Latest: Singapore single mother awaits death row in Malaysia for drug trafficking. On the pretext of a business trip to China, Iqah was handed a suitcase containing heroin arranged by her Nigerian boyfriend and was arrested by Malaysian Immigration. A campaign is underway to raise funds for the appeal. To find out more, read

We have also heard that since Vui Kong's appeal started, there has been an unofficial stay of execution for all prisoners on death row in Changi Prison, pending the decision of the court on Yong's case. As the case has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, we anticipate a Changi gallows bloodbath in a scale not seen since the Pulau Senang uprising in 1965 when 18 men were convicted of murder and hanged in a single Friday morning.

Singapore, which routinely persecute dissenters and critics, continue to hang young drug runners while at the same time work closely with Burmese military generals, and has invested billions in business ties with Burma, one of the biggest heroin manufacturing countries the world.

-----------------------------

If you know someone who's charged in a capital case, received the death sentence, or is on death row in Singapore and if you have have your side of the story to tell, contact us at sgdeathpenalty [at] gmail.com


Monday, June 14, 2010

High Court waives $$20,000 security deposit for Vui Kong's Judicial Review application

In light of last month's Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the appeal for condemned drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong, counsel M. Ravi made an application last week to the High Court for Judicial Review related to Vui Kong's clemency process and other constitutional matters.

Under normal circumstances, a $20,000 security deposit and a $1,000 filing fee are payable for an application for judicial review, especially so in Vui Kong's case because he had already exhausted the Criminal Jurisdiction process, and an application for judicial review would fall under civil law.

On a letter dated 7th June 2010, the High Court replied to M. Ravi stating, "we unable to accede to your request for a waiver of filing fees for the Judicial Review application." No reasons were given.

The following day, the High Court did an about-turn when it sent another letter, which reads, "Please be informed that as the intended application for Judicial Review arises out of a criminal case, it is treated as a criminal case and therefore no filing is payable. This letter supersedes our letter dated 7 June 2010."

One can only speculate the High Court's sudden change of decision regarding the waiver of fees, which sums up to over $21,000, which is by no means a small amount for most people.

But one thing for certain is that this could have favourable implications on future applications for judicial reviews, as it sets a precedent for future criminal cases and allows the vast majority, who are not able to afford the large sum of money needed, to determine their rights by way of judicial review.

1 comment: