At least one execution since Vui Kong's appeal

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

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

18 April 2011 

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

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

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

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

Cheong Chun Yin

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ceremonial head of State, SR Nathan

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

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

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

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


sgdeathpenalty

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

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

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

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

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

 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. 

SADPC's World Day Against the Death Penalty message

In commemoration of 

World Day Against the Death Penalty‏

10 October 2010

On this day, the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) would like to renew our solidarity with international and regional non-governmental organisations, fellow activists and governments working against the death penalty.

With the recent events on the regional front, the issues surrounding the death penalty has been heavily discussed in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia and here in Singapore. Human rights advocacy groups and activists in these respective countries are proposing for their governments to work towards the total abolishment of the death penalty. We support the calls and efforts undertaken and we look forward to the day where the death penalty cease to exist.

In the past year, we have been campaigning on the case of Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian youth on death row who was caught carrying 47 grams of heroin on June 13, 2007. He was 18 at the time of his arrest. It has been quite a journey and we have seen the campaign growing beyond our shores. The support we have received from our Malaysian colleagues and their network is definitely motivating and we will definitely continue our campaign efforts to keep Yong Vui Kong alive and to advocate for a second chance.

Singapore, according to the research by Amnesty International, has the highest rate of execution by hanging per capita. However there has been no transparency in the statistics made known to public knowledge. Along with the death penalty for violent crimes such as murder, Singapore also practices the application of mandatory death penalty for non-violent crimes like drug trafficking.

We would like to take this opportunity to express our stand that the death penalty as a whole is not the absolute solution to deter violent and drug related crimes. Instead, it violates an individual's rights to be given a chance to be rehabilitated, reformed and repent. All human beings should be treated with humanity, criminals or otherwise. So let us all join hands together to work towards making the death penalty history.

Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)

Vui Kong gets to see his next birthday

In a court ruling on 31 Aug, Vui Kong gets another stay of execution from the High Court when it ruled that the date for appeal of the High Court's judgement on judicial review will be on the week commencing from 17 Jan 2011.

Vui Kong, who will be 23 in January next year, will have spent almost 4 years in prison after his incarceration.

The average waiting time for convicts in death row in recent years have reduced dramatically as the court processes become more efficient.

The judges seem to have a compassionate streak to give Vui Kong's lawyer another 4 months to prepare and Vui Kong another 4 months to continue his daily ritual of prayers and maintain a tiny sliver of hope that one day, the Singapore President can grant him clemency.

Before passing the judgement, trial judge Justice Choo Han Teck summoned both the defence and presecution into chamber and asked the prosecution if they would consider reducing the charge given the relatively young age of the drug offender, who was not even 19 at the age of the offence. The prosecution declined and the death sentence was handed to Vui Kong.

On 14th May, the Court of Appeal duly rejected Vui Kong's first appeal. But it acknowledged that the mandatory death sentence is considered a cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment.

The judges seem to favour giving Vui Kong a second chance, but they are unable to because of the lack of discretion due to the mandatory nature of the death penalty applicable to drug traffickers.

This is unfortunate, because day in and day out these judges see criminals, some sentenced to death, others not. High court judges should be given the powers to decide whether a person has committed a crime so heinous that he/she deserves the death sentence.

Malaysia has had a minister speaking up about abolishing the death penalty recently, when would it be Singapore's turn?

Save Vui Kong: Vui Kong gets to see his next birthday

Statement by SADPC regarding the judgement of Singapore's High Court on 13 August 2010

Statement by SADPC regarding the judgement of Singapore's High Court on 13 August 2010

The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) wishes to express its deepest disappointment over the judgement of the High Court on Friday, 13 August 2010, stating that the President has no discretion in clemency appeals and that the Cabinet has sole authority in the matter.

We have also found it very disquieting that the Court regards the remarks by the Law Minister as not being pre-judicial to the clemency process.

Furthermore we are not too pleased to learn that Mr. Siew Kum Hong, former Nominated Member of Parliament, has put on record that the whole process has been fair to Yong Vui Kong. 

We sincerely invite Mr. Siew and anyone who disagrees with us on this issue to feel free to turn up at our future forums and events to have their contrary views in line with the Minister's heard. 

Further information:

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

Woman suggests death sentence for road speeding

A Singaporean lady wrote a letter to the Straits Times suggesting the death penalty applied to speeding drivers who cause deaths.

She also recommends caning as punishment for speeding drivers in general. Apparently this is the same Ivy Singh-Lim who recently was in a tug with Building and Construction Authority’s lawsuit for failure to hire professional maintenance and allow BCA inspection. She was hauled to court on May 3rd this year. 

There could have been a million reasons to a car accident, fatal or not. Which is why it is called a car accident. Even an accidental killing of someone is termed as manslaughter and carries a lesser maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Furthermore, on the road a vehicle does not even need to speed to cause fatality due to the nondiscriminatory nature of accidents.

