The Death Penalty in Singapore

116 drug offenders nabbed in island—wide operations

2011-08-14T13:02:00.000+08:00

CNA: 116 drug offenders nabbed in island—wide operations

SINGAPORE: Narcotics officers have nabbed 116 drug offenders in two major operations carried out island—wide over three days.

Eleven were arrested for suspected drug trafficking and 105 for suspected drug consumption.

Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers also seized drugs with a total estimated street value of S$83,700.

In the first operation carried out on 10 and 11 August, they arrested nine people who were suspected of trafficking drugs at various locations.

CNB officers also arrested 105 suspected drug abusers and those wanted for drug—related offences at various locations around Singapore including Clementi, Sengkang, Bukit Merah and North Bridge Road.

The arrests led to a seizure of various drugs, including about 44 grammes of Ice and 32 grammes of heroin, with a total street value of S$16,200.

In the morning of 12 August, CNB launched another major operation targeting a suspected drug distributor operating in the eastern part of Singapore.

Officers tailed the 41—year—old Singaporean from Ang Mo Kio where he met up with his accomplice.

They were then tailed to Bedok where they were arrested by CNB officers.

Two bundles of heroin were found in their vehicle. The heroin weighed about 450 grammes and its street value was over S$67,500.

The two men will be investigated for the offence of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and may face the death penalty if convicted.

— CNA/al

Man charged for murder in Robinson Road building fire

2011-08-13T10:07:00.001+08:00

Yahoo: Man charged for murder in Robinson Road building fire

A 66-year-old man has been charged on Friday with the murder of a woman whose badly-burnt body was found following the Afro Asia Building fire on Wednesday morning.

Govindasamy Nallaiah is accused of killing Low Foong Meng, 56, in an office belonging to law firm, B Rengarajoo & Associates, reported Channel NewsAsia.

The building fire is believed to have started in the law firm, located on the sixth floor, and was contained within it.

It is believed that Govindasamy was a client of the firm. The firm is run by Low's partner, lawyer Rengarajoo Balasamy, whom she lived with. She also worked at the firm.

Govindasamy is now remanded at the Central Police Division and will be back in court on 19 August.

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

The Indian man was arrested at 10,50 pm on Wednesday in Jurong. The arrest was made 13 hours after the fire at law firm B Rengarajoo & Associates was reported.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force found Low's body on Wednesday after the fire was put out. There were no injuries reported otherwise.

The SCDF said it was alerted to the fire at the seven-storey building at 63 Robinson Road at 10 am. Some 20 fire fighters were deployed to the affected unit to put out the fire.

The fire was confined to a unit measuring about 30 by 20 metres and did not spread to adjacent units, said SCDF. Officers took half an hour to control the fire and another half an hour to extinguish it.

Several vehicles were sent to the scene, including fire engines, four Red Rhinos, an ambulance and four support vehicles. Jet sprays were used outside the building to prevent the fire from spreading.

A support vehicle that was sent to help fight the fire experienced a glitch as its mechanical arm, used to lift firemen, stalled. SCDF said this did not hamper operations as officers could still get to the affected unit and bring the fire under control.

Officers from Central Police Division and the Criminal Investigation Department’s Special Investigation Section were at the scene to conduct investigations while officers from CID’s Forensic Management Branch and scientists from the Health Sciences Authority were present to gather forensic evidence.

Occupants, who just went through a fire drill last week, evacuated on their own prior to SCDF's arrival.

Those whom Yahoo! Singapore spoke to said the couple have been working at the building for some 20 years.

Insurance agent Joyce Ng, 52, who works on the fifth floor, described Rengarajoo as friendly and helpful.

Other building occupants said they started noticing the smell of gas at about 9:30am and saw smoke on the sixth floor 20 minutes later. Building security evacuated the occupants and the process was cool and calm, they said.

This is the first time the building, one of the oldest in the area, caught fire, they said.

The building which was upgraded just three months ago is managed by Afro Asia Shipping Company (Pte Ltd).

The cause of fire and the death is under investigation.

For further enquiries on the matter, the public may call the police hotline at 1800-5471818.

- Additional reporting by Liyana Low

Singaporean woman faces death penalty for murder

2011-07-18T21:30:00.001+08:00

TodayOnline: Housemate arrested in agent's murder case

SINGAPORE - A 36-year-old Singaporean woman was arrested on Monday night in connection with the suspected murder of a property agent, whose highly decomposed body was found last Tuesday evening in bushes off Clementi Road.

Forensic tests have established the identity of the body to be Ms Celine Ng Swee Peng, 37, who had been missing since her birthday on May 26.

The suspect, who was arrested at about 11pm at East Coast Park, is believed to be Ms Ng's housemate in a two-bedroom apartment in Clementi. The suspect will be charged in court today with murder, which carries the death penalty.

According to a report published in The New Paper last month, Ms Ng had been drinking with her friends in her apartment on the eve of her birthday, when she spoke about going for a short holiday overseas.

The following day, Ms Ng, who apparently had her mobile phone and passport with her, was nowhere to be found. Her parents, older brother and her housemate reported the fact that Ms Ng was missing to the police on May 28.

In the report, Ms Ng's housemate described her as having a "very close relationship with her mum". "She wouldn't be away for so many days without contacting her mum. We're so worried that something may have happened to her," the housemate was quoted as saying.

Yesterday evening, the suspect led police investigators to West Coast Park, where they spent about an hour trawling through some bushes, purportedly looking for Ms Ng's personal belongings and to gather evidence. The bushes were even chopped down but MediaCorp understands nothing was recovered from the spot.

The suspect, who was cuffed on her wrists and ankles, kept her head bowed most of the time.

At least one execution since Vui Kong's appeal

2011-07-18T21:21:00.001+08:00

The Singapore Prison Service has published figures on judicial execution in its Annual Report for 2010 which can be found here.

While there were no executions last year, according to lawyer M. Ravi, who has taken several high profile drug trafficking cases involving convicts sentenced to the gallows, there are at least thirty prisoners on death row at Changi prison, and at least one has been executed in March this year. The man, who went by the name "Ah Hock" was singled out for hanging, for unknown reasons, and which has not been explained by the prison.

There are no official figures available on the number of people on death row following the unofficial stay of execution when Vui Kong first contested his conviction in the Supreme Court on December 2009.

sgdeathpenalty

Death in 6 paragraphs: Foong Chee Peng

2011-05-01T12:28:00.001+08:00

The following is a High Court judgment on 28 April 2011, involving the appellant, 45 year old Singaporean Fong Chee Peng. He was sentenced to death after pleading guilty of possession of heroin for the intention of selling it. In a brief judgment, all of 6 paragraphs, Justice Choo Han Teck sentenced him to the gallows.

Singapore Law Watch

Judgment

28 April 2011

Choo Han Teck J:

1 On 30 September 2009 at about 4.03pm, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) broke down the door to a flat known as #01-04, Sunshine Grove at 2 Jalan Labu Merah. The flat had two bedrooms. The accused, Foong Chee Peng, was arrested in the master bedroom. His sister, Foong Siew Found, was arrested in the second bedroom. She was not charged for the drugs found in the flat. The accused was, however, charged for trafficking in 40.23g of diamorphine contained in thirty-six packets, two straws, and one container found in his room. The charge was preferred under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed). It carries the death penalty under s 33 of the said Act.

2 After the charge was read to the accused, he informed the court that he wished to plead guilty. I asked that the Prosecution proceed with the evidence, and marked the Prosecution’s Opening Address as an exhibit as the accused indicated that he accepted the case against him contained therein.

3 The CNB officers searched the master bedroom which was occupied by the accused and found the drugs which were the subject matter of the charge. Station Inspector Ng Tze Chiang Tony (“SI Ng”) (PW9) recorded a contemporaneous statement from the accused by communicating with him in Mandarin. This statement consisted of a series of questions and answers. SI Ng recorded the questions and answers in English and translated them into Mandarin save for the answer to question number 3 which the CNB interpreter, Wong Png Leong (PW22), subsequently translated. In this statement, the accused acknowledged that the substances seized were, inter alia, heroin (viz, diamorphine) and that they belonged to him for the purposes of sale to others.

4 The accused was also served with the Notice of Caution and a statement was recorded pursuant to s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed). He admitted that there was no threat, inducement or promise made to him when he stated in the s 122(6) statement that “the things belong to me and got nothing to do with my younger sister” [sic]. By “things” the accused must be referring to the drugs referred to in the charge that was read to him to which his cautioned statement was made in response.

5 The forensic officers testified to the nature and weight of the drugs seized and they conformed to the charge. Consequently, I called upon the accused to rebut the prosecution case. After the standard allocution was read to him, he informed the court that he elected to remain silent and had no evidence to adduce.

6 Reviewing the evidence, I was satisfied that the prosecution had made out a case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and I thus found the accused guilty as charged and convicted him accordingly.

Malaysian woman to hang for 21.48g heroin

2011-05-01T12:16:00.000+08:00


Malaysian Roshamima Roslan

A Malaysian couple who were due to get married drove into Singapore two years ago with 21.48g of heroin bundles in their car.

The pair were caught, charged and put on trial.

On Friday, the High Court acquitted Mas Swan Adnan, 27, but sent his fiancee Roshamima Roslan, 24, to the gallows for trafficking in 15g or more of the drug.

In his judgment yesterday, Justice Steven Chong said the prosecution had to prove that the two of them knew exactly what sort of drugs they were bringing into Singapore.

Justice Chong said the evidence showed, however, that Mas Swan believed his girlfriend when she told him that the bundles contained Ecstasy pills.

Roshamima's claim was not believable, the judge said, adding that the prosecution proved that she knew that illicit drugs were hidden in their car when they entered Singapore.

When Roshamima was put on the stand, she failed to give testimony that she believed the bundles to contain drugs other than heroin.

In fact, she gave all kinds of explanations when confronted with objective evidence such as text messages; four times, she changed her story of whom she and Mas Swan were supposed to meet the day they were caught.

Her fiance, on the other hand, had consistently stated in his police statements and in court that he believed the bundles contained Ecstasy pills that he was delivering for a Singaporean man known only as Mickey.

Justice Chong said Mas Swan came across as a 'mild-mannered and somewhat timid' person who followed Roshamima's instructions, and that she was the 'assertive and dominant personality'.

The court heard that Roshamima was a drug smuggler before he became one, and that it was she who co-opted him into the trafficking ring.

In short, she played a larger role in the delivery of drugs, noted Justice Chong.

Mas Swan was not immediately released from custody. Prosecutors told the court there would be a lapse of time before he can go free; it is not known how long this will be.

On the night of May 6, 2009, the couple had driven into Singapore through the Woodlands checkpoint.

When an immigration officer scanned Mas Swan's passport, he was immediately alerted to that name being on the blacklist.

The officer then directed Mas Swan to drive to an inspection pit, where a manual search of the interior and undercarriage of the car turned up nothing incriminating.

However, an X-ray scan detected three dark spots in the front left door panel. When the panel was opened, three bundles wrapped in tape were retrieved.

The couple were immediately arrested.

The contents of the bundles were later analysed and found to contain 21.48g of heroin.

Source: The Straits Times, 30 April 2011

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

2011-04-30T16:43:00.001+08:00

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 Rights^ⁱⁱⁱ, 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:

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

2011-04-19T22:54:00.000+08:00

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

2011-04-19T22:49:00.002+08:00

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

2011-04-19T00:17:00.003+08:00

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

2011-04-13T20:47:00.000+08:00

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

2011-04-05T19:45:00.007+08:00

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

2011-04-05T18:58:00.000+08:00

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

2011-04-03T23:02:00.000+08:00

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!

2011-04-03T16:17:00.000+08:00

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!

“Why would he go to his death so willingly?” – Father of man on death row

2011-03-31T22:11:00.000+08:00

The Online Citizen: "Why would he go to his death so willingly?"
- Father of man on death row

Posted by theonlinecitizen on March 29, 2011

Kirsten Han

“My son loves to help people,” Cheong Kah Pin tells The Online Citizen.

In fact, he believes that it is this willingness to help others that has led his son Cheong Chun Yin to where he is today – on death row in Changi Prison.

On 16 June 2008, 24-year-old Cheong Chun Yin (known to his family as “Ah Yan”) was arrested as he was getting off a taxi on Arab Street. He, together with 55-year-old Malaysian Pang Siew Fum, was charged for drug trafficking.

A suitcase that Cheong had passed to Pang at Changi Airport was found to contain 2.726kg of heroin hidden in a false bottom.

Under Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, any person found in possession of more than 2 grammes of heroin receives a mandatory death sentence. Under the Mandatory Death Penalty, the judge does not have the power and the duty to take into account the personal circumstances of the offender.

Both Cheong and Pang were found guilty and sentenced to death under the mandatory death penalty in February 2010.

Smuggling gold bars

In his statement and throughout court proceedings, Cheong insisted that he believed that he had been smuggling gold bars into Singapore from Myanmar.

Cheong Chun Yin

While running a DVD stall at the pasar malam in Johor he got to know an old man known as “Lau De”. “Lau De” told him that he was in the business of smuggling gold. Cheong said that he did not believe him at first, but did later when he met a man who claimed to have had just returned from a gold smuggling trip, and was decked out in gold jewellery.

“Lau De” offered to pay Cheong RM8000, with US$500 as pocket money for the trip to Myanmar, if he would carry the gold bars to someone in Singapore. Cheong, believing that it would not be difficult, agreed.

