~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 The Prosecution had informed the court that they had withdrawn charges against Chia due to a lack of evidence.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:
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
Ravi, this is a good one.
To upright Singaporeans who are against drugs:
What do you say now about withdrawing charges against ‘the boss’ who will for sure find another 10 mules to replace VK and will make some success in getting the drugs into Sg? Really interested to hear the logic.
Yes, good one Ravi!
Ravi, this is the way. If system is at fault, we should tackle the system. That is the way to go. People must grow up and not continue to take unjust laws and unfair prosecution for granted.
God,
This is grasping at any argument however weak however stupid just to drown the court in legal motions just to save a convicted drug trafficker.
At the end of the day it is about prosecutorial discretion and its exercise and part of being a prosecutor involves which CASES have sufficient evidence to merit going to court and tying up the resources of both the court and the prosecutors which are both limited.
What has Vong bought to the table against his BOSS. Nothing except his testimony. His boss mind you has been charged under the criminal equivalent of the ISA or jailed.
So is his testimony enough with no other evidence and when the act took place in Malaysia.
Locke
Good One Ravi.
Lets see how our justice system answers to all these “funny” standards.
What to do when everything is indeed “Leegally” bound.
ravi well done keep on fighting
@lockeliberal
Read paragaphs 3, 4, 5. If that is weak to you, can’t see what isn’t.
It is not just about saving a convicted drug trafficker, it is about preventing his murder unnecessarily, it is about stamping out drugs the effective way, it is about challenging the authorities to face up to the real big boys -’the boss’, it is about whipping the Govt to do its job properly!
This case shows that this Govt is not sincere in caring about the lives of its citizens by letting ‘the boss’ go. I see it as a showcase that the Govt has done its job, I also see it as a hurry to silence the witness. Drugs will continue to get into Sg because of this care less attitude of the Govt.
Does the Govt care about the lives of citizens? Clearly not in this instance. Does it care about political support? Yes, I can bet if 90% of Singaporeans are against the executiion and MDP, it (the ruling party) will change its stand.
I thought it usually works the other way round. In many cases, the police would usually take the pain of not pressing charges or collaborate to reduce sentencing to get the arrested member of a gang to ‘grass’ on the boss and other members of the gang and better still, testify against them. I wonder what our top talents think of this case esp the PM. It concerns a young life and we heard nothing, zil, from the top man. All the talk of grace, kindess, integrity, talent, are… just talk only.
lockeliberal, GOOD GOD. You are literally grasping at straws in your arguments. In your haste to criticise for the sake of it, you trade logic for childish assertions.
The great scholar lawyers of the Ministry of Law of Singapore conveniently forgot about the drug mastermind. Are they dumb or were they told to target the small timer who had no one to turn to. We should get the top Sing lawyers from NUS and the Ministry of Law to to come together to once again refine a law that had already been in existence for a long time in this Lion City. One day, one of these great scholar lawyers will have a son who
trafficked a small amount of heroin and will the great lawyer father invoke the genuine rule of the law. Just wait and see. “As long as it is not my son, I couldn’t care too hoots.” My son is precious. That is why there are so many white horses in NS. My son is precious. The sons of the poor, from the
lockeliberal,
since when the runners are supposed to supply evidence to police to use as bargaining chips to reduce their charges in court? even you claim his testamony may not be enough to convict the boss.
is it even logical to assume these runners from foreign country know how much evidence is enough to reel the boss in? might as well, our police work with other police force regionally or even globally & send some undercovers to get evidence courts deem more reliable.
@Voice of Reason
Why are you so keen to advocate for a convicted drug trafficker so that Singaporeans can suffer endlessly by his drug trafficking for Singaporeans to take drugs ? He has gone through all the due processes and like a drowning man clutching to the last straw. If the govt is not caring for Singaporeans why bother about stamping out drugs by hanging the drug trafficker found with physical evidence of drug in his possession and detaining the boss indefinitely? Do you have any better ideas how to deal with them, the drug trafficker and his boss under Singapore laws? How to hang the real big boy -’the boss’, when there was no physical evidence of drug found on him? Remember, the prosecution has to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Can the testimony of a drug trafficker be considered proving a case beyond reasonable doubt? Are you promoting "kangaroo" court trial in Singapore to hang the boss regardless of the rule of law and evidence?