Shall we also cane her for her failure to comply with public, building and workplace safety standards and endangering workers and the public who patronise her company? And if one of her workers die due to workplace negligence, shall we likewise send her to the gallows?

sgdeathpenalty

Speeding deaths: Consider capital punishment

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_555894.html

LAST year, there were 188 road fatalities, or a road death every other day, and driving along Lim Chu Kang Road on Monday morning, it was not difficult for me to see why.

The speed limit of the road was 70kmh, and as I drove along, big trucks and lorries flashed past me, dangerously above the speed limit.

Drivers who speed do not realise that they are part of a killing machine. Speeding is a fatal menace and should be much more policed than it is now.

During my 45-minute journey from Kranji to Suntec City, I did not spot a single police patrol car or Traffic Police motorcycle.

Speed traps are too few and far between, allowing irresponsible drivers to bolt and swerve on expressways unpunished.

Alongside public campaigns on road safety, there should be more traffic policing vehicles to arrest the immediate problem of dangerous speedsters.

It is also appalling to see the types of vehicles allowed on our expressways, and the manner in which they are driven: small motorcycles with unprotected riders in slippers zipping in and out of traffic, and lorries loaded with men and material zooming past speed limits.

Singapore has stringent standards in licensing drivers, but such standards are futile if we let law-breaking speedsters threaten the lives of other road users and do not police such dangerous drivers.

Fines and imprisonment may not be enough of a disincentive.

The punishment which will effectively deter speeding is caning.

And if a driver’s speeding is responsible for a road user’s death, then hanging is a fair punishment for killing someone. 

Ivy Singh-Lim (Mrs)

sgdeathpenalty petitions to the Singapore President for clemency

Yong Vui Kong was just six months above the legal age where mandatory death is applicable for drug offences.

"The court recognises that the mandatory death penalty 

is a cruel, degrading and inhumane punishment," 

- Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

Petition # 5120: 


Dear President, do consider for a moment that Vui Kong was just barely 19 years old when he was arrested for drug possession.


 Trial Judge Choo han Teck had the compassion to consider Vui Kong's mitigating factor, but did not have the legal authority to grant him a less heavy form of punishment. This is evident when he summoned both prosecution and defence lawyers to chambers and asked of the prosecution could consider reucing the charge given the young age of Yong Vui Kong. The prosecution declined and the death sentence was handed to Vui Kong. 


Also, do consider Vui Kong's capacity for repentance, and the potential contributions he will give to society in future after you grant him pardon and a new leash of life. We urge the Istana to take a maganimous approach in Vui Kong's case given the background circumstances which Vui Kong faced as a child. The lack of access to proper education must have played a major role in which Vui Kong took the wrong path and ended up doing what he did.


We should recognise that the root of the problem lies not in the drug runners but the kingpins who pay these runners to do the dirty job. If Vui Kong is pardoned, he not only would make good his contribution to society, he can also help to pull people who are once like him out from the ruinous and dangerous path of drug trafficking. 


Vui Kong last safety net lies in your hand, and we Singaporeans believe that you have the power to put proper what our laws were not not able to do.


sgdeathpenalty


The petition has currently gathered over 5000 signatures. Sign the petition here.

The Death Penalty in Singapore: Case Files

• In 2005, Took Leng How, a Malaysian worker at the Pukit Panjang Wholesale Centre came under investigation when 8 year old Huang Na went missing. Took fled Singapore to Malaysia while under police custody. Under the advice of his father, who told him that Singapore laws will protect him if he did not murder Huang Na, Took returned to Singapore to give evidence on how he accidentally strangled Huang Na during a game of hide and seek. Despite no conclusive evidence that Took intentionally murdered Huang Na, he was sentenced to mandatory death. Days before his execution, Took was filled with rage and he told his family that he wanted wear a red suit during the execution, ostensibly under Chinese culture as a way to seek revenge, as he did not believe that he deserved to be hanged. His family pleaded with him to go in peace, and Took finally relented. (This is first hand account from Took Leng How's family) Took's case begs two questions to ponder about: Why would Took Leng How return to Singapore voluntarily to face near certain death sentence if he had really intentionally murdered Huang Na? Why would a person guilty of murder on the eve of his execution have so much hatred in him to seek revenge?

• The trial judge, before passing the death sentence on Yong Vui Kong, summoned the defence counsel and public prosecutor to chamber and asked the prosecution if they would consider reducing the charge given the relatively young age of the drug offender, who was not even 19 at the age of the offence. The prosecution declined and the death sentence was handed to Vui Kong.

• In 2002, Julia Suzanne Bohl, a 20 year old German girl was found with 687g of marijuana in her home in Singapore, 187g higher than the limit which carries the mandatory death sentence. Germany promptly intervened, and because of the politically sensitive nature of the case the charge was reduced to one of trafficking and she was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Eventually, Julia served only 2 years of her prison sentence and she was sent back to Germany. Does the State regard an Australian, Nigerian and Malaysian life as less important than that of a German's?

• The Central Narcotics Bureau routinely uses undercover detective to pose as buyers for drugs, such as in the case of Rozman bin Jusoh. During the trial it became evident that Rozman was intellectually handicapped, taking more than five minutes to answer a simple question like the number of siblings he had. His interpreter and psychologist both emphasized that Rozman was not simply faking it. The trial judge also pointed out that “It was…clear from the evidence that the CNB agent and the undercover CNB officer were more than mere agents, and had, in fact, undertaken a substantially active role in persuading [Rozman] to sell them drugs...". The judge then proceeded to sentence him a lesser sentence of 7 years imprisonment under a lesser charge for subnormal intellect. The prosecution appealed against the sentence, and the High Court eventually passed the death sentence on Rozman after considering that his subnormal intellect was not enough to negate his intention to traffick the drugs.

• Singapore has the highest per capita rate of execution in the world according to Amnesty International, a human rights based group which keeps track of human rights violation around the world. Majority of the executed were for drug offences.

sgdeathpenalty

NTU's student publication raises awareness of MDP amongst students

NTU's student publication, The Tribune, carried in its front page of its March issue a heart-wrenching article on Yong Vui Kong, a teen drug runner who was sentenced to death for trafficking 47g of heroin into Singapore.

Specifically, it drove to the crux of the case, the mandatory death sentence which was the required punishment for convicted drug traffickers under Singapore law.

The Tribune, in its article wrote, "The core of Mr Yong's lawyer's appeal - the basic right to life. Singapore's mandatory death penalty for possession of drugs always makes for heated discussion. Lawyers argue that it fails to deal with the right to life and evolve in the context of international laws."

The Tribune then asks NTU students a thought provoking question, "Is it time for change?"

In raising awareness amongst students, The Tribune has done NTU's student body a great service by providing students a refreshing alternative view, and encouraging them to form an informed opinion on capital punishment in Singapore.

Whether one is for or against the mandatory death penalty, tertiary institutions should be a place where opinions on the issue are debated.

Is capital punishment a form of deterrence? What are the statistics of executed drug traffickers in Singapore since the 1970's? What are the possible alternative punishments for the drug trafficker?

These are just some of the questions that can come up in a tertiary-level debate or discussion group that the respective tertiary institution's Student Unions can consider organising.

sgdeathpenalty also urge other tertiary publications to take up the challenge of encouraging a more critical-thinking student population through raising awareness on various social and political issues.

The mandatory death penalty is one of those issues that require urgent attention.

In most part of the world, tertiary institutions have always had the buzz of independent student activity that entails the coming together of the top young minds of the country.

Being part of a cosmopolitan and economically advanced nation, Singapore's educational institutions should be no different.

How many lives must be wasted before we finally bring this issue to the table to be discussed?

Yong Vui Kong's (above, with sister) appeal against his death sentence for drug trafficking will be held on the 15th of March, 10a.m., at the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court Singapore.

sgdeathpenalty has been actively campaigning to raise awareness on the use of the mandatory death sentence for drug traffickers like Yong Vui Kong, but the fact of the matter is that for every Yong Vui Kong, there maybe a dozen or so sentenced to the gallows that do not get publicised in the press.

The review of the law is pressing, and sgdeathpenalty together with The Online Citizen, calls for an immediate convening of a working group for a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty. How many lives must be wasted before we finally bring this issue to the table to be discussed? Is there no better alternative punishment for borderline drug cases like these, and is there no consideration that there is possibility of repentance and that the condemned person will bear no harm to society if given the chance to live?

To quote a netizen, "when the State brings its criminal jurisdiction to bear, it acts on behalf of all Singaporeans. If Vui Kong is hanged, he will be hanged on your name and mine." This statement bears true to all similar judicial executions carried out in Singapore.

Yong Wei Kong moved to tears by Singaporeans' compassion

Changi Prison - Yong Vui Kong was presented a picture of the 6th December gathering at Speaker's Corner after Christmas day. When his counsel, M. Ravi handed him the picture, his eyes were set on each and everyone in the picture, glued to it for 10 full minutes. He wiped his tears in profound gratitude followed by a smile implicitly acknowledging the compassion.

Latest: Vui Kong's appeal date fixed

At 3.30pm today, M. Ravi, author of Hung at Dawn and prominent Singapore human rights lawyer, attended high court for the fixing of a appeal date for Yong Vui Kong. The appeal for Yong's death sentence has been fixed on 15 March 2010, essentially giving him a life extension of at least 3 months.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

THE DEATH PENALTY IN SINGAPORE

Singapore had been described as the world’s hanging capital leading in the number of executions per capita. Each execution is carried out by hanging at Changi Prison every Friday at dawn. Crimes that constitute the death sentence include the following:

a. Waging or attempting to wage war, or abetting the waging of war against the Government
b. Offences against the President’s persons or treason
c. Mutiny
d. Piracy endangering lives
e. Murder
f. Abetting the suicide of a person under the age of 18, or an ‘insane’ person
g. Attempted murder by a prisoner serving a life sentence
h. Kidnapping
i. Drug trafficking
j. Unlawful discharge of firearms

The death penalty is applicable and mandatory for trafficking of: (source)

Heroin – more than 15 grams
Cocaine – more than 30 grams
Crystal Meth – more than 250 grams
Cannabis – more than 500 grams
Cannabis mixture – more than 1000 grams

"I don’t believe in the abolishment of the death sentence."

According to polls, most Singaporeans wholly support the death penalty. This is not surprising because death penalty has its uses with the most common explanation being the deterrent factor.

In this case, cruel as the punishment may be, our campaign does not seek to abolish the death penalty, but to be able to effect change on the Mandatory Death section of the law. If the law allows for minimum 20 years and 15 strokes or death, judges will be able to exercise their powers to apply judiciary execution on the person or let him face the maximum life sentence with strokes.

What is the minimum age for death sentence in a capital case in Singapore?

18 years old.

What is the view of sgdeathpenalty on capital punishment in Singapore?

We are categorically anti death penalty, because statistics have not conclusively shown that death penalty is a deterrant factor to prevent crimes, statistically speaking. Certain states in the U.S.A. still employ the death sentence, but even those are meted out to the worst of offenders. Join us on Facebook at Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign.

Why is a teenager sentenced to hang for drug trafficking?

Singapore laws explicitly states that anyone above the age of 18 years is liable to face the ultimate penalty of death if convicted for drug offences of a pre-determined amount. Because Yang Wei Guang, at the time of arrest was 18 years 6 months old, he missed the exemption of the death conviction by a few months, making him one of the youngest people ever to face the gallows in Singapore.

Vui Kong, with his sister in Sabah

What does the mandatory death sentence mean?

Mandatory death sentence is applicable to cases of drug trafficking of over 15g of heroin. The word “mandatory” in the section of law means judges have no discretion to apply a lighter sentence on the convict, even if the drug offender is a teenager or have other considerable mitigating factors.

In other words, judges have to strictly apply the law if the facts satisfy the requirements of hanging a person, i.e. above 18 years of age, 15g of heroin, et cetera, with no chance of considering other factors in play.

Why is it so difficult to pass the death sentence on Yong Wei Kong?

According to Yong’s petition for clemency that was submitted to the President, the trial judge, Justice Choo Han Teck, had called both the defence and prosecution into chambers before the commencement of the trial and noted Yong’s relatively young age at the time of the offence.

Justice Choo then asked the Prosecution to consider reducing the capital charge to a non-capital one. The prosecution declined.

We know from this that Justice Choo had taken into consideration Yong's age and bakground, but was bound by the rigidity of the law that he cannot impose any other sentences other that the surity of death. Which brings us back to the issue of the Mandatory part of the law applicable to drug traffickers.

The law is concise and rigid, with no regards to factors such as age, background of the offender and other special circumstances. That is why we seek to raise public awareness and support for the review and abolishment of the outdated mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers in Singapore.

This is absurd. How can a small group like you change the law?

Laws are never sacrosanct, they must change accordingly with time.

Streams will flow into rivers, rivers will flow into a great delta and eventually the little streams will make up the ocean. Singapore lawyers, such as human rights lawyer M. Ravi and the likes of prominent laywers K.S. Rajah have all spoken out fervently on the death penalty issue.

The Law Society is aware that this outdated section of the law needs to be reformed, but unless more Singaporeans understand and support the movement to effect change, it will be difficult for things to move and it is likely that more 18 year old teenagers will be sentenced to hang in the future.

HOW YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE

If you feel strongly about the mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, contact us and let us know. We are in need of volunteers to raise awareness to the general public through our campaigns. But we need the manpower.

In doing so you will discover that life is not all about making money , taking a break, going for holidays, chilling with friends and family. it is also about compassion and making a difference in the community, and improving the society as a whole through human rights work.

Step forward, come down to our activities, contact us. Help us with our campaign. Put this up on your blog and Facebook. Let people know about Yong Vui Kong. Educate yourself on the mandatory death penalty issue to know just how unfair it is for convicted drug traffickers.

Act fast, because lives are at stake.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at sgdeathpenalty@gmail.com