Until the very last second.
“You may leave now.”
At first I thought I had misheard, or at the very least misunderstood. We had just trudged uphill in the oppressive Singapore heat for 15 minutes, the family laden with binders, boxes and stacks of papers. Everyone was covered with a sheen of sweat. And that was only just the tiniest fraction of what the Yong family had been through.
For those wondering what 109,346 signatures look like... this is only part of it. There was one more box, and a whole bunch more online.
For them, and the many activists who have supported them, today was the culmination of at least 2 months worth of tireless, persistent effort. Yong Vui Kong’s family was on their way to submit the 109,346 signatures they had collected for the petition appealing to the President, and the Singapore government, for clemency. These signatures had been collected on the streets of Sabah and West Malaysia, as well as in Singapore and online.
While his siblings and close relatives had been walking the streets of Malaysia stopping everyone and anyone who would listen, Yun Leong – who is working in Singapore – had been going out on the streets alone during every lunch break, collecting signatures for the petition. He singlehandedly collected about 317 signatures. He was sick today, with a sore throat that made it difficult for him to speak. He said it’d been a long time since he’d slept well. But he was determined to keep fighting for his brother’s life. And today he was going to submit all these precious signatures at the Istana, in the hopes that 109,346 voices would be enough.
But at the back gate of Istana – yes, they weren’t allowed to submit the petition at the main gate facing the main road – the security officer of the Istana was brusque and businesslike. He, assisted by a colleague, accepted the petitions, turned on his heel and left, only pausing to say, “You may leave now.”
Understandably, the family was stunned and confused. Was that it? They had handed over their blood, sweat and tears of the past two months, but had not even had a chance to say a word. The man had taken hold of the most crucial appeal they had ever made to anyone in their whole lives, and had just walked away. Surely they should have been able to have said something?
“Can we just say a few words, a message to be passed on to the President?” Yun Leong asked Datuk Chua Soon Bui, the Sabah Member of Parliament who had accompanied the family, Vui Kong’s Singaporean legal representative M Ravi and Malaysian legal representative Ngeow Chow Ying to submit the signatures.
While they were deliberating this, the security officer, Corporal Marcus Chong, returned. He again told everyone that they had to leave. “Please depart from here.”
Vui Kong’s father came forward, wanting to speak so a message could be passed on to the President. Corporal Chong refused to listen to him, saying that they had already received the petition, and that the family should leave “for safety reasons”.
Yong's family kneeling before the Istana.
Upset, all six siblings, father and aunt knelt before the Istana, hoping to be heard. Hoping that someone, anyone, would listen to their plea, and spare their brother, son and nephew. But Corporal Chong returned again, and everyone was made to leave.
Deflated, disappointed and anxious, the family walked back in tears.
Later at the press conference, Yun Leong spoke. After thanking everyone for their support, he said, “Although this misfortune has befallen our family, we will keep on fighting. Until the last minute, or even the last second, we will not give up on my younger brother Vui Kong.”
Vui Kong's youngest sister, Vui Fung. She is only slightly older than he was when he was arrested in 2007, and hopes that Singapore will not take her brother's life away.
I cannot even begin to put myself in the Yong family’s shoes. I cannot begin to imagine the pain they must be going through. I cannot begin to imagine what it is like to be Yun Leong or Vui Fung – both have been so incredibly strong, for their brother and for their family. And I definitely cannot imagine what it is like to be Vui Kong, sitting in a cell waiting while people who have probably never even clapped eyes on him decide if he lives or dies.
Watching as the family knelt on the hot asphalt before the Istana, I could only feel ashamed of my country, and those who represent it. In fairness, Corporal Chong had not been rude, or abusive. He probably thought he was just trying to do his job. But it was the way he did it that betrayed the utter coldness of Singapore – by-the-book, inflexible and mechanical. All he was concerned about was getting everyone to go away. He had not even allowed the family a moment to grieve, or even wanted listen to what the family had to say.
All Vui Kong’s father had wanted to say was this: “Please ask the President to let my son have a second chance.“
Is this what we have become? Ruthlessly efficient yet heartless automatons? Are we now so preoccupied with doing our jobs that we have forgotten what it is to show even a little bit of compassion to a hurting family? A family whose 22-year-old child we want to send to the gallows?
All they had wanted was to make sure that their plea had been heard by the representative of the Istana – was that really so much to ask? Was it really necessary to dismiss them without even stopping for the extra 10 seconds it would have taken to listen to Vui Kong’s father?
Also, why was it that the family was not allowed to submit the petition at the main gate? Why did everyone have to walk 15 minutes round the Istana compound to what was, frankly speaking, the arse-end of the Istana?
I suppose the authorities didn’t want any more media attention than was strictly necessary. The sight of the family kneeling before the Istana’s main gate in full view of everyone on the main road would probably have been unpalatable for them. And if that is the case, then my question is this: WHY?
If you are so sure that a young boy like Vui Kong must die for the greater good, then why the unwillingness to let Singaporeans be aware of his case? If you are so sure that the mandatory death penalty is justified and necessary as a deterrent, then why the need to hush all this up?
If you are so determined to take a life, then you sure as hell better have the guts to face up to the consequences. Don’t try to sweep everything under the carpet.
President S R Nathan in China's pavilion at the World Expo. Image from ChannelNewsAsia.
I also think of President S R Nathan. According to a report by ChannelNewsAsia yesterday, he’s in Shanghai, being impressed with the China pavilion at the World Expo and watching Kunqu opera.
I can’t help but wonder if he even knows of Yong Vui Kong. If he’s even heard his name. If he even cares that while he’s in Shanghai being wined and dined by officials and diplomats, a family is kneeling outside the Istana with heads bowed, begging for a life to be saved. I wonder if he’s outraged by the fact that the High Court has ruled that he has no power in granting clemencies, even though previous Presidents had been hailed for having exercised just that power. I wonder if he knows that people are calling for him to convene a Constitutional Tribunal.
How does he feel, knowing that he holds the lives of so many in his hands? How does he feel, knowing that he could change so many lives if he wanted to? Or does he not care at all?
I have no answers to these questions. Only the President has these answers. I am merely just one Singaporean citizen.
In this campaign to save Yong Vui Kong, there is only one thing I can still do. Like Yun Leong and his family, I can only keep fighting until the very last second.
Click here to read TOC’s report.
Click here to read The Straits Times’ 150-word offering: a piece they needed two reporters for.
More photographs of this morning can be found here and here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Untill the very last second | Give Life A 2nd Chance 给生命第二次机会
- A Note About a Boy « Icarus Flew Too High
- Daily SG: 25 Aug 2010 « The Singapore Daily
- Weekly Roundup: Week 35 « The Singapore Daily
- The People We Can Never Give Back | funny little world
- Yong’s Story | funny little world
- The 7 Links Blog Project | funny little world
I cannot even begin to imagine how any of his family members must be feeling. It breaks my heart to think about it.
It’s just revolting that they are going through so much pain, and those in Singapore who actually HAVE the power to do something about it don’t seem to care a fig for Vui Kong – or his family.
They would like to hang him as a deterrence, even though activists and lawyers have pointed out time and again that there is no evidence that the deterrence even works. In fact, the very case of Yong being caught as a drug mule shows that it DOESN’T work as a deterrent, since he didn’t know about the hundreds before him who have been hung in Singapore for drug trafficking.
So not only are they using a punishment that doesn’t work, they’re punishing Yong’s entire family as well. For a stupid thing he did when he was 19.
this is painful to read….a family’s worst nightmare.
Even if they don’t want to grant Vui Kong clemency, I can’t believe that they could have treated the family so coldly, as if they had turned up at the Istana wanting to borrow a cup of sugar instead of pleading for a young boy’s LIFE.
Actually, passing documents and any other things have to be passed through the security force located behind the Istana, since many years back. Why this security is built behind the Istana, I believe they have their own reasons. I do not know if the back of the Istana means the sucurity building inside the Istana or you meant just the gate. However, only authorized personnals are allowed through the rear gates to reach the security building.
The family might at least prepared a short letter to submit together with the petitions, though will the letter be passed to the President of Singapore, is another issue. Best of luck to all!
Hi, thanks for your informative write-up about the Vui Kong and his family. It is indeed sad to hear about what the family has to go through.
Though I wonder if your views on Singapore’s drug policy are somewhat one-sided and you do not consider the merits of having tough punishment for drug-related offences.
As much as I feel for Vui Kong and his family, I also feel for the millions of drug addicts in the world and their families who are affected by the wrong practices of Vui Kong and others like him. Because of the drugs that they traffic, people’s lives and families are destroyed or irrepairably damaged.
I’m not sure if it is just for drug related offences to be given the death penalty, but it could be because no one in my family has suffered under the hands of drugs. But families who have gone through such pain, may similarly kneel in front for the Istana to ask for justice to be served.
Hello! Thank you for sharing your views.
