.’
The Court has yet to set a date for the hearing.
–
Affidavits of Yong Vui Kong and Lawyer M Ravi filed in Court today:
Dear Mice,
He was found and convicted on a capital crime. Whether or not his evidence was enough to save his neck and convict a higher up is a moot point from the determination of his actual guilt and punnishment. Please remember that he was convicted for a crime, the fact that he has nothing to bargain for and exchange a lesser punnishment with is just unfortunate for him and fortunate for his boss. The mules are trafficking in large amounts of pure heroin, there is no injustice in that he was guilty , the fact that someone higher up was not caught together with him is certainly no excuse to let him off especially if he has nothing to trade.
Locke
Dear Gong,
Firstly because the context of the case is different. There were five people involved in the case out of which two were found guilty. One turned prosecutions wtiness because of plea bargaining, and the other was the evidence of a co-accussed who to was found guilty. Lastly it all took place in Singapore
There was furthur circumstantial evidence supporting the testimony of two individuals. One might argue the mechanics of whether the judge was right wrong, etc etc but there is a damm lot more evidence on hand than what Vui Kong is offering which in its essence is just " The name of the boss ".
Locke
@lockeliberal
Your argument on Roslan's case seems weak, just because an accused turned prosecution witness had a plea bargaining, he was able to point finger at Roslan was involved when no durg was found on him that the accused gotten himself off from MDP. Why Yong was not made to turn prosecution witness? The boss was caught and if Yong was the prosecution witness, DPP could have prosecuted the boss, AGC should have let the judge to decide on the case after hearing what Yong and the boss had to say. In this case, AGC should not try acting God and let the Judge hear stories from both side, but AGC did not do so, they have already decided who to be hang. BTW, the fact that when the police given Yong to identify "the boss" from some photos shown that the police knew something about "the boss".
With the chiefs of CNB and other senior officers involved with women and corruptions, there is no guarantee any more as assumed that they are the best party to exercise proper professional judgment in selective prosecution called plea bargain of the kind which leads to miscarriage of justice. Roslan and Vui Kong case may be the tip of the iceberg. Citizens will have no conflidence in our judiciary system with prosecution increasing gathering all the power who to let go who to prosecute on the same crime with high-level corruptions happening of such a scale. It is timely to overhaul such selective prosecution to prevent further compromises and abuses.
@Lockeliberal
We won't need investigators if there is evidence without investigation. That is why I said go find it (a bit like we are always told no money, go find it). VK is the investigators best lead, of cos they have to investigate further and the boss' story has to stick if he did not know VK or if he claimed VK worked for him but nothing to do with drugs.
It is all up to them whether they want to investigate further or not. I think likely not because it would cost money and as this concerns the life of a 'nobody' (not related to anybody impt), I won't think this Govt is prepared to put money into the case (like foreign worker who allegedly died from fall during work).
How would you know that VK (being a foreigner) knew our law so well to say that he 'gambled with his life'? It is not about the exchange of information or sparing VK's life, it is about punishing the criminal(s) appropriately (as I posted re your different levels of the drug chain).
Who is saying to "let one criminal off"?? I certainly did not! Nobody said that VK should be let off scot free. Let me re-iterate. He should be punished but not the ultimate sentence. That is what everyone is arguing about.
Re your post to Mice, 2 points I want to make:-
1. There should not even be bargaining, VK should not be given the ultimate penalty of death as he is not the highest in the chain of drug supply.
2. Until recently the law said that any person whose property exceeds a few $mils have to pay estate duty. The Law is therefore changeable and people like me are saying that this drug law in Sg needs to be changed. Reasons and arguments as posted.
@lockeliberal
What is involved now in this Yong Vui Kong's case is no longer technical issue. You may not see the rationale as posted here simply because you are looking at the whole issue purely from a narrower legality point of view. Justice and fairness is a much bigger thing than that. So please do open your mind to receive people's concern over the current shortcoming with the mandatory death sentence precluding accused to have a proper just trial. Let the judge get back its discretionary power as in many other judiciary systems to look into circumstances of crime, possibility of apprehending the masterminds and not allowing any more abuses and compromises which are already seen taking place at the higher level of CNB. Professional judges are surely better able to exercise proper conduct of who to go for in serious drug offences instead of hanging fall guys one by one for convenience or expediency which at the end gives too much power to human being resulting in corruptions and compromises as we have seen happening in CNB lately.
