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

SINGAPOREAN VOICES

TOC TV takes to the street to ask young Singaporeans what they think about the mandatory death sentence. You may be surprised to know that many people, even those in the legal circle do not know that such a law exists.



This is the reason why an educational campaign is so important, because the truth about mandatory sentencing is that it is a law that gives the offender no chance of requital, and Singapore is one of the few countries left in the world that continue to religiously execute drugs offenders.

When people realise how unfair such a law is, they will think twice about callously supporting the mandatory death penalty. Death should never be mandatory. Even murderers sometime get a chance to be convicted for manslaughter, which carries life imprisonment, why not drug traffickers?


4 Feb 10 Update:
TOC interviews NUS law students on the mandatory death penalty. Most of the students interviewed knows what the mandatory death penalty carries, and find the law to be overly heavy to the convicted, especially for drug traffickers. Their responses are a stark contrast to the man on the street, because information on the implication of mandatory sentencing is not readily available, and practically never discussed in the mainstream media.

People cannot take a stand on something they never heard about, and the mainstream media have a moral obligation to inform the general public about this issue because any judicial execution in Singapore is carried out in the name of every Singapore citizen.

What Singaporeans have to say about the mandatory death sentence.

“Put to death without regard for his lack of a prior criminal record, his tragic family circumstances, the possibility that he can be reformed, or whether or not an alternative punishment might suffice.”

“It is forgotten that an important part of justice is mercy. We do not hang human beings. Especially teenagers.”

”When the State brings its criminal jurisdiction to bear, it acts on behalf of you and me. If Vui Kong is hanged, he will be hanged in your name and mine.”

“Singaporeans have a moral role to play for Yong Vui Kong’s impending execution. ”

"Singapore puts an estimated 50 people to death every year, in the name of public safety.
1. The death penalty acts as a deterrent. <— DEBUNKED by counter-arguments and detailed studies all over the world. 2. The death penalty makes our society safe. <— DEBUNKED by counter-arguments which show that a safe Singapore is the result of many other factors such as education, income level, employment, etc. What if it was your son or daughter facing the noose? Have some empathy, have some compassion. Think deeper. Take time to read. To inform yourselves. You owe it to yourselves."

"In Singapore the judge has no dicretion on the mitigating factors – such as his impoverished background, his abusive childhood, his witnessing of his mother being beaten up, his witnessing of his mother attempting suicide, etc. All these had a lasting and psychological effect on Vui Kong."

It was because of all these that he lied to his mother that someone had wanted to adopt him as his godson. This was the reason he gave his mother when he left that house in the forest when he was 12.

Imagine: At a tender age of 12, he wanted to work so that he could bring his mother out of that house. Yet, he is now sentenced to death. Judges should be allowed to consider mitigating factors."

"Putting him away is not good enough for you people? Taking his freedom away is not extreme enough for you? Splitting his buttocks is not babaric enough to satisfy you? No, you want him, someone you don’t give 2 hoots about, dead. So that other ‘ignorant fools’ like him can learn eh? As long as they breathe and possess a brain, they should take heed eh?"

"He is afterall a nobody to you. You probably have more feeling for some ficticious one dimensional character in the movies than you have for Yong Vui Kong, a real person, a very young person. Do you not think his aspirations might be similar to yours at around the same age? But no, he ‘chose’ to be born in the wrong family, he ‘chose’ to be born in the wrong environment, he chose to pick the wrong jobs, he chose wrong friends, he loves money differently from you, and he chose the wrong choice, so kill him, it’s ok, life’s unfair, tough, my breakfast taste the same tomorrow."

Mandatory Death Penalty -
Interview with Rev. Dr. Edward Job

Yong Vui Kong given opportunity to appeal

Koh Yi Na

Yong’s lawyer also urges moratorium for mandatory death penalty in Singapore until the outcome of the appeal is decided.

In a surprise decision, the Court of Appeal has granted Yong Vui Kong, who faces execution for a drug trafficking conviction, an opportunity to have his appeal heard.

Following an hour-long hearing on Tuesday morning, the judges nullified his previous withdrawal of appeal and accepted Yong’s application for an extension of time. This would allow him to file an appeal against his conviction and death sentence.

Yong’s lawyer, Ravi Madasamy, had initially been pessimistic about securing the extension of time, given the nature of previous decisions and his own experience with capital cases. While he knew “the present judiciary is forward-looking”, he did not know how the Court would react to his arguments.

Therefore when the judge ruled in favour of hearing the appeal, he was pleasantly surprised, describing it as a “fantastic outcome”.

No date has been set for the appeal hearing, but it could be as early as next month, according to Mr Ravi. He has been informed by the registrar to go to court this Friday to set a date for it.
His execution is stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.