From your comment I gather that your view on the mandatory death penalty and the case of Yong Vui Kong is that there should be a harsh punishment for drug trafficking because of the harm caused by drug addiction, and also so it can act as a deterrent.
Firstly, I would like to emphasise that there is absolutely NO evidence showing that the mandatory death penalty is working as a deterrent at all. In fact, Yong himself provides a case in point – he had not been aware of the mandatory death penalty for drug offences, and was thus persuaded by his gang boss to carry the drugs. He was also only just a mule, and not the druglords and barons who are actually responsible. Just like the many before him who have hung, Yong’s death will not curb the drug flow.
Secondly, is life imprisonment not already sufficient punishment? Yong has been in jail since the age of 19 – for much of the past 3 years he has been on death row. Are we not already punishing him for the mistake he made as a 19-year-old? Why do we need him to die before we are satisfied?
Please bear in mind that no one is asking for him to be acquitted or released. We are only asking for his sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment. He has self-educated while in prison, and become a devout and practising Buddhist. He is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail atoning for this mistake, and also willing to do whatever he can to help spread the word to other youths who might be tempted to get involved with drugs or drug trafficking.
I do not think that I am forgetting the drug addicts and their families when I fight for Yong’s life. I sympathise with their pain. However, I do not believe that hanging a boy like Yong would alleviate their pain, or stop more people from becoming addicts. Only education and rehabilitation can help solve that problem.
Finally, I would like to add that the justification of the death penalty because of the harm drugs can potentially cause is inconsistent. Vices like alcoholism and gambling are also harmful and have also destroyed many families. Yet do we hang those who own bars or operate casinos? No. And since there is no death penalty for alcohol or gambling, has Singapore been overrun with alcoholics and gamblers?
well I’m not sure…
i thought that the suffering family may have been let down by their legal and possibly political supporters. any lawyer within the system would know that you;re not going to get beyond the guardhouse of the istana without an invitation or at least without security clearance. did they let the family proceed with this futile attempt to get in for the publicity and photo op that this would provide? smart move, since a public demonstration of arrogance may have more mileage than a private unseen passing of a message to the president
the broader question of the death penalty for drug trafficking. i’m uncertain. 47g may seem like a small amount but that’s not really the issue for me. it’s that he was just nineteen. i used to be a supporter for capital punishment until i saw my first hanging. it was for trafficking as well and carried out according to the strictest standards of judicail execution, but i did not want to think that i was part of the process. which i am if i agree to it.
on the other hand i live in singapore, a modern thriving city that is uniquely free of some of the drug related despair that i’ve seen in London, Joberg or even KL. so while it is not the only or even primary means of preventing such catastrophes i think it plays a role.
can’t quite compare doing drugs with alchohol or gambing though. try it. have a drink,or a game of black jack with stakes. do drugs. see? and he was not nailed for using, but trafficking….
They did not expect to get beyond the guardhouse, although they were a little surprised to find that the petition could not be handed over at the main gate. No one wanted to get into the Istana. Vui Kong’s father merely wanted to speak to the security officer who received the petitions and say a few words that he hoped could possibly be passed on to the President.
I compared drugs to alcohol and gambling in the context of people saying that drug addiction ruins families. However, alcohol and gambling also ruins families. Try telling a family ripped apart by alcoholism and gambling that “aiyah, you’re still not as bad as drug addicts!” and I doubt they will agree with you.
Vui Kong was arrested for having drugs in his possession, yes, but these drugs were seized from him, no? Thus the damage he could have done has already been prevented, and he has sat on death row for 3 years for it. Now all we are asking is that his life be spared and he be allowed to spend the rest of his life in jail to atone for what he has done. I don’t believe it is too much to ask.
Just be grateful that the heartless Corporal Marcus Chong did not arrest the family group for “illegal assembly”, which is now legally defined as a group of one. Yes, you read that correctly.
Hi! Thanks for your reply. I think it’s a bit too quick to say that the death penalty carries no deterrence. It is too severe a punishment to be taken lightly. In fact, there are plenty of studies that would argue that the death penalty carries a great deterrence. Here are some sites for your consideration:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6802314.html
Admittedly, your point is that Vui Kong didn’t know about the death penalty when he committed the crime, hence it wasn’t a deterrent for him. I’m not sure that I accept that Vui Kong did not know about the death penalty. And I find it hard to accept that he was simply the tool of his bosses. Even if he didn’t know about the death penalty, I’m sure he knew that carrying drugs was a serious crime, yet he still decided to commit the crime. This suggests Vui Kong made a choice that getting these drugs through was worth whatever punishment he might face. So yes, you’re right, the death penalty didn’t deter him and possibly, no penalties would have deterred him. Is my argument pure conjecture? Possibly, but then again maybe not.
Again, I’m not sure about death penalty. But I think we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it out of hand. Having witnessed drug addicts in other countries and drug peddlers selling drugs to children and teenagers in front of their homes. I wonder if we need to think more carefully about the death penalty before condemning or affirming it.
I notice the Fox News article in itself admits that the research might not necessarily be conclusive, and that there are flaws in the methodology. Certainly I would find that it will be difficult to ask a dead guy whether he would have been deterred from committing his crime if he had known.
It is very easy to doubt whether Vui Kong knew about the severity of carrying drugs in his possession, because it is so clear to us that drugs is a bad thing. However, most of us have had the benefit of growing up in a relatively advanced and informed society, with high levels of education and family guidance. When Vui Kong was arrested at the age of 19, he was illiterate. He had dropped out of school even before Primary 6, and had been living in rural Sabah where just the walk to the bus stop to go to school was 30 minutes long. He ran away from the age of 12 and had been more or less brought up by gang members. Since he was illiterate, how would he be able to corroborate what his gang friends were telling him? Seen in this light, I think it is not so difficult to believe that at the time of arrest Vui Kong did not have a very informed idea of the severity of what he had done.
This is likely to be the same with many other drug mules that have been – and will be – used by the drug lords. Which is exactly why we are saying that if Vui Kong were allowed to live, he would be able to help spread the word to those who came from circumstances just as underprivileged as his, and warn them against trusting gangs and getting involved with drugs.
Also, since you have admitted that the death penalty did not deter Vui Kong, and that “possibly, no penalties would have deterred him”, would this not also apply to any other potential drug mules? Perhaps the death penalty would not deter them as well, either due to ignorance or desperation. Does that mean that we should keep hanging them?
I do not think that I am dismissing the death penalty out of hand when I campaign strongly for Vui Kong’s life to be spared. He is merely a young boy who was used as a drug mule, and had made a mistake in his youth. Who at the age of 19 has not made a mistake? In the past 3 years he has managed to turn his life around. He has managed to teach himself to read and write, and has become a devout Buddhist. Everyone from his family to the wardens in Changi Prison thinks that he has made such a great change in his life. If we hang him now, we are hanging a new, good, reformed Vui Kong, just to punish him for a mistake he had made while under the influence of gangs. Just so we can make a point and show that we are “harsh on drugs”.
It is true that drugs are harmful and bad and destructive. But think about it carefully. Will Vui Kong’s dying cancel out the drug addicts and drug peddlers you have witnessed? Will his death even prevent future drug addicts or drug peddlers? He was only a drug mule – the drug lord who made use of him has probably replaced him with 5 others long ago. Will the drug flow stop once we’ve sent him to his death? Has it even stopped while he has been sitting on death row?
I am a firm believer that rehabilitation and education is the way to go to combat these issues. Hanging people does not solve a problem. The death penalty requires the system to be perfect and never get anything wrong, which is impossible. To be convinced that it is justified to TAKE A PERSON’S LIFE as a deterrent, we have to be 110% sure that it WILL be a deterrent, and that will never happen.
If we hang Vui Kong, how are we going to explain it to his family when the drugs keep coming in and we keep arresting drug offenders? “Oh, we’re so sorry we hung your brother, we thought it would work…”?
Similarly, we cannot absolve drug addicts of all the blame. Vui Kong might have brought drugs into the country, but he did not shove them down the drug addicts’ throats. We cannot see this as a completely black-and-white situation where drug mules are EVIL and the drug addicts are HELPLESS VICTIMS. There needs to be responsibility on both sides. Which is why I advocate for education and rehabilitation of both the mules AND the addicts.
And although our views might differ, you are definitely right in saying that we need to think more carefully about the death penalty and its issues. For instance, you are talking about the death penalty but were you aware that what Vui Kong has been sentenced under is the MANDATORY death penalty? Under the Misuse of Drugs Act and its many presumption clauses, if you are found guilty you will be sentenced to the MANDATORY death penalty, which means that the judge will have NO DISCRETION in your sentencing, but MUST sentence you to hang without taking into consideration your individual circumstances. Do you agree with that?
These are all things we need to think about carefully and discuss as a society, since Singapore is hanging so many. However, thanks to a muffled mainstream media not many people are giving the issue the attention it deserves.
