Reserving the right to kill blindly.

Last March, after attending Vui Kong’s hearing at the Court of Appeal, I wrote in a Facebook note, “I guess when the decision finally comes out (whenever that may be), we will see what the court is made of.“

Well, the decision has come out – being overseas I’ve had to read about it in TOC’s report – and we have seen. And I kind of wish we hadn’t.

The verdict passed by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong this morning at the Court of Appeal not only ignores all the concerns raised in discussions on the mandatory death penalty but also highlights other disheartening and worrying points in our Singaporean justice system.

By rejecting Vui Kong’s appeal, the Court of Appeal has condemned a 22-year-old to death for a mistake committed when he was 19; a point in his life where he was desperately poor, completely illiterate and heavily influenced by gang members. By rejecting his appeal, CJ Chan is saying that all these mitigating factors do not matter at all, and that he does not deserve the consideration that murderers, rapists and even terrorists get. That the justice system is satisfied to just close their eyes and put the noose around his neck. With this move, we have shown the world that Singapore is a country that subscribes to archaic punishments without any hints of compassion or mercy. It is a sad, sad day for human rights. We can now only pray that the President will grant him clemency – another process that is fraught with conflicting interests and doubts.

And worst of all, the statements made by CJ Chan reveal even more gaping holes in the Singapore justice system.

He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which establishes that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, neither precluded ‘inhuman punishment’ nor did it embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty, as lawyer M Ravi had argued.
…
Furthermore, he noted the lack of an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment in the Singapore Constitution.

Wow, I feel so much safer as a Singaporean citizen, knowing that the Constitution does not protect me – and any others – against inhuman punishment. Hello, First World, we have arrived, may we be let in please?

… Probably not.

CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament.

This, too, is incredibly worrying. That the Chief Justice should shirk from interpretation of the law just because it could potentially lead to conflict with Parliament indicates to us that in Singapore, the Parliament is above the Constitution. Which begs the question: What is the point of the Singaporean Constitution, then? If it neither protects us from inhuman punishment or from the whims of the Parliament, how does the Constitution serve the country and its people? We might as well just do away with it completely.

And also, what is the point of the judiciary? If they are so afraid to interpret anything in case it leads to conflict with Parliament, then what, really, is their job?

As a parting remark, CJ Chan observed that Yong’s appeal have had mustered the most substantive constitutional arguments against the mandatory death penalty. As such, the rejection of this appeal would mean that ‘under Singapore law as it stands, further challenges in court [against the mandatory death penalty] have been foreclosed’.

And this really takes the biscuit. Not only has CJ Chan rejected Vui Kong’s appeal, he has also made sure that no more constitutional challenges to the mandatory death penalty will be made in court. Which means that more cases like Vui Kong’s will happen, and that those future mules will also be sentenced to death without a second glance. All the doubts and concerns raised by campaigners such as myself have been completely disregarded; the court and Parliament would not even deign to review the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, preferring to stick to their guns to project the image of being “tough on drugs”. They are going to keep willingly killing people to make themselves look good.

I cannot find the words to adequately express the disappointment and anger that I feel.

Vui Kong is on the far right.

I think of Vui Kong, not much older than myself, sitting in isolation in the depths of Changi Prison, helpless and confused while lawyers and politicians discuss his life as nothing more than just one more statistic: “You save one life here, but 10 other lives will be gone.” They are willing to trade his life for the possibility of reduced drug flow in Singapore, not realising – or rather, not wanting to realise – that this possibility is highly unlikely since Singapore still seems to be doing great business with alleged drug barons. Perhaps Vui Kong’s true crime is that he did not possess millions of dollars to go into investments with Singapore? Perhaps what he’s really being penalised for is his failure to be the son of some incredibly wealthy member of the Burmese junta.

Speaking to my mother last night, she raised a very interesting point: since they caught Vui Kong and confiscated the 47g of heroin that he had been trafficking, ultimately he has not harmed anyone. The response of the law enforcement agencies effectively negated the threat he presented to Singapore by intercepting his drug drop. Therefore, to hang him now is akin to hanging someone for attempted murder, which is something we definitely do not do. And since he has now learned from his mistake, sparing his life will not, like the Law Minister wants us to believe, cause the death of 10 others. (Especially since we’re not even asking for him to be completely acquitted and released, just for his death sentence to be transmuted to a long prison sentence.) So, really, what is there to be gained by being so cruel?

Surely the lesson to be learned from Vui Kong’s arrest is that we need to step up on our law enforcement to intercept more drug drops and negate more threats. Because to carry on hanging drug mules while drug lords walk about scot-free will accomplish nothing but the utter ruin of Singapore’s capacity to be compassionate and merciful.

Now all we can do is hope that the President will be able to see this, and prove that there is still sympathy and empathy in the Singaporean system.

P.S. A very thought-provoking video from Jeremy Irons on the death penalty: