Urgent Appeal to the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (Yong Vui Kong)

Joint submission by Mr. M Ravi and Harm Reduction International, 28 April 2011

For Yong Vui Kong (Full background story) 

I. Identity of the person concerned:

1. Family name:

Yong

2. First name:

Vui Kong

3. Sex: _ male __ female

Male

4. Birth date or age:

19 January 1988 (23 years old)

5. Nationalit(ies):

Malaysian

6. Civil status (single, married, etc.):

Single

8. Profession and/or activity (e.g. trade union, political, religious, humanitarian/solidarity/human rights, etc.)

N/A

9. Address of usual residence:

Originally from: Sandakan Malaysia

Currently resides:
Changi Prison

11 Jalan Awan

Singapore

10. Is there a link to other cases/ persons? Please specify:

• Singapore: (Urgent Appeal) Death sentence of Thiru Selvam, Communication from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to the Government of Singapore, 18 July 2001 (E/CN.4/2002/74/Add.2)

• Singapore: (Urgent Appeal) Death sentences of Mohammed Afzal Khan and Mohammed Ali Hashim, Communication from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to the Government of Singapore, 8 January 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1)

• Singapore: (Urgent Appeal) Death Sentence of Nguyen Tuong Van, Communication from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to Singapore, 15 March 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1)

• Statement of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of the United Nations Human Rights Council on the Government of Singapore's planned execution of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, 25 January 2007 (HR/07/9)

II. Information regarding the incident:

1. Date:

On 14 November 2008 Mr. Yong was convicted by the High Court of a charge under s 5(1)(a) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act – which prescribes a mandatory death penalty for certain categories of drug offences. The accused was convicted of trafficking in 47.27 grams of diamorphine and was sentenced to death.

2. Place:

1 Supreme Court Lane

Singapore 178879

4. The nature of the incident: Please describe the circumstances of the incident, including the following categories:

X (a) death penalty, or fair trial guarantees, please detail (unfair laws or proceedings, charges, eventual appeals, execution is imminent, etc.)

(b) imminent violation of the right to life is feared (death threats, imminent expulsion or refoulement leading to a life-threatening situation, etc.), please detail.

(c) others (death in custody, death during an armed conflict, death due to excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, death due to attacks by security forces of State, paramilitary or private forces, breach of obligation to investigate, etc.):

Yong Vui Kong grew up in extreme poverty and dropped out of school at just 11-years-old. He left home at 15-years-old to begin work in Kuala Lumpur as an apprentice cook and later sold digital video discs.ⁱ It is alleged that shortly before his arrest he came into contact with someone who hired him to deliver goods from Malaysia to Singapore. ⁱⁱ

Mr. Yong was arrested at the age of 19-years-old and was accused of trafficking in slightly more than 47 grams of diamorphine between 12 June 2007 and 13 June 2007. Under Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act – which prescribes a mandatory death penalty for certain categories of drug offences – Mr. Yong was convicted on 14 November 2008 and sentenced to death.

Neither his age nor personal circumstances could be taken into account in his sentencing due to Singapore’s mandatory death penalty policy. Such mandatory death sentences that cannot consider mitigating considerations have been criticised by the former UN Commission on Human Rightsⁱⁱⁱ, the UN Human Rights Committee^iv, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions^v and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights^vi as well as numerous national courts^vii.

The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions wrote of mandatory death sentences, ‘The experience of numerous judicial and quasi-judicial bodies has demonstrated that mandatory death sentences are inherently over-inclusive and unavoidably violate human rights law. The categorical distinctions that may be drawn between offences in the criminal law are not sufficient to reflect the full range of factors relevant to determining whether a death sentence would be permissible in a capital case. In such cases, individualized sentencing by the judiciary is required in order to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life.’^viii

Furthermore, it has long been established that drug offences do not reach the standard of ‘most serious crimes’ as articulated by United Nations human rights bodies.

International bodies have devoted considerable attention to limitations placed on the lawful application of the death penalty. According to decisions by human rights monitors, scholars and international jurisprudence, capital drug laws are at odds with the right to life as articulated by Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that the death penalty may only be applied for what the treaty terms ‘most serious crimes’. This has been affirmed by:

• UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions^ix
• UN Office on Drugs and Crime^x
• UN Human Rights Committee, the body of independent experts mandated with monitoring the implementation and interpretation of the ICCPR^xi
• UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment^xii
• UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health^xiii

Singapore is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights yet this principle has been endorsed by UN political bodies in a 1984 resolution of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC), which upheld nine safeguards on the application of the death penalty, affirming that capital punishment should be used ‘only for the most serious crimes.’^xiv This resolution which held that such offences were limited to those ‘with lethal or other extremely grave consequences’ was later endorsed by the UN General Assembly^xv.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has similarly affirmed, ‘As an entity of the United Nations system, UNODC advocates the abolition of the death penalty and calls upon Member States to follow international standards concerning prohibition of the death penalty for offences of a drug-related or purely economic nature.’^xvi

Furthermore, there are numerous fair trial concerns associated with presumptions of guilt that are included in the Misuse of Drugs Act. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions^xvii – including by the office of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions – that this presumption ‘shifts the burden of proof to the accused, does not provide sufficient guarantees for the presumption of innocence and may lead to violations of the right to life when the crime of drug trafficking carries a mandatory death sentence.’^xviii

This presumption raises numerous concerns that procedural safeguards are not protected -- which in capital trials is ‘without a doubt a norm of customary law (or a general principle of law).’^xix The Human Rights Committee wrote in 1982 that the protections articulated in Article 14 of the Covenant are built into Article 6, ‘including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal. These rights are applicable in addition to the particular right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.’^xx In addition, Safeguard No. 5 of the General Assembly-endorsed 1984 ECOSOC resolution states:

Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court after legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of anyone suspected of or charged with a crime for which capital punishment may be imposed to adequate legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings.^xxi

These concerns have been raised by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in the past. ^xxii

III. Forces believed to be responsible for the incident:

(a) if the perpetrators are believed to be State agents, please specify (military, police, persons in uniform or civilian clothes, agents of security services, unit to which they belong, rank and functions, etc.) and indicate why they are believed to be responsible; be as precise as possible:

(b) if an identification as State agents is not possible, why do you believe that Government authorities, or persons linked to them, are responsible for the incident?

(c) if there are witnesses to the incident, indicate their names. If they wish to remain anonymous, indicate if they are relatives, by-passers, etc.; if there is evidence, please specify:

This sentence was passed by the High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeals and is due to be carried out by government authorities.

IV. Steps taken by the victim or his/her family:

(a) Indicate if complaints have been filed, when, by whom, and before which organ.

(b) Other steps taken:

All domestic remedies have been exhausted.

On 14 November 2008 a mandatory death sentence was passed against Yong Vui Kong. An appeal was filed but then withdrawn. On 11 August 2009 Mr. Yong petitioned the president for clemency which was rejected on the 20 November 2009. Just four days before his sentence was to be carried out, Mr. Yong through his current attorney M Ravi, filed a criminal motion for leave to pursue his appeal at the Court of Appeal based on the argument that the sentence was unconstitutional. The application was granted on 8 December 2009 though the appeal was dismissed on 14 March 2010.^xxiii Shortly before the decision was made public, published comments attributed to the Law Minister defended the mandatory death penalty for drugs and warned that if drug lords are under the impression that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared then they will be more inclined to use them as mules – adding, ‘Then you’ll get 10 more. There’ll be an unstoppable stream of such people coming through as long as we say we won’t enforce our laws.’^xxiv

A final appeal was submitted based on several arguments including that by law it is the President ‘who has the power to decide whether or not to grant any fresh clemency petition which the Appellant might file’ and that ‘Law Minister’s conduct had irreversibly tainted the clemency process in respect of the Appellant with apparent bias, and the Appellant was entitled to be pardoned on account thereof or was, alternatively, entitled not to be deprived of his life’.

This appeal was rejected on 4 April 2011.

V. Steps taken by the authorities:

(a) Indicate whether or not there have been investigations by the State authorities; if so, what kind of investigations? Progress and status of these investigations; which other measures have been taken (e.g. autopsy)?

(b) in case of complaints by the victim or its family, how have the organs dealt with them? What is the outcome of those proceedings?

The government has agreed to hear several appeals on behalf of Yong Vui Kong, which have been filed on his behalf by attorney M Ravi. However, at no point has the government reconsidered its policy of enforcing the mandatory death penalty for drugs.