All these may be beyond your professional calling yet they are critical issues if we are to aim at being a truly corruption-free society as often claimed by the government. Just do not carry on frustrating views and proper feedback of people.
@Robert Teh
Right, "Roslan and Vui Kong case may be the tip of the iceberg". Who knows if CNB chief or any of his men, or people in AGC, the police force had any "special" arrangement to help some people from capital punishment. The confident on this GOV administration is really at its bottom now after so much "tweaks" by people and department with authority.
Dear Angeline,
I hope you appreciate the practical difficulties.
a. The alleged mastermind operates out of Malaysia
b. The alleged act whereby he was handed the goods took place in Malaysia. You can't prove something based on one person's testimony and the practicalities of securing more information or evidence that can stand up in a court of law has to be acknowledged.
c. Malaysia is a country where the police is faling and the underworld runs riot ( read Malaysia Today )
d. He has nothing to trade his life for. Any jurisdiction anywhere , if you want to trade with the prosecutor a lesser sentence , your life bring something of value , to the table. He has only testimony naming one other person, for gods sakes, name the organization, name bank accounts, phone numbers etc etc, his lack of information also probably means that he was at best an entry level criminal who was dispensable and disposable.
f. Perhaps you are right, perhaps the amounts should be higher , Perhaps drug lords should be the only one's to hang, but that is for all practical purposes a debate for the future. The law as it stands for good reason defines him as a trafficker and the punnishment is death. His boss may be liable but for lack of evidence and pratical evidence he will probaly just be detained under the criminal version of the ISA.
Locke
Dear Angeline,
The highest up the food chain, sure lets start a war. Invade Burma like the US invaded Panama and jailed Noreiga. But wait the US supports Afghnistan and it is the largest Heroin producer in the world. so the US supports drug lords to. ………lets fund columbia the way the US funds the columbians , has it stopped their coccaine flow ? How about bombing N Korea ? For that matter lets in the name of Justice for Mules start world war III.
We have a system but it works not just because we hang mules now and then but it works because it inhibits the availability of drugs in Singapore.
Locke
Dear Gong ,
CNB was corruption about women , if it is linked to a specific criminal, then the onus is on you to prove it and not just assert and believe it.
Look Roslan's case against him was built not only on testimony BUT supporting evidence and the fact that the act was committed in Singapore. The supporting evidence included not only one prosecution witness but the statement of the co accused who was arrested with him.
Vui Kong as it stands offers only one PIECE and no supporting pieces. That is the difference between the two.
Locke
Since Chia is detained without trial, on what ground he is detained? Is it based on VK's words?
Dear Justice,
Probably not his alone but perhaps others past and police intelllgence. This is speculation at best but the detention without trial or criminal ISA is used on people where there is strong criminal suspicion but not enough proof to bring to court.
Locke
ok ok, hang VK, if he operated a one man drug ring. like one man assembly line. that VK grew the drug, processessed it, & found buyers himself & personally hand delievered the drugs like fastfood delivery.
on that grounds VK deserves death penalty, but in this case, he is but a supporting role only. the swapping of the drug took place outside S'pore, then that itself highlighted the fact that the drug smuggling operation is a far larger & complex operation. the result of hanging drug mules may not be an effective deterance at all already.
thanks, Angelina for speaking up for me. & thanks Robert Teh & Ah Gong on understanding the crux of the point is was trying to get across.
:)
@Lockeliberal <br/>
Your later posts get more & more disturbing. You used the words "in the name of Justice for Mules" – this is where you dreadfully misunderstood again & again & again in your focus to hang Vui Kong (I suppose like everyone else).<br/>
I am against taking a life for no good enough reason be they mules, peddlars or addicts (if MDP extends to them as well) or any other crimes. In particular VK's case, for all the reasons that have already been pointed out by many posts. Don't wish to go through them all over again. Just know that more drugs will get through Sg, that is for sure, no doubt about it. May be as we write, people are growing poppies in HDB flats.>br/>
This leads me to ask you Locke, if there are growers manned by illegal foreign workers who are forced or blackmailed to do the bidding for a syndicate, would you also call for the hanging of the workers because it is just too difficult to nail the boss of the syndicate?<br/>
If you are all for inhibiting the availability of drugs in Sg, the best deterrent (I seldom take risk but I dare bet) is to haul the whole gang especially 'the boss' up and smack the death penalty on the latter. I can guarantee you any boss from then on would think thrice to try another mule. I can also guarantee that Sg would be in the global hall of fame in fighting against drugs.<br/>
Yes, as I mentioned, it is is difficult as the transaction took place outside of Sg and I do not advocate a war, but that is no excuse to take a life, esp that of VK.
It is easy for you to say keep hanging mules until one of your own is planted the MDP amt or duped or lured by a 'boss' to do the same. O well, for sure you don't need to worry bcos you have not offended the power wielders and you won't have such 'low life' relations. You see the cycle? Society would never progress if the people are blackmailed and if people don't watch out for each other. Thats all I can say.<br/>
mice is nice<br/>
Thank youuu. I just can't grasp how people can have no problem supporting the execution of a trafficker, nevermind a 17 y o (when he was caught) trafficker who was barely educated and homeless due to very unfortunate family circumstance. I also do not think that many other traffickers who are aware of the risk of the death penalty are reduced to the desperate state due to their own doing. In most cases, drug trafficking is not pre-meditated but drug supply in all cases are (pure greed without a care in the world). <br/>
Have a nice day.
Dear Angeline,
At some point in time, something must be done to protect children and society in Singapore. I have looked at the issue, read all the reports, debated it enlessly with my fellow students overseas and my conclusion in my mind has always been the same.
We do not live in an ideal world. We cannot and the US has tried and proven we cannot stop the production of Illicit narcotics, but perhaos there is a role for effective enforcement and the DP whether M or not in inhibiting its availability .
I can see an argument for the removal of the M from the DP and I can agree with it but you are arguing for the removal of the DP out of sympathy for the young and poor.
Frankly having being overseas I would argue that if drugs becomes a problem in Singapore, it is the young and the poor who become most vulnerable and if protecting the young and vulnerable in society means hanging drug mules then I would say its a price worth paying beause the social costs and lives they destroy is infinitely worst.
Locke
Dear Angeline,
For me the above is a systemic view of things. I.E Vui Kong as a digit involved in the system.
As an indivdual not a digit I am ablivalent as to whether he is granted clemency or not. He is after all just another drug mule and whethe this particular mule who has suddenly turned into a saint is something left to others to argue and campaign for or against.
The begaining of this thread was about the specific legal arguments and justifications used and the flaws therein which I have pointed out, including flawed expectations about the weight of his "testimony" and flawed expectations about how much he could really help in a case against his "boss" to begin with.
Locke
lockeliberal,
if the law is not perfect, nor is it near ideal or effctive, thenshouldn't it be rectified? we're not culling chickens here. the USA has been rather unsuccessful in fighting off the drug wars by going after the kingpins on foreign land, there are cost to human lives fighting it & cost in dollars. but few can fault them for at least trying. no paren would want to see their children die, however honourable the death.
but here you are putting your thoughts online like the rest of us, while people who are just part of teh illegal drug trade gets hanged. with your expertise on legal technicalities, your knowledge that the law isn't ideal, hence, maybe even unjust. you'll still carry on as usual?
laws can change, just as social norms do, when black & white TV was a luxury item, or a cellphone. problems arise when people do not keep up to date, be they laws or social norms. drugs entering S'pore is an issue, but the young & vulnerable & naive will continue to take the drugs- caving into peer pressure. the social aspect of drug consumption? quite like people who consume alcohol (with limits) for social reasons.
i'll like to believe you are upholding the law as you see it. but MDP's effectiveness has its limits. maybe it would be good to have sniffer dogs at pub enterances as a deterance? just tax those pubs to cover the costs…
:)
Dear Angelina,
despite different views, its nice to know Locke is still open to conversation.
:)
Dear Mice,
For me laws are meant to work and protect society at large. the innocent, the young the vulnerable. They are not meant to protect the criminal. The laws in Singapore prescribe the most severe punnishment i.e death for the most serious of crimes. i.e no one gets death for theft etc etc
Again I can see a legal argument for judicial discretion and replacing the MDP with a death penalty or life sentence without parole. Please note that means he dies either through the death penalty or in prison. That to me is the stark choice or at the min stays in prison until he is seventy. Those who talk about replacing the M in the DP talk about life imprisonment in full knowledge that in singapore at least legally it means a min of twenty years and a parole board.
I believe that the young naive and vulnerable will still consume drugs just that the damage will be infinitely greater with easier access to drugs. Ever talked with youths who have done glue sniffing or try getting high on Codeine ? Yes they have problems and yes they are doing stupid things but the damage would be all that much greater if we subsitute the crap they are inflicting on themselves with crap like coke , and heroin. The problem is not only one of demand but also one of access to supply. Restrict supply and we have less of a problem.
If restriction of supply means the DP or MDP for mules. then so be it. I find it amazing the sort of sob stories that "TOC" highlights. For example the cake is " Cheong" who asserts I thought I was smuggling 2.7kg of GOLD and not Heorin from Mymnamr.
I would argue the effectiveness or not of the MDP or DP is not measured by the death of the no of mules in statistics but whether I see how easily drugs are avaialble on the streets and in schools and to the poor vis sa vis some cities I know and see and by that definition it has worked .
Locke
dear Lockeliberal,
we may have to disagree to agree. you have opinions & values i simply do not share. maybe then its true that values do shift from time to time, to whatever degree, large or small.
sob stories that TOC highlight doesn't go down well with you. but maybe not those innocent, young & vulnerable you deem. but why do you turn a blind eye to the (demand side of the equation) not so innocent, young & vulnerable who sustain the illegal drug trade? & some people will take whatever the risk if money is good.
it would be good to take the M out of DP if its a step closer to what justice is all about. if its 20 years behind bars, then i hope the prison is a physical one that does not break the social bond connecting him to his family, in hope the links will keep such offenders from committing the crime again.
dear Lockeliberal,
In fact it is scary and alarming that you mentioned "He has nothing to trade his life for.." My question is trade with who? You may have sound noble but you believe as long as one holds something extra, he can trade for his life, even with money or sex?
Recent CNB chief's has proven that he, or maybe the entire department believe in trading for something. In fact the whole CNB need to be investigated with all current cases put on hold and pass cases re-audited. We no longer trust if they can do their work correctly if these "trade for something" mindset is set in our Justise system. The entire AGC needed to be investigate as well, work is actually auditing their procedure to ensure they are fair and just in carrying out their work? So many cases they put up had exposed their work quality was question and we really have to thanks some of the really good Judges who really have the heart and soul to carry out their duty of upholding Justise.
Dear Mice,
Firstly even as Vong was poor and vulnerable, All other things being equal there wil be by definition poor and vulnerable in any society.
There will always be a demand, and yes Singapore does address that demand with as harsh and intrusive a policy as anything in the world in line with its strong punnishment of traffickers.
Why do u turn a blind eye to the damage that drugs and its wide spread availability causes to the poor and vulnerable in society ? You take in the tragedy of one but u forget the satistics of thousands.
There will always be a vulnerable base in soceity no matter what, with a welfare state, without a welfare state, but throw drugs and availability into that mix and you will see how much it makes problems worst.
So do u hang one trafficker or condemm and allow the vulnerable easy access to drugs. The answer to me is clear.
Locke
Dear Gong,
Its the law and whatever the problems of CNB , you have to proof that the current IT issues affecting its head has affected work down the line. Assertion is not enugh proving it is and yes you are fishing at straws like Ravi
Locke
@Lockeliberal
Yes, when smell fish like what ever happening in CNB, SCDF, MHA,SLA,LTA,TH,GIC…. we can no longer assume they are doing a good job, the audit should be done and audit work is none other than fishing.
@locke
For the last time, it is NOT about 'justice for mules' and it is not about 'sympathy'. I, as well as many other posters have given reasons but you did not comment on the reasons and just stick to your guns. Eg VK is the investigators lead & subsequent use as testimoney in court. Investigations to looking for evdience (bank account/business) are needed. But you keep saying cannot rely on VK's one liner (who is the boss). People keep saying VK's bg (non education & parental guidance) showed that he was incapable of appropriate decision and was being duped). But you keep on saying we sympathise with VK. There is no point in carrying on. I shall agree to disagree.
Let me just remind you. Saddam Hussein ever said, "The law is what I write on a piece of paper."
SIR , MADAM …, and TOC all thanks upright fearless expression as Common Law allowed . MOST Important …. when EX-AG Walter time Prosecution for eg only …. CAN their character , integrity etc be reliable upright trustworthy …. , it seemed serious not in order questionable for eg only . ((** TO solid reinforced the point … dated 12 / july / 2008 ….. AG CHAMBERS CHENG HOWE MING LETTER TO FORUM may 14 before …. remember that not being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A is guilty does not mean that he is innocent . He may be guilty in fact , but innocent in law because the evidence was not there . ((** MR LAWYER RAVI CLIENT yong vui kong **)) ,,,, CLEARLY KNEW boss criminal any wrong doing for eg only if any , for eg only . ((** IF EX-AG WALTER or the prosecution before **)) <<** for eg only unsound mind think **>> (( for eg only …. he may be guilty in fact , but innocent in law because the evidence was not there . <<** THEN BY COMMON LAW ALLOWED THE UPRIGHT TO FEARLESS STATE … that in fact the solid proof was already existed , when the singapore police CHARACTER , integrity <<** were serious not in order accordingly to the law **>> because very danger real terrorist escaped from ISD BEFORE …. , hiding in JOHORE , finally he was caught by malayasia police and again handed over to singapore police before . **>> ((** THE LAW FOR ALL **)) SIR …. now AG …, WILL THE POLICE WHO LET GO THE REAL TERRORIST BEFORE , FOR EG ONLY BE CHARGE IN OPEN COURT . As the danger threat to singapore , world , voters , people etc were very worry caused by the corrupted police before . ((** QUESTIONABLE … DO EX-AG WALTER , OR THE PROSECUTION BEFORE … SOUND MIND …????. ((** THIS was APPEAL JUDGE SIR rajah SAYING BEFORE …. IT IS NOT HELPFUL … FOR SUGESTIONS TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY RAISED ABOUT HE ACCUSED'S " FACTUAL GUILT " ONCE HE HAS BEEN acquitted . (( ** note mr malay helpless yunnai was <<** serious been injustice **>> by the singapore POLICE , EX-AG WALTER …. HIS PROSECUTION BEFORE … BECAUSED … the police , prosecution before ((** never at all by law verify , find out who was the real owner of the bag which contain real drug .. inside the bag . **)) ((** SO SIMPLE THING THE POLICE , PROSECUTION ALSO FACE HUGE Problem …???. **)) DO THEY SOUND MIND << for eg only >> because life and death matter upright concern …., for eg only ..???>. SERIOUS NOT IN ORDER QUESTIONABLE ABOUT THE POLICE , PROSECUTION …. ????>. As fair criticism allowed by chief judge CHAN SAYING BEFORE . ((** SIR ,….. please upright consider the character , integrity of the police , prosecution … as life and death matter concern , thanks because JUDGE , prosecution , police , public servant , pap government etc all salary thing were from people paying taxes money to singapore . **)) <<** note : This was not against any thing , not win or not lost etc because if injustice left unnoticed …. the real guilty criminal terrorist will find excuse to break world , country , people , embassy , etc into pieces. ((** THAT'S ALL GOOD OR BAD OWN DOING . **)) . DATED 1 / 02 / 2012 .
Dear Angeline,
You seem to live in a fantasy world of make believe investigation born out a need to justify an excuse any excuse to let off a mule.
a. A mule whether for money, whether out of youth is a criminal. I would just add that my mothers family came out of a dirt poor Village in Perak. I should know I visited it and saw the poverty during my Grandfathes funeral last year. I have no sympathy for the dirt poor and have to turn to crime crap, because I have relatives in Malaysia and we hire super hard working Malaysians from similarly impoverished backgrounds as a business family.
b. Vui Kongs boss is Malaysian, He was handed the drugs in Malaysia. Vui Kongs boss manages the crime in Malaysia.
c. Jurisdiction, leaving that aside. Investigational jurisdiction lies with the RMP or is that fact not relevant to you. Do u know how corrupt the system is in Malaysia ? Why not go investigate the crime syndicate and his bosses in Malaysia to save Vui Kong and see whether u get ur nice little neck hung.
Cheers
locke
@Lockeliberal
How were you so sure that there was not enough evident against "the boss" in VK's case or simplily the AGC refuse to provide such evident to the court by not charging the boss but instead nailed VK at their own discretion?
"The boss" is a Singaporean, he was caught here, Even if the hand over of "gift" (drug) happened in Malaysia, in VK's testimony, he had contacted the boss many time, I believe you know that under IDA requirement, all calls and SMS are logged by all the telcos here, which is why many times call records can be fish out to charge a person. Even for small cases, drivers charged for using handphone were charged using call record as evident, as well as SMS bomb hoax were also sniffed out from such recording system.