Tuesday’s hearing had been made possible by the High Court’s decision to stay Yong’s execution last week. The 21-year-old Malaysian, found guilty last November of trafficking 47g of heroin, had been due to hang last Friday.

But the High Court granted Yong a temporary reprieve last Wednesday, ruling that his execution be put off until his application for an extension of time could be heard by the Court of Appeal.

This application was presented before a packed courtroom filled with reporters, law students, and members of the public. Some people were barred from getting in as the viewing gallery was already full.

Yong was dressed in an orange polo T-shirt with a grey sweater. He appeared apprehensive at the beginning of the court session, but became more at ease when bantering with a pair of police escorts sitting next to him.

Throughout the hearing, a translator in front of Yong narrated the court proceedings to him in Chinese. He leaned forward and listened intently, grabbing on to every syllable.

Yong was under “delusion”

Mr Ravi told Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Justice V K Rajah and Justice Andrew Phang that the basis of the application was that Yong’s earlier withdrawal of his appeal was invalid as he was under “delusion”, and should therefore be nullified.

Having been imprisoned and isolated for 20 months, Yong had “become hopelessly confused” about the nature of his appeal, argued Mr Ravi. As a result, Yong confused “notions of legal reasoning and argument with issues of morality and spiritual devotion”, believing that it was necessary for him to lie in order to maintain his appeal.

Mr Ravi cited a letter which Yong wrote to instruct his previous counsel Kelvin Lim to withdraw his appeal. In the letter, Yong had said: “I made this decision because I have come to embrace Buddhism whilst serving sentence and realised that I must not lie and to own up to what I had done”.

Deputy public prosecutor Jaswant Singh, representing the prosecution, contended that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction over the case. Since Yong’s appeal had technically been dismissed upon its withdrawal and the clemency process through the President completed, he argued that it was beyond the Court’s powers to hear Yong’s application.

He also claimed that Justice Woo’s decision to grant a stay of execution last week was “wrong in law”.

The judges disagreed, stating that they had jurisdiction over the case. Responding to DPP Singh, Justice Phang stated that the key issue was whether “the case had run its full course, given the merits of the case had not been heard by the Court”, and that the timing of clemency process, be it conducted before or after the appeal is heard, is irrelevant.

After a half-hour long adjournment, the Chief Justice Chan announced that the Court was satisfied that it did have jurisdiction based on provisions in the Supreme over Yong’s case and accepted that Yong had withdrawn his appeal under “misapprehension”.

He based his judgement on provisions in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Aftermath

Yong’s family was jubilant after the judgment, as it grants Yong at least an additional month before the Court hears his appeal. Although Yong’s mother was unable to attend, five of his siblings, his aunt and cousins were present.

Yong’s older brother Yun Leong, 24, told The Online Citizen that their mother was still unaware of Yong’s death sentence, and only knew that he was imprisoned for drug offences in Singapore.

According to him, when Yong met his mother last Wednesday afternoon at Changi Prison, he told her that he has to spend time with the monks in prison to do penance for his sins. As a result, they will never get to see each other again. In this way, the family will continue to keep Yong’s mother in the dark regarding Yong’s death sentence.

Visibly relieved after the hearing, Mr Ravi told The Online Citizen that this outcome may bear greater legal significance with regards to the mandatory death penalty.

If the appeal succeeds, it could have significant repercussions on the Singapore legal system.

This is because Mr Ravi will be basing his appeal on the grounds that capital punishment is incompatible with the Singapore Constitution, as well as international legal norms against the death penalty. As a result, current prison inmates on death row could be unconstitutionally executed before the appeal is heard.

In accordance with precedents set in Taiwan and South Korea, Mr Ravi believes that “there should be a moratorium on all mandatory death sentences until the constitutional challenge could be decide on.”

As such, he is urging the Law Society as well as lawyers with clients currently on death row to push for the moratorium as “lives are at stake”.

Nevertheless, the lawyer added that only the President and the state have the authority to authorise such a ban.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/court-of-appeal-grants-yong-vui-kong-extension-of-time/

M Ravi speaks on death penalty

The Singapore Democratic Party speaks to Mr M Ravi, human rights lawyer, who has been involved in defending persons on death row for more than five years now. Mr Ravi is currently representing Mr Yong Vui Kong, a 21-year old Malaysian sentenced to hang for drug trafficking.



http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/m-ravi-speaks-on-death-penalty/

Vui Kong - We care

By Rachel Zeng

On Sunday, 6 December 2009, a group of Singaporeans gathered at Speakers’ Corner to express their concern for Yong Vui Kong, a 21 year old Malaysian who is sitting on death row, and to demonstrate compassion for him.

The simple event, which was planned over the weekend, was to have pictures taken of Singaporeans who cared for Yong Vui Kong and to have them presented to his family as a sign of moral support.
People started arriving as early as 3.30pm. Because some were caught in traffic, the photo-taking started at 4.40pm, instead of 4pm as originally planned.

The 40 attendees, which included families with children, held photographs of Yong Vui Kong that were originally taken with his mother during her birthday almost three years ago – two days before he was arrested and subsequently sentenced to death for drug trafficking. Some of the participants on Sunday held cards which said, “Vui Kong, we care”. A banner with family pictures of Vui Kong was also created by the organisers. There were no speeches made at the event.

After the photo taking session, the organisers appealed for donations to help Vui Kong’s family during their stay in Singapore for his court hearings. The collection was later handed over to the elder brother of Yong Vui Kong, who expressed that he was touched by the gesture and the show of concern.

Yong Vui Kong’s appeal will be heard this coming Tuesday (8 December) in the Court of Appeal at 10 am.

Rachel Zeng's blog link

An interview with Yong Yun Leong, Wei Guang's elder brother

Vui Kong's story from Lianain Films on Vimeo.

Updates on Yong Vui Kong

December 5, 2009, 1:12 am
Filed under: By Rachel Zeng, Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign
I have met up with the elder brother of Yong Vui Kong together with members of the Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign and some other activists and he told us about the mother’s visit.
Yong was allowed to see his mother through a glass panel on Wednesday. Upon seeing his mother, Yong knelt down and bowed to her three times. It was really emotional as they have not seen each other for 3 years. Yong and the siblings explained to her that Yong had committed a serious crime regarding drugs and he will be taken away and won’t be allowed to see anyone forever. They did not tell her that her son is on the death row in order to minimise the blow due to her condition.
I have often wondered why the prison has to be so cruel and inhumane about visits. Why must the visits be conducted without any form of human contact, especially when it comes to inmates sitting on the death row? Yes they have committed crimes and yes they are doing their time for the crimes but does it mean that they do not deserve to hug, touch and speak to their family members in person minus the glass panel? Why must it be so cold all the time? Criminals are human beings too aren’t they?
Their so called ‘normal procedure’ is ridiculous and unnecessary in my opinion.
We have also found out from M Ravi about his interview with Yong.
According to Ravi, Yong gave the impression of someone who had been spiritually enlightened by his conversion to Buddhism and he even blessed Ravi and the people who have shown concern to him. He readily admitted his mistakes at Court and during his interview with Ravi and is willing to accept punishment.
With the knowledge from the conversations I have had with Ravi and Yong’s brother, I do not see why rehabilitation and clemency won’t work. I do not understand why the government and the Attorney-General’s Chambers seem to be rushing things to execute him. I also learned that there was another execution of a young man from Sabah just last Friday. Yong Vui Kong knew the young man as they were sitting on the death row together. It was a drug related case as well.
May I take this opportunity to call out to all lawyers reading this to write to us if they hear of any other death row cases. It is important that we become are aware of more of such cases so that we can help to give other lawyers who are facing such cases the adequate support.

World Day against Death Penalty

World Day against Death Penalty

On 10th Oct 2009, a collective of independent activists held a forum to commemorate the World Day against Death Penalty. Below is the 7-part video series of the forum. The speakers are the human rights lawyer M. Ravi, Alex Au of Yawning Bread, Sinapan Samydorai of Think Centre, Social Worker Agnes Chia and Braema Mathi of Maruah. The forum was moderated by the celebrated playwright Alfian Sa’at.

















http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/10/world-day-against-death-penalty/

High Court grants rare stay of execution

Breaking News:

TOC has learned that the Attorney-General has filed an application to quash the stay of execution which the High Court granted to Yong Vui Kong on 2 December. The AG’s application will be heard on Tuesday, 8 Dec. DPP Jaswant Singh says the judge had no jurisdiction to hear the Criminal Motion on 2 Dec and that “the order of a stay of execution was wrong in law”. (You can join the Facebook group in support of Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi, here.)


Koh Yi Na

Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian who was due to hang this Friday for drug trafficking, has been granted a stay of execution.

At a High Court hearing today, Justice Woo Bih Li allowed the postponement of the 21-year-old’s execution, pending a hearing before the Court of Appeal to be held next Tuesday.

Yong had received the death sentence last November, after being found guilty of trafficking 47g of heroin in June 2007. He was 19 years old at the time of arrest.

His execution was scheduled to be carried out this Friday after his petition for clemency was rejected by the President on November 20.

Representing Yong, Mr M Ravi of LF Violet Netto, argued that executing Yong before his appeal was heard violated his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeal have yet to hear Yong’s case, as it was withdrawn by his previous counsel, who had been assigned by the State.
As the Court of Appeal is currently on vacation and unable to convene (see note below), Mr Ravi asked the High Court to grant a stay of execution for Yong, until his application for an extension of time and a full appeal can be heard.

After hearing arguments presented by both the defence and the prosecution, Justice Woo accepted Mr Ravi’s request.

The news came as a relief to two of Yong’s elder brothers who were present at the hearing. His mother, elder sister and brother, and a cousin arrived from Sabah today, but were not in time to attend today’s court session. They met Yong at the Changi Prison Link Centre later in afternoon.

Yong’s older brother, Yun Leong, told The Online Citizen that his mother had been unaware of Yong’s conviction and death sentence.

The 24-year-old, who currently works in Singapore, said in Mandarin: “We’ve kept this from her for almost three years. Because his execution date is coming soon, we felt that she needed to know.”

“My sister broke the news to her yesterday, but she only said that Vui Kong ran into trouble and is in jail in Singapore.

“My mother doesn’t know that he was involved in drug trafficking and had received a death sentence, and Vui Kong wanted to tell her himself,” he added.

Throughout most of the hearing, Yong sat with his head bowed, speaking only occasionally to his interpreter and the police officers who accompanied him. He showed little emotion and only nodded when the interpreter explained the judge’s decision to him. But he broke down after the judge granted a stay of execution.

According to Yun Leong, Yong’s conversion to Buddhism whilst in prison helped him to come to terms with his sentence. He had earlier instructed his state-assigned lawyer to withdraw his appeal because he “knew he was guilty and wanted to get it over with”.

He later applied for a stay of execution in order to allow himself the time to speak to his mother for the last time, and for his final appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeal.

Yong, sixth of seven children, was raised in Sandakan, Sabah. His parents divorced when he was three, leaving his mother to raise him. She worked as a dishwasher during his childhood, while the family lived with his paternal grandfather in his palm oil estate.

As a child, he was made to work in the estate, and was frequently abused by his grandfather. After turning 10, he began taking on odd jobs to supplement his family’s income. Unable to cope with the demands of education and work, he dropped out of school two years later.

At 15, he left for Kota Kinabalu to work for two months, where he saved up for a plane ticket to Kuala Lumpur. There, he worked as an apprentice cook at a Chinese restaurant, where he was often underpaid and discriminated against due to his being from Sabah.

According to his brother, Yong then got involved with friends in secret societies, and fell under the influence of drug syndicates who used him as a drug mule to transport illegal substances across the border to Singapore.

Yun Leong added that Yong had been aware that the packages he received contained drugs, but he was assured by his superiors that these drugs were of an insufficient quantity to warrant the death penalty.

On June 10, 2007, Yong flew back to Sabah from Johor to celebrate his mother’s birthday. Two days later, he was arrested near the Meritus Mandarin Hotel in Singapore.

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.

Yong thus received a mandatory death penalty upon his conviction for trafficking heroin under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Note: M Ravi told the judge he had been told this by the registrar but the DPP claimed instead that the registrar had told him the Court of Appeal is avalaible. It is thus unclear if the judges are indeed on vacation. However, the one-week stay of execution perhaps confirms that they are.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/high-court-grants-rare-stay-of-execution-appeal/

Capital Punishments

Capital punishment is often opposed on the grounds that innocent people will inevitably be convicted. This fact is well supported in the US. Between 1973 and 2005, 123 people in 25 states were released from death row when new evidence of their innocence emerged.[3] However, statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed.

Another issue is the quality of the defense in a case where the accused has a public defender. The competence of the defense attorney "is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime".[4]

Also, improper procedure may result in unfair executions. For example, Amnesty International argues that, in Singapore, "the Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty".[5] However, this refers to a situation when someone is being caught with drugs. In this situation, in almost any jurisdiction, the prosecution has a prima facie case. It may be possible to argue that the standard of proof should be raised to higher standard in case of the death penalty trial. However, many dispute the assertion that this falls under the definition of "improper procedure".

Crimes against Humanity

Crimes against Humanity reach far beyond our imaginations. Unfortunately, the most condemnable crime against humanity would be judicial killings. The death penalty in many countries has been known to have extinct with the exception of some like Singapore. Singapore has the highest rate of judicial killings.

Many of these executions are of drug offenders. Most of drug offences are by young teenagers. It is imperative to take into consideration the age and the circumstances of these young teenagers who are either enticed by drug lords and syndicates by the very government that allow these drug "businessmen" to invest in the country.

As much as wrongdoers are to be punished by law, it is also crucial to note that the purpose of punishments are to fundamentally reform the offender from committing future offences.