While in Myanmar, Cheong was given a black suitcase to bring in to Singapore. He said that although he did not see the gold, he felt the sides of the suitcase and got the impression that there was something hard hidden on each side. He thus assumed that the gold bars had been hidden in the lining of the suitcase.

Cheong carried the suitcase into Singapore through Changi Airport, handing it over to Pang Siew Fum in Terminal 2. He was later arrested and taken to Pang’s flat, where it was revealed that it was heroin, and not gold, that had been hidden in the lining of the suitcase.

“He did not know it was drugs,” says his father. “If we knew it was drugs, I would not have let him go. We know the penalty. Why would he go to his death so willingly?”

No financial difficulties

Cheong Kah Pin says his son was not having any financial difficulties. Between the two of them, they had been making more than enough money to get by.

After divorcing his wife, Cheong Kah Pin had also sold two houses – one in Johor and another in Ipoh. He and his ex-wife split the money, and the profit made was enough for him to purchase a new house for him and his son.

“Why would he want to traffic drugs?” he asks. “We have enough money of our own.”

In his statement to the police, Cheong said that he had agreed to smuggle gold bars because “I wanted to make more money so that I can save it up for my marriage with my girlfriend”.

He claims that he had been persuaded by “Lau De” to smuggle gold from Myanmar, and that if caught, there would only be a fine that “Lau De” would pay for. He therefore believed that it would be a relatively small risk to take.

Always happy, but too gullible

Cheong’s parents divorced in 2002, and his other three younger siblings – two sisters and a brother – went to live with their mother. He was the only child who remained with his father, and they set up a stall at the pasar malam together. After completing secondary school, he decided to help his father with the business full-time.

According to Cheong Kah Pin, his son had never mixed around with a bad crowd, preferring to return home to play computer games instead. Cheong has always had a cheerful disposition, and is incredibly willing to trust and help others.

“Oftentimes he would lend money to his friends, and they wouldn’t pay him back,” says Cheong Kah Pin. “But he would still help them if they asked.”

He tells us that even on death row, Cheong is eager to help others. “He asks me to bring music CDs when I visit him, so he can give them to the other death row inmates.”

He believes that it is his son’s gullible nature that led him to befriend and trust the people who talked him into going to Myanmar to smuggle gold bars. “He would never have knowingly trafficked drugs. He was just too eager to help people.”

Lack of search for “Lau De” deemed “immaterial”

While being questioned, Cheong repeatedly asserted that he had had no idea that the suitcase contained heroin. He also gave the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers the telephone numbers of “Lau De”.

However, he claims that they had done “absolutely nothing” to trace the whereabouts of this “Lau De”.

In his written judgements of the case, Judge Choo Han Teck stated that the evidence given by Cheong “did not create any reasonable doubt in my mind that he might not have known that he was carrying heroin.”

He also said that “[i]t was immaterial that the CNB did not make adequate efforts to trace ‘Lau De’ or check on his cell-phones. The absence of any trace of ‘Lau De’… was not taken as evidence in favour of or against either accused.”

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, any person found in possession of more than the prescribed amounts is presumed to be trafficking. Furthermore, any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall be presumed to have known the nature of that drug. The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant, as opposed to common law jurisdiction where the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

A father left alone

When Cheong had first mentioned travelling to Myanmar, his father had not allowed him to go. “I told him not to go, to stay and help me with the business,” he says.

“But later I thought that he was already an adult, and I didn’t want to control him too much, so I let him go,” he adds. “If I had known, I would never have let him go.”

Cheong Kah Pin now lives and runs his business alone. Every Monday morning, he rides a motorcycle across the Causeway in to Singapore to visit his son at Changi Prison.

“How can I not be heartbroken?” he says. “This is the only son I have by my side.”

He tries to fill his days with work, going to morning markets as well as the usual night ones. Occasionally he will also seek extra factory work, helping to guard vehicles.

He says that it is not because he needs the money, but because he cannot bear to spend time alone in the house he once shared with his son. “I don’t want to stay at home, staring at the ceiling and crying,” he tells us.

“What meaning would there be left for me, if I were left alone?” he asks. “A good, healthy child, used by others because he was too gullible. Life will have no meaning for me if I were left alone.”

Awaiting presidential clemency

Cheong’s case has already progressed to the last stage: the presidential clemency. His clemency petition has already been submitted to President Nathan at the beginning of this year, and is expected to be due back by the end of April 2011. If the petition is turned down, Cheong can be expected to hang in early May.

In August 2010, in response to lawyer M Ravi’s application for a judicial review of the President’s powers in granting clemency, the Supreme Court ruled that the President has no discretion under the Constitution, and specifically under Article 22P, to grant pardons. “The power to do so rests solely with the Cabinet,”High Court Judge Steven Chong said.

Although time is running out, his father refuses to give up. “If my son was a bad person and a drug trafficker, I would have nothing to say,” he tells us. “But he is not a bad person. He really did not know he was carrying drugs. How can his life just be taken like this?”

Malaysia also practices the Mandatory Death Penalty for drug-trafficking cases. On March 18, A Singaporean single mother was found guilty of drug-trafficking and sentenced to death. TOC will provide updates soon.

Sarawak man faces second murder charge in Singapore

2011-03-31T20:18:00.001+08:00

TodayOnline: Man faces second murder charge

SINGAPORE - He is among three men charged with the murder of a construction worker in the Kallang slashing case.

Now, Tony Imba, 32, faces a second murder charge after another alleged victim, who had been in a coma, died recently.

Tony was initially accused of robbing 63-year-old Jeffrey Tan Hong and hitting him with a block of wood at a Jalan Berseh footpath near Little India on May 30 last year.

Tony and two other men allegedly killed Mr Shanmuganathan Dillidurai, a 41-year-old construction worker, on the same day.

But with Mr Tan's death, Tony now stands accused of his murder, too.

Tony and his alleged accomplices - all from Sarawak - will be back in court on May 4. They face the death penalty if convicted of murder.

Four men have already been dealt with in court for their involvement in the Kallang slashing case.

One was sentenced to two years in jail and ordered to receive six strokes of the cane. The others, who were jailed for six years, will each receive 12 strokes of the cane.

The group is allegedly responsible for a series of armed robberies in the vicinity of Sims Drive and Geylang on May 30 last year, which resulted in Mr Shanmuganathan's death and caused three others to be seriously injured.

Iqah’s story - The single mum who became an unwitting drug mule

2011-03-29T23:17:00.000+08:00

Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) – Last Thursday, we visited the family and close friends of Noor Atiqah M. Lasim, a 27 year old Singaporean who was recently sentenced to death by Shah Alam’s High Court on 18 March 2011.

This is the story of Noor Atiqah, otherwise known affectionately as Iqah to her family and friends.

The beginning of the end

It was at a club in Clarke Quay around June 2008 that Iqah had her first contact with Valentine, the Nigerian who eventually led her to the state she is in today. The two started seeing each other in August the same year.

Shortly after, Valentine suggested setting up a fashion business together and they planned to embark on sourcing trips to China. It certainly sounded like a good idea to Iqah, as she was hoping that the business will help to bring about a better life for her family.

Iqah, a single mum with with her daughter

A vacation gone wrong

In December 2008, Iqah traveled to Kuala Lumpur by bus with a long time friend, with the intention to celebrate New Year’s Day. During her stay there, she received a call from Frank, who she had met in Shenzhen. Frank informed her that samples were ready and made a request for her to collect them.

Iqah refused, as she could not afford to fly to Shenzhen on such a short notice. However Frank was insistent. He promised her USD$500 upon reaching Shenzhen as well as USD$200 for her expenses in Malaysia. Eventually Iqah agreed and Frank arranged for her to meet up with Emeka, a Ghanaian, at McDonalds in Petaling Street.

When they met on 3 Jan 2009, Emeka passed Iqah a blue luggage along with a budget flight ticket to Shenzhen. Puzzled, Iqah inquired the purpose of the luggage. Emeka then informed her that the luggage was for her to store the samples.

On 5 Jan 2009, while going through the immigrations at the Low Cost Carrier Terminal in Kuala Lumpur, she was requested to have her luggage through the scanner twice. She then cooperated when asked to open her luggage for inspection, and the rest was history.

342.1 grammes of heroin and 30.3 grammes of monoacethyl were found in a brown enveloped, cleverly concealed in the luggage given to her by Emeka.

“We believe that Iqah is innocent.”

Iqah had spent time in prison since then and hence separated from her daughter. More than 2 years have passed since mother and daughter have met.

Before the final hearing on 18 March this year, her siblings were hopeful that she will be acquitted because they believe that she is innocent.

However, they were met with a shock when Judge Noor Azian Shaari delivered her sentence at Shah Alam High Court.

Among themselves, they have started a campaign for Iqah. The campaign aims to raise funds for a second legal opinion as well as to spread the word about the case. Please visit the blog to find out more about how you can help.

Save Atiqah

sgdeathpenalty

Vui Kong's verdict scheduled

2011-03-29T20:46:00.002+08:00

The Singapore Court of Appeal will convene at 10am next Monday, 4th April to pass judgment on Vui Kong's appeal of the High Court's judgment on judicial review. As President SR Nathan has admitted that the powers to decide clemency for death row convicts rest on the Cabinet and not him, Vui Kong may have exhausted the last of his lifeline and his life may hinge on the decision of the CoA's verdict this coming Monday.

We have also heard that since Vui Kong's appeal started, there has been an unofficial temporary stay of execution for all prisoners on death row, pending the decision of the court on Yong's case. If the verdict goes south, then we may well see a Changi gallows bloodbath in a scale not seen since the Pulau Senang uprising in 1965 when 18 men convicted of murdering a prison warden were hanged in a single Friday morning,

To give Vui Kong, his family and his counsel moral support through this difficult period, please visit the official Save Vui Kong Facebook page.

sgdeathpenalty

2011-03-22T21:11:00.000+08:00

22 March 2011

The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) wishes to express our utmost disappontment at Shah Alam High Court's decision to sentence Noor Atiqah M. Lasim to death for drug trafficking.

Noor Atiqah, a 27 year old single mother of a 6 year old girl from Singapore, was found in possession of 342.1 grammes of heroin and 30.3 grammes of monoacethyl morphine at the Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) on Jan 5, 2009. According to her statement as reported by the media, she claimed that the bag containing the drugs did not belong to her.

We will like to reiterate our stand against the use of the death penalty as a punishment against crimes. We implore the High Court of Shah Alam to look into this matter again, especially so when the result of the sentencing will be irreversible, leaving a young child without her mother.

Thank you.

Rachel Zeng,
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)

Singaporean mother sentenced to death in Malaysia

2011-03-20T16:15:00.000+08:00

Noor Atiqah M. Lasim

SHAH ALAM, March 18 (Bernama) -- The Shah Alam High Court today sentenced a Singaporean single mother to death for trafficking in drugs at the Low Cost Carrier Teminal (LCCT), two years ago.

Judge Noor Azian Shaari delivered the sentence on Noor Atiqah M. Lasim, 27, after the defence failed to establish reasonable doubt on the charge under Section 39B (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

The accused, who worked as a legal assistant in the republic, was alleged to have trafficked in 342.1 grammes of heroin and 30.3 grammes of monoacethyl morphine at the LCCT on Jan 5, 2009.

When delivering the decision, Noor Azian said the prosecution had proven a prima facie case against Noor Atiqah.

After evaluation of the facts and statement, the court found the accused had custody and control of the drugs and called for her defence.

According to Noor Azian, the defendant''s statement that the bag containing the drugs belonged to another person was difficult to believe and unreasonable.

Noor Atiqah, mother of a six-year-old girl, was represented by counsel Mohaji Selamat while Wan Zuraida Wan Nawan was deputy public prosecutor.

-- BERNAMA

MK MOK IZ GR

Source: Yahoo News

16-year-old girl among eight charged with murder

2011-03-13T15:07:00.001+08:00

Source: Yahoo Fit-to-Post

By Ewen Boey – March 12th, 2011

Email Facebook Twitter Print

A 16-year-old girl is charged with the murder of a 52-year-old man. (File Photo: AFP)

A 16-year-old girl was among eight people charged in court with the murder of a man in Tiong Bahru Park.

S. Durga is believed to have been part of a group which attacked Mr Goh Ho Leong, 52, with broken bottles.

Mr Goh was unconscious when police found him in the park on Tuesday night, with injuries all over his body.

He was taken to Singapore General Hospital where he died two days later.

Mr Goh’s younger brother told local media that his older brother, who had been unemployed for about two years, received a call at around 9pm on Tuesday, before leaving his home.

The call was reportedly from a man who offered him a job as a security guard. Mr Goh took along his mobile phone and house keys, but not his wallet.

At about 1am, Mr Goh’s family received a call from the police, informing them that he had been injured and was being taken to the hospital after being found lying at the park near his Redhill home.

According to reports, the other seven accused are: Mansur Alikhan, 19, Abdul Samad Mohamed Kasim, 22, and S Karthikesu, Mohamed Fazuluddin Azeedali, Muhizin Khan, Segu Jamaldeen Nafil Mohamed and Anandraj Manimaran, all 18.

Full-time national serviceman Mohamed Ayub Jailabdeen, 27, appeared in court on Thursday with a rioting charge. His charge is expected to be upgraded to murder when the case comes up for mention on Thursday.

The other eight will be remanded until that day for further investigations. They will receive the death penalty if convicted.

2011-02-24T22:43:00.000+08:00

Yong's Story

The case of a young Malaysian convicted for drug trafficking tests Singapore's capital punishment laws.

Watch Al Jazeera's special video report on capital punishment and Yong Vui Kong's story in Singapore.

WANTED FOR MERCY: SINGAPORE AND ITS MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY

2011-01-29T15:21:00.001+08:00

East Asian Law Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2

By M. Ravi

Practitioner at L.F. Violet Netto,
Lawyer for Yong Vui Kong and Alan Shadrake

Co-author Choo Zheng Xi

Overview: harsh substantive law unsupported by criminological statistics

Systematic penalogical data is hard to come by in Singapore, which has led the immediate past president of the Singapore Law Society to lament that “Singapore is sadly lacking a principled and transparent penal Policy because Government has not published detailed statistics of crime and punishment”.[1] Neither of Singapore’s two universities offering law degrees have a department of criminology in their law faculties.

This statistical lacunae of general criminological data is alarming, but is rendered exponentially more egregious when one considers the most controversial application of the death penalty in Singapore: that trafficking in more than a quantity of drugs prescribed in the Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act is sufficient for a man to hang. The uniquely draconian nature of Singapore’s “Misuse of Drugs Act” deserves some elucidation.

The first aspect of the death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore is that it attracts not just the possibility of a sentence of death, but the mandatory death penalty.

Secondly, the mandatory nature of the death penalty for trafficking is coupled with a presumption of trafficking in cases of possession.[2] This reverses the basic principle of criminal law that a charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction to follow. This means that if person A is asked by person B to pass a packet of heroin to person C on the pretext that the packet contains herbs, person A will be found guilty of trafficking if he does not inspect the package.

This was in fact exactly the situation in the conviction of the 18-year-old Nigerian boy Amara Tochi in 2006. Although the trial judge held that although “There was no direct evidence that he (Tochi) knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out on his own”,[3] Tochi had “wilfully turned a blind eye on the contents of the capsules”. [4] The prosecution’s duty to discharge their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was reversed on Tochi to rebut the presumption of trafficking by showing he did not actually have knowledge of the contents of the package he was asked to carry.

That Tochi was evidentially unable to discharge this presumption of knowledge illustrates how high the courts have set the bar even in such a situation where the substantive law is so stacked against the defence: in an attempt to prove to the investigating police officers that he genuinely thought the container contained African herbs, Tochi swallowed a “potentially lethal quantity of diamorphine”[5] in front of them.

What little data is available is provided by international sources, and this points to an alarming rate of executions being carried out in Singapore. Indeed, Professor Michael Hor notes that “nowhere in the world is the war on drugs waged as savagely as in Singapore”.[6] The statistics provided by Amnesty International bear this out: in a report commissioned in 2004, it noted that Singapore is likely to have the ignoble distinction of having the world’s highest per capita execution rate relative to its population.[7] Amnesty notes that the UN Secretary General’s quinquennial report on capital punishment for the period 1994 to 1999 showed Singapore had a rate of 13.57 executions per one million population, leaving Saudi Arabi a poor second at 4.65 executions per million.[8]

Sentence and Execution of the Death Penalty

Prisoners on death row are kept in isolation cells around three-square metres, including a toilet. Cells are sparsely furnished with no bedding and only a bucket for bathing. They are allowed a single 20-minute visit per week in a room separated from visitors by a pane of glass through which they have to communicate via a telephone. [9]

Approximately 24 hours before a scheduled execution, the condemned man is asked to pose for a photo shoot in around a dozen different positions depicting normal life: sitting at a desk, in a suit, etc. These photos are then provided to the family.

No physical contact with the condemned prisoner is allowed. The only exception to this rule was made for convicted Vietnamese-Australian drug trafficker Nguyen Tuong Van in 2005. The Singapore government turned down a request by Nguyen’s mother to be allowed to embrace her son, permitting her only to hold his hand through prison bars and feel his face and hair before his execution.[10]

Hangings in Singapore are conducted almost uniformly at 6.00 a.m. at the maximum security Changi Prison. The prisoner’s arms are handcuffed behind his back, and his legs are strapped together to prevent him kicking out during the fall. He is then positioned over twin trapdoors. The noose is placed around the neck with the knot behind the right ear in an attempt to ensure that the prisoner’s spinal cord is snapped instantly. [11]

Victim Protection Policy

No compensation policy exists for the victim and their family members. All funeral costs are borne by the family of the deceased. In informing the family of the condemned man of the impending execution, a terse letter is usually sent out stating the date of execution, final visitation time, and informing the family to make funeral arrangements in lieu of which the state will cremate the body.[12]

Attitudes of Government and Society regarding the approving/abolishing of the death penalty

i) Historically limited reach of the abolitionist cause

Despite the lack of criminological data, the Singapore government has repeatedly reaffirmed the need for the mandatory death penalty and cited its’ alleged contribution to a society with low crime rates. In response to the criticisms of Amnesty International, the Ministry of Home Affairs replied in a press release with the sweeping assertion that “In the case of drug trafficking, the death penalty has deterred major drug syndicates from establishing themselves in Singapore”[13]

One might think that the legal community would be uniquely placed to spearhead the abolitionist movement, and to give some credit where it is due, members of the bar have made tentative attempts to question the mandatory death penalty.[14] However, any efforts the Law Society of Singapore might make towards spearheading a sustained abolitionist movement are hamstrung by Section 38 (1) (c) of the Legal Professions Act which confines the Law Society from commenting on legislation only if it has been “submitted to it” by the government. This provision was specifically introduced in October 1986 to, in the words of then Law Minister Mr E W Barker, “tie down the Law Society”.[15]

The personal toll to comprehensively taking on the state in capital cases is also not to be underestimated. By this I mean the toll from exploring options for abolishing the death penalty over and beyond the merits of the individual case in an attempt to start a societal dialogue about more than what the law is to what the law should be. The state media in Singapore, which is a virtual duopoly, systematically ran a smear campaign against me after my first capital case in 2003. The media went to the extent of highlighting the fact that my late father was an alcoholic and my late mother had committed suicide. [16]

The debate in the wider public is almost completely non-existent due to the fact that the media in Singapore is tightly regulated under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act[17] and often uncritically reports the government’s view.[18] A recent unscientific video survey of different demographies of Singaporeans conducted by Singaporean news website The Online Citizen (TOC)[19] showed a widespread lack of understanding of the issues surrounding the death penalty. For instance, many interviewees did not understand the implications of the term “mandatory” used in conjunction with “death penalty”.[20] This is not for lack of formal education: the Singaporean education system is regularly touted by the government to be one of the best in the world.

Civil society support is largely ad-hoc and the only group directly committed to abolition is the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC), formed in October 2005. The only political party to consistently and vocally oppose the death penalty has been the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) headed by Dr Chee Soon Juan. Online media has also recently been playing an increasingly important role in galvanizing the abolitionist movement, with TOC partnering the SADPC to spearhead the latest campaign to abolish the death penalty.

ii) Debate rejuvenated: The case of Yong Vui Kong (Constitutional Appeal)

Despite the many impediments to public debate on the death penalty, a confluence of events have conspired to make this last year probably one of the most significant in abolitionist history in Singapore.

The first catalyst was the case of Malaysian boy Yong Vui Kong, who was 19 years old when he was caught trying to smuggle 47.27g of diamorphine into Singapore. He was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court in 2009,[21] withdrew his right to appeal, and had a clemency plea to the President rejected. Yong’s case drew little attention in the national newspapers and even in the online media. He was represented by state assigned counsel at this stage of the process.

Around December 2009, Yong’s case was brought to my attention by a fellow practitioner who asked me to consider if there was anything further that could be done on Yong’s behalf. Four days before Yong was supposed to be hanged, I filed a Criminal Motion seeking leave to pursue an appeal on the grounds that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal granted leave to do so.[22]

The basis of my constitutional challenge was that the Constitutional right to life enshrined in Article 9 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore which states that no person may be deprived of his life “save in accordance with law” should be read to in a manner that does not contravene customary international law, and should in fact incorporate the international consensus that that mandatory death penalty is an impermissible violation to the right to life as it constitutes “cruel and inhuman punishment”. The mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking was thus unconstitutional.

In addition I sought to admit the evidence of Professor Fagan[23] and his published article comparing Hong Kong and Singapore which dealt with the question of deterrence[24]. At the least it shows that resort to the mandatory death penalty cannot be shown to act as a significant deterrence to offenders. If the death penalty itself is not proven to deter any more than the penalty of life imprisonment, then the introduction of some discretion in the sentencing of those convicted of trafficking in drugs cannot possibly be rejected on the grounds of deterrence. I invited the Court to have Professor Fagan’s expert testimony be adduced as evidence because the court in a previous case of Nguyen[25] did suggest that it would have been assisted by some factual material on types of offence and offender that would be subject to the mandatory death penalty in the same way as the Indian Court in the case of Mithu[26].

The court chose instead to take an extreme positivist interpretation of the Constitution, with the startling conclusion that bears repeating in full:

“the right to freedom from inhuman punishment was not elevated to a constitutional right. There is, in substance, no difference between repealing an existing constitutional provision prohibiting inhuman punishment and deliberately deciding not to enact such a constitutional provision in the first place. On this ground alone, there is no legitimate basis for this court to now expand, via an interpretative exercise, the scope of Art 9(1) so as to include a prohibition against inhuman punishment”. [27]

Additionally, the Court of Appeal adopted a firm dualist stance towards the reception of international law, going to the extent of foreclosing future constitutional challenges in court to the constitutionality of the death penalty brought on the grounds of Article 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution. This would be regardless of “any changes in CIL (customary international law) and any foreign constitutional or judicial developments in relation to the MDP (mandatory death penalty) as an inhuman punishment”. In other words, even if every other country in the world were to accept that the mandatory death penalty violated a customary international law norm against cruel and inhuman punishment and resolutions were passed in the United Nations to that effect, still no judicial remedy would be available unless Parliament in Singapore chose to legislate such a norm into being.

iii) The case of Yong Vui Kong (Judicial Review)

Although Yong’s Constitutional appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal, another unprecedented opening for legal recourse opened itself up from an unexpected quarter.

On 9 May 2010, four days before the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on Yong’s case, Singapore’s Law Minister Mr K Shanmugam commented directly on Yong’s case in a public forum. He stated that “If Yong escapes the death penalty, drug barons will think the signal is that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared and can be used as drug mules”. These remarks were widely reported in the Singaporean media. Under Article 22P of the Constitution, Cabinet advises the President on the grant of clemency.

In a subsequent statement on 9 July 2010, the Ministry of Law issued a press release stating that Mr Shanmugam’s remarks were justified as the Government’s policy is a “matter of public importance”. Additionally, the Law Ministry took the opportunity to further prejudice the clemency process by highlighting prejudicial information based on charges that were never brought against Yong by claiming as a fact that he had previously trafficked quantities of ketamine and erimine.[28]

The main thrust of the new argument for judicial review was based on the legal theory of apparent bias: that the rules of natural justice apply to the process of clemency, and that those rules had been breached by Mr Shanmugam’s comments.

Further, another important constitutional point was also open to be challenged as a result of the remarks of Singapore’s Attorney-General when he argued the State’s case at the Constitutional appeal level. The then Attorney-General Walter Woon had argued that “although in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision”. He made this submission in the Court of Appeal. The AG also said, unrebutted, that “The President does not have a discretion in this matter”. This is despite the wording of the pardon provision in Article 22P of the Constitution, which states that “The President may on the advice of Cabinet pardon”.

This is significant because until that statement in court, it had been assumed by members of the public and the criminal bar that Singapore’s Elected President had discretion in making the decision of whether or not to exercise the high prerogative of mercy. All petitions for clemency are sent to the President’s office, and written rejections are made in his name.

If I were to be able to successfully argue that the President has discretion in deciding clemency petitions, the revelation by the Attorney-General that Cabinet practice is to not give the President discretion would mean that all previous clemency rejections and subsequent executions were miscarriages of justice, including Yong’s first rejected clemency petition.

iv) Leave application: High Court ruling

As I am currently waiting to appeal the High Court ruling to the Court of Appeal in September, I will attempt to refrain from commenting on the merits of the judgment and give a survey of the Court’s main findings.

I filed a prohibiting order under Order 53/1/3 of the Rules of Supreme Court to request leave for the High Court to prevent Yong’s execution from moving ahead on the basis that the process of clemency was irreversibly tainted by the Law Minister’s comments as set out in the above section.

The main grounds on which the Court had to decide the case were completely unprecedented, as noted by Justice Steven Chong in his decision.[29] The first point of law to be decided was whether or not the clemency process was subject to judicial review, and the second was on whether or not the President had any discretion under Article 22P of the Constitution to pardon.

Before I address the substantive issues raised in the judgment, I should perhaps address the threshold question for the standard for leave to be granted for substantive arguments to be heard on judicial review. An Order 53 application is essentially an ex parte application that the court has the discretion to turn into an inter partes proceeding. There is authority on point stating that the courts should only conduct a quick perusal of the materials to determine whether it discloses an arguable case for granting the reliefs claimed and that the threshold for leave should be met if there is an arguable case in favour of granting the relief claimed. [30] However, the court chose to interpret this to apply only to cases where all the evidence is not before the court and there is a necessity for it to be produced in a substantive hearing. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to analyze all the substantive grounds of the judicial review action in its’ judgment.

a. Justiciability of the clemency process

On the first substantive issue, the Court agreed with Mr David Chong SC from the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s submission that the actions of Cabinet in relation to clemency proceedings was beyond justiciability. At the high watermark of the Mr Chong’s submissions, he argued that the position in law should be that no matter how capricious or arbitrary even to the extent of discriminating on the basis of race, a decision of Cabinet at the clemency process stage would not be reviewable by the courts.

It might seem to a casual observer that the Court did not venture as far as to agree with Mr Chong’s submission, as it instead cited the seminal holding in Chng Tsuan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs with approval: “all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power”. [31] Unfortunately, the substance of the decision which held that the clemency process is not justiciable is essentially irreconcilable with this statement.

The next point to note is the extent to which the clemency process in Singapore has been placed beyond review encompasses the whole process from before a petition of clemency is filed up until it is rejected. The High Court held that “it was clear that the courts have consistently declined to review the process for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy on any ground at all”[32] and that the cases cited by the Mr David Chong SC were indistinguishable from Yong’s case.

This implicitly rejected the distinction that formed the crux of the defense’s case: that comments made by the Law Minister were made before the clemency process had begun, a situation which has no precedent in Commonwealth case law. It is unfortunate that the uniqueness of this distinction was not recognized, and it remains for me to convince the Court of Appeal that at least this stage of the process should be subject to judicial review.

b. The power of the Elected President to Pardon

The second prong of Yong’s defense was that the Elected President of Singapore under Article 22P of the Constitution has the discretion to pardon, with Cabinet advising him on whether or not to. The Article reads that the President “may on the advice of Cabinet Pardon” (emphasis added), and defense lawyers have for years been sending petitions to the President on the belief that he was the one who was making a final decision.

Of legal significance to Yong’s case is this fact: that if the President indeed has the discretion on whether or not to pardon, then the description by the Attorney-General in the Court of Appeal at the Constitutional stage that “the President has no discretion in this matter” would be an admission that Yong’s rights had been violated when his first clemency appeal was turned down.

On this point, the High Court preferred Mr Chong’s strictly textualist reading of the Constitution. Mr Chong’s argument was that Article 21 (1) states the default position that the President is to act on advice of Cabinet unless specific provision is made for him to exercise his discretion. Article 21(2) of the Constitution sets out the discretionary grants of power given to the Cabinet. The Court however disagreed with defence that Article 21(2)(i) which states that “any other function the performance of which the President is authorized by this Constitution to act in his discretion” was a savings clause sufficient to encompass the power of Presidential pardon in Article 22P.

v) Resurgent public interest and campaign

The trajectory of public interest in Yong’s case has arced steadily upwards as every battle in court has managed to extend the number of days Yong is alive. This is due in part to the increasing interest of the Malaysian government in his case, as well as the extra time abolitionist activists have had to organize public outreach events to support Yong’s cause.

Even until the end of the Constitutional appeal stage in May 2010, Yong’s case was hardly reported in the Malaysian press. Up until June 14, journalist for online Malaysian news portal Malaysiakini Susan Loone lamented that Malaysia had been “painfully silent on the upcoming execution of Yong Vui Kong”.[33] Since the failure of the appeal, I visited Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur several times to liase with the Malaysian Bar Council and NGO group Lawyers for Liberty in an attempt to find opportunities to bringing Yong’s case to the attention of the Malaysian government.

Finally, the breakthrough arrived on 5 July 2010, after months of attempting to seize the Malaysian government’s interest in Yong’s case. A week prior to 5 July, I was introduced to one Ms Ngeow Chow Ying, a dynamic young lawyer from a Malaysian Chinese lobbying group, the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall. She arranged a meeting with a prominent member of the opposition Mr Tian Chua, who promised to find a way to get the attention of the Malaysian Foreign Ministry and seek their support for the Malaysian government’s intercession on Yong’s behalf.

On 5 July, the opposition proposed an emergency motion in the Malaysian Parliament to debate support for Yong. Although the motion was rejected on technical grounds by the Speaker of Parliament, this tactical move was significant enough to get the attention of Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman, and his agreement to meet with me to discuss possible intervention. In our meeting, the Foreign Minister agreed to provide robust support in attempting to save Yong, and promised to write to the Singapore government to plead for clemency on Yong’s behalf. [34]

This event was the turning point of arousing public interest on both sides of the Malaysia-Singapore causeway. Almost every single Malaysian media outlet was present at the press conference Mr Tian Chua helped me organize after the meeting: now that the Minister had spoken all eyes were on the Malaysian government’s next action. The news was subsequently carried in the mainstream press and given even more prominence in the vernacular Chinese press in Malaysia.

In Singapore, activists were re-energized by the possibility that a last ditch plea by the Malaysian government might be effective considering the close ties between the two governments. Campaigners in Malaysia started a campaign called “Give Vui Kong a second chance”, and to date have collected around 40,000 signatures across Malaysia. In Singapore, 150 people turned up at Singapore’s free speech corner to take part in a joint TOC-SADPC photo campaign and petition drive in support of the Malaysian effort. [35]Taking into account Singaporeans’ usual reluctance to be associated with controversial causes, the willingness of 150 ordinary citizens to be photographed in support of Vui Kong’s cause was significant.

vi) Alan Shadrake: International spotlight on Singapore’s death penalty

Yet another unexpected catalyst for public debate on the death penalty showed up in Singapore in the form of veteran British journalist Alan Shadrake. 75-year-old Shadrake entered Singapore on 17 July 2010 to launch his wide-ranging book criticizing the death penalty in Singapore. His principle contribution to the death penalty dialogue until then had been an exclusive interview with Singapore’s veteran hangman, Darshan Singh in 2003, around the time of the hanging of Vietnamese-Australian Nguyen Tuong Van on charges of smuggling.

Using his interview with Singh as the premise for his book, entitled “Once a Jolly Hangman”, Shadrake uses court documents, interviews with former undercover Central Narcotics Bureau officers, and interviews with practicing lawyers to highlight controversial cases where the death penalty was applied or withdrawn.

At 8am in the morning after the book launch, Shadrake was arrested at his hotel and called in for questioning on charges of contempt of court and criminal defamation. This turned what would otherwise have been another isolated attack on the death penalty in Singapore into an international cause célèbre for freedom of speech: Shadrake’s arrest was carried prominently in international press, making headlines on BBC online, BBC radio news service, and The Guardian.

Alan Shadrake’s case is set to be heard on 30 August 2010. As I am representing him in these proceedings it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the case.

Conclusion

While the process of public engagement on abolishing the death penalty is still in its incipient stage, the past year has seen a confluence of events that have created many possibilities for abolitionists to begin a sustained public debate about the justice of the punishment.

I have attempted to provide a survey of the intertwining challenges to abolition in this brief article to highlight how the road to dismantling the death penalty in Singapore is a long and winding one.

In Singapore, the war for abolition cannot be won solely in the courtrooms. It has to be part of the struggle to build an independent and supportive press, integral to the effort to re-empower the local bar, and most importantly to win the hearts and minds of citizens whose eyes have been too long closed to the most fundamental questions of civil and political rights.

M Ravi[36]

[1] Michael Hwang article: http://theonlinecitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Michael-Hwang-Crime-n-Punishment-Part-2.pdf

[2] Section 5 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act: “for the purposes of this Act, a person commits the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug if he has in his possession that drug for the purpose of trafficking”

[3] Public Prosecutor v Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and Another[2005] SGHC 233 at 42

[4] Id at 48

[5] Id at 39

[6] Michael Hor,“The Death Penalty in Singapore and International Law” (2004) 8 S.Y.B.I.L. 105

[7] Singapore, the death penalty: A hidden toll of executions, Amnesty International Index: ASA 36/001/2004. 15 January 2004, online: Amnesty International website http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa360012004.

[8] Id., citing UN document:E/CN.4/1997/60, 24 December 1996, paragraph 81

[9] Supra note 7

[10] “Hanging Protests Sweep Nation”, Sydney Morning Herald, 2 December 2005, online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/vigils-held-in-the-final-hours/2005/12/02/1133422072619.html?page=2

[11] Process described in detail in “Once a Jolly Hangman”.

[12] For example, a letter sent to the family of executed Vignes Mourthi read: “You are advised to make the necessary funeral arrangements. If you are unable to do so, cremation will be carried out by the state”. The whole process of dehumanization is detailed in a book I wrote about the Vignes Mourthi trial, Hung at Dawn.

[13]Ministry of Home Affairs press release, 30 January 2004, online: http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74

[14] See for example the late KS Rajah SC’s article “‘The Unconstitutional Punishment’, Singapore Law Gazette, August 2003”. See also the Law Society’s recommendation during the 2007 Penal Code reform that judges be given discretion when sentencing offenders of drug crimes. Online, http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/feedback_pc/pdf/execSummary.aspx

[15] This tying down was felt to be necessary in wake of the Law Society’s revolt against the government’s introduction to amendments to the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act that would have allowed the government to curtail the circulation of foreign publications that it felt were interfering in domestic politics. The Law Society under the leadership of former Solicitor-General Francis Seow had criticized these amendments in a press release on 22 May 1986. A useful history of this provision can be found appended to Law Society President Michael Hwang’s Message of October 2009, online at http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/president_message/President_Message_for_Oct_2009.pdf

[16] Supra note 12 at 199-200.

[17] Under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, shareholdings in newspaper companies are divided into ordinary shares and management shares. Each management share entitles the holder to the equivalent of 200 votes in the appointment of the board of directors of the newspaper company as well as its staff.
Under Section 10 (11) of the Act:
揟he holder of management shares shall be entitled either on a poll or by a show of hands to 200 votes for each management share held by him upon any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff of a newspaper company but shall in all other respects have the same voting rights as the holder of ordinary shares._ (emphasis added)
Management shares must be approved in writing by the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts (section 10 (c) of the Act), and the newspaper companies have no power to refuse the Minister’s approval granting management shares (section 10(2)).

[18] For example, the comments of the Law Ministry on 9 July that were in issue in the judicial review action were given almost full page coverage in the national newspaper, The Straits Times. While I was asked to comment, that comment did not appear. The reporter in question gave the excuse that my reply had come in after the article had gone to press, and thus could not be printed. “Law Ministry Rebuts Lawyer’s Claims”, Zakir Hussain ,The Straits Times, 9 July 2010

[19] www.theonlinecitizen.com

[20] For example, see the following video on the views of young Singaporeans about the mandatory death penalty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZalXPtvJEg4&feature=related

[21] Public Prosecutor v Yong Vui Kong [2009] SGHC 4

[22] Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2009] SGCA

[23] Professor Fagan is a professor of law and public health at Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Yale Law School. The purpose of Fagan’s evidence is to demonstrate that the deterrent effect of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking has not been established and that the higher rate of execution in Singapore has not reduced crime rates when compared to the position in the comparable state of Hong Kong. Professor Fagan’s affidavit also demonstrates the type of offender who is often persuaded to act as a courier in drug trafficking offences and the limited deterrent effect of the mandatory death penalty on such offences.

[24] Executions, Deterrence and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities. Journal of Empirical Legal Stories, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 1-29, March 2010

[25] The Court of Appeal when it rendered its decision in Nguyen Tuong Van v PP (2005) 1 SLR 103 plainly considered that the arguments advanced regarding the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death penalty were incomplete due to the absence of “sociological data” (Nguyen, paragraph 72, distinguishing Mithu) and comparable “material” before the Court, which meant that the Court had to dismiss the Appellant’s Article 12 argument “in the absence of full arguments”.

[26] In Mithu v Punjab (1983) 2 SLR 690, it was held that “A provision of law which deprives the court of the use of its wise and beneficent discretion in a matter of life and death, without regard to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, and therefore without regard to the gravity of the offence, cannot but be regarded as harsh, unjust and unfair”. Article 9(1) of Singapore Constitution has its prototype in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 has been interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court to mean that the process by which someone is sentenced to death must be “fair, just and reasonable”.

[27] Id at 74

[28] Supra note 17

[29] Yong Vui Kong v PP, [2010] SGHC 235 at 1

[30] Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts [1996] 1 SLR (R) 294, citing the test in IRC v National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at 643-644

[31] [1988] 2 SLR (R) 525 at 86

[32] Supra note 23 at 66

[33] “Silence on Yong’s pending execution in S’pore”, Susan Loone, Malaysiakini, 14 June 2010, online: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/134494

[34]A full report on the events of that day can be found here: “Malaysian FM: “If I save one life, it will give me great satisfaction”, Choo Zheng Xi, The Online Citizen, 5 July 2010, online: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/malaysian-fm-%E2%80%9Cif-i-save-one-life-it-will-give-me-great-satisfaction%E2%80%9D/

[35] A full report on the events of that day can be found here: “There must be room for mercy”, The Online Citizen, 2 August 2010, online: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/08/there-must-be-room-for-mercy/

[36] Practitioner at L F Violet Netto, Lawyer for Yong Vui Kong and Alan Shadrake.

TOC: Police investigate SFD members over death penalty book

2011-01-27T10:18:00.002+08:00

Police investigate SFD members over death penalty book

Posted by theonlinecitizen on January 25, 201117 Comments

Three members of Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD) are being investigated by the police over the sale of 12 copies of the book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock at a film screening at the Substation on 14 November 2010.

Mr Seelan Palay 27, Mr Jarrod Luo 27 and Miss Rachel Zeng 28 have been summoned to appear at the Major Crime Division of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) at 1130am on 27 January 2011.

The police summons were individually delivered from 7am-8am on 19 January 2011 by hand to the trio at their homes by investigating officer ASP Roy Lim from the Special Investigation Section, Major Crime Division, Criminal Investigation Department. Internet research shows that ASP Lim, who has previously investigated murder cases for the Singapore Police Force, has now been tasked to investigate the SFD trio.

