Details reports as following:

Selective prosecution? Re-open the decision upholding the Vui Kong’s conviction

Original post by theonlinecitizen on January 27, 2012

A Criminal Motion has been filed in the Court of Appeal today on behalf of Yong Vui Kong. The motion challenges the constitutionality of the prosecution’s decision to charge Vui Kong with a crime that attracts the mandatory death penalty while withdrawing previous charges made against Vui Kong’s ‘boss’, Chia Choon Leng.

In his affidavit, Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi, states that in acting in this manner, the Attorney-General has violated Vui Kong’s fundamental right to equal protection of the law enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Applying the standards set out by the Court in the recent case of Ramalingam Ravinthran vs PP, it is submitted by Mr Ravi, that ‘the Applicant is able to raise a prima facie case of a breach of Article 12(1).’

Chia has been identified by the Attorney-General’s chambers as the alleged mastermind behind the criminal enterprise that Yong was found to have been a part of. In reply to queries made by Mr Ravi, the Deputy Public Prosecutor confirmed that Chia had been arrested in connection with the trafficking syndicate that Vui Kong was a part of. Yong had also mentioned his name repeatedly to the police and to the court while accounting for his actions.

During the criminal trial in the High Court, it was found that Chia was the person who initially contacted Vui Kong, and subsequently provided him with the ‘gifts’ to deliver. The ‘gifts’ that Vui Kong was caught with was found to have contained the 47.27g of diamorphine, which he was sentenced to death for.

Chia however, remains uncharged and in executive detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Prosecution had informed the court that they had withdrawn charges against Chia due to a lack of evidence. However, Vui Kong, in his affidavit, states that, ‘ I do not recall having been asked by the Prosecutor to assist in relation to any difficulty of evidence perceived in relation to Chia.’

Such is the phenomenon created by the Mandatory Death Penalty, that despite being caught at about the same time as Vui Kong, in relation to the same criminal enterprise, third parties and parcel in question, the mastermind behind the criminal syndicate remains in detention while the courier that he recruited, who is young, naïve and in desperate need of money, is sentenced to death. This cries out for explanation as it goes against the very notion of justice.

Vui Kong, in his affidavit, writes that, ‘My complaint is that if the Attorney-General felt unable to prosecute Chia in the circumstances, he should have felt unable to prosecute me and my prosecution (for a capital offence) on those same facts can only be described as a treatment which is not equal within the meaning of Article 12(1).’

He further states that, ‘I do not understand how it can be possible for the Attorney-General to prosecute me in such circumstances given that on all the evidence before him, he is unable to prosecute Mr Chia the mastermind.’

According to Mr Ravi, ‘The evidence on record is sufficient to rebut the presumption of constitutionality with regards to the A-G’s decision to prosecute the Applicant for a capital offence while not prosecuting a more culpable party at all’. One such reason is ‘ the lack of any apparent reason for the Attorney-General’s decision other than a difficulty of evidence which is itself difficult to follow given the evidence against Chia’.

Another would be that, ‘it is contrary to any notion of justice that (all other things being equal) a less culpable offender should be charged with a more serious offence (and subjected to a more serious punishment) while a more culpable offender is not prosecuted at all when both are involved in the same criminal enterprise, especially when the punishment of a less culpable offender is death.’

In addition, Ravi also points to the fact that the courts intervention, ‘would serve an additional purpose in this case by reminding the Attorney-General of the legislative priority intended to be given as between categories of offenders under the Act.’

He cites the speech made by the then Law Minister, Mr Chua Sian Chin, who said that, ‘The death penalty will also be imposed for the unauthorized import, export or trafficking of more than 30g of morphine or more than 15g of heroin…It is not intended to sentence petty morphine and heroin peddlers to death’.

Ravi adds that the purposes of the Act, ‘is to target the masterminds behind the drug trafficking enterprises, not the low-level ‘peddlers’ recruited, forced or misled to traffic the drugs.’

The Court has yet to set a date for the hearing.

律师指放过毒枭违反宪法
申请检讨杨伟光死刑判决

獨立新聞在線 Jan 27, 2012 07:01:31 pm

【本刊记者撰述】马来西亚籍新加坡死囚杨伟光的辩护律师今天入禀新加坡上诉庭，申请检讨宣判杨伟光罪名成立的判决，以及要求上诉庭宣判，杨伟光遭选择性提控，反之犯罪集团首脑却逃过法网，已经违反了新加坡宪法。

新加坡宪法第12条款保障法律面前人人平等，然而总检察署以足以致死的贩毒罪名提控杨伟光，却撤回就杨伟光的“老板”谢春林（译名，Chia Choon Leng）作出的提控，杨伟光的辩护律师拉维认为，这已侵犯了杨伟光的宪赋权利。

杨伟光的辩护律师拉维（M.Ravi，左图）以最近新加坡上诉庭在Ramalingam Ravinthran对垒PP的案件立下的先例指出，申请人可以提出初步证据，证明已经违反了宪法第12（1）条款。

根据新加坡网络媒体The Online Citizen的报道，总检察署已经鉴定谢春林是杨伟光涉身的犯罪集团的幕后主脑。副检察司回应拉维的问题时确认，谢春林确实在一宗杨伟光涉及的贩毒案中被逮捕。

