I am of the opinion that if we want to save Vui Kong's life, we should look into his case and drop the constitutional challenge on the Death Penalty itself. I believe he still has a chance to live if his case is challenged because there has been so many inconsistencies in his trial.
I highlighted those inconsistencies in this article - Yong Vui Kong's story is still murky - can those who lobby for him enlighten me? Here is the article in full published on 3 Aug 2011, unedited.
==============
[start]
As regular readers of this blog know, I am for the Death Penalty. However, I am still open on my stand on the Mandatory Death Penalty.
Of all cases the last few months, Vui Kong's case is the most discussed. For months, I have been reading his case, trying to understand what actually "went wrong" with his trial, such that he had to be hanged at such a young age.
As it turned out, he was over 18 at the point of his offence and hence, technically, he had to be hanged - because the crime he committed warranted the MANDATORY Death Penalty.
One of most intriguing facts I found about this case is that the trial judge recommended that Vui Kong be tried for a lesser crime, which would mean he won't face the Death Penalty, let alone Mandatory Death Penalty, if the recommendation was taken up. The prosecution declined.
What startles me most is why, was this point not made as a defence argument for Vui Kong's case? Why did the defence then, at that point of time when Vui Kong was represented by a state-assigned lawyer, not contest the prosecution's unwillingness to take up the trial judge's recommendation?
Today, why does M. Ravi (Vui Kong's current lawyer) take the much harder path and contest the constitution, instead of arguing that Vui Kong probably did not have a fair trial, in what appears to be a case of the defendant being represented by an inept state-assigned lawyer?
Another point that needs to be opened for discussion is that it appears that the lobbyists are implying that Vui Kong was either made to believe that he "had to lie", (or was not advised that this belief is totally wrong), in order to proceed to appeal to a higher court. Why was he not advised accordingly by his state-assigned counsel, Kelvin Lim?
Tried as I hard for the last few months, I never have gotten an answer from the anti-death penalty campaigners. So I actually read through (many, many times I assure you), the webpage in the link below from lobbyists, who are campaigning for Vui Kong's life. Unfortunately, the story of Vui Kong seems as murky as ever.
Here is Vui Kong's story. I'll zoom in straight onto the relevant parts.
Yong Vui Kong's Journey
Vui Kong would later shuttle back and forth Singapore and Malaysia several times until he was caught in June 2007 with possession of 47g of heroin. Yong was 18 and a half years old at the time of arrest. Singapore drug laws stipulate mandatory death for 18 years and above. Vui Kong faced certain death the moment he was caught by narcotics officers.
Vui Kong, represented by state-assigned counsel Kelvin Lim, was trialed in Singapore High Court.
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.
Yong's then defence counsel, following the common practice for almost all capital cases for drug trafficking, was preparing to take the case to the Court of Appeal.
Kelvin Lim, under specific instruction from his client, withdrew the Appeal.
Why did Vui Kong withdraw the appeal?
Apparently, he was under the impression that a High Court Appeal could only work if there are new evidence to prove that he was innocent of the charge, and he thought that the only way out was to lie to be able to save himself.
After taking up Buddhism as his religion while in prison, Vui Kong did not want to lie which was a sin according to Buddhist beliefs, he therefore instructed his counsel to withdraw the Appeal.
Vui Kong did not know that he involuntarily extended his stay in this world by withdrawing his own High Court Appeal, the only legal lifeline available to him.
Because of this withdrawal, the high Court hastened the execution process and ordered Yong to be executed on 4th December 2009.
M. Ravi intervenes
Singapore human rights lawyer Madasamy Ravi got wind of Yong's case. He promptly took over the case from Yong's counsel Kelvin Lim after a court hearing.
Ravi submitted a clemency appeal to the Singapore President, but on 20th November, it was rejected by the Istana.
There are just too many inconsistencies and unexplained issues in the above article. If lobbyists want to campaign for Vui Kong, they have to be dead serious. Not giving bits and pieces of info and hiding the rest.
I would like to campaign (on this blog) for Vui Kong's life - but I have to know the whole truth, not bits and pieces. As such, I hope these campaigners can address my concerns below;
1. Why didn't the original counsel (ie Kelvin Lim) contest the prosecution's unwillingness to downgrade Vui Kong's charge as suggested by the judge so that VK won't face the Death Penalty?
2. Why doesn't M Ravi (his current counsel) contest that Vui Kong had the chance of escaping the gallows, when the trial judge suggested a lower charge, but was rejected by the prosecution, and left unconstested by the then defence?
3. It is mentioned that Vui Kong requested his counsel (Kelvin Lim) to withdraw the appeal because he "did not want to lie". But withdrawing an appeal would mean sure death. Why didn't Kelvin Lim advise his client? Isn't this an act of unprofessionalism on the part of Vui Kong's then counsel? Is not counsel supposed to act in the best interest of the client? Yet, he allowed young Vui Kong to die without an appeal?
4. More importantly, why didn't M Ravi highlight this, contest the whole trial itself because Vui Kong was represented by an inept and unprofessional state-assigned defence lawyer, and ask for a retrial - and this time get the charge reduced to one that does not warrant the Death Penalty, as suggested by Justice Choo?
I find the story very, very murky. I hope those who have worked on Yong Vui Kong's case could enlighten me. I need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if I were to join the campaign to save Yong Vui Kong.
[end]
=========
0 comments:
Post a Comment