VI. Identity of the person submitting the case

(Joint Submission of Harm Reduction International and M. Ravi)

Person 1:

1. Family name:

Gallahue

2. First name(s):

Patrick

3. Status: individual, group, non-governmental organization, inter-governmental agency, Government. Please specify:

Non-governmental organisation: Harm Reduction International.

4. Address (telephone, fax, e-mail):

Harm Reduction International

Unit 701 - The Chandlery

50 Westminster Bridge Road

London

United Kingdom - SE1 7QY

patrick.gallahue@ihra.net

Fax: +44 (0) 207 953 7404

Phone: +44 (0) 207 953 7650

5. Please state whether you want your identity to be kept confidential:

No

Date:

27 April 2011

Signature of author:

Patrick Gallahue

Person 2:

1. Family name:

Mr. M. Ravi

3. Status: individual, group, non-governmental organization, inter-governmental agency, Government. Please specify:

Attorney

4. Address (telephone, fax, e-mail):

L.F. Violet Netto

101, Upper Cross Street, Peoples' Park Centre,

05-13, Singapore 058357

Email: mravilaw1@gmail.com

Fax: 65- 65324301

Tel: 65- 65337433

Date:

27 April 2011

Signature of author:

M.Ravi

i See for example: Al Jazeera (26 January 2011) 'Yong's Story: The case of a young Malaysian convicted for drug trafficking tests Singapore's capital punishment laws'; or Save Vui Kong at http://savevuikong.blogspot.com/p/yong-vui-kongs-journey.html

ii See Yong Vui Kong. v. Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal 13 of 2008, Respondent's Arguments (For hearing: 15 March 2010)

iii UN Commission on Human Rights (20 April 2005) Human Rights Resolution 2005/59, para. 6

iv UN Human Rights Committee (26 March 2002) Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago Communication No. 845/1998. CCPR/C/74/D/845/1998, para. 7.3.; UN Human Rights Committee (18 October 2000) Thompson v. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Communication No. 806/1998. CCPR/C/70D/806/1998, para. 8; UN Human Rights Committee (1995) Lubuto v. Zambia Communication No. 390/1990.

v UN Human Rights Council, UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, 29 January 2007, A/HRC/4/20, paras. 54-59

vi Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No. 94 (21 June 2002)

vii Privy Council Appeal No. 44 of 2005 (1) Forrester Bowe (Junior) (2) Trono Davis v. The Queen, The Court of Appeal of the Bahamas (8 March 2006) para. 29(3); Attorney General v. Susan Kigula and 417 Others No. 03 of 2006, Uganda: S. Ct (21 January 2009); Amnesty International (22 January 2009) Mandatory death penalty ruled unconstitutional in Uganda; Kafantayeni v. Attorney General, Constitutional Case No. 12 of 2005 [2007] MWHC 1; Bernard Coard and others v. The Attorney General of Grenada UKPC7 (2007).

viii Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Civil and Political rights, Including the Questions of Disappearences and Summary Executions, A/HRC/4/20, 29 January 2007

ix UN Commission on Human Rights, Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Report by the Special Rapporteur, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1996/74, 24 December 1996, E/CN.4/1997/60; UN Human Rights Council (29 January 2007) Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. A/HRC/4/20, para. 51-52; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Addendum : Communications to and from Governments, 18 June 2010, A/HRC/14/24/Add.1, pp. 45-46.

x UNODC (2010) Drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice: A human rights perspective. Note by the Executive Director (Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Fifty-third session, Vienna, 8–12 March), UN Doc. E/CN.7/2010/CRP.6*–E/CN.15/2010/CRP.1*.

xi UN Human Rights Committee (8 July 2005), Concluding observations: Thailand. CCPR/CO/84/THA, para. 14; Human Rights Committee (29 August 2007) Concluding observations: Sudan. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3, para. 19.

xii UN Human Rights Council (14 January 2009) Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A/HRC/10/44, para. 66.

xiii UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, A/65/255 (6 August 2010) para. 17

xiv ECOSOC (25 May 1984) Implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. Resolution 1984/50.

xv UN General Assembly (14 December 1984) Human rights in the administration of justice. Resolution A/RES/39/118.

