Here is what I put up on Vui Kong's case. Yong Vui Kong's story is still murky - can those who lobby for him enlighten me? I highlighted the inconsistencies not only from the state sponsored counsel Vui Kong had, but also from Vui Kong's current lawyer.
As if the above inconsistencies are not enough, there's now yet another even murkier fact to deal with. M Ravi, Vui Kong's current lawyer, in an attempt to show how inconsistent the courts have charged Vui Kong, has now himself acting in a way that befuddles the logical thinking person. Here is the latest development on Vui Kong's case.
Yong Vui Kong. His case gets murkier as the weeks pass by. Pic taken from TOC.
Selective prosecution? Re-open the decision upholding the Vui Kong’s conviction
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 The Prosecution had informed the court that they had withdrawn charges against Chia due to a lack of evidence.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.’
Again, note M Ravi's "let's challenge the interpretation of the constitution" stuff, instead of going for the kill - ie VK did not have fair trial due to incompetent state-sponsored counsel he was assigned. Has not M Ravi missed the big picture which could save Vui Kong's life, instead of being soooooo obsessed with the constitution stuff?
The latest piece of news the pubic gets to hear that adds to the already murky state is now Vui Kong has a key witness that could save his life - Chia Choon Leng, who is Vui Kong's boss - yet this line of defence is not followed up? What the heck is going on here?
Here's another report on the same piece of news - with one more vital info that could save Vui Kong's life, which appears that everyone, including anti-death penalty campaigners, missed.
The Mule, the Mastermind and the MDP
At a Parliamentary sitting on 15 September 2010, then-NCMP Sylvia Lim posed an interesting question to then-Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng. She asked if the government had detained, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, any person believed to have organised drug trafficking activities involving Yong Vui Kong, an inmate on death Row.
The Minister’s response was just as interesting. In a written reply, Wong said, “Apart from Yong, there were indeed others who were part of the syndicate. Several have been prosecuted for trafficking. One has been detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.” (Read Wong’s full statement here.)
In a recent letter to Yong’s lawyer, M Ravi, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) identified that person as Chia Choon Leng – the very same person Yong had named, in a police statement, as the mastermind of his crime. However the AGC said Yong also made it clear that he did not wish to identify Chia in court. (Read AGC’s letter and M Ravi’s query here.) [see screenshot below]
The AGC said Prosecution did not call Chia as a witness because his evidence was not necessary for their case. It said it also informed the Defense about the detention, however, Yong’s then-lawyers decided not to call Chia as a witness. According to court records, the Prosecution withdrew charges against Chia due to “the difficulty of the evidence”. Instead, “executive action” was taken against him.
It is unclear why Yong decided not to identify Chia in court. One can only speculate. What is clear though is that despite “the difficulty of the evidence”, Chia remains in custody. This must surely mean that authorities have sufficient reason to detain him. But while Chia will eventually be let go, Yong has been sentenced to hang.
It is now very obvious that the sole key defence witness Vui Kong has is Chia Choon Leng. Here are two screenshots of the letter from M Ravi.
Page 1
(you can click on image above to enlarge)
Page 2
The above shows that Vui Kong's current lawyer, M Ravi, believes that the only person who could save Vui Kong is Chia Choon Leng. He questions why was Chia not called up by the court. The reply was that Vui Kong did not want him to be called and that the state sponsored counsel did not call for the key witness.
That's the vital piece of info everyone missed. If M Ravi believes that Chia is the only person who could save VK's life, why isn't this followed up? Why is the curent defence not challenging the fact that the state-sponsored counsel then did not call this key witness, which could have saved VK's life? Isn't this ground for a fresh trial?
To help readers understand the long, loopy case, here is the summary so far.
Summary of critical points -
1. According to M Ravi, a key witness, Chia Choon Leng (Vui Kong's boss), is able to confirm Vui Kong's ignorance on the matter.
2. According to the exchange of letters, Vui Kong did not want Chia to be called upon. The then defence for VK, the state sponsored counsel, hence did not call Chia up as witness.
3. In view of the "new" piece of news above, VK's case looks even murkier because from my earlier link, what remains unanswered was why did not M Ravi challenge the whole trial itself because it appears there's incompetence on the part of the state sponsored lawyer, when he did not challenge the prosecution after the trial judge recommended the charge be lowered to a non-capital crime.
4. With this "new" piece of info, why doesn't M Ravi challenge the whole trial itself on the point that the state sponsored counsel was inept when they did not call up Chia Choon Leng?