VK mentioned the boss handed over the drug in Malaysia that very day, please do not forget that Singapore custom has the record what time "the boss" leaves and return to Singapore. Phone record and ICA records are independent evident that VK cannot make up, If VK's testimony fall into place with these independent evident, without a strong alibi and good explaination, "The boss" would have been found guilty. You are legal trained and you know very well that many accused were found guilty using such official evident without a witness. My question is, why are these records not produced? Don't tell me somebody screw up that records of phone calls between VK and the boss are no available? (prepaid numbers are also recorded) Both SIngapore and Malaysia custom has no record of the boss leaving and entering the Country? The investigation holds these important evident but they are keep way from the Judge as long as they do not charge "The Boss", these evident need not be exhibited which is very damaging for VK to defend his case. Who knows if one of the SMS record did mention that boss ask VK to deliver GIFT and not drug? VK would not be guilty! Where are all these evident? Somebody is holding them……..
Dear Mice,
The story of Vui Kong thus far was one of how he came to KL from Sahbad started work as a restaurant worker, graduated to slling DVDs then, to collecting debts, was treated by his boss to KTV then was finally asked to deliver a package which he did NOT know was drugs. This story was written by those campaigning for him so I have taken it literally as more or less a true tale.
The interesting aspects to the tale come in the affadavit filed by Chia and do note the following points.
a. Chia or the boss is Singaporean. Assuming his activities of Vong as stated are true. His boss operates out and has operations in Malaysia of some criminal nature.
b. Those who have stated that Vong can be a prosecution witness, should read the affdavit by Ravi which notes the following points for the poor sod.
1. He was willing to identify his boss in photographs and in statements but was not willing to " GO PUBLIC " at the time of his original trial .
2. He was NOT willing to CALL his boss as his defence witness whether hostile or not because he feared for the safety of his FAMILY. Note the Prosecution had no need to call his BOSS, because they had Vong in hand . he was not needed to prove their case. Whether a case was or could be built against Chong was at that point a seperate issue.
So Vong is the poor soul caught in a criminal enterprise of his own making. He fears for the safety of his family in Malaysia and fears to testify, refuses to go public during his trial, possibly turns prosecution witness but expects the police to catch his boss
Now after his trial is over, the doubts over whether he is willing to turn prosecution witness remains but he still maintains that his BOSS should have been charged. Go figure that one out.
Locke
Dear Mice It's about the affidavit on behalf by Vong abt Chong.
Locke
@Lockeliberal
VK has little knowledge on law and how prosecution preocedure works, while on the other handle Police and AGC has full knowledge, the authority has the phone records and immigration record of "the boss", if the AGC or DPP had told VK that testifying against "the boss" would have help him and the AGC can call upon VK to be their witness once phone records and immigration custom record proven "the boss" was with VK and he had indeed handed over the "GIFT" to VK, I was not up to VK to decide, it was for AGC to decide if they want to call upon VK. You may argue it is one's word against another but did it always the case in Court trial which the Judge decides whose testimony can be trusted? The authority are holding such evident which VK and his lawyer do not have access until there is a real trial where such evident were exhibited to be examine by both side lawyers and the Judge, by not prosecuting "the boss", these evident will not surface and some information could have been useful to help VK.
Lockeliberal,
thanks for continuing the conversation & sharing the info.
from the latest post, i know VK is mule, Chia is alleged boss, but who is Chong & Vong?
that 2 person aside, its reasonable to fear for the safety of one's family. that is why whistle blower while an act of good carries its dangers. even former CEO (Michael Woodford) of Olympus know that there is a cost to blowing the whistle, so back to VK's case. i dun see why his fears are unfounded. illegal drug dealing is a high stakes venture.
not sure how SPF does its work, but likely VK's family does not enjoy police protection outside S'pore. that is why fighting corruption is no easy task, the vulnerable & poor stand to loose alot just to stand & be witness against the powerful & corrupt, similiar to organised crimes (drug syndicates?).
its likely you will disagree with me on some points here, but its fine, we are viewing the case from rather different perspective. i just hope that justice is the common goal.
:)
Dear Mice,
Its Chia and Vui Kong Apologies for the typo as it was done on an iPad and on a bus.
Vui Kong is an interesting case on which to decide whether he is in effect a whistle blower. In Ravi and Vui Kongs affidavit he states, I pointed out my boss but I am unwilling to go public, Ravi also stated that the reason he did not call his boss up during his trial even though it was within his right was because of his fear for his family.