xvi UNODC (2010) Drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice: A human rights perspective. Note by the Executive Director (Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Fifty-third session, Vienna, 8–12 March), UN Doc. E/CN.7/2010/CRP.6*–E/CN.15/2010/CRP.1*.

xvii Amnesty International (15 January 2004) Singapore: The Death Penalty – A Hidden Toll of Executions. ASA 36/001/2004

xviii Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1996/74, E/CN.4/1997/60/Add.1, para. 438

xix W Schabas, ‘International law and the death penalty: reflecting or promoting change’, in P Hodgkinson and W Schabas (eds), ‘Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition’, (2^nd edn Cambridge University Press 2004) p. 53.

xx General Comment No. 06 (Sixteenth Session): The right to life (art. 6) (30 April 1982); W Schabas, ‘International law and the death penalty:reflecting or promoting change’, in P Hodgkinson and W Schabas (eds), ‘Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition’, (2^nd edn Cambridge University Press 2004) p. 56.

xxi ECOSOC (25 May 1984) Implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. Resolution 1984/50.

xxii Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1996/74, E/CN.4/1997/60/Add.1, para. 438

xxiii Civil Appeal No 144 of 2010 Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General, Summary of the judgment of Chan Sek Keong CJ, 4 April 2011. For further discussion of the decision, see: Y. McDermott, 'Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor and the Mandatory Death Penalty for Drug Offences in Singapore: A Dead End for Constitutional Challenge?' (2010) 1 International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy 35

xxiv Civil Appeal No 144 of 2010 Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General, Summary of the judgment of Chan Sek Keong CJ, 4 April 2011.

ST: Murder conviction for seafood boss overturned

Apr 12, 2011

Murder conviction for seafood boss overturned

By Selina Lum

Eu Lim Hoklai, 57, had been given the mandatory death penalty by the High Court in 2009 for killing Madam Yu Hongjin on June 18, 2006.A SEAFOOD stall boss escaped the gallows on Tuesday when the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction for murdering his China mistress in the Ang Mo Kio massage parlour she ran.

Justice V. K. Rajah, delivering the decision of the three-judge court in Eu's appeal against his conviction, said that it was unsafe to conclude that this was a case of murder in cold blood.

Rather it appears to have been a death caused in the heat of the moment, said the judge, convicting him of a lesser charge of culpable homicide, which carries up to 10 years' jail or life imprisonment. Eu had gone to meet Madam Yu that day - Father's Day - but the meeting turned violent. Madam Yu died from strangulation and two stab wounds. Eu suffered wounds that damaged no major organs.

The prosecution's case was that Eu had strangled Madam Yu after she was stabbed twice and helpless. But Eu said Madam Yu stabbed him first and he retaliated. On Tuesday, Justice V. K. Rajah - delivering the Court of Appeal's decision - said it was plausible that some of Eu's wounds could have been inflicted by Madam Yu.

It was likely that a struggle took place in the massage parlour although it is not clear who struck the first blow, he said. The benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused in such 'difficult' cases, said Justice Rajah.

CNA: Man charged with trolley bag murder

SINGAPORE: A 44-year-old executive was charged on Monday with the murder of a 28-year-old man whose body was found in a trolley bag at Sentosa.

Teo Boon Leng allegedly killed Wong Teck Siong in a unit at the Caribbean condominium at Keppel Bay Drive between April 1 and 16.

Police said officers received a call about the case at 8.40am on Saturday, April 16.

The bag was floating near the shore in the waters off the Sentosa Gate construction site and it contained Mr Wong's decomposed body.

Officers conducted their investigations and arrested Teo on Sunday afternoon.

Teo is now in remand at the Central Police Division and will be back in court on Monday, April 25.

If convicted of murder, he will face the death penalty.

-CNA/ac

SADPC - Statement regarding Khor Soon Lee's appeal and an appeal for Cheong Chun Yin‏

18 April 2011 

On Saturday, 16 April 2011, we received news that Singapore’s Court of Appeal had overturned the death sentence of Khor Soon Lee, who was convicted of drug trafficking in 2009. 

According to the information reported by the press, Khor who was arrested on 9 August 2008 at Woodlands Immigration Checkpoint, was not aware that he was carrying heroine although he knew that he was carrying other drugs. 

It is encouraging to hear the decision of the Court and we hope that this will not be the only case whereby other factors are taken into due consideration before a convict gets sentenced to death or before an appeal gets dismissed.

We appeal to the Court of Appeal to apply similar practice on other cases. 

Cheong Chun Yin

One example is the case of another Malaysian by the name of Cheong Chun Yin who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death in February 2010. In his statement and during the court proceedings, Cheong told the Court that he believed that he had been smuggling gold bars from Burma instead of heroin. 

If the Court of Appeal was able to look through the evidence to decide that Khor had no knowledge that he was carrying heroin in his appeal, they should also be able to do the same for Cheong. 

Unfortunately Cheong’s case has progressed to the last stage. He is now waiting for the President’s reply to the clemency petition that was submitted at the beginning of the year. 

As time is running out, we urgently urge the authorities of Singapore to look into Cheong’s case once again and allow him one last appeal, putting into consideration the fact that he claimed no knowledge of smuggling the drug into our shores at all. 

Afterall, the purpose of the legal process is to avoid punishing the innocent, and I am sure that we do not want to send an innocent man to the gallows for a crime that he did not intend to commit.

Thank you.

Rachel Zeng
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign
sgdeathpenalty@gmail.com

Second Chances: A re-trial for Cheong Chun Yin

Second Chances: A re-trial for Cheong Chun Yin.

POSTED BY SECOND CHANCES ⋅ APRIL 13, 2011 ⋅ LEAVE A COMMENT

The above video was shot at the press conference called by the Save Vui Kong Campaign last weekend in Kuala Lumpur to highlight the case of Cheong Chun Yin, a Malaysian from Johor Bahru on death row in Singapore.

In June 2008, Chun Yin arrived in Singapore’s Changi Airport. He had just come from Myanmar. He was carrying a black suitcase, which he believed contained gold bars that he was smuggling for a friend, who wanted to evade tax. He handed the bag over to a woman at the airport before leaving.

Chun Yin was later arrested while alighting from a taxi in Arab Street. He did not have the suitcase on him. He was then taken to a flat where the suitcase was found. The “gold bars” that he thought had been hidden in the lining turned out to be about 2.7kg of heroin.

During his interrogation, Chun Yin cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers and gave them the name, physical description and phone numbers of his contact, a man who had gone by the name of “Lau De”. However, the CNB did not make any effort to investigate.

Chun Yin was convicted and sentenced to death (under the Mandatory Death Penalty stipulated in the Misuse of Drugs Act) by High Court Judge Choo Han Teck. In his written judgement, Judge Choo stated, “It was immaterial that the CNB did not make adequate efforts to trace ‘Lau De’ or check on his cell-phones.”

The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict in October 2010.

Till this day, Chun Yin insists that he had believed he was carrying gold bars. He did not cut open the lining of the bag as he did not want to be held responsible should anything have gone missing.

If the CNB had attempted to trace “Lau De”, they could have corroborated Chun Yin’s story, and possibly even traced and arrested the whole network, thus cutting off the drug supply at the source. However, the CNB made no effort to do so.

Since it is a matter of life and death, and since the death penalty is irreversible, Second Chances urges the Singapore government to grant Chun Yin a stay of execution, and to look into his case again. Every effort should be made to thoroughly investigate a case before a sentence is handed down. We cannot afford to get it wrong, because we will never be able to bring a person back to life after he/she has been executed.

Please give Chun Yin a second chance to have his case examined, and all the evidence checked and investigated.

To support the campaign for Chun Yin’s case to be reopened, please sign the petition, and ‘like’ the Facebook page here.

New edition of Alan Shadrake's Once a Jolly Hangman to be launched

According to British author Alan Shadrake, the new edition of his controversial book Once a Jolly Hangman has been published in Australia, UK and Malaysia, and will be "launched almost simultaneously in these countries".

The new edition will exclude sections which have been ruled by Singapore High Court as scandalising and tarnishing the reputation of the Singapore judiciary. Despite so, Shadrake promised that the book will be as "hard-hitting" as the first edition and "devastatingly accurate".

The book will also be updated to reflect current developments in capital punishment cases in Singapore, such as the ongoing case involving the judicial review appeal of Malaysian drug mule Yong Vui Kong.

Earlier this year, several youths were hauled in for investigation by the Singapore Police Folice for the alleged selling of the print edition of Jolly Hangman, which authorities claimed has not been banned, but in an apparent act of contradiction sent letters demanding bookstores to withdraw the book from their shelves, which they promptly acceded to.