"This case shows that this Govt is not sincere in caring about the lives of its citizens by letting ‘the boss’ go. I see it as a showcase that the Govt has done its job, I also see it as a hurry to silence the witness. Drugs will continue to get into Sg because of this care less attitude of the Govt." It seems that you do not get your facts correctly and simply "hantang buta" Read the article carefully before commenting!
Does the Govt care about the lives of citizens? Yes, it is you who do not care about Singaporeans by posting this spurious allegations without any basis.
Critical question is…who has the drug physically when caught…Chia or Vui Kong?
I can go round saying many people are drug lords, but when you can't find any drugs on them or in their possession somewhere else, you simply don't have a case with evidence to prosecute.
BTW, the law does not differentiate drug lords or drug mules/runners…as both seek to profit from their criminal intent. Also, it is time people here still try to defend Vui Kong’s lame excuse that he does not know what he was carrying.
Personally, I think Ravi have a very weak case with his argument!
The mandatory death penalty only affects those who are ready to risk their lives to go on a destructive crime spree to satisfy their selfish greed…drug lords or runners, they do not deserve any sympathy nor mercy!
No need to change the law just to satisfy a few criminals that are deadly risks to millions lives!
Cynthia,
why not also hang those who support the illegal drug trade by fuelling it with money?
with too low a demand, the supply side will have a hard time to sustain its operations. & a drop on the supply side will also achieve S'pore's goal. maybe heavy fines should be implosed on people with too much money.
mice is ice, you raised a rational point, and we can only go back to one important basis – who are the victims…the drug lords & runners, or the drug addicts created by such illegal drug trade?
So if I get arrested for trafficking drugs, and I say Mr Soh En So put me up to it, and I cannot provide any evidence that he did, and the police are unable to find any evidence to prove that he did so, then I shouldn't be charged?
Seems legit.
Cynthia,
i cannot be certain the drug abusers are victims, especially reported in papers the trend these days see an uptrend in party drugs rather than drugs like opium of old.
the drug trade made have been man made, like alcohol? but the abusers need to face stern action for their part in it as well. if peddling drugs means death, abusing drugs must carry a stiff sentence as well.
as with all cases, one cannot assume one is a victim & anyone on the opposite side is therefore not a victim. if drug abuse is "a destructive crime spree to satisfy their selfish greed", then isn't our 2 casinos just as bad?
both can lead to an addiction, but one is a crime, the other isn't. isn't it unfair?
http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=2008-REVED-185&segid=1207125305-001819
Stiff enough for you?
mice is nice…I think Godwin already reply your ignorance…in Singapore, drug addicts have to face stiff penalty as well, unlike "cannabis paradise" like Holland use drugs as a way to boost their country's national revenue at the expense of their citizens' moral and physical health!
Dear all, we have seen abuses of power and corruption in high places from time to time. Do not dismiss too lightly and once again miss an opportunity to put right a flaw or potential for abuse in our system the power of selective prosecution on some weak excuses that lack of evidence to proceed against the mastermind/drug lord. Should the mastermind or drug lord which is the root of the problems be sufficiently identified, the scholar in charge of prosecution should gather the collective evidences from all the mules to have him convicted without any further excuse. What the people truly want at the end of the day is just law and fair judgesprosecutors with less denial syndrome and self-protective justifications as happened in Roslan and other miscarriages of justice. Stop using power to deny solving problems at the root.
Some ignorant people here seems to think they are better than our scholar in charge of prosecution. But it is so naive for anyone to think that just because someone accused another person of being a drug lord, and the accused is automatically presume guilty.
I'm glad the rule of law exist and due process is being considered, and that it is not beholden to any shallowed and narrow-minded smart-alecks or organizations who interpretated the law as they like or wish to see!
Ya, so lame to say cannot find sufficient evidence on the boss. Where is the fire in the belly to nap the real culprit? If there is insufficient evidence then an officer fired by passion to rid society of baddies will go out and get it in whatever way he can. They cannot just chicken out and execute the runner. Shame, shame.
If you press for evidence, then do you have evidence that a 17 yr old homeless boy can fund those drugs that you claim belong to him? If not, clearly he is a mule and if he is a mule, clearly there is a 'boss'. It is just so lame to settle at executing the mule and not pursue the source.
Drug mules or drug lords, they have a commonality…they seek to satisfy their evil greed through criminal intent that affect thousands of lives. They are guilty of the same crime…the only difference is the evidences to indict and nail them.
The law simply cannot work on passion and fire in the belly of individuals…as it is no differences to taking the law into your own hands based on one's beliefs and values (and who shall determine one's views is more righteous than another's). We cannot afford to live in a lawless society with no consideration for the due process of the law enacted to ensure fairness and just in prosecution.
It is sad that in this case, Vui Kong possessed the damn evidence…he was caught physically with the drugs, and that’s an indisputable fact!
Some kind of high standard we have. Cannot go after the big baddies, finish off the small guys for a show. I know it is difficult of course but that does not justify nor is it good excuse to impose the heaviest penalty upon your catch just because it is difficult to nap the boss.
'Vui Kong possessed the damn evidence' of what? of supplying drugs? Can they prove that a 17 y o homeless boy is financially able to own those drugs? The evidence is clear that he is a mule.
You 2nd paragraph shows you don't understand what you are talking about. A law enforcement officer worth his salt would have fire in the belly to enforce the law and enforce it properly!
Mule & drug lord are equal to you, so why want to be the mule? You know how much richer the lord is than the mule?
Arising from more and more cases of selective prosecutions that result in a gradual loss of confidence in our laws and regulations and the way they are being enforced, it is timely to re-look at the existing system as a whole. Should we prosecute more drug mules and let go the drug lords /masterminds because of lame excuses of not having enough evidences? Should we allow the powerful executive to do as it likes to deny real problems with justifications and protectionism. Is our system which is increasing giving power to the executive leading to better justice for all?
Society is full of problems including those who abuse drugs because of people like lockeliberal, Devagi,…. who are adamant on bending the rule of law, ignoring reasons and bent on killing. No one is saying to set Vui Kong free, all they are saying is he should not be executed. See how they distort the intention. Good people don't do that!
It is so incomprehensible to see some very weird logic and mentality of some individuals here…they seems to think they possessed the supreme right to determine what’s right and wrong based on their own values, which they perceived to be more superior to the system being put in place to ensure proper procedures and process are accorded. They even advocate that justice can be melted out simply based on passion and fire in the belly…goodness gracious, are we back to the cowboy era where anyone who has a gun can go round carrying out their own interpretated sense of justice?
I really hope Singapore will not be run nor govern one day by people of such weird logic and mentality!
I believe we need to contain the drug problems with a clear message to the people and not confused issues with further problems. The suppliers need to be punished, hence we seek punitive measures given to them. The runners are generally naive and given assurences that they will not be caught, but they can be caught most easily, hence they should be given deterrence sentences. The very young should be given some compassionate opportunity to change and learn their lessons, hence their outcome should be reform measures. I think base on these views, the "boss" should be given life sentence or death, the mules depending on age should be given life or 20 to 30 years, and the young naive and stupid given 10 to 20 years. Death sentences are not always just and effective in mananging human problems.
An example of weir logic is the one just given by weirdo – continued hanging of mules and not too interested in stopping the most powerful producers of drugs.
Dear Angelina,
He was a trafficker of pure heroin , straight and simple , an amount in law designed to differentiate between a casual user , a small time peddlar and a trafficker in it for the money.
The fact is the law is the law, and a Drug Boss has the same rights in a Court as a Drug mule. You have to prove it. All Vui Kong has offered is testimony and testimony with zero evidence supporting it is insufficient in any jurisdiction. His Boss is now detained under the criminal equivalent of ISA ever wondered why ? You can't blithely assert that the police should do this, do that, paint a pie in the sky moon is green scenario to justify saving Vong. His evidence is NOT enough pure and simple and thus he has nothing to exchange his life for.
