Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
On 15 June 2020, ADPAN co-partnered with a number of organisation to make a submission to the 78th Session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women with a focus on issues relating to the death penalty. Click here to read the submission entitled ‘Indonesia’s Compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women’
16 June 2020
Source: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/assembly-review-06162020224511.html
The judicial committee of Vietnam’s National Assembly on Tuesday agreed to seek a review of a court rejection last month the appeal of a death row prisoner,in a rare case of public disagreement between branches of the one-party communist state.
The majority of the panel’s 40 members agreed to review the decision last month to reject an appeal of the verdict in the case of Ho Duy Hai, who was convicted in 2008 of the murder of two female postal employees in Long An province and given the death penalty, according to state media reports.
On May 8, a 17-member jury rejected the Supreme People’s Procuracy’s petition to throw out the verdict in Hai’s trials and reinvestigate his case, saying he had admitted guilt for his crimes and the basic facts supported the decisions by the courts of first instance and later appeals.
On Monday, Supreme Court Chief Judge Nguyen Hoa Binh reaffirmed the death penalty, telling the assembly that Ho had given 25 statements to the court admitting his guilt.
The majority of the National Assembly Judicial Committee, however, disagreed, according to the online state media outlet Tuoi Tre
They said their evaluation of the investigation and rulings in Hai’s case pointed to serious issues with the potential to change the nature of the case, and that they will petition the assembly standing committee for a review of the May 8 cassation trial’s conclusion.
Hai’s case has stirred public interest in one-party Vietnam, where the assembly typically rubber stamps ruling party decisions.
In a video that went viral on social media after the May 8 ruling against Hai, Hai’s mother Nguyen Thi Loan collapsed, while family members outside the building decried what they said was a lack of justice in Vietnam’s courts.
The National Assembly is the last recourse for Ho in the decades-long case that has seen appeals and a 2014 stay of execution ordered by the then president.
Observers have pointed to several procedural errors in Ho’s case, including that it was largely based on a confession that he later recanted, saying he had been forced to do so by police during his detention.
Additionally, prosecutors lacked crucial evidence, as no time of death for the two victims was ever established, fingerprints at the crime scene did not match Hai’s, and the murder weapons were misplaced by the forensic team.
London-based rights group Amnesty International has cited Hai’s mother as saying that he was tortured in prison, citing his deteriorating health and loss of weight.
In February 2015, the National Assembly’s Committee on Judicial Affairs declared after a reinvestigation into the case that during both the initial trial and the appeal, there had been “serious violations of criminal procedural law.”
The committee urged that the case be reviewed on appeal, but in Dec. 2017, Long An province’s procuracy pushed for execution.
In November last year, Amnesty International sent a petition with 25,000 signatures to President Trong calling for Hai’s acquittal.
Between August 2013 and June 2016, Vietnam executed 429 people, while 1,134 people were given death sentences between July 2011 and June 2016, according to government figures released in 2018.
Reported by RFA’s Vietnamese Service. Translated by Huy Le. Written in English by Paul Eckert.
This was a joint statement of 37 groups and 3 individuals, whereby ADPAN was one of co-signatories. It was carried by Malaysiakini, one of popular online media, and also by several other sites. OUR VOICES get to many more people when media reports on our statements. [See earlier post for the earlier statement)
Letter
Published: Feb 2nd, 2020 | Modified: Feb 2nd, 2020
LETTER | We, the 37 undersigned groups and organisations, and three individuals, are appalled by Singapore’s denial and response to the highlighting of alleged “barbaric” unlawful practices in execution method that was highlighted vide a Jan 16 media statement issued by Lawyers for Liberty (LFL).
Singapore claims that it is “untrue, baseless and preposterous”.
We are also shocked by Singapore’s invoking of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma), and the issuing of notices and directions ordering LFL and three parties that have shared the allegations – Singaporean activist Kirsten Han, The Online Citizen website and Yahoo Singapore – to correct the false statements.
To comply with this Pofma Order, Singapore authorities said: “They will be required to carry a correction notice alongside their posts or articles stating that their posts or articles contain falsehoods”.
Non-compliance with the Pofma notice is a crime, and if convicted an individual may be liable to a fine not exceeding S$20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, whereas others will be liable to a fine not exceeding S$500,000.
The notice can also lead to an access blocking order, whereby service providers will have to disable access by end-users in Singapore to the online location.