另外，杨伟光曾向警方和法庭一再提及谢春林的名字。

检控团宣称证据不足

根据报道，高庭的审讯显示，谢春林主动联络杨伟光，让杨伟光（下图）帮他带“礼物”。杨伟光被捕时，这份“礼物”被查出含有47.27公克的海洛因，结果被判死刑。

然而，谢春林并没有被提控，只在《刑事法（暂时条款）》下被扣留。检控团告诉法庭，他们因证据不足而没有提控谢春林。

然而，杨伟光在其宣誓书中指出，他不记得检控团曾要求他协助提供跟谢春林有关的证据。

拉维认为，目前的证据已经足以质疑总检察署何以提控杨伟光，却放过罪行较重的一方；总检察署给的理由只是“证据不足”，然而“证据不足”的原因却是总检察署没有跟进供词。

他指出，一名罪行较轻的人被控以足以致命的严重的罪行，反之一名罪行较重的人却完全没有被提控，这跟公正的概念相悖。

==========================

Affidavits of Yong Vui Kong and Lawyer M Ravi filed in Court on 27/01/2012:

M Ravi’s affidavit (with exhibits)

Yong Vui Kong’s Affidavit

Notice of Motion- 27 Jan 2012

===========================

More Reports can be found here:

Yong’s case one of “unlawful discrimination”, says lawyer (Publichouse.Sg)

Today (19 Jan 2012) is Yong Vui Kong’s 24th birthday. Last year, we marked Vui Kong’s 23rd birthday not knowing if he would live to celebrate another. However, thanks to his dedicated lawyers and the support of activists and the public, he can now live to see the dawn this Friday.

We are inviting the public to celebrate his birthday with him this year. Please write your wishes, thoughts and hopes for him and e-mail the messages to 2ndchance4yong@gmail.com. We will deliver them to Vui Kong through his lawyer M Ravi. If you permit, we will publish the wishes in our blog at http://2ndchance4yong.wordpress.com/

Yong Vui Kong, who hails from Sabah, was arrested in June 2007 for trafficking 47.27g of diamorphine in Singapore when he was 18. He was sentenced to death in January 2009 and now sits on death row. He has exhausted all legal proceedings and is presently awaiting the outcome of his final appeal for clemency which he submitted on 7 July last year to the President of Singapore.

Vui Kong had been born to an impoverished and broken family with his mother struggling to raise seven children alone after a divorce.  His case caught a lot of attention in Malaysia, Singapore and internationally. The Save Vui Kong Campaign initiated the “Give Life 2^nd Chance” campaign in July 2010 and the public responded well to Vui Kong’s plea for clemency. In August 2010, his family submitted 109,346 petition signatures to the Istana asking for Vui Kong’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.

Vui Kong has proven himself in prison by turning over a new leaf. He has repented and is remorseful. He has taken up Buddhism, and seeks to dedicate the rest of his life to counseling prisoners and alerting the public about the perils of drugs. Although the Singapore Court of Appeal has rejected the decision on his judicial review in April 2011, we will continue to do our very best to assist Vui Kong in seeking pardon from the Singapore President.

Pleading for his clemency does not mean that Vui Kong should escape the responsibility of the crime. However, Vui Kong is himself a victim of circumstances, and we strongly believe that we should not ignore the plight of the marginalized.

This is only the beginning of the debate on the death penalty. Research has shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. There are many factors in the maintenance of public order. For example, professional police investigations and fair judicial system are crucial.

We also call the Malaysia Government to execute the resolution put forward in the Round Table Discussion at the Parliament last June 2011 to:

1. Call for moratorium of the death penalty immediately
2. Form a caucus to study and review the related legislative related to the mandatory death penalty.

The Save Vui Kong Campaign is refining its role and has formed a coalition with other organisations working on anti-death penalty issues. Besides giving attention to individual cases, we will also actively advocate the moratorium of the death penalty in Malaysia. We hope the collaboration will spawn various activities to educate and raise the awareness of the general public about capital punishment.

Save Vui Kong Campaign

“祝賀楊偉光24歲生日，呼籲立即暂停执行死刑”

今天1月19日，是杨伟光的24岁生日。想要献上生日祝福和寄语給杨伟光

的朋友，请传到：2ndchance4yong@gmail.com，并注明是否授权刊登，我们将张贴在本会的“SAVE VUI KONG 给杨伟光第二次机会”（http://2ndchance4yong.wordpress.com）网站，同时也将转寄给他的律师拉维（M.Ravi），送到杨伟光手中。

来自沙巴的杨伟光，在2008年因为运送47克海洛英到新加坡而被判死刑，经过多年上诉，都失败告终。杨伟光来自破碎家庭，年少无知犯法，引起马新社会关注，热烈响应本会于2010年发起的“给生命第二次机会”醒觉运动，签名连署求情书。

伟光在监狱里改过自新，立志将余生投入于辅导狱友及警惕群众有关于毒品的致命性危害。虽然新国最高法院三司上诉庭在2011年4月驳回杨伟光司法审核判决的上诉申请，我们接下来仍会付出最大努力，继续协助伟光寻求特赦。

我们为杨伟光请命，争取新加坡总統特赦，促请该国政府给予杨伟光第二个机会，并不代表他无须为运毒罪名受罚。杨伟光来自低下层社会，马来西亚和其他国家同样有着和他一样的死囚，我们坚持，在人权议题上，从来都不应忽视被主流社会所边缘化的群体。

关于死刑与生命权的辩论，只是一项开端，而非终点。我们认为，死刑与吓阻犯罪、降低犯罪率无直接关联。为维持社会治安，国家机关可施行其他政策来加强犯罪控制，如更有效的警政办案、更公平的司法程序等措施。

在此我们也要求大马政府尽快落实去年六月在国会举行“检讨强制性死刑”圆桌会议所达致的初步共识，以展开四项行动，包括要求政府立即暂停执行死刑以及建议组成国会特别遴选委员会全面检讨国内的强制死刑制度。

未来，本运动将转型、扩大组织结盟，除了持续追踪个案，也推动暂缓实施死刑，希望引导公民社会对此议题的深度关怀与严肃思辩。

杨伟光后援会

———————-

Related reports:

Sabahan on Singapore’s death row turns 24 today (The Borneo Post)

吁民写生日寄语予杨伟光   后援会促政府检讨死刑制 (獨立新聞在線）

后援会邀民众祝贺24岁生日    杨伟光感言：要令母亲骄傲 （當今大馬）

Yong Vui Kong wrote in his petition for clemency: “I fully realise my mistake and I am truly repentant over my smuggling of drugs in the past. I have earnestly changed.”

The Death Penalty News Blog which featured Yong Vui Kong’s “last letter” written in July 2011 attracted more than a million page views.  Over 100,000 people have read and signed the petition for clemency. Many more who have been moved by his plight, have taken time to write to our president. Those concerned people came from all walks of life and of all ages.

Never before in the history of Singapore has a death row inmate received so much attention. Never before have so many videos and articles been published pleading for his life. Never before has the constitutionality of the death penalty been so ably argued in our courts than in the case of Yong Vui Kong. Never before has the death penalty been debated so extensively in our courts and in public. And never before has the presidential power to grant clemency been challenged and determined in our courts. There are many “never befores” in the case of Yong Vui Kong. Whether he lives or dies will have an impact on many of us, not least, the ministers and the president who ultimately will decide his fate.

When we turn the pages of our newspapers and chance upon a face of a person executed the day before, we hardly spare a thought about that person or how his family who had to collect his lifeless body in the morning will cope with his death. We don’t know the person and we don’t care. It is his family’s problem, not ours. But with so much having been written and filmed about Yong Vui Kong and his family, I doubt we will remain indifferent. How could we? He is a person we know but have not met.

Yong Vui Kong has been on  death row for more than 5 years. He was nearly executed  many times in the past and he understands more than anyone of us, how precious life is.

I am sure the young people who are preparing to celebrate Yong Vui Kong’s 24th birthday this Sunday, 15 January 2011  at Hong Lim Park will feel sad but at the same time they must also feel hopeful, that he will be given a second chance.  This is the second time that they are celebrating his birthday at the park. He is so near to them and yet so far away. If only he could be taken to Hong Lim for the celebration  for just a few hours.

Will Yong Vui Kong be given a second chance?

The Yellow Ribbon Project in Singapore was launched in 2004 by our former President, Mr S R Nathan.  Its mission is  “to engage the community in accepting ex-offenders and their families, giving them a second chance at life and to inspire a ripple effect of concerted community action to support ex-offenders and their families.” Mr Nathan said:

“Although they have made a mistake in life, they deserve a second chance. We all make mistakes, we all come out the better for it.”

Yes, from all accounts, Yong Vui Kong has repented his crime and has reformed. He has now come out “the better for it”. He is now a devout Buddhist and you can see that from his writings and drawings. He was nearly executed several times during the past 5 years. Some of us may know that just before a person is hanged, he is counselled, weighed and measured, photographed in his best clothes and if he agrees to donate his organs after death, he is medically examined and tested. Yong Vui Kong must have gone through all those tests several times and felt so close to death.  In his “last letter” he talked vividly about other death row inmates who at the dawn of death, became inconsolable.

The Yellow Ribbon Project believes that “HOPE CAN ONLY RESTART IF WE GIVE THEM A SECOND CHANCE.” Yong Vui Kong was not given a second chance before. When during his trial the High Court judge, out of compassion, suggested to the prosecutor  to give him a chance because of his young age (he was then 18 years old), the prosecutor declined to do so. It saddens me that the prosecutor had such a hard view on his case and I wonder what was the reason since Yong Vui  Kong was a first time offender and this fact alone would have been a very importantl consideration for reducing a charge to a lesser offence.

Yong Vui Kong’s birthday will be celebrated with sadness this Sunday.  But that sadness will not be without hope – the  hope  that  our ministers will be compassionate and merciful, that they will grant the clemency petition of Yong Vui Kong and our president will announce his pardon before the Lunar New Year.  Even though I have not met Yong Vui Kong, I am confident that given a second chance, he will make good the remainder of his life. From his writings, drawings and his faith,  he will inspire our young. Like Glenn Lim who is now a leader and a motivational speaker, Yong Vui Kong will be an excellent motivational speaker and a leader too. He may also be a great religious teacher, having gone through the most harrowing experience of living in the dark shadow of death and having embraced Buddhism. He will be a great asset to our society and his contributions will be tremendous. Yes, I have faith that this young man will do our country proud if given a second chance.

Teo Soh Lung

Note:

At Hong Lim Park on Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 4 p.m. Give Life A Second Chance activists celebrate Yong Vui Kong’s 24th birthday. If you can spare the time, do join in the celebration. If not, do spend a minute in silence for him on that day. Thank you.

Other posts on Vui Kong Birthday

Vui Kong – the turning point? by Andrew Loh

Happy Birthday, Vui Kong by Rachael Zeng

No logic in death – Happy 24th Birthday Vui Kong

Photos on 15th Jan 2012 events

Tomorrow (19 Jan 2012) will be Vui Kong 24th birthday. Last year, we marked Vui Kong’s 23rd birthday not knowing if he would live to celebrate another. However, thanks to his dedicated lawyers and the support of activists and the public, he can now live to see the dawn this Friday.

We are inviting the public to celebrate his birthday with him this year. Please write your wishes, thoughts and hopes for him and e-mail the messages to 2ndchance4yong@gmail.com. We will deliver them to Vui Kong through his lawyer M Ravi.

If you permit, we will publish the wishes in our blog here.

Thanks,

Save Vui Kong Campaign (18/1/2012)

On 15 Jan 2012, a group of supporters gathered in Speaker Corner Singapore to celebrate Vui Kong's 24th birthday

Dear Vui Kong,

Your story has touched us all and we have you in our thoughts. We are all gathered here today to celebrate your birthday. But we are also here to remember your life and what you have done, the good and the bad.

Vui Kong, no one here denies that you have made a mistake in life. It is a mistake that is grave, and it has probably affected the lives of others in ways that we cannot imagine.

But we simply cannot accept that the punishment you deserve is death.

Many who do not understand our cause will think that we are advocating for your release. That cannot be any more untrue. The second chance that we want your to have is a second chance at making things right. What can be better if you can help us prevent many others from stepping down the same path as you did. What better way to solve the drug problem than to educate, and to make people aware. This you have promised to do. And we want to help you fulfil that promise.

To those who think that executing you, and the many others on death row, would help solve the drug problem, we can only hope that they can place themselves in your position, and realise the difficulties you faced which eventually led you to make that horrible mistake. If they could only know you and your story, maybe they will change their minds , maybe they will think again.

Its is a difficult road to go through, but we are all behind you.

We also want you to know that your love for your mother has touched us all. Vui Kong, do not worry, we have her in our thoughts as well.

Happy birthday Vui Kong.

Original post : We Believed in 2nd Chances

The Civil Rights Committee of KLSCAH and Amnesty International Malaysia have jointly collaborated over the past month to advocate for the abolition of the Death Penalty in Malaysia. This collaboration has spawned various activities to raise awareness and educate the general public on the controversial issue on whether or not the death penalty should be retained.

To conclude the month of activities, we are honoured to bring you Mr. Toshi Kazama to share his experiences and views on this issue.

Toshi is a photographer and anti Death Penalty Activist. He is also the founder of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, an NGO which brings together the families of victims and of executed inmates. We generally assume that family members of brutal crimes invariably favour the death penalty as a means of achieving justice and closure for their pain and suffering. The members of this NGO will testify otherwise. Many members of murder victims’ families have come forward to share their stories and voice out their opposition to the death penalty.

Civil Rights Committee of KLSCAH and Amnesty International Malaysia cordially invite you to join us at the following events:-

“Young Death Rows”
a photo presentation by Toshi Kazama

Date :           23/10/2011 (Sunday)
Time :          5pm – 730pm
Venue:         Palate Palette Café
Address:      No 21, Jalan Mesui Off Jalan Nagasari, 50200 Kuala Lumpur
Tel:               03-2142 2148

Program:
5.00pm:         Arrival of Guests.
5.15pm:         Presentations by the winner of AIM Photography Contest
5.35pm:         Photo presentation by Toshi Kazama
6.35pm:         Question and Answer
7.35pm:         End

“Death Penalty: Does he/she deserve it?
A perspective from the victim’s family”

Talk by Toshi Kazama, Moderator: Yap Sau Bin

Date:               25/10/2011 (Tuesday)
Time:              8pm – 930pm
Venue :           Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
Address:         No 1, Jalan Maharajalela, 50150 Kuala Lumpur
Tel:                  03-2274 6645

Program:
8.00pm:            Talk by Toshi Kazama, Moderator: Yap Sau Bin
8.45pm:            Question and Answer
9.30pm:            End

Biodata : Toshi Kazama

The Japanese-born Toshi uses his camera as a means to oppose the death penalty. He is best known for his project “Juveniles of Death Row: A Documentary Exploration” where he portray juvenile offenders on death row. His project, which spanned eight years, includes getting to know the offenders’ families, as well as the families of their victims and the prison officials. All of Toshi’s artworks focus on the value of human life and respect for each other, showing the reality of the death penalty through his photos and experiences.  Toshi has toured the world sharing these photographs and his experiences.

【風間聰简介】美籍日裔的風間聰，是一位專業攝影師，多次巡迴亞洲展覽他的作品與演講，風間聰近年來更致力於推動亞洲的被害人保護運動及草根串聯。

自1996年起，風間聰以青少年死囚為主題，進行長達八年的拍攝計畫，走遍全美監獄，拍攝二十多位青少年死囚的照片。在那些年輕臉孔背後，他瞭解體會他們的成長背景與環境，看到貧窮、破碎家庭及冤錯；犯罪跟清白只在一線之間，而死刑更顯得荒謬無理。同時他拍攝電椅、藥物注射台等行刑器具，呈現了死刑無可開脫的殘忍，也還拍攝許多受害者家屬，在他們身上看到，死刑無法平撫仇恨，並且在死刑之外，社會為他們做得卻如此之少。

Moderator : Yap Sau Bin

Yap was born in Kuala Lumpur, and lives and works there now. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Fine Art degree from the Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, England in 1998. He is currently a lecturer at the Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University, Malaysia. Yap is also a founding member of Rumah Air Panas Art Society [RAP], an artist collective based in Kuala Lumpur.

His art practice encompasses conceptual work, installations, mapping projects, collaborations, performance and sporadic writings. He had received awards in the Young Contemporaries Arts Award by the National Art Gallery in 2000 and 2002, and has been selected for research residency in Japan under the JENESYS Programme for Creators by the Japan Foundation in 2008.

【叶绍斌简介】1974年生于吉隆坡，森美兰州芙蓉成长，为吉隆坡Rumah Air Panas 艺术家自主空间创办会员之一。英国伯明翰美术与设计学院毕业的他，目前任教于多媒体大学创意多媒体系，曾在2000年及2002年二度荣获国家画廊主办的“当代青年艺术家奖”。绍斌酷好哲学，打从青涩年华便不由自主地堕入爱智慧的痛苦深渊里，视德里达之解构理论为其个人思想原乡；他的言说之中，若非大处留白，则是玄意幽远，犹如一幅灵韵生动的水墨画，既自然流露，也发人深省。

死刑對許多人來說，是既陌生有熟悉。陌生，是因為很多人不懂，到底在犯下什麼罪後才會被判處死刑，而熟悉則是從報章上，都會看到有罪犯被法官判處極刑的新聞。

為配合第9屆世界反死刑日，隆雪華堂民權委員會及國際特赦組織，特別舉辦一個名為「死囚之影」藝術特展，讓民眾透過藝術家的作品，對死刑進行思考。

隆雪華堂民權委員會主席廖國華指出，這次藝術展，共展出12個藝術家作品，而希望透過這些作品能夠讓到場的民眾，思考死刑這個刑罰。

「死刑到底有多近，正義到底又離死刑有多遠呢？普羅大眾都不會談論死刑，反之社會精英份子都會探討這個課題，就像之前首相署所舉辦的一個圓桌會議，都有邀請一些民權分子、非政府組織等討論死刑。」

「民眾不討論死刑，也不說到底死刑好不好，是因為他們有『不會發生在我們身上』的心態，而且就算有親友被判死刑，他們也不會說出，因為擔心受到社會歧視。」

破案率比死刑更重要

他說，所以這次的展覽，就是要激起民眾的死刑的再思考，無論他們同意死刑有必要存在與否。

「而且，我們透過藝術作品讓民眾去思考死刑，是不想以強硬手段逼使民眾否決死刑，而是要把訊息帶出。」

「當然，我們的立場是廢除死刑，而且覺得死刑並沒有達到執行的目的。執行死刑的其中一個用意是要制止罪犯，但當一個人要殺另一個人的時候，因為他的衝動，他是不會去想後果。我們也認為，破案率比死刑更加重要，提出死刑這個論述，是因為執法當局已走入絕境，而且有惰性思維。」

他說，當執法單位受到社會輿論壓力、責備時，就會說死刑就是最嚴厲的刑罰。「但這其實是一種惰性，執法單位並沒有思考如何有效去制止罪案發生。以命償命是觀念，無論是東西方都有存在，但在德國就有社會學家做過研究，去訪問謀殺案受害者家屬，卻得到不一樣的看法。」

他說，研究發現一般上民眾會認為，一旦加害者被判處死刑，就已完成整個工作，但在訪問受害者家屬後，卻發現他們未必要加害者被判死刑。

「可能在事發後，受害者家屬會因為悲憤，而在霎時間覺得加害者應該被判死刑，但死刑執行後，家屬就會思考，他們有部分會認為，只要治安好，他們的家屬就不會死。所以，在歐盟，他們所提倡的是為家屬提供輔導，讓他們走過家屬被殺害的陰影，若受害者是家庭經濟支柱，還會提供他們經濟援助。因此，最重要的是協助加害者家屬，如何走過困境。」

他指出，上述的模式，重點是要協助受害者家屬，而非懲罰加害者，當然加害者也是要受到一定懲罰。

12藝術家探討生命意義

隆雪中華大會堂民權委員會副主席饒兆穎指出，這次共有12名藝術家，以油畫、裝置藝術、錄影藝術以及攝影等方式，探討死刑。

她說，是在這兩個月前，才開始邀請藝術家參與死囚之影藝術特展，而且一開始也面對許多問題，包括有很多藝術家都對死刑不瞭解。

「經過不斷聯繫，並與有意參與的藝術家討論死刑，並提供相關資料後，才有這12名藝術家，願意和我們站在一起。」

由「懺悔」角度切入

也是死囚之影策劃人之一的她表示，死刑不是唯一的刑罰，還有其他處罰的方式，因此就有藝術家從作品中探討生命的意義，而且是由「懺悔」的角度切入。

「但一個人是直接以死刑處決，他就連懺悔的機會都沒有。所以，只要民眾走完整個特展，就會帶給他們一個想法『死刑離我遠嗎？』」

她說，很多人講到死刑，並沒有去思考，只要有人說支持，他們就會盲目支持，反之，有人反對，他們也跟著反對，作出倉促決定。

「很多先進國家都廢除死刑，就算死刑依然存在，也是會留到最嚴重的罪案，才會對人判處死刑。」

「參觀特展的人，未必要決定是否支持廢除死刑，但是，在他們做決定前，應該先考慮清楚。」

她也說，死囚之影特展，是延續2010年7月，由隆雪華堂民權委員會與人民之聲成立的「楊偉光後援會」，所發起的「給生命第二次機會」醒覺運動。

她說，從楊偉光在新加坡因運毒而判處死刑，已經有民眾關注死刑，而現在則是把這項運動，轉型到社會醒覺運動。

Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM) and the Civil Rights Committee of the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH – CRC) are organising an Anti Death Penalty Awareness month throughout the month of October.

Using the concept of ‘creative activism’, AIM and KLSCAH – CRC will be bringing you an art exhibition, a film festival & dialogue and a public discussion with photographer Toshi Kazama! Regardless of which side of the fence you decide to perch on, you are bound to be drawn to the artistic morbidity of this series of events.

The events are in conjunction with the World Coalition’s 9^th World Day Against the Death Penalty which falls on 10^th October 2011. This year’s World Day focuses on the Inhumanity of the Death Penalty. The theme addresses the death penalty as a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment not just during execution but throughout the entire process.

“The mental anguish a person endures knowing that he/she is living only to be killed is incomparable to any other kind of torture”, says Nora Murat, Executive Director of AIM. In many countries, death row inmates are kept in appalling conditions. Some such as Brandon Rhode who was executed in Georgia last year were driven to the brink of insanity. Brandon Rhode had been so terrified of his execution that he attempted suicide on the morning of the day. He was resuscitated only to be executed a week later.

In Malaysia, our year has been punctuated by tales of young individuals tethering precariously on the edge of the scaffold as they await news of their fate. Yong Vui Kong and Cheong Chun Yin are hardly strangers to us anymore. Many times have we read and heard, perhaps even retold the tragedy of their naivety. Then there are the stories of starry eyed lovers and even the mentally disabled who are duped into carrying drugs!

“Everyone knows the issues surrounding the death penalty. Yet, we tend to take it for granted that it is necessary and we avoid talking about it. To some people it’s still taboo”, says Liau Kok Fah, CRC-KLSCAH Chairperson. “We hope that highlighting the issue in a less formal setting, we will be able to get more people to rethink their stand. Through arts, exhibition, film screening and dialogue, public can understand the logical discourse of death penalty, and comprehend the reasoned debate of human rights  ”.

So, dive into the inkwells of some creative minds in our Art Exhibition themed, “In Death Row’s Shadow”. The exhibition will run from 1^st – 10^th October 2011 at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH). On weekdays it will be open from 3.00 pm till 9.00 pm while on weekends it will be open from 11.00 am till 9.00 pm. We will be featuring an array of local, US and Singaporean water colour, acrylic painting, sculptor, and visual arts artists such as Zelin Seah, Susan Loone, Seelan Palay and Chong Kim Chiew.

Then, on 8^th and 9^th October 2011 we will imbibe you into the murky areas between life and death. On both days, from 2.00 pm-5pm and 7pm-10.00 pm we will be showing powerful films and documentaries on the death penalty. Can the death penalty ever be voluntary? How does one use the death penalty to rid oneself off an errant wife? Whatever the question may be, share them with us.

Finally, on 23 October 2011 experience the reality of the death penalty through US based, Japanese photographer Toshi Kazama. Toshi Kazama is an activist who photographs the faces of juvenile offenders on death row. His interest arose because as he raised his own children in USA, he was compelled to study the local criminal justice system. This opened his eyes to the problems within the system.  He also photographs death chambers in USA.

Nora Murat, says, “Through our experience, we notice that young people react better to activities which allow them to express their own individuality. So if we want people to understand that the death penalty is inhuman, we need to be able to bring this issue to level where people are able to relate and where it is tangible”.

在这个十月份，国际特赦组织马来西亚分会将连同吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂民权委员会举办反死刑觉醒月。

在“创意行动主义”的概念下，国际特赦组织马来西亚分会和雪华堂民权委员会将为你呈现多项节目，包括艺术展，电影分享会还有与知名摄影师风间聪的公开交流会！无论你对死刑持有何种立场，你势必会被这一系列节目所呈现的艺术品所吸引。

此活动是为了配合在2001年10月10日由世界死刑联盟发起的第九届世界反死刑日。今年的世界日着重于死刑本质上的不人道。这次的主题是为了表达出死刑是一种极其残忍，不人道及侮辱人格的惩罚，其特质不仅仅表现在处决的时候，在整个过程中也是如此。

“当一个人知道他/她活着只是等待被杀死，所承受的精神折磨比任何一种酷刑更加痛苦” 国际特赦组织马来西亚分会执行董事诺拉·姆拉特如此说道。在许多国家，死囚都被扣押在极为恶劣的环境下。有些死囚譬如去年在格鲁吉亚被处死的布兰登·罗德已被折磨至濒临精神错乱。布兰登·罗德对于其处决感到无比恐惧以至于在当天早上试图自杀。他在被救活后的一个星期却又被处决。

在马来西亚，一些年轻人被拴上绳圈在绞刑台边缘摇摇欲坠的故事不时将我们的生活打断。杨伟光和张俊炎这两个名字对我们不再陌生。我们多次读到和听到，甚至也在重述着他们天真的悲剧。然后还有很多这样的故事，被爱蒙蔽双眼而意乱情迷的人，甚至是智障者都被欺骗利用运送毒品。

“每个人都知道这些围绕于死刑的课题。然而，我们总是理所当然的认为这是必要的，我们避免谈论它。对一些人来说它仍然是禁忌。”雪华堂民权委员会主席廖国华说道。“我们希望能在一些较为轻松环境凸现这个课题，这样我们可以让更多人去从新思考他们的立场。”

所以，在我们的以“死囚之影”为题的艺术特展中，你可以潜入这满满创意思维的墨井中。展览于2011年10月1日至10日在吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂举行。开放时间是星期一至五，中午3时到晚上9时，而周末则是从上午11时到晚上9时。本次展览将由本地和新加坡水彩画家，雕塑家，和视觉艺术家为你呈现。

2011年10月8日及9日，我们会把你带入生与死的黑暗领域。在这两天，从中午2时到晚上10时，我们将呈献关于死刑的震撼电影和纪录片。死刑可以是自愿的吗？一个人怎样利用死刑来摆脱一个对自己不忠的妻子？无论问题是什么，欢迎来与我们分享。

最后，在10月23日，透过日裔美籍摄影师风间聪的作品分享死刑的体验。风间聪是一名社运分子，他拍攝多位青少年死囚的照片。由于他在美国抚养自己的孩子，这激起他的兴趣让他去研究当地的刑事司法系统。这让他看清这系统里存在的问题。他也拍摄了多张死牢里的照片。

Singapore has seemed to align with international law on drug executions, but a recent court decision throws that into doubt. Photograph: Scott Robin Barbour/Getty

All too often, states disproportionately apply the death penalty to the ‘small fish’ in drug trafficking organisations. That these people usually poor, often young and occasionally ignorant of the contents of their cargo does nothing to elicit mercy

Yong Vui Kong has been deprived of many things.

He was denied an education, leaving school at 11-years-old. He was denied the company of his family after he left his hometown of Sabah for Kuala Lumpur at 15 to work as an apprentice cook. More recently, he has been denied a shred of mercy.

Vui Kong is on death row after being arrested in Singapore with 47.27 grams of diamorphine when he was barely out of childhood. He was sentenced to die by the High Court in 2008 and the young Malaysian’s subsequent appeals have since been rejected.

One of the major tragedies of Vui Kong’s case is that he is so emblematic of those condemned to die for drug offences.

Last March, China executed three Filipino drug mules, including Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, 32. Villanueva worked in China as a domestic helper when a dorm-mate offered her a job delivering ‘spare parts.’ When she arrived in China, it turned out she had been carrying a little over 4 kilos of heroin. Her final request before facing lethal injection was for her two children to receive an education.

There are literally thousands more examples like these.

Politically, it is popular to argue that major traffickers and elite drug kingpins are worthy of the state’s strongest punishment. But common sense dictates that the Pablo Escobars of the world do not strap drugs to their bodies and cross borders.

Serving as a drug mule is exclusively the vocation of the desperate, the poor and/or the naive. Thus the severest penalties, imposed to enforce already draconian drug laws, tend to disproportionately affect the poor.

As the Global Commission on Drug Policy wrote recently, “Around the world, the vast majority of arrests are of these nonviolent and low-ranking ‘little fish’ in the drug market. They are most visible and easy to catch, and do not have the means to pay their way out of trouble. (They cannot afford bribes or bail, for example.) The result is that governments are filling prisons with minor offenders serving long sentences, at great cost, and with no impact on the scale or profitability of the market.”

Yet in 32 countries or territories drug offenders – including ‘low-ranking little fish’ – also face the death penalty, many of whom are foreigners who have been apprehended with international support.

While some policymakers would like to assume that the courts are capable of recognising a defendant’s role in the value chain of a drug trafficking organisation, the reality is that in at least 12 countries, the death penalty is mandatory for anyone caught with more than specified (often small) quantities of drugs. Judges’ hands are tied to do anything other than impose death – which does not always sit well with jurists.

In Malaysia, when High Court Justice Mohtarudin Baki imposed a death sentence on Seok Hann for drug trafficking, he said,  “I did not have any choice but impose a death sentence on you. There is not a single judge who is happy to impose a death sentence. I have searched for opportunities not to impose the death sentence on you but failed.”

This joined another case in Malaysia where the judge nearly wept while handing down a death sentence.

Courts around the world are fully aware that they are not getting the ‘big smugglers’.

Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafan Dolatabadi said  “Three-hundred people have been sentenced to death in relation to drug smuggling. However, these people are not the major drug traffickers … We need to move towards the big smugglers.”

This is an astonishing admission – especially considering Iran has executed drug offenders at a frantic pace, reportedly well over 10,000 drug offenders since the 1979 revolution.

And the rate is not slowing down. According to the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Human Rights and Democracy report, “Credible reports suggest that the execution figure rose from at least 388 publicly reported executions in 2009, to more than 650 in 2010. Reports indicate that roughly 590 people were executed for drugs trafficking in 2010.”

A reasonable defence of these laws might be that no matter how poor or desperate these drug mules are, they made a choice that has potentially serious social impacts necessitating punishment.

But even this view wrongly presumes the courts will spare the ignorant or gullible.

In 2007, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, protested Singapore’s pending execution of a Nigerian named Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, who was arrested with drugs as a teenager.

The trial judge appears to have accepted that Tochi might have been ignorant of what he was carrying, indeed stating “there was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine.” However, according to the judge, that “ignorance did not exculpate him”; Tochi was convicted and sentenced to death. The appeal court rejected the suggestion that it was irrelevant whether Tochi had knowledge of what he was carrying. Nevertheless, it upheld his conviction, reasoning that under Singapore law such knowledge is presumed until the defendant rebuts that presumption “on a balance of probabilities”; “It is not sufficient for a defendant merely to raise a reasonable doubt.”

Tochi was executed later that year. He was just 21-years-old.

What then does it take to presume lethal ‘knowledge’ in Singapore?

Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act states that a person in possession of drugs above a specified quantity “shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose.” The Act further states that people can “be presumed to have had that drug” in possession based on possessing “(a) anything containing a controlled drug; (b) the keys of anything containing a controlled drug; (c) the keys of any place or premises or any part thereof in which a controlled drug is found; or (d) a document of title relating to a controlled drug or any other document intended for the delivery of a controlled drug, shall, until the contrary is proved.”

So one had better be very careful about choosing flatmates or tenants.

The section even adds: “The presumptions provided for in this section shall not be rebutted by proof that the accused never had physical possession of the controlled drug.”

While features – such as youth and poverty – may be factors in what led people to death row they are not causes for mercy. Singapore’s Law Minister argued that softening the laws would, “send a signal to all the drug barons out there: just make sure you choose a victim who is young, or a mother of a young child, and use them as the people to carry the drugs into Singapore.”

By this logic, drug mules are executed in order to send a message to their bosses ( as if they care).

It is entirely possible that some powerful ‘bad’ people are executed for drugs. Governments could probably trot out some examples of major traffickers who were shot, hanged or lethally injected.

But all too often, states disproportionately apply the ultimate sanction to the lowest value figures of a drug trafficking organisation. That these people are sometimes young, usually poor and occasionally ignorant of the contents of their cargo does nothing to elicit mercy.

And for all the deprivations boys like Vui Kong have experienced – this denial of mercy is the cruellest of all.

This article stems from a paper presented at the 10th International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific

Patrick Gallahue is a human rights analyst with Harm Reduction International and the co-author of the reports, ‘The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010’ and ‘Complicity or Abolition? The Death Penalty and International Support for Drug Enforcement.’ Click  here to read his other article related to Vui Kong and Singapore drug policy.

Written by Andrew Loh (31 August 2011, posted in publichouse.sg)

Originally scheduled to be hanged on 4 December 2009, 23-year old Malaysian Yong Vui Kong is still alive today in Singapore’s Changi Prison. He sits on death row, awaiting the outcome of his final appeal to the President of Singapore for clemency which he submitted on 7 July this year. The President is expected to decide on the appeal in October.

Vui Kong, together with an accomplice, was arrested in June 2007 at Singapore’s Orchard Road shopping district with 42.27g of heroin.

He was 19-years old then.

All his appeals and constitutional challenges in the courts, through his lawyer Mr M Ravi, have been to no avail. Campaigns from activists from Malaysia, Singapore and international human rights organisations have all failed to persuade the Singapore government to stay its hand. The courts have upheld the death sentence passed on Vui Kong.

His family members, who have been visiting him in prison regularly, his lawyer and activists now wait with bated breath. The expectation is that the President, who acts on the advice of the Cabinet, will dismiss his appeal. If he does, Vui Kong could be hanged as soon as a week after the President’s decision.

Vui Kong’s case has been in the news since his arrest and more so since 2009 when he was first scheduled to hang. Much have been said and done to save him from the gallows.

There is a sense of fatalism among his supporters, that his death by state-sanctioned hanging is inevitable.

Can or will the new president be able to influence the cabinet in sparing Vui Kong?

President-elect Tan was a former minister himself, serving in five ministries and being a former deputy prime minister. He would have thus been privy to the internal cabinet discussions of past capital cases and the death penalty itself. It is, however, unclear what his personal stance on the matter is. Will it matter, anyway?

It could, given that Law Minister K Shanmugam, in seeking to clarify the roles of the elected president, said: “[A] president ‘who is wise, knowledgeable and experienced’ will be able to offer advice and would be more influential than another who does not possess as much experience or wisdom, all things being equal.” He said that “the president can give advice even on areas outside of his scope.”

Dr Tan is highly-respected by the cabinet, undoubtedly. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself, even if not explicitly, endorsed Dr Tan as his preferred choice for the presidency during the campaign. In addition, Dr Tan – a second generation leader – is a trusted member of senior statesman Lee Kuan Yew’s inner circle.

Now that he is president, Dr Tan’s views and words will carry more weight – even in areas outside of the scope of his office as prescribed by the constitution.

During his campaign and in his victory speech, Dr Tan promised to work with all sectors of Singapore society, and to listen to their concerns.

The question is whether his pledge extends to non-bread and butter, economic matters, such as the mandatory death penalty under which the courts condemned Vui Kong to death.

Dr Tan, who became a Member of Parliament in 1979 and joined the cabinet a year later, had served under four of Singapore’s presidents during his time in government. In those years, three of the four presidents granted six clemencies in total to death row inmates.

President Nathan is believed to be the exception, without having granted any appeals.

Signing the execution order for Vui Kong would be one of the first solemn acts of President Tony Tan.

Whether he does so will provide a clue on where the cabinet stands on the matter and if Singapore is ready to revisit the issue of capital punishment which, as some say, is based on faulty law and inadequate safeguards in the processes.

President Tony Tan is Vui Kong’s last hope for a second lease on life. Will the new president bring his influence to bear on the cabinet and persuade it to grant mercy and perhaps even to impose a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty?

Will our society be given the opportunity to discuss and decide if imposing mandatory death sentences, even on those as young as 18 –  including girls – is justifiable and desirable?

Or will such solemn matters as ending the lives of the convicted be left in the hands of a few men in cabinet?