Locke
People are confusing support for Vui Kong as support for drugs. Support for Vui Kong does not mean support for drugs. The issue here is that Vui Kong is being condemned to die for making a teenage mistake. The issue here is that it isn't right to punish teenagers with death for making a mistake.
It’s a fact that the teenage brain is still developing, especially the prefrontal cortex which is responsible for impulse control and executive/logical decisions. Until this area of the brain is properly developed in adulthood, the amygdala (which is responsible for emotions) is in control and teenagers tend to make impulsive decisions based on emotion and basic drives (the Four F’s: feeding, fighting, fleeing, and f***ing (reproduction).
Furthermore, while many are freely condemning Vui Kong for making a teenage mistake, addictive substances like cigarettes, alcohol, and sex are RIGHT NOW being freely sold on Singaporean streets. Huh?? Talk about hypocrisy.
So how can we, in good conscience, condemn Vui Kong to death for making a teenage mistake? Let (s)he, who has never sinned or done something really stupid as a teenager, cast the first stone.
I feel really sad to witness the ignorant, hateful, and compassionless mentality of some of the commenters above–you can clearly understand why Jesus was crucified, with these kind of people around. These commenters are no different from the idiots who assassinated great people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
It’s already 2012, and it’s sad that we humans have still not evolved. Specifically, Singaporean society and Singaporean thinking has not evolved. Singaporean citizens need to start telling their government and leaders to start pulling Singapore towards a modern society free of barbaric and outdated laws that punish teenage mistakes with death.
Mahatma Gandhi once said: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” Singaporeans should ask themselves if their society meets this standard of greatness.
Yes, Vui Kong committed a crime, so punish him–but not with death. Give him a chance to make amends and contribute something useful to society.
In addition, Vui Kong has shown clear proof of reforming and educating himself while in prison–this should be taken into account. If he was not sincerely remorseful and wanted to make amends, he wouldn’t have made an effort to improve himself while in prison. Given all Vui Kong has been through, it’s likely that he will make a valuable contribution, if given a second chance.
For the record, I am totally against drugs. Go catch the source of the drugs–the drug kingpins who are exploiting the naive and bribing authorities–instead of killing the teenage mules.
@ Cynthia, please refer to below case, even a person whom drug was not found on him but implicated by accused face MDP. But "The boss" on Yong's case was let off.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/07/the-case-of-roslan-bin-bakar/
@lockeliberal
You have been talking about efficiency and resources on investigation and prosecution. Whats is so good of our judicial system, AGC, Police and Judges is efficient is closing cases but not thorough in ensuring fairness in our judicial system? What is the use of handling cases fast be number one in the world but in a haphazard investigation, prosecution and sentencing? The police and AGC had work hard enough with Yong, they would have found enough evident to apprehend "the boss" , even in Roslan's case, the accused pointed finger to him but without any drug found on Roslan, he was still sentenced to MDP. Why in Roslan's case the accused word were taken to negotiate a non MDP charges? It is scary to see Police and AGC worked they way as long as like to take a person's life.
If MDP is to stay, why not do it for the drug abuser who buy drugs too? Why spend time to rehab them? Hang them all. Simple, no demand, no supplier.
I am against MDP on drug cases but not death sentence. A fair and thorough trial, and second chance for first time offenders.
Dear Gong,
The problem is that there was some supporting evidence, whether weak or strong, and the crime took place in Singapore. In Vui Kongs case the handover happened in Malaysia and there was zero supporting.
Locke
Cynthia,
Godwin's link under agc only gave the maximum cap of penalties regarding consumption of drugs. looking at the maximum, the penalties does seem sever, but the minimum?
Who Said So,
working with "passion & fire in the belly" alone, can mean taking law into your own hands? sure you undertand due processes of the law anot?
the drug is on Vui Kong, a fact, but where did it come from? did it drop from the sky? why can't the police work on getting the source? without hitting the source hard, or the supply side that fuels the supply, hanging the mules isn't going to be as effective to prevent the drugs from entering S'pore.