So he points out his boss but is unwilling to go publice or protect himself during his trial. His supporters seem willing to accept the fact that he pointed out his boss suggest the police to do more investigating, notwithstanding the difficulty, then forget that VK had during his trial decided he cannot go public. Then also forget that all he did was point out his boss without any further shred of evidence or information always suggesting its the police who should investigate
I believe that they are so misinformed about what VK is offering that they really believe he has turnt saint and has surrendered valuable information in exchange for his life .Why does he fear so much for the safety of his family, perhaps because he knows what it was about, the drugs he took willingly, what he was paid, and the price he would pay if he broke his code of silence with the underworld ?
Does not sound like an innocent mule to me.
Locke
dear Locke,
good to clear things up.
when one's own life & that of his family members may be in danger, i do not see why its unreasonable to expect VK not to go all the way to point out Chia as the boss. its also reasonable to expect the police to investigate further to gather evidence to convist Chia as VK isn't a police of does he have the resources & knowledge to know what evidence to gather & how much is needed to reel his boss in.
its odd to brush off the fear for his family's safety & expect VK to suddenly turn into an all knowing saint who know how much evidence is needed, how to go about gathering evidence like a free man without any sort of training. isn't this unrealistic?
Dear Mice,
Unfortunately not going all the way means, not having anything to bargain with his life for. Question, then if the police miraculously find enough evidence to convict his boss on say hypothetically he was caught with drugs above the threshold for the death penalty within Singapore,then how does it lessen Vongs guItilt, or mitigate it in anyway with the AGC in a plea bargain ? Question, If thon red vong to tie in his boss but he does not go public and turn states witness and go public. Why should the AGC let him off ? The bottom line is that if Vong must trade but if he is unwilling to trade then he has to accept his fate. Think for a moment why he believes that his family is in danger because he is a stupid drug mule, perhaps because he was a willing participant , and he knew the price if he failed or the threats to his family if he talked.
Locke
Dear Mice,
Do u really believe that according to Vong someone whose boss showed him the good life, help runs errands for his boss, goes to KaraOk with him etc, all he KNOWs is the bosses name ?
Locke
@Lockeliberal
"Dear Mice,
Do u really believe that according to Vong someone whose boss showed him the good life, help runs errands for his boss, goes to KaraOk with him etc, all he KNOWs is the bosses name ?"
You have been really selective and moving your stand, on one hand you were saying "the boss" should not be charged based on some VK's testimony and other evident from VK that infer that "the boss" was involved but here you are trying to infer from your assumption that VK knew the GIFT handed to him is drug just because he go clubing with the boss and knew exactly "the boss" involved in illagel actives? Why not from another angle that "the boss" try to be friendly to groom VK as drug mule without VK knowing? Your mind is narrow. By your same assumption, if VK knows "the boss" activities, he would have become AGC or proscution's best witness to press charges against "the boss", the fact that VK knew very little about "the boss" that leaded him not having useful information for your so call "plea bargaining" that he facing MDP. Your stand was never firm, flip flop just to justify the AGC as correct and VK has to die. I hope you are not working in AGC or legal practise, many people will die in your hand.
Dear Mice,
I believe the question is how much does Vong really know ? And was he really just a lowly silly drug mule as his supporters have repeated.
My stand is really based on reading Ravi's affadavit Vui Kongs accounts within, and the accounts of his life as repeated by his supporters.
My points are as follows. Despite the claims of his apologists , his tone or testimony in fingering his boss is insufficient for an legal conviction. How much he really knew at that point about the organization he belong to was legally moot because I did not believe like the courts did that he was tricked by his boss.
That has changed somewhat based on reading his affadavit in detail, and in asking questions about his own action pre trial and during his own trial together with the accounts of his life have lead me to another possibility
That he was deeper into the criminal organization and that he really was no simple drug mule. That his fear of his boss and the fear of his family is rooted in the knowledge that he had joined a criminal enterprise for profit and that his reluctance to say ANYTHING more apart from " he is my boss" and tne be afraid of " going public " is indicative of not an innocent mule but someone wise in the ways , manners and doings of a criminal enterprise. That he might really know more but he will end up protecting his boss because of his family at threat and thus he thus as little as possible whilst playing the innocent mule hoping for a miracle.
Locke
dear Locke,
my reply to you is still under moderation for over 2 days. i hope it gets through though.