It is not a defence even if one has applied to the responsible minister to withdraw or vary the order, appealed to court or is “subject to a duty under any written law, any rule of law, any contract or any rule of professional conduct, that prevents the person from complying with the Pofma notice”.
It is deplorable to ask any human rights defender or media agency to publicly take a position that the alleged rights violations and/or injustices that they highlighted or reported on are false or contains falsehood.
Where there is an allegation of a wrongdoing or a crime, it is the duty of a human rights defender or any concerned person to highlight it, and thereafter, it falls on the relevant government, or relevant national, regional or international bodies to conduct the needed independent investigation and determine whether what was alleged was true or baseless.
Note that many investigations may even come to no conclusions due to insufficiency of evidence, and this should in no way lead to the assumption that the allegations were untrue.
A perusal of the LFL statement shows that the source of their information, amongst others, is from a credible source – a Singapore prison officer.
This would reasonably be someone who had first-hand knowledge of what was being alleged.
In the LFL statement, it also mentions that this officer is prepared to come forward and testify at the appropriate forum.
LFL also highlighted this allegation earlier, in its Nov 23, 2019 statement, where it said: “Finally, we’ve also received shocking information relating to the process of execution at Changi prison.
“We have incontrovertible evidence that unlawful and extremely brutal methods are secretly used in carrying out hangings by the Singapore Prison Services. We are prepared to reveal this evidence, supplied by prison officers, in due course.”
LFL, in the Jan 16 statement, also said it had written to the Singapore authorities and informed them it is prepared to meet them and hand over the evidence in its possession.
However, the Singapore government met LFL’s disclosures with deafening silence.
Significantly, the government also did not deny LFL’s allegation of brutality in carrying out hangings, which has been widely reported.
The Singapore government should have rightfully met with LFL, received the evidence and conducted a proper investigation and disclosed its findings.
According to law, police are not supposed to torture detainees, but the fact is that some police officers do torture and even kill those in their custody.
It may not the government’s fault, but the fault of these errant officers who did wrong.
But, if a government, after receiving information of such wrongdoings, chooses to do nothing about it, then it can be said that the government that “covers up” wrongdoings of public servants or simply ignores it may be just as guilty of the said wrongdoings.
The media is obliged to report to the public, and that includes statements and positions of ordinary people and human rights defenders.
Most media outlets, would as a matter of good practice, try to get a response from the alleged perpetrator or other relevant parties but the news ought never be stifled simply because the perpetrators (or interested parties) do not provide an immediate response.
Of course, most media will carry even a late response from the alleged perpetrator or other interested parties.
Obligations imposed on the media should not be the same as those imposed on individuals using social media.
Many good people who share news or views on social media, if they do get a response from alleged perpetrator or interested parties, will also usually share that response with their readership.
In Malaysia, many human rights violations and even crimes that were highlighted by HR Defenders or media were investigated by the government.
As an example, in Malaysia, it was the investigation by the New Straits Times Special Probes Team into the mass killings in Wang Kelian in 2015 that highlighted and suggested a massive, coordinated cover-up.
It revealed the human trafficking death camps had been discovered months earlier, but police only announced the discovery on May 25.
It also questioned why the police ordered the destruction of these camps, which were potential crime scenes before they could be processed by forensics personnel?
The Malaysian government’s response was to investigate this case, and on Jan 16, it was reported that the Home Ministry will present a report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the Wang Kelian human trafficking incident to the Cabinet next week.
Hopefully, thereafter the report will be made public.
Like Malaysia, Singapore too should have conducted a comprehensive investigation on the allegations raised by LFL, and not try to “force” LFL and others who highlighted this issue to publicly admit that it contained falsehood.
Publicly highlighting allegations or facts of wrongdoings, rights violations and injustices today is a means of ensuring that justice is done, for otherwise relevant governments and enforcement authorities can sometimes chose to simply “cover-up” such allegations.
It is wrong for any government to use laws and crimes (with serious penalties) to prevent human rights defenders, media and others from highlighting allegations of wrongdoings.
Such laws that undermine the responsibilities of human rights defenders, including media, ought to be repealed. Freedom of expression, opinion and peaceful assembly ought to be protected.
The courage to highlight possible human rights violations, injustices and wrongdoings should be applauded, not stifled or penalised.
The media reported that the Singapore Minister of Communications and Information had on Jan 23 directed the Infocomm Media Development Authority to get Internet service providers here to block the LFL website for not complying with a correction direction issued under the fake news law.
Therefore, we call on Singapore to:
– immediately and unconditionally withdraw the notice and internet access blocking orders pursuant to Pofma that were directed at LFL, Kristen Han, The Online Citizen, Yahoo Singapore and others.
– ensure an independent and thorough investigation is conducted concerning allegations of unjust and barbaric practices that allegedly happened during the hanging of persons in Singapore.
– respect human rights defenders and media agencies, and not to stifle them from carrying out their responsibility and duty to highlight allegations of human rights violations and injustices.
– abolish the death penalty.
The above is a joint statement from Aliran, Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (Adpan), Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (Afad), Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons from Indian Administered Jammu and Kashmir, Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters- HRDP in Myanmar, Asociación de Trabajadoras del Hogar a Domicilio y de Maquila–Atrahdom, Guatemala, Australians Against Capital Punishment, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (Masum), India, Dutch League For Human Rights, Empower Foundation Thailand, Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (Find) – Philippines, German Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Global Women’s Strike United Kingdom, Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center, Karapatan Alliance Philippines, LAW United Kingdom, Madpet (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture), Malaysian Trade Union Congress, Manushya Foundation Thailand, MAP Foundation (Migrant Assistance Program) Thailand, North-South Initiative, Odhikar Bangladesh, Payday Men’s Network United Kingdom. Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur, Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (Pacti) India, People’s Empowerment Foundation Thailand, Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (Sadia), Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign, Suaram Malaysia, Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance Nepal, The Advocates for Human Rights, The Day of the Endangered Lawyer Foundation, The Julian Wagner Memorial Fund Australia, Union for Civil Liberty Thailand, Workers Assistance Center Inc Philippines, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty/ Coalition mondiale contre la peine de mort, WH4C (Workers Hub For Change), Vucong, Giao (School of Law, Vietnam National University Hanoi), N Jayaram (Journalist, Bangalore) and Mohammad Ashrafuzzaman (human rights defender from Bangladesh, in Hong Kong) – Malaysiakini, 2/2/2020
ADPAN condemns Singapore’s use of police harassment in curbing public scrutiny of the judiciary and discussions of court cases
The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) stands in solidarity with Singapore’s human rights lawyer Mr M Ravi, the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen (TOC) Mr Terry Xu, TOC writer Ms Danisha Hakeem and Mr Mohan Rajangam, all of who are currently under investigation for possible contempt of Court under Section 3(1)(b) of the state’s Administration of Justice (Protection) Act.
It was reported in media articles that police, acting under the authorisation of the Attorney-General, raided the office of Mr Ravi and the home of Mr Xu, seizing their mobile devices and computers. Mr Xu was held at Cantonment Police Station for questioning by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for about 7 hours on Friday 13 March 2020.
It appears that the investigation commenced after some articles were published by The Online Citizen questioning the role of the Singapore State Court in Mr Mohan’s extradition to Malaysia. It has been reported that Mr Mohan was arrested on 21 March 2015 and extradited to Malaysia following the endorsement of a Malaysian arrest warrant by a magistrate in Singapore, for an offence that he maintains he did not commit. He reportedly spent four months in custody before being released by Malaysian authorities without charge.
ADPAN holds strong to the view that public institutions must be transparent in order to be accountable, including being open to scrutiny and review. Public questioning or discussion regarding court cases ought not automatically be considered ‘prejudicing or interfering’ with court proceedings. Judicial officers have a duty to act independently from pressure from the public, media or the Executive.
The use of police powers that have the effect of unduly harassing individuals who publicly express their opinions or discusses such matters, including the seizure of mobile devices and computers and extended police questioning send the wrong message to the public in the exercise of legitimate dissent on government policies and actions. Rather, we strongly recommend the use of public platforms for the Government or institutions to clarify matters that impact on society including outcomes arising from the country’s justice system.
For more information:
State Court loses notes of evidence in regards to the transfer of Mohan Rajangam to Malaysian authorities – https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/03/04/state-court-loses-notes-of-evidence-in-regards-to-transfer-of-mohan-rajangam-to-malaysian-authorities/
TOC editor, lawyer M Ravi among 4 investigated for contempt of court – https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/toc-editor-lawyer-m-ravi-among-4-investigated-contempt-court?fbclid=IwAR1hhF8SjHFlbe_wKAXSOxCkKubhKSXVlJAdoQ6Y0Kg0NL8i3fAAViYybHI
TOC editor and lawyer being investigated for prejudicing ongoing court proceedings – https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/toc-editor-and-lawyer-being-investigated-for-prejudicing-ongoing-court
For futher comment in relation to ADPAN statements below, please contact media@adpan.org
Most recent statement in full
Below – list of ADPAN statements (hyperlinked to statement)
Aftab Bahadur was arrested by police in Lahore on 5 September 1992 along with another man, suspected of murder.He was held in police detention for several months without access to a lawyer. Detainees in Pakistan are often held in police custody for weeks at a time and sometimes up to a year while charges are prepared. They are rarely given the chance to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court or seek bail.
When Aftab Bahadur finally appeared in court in 1993, he pleaded not guilty, claiming that police had taken him to the scene of the crime and forced him to leave fingerprints. His co-defendant also claimed that he had been tortured and forced to leave fingerprints. The judge noted their claims without comment.
Aftab Bahadur was provided with a state-appointed lawyer at trial who failed to produce any evidence or witnesses in defence of his client. State-appointed lawyers in Pakistan are often poorly trained, and may not represent their clients vigorously unless given further payments by the defendant or their family.
Aftab Bahadur was tried before the Special Court for Speedy Trials No.2 in Lahore on 13 April 1993, convicted of murder and sentenced to death. These courts operated between 1987 and 1994 with exclusive jurisdiction over certain scheduled offences including murder and political offences – including non-violent offences – for which the death sentence could be imposed. They operated outside the regular legal system, were presided over by retired judges and allowed for appeals only to a Special Supreme Appellate Court, again outside the ordinary Supreme Court bench. Strict time limits were placed on bringing cases to trial after charges had been filed, length of hearings, and the appeal process. Although the law establishing these speedy courts was repealed in 1994 a number of people remain imprisoned following trials in these courts, some of them like Aftab Bahadur, under sentence of death.
As Aftab was aged 15 at the time of arrest – a child offender – his death sentence was in violation of both Pakistani and international law.
Aftab Bahadur appealed against his conviction to the Supreme Appellate Court. A lawyer was again appointed by the state to represent him. His appeal application is not dated and contains simply four generic points made on one sheet of paper: that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; that there was insufficient reliable evidence to convict him; that he is innocent; and that the trial court judgement was arbitrary and based on conjecture. The appeal court confirmed the conviction and sentence on 27 March 1994. A mercy petition to the President was filed by Aftab Bahadur in 2010. He was detained in a Lahore jail.
UPDATE:
Sadly Aftab was executed on 10 June 2015 after spending almost 23 years on death row. His case had caused international condemnation with over 18,000 messages sent to the President of Pakistan in support of Aftab. In the days preceding his execution, Aftab wrote of his life on death row; “I just received my Black Warrant. It says I will be hanged by the neck until dead on Wednesday, 10 June. I am innocent, but I do not know whether that will make any difference. During my last 22 years of my imprisonment, I have received death warrants many times. It is strange, but I cannot even tell you how many times I have been told that I am about to die”. (hyperlink to (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/09/22-years-pakistan-death-row-what-purpose-execution)
ADPAN: When Justice Fails – Thousands executed in Asia after unfair trials, (2011), p33-34 (https://adpandotnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/adpan-unfair-trials-asa-010232100-final-pdf.pdf),
Hakamada Iwao (Hakamada), born in 1936 and a former boxer, was arrested for murder in 1966. He was sentenced to death in 1968.
Following his arrest, police subjected Hakamada to 23 days of intensive interrogation from 18 August to 9 September 1966. He was interrogated without a break for an average of 12 hours a day; on three occasions he was interrogated for over 14 hours. He confessed after 20 days, was interrogated for another three days and then charged. During this period he signed a series of documents purportedly confessing to the crime. Hakamada later signed more confessions, this time prepared by the Public Prosecutor.
Hakamada retracted these statements at his trial, claiming that while he was detained he had been denied food and water, was not allowed to use a toilet, and was kicked and punched. In a letter to his sister he wrote: “…one of the interrogators put my thumb onto an ink-pad, drew it to the written confession record and ordered me, ‘write your name here!’, shouting at me, kicking me and wrenching my arm.” Hakamada had had only three short interviews with different defence lawyers prior to trial.
During his trial by the Shizuoka District Court in 1968, there were numerous inconsistencies in the evidence. Judges raised concerns that purported confessions presented by the Prosecution with Hakamada’s signature were not signed voluntarily. Of these 45 documents, only one was deemed to have been signed voluntarily and the remainder were declared to be inadmissible as evidence.
“I could not convince the other two judges that Hakamada was not guilty so I had to convict him as the decision was made by majority. Personally the fact that I had to write his judgement was against my conscience, something I still think about to this day.” Kumamoto Norimichi, Shizuoka District Court judge, 2007
He was convicted and sentenced to death, and the conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980.
In 2007, Kumamoto Norimichi, one of the three judges at the Shizuoka District Court that sentenced him to death in 1968, said he believed Hakamada was innocent: “Objectively the evidence for him committing this crime was almost none; however, the investigator thought from the beginning that he was guilty, so the police conducted the investigation assuming that he was responsible for the crime. He was detained and coerced into making a confession because the police had arrested him.”Kumamoto Norimichi could not convince the other two judges that Hakamada was not guilty and was forced to convict him by majority verdict, despite believing in his innocence: “I could not bear the burden of my conscience so I resigned from being a judge … I felt very guilty myself.”
Hakamada’s defence counsel appealed for a re-trial in 1981 but the application was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1994. A second appeal for re-trial was submitted in 2008 to the Shizuoka District Court; the appeal is still pending. Protesting his innocence for over 45 years, Hakamada is one of Japan’s longest serving death row inmates. All prisoners who are sentenced to death in Japan are placed in isolation. Other than brief visits from his sister, his lawyer and a select number of supporters, Hakamada has been kept in isolation for over 30 years. He has shown signs of serious mental deterioration.
UPDATE: In March 2014, Hakamada, then aged 77, was temporarily released by a district court in Shizuoka, who ordered a retrial on the basis that police may have fabricated evidence. This decision was overrturned in 2018 by the Toyko High Court. Hakamada has been allowed to remain home on humanitarian grounds whilst awaiting an appeal of this decision to the Supreme Court.
ADPAN: When Justice Fails – Thousands executed in Asia after unfair trials, (2011), p27-28 (https://adpandotnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/adpan-unfair-trials-asa-010232100-final-pdf.pdf); UPDATE: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/21/asia/japan-death-penalty-hakamada-hnk-intl/index.html; https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/japan-longest-serving-death-row-inmate-deserves-retrial/
Leng Guoquan, a seafood trader, was sentenced to death on 16 December 2009 by the Dandong City Intermediate People’s Court in Liaoning province. He was charged with being a leader of a criminal gang engaged in smuggling and trafficking drugs. His conviction followed an unfair trial, and was based on his confession and testimonies from witnesses who have either subsequently retracted their statements or say they were tortured into testifying against him.
Leng Guoquan himself has always denied the charges and says he confessed because he was tortured. Detained on 19 January 2009, Leng Guoquan said he was tortured for three days and three nights while being interrogated by a special police unit. Three police officers bound his hands behind his back. They pushed his head between his legs and punched him. Later, they lit one end of a tube of rolled paper and stuffed the other end into his nose, covering his mouth until he was forced to breathe in the fire. Since January 2009, Leng Guoquan has been interrogated and tortured several more times.
Leng Guoquan has been held at the Fengcheng County Detention Centre since 2009. He was first registered under a false name (Chen Dong), apparently in an attempt to prevent his lawyer and family from finding out where he was held. Since discovering his location, his family have not been allowed to visit him. His family have appointed four different lawyers to represent him. The judicial authorities forced the first one to resign after he took pictures of Leng Guoquan’s scars which he said were a result of torture, while the second and third were denied access to him. The fourth lawyer eventually gained access and met him before his first trial. This lawyer filed a complaint with the Dandong City Procuratorate in July 2009 claiming that his client had been tortured in custody and calling for an investigation.
In August 2010, the Liaoning Provincial Procuratorate concluded that the allegations of torture were unfounded. At the trial, Leng Guoquan’s lawyer had no chance to cross-examine key witnesses. Those who did testify retracted their previous statements. Leng Guoquan’s co-defendant said that he had been tortured into confessing. Another witness also said that he had given the police false information. The prosecution did not provide any material evidence to support witness statements (which were subsequently withdrawn) that claimed he was guilty.