Yeah, like i said, i believe it is a two-way street; just because people bring in drugs does not mean you need to take them. VK is not to be blamed for the (hypothetical) drug addicts who have their lives ruined due to the effects of the (again, hypothetical) drugs. People are responsible for their own lives, and the choices they make. (And here i am aware of the fact that i could get a “And so in the same thread, VK was responsible for the choice he made” spiel, so i’d just first like to say that, yes he is responsible and yes he is aware he has made a mistake [one that does not warrant getting his life taken away] and hence he deserves a second chance. Drug addicts get their second chance at rehab).
Think about it, why do regular middle-class people like you and i not take drugs and delve into a life of dependency and addiction? Because we choose not to.
And just as Kirsten has mentioned above, VK was not well-informed with regards to the decisions he made, for the simple fact that he was not well educated.
Like you said everyone HAVE a choice and they made their OWN decision doesn’t require you to be lower middle or upper class to have common sense. He had made his choice to commit a crime for fast cash.
Since you are assuming that hcan I assume that without drug traffickers there would be no drugs in Singapore hence drug free and ZERO drug addicts … there problem solve?
Drug users whom are dead or cause death to others because of drug abuse do not get a second chance do they ?
Not well educated does not equate to you can commit crimes without punishment … understand what you are saying before trying to support blindly.
Yes, Vui Kong made his choice. When he was 19. It turned out to be the wrong choice.
How many of us haven’t made a wrong choice at the age of 19? The only difference was that we had more comfortable lives, better education, and guidance from family members, so our mistakes were perhaps not as big, and we were able to apologise and receive forgiveness.
Vui Kong has apologised. He has also actively taken steps to repent and attempt to redeem himself. He has studied, he has prayed, he has meditated and counseled others in need of support.
Yet we say, “No, we will not forgive. You must die.” And when we hang him, we are hanging him as he is NOW – repentant, diligent in self-improvement, devout and GOOD – for a mistake he had committed then. We will be hanging a good man because not only do we refuse to forgive, but we demand his blood. Does this sound right to you?
Stating that everyone has a choice and makes their own decisions is not an assumption. There is hard evidence in real life that we can see every day. Otherwise, why is it that there are still so many people who AREN’T drug addicts?
On the other hand, saying that 0 drug traffickers = 0 drugs in Singapore = 0 drug addicts IS a gross assumption that cannot be proven or backed up with any evidence or study done thus far.
It is sad and tragic and unfortunate that people have died from drug abuse. But killing Vui Kong will not solve that situation, or prevent it from ever happening again. Two wrongs do not make it right. How will Vui Kong’s death help anything?
We are not saying that Vui Kong is allowed to commit crimes without punishment because he was illiterate and uneducated. We agree that he has made a mistake, committed a crime and should be punished. Please, recognise the fact that we are NOT ASKING FOR HIM TO BE ACQUITTED AND RELEASED. We are asking for his death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.
Is a lifetime in prison not enough of a punishment for you? Why do you insist on his death?
Would like to counterpoint with the following:-
a) he was only caught on his 5th run
b) he earned good money from it in past without nary a thought
c) all such notices and penalties are in bold letters in Tamil/Chinese/Malay/English
d) he was a ex gang member who may have terrorise his own peers or lower
e) he is fully aware it is drugs
So would deem that since he wants to the crime, he should face the time/consequence
Since, you wish to commute, would you be willing send him to the frontlines to clear mines in Cambodia ? as a equivalent sentence.
In response to your points : -
a) How do you know that this was his 5th run?
Please take note that Yong has only been charged for this ONE instance of smuggling drugs into Singapore. He has not been charged or tried for any other alleged instance of trafficking, and has not had the opportunity to defend himself against these allegations. Therefore, we cannot judge him as if he has already been proven guilty for 5 runs when he was only charged for 1. The other instances you are referring to as if they are already set in stone are only alleged instances, and he has never been tried for them, and we don’t know whether he was really guilty of them or not. Wanting to hang him for alleged instances is unreasonable, unfair, and a travesty of justice.
b) Correct me if I’m wrong, but you must be personally very close to Vui Kong. How else do you know that he “earned good money from it in past without nary a thought”?
Even if that were true – which we cannot know – let us look at who he is NOW. He has realised his mistake and is fully repentant, and has worked hard in the past 3 years in prison to attempt to redeem himself. He has taught himself to read and write in Chinese and is learning English. He is a devout Buddhist who meditates and counsels others. He comforts his distraught family members and has the strength of character to forgive even those who are baying for his blood. This is who he is NOW. This is who we will be hanging.
c) Yes, notices are posted up in many places in many languages. But at the time of arrest Yong Vui Kong was illiterate. He couldn’t read any of these notices in any languages.
d) Yes, he was a gang member. He might have bullied his peers or those lower than him, that is true. But does that mean that he has to HANG, to DIE, for it? Do we hang people for being in gangs now?
e) He might have been aware that it was drugs, but I have my doubts as to whether he, uneducated, illiterate and misled as he was, was fully aware of the effects of the drugs.
But even if he had been, I would like to reiterate my argument in b). Vui Kong has made a mistake, but he has also learned from it. He is not only asking for a second chance, but he has also shown us all that he CAN change, and HAS changed. When we hang him now, we will be hanging a reformed person who is trying his best to be good and to atone for his mistakes. He has turned his life around and he is asking for forgiveness. Will we not forgive? Will we continue to hold on to a mistake he made at the age of 19 and demand that he DIE for it?
I am not saying that he shouldn’t face the consequences. But does the consequence need to be DEATH?
I’m sorry, but I do not understand how clearing mines in Cambodia is relevant to this argument.
Hi Kristen,
As much as I empathize on the situation with the family, you argument is flaw …
Quote
“Firstly, I would like to emphasise that there is absolutely NO evidence showing that the mandatory death penalty is working as a deterrent at all. In fact, Yong himself provides a case in point – he had not been aware of the mandatory death penalty for drug offences, and was thus persuaded by his gang boss to carry the drugs. He was also only just a mule, and not the druglords and barons who are actually responsible. Just like the many before him who have hung, Yong’s death will not curb the drug flow.”
You have specifically indicated that IF he had know it is mandatory death for drug offence in Singapore he would not have done it doesn’t that count as deterrent ?
From what I read this is not the first time that he smuggle drugs, definitely not an excuse that he do not know that drug trafficking is mandatory death in Singapore with all the notices all around.
That being said I wish the family good luck and well in life …
Yes, it is true that there are notices all around warning about the mandatory death penalty. That, to us, makes it so obvious that EVERYONE must know about the mandatory death penalty.
But, as it has been pointed out in many, many, MANY articles and blog posts on Vui Kong’s story, at the time of arrest Vui Kong was ILLITERATE. How was he to read these notices and be aware?
We are judging him from our educated, comfortable lifestyles – please do not forget to take into account HIS circumstances before we pass judgement from our relatively privileged lives.
“From what I read this is not the first time that he smuggle drugs…”
Where did you read this?
Please note that Yong was only charged for this ONE instance, of carrying 47g of heroin. He has NOT been charged for any other instances, and has not had the chance to speak himself or be tried for those other alleged instances of smuggling drugs. Therefore, we cannot judge him for these alleged instance as if he is guilty of them.
As far as we know FOR SURE in the court of law, this is Yong’s first run-in with the law, and therefore his death sentence is only for this one instance. And for this we are asking him to be forgiven.
Hi Kristen,
Like I said earlier you have failed to convince even me that mandatory death is not a deterrent.
I do agree that life is precious and shouldn’t be taken away easily but fact is drugs harm much much more than this one family’s pain, You have mistaken I am not saying this base on being well educated nor comfortable lifestyle I have seen more in real life than you can imagine.
What has the parent being doing to educate his kids?
illiterate does not mean he don’t have common sense.
It is you whom are just seeing one side of the story which is the pain this family is suffering until the day you see how drugs harm SO MANY others would you truly understand my point. I do admire the fact you are trying your best to save this one life but sadly he has committed a crime that deserve no second chance.
There is one more thing I disagree alot …
Quote
“Vui Kong has made a mistake, but he has also learned from it. He is not only asking for a second chance, but he has also shown us all that he CAN change, and HAS changed. When we hang him now, we will be hanging a reformed person who is trying his best to be good and to atone for his mistakes.”
You keep saying in his point of you how can you be so sure that he WILL change and HAD changed?
There are millions of cases out there of people whom are caught and punish for crimes say they had change and will change but …. anyway I do not feel it is right for us to argue this is a tragedy that nobody will benefit from.
All his family members, his lawyers and even the prison wardens have expressed their surprise at how much Vui Kong has changed. I am not saying this just to show that Vui Kong has made some promises. The truth is that Vui Kong HAS changed already, and that we are still denying him a second chance and wanting to kill him anyway.
If I have failed to convince you that the mandatory death penalty is not a deterrent you have similarly failed to convince me that it will. Hence we can only say that we HOPE the mandatory death penalty is a deterrent. Which means that if we hang Vui Kong, we hang him because “we HOPE this will work”. Is this adequate justification to take a life?