5. Here is the screenshot of the reply M Ravi got. Note that VK did not wish to have Chia informed that VK informed against him. Also note that the state sponsored counsel simply "took the easy way out" and did not call for Chia as the key defence witness. All this shows ineptness and/or negligence on the part of the state sponsored counsel. Why doesn't M Ravi contest this point?
(click on image to enlarge)
Main defence line not followed up -
I cannot understand why Yong Vui Kong's current counsel and anti-death penalty lobbyists are so obsessed with challenging the interpretation of the constitution, to the point they appear to put that priority above VK's life itself.
Shouldn't the main line of defence now be that VK was not accorded a fair trial because:
- Was VK's unwillingness to call Chia then due to the fact he was afraid that the syndicate would harm him and/or his family?
- Why wasn't VK and his family accorded assurance of police protection then?
- Why didn't the state sponsored counsel advise VK accordingly so that he could be defended fairly and not be sent to the gallows?
- Does this not show incompetence and/or negligence on the part of VK's defence (which was state sponsored) team then, and hence, grounds for a fresh trial?
Like I said, I cannot understand why this line of argument is not followed up, but instead, the queer, unexplained obsession with the constitution continues.
Final Word -
I am against the Mandatory Death Penalty. But I am not against the Death Penalty itself.
At the same time, I feel that Yong Vui Kong's case is still very murky because not only the prosecution seems to be evasive why Chia was not prosecuted, but more importantly why do VK's current counsel and anti-death penalty lobbyists keep talking about the constitution rather than VK's case itself, when there appears to have enough ground to call for a fresh trial.
There are probably many Vui Kongs out there who would be hanged to death. Anti-death penalty lobbyists blame the system and miscarriage of justice. That may be so. But equally to be blamed is the misplacement of emphasis on the constitution instead of fighting for the defendant itself on the part of anti-death penalty lobbyists.
=========
Related Link: Lobbyists' non-disclosure incriminates Yong Vui Kong further
18 comments:
I must say that this is a very detailed investigation into this matter. It is enlightening (tho as it is just one source on the net, I will be cautiously sceptical).
But it seems clear that a) VK refuses to identify Chia in court. Therefore dragging Chia into court will be a waste of time. b) Obviously VK believes that Chia is connected and so implicating Chia would be risky, and c) if VK is aware of Chia's connection a priori, then his protestation of ignorance is suspect. If a known gangster asks you to help him transport packages across the border, how retarded to you have to be to think that the packages are harmless.
It would seem then that his appeal lawyer is pursuing the only course available to him.
think you have to look at the "bigger picture" of as to why the AG Chambers had the sole discretion to charge and not to charge any accuse.
The route that the Mr M Ravi is not to save only one life, but others lives in the future. He is basically challenging the system per se.
"The latest piece of news the pubic gets to hear that adds to the already murky state is now Vui Kong has a key witness that could save his life - Chia Choon Leng, who is Vui Kong's boss - yet this line of defence is not followed up? What the heck is going on here?"
Defence counsel in every case must decide on the defence strategy. Only witnesses whom the lawyer considers useful to the defence's case will be called. Yong's original lawyer must have considered Chia not to be able to help establish the defence.
"But equally to be blamed is the misplacement of emphasis on the constitution instead of fighting for the defendant itself on the part of anti-death penalty lobbyists."
The criminal justice system is exactly what it says it is, a system. Events which take place within a system must not forsake the general for the good of a particular.
Your proposed strategy to focus on the individual plight of the accused, rather than dispute the validity of the general rules and laws will not be successful.
There is an obstacle and a drawbrack to such a strategy.
First, the compassion you speak of is the compassion of the judge. But the judge has no power to order the PP to reduce to charge. The judge only has power to convict the accused of a lesser offence if the elements of the original offence are not proven.
Second, in the unlikely event that the strategy works, this case will be considered an exceptional case. A exception to a legal rule is usually tightly circumscribed. It makes future cases more difficult to defend on legal grounds. The mandatory death penalty which you say you do not support will continue to apply to such offences.
In any event, this discussion is now moot. Ravi has exhausted all avenues of challenging the legal rules, and is now embarking on a line of defence which is at root similar to what you have advocated - a focus on the individual circumstances.
"Shouldn't the main line of defence now be that VK was not accorded a fair trial because:
- Was VK's unwillingness to call Chia then due to the fact he was afraid that the syndicate would harm him and/or his family?
- Why wasn't VK and his family accorded assurance of police protection then?
- Why didn't the state sponsored counsel advise VK accordingly so that he could be defended fairly and not be sent to the gallows?
- Does this not show incompetence and/or negligence on the part of VK's defence (which was state sponsored) team then, and hence, grounds for a fresh trial?"
Just as an accused person has a right to remain silent, he has the right to decide on his course of defence. This includes the witnesses he wishes to call.
It is not correct to speculate why Yong or his lawyer did not call Chia to testify. To do so would be to second guess the lawyer's professional judgment. Certainly, it is possible to scrutinise the original lawyer's judgment call, but only if Ravi expressly alleges negligence or incompetence.
In every case, there are larger legal principles in operation. One of them is the doctrine of finality. Litigants cannot choose to have their case reheard again and again. Thresholds to challenge the finality of a decision may be lower in a criminal context, but they still exist.
The point is M Ravi believes Chia is key witness. Why doesn't he call for fresh trial and call Chia?
How do you know it won't work? Tried before? No? Why the confident prediction it won't work then?
On the other hand, why the obsession with consti when it is shown it doesn't work?
====
Anon:
>>The route that the Mr M Ravi is not to save only one life, but others lives in the future. He is basically challenging the system per se.
>>
That's what I have been saying for months. The anti-death penalty lobbyists are not interest in VK per se. They are only using him as a pawn to advance their bigger agenda - repealing Death Penalty.
To them, whether VK lives of die is immaterial.
====
El Lobo Loco,
I like your point that if VK could name Chia, it means that VK ain't innocent either. All along, my belief is that VK is as guilty as any member of the syndicate. I don't buy his claim that his ignorance got the better of him. Nobody pays you filthy sums of money to deliver some package that looks like power or what not - except drug syndicates. As if he doesn't know.
My empathy goes to VK's ailing mom. If not for her, I feel VK deserves the death sentence because if he had not been caught, he would continue his lifestyle, and perhaps even advance to be a drug lord one day, one he makes the cut.
If not for his ailing mom, I give VK no hoot. He and other members of the syndicate deserve to die the way they kill drug addicts and society.
"The point is M Ravi believes Chia is key witness. Why doesn't he call for fresh trial and call Chia?
How do you know it won't work? Tried before? No? Why the confident prediction it won't work then?
On the other hand, why the obsession with consti when it is shown it doesn't work?"
It is not possible to call for a fresh trial. The rules of evidence restrict the admission of new evidence to very limited situations, and one of the conditions to satisfy is that the evidence was not available at trial. In this case, to call for a fresh trial in order to adduce Chia's evidence will violate that rule. That rule is related to the doctrine of finality, with is a fundamental tenet of any legal system.
The short answer to your question on why your suggestion(s) would not work is: yes, they have been used before, in every case that comes before the court. In every single case, all the actors involved (from the judge to the accused) are involved in the particular accused, and his unique circumstances. But the issue is not just about these facts. It is also about how the legal rules bear down on these facts. To achieve an outcome by focussing *only* on the emotive consequences facts is to achieve an outcome arbitrarily.
This is why it is inaccurate and unfair to describe Yong (or any other individual) as a "pawn" in the anti-mdp advocates efforts. There must *always* be an accused person, being tried for an offence. If it is an offence or law which cannot apply to any person, any advocacy would be nonsensical.
It may help if I list all the ways which a person in Yong's situation can be acquitted of the offence which carries the mandatory death penalty:
(1) At the trial, he is found to be not guilty. (Example, he was determined to be not present at the crime scene at all / he thought he was carrying milo powder / the powder is in fact holicks etc)
(2) Before or at the trial, the PP reduces his charge to an lesser one. Yong can still be convicted, but he won't be sentenced to death.
(3) At the trial or on appeal, the court finds that the law/offence which applied to Yong is unconstitutional (ie invalid). Yong is therefore not guilty of any offence.
Since Ravi took over, he has challenged the decision in the order of (3), (2) and now (1). It is reasonable to say that they offer decreasing prospects of success, therefore Ravi's strategy is sound.
(1) is the most difficult because it is not possible to challenge the findings of the trial judge unless they are manifestly wrong. The suggestion to call for a fresh trial to adduce evidence falls under this category too.
(2) This is the challenge to prosecutorial discretion. Just failed in Ramalingam.
(3) This is the initial challenge in Yong's case.
The main defence line is about the constitutional right of the defendant (VK) that he has to be accorded a fair and just trial.
Chee is not only a key witness, but very importantly, he was the SOLE key witness who is able to testify VK's ignorance. That's according to M Ravi.
The state sponsored defence failed to called Chee, who would then be under oath to testify VK's ignorance.
M Ravi could ask for retrial because VK was not accorded a fair and just trial due to the incompetence of the state sponsored counsel.
Why is that not done?
As for prosecutorial right of PP in Rama's case, didn't M Ravi did himself in? Didn't he, bcos of his obsession over the consti, again cited consti and now the judge ruled PP has that right? That about knocks the final nail into Rama's coffin - as well as VK's, doesn't it?
He thought he was smart trying to save two lives at one go. Now he nailed the coffins of two guys with one nail!
As for VK being the pawn, I have grounds to believe so. I was ready to campaign against Mandatory Death Sentence when the anti-death Penalty lobbyists made it clear this is diff from Death Penalty last year.
As the momentum picked up, suddenly these lobbyists shifted goalposts and made it a campaign against the Death Penalty! That's when I objected.
Then when I tried to get details of VK's case because I want to continue campaign against Mandatory Death Penalty, the info comes in bits and pieces which makes no sense at all. The latest one is that Chee is a key witness. Why was this not made known last year? They want people to support their campaign but are so stingy with important material info?
Now convince me that these lobbyists are serious in saving VK's life and not just asking for repeal of Death Penalty.
Correction: "Chia" and not "Chee" is the sole key witness.
"The main defence line is about the constitutional right of the defendant (VK) that he has to be accorded a fair and just trial.
Chee is not only a key witness, but very importantly, he was the SOLE key witness who is able to testify VK's ignorance. That's according to M Ravi.
The state sponsored defence failed to called Chee, who would then be under oath to testify VK's ignorance.
M Ravi could ask for retrial because VK was not accorded a fair and just trial due to the incompetence of the state sponsored counsel.
Why is that not done?"
You have repeatedly asked the same question in many different versions, and the reply will of course be the same.
M Ravi cannot ask for a re-trial on the ground which you have suggested. At the trial, the "SOLE key witness" was available but Yong's defence counsel chose not to call that witness *presumably* on his client's (Yong's) instructions. (Caveat: we do not know what Yong's instructions to his defence lawyer was.) A defence lawyer cannot act contrary to his client's interest. Therefore, Yong received a just and fair trial because his defence was conducted as he directed it to be.
What is stated above is a well-settled point of law contained in textbooks on the criminal legal system and criminal procedure.
"As for prosecutorial right of PP in Rama's case, didn't M Ravi did himself in? Didn't he, bcos of his obsession over the consti, again cited consti and now the judge ruled PP has that right? That about knocks the final nail into Rama's coffin - as well as VK's, doesn't it?
He thought he was smart trying to save two lives at one go. Now he nailed the coffins of two guys with one nail!"
One theory of law is that the law is what it is, whether it is declared by the court or not. This means that Ravi, by raising the argument about prosecutorial discretion, does not change the law on prosecutorial discretion. He merely allowed the court to expressly make a ruling about it.
Even if Ravi had not made any arguments about the limits of prosecutorial discretion, the position relied on by all parties prior to the case was the same - the PP had discretion to state the charge and the court has no power to reduce the charge. Hence there was no cost to go ahead and make that argument.
It is also unfair to characterise the strategy of a professional pejoratively, as an "obsession", just because the strategy did not work.
On a separate note, the law is indeed about "knocking final nails". Cases are not like Taiwanese soaps which can go on interminably. The law also strives for certainty and clarity, and the strategies you advocate (ie, emphasis on personal plights and poorly circumscribed exceptions) are clearly anathema to such values.
Please also do not take the absence of further replies as my accepting your arguments. I do not accept them as I find them without merit. I will disengage as of this post because I see no value in extending the discussion. You of course have the right to a final reply, this being your blog. Finally, you may wish to consult introductory texts on the criminal law and its procedure. Something is muddled here, and it certainly is not the appellate strategy.
The reason why I ask same Q is bcos you never answered the core point. You have talked about everything, except addressed the core point. Here is the unanswered core point of the Q.
VK was deprived of a fair trial due to the incompetence of his state sponsored counsel, as according to the facts presented so far by anti-death penalty lobbyists and M Ravi.
Why is Ravi not contesting that point that he was not tried fairly?
As for your decision not to continue discussion, that is OK with me. Nobody pointed a gun to get you to come here, and nobody is forcing you to leave.
I have been frustrated with the approach taken by those working on VK's by releasing bits and pieces of info, which makes no sense.