"Should we prosecute more drug mules and let go the drug lords /masterminds because of lame excuses of not having enough evidences?"
Not having evidence is a "lame excuse"? Wow.
"
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.’"
Huh
Weird way to spell M Ravi
And here I thought SG lawyers didn't engage in courtroom antics. Guess it should be expected from some guy popmpus enough to call himself a human rights lawyer.
There's no Peace without Justice! Stop having different standards for different people!
Some past cases included a Thai worker who was convicted of murder but later acquited when the defense found his passport stating that he was not in the country when he was supposed to have committed the crime!
Heyyyy all the fearless upright who moral expression to highlight the injustice …. seemed being existed in singapore . THANKS SIR / MADAM . <<** IF for eg only the police **>> arrive , saw 4 people being attack by lawlessly evil people for eg only . << ** the police by law , by sound mind etc , the police had to stop it , arrest the evil criminal who lawlessly attack ((** innocent people , regard of race , religion , country , any age , man or woman , even innocent people who being attack before was a criminal who broke the law before . **)) ((** BY LAW , the police must , shall ensure the safety for all …. means equal protect to all **)) , << note for eg only << no discriminate , no prejudicial at all **>> by common law . ((**)) WHAT a shame in singapore only ((** mr RAVI and MISS teo (( SDP )) fearless to expression upright to raise the injustice …. which already existed in singapore . ((**)) NO WRONG FOR MR RAVI TO SAY LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION WRONG ABOUT AG'S DISCRETION (( means freedom or authority …. , to act as one ((AG)) SEES FIT ….SERIOUS Questionable ???>. <<** MR SUBHAS DO YOU KNOW , THANKS SIR . Li biao chi BEFORE MET WITH A SIMPLE ACCIDENT in singapore , THE OFFER LETTER WAS AGAINST THE singapore law because pillion-rider 100 % no fault at all , how can free-from blame …serious questionable not in order from the insurer ???>>. THIS WAS AGAINST THE LAW , CANNOT BE LEGAL VALID by law . THIS WAS WHY APPROACHED mr marican to seek real justice from the upright system allowed it by common law . (( note LI BIAO CHI RISKED THE CHANCE TO FOR EG ONLY OFFEND CRIMINAL SENIOR LAWYER MR MARICAN ACTING FOR LI BIAO CHI BECAUSE UPRIGHT SOUND MIND MORAL CONSCIENCE LI BIAO CHI HAD TO UPRIGHT EXPRESSION because AS LIFE AND DEATH MATTER CONCERN …… , if left unnoticed .. serious not in order impact to world , country , sector , religion , voters etc , think of it . ((** for eg only like the uk riot which existed before . **))> . << ** NO WAY THE REAL GUILTY CRIMINAL Terrorist CAN HAVE ANY EXCUSE TO BREAK SINGAPORE , WORLD , PEOPLE , ETC INTO PIECES at all for eg only . **>> ((**mOREOVER COMMON LAW ALLOWED IT TO EXPOSE ANY INJUSTICE EXISTED . ((** ONCE AGAINST (( NOTE FOR EG ONLY BREAK )) THE COMMON LAW . ((** UPRIGHT OR MEDIA ETC CAN FEARLESSLY EXPRESSION TO UPRIGHT REPORT , HIGHLIGHT , PUBLISH ETC BY COMMON LAW , WHEN … THING AGAINST THE LAW , TAKE NOTE , THANKS . ((** CHIEF JUDGE SAID BEFORE …. USED COMMON SENSE … MR SUBHAS , MR MARICAN REFER THE STRAIT TIMES DATED 28 / SEPT / 2010 COURTS DO NOT SHIELD GOVT AGENCIES , THANKS . **)) THIS WAS WHAT MR RAMALINGAM ASKS…. ((** FOR EG ONLY MEANING WHY PEOPLE WHO DID THE SAME THING IS ALLOWED TO STAY ALIVE ….????>. BY LEGAL COMMON LAW …. THE AG (( PROSECUTION )) HAD TO BY COMMON LAW STATE WHY ,,,>>>>????> . ((** DO CHIEF JUDGE CHAN , APPEAL , UPRIGHT JUDGE CONSIDER IT , THE CHARACTER , INTEGRITY OF THE AG (( prosecution )) . FAIR criticism allowed , by chief judge chan saying before , thanks SIR . THAT'S ALL . DATED 28 / LI BIAO CHI SINGAPORE. THANKS UPRIGHT , TOC . restore the UK jury system , thanks .