At his appeal hearing on 7 December 2010 at the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court, Leng Guoquan showed the court the scars on his head, wrists and legs he said were inflicted through torture. Of 56 witnesses called by the defence, only three were heard by the court. On 6 May 2011, the Liaoning court sent Leng Guoquan’s case back to the Dandong City Intermediate People’s Court for re-trial due to “lack of clarity about the facts” and “lack of evidence.” The re-trial took place on 10 October 2011.
ADPAN: When Justice Fails – Thousands executed in Asia after unfair trials, (2011), p25 (https://adpandotnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/adpan-unfair-trials-asa-010232100-final-pdf.pdf)
Reza Mohammed Shah Bin Ahmad Shah, known as Reza Shah, was arrested by police on the evening of 14 August 2000 in a squatter neighbourhood outside Kuala Lumpur. Police said he was carrying a plastic bag which he threw away when they called out to him. Police located the plastic bag and said it contained almost 800g of cannabis. Reza Shah denied any knowledge of the bag’s contents and stated in court that the police had beaten him to force him to reveal its location.
After arrest, Reza Shah was held at Brickfields Police District Headquarters, a police station which has been the subject of repeated allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. Reza Shah was detained pending trial for two years and finally tried in August 2002. He was found guilty by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur of possessing 795.3g of cannabis under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952….
In the case of Reza Shah, once the trial court found that he possessed drugs in the alleged quantities, the law as it stood at that time left the court with no discretion but to convict him of trafficking and then to hand down the mandatory death sentence.
In 2006, the Putrajaya Appeal Court overturned the trial court’s verdict. It held that the prosecution had not proved that Reza Shah had knowledge of the bag’s contents. It convicted him for possession of drugs only but not of trafficking, and sentenced him to a jail term of 18 years and 10 strokes of the cane. In January 2009, the Federal Court overturned the Appeal Court’s judgement in response to an appeal by the prosecution, concluding that Reza Shah had failed to prove that he was not guilty of drug trafficking. It reinstated the death sentence. Reza Shah has exhausted all his legal avenues for appeal. He has since appealed to the King to commute his sentence. A decision is pending.
ADPAN: When Justice Fails – Thousands executed in Asia after unfair trials, (2011), p22 (https://adpandotnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/adpan-unfair-trials-asa-010232100-final-pdf.pdf)
“When we say mandatory death sentence it means basically judges don’t have discretion. Just close your eyes… and execute. Don’t have to look at the person’s background and all that.” M. Ravi, Yong Vui Kong’s lawyer.
Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian man, was arrested in Singapore in 2007, aged 19, for possessing 47g of heroin. Yong had dropped out of school early and had turned to petty crime as a way of earning money. At that time, under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act, anyone found guilty of possessing more than 15g of heroin is presumed to be guilty of drug trafficking, for which the death penalty is mandatory. As Yong was not able to counter this presumption, the High Court convicted him in 2008 and he was sentenced to death. The court had no discretion to consider mitigating circumstances or pass a lesser sentence.
Lawyers filed an appeal against his conviction but Yong withdrew it in April 2009, saying that he had embraced Buddhism and wanted to acknowledge his crime. Yong petitioned Singapore’s president for clemency on the basis of his youth but this was rejected in November 2009.
Yong’s lawyer, M. Ravi, appealed against Yong’s sentence by challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and seeking judicial review of the clemency process. But in May 2010, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. This was the third time it had rejected such a challenge since 1980. The Court ruled that the right to life in the Singapore Constitution did not imply a ban on inhuman punishment. It rejected the argument that customary international law prohibits mandatory death sentences as an inhuman punishment or a violation of the right to life.
The application for judicial review of the clemency process had argued that the power to grant pardon had been prejudiced by public comments about the case made by the Law Minister, thereby undermining accepted principles of procedural fairness. This was dismissed by the High Court in August 2010. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the High Court’s decision in April 2011, clearing the way for Yong’s execution. The President can only exercise clemency following advice from the Cabinet and thus has little discretion in granting pardons. Clemency for a death sentence in Singapore has reportedly been granted only six times since independence in 1965.
UPDATE:
On 14 November 2013, Yong became the first person on Singapore’s death row to have their sentence reduced to life imprisonment and caning under the 2012 amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
ADPAN: When Justice Fails – Thousands executed in Asia after unfair trials, (2011), p19-20 (https://adpandotnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/adpan-unfair-trials-asa-010232100-final-pdf.pdf)
ADPAN is an independent regional network of organizations and individuals dedicated to ending the death penalty in the Asia Pacific.
You can reach us via email as well: adpan@adpan.org