Like I said, if these guys want the public to support their campaign, the least for them to do is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I have come to the point that I believe the truth is that anti-death penalty campaigners who are working on VK's case has much more to hide than the PP.
The truth they want to hide is probably more incriminating to VK than whatever info we have now, and that appears to be the real reason for their stingy way of dispensing info to the public.
@C,
I like your arguments which is presented succinctly in a non muddled manner.
Clearly you must be a legal professional as opposed to someone who tries to apply some simplistic logic to very complex legal issues without being privy to what is going on as a defense counsel would and than calls the case getting "murkier".
Thanks for your input.
It is obvious that the spammer is patting himself on the back. Nice try, yong wah.
One question in the original posts intrigued me and got me thinking: If VK was afraid for his life or his family if he implicated a gangster, why couldn't he have gotten witness protection.
And it occurred to e that SG does not have a witness protection programme.
In part it is because SG is so small. in the US, Witness protection and relocation programmes usually mean relocating to a different state. Here what is the point of relocating you from Bedok to Ang Mo Kio?
But the other issue I guess is that WitPro programmes limits the freedom of the innocent.
The CLTP on the other hand limits the freedom of known gangsters. In a jurisdiction where there is the CLTP or similar laws, WitPro programmes are unnecessary.
One might even consider that from economics, the CLTP is cheaper than a WitPro, and ensures the right person is locked up.
VK's family members are Malaysians - Sabahans. If I am not mistaken, the SPF and Msia Police Force have in recent times worked hand in hand against syndicates.
1. Was VK's unwillingness to call Chia then due to the fact he was afraid that the syndicate would harm him and/or his family?
2. Why wasn't VK and his family accorded assurance of police protection then?
Ans 1: That is how gangsters operate. It is their code of conduct. That is why we have gangsterism todate. This joker does not want to break that and help himself. He was hoping to make sucker of our laws.
Ans 2: Nobody, including our Police take joy in wanting to hang someone. I am sure he was offered.
He knew very well what he was doing is illegal.
Would it be ok with you to hang him if only there was enough evidence on his "boss" and he was sentenced to hang, too ?
This joker wants to have the pie and eat it too.
Let him loose is for us to succumb to gangsterism and encourage drug trafficing. More guys will try their luck and waste our taxpayers money.
Layman
The reason why I ask same Q is bcos you never answered the core point. You have talked about everything, except addressed the core point. Here is the unanswered core point of the Q.
VK was deprived of a fair trial due to the incompetence of his state sponsored counsel, as according to the facts presented so far by anti-death penalty lobbyists and M Ravi.
--
1) Assumption that his state sponsored counsel is incompetent. You seem to have already decided that he is based on the facts you have; but that is not yet proven. If his state sponsored counsel is incompetent, there would be a route to a complaint against the Law Society.
Reasons why he could not be incompetent: because of the facts you do not have, which will not be released due to confidentiality reasons. This is a matter for VK and M Ravi to decide. They've decided that he was not incompetent.
Your main argument about incompetence is that Chia was not called. As C pointed out, that's a matter for the defence counsel to decide. The defence decided (based on the facts he had), that there was no point in calling Chia. Since the defence would have more information about Chia than you have, they might have judged it one way or another. The way they ran the trial was that it wouldn't have helped matters. M Ravi decided that it would. That's a subjective judgement call based on the lawyers. It doesn't necessarily mean that not calling Chia was right or wrong. On hindsight, we can say that it might have helped the case. But at that point in time, the defence counsel might have had no way of knowing, even if that defence counsel had been M Ravi (or David Marshell).
tl;dr: You are presenting, as fact, that the state sponsored counsel was incompetent, when he might not be.
2) The judge can recommend lowering the charge - but the Prosecutor doesn't have to listen to him. It is not a line of defence either - because it's all up to prosecutorial discretion, ie the prosecution can charge whatever he wants (within limits). The prosecution chose to stick with it.
=
because not only the prosecution seems to be evasive why Chia was not prosecuted
3) Probably prosecutorial discretion. They are under no obligation to tell you why they made a decision one way or another.
=
someone who tries to apply some simplistic logic to very complex legal issues without being privy to what is going on as a defense counsel
4) You said it yourself: you don't know what's going on as a defense counsel. You're not privy to the facts of the case. We can say, for sure, that not all of the facts will be released (at least, not yet - the trial is too recent). And yet you're pointing fingers based on the limited knowledge you have.
Trying to open up an old can of worms? Neither have you done anything, but you judge me?
At least I have done some research. What have you done (other than trying to impersonate RZ)?
Post a Comment