@Lockeliberal
I like your comment, we are getting somewhere at this. If you say that the an amount in law is designed "to differentiate between a casual, a small time peddlar and a trafficker", why stop at the trafficker? It should include the supplier or drug lord and all the way to the manufacturer or grower. What you pointed out is absolutely correct therefore, seeing that trafficking is still 1 or 2 levels below the top rung, a trafficker should NOT be given the ultimate sentence. Mind you, the top 2 levels are in it for the most money.
Perhaps different people have different expectations. I like to do my job the best I can (beyond what is expected of me to fulfil my duty, it is my sense of duty) therefore in this case I personally won't be satisfied at executing the mule knowing full well that there will be more sent this way and some will slip through and the boss is getting away with it.
Yes the trafficker's evidence is not enough. Then go and find it! Would a good inspector stop pursuing a murder case by accepting at the point of time (just after the murder), that the evidence is not enough? I have read real cases (many) where crimes are solved after years of hard work to gather evidence.
In the drug lord case, the testimony is not a one statement thing (so & so is the boss), it is the whole story! The story has to stick. Did the so called boss know Vui Kong before? How did VK meet him & what sort of work did he hire VK for? As the gang can't be just the 2 of them, others would have to be called in to testify that VK did work for the boss. What business or source of finance does the boss get? So many questions that can lead to evidence. I just don't see why they cannot cross examine the boss?
Nevertheless I acknowledge that it is difficult to pin the boss down BUT this in no way justify hanging the trafficker once it is proven that the criminal is a trafficker (not the drug lord), just because you cannot pin the boss.
Dear Lockeliberal,
Are you the IO or you working for AGC? They never published their findings so nobody knows how they have concluded the case this way. So please do not assume evidents not available to get "the boss". However in Roslan's case, he was not even proven to be at the scene of the committed but just because the main accused pointed finger to him, he was found guilty, can this be considered as strong evident against Roslan?
It is easy for a powerful society to kill. It is hard to live with a killing however. Imprisonment, re-education, rehabilitation, reformation, transformation, redemption, penance, expiation, and correction also provide retribution and deterrence for social ills. Firmness is a sign of strong society. Compassion and the ability to respond constructively rather than react destructively are the indicia of an enlightened one. Singapore in my view is an enlightened one in this sense.
A few facts from a Facebook discussion
Mr Ravi formally withdrew in Ramalingam's case the argument that the AG had to give reasons for prosecutorial discretions (see para 55 of the CA's decision)
I would not wish to speculate as to the reasons Mr Ravi did this, but I do find it strange Mr Ravi now seeks to revive the argument in a letter to the press in relation to the same case after the CA has rendered its judgment.
In any case, Mr Ravi's comment that t"he Court of Appeal does not appear to share Mr Anandan's view that the Attorney-General does not need to explain how he exercises his discretion" is inaccurate.
The CA in Ramalingam's case said "We accept the Attorney-General’s position" (para 74).
Mr Ravi then wrote "The English Supreme Court has mandated that in cases which involve the right to life of an accused, the director of public prosecutions is expected, in the absence of compelling grounds to the contrary, to give reasons in exercising his discretion. The mandatory nature of the death sentence in Singapore appears to warrant an even greater degree of transparency."
This conveyed a misleading impression.
The English case that Mr Ravi cited was Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex parte Manning and another.
In that case, the English Court held that (to use our CA's description of it from Ramalingam's case) "there was no absolute obligation on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions to give reasons for a decision not to prosecute, since the right to life was the most fundamental of all human rights and since the death of a person in the State’s custody resulting from violence inflicted by the State’s agents necessarily aroused profound concern, the Director of Public Prosecutions would be expected, in the absence of compelling grounds to the contrary, to give reasons for his decision not to prosecute N in those circumstances."