The unannounced ban on the sale of the book has also stroked curiosity and shored up demand which propelled it to bestseller status last year with 4 print runs in 5 months.

Singapore, which has the toughest capital punishment laws in the region, continues to arbitrarily apply the death sentence to convicts and defy international trend for abolishment. In its most recent ruling, the High Court announced that the Singapore President has no powers to grant clemencies to death row convicts unless explicitly instructed by the Cabinet.

Ceremonial head of State, SR Nathan

As such, the Clemency Petition looks set to be a redundant process for all future clemency appeals to the current President, S.R. Nathan.

After an uncontested victory in 1999 where he was hand-picked by the authoritarian regime to assume the position, the President has never granted a single Clemency Petition in his 12 years as ceremonial head of State. Last year, he launched his book aptly entitled "Why Am I Here?", describing his earlier years as a maritime trade union labour officer.

Officially the highest paid political figure in the world with an annual public-funded salary of US$3.4 million, the President certainly makes no disguise of the redundancy of his existence in public service. 

As President S.R. Nathan has asked the question of his existence, we would also like to ask the same: Why is the President here? 


sgdeathpenalty

JOINT STATEMENT BY THINK CENTRE AND SINGAPORE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY CAMPAIGN ON YONG VUI KONG’S APPEAL VERDICT

The Think Centre and the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign find the verdict announced by Singapore’s Court of Appeal highly disappointing. We also find it daunting that the President of Singapore has no apparent right to decide against the advice of the Cabinet regarding the granting of clemency appeals.

There is no value in the state execution of Yong Vui Kong. The reason that there are still drug mules carrying drugs into our country proves that the Mandatory Death Penalty (MDP) has failed to serve as a deterrent. While drug mules are being hanged, the masterminds of such drug syndicates get away scot free.

The government of Singapore actively advocates for chances to be given to former convicts and to help them rejoin the society under the Yellow Ribbon Project. We do not see how it cannot be extended to Vui Kong and the rest of the drug mules who are mostly marginalised youths who were led astray.

The Singapore government should listen to the call from its young citizens and the people in the world who are moving towards more humane ways to deal with non-violent crimes rather than imposing mandatory death penalty for drug mules. The UN General Assembly has called on member states to establish a moratorium on executions as a step towards the abolition of the death penalty. A total of 109 countries voted in favour of the resolution, while 35 countries voted against and 41 abstained. (UNGA 21 December 2010).

We call on the government to declare an immediate moratorium on all death sentences and to commute Yong Vui Kong’s sentence.

Contact Persons:
Sinapan Samydorai (Think Centre)
thinkcentre@hotmail.com
http://www.thinkcentre.org

Rachel Zeng (SADPC)
sgdeathpenalty@gmail.com
http://sgdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/

Vui Kong's appeal verdict at 3pm

It has been such an emotional journey for the campaigners on the legal front and on the ground, both in Singapore and Malaysia. Tomorrow, the Court of Appeal in Singapore shall deliver their final verdict at 3pm (Monday). Please come in solidarity if you can, for Vui Kong, his family and his legal counsel M Ravi, who has been working tirelessly for the last two years.

We want Vui Kong to live, we have been campaigning for it since we heard about the case. Groups came together in unity for this campaign and we grew together as we worked together.

I hope that Vui Kong will be able to hold his mother’s hand, converse and laugh with his siblings and pursue his work in his newfound faith, without the confines of bars and glass panels. May he touch the grass again, free from the noose.

Vui Kong, we are with you. Please stay alive.

Rachel Zeng

Second Chances: Help us raise money for Atiqah!

From Second Chances

In March 2011, Atiqah was sentenced to death by Shah Alam's High Court. You can read her story here.

Atiqah's family believe that she is innocent, and are now campaigning to raise funds to get a second legal opinion as well as to raise awareness of her case. You can read their blog here.

After hearing of Atiqah's case, we at Second Chances would also like to do what we can to support her and her family. Thus, to help raise money for the Save Atiqah campaign, we are joining the Sunday Eclectica flea market at The Pigeonhole on Sunday, 10 April.

We'll be bringing you more updates about what you will be able to find at our stalls this week, so watch this space!