Perhaps it is true. Perhaps his parents haven’t done a very good job. Perhaps he didn’t have any common sense. But MUST he DIE for this?
We are not talking about just any punishment here. We are talking about DEATH.
I know that there is a lot of suffering from drug addicts. But as was already highlighted in previous comments, the blame for drug addicts’ suffering cannot be laid at the door of drug mules alone. The blame cannot be pushed onto Vui Kong alone. It was not he who caused their suffering, and his death will not make the suffering go away. His death will not solve this problem.
I do not feel that I am blinded to the plight of drug addicts, or neglecting their suffering, when I fight for Vui Kong. I recognise that it is all very tragic, sad and that something should be done, but I do not believe that this answer is VUI KONG’S DEATH.
Please, tell me, how do you think we would benefit from Vui Kong’s death? Who will benefit? Who will reap any sort of good effects over his dead body?
The effect it like what most of us would understand … DETERRENT to anyone to even think of committing claims as serious as harmful as trafficking which you are trying to refute without much support other than your own conjunction that has not concrete proof …
The reason why drug trafficking in Singapore is one of the least in the world is concrete proof and we are not hoping IT IS WORKING.
Like I said many times… you are ONLY thinking of this one family and not the entire picture as a whole….
Nobody is putting ALL the blame on him …. he is just punished for the crimes he had choose to made …
Taking someone’s life might not be the best way for everyone but it is clearly a very good way to deter others from doing so which will result in saving more lifes …
Just a simple example … if the law says throwing litter will result in death penalty would you still carelessly throw litter on the floor? Eventhou this is definitely too harsh for a punishment but does it deter u?
Everyone hopes for a perfect solution to the world where everyone can be happy but sadly such things do not exist. By reducing sentence to this offence it would only create a loophole in the system that others may exploit on.
Just imagine next time all the druglords will use this loophole that since u are still young they won’t hang u … no problem we can just create blogs, facebook, twitter to pardon you. Now it would be worth the risk to smuggle drugs for the quick cash isn’t it … you won’t die just prison as most would they scare the wits out of would be traffickers?
You’ll just create another problem which is more underage drug traffickers. You seriously do not understand how victims of drugs abuse would feel until you are one…
I’m sorry, but you have no concrete proof that the mandatory death penalty works as a deterrent either. The fact that Singapore has a lower rate of drug offences than other countries does not directly indicate that the mandatory death penalty is effective as a deterrent. After all, Singapore also has a great rehabilitation program and strong border patrol, etc. Until there is CONCRETE proof that it is the DEATH PENALTY that is the DIRECT deterrent, we are only hanging Vui Kong on the hope that it will work. Judging from the number of people we have already hung (Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita in the world), I am not convinced that it does work.
Neither is there any concrete proof that Singapore will be swamped with drugs should the mandatory death penalty be removed, or if Vui Kong were allowed to live.
Also, it doesn’t have to be death to be a deterrent. Take your littering example. I don’t need the death penalty to be deterred, the $500 fine is enough.
And is life imprisonment not a good enough deterrent? If it HAS to be death to be a deterrent to stop people committing crimes, then why aren’t all the sentences for all crimes death? Death penalty for littering (or else there will be litter everywhere!), death penalty for speeding (or else everyone will be driving dangerously!), death penalty for robbery (or else everyone will be stealing stuff!)…
Druglords don’t give a shit whether the young mules die or not. They will keep sending mules whether the penalty is death or not. Hanging Vui Kong will NOT be sending a signal to them, because they have probably already forgotten all about him, and are already recruiting new people.
Please remember we are talking about a boy’s life here. Why are you so determined that he must die?
Okay Neo,
As in my previous reply, please don’t use the low level of drug penetration as proof that death sentence IS WORKING. That is too simplistic a viewpoint.
Also, I hope my previous reply shows the flaw in your throwing litter example. We are not saying the Death Penalty will not deter some people, of course it will!! But what we are saying is that such deterrence DOES NOT necessarily change the number of traffickers as drug rings will/can always find somebody poor/stupid/desperate enough to do the job.
I agree if they start not hanging young traffickers, maybe more young ones will try their luck. But the reality is that we are trying to get the gahmen to stop this stupid mandatory death completely.
You accuse Kristen of looking at it from one side, but it looks like you are looking at it from your side. Are you a victim of drug abuse? Is that why you have seen more in real life than Kristen can imagine? What have you gone through? Seeing loved ones wrecked by drugs?
What if I saw my friend shoot himself in the head with a gun. Should I be upset with him? Or should I be upset with the guy who smuggles the bullets into Singapore. Maybe I’ll be upset with both, but most likely if he didn’t shoot himself in the head, he would’ve jumped down a building. The point is, people are responsible for their own actions. Don’t blame life on others.
Likewise, I am not saying Vui Kong is a saint, or even a decent guy. In fact, he does deserve a severe punishment for trafficking drugs. But what is wrong is the fact that mandatory death sentence does not give him a fighting chance to turn over a new leaf. And it is even more maddening when there is no clear proof (or even logic) that such a punishment actually deters drug trafficking.
Neo,
“You have specifically indicated that IF he had know it is mandatory death for drug offence in Singapore he would not have done it doesn’t that count as deterrent?”
Of course setting a mandatory death penalty would deter most people from bringing drugs into Singapore. But that is not the point. The point is that in reality, all this does is narrow the supply of people who are willing to do this. BUT the supply is STILL there.
So maybe instead of previously, when most drug mules were EVIL gang members looking to exploit society and bring hurt to the stupid-idiots-in-Singapore-who-take-drugs-and-blame-it-on-the-mules….
Now these drug rings rely more on people who are less informed/disadvantaged/naive/just plain dumb/desperate…. to get the job done, such as:
a. illiterate and perhaps less intelligent people
b. people who are desperate and at their wits end
c. people who DO NOT KNOW about the mandatory death penalty in Singapore (yes, they exist!)
d. young gang members who didn’t have a proper upbringing and want to prove themselves
e. immature kids that do not understand the gravity of what they are doing
… the list goes on…
So not only is it uncertain that the death penalty has effectively reduced the number of drug traffickers, it has also led to more UNDESERVING people being sentenced to HANG.
And don’t use argument that Singapore’s low level of drug penetration is proof of the success of the death penalty. There are so many more reasons why the drug problem in Singapore appears much more controlled than in the rest of Southeast Asia. Things like low levels of corruption, an exceptionally high GDP per capita, strong economy, small size (hard to hide), efficient police force, educated population, etc., all leads to a poor market for drugs. Why supply when demand is not so high?
So.. NEO.. “you argument is flaw”, not Kristen’s.
I second that, Carl. Kirsten’s argument is definitely not “flaw”.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_302234.html
Maybe you should read and understand what actually happen …
Neo,
I think Kirsten understands very well what has happened- perhaps more so than many of us who merely read our updates off the net. She has actually physically been at the forefront of this matter- she has worked alongside his family and legal representatives, and has also provided a substantial amount of media coverage on the issue. If anyone should know what is going on, it is her.
Cheers.
PS: Your link is also a ST link. As has been reiterated many times (by Kirsten and some others), the ST is a mainstream media that is censored, muffled, restricted, and does not give us the big picture at any rate.
Quote
“Also, it doesn’t have to be death to be a deterrent. Take your littering example. I don’t need the death penalty to be deterred, the $500 fine is enough.”
Totally agreed, the punishment is linked to the severity of the crime … like I said you are taken this too personally, I did mention that was just an example showing you that death penalty IS a deterrent, IF death penalty is awarded to littering it would deter you right????
can you answer this simple question? Or you dun understand such a simple concept?
Have you actually look out of Singapore where people are not hang for drugs related activities to take a good look at their societies? You are still arguing base on groundless conjunction and not giving me hard concrete proof which I already have mentioned again and again and again … sigh
The deterent is not for the druglord for obvious shit they know they are risking their life for all those billions of dollars they will get I am saying those whom will be asked to smuggle drugs like this poor boy that you are fighting for.
Base on your arguments, IF he had know it will result in death he would not have done this right?? Is this deterrent to you? or ?
Understand your facts before you keep bashing others down. Do not label yourself as fighting for justice without understanding the whole consequences it will result in.
This will be my last reply to you and I sincerely hope the best for the family if he get pardon, good for him and I hope he really repent I would be happy for him too but that does not mean I agree that he should be pardon for crimes he had CHOOSE to commit for the quick cash and not forced to do so.
I hope you understand where I am coming from…. have a nice day.
Eh, we all know death penalty is a deterrence lah. *slaps forehead*
You are right, asking someone if they will be deterred from littering if the penalty is mandatory death is indeed a SIMPLE concept, most likely from a simple minded person. And you might be a little illiterate yourself because Kristen DID answer you. Her answer was YES, I WOULD BE DETERRED. I understand this through the power of inference, because she said even a $500 fine would deter her.
You, Neo, are obviously ignoring my explanation about how it is not an EFFECTIVE deterrence. I have already said that there is much more to the argument than straightforward deterrence. It’s the fact that such deterrence does not effectively stop the supply of drug traffickers lah!!! *You are forcing me to use singlish here coz I am so frustrated now*
And Kristen is hardly bashing anyone down lah. I think u need to eat a chill pill, maybe have a cup of coffee and re-read what we’ve written.
Sorry Carl my explanation was not for you but Kristien
The reason why I made that example is to let her understand why death penalty is such a big deterrent whom ever want to commit a crime that might result to that and not implying that littering should be punish with death for obvious reason.
Good that you understand and point out that death penalty IS a deterrent.
hahaha sorry to make you frustrated jus trying to give my point of view … we should always see from multiple angle shouldn’t we.
I do however understand you point too that this is not the a perfect solution to stop trafficking but you must agree that this is the most powerful deterrent don’t you?
Apologize that I sounded frustrated in my reply to as Kristen seems to not understand the fact that death penalty is a deterrent or like you said maybe my level of comprehension is too poor ;p
Anyway thats all I have to say. Cheers!
Hi Neo,
It is a deterrent in principle, but effectively, it is NOT. So if you ask me does the mandatory death penalty deter drug trafficking into Singapore? My answer would be NO.
And the reason for this is not because mandatory death in principle doesn’t deter people. It does. The reason is because given the reality that there will always be supply of drug mules, the mandatory death penalty simply has no effect, and so should not be used at all.
This is embarrassing but I am going to use some numbers to explain since maybe my words are unable to bring my point across.
If there was a supply of only 10 candidates for a drug lord to choose from to smuggle drugs into Singapore, and he has 8 smuggling jobs, he would choose 8 and leave behind 2.
Now lets say Singapore introduce mandatory death. The supply drops from 10 candidates to 5 as a result of deterrence! So now the drug lord chooses all 5, and drug trafficking drops in Singapore from 8 to 5. In this example, mandatory death has lead to less drug trafficking.
Now, imagine nothing is changed, except the supply of potential drug traffickers is 100 candidates. Even if 90/100 people are deterred from the mandatory death, the drug lord still can find people to do the 8 trafficking jobs he needs. So in this way, mandatory death is NOT A DETERRENT to drug trafficking.
Have a nice day.
I can’t help but post again …
You did realized you mentioned after the mandatory death sentence being introduced is going to impact the drug lord availability of getting mules right? It deter many from doing so right?
How can you be sure he can this 8 person to do the job??
How did you come up with this ideas the druglords have ENDLESS supplies? assumption?
SO can I assume that actually it has deterred 99/100 of the traffickers? and only one which is this kid here got caught??
In this way am I right to say it is deterrence and save 99 % of the potential kids out there?
So you are implying that just because they will always be endless supply of robbers and thieves we should not do anything about them and punish them for their wrong doings? Robbers and thief crimes are not as severe as drugs hence jail terms is the deterrent in this case. So only by STOPPING ALL ROBBERY then it would be deem as a deterrent?? So are you also implying that jail term are not necessary as it did “NOT” deter in yr context.
now i am seriously embarrass to have to explain yr flaw theory.
That being said preventive is better than punishment … education should be the first and foremost thing in making sure such things no NEED to happen. That shld be the job of the school if that person gets that privilege if not parents and friend or relatives should do that job.
Good day to you too
I applaud your last statement about prevention and education. I believe that education and rehabilitation is a much better way of dealing with the drug problem than hanging. Still, I find it unfair that we should want to hang Yong Vui Kong because he did not have the privilege of this education to prevent him from committing this mistake.
I believe what Carl was trying to explain was that even though the death penalty might deter SOME people, it is still not effective as it will not curb the drug flow, and that there will always be undereducated and underprivileged youths like Vui Kong who can be manipulated into becoming drug mules. It is thus unjust and cruel for us to want to hang Vui Kong in the name of a deterrence that is not effective.
This is how I interpret Carl’s argument, may he correct me if I’m wrong.
“So you are implying that just because they will always be endless supply of robbers and thieves we should not do anything about them and punish them for their wrong doings?”
Once again it sounds like you are suggesting – through your words “we should not do anything about them and punish them” – that we are campaigning for Vui Kong to be let off the hook. This is portraying our arguments inaccurately. We are not asking for Vui Kong to be let off the hook. We are not saying that we will not do anything about drug smugglers. We are merely asking for Vui Kong’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment. We believe that a lifetime in jail is sufficient punishment for what he has done, and that there is no need to take his life.
Your argument about jail terms for robberies is confusing, perhaps you could explain it in a more coherent manner?
My interpretation of what you’re saying is that following our line of argument, jail terms should also be removed as they are not effective enough as a deterrent to curb all robberies. My reply to that would be that the death penalty is a special case, as it is by its very nature irreversible, and therefore allows no room for error once the deed is done. Therefore, the proof and evidence that the death penalty is 100% effective in curbing the drug flow and solving the drug problem needs to be that much stronger than the proof of the deterrent effect for jail terms. After all, a person in jail could have his/her conviction and sentence reviewed, and if a mistake or error in judgement is identified, the person could be released and compensated. This is impossible for capital punishment; once the person is dead, there is nothing more that can be done. Even if the case was reviewed and a miscarriage of justice were identified, no amount of apology or compensation will ever reverse the fact that a person’s life had been taken.
Therefore, it is more important that the deterrence effect of the death penalty be proven 100%, with no room for doubt or error, than for the deterrence effect of a jail term. The irreversible nature of death penalty requires the system to be perfect with no room for error, which is impossible, because no system is perfect. One innocent man hung is one too many.
I have already answered your question in my previous reply, but unfortunately it must have gone over your head. Here, let me try again…
All I was saying was that your littering example is not functional. In fact, by admitting that the death penalty can be “too harsh a punishment”, you have more or less shot yourself in the foot in terms of your argument.
Sure, the death penalty might be a deterrent if it were the punishment for littering. But the point is that the death penalty is NOT NECESSARY to be a deterrent, the fine is enough. You have already agreed with me there.
So similarly, what I am saying is that it isn’t necessary for the death penalty to be the deterrent against drug trafficking either, surely life imprisonment is serious enough to deter anyone? Especially for young people, a LIFETIME in prison is pretty serious too. It does not HAVE to be death for it to be a deterrent.
Perhaps you might like to think through your own examples before you raise them.
“Have you actually look out of Singapore where people are not hang for drugs related activities to take a good look at their societies?”
Yes, I have. I have lived in New Zealand for 4 years. It has no death penalty for ANYTHING. Yes, it has drugs and drug traffickers and drug suppliers just like every other country in the world. However, it is still a decent, peaceful society. It isn’t completely overrun with drug smugglers, with users lying prostrate on every corner with needles sticking out of their arms.
I have also been to Australia, London, Japan, France, Germany, etc. They all do not have death penalties for drugs. Sure, they also have problems with drug offences, but again, they aren’t all falling over from drug abuse. And despite their drug problems, NO ONE is out in the streets of these countries campaigning FOR the death penalty. No one in those countries is baying for blood like you are.
Unfortunately, you have not drawn up any concrete proof in your arguments even as you accuse me of not giving you any. So far you have only listed hypothetical examples, and as I have already illustrated, your littering example simply does not stand.
I am saying to you, again and again, that it does not have to be as drastic and as cruel as the death penalty to be a deterrent. Life imprisonment would have been a deterrent too.
I do understand my facts and I do understand the consequences. And even after that I believe that Yong should be spared. Do you share the same conviction? Would you go into the streets to campaign FOR Vui Kong to be hung, even as I campaign for his life to be saved?
“…I hope he really repent I would be happy for him too but that does not mean I agree that he should be pardon…”
From this statement I can only conclude that what you’re saying is, “Yes, I know he has changed and I am happy he has turned over a new leaf but he should die anyway.”
Thank you for your comments.
Lastly to everyone else whom are supporting understand what he have done first before you judge …
Taken from
http://www.agc.gov.sg/
1. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering 34 packets of a substance containing notless than 14.09 g of diamorphine to one
‘Reggie’, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at about 12.05 am, at the vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road,
Singapore
2. Trafficking in controlled drugs by transporting 1 packet of substance
containing not less than 82.77 g of ketamine in motor car MBK 5317 from
Yishun St 22 to the vicinity of Meritus Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road, Singapore,
under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
From about 10.40 pm on 12 June 2007 to
about 12.05 am on 13 June 2007
3. Trafficking in controlled drugs by
transporting 100 tablets containing 13.04g of N, a-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)
phenethylamine (ie ecstasy) in motor car MBK 5317 from Yishun St 22 to the vicinity of Meritus Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road,
Singapore, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
From about 10.40 pm on 12 June 2007 to
about 12.05 am on 13 June 2007
4. Trafficking in controlled drugs by transporting 1 packet of substance
containing 19.28 g of methamphetamine (ie ‘ice’) in motor car MBK 5317 from Yishun St 22 to the vicinity of Meritus Mandarin
Hotel at Orchard Road, Singapore, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA From about 10.40 pm on 12 June 2007 to
about 12.05 am on 13 June 2007
5. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering
130 tablets containing 16.77 g of N, adimethyl- 3,4-
(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine (ie ecstasy) to one ‘Reggie’, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at about 12.05 am, at the vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road,
Singapore
6. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering 3 packets of substance containing not less than 106.88 g of ketamine to Reggie, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at
about 12.05 am, at the
vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at
Orchard Road,
Singapore
7. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering 1
packet of substance containing 3.73 g of
methamphetamine (ie ‘ice’) to Reggie,
under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under
section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at
about 12.05 am, at the
vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at
Orchard Road,
Singapore
8. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering
1500 tablets containing nimetazepam (ie
Erimin) to Reggie, under section 5(1)(a) and
punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at
about 12.05 am, at the
vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at
Orchard Road,
Singapore
I’ve seen the AGC’s press release from which you took these 8 charges from. It seems that you have left something crucial out about these 8 charges. Let me clarify. Above these 8 charges, it says:
“Upon his conviction, these eight charges were WITHDRAWN pursuant to section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code…” (emphasis mine)
So these were the 8 charges that were DROPPED against Vui Kong, and not what he was actually convicted for.
Personally, i feel that each individual should be responsible for each’s own action. No one forced the accused to traffic drugs. But we cannot be so sure if he is under any instigation by any other third party. For us non drug-traffickers, are we going to be sentenced because we do not traffic drugs? Each and every country has her own law system to control and as well protect her citizens, even in your own home your parents sets the rules and regulations. Even the world is also bounded by International Law, so unless the accuse’s family member wishes to take this case up to international court, otherwise i believe that this case is CLOSED and the verdict is final.
Quoting Kristen:
1) “I also think of President S R Nathan. According to a report by ChannelNewsAsia yesterday, he’s in Shanghai, being impressed with the China pavilion at the World Expo and watching Kunqu opera.
I can’t help but wonder if he even knows of Yong Vui Kong. If he’s even heard his name. If he even cares that while he’s in Shanghai being wined and dined by officials and diplomats, a family is kneeling outside the Istana with heads bowed, begging for a life to be saved. I wonder if he’s outraged by the fact that the High Court has ruled that he has no power in granting clemencies, even though previous Presidents had been hailed for having exercised just that power. I wonder if he knows that people are calling for him to convene a Constitutional Tribunal.”
I believe you have totally no idea how the High Court passes a verdict. The verdict which the Attorney General, passed, was constitutional and the verdict was in line with the laws passed by Singapore’s legislature. And even before the verdict was passed, it has to be submitted to the President before a Death Sentence can be passed. Legislature Law has been set, Attorney General has been appointed, and its their job and responsibility to go through the case, not President’s, whatever more, the President is away on official duty, bearing in mind please.
2) “If you are so determined to take a life, then you sure as hell better have the guts to face up to the consequences. Don’t try to sweep everything under the carpet.”
What do you mean by “if you are so determined to take a life?” The Law or the Government of Singapore does not kill or take an innocent life for NO REASON. Like i said earlier, everyone should be responsible for his own actions, all knows that drug trafficking in Singapore is an offence, so what if he is a Malaysian? Law is Law, if anyone can get away with breaking a Law, then in the first place why Law in place? And, if the accused is an innocent young man, how on earth would he get into contact with drugs, needless to say the opportunity to traffic such huge volume of illegal drugs?
3) “While his siblings and close relatives had been walking the streets of Malaysia stopping everyone and anyone who would listen, Yun Leong – who is working in Singapore – had been going out on the streets alone during every lunch break, collecting signatures for the petition. He singlehandedly collected about 317 signatures. He was sick today, with a sore throat that made it difficult for him to speak. He said it’d been a long time since he’d slept well.”
As quoted, together with kneeling in front of the Istanna with uniformed T-Shirts, what are the family members trying prove? Attention seeking? We all understand the pain, the heartbreak, which the family members are going through, not that we are inhumane, feeling-less, without sympathy, but everyone of us knows that you committed an offence, you have to be punished by the Law, nobody forced you to break the Law. We are not living in the era of “Justice Bao”, or even the Qing Dynasty, where the whole village can just go to the emperor or if you manage to satisfy the Emperor, your charges can be dropped or lightened, so WAKE UP!
4) Reading from Neo’s post, its not the 1st time which the accused was caught trafficking illegal drugs into Singapore and was caught. So no excuses that the accused does not know that its an offence to traffic drugs. Just to quote a simple example: if you are caught speeding over the legal speed limit, you will be summoned, the 2nd time, you speed again, and you are caught again, you be summoned again. Of cause with the demerit point system in place, when you are summoned, you receive your demerit points as well, until when you used up your points, your license will be revoked. Its the same case, you traffic and you get caught, and u don’t learn your lesson, you traffic again and you get caught again, now you shall receive your due punishment. PERIOD.
Do you know how many people are killed by drugs? Trafficking drugs is like indirect murder.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that no one is contesting Vui Kong’s guilt. We have accepted the charges and the conviction. Now what we are asking for is CLEMENCY. For the Cabinet – since the President no longer has the power – to have mercy on this young boy, and spare his life. We are NOT asking for acquittal, we are merely asking for the death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment. It is well within the legal process, and clemencies have been granted before in Singapore. We are not trying to subvert the law.
1) I believe I do know how a verdict is passed. I was at Vui Kong’s March 15 appeal hearing myself, and have been following the case very closely. I have also spoken to both Vui Kong’s legal reps.
“And even before the verdict was passed, it has to be submitted to the President before a Death Sentence can be passed.”
I would like to mention that the High Court recently ruled that the President has no power in granting clemency, and that power rests solely with the Cabinet. However, appeals and petitions should still be delivered to the President. This is what was happening on the morning that I was writing about in this blog post. Yong’s family was delivering their petition to the Istana, to be taken into consideration when the clemency appeal is filed. They were not asking for Yong to be let off the hook, they were pleading for MERCY.
2) By my statement “if you are so determined to take a life” I am referring to the whole system. If you take a look at Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act with all its presumption clauses (another blogger just recently highlighted the Act in his blog post here), at the MANDATORY death penalty (which removes discretion from the judges) and at the comment made by Law Minister K Shanmugam (“Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we let him go, what signal are we sending?”), I have come away with the impression that the whole system has been designed to prosecute, convict and execute as many offenders as possible. Hence my statement about the “determination to take a life”.
3) Again, the family members were not trying to subvert the law. They were not asking for acquittal, or for Vui Kong to be found innocent. We all know that the verdict is that he is guilty, and we accept it. We are now at the clemency appeal stage of the case, and that is what the family members were kneeling before the Istana for – they were begging for MERCY. They were not asking for Vui Kong’s charges to be dropped, they were not asking for him to be released. They were merely asking for his life to be spared, for his death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment. As I have already mentioned, this has been granted in Singapore before, and is well within the legal process in such cases.
4) I have already highlighted in responses to Neo that despite allegations of past offences, Yong was only ever charged for this one offence. Therefore we cannot speak of these alleged “other instances” as if he had been found guilty of them – the truth is that he was never tried for them at all, and so there is NO VERDICT about these alleged “other instances”. It would be a travesty of justice to want to punish him when he hasn’t even been charged for them. According to the AGC’s press release, the 8 charges Neo quoted in an attempt to back up his own argument were charges that had been WITHDRAWN. Yong was NEVER charged for them.
I am aware that many people are killed by drugs, but I do not think that trafficking drugs is equivalent to murder. As has been mentioned in previous comments, drug addicts and abusers do also have the choice to partake in drugs. Yong did not try to shove them down the throats of hapless victims, forcing them to become addicts.
If a chain-smoker developed lung cancer and died, do we blame those who sell cigarettes? If an alcoholic died from his alcohol abuse, do we blame the bartenders and liquor sellers? If a gambler committed suicide from the stress of accumulated debts, do we blame the casino operators? Do we demand that they all hang too?
But even if I accepted your argument that “trafficking drugs is like indirect murder”, I would like to point out that you don’t even get the death penalty for manslaughter, which is perhaps what we could attempt to equate drug trafficking to. There is also no death penalty for human trafficking, when REAL DIRECT HARM is done to individuals and CAN BE PROVEN as well.
We cannot even prove that Yong Vui Kong did direct harm to any individuals, and yet we want to hang him for the hypothetical people he has hurt? I’m sorry but I cannot condone the taking of a life based on a hypothesis.
Kirsten: Going off tangent a little, would you then be satisfied with a discretionary death penalty replacing the mandatory one, for drug-related offenses?
Although personally I am against the death penalty in general I see the removal of the mandatory element as a good first step. I also recognise that there are many people who are against the mandatory death penalty but not against the death penalty itself (I used to be one of them until I read and thought more on the issue). So yes, I have been campaigning for the abolishment of the mandatory aspect of the death penalty.
Toiletbowl: I find it odd, to say the least, that you would describe the actions of a desperate family as being “attention seeking” and then going on to claim you “understand the pain, the heartbreak…”
I suppose it’s all well and good that you hold Singaporean laws to such high esteem, but surely there are a few even you find not quite that reasonable?
i quote Toiletbowl
“Do you know how many people are killed by drugs? Trafficking drugs is like indirect murder.”
No one forced those people to take those drugs too! If there’s no demand, there won’t be any supply!
dear Toiletbowl,
as quoted, “together with kneeling in front of the Istanna with uniformed T-Shirts, what are the family members trying prove? Attention seeking? We all understand the pain, the heartbreak, which the family members are going through, not that we are inhumane, feeling-less, without sympathy, but everyone of us knows that you committed an offence, you have to be punished by the Law, nobody forced you to break the Law. We are not living in the era of “Justice Bao”, or even the Qing Dynasty, where the whole village can just go to the emperor or if you manage to satisfy the Emperor, your charges can be dropped or lightened, so WAKE UP!”
It shocks me that you are even able to consider the possibility that the grieving family members of a boy who could potentially get hanged are in it for the attention. It really blows my mind that that crosses your mind. If such a circumstance were to come upon a family member of yours, would you not go all out to help them? Even if it means kneeling in front of the Istana? It is so easy to say such things so flippantly because it does not concern you personally.
And again, i think many people are misinterpreting what it is some of the activists/campaigners are fighting for. They are fighting not for an acquittal, for Vui Kong is still responsible for what he has done, but for him to be spared of the noose. That is all.
We are not heartless people in Singapore, We are not commoners who have no feelings, We are humans who is able to differentiate RIGHT and WRONG. Seriously, if i have a brother who is a drug trafficker, and he gets caught for the offence; 1st time, i most probably give him the benefit of doubt and try to help him; 2nd time, i might still forgive him; 3rd time, i seriously might just give up; until the 5th time, even if the LAW doesn’t sentence him, i believe that i would definitely request that the court take him in because he is beyond hope, beyond any help. So what if the President gives him the life imprisonment or lighter sentence instead of the death sentence? Does it help? Does it mean anything?
If this case were to be given leniency by the President, in future, when similar cases happens, the family members of the accused, proceeds to the Istanna and kneel, then isn’t it going to be never ending?
I believe all of you should look at this matter from a sensible clear mind, or maybe in terms of Law and Justice, even a 3year old kid or primary school kid knows that drugs are illegal, trafficking drugs is an illegal offence, and the Law states that if the amount of drug is above a certain amount, its a death penalty. LENIENCY is already being shown in the LAW itself!
Is the Attorney General not kind enough? Is the Law not justice and benevolent enough? He was given 5chances for heavens sake.
Seriously, i think the Law is just and the accused well deserves the sentence… If the people has the time and effort to go to the streets to get petitions signed, why not lets ask the general public if the accused deserves the sentence?
By the way, are you girls by anyway related to the accused or his family? If yes, then i can understand why you people are so defensive towards this issue but if not, then seriously i guess you girls are just plain ignorant, and naive. Naive as in a sense that you people only look at a situation by the surface and never put in a serious thought into the matter, judging a situation by feelings, just purely by feeling that u sympathize the accused.
One advice for you people, think more maturely, look at things more in depth. Things are not a simple as you imagine it to be…young ladies…
Again, I have to point out that he was NOT given 5 chances as you would like us to believe. This was his FIRST arrest, and he was only convicted of ONE charge. Saying that he has had 5 chances suggests that he has been arrested 5 TIMES and been let off, which is simply not true.
THIS IS VUI KONG’S FIRST RUN IN WITH THE LAW. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME HE HAS BEEN CHARGED.
If you had “look at things more in depth”, and not just gone off other people’s comments without checking, you would know this.
You yourself said “if i have a brother who is a drug trafficker, and he gets caught for the offence; 1st time, i most probably give him the benefit of doubt and try to help him”. Well, as far as the Law that you revere so is concerned, this is Yong’s first time. Therefore I don’t think it is too much to ask to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment.
I am not related to the accused or his family. I do not think I have to be to care. And since it is so easy for you to write us off as “young ladies” who are just “plain ignorant and naive”, why do you then believe that Yong – who was even younger than us when he was arrested – was NOT ignorant or naive, and should be KILLED for his error in judgement?
Although I admit that my personal feeling is a big part of why I am involved in this campaign (and I do not think there is anything wrong to have COMPASSION), it is not true that I have no put serious thought in the matter. I would not so willingly commit so many months of my life to helping in this campaign if I had not thought about it first. I have in previous comments and blog posts highlighted other reasons why I feel Vui Kong should be spared. I quote here a comment I wrote on Facebook:
“He was merely a drug mule. His death will not affect the drug lord who supplied the heroin that was found in his possession. His gang has more likely than not moved on without him, and possibly even recruited fresh young blood. He has already been removed from society, having spent the past 3 years in prison. His death will not make much difference to society at all.
Therefore, we can conclude that his death will have practically 0% impact on society, but would cause so much pain for his family members and loved ones, and end a young life that is already well on its way to complete rehabilitation.
We aren’t even asking for him to be acquitted, just for his sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.
Pardoning him on the other hand allows him to live. He has already achieved so much in prison over the past 3 years – if he lives there is so much potential for him to contribute to society, even from behind bars. He could counsel people in jail, and also help to reach out to the public and educate them about the consequences of getting involved with drugs.
So the equation to me is simple:
Yong Vui Kong dead = 0% hope, 0% possibility of change, 0% meaning
But Yong Vui Kong alive has so much potential of making a contribution.
Therefore, even if you do not want to think about human rights and compassion and mercy, it makes logical sense for Vui Kong to be spared.”
Hello,
I follow your blog regularly and would just like to leave this message behind…
I applaud your conviction, resilience and heart in championing Mr. Yong’s cause. Walking in the scorching sun with his understandably emotionally fragile family, amassing signatures in the rain… I think the physical punishment is easy to take, but people are not easy to deal with. When you tirelessly refute, correct commenters by replying ever-so-politely, without losing any sense of rationality… that, to me, may be your greatest achievement in all.
I am humbled by your actions.
Thank you for the message, it means a lot to me!
These messages encourage me to keep on going.
Hi Kirsten,
Really want to thank you for all your effort in pushing your beliefs. I think you are the first blog I’ve ever subscribed to!
I used to be pro-death penalty in my younger days and I think it’s really important there are people like you out there with such clear conviction and dedication to bring this message to as many people as possible.
All the best to you… and Vui Kong.
Cheers,
Carl
Thank you for subscribing!
I used to be pro-death penalty too, all through secondary school and up. But one day I realised that I wasn’t ACTUALLY pro-death penalty, I was just pro-status quo because I hadn’t actually even THOUGHT about it that much. And once I started thinking about it, I realised what it means to be pro-death penalty/status quo.
It is much, much more than just saying, “Yes, drugs are bad and criminals should be punished.” We’re talking about REAL LIVES here. People are going to be KILLED, and they are going to be killed in MY name, and although I would not have been the one to pull the lever, I would still have been complicit.
I can’t stand for that.
I think i used to be pro-death penalty or rather, as you’d put it, pro status-quo all throughout Secondary School and perhaps for a year or two after. In fact, it is very easy to be pro anything that starkly embodies/represents the nation and what it stands for, simply because i LOVE SINGAPORE. It is true, despite me being disgruntled and disillusioned with their justice system and some of its other distasteful ways, at the heart of it all, this is my country and i love it- it is home, and at this point in time i currently cannot envision myself making a life for myself in any other country. But i suppose it is crucial to tease apart the bad from all the good as well, and analyze more critically for myself whether certain things i truly stand for at a personal level or whether i am simply “going with the flow”.
@Toilet bowl: We are young ladies, you got that bit right- but definitely not Naive. We would be naive only insomuch as if we were to sit back and take a pass on our convictions and simply let be.
@Carl: You are right, “forced” is subjective, and open to interpretation (just as the word “burn” is, ha ha ha) and sometimes people are made to choose between the lesser of two evils. Not everyone is blessed to be able to have such clear options to choose from.
Cheers!
I shudder to think that there was once a time when I would tell people of Singapore’s death penalty for drugs (I didn’t realise it was mandatory) with what was akin to a tinge of smugness and pride. Like, “HAH you indulgent white people, WE Asians are tough but we get things done!”
And then it hit me that it’s not like boasting about winning the Maths Olympiad. It’s talking about KILLING PEOPLE like it’s a good thing. It was shameful.
@ Kirsten, yes, you interpreted my argument correctly.
@ Neo, don’t worry, you have not exposed a flaw in my argument. Yes, I am assuming the mandatory death has deterred 90/100 and as a result does not change anything. Just in the way you assume 99/100 are deterred and hence there is a lower rate of drug trafficking.
But can’t you see that these are all assumptions, not proof. I am clearly showing you with my example, that the belief that mandatory death lowers the drug trafficking rate is based on guess work. Is there proof that it is 99/100? Or 999/1000? I don’t think so. This is why Kirsten says there is no proof.
Do you understand now? You can’t prove that the death penalty reduces drug trafficking. And if you step aside from your prejudices for one second, and think… you will realize that the most likely scenario is that the supply will always be there for a drug lord to use.
Also, as Kirsten said many many times before, “We are not asking for Vui Kong to be let off the hook. We are not saying that we will not do anything about drug smugglers. We are merely asking for Vui Kong’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.” Because just like the way mandatory death is unnecessarily harsh for littering (as in you previous example), it is unnecessarily harsh for trafficking.
We are really not asking for a lot you know guys. I think people like You, and Mr. Toilet Bowl should really examine what it is you guys are fighting for.
@ Toilet Bowl,
“if i have a brother who is a drug trafficker, and he gets caught for the offence; 1st time, i most probably give him the benefit of doubt and try to help him; 2nd time, i might still forgive him; 3rd time, i seriously might just give up; until the 5th time, even if the LAW doesn’t sentence him, i believe that i would definitely request that the court take him in because he is beyond hope, beyond any help.”
This is exactly what people like Kirsten, Kimmy and I are fighting for. For a law that gives drug traffickers a 2nd chance.
“Do you know how many people are killed by drugs? Trafficking drugs is like indirect murder.”
Yes, it is like indirect murder, something which hardly deserves a death penalty, let alone mandatory death. If I sold bullets to you and you take a gun and shoot yourself, should the illegal supplier of bullets be put to MANDATORY death? Again, try to remember we are not saying NO PUNISHMENT. We are saying no to mandatory death.
So far I have not seen one pro-death penalty commentator that clearly identifies why a mandatory death penalty is the necessary punishment. You all just talk about how horrible drugs are and that trafficking is wrong, and that the government doesn’t kill for no reason….. bla bla bla. So what? We know that too.
And even then, I mean please, wake up. A drug user is just as guilty ok. I quote you Mr. Toilet Bowl: “i feel that each individual should be responsible for each’s own action.” You are exactly right. That goes for the drug user.
Oh and by the way, “No one forced the accused to traffic drugs.” isn’t always true. Circumstances sometimes forces you to do things you know are wrong. Maybe you haven’t been in such a circumstance. So I suggest you don’t talk about things you don’t know about. Oh, and are there people who are forced to take drugs against their will?
Kirsten, I applaud you for even trying–and I’m not referring to the whole Vui Kong thing (of which I’m on the side of giving him a second chance). I giving you kudos for even trying to decipher what that rambling moron is trying to say. I guess his personal experience is indeed personal, considering the sentence construction, his inability to state his thesis, and the lack of substantiation. Neo, I’m down with some pot once in a while, but you have got to lay off that crystal meth. Stop bloody cooking it at home.
Yeah, as you can tell, I might be a bit of an asshole, but seriously, I tried following the arguments and had to give up halfway through because Neo’s idiocy just made me want to shoot up with Draino. Just take a look at this:
Neo:
brainfart brainfart brainfart
Quote
“Firstly, I would like to emphasise that there is absolutely NO evidence showing that the mandatory death penalty is working as a deterrent at all. In fact, Yong himself provides a case in point – he had not been aware of the mandatory death penalty for drug offences, and was thus persuaded by his gang boss to carry the drugs. He was also only just a mule, and not the druglords and barons who are actually responsible. Just like the many before him who have hung, Yong’s death will not curb the drug flow.”
You have specifically indicated that IF he had know it is mandatory death for drug offence in Singapore he would not have done it doesn’t that count as deterrent ?
brainfart brainfart brainfart
Seriously? Is this Neo person reading the same thing I’m reading? Where did Kirsten specifically indicate that had Vui Kong been well-informed of the mandatory death penalty, he would not have committed the crime?
Please, stop hitting the bong before writing.
p.s. let’s have a toke sometime… OR NOT!
… I like this site…
Images is very nice
Quote:
“…I hope he really repent I would be happy for him too but that does not mean I agree that he should be pardon…”
From this statement I can only conclude that what you’re saying is, “Yes, I know he has changed and I am happy he has turned over a new leaf but he should die anyway.”
Kristen i don’t think that is what Neo mean and you shouldn’t be putting words into his mouth. Nobody would want to see Vui Kong been sentence to death or wanted him to die. You should take a break.
I’m sorry if I have misunderstood, would you care to explain then what Neo meant?
@Mist: But that’s exactly how one would interpret it, no? It translates exactly how Kirsten has interpreted it. “that does not mean i agree that he should be pardon” << What does this mean? "He should die anyway" seems like a pretty good way to sum it up!
@Mist A breakdown of Neo’s statement, the way I see it:
“that does not mean I agree that he should be pardon…”
= “I don’t agree that he should be pardoned”
= “I don’t agree that he should not be given the death penalty”
= “I agree that he should be given the death penalty”
= “I agree that he should die.”
Kirsten, I’d like to help you in your cause any way I can.
Hi Selena,
it simply means it would be good for him and his family if he gets pardon but
I agree that he should accept the punishment for the crimes he made and unfortunately for this case is death by law ..
thank you very much for trying to interpret it and making me sound like I want him to DIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iLUe21ruOY
This is why I don’t agree with making a plead for clemency using the media …
Unfortunately for you Kristen the percentage of your slim chance to help him is getting lesser and lesser with such people using the issue for political gains. Not only it do not help but it just make the government more firm to carry out their legislative rights.
Good luck.
Thanks for finally clarifying, Neo!
It is true that there are some who might exploit the issue for political gains, but I personally think that the media plays a very important role, because it is a channel for information to be communicated.
If it weren’t for the media, none of us would have even heard of Vui Kong. It would have been so easy for the government to just hang him – and countless others – with no accountability. We need the media to get people aware and for people to speak up and hold the government accountable instead of letting them do whatever they want without anyone knowing. It is unfortunate that the local mainstream media is not more outspoken and questioning on death penalty issues, but still, we deal with what we have.
Thank you for wishing us well!
Hi Neo
I think that we shall await the day when the coffin is placed at the High Commission.
I seriously would like to see them do it and also i am yearning to see the consequences the people will face when they do that.
Lets just wait for the accused to serve his well deserved sentence.
@Toiletbowl, nothing personal against your choice of username, but perhaps you might consider revising it if you’d like to be taken with even the slightest bit of seriousness.
“I think that we shall await the day when the coffin is placed at the High Commission.
I seriously would like to see them do it”
You really just want to see him die, don’t you? What is this? Some form of sick pleasure?
Well… because it shall be the day whereby FACT shall prove to you people that LAW is just… and that you people shall realize that LAW is LAW… PLEASE WAKE UP…
As we have already explained to you, we are well within Vui Kong’s legal rights, and well within the law. We are asking for clemency, and the clemency process is part of the process in capital punishment cases.
And unfortunately for everyone, the LAW is not always just. That is why we have the court to try to interpret the laws in as fair a way as they can (this ability, however, is taken away by the “mandatory” aspect of the mandatory death penalty). Social standards also change over time. That is why LAWS are not carved in stone, but can change over time. If the law could never change, we still probably have the death penalty for stealing, for adultery, for homosexuality, etc. etc.
Kimmy,
Don’t think any name change will help Toilet. His comments tend to give away his intellectual capacity (or lack of it):
“Well… because it shall be the day whereby FACT shall prove to you people that LAW is just… and that you people shall realize that LAW is LAW… PLEASE WAKE UP…”
“… the Law states that if the amount of drug is above a certain amount, its a death penalty. LENIENCY is already being shown in the LAW itself!”
Whaaaa?
And the best part is that after a whole crap load of reiteration that the LAW is LAW and the LAW is JUST, he accuses u girls of “just looking at things on the surface”…
“i guess you girls are just plain ignorant, and naive. Naive as in a sense that you people only look at a situation by the surface and never put in a serious thought into the matter, judging a situation by feelings, just purely by feeling that u sympathize the accused…. ”
@ Toilet: But where is your explanation for why drug trafficking deserves mandatory death? Where is this facts you are talking about?
Is it because…. uhm… it’s the LAW… so just FOLLOW LAW? Sounds like it here:
“Seriously, i think the Law is just and the accused well deserves the sentence…”
WOW, you are so smart. Many Japanese soldiers that invaded Singapore just FOLLOWED LAW… but was it just?
And I know… this could possibly be your reason:
“Do you know how many people are killed by drugs? Trafficking drugs is like indirect murder.”
But you also said this:
“Personally, i feel that each individual should be responsible for each’s own action.”
SIGH. Toilet Bowl… if you continue to post crap, I am going to start becoming insulting. So just stop.