According to the summons, the SFD trio is being investigated under section 502 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010). The said section relates to the “Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing it to contain such matter, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both”.

The said book was the subject of a contempt of court case brought upon by the Government against its author Alan Shadrake. On 3rd November last year, the High Court found the British author guilty of scandalizing the judiciary. Two weeks later, he was sentenced to six weeks jail and S$20,000 (US$15,375) fine, with an additional order to pay the prosecution’s expenses of S$55,000 (US$42,300).

Shadrake is currently awaiting the outcome of the appeal against the sentencing, and is currently compelled to remain in the country. Pending police investigations, an additional charge of criminal defamation also awaits him. Despite the prosecution of Shadrake for contempt of court, presently the book is not banned in Singapore.

On 14 November, two days before Shadrake’s sentencing, SFD held a film festival at the Substation Arts Centre under the charge of its Festival Director, Mr Martyn See. Entitled Freedom Film Fest (FFF), the 4 hour screening had featured Media Development Authority cleared documentaries on Malaysia’s human rights issues.

12 copies of Shadrake’s book at $25 each were put on sale at the door during the event, and were all sold out. After the event an article was written up for the SFD website and photos from the event were uploaded onto the SFD Facebook page and SFD member Jacob George’s blog.

The trio, are not the first to be called up for investigation into this matter. ASP Lim, accompanied by another police officer went to the Substation to meet with its Artistic Director, Mr. Noor Effendy Ibrahim on the week of 13 December 2010.

They presented Mr. Ibrahim with a letter informing him that the police are investigating the sale of “contraband items” at the Substation. The police officers showed him photos of the death penalty book being displayed on sale at the SFD hosted Freedom Film Fest. Mr. Ibrahim, then on the very same day went to the Cantonment Police Complex to record a statement with ASP Roy Lim.

SFD’s Dr James Gomez, Executive Director and Mr Martyn See, Executive Secretary will be accompanying the trio to the Police Cantonment Complex at 391 New Bridge Road on 27 January 2010 and will stay at the complex until the three SFD members are released from their questioning.

The SFD Trio:
Mr Seelan Palay 27, is SFD`s Communications Director & a film maker

Mr Jarrod Luo 27 is an ordinary member of SFD & member of the Young Democrats, SDP

Miss Rachel Zeng 28 is an ordinary member of SFD & a social activist

Temasek Review: Indonesian maid to escape the gallows

2010-12-25T11:09:00.000+08:00

The Indonesian maid who allegedly caused the death of her employer’s 12-year-old disabled daughter is likely to escape the gallows if found guilty, saved by her age.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the death sentence cannot be imposed on a defendant below the age of 18.

Nurhayati’s actual age is only 16 years and not 24 as was originally tendered in court.

Nurhayati’s lawyer, Mohamed Muzammil Mohamed and officials from the Indonesian Embassy visited her family in a West Java village last week and managed to confirm her age after looking through school records and interviewing the family.

She is accused of causing the death of Linda Lee Yee Lin at Block 573 Hougang Street 51 on 24th November this year.

The charge against Nurhayati was amended in court on Friday and she will be remanded for another week for child psychiatric assessment.

Her case will be mentioned again on December 31.

Amanda

Source: Indonesian maid to escape the gallows

Vui Kong - One Year On

2010-12-09T13:05:00.005+08:00

Save Vui Kong:

Vui Kong - One Year On

Vui Kong was scheduled to hang in the morning of 4th Dec 2009. Exactly one year ago on 8th Dec, he was given the nod by the high court to appeal for his case. He has since outlived his original execution date by more than a year. Vui Kong has had several stay of execution since then and is awaiting the appeal of the High Court's judgement on judicial review, scheduled on the week commencing 17th Jan 2011.

This post is a tribute to the tireless effort of all the various organisations around the world, such as The Online Citizen, Save Vui Kong Campaign Malaysia and Amnesty International who have selflessly contributed over the past 12 months to make this possible. It is also a thank you call to those who have supported the Save Kong Campaign or have signed the petition. Those 100,000 signatures wouldn't have been possible without those who cared.

M. Ravi, human rights lawyer

In particular this post goes out to Vui Kong's counsel, M. Ravi who has been in the campaign against the mandatory death penalty for traffickers, and have worked pro bono for his clients in the past, many times forking out his own money for his court fees, paperwork, client's funeral, families' expenses, overseas trip to appeal to his clients' government. The list just goes on.

It used to be that Ravi had very limited time to prepare for his clients' case, and would overwork himself, simply because it was just him and him alone who had the conviction to press on in his pro bono work for prisoners on death row, a place which no other lawyers in Singapore dared to tread.

During these years, Ravi has come under fire from the mainstream media, who have tried ways and means to character assassinate him. But he has weathered all these and continues to fight too and nail for the very values he believes in - humanity.

It is not an easy journey for Ravi, when his clients often regard him as their closest friend during the time leading up to their execution. He has had to see several of his clients mercilessly executed by the state for drug trafficking, such as Vignes Mourthi, Shanmugam Murugesu and Amara Tochi. They did not have a last minute stay of execution like Vui Kong did.

Will we see more lawyers like M. Ravi speaking up against these miscarriage of justice? Only time will tell. After all, it takes more than just courage to rise up against the stoic machinery of the state. It's a conviction and a deep sense of empathy that made Ravi to do what he does. For now, Vui Kong, who has since repented and turned to religion, sits in his cell in Changi Prison clutching at the glimmer of hope that his counsel gave him one year ago.

Vignes Mourthi – seven years on

2010-11-29T11:03:00.001+08:00

The Online Citizen: Vignes Mourthi – seven years on

Andrew Loh -

When the tears fell from her eyes, it broke my heart – and that of those who had come to pay her and her family a visit. Everyone was silent. Even I, who was interviewing her, could not bear to ask her the next question.

In all four years of being involved with The Online Citizen, I had never felt or experienced such pain up close.
I had not followed Vignes Mourthi’s trial back in 2003. I did not even know who he was. It was only seven years later that I started to read about him – how he was caught outside a mosque in Singapore, and how the family had sought help from the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam, who brought Mr M Ravi into the case.

Vignes had been convicted of trafficking 27.65g of heroin into Singapore in 2003. Accordingly, he was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, as prescribed under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act.
Vignes, a Malaysian, was 23 when he was hanged.

Earlier this year when we – Vignes’s lawyer Mr M Ravi, Joshua Chiang and I – visited his family in Malaysia, I didn’t know what to expect. At the back of my mind, I kept wondering what I would say, or whether it was right for us to inquire – nah, intrude – into a family’s grief.

As the car pulls up to the house, I notice the number of motorcycles parked in the driveway. I later learned the family needed to use them when they go to work in the plantation, which was some ways away.
Mr Mourthi Vasu, Vignes’s father, is an energetic man, shaking our hands with some vigour as he welcomes us into his home. The family had prepared lunch for us, for which we were late, having been delayed because we could not find the family’s house. Two of Vignes’s three sisters had to come to guide us on our way.
“I am still not satisfied because I want my son back,” Mr Mourthi says when I ask him if he has accepted the execution and death of Vignes, his only son. “He is an innocent boy! Why you want to hang my son?” he added.

Mr Mourthi describes what had happened after Vignes was hanged. The Singapore Prison Service [SPS] had given the family two photos of Vignes – taken by the prison, a day before Vignes was executed. “They told me to buy the shirt, the shoes, trousers, everything.. I give [them to Vignes], then they take the photos and [gave the photos to me],” Mr Mourthi said as he showed me the two pictures of Vignes seated in a chair.
Each picture had him in a different set of attire.

“Did they [the SPS] tell you why they gave you these pictures? Or what the pictures were for?” I ask.

Mr Mourthi shakes his head.

“And when you saw these pictures, how did you feel?”

“I was crying,” he replies. “I was crying.”

“I gave the pictures to my wife… [she was also] crying.. all crying..”

In an adjacent open space to the kitchen stands an altar, a small space dedicated to Vignes, with a photo of him and offerings the family makes everyday.

“Vignes is always in my heart,” says his elder sister, Kohidam. “I’ve never forgotten about him. Wherever my family goes, Vignes is with us.”

She and her younger sister Shankari were the first to see Vignes’s body after his death. The two sisters had gone to Changi Prison at about 11am the day after the execution, after having been stopped at the customs checkpoint by Singapore immigration officers when they were entering Singapore at 8am. The sisters were told that there were problems with their passports. After some three hours, they were allowed into Singapore.
When they finally arrived at Changi Prison, Vignes’s body was in a box. Some flowers had also been placed in it, apparently by prison guards of Changi. This provided some comfort to the sisters, although they were also told that they could not touch Vignes’s body then.

“I [felt like dying],” Shankari says when I asked how she felt when she first saw Vignes’s body. “I [had to] cry.”

They were then told that they had to take Vignes’s body away by 2pm that day, otherwise the prison would cremate his body. Knowing virtually no one in Singapore and not knowing where or how to make the necessary arrangements for the embalmment and the funeral, the sisters asked the prison service to give them more time. But this was rejected.

It was only when Vignes’s lawyer, M Ravi, intervened that the problem was resolved and Vignes’s family was able to plan a proper funeral for him.

“Do you miss your brother today?” I ask Shankari.

“I miss….” she says, unable to complete her sentence, as she wipes her tears.

Vignes now lies in a grave beside a frangipani tree, about a 15-minute walk from the family home. Sitting atop the tombstone are statues of two tigers. “Vignes loved these,” Mr Mourthi tells us. “So, I put them here.”
The headstone says simply: “Vignes s/o Mourthi. Born 21-3-1980. Departed 26-9-2003.”

Executions in Singapore are one of those things which are seldom talked about. The Government and the media do not provide many details about them. We do not even know how many people are executed or when these hangings take place, although it is believed they happen on Fridays, at dawn.

All we get are vague statistics, and never have the aftermath of these cases and those most affected by them, been told.

While we continue to defy international consensus where most countries have either abolished or are considering the abolition of the death penalty, we risk taking the lives of innocent men and women.
We have also hanged those as young as 18.

The Misuse of Drugs Act provides mandatory death for those convicted of drug trafficking. Our esteemed judges, selected and appointed for their vast experience, are deemed unable or incapable of meting out alternative sentences.

There are many flaws in our implementation of the mandatory death penalty which have been highlighted by politicians, lawyers, the Law Society of Singapore, academics, ordinary Singaporeans and the international community, including rights groups and most notably Amnesty International.

Yet, the Singapore Government has turned a blind eye and prefers to cover its ears to the exhortations to re-look the mandatory death penalty.

During Vignes’s trial, one Sergeant Rajkumar, who was also the investigating officer who arrested Vignes, was the prosecution’s key witness. However, Rajkumar was himself being investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for rape, sodomy and bribery at the same time the trial of Vignes was taking place. This was not disclosed to Vignes’s lawyers.

Rajkumar’s own trial took place after Vignes had been hanged.

Rajkumar was eventually found guilty of bribery and sentenced to 15 months in prison.

Vignes Mourthi denied, till his last breath, that he had trafficked drugs. Moorthy Angappan, a family friend, was a dealer in incense stones back in Malaysia. It was Angappan who had asked Vignes to carry the drugs, which were packed as incense stones, to Singapore and to hand them over to a friend.

On the day of his final appeal, which was struck down by the court, Vignes had stood up in court and said that he was prepared to die.

He only wanted to know why.
————-
Note: Vignes’s story is told in more detail in “Hung At Dawn”, a book by his lawyer, M Ravi. It is available in the bookstores.

In August 2010, Mr Mourthi Vasu, together with Malaysian rights lawyers, issued a memorandum of protest at the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. (See video below and our report here.)
Support our call for a moratorium on the Mandatory Death Penalty. Click here.

Joint statement by Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) and Think Centre on the Alan Shadrake’s case

2010-11-17T20:40:00.000+08:00

Singapore

17 November 2010 – We are greatly disappointed and regret the heavy-handed sentence handed down to Alan Shadrake by the Singapore Judiciary. This is a major blow to Singapore’s international credibility as a country that respects the rule of law and has only served to emphasise the lack of compassion in our Judiciary.

Mr Shadrake should not have been persecuted for the publication of his book. His book should have instead been allowed to be publicly discussed and debated over.

The judgement had failed to consider that the book dealt with serious topics such as the death penalty as administrated by the Singapore justice system, no casual reader would or should read it with an uncritical mind as one would with a book of fiction.

The persecution of Mr Shadrake, a freelance journalist, confirms once again that freedom of expression in Singapore remains repressed. The freedom to express one’s thoughts and criticisms should be respected and the freedom to gain access to and share alternative opinions should also be allowed.

The lack of compassion on the part of the judiciary is especially compelling considering that Alan Shadrake is a 76 year old person who is sick and weak, with limited resources. Singapore’s authorities, much as they disagree with the publication of his book, should take it easy and treat Alan gently. The sentence passed is cruel and harsh on Mr Shadrake, who is vulnerable in health. This has put Singapore on the international spotlight once again for the wrong reason.

Sinapan Samydorai, Think Centre’s Director of ASEAN Affairs said, “They could have imagined Alan as a 76 year-old grandfather, vulnerable to poor health, yet stubborn to change while criticizing Singapore. The best course of action should then have been to talk to the poor old fellow, give him a hot meal, hold his hand and walk him home — and the world opinion will have appreciate and thank the act of kindness. Instead, this uncalled for bullying only earned more loud cries against unjust and unfair treatment of a 76 year old when Singapore sends him to 6 weeks in jail and a $20,000 fine as well as an additional court expense of $55,000. Moreover, he faces additional charges of criminal contempt of court that justify a 2 years jail term. Is the lack of compassion on the part of the judiciary a fair reflection of the policy of the Singapore Parliament?”

The Alan Shadrake case should not have gone to the court, he should have been kindly sent home.

For media enquires, contact Think Centre spokesperson at.

Mr. Sinapan Samydorai
Director of ASEAN Affairs
Think Centre

Ms. Rachel Zeng
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign

Alan Shadrake sent to prison by High Court in Singapore

2010-11-17T20:30:00.001+08:00

17 Nov 2010

British author jailed for claims made in Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore's Justice in the Dock

British author Alan Shadrake has been sentenced to six weeks in prison by the High Court in Singapore after being convicted over a book criticising the island's use of the death penalty.

Shadrake, 76, was also fined US$15,400 (£9,600) over allegations he made in Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore's Justice in the Dock, which discusses the republic's controversial use of capital punishment.

The book claims that well-connected defendants, particularly in drugs cases, often get off relatively lightly while the poor and less well-connected are sentenced to death.

It also questions the independence of the judiciary, and highlights criticisms levelled at Singapore's justice system by organisations such as Amnesty International.

In finding Shadrake guilty of contempt of court earlier this month, Singapore's high court judge, Quentin Loh, said the title contained "half-truths and selective facts; sometimes outright falsehoods."

Shadrake, who suffers from an irregular heartbeat and a serious colonic illness, offered a qualified apology last week but stood by the claims.

Loh dismissed Shadrake's last-minute apology as "nothing more than a tactical ploy to in court to obtain a reduced sentence."

Loh added that Shadrake would have to serve an additional two weeks in prison if he failed to pay the fine.

In a recent interview with the Guardian Shadrake, who was arresred on July 18, said the court had come down heavy on him because "they know the book is accurate".

He added: "This story is never going away. I'll keep it on the boil for as long as I live. They're going to regret they ever started this."

The case has cast further doubt on Singapore's commitment to freedom of expression.

Shadrake's lawyer, M Ravi, insisted his client had not intended to scandalise the conservative state's "hypersensitive" judiciary, adding that comments critical of the criminal justice system were "fair criticism.

The book features a profile of Darshan Singh, the former chief executioner at Singapore's Changi prison, as well as interviews with human rights activists, former police officers and lawyers.

According to Amnesty International, Singapore, with a population of five million, has one of the world's highest per capita execution rates, putting to death more than 400 people over the past two decades.

ISBN: 9781425713010
By Jason Taylors

Singapore criminal lawyers call for abolition of mandatory death penalty

2010-11-17T01:13:00.002+08:00

Title:	ACLS again urges Govt to abolish mandatory death sentence
Source:	TODAY
Author:	Conrad Raj

by Conrad Raj

05:55 AM Nov 16, 2010

SINGAPORE - The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) has again called for the abolition of the mandatory death sentence - this time in the latest issue of its newsletter, Pro Bono.

"The ACLS is in favour of the death penalty for the offence of murder. However, the ACLS is against the death sentence being mandatory," it said in an editorial.

In the run-up to changes to the Penal Code in 2007, the ACLS was among a number of groups advocating for discretion over the death penalty.

In its newsletter, it noted the imposition of a mandatory death sentence is arbitrary. The ACLS cited Sir Dennis Byron, Chief Justice of the Caribbean islands of St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Lucia, as saying: "If the death penalty is appropriate for the worst case of homicide, then it must surely be excessive punishment for the offender convicted of murder whose case is far removed from the worst case."

It also pointed out that a fair hearing is denied when no opportunity is given to the accused to offer mitigating circumstances before sentencing. Mitigation, the ACLS added, is "the normal procedure" in all other trials for non-capital offences.

Also, the ACLS said, sentencing is "a matter of law and part of the administration of justice which is the preserve of the Judiciary".

"Parliament should, therefore, only prescribe the maximum sentence and leave the courts to administer justice by sentencing offenders according to the gravity and circumstances of the case," it said.

The ACLS pointed out that under Article 93 of the Singapore Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the courts. It added that India, from which Singapore's Penal Code is derived, has since 1955 abolished the mandatory death penalty, as have the former British colonies of Kenya and Uganda.

"The ACLS urges the Government to abolish the mandatory death sentence for murder and to allow the courts discretion in sentencing convicted murderers. After all, our High Court judges have undergone a rigorous selection process to be chosen to exercise the judicial power of Singapore. And on their appointments, the judges have all affirmed or sworn to administer the law according to right and conscience."

Alan Shadrake jailed 6 weeks and fined US$15,000

2010-11-17T01:05:00.004+08:00

TOC: Shadrake trial: Judge dimissed apology

Posted by theonlinecitizen on November 16, 201019 Comments

Photo credit: Reuters

Justice Quentin Loh sentenced British author Alan Shadrake to six weeks jail and a fine of $20,000 this morning for scandalizing the judiciary.

Calling the allegations in Shadrake’s book Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore’s Justice In The Dock “without precedent”, Justice Loh said that under such situations, the default punishment should be imprisonment.

Justice Loh said that the court had given Shadrake the possibility of making amends if he makes a sincere apology and also make efforts to withdraw either the publications or parts of the publications. However, the efforts had been in the ‘opposite direction’.

Shadrake’s lawyer M Ravi had said previously that Shadrake “would certainly apologize if he had offended the sensitivities of the judiciary.”

Justice Loh pointed out that the law was not concerned with the sensitivities of the judge” but whether there was risk in public confidence of the independence of the courts being undermined.

In deciding the sentence, Justice Loh referred to an article published in The Guardian on 7th November (clickhere for article) in which Shadrake was quoted as saying among other things, “This story is never going away. I’ll keep it on the boil for as long as I live. They’re going to regret they ever started this.”

He also pointed out that Shadrake had stated his intent to publish a second edition of ‘Once A Jolly Hangman’ with new chapters.

“A clearer intent to repent his contempt it can’t be,” said the judge.

Shadrake’s apology was therefore “nothing more that a tactical ploy in court to obtain a reduced sentence while mounting a different stance elsewhere.”

Shadrake was given a week to consider if he wants to appeal the sentencing.

Speaking to reporters later, M Ravi revealed that Shadrake’s MP in England will be filing a motion in the House of Commons to condemn the outcome of the judgement on Alan Shadrake. The MP will ask the British Government to consider raising the issue at the International Court of Justice as a possible breach of customary international law.

Singaporean man sentenced to death for passion fueled murder

2010-11-13T11:56:00.002+08:00

The Straits Times: 'Marsiling Baby' to hang for murder

He killed his girlfriend after finding her in bed with another man earlier

By Selina Lum

Pathip's claim that his mind went blank during the killing was not consistent with his actions, said the judge. -- PHOTO: SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE

A 24-YEAR-OLD man was found guilty yesterday of murdering his 18-year-old girlfriend in Ang Mo Kio more than two years ago.

Friends and family of Pathip Selvan Sugumaran who packed the courtroom wailed as the High Court passed the mandatory death sentence on him for the murder of Miss Jeevitha Panippan.

The body of Miss Jeevitha, a private student and kindergarten teacher, was discovered on July 8, 2008, behind an electrical substation opposite Block 154, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5. She had 15 external injuries, out of which three wounds were fatal blows.

Pathip, who is known to his family and friends as 'Marsiling Baby', did not dispute that he killed her on the night of July 7, 2008.

But he claimed that he had been provoked by Miss Jeevitha who had taunted him by saying her new beau was better in bed. He said he lost self-control and his mind was 'blank' during the stabbing.

Defence psychiatrist Tommy Tan said Pathip has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition associated with impulsivity and rage, and that this abnormal mental state reduced his responsibility for the killing.

But these defences were rejected by the High Court yesterday.

Pathip and Miss Jeevitha became lovers in April 2008. A month into their relationship, she reported him to the police for rape - they had unprotected sex after an argument and she was worried about getting pregnant. But they continued to date.

On the morning of July 7, 2008, Pathip went to her flat at Block 157. When he peeped into her bedroom from outside, he saw her in bed with a man.

That evening, he bought a kitchen knife. He later told police that he wanted to use the knife to threaten her into telling the truth about the man.

On the same day, he met Miss Jeevitha and her mother at Block 155 and he said he wanted to marry her.

After the older woman went off, Pathip pulled her to the back of the substation and confronted her.

He said that when she told him that her new beau was better in bed, he whipped out the knife and stabbed her while she shouted 'I love you'. After she collapsed, he kissed her and removed a gold chain he had given her.

Later, Pathip and his mother crossed the Causeway but she returned to Singapore alone. The next day, he decided to return after she told him over the phone that the police would take her to the police station if he did not.

In his written judgment, Justice Kan Ting Chiu said Pathip's claim that his mind 'went blank' was not consistent with his actions. If that had happened, he would have been alarmed to see her bleeding when he snapped out of it, and would likely have called for help. Instead, he just left her there.

He also said the defence has not established that Pathip had ADHD. Reports from Pathip's days in school and national service showed that he functioned normally.

Justice Kan added that Pathip talked about his mind going blank only when he saw Dr Tan in October last year.

The judge said it was clear that Pathip's mental processes did not cease during the attack.

Pathip's lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan, said his client would be appealing.

selinal@sph.com.sg

Human Rights Watch: Drop Charges Against Alan Shadrake

2010-11-09T19:51:00.002+08:00

(New York, November 9, 2010) – The Singapore government should exonerate a British author who was convicted for contempt of court for his criticism of Singapore’s justice system, Human Rights Watch said today. On November 9, 2010, the Singapore high court will impose a criminal sentence against Alan Shadrake, a 76-year-old writer who was convicted on November 3 for “scandalizing the judiciary” in his book, Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, which criticizes bias in the application of Singapore’s mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking.

Singapore’s attorney general brought the contempt charges on the grounds that “public confidence in the Singapore Judiciary cannot be allowed, in any way, to be tarnished or diminished by any contumacious behaviour.” The defendant contended that the book amounted to “fair criticism on matters of compelling public interest,” as provided under article 14 of the Singapore Constitution. Shadrake faces possible imprisonment as well as fines.

“Singapore is further damaging its poor reputation on free expression by shooting the messenger bearing bad news,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Cases like this only strengthen the allegations that Shadrake made in his book.”

In his ruling, the high court judge rejected “fair criticism” arguments and disputed the contention that Shadrake’s conclusions were based on extensive research of case and court records and interviews with Singapore’s now-retired chief executioner, police officers, lawyers, and death-penalty opponents. He found 11 statements in Once a Jolly Hangman in contempt because, “These statements are made without any rational basis, or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsehood.” His written judgment concluded that, “We [judges] are constitutionally bound to protect every citizen’s right to engage in such debate.… But when such debate goes beyond the limits of fair criticism the law will step in.”

Shadrake is also under investigation for criminal defamation following a complaint brought by the government-directed Singapore Media Development Authority.

“There is a long history of Singapore’s government using criminal defamation charges to gag and bankrupt critics,” Robertson said. “Criticism of the government should never be resolved in a criminal court – the authorities should drop the charges.”

In a statement this year to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression reiterated that governments should decriminalize defamation and “promote a culture of tolerance regarding criticism, which is essential in any democratic society.”

Shadrake’s treatment in custody raised due process concerns. At 6 a.m. on July 18, four plainclothes officers arrested Shadrake at his hotel room and took him away for two days of interrogation, during which he was denied access to counsel. Late in the day on July 19, he was released on bail.

Shadrake rejected an offer of mitigation from the Attorney General’s Office in exchange for an “unreserved apology in qualified terms.” The Attorney General’s Office said that it viewed the rejection as an “aggravating fact” against Shadrake. The offer of mitigation in return for an apology was repeated at the trial’s conclusion.

“Those facing the gallows in Singapore owe a great debt of gratitude to Alan Shadrake for exposing serious problems in the justice system,” Robertson said. “The government should be impartially and transparently investigating these problems, not the man who brought them to their attention.”

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Singapore, please visit:http://www.hrw.org/en/asia/singapore

The truth behind Darren Ng's death - not just simple staring

2010-11-05T02:23:00.010+08:00

Darren Ng, left, died from a fatal wound to the neck on the night of 30th Oct

Pro death penalty advocates in Singapore have been calling for the hanging of the 4 suspects caught after the crime scene at Downtown East that saw a 19 year old Polytechnic student brutally stabbed to death in public.

The reason for the strong reaction is easy to understand. The stabbing happened close to home - Downtown East, a holiday resort which most Singaporeans visit. Plus, these teenage boys must be hanged to give a strong signal to people who have the tendency to stab any passerbys looking in their general direction. Many Singaporeans call out with ease for the hanging of these assailants because if it happened to Darren Ng Wei Jie, it could also happen to anyone else. Anyone could become the next target, so let's hang them all to send a strong deterrence signal.

But is the story really that simple?

According to news report, Darren Ng's father told reporters that his son "died because of love for his friends". Mainstream news have all but reported the real story behind the stabbing, which occurred on the fateful night of 30th October 2010, preferring to go along the lines of a simple "staring incident" that caused Darren Ng's premature termination of life.

According to reliable sources, the lead assailant had been serving time in prison prior to the incident. Whether he was the one who actually wielded the weapon used against Darren in not known, but being a member of a certain gang triad, there was animosity brewing with another gang's member in prison, which happened to be Darren's friend. The connection with a certain triad is evident from a picture showing a tattoo on one of the assailant, Tang Jia Min, which was reported in the news.

When the lead assailant came out of prison, he was unable to locate Darren's friend. On the night Darren Ng was assaulted and killed at Downtown East, he recognised Darren's group of 3 as the friends of the enemy he made in prison.

This lead to a confrontation which resulted in a purchase of knives from the nearby supermarket and a mad 500m chase inside the holiday resort. Darren Ng was mobbed and stabbed repeatedly, one of which was fatal - a stab to Darren's throat which ripped his jugular vein. Darren died in hospital hours after the attack.

There are many questions left unanswered from the incident:

Was Darren Ng murdered or mobbed (with weapons), which resulted in his death? (The implications are important as they decide the charge and sentence of the accused persons)
Was it really a simple random staring incident resulting in a cold blooded murder?
Did Darren try to stand up for his gang member friend, which resulted in a confrontation and the mob attack?
How many of the dozen or so assailants were carrying weapons?
Was there a real intention to murder Darren, or were the knives use with the intent to cause serous injuries?
How many other suspects are still at large?
If 10 men mobbed and caused the death of one person, should all 10 be charged for murder, a crime which carries mandatory death sentence?
Out of the 4 arrested and charged for murder, who attacked Darren, how many were doing so because their peers were doing it?

Before these important questions can be answered, the unfortunate thing is that the public would have already formed their conclusion to the fate of the 4 who were first arrested, with some even calling for public execution for the "cold blooded murderers".

Such is the ease at which Singaporeans call for the execution of these teenagers when they feel that their security have been compromised, regardless whether murder was the real intent when the assault took place, and regardless whether the mandatory death sentence actually works to prevent these crimes in the first place. This is the reason why the debate on the application of mandatory death penalty and death penalty must not be swept under the rug. Like the court of law, Singaporeans should know both sides to the story before forming a judgment on capital cases.

sgdeathpenalty

IFHR condemns Alan Sharake's conviction

2010-11-04T13:31:00.003+08:00

Singapore: Conviction of British author is yet another assault on freedom of expression

3 November 2010

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) condemns the conviction of British journalist Mr. Alan Shadrake by the Singapore High Court today, which found him guilty of ‘scandalising’ the Singapore courts in 11 passages in his latest book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock. Mr. Shadrake, 75, will be sentenced on 9 November 2010 and faces a custodial sentence, a fine, or both. At the same time, he is also being investigated for criminal defamation and faces a sentence of two years in prison and fines if convicted.

Mr. Shadrake was arrested on 18 July, 2000 in Singapore, one day after he launched his book. In writing Once a Jolly Hangman, the author combed through court case files from over the years and interviewed human rights activists, lawyers, former police officers and a former chief executioner at the Changi prison. The conclusions drawn from these sources are critical of the way death penalty is administered by the Singaporean judiciary. The book further suggests that there have been instances where the courts appeared to have bowed to foreign pressure, favoured the rich and privileged, and were used as a weapon to silence the opposition and other dissidents. Both the Government and members of the ruling party have successfully sued and obtained convictions of opposition politicians and a number of foreign media organisations for publishing articles or commentaries critical of the ruling regime.

In an open letter to the Acting Attorney-General of Singapore on 23 July 2010, FIDH expressed its deep concern that the judicial action against Mr. Shadrake “creates a climate of fear and restricts the openness of the public discussion on sensitive issues, such as the death penalty”. [1] In recent official submissions to the UN Universal Periodic Review of Singapore, scheduled for May 2011, civil society organisations in Singapore have all highlighted the severe restrictions of freedom of expression and the press, both in law and in practice.

FIDH considers Singapore’s handling of the case of Mr. Shadrake a measure of its willingness to uphold the human rights principles in the ASEAN Charter, the guarantee of freedom of expression in its own Constitution, as well as the rights guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights.

“ Singapore’s progress as an economic powerhouse stands in stark contrast to its government’s authoritarian tendency and the draconian measures it uses to muzzle the freedom of expression”, said Souhayr Belhassen, FIDH President. “This case illustrates the on-going need for the Singaporean government to undertake the necessary reforms to truly protect fundamental freedoms and rights, including through decriminalizing defamation and ceasing its resort to legal actions as a knee-jerk response to criticisms of its courts”.

Breaking News: Legal history made in Shadrake trial verdict

2010-11-03T13:39:00.002+08:00

TOC: Breaking News: Legal history made in Shadrake trial verdict

Posted by theonlinecitizen on November 3, 20106 Comments

But Shadrake found guilt of contempt

M Ravi and Alan Shadrake speaking to the
press after the judgement

The real risk test should be applied, said Justice Quentin Loh at the judgement of the Alan Shadrake trial this morning. His decision overturned over four decades of precedence where the Inherent Tendency Test had been applied for contempt cases.

Under the inherent tendency test, an act or statement is deemed contemptuous if it conveys to an average reasonable reader allegations of bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge (or the court) in the exercise of his judicial function.

The real risk test on the other hand requires the prosecution to show that there must be more than a remote possibility that the statements complained of would undermine the administration of justice. that the act or words created a real risk of prejudicing the administration of justice. Other common law countries such as Hong Kong, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have adopted this test.

Applying the real risk test to his decision, Justice Loh identified 11 out of 14 of the contentious statements as being in contempt of court. Out of these 11 statements, Judge Loh said that there was “more than a remote possibility that a significant number of people who have read Shadrake’s book would believe his claims.”

These 11 statements, he said, did not fulfill the three criteria of fair criticism, namely that they had to be made in good faith, they had to have a rational bias, and that the criticisms can be outspoken but respectful.

Judge Loh found three of the statements the Attorney General’s Chambers put forward were not in contempt this was despite the AG’s claim in court that the whole book was contemptuous and that the 14 statements complained of were the worst.

He further reinterated that the case was not about individual opposition to the death penalty, and anyone who held such views would be fully protected under the Constitution.

“The death penalty is the ultimate punishment under the law, ultimate both in its severity and its irreversibility. It is therefore not surprising that the application of the death penalty by the courts is closely scrutinized and vigorously debated; indeed, it would be profoundly disturbing if citizens adopted a bland and disinterested attitude to the ultimate punishment,’ he said.

However he drew the line between criticism of the death penalty has not serving any deterrent purpose, or saying that a judge erred in his judgement and saying that the judiciary based its decisions on political and economical considerations.

“It is no different from saying I based my decisions on a brown envelope stuff with dollar notes, “ he added.

Speaking to The Online Citizen after the verdict, Shadrake said that the judge’s verdict is “a very fair ruling.”

Lawyer for Shadrake Mr M Ravi said, “This judgment overturns more than four decades of bad law, and is a good sign that the judiciary recognizes the more mature society we live in. Still, we are disappointed that even applying this more stringent standard, Alan’s statements have been found in contempt. We will be considering whether or not to appeal”

Sentencing will be decided on the following Tuesday.

British Author Alan Shadrake Convicted of Contempt of Court in Singapore

2010-11-03T13:31:00.001+08:00

Bloomberg: British Author Alan Shadrake Convicted of Contempt of Court in Singapore

By Andrea Tan - Nov 3, 2010 11:16 AM GMT+0800Email

British author Alan Shadrake was convicted of contempt of court for his book challenging the integrity and independence of Singapore’s judiciary.

High Court Judge Quentin Loh announced his decision today and reserved sentencing until Nov. 9, saying that the 75-year- old had a “final opportunity to make amends.”

Shadrake, who had previously refused to apologize, said after the ruling that he would “work out how to do this and satisfy the court.” The author of “Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore’s Justice in the Dock” accused the city state’s courts of dispensing “unequal justice” and bowing to political and economic pressures, the prosecution had said.

Contempt of court carries a jail sentence, a fine, or both. No maximum penalty has been specified under Singapore’s constitution, according to the attorney general’s office.

“This is an especially pernicious case of grave and aggravated contempt” and “cannot possibly come within any reasonable notion of fair criticism,” the attorney general’s office said during the three-day trial last month.

Shadrake’s lawyer M. Ravi has said that the writer had no intention of scandalizing Singapore’s courts and called the judiciary “hypersensitive.”

A Wall Street Journal editor was fined S$10,000 ($7,300) last year for the publication of three articles that the city- state’s government said showed contempt of its judiciary. In another contempt of court lawsuit, three activists were sentenced to between seven and 15 days in prison for wearing t- shirts with pictures of a kangaroo dressed as a judge.

Shadrake’s book isn’t banned in Singapore, according to the Media Development Authority. Retailers and distributors will have to seek legal advice on whether they can sell or distribute the publication, the regulator said.

The author is also being investigated for criminal defamation, Singapore authorities have said.

The case is Attorney-General vs Alan Shadrake OS720/2010 in the Singapore High Court.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrea Tan in Singapore at atan17@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Douglas Wong at dwong19@bloomberg.net

Singapore: Four youths to be charged with murder over staring incident

2010-11-02T15:07:00.001+08:00

CNA: Police arrest four suspects over Downtown East murder

SINGAPORE: Police have arrested four Chinese male suspects, aged between 18 and 20 years old, in connection with the murder of a youth at Downtown East in Pasir Ris on Saturday.

Nineteen-year-old Darren Ng Wei Jie was attacked by a group. He sustained serious injuries and died in hospital.

In a statement issued on late Monday, police said they had followed up on all possible leads and conducted intensive round- the-clock investigations.

Officers from the Special Investigation Section of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) established the identities of the suspects aged between 18 and 20 years, and, with this lead, were able to swiftly round up the four men.

The case has been classified as murder, which carries the death penalty.

Police said investigations are still ongoing

Mr Ng, a Republic Polytechnic student, had been attacked and hacked several times by a group of men at about 6pm on Saturday.

He and two friends were believed to have been involved in a staring incident with the group earlier.

He was sent to Changi General Hospital with injuries and subsequently died at about 10.55pm on the same day.

Director of Criminal Investigation Department Senior Assistant Commissioner Ng Boon Gay commended the police officers for their extensive investigations and speed in apprehending the suspects.

He said, "Such violent behaviour and blatant disregard for the law will not be condoned. Police will see to it that those who perpetuate violence will be dealt with to the fullest extent of our laws."

The four suspects will be charged in court on Wednesday with murder. If convicted, they face the death penalty.

-CNA/de/wk

20 year old Singaporean charged for murder

2010-10-29T23:17:00.001+08:00

The Straits Times: NSF faces 3 more charges

Soh Wee Kian was charged two weeks ago with the murder of clerk Hoe Hong Lin at Mandai Tekong Park in Woodlands during the Mid-Autumn Festival on Sept 22. -- ST PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONG

THE Woodlands murder accused was charged with three counts of attempted murder on Friday.

Full-time national serviceman Soh Wee Kian, 20, was charged two weeks ago with the murder of clerk Hoe Hong Lin, 32, at Mandai Tekong Park in Woodlands during the Mid-Autumn Festival on Sept 22.

The first fresh charge accuses him of trying to murder Ms Ooi Li Li, 31, by using a knife to inflict injuries on her at the void deck of Block 171 Yishun Avenue 7 on the evening of Jan 29.

Four days later, he allegedly tried to kill Ms Lam Hui Lin, 23, along Khatib Bongsu Park Connector at Yishun Avenue 6 between 11am and 11.21am.

He is also accused of attempting to kill Ms How Poh Ling, 25, at the void deck of Block 588B Montreal Drive in Sembawang on the morning of May 26.

Soh was remanded for psychiatric assessment until Nov 19. His lawyer Josephus Tan had a brief word with him in court. Soh's biological father was among six people who came for the case.

If convicted of attempted murder, Soh can be jailed for up to life and liable to caning.

Interview with Alan Shadrake: "No visible efforts made to catch kingpins"

2010-10-24T18:11:00.000+08:00

Exclusive: The Temasek Review Talks to Alan Shadrake

British Author Alan Shadrake of “Once a Jolly Hangman”, was arrested on the 18^th of July 2010 in Singapore, and subsequently detained for approximately two days.

With respect, to his ongoing trial in The Singapore’s High Court, we will refrain from discussing his case and book in depth, as that would be a contempt of court and adversely affect his ongoing trial.

Currently a resident of adjacent Malaysia, he was, charged to have “cast doubt on the impartiality and independence of the judiciary” with the charge being (Scandalizing the Judiciary).
————
TR: Alan, how have you been holding up?

Alan: (Laughs) I am getting by.

TR: In the interest of a fair and balanced interview, we would like to ask, were your intentions for writing the Book (Once a Jolly Hangman) to scandalize the judiciary of Singapore or was it purely investigative journalism, which expanded into a book?

I got into this book by chance. I’d been invited by the Singapore Tourism Board to write some travel articles for a publication in California. I had been living in various parts of the US for 20 years and as a Permanent Resident, I could have become a citizen. When I arrived in March 2002 as a guest, I learned of two murders involving a British millionaire Mike McCrea. It was known as The Orchard Towers murders. McCrea had fled to Australia with his girlfriend Audrey Ong. She alone returned to Singapore. Seeing as how Australia cannot extradite anyone to any country where they might face the death penalty. A long legal battle ensued and Singapore had to promise not to hang him if found guilty.

Around the same time an Australian citizen, Nguyen Van Tuong, was hanged for drug trafficking. The difference in penalty here stood out like a sore thumb to me. If the death penalty did not come into the picture there would be no need to make these “ad hoc” arrangements as to who should live or who should die in such cases.

My (surprise) interview with the hangman which went around the world, further peeked my interest and I decided to look into many old and recent trials which ended on the gallows – and the unusual cases where it didn’t. I quickly came to an understanding that different punishments were perhaps meeted out to similar crimes. And more often than not, simple mules, often young, immature and vulnerable girls and boys were the ones who ended up being hanged – not the sophisticated adults that had lured them into trafficking.
It occurred to me that no visible efforts were being made to catch the king pins. In particular the cases of Julia Bohl, who helped run a lucrative drugs ring in Singapore, and Guiga Lyes Ben Laroussi, who ran an even bigger operation which became known as The High Society Cocaine Circle. Guiga amazingly escaped the long arm of Singapore’s Law, all this before being allowed bail while facing a maximum 30 year jail sentence. He managed to get his passport back and return home to Tunisia. Despite being put on Interpol’s website for the past 5 years, it appears that no effort has been made to bring him back for trial. Quite a different story to that of the Romanian diplomat who allegedly killed a Singaporean in a drunk driving accident. Laroussi had been destroying lives in Singapore for years! It gave me a very strong impression that cases which should have had the same strong verdict and Mandatory Punishment were differing greatly.

Read more here.

Is this the Young PAP's interpretation of human rights?

2010-10-23T02:17:00.009+08:00

Following Young PAP member Michael Rebaczonok-Padulo's piece, we are curious to know if the following story depicts his interpretation of human rights for the victims and their family. If that is not the case, then Mr Rebaczonok-Padulo seems to have confused human rights with recourse for victims or their families.

While discussion on the mandatory death sentence for drug offenders rages on the Internet, Singapore's ruling party and its youth wing have kept uncomfortably quiet and the mainstream media has not taken this issue up for a proper public debate.

The real issue which the Young PAP have skirted is the arbitrary application of the mandatory death penalty for drug offenders, which leaves judges no room to give the offender a lesser sentence than what the law stipulates, unless of course, if he or she happens to be a German.

We would like to hear the Young PAP's stand on this.

sgdeathpenalty

Latest update: It is most appalling to see that Young PAP has added an addenum to the article at 1.32am, 23 Oct, many hours after it was first published. If the Young PAP cannot take responsibility for what it publishes on its site, then why publish it at all?

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

Savage justice for murderer of boy's father

By ANTHONY MITCHELL, Daily Mail 11:25am 4th May 2006

A bloody act of vengeance: 16-year-old Mohamed Moallim takes a knife and stabs the man who killed his father

A boy of 16 takes a knife and stabs to death the man who killed his father, as a crowd some 700 strong looks on.

Large crowds gathered at a Koranic school in the capital, Mogadishu, to watch him stab Omar Hussein in the head and throat.

Read more here.

Young PAP: Vengeance killing is a human right

2010-10-23T00:59:00.001+08:00

From Kirsten's blog: YPAP: Vengeance killing is a human right
(formatting differs from original post, do visit Kirsten's blog)

Posted by Kirsten on October 23, 2010

I have just read an editorial on the death penalty by YPAP member Mr Michael Rebaczonok-Padulo, entitled ‘WHAT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS?‘ I suggest you read it; it is a piece that provokes a very strong response from me. Which is why I would now like to take this blog entry to write my rebuttals to his argument. I will be quoting excerpts of his piece (underlined emphasis mine), followed by my response.

While it is good and even noble that there are persons and groups concerned with the ongoing struggle for the full application of human rights, I find it shocking that the human rights of the victims of heinous crimes for which criminals are executed are not always given as much media attention.

This is the main thrust of Rebaczonok-Padulo’s piece: that the rights of the victims are neglected, while anti-death penalty advocates are spending precious time and resources championing the cause of the perpetrators. However, this is not simply skewed or misleading; it is downright untrue.

Unlike what the writer would like you to believe, being anti-death penalty and caring for the victims are not mutually exclusive. One can do both, which is why many – if not all – anti-death penalty campaigners support rehabilitation and counseling programs for both victims AND inmates. We believe that everyone should have the care and attention that they need, and that no one is completely irredeemable. By calling for the abolishment of the death penalty, we are NOT neglecting the victims.

This leads me to my second point about the Rebaczonok-Padulo’s thesis. He seems to be suggesting that if we abolish the death penalty, we are somehow depriving the victims of their human rights. In other words, revenge killing is a human right.
My question to him would be this: since when was killing a human being the RIGHT of another? How would the execution of one person be fitting with the human rights of another? Has the writer not heard of “two wrongs don’t make a right”?

Justice is not based upon “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”. This is why we don’t sexually violate rapists, or cut slashers, etc. We recognise that there are some acts that are cruel and barbaric, and have no place in justice. We draw the line and refuse to commit the cruel acts that might have been committed by the criminals before us, because we refuse to sink to their level of violence. So why would we be willing to sink to a murderer’s level and endorse the death penalty, which is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder?

Although the name of the website sounds biased (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com), the information found there is incredibly detailed and factual…

“Detailed” and “factual” does not mean that the website cannot still be biased. And it is precisely as biased as the name ‘Pro-Death Penalty’ sounds. At the end of the day, Pro-Death Penalty.com is trying to convince people that the death penalty is good and right, and should be kept. It is as subjective as the website Anti-Death Penalty.org (http://www.antideathpenalty.org/). It is up for the individual to read these two sites and acquaint themselves with the facts, and make up their own minds.

Sifting through all the information so painstakingly gathered was, for me, akin to watching episode after episode of the ‘Crime Investigation’ series on Cable TV, as I was shocked into disbelief at the extent to which human beings can become so utterly depraved and bestial.

A Texan death chamber. Image from NYTimes.

I am glad that the writer feels horror at the “depraved and bestial” acts of certain human beings. That response is only natural. But if the writer can feel such abhorrence of violence and murder, why then is he advocating execution? If he is shocked and repulsed by violent crimes, why is he all right with lethal injections, long drops, firing squads, electrocution and gas chambers (for these are all methods of state execution found around the world)?

I submit that once a person commits the most supreme act of violence against another of his fellow human beings in the form of murder, or accomplice to murder, then he himself ipso facto forfeits his own human rights at the moment in which he commits the crime. This of course assumes that he is not doing so in self-defence, or to defend loved ones or other innocents from wanton attacks by criminals, or to defend his country in times of war. This also assumes, of course, that there is positive forensic evidence and/or credible eyewitness testimony that proves conclusively that he is the perpetrator of the crime in question.

These assumptions are logical, of course, but in real life it can be incredibly difficult, perhaps even impossible, to be sure of anything 100%. This is why we see people being exonerated after being sentenced to death row, or worse, executed. This is why, no matter how hard we try, there are still miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions. This is bad enough with prison sentences, but with the death penalty it is the height of injustice. The irreversible nature of the death penalty requires the justice system to be absolutely infallible. However, like any other institution controlled and run by Man, there is always the possibility of mistakes and errors of judgement. They might not be intentional, but with death penalty cases that doesn’t make the consequences any less acceptable.

Image from SusanKuklin.com

When I read the book No Choirboy: Murder, Violence and Teenagers on Death Row, I realised that inmates could land on death row because of a myriad of issues. Despite what we’d like to believe, real life is not like CSI, or Bones, or any of those homicide investigation TV dramas where they always have iron-clad proof and confessions with absolutely no sliver of a doubt about who the perpetrator is. People could land on death row because their accomplices cut deals or got plea bargains and testified against them. People could land on death row because of inadequate legal representation. People could land on death row because of a combination of seriously unfortunate circumstances. Even if you had the most upright cops, most diligent lawyers and most honest judges there would still be the possibility of errors.

So how could we just automatically strip a person of his human rights the moment we think he has committed a crime? How could we proclaim that a person does not deserve his/her human rights? How does that make us better people than they are?

And let’s go one further: what about the family of the offender? Do they, too, have to be punished just for being related to the offender?

So while some argue that Van Nguyen was not a murderer and, moreover, that he seemed to have fully repented while incarcerated, the fact remains that had he succeeded in his premeditated plan to sell the drugs, he would have been at least indirectly responsible for the possible destruction of the lives of those to whom the heroin would have been sold. That certainly ranks high on the list of very serious crimes, and one can hardly argue that it was carried out in the ‘heat of passion’.

Van Nguyen. Image from USP.co.au.

This argument about the death penalty for drug trafficking simply does not stand. What Rebaczonok-Padulo seems to be saying is that Van Nguyen deserved the death penalty because of the potential effects of the drugs he was carrying, not the actual damage done (which, since the drugs were confiscated at his arrest, was nil). If we follow this logic, we should also start handing out the death penalty for drunk driving, attempted murder, aggravated assault, domestic abuse, armed robbery, rioting etc. After all, any of those crimes have the potential of destroying lives.

It is not justice to mete out punishment – especially when the punishment is as cruel, archaic and irreversible as DEATH – on the grounds of potential harm. This is why Rebaczonok-Padulo’s argument here is, in a word, flawed.

Subsequently, however, the drug trade was sharply curtailed and crime dropped dramatically, thanks in part to capital punishment being meted out for such crimes, in his [Dr Lim Lee Ching] own view and that of his family. He logically associates the very strict laws governing crime and punishment with safe neighbourhoods, and is therefore in favour of retaining the death penalty, as are his family members.

This anecdote might very well be true in relation to the views and experience of the writer’s friend Dr Lim. However, it is insufficient as evidence of the effectiveness of the death penalty in curbing crime. When it comes to an issue as absolute, controversial and crucial as the death penalty, the burden of proof is heavy. Here Rebaczonok-Padulo does not provide any concrete evidence that the death penalty is the direct cause of reduction of crime – perhaps because there is no such evidence.

The argument that the death penalty is the cause of crime reduction also neglects other important factors such as police competence, rehabilitation of offenders and civic education. These are crucial factors in the fight against crime that should not be so easily pushed aside or forgotten in favour of making general and simplistic assumptions about the death penalty.

Also, it is worth emphasising that having no death penalty does NOT mean we have no punishment. Would long prison sentences/life imprisonment not serve as deterrents?

Obviously administration of the death penalty is something never to be taken lightly in any case, which is precisely why it is meted out so rarely.

If the death penalty is really meted out so rarely, why is it that Amnesty International’s estimates have put Singapore at the top of the list of executions per capita in the world?

However, if one is not planning to commit murder (or in the case of Singapore, traffic in illegal drugs above certain stipulated quantities), then one has nothing to worry about.

This too, is not completely accurate. If you take a look at the presumption clauses of the Misuse of Drugs Act, you will realise that when it comes to drug trafficking charges, the burden of proof ends up on the shoulders of the defendant. This means that instead of the usual “innocent until proven guilty”, we’re looking at a “guilty until proven innocent” scenario. How does one prove one’s innocence in such a situation, with all the presumptions heaped upon one’s head?

Tochi could not understand what was happening, and cried all the way to the gallows.

On top of these presumption clauses, drug trafficking over the stipulated quantities comes with the MANDATORY death penalty. This means that the judge has no discretion in considering mitigating circumstances and handing out sentences. Once you’re found guilty – remember presumption clauses! – you WILL be sentenced to death. Goodbye.

Just look at the case of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, a young man from Nigeria who came to Singapore with the hopes of being a footballer. Although his trial judge admitted that “there was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine”, he was executed anyway.

So it’s not true that one has no need to worry about the death penalty in Singapore if one does not commit murder or traffic drugs. All it takes is for someone to slip something into your bag/pocket/suitcase while you’re on holiday; 15g of heroin ain’t exactly a big package.

Fortunately, an Internet search reveals that there are indeed such support groups…

Rebaczonok-Padulo concludes his editorial with a list of 3 victims’ support groups in America, praising them for having “got their priorities right”. By listing these groups (LOLAM, Families of Murder Victims and Survivors of Homicide) in the context of his article, he seems to be suggesting that if we advocate abolishment of the death penalty, we are somehow letting these people down, disrespecting and neglecting their human rights. Seeing these links in his article, an average reader would have the impression that these groups are pro-death penalty.

However, if you actually look at the website, none of them are actually advocating the death penalty. In fact, Loved Ones Left After Murder (LOLAM) even states that the family’s “religious convictions will not allow them to advocate capital punishment”. These groups are not about baying for blood, they are about supporting the people left behind, and lobbying the government for better crime prevention and legislation.

Image from MVFHR

In fact, there are a number of groups out there that both support the victims as well as campaign against the death penalty. Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation (MVFR) is one such example. Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR) is another. In fact, you can find a whole list of literature, reports and organisations from victims against the death penalty here. The stories from these organisations are extraordinary tales of compassion, mercy and humanity.

This clearly proves that being anti-death penalty and caring for victims are not mutually exclusive standpoints. In fact, the above organisations have proven that one could even be a victim and still be anti-death penalty.
In summary, I find Rebaczonok-Padulo’s assumption that anti-death penalty advocates neglect the plight of the victims to be false. Contrary to his beliefs, one can support and sympathise with the victims while calling for the abolishment of capital punishment. Also contrary to his assertions, the abolishment of the death penalty is not an infringement of the human rights of victims. Two wrongs do not make a right. Death does not make things better; it only inflicts pain on yet another family.

I thank Mr Rebaczonok-Padulo for joining in the death penalty discussion and weighing in with his views on the YPAP website. I respect his right to his own view and standpoint, and would therefore ask him to extend the same courtesy to me and my fellow anti-death penalty campaigners, and thank him to not make such snap judgements or hasty generalisations about our priorities.