In Ramalingam, the CA said that Ex Parte Manning was distinguishable – "the decision in Ex parte Manning is distinguishable on the facts. Nothing in the present case can be said to raise any profound concern as to whether the Applicant was wrongly convicted of the offences with which he was charged."
In other words, the words Mr Ravi cites from Ex Parte Manning related to the death of a person in custody – which I think clearly raises profound concerns.
Our CAl has already ruled that death penalty cases do not, as such, raise the same profound concern in the same manner – this explains why the CA said Ex Parte Manning was distinguisable from death penalty cases such as Ramalingam's.
Sadly, one is driven to conclude that Mr Ravi's letter contained numerous legal inaccuracies.
Mr Ravi may feel he is justified to adopt any sorts of twists and turns on the law to advance his clients' interests. While I do feel for those charged with DP offences, on the law, Ravi's position in his letter was plainly wrong and the CLAS' comment was the correct one.
Dear Angeline,
I had this argument often enough when I was an overseas student ten years agi. The facts were the same then as now. Firstly who is the biggest drug lords or drug producing countries in the world right now. Answer Afghanistan, Burma and N Korea. The drugs in these countries are Opium which produce Heroin. Who is the biggest Cocaine Producer for the US. Answer again Columbia and Mexico ( Shipment ). Targetting drug lords are a very nice PIE In the Sky ideal , but practically ? What can Singapore do that the US with an Aid Budget and a Military in AFghanistan has already failed to do ?. The sad fact remains that even with the US with all its might has faced immense difficulty in bringing drug lords to task in the US and facing US courts.
I doubt Vui Kongs "boss" is a drug lord in himself but rather an intermediary in a rung up the shadowy world of the underworld. How effective is hanging a trafficker like Vui Kong ? My own view is that deterrence works not because no one tries smuggling drugs in, but it works , because it stops to many people from smuggling it in so ease of access to drugs is inhibited leading to a decrease in all manner of drug related crime and criminal syndicates. Sad fact of life remains that with hanging desperate traffickers, the ease of access to drugs on our streets is a lot lesser.
Locke
Dear Angeline
Once can't blithely assert " just go find it ". The act of exchange took place elsewhere , Vui Kong does not offer any other evidence apart from his " Testimony ". Heck even informers within the Mafia testifying on behalf of the STATE offer MORE information that he has had
He gambled with his life he lost. The state would be interested in any exchange of information if it was worthwhile but it has been deemed worthless and thus he has nothing to trade for. Perhaps at some point some other person who was caught has something worth trading for but as of now that is a moot point. Perhaps in the future new evidence comes up which allows his "boss" to be convicted but that is again besides the point. Its a fact of life in any criminal justice system that some criminals will get of today , but perhaps just perhaps they will get caught tomorrow. Youe argument is basically let one criminal off today because the bigger criminal was not caught as well.
Locke
Dear Gong,
Just facts, he was caught smuggling into Singapore. So obviously the handover of the package based on even Vui Kongs testimony took place somewhere in Malaysia. As it is its Vui Kongs Word against that of his boss who will nevertheless swear blind with a ten witnesses that he did not such thing, and did not know Vui Kong well. Vui Kong is a trafficker and his immediate boss is one as well.
Locke
@lockeliberal,
Why you selectively avoid Roslan's case where he was finger pointed for drug trafficking by an accused who was caught with the drug. No drug was recovered from Roslan but he too was convicted MDP while the accused caught with drug was charge with non MDP, AGC too did not care to explain why this happened, had the AGC and police made a deal with the accused? Nobody know. You seems to be legal trained, care to explain why the difference?
Lockeliberal,
interesting line of thought, just because of the lack of bargaining chips to reel the bosses in, the mules get death sentence? isn't that injustice?
the court isn't the casino, certainly the judge cannot be the banker.
though it such a situation where mules lack evidence to reel the drug bosses in seem like a hostage situation, where a death threat is the result of not being able to fulfill a ransom demanded by the kidnapper.